Point Differential -or- other Tournament Scoring

[Codeman]

First off I’m not promoting “ a standard “ my efforts here is to explore various options to determine how to sort out the placing at tournaments, and to explain “ point differential “ the method we use. Obviously the won / loss record is the first criteria. After that it can get fuzzy and I know figuring the placing is done several different ways.

We have been successful using Swiss style play with “ point differential “ calculated as the second determining factor after the won / loss record.

There are several reasons I like this format. First it is clean and easy… and almost eliminates the possibility of any ties. Secondanly it pairs up people with similar ability or luck together as the tournament goes on. The best reason however I feel it best represents the true scoring of your battle. In real life if we won a battle but lost 90% of our troops in that effort most if not all people would not consider this much of a victory if a victory at all. On the other hand if we won a battle and in the process didn’t lose any troops we all would be ecstatic about our military expertise. I think it would be good to rate our battles in this same way.

This is what point differential can do for us. In a battle that you win and can keep most of you army alive on the board you get more points ( and you should … it was a good victory ) . However if you would win or lose a close battle ( down to one or two figures each ) the point differential would recognize this. The winner did not get many points for the win and the loser did not lose so many points in this battle ( it was recognized as a close game ). The loser still lost but he kept his point differential close and by the tournaments end when the points are tallied up he may be able to gain a better place due to having a better point differential among others with identical records.

I just feel point differential best depicts actual victory conditions in real war, and makes a great secondary sort after the won / loss record.

What are your thoughts? Do you like? What is wrong with this method? Something better?

[Codeman]

Note: In the download section is a .pdf file of a couple Tournament Score Sheets set up for point differential.

Link to score sheets - http://www.heroscapers.com/download/?dlid=639


Quick example:
Play A & B each has a 500-point army.
Player A wins and has 180 points left on the board his score card shows 3 points for the win and +180 point differential.
Player B lost by total defeat before time ran out. His scorecard shows 1 point for the loss and a point differential of – 180 points.

After this round all score cards are turned in and arranged by point (win/loss record) and then by point differential – The top two scorecards play each other, the next two play one another, and so on until you get down to the last two pairs which are most likely winless with high point deferential. You keep doing this and playing rounds until you are down to one undeafted player.

[poopdood]

good i dea but how do u get 580 from 180 and 500? i dont get that... i think it would work alittle better if u do this... ill give example..
Ex..------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army A - 500pts
Army B - 500pts

Army A eliminates Army Bs whole army --- he gets 500 pts and the win
Army B kills half of Armys As team --- getting 250pts and the loss
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the points u get our based on the pts of the card

[Codeman]

good i dea but how do u get 580 from 180 and 500? i dont get that... i think it would work alittle better if u do this... ill give example..
Ex..------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army A - 500pts
Army B - 500pts

Army A eliminates Army Bs whole army --- he gets 500 pts and the win
Army B kills half of Armys As team --- getting 250pts and the loss
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the points u get our based on the pts of the card



I guess it was too quick of an example... I scewed up ... anyway thanks for pointing that out. The example was intended to help not confuse... I got it fixed now, sorry

It is meant to be the point diffence in the game - a prefect game would be 500 PD in this example. The closest game would be everyone killed off on both sides but one 25 point figure was all that was left in the winner would have a +25 PD and the loser would have -25 PD

[The_View]

I agree codeman, our way of running a tourney is very well structured. Just don't bring Hawthorne :)

[AlCapwned]

Is this just to determine match-ups, or does it determine winners? If all it does is match-up, it has the possibility of being abused, albeit slightly. For example, let's say I'm playing a match. I annihilate my opponents army, not losing a single piece. He has his KMA left. I send my Roman Archers to fight, just to get them killed. I repeat this until I bring in my Sergent Drake to finish them off. Instead of having a +500 to my total, placing me up against the best players, I get +110.

-Al

[Codeman]

Is this just to determine match-ups, or does it determine winners? -Al

Both.

During the tourney ( other than the first round which is random ) it works great to do pairing ( no seeding, no guess work, just plain facts / stats )again it pairs people of similar skill or luck on that day. Example if your off to a rough start 0-3 you know your not going up against the tournament champion next but another person with a 0-3 record or 1-2 (most li kely with high point differental ) at best. On the other end if you keep winning you know your most likely going to go up against another undefeated person.

At the end when one person ends up undefeated, this system will rank or place everyone that finish 4-1 as well as the next group that finished at 3-2 and then 2-3 and so on. Again It rewards people who take care of their army, and if you should lose a close game you are somewhat rewarded for having a close game, and the winner does not get a lot of points for a narrow victory.

[TyG17]

I like the idea codeman. It takes a little t figure out but after you get it its a really good concept, one i might use...

[Taylor21279]

I wish the local tourneys here did that. It's mass confusion from beginning to end. I would definitely would like to see some structure here, as the comic shop that I play at mostly has boys playing so they are used to confusion. I am 27 though, used to structure and will bring it up to the owner. Thanks Codeman.

[Josef]

They do somthing like that in heroclix tournaments, and I think that would be cool. They make armys much like heroscape. You make a army of say 500 points, and in the end the points you have are your remaining points and the points you killed. Much like what poopdood said, really its statisticaly the same except for if you did not make a perfect point army.

Heres how it would work
player A, 500 points
player B, 485 points

Player A wins and killed 300 points of player B.
Player B loses and killed 250 points of player A.

So the totals are 550 for player A, and 435 for player B.

It's different and makes for wierd exeptions which i don't want to type all up right now :p maby i'll be back later.

[dnutt99]

Though I don't understand this system completely, I think I understand it enough. I can only see some of the obvious drawbacks, (for me).
First off, THIS ISN'T REAL LIFE. I don't say that to ruffle anyones feathers but this is a game, meant to be fun.
I admit that YES this is a tactic strategy based game, but at some point you're hindering a variety of different army options.
:!: Vernoc Vipers, Marrden Hounds, Warriors of Ashra, Shaolin Monks - All of these units are fairly cheap in price and pretty much promote you to be in the thick of battle to be effective, ... Vernocs ARE EXPENDABLE and are designed that way.
:!: Gladiatrons/Blastatrons - You MUST engage the Glads and you are certainly going to take casualties; they're almost designed as an expendable unit for the Blastatrons
:!: MacDirk Warriors - You play with them but they still have an attack of 2 because their human champion has been hiding behind a wall all day.
:?: What about the heavy hitters :?:
:!: What good does it do to keep Krug at bay if because you're scared of losing 120 points. He's a great brawler, put him out there to take hits so you can return the favor TWICE each turn!
:!: Jotun, ... a 225 point powerhouse. Get him out there, let him get engaged. He gets to throwing people in lave/at Nakitas, wild swingin everywhere knockin out the competition with plenty of life a deal significant damage.
That's what these guys are built for, ... but with point differential it forces players to hold back for fear of losing any of his units. I don't think many players pick an army and just throw everone in the ring to mix it up until only one person remains. There is strategy and there are tactics used when playing this game, but this system of scoring, IMO, promotes stale slow-going gameplay. All I can visualize is Krav, AE, and Rats everywhere because everyone's scared to take a loss. That's lame and pretty much defeats the purpose of playing in the first place, again, IMO.
Example:
I have 1 squad, (all 4), Marrow Warriors, and Jotun with 4 wounds left. (260 points)
My opponent has 2 squad, (all 4) Sacred Band, 1 squad, (all 4) Tarns, and 1 squad, (all 3), Krav agents. (250 points)

- Jotun manages to take out 3/3 Krav, 2/4 Tarns, and 7/8 Sacred Banders before going down.
- I'm left with 1 full squad of Marrow Warriors totaling 50 points.
- My opponent has 2 Tarns and 1 Sacred Bands left for a total of 100 points.
:!: My opponent wins because he has more point total on the board, ... but he has no range, MW can clone to return previously destroyed units, and lets assume I have height advantage at the end of the 50 mins.
THERE IS NO WAY that I could ever be convinced that THAT is a loss. If anything I'd say that leans more toward a win.

Exmple:
- I have Nilfheim with one wound left. (185 points)
- My opponent has 3 full squads of Roman Legos. (150 points)

- If the game is called I win with 1, (almost dead), figure totaling 185 points vs. My opponents 3 full squads, (12 figures), that total 150 points. :headshake:

Not only does that seem crazy to me, but regardless of what tactics you use or whatever strategy you come up with to defeat your opponent, a large part of this game is determined by the roll of the dice. That results in the "best" players battling it out while the players, (who may just have had horrible rolls), to remain in the lower brackets. I like the idea of the underdog upsetting the chances of the favored opponent. Nothing is more satisfying to have the 0-4 player completely ruin the 3-1 players chances of getting into the finals!

In short I thinkn this style of point scoring has more drawbacks than advantages with regards to character/army selections, plain common sense,and the random roll of dice.
:2cents:

PS - This is NOT real life.

[Stealth Dodge]

-I personally prefer to not count point differential. Point Differential can encourage cheese/delay tactics. It's not difficult to imagine a case where 1 person takes a lead and then stalls/etc until the time runs out and they win on points.

-Another Point Differential Problem. I go 4-1 and my friend goes 4-1. For each of my wins (4) I win by 100 points leaving me with a +400. My opponent wins 1 game in a blowout and gets a +400 then wins his other 3 matches by 30 points each giving him +90. In this scenario my friend would rank higher even though I had 3 decent sized wins and he only had 1. I'd say that clearly the person who consistently won by +100 was better than the person who barely beat the others but had 1 gigantic win. Point Differential dratically skews a single extreme event.

- Point Making also has a King-Making Problem. It's not difficult to imagine 1 friend who is losing allowing his last few armies being wiped out so that his friend can achieve a HUGE Point Differential boost and therefore passing the person they do not know

[solarianus]

the only obvious problem i see with this method is that it rewards people for using high life units and masses of commons over unique squads.

as an example.....to determine points value at the end of a game.....is killing off one squad of samurai while losing 200 points worth of gruts a 'victory'? the ability to lose twice as many points worth of units but still 'winning' due to spreading out your losses among many cards or retreating each hero once they are down to one or two life sure doesn't sound like winning to me.

[Codeman]

They do somthing like that in heroclix tournaments, and I think that would be cool. They make armys much like heroscape. You make a army of say 500 points, and in the end the points you have are your remaining points and the points you killed. Much like what poopdood said, really its statisticaly the same except for if you did not make a perfect point army.

Heres how it would work
player A, 500 points
player B, 485 points

Player A wins and killed 300 points of player B.
Player B loses and killed 250 points of player A.

So the totals are 550 for player A, and 435 for player B.

It's different and makes for wierd exeptions which i don't want to type all up right now :p maby i'll be back later.

using your example :
A wins with a + 75 PD
B loses with a -75 PD

A had 250 points on the board minus the 185 points team B had left.

[Stealth Dodge]

Point Differential's Huge flaw is that it gives too much influence to a Single extreme event. 1 gigantic win shouldn't basically hand a player that tournament

[dnutt99]

:ponder: Codeman, I'm curious to know what you think of my, solarianus', and Stealth Dodge's opinions, and how they're typically handled by your point system!

[Josef]

I think that your points shouldn't stack for the rest of the tounrament. You could tally them up over time though for like an over all ranking.

All the points depend on how you want the games to be played. If you want to push the best stratigic moves you play all the way through, if you can't you take points out for each individual fig (even portions of squads). You can also push the whole card killing, to represent the fact that if you don't kill a whole army the enemy's army the remaining fig could return to base and give "information" or what not, representing what one left over could do. Or the heroclix way, the player with the lower points would have a disadvantage, because if they tied in the # killed but the higher would still have more points, this sorta makes a player want to fill all the points rather them make the most synergetic army. Giving a little bonus to creative army construction.

At all depends on how you want the game to be played and how you want each action to determin the winner.

[Codeman]

Dnutt99, you make several good points, however using this method in several tournaments I have not seen what you propose happen. First point is as far as I know everyone is playing for the win ( not points ) so yes the heavy hitters do come out, I don’t see anyone holding back. Most all games do finish prior to time expiring so stalling is not an issue. Yes your last example can happen and does but I think it is the exception.

I myself play for a win first, of course I don’t try to sacrifice my troops either but in some cases I know that is what I have to do. I assume that is why many of us chose to engage when we do, for tactical reasons knowing we are going to sacrifice our engaged warrior in the process.

Thank you for your thoughts this is what this thread is about. I just wanted counter with my comments that I don’t see stall tactics too often and I do believe everyone plays for the win, it doesn’t mean it can’t or will not happen, I just don’t see it being an issue.

I would like to see what the folks who attended the Tree Town October in October thought, especially the one who didn’t finish in the top 10. They may be able to address your concerns better as I that may cancel my bias or perceived bias responding to your comments.

[Codeman]

Point Differential's Huge flaw is that it gives too much influence to a Single extreme event. 1 gigantic win shouldn't basically hand a player that tournament

The undeafted player get the tournament. As far as taking 2nd as opposed to 6th nothing that happens in one game should affect that... it is the cumlative point total over sveral matchs... so I do think it works well the more matches played the better this system should work. It's not one game it is the average of all games.

[Stealth Dodge]

6 games is not nearly enough games though for a gigantic win to not skew the results. Imagine in 1 game my vipers frenzy non stop and I win with a perfect +500 differential. Over the next 5 games any competitors would have to not only win but outgain me in differential by 100 points per match merely to catch up to my 1 huge win

[Codeman]

:ponder: Codeman, I'm curious to know what you think of my, solarianus', and Stealth Dodge's opinions, and how they're typically handled by your point system!

This one?

"I'm left with 1 full squad of Marrow Warriors totaling 50 points.
- My opponent has 2 Tarns and 1 Sacred Bands left for a total of 100 points.
My opponent wins because he has more point total on the board, ... but he has no range, MW can clone to return previously destroyed units, and lets assume I have height advantage at the end of the 50 mins.
THERE IS NO WAY that I could ever be convinced that THAT is a loss. If anything I'd say that leans more toward a win. "

If there was not a time limit you would be sitting good, however everyone knows you have an hour to finish your battles ( again most matchs do finish ) so yes you do lose! That is the only way to call it. If you didn't you will have a much more complicated scoring system than thisl

The biggest army left on the board when time up has to win! I don't see how to get around that.

[Stealth Dodge]

One obvious solution ias far as Heroes is that wounds on a Hero are points deducted from them. So if Nilfheim has only 1 life left then Nilfheim is only worth 31 points

[Codeman]

6 games is not nearly enough games though for a gigantic win to not skew the results. Imagine in 1 game my vipers frenzy non stop and I win with a perfect +500 differential. Over the next 5 games any competitors would have to not only win but outgain me in differential by 100 points per match merely to catch up to my 1 huge win

I'm going out on the limb and say NO. You just assumed that your oppoents won without scoring any points.

I will use real numbers; The people who finish in the top 4 places the TTO scored the following in their first round games
280
390
490
330

in the first round - so you would have a 10 point lead and most likely be match up with him in the second game. ( acctually you would not have a 10 point lead as our army size was 490 max)

[Codeman]

One obvious solution ias far as Heroes is that wounds on a Hero are points deducted from them. So if Nilfheim has only 1 life left then Nilfheim is only worth 31 points

You could. I am infavor of keeping it simple and counting whole card points. I suggest if you are that close to killing him you need to do it before time expires ( I keep saying this - but again most games end before time expires )

[Stealth Dodge]

Just because it did not happen that time does not mean that it could not happen. Anyone with Mindshackle would be gigantic too. Mindshackle their Q9 and you could win with a differential of almost 700 points

[Codeman]

Just because it did not happen that time does not mean that it could not happen. Anyone with Mindshackle would be gigantic too. Mindshackle their Q9 and you could win with a differential of almost 700 points

Yes, if it is possiable... it will happen... I agree :D

As far as minshackle Q9 that is only a 185 points ( not 700 ), and that is if Q9 is still standing - you do have the opertunity to kill Q9 also :D .

Mindshackle is part of the game... it's not one I personally like but it is there and I play by the rules that HS gives us.

[Stealth Dodge]

Actually Q9 is 180 not 185 :P I said 700 cuz I rounded:)

[Codeman]

Actually Q9 is 180 not 185 :P I said 700 cuz I rounded:)

Sorry I didn't look up the card ( I was close )
Note: be careful rounding like that .... the IRS will be after you.

I hope I address your eariler questions or concerns. Thanks for stiring up some dialog on this topic ... that is what I am after, as we have many people on this site. The more people that can scrutinize this thread and offer suggestions or opinions the easier it is to fine tune this or scrape this if there is something better.

[Codeman]

I've posted the result sheet of the 2006 TTO. I thought it would be good if everyone could see a real sample. This way everyone can review what the won loss records look like and compare them with the corresponding point differential and see how everything interacts within the placement.

I hope this helps everyone get better picture how this method worked. I whish I had how many games finished within time ( as this seems to be a reoccurring thyme on why this doesn’t work ). My best guess is that out of 19 games each round everyone finished with the exception of 2 or 3 games each round. I know none of my games went the full hour.

Here are the results:
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n1/Codeman1957/ttoresults1471namesout.jpg

[Alastair MacDirk]

Some of the negatives-
1. Large figures with huge life points have an advantage unless you prorate each life point as a # of points, you count partial squads and split the points on squad cards, so it seems fair to charge points for each life lost of a huge figure.
2. All armies are not created equal... some armies are only built to 385 points in a 400 pt. tourney.... therefore it seems unfair that someone would be penalized for playing against another player who chose not use all 400 points.
3. Counting points promotes defensive play... in a tourney with timed rounds it's better if all players are playing "balls out" aggressively trying for a win... not hiding behind cover and playing slow to preserve their precious points.
4. If the scenario is "kill 'em all" then that should be what is rewarded, not full credit for "moral victories" by getting up a few points and then milking that lead to the deadline. Codeman, it is not real-life... please don't use the analogy of a General squandering his men in battle.... how about the analogy of chess.... you're holding a timed tourney... you telling me that a player that plays for 50 mins and is leading by a pawn and a bishop deserves a greater victory more than a player that checkmated his opponent????
5. Any points based system is an arbitrary way to qualify victories in an artificial manner... if you are going to use it then don't call it a "kill 'em all" tourney... Call it "point differential tourney" and you better use a fixed number of rounds instead of time to end each game so it is fair to all players that they lasted the same # of potential attacks and chances to lose troops.

[Alastair MacDirk]

Another HUGE disadvatage that I almost forgot... but it is glaring. Using points does not account for strength of opponent. So you set up your tourney and Player 1 wipes out a Newb and only loses 3 grut orcs. Player 2 wins with 2 marro warriors left in a hard fought battle with a good experienced player... he is randomly penalized because of his "draw" aka matchup in that round. Points just are not fair unless all players play the Newb who gives away an easy win.

Counterpoint?

[Codeman]

Alastair MacDirk - Here are my responses to your concerns:

1. I think the point values on each card takes care of this concern. All figures / cards are made and valued so no figure would be more dominate per value than any other. If you do as you suggest with the wound markers I think you just made the “huge life” figures more valuable and messed up the fine work HS has done getting their values balanced.

2. That is correct if you choose to build an army under the max total that is your choice. I would assume you feel that is your strongest army and that is why you went with 385. I don’t think that is a penalty… it would be a penalty if we made some people have a lower max point total ( which we don’t). If you feel that penalizes you then you have that penalty with or without this system. On one of the maps at our TTO I had to leave off one Orc archer because of the starting zone size. I took this penalty myself because I though this was the best army even though I had to spot my opponent one archer before the game even started, but it was my choice.

3. I’ve answered this on previous answers – I don’t think it promotes defensive play at all and our tournaments have proven this. I think we all realize that the advantage goes to the attacker in this game and that is what happens in this game, and that is how our tournament have gone. If you do as you suggested I doubt that you will have a winning record. The only time I see this coming into play is late in the game in a close contest… but in that scenario I think we all would be cautious, as a mistake would probably lose the game for you.

4.” Kill’em all” is rewarded! You get the win ( that is most important) and as a side benefit it should also help your differential as you opponent will not have any points left to take away from you total. As I’ve said numerous times all most all games do end with one opponent” kill’em all” I think your confused with something I might have said ( although I don’t know what that is ) as the checkmated opponent does get the win – your example does not make sense to me.

5. I’m going to say 90% or more of the games do end in kill’em all. Even in the kill’em all scenario I still am using point differential for pairing and placement at the end of the tournament, so I don’t see how that supports your argument. I agree going X number of round would be great but in a tournament setting not everyone can spend all night playing or even the place hosting the event may have time constraints so the logical way to keep some control of the tournament is to go with hour rounds. An hour seems to be the right time for most everyone to get done ( at least 90% of the time).

You say it isn’t fair and will not work – May I ask how would you do the pairings after the first round is a Swiss style tournament and then how do you rank the people that finish 4-1, and the 3-2 and so on? What I am looking for if there is a better way or make this method better.

[Codeman]

Another HUGE disadvatage that I almost forgot... but it is glaring. Using points does not account for strength of opponent. So you set up your tourney and Player 1 wipes out a Newb and only loses 3 grut orcs. Player 2 wins with 2 marro warriors left in a hard fought battle with a good experienced player... he is randomly penalized because of his "draw" aka matchup in that round. Points just are not fair unless all players play the Newb who gives away an easy win.

Counterpoint?

Not at all --- Players that win continue to play undefeated players and the unfortunate player that fails to win will continue to play another player in the same boat. The inbetween people play the inbetween people, the tournament sorts itself out as it goes. The only random draw in this method is the first round. I don't know how you would seed player as many people have never played one another and even the ones that have who knows their records against one another... and if you did how would you apply that. It looks like a nightmare to me, and very complicated. I go back to my first statement - This way is clean and easy. Easy and simple in a tournament setting is what every Tournament Director wants :D

Edit: I don't think your solution is good for the Newb? Why would you want an expeninced play to pound on him ( although I'm not sure everyone would ). In our tournaments it only a random possiablity in the first round that a top level player would run into a "newb" as you put it. I think our pairing actually take care of what you believe is a problem.

[Stealth Dodge]

A double elimination bracket is the Best type of Tournament to run. You randomly seed the players and let them play until there is a Champion. If for example the 2 Best payers match up in Round 1 that person can till win his way through the Loser's Bracket and ultimately get another shot

[Codeman]

A double elimination bracket is the Best type of Tournament to run. You randomly seed the players and let them play until there is a Champion. If for example the 2 Best payers match up in Round 1 that person can till win his way through the Loser's Bracket and ultimately get another shot

I agree a true double elimination bracket is the fairest way if...........
you have 8 or less. If it is less then you have a bye to contend with. If you have 8 everyone may know everyone and you could seed the bracket. One possiable draw back is not everyone will be playing every round. The winner may only get three games in ( two if he is seeded and gets the bye ).

double elimination may be the fairest but I not sure it is the best due to the number of games peole play. If you have a loss and depending on how their oppents do you may get 5 matchs while the winner could only get two. If you battle for true 3 and 5 place the same applies.

If you go to 16 I'm not sure you can do it in one day... if you did it would be a full day, with many players waiting around for their next battle to come up. Again the winners may have long waits between matches.

My feelings are people come to a tournament to play...I think that is more import to most than winning. I would like for them to know they are going to have a game every hour ( or so ).

I do agree it is the fairest.... I just don't see it being the best

[dnutt99]

Codeman, I do appreciate you addressing my questions with a clear cut answer. Though I am still wary of the system you seem to have a lot of faith in it and has obviously worked for you thus far. However it goes, ... it will go, ...
I thinkn you said it best by saying most people want to play and knowing that you'll be consistently playing does hold a lot of weight for most attendees. :up:

[Alastair MacDirk]

I think you must be missing my point on huge figures if you think my suggestion makes them more valuable. What I am saying is this.... if for squad figures you count each figure killed towards points killed than it is only fair that you count each life point lost by Heros towards points killed. Fer instance, you drafted 6 Marrden hounds and have 2 remaining is 60 points remianing or 2 squads at 90 pts each x 2 divided by 6 figures= 30 points per figure. Then you have Charos at 210 points 9 life . Divide 210 by 9 and you get 23.333 points per life. So if Charos has 7 wound markers on him then he is only worth 46.66 Points left. How do you figure your point differential Codeman? Do you say that an entire squad must be killed to get credit or do you credit for partial squads killed, and if you do then why not for partial Heros killed?????

[Codeman]

Alastair MacDirk, yes I believe we had some confusion. Here is my attempt to explain how to figure point for squad card(s).

Squad units are counted by the card ( not divided up by the figure). If you have multiple squads you have to fill one card at a time ( HS rules ) as the squad figures die. Say you have a squad of 3 per card and only two die you still get the full points for that card. Example If you had four cards of arrow gruts ( 4 x 40 = 160 ) and 5 gruts were killed you would end up with 120 points of gruts left on the board, due to the fact only one card was filled and the second card still had an alive orc on the board. Obviously cards 3 and 4 are still intact since to all the orcs were still alive.

Arrow gruts make a good example for not dividing up card points: If you have a squad of 3 arrow gruts or 40 points that would end up being 13 1/3 points per grut if you were to divide it up! That would be a nightmare figuring points during a tournament. Some times we have problems adding up points that all end in a 0 or 5 :oops: , I don’t think we are ready for fractions during tourney time :roll: .

If at all possible I am all for Keeping it simple “– the Keeping it simple rule I feel is even more import in a tournament setting.

On figures with multiple life, they are also counted by the card - as long as they have one life left on the card you get full point value of the card - Again keep it simple.

[Eclipse]

Just a comment. Codeman's rules for counting points are the official rules for determining the winner when the game ends on time. You count up the value of all cards still in play regardless of how many wounds it has received (or figures destroyed for squads). Remember, with commons you are required to fill up a card before placing figures on a new card and removing it from play.

I really liked how this worked in the TTO, btw. It kept everyone playing all day and did a pretty good job matching up players of even skill levels. It seems like a pretty solid system, just different from what most people expect.

[Stealth Dodge]

I'd think that if your goal is to rank people by the results of the battle then it seems logical to subtract points for each wound. Nobody could logically think a Jotun with 1 life left is in a stronger position than an opponent who has 3 Krav + 4 4th Mass left

[Eclipse]

I'd think that if your goal is to rank people by the results of the battle then it seems logical to subtract points for each wound. Nobody could logically think a Jotun with 1 life left should win vs an opponent who has 3 Krav + 4 4th Mass left

But that's how the game is actually scored. Check the official scenarios with their 12 round limits. If at the end of Round 12 one side had Jotun with 1 life and the other had 3 Krav and 4 4th Mass, the side with Jotun would win.

The problem with subtracting based on wounds is that they're only part of the value of the card. You can't rank heroes per life, as units like the Deathwalkers throw that concept completely out the window. A hero is equally as dangerous until they've lost their last Life. Since every Life point (or Squad Figure) can be defended, it's not safe to assume a until has lost any value unitl it has been removed from the game entirely.

[Stealth Dodge]

Yes the piece has value BUT Point Differential should be used as an indicator to show how competitive a battle was.

-Imagine a battle involing a Viper Horde Vs Charos and Jotun. The battle goes back and forth until finally 1 squad of vipers is left along with a 1 life Jotun and a 1 life Charos. The Charos/Jotun players wins initiative and kills the last few vipers. That player in your system would achieve a perfect score that would indicate he dominated his opponent when in reality it was basically a draw

[Codeman]

Stealth Dodge – I get it you don’t like point differential – but what is your solution?

May I ask how you would score your example above? Better yet on page two of this tread you can see the results of the 2006 TTO – how would you sort out the 12 people who finished at 3-2 ?

I still don’t think PD is as terrible thing as you think – but again my goal is to improve this method or find even a better system – so if we agree or not doesn’t matter I just was hoping more sets of eyes & minds would mule over this issue and see if there is room for improvement.

What I can offer - I think it does work well but again maybe there is room for improvement and that is all I am after.

[Euryon]

I really like the idea of this point differential method and wish id known of it when we had the UK tournament.

Sure, its got some faults (as have been pointed out), but Ive not seen anything put forward that amicably addresses those faults.

At the moment, this looks like about the best method of scoring a tournament competetively whilst still keeping it fun - which is really what its about.

[Alastair MacDirk]

Just throwing this out as a possible alternate method to sepearate all the 3-2 players from the TTO tourney card. This is a method that is used in the BCS system of Division 1A college football. You can rank them by strength of schedule.... which means they eached played 5 games against 5 opponents.... add their opponents records together... whoever beat the opponents with a combined record with the greatest W/L record would have gone 3-2 against the toughest opponents. For instance Player 1 played 5 players with 4-1 records. He beat the first 3 and gave them their only loss, he lost to the last 2. Surely he is most deserving of the highest 3-2 ranking compared to Player 2 who beat three 0-5 opponents and then lost to two other 3-2 players. In your system it would not surprise me that the 3-2 player who faced the weakest competition (player 2) would have the highest point differential and be rewarded for that. ANOTHER GOOD ARGUMENT AGAINST THE POINT DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEM.

[Codeman]

Alastair MacDirck – Thank you for the suggestion… this is the kind of dialog I was looking for.

Actually Strength of scheldedual did cross my mind, and the only reason I did not go that direction was I think you almost need a computer to sort the strength of schedule out. If this is the case then someone would have to input results between rounds, again I’m not saying this can’t be done but compared to sorting the score cards by points ( won / loss ) and then sort by total cumulative point differential is quick and easy in comparision. What I think I will do is take the 2006 score cards and reevaluate the placing using Strength of Schedule and see how much that would have changed the results. Now my guess is even after Strength of Schedule is sorted out I may have some ties, I would then look at head to head competition next … if that isn’t there then may be I can use Point Differential :lol:

[Codeman]

As promised I recalculated the 2006 TTO results using Strength of Schedule. I’ve listed the placing in the TTO followed by how much Strength of Schedule would have affected the placing.

1 - = no change
2 – down 3
3 - = no change
4 – down 3
5 – up 3
6 - = no change
7 – up 3
8 – down 5
9 – down 1
10 – down 4
11 – down 8
12 – up 4
13 – up 4
14 – down 3
15 – down 3
16 – up 1
17 – up 5
18 – up 7
19 – up 3
20 - = no change
21 - = no change
22 – down 3
23 – down 4
24 – down 6
25 – down 3
26 -= no change
27 – up 3
28 – down 1
29 – up 6
30 –up 8
31 -= no change
32 – down 2
33 – down 3
34 – down 1
35 – up 3
36 – up 3
37 - = no change
38 -= no change

Most everyone was within 3 or 4 places of their original placement. The largest discrepancies were our 30 place finisher would have finished 22nd, and the 11th place would have finished 19th :shock: . Mathematically it averaged out that everyone was within 3.5 places using either system. This is relatively close, but I thought it would be even closer. Since everyone was paired by his or her record/points other than the random first round pairings I did expect it to be somewhat closer.


I will say P.D is much easier to calculate and do pairings by just arranging the scorecard in order and pairing everyone up

If SOS is done I think if you do you would almost need a laptop and have someone inputting the result between rounds. I don’t see it helping in making pairing until the third round and after. S.O.S. is also a good way to go may even be a fairer way to sort out the placing, but at this point I still am leaning toward keeping it simple with P.D. however.

If your interested I did go down 3 places ( however that outcome dosen't have a bearing on my decision :lol: )

[Satyr]

I'm planning on running the upcoming NorCal tournament using a Swiss System Point Differential structure similar to what Codeman has presented. Assuming 16 people, we’ll have 4 rounds of swiss seeding a semi final. The Swiss System provides an unbiased method for seeding players, can easily accommodate any number of players, and bottom line is its simple to implement ... especially since I'm trying to minimize down time and I'm going to be playing.

I had contemplated counting points based on remaining figures for squads, but again simplicity ruled. I can smell the smoke pouring from people ears as they try to figure out how many points they have remaining. I had not even contemplated prorating wounds for heroes, which seems to makes sense (even for the DWs) if you are prorating squads … provides a symmetry at least. I’m going to try this one day, just so I can smell all the burning hair.

Double elimination is fairly easy to run as well and was the other method I was seriously considering. The biggest issue is the extra games (time) required to sort out the loser’s bracket. A 16 person tournament requires a total of 8 rounds of games (possibly 9) … basically 8-9 hours. The other interesting effect is that the undefeated winner has to watch 3 games before playing in the finals. I’m not even going think about what happens with less than optimal players. A solid system, but requires a bunch of time.

Strength of Schedule is an interesting concept with what seems a sound methodology! I would agree that it provides a better overall ranking, but I’m thinking that it’s a bit complicated for me to use to match up people while competing. I am planning on brining my laptop, but even with that at my disposal it seems like it going to take more then 10 minutes to calculate everyone’s position. I may, however, bust out SoS to figure out everyone's ranking to seed a semi final … just to satisfy Alastair :P … gotta think about it.

Is Swiss PD System flawed … yup. Less than 25% of the TTO players stayed in the same position when compared to SOS. Most disturbing was the difference on the top 5 places. Even with that I’m still going to use Swiss PD to match players, but I’m really starting to move towards using SoS to determine final placing.

In true Satyr style we will have an amazingly bastardized tourney structure :twisted:

[Codeman]

Satyr if you don't mind after the tourney it would be interesting to see how strength of schedule would have changed your standings.

Saryr you said:
Less than 25% of the TTO players stayed in the same position when compared to SOS. Most disturbing was the difference on the top 5 places.

I didn't feel too bad about the 25% as long as most of the players were within 3 places or less as I think that is somewhat reasonable. What was more disturbing to me was the large jumps of 6,7,or 8 places, I didn't like see those big swings and I was surprized to see that. This is why I would like to see how your tourney fairs.. hopefully you will have closer margins.. I guess we will find out. It should be interested.

[gamjuven]

i think the only way u can do it is with the point differential system. i don't like the crush-win possibility where someone gets +400 pt differential for playing a very weak opponent. But then again that shouldn't happen anyway. if it does more power to them. hopefully everyone else will get a chance to play that person as well. i played in a tournament a while ago and it was exciting, with the pt differential actually coming in play. if you were to have a smaller group then perhaps you could just all play each other once or twice or something, using point differential, to determine a winner. i like the idea of elimination tournament, but u have most people sitting around doing nothing, and that's no fun. or u have people playing games that don't matter. using hte pt differential system everybody can play all the time and all the games matter. i don't know that's my shpeal

[Codeman]

i don't like the crush-win possibility where someone gets +400 pt differential for playing a very weak opponent. But then again that shouldn't happen anyway. if it does more power to them. hopefully everyone else will get a chance to play that person as well.

.....using point differential, to determine a winner. l

Thank you Gamjuven for your faith in this method, and your words of support, but I would like to clarify a couple comments you made.

You said, “ Hopefully everyone else will get a chance to play that person…” The point is there is not enough time to play everyone – unless you had 6 or 7 people and then you could do a round-robin format. That person (who got crushed) would be paired with another player with an identical record and that player also would have had the next closest point differential to him/her. So the scenario you stated would not happen, nor do I think you would want it too. Like I told someone else why would you want that person to continue to get hammered every game. Pairing up people this way allows people of similar ability or luck to be paired together. If you just lost your third game … the good news is you know you are going to probably play someone who also just lost their third game … a ray of hope for game 4.

Again P.D. is not used to determine a winner. We continue to have the undefeated players play each other ( they are paired up by P.D.) every round until eventually we have one undefeated champion. The winner is undefeated :D – everyone else has at least one loss :cry: .

[dnutt99]

<snip>.....using point differential ...... <snip>
<snip>......Pairing up people this way allows people of similar ability or luck to be paired together. If you just lost your third game … the good news is you know you are going to probably play someone who also just lost their third game … a ray of hope for game 4..... <snip>

:up: That's a solid point! As a matter of fact,... :oops: ,... I kinda suck,... :cry: It's not that I'm bad strategically, IMO. I just think a lot of times I waste points on non-compatable units because I do make an effort to field "the lonely ones". I've had my @$$ haded to me repeatedly at gamedays. Some games were :chainsaw: ,... games that were :nkick: ,... ones that were :fencing: ,... and ones that were :deadhorse: ! None of which I've ever won! :cry: I'm 0-4 for Gamedays at a total of about 16 games. 80% were 1 on 1 games. So I can certainly sympathize with this statement,...
and thanx for looking out, ... for the little guy,...
*single tear drips from eye and rolls down cheek*

[Codeman]

Need Help!

Could someone from the Beantown Beatdown II post here and explain that scoring system. It is obviously quite different, and I would like to understand it. Right now it looks to me that win/loss record is secondary or doesn’t even count for anything! I understand you get 500 ( army size ) points for the victory. I’m not as sure about these scenarios but I believe if you loose or if you loose or win and time runs out you get points for what you have killed.

What I need help with, as it appears to me you could be undefeated (example 3-0-1) and possibly due to being paired with a slow player …. You are then penalized and can finish in the middle of the pack! It also looked like someone finish 2-2-0 and took 4th placed… ahead of several folks won 3 matches! Help me...what am I missing?

If my questions sound like I am criticizing this system I’m not (well, not yet, after I understand this system I reserve the right to ). I just don’t know of a way to ask these questions without it sounding a little harsh.

I also would be interested in how the pairing are done ( points I assume ?)… otherwise it would have taken more that 4 rounds to get to an undefeated… so I also assume there where other undeafted players, but due to not finishing their game do to various reasons they finish lower in the standing? Using the standing Asmiles posted on the Beantown Beatdown thread it appeard there were 19 games went to time (had to be decided by points) out of 72 games. Which is a higher percentage than we have been discussing on this thread ( this can be tweaked with small point army or more minutes per round (appox 500/hour appears to be good )). Again I don’t mean to make judgments until I get the facts from someone at Beantown.

Again, there are a lot of systems out there and that is ok… again my intent is to try to understand them and tweak our point differential system to make it even better or scrap it if something would be better ( which may be a combination of several systems ). The good thing to remember the scoring system used does not stop any of us from having fun playing the game… :D it great to play pretty much however you score.

[Grungebob]

Need Help!

Could someone from the Beantown Beatdown II post here and explain that scoring system. It is obviously quite different, and I would like to understand it. Right now it looks to me that win/loss record is secondary or doesn’t even count for anything! I understand you get 500 ( army size ) points for the victory. I’m not as sure about these scenarios but I believe if you loose or if you loose or win and time runs out you get points for what you have killed.

What I need help with, as it appears to me you could be undefeated (example 3-0-1) and possibly due to being paired with a slow player …. You are then penalized and can finish in the middle of the pack! It also looked like someone finish 2-2-0 and took 4th placed… ahead of several folks won 3 matches! Help me...what am I missing?

If my questions sound like I am criticizing this system I’m not (well, not yet, after I understand this system I reserve the right to ). I just don’t know of a way to ask these questions without it sounding a little harsh.

I also would be interested in how the pairing are done ( points I assume ?)… otherwise it would have taken more that 4 rounds to get to an undefeated… so I also assume there where other undeafted players, but due to not finishing their game do to various reasons they finish lower in the standing? Using the standing Asmiles posted on the Beantown Beatdown thread it appeard there were 19 games went to time (had to be decided by points) out of 72 games. Which is a higher percentage than we have been discussing on this thread ( this can be tweaked with small point army or more minutes per round (appox 500/hour appears to be good )). Again I don’t mean to make judgments until I get the facts from someone at Beantown.

Again, there are a lot of systems out there and that is ok… again my intent is to try to understand them and tweak our point differential system to make it even better or scrap it if something would be better ( which may be a combination of several systems ). The good thing to remember the scoring system used does not stop any of us from having fun playing the game… :D it great to play pretty much however you score.Good question Codeman. I was wondering the same thing. We do not use this type of system in our tourneys for these very reasons you brought up.

