| Author |
Message |
Twahn |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Oct 17, 2005 - 05:26 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 15, 2004
Posts: 13
Status: Offline
|
|
7 point system is basically...
*1 point each for playing
*1 point for winning the CAS (0.5 each for a draw here)
*1 point for scoring 2+ more TDs
*1 point for losing by 1 TD only
*3 points for winning
*2 points for drawing
Your system above, Galak, is basically a more sophisticated version of the same thing, yes. |
_________________
Founder of the Southern Wastes League
DonTwahn's Dungeon = Cheap GW Minis!!
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 17, 2005 - 06:36 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Twahn wrote: 7 point system is basically...
*1 point each for playing
*1 point for winning the CAS (0.5 each for a draw here)
*1 point for scoring 2+ more TDs than opponent
*1 point for losing by 1 TD only
*3 points for winning
*2 points for drawing
Your system above, Galak, is basically a more sophisticated version of the same thing, yes.
Okay I think I understand ... so the version I use in those terms would like this ... helps me to compare ...
*1 point each for playing
*0.5 point for winning the CAS
*0.5 point for scoring 2+ more CAS than opponent
*1 point for scoring 2+ more TDs than opponent
*1 point for losing by 1 TD only
*4.5 points for winning
*2.5 points for drawing |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
biggy |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 17, 2005 - 07:24 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 57
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
You might not have that issue in Oz ... but I DEFINITELY have it where I am. So the point system because of this insures that if you are playing close and tight and lose a game ... you are not completely out of the running.
Galak[/quote]
Geez, if you're only in it to win 'get a life'. It's Bloodbowl not the superbowl. My basic attitude to people like that is 'you're an utter loser and we're better off without you'. Bloodbowl is a 'beer and pretzels' game at it's core and if your taking it that seriously then you really need to assess your priorities. I rarely win anything, my luck is just that bad and I keep playing because it's fun.
This was my main objection to the ogre changes. The 'fun' of playing teams like gobbos or 'flings is the occasional win against the odds. The changes being made to ogres mean you NEVER win and your team gets crippled more often than not due to snotling deaths. It's no longer fun so they won't be played. Anyway I digress. Keep up the good work Babs. I'll still show up and get well and truly rodgered by every team I come up against.
Hmmm, Norse for Cancon? I'll have to think....
Andrew |
_________________
"Crush your enemies. See them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women!"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Chunky |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 17, 2005 - 07:49 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
Posts: 165
Status: Offline
|
|
I think part of the reason we don't have this problem so much in Australia is geographical isolation. Very few people over here have enough blood Bowl that they can dismiss a bunch of games just because they ain't going to win the tourney. We are also in general a lot more laid back.
Just another quick question though Galak - what is the social scene or camaraderie like for the tourneys over there? It sounds to me like it could do with a boost. People will tend to be happy to keep playing when they are getting to see mates they haven't seen since the last tourney IMO, and promoting a good bit of socialising during and after tourneys tends to promote this IMO.
You'll also notice when I did my win > 2 draws> 2 losses I said it was a baseline. For reasons of tournament necessity, I'd still have some effect for casualties/TDs, I'd just like to make sure its in a better proportion to the win/draw/loss framework. |
_________________
Come to Eucalyptus Bowl!
http://eucalyptus-bowl.doubleskulls.net/
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 17, 2005 - 09:00 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Maybe Babs's system would work better with 9 point split - just giving an extra 2 points for the win and 1 for a draw.
Such scoring differences rarely make a difference to the overall winner - but they can make a huge difference to the final ranking in the pack. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Twahn |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 17, 2005 - 10:23 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 15, 2004
Posts: 13
Status: Offline
|
|
Yeah, that's what I said yesterday too, so I guess it's no surprise that I'm right behind you on this one Doubleskulls! 
It's basically the same as the current system, which would keep those set in their ways happy enough, but rewards more for actually winning. |
_________________
Founder of the Southern Wastes League
DonTwahn's Dungeon = Cheap GW Minis!!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 18, 2005 - 07:42 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 742
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
Galak,
slight problem with the way you explained it:
There is no 0.5 points for 2+ casualty win.
It works this way:
7 points distributed between the two coaches
1 point to each coach for playing the game
3 points for a win
2 points to each coach is the score is tied
1 point to the winner if the win is by more than one TD
otherwise that point goes to the loser (if the win is only by one TD)
1 point to the winner of the casualty count
(0.5 points if it is drawn)
~~~~
Twahn,
Please explain how a 9 point system would work that would:
* keep the current (6-1 point) winners from streaking away from the pack so that the leaderboard is close
* Keep the fair system and balance between casualites and TD's
I don't know how it would work. The 7 point system is tried and true - and although the draw scenario is icky - the system results in a close contest most of the time.
Just 'whacking' an extra couple of points in for the win might have the disadvantage of stretching those whitewash games out in front too far, leaving too many points between first place and the bottom of the table. I like the 7 point system because the stretch of points is few enough that a draw or close loss doesn't leave you out of the running - in fact a loss in the first round can be easily overcome to catch the top four. This _will_ be effected by a 9 point system as a draw, worth significantly less points than a win, will drop players. 2 Draws will leave you out of the running in some systems. The 7 point system means that a draw or two won't leave you out of the running, even if some others win all their games bar the last round. That's the difference in the systems. Am I making things clear or not?
