NAF World Headquarters
General - New twist on scoring
CyberHare - Aug 27, 2006 - 08:56 AM
Post subject: New twist on scoring
No I haven't reinvented the wheel and a number of tournaments are using most of the following already.
Win = 50 points
Tie = 30 points
Loss = 20 points
"Kept it close" - Lost by 1 TD = +10
"Got Schooled" - Lost by 3+ TD = -10
"Hurt 'em" - Caused 1 more cas than your opponent = +5
"Killed 'em" - Caused 2+ more cas than your opponent = +10
"Smoked 'em" - Won by 2 = +5
"Blow Out" - Won by 3+ = +10
Looking over some of the old Death Bowl results it came to me that there were plenty of bonuses but nothing if someone really lost a game badly. So thus we have the negative "bonus".
"Got Schooled" - Lost by 3+ TD = -10
The idea is that losing a game can happen to anyone. Losing by one isn't so bad. Losing by 2 you've been soundly defeated and by three or more, well you "Got Schooled".
I think this might be a solution to the problem with the 55-35-10 system where if you've lost one game you're pretty much out of the running.
Spazzfist - Aug 27, 2006 - 11:06 AM
Post subject: Re: New twist on scoring
Not being the mathemetician that some of the other are out there, it looks okay to me. But have you worked out different variables to see that this is feasible?
CyberHare wrote:
I think this might be a solution to the problem with the 55-35-10 system where if you've lost one game you're pretty much out of the running.
But with the way that Deathbowl is run, the winner at the top table in the final game is the overall winner, n'est pas? So even if you lose one, then as long as you do well in the others you still have a shot.
Also, using your argument, what happens if you lose by more than three in your first game? Then you're really screwed! 
Clan_Skaven - Aug 27, 2006 - 12:00 PM
Post subject: Re: New twist on scoring
Spazzfist wrote:
Not being the mathemetician that some of the other are out there, it looks okay to me. But have you worked out different variables to see that this is feasible?
CyberHare wrote:
I think this might be a solution to the problem with the 55-35-10 system where if you've lost one game you're pretty much out of the running.
But with the way that Deathbowl is run, the winner at the top table in the final game is the overall winner, n'est pas? So even if you lose one, then as long as you do well in the others you still have a shot.
Also, using your argument, what happens if you lose by more than three in your first game? Then you're really screwed!
Like a 5-0 loss, I remember someone losing 5-0 recently , just not sure who, lol!
Rod
SolarFlare - Aug 27, 2006 - 01:01 PM
Post subject:
I don't think it will change much. It just seems unnecessary. Players "getting schooled" rarely do much in a tourney anyway. And it could lead to some hard feelings/bad sportsmanship in a tournament. For example, giving a new (and therefore frequently not very good) an extra negative could encourage them not to return to the next tournament. On the other hand, it could help with swiss sorting by getting those really inexperienced players playing each other sooner. And I admit I like the flavor of it... "Getting Schooled" just sounds funny.
CyberHare - Aug 27, 2006 - 01:32 PM
Post subject: Re: New twist on scoring
Spazzfist wrote:
Not being the mathemetician that some of the other are out there, it looks okay to me. But have you worked out different variables to see that this is feasible?
Don't you teach math 
If by worked out you mean thought it over in my head for more than a few minutes then yes I've worked out the different variables. Basically what I've seen so far in the events that use the stepped bonus system is that teams need to work a little harder to get the full bonus. It also encourages teams to not stall since going for that third TD is worth something. The flip side though is it does encourage people to go for more blood but since at the DB we only count CAS where you earn SPP I believe it won't become an issue. Events where fouling and crowd surfing for CAS are allowed can see a lot of, well what I'd call cheap plays going onto extend the CAS lead.
Spazzfist wrote:
CyberHare wrote:
I think this might be a solution to the problem with the 55-35-10 system where if you've lost one game you're pretty much out of the running.
But with the way that Deathbowl is run, the winner at the top table in the final game is the overall winner, n'est pas? So even if you lose one, then as long as you do well in the others you still have a shot.
Yes that's the way it works but 2nd & 3rd are stil based on points as it simply getting to the final match
Spazzfist wrote:
Also, using your argument, what happens if you lose by more than three in your first game? Then you're really screwed!
