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

[Geggster]

Or what about two coaches finish 510 having played and drawn in R5.

They played pretty much the same oppo from rounds 3-6, but Player A also played tough oppo C and tough oppo D in rounds 1 and 2. Whereas Player B was playing Johnny Noobcake in Round 1 and Snotlings from Latvia in R2.

Same record - who has the most BPs? Very likely Player B, but who has had the hardest path to get to that record?

[Dionysian]

I use BPs as a means of breaking ties with those on the same record ( as the worse win is better than the best draw, and the worst draw is better than the best lose).

As mentioned previously, the bolded does not prevent inferior records finishing higher in the standings than superior records so doesn't function simply as 'a means of breaking ties with those on the same record' in the same way SoS does.


SoS
Maintains WDL hierarchy.
Ranks equal records based on who had to work harder to get that record.

Bonus Points
Allows inferior records to finish higher than superior ones (unless the BPs are very small compared to TPs).
Rewards plum draws twice (to the point that it's probably beneficial to deliberately draw your first game in many events).
Ranks equal records based on who had the easiest matches.
Encourages play that a lot of us would call 'bad', but some will say is 'm0ar funz0rs'.

The two options do very different things.

[Joemanji]

This is why I like head-to-head record as a first tie-break, followed by SoS.

I do too, but Score! does not currently support it. I have run tournaments that use HTH first to determine the winner, but it is too fiddly to work out by hand all the way down.

[mubo]

This is why I like head-to-head record as a first tie-break, followed by SoS.

I do too, but Score! does not currently support it. I have run tournaments that use HTH first to determine the winner, but it is too fiddly to work out by hand all the way down.

In fairness it's not trivial to code for an arbitrary number of tied teams. You have to break down players into mini leagues on the same points.

[babass]

Player A beats player B in R1
Player C beats player D in R1.

Player A goes on to win all their games.
Player C wins some but not all.

Player D beats player B.

Both B & D end up with the exact same record, but SoS puts B on top.

Why should player B be higher than player D? Player D had no control over who they played in R1, so why should they be penalised for the luck of the draw?

that's why i don't like SoS system. it's too depend of the 1st draw.

"opponents scores" sounds to me a better alternative (as tiebreaker), even if it's still depend of the 1st draw. because he put before coachs playing mostly on higher tables during the tourney.

actually, there is no perfect system, in any tourney-format (which are not a real "championship-format)

[Joemanji]

that's why i don't like SoS system. it's too depend of the 1st draw.

"opponents scores" sounds to me a better alternative (as tiebreaker), even if it's still depend of the 1st draw. because he put before coachs playing mostly on higher tables during the tourney.

Are they not the same thing? Certainly when I use SOS in Score! the option I select is actually called "Opponent Scores" as there is nothing called SOS.

[babass]

that's why i don't like SoS system. it's too depend of the 1st draw.

"opponents scores" sounds to me a better alternative (as tiebreaker), even if it's still depend of the 1st draw. because he put before coachs playing mostly on higher tables during the tourney.

Are they not the same thing? Certainly when I use SOS in Score! the option I select is actually called "Opponent Scores" as there is nothing called SOS.

oops, sorry, in my mind, "Opponent scores" is another SOS (Sum Opponents Scores) as the SoS (Strength Of Schedule). So the "SoS" would be another system based on ranking or the opponent. which is not the same thing
Sorry for the confusion.

[sann0638]

So strength of schedule would depend on the total final rank of the opponents, and opponent score on the total final score?

Pretty much the same effect, marginal difference.

[Gaixo]

In general, I don't think the NAF should be involved in dictating how a tournament is run, outside of the few obvious exceptions. Significant changes to the rules that unbalance the rosters are within the organization's remit because those can potentially impact the rankings. (Even that is debatable, the use of tiers being the obvious example of tolerable balance shifting.) Supplying a tin trophy shouldn't increase the NAF's authority in this regard. To illustrate the ol' slippery slope, the NAF is now distributing patches for those who play "the 24," but that shouldn't lead to a ban on Turncoat or Pick'n'Mix tournaments just because they make achievement slightly easier.

In defense of bonus points, and in the interest of full disclosure, my tournaments (and all the tournaments in my region) generally use bonus points. 20/10/0 plus a point each for TDs and casualties. As these are mostly 3-round tournaments, the idea is to keep people engaged after suffering a loss or a draw. In practice, a team earning enough to convert a result up a notch is rare (one instance per 16 participants sounds about right), but it prevents teams from being eliminated by an early draw. We have found that this preserves the standard of competition, as people don't immediately shift to playing for Most Casualties or the Wooden Spoon as soon as they suffer a negative result.

I wouldn't use such a system in a Major but think it works for our purposes.

