|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 21, 2022 6:14:01 GMT
Scoring tournaments is like the Fedex cup. The NHL and NFL championships are not decided by cumulative points.... Real tournament? Make it double elimination; you lose or draw twice, you're out. And what happens to the guy I'm due to play in round 3? As Martin says...I'll be halfway home by then...  |
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Sept 21, 2022 12:34:43 GMT
If you've lost two games, there is almost no tournament scoring system that is going to get you 'on the podium'. Play your third or fourth games for fun. You can have secondary prizes, like worst loss, most generals killed, most camps captured, biggest win, opponent's favorite or best sport.
Double elimination gives you a chance to 'get on the podium' even if you've had a game with a string of one's. Its more generous than an 'elimination' format of the world cup, or the MLB wildcard game.
Won Lost is hard to manipulate. Point systems can be abused. A player can tank a game 0-7 or worse to help a friend make a top score.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Sept 21, 2022 13:12:47 GMT
If you've lost two games, there is almost no tournament scoring system that is going to get you 'on the podium'. Play your third or fourth games for fun. You can have secondary prizes, like worst loss, most generals killed, most camps captured, biggest win, opponent's favorite or best sport. Double elimination gives you a chance to 'get on the podium' even if you've had a game with a string of one's. Its more generous than an 'elimination' format of the world cup, or the MLB wildcard game. Won Lost is hard to manipulate. Point systems can be abused. A player can tank a game 0-7 or worse to help a friend make a top score. Glad I never play against friends |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 21, 2022 14:00:21 GMT
If you've lost two games, there is almost no tournament scoring system that is going to get you 'on the podium'. Play your third or fourth games for fun. You can have secondary prizes, like worst loss, most generals killed, most camps captured, biggest win, opponent's favorite or best sport. Double elimination gives you a chance to 'get on the podium' even if you've had a game with a string of one's. Its more generous than an 'elimination' format of the world cup, or the MLB wildcard game. Won Lost is hard to manipulate. Point systems can be abused. A player can tank a game 0-7 or worse to help a friend make a top score. Glad I never play against friends You have friends? |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 21, 2022 14:01:21 GMT
If you've lost two games, there is almost no tournament scoring system that is going to get you 'on the podium'. Play your third or fourth games for fun. You can have secondary prizes, like worst loss, most generals killed, most camps captured, biggest win, opponent's favorite or best sport. Double elimination gives you a chance to 'get on the podium' even if you've had a game with a string of one's. Its more generous than an 'elimination' format of the world cup, or the MLB wildcard game. Won Lost is hard to manipulate. Point systems can be abused. A player can tank a game 0-7 or worse to help a friend make a top score. But it's perfectly possible to P6, W4, L1, D1 and have a respectable finish - at least, so I am told. And it strikes me as cock-eyed to have a system where an eliminated player plays on, possibly knocking out other players (either by beating them or by drawing with them). |
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Sept 21, 2022 15:50:28 GMT
Point systems can be abused. A player can tank a game 0-7 or worse to help a friend make a top score. Does anyone have a friend (or even a relative!) they'd do that for? I have to say that in that vast majority of tournaments I've played in I've only had one opponent who was 3-1 down and started to pull his troops back to avoid defeat, and that was in a competition where you got more for a loss than for a draw and points for elements killed! Most of the players I've come across try and play the game to get a positive result. Fortunately the 'gamer' who appears in other rule based competitions doesn't seem to have made it into DBA at the moment and long may that continue! |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Sept 21, 2022 18:09:42 GMT
Glad I never play against friends You have friends? A stranger is only a friend you haven't met yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Sept 21, 2022 18:11:52 GMT
Point systems can be abused. A player can tank a game 0-7 or worse to help a friend make a top score. Does anyone have a friend (or even a relative!) they'd do that for? I have to say that in that vast majority of tournaments I've played in I've only had one opponent who was 3-1 down and started to pull his troops back to avoid defeat, and that was in a competition where you got more for a loss than for a draw and points for elements killed! Most of the players I've come across try and play the game to get a positive result. Fortunately the 'gamer' who appears in other rule based competitions doesn't seem to have made it into DBA at the moment and long may that continue! Game timing out. I think I should lobby for chess clocks, several games I can get done in 5-10 min, not necessarily won but def concluded. |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Sept 21, 2022 18:44:01 GMT
If you've lost two games, there is almost no tournament scoring system that is going to get you 'on the podium'. Play your third or fourth games for fun. You can have secondary prizes, like worst loss, most generals killed, most camps captured, biggest win, opponent's favorite or best sport. Double elimination gives you a chance to 'get on the podium' even if you've had a game with a string of one's. Its more generous than an 'elimination' format of the world cup, or the MLB wildcard game. Won Lost is hard to manipulate. Point systems can be abused. A player can tank a game 0-7 or worse to help a friend make a top score. We normally play six games in a day (occasionally five) so losing or drawing the first two isn’t critical. Your post suggests your ‘norm’ is four games…..(?) |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 21, 2022 20:20:52 GMT
I think we should remember that a tournament is an artificial environment.
Playing at home or in a club, draws don’t occur…every game ends in a win for somebody.
This is how the victory conditions in DBA have been designed.
But in a tournament we also have the extra constraints of time limits.
So why should a player who is 3-0 or 3-1 up, but runs out of time, be penalized?
Given a little extra time, such a ‘near win’ would no doubt end in an outright victory.
