Dutch Open; AfterTalk

[Cooper]

Hi all,

I am new to this forum, and haven't read all messages, so i hope it is not discussed anywhere else.

First congratulations to Coen ofcourse, it is great to see a fellow Skaventeam win, especially when it's got a Dutch coach



Second, i want to say that i had a really great time, and the organisation and location were top.

Third, As i said i haven't been reading the other threads, and it is probably discussed there, but why was this scoring method used?
And is this a normal format and metyhod for bloodbowltournaments?

I mean, it is obviously better to draw then to loose by one TD....right?
I agree that loosing by only one TD isn't that bad, but playing a draw is better

Why didn't people use something like:
6 points for winning
3 for drawing
2 for losing by 1 TD
1 for losing by +1 TD

This would mean that it is better to loose one + win 1 (7 points) then playing 2 draws (6 points)
So that should also enhance playing for the win with the possiblity of losing, AND it makes drawing better then losing by 1.

I am not sure that this is the answer (i haven't really thought it over yet), but i was just wondering why you would use such a system as the one used.

Also because standings are always very close, example: last game i lost by 2 TD, that set me back to 19th, whereas if i had won, i would have been 5th, and if i lost the game by only 1 TD i would have been 12th...

Isn't there a system that makes the differences bigger? Or was this system used BECAUSE it keeps everything close? If so, why?

maybe if you want to get bigger differences this is better:

8 for winning
4 for drawing
2 for losing with 1 TD
1 for losing with more TD


Another thing that i found confusing was the fact the number of TD's was used instead of scoredTD-TDagainst...

This way it obviously favors the scoring teams (as can also been seen in the final standings)

I mean, suppose Orcs play Dwarves; IF someone wins it will be 1-0 or 2-1...
suppose Woodelves play Skaven: IF someone wins, my guess it is 3-2...

This means in the used system that the scoring team wins, whereas if you would use saldo the teams are just as good.

I think even then the system favors scoring teams (as it is more easy to win 5-0 with Skaven then with Dwarves) but it is at least somewhat reduced.

Well, that's my first post....
flame away



W.

[Longshot]

well this systeme is really great cos everybody is closed and you re never out of range...i know that.
But i will only change one thing to this systeme (not saying that i ve been robbed of whatever, Coen really deserves the title, he is a really good guy!)
Anyway, what i propose is (like in chess systeme):
Use the same systeme of point and suisse systeme BUT
If 2 players have the same points then you make the difference with addind all their opponents points.
As this, the player who has the best score means that he played against more good players. So he deserves to win.
What do ya think about that?
i will use this systeme in my next tournament.

And an other point for this systeme is that you can be elligible with an slow scoring team! Not on TD or CAS.
Replys? thoughs?

[Princelucianus]

The format is the standard GW tournament format. For tiptoe we used our own format and both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. For safe measure, I decided to use GW's format, because then at least I can't be blamed for favoring certains teams. In a fact, we did favour certain teams because of the 1.1 K which was spendable. 1.0 K tournaments and 1.1 K tournaments have different outcomes. I tend to think that agility teams have more to gain for 1.1 K then most other teams. For 1.0 K, elven & skaven teams become more limited, while undead, humans and several others still have a proper team for 1.0 K.
Overall, I think the system was good enough. Maybe accumalated SPP's should have been first criteria and then Td's????
If we would have used T5 format then the Heidhusir Sticky bits look most likely to have won the tournament. (5 pts for win, 3 for TD's, 2 for casualties)....

Lucy

[Marcus]

I think the system is a good one. The only change I'd make is to tiebreak the results by TD difference, then by total TDs.

A game of Woodelves vs Woodelves that goes to 3-2 is worth more in that system than a Dwarf coach who wins 2-0. I'm not sure that's the way to go. Score Net TDs first, Total TDs second, and ignore casualties entirely. There's no reason to include casualties in game winning totals, all it is is how often you roll a 10+ on the injury dice. Your ability to block and injure your opponent is meaningless next to your ability to make use of those blocks to win the game.

[elloco]

I wasn't a big fan of the 'losing by 1 scores the same as drawing' thing. But the system did indeed keep everybody close. Still to make sure draws are more important than losses by 1, I would change the system just a little: in case 2 teams are tied in points, the first tiebreaker would be win-draw-loss percentage. So suppose team 1 has won 2 games and tied 1, team 2 has won 2 games and lost 1 by 1 TD. Then the tie-breaker says that team 1 should be ranked higher than team 2.

Also I thought the system was flawed a bit because I saw people being 2 TDs down (like 3-1) and they were allowed to score 3-2 without any opposition because the winner didn't loose anything by it.

[grep-v]

If we would have used T5 format then the Heidhusir Sticky bits look most likely to have won the tournament. (5 pts for win, 3 for TD's, 2 for casualties)....

