UK 'Bonus' Points - TOs what are you trying to achieve?

[Boneless]

For me on the subject of the NAF I am not sure what is appropriate - I started this thread to find out what logic is out there, action by the NAF is another matter. However I do detect inconsistencies for example Hawca posting in this thread that the NAF can't be involved in scoring but in Dionysian's Quidditch bowl thread saying that it won't be approved on the basis of the scoring. Well it must be one or the other. I

Please dont qute me incorrectly

UK NAF head on.

While you know my thoughts on bonus points and best record. I would ask you reconsider your scoring system.
The NAF will not dictate (that I'm aware off) a scoring system but this makes a mockery of the NAF trophy. (Assuming NAF approval)

UK NAF head off

I'm interested in this one other wise

Hawca

as I said the NAF as far as im aware cannot and do not dictate scoring. my personal views are different as are every one elses. this is what makes us human.

thank said I above purely tried to give understanding and reasoning to peoples thoughts and scoring.

H

[Greshvakk]

Sorry Hawca I didn't catch the difference between having your NAF head on vs your personal opinion - although I think the contradiction between the 2 heads is interesting. But it wasn't my intention to misquote you sorry about that.

As for this:

"thank said I above purely tried to give understanding and reasoning to peoples thoughts and scoring."

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm afraid I didn't get a clear point from your posting on this thread.

[Boneless]

to clear up, my personal belief is the winner should have the best record. thats it, simple.

I do however see and understand why people mix it up.

that said I feel when bonus point pick the winner not the results we have an issue.

that bit of tin, some one calledit (cant recall who) to some work hard to get, the first always special regardless of who you are. people pay good money and get frustrated over dice rolls and a game in pursuit of this, should a weaker record and random points take this away from you?

[nonumber]

Such good points for and against. For me one things stands out here, and its not an argument vs bonus points or no bonus points, its variety vs conformity. Do you want to go to each and every tournament and have it scored exactly the same?

I for instance do not. Quick reason, because it would mean every single tournament is played exactly the same.

Here's the thing, Dionysian mentioned "rewarding bad play" and that's the part where the wheels completely fall off the argument as far as I'm concerned. Yes there are guys taking halfings or khemri there for a good time and don't expect to win. That's cool. That's part of blood bowl. Then there's the guys up top using NAF shields as re roll counters. Then there's the other 60% of coaches somewhere in between.

We don't all see the matrix.

Some of us can pull off a 4-2-0 on our best day and be proud, its nice to know there's tournaments out there that can be claimed, quite frankly, by the guy who would have finished 6th somewhere else. *because it isn't somewhere else*

The guy who finished 6th that pips you to the post on bonus points knew the rules pack just as much as you did when you signed up. I'm sorry but losing out to bonus points then complaining about them after the fact doesn't make sense to me, I'm afraid I am on the "don't like it, don't go" side of that one.

But this thing about "bad play" I don't agree with, I read that as " every game should be a column defence grind and there's no other way to play blood bowl". Passing for example has become "the wrong way" to play blood bowl. Think about that. One of the most basic fundemental aspects of the game is shunned because it flies against our sterile calculated method of risk management. I like that certain tournaments attempt to open that up.

And yeah you might get beaten by the guy with the 6th best W/D/L on bonus points but its not like you'll finish below the guy with khemri playing for the wooden spoon because of his monster CAS.

What were saying is "oh someone in the top six will win the tournament".

Well... Yeah.

That doesn't make it a complete lottery, a mockery of the shield or a festival of randomness. Someone " up there" is still going to win. Oh what Geggster pipped Lycos on bonus points? I'm sure the bottom four playing dungeonbowl for the wooden spoon will hold a candlelight vigil.

I see it as a good thing. Maybe the touchdown goes in a couple of turns earlier than it would elsewhere. Maybe I take claw instead of block. And I agree with the sentiment that with bonus points to play for, the head doesn't go down when the game is lost.

Casualties are not random because I have elected to throw the block dice and have taken appropriate skills. Yes woodies can freak out CAS dwarfs by sheer luck - just like I can lose a tournament by failing a GFI (bitter? Me?) You will not remove chance from the game of blood bowl and different score packages that only make us adapt the way we manage that chance are in my view a good thing.

Or alternatively we can just play six games of "who can column their dark elves the best" every month or so.

(Yes that was my cheeky absolute) in fairness I would go to either tourney style and think the best answer is variety. If 50% of tourneys had no bonus points and 50% did what a paradise that would be. There would be no argument, only endless joy, we'd have whatever we wanted, glimmering spires of pure silver would stretch over the horizon, garlands of wild herbs and scented flowers would adorn brilliant white marble statues and we would dance, oh how we would dance in the great halls.....

