scoring -the new way

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:08 pm

YOU ARE .... right.

I will say it again. You are right!

I did apologise publically but as you point out the damage has been done already. I have been in private communication with Calidus since to try to resolve the matter but I fear that I am on a hiding to nothing with no one to blame but myself.

To Calidus: I once again apologise unreservedly and make no excuse.

To korexus: I ask, in the interests of the community and in the vain hope of achieving peace with Calidus, could you please remove the offending posts to stop further people quoting it and aggrevating matters further. Thanks.

To Hannibal: I award an MCG (Medal for Conspicuous Gallantry) in braving the tempremental beast regardless of risk to yourself.

To ALL: Please forgive me (AGAIN

). In an effort to prevent myself from causing further offence to anyone I shall keep my posts (from now) to short and none personal ones where possible. I .. enough said I think.

SORRY AGAIN.

Post by **korexus** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:52 pm

Hannibal wrote:Vortan, I know you blow hot and cold, and then retract when you see you are wrong; but your first reactions are TOO personal/offensive, really, even if you retract later. So pls don't post when you are in a pained or furious mood; wait till you are more relaxed, and post in a more measured fashion? For the good of the site, and the sanity of those you disagree with? Somebody had to say it. If you're in one of your good moods, you'll agree; if you are in one of your bad moods, you'll attack me forever. But it had to be said: Vortan: pls tone it down.

"Hello Kettle, I'm Pot. I notice you seem to be of rather a dark hue."

You know I love ya, Han. But You've got to see the irony here, right?
Oh, and just because it's ironic, doesn't mean that the man doesn't have a good point...

korexus.

Post by **trewqh** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:11 pm

I'm just curious whether (or when!) someome will reply with 'Hey, what's with all those pleasantries? If you can't take it then blah blah blah'

These kind of discussions just don't have an end.

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:46 pm

Hannibal wrote:
Calidus wrote:
Hannibal wrote:I object to Egbert having no option but to object. Work that one out

Han

Holy Cow! Hanibabble was able to make a post that isn't 47 paragraphs long! What IS this world coming too???
And this is purely for fun, nothing aggressive.

Cal, the long posts always made a lot of sense. They tended to sort the sheep from the goats - those who followed the argument, and those who just saw and commented on the length...

So I instituted a new over-ride. I called it "Pearls before Swircle-of Swine" [I'm just playing with words - DON'T take it seriously for c'sakes!]

All the long, "hard-to-read" posts are now filtered and don't appear in front of any Swirkle-of-Nine. Only everybody else sees them. Good solution! And hey, I'm only KIDDING, OK? for God's sake, pls take it as a joking response!

Han

I think I'll take my ball and go home now.......

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:10 pm

Looking at the Fun in the Sun game, it's clear that by splitting points between players that finish in the same turn will make games drag on longer unnecessarily.

In this game three players conceded the game to a much strong Tbert and Korexus duo, as would normally happen. But if players know that if they concede together with other weaker players which they normally would outlive that they will get less points, they will not concede and will first try to rip the other players. Dragging out the game longer than necessary.

So i suggest we give players that finish in the same turn the points that go to the highest position that they share. So in this case Jen, Vortan and Dragonette would get 30 points each.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:20 pm

Dragonette, maybe it would also be a good idea to put the number of games a players has played behind his points total.

Like Jen = 170 (2)

What do you think?

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:21 pm

If the score systems makes players more competitive then I would say it is a good thing not a bad one. And if the thought of the extra 10 points is enough to spur a less successful player on then brilliant.

I say it should stand as is. This way at least the games ALL contain the same total number of points. Start adding higher values to split positions and a given game would have an unbalancing effect on the score system as a whole. In much the same way as lowering them all would. IMHO.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:52 pm

Hmm...good point Vortan. I realise that i was viewing it from the score system as it was with only one or two players winning. Then it was always best to end a game when it was clear who was going to win. But i guess with the new system it might be ok to leave an incentive in the game to continue eventhough it's already clear which two players will eventually win. As there is still something to be gained by continuing for the other players.

Post by **Lardmaster** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:33 pm

Your close to a rating system there Sal

I definitely think that a player should not be rewarded just for playing more games. Should be quaity not quantity.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:00 pm

Its worth pointing out here that a player who plays in 100 games and finishes 8th in 50 and 9th in the other 50 would still only have managed the same points as a player with ONE shared victory.

Should the avid player be penalised for regular participation? Should the infrequent visitor be discouraged from becoming more frequent. The system that encourages players to commit to more running games means more enjoyment for all.

In order to prevent individuals monopolising the game system and thus, as LM implies the score system, I would suggest that no player be allowed in more than 6 simultaneous full games - not cross games, duel's or duel lites. As I discover to my own cost, more than this number and it becomes difficult to perform well in any games at all.

Clearly this is another topic which would be best discussed as a topic alone perhaps even for the WSC - if ever anything happens about that.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:20 pm

Tracking the current score system AND number of games played. Divide Score by Games and base the table on the total which would be the players AVERAGE SCORE.

This way no matter how many games you play the table would reflect the players quality rather than rewarding the quantity of games played.

Thoughts.

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:30 am

How about 2 VPs for a solo win, and 1 point per player for a shared win? Seems like Deja vu.......

Post by **Egbert** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:35 am

Errrr.....sorry for not paying attention too closely, but .... does anyone know where I can find the current scoring system? Also, is this new scoring system official? What happened to the rating system?

Sorry for the silly questions. I'm thinking of joining a game, and I will have to do some preliminary research. Thanks.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:50 am

Hi Eg, the scoring is as follows.

1st = 150 points (250 points if solo win)
2nd = 150 points (50 points if solo win)
3rd = 30 points
4th = 20 points
5th = 10 points
6th = 5 points
7th = 3 points
8th = 2 points
9th = 1 points
10th = 0 points

A very simple system that gives players 3rd to 10th something to play for as well.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:54 am

Also we're trying to fill up a new wok 5 game...interested?

Post by **trewqh** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:03 am

Egbert wrote:Also, is this new scoring system official?

It's officially being tried out. For a year if I remember well. Dragonette, the current GateKeeper records game results according to the new system and she doesn't record VPs.

Egbert wrote: What happened to the rating system?

There was noone responsible for keeping it so it just faded into oblivion. Noone tried to revive it in the form it had.

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:33 am

trewqh wrote:
Egbert wrote:Also, is this new scoring system official?
It's officially being tried out. For a year if I remember well. Dragonette, the current GateKeeper records game results according to the new system and she doesn't record VPs.

Egbert wrote: What happened to the rating system?
There was noone responsible for keeping it so it just faded into oblivion. Noone tried to revive it in the form it had.

I think someone needs to keep track of the VPs as well, just in case this new system is not ratified at the end of the year.

Post by **trewqh** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:47 am

That's not a problem since, thanks to Dragonette, we will have the results of all games in one thread. You would just need to count the wins.

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 12:19 pm

Then why not include it as it goes? It would take about 10 seconds to add the additional line for the two winners. This new system is only currently a trial system. That does not mean that you need to completely abandon the current system while we test the newer "everyone feels good" system.

Post by **trewqh** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 12:29 pm

Dragonette volunteered to track the new system, not the old system. You would have to ask her nicely or you could start doing it yourself instead of whining about it.