Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Patrick Byrne]

Is this the scoring system in the rules, or does this 'current tournament
scoring system' exist outside the rules? If so, could someone upload this
scoring system to the files section of group page.

Not having been around all those years, and just now starting to run
tourneys, I would like to not go through all those 'learning experiences' if
possible. I will and do listen to those who have gone before me, and
traveled the roads I have yet to travel.
-PB


> From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:12:05 +0000
> To: "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [WarriorRules] The straw that broke the camel's back
>
> The current tournament scoring system has been in placed without major
> alteration for something like 10 years. The fact that we've stuck with it so
> long is some indication that it's working. Prior to the current system, there
> was constant tinkering with the system.

[scott holder]

Is this the scoring system in the rules, or does this 'current tournament
scoring system' exist outside the rules? If so, could someone upload this
scoring system to the files section of group page.

Not having been around all those years, and just now starting to run
tourneys, I would like to not go through all those 'learning experiences' if
possible. I will and do listen to those who have gone before me, and
traveled the roads I have yet to travel.

>It exists "inside the rules" insomuch as it's referenced in the rules. But,
it's done in such a way as to make it clear using it is entirely an option, not
a mandate.

I've had some lively discussions of the scoring system with Christian
as we paint away in his basement. I certainly see the benefit of
rewarding players for the tough fought victory against a good
opponent versus the walkover against a newbie.

But by the same measure, it penalizes a player who performs well
against a good opponent, and as Terry has pointed out, encourages the
winning players may have to "throw away" units to gain a better point
score, something I must admit leaves a bit of a sour taste in my
mouth.

So, in the spirit of aforementioned examples, lets Asif puts up a
tough fight, and Dave Stiers beats him 5-3. Thats great, and Dave
would certainly deserve a small edge over say Ewan, who rolled over
me 5-0.

But what about the flip case? Instead of losing, Asif is
particularly clever, and beats Dave 5-0.

By any measure Asif's victory is certainly a tough one, yet its not
worth as much as the magic 5-3 victory. And that seems both
artificial and unfair to me.

Solutions? A ranking system based on player skill that also modifies
a players score would certainly take care of the reversal cases, and
would seem to be worth trying at least...

Have fun!
Cole

I can understand the concern over the scoring system and how with hindsight
it's better to beat your opponents 5-3 each time rather than 5-0. During
the first and second rounds of a tournament at least, I'll point out some of
the risks a person is running by trying to feed points to someone.

1. Drafting - By letting your first and second round opponents get 3 points
each, you are letting them get bonus points from you. If you draw or lose
your third round game, one of your first or second round opponents will
likely end up with more total points than you are.

2. I play Derek a lot over the years down here in Jacksonville, he doesn't
risk feeding me points at all. There's a fine line between trying to feed
your opponent enough units to get 3 points but not enough points so that you
can still double him. I've wrecked quite a few "victories" of Derek's by
killing 601 or 801 points and preventing a 5. A final tournament score of
5-3, 5-3, 4-3, isn't as good as a series of 5-0, 5-0, 5-0.

Thanks,

Jamie White


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicholas Cioran" <ncioran@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:14 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Scoring System


>
>
> I've had some lively discussions of the scoring system with Christian
> as we paint away in his basement. I certainly see the benefit of
> rewarding players for the tough fought victory against a good
> opponent versus the walkover against a newbie.
>
> But by the same measure, it penalizes a player who performs well
> against a good opponent, and as Terry has pointed out, encourages the
> winning players may have to "throw away" units to gain a better point
> score, something I must admit leaves a bit of a sour taste in my
> mouth.
>
> So, in the spirit of aforementioned examples, lets Asif puts up a
> tough fight, and Dave Stiers beats him 5-3. Thats great, and Dave
> would certainly deserve a small edge over say Ewan, who rolled over
> me 5-0.
>
> But what about the flip case? Instead of losing, Asif is
> particularly clever, and beats Dave 5-0.
>
> By any measure Asif's victory is certainly a tough one, yet its not
> worth as much as the magic 5-3 victory. And that seems both
> artificial and unfair to me.
>
> Solutions? A ranking system based on player skill that also modifies
> a players score would certainly take care of the reversal cases, and
> would seem to be worth trying at least...
>
> Have fun!
> Cole
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Ewan McNay]

jamie white wrote:
> 2. I play Derek a lot over the years down here in Jacksonville, he doesn't
> risk feeding me points at all. There's a fine line between trying to feed
> your opponent enough units to get 3 points but not enough points so that you
> can still double him. I've wrecked quite a few "victories" of Derek's by
> killing 601 or 801 points and preventing a 5. A final tournament score of
> 5-3, 5-3, 4-3, isn't as good as a series of 5-0, 5-0, 5-0.

