|
|
Post by Baldie on Sept 23, 2022 5:12:11 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. But think of the brownie I wont get to sample |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Sept 23, 2022 6:50:05 GMT
But think of the brownie points from ‘Mrs B’ you’ll be earning. But think of the brownie I wont get to sample That assumes there’s no repeat of the Great Zero Brownie Controversy of 2022… P |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Sept 23, 2022 7:19:35 GMT
Brownies are being made today!
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Sept 23, 2022 7:53:19 GMT
Brownies are being made today! Simon Is there an unlike button on this forum? |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Sept 23, 2022 10:45:15 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 Simon, can you pls report back on how the scoring system went?? (eg ease of use vs any unexpected drawbacks)? Good luck all….may you dice roll high (…unless yr dicing for terrain). |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Sept 23, 2022 10:46:36 GMT
Brownies are being made today! Simon Is there an unlike button on this forum? Yep, press ‘like’ again….. |
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Sept 23, 2022 12:09:27 GMT
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.*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.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. Mark S and I played out a 6-5 game at the Northern Cup one year. I think the winner would have been pipped to get the same points as the loser! (Yea I know Stevie, there's always one!) I think being in a position to kill 8 elements in a single bound must have included some skill?? If you aren't giving points for a leading when time is called, then you could be penalising a player if their opponent is dragging their feet as it may only be 1-0 at that point as so they only get 1 point. |
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Sept 23, 2022 12:12:04 GMT
Brownies are being made today! Simon To quote Ian Dury: Reasons to be cheerful. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 23, 2022 16:14:01 GMT
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.*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.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. Mark S and I played out a 6-5 game at the Northern Cup one year. I think the winner would have been pipped to get the same points as the loser! (Yea I know Stevie, there's always one!) Good grief!…with a 6-5 final score I’d say the loser deserves 5 points. They were obviously trying very hard, and the battle could easily have gone the other way. Likewise, a 4-3 win also shows the same determination, that could also have gone either way. Indeed, 3-3 when time is called is a ‘near win’ for both sides, worth 3 points each, that could have gone either way with more time (or if they were playing at home or in a club, where there are NO draws). I think being in a position to kill 8 elements in a single bound must have included some skill?? Ha!…if you class bringing a Knight heavy army to a tournament that is matched against Warbands is considered to be ‘skill’. (Actually, I exaggerated a bit. I was 2-0 down when the Knights charged in, and THEN lost another 6 elements in a single
bound, for a final score of 8-0!
In fact, in this particular Bakewell tournament there were 24 of us, and three of them brought Knight heavy Normans.
And guess what…my poor Alaric Warbands had to fight against all three of these, AND I ’won’ the aggression rolls as well.
See what I mean when I say that dice rolls in combat are not the only form of ‘luck’…)
If you aren't giving points for a leading when time is called, then you could be penalizing a player if their opponent is dragging their feet as it may only be 1-0 at that point as so they only get 1 point. A 1-0 would give 1 point to one side and nothing to the other side...so try harder. Brownies are being made today! Simon To quote Ian Dury: Reasons to be cheerful. ♫ “…one, two, free…”♪  |
|
|
|
Post by diades on Sept 23, 2022 20:49:27 GMT
Seriously folks...the winning drawing losing scoring needs to utterly outstrip any other differentiator. Keep the element stuff separate.
I use win 3 points, draw 1 point, loss 0 point. Ties are resolved by sum of opponents scores. Then on the extremely rare occasions anything else is required, nett element difference. Where an element is as per winning the game.
All that said, I think Simon is right. We go to play not to win. Maybe tomorrow should be decided on who can eat the most brownies..
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 25, 2022 7:52:43 GMT
Just an update on the “5 for a win and 1 point per element for the rest” scoring system.
This was tested at the Bakewell Matched Pairs competition, and overall it went well,
although it had to be adapted slightly as one game ended in a 6-5 win, and Simon didn’t
like the idea of both sides getting 5 points, so I think he decided that the victor should
always get 1 point more than the loser, to make it 6 points to 5 points respectively.
A quick poll at the end of the day revealed that the majority of players liked it, or were
indifferent, with only a tiny minority disliking it.
Overall, I liked it, for the following reasons:-
* it’s simple, straightforward, and easy to implement…
* it gives losers points based on how well they did
(kill three, get three points, kill none, get nothing)…
However, I don’t think this makes it better than other point scoring systems, as many
others also have ‘1 point per kill’ mechanisms. But at least it doesn’t penalize or punish
unfinished games…instead it rewards outright victors by giving them a modest bonus.
(By the way, I think that killing Hordes, Scythed Chariots and sallying civilians should NOT
give any points, as according to the DBA rules these don’t contribute anything to the victory
conditions when playing at home or in a club, so why should they in a tournament?)