[Stealth Dodge]

I finished with 3 complete wins (wiped out all 500 points) and someone with only 1 complete win (wiping out their opponents army) finished above me!!

In this tournament someone could have gone 0-4 and finished in 2nd place if all of their matches were close. I'd propose your points should only count if you win. Otherwise there is no penalty for losing.

[Grungebob]

I finished with 3 complete wins (wiped out all 500 points) and someone with only 1 complete win (wiping out their opponents army) finished above me!!

In this tournament someone could have gone 0-4 and finished in 2nd place if all of their matches were close. I'd propose your points should only count if you win. Otherwise there is no penalty for losing.Yes, this doesn't sound right. My first tourney a couple of years ago used this same method and we found out that it just doesn't work.

[Codeman]

Well I still don’t have all the details…but not using the win / lose record as the main criteria does not sound right, and I don’t think anyone could convince me otherwise. Even thought I don’t agree with this part of the Beantown System, I still would like the rest of the detail on the scoring and pairing.

In my book win / loss record has to be the first criteria.

[Grungebob]

Well I still don’t have all the details…but not using the win / lose record as the main criteria does not sound right, and I don’t think anyone could convince me otherwise. Even thought I don’t agree with this part of the Beantown System, I still would like the rest of the detail on the scoring and pairing.

In my book win / loss record has to be the first criteria.It most certainly does. Points should only be used to settle ties, and nothing should trump a win.

[Stealth Dodge]

I agree with you 2 that record should be the Primary method. I'd take it further and say a complete win (wiping out 100% of your opponents army should rank above a "parial victory" killing 50% or whatever of your opponents army yet winning based on points)

[Codeman]

I agree with you 2 that record should be the Primary method. I'd take it further and say a complete win (wiping out 100% of your opponents army should rank above a "parial victory" killing 50% or whatever of your opponents army yet winning based on points)
There is were we have some room for discussion and thus the purpose of this thread.

I somewhat agree but the problem I have with that it goes back to the example of two people battling it out at the end ( each only has one figure left of equal value ) and the one that wins would then get win ( plus you say additional points ). On the next table you could have some one beating the tar out of their opponent but that opponent is slow ( methodical if you like ) and the game doesn’t finish in time! This is why I like point differential they both do win and get credit for the win but the secondary criteria goes in favor of the one who had the highest margin of victory. Likewise the guy that lost the close game at the first table does get a loss but he shouldn’t feel too far out of it as if he runs the table and wins the rest of his games that point differential in the game he lost doesn’t really hurt him ).

Don’t stop posting your thoughts – I would like a good debate on this topic.

[Stealth Dodge]

I agree with some of your Point Differential comments but I see a problem:

Game A: The game is semi close, Player 1 Wipes out 100% of his opponent's army but has 400 points of his own wiped out, so he ends with a +100 differential

Game B: In this game 1 player jumps out to a lead and has eliminated 300 points of his opponent's army while only losing 100. The player losing goes into a protective shell to protect his remaining 200 points and the other player sits back content with his +200 differential

**I'd say the Winner in Game A should get more credit than the Winner of Game B. The Game A fully destroyed his opponent's army whereas the Winner in Game B took a lead and then just sat back. In a point differential setting this Winner would end with double the points of the Winner from Game A

[Grungebob]

I agree with you 2 that record should be the Primary method. I'd take it further and say a complete win (wiping out 100% of your opponents army should rank above a "parial victory" killing 50% or whatever of your opponents army yet winning based on points)
There is were we have some room for discussion and thus the purpose of this thread.

I somewhat agree but the problem I have with that it goes back to the example of two people battling it out at the end ( each only has one figure left of equal value ) and the one that wins would then get win ( plus you say additional points ). On the next table you could have some one beating the tar out of their opponent but that opponent is slow ( methodical if you like ) and the game doesn’t finish in time! This is why I like point differential they both do win and get credit for the win but the secondary criteria goes in favor of the one who had the highest margin of victory. Likewise the guy that lost the close game at the first table does get a loss but he shouldn’t feel too far out of it as if he runs the table and wins the rest of his games that point differential in the game he lost doesn’t really hurt him ).

Don’t stop posting your thoughts – I would like a good debate on this topic.Codeman, is there a post where you explain in simple detail exactly how to conduct a point differential tourney? We can direct everyone to it so that it is clear.

[Codeman]

Grungebob at the moment I would have to say my first 3 or 4 posts of this thread ( page 1 ) should cover it. To get to the " simple detail " I will attempt to do so below:

In a nutshell we do Swiss Style (3 points for a win / 2 for a tie / 1 for a loss)

Pairings and final placings are scored by:
1. Sort first by won loss record
2. Then sort by point diffental - scoring point just as the HS master set rule book states ( count points for each army card figure still on the battle field )

Even in a "full win or elimination" you would count how many point you have left on the board - zero ( the number your oppent had left ) The winner gets these points on his card and loser would get minus this number of points on his card - thus " the point differental "

If time expires same thing- follow the MS rules and the person with the most points on the board wins but his opponents total is subtracted from the winners total and that is the point differental for that match. The winner has total as a positive number and the loser has it as a negitive.
Example if the only figure left on the board is a Dumutef guard the winner get 3 points for the win and only +25 in the P.D. column and loser would get 1 point and only a -25 in the P.D. column.

All players would be grouped by points and then within each point group they are put in order of point differental. So as an example after round one the the two winners with the 1st & 2nd hights point differental and 3 points would be paired together in round two and that would continue thru all participants untill you were down to the last two - each would have had 1 point and the largest negitive point differentals would be match up.

On a previous page you can see what the TTO result looked like after 5 rounds won / lost record which would be " points " would be the first sort critia and then within those groupings - we use the point differental.


We do a running total on each players card to make pairing quick and easy and the end results of the tourney can be done in quickly also... and my favorite aspect It Is Simple!

[Grungebob]

Grungebob at the moment I would have to say my first 3 or 4 posts of this thread ( page 1 ) should cover it. To get to the " simple detail " I will attempt to do so below:

In a nutshell we do Swiss Style (3 points for a win / 2 for a tie / 1 for a loss)

Pairings and final placings are scored by:
1. Sort first by won loss record
2. Then sort by point diffental - scoring point just as the HS master set rule book states ( count points for each army card figure still on the battle field )

Even in a "full win or elimination" you would count how many point you have left on the board - zero ( the number your oppent had left ) The winner gets these points on his card and loser would get minus this number of points on his card - thus " the point differental "

If time expires same thing- follow the MS rules and the person with the most points on the board wins but his opponents total is subtracted from the winners total and that is the point differental for that match. The winner has total as a positive number and the loser has it as a negitive.
Example if the only figure left on the board is a Dumutef guard the winner get 3 points for the win and only +25 in the P.D. column and loser would get 1 point and only a -25 in the P.D. column.

All players would be grouped by points and then within each point group they are put in order of point differental. So as an example after round one the the two winners with the 1st & 2nd hights point differental and 3 points would be paired together in round two and that would continue thru all participants untill you were down to the last two - each would have had 1 point and the largest negitive point differentals would be match up.

On a previous page you can see what the TTO result looked like after 5 rounds won / lost record which would be " points " would be the first sort critia and then within those groupings - we use the point differental.


We do a running total on each players card to make pairing quick and easy and the end results of the tourney can be done in quickly also... and my favorite aspect It Is Simple!Yes this system looks good. Thank you for posting a condensed version here. We do the DCI software and it works great and counts only wins. It has an algorithm that settles ties based upon the overall performance of those you played. We do not do any point counting unless a game goes to the time limit. It is good to compare and know of an easy manual system that is fast.

[Codeman]

Here is the score card we use ( No computer necessary :D )

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n1/Codeman1957/DSC02308.jpg

[Codeman]

Yes this system looks good. Thank you for posting a condensed version here. We do the DCI software and it works great and counts only wins. It has an algorithm that settles ties based upon the overall performance of those you played. We do not do any point counting unless a game goes to the time limit. It is good to compare and know of an easy manual system that is fast.

I assume it also does the pairings between rounds ( This is why I seen you reading off the lap top during Gen-Con while you where going from map to map ). Basically I assume you program is strength of schedual? So people with like records also play each others winners play winners. Losers play Loseres - people with 1-1 records play each other ect. ?

[Grungebob]

Yes this system looks good. Thank you for posting a condensed version here. We do the DCI software and it works great and counts only wins. It has an algorithm that settles ties based upon the overall performance of those you played. We do not do any point counting unless a game goes to the time limit. It is good to compare and know of an easy manual system that is fast.

I assume it also does the pairings between rounds ( This is why I seen you reading off the lap top during Gen-Con while you where going from map to map ). Basically I assume you program is strength of schedual? So people with like records also play each others winners play winners. Losers play Loseres - people with 1-1 records play each other ect. ?Correct

[Jormi_Boced]

I like how all you need is some paper a pen and a little mental math:)

[Grungebob]

I like how all you need is some paper a pen and a little mental math:)Well, I got plenty of paper and pens....

[spider_poison]

While I don't want to speak for Grungebob here, I think I may be able to clear up some things. Though an algorithm and computer are on hand to settle pairings and issues for the tournaments, the use of them is not required. To my understanding, the software keeps running totals of records and who has played who. If you were to attempt to run a tournament in this manner without using a computer, it would be possible, although a bit cumbersome. Instead of pairings by a computer, you would pair people according to records. At the end of a tournament, you would need somebody (or a few people) with first grade addition skills to tally up totals. While there would be down time at the end of the event, it would almost entirely eliminate down time between rounds.

[Codeman]

I would assume the vast majority ( if not all ) of us feel won/loss has to be the main criteria to determine placing. I always thought that was a given … so my quest was really to determine how to do the placing in a Swiss style tournament the best (fairest and easiest) possible way using a secondary criteria.


I’ve now been contemplating “ Strength of Schedule “ –vs- “ Point differential “ . At first thought SOS seems like the logical choice over PD… but I now think it is a toss up both have similar drawbacks.

With SOS you can have the same problems. Example: several people finish at 3-2 but the guy that was lucky enough to lose to the champion and most likely a 4-1 finisher would get the nod over a two or three player who also finished 3-2 but their losses came from people who with maybe 4-1 records.

With out doing a round robin style or true double elimination tournament (fairest) you can’t get around the random opponent and the issues that come up. Unfortunately anything over 8 people round robin or double elimination is not an option unless it is a multi-day event, and then the fun value would go down.

As I’ve said before … for most people and me it’s not about the scoring but the playing. It no fun to sit out games… that is why the Swiss style is great… everyone plays…every round… and fun is what is really about ( I think I would be board at a double elimination tournament ). So even with the imagined or real scoring flaws(?) I think it better to have everyone play 5 or 6 games and sort out the placings with SOS or PD or ( I’m still waiting for other options )

1. At this point I like the results and simplicity of PD

2. I also like the results of SOS although not as simple (program and laptop needed)
I assume the program takes into account head to head matches. This is about the only weakness in PD. Example: at the TTO both Stracker9 and I had identical records but he did beat me however I finish ahead of him by PD.

[Grungebob]

In the DCI software an absolute tie is broken by the person who showed up firts and got signed in. But this is very rare. Anyway, the software is awesome and does everything. If you have printer support you can run a print out which helps alot. Anyway, it is as simple as putting in the names. And then clicking on the win or lose at the end of each round. The software does everything else.

[Marduk]

My experience with the DCI software is that it doesn't do strength of schedule correctly - only at each round, with the values afterwards not influencing final ranking though the complete record is used for pairing. So in a large tournament, if you lose your first game you rank low even if the loss was to the tournament winner and was the only one you had. This happened to me; I beat the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th place people over my last three wins (I kept getting paired up to the next bracket). So with a 5-1 record, losing only to the winner and beating three of the top five, I ranked in the 30s. Below people who had a 4-2 record, by the way, because their losses occurred in their last two matches - when their opponents had better win-loss records then 1-0. Now, this was five or six years ago so I suppose the software could have changed in the meantime... but I doubt it.

Moving on from the detestible DCI Swiss method, what about different levels of victory/loss? Give three points for a complete win (in which you destroy all opponent figures); two points for a win in which you win on points and destroyed over half of the enemy (by points, however you chose to view partial squads and injured heroes); one point for a win in which you win on points and destroyed half or less of the enemy (by points, again); one point for a loss in which you destroyed over half of the enemy (by points, as before); and zero points for any other loss.

This encourages maximum carnage, since you get the most points for complete destruction of the enemy. It also gives people who believe they're going to lose something to shoot for - a good loss counts for as much as a lousy victory, and counts for more than a total loss. In addition, games that are called on time aren't worth as much (encouraging mayhem). Given the different levels of victory, people trying to play the system aren't nearly as likely to sit back and play it safe once they have an advantage. If they do, they risk losing the extra point given for a complete victory... and preventing the losing player from getting a single point for damaging you isn't nearly as important as getting the extra point(s) for yourself.

Comments, questions, concerns? Praise and rejoicing? Suppressing fire?

Edit: Bear in mind that this is obviously only part of a system. Some method for tie-breaking in pairing would still be needed, possibly some other elements. Like a cool name! Hmm, variable-value victories; I love alliteration.

[UranusPChicago]

My experience with the DCI software is that it doesn't do strength of schedule correctly - only at each round, with the values afterwards not influencing final ranking though the complete record is used for pairing. So in a large tournament, if you lose your first game you rank low even if the loss was to the tournament winner and was the only one you had. This happened to me; I beat the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th place people over my last three wins (I kept getting paired up to the next bracket). So with a 5-1 record, losing only to the winner and beating three of the top five, I ranked in the 30s. Below people who had a 4-2 record, by the way, because their losses occurred in their last two matches - when their opponents had better win-loss records then 1-0. Now, this was five or six years ago so I suppose the software could have changed in the meantime... but I doubt it.

I hate to tell you, but whoever was running the software was doing it incorrectly. There should have been no reason for someone with a better overall W-L record (you) to rank below people with a worse W-L record (them) regardless of SoS. That sounds like a user error to me.

Unless, of course, the software was set up to rank purely on SoS which I think we all would agree is a completely different ranking structure than anything we have talked about so far. I think we are in general agreement that W-L should be the first determination in establishing the ranking order.

[Jormi_Boced]

My experience with the DCI software is that it doesn't do strength of schedule correctly - only at each round, with the values afterwards not influencing final ranking though the complete record is used for pairing. So in a large tournament, if you lose your first game you rank low even if the loss was to the tournament winner and was the only one you had. This happened to me; I beat the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th place people over my last three wins (I kept getting paired up to the next bracket). So with a 5-1 record, losing only to the winner and beating three of the top five, I ranked in the 30s. Below people who had a 4-2 record, by the way, because their losses occurred in their last two matches - when their opponents had better win-loss records then 1-0. Now, this was five or six years ago so I suppose the software could have changed in the meantime... but I doubt it.

I hate to tell you, but whoever was running the software was doing it incorrectly. There should have been no reason for someone with a better overall W-L record (you) to rank below people with a worse W-L record (them) regardless of SoS. That sounds like a user error to me.

Unless, of course, the software was set up to rank purely on SoS which I think we all would agree is a completely different ranking structure than anything we have talked about so far. I think we are in general agreement that W-L should be the first determination in establishing the ranking order.

Sometimes the software will glitch to. I have seen it pair people that have already played and mix up scores as well.

[Stealth Dodge]

I agree with Marduk. There should be a SIGNIFICANT point bonus for wiping out their army as opposed to merely winning on points. My last tournament I went 3-1 with all 3 victories coming by wiping out their ENTIRE army yet finished behind people who went 2-2 and had only wiped out their opponent's entire army 1 time

[atmospro]

There are several program that are far better DCI that do Swiss round robins tournaments. Professional Tournament Organizer ver 2 is probably the one best suited for Heroscape and its free. Of the many Chess tournament programs SwissSys and Swiss Perfect are the best. These two program also let you devise and carry a rating system for players as well a many other useful features.

DCI is full of bugs, I tried fixing some of them at one time and gave up be cause the software is full of holes.

[Codeman]

I agree with Marduk. There should be a SIGNIFICANT point bonus for wiping out their army as opposed to merely winning on points. My last tournament I went 3-1 with all 3 victories coming by wiping out their ENTIRE army yet finished behind people who went 2-2 and had only wiped out their opponent's entire army 1 time

:?: Stealth Dodge? As far as I know this entire thread has basically only posted to versions of tournament scoring. Point Differential & Strength of Schedule. I don’t understand your complaint using either of these methods would accomplish what your after. Anyone finishing 3-1 would obviously finish ahead of someone at 2-2. As far as wiping out armies that has been discussed a lot in this thread – that was part of the beauty of using point differential – You may want to go back and re-read this before posting some of you complaints that have already been address. I don’t understand were you are coming from. Winning the match is always first criteria, this thread is basically about the second criteria for sorting out placing for everyone with identical records ( example 5 people at 3-1 need to be placed 2nd thru 6th place)

Marduk suggestion parallels the point differential end result – he is just expanding the Swiss point system to do this. – These were the ideas and discussion I was looking for, when I started this thread

[Draconious]

I dont like doing the points calculations at the end... so similar to damjas new MI tourney rules, were you get skull points, my tourney if I ever do one... will be using points for

3 = Kill All of oponents army/surrender
2 = Win By Points at time out
1 = Tie
.25 = loss

More points for a full kill to keep some one from killing one figure, and just wasting the rest of the time... not really sure weather to give 2 or 3 points for a win by surrender though...

The .25 for loss is for participation factor.. those that participate get points, over some one who just shows up and wins one game etc... my tourney will be multiple days... not everyone will show up every day... and it really only requires 2 days to show up ove a 6 month period, but its all in concept stages... ive changed it many times the last month or so...

any bad things about this that im not seeing?

[Codeman]

any bad things about this that im not seeing?

Well not necessary bad… but your scoring is too general that it does not do quite as good a job making the pairs between rounds as point differential would do. Even at the end of the tournament you may see some ties. I’m fairly sure we never have had a tie when sorting cards for pairings… it has always been cut and dry. The pairings have been done strictly by the numbers other than the first round, which is the only random pairs in the tournament. For example using your critea after the first round of the 2006 Tree Town Open we would have had 17 or 18 people with 3 points and 19 people would have had a ¼ point. Who do you pair against whom in the next round? With point differential it already figured out for you and takes the Tournament Director out of the mix ( no bias ).

The other point I could make ( which I have made many times in previous posts ) Your method gives 3 points to the guy who wins a close battle ( with maybe only a 25 point figure left on the board ) and the guy who basically tied him gets only a ¼ point. With point diffental the winner still gets the 3 points but the loser gets his 1 point but the best part in the secondary criteria the closeness of the game shows up in the PD. Same is true if it is a blow out the winner gets 3 for the win as well as a large point differential. It still seems to me the best way to sort the players out for pairing and for placing at the end of the game. Winner gets a bonus for badly beating his opponent, and not as big a bonus for a close game. Same with the loser… in a close game he is not penalized as much as if he got blowout.


If you don't want to go back and read the first post. here is a copy of part of it... this kind of explains the concept:

Obviously the won / loss record is the first criteria. After that it can get fuzzy and I know figuring the placing is done several different ways.

We have been successful using Swiss style play with “ point differential “ calculated as the second determining factor after the won / loss record.

There are several reasons I like this format. First it is clean and easy… and almost eliminates the possibility of any ties. Secondanly it pairs up people with similar ability or luck together as the tournament goes on. The best reason however I feel it best represents the true scoring of your battle. In real life if we won a battle but lost 90% of our troops in that effort most if not all people would not consider this much of a victory if a victory at all. On the other hand if we won a battle and in the process didn’t lose any troops we all would be ecstatic about our military expertise. I think it would be good to rate our battles in this same way.

This is what point differential can do for us. In a battle that you win and can keep most of you army alive on the board you get more points ( and you should … it was a good victory ) . However if you would win or lose a close battle ( down to one or two figures each ) the point differential would recognize this. The winner did not get many points for the win and the loser did not lose so many points in this battle ( it was recognized as a close game ). The loser still lost but he kept his point differential close and by the tournaments end when the points are tallied up he may be able to gain a better place due to having a better point differential among others with identical records.

I just feel point differential best depicts actual victory conditions in real war, and makes a great secondary sort after the won / loss record.

[Draconious]

It makes sense and its why I am still going back and forth between match points and just giveing a 1 2 3 point.... I just feel that draft point difference method is too much effected by what other people choose in their army, by people that you might not even play, can effect weather you win or lose... and it just does not feel right, unless you can garantee everyone plays everyone at least once. Hard for me to explain what I mean im tired, but has to do with an army that I might kick its arse based on a draft, but I might never play it, but some one else loses to it... it also feels that once you get low points, your gona stay low its hard to get back up...

I might just declare a bonus point kill has to be at least 50% of a slaughter... so the points kind of matter if its close or not. So you only count them to see how close it was, so if the winner has 50% of his army still on the field... the point is added, if not its just a 2 point win... still thinking of other ways...

I am basicly numbering the players as they sign in... these numbers will determine who plays who with same points. I do not want to just put the people that get the most points, because one draft might get slaughtered by a lower player, that might actualy lose to a better player due to what figures are in the army...

In the end the top 6 points, will be playing for 1st 2nd 3rd... each of these top 6 will be garanteed to play the other player at least once, then a possible tie breaker round for 1st etc...

(and no i did not read all of this thread it was too long)

Actualy I think I am going to ditch the bonus point for kill... A win is a win, and a loss is a loss... there is no "almost winning" 2nd place is just the first loser ;)

[Stealth Dodge]

I thought it was semi obvious how my points were related. Perhaps I should have used 2 people who both had 3-1 records. The person who wipes out all 3 opponents armies should finish ahead of someone who had 2 wins based on the time running out, even if their 1 loss was worse.

**Theoretically if you do it primarily based upon records as the 1st criteria (2 people both 3-1) then point differential 2nd it is possible for the 1 person who had 3 complete wins could be ranked behind the person with only 1 complete win.

Player A: Imagine in the 3 wins player A wins 500-300 points for all 3 and gets crushed in their 1 loss 500-50.

Player B: In this person's 3 wins they win 400-300 based on time running out and then for their 1 loss loses 500-400

In some programs Player B would rank higher. I would argue that Player A should due to the fact that in their 3 wins they totally wiped out their opponent which Player B did not even accomplish 1 time. That is why I support bonus points of some sort for totally wiping out their entire army

[Codeman]

Stealth Dodge - again I think we covered this several times.

1st - you are hung up on complete wins - As I've stated many times almost all the matchs are complete wins or losses. About 15% of the matchs go to time - so that concern is not justified.

2nd - Theoretically if you do it primarily based upon records as the 1st criteria (2 people both 3-1) then point differential 2nd it is possible for the 1 person who had 3 complete wins could be ranked behind the person with only 1 complete win I agree " Theoretically " it could happen... realistically would it happen .... NO - If you get what you call complete wins you will most likely have a larger PD than the few people who don't finish their game, so I believe this theory is not valid either.

Sorry , but I think we have covered all of this on the previous pages, and you want to continue hammer on these points and I have explained why they are not valid. You need to come to one of our tourneys and see how it works in real life - the scenarios you are coming up with do not happen.

[Stealth Dodge]

-My described scenario happens quite often, as evidenced by the most recent Boston tournament. There is no reason to think that the person wiping out the others army should have a higher point differential than someone who won on points. If anything logically one could expect the OPPOSITE.

-In a match where one person wipes out the other the odds are higher that it was somewhat of an aggressively fought game (500-400 for example) Whereas it is not uncommon in a game that ends in time where the players are turtling and one person ends with like a 400-250 score.

[Ketch]

Theoretically or not, 3 reasons why it should not matter

1) If someone wins at the end of time, I do not see that as less of a victory. It is a well known victory condition and tournament rule that should be played just like any other rule in the game.

2) A trend that is interupted by time often would end up becoming more of a trend. The fact is that person was probably would have won by even more had time not been up. There are numerous reasons to support this.

3) Sometimes a turn around could happen, but the loser who could have won then did not make very good tactical decisions to allow their winning strategy to wait until time was up.

Most strongly I go with #1. It is part of the game, and some may not like it because they find themselves losing a lot after time, but tournaments are different settings than just for fun play, almost a different game.

I agree what you say StealthD has merit, but I don't think anyone is being ripped off by the theoretical situation you give.

[Codeman]

Stealth Dodge now you are comparing apples and oranges. The Boston Tournament did a whole different scenario of scoring. Back on page 4 of this thread I asked for some details on the scoring system the Boston Group uses, and I never did get any details The Boston tourney seems to score much different than any other tourney on this site. The one area I did understand from the Boston Group is they do not use wins or losses in they’re scoring which makes not sense to me. If I’m missing something here I would again invite someone from the Boston Tourney explain the scoring ( as this is what I wanted to explore in this thread ).

Again Stealth Dodge I think you are confusing this issues in this thread by bring in the Boston Rules ( that the rest of us do not know ). You apprearently are the only who has played by that scoring criteria.

The two scenarios that have been discussed so far “ Point Differential “ and “ Strength of Schedule “ uses Win/Loss/Tie as the first criteria in scoring. Your Boston Tourney did not to my knowledge – so please quite mudding up the thread with this issue.

I would welcome you to comment on the Boston Scoring if you are qualified to speak for that group.

[Codeman]

Thanks Ketch .... I agree with your points 1, 2 & 3. Actually in one form or another those points probably already have been made in somewhre in this thread but it probably was good to reinforce them again. Thank you

[Draconious]

How about this slight revision to my method... I am still going to use another method (I think) to sort out who plays who when there is a blob of people with the same amount of points... I think i know how but ill likly change it... anyway... this is my latest concept... what im thinking of doing. It results in ALL matches giving 4 points... divided between the winner and loser... how much depends on game results.


Win = 3 (+.75 if you save at least 50% of your army)
Tie = 2
Loss = .25 (+.75 if you take out 50% or more of the winner)

So it will always be one of these 3 results:
3.75 - .25 Strong Win - Horible Loss
3 - 1 Close Win - Loser did ok to take out half the other guy first
2 - 2 Tie - split the 4 points

I expect it to typically be 3-1

I am thinking of giving a bonus of .25 for finishing the game with out a time out to BOTH players, so neither one tries to use up the time to win...

[Codeman]

Draconious, I agree with your concept. If I understand you correctly you are trying to do all the scoring in one step ( just with the point ). In doing so you almost do what P.D. does as you have to do the 50% calculations anyway to get the point values :) . All we do is give the regular Swiss points ( 3 win / 2 tie / 1 lose ) and then sort by “ point differential “ ( which is close to what I think you are doing in your 50% calculation except P.D is more definitive ). So I still think for ease of doing the pairing between rounds and sorting out the final placing P.D. will get you there. Breaking up the point valves as you last suggested will get you closer but why not use the actual points ( basically eliminates any ties in the secondary criteria ). It seems simpler and more accurate/definitive to me.

Draconious I do appreciate your input and I did like you idea of giving points for finishing a game. I’m going to think if it would be feasible to add that option into P.D. The only thing I’m not sure about is like I stated before …typically finishing games is not an issue and people do not deliberately stall. What I typically happens is there are one or two players that take more time, than everyone else…. So I would hate to penalize the people who get paired with them just because their opponents play at little slower. In our P.D. system we use they already suffer a small penitaly but again in the whole scope of the scoring system I don’t think it would make a big difference ( maybe a place or two in the final placing ). In the overall picture I the small difference in points differential they lost playing a slow play is mute.

Darconious, thank you for your post, even though I may not totally agree … everyone’s ideas help.

[Draconious]

thnx... the extra .25 is iffy... maybe it would be a "if one player wants to contest it, then he can request a player be penalized... but as you say not really worth it... just so long as some one does not pull a, oh look I managed to kill one of your squads, now im leading in points, so I will be in the bathroom for the next 50 minutes lol... the penalty would only be there for those abusing time... doubt anyone would even do it.

I kind of want to go by points... maybe as a secondary sorting method only... which is basicly what it is anyway. My problem with it is lazyness lol... sometimes my brain calculator just will not do simple math while im thinking about heroscape figures... and I dont want to lose because I added wrong ;).

Another reason I would like to go by points, is I am thinking of letting people take an extra 5 or 10 points if they stick to a single general/side... and maybe allow them to go over 5 points regardless of general, and take a permanent initiative penalty of 5... lol but then that just gets more complicated so I toss those ideas out the window. But there is a team I would like to take that totals 510 and is all one general ;).

I did not know the other method even gave points to the loser, unless you were adapting/comparing mine to the common method.... I wanted the loser to get apoint because my tourney will be more than one day, and over a period of X days those that showed up even if they lost... i want them to get some points.

I am also thinking of handing out log sheets like this...
http://s88452779.onlinehome.us/HeroScape/Misc/SheetSample.jpg

[Marduk]

typically finishing games is not an issue and people do not deliberately stall.
Ah, but it was a concern to some people. If we can answer that and other concerns through modifying the system a bit, it becomes more likely to gain widespread acceptance. (Universal acceptance is obviously a pipe dream.)

A concern that I have is allowing someone who shows up too late to join in the first game (it will happen sometimes, I'm sure) to still make the final if they have a fantastic showing in the rest of their games. That's the reason behind my assigning zero points for an abject loss... so that a no-show for one game is no worse for the record than a blowout game, which can happen to the best of us through luck of the dice.

I believe it is good to slightly penalize people who time out in their match. Even if the main cause is a slow opponent, that can be countered with more agressive play. When they have fewer units to consider, they'll be a bit faster, yes? :) Although board selection is a factor here as well... some people take a lot of time to angle their figures to better fit behind cover. Some maps encourage this with vague LOS situations, while some lead to cut-and-dried LOS determinations. Hmm, though unrelated to scoring, I think I'll have to start checking Odd Lots for really cheap laser pointers. If I can provide one per table for my tourney, that should save some time.

I also think it is good to reward losers who make a good showing - it encourages hard fighting and helps keep people who barely lose a match closer in the rankings to the person who barely won, which they should be.

[Draconious]

There are typically cheap laser pointers on ebay... sometimes as low as .01 and 1.99 for shipping... ill do a few searches.

[Codeman]

Marduk … good points.

Obviously slow play or stalling does appear to be an issue ( based on the discussion in this thread ). My statements on this issue are based solely on experience in tournaments I’ve been at in Minnesota & Iowa also Gen-Con (were again I did not see this being an issue as most games do finish within time). I did tell Daraconious I was going to give some thought to the feasibility of giving both parties who finish a game on time some type of extra points ( I am cautious about this as I don’t want to swing too far the other way and penalize people who shouldn’t be ).

Your second concern “ About allowing some who shows up late to join the first game “ has not been address yet in this thread, but… I can tell you in our Minnesota & Iowa Tournaments that person would not get to join in the first game ( or what ever game is in progress ). Fist off they would not have an opponent to play, as we made provisions for an even number of plays so there are no byes ( My wife has always agreed to fill in if there is an odd number or she sits out if we have an even number ). The one time we had someone join us late he did take my wife’s place in the tournament, but he could not win the tournament or even place with the ones that had one loss as he would not have enough points ( Winner in 5 game tourney would have 15 points, people with one loss would be at 13, if the late comer won all 4 games he would be at 12 points ).

Third concern LOS. Most if not all players do have and come with a laser pointer – We even had them on the prize table. Also I would recommend using the Tournament Director to make the call on close LOS issues ( for consistency and fairness )

Totally agree with your last point on the loser of a close battle… hopefully I have addressed that adequately in the prior pages on this post.



:idea: One other thought I have on “ Games that go to the time limit “ As I said we have not seen a problem with this. If this is happen somewhere I would like to know the following... could it be:

The size of the maps other tournaments are using?
The size of army per time of the round?
Other logistics?

We have gone with hour rounds using armies 400 – 510 points with no problem. March 24 we will be using 560-point armies with a one-hour time limit, we will see what factor that has on finishing the game. We have a good cross section of people show up for our tournaments so I feel it is a good measurement….

My point is maybe it is something the tournaments can fix and is not related to scoring.

[Draconious]

I brought up the stall thing, but I doubt anyone really would do it... so like I said it should just be a "if player A thinks player B is abusing the time limit... then player A can complain to an official, and judge it, a possible penalty can ge given at that time, not throughout the whole game...

I may have also convinced my self to go by end game points, but... It still has some issues when I calculate the scores for the 6 day thing I am trying to do... so I guess I have no choice but to do both, end points and match points, that I wil call credits I guess.. so its not confused with the "points" on the army cards. So both will likely get recorded... end game points will determine how many credits a player gets for the match. I figure I might as well since I gota add up the 50% thing anway :).

As for the time limit, new players (myself) that dont have the strategy completely down, take a while... and those with lots of zombies take a while... 50 minutes is not enough for armies with a lot of figures... yet the 50 or so minute time limit was not even half used in some of the games I have seen... so in some cases its not enough, and some its too much :)

Maybe... there is a way to time each game on its own... let players find a player that is available to play, a challenge like, and they play until the match finishes, if they take so long as to only get 2 matches in... while everyone else gets 4 in.. thats their problem ;).

There is also the chance that people watching, could be asking a lot of questions and talking to the players alot.. that could delay the game... so maybe a rule not to talk to who evers turn it is lol...

[Codeman]

Dracomious more good points that we may not have address in this thread yet... thanks for bring them up... it may address the time issue.

You mentioned “ …. Not enough time for armies with lots of figures” This may be one of the reasons a tourney game goes over an hour. I never considered that a tourney would allow more figures on a map than what could be killed in an hour. In a friendly game with no time limit it is fine but I don’t think it would work in a tourney setting. All of our tournaments have also had starting zone limits “ Example Tree Town Open had 21 hexes for a 490 point army, The March 24 tournament in Austin has 24 hexes for a 560 point army. I feel if you have to limit starting zones on a timed event. Jormi_Boced wouldn’t want me to come to his 560-point tournement with 42 arrow gruts . Here is a link to the hex starting zone limit I did awhile back:
http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=3605&highlight=
Making starting zone limits is almost essential in a timed event. It also adds more strategy when coming up with an army to fight on given map(s).

Your point about timing games individually – I would strongly disagree as I think you would lose all control of the tournament. Also how would they be paired up? It would only work in a round robin tournament, and even then I can’t see that working well. You need everyone done so you can or pairing. For those using SOS or PD system you would need everyone done as you couldn’t do pairing anyway until the score is turned in. Plus in a 4 or 5 (6) game tournament you need the break between games even if it’s only 5 minutes or up to a half hour. Plus socializing and meeting heroscpares is part of the fun of the tournament. We also don’t take a lunch break during our tournaments as this always seems to get accomplished between rounds.

On this topic ...making pairing using P.D. does not take long between rounds as the card are turned in over the course of the hour they are put in order first by Swiss points and then by point differential and as cards come in they just get filed into where they fit. At the end of the hour the T.D. just has the last table or two ( 2 or 4 card ) and file them in the correct spot in pile of cards which are already in order. Now all the TD has to do is take the first two cards ( check for new map location ) and start calling out pairing, it took about 2-3 minutes to call out 48 names and put the cards down at the 24 tables (maps)…. Very quick, efficient, and fair.

You last statement about talking has never been a problem… Giving advice I would agree with you and the Tournament Director should get involved immediately if that ever happens.

[spider_poison]

As someone who usually finishes his games well within the time limit, I'd like to say that I'm completley opposed to rewarding players for complete annihilation of an opponent's army. Here's why:

Some players take longer than other players. This is not stalling; they just require more time to think out moves than other players. Why should I have to counter their slow play with a hurried pace of my own? Surely I will be more likely to make mistakes if I were forced to do this.

Some players aren't quite as dedicated to the game as other players. What I mean is this: Some players talk to other people, and some players are easily distracted by things outside of the game at hand. If I knew I would receive more points for a complete destruction of my opponent's army, I would be annoyed by my opponent spending time not playing the game.

Some units naturally slow down the game....Q9 and Deathreavers come to mind. As a player who doesn't use them, I shouldn't be penalized for my opponent using them.

The best solution to the time issue would be to use clocks similar to those used in chess settings, though this isn't very feasible. As it is right now, all tournaments that I know of have allowed enough time for most games to finish before coming to time. Alowing enough time and not rewarding for complete annihilation is (imo) the fairest way to run a tourament. To my knowledge, most tourneys are run this way.

Oh, and these opinions apply to all types of scoring systems...SoS, PD, or whatever other scoring system is in place.

[Marduk]

As a player who doesn't use them, I shouldn't be penalized for my opponent using them.
Upon reflection, I now agree with you. It's in essentially the same category as my concern that someone who was delayed by a traffic jam and misses the first game then has no hope of winning the tournament no matter how well they would do in the rest of the games.

Of course, I am also thinking in terms of a final free-for-all game of the top ranked players. If you determine the top rank based solely on the outcome of one-on-one matches he or she will have no chance of getting #1 anyway.

You mentioned “ …. Not enough time for armies with lots of figures” This may be one of the reasons a tourney game goes over an hour. I never considered that a tourney would allow more figures on a map than what could be killed in an hour.
This should seldom be a problem - if you can get large numbers of them, they tend to also die easily and quickly. Maybe with zombies, since you'd be occasionally getting some back; or with drones, since you may be effectively taking up to three turns for each actual 'turn'. The only long games I witnessed (from my extensive experience of going to one tournament) involved ranged units and deathreavers.

Though it is true that 'seldom' is not 'never'. Similar to games running long, some provision should be made to limit this and limiting starting spaces does seem to be the most convenient way.

Your point about timing games individually – I would strongly disagree as I think you would lose all control of the tournament.
I also disagree - this sounds like an organizational nightmare in the making.

as the card are turned in over the course of the hour
This is why I think it best if the TD doesn't play, or at least plays with a simple army (fewer figures, avoid special powers that require a lot of thought to apply properly) if a filler slot is needed. That way he can give the tournament all the attention it requires and still give his opponent a decent game.

I did not know the other method even gave points to the loser, unless you were adapting/comparing mine to the common method.... I wanted the loser to get apoint because my tourney will be more than one day, and over a period of X days those that showed up even if they lost... i want them to get some points.
Then you're not doing tournament scoring, you're talking about campaign scoring. You could still assign 0 points for a loss as tournament scoring, and then add some number of points to everyone for attendance to get the running campaign score total. Or would you be doing daily pairing based on campaign-long scores?

Totally agree with your last point on the loser of a close battle… hopefully I have addressed that adequately in the prior pages on this post.
I keep wanting to argue this a bit, since the PD bit still doesn't affect their rank points and can be skewed by one player facing a novice or cursed opponent (offend too many gypsies and the dice don't like you any more). But I can't come up with a good example to illustrate my point and the more I try the less convinced I am that I have one. I'll keep working and see what I can come up with.

Hmm, what if you include the PD values of the opponents as a sort of strength of schedule factor? It has some negative aspects vis-a-vis bookkeeping but that can easily be countered with a properly constructed spreadsheet. If this were done in a reasonable manner it would satisfy the nagging feeling I have that something is wrong with the PD system and I could stop picking at it.

At least we seem to have a general consensus that time-limit considerations should not be included (directly, anyway) as a factor in scoring.

[Satyr]

I gotta interject my backing of the Swiss System that Codeman has codified here. It removes bias that the Tournament Director may have during match-ups and it is simple ... both key when trying to run an event and play in it. The only say I have is the original seeding (where I try to split up gaming groups).

