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

Discuss teams, ride/hotel sharing, trash talk, and event results here

Moderators: lunchmoney, TFF Mods

Post Reply
Glowworm

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

Post by Glowworm »

I have a question for you Greshvakk, and Im not being confrontational, just wondering....

Do you currently or have you ran a tournament ? If so what points system did you use and what tie breakers where in place?

(Sorry if this has been answered already in the thread, I have read most of it but didn't see an answer)

Reason: ''
Greshvakk
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 12:12 am

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

Post by Greshvakk »

glowworm wrote:Do you currently or have you ran a tournament?
No I haven't. When I started this thread I had no preferred scoring system (I just thought points for TDs and points for cas had implications people might not have thought of) but after all the thought that the thread has stimulated I now realise that if I did run a tournament I would use 2-1-0 plus tiebreaker because unlike bonus point systems it would a) guarantee w-d-l primacy and b) not mess with the Swiss. To me that is the fairest and therefore best system - although as has been pointed out on this thread it's not perfect, particularly using a tiebreaker which is always unsatisfactory imo - if we had the time I'm sure we'd rather the top positions played off but it's just not practical and even if they did what happens if they're drawing after overtime!?

Reason: ''
Image
yogi
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:29 pm

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

Post by yogi »

Gresh i feel like what your after is a BP system thats stops players W/D/L record being shadowed by a TD and CAS system.
e.g Win 100p, Draw 50p, loss 0p- up to a max of 3 of TD and CAS. so each round has up to 6 bonus points in a 6 game tournament you are playing for at best 36 BP so it never diminishes a Draw or Win. i think unless this happens all the people that are against BP will continue to disagree with it. (I do know Gresh we play at the same club and have played team tournaments together so people know, Gresh please correct me if im wrong)

I also have to say I dont think TO's are trying to achieve anything, there is no hidden engender in trying to diminish or sully the good name of blood bowl or trying to make people feel cheated and robbed. they are trying to make an event often individual to stand out in their rule set that they think people will find fun. i thing that main point is getting lost a bit in both this chat and the one viewtopic.php?f=34&t=42718
From talking TO's to them want to try and make people think outside the box change up there teams skill packages and set new challenges to change the way people play. (im not a TO i hope to be one day)

I try and attend a mix of both SoS and BP tourneys each year they keep the game fresh for me. SoS makes me grind and I will sit in my cage letting the turns tick by if it insures a win. BP i will keep pushing to score, turn over and repeat.
i think people should look at them as 2 very different things as the game is different. I also understand that people feel that getting CAS is a lottery but most skills packs offer a double consider MB to increase your chances of getting CAS on that elf team. most heavy bash teams will struggle to score 3 TD in game so an all guard grind might not help. my point is BP might make you think differently about the game it does me for me thats what it achieves.

i also think this question doesn't have a solution unless its enforced which is what i hope the NAF is not planning on doing as we are a big community but i fear not so big that we should start enforcing loads of new rules on how people should run tournaments they have spent time and effort doing for people to have fun.

Reason: ''
Greshvakk
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 12:12 am

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

Post by Greshvakk »

Thanks TheDoc for another very interesting insight into the reasoning. I totally see your points and respect them. I suppose my 2 responses would be:

1) you seem to value the w-d-l primacy as being the best/fairest way of crowning a winner. I agree but wrongly calibrated bonus points systems will always run the risk of crowning the 'wrong' winner by w-d-l and personally I'd never want to risk that. Although obviously it's great that it hasn't happened at Boudicca bowl how will you feel if it does?

2) as for giving people something to play for I'm not sure how people really play for td and cas any more than they already do. I prefer the approach of imaginative awards for other aspects of gameplay
Edit - note as I write this that Yogi has posted saying he adjusts his play style based on scoring systems so perhaps people feel they can - I'm still not sure you actually can play for td and cas any more than you would do but if people feel you can then maybe that is something.

Reason: ''
Image
Greshvakk
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 12:12 am

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

Post by Greshvakk »

yogi wrote:
I also have to say I dont think TO's are trying to achieve anything, there is no hidden engender in trying to diminish or sully the good name of blood bowl or trying to make people feel cheated and robbed.
Whoa - what? I don't think they have any sneaky agenda either! I just thought they might not have thought about the implications of their scoring systems. I still haven't heard anyone tell me why a 3-3 draw > 2-2 draw > 1-1 > 0-0 - but that is what points for TDs does.

