Simple PNP Tourney System 1st page updated INPUT!

[ollie]

At some point I think we would need to disallow TD from competing, but not now while working on building attendance.

That's reassuring, in the short-term at least.

Fractional scoring will not likely ever be a part of sanctioned events. The reason is that there are folks who we want to attend events. These folks only know the rules as written in the rulebook. It is unfair to surprise them with all new victory point systems at the time of the event.

It seems that this argument also causes problems for allowing or disallowing Marvel, or for the "game variants" you mention (depending what they are). It's hard to say for sure without seeing the sanctioned events rules.

When publicising an event, it needs to be known what the army sizes are, what the victory conditions are, and what other optional rules are in play (glyphs or not, Marvel or not). I'm not sure what is special about fractional scoring in this regard that it can't be included with that other information.

Anyway, this is all pretty academic at the moment. I'm excited to see what comes out, and it's going to be up to those who run the actual tournaments whether to give up some choices in how to run the tournament in order to be part of the official national scene. That's a trade-off that is unavoidable, and I think the national system is going to be an exciting thing to be part of.

 

[RobertDD]

On the fractional scoring I will have to pitch my voice in with Ollie's. Fractional scoring was designed to deal with the "unfairness" of official scoring.

If I am interpreting the reasoning on not allowing fractional scoring correctly, then the argument against it is to not disadvantage those that have gotten themselves into the rulebook enough to have built an army or develop a play style that exploits the inherent unfairness of non-fractional scoring. I am not sure those people exist, and if they do, I am not sure they should be encouraged...

Edit: I forgot to say: I am all for a standard way of scoring and I am real glad that is incorporated in the tournament document, even if it does slightly differ from my preference! The current jumble of scoring systems out there is confusing, and I am sure that scores have been written up incorrectly at almost every tournament I've attended (I've actually heard someone mention at Beantown that they counted points for a twice killed zombies twice, ).

 

[Grungebob]

I think you guys would probably agree that the standard VP scoring system is the most widely used. I have participated in countless tourneys over my 4+ years of Heroscaping. I have never seen any problems with the current system. The minor benifits(if any) associated with fractional scoring do not justify a total overhaul of the current system. Furthermore, I view myself as a custodian of the obvious intent of the game's designers. If they wanted fractional scoring, they would have written it in the rules. They are a smart bunch.

 

[Rÿchean]

Furthermore, I view myself as a custodian of the obvious intent of the game's designers.

That you are my friend, that you are!

 

[RobertDD]

I think you guys would probably agree that the standard VP scoring system is the most widely used.

I consider myself a Jr. Heroscaper, with less than a year of history in tournament play, but I've been to all of the New England (and some NY) tournaments since Battle at the Border in RI, and none of them used anything but fractional scoring. Also, at Battle at the Border we used Victory Points (points for every figure still alive in your army at the end of the battle), but this was the ONLY tournament that used them, and it invoked a huge debate on whether victory points were the way to go or not. At every other tournament Kill Points (points for every figure dead on the opposing side) were scored, and I have to say I really like that system much, much better.

I don't have a rulesbook on me, but what does that say? Kill points or Victory Points?

Anyways, the unwritten, but undisputed and silently agreed upon standard in the North East seems to be Fractional Kill Points.

I have participated in countless tourneys over my 4+ years of Heroscaping. I have never seen any problems with the current system. The minor benifits(if any) associated with fractional scoring do not justify a total overhaul of the current system.

I find myself mostly agreeing with this statement.

Furthermore, I view myself as a custodian of the obvious intent of the game's designers. If they wanted fractional scoring, they would have written it in the rules. They are a smart bunch.

Yeah....OK.
So if everything is in the rules then how come we have erata, and how come you have to write a tournament document?
Lets face it, not even the smartest people can foresee it all.

I think it's a fair topic to hear some discussion and opinions on, especially since the way of doing things right now seems to vary depending on topographic region. Even if it looks like it won't influence the DCI way of scoring one bit I am interested in the topic.