Now I understand Twahns point that that can make the system _unfair_ as someone who draws a couple of games can overtake someone with some close wins (and I agree that a draw should be worth less than a close win) - but it can also be an advantage in keeping the tournament close and exciting. |
_________________
=-) Babs
Washed up old has been.
Ex-official GW Blood Bowl Rules Committee member
Ex-NAF Tournament Organiser, Australasia
Co-Author of the Feudball first novel.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 18, 2005 - 07:47 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 742
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
Chunky,
Actually having people not show up because of poor performance _is_ a problem. I've had people not show for day 2 in tournaments in over half of the tournaments I've run. Having people arrive _late_ for day 2 is even more likely. Actually, MOAB 2005 was exceptional in that we didn't lose anyone we weren't expecting to, and everyone started game 2 on the Sunday by 1/2 past 9. |
_________________
=-) Babs
Washed up old has been.
Ex-official GW Blood Bowl Rules Committee member
Ex-NAF Tournament Organiser, Australasia
Co-Author of the Feudball first novel.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Chunky |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 18, 2005 - 08:26 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
Posts: 165
Status: Offline
|
|
Are you sure they quit for this reason, or were there other issues at hand?
If people are going to quit for this reason, are they really people we want playing in the first place?
If someone is doing badly enough to be out of the running, won't this be the case no matter what system you run? To truly be out of the running you need to be a fair way back after all - I've seen plenty of day 1 leaders ball way back through the pack in my tourney lifetime.
Does it highlight a need to make some changes in those tourneys? Cancon had 4 painting related prizes, and MOAB had 2 - if we had only one, and transferred the rest into other areas, wouldn't this then give people something else to play for? |
_________________
Come to Eucalyptus Bowl!
http://eucalyptus-bowl.doubleskulls.net/
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Twahn |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 19, 2005 - 12:32 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 15, 2004
Posts: 13
Status: Offline
|
|
Babs wrote: Galak,
slight problem with the way you explained it:
There is no 0.5 points for 2+ casualty win.
Galak was transferring his very similar system into something based around the same scale as our 7 point system here. His is essentially very similar except with scores formulated in a way where a win of any discription is guaranteed to be better than a draw, and a draw better than a loss.
Babs wrote: Twahn,
Please explain how a 9 point system would work that would:
* keep the current (6-1 point) winners from streaking away from the pack so that the leaderboard is close
* Keep the fair system and balance between casualites and TD's
Well, for starters, I'd prefer to see somebody who is completely owned in a match get streaked away from than see someone who consistently wins though is beaten up on whilst doing so get nowhere.
A win is a win in my books. Getting beat up on has it's own consequences and generally makes further winning a little harder (enough of a penalty in my books). Not scoring lots of touchdowns likewise has it's own consequences (less SPP and team development).
I win 4 games and the Orc next to me draws 4, and I look at the table to find we're neck and neck in the middle of the table? Nothing demoralising about that...
What keeps the current 6-1 winners from streaking away from the pack? They get 6, their opponent gets 1. That's a fair difference.
When my team has AV7, and my opponent has AV9, who is going to suffer the most casualties do you think? 5/12 chance of breaking my armour. 2/12 of breaking his. Hmmm? It certainly doesn't take any skill from the Orc coach to turn these maths into what is essentially a bonus point for his well armoured teams. For every casualty I score, he's likely to score 2.5 of them!
I beat him anyway, though my players don't really have the speed (their Amazons) to score very quickly so we only beat him by 1. Still, it's a victory, and we're happy to have achieved it! Until we look at the scoreboard after our fourth such game and see that we're on level footing with some guy with a 2-1-1 record?!
What's going to make ME come back the next day? Do I naturally have a more robust demeanor than these guys who aren't winning and we're trying to encourage to return? Will I just return regardless? They lose and still want a shot, but I win and can't expect one? What's going to make ME come back?
The 9 point system rewards players more for a win, and also more for a draw. Essentially, it offers them less for a loss. Isn't this fair enough? The Swiss system is enough, IMHO, to ensure that the competition is sufficiently close. The winners are stopped from streaking away by the fact that they are forced to play each other, essentially forcing them to stop winning.
What having such a large importance given to piling on the CAS and TD does is encourage playing with teams that are capable of such feats (basically as fast and highly armoured as possible). |
_________________
Founder of the Southern Wastes League
DonTwahn's Dungeon = Cheap GW Minis!!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Chunky |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 19, 2005 - 04:02 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
Posts: 165
Status: Offline
|
|
| The point Twahn raises about winning and getting smashed on casualties is a very valid one IMO - to me these wins mean MORE than any 6-0 5-1 flogging - you've overcome probably bad luck and bad odds to get there. You also have to deal with using bandaids and sticky tape to keep your team together for the rest of the tourney. Yet you look at the scoreboard and find some twat who ignored the ball so long he only managed a draw against 3 players on the pitch is on the same points. |
_________________
Come to Eucalyptus Bowl!
http://eucalyptus-bowl.doubleskulls.net/
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 20, 2005 - 05:46 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Babs wrote: Just 'whacking' an extra couple of points in for the win might have the disadvantage of stretching those whitewash games out in front too far, leaving too many points between first place and the bottom of the table.
 The 9 point split increases the difference between wins, draws and losses. The difference from the margin of victory is the same. So what you'll see is that the extra points for winning actually make the margin of victory less important - not more.
"Keeping it close" doesn't actually make sense anyway - unless you actually do think Twahns scenario ought to resolve with the 3-3-1 record beating a 7-0-0 record. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