During our last NorCal tournament (16 people) I used PD to match-up people throughout the day and then used SoS to come up with the overall standings. The top 4 players after 4 games moved on to single elimination finals. It should be noted that Alastair’s only loss was to Voodoo during regular play, but he came back to best him in the finals.

Using SoS to determine final rankings did not go over well with the wife (I got positioned ahead of her because she played the 0-4 player) and upon reflection is inconsistent. Final rankings should be consistent with the criteria used for match-ups throughout the day.

Below are the ranks based on both SoS and PD.

SoS Ranking
Rankings based on Win/Loss Records, Strength of Schedule, and then Point Differentials. 1 Alastair (5-1)
2 Voodoo (5-1)
3 Guerillinator (4-2)
4 Aldin (3-3)
5 Sexymama (3-1)
6 1moreheroscaper (2-2; SoS 36; PD -300)
7 Hex_Enduction_Hour (2-2; SoS 36; PD -425)
8 Joe's Fury (2-2; SoS 32)
9 MJ (2-2; SoS 30; PD 580)
10 Grim (2-2; SoS 30; PD 325)
11 Preacher (2-2; SoS 27)
12 Rico Von Drake (3-1; SoS 34; PD -470)
13 dnutt99 (3-1; SoS 34; PD -680)
14 Satyr (3-1; SoS 32)
15 MorningStar (3-1; SoS 28 )
16 Exedus (0-4; SoS 27)

PD Ranking
Rankings based on Win/Loss Records and then Point Differentials. Position changes noted. 1 Alastair (5-1)
2 Voodoo (5-1)
3 Guerillinator (4-2)
4 Aldin (3-3)
5 Sexymama (3-1)
6 MJ (2-2; PD 580; +3)
7 Grim (2-2; PD 325; +3)
8 Preacher (2-2; PD 320; +3)
9 Joe's Fury (2-2; PD 230; -1)
10 1moreheroscaper (2-2; PD -300; -4)
11 Hex_Enduction_Hour (2-2; PD -425; -4)
12 MorningStar (1-3; PD -155; +3)
13 Rico Von Drake (1-3; PD -470; -1)
14 Satyr (1-3; PD -595; ~ 0 ~)
15 dnutt99 (1-3; PD -680; -2)
16 Exedus (0-4)
We played 50 minute games and we had a few games every round that went to time. If
we played 60 minute games all games would have finished.

[Draconious]

My comment on letting a game finish etc, I agree, that it would be chaotic, wich is why I was not all that serious about it, it was more of an idea for a whole other tournament, one that I myself would not dare to attempt at running ;) would work better for an online, or E-Mail Scape game... (yet another idea :) )


Lets see if I can simplify my tourney... maybe take parts out of the rules DRAFT I am currently writing in another window on my PC...

The Tournament Year is divided into 2 seasons, winter and summer. Both seasons provide 6 game days to participate at collecting points toward winning that season-final, as well as a seventh day to sort out the season champion. The six game days will be held one per month, typically the first Saturday of every month, unless delayed due to weather or holidays.

The finals will be held the Sunday after the last of the six game days to determine the season champion. Once two season champions are named, they will play one game for that years champion title and trophy. If the same person wins both seasons, the title is automatically given to that person.

Thats just part of the text... I basicly have it so there are 2 tourneys per year... and at the end the top player of each plays each other for year-champ status... just a title, and maybe a cheap trophy, the prize money will be the 1st 2nd 3rd of each season... players do not have to attend all 6 days. The hard part for me is trying to get it fair for those that dont attend every day,and those that do... so far I have it that you need at least one day to get into the finals, but the top 6 players that get into the finals will be the best of a 3 day total/average... the other 3 days are just oops I screwed up days... and do not count only the best 3 of the 6 will count... each individual day will be run like a mini tournament with a smaller prize, and finished with the typical choose a prize some one brought event... lots of rules and crap I have to write still.

So that still count as a campaign? lol not sure... if it does im still calling it a tournament ;).

And after all my griping about it I am going to use the end game point difference for possitioning after all... at least it will effect the points given... that I have again changed... from a 4 point system to 6 points.

6 Points = You win with no loss, a 500 (100%) point differential
5 Points = You win with at least a 250 (50%) point differential
4 Points = You win...
3 Points = Tie, will rarely happen I think... Might also give 3 to those that miss a round...
2 Points = You lose...
1 Point = You lose with the winner having a 250 (50%) lead/difference on you
0 Points = You suck you lost, and the other guy didnt lose a single figure! :)

Tie and 100% win/loss will rarely happen, but the bonus points are there incase it does.... any problems with this way yet? ;) I still have to tweak it a little...

[Codeman]

Thanks Satyr for explaining the details of your tournament. I am always puzzled when I see a winner of a tourney with a loss. At least now you’re NorCal I understand how that happened. Thank you for the explanation.

Of course we don’t do a special final for top 4 or 8 we just play until we have one undefeated and then do the placing. See Example below from 2006 Tree Town Open

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n1/Codeman1957/ttoresults1471namesout.jpg

[Marduk]

So that still count as a campaign? lol not sure... if it does im still calling it a tournament ;).
You say tomato, I say deadly nightshade plant. But you're out of hurling range, so if you say tournament I can't reasonably object.

3 Points = Tie, will rarely happen I think... Might also give 3 to those that miss a round...
I'd go with two instead, same as a 'standard' loss. At 3, a goodly number of players would fare better by signing up and not showing up. ;)

I believe I like the 6-point scale. However, even though I'm the one who originally suggested 50%, I'm toying with the notion that 60% might be better for the cutoff. What experience do people have with this? Is having half the army left a fairly common occurence, or uncommon enough to warrant a little extra?

And I don't know about including a 0-point loss category - that's nearly impossible. If you went with 90%, it might actually happen once. Even against ManTrain the rolling demi-god when my own rolls were horrible, he didn't have 90% of his force left. Granted, only because he killed Eldgrim himself - but Eldrim and two Heavy Gruts was still more than 10% of his army.

Of course we don’t do a special final for top 4 or 8 we just play until we have one undefeated and then do the placing.
One reason I like a final free-for-all is the effect it will have on army design. One strike against it is the chance of a group of two or three gaming buddies getting into the final together and teaming up against the other(s), but you can't have everything.

[Jormi_Boced]

So that still count as a campaign? lol not sure... if it does im still calling it a tournament ;).
You say tomato, I say deadly nightshade plant. But you're out of hurling range, so if you say tournament I can't reasonably object.

3 Points = Tie, will rarely happen I think... Might also give 3 to those that miss a round...
I'd go with two instead, same as a 'standard' loss. At 3, a goodly number of players would fare better by signing up and not showing up. ;)

I believe I like the 6-point scale. However, even though I'm the one who originally suggested 50%, I'm toying with the notion that 60% might be better for the cutoff. What experience do people have with this? Is having half the army left a fairly common occurence, or uncommon enough to warrant a little extra?

And I don't know about including a 0-point loss category - that's nearly impossible. If you went with 90%, it might actually happen once. Even against ManTrain the rolling demi-god when my own rolls were horrible, he didn't have 90% of his force left. Granted, only because he killed Eldgrim himself - but Eldrim and two Heavy Gruts was still more than 10% of his army.

Of course we don’t do a special final for top 4 or 8 we just play until we have one undefeated and then do the placing.
One reason I like a final free-for-all is the effect it will have on army design. One strike against it is the chance of a group of two or three gaming buddies getting into the final together and teaming up against the other(s), but you can't have everything.

The free for all is a neat idea, but I would think the lesser players will team up on the best player and take him out first, so the best player won't end up winning the tourney.

[Clarissimus]

Here is a third alternative that hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet -- break ties by awarding points for army uniqueness.

Here's how it works: at the beginning of the tournament every army is given a "uniqueness" score based on how many other people brought those same units to the tournament. (It's not for people who hate math, but I bet it would be easy to set up a spreadsheet to input the info as the players arrive.)

Every unit type starts with a value of "1" whether squad or hero, common or unique. This value is divided by the number of players that also brought that figure. Finally, the value of every figure in a players' army would be averaged to get his uniqueness score.

This would have two effects in addition to breaking ties. It would discourage people from using popular combinations and it would also award fewer points for people using large numbers of commons.

Here's an example using the data from the Cincinnati SuperRegional Tournament (http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=4740)

ManTrainChooChoo's Army
Q9 was used by 4 players, so a uniqueness score of .25
Nilfheim was used by 3 players, so a uniqueness score of .333
Marro Warriors were used by 7 players, so a uniqueness score of .143
Saylind was used by 2 players, so a uniqueness score of .5

We average those numbers together to get .307
So under this algorithm ManTrainChooChoo's Army would be considered 30.7% unique.

MattserTruckRally's Army
Q9 was used by 4 players, so a uniqueness score of .25
Laglor was used by 2 players, so a uniqueness score of .5
Krav were used by 7 players, so a uniqueness score of .143
Raelin was used by 7 players, so a uniqueness score of .143
Guilty was used by 2 players, so a uniqueness score of .5

We average those numbers together to get .307
So under this algorithm MattserTruckRally's Army would be considered 30.7% unique.

(Okay, unintended coincidence. Let me do one more.)

jacob_j_p's Army
Q9 was used by 4 players, so a uniqueness score of .25
Nilfheim was used by 3 players, so a uniqueness score of .333
Marro Warriors were used by 7 players, so a uniqueness score of .143
Raelin was used by 7 players, so a uniqueness score of .143

We average those numbers together to get .217
So under this algorithm jacob_j_p's Army would be considered 21.7% unique.

The above examples are just to show you how uniqueness is calculated, not to prove that the method makes tournaments better. And of course this method is not "perfect" (whatever that's supposed to mean.) But it does reward creative combinations and less-used units, though not as much as actually winning the match. And I think it's a better alternative to banning Q9 or other popular units.

[Jormi_Boced]

I think that is a neat idea, but it would be more coplex than even SoS.

One of the main reasons I like PD is that it takes no extra time at the end of the tourney to figure placings. They are already in the placing order.

[Homba]

I just noticed this thread, and read it with interest. I have run and played in (on-line) tournaments for 7+ years at tournamenthouse.com (for the Close Combat WWII computer games - we've used Swiss and multi-elimination formats) so I have some background in thinking about tourney-type considerations. KingArthur1976 and I recently put our heads together for the Jackson 'Scape Tournament (http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=7632), which was a complete success.

I am interested in tourney formats and maps, because I think we (the community here) have an important responsibility in developing both format and maps - the game will be shaped for better or worse by our efforts.

For example if a tournament format that (unintentionally) favors a certain style of play or type of army gains widespread acceptance, we'll find ourselves stuck with the standard - to the detriment (by exclusion) of the "full scope" of available playstyles and army builds.

Another good example along these lines is the Battlefields of Valhalla tourney-map project. The maps that get selected as tourney-worthy will no doubt be widely used in tournaments. The BoV judges have shown a conscientious regard for what makes a good tourney map, and the responsibility is heavy: if adopted maps favor range, melee units will be largely sidelined in tourney play; if adopted maps have too-small start zones, a large swath of possible army builds is excluded.

The responsibility is just as heavy to develop a tourney format with no hidden, built-in advantages to certain styles and armies. I think using Point Differential risks this to a certain degree (hard to quantify, but many of the objections/negatives that have been voiced strike me as legitimate). At the same time, running a tourney is a logistics problem: you have to play a # of games in x time, so simplicity is needed.

Please check out how we ran the Swiss in the Jackson tourney (link above). The key is randomly pairing all like-record players against each other, rather than trying to use some criteria (such as PD or SoS) to pair like-record players.

I am not criticizing SoS-criteria swiss pairing if done with computer assistance - the software Gbob discussed has no hidden impact on playstyle.

Note our time-expiration procedure (minimizing as much as possible the specter of "stalling"), and how we "scored" the game if time expired and the completion of the current round + extra round did not result in a winner. All things considered, I am convinced the most fair way to score is to acknowledge and account for partial squads and wounded heroes. Gamey, score-manipulating maneuvers are thus eliminated - I'll detail this if anyone wants to debate it. When (as with our system) scoring is ONLY used to determine a winner in such a time-expired game, it almost never comes up, so the hair-pulling is minimal.

Note that having to score units was even further minimized under our system because we used "glyphs-as-objectives" in the event of time expiring, and only if glyph possession was split would unit-scoring even be necessary. "Glyphs-as-objectives" comes from my CC/wargaming background, where it is necessary to get both sides to come out from their entrenchments and fight for disputed territory. This is just as important in Scape to introduce a lot more maneuver into the game and prevent someone setting up a defensive bastion on height in/near their start zone and saying "come get me." That's a lame way to play, and taken to its logical extreme encourages a defensive stalemate where no one leaves their start zone - this is eliminated as an option if glyphs-as-objectives is used.

In the end, we ordered all participants with the same records by using the tie-breakers: H2H, Record vs Common Opponents, and finally SoS. This will take a tad of downtime depending on # of players at tourney end, but not enough to matter.

H

[Codeman]

Homba, I did review you link ( Jackson 'Scape Tournament ) I do remember reading when it was first posted. I think we are reasonably close and not that far apart in scoring/pairing. We both are apparently looking for the best format to score tournaments

We agree that:

1. Won – Loss record is first criteria ( I was surprised to find out this is not always the case at some tournaments ).
2. Swiss Style
3. Simplicity is needed to play a # of games in x time.
4. Random pairing is import – however my definition of “random” would be without human intervention and we accomplish that through PD as no one can control how the games are played out….just pair up the participants by the numbers. Note: our first round is done very similar to yours. We actually used colored score cards to group the various playing groups so they would not have to see/play each other in the first round (after that W/L followed by PD takes over).
5. SoS-criteria swiss pairing if done with computer assistance is good.
6. Although not part of this thread – I also agree that map selection is import - to be fair to all types of armies and playing styles.


I see only a couple things we may differ on:

1. You stated: “The most fair way to score is to acknowledge and account for partial squads and wounded heroes.” While I can agree it is the most fair….. it is far from the simplest. This is were we go back the HS rule book and adopt what is already there to use. Plus I don’t want people to be counting fractions when they are figuring their scorecard. Keep It Simple :D .
2. You stated: “Develop a tourney format with no hidden, built-in advantages to certain styles and armies. I think using Point Differential risks this to a certain degree.” This is the only one I do not understand. I do not see the “ hidden or built-in advantage this has with certain armies or styles. Is it different than SoS – yes Is the scoring outcome different – it may be (chances are if it is different it will be very close to the same results ) Is it different than your random style until the placement round – yes Is the outcome different – it again may be but chances are it will be very similar results.
3. I also agree that "we ordered all participants with the same records by using the tie-breakers: H2H, Record vs Common Opponents, and finally SoS. This will take a tad of downtime depending on # of players at tourney end, but not enough to matter" It is the "tad downtime" that I may have an issue with. This could take considerable about of time if you have more than a couple dozen score sheets to look thru. I do agree it would be more fair however. Again the placements should come out fairly close either way they are done. Again I go with Keep it Simple...sorry.

The good news is I do think we are close and are after the same things as far as scoring and pairings and tournaments in general….I wish we could talk about item #2 So I could set your mind at ease or maybe you can show me the light I may not be seeing.


One last note on PD-
I do think there is something to be said about keeping your army in tact and win without sacrificing so many of your troops. As I said before in real life if we came back from a large battle between divisions and only one squad came back - We would not call that a win... but in HS some people think this isn't preferable, and for the life of me I don't understand that logic. It is like the debate on the deathwaker and his last opponet - He blows-up himself to take out that figure. Who wins - my answer was nobody ( which of course was not the right answer :roll: )

[Homba]

Thanks for the reply, you boiled it down nicely - I apologize for the vagueness and disorganization of a lot of my post (it was late and I threw in the towel and just wrapped it), but I think you mainly understood my points. I have some definite thoughts on our remaining differences, and would be interested in how persuasive you find them. Sorry for the lack of brevity - tourney format is one of my favorite topics. :D


I see only a couple things we may differ on:

1. You stated: “The most fair way to score is to acknowledge and account for partial squads and wounded heroes.” While I can agree it is the most fair….. it is far from the simplest. This is were we go back the HS rule book and adopt what is already there to use. Plus I don’t want people to be counting fractions when they are figuring their scorecard. Keep It Simple :D .

Ok, you agree it ("fractional scoring" I'll call it, for lack of a better term) is most fair (this was not unanimous in the thread). Aside from being by far the fairest means of assessing surviving forces, "fractional scoring" eliminates two related types of "gamey" play, where "gamey" = "gaming the tourney scoring system" (undesirable) rather than "pure heroscape" (desirable):

(1) Attacking lone squad members in order to totally wipe out a squad to get the points. Often, this is antithetical to "good play" - use of a lone squadie is often a waste of an order marker because the squad's power is so diluted, and "good play" often suggests ignoring a lone enemy squadie, and focus if possible on enemy units that have greater power to hurt your side. This principle of good play is stood on its head when harvesting a squad's points is all-or-nothing - forcing players to "game the system" rather than use "best play."

(2) Withdrawing/hiding a severely wounded hero in order to save the points: the only motivation for this (except in the legitimate case of Alastair, re: Kelda, etc) is to game the scoring system. Using the order to withdraw could work to your detriment, but if you could get away with spending one or two orders this way, it would be a way to game the system that would not occur in an ordinary game of Scape.

Switching gears to address your objections:

Here's a main point I'm not sure I made clear, which militates against your "simplicity" objection. With PD, you score every game, every round. We NEVER used scoring in our entire (admittedly small) tournament, because it's only possible use was for breaking ties if time expired.* The ultimate "simplicity" is doing a thing zero times, you'll probably agree.

*Further mitigated by the "finish+1" Round requirement at the bell, AND by the glyphs-as-objectives "primary" scoring. Scoring remaining figures only occurred as a "secondary" tiebreaker if glyph possession was tied.

So scoring will only happen rarely under the system I'm discussing. Since it is so rare, the "adding fractions" 1/3 + 1/3 etc, is minimized, and for the record our tourney rules (below the maps, first post) said to always round factions up (avoiding the problem altogether). In the (very) odd case where you would have to score figures, being fair is the most important thing. A one-life Braxas should NOT be assessed to win over a full-life Nilfheim. That would be a grossly unjust measure the final situation, and I always assume we gather for tournaments to have fun fairly measuring our skill rather than to inflict absurd, arbitrary, backwards results upon each other - which the "scoring" rule on page 14 would do in the above example, handing the win to the 1-life Braxas.

We already have precedent for throwing out purely procedural rules that are senseless in a tournament setting. I think it is universally excepted that the Scape rules were not created with tournaments in mind. "It is not a tournament game" has been repeated endlessly on these boards. Certain additions and adjustments to procedures (not, of course, substance) are needed to make the transition to a mature set of tournament procedural rules. The Dallas Team Tourney did the smart thing and limited unique units to one per team, directly contradicting "the rules." We are generally not 8-12 yr-olds (Scape target audience) playing in these tourneys, and we should not allow the childishly simple scoring rule given on pg 14 to shackle us with patently unjust, unsporting, results when there is a simple, clean, intuitively fair alternative.

2. You stated: “Develop a tourney format with no hidden, built-in advantages to certain styles and armies. I think using Point Differential risks this to a certain degree.” This is the only one I do not understand. I do not see the “ hidden or built-in advantage this has with certain armies or styles. Is it different than SoS – yes Is the scoring outcome different – it may be (chances are if it is different it will be very close to the same results ) Is it different than your random style until the placement round – yes Is the outcome different – it again may be but chances are it will be very similar results.

I noticed multiple people raising this objection and giving several specific examples in the course of the thread - that PD favored certain styles and/or units/armies. I should have made a list, and we can wade into this murky topic more in future posts. Suffice it to say that I agreed -- to some degree [hedge] -- with many of the examples raised. Without getting into specifics (which would be interesting to delve into -- I'm not positively convinced about any of this) let me propose that PD favors a "knock-out" style army over a "grinder" play style/army. PD favors Q9. PD favors any high-cost heavy hitters (especially more than one) who by their nature can take the damage, survive, and wipe out the enemy, while losing only cheap screeners (rats). A "grinder" army is one composed of a weight of less-than-heavy-hitters who win by sheer volume of attacks and attrition -- an army that is going to take significant casualties, but when handled well is a serious threat to win every time - but will only likely have about a third of their troops remaining at the end - attrition is their strategy and their strength.

Also consider this: If you use "fractional scoring" in compiling your PD my complaint is partially (largely?) mitigated - wounded heavy hitters would score proportionally lower. However if you're sticking with full-points for a surviving card, then my complaint is at its strongest.

The fact is, we can go back and forth about this. It has already happened earlier in the thread between you and Alastair MacDirk (and there were others). Some cogent opinions from smart people on both sides. I think there's something there - but to what degree (insignificant, significant, how significant?) is impossible to assess mathematically (at least, it's beyond me, math-wise). Bottom line is, I think you agree that a tourney system should NOT influence playstyle and army build, and you don't personally think PD does that, but you cannot settle, cannot satisfactorily prove, this argument (can you?). My solution: avoid the issue entirely. Don't use PD (or at least I'd suggest: combine PD with "fractional scoring" to mitigate the problem).

3. I also agree that "we ordered all participants with the same records by using the tie-breakers: H2H, Record vs Common Opponents, and finally SoS. This will take a tad of downtime depending on # of players at tourney end, but not enough to matter" It is the "tad downtime" that I may have an issue with. This could take considerable about of time if you have more than a couple dozen score sheets to look thru. I do agree it would be more fair however. Again the placements should come out fairly close either way they are done. Again I go with Keep it Simple...sorry.

This is the tough one for me. I know you're right, I don't know how much time it would take to sort out the tiebreakers among the same-record categories by hand in a 20+ or 30+ player field. It could be tough to do by hand. But maybe not ... I don't know. Would have to mock it up and try it to know. Using PD would clearly be fast for a big field. But is that enough justification? Depends on the weight you give my other arguments.

The good news is I do think we are close and are after the same things as far as scoring and pairings and tournaments in general….I wish we could talk about item #2 So I could set your mind at ease or maybe you can show me the light I may not be seeing.

One last note on PD-
I do think there is something to be said about keeping your army in tact and win without sacrificing so many of your troops. As I said before in real life if we came back from a large battle between divisions and only one squad came back - We would not call that a win... but in HS some people think this isn't preferable, and for the life of me I don't understand that logic. It is like the debate on the deathwaker and his last opponet - He blows-up himself to take out that figure. Who wins - my answer was nobody ( which of course was not the right answer :roll: )

I heartily disagree with you here, as some others in the thread did. My view is Scape is not a military simulation - not even close (and obviously it doesn't attempt to be). It is a highly stylized impression of a wargame, at most. Like chess, for example, as one poster noted. A win is a win. A loss is a loss. In chess, you can have a brilliant win (or an ordinary one) when winning by only one promoted pawn at the end - all other men off the board. You can have a silly win (or a brilliant win) by checkmating the opponent with most of the pieces still on the board - either via your opponent's oversight, or through your brilliant forcing combination - the same brilliant forcing combination that could end in a 1-pawn win - each is equally laudable. In chess, there is no extra credit for wiping out your opponent while retaining all your own men. Scape is no different, and there should be even less credit for doing so, because Scape involves dice-luck.

You're trying to attach laudable attributes of an actual battle/actual generalship (winning while preserving one's own forces) to a game that does not simulate an actual battle. I'd say for Scape that winning a close game against a tough opponent is more creditable than whitewashing someone through a combination of dice-luck, incompetence, and/or ultra-conservative play. Yet you (Point Differential Scoring) would give LOTS more credit to the whitewasher than to the survivor of the hotly contested game. That, in my opinion, is backwards. And a good argument against using PD - and the explanation for why when you compare SoS to PD, you get some big deviations in final placing.

What did you think of the glyphs-as-objectives idea, and the reasons for it?

What did you think of the anti-stalling time limit rule: "At the bell, finish the current Round and then play one additional Round." ?

Using screens to hide your order marker placement (screen removed after orders placed and before initiative is rolled) as a logical addition to tourney play? (This was well-liked at our tourney).

What about army set up? Alternate placing units in start zones (player with most units places first)? There is often an advantage to seeing your opponent's setup prior to setting up your own army... worth addressing? We did not address it in our tourney - but in a championship, I'd think it would be an appropriate rule...

H

[Jormi_Boced]

I only read your first post, because I don't have time to read the whole thing, but I would like to reply to that point.

You describe what you call "gamey" play and say that it is undesireable. I disagree that it is undesireable. Heroscape is already a fairly luck based games, and I think tactical decisions like withdrawing a severely wounded hero or lone squad unit add to the tacticality of the game and present an honorable commander trying to save his units, rather than trhowing them against the rocks.

I don't know if you have played any actual war games (you know, the ones with chits), or even Memoir 44 or such. Tactical retreat is encouraged and rewarded in pretty much any combat based game, and I believe it should be the same in Heroscape.

[Homba]

I only read your first post, because I don't have time to read the whole thing, but I would like to reply to that point.

When you have time, I hope you'll finish the post (you'll find some comments relevant to your post toward the end) and comment more fully.

You describe what you call "gamey" play and say that it is undesireable. I disagree that it is undesireable. Heroscape is already a fairly luck based games, and I think tactical decisions like withdrawing a severely wounded hero or lone squad unit add to the tacticality of the game and present an honorable commander trying to save his units, rather than trhowing them against the rocks.

That would be persuasive if Scape attempted to simulate combat - but it doesn't. It's much closer to "chess with dice" than it is to simulating anything at all - though some general principles of military strategy apply, sure, but they also apply in chess (and in business, and in sports). I gave two examples of how using PD scoring format in tourneys could arguably result in specific tactical choices ordinarily considered "inferior play," but designed to exploit the PD system. I think a chosen tourney format should strive NOT to alter the substance of gameplay. I think PD risks altering gameplay with its emphasis on harvesting your opponent's points, and conserving your own.

I don't know if you have played any actual war games (you know, the ones with chits), or even Memoir 44 or such. Tactical retreat is encouraged and rewarded in pretty much any combat based game, and I believe it should be the same in Heroscape.

"Encouraged and rewarded?" That seems too strong to me. In a good simulation, "tactical retreat" may be an available option in the right circumstances, but its not like you get bonus points ("encouraged, rewarded") for accomplishing it. There is a risk (especially among less-disciplined troops) of "breaking" (into a full-fledged retreat or rout), and a heightened risk of taking casualties while retreating.

There are already plenty of opportunities for "tactical retreat" in Scape. Alastair retreating after being severely wounded so the MacDirks don't lose the bonus, retreating a unit back to Kelda, or back into Raelin's aura, or back into cover or back behind lagging screeners. The general concept IS represented in Scape, and I'm as pleased about that as you are. What I object to is a newly created, non-Scape system (Point Differential) actually altering the game to encourage and reward "running away" for the sole purpose of exploiting the PD system. I don't believe we should "add to the tacticality of the game" as you put it, by inventing tournament rules that favor different tactical decisions than those made in an "ordinary competitive game."

Any common ground here?

H

[Jormi_Boced]

Any common ground here?

H

Nope.

[Grungebob]

Any common ground here?

H

Nope.Short and to the point.

[Homba]

Any common ground here?

H

Nope.

No common ground, eh? I find it hard to fathom that you actually believe the exact opposite of every statement I made... I don't believe you think it's OK to invent our own rules that encourage tactical choices that are unadvisable under the existing ruleset. I don't believe you think Scape is a realistic combat simulation, etc, etc.

To me this is an open-ended, all-the-time-in-the-world round table discussion about the pros and cons of tourney formats, which is an interesting pastime in its own right - regardless of whether people adjust their opinions or we agree on some subtle truth about the game or on an ideal tourney system or anything else.

The depths of "tourney format policy" is not everyone's cup of tea (probably very few people's). If you don't have the time or inclination to discuss the nitty-gritty details of the issues involved, I totally understand - each of us only have so much time (I enjoyed your thorough discussion of the Ninjas on the front page, that obviously took some time).

H

[Codeman]

Wow! several posts since I last signed on. Let me read thru them again and digest what was said here.

Thanks Homba for entering your thoughts on this thread... it is your discussion and the points you raised are what I was looking for. My goal was to look at all options in tournament scoring and see what we as a group could come up with. Again as I said before we all do not have to agree but we all will get some brain stimulation on this topic, and I think that is good.

I will attempt to respond latter – thanks again for posting thoughts.

[Homba]

Looking forward to your discussion, take your time.

Maybe after a point we can look at some specific in-game circumstances and see if there is any merit to the idea that some of the different systems we're discussing would result in different tactical choices in the specific circumstances.

H

[Jormi_Boced]

I don't believe you think Scape is a realistic combat simulation, etc, etc.

I don't think it is realistic obviously, but it is a combat simulation, and actually Chess is as well, except for Chess is much more abstract.

[Codeman]

Homba I will address the other points you made - but I thought I would throw this info/data out now and you can take a look at it while I contemplate some of my responses to your fine questions. I do have answers and some go back to the time issue to do this "bookkeeping in a tourney setting. In the meantime here is some data for you to peruse :)

Ok Homba (and anyone else) I looked up some real data from real tourneys – I hope to get and post more data from the last 2 or 3 Austin MN tournaments also and you may scrutinies that data as well. Maybe you can look thru this data and explain how using PD would affect these armies. :? I still don’t see where one has an advantage over another, but I am interested in listening to your theroies. If it would help I can fill in the results between the top 7 and the bottom 7 but I thought just posting this much would give some insight without throwing too much data out there. Basically there are two groups of data below as everyone listed all finished with identical or near identical records within their group ( top 7 & bottom 7). Happy scrutinizing :!:

Here are the top 7 finishers (six at 4-1 and of course one at 5-0 ) from last years Tree Town Open.

1st Place - 15 victory points and + 1460 PD ( Undefeated )
1x Charos
4x 4th Mass

2nd Place – 13 victory points and + 1185 PD (lost to 5th Place Finsiher)
1x Sgt Drake
1x Ninja Northern Wind
1x Izumi Samurai
1x Airborne Elite

3rd Place – 13 victory points and + 960 PD (Lost to 1st Place Finisher)
1x Marcus
1x MeBuraSa
1x Krav Maga Agents
3x Romans

4th Place – 13 vicotory points and + 935 PD ( Lost to 7th Place Finsher)
1x Mimring
1x Krug
3x Arrow Gruts
4x Swog Riders

5th Place – 13 victory points and +870 PD ( Lost to 1st Place Finisher )
1x NilFheim
1x Mimring
1x Krave Maga Agents
1x Ne-Burq-Sa

6th Place – 13 victory points and + 760 PD ( Lost to 3rd Place Finisher )
1x Major Q9
1x Raelin
1x Deathreavers
1x Airborne Elite

7th Place – 13 victory points and +620 ( Lost to 3rd Place Finisher )
1x Brunak
1x Krav Maga Agents
1x Raelin
1x Finn
1x Theracus
2x Deathreavers

Just for the heck of it here is what the bottom seven looked like ( six at 1-4 and one at 0-5)
32nd tied– 7 vicotory points and –600 PD ( Beat 33rd Place Finisher)
1x Charos
1x Major Q9
1x Krav Maga Agents

32rd tied – 7 victory points and –600 PD (Beat 38th Place Finisher)
1x Concan
1x Raelin
3x Sentinels

34rh Place – 7 victory points and –740 PD ( Beat 37th Place Finisher)
1x Mimring
1x Krug
2x Arrow Gruts
1x DW8000

35th Place – 7 vicotory points and –970 PD ( Beat 24th Place Finisher )
1x DW9000
1x DW8000
1x Crixus
1x Arubbian Wolves
1x Tarn Viking Warriours

36th Place – 7 victory points and –1085 PD ( Beat 38th Place Finisher)
1x Venoc Warlord
1x Elie Onyx Vipers
2x Armoc Vipers
2x Aubrien Archers

37the Place – 7 victory points and –1970 PD ( Beat 38th Place Finisher)
1x Su-Bak-Na
1x Krug
2x Arrow Gruts
1x Blade Gruts
1x Nerak
1x Swog

38th Place – 5 victory points and –1635 PD ( Did not win a match )
1x Su-Bak-Na
1x Ne-Gok-Sa
1x Deathreavers
1x Marro Warriors
3x Marro Drones

[Grungebob]

I just want to say that the point differential system is flat out awesome Codeman. Excellent way to run a tourney!! I was hoping that you all would run one of the Gencon events to give more exposure to this system as it is one that folks can take back to their home towns and put to use with much ease. Thanks to you for sharing it with us.

[Codeman]

I just want to say that the point differential system is flat out awesome Codeman. Excellent way to run a tourney!! I was hoping that you all would run one of the Gencon events to give more exposure to this system as it is one that folks can take back to their home towns and put to use with much ease. Thanks to you for sharing it with us.

Thank you GB

I will have to give credit to Jormi_Boced as he used this system in our very first tournament the Tree Town Tourney (now know as the Tree Town Open) when we had a whopping 8 people show up... every touney seems to grow larger and larger and that is where this scoring system really seams to shine as the number of entrants grows. It still keeps the tourney very manageable and running smoothly.

One point I should have stated again in Homba post above:
I would like the scoring to be as accurate or as fair as possiable but in the whole scheme of things what everyone really wants is to play the game. Scoring seems to be secondary for most people. If some went away from the TTO unhappy I am unware of it. If they did and if they did have a problem with our scoring it would not hurt my feeling by letting me know... I want input both good and bad. Again to my knowledge most if not all people went home happy.

[Homba]

Codeman, I am very interested in reading your responses to the assertions I made in my long post. Your answers will probably narrow the discussion.

You wrote: "Maybe you can look thru this data and explain how using PD would affect these armies. I still don’t see where one has an advantage over another, but I am interested in listening to your theroies."

I have given you the general theory (echoing Dnutt, solarius and A.MacDirk from earlier in the thread) that PD favors a "knock-out" army over a "grinder" army, and I explained why I think this in my previous post. By "favors," I mean that among 4-1 finishers, a "knock-out" army (all else being equal) has a better chance to finish (place) higher (by amassing a greater PD) than a "grinder" army in a PD system.

I'm not sure what you are asking me to do with the list of armies you gave. The armies on the bottom aren't relevant to our discussion - they were consistently either unlucky and/or not well managed - and thus their 1-4 or 0-5 record. A consistently unlucky or badly managed army is going to do badly, regardless of its component units. What their PDs are will be very random.

The 4-1 finishers you listed are the crux of it, though you understand I'm asserting a statistical theory not testable by one, or a handful, of results. Going back to the first paragraph above, my assertion is that among these 4-1 finishers, a 4-1 "knock-out" army designed to win with few significant casualties would be statistically more likely to amass a better PD than a 4-1 "grinder" army designed to win a battle of attrition. Do you see what I'm saying? And do you disagree? (This was among my questions in my long post.)

You'll agree that a large sample size of players understanding the PD system and trying to exploit the (asserted) PD "advantage" of a knock-out army would be needed to actually "test" the theory. Such a test is unlikely. The concern is that the theory is sound and the advantage real, and that some players will take this into consideration to maximize their chances of the highest possible finish (if they don't win) when playing in a PD tournament.

This is sidetracking, but I don't understand the discrepancy in point cost for these armies. Was it a 500 pt tourney?

1x NilFheim
1x Mimring
1x Krave Maga Agents
1x Ne-Burq-Sa ========== 485

6th Place – 13 victory points and + 760 PD ( Lost to 3rd Place Finisher )
1x Major Q9
1x Raelin
1x Deathreavers (Deathstalkers?)
1x Airborne Elite ======== 410 (did you mean Deathstalkers? = 470)

--

So... I am interested in your responses to the general principles I asserted in the long post, and the other questions about using screens, time limit, glyphs-as-objectives, etc. From there, I look forward to moving to specific tactical situations to see if we can agree that a PD system dictates different choices than a non-PD system.

H

[Grungebob]

I just want to say that the point differential system is flat out awesome Codeman. Excellent way to run a tourney!! I was hoping that you all would run one of the Gencon events to give more exposure to this system as it is one that folks can take back to their home towns and put to use with much ease. Thanks to you for sharing it with us.

Thank you GB

I will have to give credit to Jormi_Boced as he used this system in our very first tournament the Tree Town Tourney (now know as the Tree Town Open) when we had a whopping 8 people show up... every touney seems to grow larger and larger and that is where this scoring system really seams to shine as the number of entrants grows. It still keeps the tourney very manageable and running smoothly.

One point I should have stated again in Homba post above:
I would like the scoring to be as accurate or as fair as possiable but in the whole scheme of things what everyone really wants is to play the game. Scoring seems to be secondary for most people. If some went away from the TTO unhappy I am unware of it. If they did and if they did have a problem with our scoring it would not hurt my feeling by letting me know... I want input both good and bad. Again to my knowledge most if not all people went home happy.Well, it has been YOU that made us all aware of this system, and I think this could work well for many of those who want to run a tournament and have a system that is easy, and fair. Thank YOU for that Codeman.

[Codeman]

Homba,
In attempt to knock off a few of your/our questions I will tackle some of the easy ones first.
First the results I provide were from the 2006 TTO – the army size was 490 point limit.

You asked what do I think about the anti-stalling time limit rule: (At the bell, finish the current Round and then play one additional Round.) I think we accomplish without “playing one additional round”. Our approach is to do basically the same thing only do it up front. Jormi_Boced typically announces when there is 15 minutes to go. 5 minutes to go, and then the last call is" time is up "and anyone not done is to finish the round they are on. Extending the tourney time to allow one more round in most cases will not do anything but extend they tourney time for everyone ( some of whom have finished there games ½ hour ago ). People can certainly can bring their watches or any devices they chose to tell time. If they pay attention when we start I would believe they could also know within an approx minute to when the game time limit is. Also as I’ve said multiply times above most game do end prior to the time limit. If this weren’t the case I would say again it a problem with the army size or map(s) or both.


You also asked about using screens to hide your order marker placement (screen removed after orders placed and before initiative is rolled) as a logical addition to tourney play? (This was well-liked at our tourney). I also address this in my welcome letter every participant received in their welcome bag. Within this letter it stated:
…..snip….Then you and your opponent need to roll a D20. High roll has choice of which starting zone. Once the starting zone is chosen proceed to put your army out, and develop your turn marking strategy. Jormi_Boced will announce the start of the round, at this time please place your markers (you may hide/cover your marker placements if you wish) Once both sides have their markers placed roll for initiative and begin the game. Note: there is no time limit between moves, Please take the time you need, but don’t waste time or go into a delay game, do be completive , but also be courtesy and have good sportsmanship…… snip….

So we leave it optional, but I do invite people to “you may hide/cover your marker placements if they wish” this keeps everyone on the same page, so if some see someone doing this they don't get bent out of shape and for those that do they can feel comfortable doing so. I personally do not know what the bulk of the people do as place mine I do not watch them, I place mine according to my strategy, I only look at there marker placement once the game has started.


Your also asked: “What about army set up? Alternate placing units in start zones (player with most units places first)? There is often an advantage to seeing your opponent's setup prior to setting up your own army... worth addressing? We did not address it in our tourney - but in a championship, I'd think it would be an appropriate rule...”
We play Swiss Style so by championship do you me last round? If so why change for the last round? I again see no reason to alternate placement. I assume most people are already familiar with the map(s) and have an idea of where they want to set up based on the starting zone they ended up with. Alternating putting down figures again would only prolong the tournament time. I would guess if we would adopt two of your ideas on playing an extra round after time has expired and doing this alternate marker placement would add approx 10 minutes a match or more (remember you could be coordinating this over several tables (20 or more) I believe that would easily add an hour to your tournement…what did that hour gain you or your participations? Sorry, again I don’t see that it makes a significant impact to the tournament to implement. If I play at a tourney that does I will play by their rules – it will be difficult as once I put my figures down I typically fine tune my placement by moving a few around, but that is not based of my opponent t but my movement and the terrain in front of me.
So if that rule was implement I would become a turtle as I would have to think a lot longer before I put down a figure as I knew once it is down I will not be able to move it.