Reason: ''
Image
yogi
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:29 pm

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

Post by yogi »

Greshvakk wrote:
yogi wrote:
I also have to say I dont think TO's are trying to achieve anything, there is no hidden engender in trying to diminish or sully the good name of blood bowl or trying to make people feel cheated and robbed.
Whoa - what? I don't think they have any sneaky agenda either! I just thought they might not have thought about the implications of their scoring systems. I still haven't heard anyone tell me why a 3-3 draw > 2-2 draw > 1-1 > 0-0 - but that is what points for TDs does.
ok that was my bad in my wording there. also i know thats not what your saying by pulling that one bit out puts what i mean out of context.

Reason: ''
Greshvakk
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 12:12 am

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

Post by Greshvakk »

yogi wrote: i also think this question doesn't have a solution unless its enforced which is what i hope the NAF is not planning on doing as we are a big community but i fear not so big that we should start enforcing loads of new rules on how people should run tournaments they have spent time and effort doing for people to have fun.
I disagree. As has been pointed out on the thread already the NAF could set standards or guidelines it doesn't mean every tournament has to be run that way - no one is suggesting 'rules' as such. I must admit after all the thought this thread has stimulated I think the NAF should have standards for scoring systems. The NAF td is on this thread stating that the NAF sanctioning is there partly to protect the quality of NAF rankings - well if someone scored a tournament with points for cas only I don't think it is fair that those games are ranked alongside 'normally' scored tournament games. Why? Because if you place no value at all on TDs then to me you are not playing blood bowl or at least not the same Bb as at something like the nafc. I think this shows the need for NAF standards but what form those should take would still need to be decided.

Reason: ''
Image
yogi
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:29 pm

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

Post by yogi »

I have to say your "standard or guidelines" Gresh that you would hope the naf sets out, if they would to ever do so, would not include BP tournaments. this thread sounds like thats what your gunning for...

Reason: ''
Greshvakk
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 12:12 am

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

Post by Greshvakk »

yogi wrote:Gresh i feel like what your after is a BP system thats stops players W/D/L record being shadowed by a TD and CAS system.
All I was after was to stimulate some thought on the subject and it has been amazing how much has been stimulated. What you describe here is a bp scoring system calibrated to protect w-d-l - I think that's better than one calibrated to not protect w-d-l but still not better than 2-1-0 plus tiebreaker (in my opinion). You're still ranking draws and wins in a v. strange way with a system like that eg 3-0 = 3-2 but both are better than 2-0 - to me that's not intuitive. Also I don't get the arbitrary cap at 3 - if you are giving points for TDs and cas why stop at 3? Particularly if your system is calibrated to protect w-d-l anyway.

But as I say I was just trying to stimulate some thought and there are several brilliant interlinking subjects here: w-d-l primacy and is it fairest?, messing with Swiss, implications of ANY bp system, implications of points for TDs and points for cas specifically, calibration of bonus points, need for variety in tournaments and quite a few more! So it's been very rewarding for me to read.

But if I wrote it again I might rephrase the question since it has been pointed out it can be read with an emphasis on the 'you' - which I didn't intend. What are YOU trying to achieve is a lot more accusatory than I ever meant. I meant something along the lines of 'why did you adopt this system over 2-1-0'? But in my defence there's not much space in a thread title, I didn't realise it would get all this attention, I hadn't thought that much about scoring systems and I didn't read it with an emphasis on the bloody you! :D

Reason: ''
Image
Greshvakk
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 12:12 am

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

Post by Greshvakk »

yogi wrote:. this thread sounds like thats what your gunning for...
this thread has mutated way beyond what I ever envisaged so I can honestly say I wasn't gunning for anything of the sort when I wrote it. After all the thinking I've now done I think there is a need for NAF standards on scoring and there should be some intelligent discussion about what those should be. Perhaps someone can start a thread on that - personally I'm not going to.

Reason: ''
Image
yogi
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:29 pm

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

Post by yogi »

Greshvakk wrote:
yogi wrote:. this thread sounds like thats what your gunning for...
this thread has mutated way beyond what I ever envisaged so I can honestly say I wasn't gunning for anything of the sort when I wrote it. After all the thinking I've now done I think there is a need for NAF standards on scoring and there should be some intelligent discussion about what those should be. Perhaps someone can start a thread on that - personally I'm not going to.
hahaha this is your new dice cup.

