SCORING

[Walrus]

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.:)

Fair enough...but that's not really what I consider 'surrender' in reference to my earlier post.

Surrender, IMO, is when you are getting a kicking and you throw in the towel. This means your opponent can claim whatever victory he wishes.

You seem to have negotiated an end to a game situation that was not working / enjoyable for both players.
That is not an uncommon practice.
There is no need to actually score a game like that if you do not wish to...or a draw can be scored...or what ever you guys think is a fair result for the game.
I agree....it is far better to both be playing a battle that is fun

---

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.

Hi
I think that set of ratios works better IMO.
However, as weasel said earlier, the SP ladder scores do not exist in a vacuum here at tThe Blitz.
All the club ladder had their score systems changed / re-calibrated so that they were in sync with each other. As all the game systems are quite different, especially re. the actual time involved to finish a battle, this was a long and painful exercise for those involved in the calculations.

I seriously doubt that a big change to the SP scoring system will be kindly looked upon by those in charge, especially right now as we go through the minor chaos of a complete website coding change.

However...I think the idea has merit and if we can get a good potential new score system together here and present it to the powers that be...who knows, it may well fly.

So...continue the debate....but don't hold your breath for a quick change.

Cheers
Walrus

[Weasel]

Like I said, post it in the technical section and see if anyone salutes. Myself, I am happy with the way things are right now.

[Imp]

Like I said, post it in the technical section and see if anyone salutes. Myself, I am happy with the way things are right now.

Have to admit does not bother me never even thought about till this post. As from what I can gather its a global thing cant see the point in changing unless it drasticaly effects the positions in the ladder.
What I posted would I think have the effect of pushing up the ladder people with overwhelming & decisive victories. It would also push up the ladder those with minor medium defeats so the chances are its good players that would benefit the most. These gain the most as get the biggest point hikes if my thinking is correct so may be worth submiting.

[Vesku]

Your idea is good but the points you suggest may be accepted for Advance/Assault, half the points for meeting which means that it can't be 99 to 1 because meeting would score 49,5 to 0,5. Requires minor tweaking. Like said several times before, SP scores need to be comparable to other ladders so we can't start giving 500 pts for a draw.

[Imp]

So change to 98-2
To be honest I have never even thought about till now & if ladders are tied score wise must have an impact on to be even worth someone submiting.
IF my thinking is correct this will move people up the ladder who get Overwhelm & Decisive Vics. It wll also move those up that get minor medium losses so it will generally boost good players ladder level. This is due to these being the big points gains.
IF the above thinking is correct it may be worth submiting if people think its wothwhile but its never been an issue for how long?

More of an issue I think is assaults where the result should be shifted one in the attackers favour or give him control of an extra 2-3 flags before calculate.

[retired from gaming]

Hi,
I am catching up right now and because I don't want to miss anything important I rather replay post by post.
Anyway, my goal was primaly to get opinions and that's fullfilled already.
thanks for joining conversation,
maciej

[retired from gaming]

How do we deal with previously scored games?

For me it is only technical issue. If they stay as they are or are recalculated - fine with me. I think tech wise the latter would be easier.

Is everyone going to get three turns in, lose a couple of units and figure they might as well go on the defensive and try for a small loss?
Will this system promote aggressive play?
Does that matter?

well, that would be brilliant. I never thought my proposal could cause such important change in game-play, thanks for bringing this on, Walrus.
I would be very happy if players started to play more realistically. If commander feels he could loose it is his duty to preserve forces for next battles, isn't it ?
But I don't really think change of scoring would change player's habbits. If that was true number of ME games played would be zero, cause they are worth only halve the points.

What other issues does this throw up?

Many I guess. We never know before we try.

My first thought is that there needs to be a bigger penalty for losing than the ratios you initially suggested.

I agree that we are here to play and not just to win, however the nature of war, and wargames is that you are trying to win...and that should be rewarded more than not losing heavily.

The ratios I suggested were just taken from simple mathematics. I assumed there was no chance anybody up there, much higher, ever agrees to change parity between ladders, so my ratios never exceed maximum number of points we give now (or, to be honest they are higher by exactly 5 points, again to make calculations possible. It could be 5 points less, for me there is no difference).
My ratios were just an example to show my idea. I think they are just about right, but it is obviuosly just my opinion. I dont have a problem with different ratios.

---

Additional info after a quick look at other ladders :

SP is the ONLY ladder (not counting classic ladder, but that's not really active) which gives the same amount of points to the looser regardless of loss level.

Most ladders give for a draw at least half the points of most valuable win, some even more than half.

So, IMO, SP ladder is the only one being right, or the last one to make a change... Just kidding, but it could mean something.

---

Like I said, post it in the technical section and see if anyone salutes. Myself, I am happy with the way things are right now.

Chris,
with all due respect this time I think you are terribly wrong. We, players, are here to post ideas, discuss them, maybe take part in the poll (if you decide we need one) but YOU are the one to decide about the change (or not making the change, whatever). The technical issue is something different. Besides, what's the point of posting there if we dont know if we want a change, and what change if so.
I respect the fact you, as a player, are happy with current system, but as custodian it's your yes or no for a change at the end of day. What criteria will determine the final decission it's again up to you.

maciej

[Weasel]

It is not up to me to say whether this or that happens on the ladder. The ladder does not belong to me, it belongs to the players. That I have access to areas that players do not is only so someone can deal with all the small details that appear like trouble logging in etc.

Why post in the technical section? Because it is up to you to bring your idea to those who would have the know how to adjust the scoring system for all the ladders. It is not up to myself or Jason to ram rod every idea that players come up with. If this is something you would like to have looked at, then it is up to you, not me, to bring it forward, do all the leg work and data crunching. As the name states, we are custodians...janitors if you please.

When I came up with the SP SCORE I didn't ask Paul to do all the work, I did it and presented it to him and revised etc. Map packs were my idea so I did all the work of collecting and sorting, same as the new tournament medals.

So by all means, present your idea if you are keen on making it so. But do the work first. As a matter of fact, I will even post on the tech section for you with a link to your post so the big guns know.

[Vesku]

If the 5 points difference is not acceptable you could try this:

50 points Overwhelming Victory to the Winner
45 points Decisive Victory to the Winner
40 points Medium Victory to the Winner
35 points Minor Victory to the Winner
25 points Draw to both players
20 points Minor Loss of a scenario
15 points Medium Loss of a scenario
10 points Decisive Loss of a scenario
5 points Overwhelming Loss of a scenario

That would make 55 pts per battle except draw which scores 50.

[retired from gaming]

Hi,
for private reasons I am not interested in the change anymore. If any of you is interested in making it, this way or another, please contact Weasel or Walrus for help in technicalities.
regards
Maciej