Everyone should have as devoted a custodian as you, though.

 

[ollie]

Edit: I forgot to say: I am all for a standard way of scoring and I am real glad that is incorporated in the tournament document, even if it does slightly differ from my preference!

While I share RobertDD's preference for fractional scoring, here is where we part company. Heroscape is a wonderfully versatile game system; I want a mechanism that allows as much diversity as possible. I think I'd as opposed to an insistence on fractional scoring as I am to an insistence on whole card scoring. It's not an issue of which system is best; it's an issue of letting TD's run their tournaments how they see fit. Sure, there will have to be a compromise to fit into an overall scheme; eliminating the possibility of fractional scoring---something supported by a significant minority of tournament-playing 'scapers---seems like an unnecessary step towards uniformity.

Furthermore, I view myself as a custodian of the obvious intent of the game's designers.

Fair enough. I'd put the views and health of the heroscaping community above the intent of the designers (who cares what the designers of chess think?), but I don't think the two are necessarily in opposition. However great the designers (and I do think they are great) I don't find "the designers didn't intend it" a compelling argument against anything.

Alternative scoring methods work; many people like different methods; many TD's want to run their tournaments using different methods.

You're in a tough position. Any move towards standardisation is going to make some people unhappy simply because standardisation is the enemy of diversity and people have diverse opinions. Striking a balance between the two is difficult and I appreciate all the work you are doing to find such a balance. I guess this is just a plea to do whatever is practical to embrace as much diversity of opinion as possible.

Thanks again for all your work and for engaging in this discussion. I'm trying hard not to sound like I am attacking you or being unnecessarily antagonistic, and I hope I'm succeeding. These are things I really do not want to do. However, I do feel strongly about these issues; what comes out of these standardised events rules is going to have a huge impact on a game I love.

 

[nyys]

Lets have a Scape rumble... winner decides.

 

[ollie]

Lets have a Scape rumble... winner decides.

Fractional scoring, right?

 

[nyys]

Lets have a Scape rumble... winner decides.

Fractional scoring, right?

Of course. Northeast Rules!

 

[ollie]

Fun Fact: As well as the NESA Scape-a-Palooza event there are two other NHSD events that explicitly say they are using fractional scoring: SoCal Slaughter and the Ohio event. That's over 100 players across the country playing with fractional scoring on Saturday.

Most events are not explicit one way or the other. Most of these are probably using whole card scoring, but there may be a few that are not.

 

[RobertDD]

Edit: I forgot to say: I am all for a standard way of scoring and I am real glad that is incorporated in the tournament document, even if it does slightly differ from my preference!

While I share RobertDD's preference for fractional scoring, here is where we part company.

If that's how you want it: fine!

Honestly, my pref would be: strong guidelines that allow for deviation. Along the lines of: these are the rules of a tournament, unless specifically mentioned beforehand that a tournament deviates.

That is actually always my pick when something like this comes up. Non-binding rules, sort of, that allow the best of both worlds.

The problem with scoring is that I assume GB's tournament document includes/ties into a ranking system. For that purpose it might be important that scoring is somewhat uniform across events.

We just had a whole discussion on how a game can be scape but notr qualify for the NERV on another thread, I see this issue along the same lines.

I do suggest we don't complain 'till we see the document in its entirety and in its "final" form, though.

 

[ollie]

We just had a whole discussion on how a game can be scape but notr qualify for the NERV on another thread, I see this issue along the same lines.

Quite true, and there I was in the analogous position to that of Grungebob now.

I do suggest we don't complain 'till we see the document in its entirety and in its "final" form, though.

Sounds fair, and I hope I haven't been jumping the gun.

 

[Kinseth]

Has anyone seen my scoring system lol!