Reason: ''
User avatar
TheDoc
Star Player
Star Player
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 1:28 pm
Location: Snaith, Yorkshire

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

Post by TheDoc »

Greshvakk wrote:Thanks TheDoc for another very interesting insight into the reasoning. I totally see your points and respect them. I suppose my 2 responses would be:

1) you seem to value the w-d-l primacy as being the best/fairest way of crowning a winner. I agree but wrongly calibrated bonus points systems will always run the risk of crowning the 'wrong' winner by w-d-l and personally I'd never want to risk that. Although obviously it's great that it hasn't happened at Boudicca bowl how will you feel if it does?

2) as for giving people something to play for I'm not sure how people really play for td and cas any more than they already do. I prefer the approach of imaginative awards for other aspects of gameplay
Edit - note as I write this that Yogi has posted saying he adjusts his play style based on scoring systems so perhaps people feel they can - I'm still not sure you actually can play for td and cas any more than you would do but if people feel you can then maybe that is something.
Answers: 1) It won't happen at Boudica Bowl. The scoring system is designed not to let BPs affect the W/D/L placing of the highest place coaches. Sarnie and I made it so the probability of it happening is so low I'd win the Euro Millions before it happens. IF it did ever happen I'd blame myself and Sarnie that we didn't create a system that was robust to deal with a player who wins 6-0-0 and scores 6 TDs for the entire tournament and not end as champion. We'd re-evaluate the rules and results as we do for all the Boudica Bowls and then change the rules accordingly for the next year. However, I will add all coaches would have known the scoring when they signed up and in signing up agreed to play by the rules we set out. Don't complain if they don't suit you when the chips finally fall - be an adult and take some responsibility that you didn't do what was required to be placed appropriately.

2) We did also have spot-prizes for various actions throughout the game which was opened to all to promote "whacky" elements of Blood Bowl.

Yogi Note reply: depends on how good a coach you are ;)

Reason: ''
Image
User avatar
sann0638
Kommissar Enthusiasmoff
Posts: 6609
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:24 am
Location: Swindon, England

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

Post by sann0638 »

Time to poke the nest - I have been generating random results of tournaments using my spreadsheet, and "inferior" records are winning a LOT of the time.

In particular, using the popular major win/minor win system, a 4/2/0 can beat a 5/1/0 easily if the 4 wins are major, and the 5 wins are minor. Thoughts?

Reason: ''
NAF Ex-President
Founder of SAWBBL, Swindon and Wiltshire's BB League - find us on Facebook and Discord
NAF Data wrangler
Glowworm

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

Post by Glowworm »

I don't think there is any agenda here.... hidden or otherwise, just a guy asking a question, so can I ask is a 1-0 win really a better game (in general terms) than a 3-3 draw??

probably my 2 most memorable games where 3-3 V Nazgob (My Gobbo's his dirty cheaty Flings) and a 0-2 loss to dwarves where I was pitch cleared twice in the same match!!

I know the "purists" will say yes 1-0 is better and strictly speaking they are right,

I do like the 300/100/0 W/D/L system with up to 6 BP's per match..... may use that at Crumb next year if it runs.

Reason: ''
CyberedElf
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 12:52 am

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

Post by CyberedElf »

TL;DR Version
BP allows TO to encourage behaviors not directly related to winning.
I'm not convinced W/D/L primacy is the even the ideal.
3/1/0 is really a BP system.
Equal opportunity is always "fair." The debate is about inclusion of luck.
If you are playing to win, you should be playing to the rules as posted.
If you don't like the rules as posted, politely discuss it with the TO for the next year.
My pet peeve is giving a benefit to the loser of the match.

Full Version
I know this thread died, but I'm a first time TO and I wondered into this corner of TFF. I will be addressing how my tournament falls within this discussion and my opinions on others comments. If you want to reference my rules they are here.

I us BP. It is calibrated for a strict W/D/L primacy per match, but not for the entire tournament. It was done with intent and thought. I had not considered everything mentioned in this thread and might revise it for next year, but generally I stand by my current rules. The main reason I prefer BP over SoS is because I can reward behaviors I want to encourage. For instance I give one or two points for registering early and submitting rosters. I give two points per round for finishing on time. I estimate the winner will have about 200 points. I don't mind a small token in tiebreakers to encourage the coaches to make things easier for me. All of my BP for TDs are based on the differential. I. e. losing by one or winning by more than two. This helps distinguish between barely winning and blowing your opponent away. I am okay with a coach who barely won 4 games being ranked below a 3/1/0 coach who dominated for three games. Yes, I intend that this can break strict W/D/L ranking. I find it to be fair, but I understand if people disagree.

