|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 951
|
(New Zealanders please refrain from participating in the poll, but we would love to have your input in the thread!)
Last night at the end of SHNN they put the current scoring system on the docket for next week topics. So let's give them something to talk about. In the past when they have thought about changing, some people have had the standpoint of "if our scoring system isn't broke then don't fix it". The opposite side is, "well if it's good enough for New Zealand then it is good enough for us." Some things need to be addressed with adding the 1 point, that's all that is changing.
Should players be rewarded for close games? With 3-2-1 scoring it would seam to favor better players and better squads in general. Isn't that what we want? For the best players with the best squads to make it into the top 4? Or does it give a point to somebody who in reality still lost.
A con would be that there is a slight chance where even though you have a better win percentage than me I make it into the top four and you don't. Ie you have a score of 6 with 3 partial wins and I have a score of 7 with 2 full wins and 1 point from one of my losses. Is that fair or is one person getting slighted?
The biggest question is when we are at a place in the game where your opponent can have literally 100 points of their squad in the back field should you be able to get 1 point if you manage to kill off 100 points of their squad even though you lose? Or should it still be a not good enough?
To add a little more kindling to the fire, some people are pondering changing scoring to x-wings scoring system. With a 5-3-1 scoring. That gives people a bigger bonus for full wins and minimizes the affect of the 1 point. However it also makes it so you would have more instances of a person with a lower win percentage in the top 4. What are your thoughts on this.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/29/2008
Posts: 1,784
Location: Canada
|
I am 100% in favor of adopting NZ's 3-2-1 scoring system. In an environment like we have today, where more and more games are not finishing, anything that encourages engagement is a good thing. atmsalad wrote:A con would be that there is a slight chance where even though you have a better win percentage than me I make it into the top four and you don't. Ie you have a score of 6 with 3 partial wins and I have a score of 7 with 2 full wins and 1 point from one of my losses. Is that fair or is one person getting slighted? I've heard this argument before too, but I think we need to recognize that getting 2 points on tie-breakers is not truly a "win." Therefore, under the NZ system, the person with a 2-1 record and 7pts (two full wins and a 1pt loss) actually DOES have a better "win percentage" than a person with a 3-0 record and 6pts (three tie-breaker victories). 
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2008
Posts: 1,288
|
thereisnotry wrote:I am 100% in favor of adopting NZ's 3-2-1 scoring system. In an environment like we have today, where more and more games are not finishing, anything that encourages engagement is a good thing. atmsalad wrote:A con would be that there is a slight chance where even though you have a better win percentage than me I make it into the top four and you don't. Ie you have a score of 6 with 3 partial wins and I have a score of 7 with 2 full wins and 1 point from one of my losses. Is that fair or is one person getting slighted? I've heard this argument before too, but I think we need to recognize that getting 2 points on tie-breakers is not truly a "win." Therefore, under the NZ system, the person with a 2-1 record and 7pts (two full wins and a 1pt loss) actually DOES have a better "win percentage" than a person with a 3-0 record and 6pts (three tie-breaker victories). Agreed 100%. Remember, a 2 point win is really a tie. So in this example, you're really looking at someone who is 2-1-0 against someone who is 0-0-3. The 2-1-0 should definitely place higher. I actually like that this is a system where this happens MORE often.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 951
|
Echo24 wrote:thereisnotry wrote:I am 100% in favor of adopting NZ's 3-2-1 scoring system. In an environment like we have today, where more and more games are not finishing, anything that encourages engagement is a good thing. atmsalad wrote:A con would be that there is a slight chance where even though you have a better win percentage than me I make it into the top four and you don't. Ie you have a score of 6 with 3 partial wins and I have a score of 7 with 2 full wins and 1 point from one of my losses. Is that fair or is one person getting slighted? I've heard this argument before too, but I think we need to recognize that getting 2 points on tie-breakers is not truly a "win." Therefore, under the NZ system, the person with a 2-1 record and 7pts (two full wins and a 1pt loss) actually DOES have a better "win percentage" than a person with a 3-0 record and 6pts (three tie-breaker victories). Agreed 100%. Remember, a 2 point win is really a tie. So in this example, you're really looking at someone who is 2-1-0 against someone who is 0-0-3. The 2-1-0 should definitely place higher. I actually like that this is a system where this happens MORE often. Well put guys, and I agree that full wins should be rewarded. 3-2-1 scoring encourages people to play faster, rewards you for not letting your opponent get a full win instead of being hung out to dry and a tie break win isn't as good. The only thing I don't like is it is beneficial for swarm squads where they only have 130 to 90 points of their squad engaging and the rest is in a corner gathering dust. Gambit becomes pretty important for the other person to either get over 100 or to reach 200 against a swarm.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/14/2008
Posts: 1,410
Location: Chokio, MN
|
Excellent idea! I played in the NZ Vassal tournament and it seemed to be a good system. It encourages players to play aggressively to the very end. There are no downsides to the 3-2-1 system and it does so much good for getting a better final 4 in tournaments.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 951
|
Bump
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/26/2008
Posts: 1,233
|
I like the 3-2-1 scoring personally. I have done some tests with it myself and it tends to work better to encourage engagement. THis is definitely something we could use today, just by the large number of 2 pt wins in each tournament.
