scoring -the new way

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:06 pm

Actually Dragonette I am afraid Saladin is correct.

Dragonette · Post by **Dragonette** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:16 pm

OH well. I'l screw that bit of paper up and re wrtite and re trye the scores back up. I had a copy of this on paper on this thread and a spreadsheet of overall scores.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:19 pm

And in English that means you will do it again yes? kor can we have a spell check button please?

Dragonette · Post by **Dragonette** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:23 pm

delete post

Post by **korexus** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:36 pm

Calm down, Dragonette. That was a 6 mintue gap between posts! Some of us are old and weary. It takes a bit longer than that even to figure out what's going on! I'll take a look at the scores and see if I can help you out.

korexus.

Post by **korexus** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:54 pm

Dragonette of all people wrote: Solo win 250
2nd 50
3rd 30
4th 20
5th 10
6th 5
7th 3
8th 2
9th 1
10th 0

QUIT players come in 2 turns before the QUIT (ie, the turn they went M-1)

Players in equal place share the points. (So a shared win is (250 + 50)/2 = 150 points each, if three other players are alive, they take the points for 3rd, 4th and 5th, that is (30 + 20 + 10)/3 = 20 points each.

Points halved in event of 5 quits.

So based on the positions in this game:
Jen and Saladin share the win - Joint first place gets (250 + 50) / 2 = 150 points each
Hryllantre comes in third (turn 22) - 30 points
Dragonette in 4th (turn 19) - 20 points
trewqh and Tigress in joint 5th (turn 17) - (10 + 5) / 2 = 7.5 points each
(NB the engine seems to be misreporting the quit, or am I wrong?)
Yondallus in 7th (turn 14) - 3 points
Vortan, Nuno and Eagle Eyes in joint 8th (2 + 1 + 0) / 3 = 1 point each.

I think that's everything.

korexus.

Post by **trewqh** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:59 pm

I would also prefer if there were no points for QUITs, but let's use the quoted system for the time being.

korexus wrote:QUIT players come in 2 turns before the QUIT (ie, the turn they went M-1)

trewqh and Tigress in joint 5th (turn 17) - (10 + 5) / 2 = 7.5 points each
(NB the engine seems to be misreporting the quit, or am I wrong?)

Tigress was first marked as QUIT on turn 18. 2 turns before that was turn 16 which was the turn she went M-1.

Under this system, shouldn't the last turn when orders were sent be taken into account, ie. 3 turns before being marked as QUIT? The way things are now the player who sends in orders but is RIPped on a particular turn is treated as achieving the same as a player who stopped playing a turn earlier so sent in one less set of orders.

Nemesis · Post by **Nemesis** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:08 pm

wow, back in the old days the two winners would get 1VP each, what's going on?

Post by **korexus** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:09 pm

G'argh. I was reading the turns from the address bar, which always has the number of the *next* turn, not the current one. So yes, Tigress went M-1 on turn 16 an Dragonette's (second set of) numbers are accurate.

The rest is for discussion elsewhere I guess. It does seem wrong that Nuno gets a point for doing nothing whatsoever, but it would also seem harsh to give Tigress nothing.

korexus.

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:27 am

korexus wrote: It does seem wrong that Nuno gets a point for doing nothing whatsoever, but it would also seem harsh to give Tigress nothing.
korexus.

But wasn't that exactly what is supposed to happen when you go M-3? no points, regardless of when you go M-3. If she had been the fifth to quit, VPs would only count for half, thus effectively shafting the others that did not quit the game, and battled it out to the end.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:22 am

Well Tigress put up a great fight and only went m-3 after she was stuck with one empty province. I agree with Trewqh that a player that goes m-3 should be counted as being ripped on the last turn they send in orders.

As to Nuno, he was ripped on the same turn as that he would have gone m-3. Giving him 1 or 0 points doesn't really matter. It's not like he's likely to show up and actually start playing.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:01 am

Regarding turn of quitting. Valid point re last submitted orders. As far as QUIT getting zero. I seem to recall that it was decided that they would be counted for points but only until the turn they actually started missing turns.

