|By Brett W Johnson (Bjohnson) on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 03:37 pm: Edit|
Peter wrote - "Although on the upside, having 1 point for a mutual time out and 2 points for a loss does encourage folks to resign in a losing position rather than drag the game out. Hmm."
With any scoring system, you want:
1) Encourage "good" behavior
2) Not encourage "bad" behavior
Always beware of the law of unintended consequences...
Otherwise known as "Never reward perverse behavior, because if you do - you will get *more* of it"
Old example in SW world - reward people for fixing SW bugs. Number of bugs skyrocketed as coders where being rewarded for finding/fixing (aka *inserting*) bugs...
|By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 05:24 pm: Edit|
"Never reward perverse behavior, because if you do - you will get *more* of it"
OK, in a theoretical sense yes I get you here. But realistically, you're talking about a group of 30-60 really enthusiastic tourney SFB players who as far as I can tell (through decades of experience) are for the most part honorable, sportsmanlike, responsible, really good to play with gamers. So, from a practical standpoint, I don't really get the sudden need to change the fundamental rules of an event that has been run successfully since 2001.
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 05:48 pm: Edit|
What I'm looking for, more than anything, is a scoring system that:
-Encourages people to resign (when appropriate) rather than just not show up.
-Encourages people to mutually resign a game that they don't think they can realistically play in time.
For example, currently, if someone wins, they get 3 points and if someone loses, they get 1 point. If they actively resign (rather than play), they get 1 point. If two people can't get a game done in time, but both honestly try, they get 1 point.
I'd like to come up with a scoring system that, like, gives 2 players 2 points each for a "mutual resignation" or something (i.e. when two people just can't get a game done in time, they agree to a draw) more than anything else.
I'm not trying to, like, create a crazy new scoring system or anything. I just want to give folks incentive to either honorably resign (rather than drag out losing games over multiple sessions) and/or decide to mutually draw when they can't get a game done in time rather than encourage folks to try and come up with someone who is at fault for not getting the game done in time.
I mean, I realize that sometimes, yeah, one guy is just dragging his feet and clearly at fault for a game not getting done. But a lot of times, two people just can't get a game done due to real life getting in the way, and if there was a way to reward them for trying to come to a mutual draw (which benefits them both), I'd like to see something like that.
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 05:50 pm: Edit|
To make sure this doesn't get lost:
The Semifinals page is now up (go to the World League home page and click on the "Semifinals" link). For convenience, the matchups are:
-Moose (WAX) vs AdmiralDZZI (ORI)
-The_Rock (GBS) vs captainron (ATC)
-Romwe (ORI) vs Old_School (LDR)
-Vendetta (GBS) vs MaxSpeed (GRN)
-BS (KLI) vs Devil (GBS)
-krieg (GRN) vs Laszlo (HYD)
Let's set a 3 week time frame for this round (everyone only needs to play 1 game), with a deadline of August 13th.
Notably, not a single playtest ship made it to the final brackets. Which either means that the playtest ships aren't that good, or the ringers all ignored the playtest ships.
(could everyone involved please check in?)
|By Ron Brimeyer (Captainron) on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 06:27 pm: Edit|
Hmmmm flying a disadvantaged ship vs one of the best players of all time.
Paul, do you want to save time and surender now?
|By Brett W Johnson (Bjohnson) on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 08:04 pm: Edit|
I wasn't trying to say we don't have a great group of people who play this game...
But if we are talking about tweaking the scoring system and can easily put in place something that discourages a perverse decision while simultaneously encouraging sensible decisions to speed play (resign when in losing position in time crunch), makes sense to me to do so...
I will also put forward this... Imagine a patrol tourney with the original scoring. You have played 4 games winning 3 and losing 1. Your score is 10 (win-loss ratio 3-1). Someone else has played 2 games winning 1 and losing 1 (win-loss 1-1) and had 2 no-show/byes. Their score is also 10, even though they have fought 2 less games and have two less "real" wins. With the modified system, you would have 14 and they would have 12. If I were a judge, I would rather see a player advance who has fought 4 battles and won 3 over someone who has fought 2 and won 1.
I don't think we should penalize people for their opponent no-showing, but neither do I think we should reward them.
In non-team play, ideally a no-show should be point neutral - neither advancing nor retracting their position. In fact, even a "point-neutral" scheme rewards bad players (who gain more points than they should) and penalizes good players (who gain less points than they should). However a point neutral system at least doesn't give "free" points to people who don't even fight...