This thread has really gotten me to think about my BP for CAS though. Warning, the following is tongue-in-cheek.
Greshvakk wrote:you are making Cas an end in itself which is not what BB is.
You abbreviated "BB." You might have missed that the first "B" stands for "Blood." Most of what has been said about the valuation of CAS I respect, but I think CAS is a lot of what Blood Bowl is about. Yes it is more random, I find that unfortunate for the entire system. In tournaments though, my Undead throw A LOT more blocks than my Wood Elfs. Bashy teams getting more CAS than agile teams, isn't luck, it is playing to your strengths. I believe that if TD differential is rewarded, then teams with different strength sets need a method to get BP. After reflecting on this thread, I see how it could be seen as adding a detractor to the system I use.

My tournament has 10 awards not based on coming out on top. I still don't feel that that is enough incentive to keep people in games that have gone downhill. By the last round people know if they are not in the running. BP can keep them involved, even in the last round.

I do believe it is the players responsibility to understand the scoring system and not make assumptions. All six of the tournaments within 500 miles (800 kilometers) use BP. Five of them are calibrated similar to mine. The other one is intentionally wacky and based on CAS (and even points for KO); and it should be obviously weird when looking at the rules.

Enough about my tournament. This is already long enough, I will not be quoting from others when referring to there posts.

Even though I have used the phrase, what exactly is meant by "W/D/L primacy?" A 3/1/0 system was stated as maintaining it. Is 3/0/1 greater than 2/2/0 maintaining it? I can't find reference to this phrase being used anywhere else, so I am unsure.

3/1/0 is just a 2/1/0 with one BP for having a TD differential greater than 0. For that matter almost all systems can be viewed as 2/1/0 (times a constant) plus bonus points. Head to head and flipping a coin (and "goblin knife fight") are the only tiebreakers I can recall that can not be boiled down to a BP system

On page 4 Darkson makes an argument against SoS. Round one may be random, but if your first opponent went on to do better than the first opponent of someone you tied with, then that is the exact argument FOR SoS. Using Darkson's example and coaches A, B, C, and D. The days record indicates that A was better than C. Of course B should win the tiebreaker over D because if maybe A wasn't so good, then B could have one in round one. I do think head-to-head should be a tiebreaker before SoS though.

On page 5 Geggster makes some good arguments against BP as "tiebreaker." On average his arguments are not applicable, but BP does add more of a luck factor. Coaches care about their games that day, not that it all balances out. I get it, but I prefer the additional control BP systems give the TO.

If the ONLY goal is to determine who wins games the most often based on a limited sample, I do believe:
2/1/0
Head to Head
Total of 2/1/0 of all opponents
Flip a coin

I accept a little more randomness so that I am free to not define the goal so strictly. I do not believe the above goal is even the same as determining who plays the best. Measurement of playing the best is a more complicated variable (to me) than just winning.

I mentioned the wacky tournament in my area earlier. It is so skewed that I went undefeated and ended in the middle of the pack. I took Wood Elfs to a bash fest. I ran circles around my opponents. I knew the rules and this outcome was deliberate on both my part and the TO's. I would understand if that tournament was not included in the NAF rankings. I chose to take a team that would go up in NAF rankings at the expense of doing well in the tournament. That is the exact problem I think the OP is referring to. All I can say is that it is a fun tournament and if you even glance at the rules pack you should see what you are in for. ("Goblin knife fight" mentioned earlier is a tiebreaker of this tournament.) This tournament is a fine example of, if you want to win the tournament then play to the rules of that tournament. If A plays to the rules better than B, but B has the better record, then A should still win. If you don't like this, politely discuss it with the TO before he posts his next rules.

I do have one pet peeve that is a tangent, but I feel related. In one of my regions tournaments, after each match the winner gets Foul Appearance on a random player and the loser gets to pick the player to gain that skill. First this adds more randomness to the outcome, which is what it sounds like the consensus in this thread is against. Second, a tournament is about distinguishing the better player from the worse. Of course randomness makes this nigh impossible, but this mechanic raises the floor so you have less room to spread the players out. Therefore the inherent randomness of this game will cause even more overlap.

Reason: ''
Image
Post Reply