[Joemanji]

But this thing about "bad play" I don't agree with, I read that as " every game should be a column defence grind and there's no other way to play blood bowl". Passing for example has become "the wrong way" to play blood bowl. Think about that. One of the most basic fundemental aspects of the game is shunned because it flies against our sterile calculated method of risk management. I like that certain tournaments attempt to open that up.

This is the thing I don't get. Nobody is asking for someone who loves passing not to pass. But whilst there is a uniform 'good' way to play the game (just get the win however you can) there is no uniform 'bad' way to play. If Jeremy likes passing gets his bonus points for completions, then Carlton who likes Goblins will want his bonus points for stunty fouls, and so on and so on.

I think this has always been the crux of the issue for me. There are people who play BB as a competitive tactical game, and people who claim to play it for just for fun (although we all know they really want to win). A 'sensible' system keeps the first people happy, and if the second type of person really doesn't care who wins, then he doesn't care who wins. Ergo, everyone is happy. Problem solved.

I don't have a problem with bonus points per se, just in them taking primacy away from W/D/L. One of my first tournaments was 1000 for the win, 500 for the draw, 0 for the win and 1 BP for some things like keeping a clean sheet. They are fine as a way to break ties, IMO at least. The staggering thing for me is that TOs don't do the basic maths to work these things out. Comments above like "I have been running my event for 9 years and this is the first time anyone pointed this out" are astonishing. A TO should not need a second party to explain his rules to him! They should understand their own points system and know why they are using it and what they want to achieve. If in all honesty they want a person on 4/1/1 to be able to finish higher than someone on 4/2/0 then that is super cool with me. So long as they are doing it on purpose and with full understanding.

Some of us can pull off a 4-2-0 on our best day and be proud, its nice to know there's tournaments out there that can be claimed, quite frankly, by the guy who would have finished 6th somewhere else. *because it isn't somewhere else*

I'm pleased to see this comment. I totally disagree with it, but fully appreciate the sentiment. I am super competitive and only want to win when I fully deserve it, but if there are people who want to go to an event with the hope than maybe bonus points will give them a little leg up, then fine. So long as we are all honest about it, no harm no foul.

[nonumber]

I think this has always been the crux of the issue for me. There are people who play BB as a competitive tactical game, and people who claim to play it for just for fun (although we all know they really want to win). A 'sensible' system keeps the first people happy, and if the second type of person really doesn't care who wins, then he doesn't care who wins. Ergo, everyone is happy. Problem solved.

Good point well made. I think I overdid my example of passing being discouraged as kind of a key point when it should be more an example of the spirit of the game. I'm not saying anyone is saying don't pass, but if you lose due to an opponent throwing a 5+ and succeeding the reaction as I have experienced is for the coach on the receiving end to say (or at least think) that shouldn't happen.

As if you have been cruelly robbed by some lucky fool primitive enough to actually throw the ball. It is considered the wrong way to play the game. But, I think that's veering off topic, its more the sentiment than the actual scenario I was trying to involve in the discussion.

Blood Bowl for me is not chess, don't get me wrong, I am 100% a coach that cares who wins and would prefer it to be me, but I would never complain if I lost out due to a rule set that I agreed to play. Chess is two stoic soviet sleeper agents silently conducting 300 possibility calculations per second. Blood bowl is a game where a halfling makes a shepherds pie so you lose all your re rolls.

Or you might believe it to be somewhere in between.

I think my real point amidst all this rambling is that if roughly half of blood bowl players liked bonus points and roughly half didn't, I know we're not conducting a poll here to iron clad determine the future of the game, but there shouldnt be anyone trying to stamp out either style of tourney. Just go to the ones you like and don't go to the ones you don't. Don't try and spoil anyone else's fun because blood bowl belongs just as much to the guy playing khemri winning the wooden spoon, the guy getting a generic 3-2-1 mid table and the guy throwing another NAF shield on the pile of NAF shields he stacks up to change a light bulb.

[lunchmoney]

Blood bowl is a game where a halfling makes a shepherds pie so you lose all your re rolls.

I just had to clean my desk after reading that. You owe me a cup of coffee

[20phoenix]

The difference in points for each W/D/L is still 20 or 25 points, but now the bonus point system allows for up to 96 points to be made, roughly equivalent to 2 wins. A player with 5/1/0 could very conceivably beat a player with 6/0/0 using your system.

If that is what you want then fair enough, but why?

You're right - if you win all your games 1-0 (and no cas at all), and someone wins 5 games 3-0 (with 3 cas per game) and draws their last game 3-3 (with 3 cas) the 2nd player would win by 6 points (I think, I might need to double check the maths!).

And you're the first person to point that out since 2009, when I started using that scoring system.

Am I ok with it? I'm on the fence - on one hand, 6-0-0 should win, on the other hand it's so marginal I'm not sure it's worth screwing with the whole scoring system.
However, I'll look at bumping the win a bit, but I don't want to make it to the point where a w/l isto much better than a d/d.