I however would not like to see the 5-3-1. I think this would push it a bit too far. As you said this format can cause uneven win scenarios WHere people who have actually won less matches end up in the top 8 because of a single win. IT seems to unbalance the points too much for my opinion.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/12/2010
Posts: 564
|
Personally I am not a fan of a 3-2-1 system. I remember in the NZ Vassal Tournament, DieAndBeMetal didn't win a single game and finished middle of the pack. I don't like the idea of awarding a player even when that player loses.
I'm a bigger fan of awarding 1 negative point to someone who fails to get 100pts in a game.
It's impossible for judges to cover each game and if friends get paired up against each other, it's easy for both players to come out winners. One gets the 3 point win and the other gets at least 1 all they have to do is report that the one who lost cleared up 100pts of pieces.
I'm also a fan of increasing the amount of points a player gets in a full win. As is not much of a difference between 3 and 2 points. 4-2 would be better. Anyways, just my thoughts on the scoring system.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 951
|
theultrastar wrote:It's impossible for judges to cover each game and if friends get paired up against each other, it's easy for both players to come out winners. One gets the 3 point win and the other gets at least 1 all they have to do is report that the one who lost cleared up 100pts of pieces.
I'm also a fan of increasing the amount of points a player gets in a full win. As is not much of a difference between 3 and 2 points. 4-2 would be better. Anyways, just my thoughts on the scoring system. Some have pointed out is that we tend to look at a two point win differently than our friends across the pond. They see it as you won on tie break. You didn't actually get a full win. So what you see as awarding a player for losing, I see as awarding a player for playing fast, playing well and keeping the game close. Like we just saw at the New Zealand national, in the second round a match ended with a score of 55-29. In the same round a match ended with a score of 206-199. Not that I am hating on the first two players, but which do you think was a closer and better game? Should the person that lost the first game be scored the same as the person that lost the second? Also, I would hope we can trust the integrity of everyone that plays the game, but we shouldn't let fear of cheating stop us from making a change that may or may not be over due.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 171
|
atmsalad wrote:Also, I would hope we can trust the integrity of everyone that plays the game, but we shouldn't let fear of cheating stop us from making a change that may or may not be over due. But sadly, we can not trust the integrity of people. I had this nice long post to write up that I have already attempted to type up twice. My computer, for some reason wants to delete everything I write in the middle of it. I'm getting sick of it, and so now I'm just leaving it as this.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 951
|
Sthlrd2 wrote:atmsalad wrote:Also, I would hope we can trust the integrity of everyone that plays the game, but we shouldn't let fear of cheating stop us from making a change that may or may not be over due. But sadly, we can not trust the integrity of people. I had this nice long post to write up that I have already attempted to type up twice. My computer, for some reason wants to delete everything I write in the middle of it. I'm getting sick of it, and so now I'm just leaving it as this. I doubt that would hardly ever happen. The nice people have to much integrity and the mean people would worry about their own tie breaks, lol. Personally I like the idea that a 2 point tie win isn't as valuable. Also for slow players/slow squads it can be a penalty, which is unfortunate if you end up playing a slow player. A full win is still just as good and it forces you to try to make the best of even your worst matchup. Theultrastar brings up a good point though, that a full win isn't worth much more than a tie breaker win. Would a 4-2-1 be a good idea?(I know he just suggested a 4-2) It definitely would encourage faster play, lol. Personally I don't like that idea. I would rather go with something we know that works well, according to our New Zealand palls anyways. What do some other guys think?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
|
Echo24 wrote:Remember, a 2 point win is really a tie. No it's not. That is just silly semantics. We actually have a tie in our game, and it very very rarely happens. I don't know if it's ever happened in a major tournament. That is were both players have the same amount of points at the end, AND they have the same point cost character the same distance to the center of the board. Tied even with the tie-breaker that breaks a tied score. Just the fact that you had to convert 2-1-0 to 0-0-3 proves that our system doesn't look at it that way. The first column in record is wins, the second column is losses, and we don't have a third column. What happens in the top 4/8 when a person "ties" as you call it by a score of 164-43? The player with the higher score advances to the next round because they WON, and the player with the lower score is done, because they LOST. End of story. Just like in the world cup round of 16 and later. It doesn't matter if it goes into extra time, or after that goes into penalty kicks. Whoever has more points at the end is the WINNER. Sure you could say they were tied at the end of regulation, but that's just a side note. I believe that being ahead on points at the end of the game (in other words, a WIN) should be weighed heavier than anything else. We already have a system that rewards full victories. The number one consideration for ranking is tournament points (3/2), not wins/losses. So we already weigh a full victory vs a partial victory quite heavy. 3 is 150% of 2. That is quite significant. 3-2-1 just allows people who lost more games to have a better chance to advance. Personally, I don't like that. I like the system we have, which already weighs full wins vs partial wins as the highest consideration, and fairly heavily. Adding another element to reward the losing player does nothing but add a variable that allows for players to place higher than they deserve.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/30/2008
Posts: 2,093
|
TimmerB123 wrote:
We actually have a tie in our game, and it very very rarely happens. I don't know if it's ever happened in a major tournament. That is were both players have the same amount of points at the end, AND they have the same point cost character the same distance to the center of the board. Tied even with the tie-breaker that breaks a tied score.