Which wouldn't be fair anyway, I have to admit. Someone who has problems with the LRB2 rules (wanted to do "old style" handoffs in the first game) and fails to win a game while almost perfectly dominating the field (chose not to delay the 1-0 against Marcus and gave him the opportunity to score 1-1) hasn't really deserved to win the tournament.
I guess the format is ok, after all it's a game, not a sports event.

PS: was a really nice weekend & tournament, thanks to the orga-team !

[Marcus]

Also I thought the system was flawed a bit because I saw people being 2 TDs down (like 3-1) and they were allowed to score 3-2 without any opposition because the winner didn't loose anything by it.

This is why I like using Net Touchdowns instead of Gross Touchdowns as the deciding factor in breaking match point ties. It means every TD counts, while not disadvantaging teams like dwarves for whom a 2-0 result is a commanding victory.

[Grumbledook]

Yer i also thought it was strange to use total tds scored rather than the td difference, playing undead its rare i get a 2 td margin. Also with the swiss system it means your more likely to be pairing like teams against each other, as wood elves will score more tds, they are going to play other teams who scored high before the lower scoring slow teams.

[Princelucianus]

It still is the official GW tournament rule (unless they changed it this year). My fear off using general rules as being better seems to be questioned.
All I can say about it. It looked alright and standard official company rules sounded better than playing with Spiky/T5 rules and get massive questions later on.
So now I can hide my skin behind the tournament rules which weren't mine , but we'll probably change them next year. Only now do I see the abusing possibilities there are..... I didn't spot those.

C'etait la vie

Lucy

[Marcus]

I thought it generally worked well. Looking at the results in practice, with a strong field, my only observation was the Net TD issue. I'm a strong supporter of a loss by 1 being worth the same as a draw. It's certainly the way forward and it stops cheesy last minute TDs from knocking a player out of contention (eh longfang?)

[Cooper]

So if i read most mails, i can say that most people agree that grossTD as tiebreaker isn't a good plan, but net- TD is, good.

Some people do feel that a draw should be calculated in some way better then a loss by one TD.

I want to show that this indeed is better...
My own performance as an example: I won 2 games out of 5, lost 3, suppose i lost all my games by 1 TD (which was almost the case)

In that case i would have been 12th out of 40 !!! that is strange in my view, since it is well above average, while i lost more then 50% of my games...


So then a related question is; why do you want to keep the standings so close together? I mean, even if i lost 4 games i would try my very best to win the last one, it is not like i (and i don't think anyone else) would give up their game if it doesn't give them a chance of winning the tournament...
I don't see myself as a top-player but if i won my last game i would have been 5th....And i lost 2 out of 5 games...

What do you think?
W

[Princelucianus]

You might want to play for one last victory, but others might not. Also, if you lost 3 times with (say) 2-1 and someone else drew 3 times, then his games were probably as close as yours. How do you rate a good fight which ended in a lucky late turn 2-1 defeat against an uninspiring 3-3 by two players who had a good laugh. Should they get more points? I don't know. At T5 it was obvious that hard fought 0-0 scores lost hugely on the table, although players enjoyed them most and players had to be at their best to not let the other guy get away with the victory. All in all, it's difficult to rate matches this way, because a 2-1 defeat can sometimes be more rewarding than a 2-2 draw (which you should have won).

I do like lots of people to be close by. That makes the topteams nervous and gives more players the feeling that they have a chance at the top position. So far, no matter what format, the best performing team comes out on top.

Lucy

[Bevan]

The scoring method Babs used for the Australian championships worked very well.

Win by 2TDs or more 5pts, loser 1pt.
Win by 1 TD 4pts, loser 2 pts.
Draw 3 pts each.
Then add 1 point to the team with most casualties (half point each if even).

Note that 7 points are allocated in every game between the two teams.

This meant that a 1TD win was better than draw and almost every game played was tense up to the last turn because a 2TD win was better than a 1 TD win.

Although the 2TD advantage gives some benefit to high scoring teams, the casualty count offsets that, but is not enough for teams to go an a casualty spree at the expense of scoring.

[Longshot]

i dont believe that TD difference is good as well.
Cos if you have the luck to play an easy game, then you will easily have a big TD diff.
A win 2/1 against a good coach is more important that a 5/0 win against a bad scorer.
The fact is that i prefer to rank players by their opponent performance in the tournament (if you understand what i mean...).
As this you just determine the coach on his value against the other payers and not on some lucky games.
SPP total gives the same problem that TD diff for me.
You can be lucky to breack armours and you will have more SPP on a easy game.
some 1/0 are very tuff but they are great victories also.

Am i clear? Or does nobody tryed to understand me?

[Dave]

I agree with you (partly) and understand

I agree with Marcus on teh TD - difference thing, but also agree with Longshot on the easy games.

Perhaps only the TD's scored in round 2 and up should count. After round 2 (where probabely the most games with big TD difference were) most players play opponents of roughly the same standard.

A big win is then a better performance.

(I agree this does make things slightly more complicated)

I also like the Aussie idea !!