Also, in 11 events I've had 2 6/0/0 coaches, and they both won the event by a country mile, so I'm not overly concerned, especially as in most tournaments (outside events the size of the NAFC or the WC) someone going 6-0-0 will have had to play their closest rival for the top, so it would have to be a pretty big tournament for a 6-0-0 and a 5-1-0 not to have met (I'll leave that for someone else to work out).



[Edit] Nope, ignore that - obviously screwed the maths up somewhere, so need to re-look at it when I'm not halfway out the door.
My last line stands though.

Before I say this I just want to point out that this isn't a criticism - I like the ruleset and I don't have major issues with BPs. As others in the post have said - if I don't like a ruleset I don't attend. (The Welsh boys know of at least one tournament I"m adamant I won't attend )

However BPs within your scoring system affected the result this year I believe in a way that isn't immediately apparent. Game 6 had Hawca v Besters top table with me and Goo on table 2. In a straight WDL format I would be facing Hawca top table in game 6 as I had a better record (4-0-1) than Besters (3-1-1). However his BPs had made up the gap between us. If I play Hawca and win I probably win the tournament depending how the BPs fall.

As I said, it's not a criticism of the ruleset - I like it and agree with Dionysian that it's one of, if not the best BP system I've played with.

[Gaixo]

that bit of tin, some one calledit (cant recall who) to some work hard to get, the first always special regardless of who you are. people pay good money and get frustrated over dice rolls and a game in pursuit of this, should a weaker record and random points take this away from you?

That was me! No disrespect meant to the shield, but I stand by my point that a prize from the NAF shouldn't be used as an excuse to force an official scoring system on organizers. The rules are known beforehand (or should be) and the winner is the one who makes the most of those rules.

[Joemanji]

Blood Bowl for me is not chess, don't get me wrong, I am 100% a coach that cares who wins and would prefer it to be me, but I would never complain if I lost out due to a rule set that I agreed to play. Chess is two stoic soviet sleeper agents silently conducting 300 possibility calculations per second. Blood bowl is a game where a halfling makes a shepherds pie so you lose all your re rolls.

Or you might believe it to be somewhere in between.

The beauty of Blood Bowl (and perhaps the heart of this problem) is that it is both. I think that poker is perhaps a better comparison, as over 100 games the better coach will have a better win ratio but over one game anything can happen. The great thing is that BB can be enjoyed both as a complex yet luck-based strategy game and as something to play in between Cards Against Humanity. Both sides should be able to coexist and enjoy BB at tournament weekends. We should support them both equally. I don't see the small but vocal subset of the UK community that resides here doing that.

I think my real point amidst all this rambling is that if roughly half of blood bowl players liked bonus points and roughly half didn't, I know we're not conducting a poll here to iron clad determine the future of the game, but there shouldnt be anyone trying to stamp out either style of tourney. Just go to the ones you like and don't go to the ones you don't.

I am lucky enough that I can pick and choose my tournaments regardless of location, and so I do exactly that. But what percentage of the community can say the same? In reality we see people mainly going to the tournaments near them, and so their choice is actually to like it or lump it.

But as we have seen from this thread, as Greshvakk so wonderfully posed, a lot of people assumed to be in the bonus points camp have just never thought about the issue. They just use them because they always have.

[Dionysian]

The rules are known beforehand (or should be) and the winner is the one who makes the most of those rules.

As has been explained multiple times, in this thread and others, by several people... the problem with using 'bonus points' as tournament points that can easily outweigh WDL record is that the reality isn't some magical utopia where it's simply a different type of skill being rewarded, it's that the benefits of a plum draw are greatly magnified. And assuming that these plum draws are essentially random (so in reality not that much different to simply awarding the tournament winner by any other arbitrary criterion) is actually a best case scenario. Indeed the best way to 'make the most of those rules' in a 6-game swiss setting is often to simply draw the first game of the tournament and maximise your chances of getting the plum draw(s) over the next couple of rounds. That doesn't seem particularly healthy for the integrity of NAF events and rankings.

I stand by my point that a prize from the NAF shouldn't be used as an excuse to force an official scoring system on organizers

It's not forcing a scoring system on organisers. They would be free to run whichever scoring system they wish. They would be free to decide if they want to adhere to minimum scoring system standards for eligibility to award a NAF trophy or simply do their own thing. In exactly the same way as they are currently free to decide if they want to adhere to the minimum standard of allowing all 24 races in exchange for ranking eligibility or exclude races and have the games be unranked.

NAF sanctioning doesn't have to be some automatic right for every tournament. The NAF can impose standards for its rankings and prizes. Individual tournament organisers are free to adhere or go their own way as they choose.

However, if the NAF exists simply to rubberstamp sanctioning and collect dues then the trophy, the rankings, and the organisation itself become completely meaningless.