Assume for ease that your opponents in both cases get 5-point wins in
their other 2 games.

Case 1: 5-3, 5-3, 4-3. You score: (5 + 6.5), (5 + 6.5), (4 + 5.2) = 32.2

Case 2: 5-0, 5-0, 5-0. You score: (5 + 5), (5 + 5), (5 + 5) = 30.

I think you make my point for me .

[joncleaves]

<< Assume for ease that your opponents in both cases get 5-point wins in
their other 2 games.>>

I think, Ewan, that this is the core of the issue. Given the matching of high
score players v high score players, the 'quality' of the players increases as
you play. The pool of potential 2 x 5-0 players shrinks as each round is played
and so the theoretical scoring you show below does not *actually* occur in
reality.

Wouldn't it be better to use actual tourney results as examples to detect if
there is a *problem*? Having watched Scott's system very closely since its
inception, I don't remember it ever producing a winner that shouldn't have won.
If *that* happened, I'd have a big problem with the system - and, as a benefit,
I would be able to show why it was a problem with an actually occuring
phenomenon.

J


-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:15:35 -0400
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Scoring System





jamie white wrote:
> 2. I play Derek a lot over the years down here in Jacksonville, he doesn't
> risk feeding me points at all. There's a fine line between trying to feed
> your opponent enough units to get 3 points but not enough points so that you
> can still double him. I've wrecked quite a few "victories" of Derek's by
> killing 601 or 801 points and preventing a 5. A final tournament score of
> 5-3, 5-3, 4-3, isn't as good as a series of 5-0, 5-0, 5-0.

Assume for ease that your opponents in both cases get 5-point wins in
their other 2 games.

Case 1: 5-3, 5-3, 4-3. You score: (5 + 6.5), (5 + 6.5), (4 + 5.2) = 32.2

Case 2: 5-0, 5-0, 5-0. You score: (5 + 5), (5 + 5), (5 + 5) = 30.

I think you make my point for me .






Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ewan McNay]

I actually asked Scott for the data to do this a long while back (although
to be fair, I didn't know that he'd run the testing he mentions until this
conversation). I'd be happy to run the thing with real numbers from the
past few NICTs or whatever, and see. You may be right on the reality vs.
theory issue, but I live in a world of theory .

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> << Assume for ease that your opponents in both cases get 5-point wins in
> their other 2 games.>>
>
> I think, Ewan, that this is the core of the issue. Given the matching of high
score players v high score players, the 'quality' of the players increases as
you play. The pool of potential 2 x 5-0 players shrinks as each round is played
and so the theoretical scoring you show below does not *actually* occur in
reality.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to use actual tourney results as examples to detect if
there is a *problem*? Having watched Scott's system very closely since its
inception, I don't remember it ever producing a winner that shouldn't have won.
If *that* happened, I'd have a big problem with the system - and, as a benefit,
I would be able to show why it was a problem with an actually occuring
phenomenon.
>
> J
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:15:35 -0400
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Scoring System
>
>
>
>
>
> jamie white wrote:
>
>>2. I play Derek a lot over the years down here in Jacksonville, he doesn't
>>risk feeding me points at all. There's a fine line between trying to feed
>>your opponent enough units to get 3 points but not enough points so that you
>>can still double him. I've wrecked quite a few "victories" of Derek's by
>>killing 601 or 801 points and preventing a 5. A final tournament score of
>>5-3, 5-3, 4-3, isn't as good as a series of 5-0, 5-0, 5-0.
>
>
> Assume for ease that your opponents in both cases get 5-point wins in
> their other 2 games.
>
> Case 1: 5-3, 5-3, 4-3. You score: (5 + 6.5), (5 + 6.5), (4 + 5.2) = 32.2
>
> Case 2: 5-0, 5-0, 5-0. You score: (5 + 5), (5 + 5), (5 + 5) = 30.
>
> I think you make my point for me .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Tim Grimmett]

But Ewan--the real point is that the two players in question in this example
will, in all likelihood, meet in the finals and settle the issue on the table,
especially in a NICT context.