Well not any more screwed than you are in the 55 -35-10 system. The idea behind the new bonus is to address some of the concerns a few people have about the system not being win/loss squewed enough. So I'm trying to address that while still maintain the flavor of what is the Death Bowl scoring system. Meaning it takes into account how well you won or how badly you lost.
CyberHare - Aug 27, 2006 - 01:43 PM
Post subject:
SolarFlare wrote:
I don't think it will change much. It just seems unnecessary. Players "getting schooled" rarely do much in a tourney anyway. And it could lead to some hard feelings/bad sportsmanship in a tournament. For example, giving a new (and therefore frequently not very good) an extra negative could encourage them not to return to the next tournament.
That's one of my concerns. Is having a negative bonus condusive to hard feelings or bad sportsmanship? I tend to lead towards the "no" side of that question because personally I think if that were the case then people wouldn't like the 55-35-10 system. In that system you're always screwed if you lose.
SolarFlare wrote:
On the other hand, it could help with swiss sorting by getting those really inexperienced players playing each other sooner. And I admit I like the flavor of it... "Getting Schooled" just sounds funny.
I tried to give it a bit of a funny name so that someone might get a laugh after a hard game by saying "I got Schooled! ARRRGGHH".
Spazzfist - Aug 27, 2006 - 02:00 PM
Post subject: Re: New twist on scoring
CyberHare wrote:
Spazzfist wrote:
Not being the mathemetician that some of the other are out there, it looks okay to me. But have you worked out different variables to see that this is feasible?
Don't you teach math
Man! Just 'cause I'm a teacher I have to know everything?
Try it. See what happens. Maybe people should be penalized 20 points when "schooled" by my halfling team! 
Spazz
KarlLagerbottom - Aug 27, 2006 - 06:37 PM
Post subject:
Just a quick note...
I don't think a loss by one TD should be worth as much as a tie.
Spazzfist - Aug 27, 2006 - 07:17 PM
Post subject:
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
Just a quick note...
I don't think a loss by one TD should be worth as much as a tie.
Gee..... then your tourney scores are really going to suck! 
KarlLagerbottom - Aug 27, 2006 - 07:50 PM
Post subject:
Spazzfist wrote:
Gee..... then your tourney scores are really going to suck!
GLUK GLUK GLUK...
Doubleskulls - Aug 27, 2006 - 08:45 PM
Post subject:
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
Just a quick note...
I don't think a loss by one TD should be worth as much as a tie.
I'd agree with that both on principle and for psychological reasons.
If you are losing by 1 TD you have nothing to gain from scoring - and everything to lose by giving up the ball. This should encourage negative play from coaches who don't rate their chances of winning when 1-0 behind at the half.
The principle (IMO) is that you should make it very difficult for someone with a worse result (i.e. WDL) to get a better score. Every coach who loses by 1 and wins on cas will end up with a better score than one who drew and tied on cas.
CyberHare - Aug 28, 2006 - 03:14 AM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
The principle (IMO) is that you should make it very difficult for someone with a worse result (i.e. WDL) to get a better score. Every coach who loses by 1 and wins on cas will end up with a better score than one who drew and tied on cas.
Difficult agreed but I don't think it should be impossible. Hmm perhaps a small tweak.
Win = 50 points
Tie = 30 points
Loss = 15 points
"Kept it close" - Lost by 1 TD = +10
"Got Schooled" - Lost by 3+ TD = -5
"Hurt 'em" - Caused 1 more cas than your opponent = +5
"Killed 'em" - Caused 2+ more cas than your opponent = +10
"Smoked 'em" - Won by 2 = +5
"Blow Out" - Won by 3+ = +10
KarlLagerbottom wrote:
I don't think a loss by one TD should be worth as much as a tie.
That is one of the suggested changes I've heard from a few attendees. But it shouldn't be worth much less. Now a loss by one is worth 5 less points than a straight tie.
Aramil - Aug 28, 2006 - 03:28 AM
Post subject:
I personally hate to have casualties total involved in scoring... when you play dwarves and you put an opponent player out of bounds or in the KO box, for your style of play it's the same as killing him: it's out of the field and your match is easier.
