The new scoring system...

[ChrisTofalos]

The way of the world.

Doesn't make it right, does it? At least we can do something to make wargaming a more enjoyable pastime, rather than pointlessly ranting on Facebook about corrupt politicians, etc (which I regularly do and which won't make the slightest bit of difference!).

My observations on the current points system:
The changes make little difference to the top players.
The most active players are never the best to represent the views of the casual or new player.
Middling players will continue to acquire points by playing for a draw and the problem will persist.
New players are likely to struggle to acquire any points and may just learn not to lose and never learn how to win.
New players may be totally disheartened and never return (Chris's point).
Saying "get over it" does not address the problem.

SPOT ON, Martin!

We have tried both of these options and they both result in yet more drawn games.

What's wrong with drawn games? Didn't two players at last year's Britcon agree a draw before playing? I didn't hear any howls of protest! Here's the blatantly obvious: The best players are going to finish at the top NO MATTER WHAT SCORING SYSTEM IS USED. Why do we need a system which grossly exaggerates winning margins?

For example, under the old system winning scores were boosted by 100% by counting not just what you scored but what you had left. Rout your opponents army and there's another 50% bonus. With the new system the boost goes up to 200%. Just whose egos are we trying to inflate?!

So as an example, I lose 11 out of 12 Attrition Points and my opponent loses nothing. Under both of the scoring systems above, this would result in 1-1 draw instead of the previous scoring system which would be a 19-1 and the current scoring system which would be a 28-1. I'm sure you would agree that a 1-1 draw is not satisfactory in this situation.

A 1-1 draw certainly would be unsatisfactory but 19-1 and 28-1 sound just as bad. What on earth is wrong with you scoring the proportion of what you destroy of your opponent's army and he scores what he destroys of yours. In your quoted example that would be 9-1. Sounds about right to me.

The problem with exaggerated scoring systems is they have no regard for the inexperienced, who get trampled on every time. As such, they're somewhat selfish systems - and that's VERY short sighted.

[dave_r]

When I looked at tournaments played with the new system (and there have been several prior to adoption of this system in the UK) it is the same people that are winning, but the players play is more aggressive with a higher percentage of games getting a result.

Ah! So it does change the tournament outcome. More results = broader spread of scores.

Ah - I see what you are getting at. It typically doesn't change player ranking, but individual scores do differ.

[philqw78]

So, are you saying we need a different way to display the scores.

A 3-1-0 scoring system league table but goals for and goals against (AP scored and AP given) being the thing that differentiates everyone for draws, in both senses

Something like
____>W>D>L>F>A>Pts>
PHIL >3>0>0>103>2>9
Dave>1>1>1>47>43>4
Paul>1>1>1>45>45>4
Chris>0>0>3>10>90>0


Looks a bit nicer. Phil would win, Dave and Paul joint second, Chris 4th. Differentiated by VP difference, Dave +4, Paul 0

[philqw78]

That would reward playing to win, even at the cost of losing a lot of your troops.

4 high scoring draws is only 4 match points, though the Victory Point (VP) difference may be positive high.

An average player who gets 2 wins and 2 losses gets 6 points, though he may have a negative VP difference.

And though I do not believe we have a problem with colluded score draws (we'll take 19 each and call it a draw) this would help lower the chance. You're only getting 1 match point, so risk it for 3 or 0.

The rules tell us how asingle game is won. Not a competition over multiple games

[vexillia]

So, are you saying we need a different way to display the scores.

At last someone who can read!

A 3-1-0 scoring system league table but goals for and goals against (AP scored and AP given) being the thing that differentiates everyone for draws, in both senses.

Yes.

Something like

Code: Select all

Player    W      D      L      F       A      Pts 
--        -      -      -     ---     ---     ---    
Phil      3      0      0     103       2      9
Dave      1      1      1      47      43      4
Paul      1      1      1      45      45      4
Chris     0      0      3      10      90      0

Looks a bit nicer. Phil would win, Dave and Paul joint second, Chris 4th. Differentiated by VP difference, Dave +4, Paul 0

I've tidied your table. Of course you don't have to have a draw for second place. Plus you could also have more than one level to split draws: AP for, then AP difference as in this example:

Code: Select all

Player    W      D      L      F       A      Pts 
--        -      -      -     ---     ---     ---    
Chris     3      0      0     101       2      9
Dave      1      1      1      47      43      4
Paul      1      1      1      47      45      4
Phil      0      0      3      10      90      0

[ChrisTofalos]

I've tidied your table

Definitely much better!