So no system is perfect and any system will have some flaws.
I suspect there are people who know much more about scoring than me. Just thought I would toss a few thoughts into the ring...
|By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 07:04 pm: Edit|
Brian and Ken are scheduled for Mon 6:30 pm Eastern.
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 09:52 am: Edit|
I've heard from Ron, Brian and Ken. And saw an e-mail from Andy. Everyone else know what is going on?
|By Ron Brimeyer (Captainron) on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 06:13 pm: Edit|
Paul and I are in contact. Game most likely early next week.
|By Ron Brimeyer (Captainron) on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 09:01 pm: Edit|
Set for 5:30 P.m. eastern on Monday.
|By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 08:37 am: Edit|
I am on vacation, but I know what is going on.
|By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Monday, July 29, 2013 - 06:20 pm: Edit|
Brian and I had to reschedule, for next Mon.
|By Ron Brimeyer (Captainron) on Monday, July 29, 2013 - 08:51 pm: Edit|
Rock pounded my little spider.
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 29, 2013 - 09:51 pm: Edit|
|By Majead Farsi (Devil) on Thursday, August 01, 2013 - 06:15 am: Edit|
Should be back on 7th of August so if Bill could let me know his availability I'll see if i can make our game happen!
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, August 05, 2013 - 05:26 pm: Edit|
Hey--any progress on games? So far, I got the Ron vs Paul game down. And that's it. Anyone?
|By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, August 05, 2013 - 07:02 pm: Edit|
waiting for Devil's return from vacation. hope to play this weekend.
|By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Monday, August 05, 2013 - 08:56 pm: Edit|
Brian and I had to reschedule again, probably next week same time.
|By Majead Farsi (Devil) on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 01:58 am: Edit|
HI Bill will return tonight late. should be available to play Saturday night. Send me an email and let me know what your availability looks like for the coming week ( and our time difference!)
|By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 09:40 am: Edit|
Thanks for the updates!
|By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Saturday, August 10, 2013 - 10:18 pm: Edit|
In a hard fought 9 turn 5 hour slug fest I defeated Devil in the semis.
|By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Saturday, August 10, 2013 - 10:22 pm: Edit|
Brian and ken are scheduled for Wed 7:30,
|By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Saturday, August 10, 2013 - 11:34 pm: Edit|
Laszlo (HYD) vs. krieg (GRN) got through 2 turns.
Turn 1, he launched the 60, and I hit it with 16 p3s (gat + downfired p1s + ftrs). On 16 dice, I had one six and no fives. The rest were mostly ones. The most awesome die rolls of my entire life, wasted on what amounted to a couple shields boxes difference.
I got to range 8, but with the p1s fired, elected not to fire the HBs. He dinged my #1 with some p1s.
Turn 2, he did 20 damage with 5p1s at range 5 to my #1, bringing it down to 1 box after reinforcement. He launched a 30, which I didn't really believe, but fired both gats at it anyway. Good thing, too, because it was real. I fired at his #4 at range 5, where my 5 p1s only did 14, and found a brick. Still, the HBs hit, and I got one internal. I launched fighters, while he launched a 20 at my ship. The fighter fusions gave him 9 more internals, while doing 10 damage (at range 3!) to the plasma, thus saving me from taking internals when it struck my weak #5.
So, he has a down #4 and 10 internals. My #1 and #5 shields are down to 1 box each. Our dice have been strange. We continue Monday.
|By Majead Farsi (Devil) on Sunday, August 11, 2013 - 05:16 am: Edit|
Yes I managed to last 9 turns against Bill! it was a good game. I was outmatched completely. Bill had a LC and WO on board his ship and to make matters worse my own weapon officers were also on the Klingon payroll. I must say have not seen someone roll so well, Bill would have beaten anyone , and I would have lost to anyone. On his last volley, he rolled 10-11 dice ( Bill can be more accurate here with numbers!) he got 7x 1's , 2x2's and a 3 and 4. Can't remember exactly but know he got 7x 1's as his Phasers and Disruptor totally blew me away. Great game! still thoroughly enjoyed it!
Good luck on your next game Bill and well played.
|By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Sunday, August 11, 2013 - 11:17 am: Edit|
I hit with 4 1s when rolling the disrupters, 3 1s and 2 5s with p1s, and a 2 and a 3 for p2s.
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation