Bakewell matched pairs Saturday 20 October 2018

Thanks Simon.

I used my pair four times this year (Vikings three times, Strathclyde once), having used my pair twice last year. So I suppose it evens out. Martin and I had considerable discussion on tournament mechanics on the journey home (prolonged by half an hour by the queue for the Matlock Bath fireworks festival!), and were of the view that the risk of using your own armies one or five times is so small that it is outweighed by the advantage of being able to pair together players on similar scores using the Swiss system.
There is no need to amend the score sheet. It really is just idle curiosity on my part!
Also I think you will find the table will usually be for the most part dominated by the old guard. They have honed their tournament skills over many years. If it isn't, you might want to look at your mechanics or scoring system!

Scott

Thanks to Simon and David for an excellent tournament in glorious Derbyshire. Good to meet up again with old pals from around the country.
Looking forward to returning north in 2019 for more DBA action.

I had no idea what the scoring was going to be and would have taken the pairing I used whatever the circumstances. Although the system did work in my favour in the first game it did not in the next two games where my armies were used.

As Simon has pointed out although he lost in our game he received only one less point than if he had won (If he had won he would have gained eleven points and I three, two or one).This meant that a wise opponent would always select the Nubian option because it would have been theoretically possible for them to lose yet gain more points than the winner, as there were six hordes to kill!

This alarming situation dawned on me only slowly. So going into the last game (using my armies and being lumbered with the dangerously expensive Libyans) and also not knowing what the scores were I was rather concerned that a serious defeat could be catastrophic. Caution was therefore essential. That was not the game plan. Attacking quickly was the best chance the Libyans had of victory but always resulted in serious casualties, so lots of points for an opponent choosing the Nubians ( who also usually selected the scenery as a result of lower aggression).

So overall the scoring system did not really work in favour of horde heavy armies. It meant a change of tactics that I had not anticipated. There were also a number of other horde and scythed chariot armies out there so it was possible for others to collect a considerable point score by exploiting the scoring.

Simon and I did discuss the scoring system after our game and I am keen to see a change to a more traditional model in line with the current victory conditions, as mentioned above by others. Although I very much support anything that presents players with more challenges and problems I think that this was a problem too far. Especially as if it was a a cunning plan (which it wasn't) it was not actually very cunning!

Success as ever was very much down to luck with some outrageous good fortune making up for the usual tactical errors, which does not usually happen. Good luck is a fickle friend as I said to one of my opponent after successive 6-1 dice throws in my favour, I'm not sure they were particularly impressed by this particular piece of wisdom though.

PS A certain person from the north selecting the same armies as me. Is that a case of great minds thinking alike? I think not (that should get him fired up for Tarrington).

Thanks Scott.  I am very open to different ideas on scoring and format and I would love to hear your and Martin's thoughts.   Anything that helps achieve my primary goal of getting as many players together and having a good DBA day is most welcome!  Perhaps we could discuss by e-mail?  Richard - I agree that the horde scoiring was a bridge too far and will certainly revisit this before the next Bakewell event.  Perhaps penalties for players living south of Derby. . . !!!  

Simon

Martin,

If I might pre-empt Simon. Four points for a win. Nothing for a draw or loss. One additional point per element killed, including hordes and scythed chariots.

The point being, of course, that you could rack up a generous number of points killing hordes without bringing the game to an end. So a hard fought victory might get you eight points, but there were plenty of tens, elevens and twelves from the horde games. This has not been an issue in 2.2 as the hordes still counted towards the game winning total.

Scott

Ah! Scoring systems, here lies a feast for the grognards.

I too, by chance, found myself in the Matlock Bath bonfire night traffic jam pondering various ways to score tournaments. I agree that whoever wins the most games ought to win competitions. I also think keeping scores as close as possible during a day of games can make for a very exciting final round and a better competition experience for all concerned.

This is important because my only comment on the system described by Martin above ( which I also used for the Sussex competitions of yesteryear) is that although it works well it can be rather intimidating. A player after three bad games can find themselves over seventy points behind the leader. A rather depressing position to be in under any circumstances and not conducive to optimism. However we all know that with DBA things can change with the roll of a dice and so the closer the scores during the course of an entire competition the more positive players will be about their chances of success and so the better the games.

I would also suggest that often the best games are the closest games and in these circumstances the loser ought to rewarded for their fortitude. Therefore how about a very simple system whereby you just double the number of elements you have destroyed ( with additional winning points for generals and camps etc but nothing for hordes or SC) and count them as your victory points. So a close fought 4-3 result would mean eight points to the victor but six points to the defeated player. A swift 4-0 would be eight points to nil. Also perhaps encouraging players to play with some aggression ( or change their dice).

Obviously this could result in a number of players having exactly the same score ( which could happen under any system used ) so to avoid this perhaps the difference between the scores ( as mentioned in Martins system) could also be factored in. So in the earlier example the scores would be nine points to six points and twelve points to nil. Thus creating a larger range of scores but not so large as to be discouraging to those who find themselves languishing in the nether regions of a tournament and who has not been there! Not much fun and might cause newer players to the cut and thrust of the competition scene reluctant to return.

In situations where the scores were still the same the sum total of elements lost over the competition could be used be used. Then head to head results and on to a list of other appropriate factors; generals killed, camps sacked etc.

These idle thoughts are the consequence of finding myself with some time on my hands as a result of shocking sore throat and a bad cold on the way like an express train. The revenge of the north! No sniggering please.

The scoring system is very similar to the Northern Cup, with two differences. Firstly, Hordes don't count to either person's tally at the end of the game and, secondly, a loss is worth 1 point (draw 0) to encourage positive play...

P.

And now for something completely different. The scoring system used in tournaments based in Canberra goes like this. For a win a flat 8 points. For a loss, 1 point plus 1 point per element destroyed up to a maximum of 3, 1 point for destroying the General's element, and 1 point for capturing a camp. The maximum number of points that a loser can accrue is 6. The 1 point for losing is to encourage completed games. For a drawn game 1 point per element destroyed up to a maximum of 3, 1 points for destroying the General's element and 1 point for capturing a camp. The maximum number of points available to the players in a drawn game is 5.

Cheers,