Proposal: Make "New" VP system the Standard

The place that new game ideas and options are debated

Moderator: korexus

Post Reply
User avatar
Brykovian
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA ... Clan: Scholars
Contact:

Proposal: Make "New" VP system the Standard

Post by Brykovian » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:05 pm

I propose that we continue with the new victory point system that was first tested in 2007 (points recorded by Dragonette), and make that the standard way of scoring performance across games.

The scoring method is explained in this thread (along with 2007 results): http://www.kaomaris.com/phpNuke/modules ... pic&t=1680

I also propose that this method be used to score Advanced WOK games, when that system is done being tested and is ready for VP-awarding games.

Please discuss ... and then I'll either adjust my proposal as seems appropriate and/or start a voting thread in the voting forum.

-Bryk
Matt Worden Games ... Gem Raider, DareBase, Castle Danger, Keeps & Moats Chess

Hryllantre
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Le Bas Coreil

Post by Hryllantre » Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:22 pm

I agree... The new scoring system gives everyone a chance to accumulate points over a year, this is especially useful if we set up an end of year Top 10 (scoring players) game...

User avatar
Lardmaster
Commander
Commander
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 8:00 am
Location: The Big Smoke

Post by Lardmaster » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:10 pm

I abstain.
Question everything.

User avatar
Xarfei
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 8:00 am
Location: Munich, Germany - The Scholars

Post by Xarfei » Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:39 pm

Well, I think we should have both scoring systems.
Use the proposed system as the major one (with respect to ranking + champs) but also keep the old one.

Xarfei

User avatar
Brykovian
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA ... Clan: Scholars
Contact:

Post by Brykovian » Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:32 pm

Lardmaster wrote:I abstain.
Abstain? You can't abstain from a discussion! You either join in, or sit quietly ... or do that mumbling thing they do at the House of Commons.

What? You say that sitting quietly is abstaining? Oh ... nevermind.



;)

-Bryk
Matt Worden Games ... Gem Raider, DareBase, Castle Danger, Keeps & Moats Chess

User avatar
trewqh
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1877
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Bialystok, Poland clan: The Vulkings

Post by trewqh » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:00 pm

I like how it works and last year showed that Han's original argument (that it gives non-winning players something to fight for and thus stay interested) was sound.
trewqh
the gleefully aggressive Vulking

User avatar
Dragonette
Commander
Commander
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:00 am
Location: mercenary camp

Post by Dragonette » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:24 am

While we are on this sort of subject can i ask are people happy with the way i show the results??

The scoring system makes people become more competitive and make sure no one is out on the same turn as them, as they will then be spliting points, which no one likes to do.

It also means people are less likely to quit when things go wrong, even if they have blank order sheets doing that keeps them in the game.
****dragonette****
the
mercenary
****dragonette****
the
gatekeeper
****dragonette****

User avatar
trewqh
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1877
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Bialystok, Poland clan: The Vulkings

Post by trewqh » Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:53 am

Dragonette wrote:While we are on this sort of subject can i ask are people happy with the way i show the results??
Generally it's OK. But I'd appreciate it if you could use the proper capitalization of names in the table and when reporting results of each game put the names in bold or sth to make them more visible (earlier on you wrote names in all caps, that was nice)

Also I think the score threads for the year 2008 should be started on the proper forums (ie. Standard and Advanced WoK accordingly)
trewqh
the gleefully aggressive Vulking

User avatar
TBert
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Post by TBert » Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:27 am

I can see why people would like the system, but what happens in a few years when Dragonette discovers boys, or what if we have an influx of new players like we're hoping... will Dragonette want to keep up with this high-maintenance scoring system forever?

Though I do like that I'm in 2nd place on that list. Don't know how that happened.
pro libertate eos occubuisse - "they died for liberty"

Clan Head - Valn Ohtar

SGT - US Army

23-year-old father of 3 - really needs a beer

User avatar
Brykovian
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA ... Clan: Scholars
Contact:

Post by Brykovian » Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:45 pm

TBert wrote:I can see why people would like the system, but what happens in a few years when Dragonette discovers boys, or what if we have an influx of new players like we're hoping... will Dragonette want to keep up with this high-maintenance scoring system forever?
My intention with having a standard is to lock-down on the spec for korexus (or Mullog) to be able to finish off the auto-scoring system (which I think is somewhat in place at this point, but doesn't follow the current rules).

Now, that will take some time before the automation ... but how Dragonette has done it so far should be easy for someone else to pick it up if she ever grows tired of the hastle. ;)

-Bryk
Matt Worden Games ... Gem Raider, DareBase, Castle Danger, Keeps & Moats Chess

User avatar
Tinker
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:00 am
Location: Canadian Scholar

Post by Tinker » Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:27 pm

I agree with the proposal. Having something to fight for makes it more worthwhile to stay in the game, and more players in-game makes the game better for everyone.
Tinker
"Trust me, of course I'm on your side..."

Post Reply