 

[Revdyer]

Has anyone seen my scoring system lol!

yes

 

[Codeman]

Wow... nothing ever changes. It's been awhile since I've been on and the debate continues. This tread is looking like: http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=4901&highlight=differentialSeems like we have re-hashed over and over and we will from years to come. For anyone new that may not know - I like VP ( followed by point differential ). However I will play what ever system the TD has.

 

[MegaSilver]

Score sheets are now available in the downloads secion:

http://www.heroscapers.com/download/?dlid=881

Sorry to necro this thread, but this link no longer works. I'm needing a score sheet for my upcoming tourney, and when I tried to open the link it redirected me to the front page. Any chance of updating it or creating a new score sheet?

EDIT:

FYI...I posted the SSS tournament sheets back in the download section since I have gotten a bunch of requests for them since saying I had them saved to my hard drive.

http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=899

Nevermind, Ona had it. This should be put on the front page.

MegaSilver

 

[lefton4ya]

Still a great thread by the way.
I added a Draft Tournament - Options and Tips for TDs thread which actually has some great stuff to look at for those running any tourney too.

Resources:
Draft Tournament Sheet by me. Input welcome on this thread.
Tournament Director Software by Sisyphus
Partial Scoring Sheet weesel99, updated with D3 by Johnnylama
...
The same decisions as any other tourney, but the choices affect the game different than a normal tourney

Spoiler Alert!

• Point Total (both for draft pool from each player and army point size) - affects which units brought more than normal. Suggestion to have max pool size double the army size (i.e. 500 point army, 1000 point pool), but have a MINimum and MAXimum pool size (i.e. 900-1100 or even 600-1000 point pool). Having a lower minimum army size increases likelihood players drafting from opposing pools.
• Partial Card scoring of Full Card scoring - Full card gives more advantages to large heroes. Partial Scoring always adds to time between rounds when using it to determine matches in a swiss tournament. Also remember to choose between counting what you kill, counting what you have left, or adding the two.
• Matchup Format
  • Swiss - Rank 1st by Wins then optionally Strength Of Schedule (total of your opponents' current win totals) finally by points (see above). I highly recommended using Tournament Director Software in swiss match-ups so you can easily determine matches and rankings, even adding in SOS.
  • Use Rolling Rumble format - since game times might vary even more in draft tourneys, this is a good format to use to make sure everyone is playing at all times.
  • Bracketed - good for "final X" match-ups after a swiss tournament or season rankings, but if used at a normal tourney can cause bad match-ups.
  • Random, arbitrary (TD assigns), or players pick their opponent - I wouldn't reccomend it but it does make it quicker between rounds (but not easier on the TD).
• Time - Allow more time for drafting, roughly 5-10 minutes.
• Maps - More Terrain harsh maps (lava, tundra, castle, shadow & (swamp) water on height, etc.) are encouraged.
• Starting zone - 24 is standard, but having less or even more is more viable in a draft tourney. Maps with starting zones in the middle or spread out are a good addition as well.
• Allow Marvel units - these are more viable in a draft setting, but you could also put caps such as only x # of cards or point value of Marvel.
• Allow/enforce Competitive Unit Congress (CUC) modifications - better suited for normal tourneys, but a great way to introduce these is draft tourneys.
• Allow C3G/C3V/TNT/CHCG24 or other future peer reviewed or created customs - these are more viable in a draft setting, but you could also put caps such as only x # of cards or point value of customs.

 

[lefton4ya]

I don't always rank by scoring, but when I do, I use Xolti's partial scoring sheet.
Personally I am partial to SoS rankings in tournaments, half the reason is because I'm lazy in figuring out points and the other half because SoS negates a blowout causing a huge shift in rankings. I think ranking by scoring is most useful in really small tournaments (8 or less players), and maybe in rolling rumble style matchups.

Please download @Xolti's updated partial points scoresheet to include the last D&D wave, but, more importantly: all the VC units to date. (Don't forget that heroes with 1 life aren't listed, since of course there's no partial scoring there.)