Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

> Scott - from the umpire's p.o.v., is there anything that the
player can do to try to get games to move faster?
In the extreme, where your opponent claims sudden diahorrea and
vanishes for 3 hours.. any remedy? {I know, Pepto-Bismol..}

As a bit of background folks, Ewan's been on this issue with me for
years. I'm not going to say anything here that'll make him happy or
is new:):)

Short answer to the first question is that the point system is the
impetus to making the game move faster. It's the least intrusive
way of doing that. If players still choose to "play slow", then I
feel it's up to the faster player to have a game plan to get around
that. Sorry but I feel anything else is too intrusive. If a player
is playing not to lose, then a really good player should have
thought ways to bring the battle to the opponent, even in a 4 bound
game. I've seen it done time and time again over the years.

The second question hasn't arisen in my experience. If a player has
to bail for 3 hours, I'd consider the game a forfeit. An hour? A
forfeit. 10 minutes? Probably not.

To me, this issue is like the whole dice issue of last year. Yes it
happens, but not often enough to make it a chronic thing worth
revamping the format. Yes, if it happens to you once, it might be
too much. I don't have a good answer to that. When I was in Derby,
*every* one of my opponents was slow, two were painfully slow. It
never stopped me from getting to grips and forcing decisive battles.

[Derek Downs]

Scott Holder: 4-2, 5-3, 5-2 (Dave Markowitz, Dave Stiers, Frank Gilson)

Scott would never do this. :)

Derek


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

[Ewan McNay]

irobot00 wrote:

>
>>Scott - from the umpire's p.o.v., is there anything that the
>
> player can do to try to get games to move faster?
> In the extreme, where your opponent claims sudden diahorrea and
> vanishes for 3 hours.. any remedy? {I know, Pepto-Bismol..}
>
> As a bit of background folks, Ewan's been on this issue with me for
> years. I'm not going to say anything here that'll make him happy or
> is new:):)

That and the scoring system quirk that makes it better to win 5-3 than
5-0. Hey, fix the two and I'll be quiet - that should give Jon at least
sufficient incentive... ;)

> Short answer to the first question is that the point system is the
> impetus to making the game move faster. It's the least intrusive
> way of doing that. If players still choose to "play slow", then I
> feel it's up to the faster player to have a game plan to get around
> that. Sorry but I feel anything else is too intrusive. If a player
> is playing not to lose, then a really good player should have
> thought ways to bring the battle to the opponent, even in a 4 bound
> game. I've seen it done time and time again over the years.

4 bounds? Yeah, often. 2.5, as in the NICT? Pretty damn difficult. I
guess I am just hoping for a line some place, or a way to say after two
hours "Hey, Scott. I've taken 5 min total and we're still in bound 1.
Help, please?"

> The second question hasn't arisen in my experience. If a player has
> to bail for 3 hours, I'd consider the game a forfeit. An hour? A
> forfeit. 10 minutes? Probably not.

OK. I'll just bring a good book to the table and claim I am looking for
inspiration .

[Yes, to all those who don't know me, this is mostly frustration at *rare*
games. One in particular. But that one had a huge impact, as may be
obvious!]

OK. So, what would I actually suggest? Well, I do like the chess clock.
The UK has gone to a system for DBM where if some number of bounds (8?)
is not reach with 15 min left, they go to blitz - you get 2 min to move
your troops each bound, or some such, until a minimum bound number is
reached. That would work well (and shows that it's not just me with these
problems, really!) and does not give any potential for poor impression to
bystanders nor assign blame for the slow pace.

If the problem is rare, then so would the impact of such be. I don't
really think that it is; I think that the better players have to some
extent mitigated by going to smashmouth armies which are able to get fast
results one way or the other in few bounds; having more bounds available
might have the additional benefit of allowing more finesse armies to return.

E

[scott holder]

> That and the scoring system quirk that makes it better to win 5-3
than
> 5-0. Hey, fix the two and I'll be quiet - that should give Jon at
least
> sufficient incentive... ;)

That "quirk" as you continue to call it was looked at and alternatives
were playtested extensively 10 years ago. The alternatives were worse
and resulted in bizarre, non-sensical results. The current weighted
system has 10+ years of play and has held up nicely. I have no
interest in revisiting this dead horse but wanted to reply so that new
folks here understood that I understand the nuances of the issue, have
explored alternatives and have had good reasons for not using them.

scott

[joncleaves]

Ewan
You and I are in agreement on the speed issue. But unless the umpire is willing
to enforce, there is no real solution except player enforcement.... :)

As for the scoring system, 14.0 essentially represents 'majority opinion'. The
best (really only) way to change that is to offer an alternative and have the
playership tell us they want that one more...