I keep repeating this … but again in our tournaments I have never seen any of the above questions being an issue nor have I heard any complaints… and I do ask for feedback. Also though out this thread a few of our Heroscaper members that competed at the TTO have made unsolicited comments about PD as well as other areas of how the tournament was run. I also will go out on limb an say if they didn’t think it was run well or fair we would not have so many repeate participants ( this is why I fear we will have to limit entrants in the 2007 TTO which is yet TBD but the number will somewhere between 50-64 )

I will get to the rest of your questions but what I really would like to discuss/understand is your commnet on "favors a "knock-out" army (all else being equal) has a better chance to finish (place) higher (by amassing a greater PD) than a "grinder" army in a PD system" I assume my arrow grunt army would fall under you grinder army? That army finished 4th. Sorry but I still am not understanding you knock vs grinder. By Knock out are you talking big heros? and Grinder are you talking many small squads? I think the point value asigned on the cards take care of this so PD or SoS or your method should not impact this in the end result.

[Grungebob]

I would like to move this discussion to another section.... I'm leaning toward the Events Section... Any objections?

[Codeman]

I would like to move this discussion to another section.... I'm leaning toward the Events Section... Any objections?

Your the administrator so its you call, I'm just curious why? what makes this fall under an " Event "?

[Grungebob]

I would like to move this discussion to another section.... I'm leaning toward the Events Section... Any objections?

Your the administrator so its you call, I'm just curious why? what makes this fall under an " Event "?Well it is important, it pertains to events, and it will get swallowed up here in the general Heroscape forum.... Especially without search function to find it.

[Codeman]

I would like to move this discussion to another section.... I'm leaning toward the Events Section... Any objections?

Your the administrator so its you call, I'm just curious why? what makes this fall under an " Event "?Well it is important, it pertains to events, and it will get swallowed up here in the general Heroscape forum.... Especially without search function to find it.

OK, thank you for the explanation.

[Marduk]

It was a surprise to see it here in the Events forum, but it does fit here too - it is event-related, after all. It might be good to include a link to this topic in the Event Hosting sticky, that would help event hosts find it.

[Homba]

Homba,
In attempt to knock off a few of your/our questions I will tackle some of the easy ones first.
First the results I provide were from the 2006 TTO – the army size was 490 point limit.

You asked what do I think about the anti-stalling time limit rule: (At the bell, finish the current Round and then play one additional Round.) I think we accomplish without “playing one additional round”. Our approach is to do basically the same thing only do it up front. Jormi_Boced typically announces when there is 15 minutes to go. 5 minutes to go, and then the last call is" time is up "and anyone not done is to finish the round they are on. Extending the tourney time to allow one more round in most cases will not do anything but extend they tourney time for everyone ( some of whom have finished there games ½ hour ago ). People can certainly can bring their watches or any devices they chose to tell time. If they pay attention when we start I would believe they could also know within an approx minute to when the game time limit is. Also as I’ve said multiply times above most game do end prior to the time limit. If this weren’t the case I would say again it a problem with the army size or map(s) or both.

Yes, the "finish the round +1 round" (shorthand: "Finish+1R") would necessarily add the time necessary to complete the extra round, if it was needed. How much time to play one round? A few minutes, but as you say, it could add up over a large tourney, where every round would have so many pairings that a few would certainly end up in the +1 round. Let me say that Finish+1R combined with Glyphs-as-Objectives, is the ultimate anti-stalling, anti-turtling system, because someone prone to stall or turtle is thwarted on both counts by the fact that they'll have to play out the final two rounds (the bell round, and the bonus round) "untimed," AND they are forced by Glyphs-as-Objective tie-break scoring to contest the battlefield objectives. More discussion on this in due course. If I were running an event, and I could build in the time to use Finish+1R, I would do it. If no time for Finish+1R, I would still use Glyphs-as-Objectives which adds no time but eliminates turtling. Can Glyphs-as-Objectives be made compatible with your PD system? Probably.

You also asked about using screens to hide your order marker placement (screen removed after orders placed and before initiative is rolled) as a logical addition to tourney play? (This was well-liked at our tourney). I also address this in my welcome letter every participant received in their welcome bag. Within this letter it stated:
…..snip….Then you and your opponent need to roll a D20. High roll has choice of which starting zone. Once the starting zone is chosen proceed to put your army out, and develop your turn marking strategy. Jormi_Boced will announce the start of the round, at this time please place your markers (you may hide/cover your marker placements if you wish) Once both sides have their markers placed roll for initiative and begin the game. Note: there is no time limit between moves, Please take the time you need, but don’t waste time or go into a delay game, do be completive , but also be courtesy and have good sportsmanship…… snip….

So we leave it optional, but I do invite people to “you may hide/cover your marker placements if they wish” this keeps everyone on the same page, so if some see someone doing this they don't get bent out of shape and for those that do they can feel comfortable doing so. I personally do not know what the bulk of the people do as place mine I do not watch them, I place mine according to my strategy, I only look at there marker placement once the game has started.

I like that you give the option. Did many players bring screens? From our tourney rules: "Though no one *wants* to look at their opp's order placement, it is hard not to see an opponent placing a marker on a card, especially if looking at a part of the map near his/her cards. No one wants to appear to be looking at where his opponent has placed order markers. Screens remove this unwelcome moral dilemma without introducing unfamiliar and/or time consuming procedures." So by using a screen you are doing me a favor- I don't have to be self-conscious about not looking at, and not appearing to look at, your order placement. It has nothing to do with lack of trust or cheating. We can assume players are trusting and fair, and screens are still a good thing.


Your also asked: “What about army set up? Alternate placing units in start zones (player with most units places first)? There is often an advantage to seeing your opponent's setup prior to setting up your own army... worth addressing? We did not address it in our tourney - but in a championship, I'd think it would be an appropriate rule...”
We play Swiss Style so by championship do you me last round? If so why change for the last round? I again see no reason to alternate placement. I assume most people are already familiar with the map(s) and have an idea of where they want to set up based on the starting zone they ended up with. Alternating putting down figures again would only prolong the tournament time. I would guess if we would adopt two of your ideas on playing an extra round after time has expired and doing this alternate marker placement would add approx 10 minutes a match or more (remember you could be coordinating this over several tables (20 or more) I believe that would easily add an hour to your tournement…what did that hour gain you or your participations? Sorry, again I don’t see that it makes a significant impact to the tournament to implement. If I play at a tourney that does I will play by their rules – it will be difficult as once I put my figures down I typically fine tune my placement by moving a few around, but that is not based of my opponent t but my movement and the terrain in front of me.
So if that rule was implement I would become a turtle as I would have to think a lot longer before I put down a figure as I knew once it is down I will not be able to move it.

By "championship" I meant some theoretical super-tournament like a National Championship Tournament. We did NOT use this in our tourney, for reasons similar to what you mention - more time thinking, foreign, etc. But hear me out: If you have the Krav Maga Agents, and place them on your far right in a start zone with wide frontage (for example, this map (http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/10147/TheForgottenShrine%282%29.JPG)), and I have a KMA counter like the EOV or Drake, I would LOVE to put them DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM your Krav so I could go after them directly before they could do a lot of damage, right? If I could muck around and stall during setup and see where you put your Krav, I might be tempted to do this. But that isn't fair. It's actually quite abusive. I just wish there was a quick and easy rule to address this so it could never be a problem.

I keep repeating this … but again in our tournaments I have never seen any of the above questions being an issue nor have I heard any complaints… and I do ask for feedback. Also though out this thread a few of our Heroscaper members that competed at the TTO have made unsolicited comments about PD as well as other areas of how the tournament was run. I also will go out on limb an say if they didn’t think it was run well or fair we would not have so many repeate participants ( this is why I fear we will have to limit entrants in the 2007 TTO which is yet TBD but the number will somewhere between 50-64 )

I will get to the rest of your questions but what I really would like to discuss/understand is your commnet on "favors a "knock-out" army (all else being equal) has a better chance to finish (place) higher (by amassing a greater PD) than a "grinder" army in a PD system" I assume my arrow grunt army would fall under you grinder army? That army finished 4th. Sorry but I still am not understanding you knock vs grinder. By Knock out are you talking big heros? and Grinder are you talking many small squads? I think the point value asigned on the cards take care of this so PD or SoS or your method should not impact this in the end result.

Dnutt and Alastair also made thoughtful posts touching on this point. An army built around one or more mega-priced (180+), heavy-hitting unit(s) (prime example is Q9, but also Braxas, Nilf, Jotun and to a lesser degree Charos who isn't a true "heavy hitter") is what I'm calling a "knock-out" army, and I am concerned (but not certain) that such an army, by its nature, will be statistically more likely to amass a higher PD score. We can discuss more, though maybe we should save it for later. There are several other points I'm wondering how you'll reply to. I should list them to make it easier on you - I'll go back through my post tomorrow if necessary. Thanks for the continued thought-provoking discussion.

H

[Grungebob]

Homba, I just want you to know that Glyphs as objectives, is not a new concept and has been a subject of discussion for a long time. My personal opinion on it is that, glyphs ALREADY provide a benifit and affect the outcome of a game through augmentation. There are a variety of glyphs, and not all of the glyphs available are usable by all armies. I think it would be hard to keep the glyphs balanced if used as a scoring system. Some glyphs are temporary, some only pertain to certain figures, some may not have any use, and others are twice as effective and would be worth the same amount of points?

[Codeman]

Hombra,
Here is more REAL data - the top five finishers from the last Austin, MN tournament:

1 Jormi_Boced 12 (+760) - Austin MN
Raelin x1
Braxas x1
Knights x2
Krav Maga Agents x1
Eldgrim x1

#2 Codeman 10 points (+1,045 PD) - Forest City IA
Arrow Gruts x4
Swog Rider x4
Krug
AE
Zettian Guards

#3 Pat Picha 10 points (+950 PD) - Minneapolis MN
Braxas
Mimring
Grimnak
Blade Gruts
Arrow Gruts

#4 deliverymaxas 10 points (+870 PD) - Omaha NE
Nilfheim
Major Q9
Krav Maga Agents
Raelin

#5 Phloid 10 point (+790 PD) - Shakopee MN
Major Q9
Raelin
Krav Maga Agents
Deathreavers x2
Laglor


There were seveal Q9's in the tourney but they did not apear to get the PD advantage as you suggested, both were in the top 5 had the lowest PD. I'm suggesting that the big hitters do not affect PD, again I think their point value and abilities on the card are very well balanced so it does not come into play. weather it is 180 points for one figure or 180 for 10 or 12 figures it is all well balanced ( except Taylor (he cost too much)) :lol: .

[Homba]

Just to note that I did say: "... you understand I'm asserting a statistical theory not testable by one, or a handful, of results. Going back to the first paragraph above, my assertion is that among these 4-1 finishers, a 4-1 "knock-out" army designed to win with few significant casualties would be statistically more likely to amass a better PD than a 4-1 "grinder" army designed to win a battle of attrition. Do you see what I'm saying? And do you disagree? (This was among my questions in my long post.)
...
You'll agree that a large sample size of players understanding the PD system and trying to exploit the (asserted) PD "advantage" of a knock-out army would be needed to actually "test" the theory.

I want to speculate about general principles, and you want to give me single sets of results (statistically insignificant, I think) so we might do well to abandon this one issue. I've told you what I think about scattered results, and you're telling me you disagree that there are two extremes of army build:
Knock-out: More likely (I'm picturing a bell curve) to either win spectacularly or lose spectacularly due to one or two heavy units (Q9).
Grinder: More likely to have a close match, win or lose.

If you think all army builds are the same, you have to think the bell-curve moving from wipeout loss, to close game, to wipeout win is identical for every possible army build, or else you'd have to agree with me that some 4-1 (4 win, 1 loss) army builds are statistically more likely to do better in PD scoring than other 4-1 armies. I don't think so - I think the probability is going to distributed differently along that bell curve for extremely different army builds. Can all the bell curves really be identical!? Impossible!

Any final remark on this? (I am so curious about this, I am going to ask mathguy to comment. If either of us are way off -- and it is quite possible that I am! -- or if it just isn't resolvable, he might be able to tell us convincingly.)

-------------

Gb, I have a reply generally completed for your post, discussing my version of a Glyphs-as-Objectives system. I'll get it posted tomorrow night, and we can launch into that aspect.

H

[Codeman]

Homba, I don't have to agree with you, but I did want to understand your point of view. You explained it well above, and I believe I do understand you now. Saying this I will stick to what I said earlier The high point "heavy hitters" don't make a difference in PD I do believe they and the grind it out units are both balance by their cards (points and abilities). This is were your statics come into play and I think they would prove my point ( that it makes little or difference in PD ) -vs- your view point. As far as a hand full of games, I've only post the last two I have easy access to. Again I may be able to find more tourney results with Jormi help, however I think we will not find the trend you expect to find. My point is if it is not happening in real life it probably is not a problem, however if you think it is I would suggest you make a heavy hitter army if you attend a tourney using PD just to be safe. However I am still going with my grind it out Orcs, and I've done ok with them. In the Austin tourney I had the highest PD and Krug was the only thing I had that was close to a heavy hitter 120 points.

[Homba]

Understood. We can leave this unresolved and move on. Mathguy mailed me back and said he'd look at this thread. If he comments, it will probably be of interest.

How about discussing a Glyphs-as-Objectives rule, and how using this rule (or not) affects gameplay? Edit - I just realized this IS compatible with PD. Read on and then see my note at the end.

Responding to Gb's post helped me simplify the idea even more, junking the business of "each glyph being worth a number of points equal to army size for scoring purposes." I realized that's a totally unnecessary and potentially confusing layer, and the same exact result is reached by boiling Glyphs-as-Objectives down to one simple sentence. So here goes...

Let me start by stating the Glyphs-as-Objectives ("GaO") rule I am proposing. It is simple to state. What takes longer is clearing up misconceptions and demonstrating its consequences on gameplay. Though it is a tiebreaker rule, its presence purposefully drives decision-making during the game.

The GaO Rule:

"If your army possesses more Glyphs than your opponent's army, you win." only to determine a winner at game expiration if neither army is destroyed.]

Here is GaO in the context of tourney rules, as it would be posted pre-tourney:

When time expires in a tourney match and any additional play* is completed if neither side has been totally destroyed use the following tiebreakers to determine the winner. *(Use "Current Round + 1 Additional Round," or "Current Round," or other, as pre-determined.)

Tiebreaker 1. Possession of Glyphs (Glyphs-as-Objectives)

[list:48f174461f]The Glyphs (in addition to their normal power) represent battlefield objectives over which the fight is waged. If your army possesses (physically occupies) more Glyphs than your opponent's army, you win. If neither army possesses a Glyph, or if possession of Glyphs is equally split, move to Tiebreaker 2.

Tiebreaker 2. "Score" remaining units.

"Score" each army's remaining units (use "Fractional Scoring" or "All-or-Nothing Scoring" technique, as pre-determined). The army with the highest score wins. If scores are tied, the game is a draw. [/list:u:48f174461f]
--------


GaO - Discussion

GaO assumes one, two or three glyphs on the tournament battlefield. (If desired, you could use Brandar Glyphs to serve as battlefield objectives not involving the "special powers" of ordinary Glyphs).

The GaO system envisions a battle being fought for control of crucial objectives represented by the Glyphs. Wiping out the opposing army is the surest way to secure the battlefield and thereby the objectives. If, however, neither side is destroyed in the allowed time, then the side having skillfully fought, sacrificed and maneuvered to secured the vital objectives (holding more objectives than the opponent) earns the win when the game ends.

Only if possession of Glyphs is split evenly must remaining units be scored to determine the winner.

The Competitive Benefit of GaO

An example:

Your remaining 170 pts of infantry is occupying the two Glyphs on the battlefield hunkered down behind some ruins. Your opponent's Q9 (screened by a few lone squad figs, for 200+pts remaining) is 10 spaces away perched on a hill overlooking an open field when the game ends. With the GaO rule, your 170 pts of infantry WINS due to possessing the two Glyphs. Why is this significant?

Because without GaO, your opponent's Q9 can "turtle" (assume a fully defensive posture) saying, "Come get me, or else I will win on score" and you are FORCED to run through the open with your infantry to tangle with the screeners and get blown away by Q9.

The opponent should not be allowed to turtle when he does not hold the crucial objectives for which the battle was fought. GaO goes a long way toward eliminating turtling as an unsporting, uncompetitive tactic. Obviously, it is the infantry at the glyphs who have earned the right to dig in defensively since they have secured their objectives. If it is a question of one player attacking the other (and it always is), GaO forces Q9 to take the risk of moving into close assault against the hidden infantry in an attempt to regain one of the objectives before time expires.

Because in this example GaO dictates that Q9 must move into the infantry's strike range, the infantry player is rewarded for skillfully doing what was necessary to secure the battlefield objectives, even if it meant sacrificing a lot of troops to obtain the positional advantage. The infantry player has successfully orchestrated his best chance to kill Q9 who must now walk into the hornets' nest.

Without GaO, you get NONE of this great tactical attack-counterattack: Q9 just sits safely on his hill (the most wise course if objectives are irrelevant!) and thumbs his nose, either winning on time or destroying the infantry forced to advance idiotically across the field and up the hill.

To use GaO or not... you have to ask: How would I like the above example (and myriad variations thereof) to play out? With a strong unit turtling on a hill, or with each side compelled by GaO to counterattack if their foe holds the objectives? For those who like the military flavor, GaO provides it in spades. For those who like the chess flavor, GaO provides an analogy to "checkmate" gained through relentless pursuit of positional advantage - even through sacrifice of material to seize that advantage.

-----------

Now based on that explanation of GaO, I'll try to answer Gbob's questions.

There are a variety of glyphs, and not all of the glyphs available are usable by all armies.

It doesn't matter what the Glyphs are, their existence as objectives is independent of the ordinary "power" of the Glyphs. In our tourney, each map had either two or three glyphs, blindly selected from a pool of +1def, +2move, +1d20, and +8init. These are all permanent glyphs, universally-usable, and the most "tame" in that their effects are the least likely to provide a decisive advantage to one side. I think there is some consensus that a "normal" tournament is not the place for glyphs that can radically or randomly unbalance the game, such as +4range, +2def, massive curse, revive, teleport, wind and heal. I remain torn on using +1attack, because it is a major advantage and will become the focus of the game like no other glyph, but it also is a great help killing Q9 (who doesn't benefit much from it himself) and without at least the threat of it being present, Q9 becomes an even more powerful choice. Which glyphs are appropriate and how to use them in a tourney (face up, face down, random, etc) has been a separate discussion in its own right.

You COULD use temporary Glyphs (heal, revive, etc) with the GaO system, by replacing the used temporary Glyph with the generic Brandar Glyph in order to signify the "objective." You could use any glyphs you want - but for an ordinary tournament I recommend the four "tame" glyphs and perhaps the +1attack.


My personal opinion on it is that, glyphs ALREADY provide a benifit and affect the outcome of a game through augmentation.

Yes, they do. But this does not change the Q9 vs. infantry example I gave above. Regardless of what the two glyphs possessed by the infantry are, Q9 is best served by sitting on his hill with a clear field of fire and would/should do so without GaO compelling him to move into the infantry's strike range. The fact that glyphs give advantages to the army possessing them does not prevent effective turtling by the opponent.


I think it would be hard to keep the glyphs balanced if used as a scoring system. Some glyphs are temporary, some only pertain to certain figures, some may not have any use, and others are twice as effective and would be worth the same amount of points?

If you understand my GaO rule, as I hope you better do after the explanation and the Q9 vs infantry example, you see that your question is not applicable. If your tournament only uses +1def, +2move, +8init, +1d20 (and perhaps +1attack), your question is not applicable, because these are universally-usable. If you agree that denying your opponent a glyph very useful to him (the +1d20 for a frenzy army) is a very beneficial thing for you to do, even if the glyph itself does not "directly" help you much (you have no "d20 units"), then your concern is not applicable - it helps you when you deny your opponent a benefit. The objectives are, by definition, considered equally valuable regardless of - and in addition to - the ordinary "power" of the Glyph.

Homba, I just want you to know that Glyphs as objectives, is not a new concept and has been a subject of discussion for a long time.

That so? I've never seen it discussed. I'm pretty sure it's never been discussed specifically in the form I'm now proposing. Though as far back as .net I reported how my group used glyphs-as-objectives to determine a winner if we reached the round-limit in our battles - the side controlling the most glyphs won, regardless of casualties. I've mentioned this from time to time when writing battle reports on the various Scape sites, with only a little discussion generated. If you can point me to a thread, I'd enjoy reading it. It isn't my intent to claim invention of this old gaming concept.

H

Edit - I just realized GaO is compatible with PD. GaO would determine win-loss, and you'd figure PD normally with the twist that the LOSER might have a larger force left, so you'd have to tweak it - the winner in that case should get a positive PD instead of a negative one, and the loser with the larger force should get the negative PD.


You play me. Time expires and game ends, I have more troops left, but you control the glyphs, so you win by GaO.

You win by GaO: your remaining force = 50 pts.

I lose by GaO: my remaining force = 150 pts.

So you get credited (rewarded) for winning with a smaller force, you receive a PD of +100 for the game, I receive a PD of -100 (penalty for not being able to control the objectives with a larger force). Cool.

What do you think of that?

I know you like PD for how easy it is without a computer to order the final rankings... if I could just convince you to incorporate GaO... and Fractional Scoring instead of that ham-handed "all-or-nothing" scoring... that could be quite interesting...

[Grungebob]

Homba, So you're saying, that if at the end of the game I had just Jotun left alive standing on a glyph, and my opponent had only two Deathreavers each standing on a glyph, he would win? Sounds pretty screwy to me. In fact If it forces folks to use tactics that don't make sense (such as having Q9 leave that perfect spot on the hill) then it seems to me that it would be a little wonky. The player's reward for grabbing those glyphs is possibly having a higher defense or attack, or being able to summon Q9 off that hill.

That is not to say that Glyphs as objectives is not a viable discussion, but the form that you propose (as I understand it) is just something I would not be interested in.

[mathguy]

If you think all army builds are the same, you have to think the bell-curve moving from wipeout loss, to close game, to wipeout win is identical for every possible army build, or else you'd have to agree with me that some 4-1 (4 win, 1 loss) army builds are statistically more likely to do better in PD scoring than other 4-1 armies. I don't think so - I think the probability is going to distributed differently along that bell curve for extremely different army builds. Can all the bell curves really be identical!? Impossible!

Here is my interpretation of Homba's question on different armies having different "bell curves"
for probability distribution of wipe-out loss to wipe-out win.
We have to make some idealized assumptions/modeling.
(You could skip reading these assumptions and calculations and go on to the conclusions. :-) )

Assumption 1: Each army in the tournament has the same number of points.
Each army has some probability distribution of how many points it has left after a game.
One idealized assumption is that this probability distribution is independent of the opponent.

Assumption 2: The mean of each army probability distribution is the same. That is,
all chosen armies have an equal probability of winning.

Assumption 3: For player n, call the standard deviation of this probability distribution s_n,
and the variance v_n = (s_n)^2.
The main point is that some armies have a bigger standard deviation than some other armies
armies. For example, for illustration only, if say every unit has a 50% chance of surviving a
game, then an army (A) of two 200 pt units would have mean 200 and std dev of 100, variance=10000.
whereas an army (B) of four 100 pt units would have mean 200 and std dev of 70.71, variance=5000
and an army (C) of eight 50 pt units would have mean 200 and std dev of 50, variance=2500.

Assumption 4: A "game" between two armies can be modeled by subtracting the two probability
distributions. We just subtract the means; so the mean is zero for any game (by assumption 2).
And if we assume independence, we add the variance (so the std is the square root of
the sum of the squares of the std devs). Following the above examples,
a game between (A) and (B) would have PD that has mean 0, variance 15000, and std 122.47.
That is, the PD variance between the game of player i vs player j would simply be v_i + v_j.
Then in a round robbin, the total PD for player i has mean 0 and variance
w_i = (v_i+v_1) + (v_i+v_2) + ... (v_i + v_t)
skipping (v_i+v_i) and where t is the total number of players.
In fact, this has a simple formula,
w_i = (t-2)*v_i + K
where K = v_1+...+v_t is a constant (the same) for all players.
From this, it is easy to see that an army with a higher variance v_i also has a higher
variance w_i for total PD.

Assumption 5: To do calculations, we model the PD distribution with a normal distribution.
So the probability density function for PD with mean 0 and variance w is
p(w, x) = 1/Sqrt(Pi*w) e^(-(x^2/w)).
http://math.lfc.edu/~yuen/heroscape/image/pd1a.gif

So my interpretation of Homba's question is: does an army with a higher variance in
its wipe-out loss to wipe-out win probability distribution have a better chance
to do better in PD scoring?

We calculate the probability that player i scores the maximum PD of all the players.
This probability is
http://math.lfc.edu/~yuen/heroscape/image/pd2a.gif.

Using the above simple example of 3 players,
with individual army variances of 10000, 5000, 2500, and
with PD variance 27500, 22500, 20000, respectively,
using the above formula,
their respective probabilities of finishing first in total PD are
36%, 33%, 31%.

BUT, these are also the respectively probabilities of finishing last!
For example, in the above example, the probability of player A
finishing 1st in PD is 36%, of finishing second is 28%, of finishing last is 36%.
Compare that to player C, whose probability of finishing
first is 31%, of finishing second is 38%, and finishing last is 31%.

The conclusion is that having a higher variance army gives you a better chance of finishing
first in PD BUT at the same time also gives you a better chance of finishing last. One should
emphasize that the average value of finishing position does not change, it is just that with
such, your chances of finishing first (or last) is greater.

One can mathematically prove the above, but I think the example illustrates the point. I could
do more examples if needed.

[Codeman]

:shock: Wow... I just try to kill off my opponents before than can kill me :lol: .

[Homba]

mathguy, thanks. It is very generous of you to apply your time and expertise to provide such an analysis, and I appreciate that.

I have a few questions to ask, just to confirm that I actually understand the implications of your conclusion. I will post them later tonight.

H

[Codeman]

Note: In the download section is a .pdf file of a couple Tournament Score Sheets set up for point differential.

Link - http://www.heroscapers.com/download/?dlid=639

[Codeman]

Homba, So you're saying, that if at the end of the game I had just Jotun left alive standing on a glyph, and my opponent had only two Deathreavers each standing on a glyph, he would win? Sounds pretty screwy to me. In fact If it forces folks to use tactics that don't make sense (such as having Q9 leave that perfect spot on the hill) then it seems to me that it would be a little wonky. The player's reward for grabbing those glyphs is possibly having a higher defense or attack, or being able to summon Q9 off that hill.

That is not to say that Glyphs as objectives is not a viable discussion, but the form that you propose (as I understand it) is just something I would not be interested in.

I agree with Grungebob, I would assume most Heroscapers would also think this as this makes no sense for reasons GB posted

[Homba]

Homba, So you're saying, that if at the end of the game I had just Jotun left alive standing on a glyph, and my opponent had only two Deathreavers each standing on a glyph, he would win? Sounds pretty screwy to me. In fact If it forces folks to use tactics that don't make sense (such as having Q9 leave that perfect spot on the hill) then it seems to me that it would be a little wonky. The player's reward for grabbing those glyphs is possibly having a higher defense or attack, or being able to summon Q9 off that hill.

That is not to say that Glyphs as objectives is not a viable discussion, but the form that you propose (as I understand it) is just something I would not be interested in.

We're not on the same page. Maybe this will help:

Glyphs-as-Objectives provides a REASON for why the battle is fought, OTHER THAN simply "let's kill each other."

In general terms, if we're just playing "let's kill each other," then your best bet is to set up on the first hill you come to with your screeners around your big hitter(s) on the top, your Raelin neatly backing all of them from behind the ridge, and sit tight. You now have height advantage, all your force is united, you don't have to get strung out. COVER the central glyphs with interdiction fire, so you can shoot up whoever moves up to claim them. Your opponent's best bet is to do exactly the same on the first hill they get to.

My entire concern is: Where is the motivation for either side to attack? Continuing with the generalized example: Even if you move up to occupy very nice glyphs (+1attack and +1defense, for example) you suffer the interdiction fire, and you have only essentially "equalized" with your turtling opponent's height advantage. Then if you actually decide to attack your entrenched opponent, you have to move up to do it, under fire, while he sits all perfectly arrayed on the hill. I do not accept your proposition that the glyphs alone provide sufficient motivation to advance to contact, and I just showed you why in general terms that could apply to a thousand different specific examples. Using GaO however, provides that motivation to advance that "kill em all" lacks.

You wrote: "In fact If it forces folks to use tactics that don't make sense (such as having Q9 leave that perfect spot on the hill) then it seems to me that it would be a little wonky."

(In my prior example to which you refer, Q9 had to leave his hill to contest the Glyph-Objectives held by enemy infantry who had secured them and would secure the win thereby at expiration if no one moved.) This tactic by Q9 (assaulting the Objectives) makes perfect sense because the REASON the battle is being fought is for possession of the objectives. By remaining on the hill, Q9 has been outmaneuvered and rendered irrelevant to the purpose for which he took the field with his army: to secure the objectives. Once you understand the battle in terms of a fight to control the objectives, all the tactics flow logically from there, with motivation to the bitter end to battle it out at the objectives rather than running away or turtling.

What is "a little wonky" and "pretty screwy" to me is for a system of tournament rules to fail to sufficiently motivate the players to advance. Scape was designed as a kids game, not a hardcore war game where motivation to advance would be fully addressed - so tourney rules have to address this. Players who want to win will look for the maximum advantage within the rules, and that will often mean setting up on the first hill and hoping their opponent will try to attack them. If the opponent smartly declines, setting up their own layered hilltop defense, then what happens? That's a failure of tournament rules to allow this possibility to openly exist. A mature set of tourney rules eliminates the possibility of this sort of stagnant play.

Finally your example: Jotun on one glyph, rats on the other two glyphs at game end. Rats win. That is correct, because their army fulfilled the battle objective in the alotted time, Jotun's army did not. Why should that strike a seasoned gamer as an odd result? In war, sometimes a flexible light force outmaneuvers and defeats plodding raw power. In chess, you can checkmate the opponent even though he has a much larger force left than you. Under GaO, all Jotun had to do was kill one of the rats and stand on a Glyph to win. Why didn't he do this before the game ended? I guess he was successfully delayed by the (now dead) comrades of the 2 remaining rats... it must have been some shrewd play by the rat player to foil Jotun.

You have to make a choice. Which do you hate more?

You either hate that two rats could *possibly* outmanuever Jotun on a 3 Glyph map, or you hate the constant potential for "hilltop standoff stagnation." The former doesn't bother me, and I really scorn the latter. "I would assume most [tournament-savvy] heroscapers would also think this." :P @ Codeman (I can play that game too!)

So Codeman or Gb (or anyone!), what have I said that you agree and/or disagree with?

H

PS- What if the 2 rats in Gb's example (vs Jotun) earned a draw, rather than a win? How would that sit with you? I am wide open to any suggestions for variations that would "mitigate" your concerns.

PPS- mathguy I am still thinking about your post, and my questions.

[Grungebob]

So Codeman or Gb (or anyone!), what have I said that you agree and/or disagree with?I can't speak for Codeman, but I disagree with your assertion that Heroscape tourneys are stagnant affairs. My observations tell me otherwise.

Ideas to change glyphs:

Pick a Glyph.

Pick a glyph is an idea I have been thinking about where the player gets to choose what the glyph is when he lands on it. Don't like the Q9 on the hill? choose to have the glyph be a summon glyph and bring him down. Getting torn up? Make the glyph a defense glyph. Opponent camping? choose to make it a ranged glyph. Losing the game in points? choose to make the glyph Brandar that is worth say 50 points toward you end of the game score if you are holding it and the game goes to time.

Anyway, just a half baked idea but it would change glyphs and make them more desirable, and it would fit with PD as well. I used this example of alternative glyph usage to illustrate my point that the glyphs need to be important for their game augmenting reasons and not be used as such a strong game winning feature. I should not be losing a game if I have an unwounded Jotun and all that my opponent has left are two measly rats.

[Marduk]

Pick a Glyph.

Pick a glyph is an idea I have been thinking about where the player gets to choose what the glyph is when he lands on it.
Ouch - I foresee this making an existing advantage all the more overwhelming. Perhaps only allow this when the player taking the glyph is behind on points? Possibly by some preset margin. It is an interesting idea, though, for breaking the box.

How about: Glyphquake
Each round after initiative is rolled, the winner of initiative can choose to replace all existing glyphs (perhaps glyph locations, if temporary glyphs have been expended), pulled randomly from a predetermined set? That would certainly shake things up.

Edit: Homba, anyone might think you have something against mass murder as an objective. If you are talking normal home gaming, scenarios with objectives are fine... but at a tournament kill-them-all battles are a lot simpler. I am with Grungebob on this - the glyphs already carry an inherent benefit for possession, I do not see a need to add to that.

You could have a couple of 'objective points' set for the map that carry some small (25 points, say) bonus to PD, and this would have the same effect without doubly rewarding glyph-holders. You would need to place them so they would normally be out of range or LoS of the prime turtling positions, but close enough together to make fighting between them a realistic option. By making it a small bonus it will only come into play in two situations - at the beginning, if someone is turtling; and at the end, also if someone is turtling. If the bonus is kept small, you are not likely to have a few rats beat Jotun... which I also dislike in a kill-them-all fight. If the match is close, the objective points will ensure lots of fighting; and if it is not close the eventual outcome should be clear anyway.

Like Homba, I prefer partial points for partial squads and wounded heroes - a Jotun with one wound left is one botched roll away from death. Certainly he would be much more fragile than a Deathwalker at that point, and look how readily they die off.

[Jormi_Boced]

The conclusion is that having a higher variance army gives you a better chance of finishing
first in PD BUT at the same time also gives you a better chance of finishing last. One should
emphasize that the average value of finishing position does not change, it is just that with
such, your chances of finishing first (or last) is greater.

One can mathematically prove the above, but I think the example illustrates the point. I could
do more examples if needed.

Except for one flaw. The first place person's PD makes absolutely no difference in scoring. He already won by having the highest win loss record. PD is just a way to break ties.

[Homba]

So Codeman or Gb (or anyone!), what have I said that you agree and/or disagree with?I can't speak for Codeman, but I disagree with your assertion that Heroscape tourneys are stagnant affairs. My observations tell me otherwise.

Gb, you really aren't treating my argument fairly. You know I did not assert that "tourneys are stagnant affairs." That is a gross twisting of my statements, and a "straw man" set up by you to easily tear down. I said there is a constant (pervasive, in many situations) potential for stagnant, turtling play - and we can craft a simple tourney rule that eliminates this potential.

My motivation with the GaO rule is to remove the possibility for stagnant, defensive play that is readily available in the under the currently existing "young/undeveloped/immature" state of HS tourney rules. You take no issue with my example or my statement that the glyphs themselves are not sufficient motivation (and you make a proposal that would vastly increase (I think by too much) the power of possessing a glyph), so I'll assume you agree with the validity of my generalized (applicable in many specific situations) example.

What this boils down to, I think, is whether we want to rely on a good faith idealism in the players to ignore the advantages of turtling and sportingly and spiritedly attack each other -- or whether we allow a tourney rule (GoA) to make it a non-issue and remove the very possibility of suspicion, accusations of "camping, turtling" etc, and hurt feelings from the tournament hall. There are a thousand ways to turtle, from the subtle to the obvious, and the beauty of GoA is that you can turtle all you want (guilt free) until you lose at game end because you didn't secure the Glyph-Objectives.

Jutun vs the Rats again. This is the second time I'll acknowledge your statement and offer a refutation. The Rat army used its resources to accomplish the mission in the allotted time - the Jotun army did not. Simple. It is a fair result, and a fair comparison of the skill of the commanders in accomplishing their mission with their chosen resources in the allotted time. Your example begs the question: What was virtually half of Jotun's army (Jotun himself!) doing the entire 50+ minutes of game time!? Either bumbling incompetently, or being skillfully delayed and distracted from the true objective of the battle by the Rat army player, who merits the win in either case.

I ask you to acknowledge and respond to the much more pervasive possibility of a standoff. One army (or both) on a hill just outside their start zone, refusing to come down because the hill is a very advantageous position with height and a compact formation. Is that really the kind of option we want available in HS tournaments? Should we just rely on ridicule to dissuade players from turtling? Or should we incorporate a simple, one-sentence rule to efficiently eliminate the possibility?

It is the nature of a battle that something of strategic importance is being fought over. The concept of battlefield objectives works well for many realistic, impressionistic and abstract war games. HS has a need for it, because the possibility of beneficial turtling is real. The concept of objectives can be incorporated into a mature set of HS tourney rules to smoothly eliminate turtling.



Marduk, do you acknowledge the "problem" of turtling and how I say GaO eliminates it? You said you think glyphs are powerful enough but can you explain how my prior example asserting the opposite is wrong (army on a hill, all the other army accomplishes by taking +1attack & +1def is to "equalize" with the army on the hill)? (I am wishing for someone to actually acknowledge and address specific points I've made - Codeman, where'd you go?)

I do like your GylphQuake idea. We have played some games with glyphs rotating randomly each turn. I don't think the randomness of initiative should be used to determine who gets to decide if glyphs rotate. I think they should either rotate automatically (I think I prefer this), or the person in possession of each glyph should get to choose whether it rotates (potentially very powerful).

I don't like your low-point objectives idea, because I think if anything needs to be simple, it's the concept of glyphs as objectives. If you make them worth 25 pts or something, you're constantly having to do math as the units on both sides die - it becomes burdensome to keep up with where you stand, especially for people who don't like math. If time expires, I think "Whoever has more glyphs wins" is simple and understandable on the most basic level. If you can't stomach the force with more remaining points losing by this method, you could opt for a version of the rule with caveat that says "However, if the army holding more glyphs has less remaining points on the battlefield, then the game is a draw." I am fine with this, as it retains the motivation to advance which is the purpose of the rule. But it is one step less simple than "Whoever holds the most glyphs wins."

If we bog down on the desirability of Glyphs-as-Objectives, as we are seeming to do, I'd like to move on to the point Marduk raised regarding All-or-Nothing Scoring vs. Fractional Scoring of remaining units. Like Marduk I think Fractional Scoring is essential to a fair result in the event of a game-end tiebreaker (and is a much fairer way to generate PD (if you must use PD). And I'm not buying that it's more complicated or time consuming. Not so much at least, to even begin to offset the fairness benefits.

I think, while my mind is still on it, I will aim to produce a report on this discussion which will outline the different sets of tourney rules we've discussed here, with the modular add-ons or optional ways of incorporating a concept included.

[Codeman]

What this boils down to, I think, is whether we want to rely on a good faith idealism in the players to ignore the advantages of turtling and sportingly and spiritedly attack each other .

Turtling Advantages ? Homba this is your theory... I don't know what kind of advantage you can have by turtling :roll: . Go ahead and try it at our tourneys and my guess is you will have a losing record. You win by taking out you opponent... there is no other way to guarantee you will win. Turtling will not guarntee you a win and I would believe it would work to your detriment. Almost always in Heroscape the addvantage goes to the offensive player not the defensive. Homba I was enjoying our discussions but now you thoughts are coming from left field ( way out left field )... come on Turling is an advantage :shock: Turtling will not help you in PD and I thought that was your argument! The only thing I know Turtling will do is help you lose and be the last table finished (unless you opponent can take you out before time ends).