Causing a Cas it's just a question of luck... it's two dices and getting a 10 instead of a 9.
A TD it's a question of strategy, a cas it's just luck. That's way I don't like the cas total to be involved in the point system that I use for my tourneys...
Bevan - Aug 28, 2006 - 04:15 AM
Post subject: Loss vs Draw
The revised system still suffers from the problem that Doubleskulls pointed out. A coach who loses but "kept it close' and 'Killed em' will score more than a player who gained a draw. A Dwarf team could lose every game and get a better result than a coach who drew every game. 
As Aramil has mentioned, the casualties are having too much of an effect on the overall score. You only need 1 & 2 points for the bonuses (not 5 & 10), so they act only as tie breakers but never move coaches ahead of others with a better win/loss record.
The system still seems unnecessarily complex. The Eucalyptus bowl had the simple system of (small) bonuses for TD difference and Cas difference up to a max of 3 for each category. Minor variations were discussed after the event, but it meant almost every TD or Cas made a difference, while the match result (WLD) was still by far the most important.
Yavatol - Aug 28, 2006 - 11:23 AM
Post subject:
Although I can see where Aramil is coming from I disagree. If you are awarding points for scoring more TDs you need to composate by awarding points for Cas. It is true that cas involves more luck, but there are teams that on average consistently score more Cas. And usually it is the teams that struggle to score many TDs.
Also, as a collector of most TDs awards, I can safely say that scoring many TDs also includes a considerable ammount of luck. If only in what teams you draw.
Milo - Aug 28, 2006 - 12:28 PM
Post subject:
Casualties involve more luck, but a bashing team earns more casualties by forcing more rolls, hence they deserve some sort of reward. It still shouldn't count as much as winning the game, though.
Notorious_jtb - Aug 29, 2006 - 10:41 AM
Post subject:
I'm a big fan of a (proper) football based scoring system.
Win = 3
Draw (tie) = 1
Loss = 0
Tiebreakers
TD +/-
Cas +/-
Results versus particular oponents
This way no body who looses is above anyone who ties, but a player who wins 3-0 is above someone who wins 1-0.
In fact you are above everyone who does not have an equal or better record (win/tie/loss) as yourself, which is surely what its all about.
This also leaves very little maths to be done!
We may use this at the new tournament in Ottawa next year (if i win the debate )
Doubleskulls - Aug 30, 2006 - 08:25 PM
Post subject:
Aramil wrote:
Causing a Cas it's just a question of luck... it's two dices and getting a 10 instead of a 9.
Sorry - but that's nonsense. Casualties are a question of making more blocks/fouls/crowd pushes - having the right skills and occassionally a bit of luck.
It is no different to scoring TDs which generally rely on good tactics - minimising the risky rolls and occassionally a bit of luck.
Aramil - Aug 31, 2006 - 03:03 AM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
Aramil wrote:
Causing a Cas it's just a question of luck... it's two dices and getting a 10 instead of a 9.
Sorry - but that's nonsense. Casualties are a question of making more blocks/fouls/crowd pushes - having the right skills and occassionally a bit of luck.
It is no different to scoring TDs which generally rely on good tactics - minimising the risky rolls and occassionally a bit of luck.
Sorry Ian, but I disagree with you on that topic... Haven't you ever seen a match where the "light" team (like an elvish one...) get much more cas than the "heavy" one?
I did... and many times! I remember an orc vs norse match at the DungeonBowl 2004 (where I met you) between an incredible hitter like Tim against an Italian girl, Margot, who was still learning to play... and it ended with 0 cas (the in-famous "Mighty Pillow Match").
In your opinion Tim is a coach who doesn't know how to hit? Definately not, in my opinion, but in that match he was always rolling 9 instead of 10... and that's a question of luck.
For many teams getting a KO it's as useful as a cas... so why a cas should give points and the KOs not? What's the difference between the two?
PS: we're talking about "normal" CAS, I think... so fouls and crowd cas doesn't count, isn't it? If you count also those two.. ok, so it's a bit more tactical than the easy throwing two dices... but still the difference between getting the points or not is decided by the dices
CyberHare - Aug 31, 2006 - 03:16 AM
Post subject:
I agree with Ian... Did I just say that? 