Second--except for the throw LI away at the end of the game (how one does that
when all your opponents commands are in retreat is another issue)--the
difference between a 5-1 and a 3-3 often boils down to a handful of waver tests.

I'm more interested in what alternative you have to offer. Award an extra point
for a command in retreat? Who owns the battlefield at the end of the day?
(Based on some yet-to-be defined criteria). Or just eliminate the weighted
advantage, which BTW, I think works. The extreme examples cited so far do not
address the value of 4-3 or 3-3 to really good players.

Tim

Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...> wrote:


jamie white wrote:
> 2. I play Derek a lot over the years down here in Jacksonville, he doesn't
> risk feeding me points at all. There's a fine line between trying to feed
> your opponent enough units to get 3 points but not enough points so that you
> can still double him. I've wrecked quite a few "victories" of Derek's by
> killing 601 or 801 points and preventing a 5. A final tournament score of
> 5-3, 5-3, 4-3, isn't as good as a series of 5-0, 5-0, 5-0.

Assume for ease that your opponents in both cases get 5-point wins in
their other 2 games.

Case 1: 5-3, 5-3, 4-3. You score: (5 + 6.5), (5 + 6.5), (4 + 5.2) = 32.2

Case 2: 5-0, 5-0, 5-0. You score: (5 + 5), (5 + 5), (5 + 5) = 30.

I think you make my point for me .





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ewan McNay]

Hi Tim :)

Tim Grimmett wrote:
> But Ewan--the real point is that the two players in question in this
> example will, in all likelihood, meet in the finals and settle the
> issue on the table, especially in a NICT context.

Which would not avoid the problem - say that they play to a 3-3 draw.

> I'm more interested in what alternative you have to offer. Award an
> extra point for a command in retreat? Who owns the battlefield at the
> end of the day? (Based on some yet-to-be defined criteria). Or just
> eliminate the weighted advantage, which BTW, I think works. The
> extreme examples cited so far do not address the value of 4-3 or 3-3
> to really good players.

I'm not trying to eliminate the weighting; only for the part of your
opponents' scores that they gained against you.

Look what I get into for a throwaway comment .

Hey Cole! Getting to paint huh? Lucky git - I've barely enough time
to glue minis to bases at the moment.

I have to admit your idea for a ranking system is intriguing.
Especially for an invitational like the NICT, it would be nice.
However, the big problem with this would be determing one's rank in
the first place, and also LUCK.

Any game played with dice or a completely random luck factor is just
really tough. Card games like Magic: the Gathering have ranks, but
because you construct your decks, you have a certain level of control
over how your initial hand and subsequent card draws work out.

Dice aren't NEARLY so nice and can trash even the best laid battle
plans.

Still, if you've got an idea for how to execute a ranking system, go
for it! I'd love to hear it.

Regards,
Asif

p.s. Tell Christian he has to start teaching Be to paint and play
soon. They are never too young... ;>

> Solutions? A ranking system based on player skill that also
modifies
> a players score would certainly take care of the reversal cases, and
> would seem to be worth trying at least...
>
> Have fun!
> Cole

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 21/04/2005 13:57:46 GMT Standard Time,
jamiep.white@... writes:

Solutions? A ranking system based on player skill that also modifies
> a players score would certainly take care of the reversal cases, and
> would seem to be worth trying at least...



** Why not go the whole hog - use everything used in chess.

A grading system - the chess one is fine.

And for tournaments just award 1 point for a win half for a draw and 0 for a
loss.

There will be no giving units away - which is frankly adsurd.

mark mallard


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--Greetings Mark,
The chess system works for chess because of 2 reasons.
1. there are only 3 outcomes and no percieved gradients of those out come.
2. chess has only 1 random element in the game, who goes first,
everything else is skill and skill alone.