[mathguy]

The conclusion is that having a higher variance army gives you a better chance of finishing
first in PD BUT at the same time also gives you a better chance of finishing last. One should
emphasize that the average value of finishing position does not change, it is just that with
such, your chances of finishing first (or last) is greater.

One can mathematically prove the above, but I think the example illustrates the point. I could
do more examples if needed.

Except for one flaw. The first place person's PD makes absolutely no difference in scoring. He already won by having the highest win loss record. PD is just a way to break ties.

I wouldn't call it a "flaw". The statement of the Conclusion is true as it reads. If you want to apply it to the situation where there is exactly one player with a best win-loss record and PD is used to tiebreak say second place, then my guess is that a higher variance army will have a higher conditional probability of second place. (And if used to tie break for next to last place, then the higher variance army has a lower chance of winning that tiebreak!) Of course, the number of players has to be large enough for this to make sense. I'll run an example when I get a chance.

[Codeman]

....... PD is used to tiebreak say second place, then my guess is that a higher variance army will have a higher conditional probability of second place. (And if used to tie break for next to last place, then the higher variance army has a lower chance of winning that tiebreak!) Of course, the number of players has to be large enough for this to make sense. I'll run an example when I get a chance.

You can run numbers if you want but in real games I don't think you will find this has any impact.... the biger variable will have more to do with the players and how the use their armies vs use of big heros -or- small squads ( again the cards equalize these figures well... it's been proven over and over in many games - Homba theory has not ). As a " Math Guy " you can appreciate the impact these variables and others (map, ect.) have on the final out come. The biggest variable has to be the player then maybe luck.... but Homba theory has to be far down on the list to make a difference if any at all.

[spider_poison]

What this boils down to, I think, is whether we want to rely on a good faith idealism in the players to ignore the advantages of turtling and sportingly and spiritedly attack each other .

Turtling Advantages ? Homba this is your theory... I don't know what kind of advantage you can have by turtling :roll: . Go ahead and try it at our tourneys and my guess is you will have a losing record. You win by taking out you opponent... there is no other way to guarantee you will win. Turtling will not guarntee you a win and I would believe it would work to your detriment. Almost always in Heroscape the addvantage goes to the offensive player not the defensive. Homba I was enjoying our discussions but now you thoughts are coming from left field ( way out left field )... come on Turling is an advantage :shock: Turtling will not help you in PD and I thought that was your argument! The only thing I know Turtling will do is help you lose and be the last table finished (unless you opponent can take you out before time ends).

Occasionally there are advantages to turtling. At the last Austin tourney, I was faced with a twice wounded Q9 against Krug. They were already engaged, and there was no way I was going to try and kill him. I just basically had to hope he stayed alive until the end and I win by points. My opponent was going through his turns crazy-fast because time was running low and he needed to kill my Q9. I could have pretended like I needed a long time to think, maneuvered rats around, and done distracting things like that, but I knew there was only one way I could win...being ahead on points at the end of time. Instead of using stalling tactics, I chose to go through my turns just as quickly and give my opponent plenty of chances to kill Q9. My good sportsmanship (if some would call it that) is what cost me the game. Would I have won had I turtled? Almost certainly. :?

I don't see any scoring system as a flawless way of playing Heroscape, and I feel like Homba's GaO proposition isn't at all getting a fair shake here. It seems like a valid way of running tournies to me, but it does change the dynamic of how games are played quite a bit. And that's a way of playing that I don't care for too much. Also, I can still see turtling occur in a GaO system. If someone has weakened forces protecting a couple glyphs near the end of a game, what incentive would they have to hurry along the game? Overall though, it seems to me that GaO will lead to less turtling than most other scoring systems in place.

Like I said earlier, I don't there are any perfect ways of scoring tournaments, and each variant of scoring can lead to competent players making different decisions in the same circumstances.

[spider_poison]

The conclusion is that having a higher variance army gives you a better chance of finishing
first in PD BUT at the same time also gives you a better chance of finishing last. One should
emphasize that the average value of finishing position does not change, it is just that with
such, your chances of finishing first (or last) is greater.

One can mathematically prove the above, but I think the example illustrates the point. I could
do more examples if needed.

Except for one flaw. The first place person's PD makes absolutely no difference in scoring. He already won by having the highest win loss record. PD is just a way to break ties.

I wouldn't call it a "flaw". The statement of the Conclusion is true as it reads. If you want to apply it to the situation where there is exactly one player with a best win-loss record and PD is used to tiebreak say second place, then my guess is that a higher variance army will have a higher conditional probability of second place. (And if used to tie break for next to last place, then the higher variance army has a lower chance of winning that tiebreak!) Of course, the number of players has to be large enough for this to make sense. I'll run an example when I get a chance.

I haven't completed 8 years of diffyQ, but it looks like wins and losses aren't figured in the formula. I think it's just applicable for those with the same records. Would it be logical to say that if two players finish....say, 5-1 that the one with a higher variety of figures will be more likely to have a higher PD?

[Jormi_Boced]

What this boils down to, I think, is whether we want to rely on a good faith idealism in the players to ignore the advantages of turtling and sportingly and spiritedly attack each other .

Turtling Advantages ? Homba this is your theory... I don't know what kind of advantage you can have by turtling :roll: . Go ahead and try it at our tourneys and my guess is you will have a losing record. You win by taking out you opponent... there is no other way to guarantee you will win. Turtling will not guarntee you a win and I would believe it would work to your detriment. Almost always in Heroscape the addvantage goes to the offensive player not the defensive. Homba I was enjoying our discussions but now you thoughts are coming from left field ( way out left field )... come on Turling is an advantage :shock: Turtling will not help you in PD and I thought that was your argument! The only thing I know Turtling will do is help you lose and be the last table finished (unless you opponent can take you out before time ends).

Occasionally there are advantages to turtling. At the last Austin tourney, I was faced with a twice wounded Q9 against Krug. They were already engaged, and there was no way I was going to try and kill him. I just basically had to hope he stayed alive until the end and I win by points. My opponent was going through his turns crazy-fast because time was running low and he needed to kill my Q9. I could have pretended like I needed a long time to think, maneuvered rats around, and done distracting things like that, but I knew there was only one way I could win...being ahead on points at the end of time. Instead of using stalling tactics, I chose to go through my turns just as quickly and give my opponent plenty of chances to kill Q9. My good sportsmanship (if some would call it that) is what cost me the game. Would I have won had I turtled? Almost certainly. :?

I don't see any scoring system as a flawless way of playing Heroscape, and I feel like Homba's GaO proposition isn't at all getting a fair shake here. It seems like a valid way of running tournies to me, but it does change the dynamic of how games are played quite a bit. And that's a way of playing that I don't care for too much. Also, I can still see turtling occur in a GaO system. If someone has weakened forces protecting a couple glyphs near the end of a game, what incentive would they have to hurry along the game? Overall though, it seems to me that GaO will lead to less turtling than most other scoring systems in place.

Like I said earlier, I don't there are any perfect ways of scoring tournaments, and each variant of scoring can lead to competent players making different decisions in the same circumstances.

Yes, but if you wanted to get better PD, you would have tried to eliminate more points from his side instead of squeaking out a win. I think in general PD helps stop turtling.

[Jormi_Boced]

The conclusion is that having a higher variance army gives you a better chance of finishing
first in PD BUT at the same time also gives you a better chance of finishing last. One should
emphasize that the average value of finishing position does not change, it is just that with
such, your chances of finishing first (or last) is greater.

One can mathematically prove the above, but I think the example illustrates the point. I could
do more examples if needed.

Except for one flaw. The first place person's PD makes absolutely no difference in scoring. He already won by having the highest win loss record. PD is just a way to break ties.

I wouldn't call it a "flaw". The statement of the Conclusion is true as it reads. If you want to apply it to the situation where there is exactly one player with a best win-loss record and PD is used to tiebreak say second place, then my guess is that a higher variance army will have a higher conditional probability of second place. (And if used to tie break for next to last place, then the higher variance army has a lower chance of winning that tiebreak!) Of course, the number of players has to be large enough for this to make sense. I'll run an example when I get a chance.

But nobody in this thread has ever said that using PD should be the first determinate. I think everyone would agree that is silly, as it could allow a player with a lesser record to place higher than someone with a better record.

[spider_poison]

What this boils down to, I think, is whether we want to rely on a good faith idealism in the players to ignore the advantages of turtling and sportingly and spiritedly attack each other .

Turtling Advantages ? Homba this is your theory... I don't know what kind of advantage you can have by turtling :roll: . Go ahead and try it at our tourneys and my guess is you will have a losing record. You win by taking out you opponent... there is no other way to guarantee you will win. Turtling will not guarntee you a win and I would believe it would work to your detriment. Almost always in Heroscape the addvantage goes to the offensive player not the defensive. Homba I was enjoying our discussions but now you thoughts are coming from left field ( way out left field )... come on Turling is an advantage :shock: Turtling will not help you in PD and I thought that was your argument! The only thing I know Turtling will do is help you lose and be the last table finished (unless you opponent can take you out before time ends).

Occasionally there are advantages to turtling. At the last Austin tourney, I was faced with a twice wounded Q9 against Krug. They were already engaged, and there was no way I was going to try and kill him. I just basically had to hope he stayed alive until the end and I win by points. My opponent was going through his turns crazy-fast because time was running low and he needed to kill my Q9. I could have pretended like I needed a long time to think, maneuvered rats around, and done distracting things like that, but I knew there was only one way I could win...being ahead on points at the end of time. Instead of using stalling tactics, I chose to go through my turns just as quickly and give my opponent plenty of chances to kill Q9. My good sportsmanship (if some would call it that) is what cost me the game. Would I have won had I turtled? Almost certainly. :?

I don't see any scoring system as a flawless way of playing Heroscape, and I feel like Homba's GaO proposition isn't at all getting a fair shake here. It seems like a valid way of running tournies to me, but it does change the dynamic of how games are played quite a bit. And that's a way of playing that I don't care for too much. Also, I can still see turtling occur in a GaO system. If someone has weakened forces protecting a couple glyphs near the end of a game, what incentive would they have to hurry along the game? Overall though, it seems to me that GaO will lead to less turtling than most other scoring systems in place.

Like I said earlier, I don't there are any perfect ways of scoring tournaments, and each variant of scoring can lead to competent players making different decisions in the same circumstances.

Yes, but if you wanted to get better PD, you would have tried to eliminate more points from his side instead of squeaking out a win. I think in general PD helps stop turtling.

Well, yeah, I guess. But if Krug is already engaged to Q9 (who has 2 wounds), what are your chances of killing Krug? It's probably not even 10%.

[Marduk]

I said there is a constant (pervasive, in many situations) potential for stagnant, turtling play - and we can craft a simple tourney rule that eliminates this potential.
I suspect that Grungebob and Codeman have never played in a truly competitive environment. We pretty much play the game for fun, and consider winning a nice plus; so far, the cheating I have seen has all been through ignorance of some rule or another, nothing intentional, or counting Nilfheim as 180 instead of 185 points. (Why does that happen so often?)

In Magic the Gathering tournaments a number of people would cheat deliberately. For them, playing the game seemed to be a nuisance they had to put up with in order to win. With the growth of HeroScape it seems inevitable that some of these people will make their way to our game. I think that Homba wants to address the possible issues they will bring with them before they get here. In my opinion it is worth spending some time on.

(and you make a proposal that would vastly increase (I think by too much) the power of possessing a glyph), so I'll assume you agree with the validity of my generalized (applicable in many specific situations) example.
I do not think it was a proposal so much as a near-topic idea that he wanted to pass on.

Jutun vs the Rats again. This is the second time I'll acknowledge your statement and offer a refutation. The Rat army used its resources to accomplish the mission in the allotted time - the Jotun army did not. Simple. It is a fair result, and a fair comparison of the skill of the commanders in accomplishing their mission with their chosen resources in the allotted time. Your example begs the question: What was virtually half of Jotun's army (Jotun himself!) doing the entire 50+ minutes of game time!? Either bumbling incompetently, or being skillfully delayed and distracted from the true objective of the battle by the Rat army player, who merits the win in either case.
While I accept your arguement here, instituting map objectives like this seems to penalize some army builds. For instance, one of the armies at my tournament was Braxas, Major Q9 and Kaemon Awa - only three figures. I agree that it does not actually penalize said army - when they lose two figures, the third is just going to have to go into overdrive (overkill?) to pick up the slack and keep the opponent from having two figures left to stand on the objectives. But many (most, probably) people will feel that they have to have a spare figure for each objective *plus* other figures to fight with. So they will skip one of the big guys in favor of a couple of squads. It would be a shame to not see wacky armies like that anymore.

It is the nature of a battle that something of strategic importance is being fought over. The concept of battlefield objectives works well for many realistic, impressionistic and abstract war games. HS has a need for it, because the possibility of beneficial turtling is real. The concept of objectives can be incorporated into a mature set of HS tourney rules to smoothly eliminate turtling.
What if there are no glyphs? Anecdotal evidence suggests that most people do not use glyphs when they play. I and my cronies do not. I am considering not using glyphs at my next tournament because of how many people I have heard say that. Glyphs are a very convenient way of giving players a good reason to use all the map, but there are others.

As for fighting over something of strategic importance, I think you really mean tactical importance. High points and glyphs already fit the bill. Compare them to, say, a rocky hill and a bunker. Generally one side will hold possession and the other will try to take it from them. But the real goal is not the hill or the bunker - it is the province they are in, and the hill and bunker simply give you an advantage in holding it. To take the bunker and the hill requires driving the occupants away or killing them. We being callous gamers instead of the figures doing the fighting, driving them away is not usually an option. So if you want the locations or objects that give you an advantage you are required to fight for them. Making sure that the fight happens is more the job of the map, I think.

HeroScape does not lend itself well to strategic thinking - in HS, that is almost entirely the realm of army construction. I suppose if you had a scenario that allowed for reinforcements to arrive later and certain places on the map would increase your reinforcements for holding them, those could sort of be considered strategic objectives.

Marduk, do you acknowledge the "problem" of turtling and how I say GaO eliminates it?
I acknowledge the potential of a problem, and GaO would eliminate that. It is the side-effects in army design and the increased emphasis on glyphs that concern me. Units like Jotun are already disadvantaged in a typical tournament environment - add in the need to take and hold ground as well as fight the opponent and you may never see Jotun again. 225 points for two contiguous hexes with no ranged attack is rather pricey. Jotun's area of influence is extremely small compared to any figure with a ranged attack, or when compared to any squad.

You said you think glyphs are powerful enough but can you explain how my prior example asserting the opposite is wrong (army on a hill, all the other army accomplishes by taking +1attack & +1def is to "equalize" with the army on the hill)?
This I cannot agree with - they will begin equal, but should the attacker then achieve equal or greater height (by clearing out a couple of spots on the hill, say) they will have the advantage. Personal experience shows that this tends to snowball if you can make and occupy the initial foothold.

I do like your GylphQuake idea. We have played some games with glyphs rotating randomly each turn. I don't think the randomness of initiative should be used to determine who gets to decide if glyphs rotate. I think they should either rotate automatically (I think I prefer this), or the person in possession of each glyph should get to choose whether it rotates (potentially very powerful).
Just an idea tossed out there, as I feel GB's was. Switching automatically is probably better. Yes, it just occured to me that having the initiative glyph would make this less balanced.

I don't like your low-point objectives idea,
:P
because I think if anything needs to be simple, it's the concept of glyphs as objectives. If you make them worth 25 pts or something, you're constantly having to do math as the units on both sides die - it becomes burdensome to keep up with where you stand, especially for people who don't like math.
There is no requirement to keep doing math throughout the game - simply to note that these two or three specially-marked hexes are worth some points if the game times out. As has been observed many times, it is uncommon for a game to go to time anyway; so in the general case the extra math is trivial. Remember that we are discussing this under the presumption of using the Point Differential system, so the winner will already be required to add up his remaining points. If partial scoring is used, adding an extra 50 or 75 points is nothing compared to doing the division for number of squad members/life remaining.

In the event that a game is getting close to time, there is going to be less to count. If you go with 25 points per objective hex, killing almost any figure in the game is worth as much or more than taking a hex - but if the enemy has a figure on one of the objectives, that makes said figure the obvious target as long as you think it is possible to kill it. I do not believe it is adding any notable complexity to the PD system.

If time expires, I think "Whoever has more glyphs wins" is simple and understandable on the most basic level. If you can't stomach the force with more remaining points losing by this method, you could opt for a version of the rule with caveat that says "However, if the army holding more glyphs has less remaining points on the battlefield, then the game is a draw." I am fine with this, as it retains the motivation to advance which is the purpose of the rule. But it is one step less simple than "Whoever holds the most glyphs wins."
It occurs to me that GaO can also encourage turtling on the part of the player currently holding the most glyphs. Position your ranged units to cover the approaches and keep them clear of enemy units... why advance to kill them when you already have the advantages of the glyphs? Yes, the other player will have to come to you to have a chance of winning, but depending on the map and your army composition you may be able to set up an overwhelming advantage for yourself. If turtling is to occur, I would rather it be less uneven.

Consider - if two people turtle at their start zones and refuse to advance on each other, they will end in a tie with a PD of zero. Neither will rank as high as a winner. "He who dares, wins." I will address the benefits and drawbacks of turtling, as well as the mapping implications, in my response to Codeman, below.

I don't know what kind of advantage you can have by turtling . Go ahead and try it at our tourneys and my guess is you will have a losing record. You win by taking out you opponent... there is no other way to guarantee you will win. Turtling will not guarntee you a win and I would believe it would work to your detriment. Almost always in Heroscape the addvantage goes to the offensive player not the defensive.
Turtling, as Homba envisions it, is only practical if the map has terrain suitable for it - a height in or near your start zone which is as high or higher than any other height in range. If the map does have such you can, as he suggests, arrange your units to their best advantage. For example, insuring that you will have a height advantage for your units and that any aura powers are being utilized to their maximum effect - possibly blocking LoS to the source of the aura from any location the attacker can reach without killing one of the defenders. You will be able to have your units placed where they can protect one another, if that is their function (think Warriors of Ashra to block incoming melee units, or Nakita Agents adjacent to every figure you possess).

The biggest downside to this sort of turtling is that barring a tremendous range advantage the attacker gets to make the first shot and choose which of his figures are subject to attack by the defenders. Others include the lack of glyph-taking, not being able to hit the attacker while he is strung out on the approach and cannot take proper advantage of *his* aura powers, and being at greater risk from area-of-effect attacks. Also, should the attacker wander onto a Summoning glyph your careful arrangement may fall apart as a key figure is abducted (and possibly probed). The Massive Curse glyph can likewise tear apart your carefully crafted defense, though that is less of an issue - it can tear you apart regardless of what you are doing.

Careful consideration of the possibility of turtling will affect map designs or selections. For the two-player maps I have designed, invariably the start zones are among the lowest parts of the board with the highest sections in between - generally in the middle. Turtling is not really an option on such boards... either you are giving up both height and glyphs, or your army will be moving piecemeal to a suitable location and can be easily intercepted. Should Player A allow Player B to move his entire force to carefully arranged positions on the highest heights and/or around glyphs without interference, Player A will and should take it in the shorts.

I avoid placing glyph locations on the highest hexes, making sure that it is possible to gain a height advantage over the glyph holder. Mostly, I place glyphs on the lowest level in the area to encourage a high turnover rate. The sadist in me also likes to put them on lava field tiles when they are present. Go ahead, take the glyph - the beautiful, shiny glyph; the jolly, candy-like glyph. But how long can you hold it?

To sum up, my take on GaO is: it would be interesting to do sometime for variety, but it is not necessary for a normal tournament. Pick your maps so that active players can make their own advantages, and turtling should not be a problem.

Edit: Battle of the titanic posts?

[Grungebob]

You are correct Marduk I simply posted an alternative use of glyphs as an example of a way to make glyphs more dynamic without causing all of the wierdness of the GaO proposal. It was not intended to be used as evidence that I think there needs to be a change, but as an example of the kind of change that would accomplish everything that Homba claims to want, but without the screwy game results such as the ludicrous Jotun example I gave, where it shows that a guy with 225 points remaining could lose to a guy with 40 (or even less) points remaining. I could never see myself pushing for a method that promoted that kind of game result.

[Grim]

Instead of "most points on board wins", I think "victory hex(es)" and other "King of the Hill/Whatever" variants are a superior method for determining victory in standard games:

1. It mandates and rewards aggression.
2. It aligns better with my battle sensibilities.
3. It's easier and quicker to tell who is winning, and who has won. (PD is not that hard after the game, but is susceptible to some math errors. And during game it's a distraction).

I have no proposal; I'm just making an observation.

-------

Whether the victory hex(es) have glyphs or not, I see as a separate question.



edit: woops, I didn't word the intro correctly.

[mathguy]

....... PD is used to tiebreak say second place, then my guess is that a higher variance army will have a higher conditional probability of second place. (And if used to tie break for next to last place, then the higher variance army has a lower chance of winning that tiebreak!) Of course, the number of players has to be large enough for this to make sense. I'll run an example when I get a chance.

You can run numbers if you want but in real games I don't think you will find this has any impact.... the biger variable will have more to do with the players and how the use their armies vs use of big heros -or- small squads ( again the cards equalize these figures well... it's been proven over and over in many games - Homba theory has not ). As a " Math Guy " you can appreciate the impact these variables and others (map, ect.) have on the final out come. The biggest variable has to be the player then maybe luck.... but Homba theory has to be far down on the list to make a difference if any at all.

The reason I spelled out those boring assumptions was to emphasize that the "Conclusion" was based on idealized assumptions (such as all chosen armies having an equal chance of winning - we all know that's not true in a tournament; not to mention it doesn't take into account of different skills of different players). I do agree that in most tournaments that skill and suitability of an army for a given map are bigger variables. The point of that math calculation is that, "all else being equal", the higher variance army has a better chance of finishing higher in PD than a given rank above the mean and also a better chance to finish lower in PD than a given rank below the mean. That is the nature of higher variance. You can think of this as a theoretical result if you like. Unless there are data of thousands of tournaments, we will never be able to have the data necessary to witness this phenomenon, because the effects are so small (a few percentage points at most, given all else being equal); such massive amount of data would be needed for an analysis to filter other variables. But that doesn't mean the potential effect is not there. I would agree that in the tournament data that we have, you likely won't see such effect.

As far as certain claims to be "proven over and over again in many games", I think the word "proven" might be a bit too strong. It is true that with the current style of play of players that are observed that the outcomes are consistent with certain claims. But you cannot rule out that as players evolve that the prevailing style of play and tactics might change, so that the variance effect might become visible.

I am approaching this question from a theoretical point of view, and am currently not arguing for nor against PD tiebreaking. In the tournaments I run, I use head-to-head and common opponents as tiebreaks, and if that doesn't work, we roll a D20! I guess I like to see someone who is behind in a game to take a big gamble to win as opposed to settling for a loss that is not too harsh in PD. Maybe a better way to say it is that I don't want players to think about PD while they're playing. Maybe this is because I use chess clocks in our tournaments, and PD is never used to decide who wins when time runs out.

[Alastair MacDirk]

I realize I am stepping into a heated debate about GoA, which I'm quite sure is a very legitimate topic..... however.................................. :hijacked:

Monkeywrench alert!!!!!!!!!

Take the example of the two players who are 5-1. Player A has amassed a whopping 1295 points of differential. Player B only managed to scrounge up 385 points. Player A is the winner then right?????????????????????????????

What if I told you that Player A played 2 newbies and someone's girlfriend that didn't want to play in the tourney, but they coerced her to play so they'd have an even amount of players..... the records of Player A's opponents was 0-6, 1-5, 1-5, 2-4, 3-3, 3-3. He crushed several of them by 300 pt margins. Player B played seasoned HS tourney vets and narrowly won 5 closely contested, hard fought, nailbiters .... his opponents records were 4-2, 4-2, 4-2, 4-2, 3-3, 3-3.

This is perhaps an extreme example but... I am trying to point out that determining anything by PD alone is arbitrary and we could argue for 99 more thread pages about the best way to determine PD.

WHAT ABOUT STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE???????
One player getting one easy crushing victory over one uncompetetive opponent throws your whole system including GoA out of the window.

Moral of the story, there is no perfect way to score a victory other than the old fashioned Binary Method....... scoring 1 for each win.

Personally I feel the tourneys are about having fun, and playing the game. I am a very competetive person, don't get me wrong. But I think some of the discussion here is a little over the top as far as trying to make the tourneys seem a matter of extreme importance regarding who actually wins the thing. I'd rather have all my games be challenging than merely crush my opponents and win whether by PD or not. I am of the mind that if anyone is going to take the trouble to set up and direct a tourney they can score it any way they see fit. We've recently tried a tourney where we really levelled the playing field and had all players play the same 4 battles with the same pairs of armies squaring off on the same maps. The duplicate armies tourney. It was a fun experiment, but still everyone had to play an opponent on each battle with varying llevel of experience and skill.

You can never take the skill level of opponent out of the equation as the biggest variable..... unless you make a formula for SOS as well !!!!!!!! You know, take the PD's of each players then divide by the # of games played to determine average points per game + or minus they gave per game. Then you take the top two players PD and add each of their opponents average to their total. Player A played chumps and he would get points subracted off his PD since all those bad players surely had a negative average. Player B gets points added since most likely his opponents average points were positive. After you spend an hour after the tourney crunching all those numbers you will finally derive the PD corrected for SOS. Feel free to refer to this in the future as PDCFSOS.


LOL.....

rambling post.... it's late.... g'night.

[Homba]

Turtling Advantages ? Homba this is your theory... I don't know what kind of advantage you can have by turtling :roll: .

Then you haven't bothered to read my posts. Or else you would know what kind of advantage I mean. I gave an example and explained in detail. Until you can explain that you understand my example, and offer a supported argument for why it is wrong, please save the eyerolling sarcasm and "left field" junk, which are just ad hominems against me rather than logical breakdowns of my arguments (which I welcome, but have seen little of - edit: looks like Marduk has just made the effort!). The ad hominems are not polite or constructive and lead only to ill-will, so I hope if we continue this discussion it will be respectfully as gentlemen.

If you'd read my post, you'd know that I'd suggested we move on from the first topic of discussion (whether PD favored certain army builds, which we had stalemated) and mathguy's assessment I think falls somewhat short of a decisive win for my view (if I read it right). I went ahead and made a post (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=259072#282512) about my Glyphs-as-Objectives Rule and made my case for its benefits. GaO is primarily for use in a non-PD tourney, but I took the trouble to think about and explain how -- with a tweak -- it could be used in your PD system.

So in response to your "Turtling will not help you in PD and I thought that was your argument!", no, I had completely changed topics, as advertised.

Discussion picking up, more posts to respond to, so moving on...

H

[mathguy]

The conclusion is that having a higher variance army gives you a better chance of finishing
first in PD BUT at the same time also gives you a better chance of finishing last. One should
emphasize that the average value of finishing position does not change, it is just that with
such, your chances of finishing first (or last) is greater.

One can mathematically prove the above, but I think the example illustrates the point. I could
do more examples if needed.

Except for one flaw. The first place person's PD makes absolutely no difference in scoring. He already won by having the highest win loss record. PD is just a way to break ties.

I wouldn't call it a "flaw". The statement of the Conclusion is true as it reads. If you want to apply it to the situation where there is exactly one player with a best win-loss record and PD is used to tiebreak say second place, then my guess is that a higher variance army will have a higher conditional probability of second place. (And if used to tie break for next to last place, then the higher variance army has a lower chance of winning that tiebreak!) Of course, the number of players has to be large enough for this to make sense. I'll run an example when I get a chance.

I haven't completed 8 years of diffyQ, but it looks like wins and losses aren't figured in the formula. I think it's just applicable for those with the same records. Would it be logical to say that if two players finish....say, 5-1 that the one with a higher variety of figures will be more likely to have a higher PD?

Yes, you are correct. Maybe I should have emphasized that more... that the math calculation was only about PD, either ignoring win-loss records or only comparing people with the same very high (or very low) win-loss records.

Again, the answer to the question "Would it be logical to say that if two players finish....say, 5-1 that the one with a higher variety of figures will be more likely to have a higher PD" is yes. The answer to "Would it be logical to say that if two players finish....say, 1-5 that the one with a higher variety of figures will be more likely to have a lower PD?" is also yes. And by "higher variety", we really mean figures that tend to swing a lot of points, such as perhaps MindShackle figures and figures that cost a lot of points or figures that either win quickly or lose quickly. I say perhaps because we really haven't proven what constitutes a high variance army. We have speculated, and "proven" if we make some other assumptions. Others might have a different opinion.

And :lol: on "I haven't completed 8 years of diffyQ..."; you only need 3rd semester calculus to do the multi-dimensional integral. (It calculates the probability that a given player has the largest PD by integrating the probability density function over the multi-dimensional pyramid-like solid that represents when one coordinate is larger than all the other coordinates. blah blah blah.)

[mathguy]

By the way, I do enjoy listening to people's opinions/ideas about scenarios/objectives for tournament games. Every time I run a tournament, I always think hard about the board I'm setting up because I always want to make sure players have an incentive to advance on their opponent.
Currently, I probably don't have to worry much about this because the people in the tournament are there to have fun, and they have no problem attacking even when it might be to their disadvantage (or perhaps they don't realize it?), or maybe because they view "turtling" as kind of "lame"?
I know many times when I play, I see that sometimes an attack by my opponent is really to their disadvantage. But they do it anyway.
So I visualize that it will happen that sometimes the best (albeit boring) strategy is to stay put.
So I would want to be pro-active and figure out how best to design a board/scenario/objective that really rewards fighting.
In one tournament that used chess clocks, we also used the rule that after 10 rounds, a violent storm hits that randomly wounds characters just like in that one official scenario (forgot the name). Okay, now I'm rambling. Time to go to bed.

[spider_poison]

And :lol: on "I haven't completed 8 years of diffyQ..."; you only need 3rd semester calculus to do the multi-dimensional integral. (It calculates the probability that a given player has the largest PD by integrating the probability density function over the multi-dimensional pyramid-like solid that represents when one coordinate is larger than all the other coordinates. blah blah blah.)

:rofl:

Actually, I have taken two semesters of calculus, but that was plenty of math for me. I was just really good at punching the right buttons on my TI-89 :). Oh, and I absolutely love and use the match-up calculator all the time. It's a great resource. :P

[Homba]

I don't see any scoring system as a flawless way of playing Heroscape, and I feel like Homba's GaO proposition isn't at all getting a fair shake here. It seems like a valid way of running tournies to me, but it does change the dynamic of how games are played quite a bit. And that's a way of playing that I don't care for too much. Also, I can still see turtling occur in a GaO system. If someone has weakened forces protecting a couple glyphs near the end of a game, what incentive would they have to hurry along the game? Overall though, it seems to me that GaO will lead to less turtling than most other scoring systems in place.

S_P, thank you for the comments. I want to understand one thing, and explain one other.

First red bit: I want to understand the "how." How is it that you feel the dynamic of gameplay is changed with the addition of the GaO rule? (And why do you dislike the change - if this isn't self evident from your explanation.)

Second red bit: I want to explain that YES you have EARNED the right to "dig in" once you have secured the battlefield objectives. You have done your job, and the onus to advance switches to your opponent, who must counter-attack (if they do not, time will eventually expire and they will lose due to owning less objectives). If you are thrown back from the objectives by the counter-attack, you must counter-attack in turn. (Keep in mind that utterly destroying the opponent is the surest way to win -- GoA is just a tiebreaking rule). But if charging on beyond the objectives means running headlong into a carefully arrayed enemy formation on a hill, then you are wise to dig in at the objective and force the enemy to break their formation to assault you. This is classic, ageless military doctrine for those who emphasize the wargaming aspect of Scape.

"Turtling" is a perjorative gaming term used to describe stagnant defensive play when you have done nothing to EARN the right to dig in, just hoping that your opponent is dumb enough to dash themselves to pieces against your strong position. Objectives and other motivating factors eliminate Turtling from all quality wargames. The GaO Rule totally eliminates "Turtling" from Heroscape because GaO constantly compells one side or the other (the side owning less Objectives) to attack. Earlier, I gave an example detailing that glyphs alone are not necessarily sufficient motivation to prevent turtling in a variety of possible situations.

H

mathguy wrote: "I know many times when I play, I see that sometimes an attack by my opponent is really to their disadvantage."

Thank you for saying that! I have heard the untennable blanket assertion that "Heroscape favors the attacker!" one too many times. Clearly, it is not that simple.

[spider_poison]

I don't see any scoring system as a flawless way of playing Heroscape, and I feel like Homba's GaO proposition isn't at all getting a fair shake here. It seems like a valid way of running tournies to me, but it does change the dynamic of how games are played quite a bit. And that's a way of playing that I don't care for too much. Also, I can still see turtling occur in a GaO system. If someone has weakened forces protecting a couple glyphs near the end of a game, what incentive would they have to hurry along the game? Overall though, it seems to me that GaO will lead to less turtling than most other scoring systems in place.

S_P, thank you for comments. I want to understand one thing, and explain one other.

First red bit: I want to understand the "how." How is it that you feel the dynamic of gameplay is changed with the addition of the GaO rule? (And why do you dislike the change - if this isn't self evident from your explanation.)

Second red bit: I want to explain that YES you have EARNED the right to "dig in" once you have secured the battlefield objectives. You have done your job, and the onus to advance switches to your opponent, who must counter-attack (if they do not, time will eventually expire and they will lose due to owning less objectives). If you are thrown back from the objectives by the counter-attack, you must counter-attack in turn. (Keep in mind that utterly destroying the opponent is the surest way to win -- GoA is just a tiebreaking rule). But if charging on beyond the objectives means running headlong into a carefully arrayed enemy formation on a hill, then you are wise to dig in at the objective and force the enemy to break their formation to assault you. This is classic, ageless military doctrine for those who emphasize the wargaming aspect of Scape.

"Turtling" is a perjorative gaming term used to describe stagnant defensive play when you have done nothing to EARN the right to dig in, just hoping that your opponent is dumb enough to dash themselves to pieces against your strong position. Objectives and other motivating factors eliminate Turtling from all quality wargames. The GaO Rule totally eliminates "Turtling" from Heroscape because GaO constantly compells one side or the other (the side owning less Objectives) to attack. Earlier, I gave an example detailing that glyphs alone are not necessarily sufficient motivation to prevent turtling in a variety of possible situations.

H

Since I've never tried GaO for myself, this is all in theory. Let's say that each game is an hour long. I would imagine that the first 45 minutes or so are just like any other game. But when the time is winding down, I could see it being advantageous for players to rush to the glyphs and try holding them when time runs out. Let's say on turn marker 2 of the very last round, player A kills off one of player B's characters on a glyph and proceeds to move on it during turn 3. It just seems like too much importance is placed in the minor swing of being able to kill one squad figure and occupy his space right after that.

As for turtling, I wouldn't say that systems other than GaO necessarily encourage it. Since the objective is to be ahead on points at the end, the player with fewer points has the incentive to attack. Most of the people I play with recognize that if they're behind on points, they hold the responsibility to bring the attack. If they don't, I'll just remind them that I'll win if they choose to do nothing. If they still do nothing, I guess I win....but that hasn't yet occurred, and most people realize what's in their best interests. It may seem a little kamikaze, but I could see the same situation occurring if there's a well-fortified force around some of the glyphs in GaO. Likewise, you could say that under other scoring systems, you have earned the right to dig in if you have more remaining points.

I'd really like to try a GaO tourney for myself so I could understand it more. Only so much can be discussed without trying something, and I wouldn't doubt if I don't fully understand this system because of that. I guess I do have one question: Is the last set of turn markers extremely critical in a GaO system?

[Jormi_Boced]

If you like Glyphs as objectives, why not play D&D Minis?

[mathguy]

I'd really like to try a GaO tourney for myself so I could understand it more. Only so much can be discussed without trying something, and I wouldn't doubt if I don't fully understand this system because of that. I guess I do have one question: Is the last set of turn markers extremely critical in a GaO system?

I have not used PD (either for tiebreaks or for determining game winner) and I have not tried GaO. So I really have no strong opinion for or against. I might try it at some time in the future. There are just so many things to try. :)

For now, the tourney system that I've been using seems to work, and everyone in my group seems to like it. My board making philosophy includes: Make a board (1) with no obvious sniping positions (2) not too big so that it is easier to engage the enemy without your forces being overextended (3) with lots of trees/ruins/glaciers for cover and appeal (4) with glyphs as incentives to advance - often a glyph in the middle, and a glyph near each starting zone - the idea is that one reward for advancing is that you can take out control of your opponent's glyph and maybe even take it over. We use chess clocks. If your time runs out, you lose. We play 25 minutes each player. No one has ever run out of time yet, although I came close once (I had like 12 seconds left! - It's amazing how fast you can move and roll dice if need be.). We also institute some rule just in case there is a cheesy stalemate: either a killer storm after X rounds or PD scoring. We use the killer storm rule. I think that came into play only once when at the end of a particular game it happened that it was to both players' disadvantage to attack the other. And oh, we do either round-robbin or swiss (where tiebreaks for pairing purposes are decided randomly).

Hmmm, maybe it's because I come from a chess background [a long time ago] that I haven't given PD as much thought. That is, in chess, you don't count PD at the end of a game for any reason. (I think someone made an analogy to chess in this thread earlier.) But I do understand that the official rules do use PD for determining a winner if the # rounds run out, and I am okay with that.

Our next Heroscape party/tourney is going to be a team tourney (teams of 2). That is something new we're trying and should be interesting.

Okay, time to leave for a Holiday weekend vacation. I might not post til afterwards.

[mathguy]

And :lol: on "I haven't completed 8 years of diffyQ..."; you only need 3rd semester calculus to do the multi-dimensional integral. (It calculates the probability that a given player has the largest PD by integrating the probability density function over the multi-dimensional pyramid-like solid that represents when one coordinate is larger than all the other coordinates. blah blah blah.)

:rofl:

Actually, I have taken two semesters of calculus, but that was plenty of math for me. I was just really good at punching the right buttons on my TI-89 :). Oh, and I absolutely love and use the match-up calculator all the time. It's a great resource. :P

And did your professor actually allow you to use the d/dx and integrate buttons on the TI-89 calculator?
And when Wave 7 hits, I'll have to update the matchup calculator again. Glad you enjoy it.

[Homba]

Mathguy, thanks again for that analysis.

Here is my question, and my tentative answer based on my understanding of your post. Can you confirm or correct me?

Assume that three players finish with 4-1 records in a Swiss system tourney. To rank their finish order from 2nd Place to 4th Place, the Point Differential system is used.

Could one of these players have used a certain type of army build to exploit the PD system in order to statistically improve his chances of finishing 2nd without a correspondingly equal increase in the chance of finishing 4th?

I think you say he cannot, because the you found the price of potentially finishing higher is an equal chance of finishing lower. So, it's a wash: the benefit is cancelled by an equivalent detriment.

So if my understanding is correct here, do you endorse the statement that PD does not favor certain army builds over others to finish 2nd, rather than lower in the 4-1 tier?

