Results: 40k Doubles Tournament on 5.26.2012

[Chase]

Should it in terms of our event?  No.

I'm not sure I think it's an issue in a larger event though.

The more I think about it the more I'm a fan of how / why mission 1 was scored the way it was.


It was easy to keep your two objectives.  It was very difficult to take the opponents.  Failing to take an opponents results in low scores for both teams.  This gives you a stratification you want going into round 2.  If we were 4 or 5 rounds, this would be pretty perfect.

I could talk about this for a while.  I'm leaving out a few important lines of thought due to time.



In isolation the number of available points per round shouldn't make a huge difference (within reason) in an event where the only thing that matters is total BP.  Relative "value" of each round is important, but they were all close to the same in this case.  When you get into a situation where matchups and/or opponents limit you in ways they wouldn't later on in the event (which is debatable at best) then there might be an issue.

It's fun to think about.

[keithb]

Keith, would making all rounds the same in this regard fix most of your worries? That is, make it so that in all rounds, getting a draw is 'bad'? This is basically a system where you get 1 point for losing, 2 for tying, and 4 for winning, which as I understand it is fairly common in gaming/sporting. Basically, one win and one loss is better than two ties. I'm not really advocating this system (to be honest, I don't really care one way or another all that much), but I'm having a hard time seeing why people don't like it. I take your point about having one game determine more than other games, but that seems like a problem with having a mixed system (some games ties are fine, some they aren't) than with having ties being 'bad'.

Yes, sorry, I should have been more clear.  As long as it is even across all rounds, That is fine too.  The round you get the draw shouldn't fluctuate the points you receive (much).

@ chase.  Yes, I think the scoring system should be fine as long as it is consistent.  WM/H often had event systems where a draw was very undesireable, (sometimes worse than a loss).

[Chase]

Keith, would making all rounds the same in this regard fix most of your worries? That is, make it so that in all rounds, getting a draw is 'bad'? This is basically a system where you get 1 point for losing, 2 for tying, and 4 for winning, which as I understand it is fairly common in gaming/sporting. Basically, one win and one loss is better than two ties. I'm not really advocating this system (to be honest, I don't really care one way or another all that much), but I'm having a hard time seeing why people don't like it. I take your point about having one game determine more than other games, but that seems like a problem with having a mixed system (some games ties are fine, some they aren't) than with having ties being 'bad'.

Yes.  Scoring such that 2 ties is worse than a win and a loss is ideal for sure.

40k is odd but would be easy enough to adapt to something like this.  What we do not see in our tournament environment is a situation where people draw a lot, which I am lead to believe is supposed to be "common" in 40k.

Magic / the DCI score as follows:

Win = 3 points
Draw = 1 point
Loss = 0 points

[Sir_Prometheus]

I run into this same mission at battlegrounds a couple times now (objective on their side worth 8, on your worth 2).  The problem with that mission, specifically, is that some armies are just really hard to shift (MEQs, necrons). 

I had basically the same sequence of events happen every time I've played that mission.  Hell, Will and were really only 1 turn away from tabling them and we still only walked away with 7 pts.  I personally have a visceral hatred for that mission.

But, obviously, it's not about me, the real problem is that you can have 2 losers walk away from that round.  To Keith's pt, two good players play in turn 2, tie out, get 15 pts each.  Turn 1 though, they get zero pts each. 

I think in fact, if you love that type of scoring so much (I really don't) it would be much less bad if you had every round be like that.

The problem generall, btw, with non-zero sum scoring (like the 'ard boyz) is that it really rewards good players for getting a "puppy" to fight one round.  Basically the winner of the tournament tends to be more heavily influnced by who got the easiest opponents so they could get full, max pts.  Now of course, random matchups always affect the tournments a great deal anyway, but non zero-sum exacerbates it.