For the reasons you gave before (players getting zero), I'm not sure a simple 3/1/0 system would work. However, I see a lot of merit in awarding one point for every ten percent you destroy of your opponent's army. It's really simple, properly reflects the outcome of a game and reduces the chances of ties.

[philqw78]

The bottom one doesn't look as nice to me
But I'll man up and take it

It's a reasonable way of doing it and it is easily understandable.

And I do think that someone who lost all their games would expect a 0 match point score

Dave could have a look at the Roll Call results and see what happens to them, since he should have the game by game losses for both sides

[dave_r]

I've tidied your table

Definitely much better!

For the reasons you gave before (players getting zero), I'm not sure a simple 3/1/0 system would work. However, I see a lot of merit in awarding one point for every ten percent you destroy of your opponent's army. It's really simple, properly reflects the outcome of a game and reduces the chances of ties.

That doesn't take into account how much of your own army you have lost though. For it to be truly fair, you'd need to consider how much of your own army you lost.

We've tried the 3-1-0 scoring system and it's dreadful. Even with tiebreaks and for / against...

[philqw78]

How was it dreadful?
Somebody who drew 4 games was beaten by somebody who lost 2 won 2?

[dave_r]

How was it dreadful?
Somebody who drew 4 games was beaten by somebody who lost 2 won 2?

It's not the results that are the problem, it's the games that they make happen.

Do you remember your game against Dan where you flank marched and your army could not be broken until they arrived?

[philqw78]

Challenge Results

Code: Select all

OldPosn	Player		Ser	Score1	Score2	Score3	Score4	Score5	Oppo1	Oppo2	Oppo3	Oppo4	Oppo5	Score	VP+	VP-	VPDiff	W	D	L	3-1-0	NewPosn
1	Paul Bartlett	79	17	30	29	32	27	83	81	76	72	75	135	135	61	74	4	1	0	13	1
2	Terry Shaw	76	35	13	12	34	34	80	84	79	74	82	128	128	46	82	3	2	0	11	2
3	Steve Murton	75	9	16	33	32	16	71	77	69	83	79	106	106	65	41	2	3	0	9	4
4	David Morrison	72	14	28	27	6	28	81	85	82	79	84	103	103	93	10	3	1	1	10	3
5	Andy Ellis	84	31	13	17	23	14	69	76	74	81	72	98	98	75	23	1	4	0	7	6
6	David Putt	82	6	33	16	32	2	78	80	72	71	76	89	89	97	-8	2	1	2	7	8
7	Philip Jelley	78	26	12	9	10	30	82	74	83	73	69	87	87	68	19	2	3	0	9	5
8	Peter Dalby	74	28	18	20	2	18	85	78	84	76	80	86	86	92	-6	1	3	1	6	10
8	David Fairhurst	80	0	4	35	32	15	76	82	77	85	74	86	86	92	-6	2	1	2	7	7
10	Dino Monticoli	81	17	10	32	6	19	72	79	85	84	73	84	84	83	1	1	3	1	6	9
11	Jon Akers	83	17	20	18	6	22	79	71	78	75	85	83	83	76	7	0	4	1	4	12
12	Steve Brown	71	21	11	20	6	18	75	83	73	82	77	76	76	87	-11	0	4	1	4	13
13	John Patrick	73	12	21	14	16	10	77	69	71	78	81	73	73	67	6	0	5	0	5	11
14	Peter Card	77	12	7	0	21	12	73	75	80	69	71	52	52	90	-38	0	4	1	4	14
15	Chad Pillinger	85	14	14	6	6	7	74	72	81	80	83	47	47	142	-95	0	3	2	3	15
16	Lynda Fairhurst	69	8	6	4	9	10	84	73	75	77	78	37	37	136	-99	0	3	2	3	16

[philqw78]

It's not the results that are the problem, it's the games that they make happen.

Do you remember your game against Dan where you flank marched and your army could not be broken until they arrived?

No, I remember that my flank march couldn't arrive since it was across a difficult river, but I could easily have been broken.

Anyway, How will 3-1-0 make draws happen? You just make stuff up. I didn't flank march to get a draw, I flank marched because I thought it would be fun. If I could have come on there was a BG of poor unprotected MF bow and another of poor DefSp and his camp for my 2 BG of S Armd cavalry to ride down. And when I wrote the flank march down the odds of it not coming on were 1/6

[philqw78]

A bit much data in the above, but places from 3rd down would have changed

Code: Select all

PlayerName	Score	NewPosn	OldPosn
Paul Bartlett	13	1	1
Terry Shaw	11	2	2
David Morrison	10	3	4
Steve Murton	9	4	3
Philip Jelley	9	5	7
Andy Ellis	7	6	5
David Fairhurst	7	7	9
David Putt	7	8	6
Dino Monticoli	6	9	10
Peter Dalby	6	10	8
John Patrick	5	11	13
Jon Akers	4	12	11
Steve Brown	4	13	12
Peter Card	4	14	14
Chad Pillinger	3	15	15
Lynda Fairhurst	3	16	16

Steve goes a place down, 2 wins and 3 draws. Mr Morrison overtakes him - 3 wins, 1 draw and 1 loss
David F goes up 2 places, but Lynda suffers ignomy

[ChrisTofalos]

For the record, I don't think the 3/1/0 system would work - for quite a few reasons.

That doesn't take into account how much of your own army you have lost though. For it to be truly fair, you'd need to consider how much of your own army you lost.

It does; your losses are reflected in your opponent's score. Why double it up?

[philqw78]

Lots of 9-1 draws

[vexillia]

I think part of the problem is that people have become hooked on the concept of "winning draws" [sic]. This is a false concept as no one won: one player did well but they didn't do enough to win within the time.

With tongue firmly in cheek, and In the spirit of "just get on with it" expressed above, those who rely on "winning draws" for their final position at competitions should look to improve their game and win more often.

[vexillia]

That doesn't take into account how much of your own army you have lost though. For it to be truly fair, you'd need to consider how much of your own army you lost.

How does taking your own army losses in to account make the scoring system fair?

Under the current system, and as Phil's tables show, players can be well placed with 2 or 3 high scoring draws and end up above players who've won more games? You could argue that's not fair either.

Surely the primary purpose is to win the game within the time allowed whilst the secondary purpose is to lose as few of your troops as possible. The former governs your points and only in the case of a ties does the latter come into play.

Combining both purposes in one score allows players to focus on causing as much damage to their opponent whilst trying not to lose their own troops in the process: this need not be the same as going for the win. A recipe for cautious and opportunistic play.

You have to decide what you want to reward: winning games or gaining victory points because they are not the same. And to return to Chris's original point using victory points produces scores that flatter established players and disheartens new entrants.

[dave_r]

That doesn't take into account how much of your own army you have lost though. For it to be truly fair, you'd need to consider how much of your own army you lost.

How does taking your own army losses in to account make the scoring system fair?

Because if you kill 90% of the enemy and lose nothing of your own you should do better than somebody who has lost 90% of their own army and killed 90% of the opposition?

Under the current system, and as Phil's tables show, players can be well placed with 2 or 3 high scoring draws and end up above players who've won more games? You could argue that's not fair either.

Surely the primary purpose is to win the game within the time allowed whilst the secondary purpose is to lose as few of your troops as possible. The former governs your points and only in the case of a ties does the latter come into play.

No, the primary purpose is to win the competition - this can be achieved by winning or drawing, or even losing.

Combining both purposes in one score allows players to focus on causing as much damage to their opponent whilst trying not to lose their own troops in the process: this need not be the same as going for the win. A recipe for cautious and opportunistic play.

Which is why we changed it so that you get twice the reward for killing the enemy.

You have to decide what you want to reward: winning games or gaining victory points because they are not the same. And to return to Chris's original point using victory points produces scores that flatter established players and disheartens new entrants.

Whichever way you look at it, somebody is going to lose. And if you have an experienced player playing a newbie then it is very likely that the experienced player will win. Changing the scoring system is not going to change that.

[ChrisTofalos]

And if you have an experienced player playing a newbie then it is very likely that the experienced player will win.

As more or less stated previously.

Changing the scoring system is not going to change that.

Again true but artificially inflating the scoring system to supposedly encourage aggressive play is totally unfair (aggressive players don't need any encouragement and those playing for a draw will do exactly that). It penalises less experienced players and rewards the already successful. The dangers of this should be fairly obvious for anyone genuinely interested in seeing FOG-AM prosper.

[philqw78]

No, the primary purpose is to win the competition - this can be achieved by winning or drawing, or even losing

I thought the scoring was supposed to promote aggressive play.

It can be seen above that it doesn't. It promotes draws. So get an unbreakable army and hope your enemy suicides on it (I remember Sp(O) DBM).
Or get one that is hard to catch and run around your enemy picking bits off using your prowess at just staying out of charge reach

3-1-0 for tournaments based upon and backed up by the game's scoring system works (since all you have said against it is either irrelevant, inaccurate or invented)