Primarily this meant that they were at least ranked higher than those who died quickly or quit earlier. We had a lengthy debate and it is now over a week since the debate fizzled out after Dragonette put 'so is this the final system' and was told if no one said anything further to run with it. Starting the debate again now is not really helpful. She is stressed enough as it is

Would like to clarify regards fractions. Is Dragonette recording halves (resulting from ties for positions) or just rounding down as has been done with 7th and 8th where they split the points (oops, they should have 2 each.. sort that later).

@ Calidus. I know the system may seem imperfect but it is still better for ALL participants this way. As the newbees and frequent 'also rans' can battle for the lesser rewards. We cant all be winners but we still took part and allowed someone to win.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:16 am

I'd say if several players get ripped at the same time and they all finish 6th for example, just give them all the points for a 6th place finish.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:39 am

NICE CALL SAL.

Sounds good to me. Anyone having serious objection say so quick or I shall tell Dragonette to go with that idea. It is simple and fair. Cool.

Post by **trewqh** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:20 am

I don't think it's good idea. I'd rather that all games had the same total points awarded. In the example Sal gave I'd go for splitting points for spots 6, 7 and 8 equally between the three players.

And there's nothing wrong with fractions if you ask me.

You're right, Vortan, that there's no point in blocking the system by going back to the debate. That's why I said we should try out this system regardless of the doubts that some players (including me) have.

Because I DO think players who go QUIT should be penalised by not getting points. Of course, looking at the specific example of Tig in Fall of the Raj, she did put in much more effort in the game than Nuno who never sent orders in, but that doesn't change that I really don't like people QUITting and I'd prefer if they didn't get any ponts. That would also prevent players who want to maliciously make the number of QUITs reach 5 from getting ANY points.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:44 am

Well, when put like that I can see your point too.

If all games were for the same number of victory points in total the points that should have been awarded a player who quit could be divided among those remaining or RIPped at the end. Therefore quitting would actually increase remaining players scores and thus reduce the incentive to quit. This would of course work best if 5 Quits did NOT result in the game only getting half points. A fifth quit would merely add to the points other players got.

Tell you what. Time for a POLL.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:46 am

That would also prevent players who want to maliciously make the number of QUITs reach 5 from getting ANY points.

Well that hasn't happened in any game yet (as far as i know), so i'm guessing it's not really much of a problem. But more importantly in this set up it would mean the player doing that (with the others seemingly letting him) will also be hurting himself as all points will be halved.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:55 am

Most of the time people go quit not because they choose to but because they're either already out of the game and have nothing to play for with only a couple of empty provinces left or because they are not able to send in order due to RL.

Personally i don't see such a problem with people going quit in these circumstances. That's why somebody proposed a 'surrender' option. That way a player like for instance Tigress in the raj game who's down to 1 empty province has the chance to surrender which has two big benefits.

1. No extra unnecessary quit.
2. The other players don't have to wait till the deadline for a turn to run because the player that is quiting is not sending in orders and not pushing the 'ready for the next turn button'.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:13 pm

The poll is there now. Just below this thread. Have an opinion? Please vote. You can make a difference.

Post by **trewqh** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:17 pm

Vortan, you're right about splitting the points of QUIT players amoge the remaining ones. Simply not giving points would be against trying to ensure all games award the same total. Somehow this escaped me.

OTOH, I'd agree with anyone who'd say that would mean that players in games with 4 QUITs get more points even though they probably had less competition.

Another argument to try out the current system first.

Saladin wrote:Most of the time people go quit not because they choose to but because they're either already out of the game and have nothing to play for with only a couple of empty provinces left or because they are not able to send in order due to RL.

My point is they can always ask their GM to submit zero orders for them for the rest of the game. If they choose to just forget about the game, they shouldn't get any points.

Saladin wrote:Personally i don't see such a problem with people going quit in these circumstances. That's why somebody proposed a 'surrender' option. That way a player like for instance Tigress in the raj game who's down to 1 empty province has the chance to surrender which has two big benefits.

1. No extra unnecessary quit.
2. The other players don't have to wait till the deadline for a turn to run because the player that is quiting is not sending in orders and not pushing the 'ready for the next turn button'.

I agree. A surrender option would solve those problems.

Chris?