Or have I got it wrong... Is the correct view actually that because these players had a 4-1 record (mainly playing other players, not each other of course), the statistically advantaged army build would have "tended" to get higher PD results 4 times (in the 4 wins), and a lower PD result 1 time (in the loss), whereas the other 4-1 armies (not statistically advantaged to accrue a higher PD) would "tend" to not score as high in their 4 wins, but a bit higher in their loss, so that when the 5 results are added up for each army the PD-exploiting army would tend to achieve a higher result?

If this is true, the PD system would clearly discriminate against certain army builds, and favor others.

I think where I am confused is whether the "elevated percentage to score low" (equal to the increased chance to score high) occurs only when you lose, or can also occur when you win.

Cheers,

H

edit - Oh... upon re-reading this, I think you've answered my question?

Again, the answer to the question "Would it be logical to say that if two players finish....say, 5-1 that the one with a higher variety of figures will be more likely to have a higher PD" is yes. The answer to "Would it be logical to say that if two players finish....say, 1-5 that the one with a higher variety of figures will be more likely to have a lower PD?" is also yes. And by "higher variety", we really mean figures that tend to swing a lot of points, such as perhaps MindShackle figures and figures that cost a lot of points or figures that either win quickly or lose quickly.

So the PD system does clearly discriminate against certain army builds, and favor others? By a small but significant amount, say, at least 5-10% based on the numbers you put up?

H

[Homba]

I said there is a constant (pervasive, in many situations) potential for stagnant, turtling play - and we can craft a simple tourney rule that eliminates this potential.

I suspect that Grungebob and Codeman have never played in a truly competitive environment.

I give them credit, they've both run and played in big, serious scape tourneys so that qualifies as a truly competitive environment for me. But I understand you - you're describing what I'd call a "cut-throat" environment.

...With the growth of HeroScape it seems inevitable that some of these [win-at-all-costs] people will make their way to our game. I think that Homba wants to address the possible issues they will bring with them before they get here. In my opinion it is worth spending some time on.

Yes, you put that quite well. My motivation is to make the tourney rules SOLID, so that the potential for obnoxious play is eliminated. It is obnoxious in principle when sufficient motivation to attack is not ALWAYS present. Attacking should never depend on some sort of "chivalrous gamer code." As mathguy observed, attacking is not always the best option.

Jutun vs the Rats again. This is the second time I'll acknowledge your statement and offer a refutation. The Rat army used its resources to accomplish the mission in the allotted time - the Jotun army did not. Simple. It is a fair result, and a fair comparison of the skill of the commanders in accomplishing their mission with their chosen resources in the allotted time. Your example begs the question: What was virtually half of Jotun's army (Jotun himself!) doing the entire 50+ minutes of game time!? Either bumbling incompetently, or being skillfully delayed and distracted from the true objective of the battle by the Rat army player, who merits the win in either case.

While I accept your arguement here, instituting map objectives like this seems to penalize some army builds. For instance, one of the armies at my tournament was Braxas, Major Q9 and Kaemon Awa - only three figures. I agree that it does not actually penalize said army - when they lose two figures, the third is just going to have to go into overdrive (overkill?) to pick up the slack and keep the opponent from having two figures left to stand on the objectives. But many (most, probably) people will feel that they have to have a spare figure for each objective *plus* other figures to fight with. So they will skip one of the big guys in favor of a couple of squads. It would be a shame to not see wacky armies like that anymore.

Thank you for the supported argument! I will admit that if you used LOTS of objectives all over the battlefield, this would begin to favor an army with lots of figs over an army with a few big figs in a time-limited game -- assuming the numerous figs somehow avoided destruction long enough to still be numerous at the end. But with 1, 2 or 3 glyphs, I think even a two-figure army (Nilf + Braxas, or whatnot) is not disadvantaged.

An army of a few heavies is going to kill or be killed relatively quickly I think, and will concern themselves with wiping out the enemy rather than worrying about the objectives. ("What were you doing for 50+ minutes if you could not wipe out your opponent with these heavy hitters or die trying?") As long as two biggies are left, if time winds down they can occupy two glyphs. If only one biggie is left, he can only occupy 1. In a three-glyph GaO game, you would be outmaneuvered and lose if the opponent could both avoid destruction and occupy the other two glyphs.

I will admit that is a reason to consider whether 3-glyph-objective maps are equally preferable to 2- or 1- glyph-objective maps for the GaO Rule. I think it is a concern - I do not want to favor or deter possible army builds - which is why I favor big start zones for tourneys - you limit the scope of possible army builds too much with small start zones (even 24 hex start zones cut out a large swath of possible builds). But I really like 3-glyph maps... and GaO has benefits that I think outweigh a potential trifling disadvantage to a 2-dragon only (or other such) army. I think people who take this type of army (2 or 3 heavies only) do it on a lark, and don't have the mindset of someone who would be deterred by the-GaO-rule-on-a-3-glyph-map. So they will not, indeed, be deterred. What about that?

It is the nature of a battle that something of strategic importance is being fought over. The concept of battlefield objectives works well for many realistic, impressionistic and abstract war games. HS has a need for it, because the possibility of beneficial turtling is real. The concept of objectives can be incorporated into a mature set of HS tourney rules to smoothly eliminate turtling.
What if there are no glyphs? Anecdotal evidence suggests that most people do not use glyphs when they play. I and my cronies do not. I am considering not using glyphs at my next tournament because of how many people I have heard say that. Glyphs are a very convenient way of giving players a good reason to use all the map, but there are others.

If there are no Glyphs, I suggested earlier that you use Brandar glyphs to represent "pure" objectives. We have played this way in the past - and it works great if you don't want normal glyphs in your game. Interestingly, my impression of the anecdotal evidence was that most people do not use the more "random and/or overpowered" glyphs when they play a competitive game, but the use of mild/moderate glyphs was fairly common (majority). Interesting how we can read the same board for x time have different thoughts on that. I think which glyphs are in the glyph pool for a tourney is a definite issue, and I prefer the "tame" glyphs that have the least radical influence on play. It is a tournament after all, we'd prefer that skill, rather than luck, to be the dominant factor in winning. But glyphs being part of Scape, and I think integral to making some armies worth playing (marro & frenzy being helped to "legitimate contender" status if the +1d20 glyph is present, for example) that I think the moderate glyphs "should" be used in the glyph pool of a normal scape tourney - again so as not to narrow the scope of effective army builds.

As for fighting over something of strategic importance, I think you really mean tactical importance. High points and glyphs already fit the bill. Compare them to, say, a rocky hill and a bunker. Generally one side will hold possession and the other will try to take it from them. But the real goal is not the hill or the bunker - it is the province they are in, and the hill and bunker simply give you an advantage in holding it. To take the bunker and the hill requires driving the occupants away or killing them. We being callous gamers instead of the figures doing the fighting, driving them away is not usually an option. So if you want the locations or objects that give you an advantage you are required to fight for them. Making sure that the fight happens is more the job of the map, I think.

HeroScape does not lend itself well to strategic thinking - in HS, that is almost entirely the realm of army construction. I suppose if you had a scenario that allowed for reinforcements to arrive later and certain places on the map would increase your reinforcements for holding them, those could sort of be considered strategic objectives.

Though I'm versed in the strategy/tactics distinction and think about it whenever I use one of the words, I tend to blend them more often in scape due to my appreciation of it as an "impressionist wargame" somewhere between realistic and totally abstract. I won't argue the semantic point with you, unless beers are involved.


Marduk, do you acknowledge the "problem" of turtling and how I say GaO eliminates it?
I acknowledge the potential of a problem, and GaO would eliminate that. It is the side-effects in army design and the increased emphasis on glyphs that concern me. Units like Jotun are already disadvantaged in a typical tournament environment - add in the need to take and hold ground as well as fight the opponent and you may never see Jotun again. 225 points for two contiguous hexes with no ranged attack is rather pricey. Jotun's area of influence is extremely small compared to any figure with a ranged attack, or when compared to any squad.

Well, I won't concede J is overpriced (though I'll agree he is DEFINITELY not underpriced, and he is likely a bit overpriced) though if there is molten lava around, his killing ability escalates even more - and I think lava is going to be a feature of a respectable proportion of tourney maps. Regardless, your point is well understood, but I am unsure of its true strength... I think "the need to take and hold ground" is overstated to some degree - GaO being a game-end tiebreaker rule, it only becomes important if time expiration becomes an issue. So there is zero "need to take and hold ground" if you wipe out your opponent -- or die trying -- before time expires. I think "kill or die trying" describes Jotun's best use of his massive killing ability perfectly.

You said you think glyphs are powerful enough but can you explain how my prior example asserting the opposite is wrong (army on a hill, all the other army accomplishes by taking +1attack & +1def is to "equalize" with the army on the hill)?
This I cannot agree with - they will begin equal, but should the attacker then achieve equal or greater height (by clearing out a couple of spots on the hill, say) they will have the advantage. Personal experience shows that this tends to snowball if you can make and occupy the initial foothold.

This is most interesting to me. First, there is a statistical cost to gaining the initial foothold, right? You have to assault the position, which assumes taking fire while you move up. So there are casualties to suffer. Then, there is the stringing out of your force, while the defender has chosen his synergy-rich position for maximum effect (Raelin's aura, prime example) and doesn't have to waste orders moving Raelin around. While the attack has to use orders on those very maneuvers, to maintain synergies. Isn't it all a wash, all else being equal? Doesn't the "stringing out" combined with the "closing-in casualties" offset your point? And when you consider that Q9 or another big shooter (or two) may be at the top of the hill, totally ringed in screeners so he gets to wail on you while you try to hack your way through to him from below - I think I can make a decent case that the best the attacker can do - even with +1att & +1def glyphs -- is "equalize." Meaning that the turtling is accomplishing its lame, stagnating job - and it is a lot easier than organizing and executing an optimal attack on a strong position - turtling is the easy way out.

It occurs to me that GaO can also encourage turtling on the part of the player currently holding the most glyphs. Position your ranged units to cover the approaches and keep them clear of enemy units... why advance to kill them when you already have the advantages of the glyphs?

As I said to S_P, this is exactly the military flavor that many will consider a nice addition: Scout the objectives, assault the objectives, secure the objectives, prepare to defend against the counter-attack. When you've secured the objectives you've earned the right to dig in. This is legitimate wargaming. The opponent's job is (generally) to do the same and disrupt you enough that a hot battle rages in the area of the glyphs until one side is wiped out. If you are so plodding that you allow your opponent to move up, sieze the glyphs and set up an elaborate defense there, you deserve what you've got coming. The kind of Turtling GaO prevents is the kind much different than this, the kind that puts the "lame" in "gamey."

Consider - if two people turtle at their start zones [ie- outside each others maximum strike range] and refuse to advance on each other, they will end in a tie with a PD of zero. Neither will rank as high as a winner. "He who dares, wins."

He who dares wins in Scape more often than not only if his odds of success are greater than 50%, aye? The military cliche "He who dares, wins," is founded on more real-life elements than Scape can simulate, such as the full impact of surprise, shock, morale, and other human intangibles - I found this vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPg0azS32TU) on the Fall of Eban Emael, maybe the best example of "He who dares, wins." Sadly there are more examples of "he who dares, gets wiped out" - Napoleon in Russia, Picket's Charge, WWI generally, Market Garden, and the Battle of the Bulge immediately come to mind. Plus if you don't lose, you're still among the undefeated in the Swiss. I am NOT assuming that we are using a PD system, which I have several different complaints against (though GaO can work in a PD system, with one tweak I mentioned earlier).

[Addressing Codeman's post] Turtling, as Homba envisions it, is only practical if the map has terrain suitable for it - a height in or near your start zone which is as high or higher than any other height in range. If the map does have such you can, as he suggests, arrange your units to their best advantage. For example, insuring that you will have a height advantage for your units and that any aura powers are being utilized to their maximum effect - possibly blocking LoS to the source of the aura from any location the attacker can reach without killing one of the defenders. You will be able to have your units placed where they can protect one another, if that is their function (think Warriors of Ashra to block incoming melee units, or Nakita Agents adjacent to every figure you possess).

Yes, we're on exactly the same page.

The biggest downside to this sort of turtling is that barring a tremendous range advantage the attacker gets to make the first shot and choose which of his figures are subject to attack by the defenders. Others include the lack of glyph-taking, not being able to hit the attacker while he is strung out on the approach and cannot take proper advantage of *his* aura powers, and being at greater risk from area-of-effect attacks. Also, should the attacker wander onto a Summoning glyph your careful arrangement may fall apart as a key figure is abducted (and possibly probed). The Massive Curse glyph can likewise tear apart your carefully crafted defense, though that is less of an issue - it can tear you apart regardless of what you are doing.

You can compare my earlier text above where this was touched on. I had not yet seen your full treatment down here at the bottom. Interestingly, we disagree on some of the points.

I concede the first shot point, unless the turtler decides to break a ranged unit out of their formation to move up and fire a potentially deadly volley (presumably still with height advantage). But how effective will a first shot be against height advantaged troops likely backed by Raelin? Not very, I think.

I assume and agree that the attacker has secured the glyph benefits, as I discussed above.

We differ on the "strung out" aspect. I said it will persist as a problem throughout the attacker's assault. If the attackers are to move forward, they can't set up their entire force within gun range of the turtle's shooters. When they do move a unit in to attack, they'll presumably have to spend orders moving up supporting (aura) units, certainly if melee is to attack the turtle (which sparks a new thought: does GaO help balance range and melee units?).

The Summoning Glyph. I admit if a summoning glyph was on every tourney map, it would mitigate the potential problem of turtling. But isn't this a red herring? Of all the HS tourney games played to date, how many battlefields have contained Summoning Glyphs (if you see me call it the teleport glyph, that's what I'm referring to)? My guess would be 5-10% (what's your guess?) Why? Other than that it is one glyph among many (so odds are against it being selected randomly), because I don't think most people want to play with it in a serious game - its is the bane of an expensive or critical unit, and if pervasively used, would largely deter buying heavies in favor of swarm-ish armies. It is too radically game swinging, makes games more random, and kicks solid tactical play to the gutter. Same with massive curse and revive (which are worse) - we want to play a strategy game, not have a luck-fest, right? Scape has enough luck already (a chief reason I think PD is a very poor measure of relative merit among players as A.MacDirk emphasized in his recent post).

Careful consideration of the possibility of turtling will affect map designs or selections. For the two-player maps I have designed, invariably the start zones are among the lowest parts of the board with the highest sections in between - generally in the middle. Turtling is not really an option on such boards... either you are giving up both height and glyphs, or your army will be moving piecemeal to a suitable location and can be easily intercepted. Should Player A allow Player B to move his entire force to carefully arranged positions on the highest heights and/or around glyphs without interference, Player A will and should take it in the shorts.

"Careful consideration of the possibility of turtling will affect map designs or selections." I concede this point, you are correct. However look at Mole Hills, Arctic Divide and Marr Highway... I think (trying from memory) these are all susceptible to a degree, greater or lesser, of turtling. I think it borders dangerously on "too much to ask" to expect mappers and map judges to address this issue. You'd have to agree that a one-sentence rule is a much more efficient and practical solution.

And you're at the tip of the iceberg of the myriad ways that stagnant turtling can occur. I can see Kozuki (the Samurai that can charge 8) or a similar unit hiding in or near their start zone behind a ruin. The opponent's remaining forces (with slightly less pts left than the full Kozuki squad) have taken control of the field, and control the glyphs. With GaO in force, the Kozuki player would have to come out and fight. Without GaO, the burden is (very unfairly I think by any wargaming standard) on the opponent to move up on the Kozuki, who will of course turtle until coming out for a devastating attack when the enemy gets within strike range. All you need, is a place to hide............ So you can hide in a hole (or on a hilltop) while I control the battlefield and its glyphs, and actually claim the win. To me that is very unattractive, and invites unattractive tactics, in nearly infinite potential situations. I like GaO because it efficiently eliminates every possibility for purely gamey turtling.

I avoid placing glyph locations on the highest hexes, making sure that it is possible to gain a height advantage over the glyph holder. Mostly, I place glyphs on the lowest level in the area to encourage a high turnover rate. The sadist in me also likes to put them on lava field tiles when they are present. Go ahead, take the glyph - the beautiful, shiny glyph; the jolly, candy-like glyph. But how long can you hold it?

We are of like mind on glyph-placement policy.

To sum up, my take on GaO is: it would be interesting to do sometime for variety, but it is not necessary for a normal tournament. Pick your maps so that active players can make their own advantages, and turtling should not be a problem.

I hope I have provided responses interesting enough to repay the effort you expended. I thank you again for troubling yourself to discuss my ideas point-for-point with thoughtfully supported arguments!

H

PS - The new idea that occured to me. Does GaO help melee troops achieve balance with range troops? The premise is that a largely range army could deploy to a hill or open area, or with snow, a stream, or other slowing, clear LOS terrain between them and a melee-majority army, and just wait for the attack, which they will proceed to shoot to bits, even when possible falling back to continue firing while staying just out of reach. A few screeners in front to block the charge, and the range army has even better odds. Among the many variations of turtling, this is a particularly nasty one.

Assuming there is some LOS cover around the glyphs, and GaO is in force, this scheme doesn't work at all! If a melee army takes the glyphs, they can wait and the range troops would have to approach them instead. Again I see many many variations of map build where this would work as i've described. If the relative weakness of melee troops compared to range is so bemoaned (and you and I have both advocated tourney maps should make a point to address this with sufficient LOS block, roads, the mitigation of hills, etc), GaO can be one additional element helping melee troops compete. If the melee troops can secure a glyph majority and take effective cover, the range troops will be unable to sit back and play the usual games by which they shred advancing melee. The gunners will have to assault the objectives and taste some cold steel.

H

[Codeman]

I realize I am stepping into a heated debate about GoA, which I'm quite sure is a very legitimate topic..... however.................................. :hijacked:

Monkeywrench alert!!!!!!!!!

Take the example of the two players who are 5-1. Player A has amassed a whopping 1295 points of differential. Player B only managed to scrounge up 385 points. Player A is the winner then right?????????????????????????????

What if I told you that Player A played 2 newbies and someone's girlfriend that didn't want to play in the tourney, but they coerced her to play so they'd have an even amount of players..... the records of Player A's opponents was 0-6, 1-5, 1-5, 2-4, 3-3, 3-3. He crushed several of them by 300 pt margins. Player B played seasoned HS tourney vets and narrowly won 5 closely contested, hard fought, nailbiters .... his opponents records were 4-2, 4-2, 4-2, 4-2, 3-3, 3-3.

.

I would say you didn't read the posts.... or if you did you didn't understand it.

First neither would win as the winner would be undefeated.

If player A played - what every list of player you gave - the following records you gave would not have matched your example.

I will say it again: PD pairs up opponents with similar skill or luck as the game goes on. ( please go back and read ) SOS also has been address ,and that also can be s viable system.


You know, take the PD's of each players then divide by the # of games played to determine average points per game + or minus they gave per game. Then you take the top two players PD and add each of their opponents average to their total. Player A played chumps and he would get points subracted off his PD since all those bad players surely had a negative average. Player B gets points added since most likely his opponents average points were positive. After you spend an hour after the tourney crunching all those numbers you will finally derive the PD corrected for SOS. Feel free to refer to this in the future as PDCFSOS..
:shock: You don't have to make it complicated. - I think Swiss style play takes care of this along with PD in make the pairings... Why make this a nightmare? You are making assumtions about PD are not correct.

[Satyr]

Marduk and others have hit most of my points:

GoA seems to change the style of play from kill 'em all to a scenario. No problems with this ... especially since I've run scenario tournaments, where each map has a different objective ... just an observation.

For someone trying to play the system rather than the game, GaO seems to shift the focus from the "heavy-hitter army" to the "grinder army". Come towards the tie breaking point, the player with the most figures will have the advantage. Just seems to exchange one bias for another. The GoA bias towards "grinder armies" seems like it might actually be greater than the PD bias towards "high variance armies".

Tournament map design / choice is key ... how come there are no LOS blockers for that hill where Q9 is camped? Everyone at our tournament is there to have fun. I have yet to see anyone turtle, but then again all of the maps draw people out with high points (usually more than one in easy rage of each other) and glyphs (low and disadvantaged) in the middle.

:?: With GaO, how do you end up ranking the middle of field (people with the same win loss record)?

WHAT ABOUT STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE???????
...
Feel free to refer to this in the future as PDCFSOS.

:lol:


... still more posts to read and digest

Edit: post 500 :banana:

[Marduk]

I guess I do have one question: Is the last set of turn markers extremely critical in a GaO system?
It seems to me that it would be, though that can also be the case with a normal kill-them-all objective in a close game.

We use chess clocks. If your time runs out, you lose. We play 25 minutes each player. No one has ever run out of time yet, although I came close once (I had like 12 seconds left! - It's amazing how fast you can move and roll dice if need be.).
And to think I was joking when I suggested the very same thing in another thread.

I will admit that if you used LOTS of objectives all over the battlefield, this would begin to favor an army with lots of figs over an army with a few big figs in a time-limited game -- assuming the numerous figs somehow avoided destruction long enough to still be numerous at the end. But with 1, 2 or 3 glyphs, I think even a two-figure army (Nilf + Braxas, or whatnot) is not disadvantaged.
That is why I put seems in bold - it is really just the impression of a disadvantage, unless play goes very slowly for some reason.

I will admit that is a reason to consider whether 3-glyph-objective maps are equally preferable to 2- or 1- glyph-objective maps for the GaO Rule.
I think as long as you do not have more than three you should be all right.

I think people who take this type of army (2 or 3 heavies only) do it on a lark, and don't have the mindset of someone who would be deterred by the-GaO-rule-on-a-3-glyph-map. So they will not, indeed, be deterred. What about that?
I would agree if the three heavies in question were not so capable individually. Obviously he was not choosing the best army he could - but he wanted one with a genuine chance of victory. And he came in second out of 18 at my tournament, so he clearly did have a chance.

If there are no Glyphs, I suggested earlier that you use Brandar glyphs to represent "pure" objectives.
Ah, missed that. Yes, I think I would prefer that even if you did use regular glyphs as well.

Interestingly, my impression of the anecdotal evidence was that most people do not use the more "random and/or overpowered" glyphs when they play a competitive game, but the use of mild/moderate glyphs was fairly common (majority). Interesting how we can read the same board for x time have different thoughts on that.
I do not get my opinion from the board, but from talking to people at the tournaments I have been at. Tournaments do generally use glyphs - I was speaking about home play.

I think which glyphs are in the glyph pool for a tourney is a definite issue, and I prefer the "tame" glyphs that have the least radical influence on play.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the Summoning and Massive Curse glyphs? (Ah, I see you answered this below - but what about my versions?) I chose the +1 attack, +1 defense, +2 move, +8 initiative, Summoning and Massive Curse glyphs for my tournament - face down, glyph locations filled by random selection. As in the Columbus tournament I was at, Massive Curse was limited to only figures of the player who took the glyph - to give a potential downside to rushing for glyphs. And because two of my victories were made easy by the Summoning glyph, I chose to also limit that to figures of the player who takes the glyph. So you can bring up reinforcements, but not pick out the one key figure in your opponents army for summary destruction.

I won't argue the semantic point with you, unless beers are involved.
Ah, I am one of those vile non-drinkers. Though I have been known to offer up a bottle of Glen Livet as tribute for a gaming host from time to time.

Well, I won't concede J is overpriced (though I'll agree he is DEFINITELY not underpriced, and he is likely a bit overpriced)
Oh, I do not say he is overpriced, just that he is ill-suited to many tournament requirements. Particularly if there are multiple objectives at some distance from one another.

GaO being a game-end tiebreaker rule, it only becomes important if time expiration becomes an issue.
Hmm, it is true that I was not thinking of it in quite that way. I suppose the argument that running over on time being uncommon also applies to GaO - so it would seldom be an issue.

(army on a hill, all the other army accomplishes by taking +1attack & +1def is to "equalize" with the army on the hill)?
they will begin equal, but should the attacker then achieve equal or greater height (by clearing out a couple of spots on the hill, say) they will have the advantage.
This is most interesting to me. First, there is a statistical cost to gaining the initial foothold, right? You have to assault the position, which assumes taking fire while you move up. So there are casualties to suffer.
But as the attacker you shoot first - and can base your targetting decisions on where the defender has placed his order markers.

Then, there is the stringing out of your force, while the defender has chosen his synergy-rich position for maximum effect (Raelin's aura, prime example) and doesn't have to waste orders moving Raelin around. While the attack has to use orders on those very maneuvers, to maintain synergies. Isn't it all a wash, all else being equal? Doesn't the "stringing out" combined with the "closing-in casualties" offset your point?
Presumably once the defender is in place, his or her turns will be very quick until there is action, or until they move out from their position. As such, the attacker can spend time arranging his forces in as ideal a position as possible for the eventual attack. Stringing out will only apply to range one auras or when the defender has a significant range advantage. Generally speaking I do not believe it is a wash.

Hmm, this is also part of the answer to some later points - perhaps in the future we should read each other's entire posts before responding?

And when you consider that Q9 or another big shooter (or two) may be at the top of the hill, totally ringed in screeners so he gets to wail on you while you try to hack your way through to him from below - I think I can make a decent case that the best the attacker can do - even with +1att & +1def glyphs -- is "equalize."
Ah, but you can stay out of Q9s range with your own Q9 or other ranged attacker and mow down some of his screeners. His range will not increase with height, after all - so his screeners are not only protecting him from melee, they are effectively reducing his range.

Plus if you don't lose, you're still among the undefeated in the Swiss.
No, you have to win to be undefeated. There is a provision for ties and they count for less than a victory.

I concede the first shot point, unless the turtler decides to break a ranged unit out of their formation to move up and fire a potentially deadly volley (presumably still with height advantage). But how effective will a first shot be against height advantaged troops likely backed by Raelin? Not very, I think.
But if they move out of position to do so, they are exposing that ranged unit - and they will have given up their height advantage and so are all the more vulnerable.

We differ on the "strung out" aspect. I said it will persist as a problem throughout the attacker's assault. If the attackers are to move forward, they can't set up their entire force within gun range of the turtle's shooters. When they do move a unit in to attack, they'll presumably have to spend orders moving up supporting (aura) units, certainly if melee is to attack the turtle (which sparks a new thought: does GaO help balance range and melee units?).
I envision the attacker fighting from extreme range to limit the defender's ability to fight back without breaking up his formation. I also envision relatively similar melee and ranged capabilities - so an all-ranged defender would be opposed by an all-ranged attacker, and so on. As for helping balance ranged and melee, I do not think so. I will give it more thought and see if I can change my mind.

I admit if a summoning glyph was on every tourney map, it would mitigate the potential problem of turtling. But isn't this a red herring? Of all the HS tourney games played to date, how many battlefields have contained Summoning Glyphs (if you see me call it the teleport glyph, that's what I'm referring to)? My guess would be 5-10% (what's your guess?)
In my experience about a third, though that is because of the tournament rules involved. As far as normal map design goes, it is quite rare. But if this form of turtling becomes more common I expect to see it more often.

Scape has enough luck already (a chief reason I think PD is a very poor measure of relative merit among players as A.MacDirk emphasized in his recent post).
Since PD is only a tiebreaker for matchups, I see it more as a mechanic for pairing up the same sorts of armies. Armies that tend to get high PD values will play each other, and armies that get low PD values will play other low-PD armies. Of course, my intention was also to use PD *after* SoS; and for final rankings I would rather not have PD used as the main tiebreaking determinant. That is, assuming three 4-1 players are contenders for places 2 through 4, SoS should be used first and PD to break ties that remain after SoS calculations.

"Careful consideration of the possibility of turtling will affect map designs or selections." I concede this point, you are correct. However look at Mole Hills, Arctic Divide and Marr Highway... I think (trying from memory) these are all susceptible to a degree, greater or lesser, of turtling.
I do not care for Mole Hills or Marr Highway, and Arctic Divide is not really suitable for it - the near-start-zone high point is too small and has LoS issues.

I think it borders dangerously on "too much to ask" to expect mappers and map judges to address this issue.
I don't... I think comfortable start zones are an important consideration when making or judging a map. Certainly I took that into account with my own maps. If there is a high point near the start zone, it is susceptible to fire from a higher point farther in.

You'd have to agree that a one-sentence rule is a much more efficient and practical solution.
Not necessarily a better one, though - mapping issues are extremely important for tournament play.

I can see Kozuki (the Samurai that can charge 8) or a similar unit hiding in or near their start zone behind a ruin. The opponent's remaining forces (with slightly less pts left than the full Kozuki squad) have taken control of the field, and control the glyphs. With GaO in force, the Kozuki player would have to come out and fight. Without GaO, the burden is (very unfairly I think by any wargaming standard) on the opponent to move up on the Kozuki, who will of course turtle until coming out for a devastating attack when the enemy gets within strike range. All you need, is a place to hide............ So you can hide in a hole (or on a hilltop) while I control the battlefield and its glyphs, and actually claim the win. To me that is very unattractive, and invites unattractive tactics, in nearly infinite potential situations. I like GaO because it efficiently eliminates every possibility for purely gamey turtling.
I do not think it eliminates every possibility - to take the example of the Kozuki, all they need to accomplish the same thing is to have a place they can hide either out of range or out of LoS of the glyph-squatters. The glyph-squatter is in the position of not wanting to leave their objectives open; so the Kozuki stand a good chance of getting the same turtle-style advantage anyway.

I hope I have provided responses interesting enough to repay the effort you expended. I thank you again for troubling yourself to discuss my ideas point-for-point with thoughtfully supported arguments!
Ugh, and now because you have provided a long and thoughtful response I am running late. There is something to be said for thoughtless, off-the-cuff responses! :)

Assuming there is some LOS cover around the glyphs,
This works both ways, at least to a degree - suppose I say "assuming there is some LoS cover around the turtle-friendly start zone"?

Again I see many many variations of map build where this would work as i've described.
And again, I claim care in map design and selection is the answer to a large number of concerns and issues in HeroScape.

GaO can be one additional element helping melee troops compete. If the melee troops can secure a glyph majority and take effective cover, the range troops will be unable to sit back and play the usual games by which they shred advancing melee.
As I said, I will think on it.

[Homba]

S_P, my answer to your question is the same as Marduk's: yes, if time expires and you're playing out that last round or bonus round, and neither side has the most glyphs safely secured, then yeh the situation is critical - but I think that applies equally to the endgame of any other system where one roll of the dice can mean victory or defeat.

Satyr, you asked: "With GaO, how do you end up ranking the middle of field (people with the same win loss record)?" I suggest Head-to-Head followed by Strength-of-Schedule as the tiebreakers to rank the same-record players - H2H being definitive, and SoS saying a lot more about the relative merit of the players than does PD. If you have a laptop running, this takes less time than doing PD by hand. If you have to do H2H and SoS by hand, it may take longer than PD, but if you know what you're doing and have proper form tables kept up as the tourney progresses, it will not take long even for 30-40 players.

GaO is a concept separate from and independent of PD, so you can use both, or one without the other. GaO is the first "tiebreaker" to determine who wins the game when time expires and the game ends with both sides still standing. If GaO does not produce a winner, the second tiebreaker is to score the remaining units (I would use "Fractional Scoring" which I think fair, as opposed to "all-or-nothing" scoring which can produce backwards results such as a 1-life Braxas winning over a full-life Nilf.).

PD is both a way to select the Swiss pairings, and a way to rank like-record players at tourney end. In my Swiss tourneys I pair players with the same records randomly for the Swiss pairings (with any needed cross-overs with one-off records determined randomly).

I don't see the GaO bias you see toward "grinder (quantity) armies" and against "heavy-hitter (quality) armies," so long as you have no more than 3 glyphs on the map. I was encouraged that Marduk agreed with me on this point. The heavies are gona do what they do, which is "kill em all or die tryin" and since everyone agrees games rarely, rarely time out, I don't see GaO determining the outcome of heavy-hitter army's games or even influencing decisions much at all - and if it happens, with only 1, 2 or 3 glyphs on the map, the heavies can try for the most glyphs too. When two grinder armies clash, you have a bigger chance of GaO being determinative (and it will influence decisions), because there are so many figs on each side without powerful attacks to kill each other off quickly.

Marduk, I really like your limiting of the summoning glyph to your own figures. That would put it into my "tame" category.

The massive curse, even with the Columbus tweak, is just not to my taste for tournaments - unless you could stop adjacent to a face-down glyph and use your attack to check it, which would disarm the massive curse glyph if it was indeed that - so you can be cautious (slow) and safe, or hasty and be nailed by the massive curse if you have the misfortune to find it. But that is too house-ruled and complicated for a tourney - I have no use for any random blow inflicted by the massive curse.

We used a very similar glyph-placement system to yours in Jackson. Two or three glyph locations on each map, each map had a tame glyph pool of +1def, +2move, +8init, and +1d20. The required number were blindly selected from this pool pre-game, and placed face down on the glyph locations (of course, you cannot look at the unselected glyph(s)). The battlefield glyphs remained face-down until stepped on. Having thought about it a good deal, I just like this better than turning the glyphs face up after deploying your army in the start zone. It is a purely subjective preference, but I think more flexibility is demanded of you as a general than if you already know what glyphs are where. I discussed my uncertainty about using the +1att glyph earlier... it is probably THE most powerful glyph (so I dislike it for its radical game-swinging ability), but it is also a big help in killing Q9, who is an even stronger selection if the +1att glyph is not on the map. So I'm torn.

As for the tie counting less than a win in the Swiss, of course you're correct - I'll blame it on the late hour.

"Of course, my intention was also to use PD *after* SoS; and for final rankings I would rather not have PD used as the main tiebreaking determinant. That is, assuming three 4-1 players are contenders for places 2 through 4, SoS should be used first and PD to break ties that remain after SoS calculations." If you have a laptop running things, I'd use:

For a large field (40+)
-------
H2H
Record vs. Common Opponents
SoS
Dice roll.

For a smaller field where (common opponents are more rare)
-------
H2H
SoS
Dice roll.

PD is not worth the bookkeeping after each game IMO, because I don't think it tells you anything worth knowing. A high PD will result from lucky dice, unskilled and/or unlucky opponents, and probably army build to a some degree (mathguy's assessment, if I understand it). This is a poor (unfair) way to differentiate between players, and you can't do worse with a die roll IMO if you've run out of tiebreakers. A. MacDirk's point again: a player who laudably goes 4-1 in close games against tough opponents throughout the tourney will have a low PD, and will finish below a high PD 4-1 player who cakewalked several games due to luck or weak opponents (some skill sure, but it's not the crucial factor) - why reward luck over the proven tenacity of four close wins? I wouldn't use PD for final rankings unless I didn't have a laptop and couldn't be troubled (or didn't have the extra 10-15 minutes) to compute SoS by hand. The one thing going for PD is speed if you don't have a laptop. It is not, however, a "fair" comparison of like records.

Your counter-counter-counter-analysis of the factors in attacking a hilltop turtle is worthy as usual. If I were to concede that the attackers (assuming they do have the attack and defense glyphs - which won't always happen due to glyph pool, etc) can finagle a slight -- slight -- statistical advantage with very precise, knowledgeable and practiced play under time pressure, I would still stand by my earlier statement that hilltop turtling "is the easy way out," and it is difficult to organize and execute a viable attack on such a position - obviously with certain army builds it becomes even harder. If you use GaO, you eliminate the turtling option for this and any other conceivable way to lamely turtle. I think if your map has any LOS blocks in any depth, you can find a way to turtle if you want to - I don't think you can ever completely map-design your way out of this issue. I think as Scape matures as a tourney game, it needs to incorporate a mechanic that unfailingly compels one side or the other to attack. Until then, there will be an ambiguity of motivation in certain situations, and some players will inevitably exploit this with lamey-gamey play to the irritation of others.

As the GaO portion of this discussion winds down, I want to write a little on comparing "all-or-nothing" vs. "fractional" scoring for remaining units, the pros and cons of each. I think competitive Scape would benefit if fractional scoring become the standard for tournaments, and I think it's a much easier sell than GaO, and is independent of GaO (so can be used with or without it). I know some of you already favor fractional scoring (proportionally fractional values for damaged squads and wounded heroes). I think if tourney players understand its fundamental fairness, they will want it in tourneys. More to come.

H

[Alastair MacDirk]

If I knew that any given tourney was going to have GaO as a determinant if the game timed out and I had to devise an army based on this knowledge I would be sure to have Deathreavers (rats) in that army. I think many a wise commander would do the same unless they already had a glyph grabbing type army (Orcs). I think the Gao is a decent idea but it serves to tilt the game in another direction and when you are done.... the game is still tilted.

You are expending alot of energy arguing a system to counteract turtling and I haven't seen much first person experience or hearsay that turtling is even an issue. What you are trying to minimize is someone taking a strategic position on high ground????? That isn't turtling. If the maps included in the tourney benefit a player camping out on highground near their starting zone than that is on the TD or whoever chose those maps.

I think all the points have been made about Gao pro and con at this point... it's a decent concept I feel but not the end all solution to making tourneys favor all armies and all styles equally (if that is what you are after).


I am very interested in starting the debate over split squads though as I am opposed to scoring in this manner. Most people who do this only count the split squads and not the heroes life points. Just pointing that out before you tell me how much fairer it is.

What about a debate over time limits vs. round limits???? I don't see how timing is fair if PD is used.

[Marduk]

I am very interested in starting the debate over split squads though as I am opposed to scoring in this manner. Most people who do this only count the split squads and not the heroes life points. Just pointing that out before you tell me how much fairer it is.
Do you oppose scoring partial points because some people do not do so for heroes as well, or for some other reason?

I do not see a point to doing one and not the other - if you are going to count points based on the remaining life points in the squad (which is what it amounts to), you should do so for the heroes as well. After all they will be much easier to kill when they are badly wounded; so they should not be worth as much. If the amount of life a hero has left is not that important, why don't more people take the Deathwalkers? They have great stats aside from their single life point.

As for the argument that they are just as dangerous as ever, that is not quite true - they have less ability to withstand disengagement strikes, limiting their flexibility (again, see Deathwalkers). And you can make the 'dangerous as ever' argument for a common squad, provided you have at least a full squad remaining... losses do not mean a lot for your combat effectiveness until you drop below one full squad.

What about a debate over time limits vs. round limits???? I don't see how timing is fair if PD is used.
Fair isn't really an issue with timing - timing is a practical necessity for a Swiss tournament, fair or not. It was more than bad enough that at my tournament some people had to sit around half an hour between games. If I had not had a time limit for each round, they could have had to wait 45 minutes or even an hour in between.

[Marduk]

I don't see the GaO bias you see toward "grinder (quantity) armies" and against "heavy-hitter (quality) armies," so long as you have no more than 3 glyphs on the map. I was encouraged that Marduk agreed with me on this point. The heavies are gona do what they do, which is "kill em all or die tryin" and since everyone agrees games rarely, rarely time out, I don't see GaO determining the outcome of heavy-hitter army's games or even influencing decisions much at all - and if it happens, with only 1, 2 or 3 glyphs on the map, the heavies can try for the most glyphs too. When two grinder armies clash, you have a bigger chance of GaO being determinative (and it will influence decisions), because there are so many figs on each side without powerful attacks to kill each other off quickly.
A good explanation. I think the reason there is a perception of bias is that many people think of placeholder units as no longer taking part in the fight once they are in position. It is even nearly true if you are using three melee-only heavies - but then you have serious problems already if that is the case.

The massive curse, even with the Columbus tweak, is just not to my taste for tournaments - unless you could stop adjacent to a face-down glyph and use your attack to check it, which would disarm the massive curse glyph if it was indeed that - so you can be cautious (slow) and safe, or hasty and be nailed by the massive curse if you have the misfortune to find it. But that is too house-ruled and complicated for a tourney - I have no use for any random blow inflicted by the massive curse.
I was a bit torn on it myself - but gave in to the argument that not every glyph should be a good thing in order to slightly discourage glyph-rushing. In practice, however, it evidently did not discourage glyph-rushing... and I am no longer sure you should try to discourage it. As you say, objectives get people moving. Checking the glyph with an attack is an interesting idea, but like you say not so good for a tournament. I will have to keep it in mind for a scenario sometime.

I discussed my uncertainty about using the +1att glyph earlier... it is probably THE most powerful glyph (so I dislike it for its radical game-swinging ability), but it is also a big help in killing Q9, who is an even stronger selection if the +1att glyph is not on the map. So I'm torn.
Look at it this way - it will be a coveted glyph, and does nothing to increase the defense of the target standing on it.

Strength of Common Opponents
I am not familiar with this - how do you go about factoring this in?

Dice roll.
With all your raving about how luck should be minimized as a factor? Or would this not apply as a tie-breaker for final rankings with the same results?

Your counter-counter-counter-analysis of the factors in attacking a hilltop turtle is worthy as usual.
But of course.

I think if your map has any LOS blocks in any depth, you can find a way to turtle if you want to - I don't think you can ever completely map-design your way out of this issue.
As long as it requires spending a lot of turn markers for the would-be turtler to get into an ideal position, and the map is not too huge, there is ample opportunity for the other player to interfere with the process before it completes. Given that, I do not care if turtling occurs because the opponent could not be bothered with doing anything about it while they had the chance.

I think as Scape matures as a tourney game, it needs to incorporate a mechanic that unfailingly compels one side or the other to attack. Until then, there will be an ambiguity of motivation in certain situations, and some players will inevitably exploit this with lamey-gamey play to the irritation of others.
Insuring that the start zones are generally unfavorable terrain, you provide a motivation for movement. Sitting still and allowing your opponent to set up on high ground from which he can assault you is very bad play and should be punished. Consider that the height bonus to attack and defense is replicated in a limited way by a pair of heroes costing 160 pionts - or much more if you use Taelord for the attack bonus.

Assume that a player intends to turtle on the highest ground near their starting area. They will still be spending a lot of turns setting up, and are essentially abandoning glyphs to the enemy. Said enemy will be able to grab glyphs using only a few turns, and should still have plenty left to be able to interrupt the attempt to build the perfect formation. The turtle will have their order markers spread out to complete the move and will not have the flexibility to respond strongly. I think as long as the map provides a solid motivation to move it will do enough to deter turtling.

As the GaO portion of this discussion winds down,
Hold on, I want to poke a little at a notion I have. Say you are running a tournament and want to do scenario objectives (whatever they end up being - take these hexes/glyphs, occupy this area with at least 100 points of units for X turns, or whatever) instead of kill-them-all to determine victory. Victory is only determined by fulfilling these objectives. Even if you destroy all of your opponents forces, if you are left unable to fulfill the objective you tie instead of win.

Then suppose you use a count of the army points you have remaining (whether whole or fractional scoring the principle will be the same) as a secondary score, rather like PD. This gives a player the option to try to retreat in hopes of preserving his forces so that he might be a 'better loser', if there is such a thing. Obviously a player would not do this while he felt there was still a reasonable chance to win, since to do so is generally to accept a loss - at best a tie. Provide a mechanism for leaving the map, for instance you can exit the battlefield by moving to the edge of the map in your start zone and spending another movement point to move off and escape the battle. A player in that position might leave a sacrificial rearguard to harrass the enemy and do a little more damage while helping protect the other fleeing units, while the other player may want to stand his ground to preserve his forces or harry the enemy as they flee in order to reduce the opponents score.

What do you think? Aside from thinking my posts are trying to resemble encyclopedias.

[Grungebob]

Looking at all of this, it is becoming apparent to me that there are several (three) rich topics here.

1- The original discussion primarily about PD

2- Glyphs as Objectives

3- VP for partial squads/wounded heroes.

I can see merit in there being three threads, each devoted to one of these topics. My concern is that valuable information about one may be overshadowed by lengthy discussion about another. The primary discussion about PD is totally lost in this forceful, hard sell promotion of GaO. And the worthwhile discussion of VP's for partial squads is also completely lost in here. I feel as though I could learn and contribute more if these were separate topics. Until, then, I'm afraid I will just have to pass on all of this. Frankly, I have not observed any aspects of Heroscape tourneys that need much attention.

Obviously there needs to be a simple tournament format for those who do not have access to software. PD fits this perfectly, and yields fair enough results. The current form of counting VP is also adequate and reflects the game's natural simplicity. The glyphs already are objectives, and turtling has not been observed in any tourney I've been part of.

That's my stance on all of this in a nutshell.

[Homba]

A.MacDirk, I think a Round-limit tourney game is more objectively fair than a Time-limit tourney game, for obvious reasons. I think the only problem is that (as someone commented) some games could go on a while if both players were slow. The first question is: how many rounds are played in the average tourney game in 50 or 60 minutes (however long you aim for your round to last)? You'd have to shoot for a lower round limit than what you though the average was, in hopes that no one would go over. A round limit with a fall-back time limit would be worth considering too. If everyone remembers to advance their round-counter markers, things should work fine (inevitably, someone will not remember - thus I suppose the necessity of a time-limit fallback).

Marduk:

[Strength of Common Opponents] I am not familiar with this - how do you go about factoring this in?

Sorry, I should have said "Record vs Common Opponents." (I went ahead and edited this in my post above, since the phrase I used was a non sequitur.)

If you and I both played A and Z, then we have these opponents in common. If I had a better record than you against our common opponents, then I win this tiebreaker. It is generally considered the next best thing to a head-to-head result for the purpose of comparing the relative skill of two players with like records. Google yields many references, and note also that rec vs. common opponents outranks strength of schedule in NFL tiebreakers (http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakers).

Dice roll?
The dice roll is the final tiebreaker if h2h, (RvCO if used), and SoS all fail to break the tie.
The pros of a dice roll:
It breaks the tie.
The cons of a dice roll:
It is purely random.
The pros of PD (if substituted for a dice roll as a fallback tiebreaker as you said you were considering):
It breaks the tie.
The cons of PD:
It is largely random.
Bookkeeping by every player required after ever game, more bookkeeping for TD.
It arguably elevates the wrong person: winning 4 close games seems more laudable than winning a number of cakewalks (my assumption: a cakewalk requires an unlucky and/or weak opponent).
Certain army builds are favored by PD (mathguy), and it is bad if your tourney system statistically favors certain army builds.

So, yes, I prefer the dice roll.

As long as it requires spending a lot of turn markers for the would-be turtler to get into an ideal position, and the map is not too huge, there is ample opportunity for the other player to interfere with the process before it completes. Given that, I do not care if turtling occurs because the opponent could not be bothered with doing anything about it while they had the chance.
You're talking about this as if it is only an army-vs-army issue. I have tried to emphasize that turtling (a symptom of a lack of compelling motivation to attack) can take many forms, and your analysis is not relevant to unit-vs-unit turtling near game end when most units have already been destroyed. The crux of it for me is that it seems very arbitrary that the unit worth less points MUST attack the unit worth more (whether using fractional or all-or-none scoring) or else lose on score when time expires. I prefer something less arbitrary and more about storyline, about the necessity that compelled both sides to commit to battle on this field today (control of the objectives!), that if the "less expensive" unit is controlling the objective(s) over which the battle was waged, the more expensive unit must attack. Both sides joined battle willing to die to obtain the objectives - the relative cost of the remaining units is secondary. That rational, martial storyline compulsion to attack is why I prefer the GaO tiebreaker to supersede the highly arbitrary/abstract score-remaining-units tiebreaker.

Probably I erred in using the brazen army-on-a-hill turtle example to discuss the principle - the example is divisive because it hasn't occurred in practical experience. The much more common and more subtle manipulation will come at the end of close games when each side has very few figures left and moving into the other side's strike range generally means you'll suffer the first attack.

"This gives a player the option to try to retreat in hopes of preserving his forces so that he might be a 'better loser', if there is such a thing." On your retreat-off-the-map option, I don't follow you well enough to comment. Can you post rules that embody your idea?

Grungebob wrote: And the worthwhile discussion of VP's for partial squads is also completely lost in here. ... The current form of counting VP [all-or-nothing] is also adequate and reflects the game's natural simplicity.

I think the VP's for partial/wounded units hasn't been lost, rather it's just getting started.

You were adamant in your objection to two rats winning over Jotun in a GaO red herring situation simply because Jotun could never lose to the rats head-to-head. You wouldn't acknowledge my line of reasoning which presumably paled in your mind compared to your overriding conviction that Jotun trumps rats. X trumps Y, and any other result based on other considerations is outrageous.

To be consistent, you must be equally adamant in objecting to any rule under which a 1-life Braxas wins over a full-life Nilfheim, because the full-life Nilf could never lose to the 1-life Braxas head-to-head. X trumps Y, and any other result based on other considerations is outrageous.

Yet you call the current method [all-or-nothing] of scoring "adequate," when it leads to a result (a win for 1-life Braxas) you plainly consider outrageous.

Convince us you're not being inconsistent.

I don't credit the "game's natural simplicity" line and here's why:

These discussions are an effort to grow up a thoughtful system of tournament rules and standards from scratch for Scape, and there is nothing consistent with "simplicity" about turning a non-tourney game into a tourney game. Fractional Scoring is not substantially more complex than all-or-none scoring, and yields a result infinitely more representative of "who would have won if the game had been completed?" Isn't this the question we're trying to answer with fairness by scoring the remaining units? Yes, it must be (assuming a scenario objective -- GaO, etc, if used -- does not settle the issue first). We should not allow an after-thought procedural rule (actually phrased as an optional rule) of a game not designed for either adults or tournaments stand in the way of a fair result in an adult tournament. As I said before, we do not gather for tournaments to inflict backwards, irrational results upon eachother. That is no fun. Fun is a fair test of skill under a rational, practical ruleset of tournament procedures.

Come on yall, it's a blank slate we've got here. Some things demand to be got right. I consider GaO as relatively insignificant compared to the necessity of using Fractional Scoring.

Let the Fractional vs All-or-Nothing scoring discussion begin? (not to cut off anything else)

H

[Grungebob]

I am not a fan of fractional scoring. With fractional scoring you get rediculous results such as a single unwounded Kosumeht winning over a wounded yet still extremely dangerous Braxas. I find this to be a backwards irrational result, and not very fun.

As I said before, we do not gather for tournaments to inflict backwards, irrational results upon eachother. That is no fun. Fun is a fair test of skill under a rational, practical ruleset of tournament procedures.As with GaO you are attempting to fix one thing that you considered flawed, with an equally flawed replacement. Several of us have mentioned this but you are not getting it.

[Codeman]

The dice roll is the final tiebreaker if h2h, (RvCO if used), and SoS all fail to break the tie.
The pros of a dice roll:
It breaks the tie.
The cons of a dice roll:
It is purely random.
The pros of PD (if substituted for a dice roll as a fallback tiebreaker as you said you were considering):
It breaks the tie.
The cons of PD:
It is largely random.
Bookkeeping by every player required after ever game, more bookkeeping for TD.
It arguably elevates the wrong person: winning 4 close games seems more laudable than winning a number of cakewalks (my assumption: a cakewalk requires an unlucky and/or weak opponent).
Certain army builds are favored by PD (mathguy), and it is bad if your tourney system statistically favors certain army builds.

So, yes, I prefer the dice roll.



Wow!
PD is not Largely ramdom - It is based off your own real battle results

Bookeeping - Yes, you and your opponent have to count and agree on how many point are left on the battlefield when your finished. Not big or diffucult task but a guess can fall under bookingkeeping but hardly a " con " oh yes I forgot you both also have to write that number on your score sheet ( the winner as a positive number / the loser as negitive number ). As far as for theTD putting 8 or 68 score cards in numerical order is hardly a burden and I would argue that is probably the easist way to do pairings ( you have to sort win / loss anyway ) I've sorted 38 score sheets and I think sorting by PD after the Win/Loss is done took maybe 30 seconds ( It very clean, fast, and fair ).

Cakewalk or weak opponent! Again if your are playing a weak opponent - chances are you fall under that catagory yourself under PD! I know you read and I believe you understand the previous posts on how PD pairing works - I don't know how you could come up with this cakewald theroroy, and I belive you have seen be prove this with numerous examples earlier on if a rookie should get paired up with a solid player in the first round - it does not have a big impact as it gets washed out in the end - one bad match does not define your tournament placement.

Certain army builds are favored by PD (mathguy) - I think we have discused the and all but maybe you agree that " Other Variables " have a much larger effect on the game and in real life play your theory on this does not come in to play at all - so I think you should dismiss this as a con or fault of PD.

Most people just want to play, but if you polled people I would be surprized if they would like their finished determined by a dice roll -vs- PD or SOS ( asgain PD and SOS both have faults but I think are far better than a Dice Roll! )

[Homba]

The dice roll is the final tiebreaker if h2h, (RvCO if used), and SoS all fail to break the tie.
The pros of a dice roll:
It breaks the tie.
The cons of a dice roll:
It is purely random.
The pros of PD (if substituted for a dice roll as a fallback tiebreaker as you said you were considering):
It breaks the tie.
The cons of PD:
It is largely random.
Bookkeeping by every player required after ever game, more bookkeeping for TD.
It arguably elevates the wrong person: winning 4 close games seems more laudable than winning a number of cakewalks (my assumption: a cakewalk requires an unlucky and/or weak opponent).
Certain army builds are favored by PD (mathguy), and it is bad if your tourney system statistically favors certain army builds.

So, yes, I prefer the dice roll.



Wow!
PD is not Largely ramdom - It is based off your own real battle results

Bookeeping - Yes, you and your opponent have to count and agree on how many point are left on the battlefield when your finished. Not big or diffucult task but a guess can fall under bookingkeeping but hardly a " con " oh yes I forgot you both also have to write that number on your score sheet ( the winner as a positive number / the loser as negitive number ). As far as for theTD putting 8 or 68 score cards in numerical order is hardly a burden and I would argue that is probably the easist way to do pairings ( you have to sort win / loss anyway ) I've sorted 38 score sheets and I think sorting by PD after the Win/Loss is done took maybe 30 seconds ( It very clean, fast, and fair ).

Cakewalk or weak opponent! Again if your are playing a weak opponent - chances are you fall under that catagory yourself under PD! I know you read and I believe you understand the previous posts on how PD pairing works - I don't know how you could come up with this cakewald theroroy, and I belive you have seen be prove this with numerous examples earlier on if a rookie should get paired up with a solid player in the first round - it does not have a big impact as it gets washed out in the end - one bad match does not define your tournament placement.

Certain army builds are favored by PD (mathguy) - I think we have discused the and all but maybe you agree that " Other Variables " have a much larger effect on the game and in real life play your theory on this does not come in to play at all - so I think you should dismiss this as a con or fault of PD.

Most people just want to play, but if you polled people I would be surprized if they would like their finished determined by a dice roll -vs- PD or SOS ( asgain PD and SOS both have faults but I think are far better than a Dice Roll! )

Codeman, let me exchange a "Wow!" with you, because your entire post -- as demonstrated by the red text above -- is based on a complete misunderstanding of what I wrote. Are you skipping posts, just skimming them, or what?

Here is what I wrote:


[Marduk's statement]:
"Of course, my intention was also to use PD *after* SoS; and for final rankings I would rather not have PD used as the main tiebreaking determinant. That is, assuming three 4-1 players are contenders for places 2 through 4, SoS should be used first and PD to break ties that remain after SoS calculations."

[I replied, to Marduk:] If you had a laptop running things, I'd use:

For a large field (40+)
-------
H2H
Record vs Common Opponents
SoS
Dice roll.

For a smaller field where (common opponents are more rare)
-------
H2H
SoS
Dice roll.

From this, is it not clear from the list and from the context of Marduk's statement that I suggested the Dice Roll as the LAST of a list of tiebreakers, listed in order of preference?

If H2H fails to break the tie, move to Record vs. Common Opponents. If that fails to break the tie, move to SoS. If THAT fails to break the tie, well, you have to break it somehow, so roll a die for it.

Though I stand by the criticisms of PD I've discussed, and am not persuaded by your assertions, if you do use PD last in a list of tiebreakers as Marduk was suggesting, that isn't going to break my heart since I consider it approximately equivalent to a die roll.

Please give an ordinarily careful reading to my posts before replying.

H

[Codeman]

Homba, I did read the entire post ( with some level of care ) however I was just addressing your comments of the " Cons of PD " which I feel are misleading and incorrect.

[Homba]

I am not a fan of fractional scoring. With fractional scoring you get rediculous results such as a single unwounded Kosumeht winning over a wounded yet still extremely dangerous Braxas. I find this to be a backwards irrational result, and not very fun.

You realize your statement is almost 100% wrong? Under Fractional Scoring, if Braxas has 3-8 life remaining, he WINS over a full-life Khosumet. If you need the "why?" of this explained, see the bottom of this post.

Only if Braxas has 1 or 2 life remaining would he lose under Fractional Scoring to a full-life Khosumet. Using mathguy's matchup calculator (with the inferior Poison Acid Breath turned off so that Braxas will only bite), if Braxas has 1 life, Khosumet wins the head-to-head 63% of the time! (Fractional Scoring gives the right answer!) If Braxas has 2 life left, Khosumet wins 39% of the time (49% of the time with initiative, 30% if losing initiative). Hardly a ridiculous chance of winning or a reason to dismiss the discussion as irrational. If this is a slight failure of the system, it does not even register as a fault relative to the huge improvement in fairness Fractional Scoring provides in a huge majority of situations.

It is ironic that you dig up the biggest red herring example (Khosumet is universally reviled and sees no tournament play!) to dismiss an entire theory as "rediculous" and even your red herring example is demonstrably invalid.

I told you earlier:
To be consistent, you must be equally adamant in objecting to any rule under which a 1-life Braxas wins over a full-life Nilfheim, because the full-life Nilf could never lose to the 1-life Braxas head-to-head. X trumps Y, and any other result based on other considerations is outrageous.

Yet you call the current method [all-or-nothing] of scoring "adequate," when it leads to a result (a win for 1-life Braxas) you plainly consider outrageous.


You never acknowledge the awkward questions. The matchup calculator gives Nilf this win 99.2% of the time, yet Braxas gets the win under All-or-Nothing. You ignore this, dismissing Fractional Scoring with your red herring Khosumet that's actually more of a 50-50 case. You're killing your credibility.

...you are attempting to fix one thing that you considered flawed, with an equally flawed replacement. Several of us have mentioned this but you are not getting it.

Argument by unsupported assertion doesn't persuade me or (I hope) anyone else. No one has yet refuted -- with logical, reasoned evidence -- my understanding that Fractional Scoring will answer the question "who would win if the game were finished?" more fairly than All-or-Nothing in an overwhelming majority of the cases in which All-or-Nothing would give the opposite result (as objectively verified by the match-up calculator). Codeman admitted Fractional was more fair than All-or-Nothing when it came up earlier. Marduk is on my side of this. Unlike GaO, this is a slam dunk by any reasonable standard of fairly answering the question, "Who would win if we finished?"

But this discussion has just launched. If someone DEMONSTRATES conclusively to me (rather than simply ASSERTS) that All-or-Nothing produces fair results more often than Fractional, I will immediately change my mind.

H

For reference:

All-or-Nothing Scoring is the "current" method of determining a winner of a time-expired game. For each hero you have remaining on the battlefield, you receive the full points (cost of the hero) for the card, regardless of current wounds. For each unique squad not totally destroyed, you receive the full points for the card. For multiple commons, look at how many full squad's-worth of figures remain, and get full points for each full squad's-worth - then also get full points for a partial squad if one remains.

Fractional Scoring is a proposed alternative to and replacement for All-or-Nothing. It is thought to more logically and fairly answer the question, "Who would win if we finished the game?"
> For each hero left on the battlefield, score him in proportion to his remaining life. (For example 80 pt / 4 life Thorgrim, if having only 1 life remaining at time-expiration, would be worth 20 points.
>For each unique squad left on the field, score the squad in proportion to its remaining figures. (For example 2 remaining Nakitia Agents would be worth 80 points.)
>For each full common squad remaining, score full points, and for a remainder partial squad, score the partial squad proportionally as above. (For example six remaining 4TH MASS figures would be worth 70+35 = 105 pts.)
>For simplicity, any time a fraction is encountered, it should be rounded to the nearest whole number. (If fractions don't scare you, feel free to use them - but if you ever encounter a situation where it changes the win to a loss, you should've bought a lottery ticket instead of playing Scape that day...)

[Homba]

Homba, I did read the entire post ( with some level of care ) however I was just addressing your comments of the " Cons of PD " which I feel are misleading and incorrect.

Ok, but you did write that I was proposing using a dice roll to break ties BEFORE resorting to SoS or PD. This was a critical misunderstanding that I hope you understand I felt a need to correct.

H

[Grungebob]

You realize your statement is almost 100% wrong? Under Fractional Scoring, if Braxas has 3-8 life remaining, he WINS over a full-life Khosumet. If you need the "why?" of this explained, see the bottom of this post.

Only if Braxas has 1 or 2 life remaining would he lose under Fractional Scoring to a full-life Khosumet. Using mathguy's matchup calculator (with the inferior Poison Acid Breath turned off so that Braxas will only bite), if Braxas has 1 life, Khosumet wins the head-to-head 63% of the time! (Fractional Scoring gives the right answer!) If Braxas has 2 life left, Khosumet wins 39% of the time (49% of the time with initiative, 30% if losing initiative). Hardly a ridiculous chance of winning or a reason to dismiss the discussion as irrational. If this is a slight failure of the system, it does not even register as a fault relative to the huge improvement in fairness Fractional Scoring provides in a huge majority of situations. I am not as you say 100% wrong. I was talking about a 1 or 2 wound Braxas, and I do understand the system. Do I need to toss up every screwy result this system could create? You used the Nilfheim Braxas match-up as an example of how fractional scoring is superior, and I tossed up another matchup that shows that it is not superior at all, just different. And since it is not sufficiently better than the current system, there's no reason to change. When a Charos with three life left loses to an unwounded Kosumet, or worse has one life left and loses to an unwounded Eldgrim, then I'm just not interrested in it as an alternative. In order to be a viable alternative, it must be sufficiently superior, and fractianal scoring where heroes are concerned is clearly not.

[Jormi_Boced]

I could see the argument of fractional scoing being more fair, but it would add an extra unnecessary element to tournament scoring. Also, since the Heroscape rulebook already tells how to score the end game, I think we should just do that.

As you said in another thread Homba, only Craig's opinion matters.

[Marduk]

The cons of PD:
It is largely random.
I don't know that I agree with that - as Codeman is using it, the main factor is still win-loss record. After that, it goes by matching up similar PD values. Considering your assertion that some armies will produce higher PD values than others, it is those armies that will tend to fight each other while the armies producing lower PD values will be matched up with other low PD forces. Used for matching purposes, I have no problem with it even if some armies (or just plain luck) tend to produce higher values. It is when PD is used for ranking that I begin to have issues with it.

Looking at the lists of armies and PD scores Codeman put up, I am not convinced they are statistically insignificant... it would be interesting to see the PD values produced by each match. I wonder if there is a clear difference between matches of squad-based armies, heavy-hitter armies, and squad-based versus heavy-hitter. That should be informative.

Certain army builds are favored by PD (mathguy)
Actually, that is not quite what Mathguy said. Certain army builds may be presumed to have a higher variance in PD results; there is no reason to assume that they will consistently vary to the higher end. For instance, an army with three heavy hitters wins a game losing only one figure (resulting in a high relative PD) and then wins a game losing two figures (resulting in a low relative PD). They will have a similar PD total to a squad-based army that wins with roughly half its force intact each time (which is certainly not unheard of). This is the case of the average PD being the same.

To explain higher variance, there is a greater chance of the heavy-hitter army winning twice with two figures left alive than there is of a squad-based army winning two games with two-thirds of their figures left alive. But the heavy-hitter army also has a greater chance of winning twice with one figure remaining each time than the squad-based army does of winning two games with only one third of their figures left.

I would be curious as to what he can determine about the implications of fractional scoring of PD (both averages and the variance) for the two army types.

Oh yes, the game itself discourages certain army builds - an all-melee army or an all-ranged army, for instance. (I for one have only rarely seen either type win a game against a mixed force.) The synergies some figures have that others do not will encourage some builds more than others. There is no getting around it, the best we can do is minimize it.

The crux of it for me is that it seems very arbitrary that the unit worth less points MUST attack the unit worth more (whether using fractional or all-or-none scoring) or else lose on score when time expires.
Ah, as for example a player with one Minion of Utgar left continually running away from his opponents single Knight of Weston. If they ran away just long enough to insure that they would strike first, that is fine with me (call it manuevering for advantage) - but if they continue to run (assuming the map allows it, and this scenario is extremely hard to avoid through map design), that is cheese. Yes, that would be bad... perhaps now that the example is spelled out, we will get more comment on it.

Grungebob wrote: And the worthwhile discussion of VP's for partial squads is also completely lost in here.
I think the VP's for partial/wounded units hasn't been lost, rather it's just getting started.
I consider partial scoring to be related closely to PD, since it deals with how you count PD in the first place.

When a Charos with three life left loses to an unwounded Kosumet, or worse has one life left and loses to an unwounded Eldgrim, then I'm just not interrested in it as an alternative. In order to be a viable alternative, it must be sufficiently superior, and fractianal scoring where heroes are concerned is clearly not.
I think it is clearly superior, given that such extreme examples in opposition are not completely out of the question and for the general case it seems much more reasonable. If Charos is down to a single life left, all he has to do to lose to Eldgrim is botch one defense roll. As for Khosumet, his chance to beat a three-life Charos is not *that* bad.

One problem that will persist in both kinds of scoring is that the point value of a unit is not based solely on the ability of that unit to fight. Taelord is a perfect example of this. His cost comes from the effect he has on other units you control. No one is likely to argue that Taelord by himself is a good match for Q9, but if they are both at full health both methods would count them as equal. Put Taelord with three squads of Snipers and his real value increases tremendously - Q9s effectiveness does not change just because you put disco dancers in front of him.

[Grungebob]

Ah, as for example a player with one Minion of Utgar left continually running away from his opponents single Knight of Weston. If they ran away just long enough to insure that they would strike first, that is fine with me (call it manuevering for advantage) - but if they continue to run (assuming the map allows it, and this scenario is extremely hard to avoid through map design), that is cheese. Yes, that would be bad... perhaps now that the example is spelled out, we will get more comment on it.

What you posted above is not relevant to Fractional or All or Nothing scoring. In the case you gave, once at this impass, both players should shake hands and agree that the Minion player is victorious, rather than do the chase.

I think it is clearly superior, given that such extreme examples in opposition are not completely out of the question and for the general case it seems much more reasonable. If Charos is down to a single life left, all he has to do to lose to Eldgrim is botch one defense roll. As for Khosumet, his chance to beat a three-life Charos is not *that* bad.

According to the Matchup Calculator a 3 life pooint Charos has a 92% chance to destroy an unwounded Khosumet. (IIRC)

And how do you account for Krug, who is obviously more powerful with a few wound markers on him, and yet you think his value should go down????

I don't think I made myself clear enough though. What I am saying is that it is not without it's own breed of weird results. If it is superior it is not significant enough for me to consider it as an alternative. From my observations, the current scoring system works on those rare occasions that a game goes to time. I don't like fractional scoring on heroes, and I don't like using it on squads and not heroes. Show me a system that is significantly better and I would consider it, but until then, I will use the scoring that was suggested by the game's creators.

[Alastair MacDirk]

You want to use scoring to predict how the game would finish if it were allowed to end??????

If you are using time limits in a tourney and the time expires then the game is over. Why should you need to exptrapolate what might have happened beyond that. The game was designed with each hero and each squad being a unit.... you draft them into your army as such and it's likely the cost of each factors in the "unit's staying power' on the board. The rule book is very specific on how to count the pieces at the end of the game and determine who won. Also there is a very significant reason why it should be so.....

At any given point in the game both players need to make tactical decisions on how to order and move their pieces. The player who is losing the game certainly has the onus on him to be more aggressive. The player who's ahead has no reason to take silly chances. It is therefor very important that at any time during the game both players should know where they stand. Counting units (full squads and heroes) makes for some relatively simple math so it is quite easy to figure. Fractional counting is a very good moniker for what you intent to do as you will wind up with some rather messy fractions that are hard to add together when figuring points on the fly mid-game. Take 2/3 of 65 point Samurai archers, add 1/4 of 110 pt airborne elite, 1/3 of 110 pt. Ninjas of Northern wind, 5/9 of 210 pt charos.....etc, on and on. You want everyone playing with a calculator at the table? Let's keep it simple, the way it is written in the rulebook...... this is not broken and does not need to be fixed. If you understand at the beginning of play that you must take down an entire unit to get credit it actually ADDS tactical decisions to the game. Anything that makes the game more tactical thereby limits the effects of luck and should make it more likely that the better player will win.

The great part about this is that I know that my post will be followed by several long soliliquies by Homba where he makes the same points over and over.... then maybe a long post or 2 from Marduk.... but at the end of all this wrangling over Gao, fractional scoring, etc. what do you hope to accomplish? Tourneys will continue to be run however they've been run. Mostly at the discretion of whichever tourney director sets it up..... probably the only tourney that has anything near official status is the Gencon tourney. Is this thread here for folks to practice their debating skills and argument essays? Frankly I feel that by posting to this I have become somewhat of a sucker and am only helping to feed Homba's hunger for debate opponents (punching bags). ACH!!!! I've taken the bait!

Let's imagine that 53% of the folks reading this thread agree that Gao is the best idea since sliced bread....... then what?

[mathguy]

We use chess clocks. If your time runs out, you lose. We play 25 minutes each player. No one has ever run out of time yet, although I came close once (I had like 12 seconds left! - It's amazing how fast you can move and roll dice if need be.).
And to think I was joking when I suggested the very same thing in another thread.
I have been using chess clocks for tourneys for a year now.
http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=230
And it works really well.

And I continue to enjoy the different viewpoints expressed by everyone.

[mathguy]

Ah, as for example a player with one Minion of Utgar left continually running away from his opponents single Knight of Weston. If they ran away just long enough to insure that they would strike first, that is fine with me (call it manuevering for advantage) - but if they continue to run (assuming the map allows it, and this scenario is extremely hard to avoid through map design), that is cheese. Yes, that would be bad... perhaps now that the example is spelled out, we will get more comment on it.

What you posted above is not relevant to Fractional or All or Nothing scoring. In the case you gave, once at this impass, both players should shake hands and agree that the Minion player is victorious, rather than do the chase.

This is certainly an acceptable to resolve such a game and would be consistent with the official rules.
In our tourneys, such a scenario is a motivation for us to use the "Storm ending rules" if a game runs to an alotted number of rounds and neither player has run out of time (using chess clocks). I guess such a system basically counts the number of lives left on both sides; but instead of just saying the player with more lives wins, there is a random method that just favors the player with more lives left.

I think it is clearly superior, given that such extreme examples in opposition are not completely out of the question and for the general case it seems much more reasonable. If Charos is down to a single life left, all he has to do to lose to Eldgrim is botch one defense roll. As for Khosumet, his chance to beat a three-life Charos is not *that* bad.

According to the Matchup Calculator a 3 life pooint Charos has a 92% chance to destroy an unwounded Khosumet. (IIRC)

And how do you account for Krug, who is obviously more powerful with a few wound markers on him, and yet you think his value should go down????

I don't think I made myself clear enough though. What I am saying is that it is not without it's own breed of weird results. If it is superior it is not significant enough for me to consider it as an alternative. From my observations, the current scoring system works on those rare occasions that a game goes to time. I don't like fractional scoring on heroes, and I don't like using it on squads and not heroes. Show me a system that is significantly better and I would consider it, but until then, I will use the scoring that was suggested by the game's creators.

I have the same opinion about Fractional Scoring. Before we employed chess clocks, we thought about the pros and cons of fractional scoring at the end of an unfinished game and decided against it. The Krug example illustrates one example reason.

[Marduk]

In the case you gave, once at this impass, both players should shake hands and agree that the Minion player is victorious, rather than do the chase.
It annoys me that you win the game, and presumably control of the battlefield, by running away instead of by fighting.

According to the Matchup Calculator a 3 life pooint Charos has a 92% chance to destroy an unwounded Khosumet. (IIRC)
Still much better than the chance of a one-life Braxis beating a full Nilfheim, or a one-life Taelord beating a full Su-Bak-Na. And certainly better than the chance of a Deathwalker 9000 getting no shields on a defense roll, yet that happens often enough for people to avoid using it in their armies.

What I am saying is that it is not without it's own breed of weird results.
True, but it seems to have fewer than full scoring.

And how do you account for Krug, who is obviously more powerful with a few wound markers on him, and yet you think his value should go down????
Krug does not become more powerful as he takes damage - his attack goes up. That is a very different thing. If he does not get to use his attack for whatever reason (can't catch his opponent, Dund got to him, who knows) he is no more dangerous. He does however become easier to kill as he takes damage. I agree he is one of the best cases for full scoring - he loses less as he takes damage than any other unit except the spirit vikings.

on those rare occasions that a game goes to time.
This is why we are arguing. You evidently do not think this will ever happen deliberately, and Homba and I worry that it will. We would like it to be given consideration now while it is still clearly not a problem, though I am going to stop pushing for it. I can come up with my own solution and just use that.

[Grungebob]

Krug does not become more powerful as he takes damage - his attack goes up. That is a very different thingReally? Krug is not more powerful after a couple of wounds? We must be playing different games.

[Marduk]

We must be playing different games.
Evidently. Unlike you, I think a hero become easier to kill as their life goes down. I would say Krug become a little less powerful as he takes damage. A single rat cannot kill an unwounded Krug in one attack. The same rat has an decent chance (about 15% if they are on the same level) of killing Krug with one attack when he has one life left. I believe that when Krug has one life left, he cannot reasonably risk breaking engagement with two figures (two rats, let's say) to go attack someone more important. In my mind, that makes Krug less powerful than when he started.

[Homba]

Braxas vs. Nilf. Time expires.

Braxas 210 vs Nilf 185
Braxas 1=26.25 2=52.5 3=78.75 4=105 5=131.25 6=157.5 7=183.75 8=210
Nilf----.1=30.83 2=61.6 3=92.49 4=123 5=154.15 6=185

Life ---- All-or-Nothing (win?/right-wrong?)---Fractional Scoring (win?/right-wrong?)

B8 N6----------B/wrong (N wins 59-41%)----B/wrong
B8 N5----------B/right (B wins 54-46%)-------B/right
B8 N4----------B/right--------------------------- B/right
B8 N3----------B/right--------------------------- B/right
B8 N2----------B/right--------------------------- B/right
B8 N1----------B/right--------------------------- B/right

B7 N6----------B/wrong (N wins 67-33%)---N/right ***
B7 N5----------B/wrong (N wins 55-45%)----B/wrong
B7 N4----------B/right (B wins 59-41%)------B/right
B7 N3----------B/right "
B7 N2----------B/right "
B7 N1----------B/right "

B6 N6----------B/wrong ------------------------N/right ***
B6 N5----------B/wrong-------------------------B/wrong
B6 N4----------B/wrong (N 50.23-49.77%) - B/wrong
B6 N3----------B/right "
B6 N2----------B/right "
B6 N1----------B/right "

B5 N6----------B/wrong ------------------------N/right ***
B5 N5----------B/wrong ------------------------N/right ***
B5 N4----------B/wrong ------------------------B/wrong
B5 N3----------B/right (B 56-44%)------------B/right
B5 N2----------B/right "
B5 N1----------B/right "

B4 N6----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B4 N5----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B4 N4----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B4 N3----------B/wrong (N 55-45%)----------B/wrong
B4 N2----------B/right (B 63-37%)------------B/right
B4 N1----------B/right --------------------------B/right

B3 N6----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B3 N5----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B3 N4----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B3 N3----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B3 N2----------B/wrong (N 50.5-49.5%)------B/wrong
B3 N1----------B/right---------------------------B/right

B2 N6----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B2 N5----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B2 N4----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B2 N3----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B2 N2----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B2 N1----------B/right (B 52-48%)------------B/right

B1 N6----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B1 N5----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B1 N4----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B1 N3----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B1 N2----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B1 N1----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***

===========================================

48 combinations
A-or-N gets it right 19 of 48 times (39.6%)
Fractional gets it right 41 of 48 times (85.4%)

Fractional gets it right 22 times when A-or-N got it wrong. (marked by ***)
Fractional gets it wrong 0 (zero) times when A-or-N got it right.

===========================================

Yes, I did a little test, using Braxas and Nilf (no breaths, just chomping).

I can now show statistically something I knew to be obviously true because of the unimpeachably true principle that when a squad is damged or a hero wounded, it is no longer as effective as it was before and therefore no longer deserving of its full price for the purpose of scoring.

These results can and must be extrapolated across the (quite huge) universe of possible matchups and life-vs-life (or remaining squad figs) situations in Scape. This test shows that the number of times Fractional Scoring will reach the correct result will dwarf the comparable result of All-or-Nothing scoring, which is shown to be embarrassingly unfair as a measure of who would win if time expiration (a completely foreign concept to Scape, but a necessary evil of tournament play) had not interrupted the game.

Gb's argument that each system has equivalent problems is destroyed by these results.

Gb, you said, "If it is superior it is not significant enough for me to consider it as an alternative." How about 85% correct vs. 39% correct? The thing that kills me is, you have no concept of what these numbers might be when you make your conclusive, dismissive assertions. If this is an unfair criticism, please tell me why.

If these numbers are anywhere in the ballpark of 85% vs 39% after the universe of possible match-ups was computed (and they must be, because the principle behind the math is true), then All-or-Nothing is BROKEN for the purpose of determining who would win if not for time expiration: it is wrong more often than it is right.

You realize (as I have insisted all along) that the little anomalies (one very marginal instance with Khomuset in the Khomuset-Braxas matrix, some possible, marginal anomalies with Krug, and anything else you can come up with that can be counted on two hands) are insignificant, minuscule, irrelevant when counted against the tremendous advantage in correctness of the Fractional Scoring system expressed over a colossal number of matchups. I can live with a few errors in return for 85% correctness! I cannot live with the pathetic 39% success rate of All-or-Nothing.

Now that we have the main issue -- whether Fractional is significantly more fair than All-or-Nothing -- settled, we can move to the more legitimate challenges to Fractional Scoring raised by several posters in this thread. More on those next. But I have to say, this test does everything to confirm my belief that I can live with a few procedural hardships in return for an 85% correct system. The objection would have to be more profoundly disturbing than the 39% success rate in order for me to be convinced to retain All-or-Nothing scoring. I've read this thread, and I'll say that at this time [hedge] I am strengthened in my belief that Fractional Scoring should become the standard for HS tournament play.

Mathguy, if you could give a critique on my test and my extrapolations from the results, that would be great. If I have made a significant error, I would welcome your pointing it out. When the evidence changes I change my mind.

H

[Grungebob]

Nah! Not convinced. Still gonna stick with all-or-nothing for now.

[Jormi_Boced]

Nah! Not convinced. Still gonna stick with all-or-nothing for now.

Until the rulebook changes, I will as well.

[Homba]

Nah! Not convinced. Still gonna stick with all-or-nothing for now.

I have no doubt you will! A perfectly in-character reaction, and no surprise to me.

Are you left with no articulable assertions, or will you venture to explain to us why you're not convinced on the fundamental fairness issue? Blah... why even ask.

Will address your issue tonight, Jormi, along with a few others that have been raised.

H

[spider_poison]

Nah! Not convinced. Still gonna stick with all-or-nothing for now.

I have no doubt you will! A perfectly in-character reaction, and no surprise to me.

Are you left with no articulable assertions, or will you venture to explain to us why you're not convinced on the fundamental fairness issue? Blah... why even ask.

Will address your issue tonight, Jormi, along with a few others that have been raised.

H

I'm not trying to speak for anyone here, but I think I recall it being said that not doing partial scoring is less complex. It could potentially require (actually, it would definitely require) the use of a calculator at each table. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it does add complexity.

Again, I'm not trying to speak for anyone, but I think I recall it being said that partial scoring would slow down the pace of the tournament. Not all tourney participants would be able to accurately complete partial scoring. Some people that attend tournies are young and/or not great at math, so others would have to come around to help.

Again, I'm not trying to speak for anyone, but I think I recall it being said that partial scoring isn't always an accurate representation of who would win the game if time expires. Zombies, vikings, Krug, and Alastair (or other chosen Human champions) are just a few units that lead to wonky results. I do think partial scoring will more often than not depict who was more likely to win the game, but I believe many people here are weighing the generally more accurate partial scoring to the negative consequences of implementing this system.

Lastly, if you are using PD as the scoring method, partial scoring will have to be done even in games where one side is completely eliminated.

Oh, and maybe this has been mentioned before, but a lack of partial scoring leads to more tactical decisions during a game. You can debate whether or not this is a favorable outcome, but more thought must be placed into what you attack.

I guess there's one other thing on my mind...it seems like weird conclusions are being drawn from isolated or irrelevant data.

Ok, I think that's it. Those are just some of the assertions that were brought up in the past, but I'm probably forgetting some. :?

[Jormi_Boced]

Nah! Not convinced. Still gonna stick with all-or-nothing for now.

I have no doubt you will! A perfectly in-character reaction, and no surprise to me.

Are you left with no articulable assertions, or will you venture to explain to us why you're not convinced on the fundamental fairness issue? Blah... why even ask.

Will address your issue tonight, Jormi, along with a few others that have been raised.

H

What issue?

[mathguy]

Braxas vs. Nilf. Time expires.

Braxas 210 vs Nilf 185
Braxas 1=26.25 2=52.5 3=78.75 4=105 5=131.25 6=157.5 7=183.75 8=210
Nilf----.1=30.83 2=61.6 3=92.49 4=123 5=154.15 6=185

Life ---- All-or-Nothing (win?/right-wrong?)---Fractional Scoring (win?/right-wrong?)

B8 N6----------B/wrong (N wins 59-41%)----B/wrong
B8 N5----------B/right (B wins 54-46%)-------B/right
B8 N4----------B/right--------------------------- B/right
B8 N3----------B/right--------------------------- B/right
B8 N2----------B/right--------------------------- B/right
B8 N1----------B/right--------------------------- B/right

B7 N6----------B/wrong (N wins 67-33%)---N/right ***
B7 N5----------B/wrong (N wins 55-45%)----B/wrong
B7 N4----------B/right (B wins 59-41%)------B/right
B7 N3----------B/right "
B7 N2----------B/right "
B7 N1----------B/right "

B6 N6----------B/wrong ------------------------N/right ***
B6 N5----------B/wrong-------------------------B/wrong
B6 N4----------B/wrong (N 50.23-49.77%) - B/wrong
B6 N3----------B/right "
B6 N2----------B/right "
B6 N1----------B/right "

B5 N6----------B/wrong ------------------------N/right ***
B5 N5----------B/wrong ------------------------N/right ***
B5 N4----------B/wrong ------------------------B/wrong
B5 N3----------B/right (B 56-44%)------------B/right
B5 N2----------B/right "
B5 N1----------B/right "

B4 N6----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B4 N5----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B4 N4----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B4 N3----------B/wrong (N 55-45%)----------B/wrong
B4 N2----------B/right (B 63-37%)------------B/right
B4 N1----------B/right --------------------------B/right

B3 N6----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B3 N5----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B3 N4----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B3 N3----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B3 N2----------B/wrong (N 50.5-49.5%)------B/wrong
B3 N1----------B/right---------------------------B/right

B2 N6----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B2 N5----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B2 N4----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B2 N3----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B2 N2----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B2 N1----------B/right (B 52-48%)------------B/right

B1 N6----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B1 N5----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B1 N4----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B1 N3----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B1 N2----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B1 N1----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***

===========================================

48 combinations
A-or-N gets it right 19 of 48 times (39.6%)
Fractional gets it right 41 of 48 times (85.4%)

Fractional gets it right 22 times when A-or-N got it wrong. (marked by ***)
Fractional gets it wrong 0 (zero) times when A-or-N got it right.

===========================================

Yes, I did a little test, using Braxas and Nilf (no breaths, just chomping).

I can now show statistically something I knew to be obviously true because of the unimpeachably true principle that when a squad is damged or a hero wounded, it is no longer as effective as it was before and therefore no longer deserving of its full price for the purpose of scoring.

These results can and must be extrapolated across the (quite huge) universe of possible matchups and life-vs-life (or remaining squad figs) situations in Scape. This test shows that the number of times Fractional Scoring will reach the correct result will dwarf the comparable result of All-or-Nothing scoring, which is shown to be embarrassingly unfair as a measure of who would win if time expiration (a completely foreign concept to Scape, but a necessary evil of tournament play) had not interrupted the game.

Gb's argument that each system has equivalent problems is destroyed by these results.

Gb, you said, "If it is superior it is not significant enough for me to consider it as an alternative." How about 85% correct vs. 39% correct? The thing that kills me is, you have no concept of what these numbers might be when you make your conclusive, dismissive assertions. If this is an unfair criticism, please tell me why.

If these numbers are anywhere in the ballpark of 85% vs 39% after the universe of possible match-ups was computed (and they must be, because the principle behind the math is true), then All-or-Nothing is BROKEN for the purpose of determining who would win if not for time expiration: it is wrong more often than it is right.

You realize (as I have insisted all along) that the little anomalies (one very marginal instance with Khomuset in the Khomuset-Braxas matrix, some possible, marginal anomalies with Krug, and anything else you can come up with that can be counted on two hands) are insignificant, minuscule, irrelevant when counted against the tremendous advantage in correctness of the Fractional Scoring system expressed over a colossal number of matchups. I can live with a few errors in return for 85% correctness! I cannot live with the pathetic 39% success rate of All-or-Nothing.

Now that we have the main issue -- whether Fractional is significantly more fair than All-or-Nothing -- settled, we can move to the more legitimate challenges to Fractional Scoring raised by several posters in this thread. More on those next. But I have to say, this test does everything to confirm my belief that I can live with a few procedural hardships in return for an 85% correct system. The objection would have to be more profoundly disturbing than the 39% success rate in order for me to be convinced to retain All-or-Nothing scoring. I've read this thread, and I'll say that at this time [hedge] I am strengthened in my belief that Fractional Scoring should become the standard for HS tournament play.

Mathguy, if you could give a critique on my test and my extrapolations from the results, that would be great. If I have made a significant error, I would welcome your pointing it out. When the evidence changes I change my mind.

H

Okay, I'll give a critique.
Your analysis of this case of Braxas vs Nilfheim appears to be correct in that in this particular match up, fractional scoring does a better job scoring based on future probabilities.
One example can illustrate a point (fractional scoring has potential), but of course one example cannot imply a conclusion (such as, does fractional scoring do a better job more often?).
One can probably come up with an example where fractional scoring does worse. Here's one: DW9K vs Q9. According to the Matchup calculator, Q9 has a better win percentage at 4,3,2 lives. So fractional scoring in this example gets it correct 2 out of 4 cases whereas all-or-nothing scoring gets it correct 3 out of 4 cases.
But I have a gut feeling that fractional scoring does do better more often than not in these one-on-one matchups (we won't know unless we do all cases - and I don't think anyone wants to do that). Whether or not it is worth it to implement it is up the individuals playing in the tourney. I myself currently feel it is not worth the hassle, but that's just a subjective feeling.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the Braxas-Nilfheim example might not be the best example because the point costs do not accurately represent the two units in this matchup (mostly because Braxas's special power is wasted in this case). That is, both scorings are wrong when they are at full health. When picking out the above DW9K vs Q9 example, I made sure to pick an example that at least had the higher cost figure having the higher win percentage when both are at full health. Another example that would also work is Syvarris vs Krug in that at all health levels, Krug is has the winning percentage, so here all-or-nothing scoring is correct all the time.

[Grungebob]

Braxas vs. Nilf. Time expires.

Braxas 210 vs Nilf 185
Braxas 1=26.25 2=52.5 3=78.75 4=105 5=131.25 6=157.5 7=183.75 8=210
Nilf----.1=30.83 2=61.6 3=92.49 4=123 5=154.15 6=185

Life ---- All-or-Nothing (win?/right-wrong?)---Fractional Scoring (win?/right-wrong?)

B8 N6----------B/wrong (N wins 59-41%)----B/wrong
B8 N5----------B/right (B wins 54-46%)-------B/right
B8 N4----------B/right--------------------------- B/right
B8 N3----------B/right--------------------------- B/right
B8 N2----------B/right--------------------------- B/right
B8 N1----------B/right--------------------------- B/right

B7 N6----------B/wrong (N wins 67-33%)---N/right ***
B7 N5----------B/wrong (N wins 55-45%)----B/wrong
B7 N4----------B/right (B wins 59-41%)------B/right
B7 N3----------B/right "
B7 N2----------B/right "
B7 N1----------B/right "

B6 N6----------B/wrong ------------------------N/right ***
B6 N5----------B/wrong-------------------------B/wrong
B6 N4----------B/wrong (N 50.23-49.77%) - B/wrong
B6 N3----------B/right "
B6 N2----------B/right "
B6 N1----------B/right "

B5 N6----------B/wrong ------------------------N/right ***
B5 N5----------B/wrong ------------------------N/right ***
B5 N4----------B/wrong ------------------------B/wrong
B5 N3----------B/right (B 56-44%)------------B/right
B5 N2----------B/right "
B5 N1----------B/right "

B4 N6----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B4 N5----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B4 N4----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B4 N3----------B/wrong (N 55-45%)----------B/wrong
B4 N2----------B/right (B 63-37%)------------B/right
B4 N1----------B/right --------------------------B/right

B3 N6----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B3 N5----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B3 N4----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B3 N3----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B3 N2----------B/wrong (N 50.5-49.5%)------B/wrong
B3 N1----------B/right---------------------------B/right

B2 N6----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B2 N5----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B2 N4----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B2 N3----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B2 N2----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B2 N1----------B/right (B 52-48%)------------B/right

B1 N6----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B1 N5----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B1 N4----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B1 N3----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B1 N2----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***
B1 N1----------B/wrong-------------------------N/right ***

===========================================

48 combinations
A-or-N gets it right 19 of 48 times (39.6%)
Fractional gets it right 41 of 48 times (85.4%)

Fractional gets it right 22 times when A-or-N got it wrong. (marked by ***)
Fractional gets it wrong 0 (zero) times when A-or-N got it right.

===========================================

Yes, I did a little test, using Braxas and Nilf (no breaths, just chomping).

I can now show statistically something I knew to be obviously true because of the unimpeachably true principle that when a squad is damged or a hero wounded, it is no longer as effective as it was before and therefore no longer deserving of its full price for the purpose of scoring.

These results can and must be extrapolated across the (quite huge) universe of possible matchups and life-vs-life (or remaining squad figs) situations in Scape. This test shows that the number of times Fractional Scoring will reach the correct result will dwarf the comparable result of All-or-Nothing scoring, which is shown to be embarrassingly unfair as a measure of who would win if time expiration (a completely foreign concept to Scape, but a necessary evil of tournament play) had not interrupted the game.

Gb's argument that each system has equivalent problems is destroyed by these results.

Gb, you said, "If it is superior it is not significant enough for me to consider it as an alternative." How about 85% correct vs. 39% correct? The thing that kills me is, you have no concept of what these numbers might be when you make your conclusive, dismissive assertions. If this is an unfair criticism, please tell me why.

If these numbers are anywhere in the ballpark of 85% vs 39% after the universe of possible match-ups was computed (and they must be, because the principle behind the math is true), then All-or-Nothing is BROKEN for the purpose of determining who would win if not for time expiration: it is wrong more often than it is right.

You realize (as I have insisted all along) that the little anomalies (one very marginal instance with Khomuset in the Khomuset-Braxas matrix, some possible, marginal anomalies with Krug, and anything else you can come up with that can be counted on two hands) are insignificant, minuscule, irrelevant when counted against the tremendous advantage in correctness of the Fractional Scoring system expressed over a colossal number of matchups. I can live with a few errors in return for 85% correctness! I cannot live with the pathetic 39% success rate of All-or-Nothing.

Now that we have the main issue -- whether Fractional is significantly more fair than All-or-Nothing -- settled, we can move to the more legitimate challenges to Fractional Scoring raised by several posters in this thread. More on those next. But I have to say, this test does everything to confirm my belief that I can live with a few procedural hardships in return for an 85% correct system. The objection would have to be more profoundly disturbing than the 39% success rate in order for me to be convinced to retain All-or-Nothing scoring. I've read this thread, and I'll say that at this time [hedge] I am strengthened in my belief that Fractional Scoring should become the standard for HS tournament play.

Mathguy, if you could give a critique on my test and my extrapolations from the results, that would be great. If I have made a significant error, I would welcome your pointing it out. When the evidence changes I change my mind.

H

Okay, I'll give a critique.
Your analysis of this case of Braxas vs Nilfheim appears to be correct in that in this particular match up, fractional scoring does a better job scoring based on future probabilities.
One example can illustrate a point (fractional scoring has potential), but of course one example cannot imply a conclusion (such as, does fractional scoring do a better job more often?).
One can probably come up with an example where fractional scoring does worse. Here's one: DW9K vs Q9. According to the Matchup calculator, Q9 has a better win percentage at 4,3,2 lives. So fractional scoring in this example gets it correct 2 out of 4 cases whereas all-or-nothing scoring gets it correct 3 out of 4 cases.
But I have a gut feeling that fractional scoring does do better more often than not in these one-on-one matchups (we won't know unless we do all cases - and I don't think anyone wants to do that). Whether or not it is worth it to implement it is up the individuals playing in the tourney. I myself currently feel it is not worth the hassle, but that's just a subjective feeling.That is basically what I have been saying. Thanks Mathguy. As I have said repeatedly, fractional scoring is not sufficiently superior to warrant a change for something that rarely happens (clock running out). Do I feel like writing a 5,000 word disertation on the subject? NO! I've made it clear enough.

[mathguy]

GB: You're too fast on the reply. Now no one is going to notice my quick edit if they quote you. :)

[Alastair MacDirk]

I like the example of a Full squad of Rats vs. 1 Isumi samurai. I'm laughing thinking about how Marduk would be so frustrated if the Rats were not compelled to attack without regard for counterstrike.... of course if you score it correctly, with the full points as written in the RULES the rats are doomed.... with fractional scoring the player with the rats should scatter..... right Marduk?????

[Homba]

Okay, I'll give a critique.
Your analysis of this case of Braxas vs Nilfheim appears to be correct in that in this particular match up, fractional scoring does a better job scoring based on future probabilities.
One example can illustrate a point (fractional scoring has potential), but of course one example cannot imply a conclusion (such as, does fractional scoring do a better job more often?).

As I said earlier, I think the conclusion is sufficiently implied by the principle that effectiveness subsides as damage is taken. The Braxas-Nilf table is just proof of the principle, which hardly needs proving because it is generally true in Scape.

One can probably come up with an example where fractional scoring does worse. Here's one: DW9K vs Q9. According to the Matchup calculator, Q9 has a better win percentage at 4,3,2 lives. So fractional scoring in this example gets it correct 2 out of 4 cases whereas all-or-nothing scoring gets it correct 3 out of 4 cases.

I've already admitted you can find a handful of contrary examples. But in the large majority of calculations between ordinary heroes and squads, you are going to see the same pattern you see in the Braxas-Nilf table: starting about half way down the table, Fractional is going to start correctly giving the win to the slightly lower-priced figure. And Fractional thus runs away with the win on the fairness issue by a huge percentage difference like the 85% vs 39% I showed.

Consider that Braxas vs Nilf had 48 combinations. If you assume an average of 4 life or squad figs in each of the other (roughly) 100 units, then comparing them all to Braxas alone results in 8x4x100= 3200 combinations. I don't know what the average life or #squadies is for all 100+ units together, but if it is between 3 and 5 (which is probably close), then you have between (3x3x100x100=) 90,000 and (5x5x100x100=) 250,000 combinations. It is actually less because I'm not allowing for the last unit you reach having already been compared to all the others and on up the line (mathguy could do this in his sleep, it would take me too long to google up the formula and method).

But you get the point. It is a WHOLE LOT of instances. I am not troubled that you find in the case of Q9 vs DW, that Fractional is ONE less effective than A-or-N. Or that Krug may cause marginal anomalies against many units he's compared to - he's one of 100+ units! The bottom line is, you will see the same pattern as in the bottom half of the Braxas-Nilf table with the large majority of units, and the final calculation will show that in all those 100,000+ possible instances, Fractional gets it right 85%-ish of the time, and A-or-N gets it right 39%-ish.

But I have a gut feeling that fractional scoring does do better more often than not in these one-on-one matchups (we won't know unless we do all cases - and I don't think anyone wants to do that).

I think you can take the math we know (the Braxas-Nilf table), make the logical inferences I did above (the Braxas-Nilf table extended to most other similarly priced units), and reach a sound conclusion. This is a lot more than a gut feeling isn't it, Mathguy?

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the Braxas-Nilfheim example might not be the best example because the point costs do not accurately represent the two units in this matchup (mostly because Braxas's special power is wasted in this case).

Nilf's special is wasted too since his bite is more effective, so it's a wash. These two (B & N) are going to yield results (the general contours of the data table, with Fractional wracking up the correct results in the bottom half) very similar to any other two heroes, or two squads, or hero vs squad hacking at each other without some monkeywrench power. This only excludes a handful of wonky units out of 100+ .. not enough to move the average results more than a few points.

----------------------

The "fairness" argument is what I believe I've shown to be settled with the above.

The other arguments accept that Fractional Scoring is a significantly more fair way to determine who would have won had time not expired, but object to it on other grounds.

1. The Scoring rule on page 14 (Jormi)

I've addressed this. Scape isn't a tournament game, and it was created primarily for 8-12yr olds. We are discussing the evolution of Scape tourney rules for mature players. When A-or-N is getting it right 39% of the time, and Fractional is getting it right 85% of the time, which do you go with for your "mature" set of tourney rules? I don't know about you, but I'd like a "just" result if a game has to be scored. "Craig's opinion" isn't relevant in this case, because he's never expressed an opinion on tourney (procedural) rules for mature players.

2. The game should just "end" abstractly. By scoring, you're not trying to see who would have won, rather you're just working through an abstract game mechanic. (A. MacDirk)

If you want to look at it that way, I've got no argument. It's a legit position. I just don't look at it like that - I thought the time limit was a necessary evil of (and a creation of) the tournament structure, not a welcomed part of the game. We're playing a battle game here, even if it is an impressionistic one. If I damage and destroy your forces -- render them ineffective -- more than you do mine, and time expires, then I've won the fight. And we should try to determine who won the fight fairly in the spirit of a battle game if time DOES expire, which it very rarely does. Fractional scoring is much more representative of who won.

3. It's hard to add up fractional and numbers that aren't factors of 10. (various)

I just don't buy this. You can if you want, I understand the point, but I don't buy it. If you learned how to "round" numbers in elementary school, it isn't a problem. You can ignore the actual fractions. "Take 2/3 of 65 point Samurai archers, add 1/4 of 110 pt airborne elite, 1/3 of 110 pt. Ninjas of Northern wind, 5/9 of 210 pt charos" You know what? I have no problem doing that in my head. If you need a pad and pencil, isn't that a small sacrifice for a system that returns correct results 85% of the time? So using A-or-N is a few seconds quicker? Is that worth the horrible 39% fairness rate? Remember - most games never reach time. So this is rarely an issue. And I think you know when you're losing or winning in most cases. It doesn't require constantly doing a running tabulation of the remaining forces, as A.MacDirk suggests. Who really does that? You know at a glance if you're winning or losing under either system.

4. If you are using PD as the scoring method, partial scoring will have to be done even in games where one side is completely eliminated. (Spider, reiterating)

Yes, and you'd have a much fairer result with your PD. (Codeman admitted Fractional was more fair), he just didn't like dealing with fractions. I suggested rounding those to the nearest whole number - problem solved).

5. Tactics - A.MacDirk.

I've gone over this at length higher up. Running away to save the full points of an expensive wounded unit, and taking extra turns to destroy relatively harmless lone squadies to get the full points of the card... both of these would not happen in normal games of Scape where time was not an issue, where a "battle" was played out. You're turning this into a very abstract point-getting and point-saving game where everything you do is calculated around All-or-Nothing scoring, rather than a battle game where you try to damage your enemy, reduce his effectiveness more than he damages and reduces yours. I want to play the battle game, where I get credit for knocking your Nilf down to 1 life when time expires. Not the abstract point-centric game where you get full credit for your 1 life Nilf and beat my several intact units that don't quite total 185. If you play Fractional Scoring, you don't have this problem with the gamey point-centric tactics.

Is this getting close to being done? The big ideas have been put out there and discussed in detail - PD, SoS, GaO, and Fractional vs All-or-Nothing. What's the point, A.MacDirk? Well, what's the point of anything? I had fun and enjoyed following everyone's ideas through this and discussing. Will anything anyone said change anything? Dunno. There are a lot of people running tourneys, and some may pick up certain ideas while others pick up others. Mostly, as I may've said in my first post, for me the discussion is an end in itself, not a means to an end. It is fun to talk some good deep theoryscape.

H

PS- Marduk, that example you gave of another form of turtling -- the Minion running away from the Knight -- is a good case for GaO.

[mathguy]

But I have a gut feeling that fractional scoring does do better more often than not in these one-on-one matchups (we won't know unless we do all cases - and I don't think anyone wants to do that).

I think you can take the math we know (the Braxas-Nilf table), make the logical inferences I did above (the Braxas-Nilf table extended to most other similarly priced units), and reach a sound conclusion. This is a lot more than a gut feeling isn't it, Mathguy?

My gut feeling is based on the same math intuition that you have advocated (that current value of a unit can attempted to be approximated by fractional calculation) and the expectation that most pairs of units in a one-on-one match up will have outcome predicted by their point values when at full health. The advantage of fractional scoring really comes from the case when the higher value unit suffers enough damage that its probability of winning becomes lower than the lower value unit; this is when fractional scoring gets the prediction correct and all-or-nothing scoring does not (I think this is obvious to everyone). But fractional scoring would get it wrong when the higher value unit suffers only enough damage so that its fractional scoring is below the other unit but its winning percentage does not. The "gut" part of my feeling is that I expect the former happens more than the latter and that fractional scoring is better in more cases than not. To us mathematicians, I hesitate to say anything stronger than "gut feeling" or "I expect this to be true in more cases than not" if I don't have a proof to go along with it (which here requires going through all pairs). To summarize, yes, my gut feeling is based on math principles. If it weren't, I would have said "I don't know."

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I don't think I heard anyone argue against "fractional scoring is a better predictor of outcome than all-or-nothing scoring more often than not". (A) It seems the existence of "anomalies" are sufficient to turn some people off. (B) Some others don't like the distraction, or the increased complexity. (C) Yet some others don't like the change in tactics this would create (a change from the tactics that would be implied by the official rules of all-or-nothing scoring). And these are not mutually exclusive. I myself think that fractional scoring has merit. But I'm in the camp that would not use it because of (B) and (C).

[Grungebob]

I'm (A) and (B). Homba keeps mentioning adults. We have quite a few kids that compete in our tourneys, and I would like to see that continue. I am a proponent of all the simple qualities that exist in Heroscape that turn away more competitive minded individuals. Heroscape was invented with kids in mind but it was invented by adults and it is apparent that in it's current state it is enjoyable for both, without the need to add any complexity even if marginally better. In an interview a while back Craig mentioned that they have regular in-house tournaments in the place where they create Heroscape. These guys do play by this set of rules and design the units accordingly. I've met the folks that make Heroscape. Pretty smart group of guys and gals. I think I will leave it up to their expertise. Sorry Homba, but gotta go with the experts.

[Marduk]

I like the example of a Full squad of Rats vs. 1 Isumi samurai. I'm laughing thinking about how Marduk would be so frustrated if the Rats were not compelled to attack without regard for counterstrike.... of course if you score it correctly, with the full points as written in the RULES the rats are doomed.... with fractional scoring the player with the rats should scatter..... right Marduk?????
Actually, I would attack. Four rats have a good chance of beating the single samurai (an excellent chance if a couple of them can get height advantage), and will definately lose if the samurai can attack them and they do not attack back. If you are going to pick an example to illustrate your point, make it one that works.

Edit: Counterstrike is not worth the points it costs - samurai armies are professional losers. Neat idea, but they sacrifice too much attack for the extra defense dice. They would be better off with normal attack and defense numbers; counterstrike would work even less often, but their performance on attack would be much better.

[Marduk]

Oh, and maybe this has been mentioned before, but a lack of partial scoring leads to more tactical decisions during a game. You can debate whether or not this is a favorable outcome, but more thought must be placed into what you attack.
I think I will debate instead that it is untrue. Whole scoring effectively removes the option of leaving an enemy squad alive but depleted, so as to make using it a waste of an order marker.

[Codeman]

Oh, and maybe this has been mentioned before, but a lack of partial scoring leads to more tactical decisions during a game. You can debate whether or not this is a favorable outcome, but more thought must be placed into what you attack.
I think I will debate instead that it is untrue. Whole scoring effectively removes the option of leaving an enemy squad alive but depleted, so as to make using it a waste of an order marker.

I don't know... If I am against the Krav Maga, and I have two of them killed off, the odds of the last one getting an order marker on him is typically slim...so I would typically ignore that last Krav agent and try to kill off some of the bigger fish that will hurt me. Now late in the game if points are close.... I will have to make a tactical decision on weather to waste a turn to kill that figure off (to eliminate a card) or keep hammering on the guys that could kill me off. I think it adds strategy ( for both sides ). Anything that add more strategy choices to this game I am in favor of... I think it is a good thing.

[Homba]

But Codeman I thought you enjoyed the battle theme. Does it not feel strained to you that the tactical choice you're suggesting departs from sound battle considerations ("I need not be distracted by the reduced threat of one figure"), and propel you into an abstract gameyness? ("I need to get all those points for that card"). I guess I'd rather keep the battle theme intact. Is it really an "additional" tactical choice, or are you just trading one preferred choice for another? You can choose to kill that last squaddie under either system, it's just more to your advantage under All-or-Nothing, and less to your advantage (keeping with the battle theme) under Fractional.

Mathguy, thanks for the additional comments. On your "(A) It seems the existence of "anomalies" are sufficient to turn some people off." It seems this reason could only be rationally held if one believed that Fractional produced more (or equal) anomalies compared to A-or-N, since A-or-N obviously produces many anomalies itself.

Gb, I sympathize with the kids argument. I don't recall at what age I was able to do multiplication and division sufficient (assuming basic rounding) to master Fractional Scoring. Age 11-12 (4th-5th grade?) maybe? You could have a kids division, or just help them if it ever came up. Since any kind of scoring is not often an issue (only when time expires) it isn't an issue often. Finally I think that a kid who is actually too young to do the math is also too young to take much account of the possibility of eventual scoring (of either type) in their tactics - they're just going to go for the gusto - so is it really a non-issue? Generally I wouldn't let the presence of kids curtail Fractional Scoring. The young kids aren't the ones driving 100+ miles to get to a tourney or spending the money on the hobby - it's the adults that are the prime movers here, and my rules would acknowledge that and use the more fair, if slightly more mathy, system.

Something new and (I hope!) benign:

What do yall do or prefer, a lot of different maps in your tourney, or just one or two maps built 10 or 20 times each? In Jackson we used 6 unique maps, and along with doing the swiss (no one played the same opponent twice) we also arranged it so that no one ever had to play the same map twice. We liked this, but I guess it'd be tougher for a bigger tourney.

For a 40 person field, would you rather have 20 different maps (all within an acceptable range of melee-range balance) or would you rather have 5 different maps (4 copies of each), or 2x10 maps, or the same map copied 20 times? Or does it matter to you? Better experience one way or the other?

When you know for sure someone is coming, do you ask them to bring enough stuff to build a map or three?

H

[Jormi_Boced]

But Codeman I thought you enjoyed the battle theme. Does it not feel strained to you that the tactical choice you're suggesting departs from sound battle considerations ("I need not be distracted by the reduced threat of one figure"), and propel you into an abstract gameyness? ("I need to get all those points for that card"). I guess I'd rather keep the battle theme intact. Is it really an "additional" tactical choice, or are you just trading one preferred choice for another? You can choose to kill that last squaddie under either system, it's just more to your advantage under All-or-Nothing, and less to your advantage (keeping with the battle theme) under Fractional.


It could be that that you are trying to take the squad member for interrogation, or that you fear him making it back to his general to relay information on your troops strength, positioning etc.

Anyway, Craig plays this way, so I will too.

[damja]

Take the example of the two players who are 5-1. Player A has amassed a whopping 1295 points of differential. Player B only managed to scrounge up 385 points. Player A is the winner then right?????????????????????????????

What if I told you that Player A played 2 newbies and someone's girlfriend that didn't want to play in the tourney, but they coerced her to play so they'd have an even amount of players..... the records of Player A's opponents was 0-6, 1-5, 1-5, 2-4, 3-3, 3-3. He crushed several of them by 300 pt margins. Player B played seasoned HS tourney vets and narrowly won 5 closely contested, hard fought, nailbiters .... his opponents records were 4-2, 4-2, 4-2, 4-2, 3-3, 3-3.

This is perhaps an extreme example but... I am trying to point out that determining anything by PD alone is arbitrary and we could argue for 99 more thread pages about the best way to determine PD.

WHAT ABOUT STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE???????
One player getting one easy crushing victory over one uncompetetive opponent throws your whole system including GoA out of the window.

Moral of the story, there is no perfect way to score a victory other than the old fashioned Binary Method....... scoring 1 for each win.


This could not happen in a Swiss style tournament as the players with the best records are constantly being matched up. Since you gave the example of 6 rounds that would be a tournament somewhere between 25-32 people. If you have 30 then after round 1 there would be 15 people who are 1-0. After round 2, if you match up all the winners (leaving one of the winners matched with a loser), you will have a maximum of 8 undefeated players (if the left over winner from the first round wins again). After round 3 there would be 4, and so on. In a swiss style tournament it would be impossible for the scenario you decribed to take place.

-HOWEVER-

In a tournament that is not Swiss and not a Round-Robin (everybody plays everybody, which for tournaments with more than 6 people is not practical) SOS should be considered.

The tournament you ran is one such tournament and I love the concept. I am using the same basic idea for my June Tourney in Michigan, with some modifications.

*For those of you who don't know, it was a "Battle Lord" Tourney where players played both sides of several duplicate battles.*

The scoring method for tournament winners will use a combination of PD and SOS.

If you destroy your opponent's army you will recieve 3 SKULLS
If you have more points on the board when time runs out you get 2 SKULLS
You get 1 SKULL every time one of the people you defeated wins.
In the event of a tie in the number of SKULLS at the end of the tournament the tie-breaker is total PD
Rationalization-
To encourage attacking, more SKULLS are given for a win by annhilation than by PD.
To consider SOS a SKULL is awarded every time someone you beat beats someone else.
It is 2-3 times better to earn SKULLS by beating someone head-to-head than indirectly through someone you beat beating them.
I use fractional points in my tourneys only on squads. I did this to discourage "Squadscape". For this tourney I may make a change.

To determine the "Winner" of an individual game, PD will be used only if the battles take longer than 1 hour 15 minutes. I may change it this time.

[Codeman]

But Codeman I thought you enjoyed the battle theme. Does it not feel strained to you that the tactical choice you're suggesting departs from sound battle considerations ("I need not be distracted by the reduced threat of one figure"), and propel you into an abstract gameyness? ("I need to get all those points for that card"). I guess I'd rather keep the battle theme intact. Is it really an "additional" tactical choice, or are you just trading one preferred choice for another? You can choose to kill that last squaddie under either system, it's just more to your advantage under All-or-Nothing, and less to your advantage (keeping with the battle theme) under Fractional.



Something new and (I hope!) benign:

What do yall do or prefer, a lot of different maps in your tourney, or just one or two maps built 10 or 20 times each? In Jackson we used 6 unique maps, and along with doing the swiss (no one played the same opponent twice) we also arranged it so that no one ever had to play the same map twice. We liked this, but I guess it'd be tougher for a bigger tourney.

For a 40 person field, would you rather have 20 different maps (all within an acceptable range of melee-range balance) or would you rather have 5 different maps (4 copies of each), or 2x10 maps, or the same map copied 20 times? Or does it matter to you? Better experience one way or the other?

When you know for sure someone is coming, do you ask them to bring enough stuff to build a map or three?

H

Part I - I did say late in the game ( again typically games end before time ends, I gave an example of a game that may not end in time - sorry )

Part II
In a 40 person field we had three maps ( seven of each ). All different sizes - small, medium, & large :lol: MeatGrinder, ForsakenWaters, Wolf Swamp Road.

This comimg Tree Town Open will be somewhere in the range of 50 - 64 ( TBD ) at this point I plan on 4 maps. ( one with Tundra Expansion, one with Lava expansion , one with road expansion, Maybe Marro?


I think to be fair everyone needs to play on the same map(s) but it would be boaring to play 4 to 6 games on the same map so believe it is good to mix it up between maps. If you play 3 or 4 rounds two maps should be good.

I have all the maps lined up & built ahead of time. I do ask a couple of people to bring a MS with them just incase we have overflow and need to set up one ( never had to set one though ) - The next tourney I may be limited my tables & space with master sets being a close second as far as being the weakest link.

[Draconious]

Just tossing this idea in to this thread...

I was making a scenerio with a rule set that promoted drafting of figures from one general but allowed mixed generals. Its likely been done, but maybe not this particular way.

I have all players pick what general they intend to follow...
Then add points to cards that are not of that general...

Copied from my ruleset and modified a bit for tournament use:

Jandar generals drafting Ullar cards, and Ullar generals drafting Jandar cards, must pay an additional 5 points per army card drafted.

Utgar generals drafting Jandar or Ullar cards, and Jandard or Ullar generals drafting Utgar cards, must pay an additional 15 points per army card.

All other army cards that are not aligned to your chosen general will cost an additional 10 points to draft.

Would this work in a tournament? Is it totally stupid? My entire scenerio is based on this, because the army cards get drafted after the game starts!

[Alastair MacDirk]

Just tossing this idea in to this thread...

I was making a scenerio with a rule set that promoted drafting of figures from one general but allowed mixed generals. Its likely been done, but maybe not this particular way.

I have all players pick what general they intend to follow...
Then add points to cards that are not of that general...

Copied from my ruleset and modified a bit for tournament use:

Jandar generals drafting Ullar cards, and Ullar generals drafting Jandar cards, must pay an additional 5 points per army card drafted.

Utgar generals drafting Jandar or Ullar cards, and Jandard or Ullar generals drafting Utgar cards, must pay an additional 15 points per army card.

All other army cards that are not aligned to your chosen general will cost an additional 10 points to draft.

Would this work in a tournament? Is it totally stupid? My entire scenerio is based on this, because the army cards get drafted after the game starts!

The problem I see in a tournament setting is in the time it takes to draft before each game..... If you try it I recommend using a timer for people to make a selection.... whenever I do drafts in friendly games they seem to take a while.

[Homba]

Just tossing this idea in to this thread...

I was making a scenerio with a rule set that promoted drafting of figures from one general but allowed mixed generals. Its likely been done, but maybe not this particular way.

I have all players pick what general they intend to follow...
Then add points to cards that are not of that general...

Copied from my ruleset and modified a bit for tournament use:

Jandar generals drafting Ullar cards, and Ullar generals drafting Jandar cards, must pay an additional 5 points per army card drafted.

Utgar generals drafting Jandar or Ullar cards, and Jandard or Ullar generals drafting Utgar cards, must pay an additional 15 points per army card.

All other army cards that are not aligned to your chosen general will cost an additional 10 points to draft.

Would this work in a tournament? Is it totally stupid? My entire scenerio is based on this, because the army cards get drafted after the game starts!

I kinda like that. I think there's a lot of thematic fun behind general-centric armies.

If I were doing it for a tourney, I'd make it simpler instead of using all the variations.

You'd come to the tourney with your army already picked out, and use it throughout as ususal.

1. Pick your general.
2. Buy units following that general at normal cost.
3. You can also buy units serving other generals, but they each cost +10 (or +20 - whatever you think is right).

If everyone actually had flagbearers, it sure would be cool to have a (4.) You get the flagbearer for your chosen general added to your army FOR FREE. (or maybe half price, at your option).

But everyone doesn't have FBs, so... you can't really do this fairly.

edit - though it occurs to me you could allow a proxy.

http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/10147/normal_FlagBearer-small.JPG

H

[Marduk]

What do yall do or prefer, a lot of different maps in your tourney, or just one or two maps built 10 or 20 times each? In Jackson we used 6 unique maps, and along with doing the swiss (no one played the same opponent twice) we also arranged it so that no one ever had to play the same map twice. We liked this, but I guess it'd be tougher for a bigger tourney.

For a 40 person field, would you rather have 20 different maps (all within an acceptable range of melee-range balance) or would you rather have 5 different maps (4 copies of each), or 2x10 maps, or the same map copied 20 times? Or does it matter to you? Better experience one way or the other?

When you know for sure someone is coming, do you ask them to bring enough stuff to build a map or three?
I prefer all different maps (up to a point, anyway - at least enough that no one will have to play on the same map twice), with the overall trend to balance out ranged versus melee. At my tournament I tried to avoid maps too strongly biased to make that easier, and I think I succeeded. My own army was all melee except for James Murphy, and it suffered because of horrible rolling instead of because it was melee.

I got some compliments for having all different maps, I think largely because it let people walk around and take a good look at them between games. No one complained at the variety, the only map complaint I got was that someone did not like lava boards.

[Marduk]

Just tossing this idea in to this thread...
I agree with Alastair MacDirk (a first!), I think it would take to long to do drafting at a tournament unless it were a small one or there was a time limit for drafting.

If everyone actually had flagbearers, it sure would be cool to have a (4.) You get the flagbearer for your chosen general added to your army FOR FREE. (or maybe half price, at your option).

But everyone doesn't have FBs, so... you can't really do this fairly.

edit - though it occurs to me you could allow a proxy.
A proxy would be fair, and I suppose the flagbearers are not too unbalanced. You could also just discount them a few points, say 10 or 20.

[Draconious]

For tournament use it would be pre-drafted before you came... it would just have to add up including the extra cost when you submitted it. Only purpose is to promote people using one general and not mix enemies, but if they are not creative enough or insist on using common mixed combinations then they have to pay for the advantage of using that mixed combination.

However for my scenario, that I took this from, you will be drafting as the game progresses, in turn order etc, which can even be done while other players are taking their turn on the board to save time...
I will post about my "rules/scenerio" specifically soon... still working on it.