[Greshvakk]

Thanks Gaixo for a very interesting take from a TO who uses a system like this and why. For me the key point that you mention is the 'calibration'; the relationship between BP and base 'tournament' points. If I had to nominate any 'takeaway' from this thread it would just be to ask TOs who use BP to think about that and to consider at what point they are happy for clearly inferior W-D-L records to take over superior ones. In your example you can see that if we take an 'average' draw to yield 13 or 14 points then 3 such draws roughly overtakes 2 of the most 'minimal' wins (1-0 wins with 0 cas). So a 0-3-0 record could just about overtake a 2-0-1 record at the end of a 3 game tournament - but it's fairly unlikely and possibly an ok price to pay to achieve the 'carrot' effect you want for those who lose the 1st game. It's got me thinking if there is any analysis I can do on what the 'average' BP earned is around tournaments and therefore helping TOs understand their 'calibration' and its effect. Not quite sure of how to frame that analysis yet but thanks you've made me see the issues in a different way.

Some other very interesting posts on here as well. So thank you all again for contributing. I think Geggster's musing highlights some of the extra unfairness in cas points. I think a mythology seems to exist that TDs and CAS points are some sort of trade off to Wood Elves and Dwarves respectively representing ends of some imaginary spectrum of races (or at least the 'competitive' races) and what they can 'easily' achieve. But this misses the point about CAS - no race has tonnes of Mighty Blow or Claw as a base so no race actually can inflict casualties any easier (by and large). In fact points for cas favours AV 9 teams mainly because it is just harder to inflict cas on them. I think TOs assume that points for cas is 'giving' something to dwarves but it gives nothing if those dwarves draw a lot of dwarves and orcs. So once again like points for TD you have an illusion of good logic (in that case an inter-ranking of wins and draws) but in fact the actual effect is quite different - and much harder to quantify what you actually (on average) rewarded.

[Wulfyn]

I can't speak for other TOs, but I use BPs as a means of breaking ties with those on the same record ( as the worse win is better than the best draw, and the worst draw is better than the best lose). To me, that's better than a SoS system that you, as a coach, have no control over.

But that is not how your system works over multiple games. If I am reading your opening post and explanation correctly (and please let me know if I have not) then the difference between a loss draw and win is 20 or 25 points. Your bonus point system gives a maximum of 16 points. So an individual game you quite rightly point our does not affect rankings with regard to W/D/L. But what about a 6 game tournament?

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?

I get that you might want a better way of sorting out tiebreakers than SoS (and I have misgivings about it as well), but then why not something like TD differential? Or have your bonus point system but as a secondary stat for tiebreakers and not being added to the total score?

[Darkson]

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.

[Boneless]

for what its worth here my thoughts on this debated issue.

As a TO myself, regional for a number of years and now UK NTO ive thought long about this and wondered the right option when running events.

to clear up a few things and thoughts.

The UK is blessed by the number of events we run, also the variety of events.

his variety comes from the diverse number of coaches we have some competitive others not so preferring the social or chasing the 24 etc.

The Bouns points first came about to split coaches with similar records, an alternative to SOS.
Tournement points are something very different. these are the points you gain to decide the winner.
While each event will offer different points in different ways, here are some examples and reasoning.

2,1,0 scoring (or points that reflect) this puts the win equal to 2 draws. Some are of the thinking that the right way to play a competitive tournament is to not take unnecessary risks, so when the Draw is locked down while make a 'rookie' error and push for a win with out good reasons (like a win is all that matters every thing else dont work) - I personally see the benefit to this and understand why some favour this.

10,5,1 scoring this is almost the same as above but favours the win over two draws (1-0-1 is 11 points, 0-2-0 is ten points) this encourages the win but a tactical draw will not hinder to much

3-1-0 scoring this is about the win, your trying to encourage the win through the scoring points. Not all like this as it can lead to unnecessary risks chasing the win.

10-5-1 this is as above with a little more weight on the win

some may be wondering whats this got to do with any thing?

well as you can see with 4 different scoring systems you can encourage and dictate almost how coaches will win the coveted prize of number 1 spot.

to pick a quality coach as an example, Joemanji, this guy will often place highly, he does indeed pick up tournament wins, but not as often as his NAF ranking might suggest. Joemanji's Rankings comes from his play style and win ratio. the guy seldom loses. we all have events where we have a bad one but on form Joe wont lose, he will pick up Draws and wins. this favours the first of the above.

add to this something else, Tournement points (or bonus points) this can then dictate the nature of the race.
Cas bonus favours the bash side.
TD favours the agility side
a combination favours the Bash slightly

this in turn can be used to dictate the races and the winners, Undead are good for winning games and getting CAS, Dwarfswill a times pick up draws yet will get Cas, along with Orc

The elfs love to score as do rats, every once in a while a 4-0 score line will be submitted

the combination again suits teams like Norse who can score but also who can bash.

again to pick a quality coach, Jimjimany loves his wood elf play and will play what he refers to as the elf grind, looking to take a 1-0, 2-0 or 2-1 win with his elfs, this does not fit with the above to well. he will pick up cas, and plans on not scoring more than 2 a game as he secures the win.

the issue with these comes IMO when you put bouns points or tournament points with skill restrictions,

example, buy putting a skill cap because you dont like guard spam Dwarfs and yet giving CAS BP you then almost take dwarf out the equation and award Undead and Orcs, if you award no BP yet put caps on you favour the elf team who can pick 6 different skills happily and be as competitive as ever.

so whats the answer?