Thank you for posting though, it's interesting to hear the current NAF-TD's official position on his role.

[Gaixo]

It is not my goal to find new ways to exclude tournaments from the NAF rankings. On the contrary, I would like to see as many ranked games as possible, so long as tournaments don't run afoul of the current restrictions regarding racial inclusion and core rules. Regardless, I still don't see how bonus points have anything more than a marginal effect on the rankings (in that some pairings might be slightly off).

It's incredibly demanding to expect an international sanctioning body to change the rules for every tournament in the world because some unknown number of members in one (admittedly key) nation are suddenly upset by something. That might be a harsh way of putting it (your evident preference!), but that's the situation here.

If, as this thread suggests, most organizers don't recognize the implications of their scoring systems, why not simply attempt to educate them? The NAF's regional staff could certainly be helpful in that. Tournament series were mentioned earlier; setting scoring standards for those is actually quite sensible. Series are affected by the final standings, after all, whereas the rankings are not. My point is that local solutions should be explored before demanding that everyone everywhere be subject to new rules.

[nonumber]

As has been explained multiple times, in this thread and others, by several people... the problem with using 'bonus points' as tournament points that can easily outweigh WDL record is that the reality isn't some magical utopia where it's simply a different type of skill being rewarded, it's that the benefits of a plum draw are greatly magnified. And assuming that these plum draws are essentially random (so in reality not that much different to simply awarding the tournament winner by any other arbitrary criterion) is actually a best case scenario. Indeed the best way to 'make the most of those rules' in a 6-game swiss setting is often to simply draw the first game of the tournament and maximise your chances of getting the plum draw(s) over the next couple of rounds. That doesn't seem particularly healthy for the integrity of NAF events and rankings.

Sorry mate, randomly being drawn against what you may consider to be a "plum draw" is not the same thing as randomly drawing the tournament winner from the get go. Its not a "small step" or the "obvious progression" from awarding a couple of bonus points here and there. 6 games of blood bowl still have to take place, dice still have to be rolled, and the ultimate tournament winner is still very likely to be one of the better players who at least carved out four or five wins. Its not the name out of the hat you're describing it as.

However, reading these opinions I do 100% agree a TO should think about and understand what their rules pack is for. But if that intention is to open up the top 6 and make the tournament a more unpredictable competition then that that shouldn't be disparaged.

I think saturation of one kind or another would be a problem and that would be a job for the NAF sanctioning process to say "actually there's already x number of this kind of tournament on the calendar, how about tweaking it a bit?"

I'm not sure "oh but what if there's only bonus points tournaments close?" Is really an argument as the shoe could simply be on the other foot with that one. As I've already said I'm all for equal variety on this subject, its just it seems like most the arguments against bonus points come across sounding like "oh no darling we mustn't let one of the plebs have a shield" if I'm honest.

[frogboy]

This thread has rocked me from left to right, from BP to SoS, it's been a great journey in something I've never really thought about. Once again I've seen how complex this game can be (when we're not just eating shepherd's pie) with all you tournament heavy hitters piling on with your vast experiences and knowledge, it's really great to read.

Just one observation though, is that until you take a step back and read all the different opinions you won't see the variety. It's great discussing outcomes and reasons but without willingness to change or acceptance that you may not have got that last bit correct then you are just piling on with you opinion and hoping others will rally to your banner.
It's pointless having a discussion if the only outcome is a massive argument. In the OP the question was asked what are you trying to achieve?

This thread has certainly evolved or just gone real deep into the reasons behind BP and SoS and really explored different angles put this in turn has asked new questions, for me it's is there a simple answer, which one is trumps and do I want to go to a tournament that always has the same coaches with th same builds playing the same way mmm maybe because it would be a fairer way of deciding the out come and the best coach the day would walk away with the trophy and I would still be free to chase the 24 or take gobbos for fun.
But on the other hand I don't want all my games to be like I'm playing the AI on BloodBowl PC game.

I think it's possible to explore others reasoning and I thank you all for leading me through this journey and would like to make special mention to Darkson and to Glowworm both TO's who have from this thread said they will explore there own rule sets. Although they don't have to do this it is nice to see people listening as much as they are typing.

Cheers

[Joemanji]

As I've already said I'm all for equal variety on this subject, its just it seems like most the arguments against bonus points come across sounding like "oh no darling we mustn't let one of the plebs have a shield" if I'm honest.

I want it to mean something so that when somebody wins one for the first time it really feels great. I was so so happy when I got my first one, because it felt like an achievement. And let's be honest here, you don't see anyone calling anyone plebs here, I'm trying to make rational arguments. But you do see lots of comments all over TFF and Twitter about "powergaming scum" and in one case one of my friends getting booed when they won a 'local tournament for local people'. So let's not act like the wounded party here.