There is often a fair amount of luck involved in getting those TD's as well. Dodging through three tackle zones to pick up the ball in a tackle zone and 2 GFI for the TD. We've all seen the crazy plays before. It's the skill of the coach that minimises the amount of dice rolling needed. Always rolling a 9 instead of a 10 is a matter of the odds not of luck.
I can agree though that getting a KO in a tournament is often as usefull as a CAS.
SolarFlare - Aug 31, 2006 - 06:07 AM
Post subject:
I think there is merit to both sides of this. Sure, maximizing your chances of getting casualties is a matter of skill: lining up as many as possible 2 die blocks against (hopefully) a low AV opponent.
On the other hand, casualties tend to come in streaks. At a recent tournament, I (with a human team) caused 5 casualties in the first three turns against a Dwarf team. The next game, a (non-Khemri) coach caused 6 casualties to me in the first four turns. At a tournament last year, I lined my elves up against an experienced Khemri coach. I cringed when he won the opening toss and received. He caused his first casualty of the match on turn 5 of the 2nd half. Go figure.
I don't have a problem with, well, any of the scoring systems. And there is definitely something to maximizing your chances of causing casualties. But I think we've all seen some games where the blood just flowed... and it wasn't always due to great strategy.
Yavatol - Aug 31, 2006 - 10:00 AM
Post subject:
Same goes for high scoring games. That's not always up to strategy. Ever seen a 'heavy' team defeat a 'light' team because they did manage to pass the long bomb? I think Gorbad lost his first match an a Dutch Open 6-4 playing wood elves against humans (he'll hate me for bringing this up).
To avoid any discussion as to what is more important, valuable, depends on luck, we now use a 3/1/0 scheme for the Dutch Open, with TDs+Cas as the first tiebreaker. It has the disadvantage that in all likelyhood the tournament (100 players, 5 round) is decided on the tiebreaker, so you need to win and score TDs and/or Cas. But in the end that is what schemes that awards points for TDs and Cas down to, too.
TuernRedvenom - Sep 01, 2006 - 02:02 AM
Post subject:
Personally I think counting CAS for scoring is a good idea but it needs to be "capped" at a max amount of point gained per game. (and no my view on this has nothing to do with my DO 2nd place on CAS tiebreaker )
Because CAS scoring is more a case of luck then td's, especially because it's a whole lot easier to set up a casualty cascade once you get lucky in the first few turns, just having average luck over the rest of the half will still insure you more CAS as you're playing with more players and can take more advantegous blocks/fouls.
You can't really do that with TD's. If you are lucky early on to score a TD you will still need luck for the rest of the game for a TD cascade.
Furthermore usually having a CAS cascade going will mean scoring some easy TD's (picking up points from those too 
). OTOH scoring many TD's does not increase your chance on scoring a casualty (on the contrary even, as the opponent gets the chance to CAS you first while he receives).
Grumbledook - Sep 24, 2006 - 01:48 PM
Post subject:
The spikey club system is good imho
iirc
10 win
5 draw
0 lose
+1 for td (3 max)
+1 for cas (3 max)
I believe it covers most concerns. Though it would be possible for a coach who lost every game 4-3 and got 3 cas finishes above a coach who drew each game 0-0 but thats highly unlikely.
Buggrit - Sep 26, 2006 - 04:54 AM
Post subject:
Our League used this system when it started.
3 win
1 draw
0 loss
+1 for 3or< TD's
+1 for 5or< CAS's inflicted by Blocking or Fouling
When we restart the League this Saturday I'm changing a few things...
we'll be playing as
5 win
3 draw
1 loss
Bonuses for TD's will remain as they are
Bonuses for CAS's will be set so that you need to make 12-Oppositions LM's Armour number of CAS's for bonus points...
Which means Vs Halflings you need 6 Cas's
Vs Wood Elf = 5
Vs Dwarf = 3
This is just to reflect the difficulty of causing a CAS against that opponent. With the system we were using it was far easier to get the CAS bonus Vs Halflings than against Dwarves. I got 9 CAS against Halflings using my Orc team and they were down to 2 on pitch at the end of the match with both Treemen injured or KO'ed.