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Sept 25, 2022 9:05:34 GMT
Just an update on the “5 for a win and 1 point per element for the rest” scoring system. This was tested at the Bakewell Matched Pairs competition, and overall it went well, although it had to be adapted slightly as one game ended in a 6-5 win, and Simon didn’t like the idea of both sides getting 5 points, so I think he decided that the victor should always get 1 point more than the loser, to make it 6 points to 5 points respectively. Just to clarify it was actually a 6-4 win. Simon suggested that any win should be at least 2 points better than the loser, which happened in this case. If the game had finished 6-5 the the winner would have got 7 points. This was an off the cuff suggestion on the day. Thinking about it, it would maybe better to say the loser gets a max of 3 points rather than reward the winner for have a close fought high scoring win v a close fought low scoring win? |
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Sept 25, 2022 11:30:27 GMT
Seriously folks...the winning drawing losing scoring needs to utterly outstrip any other differentiator. Keep the element stuff separate. I use win 3 points, draw 1 point, loss 0 point. Ties are resolved by sum of opponents scores. Then on the extremely rare occasions anything else is required, nett element difference. Where an element is as per winning the game. All that said, I think Simon is right. We go to play not to win. Maybe tomorrow should be decided on who can eat the most brownies.. I think the main potential issue with this system is that if someone is 3-0 or 3-1 down and time is getting short, for some people there is no real incentive to go for a result. This can be frustrating if you're on top but the other player starts to pull back, or delay to play for the draw, because they get a point for this. In terms of whether people go to play or go to win, I think it's pretty obvious, though it may not be popular to say, but people go to win. Otherwise: why do winners get rewarded by prizes, why does every organiser publish the results table of where people came in the competition, why is a lot of the chat between games about how each person is doing, how many they've won or lost or how they've won or lost, why do themed competitions attract 3/4 of the same army which has the best chance of winning, (Mr Smith excepted of course, but then there's always an exception that proves the rule  ) why does one player appear really fed up when his opponent throws 6 after 6 after 6 after 6? The answer is, because people are trying to win. I don't see anything wrong with this. After all, it is a competition! Different people will be more concerned with winning than others, but the issue is not that people are trying to win it's how people try and win, i.e. what are they prepared to do to win and what do people count as 'unsporting'. If we accept people are trying to win individual games then presumably they are also trying to win the overall competition. So, is it unsporting to play for a draw if you know you're not going to win, but you get a point for the draw and nothing for the loss? Some people will think that's ok as it's all perfectly legal and within the rules, others won't as it denies the opponent a win they would otherwise have gained given extra time. Awarding points for a draw but nothing for a loss and nothing for enemy element kills allows, or maybe even encourages this approach. |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Sept 25, 2022 11:35:07 GMT
Having had a good night's sleep (!), I do think that Mark's idea is a good one and simpler.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by diades on Sept 25, 2022 16:34:41 GMT
Seriously folks...the winning drawing losing scoring needs to utterly outstrip any other differentiator. Keep the element stuff separate. I use win 3 points, draw 1 point, loss 0 point. Ties are resolved by sum of opponents scores. Then on the extremely rare occasions anything else is required, nett element difference. Where an element is as per winning the game. All that said, I think Simon is right. We go to play not to win. Maybe tomorrow should be decided on who can eat the most brownies.. I think the main potential issue with this system is that if someone is 3-0 or 3-1 down and time is getting short, for some people there is no real incentive to go for a result. This can be frustrating if you're on top but the other player starts to pull back, or delay to play for the draw, because they get a point for this. In terms of whether people go to play or go to win, I think it's pretty obvious, though it may not be popular to say, but people go to win. Otherwise: why do winners get rewarded by prizes, why does every organiser publish the results table of where people came in the competition, why is a lot of the chat between games about how each person is doing, how many they've won or lost or how they've won or lost, why do themed competitions attract 3/4 of the same army which has the best chance of winning, (Mr Smith excepted of course, but then there's always an exception that proves the rule ) why does one player appear really fed up when his opponent throws 6 after 6 after 6 after 6? The answer is, because people are trying to win. I don't see anything wrong with this. After all, it is a competition! Different people will be more concerned with winning than others, but the issue is not that people are trying to win it's how people try and win, i.e. what are they prepared to do to win and what do people count as 'unsporting'. If we accept people are trying to win individual games then presumably they are also trying to win the overall competition. So, is it unsporting to play for a draw if you know you're not going to win, but you get a point for the draw and nothing for the loss? Some people will think that's ok as it's all perfectly legal and within the rules, others won't as it denies the opponent a win they would otherwise have gained given extra time. Awarding points for a draw but nothing for a loss and nothing for enemy element kills allows, or maybe even encourages this approach. Happy with all you say Mark. I have never knowingly played for a draw and only once played for a loss…when 3-0 down on last bound, where a loss was rewarded more than a draw and more importantly, it was a better outcome for my opponent. I think as much time for games as possible to allow them to play our is best of all, but of course not always possible in tournament conditions. I do not want to penalise a player who tries to fight back to win when 3-0 down, if timing means it ends in a draw. Reversing a deficit is exhilarating. I still think element differences or count should be rewarded at the appropriate level of importance. At the end of the day…happy to play and abide by the rules set by anyone kind enough to run a tournament. |
|
)