SCORING

[Ratel]

I think the scores for a draw and the 'lesser' losses are to high in the suggested table though. A 30 for a draw is the equivalent for a medium victory in the current system !!

It doesn't matter if the old results are converted to the new scoring, what matters is does this new scoring unbalance points between different ladders. That may make this suggestion impossible to execute at least in this form.

Will it not result in us climbing the rank ladder too quickly due to the much higher points that are given? Or how does that work? If so, we could all end up with much higher ranks in a short space in time.

Will it be a problem?

[Vesku]

You are talking about overall ladder? In that case that is exactly what I'm talking about, if SP ladder scores too many points compared to for example CM in Blitz's opinion then they will not make the change.

[Vesku]

One thing that has worried me sometimes is that some players have an eagerness to surrender the game when it starts to look like a lost cause. This point system usually rewards players for sticking in until the end.

[Ratel]

You are talking about overall ladder? In that case that is exactly what I'm talking about, if SP ladder scores too many points compared to for example CM in Blitz's opinion then they will not make the change.

Yes, that's the ladder I'm talking about...and I now understand what you are saying. I agree.:)

Regarding your scond remark, are you talking about the proposed system or the current one? If you are talking about the current one, I believe that players won't bother to stick it out for as long as possible. Once they see they are losing, they opt out because it doesn't matter how badly they lose, it's still 5 points in the bag.
If we are penalised for losing badly, they will think twice before they want to surrender. For instance if you get 5 for a minor loss and -10 for a medium (or worse) loss, they will try harder to not incur the medium loss but rather a minor loss. Or am I wrong?

[Weasel]

We cannot change just one ladder as the scoring system is club based. The officers spent many hours comparing all the games to figure out some sort of a fair scoring system compared to time to play the game, which is the current system. A CM turn takes about 5 minutes to play, while an SP turn takes 20-40, thus a CM win (with other factors instilled) results in about 4 times less points for a SP game of the same size etc. This is a rough statement, don't take it to court.

However, if you are still keen to pursue this I would suggest placing your post in the technical section so the guys who run the data section of the club can look at it.

[Walrus]

I can only speak for me, but this comment..

Once they see they are losing, they opt out because it doesn't matter how badly they lose, it's still 5 points in the bag.

...I just do not agree with.
I never give in...ever...I will fight you to my last man and the last turn...every time.
It ends up that my small victory to take away from a big ladder loss, is limiting your win as much as I can.
It's an honour thing

I have never surrendered a game of SP that I can remember.
Also, if you surrender, the opponent can take what ever level of victory they choose.
I will never allow that.

So I do not see that issue as one worth changing anything over.
Just my 2 cents.

[klanx171]

Im going to start by agreeing with mosberg on his idea about qualitative scoring. In Europa Twilight we have a very crude system in that regard by having 'tournament points' which give 3 points for a win of any kind, 2 points for a draw and 1 point for a loss; and battle points which is based on the actual points scored for men and vehicles destroyed (and for any point based VHs in the game) which then can give an accurate indication of actually how each side scored (also provided in the breakdown at the end of games by the program).

This is not a perfect system and can be improved but in ET players that have lost battles due to not fulfilling the victory condition of that battle has still gotten more battle points than the victor and thus one one table they are lower down but on the other (the battle points table) they rate and rank much higher and the person at the top of one table is not the same as the other.

This system was put in place to try and account for the qualitative differences I noticed in battle outcomes and to compensate players who lost strategically but may have won tactically. If such an idea could be extended into Mosbergs concept then we would have (IMHO) a system which notes both skill and outcome and rewards both as in several ET battles players sought to deny their opponents as many kills as possible and as such could not play a toe to toe style of play, attempting to preserve units to deny as many points to their Op as possible to get a win.

This was due to some battles being VH point based (noted as Take and Hold) and others being solely on battle points (noted as Search and Destroy). These differing battle types helped also to change play styles and again not perfect did allow different skill styles to come into play and avoid the WW1 style slug fests that often come about.

[GUNSLNGR]

I never give in...ever...I will fight you to my last man and the last turn...every time.
It ends up that my small victory to take away from a big ladder loss, is limiting your win as much as I can.
It's an honour thing

General Custer called...your horse is ready!:cheeky:

[Ratel]

I can only speak for me, but this comment..

Once they see they are losing, they opt out because it doesn't matter how badly they lose, it's still 5 points in the bag.

...I just do not agree with.
I never give in...ever...I will fight you to my last man and the last turn...every time.
It ends up that my small victory to take away from a big ladder loss, is limiting your win as much as I can.
It's an honour thing

I have never surrendered a game of SP that I can remember.
Also, if you surrender, the opponent can take what ever level of victory they choose.
I will never allow that.

So I do not see that issue as one worth changing anything over.
Just my 2 cents.

I have surrendered a game that myself and Seahawk finished recently. I think some of you guys would have surrendered as well for a good reason. We played a map that was disliked by both of us because we didn't know beforehand that hedgerows would spoil the movement of our tanks and other vehicles as much as it did. The map was also too small to allow proper tactical maneuvering and to top it of I was playing the US in a battle against the Germans. I forgot to buy some planes during the setup and the best tanks I could get was no match against the Tigers/KoenigTigers/Panthers that Seahawk had. Due to the small size of the map and the location of the hedgerows, I couldn't outflank his forces and my tanks came second during any head-to-head gun duels.
The game turned into a stalemate as I didn't have forces left that would be able the wrestle the VH's from Seahawk, as we was holding them all at the end. It became a frustation to both of us and Seahawk was talking about what we would play next, that's how exciting the game was at that point So I offered to surrender, we negotiated a victory level for him and we are now playing another map that is much better.
And it is only for that reason that I believe that I and maybe any other guys would consider surrendering. No point in being stuck in a game that none of the players are enjoying, not even the winning player.:)

[Imp]

I think the original idea of all games awarding the same amount of points between the players is a good one he used 60 points which does not seem liked try 100

99 points Overwhelming Victory to the Winner
85 points Decisive Victory to the Winner
70 points Medium Victory to the Winner
60 points Minor Victory to the Winner
50 points Draw to both players
40 points Minor Loss of a scenario
30 points Medium Loss of a scenario
15 points Decisive Loss of a scenario
1 points Overhelming Loss of a scenario

Overwhelming & decisive score big because the other force in all probability has ceased to exist as a combat unit.
Minor should perhaps be 55-45 as not far off a draw & both forces probably able to fight another day.
Gap between top 3 Medium Decisive Overwhelming purposly as is because achieving is progresivly harder.

The winners score is based on how well he does so why isnt the losers if its a minor loss thats nothing like an overwhelming one.
I agree one should not surrender & it should not take a table to make you want to fight for those extra points but I have played people who surrender, incredibly early in some cases when you see what they had left.
The fact each game is worth the same amount of points might help with the tables to if each game is worth 100 points you know the average per game is 50 which just happens to be a draw but if thats not a factor then decisive & overwhelming should be loaded with lots of points as they are hard to achieve.

The suggestion about rating shots on target, planes artillery etc even if you could get the data as has nothing to do with how well the player played.
Buying the best equipment will help in this dept but countries experince rating is the big factor. Early Eastern Front Russia 55 exp vs Germany 75 more if buys elite units whos going to win the accuracy battle.