As for the grading system that chess uses ( a similar system is used
in the Magic CCG) Its a big fat pain in the but. One that doesnt
really do much to encourage the strongest players to play. We toyed
around with this for Fencing in the Mid 90s the amount of paperwork
was a royal pain in the but.

I suppose if players wanted to go that rout we could experiment with
it, but then you have to figure out how much extra we give for that
newbie that has 1000 pts going out and taking down Frank Gilson and
his 2400+ pts. Also consider that should some one like me who has no
tournament record in Warrior but has plenty of wins in TOG show up I
get the same 1000 pts to start with as a person who is just starting
out wargaming. Do I deserve the same bump for taking Frank that a
newbie does? I dont think so.

Terry
>
> ** Why not go the whole hog - use everything used in chess.
>
> A grading system - the chess one is fine.
>
> And for tournaments just award 1 point for a win half for a draw and
0 for a
> loss.
>
> There will be no giving units away - which is frankly adsurd.
>
> mark mallard
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 22/04/2005 17:26:05 GMT Standard Time,
notalent@... writes:

--Greetings Mark,
The chess system works for chess because of 2 reasons.
1. there are only 3 outcomes and no percieved gradients of those out come.
2. chess has only 1 random element in the game, who goes first,
everything else is skill and skill alone.

** chess players would argue that going first is no advantage. i am one.


As for the grading system that chess uses ( a similar system is used
in the Magic CCG) Its a big fat pain in the but.
** i used the chess system for my local pool team - after some grumbles at
the start everone realised it realy did pick the best team.

One that doesnt
really do much to encourage the strongest players to play.
** i dont follow your argument here.

We toyed
around with this for Fencing in the Mid 90s the amount of paperwork
was a royal pain in the but.
** as i said earlier i did this for my pool team of about 15 people - the
paperwork was pretty miniscule. i used a spread sheet. wargamers tend to play a
lot less games than pool players.


I suppose if players wanted to go that rout we could experiment with
it, but then you have to figure out how much extra we give for that
newbie that has 1000 pts going out and taking down Frank Gilson and
his 2400+ pts. Also consider that should some one like me who has no
tournament record in Warrior but has plenty of wins in TOG show up I
get the same 1000 pts to start with as a person who is just starting
out wargaming. Do I deserve the same bump for taking Frank that a
newbie does? I dont think so.
**
It doesnt work like that. Everyone starts at 100. There are periodic
adjustments, in chess currently once a year, but it will be twice soon, at the
top
end i believe it is more often.

There is also a cap on how much you can gain out of one game. But not how
much you can lose.

Scoring is simple your oponents grade +50 for a win (maximum being your
grade +100) - 50 for a loss. Thirty results are required in the year. All the
games scores are added up with your original grade substituting for any games
less than 30.

In the pool team i used the exact same formalae but the time period was 4
weeks.

Spreadsheet took me like 30 mins every four weeks.

Yes, newbies can be a pain to play if they are good, starting on 100 grade,
but that will be the average grade, and they will have a grade after the next
update.

There are one or two adjustments that can be made to the total pool of
points. Juniors automatically get 10 points added to their grade after
calculation. This is done in chess.

I personally would also include a tournament bonus of say 5 points to the
winner.

These two adjustments would counteract the grade drain that we have in
chess, with people retiring on grades over 100.

After a couple of seasons we should have grades anywhere from 0 - 200 but
the majority would be between 75 - 125.

Then we would all know who the top players are.

mark mallard
**



Terry





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Greetings Mark,
I suppose that you could allways volunteer to start tracking it for a year. Put
up what you would need from the players and see if they are willing to do the
work.
In fencing we only use our rankings to determin who is in which pool. Also I
didn't say thay there was an advantge to going first I said it was random.

Greetings Mark,
I suppose that you could allways volunteer to start tracking it for a year. Put
up what you would need from the players and see if they are willing to do the
work.
In fencing we only use our rankings to determin who is in which pool. Also I
didn't say thay there was an advantge to going first I said it was random.