But most of the existing scoring systems DO penalized them, due to the artificial time constraints.
They are trying their best, as I doubt anyone that close to victory would merely sit back and rest.
This is especially true if your opponent sits near their base-edge and refuses to advance.
Penalizing such ‘near wins’ actually rewards the player aiming for a draw, by dragging
out the battle and wasting time, thereby robbing their opponent of their just rewards.
Yes, an outright win should score more…but a ‘near win’ shouldn’t be penalized so harshly,
just because of that particular tournament's arbitrary and artificial time limits.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 22, 2022 6:51:24 GMT
I’ve been giving this matter some more thought, and would like to offer the following proposal,
although I doubt it will be universally accepted…nonetheless I wish to offer it up for discussion.
As we all know, victory in DBA is all about destroying 4 or more ‘element equivalents’, with
generals, the first double-base, cities and camps being ‘the equivalent’ of an element.
So here is the proposal:-
An outright victory is worth 5 points, no matter how many ‘element equivalents’ are destroyed*.
Everyone else gets 1 point for each ‘element equivalent’ they destroy or capture.
Er…that’s it.
Very simple and straight forward.
*The reason an outright victory does not include ‘body counts’ is because of one tournament game I had
where I lost eight (yep, 8!) elements in a single bound. This would give the victor a tremendous score,
and we should be rewarding players for their skill, not their luck. And by luck I don’t just mean dice rolls…
…having a Knight heavy army matched against a Warband heavy army is another form of luck, as happened
to me in the above mentioned tournament.
Now I know what you are going to say; “But Stevie, a player that destroys 3 enemy in their first battle and then
did the same in their second battle would get 6 points, while on a adjacent table a player that got an outright
victory in one battle but no kills in the second battle would only get 5 points”.
My answer to this is so what.
A ’near win’ IS a victory, or would be if there were more time to finish the game.
If the games were being held at home or in a club setting, there would be NO draws.
The players would have the time to finish their games, and a ‘near win’ could fought to its conclusion.
But in a tournament we have to have artificial and arbitrary time limits.
However, a tournament should try to mimic and simulate a full game where possible, and not bring in
artificial and arbitrary ways to punish and penalize ‘near wins’, thereby distorting the victory conditions.
If player gets a string of 3 point ‘near wins’ over say five games, then they would probably get five outright
wins if playing at home or in a club…they shouldn’t be punished for not finishing their games, especially as
it might not be their fault and it is their opponent that is dragging their feet and deliberately wasting time.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 22, 2022 7:46:41 GMT
Here's another radical idea: 3pts for a win, 2pts for a "near" win (for you stevie), 1pt for a draw, 0pts for a loss.
If time runs out, the player leading is declared the "near" winner (eg 3-1, 3-2, 1-0 etc) otherwise it's a draw.
Players tied on points will be seperated firstly on the head-to-head results, then on the difference of elements killed v elements lost.
Now where did I get this idea from?
Cheers
Jim
PS Seriously, this started as a laugh but there may actually be some upside. It encourages aggressive play to win but also allows some grand strategy thinking. After all, it is historical to retreat and fight another day rather than impale your troops on pikes to hope you get one kill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Sept 22, 2022 14:59:23 GMT
I’ve been giving this matter some more thought, and would like to offer the following proposal, although I doubt it will be universally accepted…nonetheless I wish to offer it up for discussion. As we all know, victory in DBA is all about destroying 4 or more ‘element equivalents’, with generals, the first double-base, cities and camps being ‘the equivalent’ of an element. So here is the proposal:- An outright victory is worth 5 points, no matter how many ‘element equivalents’ are destroyed *. Everyone else gets 1 point for each ‘element equivalent’ they destroy or capture.Er…that’s it. Very simple and straight forward. *The reason an outright victory does not include ‘body counts’ is because of one tournament game I had
where I lost eight (yep, 8!) elements in a single bound. This would give the victor a tremendous score,
and we should be rewarding players for their skill, not their luck. And by luck I don’t just mean dice rolls…
…having a Knight heavy army matched against a Warband heavy army is another form of luck, as happened
to me in the above mentioned tournament.Now I know what you are going to say; “But Stevie, a player that destroys 3 enemy in their first battle and then did the same in their second battle would get 6 points, while on a adjacent table a player that got an outright victory in one battle but no kills in the second battle would only get 5 points”. My answer to this is so what. A ’near win’ IS a victory, or would be if there were more time to finish the game. If the games were being held at home or in a club setting, there would be NO draws. The players would have the time to finish their games, and a ‘near win’ could fought to its conclusion. But in a tournament we have to have artificial and arbitrary time limits. However, a tournament should try to mimic and simulate a full game where possible, and not bring in artificial and arbitrary ways to punish and penalize ‘near wins’, thereby distorting the victory conditions. If player gets a string of 3 point ‘near wins’ over say five games, then they would probably get five outright wins if playing at home or in a club…they shouldn’t be punished for not finishing their games, especially as it might not be their fault and it is their opponent that is dragging their feet and deliberately wasting time. We'll give this one a go on Saturday in Bakewell. Simon |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Sept 22, 2022 17:07:42 GMT
Good luck all I am bitterly dissapointed not to be able to make it.
Hope you have a fab time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ken Gordon on Sept 22, 2022 19:33:22 GMT
Good luck all I am bitterly dissapointed not to be able to make it. Hope you have a fab time. But think of the brownie points from ‘Mrs B’ you’ll be earning. |
|