And yet we would still have to put it down as someone won and someone lost. It's a flaw from WOTC that our game doesn't have a way to record ties.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
|
urbanjedi wrote:TimmerB123 wrote:
We actually have a tie in our game, and it very very rarely happens. I don't know if it's ever happened in a major tournament. That is were both players have the same amount of points at the end, AND they have the same point cost character the same distance to the center of the board. Tied even with the tie-breaker that breaks a tied score.
And yet we would still have to put it down as someone won and someone lost. It's a flaw from WOTC that our game doesn't have a way to record ties. It's scored as a double loss.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/29/2008
Posts: 1,784
Location: Canada
|
TimmerB123 wrote:Echo24 wrote:Remember, a 2 point win is really a tie. No it's not. Yes it is.  It's actually called a "tie-breaker win" or a "modified win," but absolutely not a "full win." We can go back and forth forever debating the semantics, but the fact is that winning by lockout or by a points differential (not reaching the build total) is not the goal or purpose of the game. Ideally, every match would continue until one player had either reached 200pts or defeated his opponent's entire squad, but because of time constraints in a tournament, that's not possible. We have to give someone the "win," so it might as well be to the person who has earned the most points. But that's more of a concession to the requirements of a tournament than a declaration of victory. If it was acceptable to play for this kind of "win," then we never would have adopted the 3-2-0 scoring system. I honestly think it's in poor taste to score a few points and then win on lockout. It hasn't happened to me yet, but if it did, I'd be upset. And especially if it became a pattern...in that case, I'd probably just stop playing. Engagement should be encouraged by the tourney rules, not discouraged by them. That's why I like the practice of awarding a point to the person who lost but at least went down fighting. Think of it this way: one player who is playing for full engagement in two games (with a win and a loss) should be ranked at least as highly as another player who is avoiding combat in two games and still getting by both times on points (two tie-breaker wins). And with the 3-2-1 system they would be even...both players would have 4pts after those 2 games.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 951
|
We could also use a modified 3-2-1 system where you only get that 1 point if your opponent doesn't recieve a 3 point win. Just a thought...
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/30/2008
Posts: 2,093
|
TimmerB123 wrote:urbanjedi wrote:TimmerB123 wrote:
We actually have a tie in our game, and it very very rarely happens. I don't know if it's ever happened in a major tournament. That is were both players have the same amount of points at the end, AND they have the same point cost character the same distance to the center of the board. Tied even with the tie-breaker that breaks a tied score.
And yet we would still have to put it down as someone won and someone lost. It's a flaw from WOTC that our game doesn't have a way to record ties. It's scored as a double loss. And WOTC scoring program (as well as our own) cannot handle double losses. We have to have a "winner" and a "loser" regardless of the outcome of the match. WOTC could easily have given us a tie option as most of their other games have that available.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 951
|
Also let me pose this question. Have you guys been checking out the New Zealand national? If so, you might have noticed that Sharron only made it into the final four because of the 3-2-1 system.(also he's a great player) if they were using our system then I believe Doug platypus would be in the top four. Unless I miss read the results.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/29/2008
Posts: 1,784
Location: Canada
|
atmsalad wrote:We could also use a modified 3-2-1 system where you only get that 1 point if your opponent doesn't recieve a 3 point win. Just a thought... Neat idea, but what if your game came down to the last init, where you both had 1 piece left, wounded and sitting at 20hp? The final init determines the game, and your opponent won it. In that situation, you were clearly engaging (killed all but the last 20hp of your opponent's squad), and so you should get a point. It's all about encouraging and rewarding engagement. If good combat engagement happens, people get cookies.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 951
|
thereisnotry wrote:atmsalad wrote:We could also use a modified 3-2-1 system where you only get that 1 point if your opponent doesn't recieve a 3 point win. Just a thought... Neat idea, but what if your game came down to the last init, where you both had 1 piece left, wounded and sitting at 20hp? The final init determines the game, and your opponent won it. In that situation, you were clearly engaging (killed all but the last 20hp of your opponent's squad), and so you should get a point. It's all about encouraging and rewarding engagement. If good combat engagement happens, people get cookies. Right right, good point, the extra point is for engaging and doing at least mediocre.
|
|
|
Guest |