Head to head? some would say yes, but if you beat the guy your tied with yet he won all his others and you didnt? we go round in circles here. also race comes into play. CD vs Amazons?

I found myself in a recent tournement wanting to play Purplegoo game 5 instead of Val, both quality coaches, yet the race pisk we had for the weekend, (Myself norse, Pgoo CD and Val Amazons with roxy) imo favoured me playing the CD over roxy Zons, I had no tackle and roxy can score from anywhere. (for what its worth I rate both coaches highly)

SOS? the trouble with this is you dont know who you will face, nor does it take into account your opponents run this while its a method and some say fairer than BP or TP is not great.

A final? the issue with this is a 2nd placed coach can steal the show in the final.

Example, I played Gumbo game 4 and lost vs his Orcs yet i was placed 2nd with him 1st at the end of Game 5. Game 6 was to be a final, we set up for the 2nd time and played out the game, I had reflected on the previous game and changed my game slightly, this time we played a 1-1 draw, as it was a final Over time happened and I took the over time win. Gumbos record for the weekend was 4-2-0 and mine 4-1-1 yet I was champion, is this right or was i rewarded for making the changes needed to win?

the only true and fair way is that every coach plays every other coach in the field. this will give a true winner.

is there an answer? in short no!

Ive lost out on the coveted top spot on SOS and on these BP and no doubt I will again, I will also probably pick up a win one day with this


the long and short of what ive tried to say is TO's use the skills package, the scoring methods and any thing else they can to mold their events to give it the flavour they want. most know what they are doing, and some make errors with out thinking of the outcome yet one thing it does do is give variety.

If every event had the same scoring and same skills then the tournement scene would run the risk of becoming stale.

for what its worth I favour a no bonus point system and so I play this system in the Welsh open, this does not mean it perfect.

I think in some cases the bonus points are as detrimental as skill packages and this can ruin events and stop races even making an appearance. one thing I know is this does add variety.

maybe the question to ask is 'is there an answer' that will solve every ones issues? I think the answer is No. and this is why the NAF cant get involved with the rules and scoring. We can offer guidance and advice as experienced TO's

[Dionysian]

In general, I don't think the NAF should be involved in dictating how a tournament is run... Supplying a tin trophy shouldn't increase the NAF's authority in this regard.

The NAF can defend the value of its trophy if it wishes by simply adding to the minimum attendee requirement for awarding a trophy. A line stating that 'bonus points can only be used as bonus points (ie to split players on the same record) and not as tournament points' would be sufficient.

TOs are then free to run a NAF-ranked-but-NAF-trophy-less event if they think having a semi-random winner is desirable, in the same way that they can currently run an unranked event banning certain races if they wish. They can also run trophy events using bonus points of any form (instead of, say, SoS) as the means with which to split players on equal records. Note that for TOs who claim they only use bonus points to split player's on equal records then this either causes no change or helps ensure their tournament meets their self-stated aims.

TOs are completely free to run their tournament how they wish and the NAF simply defends bare minimum standards for both ranking eligibility and awarding a trophy. Which it already does. The point is simply that the current minimum criteria are inadequate and a small change is needed to maintain the competitive health of the scene.

However, if the NAF's position is really that their own trophy is just a meaningless piece of tin and random winners are truly what 'the people' want then... so be it. QuidditchBowl is here for you.

Tournaments are, by definition, competitive events. One would imagine that the NAF Tournament Director would be more interested in maintaining and protecting the competitive nature (which to pre-emptively tackle the usual strawman is not mutually exclusive with having a good, friendly, social time) of their sanctioned tournaments.

One also has to wonder whether some 'tournament' organisers would be much happier hosting winner-less social 'gatherings' instead.

[Greshvakk]

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'd actually meant to look up the NAF rules completely independently of this thread - a quick look just now and it seems to have no rules on scoring. That is open to too much abuse in my opinion. If I start a tournament with only points for casualties (ie nothing for W-D-L) does that get approved? To me you are not playing Blood Bowl if the only thing you score for is CAS - the play style would be so altered that these games should not count for NAF ranking. You could argue it falls foul of the rule "core game-mechanics should not be altered" - but perhaps the rules need more clarity there because the mechanic is not technically altered but by not valuing TDs/W-D-L at all aren't you messing with things too much? I think so.

But to be honest this is way beyond the remit of my thread and not something I have thought about. I would say that while out walking today I did think it is perhaps the weirdest thing about BB that the rules clearly contain a scoring mechanism for deciding on W/D/L yet so many people want to mess with it - even GW themselves in the Bugman's cup - where they basically use SPP as points. I wonder if any other game has such disagreement over point scoring. Very odd. For me it's not a 'variety' that the game needs. But I am not running a campaign to change it - only a discussion to see what logic is out there - behind the BP systems in particular. Although if we return to my OP I was specifically highlighting a system that I think is particularly poor and is used in multiple UK tournaments. Which I think is a shame - but perhaps more reasoned discussion and more TOs will adopt 2/1/0 plus tiebreaker.