| Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject: New twist on scoring
 Posted: Aug 27, 2006 - 08:56 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
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. |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
Spazzfist |
|
|
Post subject: Re: New twist on scoring
Posted: Aug 27, 2006 - 11:06 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 16, 2004
Canada
Posts: 3954
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
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!  |
_________________
#1 Nurgle coach in Canada (formerly the world!)
#1 Snotling coach in Canada
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Clan_Skaven |
|
|
Post subject: Re: New twist on scoring
Posted: Aug 27, 2006 - 12:00 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 19, 2003
Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Posts: 2604
Location: Niagara Falls ON, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
_________________
"2006 SPIKE Champion!"
"Death-Bowl IV & V, Most Casualties!, Death-Bowl VI Best Team!"
"2008 Dagger Bowl Champion"
Host of the Warpstone Cup, Q'ermitt Bowl & the Hope Bowl
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
SolarFlare |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 27, 2006 - 01:01 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 24, 2004
Posts: 199
Status: Offline
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: New twist on scoring
Posted: Aug 27, 2006 - 01:32 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
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. |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 27, 2006 - 01:43 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
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". |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Spazzfist |
|
|
Post subject: Re: New twist on scoring
Posted: Aug 27, 2006 - 02:00 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 16, 2004
Canada
Posts: 3954
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
_________________
#1 Nurgle coach in Canada (formerly the world!)
#1 Snotling coach in Canada
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
KarlLagerbottom |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 27, 2006 - 06:37 PM
|
|
Joined: May 25, 2004
Undisclosed
Posts: 1148
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
Just a quick note...
I don't think a loss by one TD should be worth as much as a tie. |
_________________
Karl Lagerbottom - Dwarf Blocker of Renown
NAF Member #5236
---
 
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Spazzfist |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 27, 2006 - 07:17 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 16, 2004
Canada
Posts: 3954
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
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!  |
_________________
#1 Nurgle coach in Canada (formerly the world!)
#1 Snotling coach in Canada
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
KarlLagerbottom |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 27, 2006 - 07:50 PM
|
|
Joined: May 25, 2004
Undisclosed
Posts: 1148
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 27, 2006 - 08:45 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 28, 2006 - 03:14 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
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. |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aramil |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 28, 2006 - 03:28 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 424
Location: Rovigo, Italy
Status: Offline
|
|
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... |
_________________
Fulvio Cavicchi
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Bevan |
|
|
Post subject: Loss vs Draw
Posted: Aug 28, 2006 - 04:15 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Aug 28, 2006 - 11:23 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Posts: 64
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