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:49:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re:Speed of Play (was Turns)





irobot00 wrote:

>
>>Scott - from the umpire's p.o.v., is there anything that the
>
> player can do to try to get games to move faster?
> In the extreme, where your opponent claims sudden diahorrea and
> vanishes for 3 hours.. any remedy? {I know, Pepto-Bismol..}
>
> As a bit of background folks, Ewan's been on this issue with me for
> years. I'm not going to say anything here that'll make him happy or
> is new:):)

That and the scoring system quirk that makes it better to win 5-3 than
5-0. Hey, fix the two and I'll be quiet - that should give Jon at least
sufficient incentive... ;)

> Short answer to the first question is that the point system is the
> impetus to making the game move faster. It's the least intrusive
> way of doing that. If players still choose to "play slow", then I
> feel it's up to the faster player to have a game plan to get around
> that. Sorry but I feel anything else is too intrusive. If a player
> is playing not to lose, then a really good player should have
> thought ways to bring the battle to the opponent, even in a 4 bound
> game. I've seen it done time and time again over the years.

4 bounds? Yeah, often. 2.5, as in the NICT? Pretty damn difficult. I
guess I am just hoping for a line some place, or a way to say after two
hours "Hey, Scott. I've taken 5 min total and we're still in bound 1.
Help, please?"

> The second question hasn't arisen in my experience. If a player has
> to bail for 3 hours, I'd consider the game a forfeit. An hour? A
> forfeit. 10 minutes? Probably not.

OK. I'll just bring a good book to the table and claim I am looking for
inspiration .

[Yes, to all those who don't know me, this is mostly frustration at *rare*
games. One in particular. But that one had a huge impact, as may be
obvious!]

OK. So, what would I actually suggest? Well, I do like the chess clock.
The UK has gone to a system for DBM where if some number of bounds (8?)
is not reach with 15 min left, they go to blitz - you get 2 min to move
your troops each bound, or some such, until a minimum bound number is
reached. That would work well (and shows that it's not just me with these
problems, really!) and does not give any potential for poor impression to
bystanders nor assign blame for the slow pace.

If the problem is rare, then so would the impact of such be. I don't
really think that it is; I think that the better players have to some
extent mitigated by going to smashmouth armies which are able to get fast
results one way or the other in few bounds; having more bounds available
might have the additional benefit of allowing more finesse armies to return.

E




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> As for the scoring system, 14.0 essentially represents 'majority
> opinion'. The best (really only) way to change that is to offer an
> alternative and have the playership tell us they want that one more...

Oh, I don't expect 14.0 to change . [And for those not understanding
the deceased equine: because one gets a % of opponent's score, it's better
for the winning side for that score to be increased, e.g. by losing 5-3 as
opposed to 5-0; my suggested fix was to have the % only be of score not
gained against you.]

I am willing to run a poll - heck, why not. One moment.

E

> I have no interest in revisiting this dead horse but wanted to
> reply so that new folks here understood that I understand the
> nuances of the issue, have explored alternatives and have had good
> reasons for not using them.
>
> scott

Hey, no problem Scott. Nice to have you back 'State-side.

For what's it worth, I think the current system makes a lot of sense.
If I look up at the standings and see:

Ewan Mcnay: 3 x 5-0 victories (Asif, Gary, Cole)

Scott Holder: 4-2, 5-3, 5-2 (Dave Markowitz, Dave Stiers, Frank Gilson)

....then you can bet top dollar I expect S. Holder to have a higher
standing in the tournament. Beating up on newbies isn't something to
crow to the world about in my opinion. Beating up on the elite?
Definitely worth a few glory points.

Regards,
Asif Chaudhry

[Ewan McNay]

shahadet_99 wrote:
> Hey, no problem Scott. Nice to have you back 'State-side.
>
> For what's it worth, I think the current system makes a lot of sense.
> If I look up at the standings and see:
>
> Ewan Mcnay: 3 x 5-0 victories (Asif, Gary, Cole)
>
> Scott Holder: 4-2, 5-3, 5-2 (Dave Markowitz, Dave Stiers, Frank Gilson)
>
> ....then you can bet top dollar I expect S. Holder to have a higher
> standing in the tournament. Beating up on newbies isn't something to
> crow to the world about in my opinion. Beating up on the elite?
> Definitely worth a few glory points.

Scott and I agree there.

But if while Scott is beating Dave, Dave and Frank as you note, Jon plays
them and wins 5-0, 5-0, 5-0, he gets no benefit. If Jon beats me, Tim
Brown, and Todd Kaeser 5-0, 5-0 and 5-0, he is in danger of *losing* to
Scott because Scott has gained 0.8 + 1.5 + 1.0 points by allowing his
opponents to score against him - even without one of those wins being a
5-pointer.

Am I being clear, or not? [Not like I mind you disagreeing , just want
to make sure you have my position right before disagreeing with it!]

[joncleaves]

Asif, you have exactly nailed the point behind the system in use now.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: shahadet_99 <shahadet_99@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:20:52 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re:Speed of Play (was Turns)




> I have no interest in revisiting this dead horse but wanted to
> reply so that new folks here understood that I understand the
> nuances of the issue, have explored alternatives and have had good
> reasons for not using them.
>
> scott

Hey, no problem Scott. Nice to have you back 'State-side.

For what's it worth, I think the current system makes a lot of sense.
If I look up at the standings and see:

Ewan Mcnay: 3 x 5-0 victories (Asif, Gary, Cole)

Scott Holder: 4-2, 5-3, 5-2 (Dave Markowitz, Dave Stiers, Frank Gilson)

....then you can bet top dollar I expect S. Holder to have a higher
standing in the tournament. Beating up on newbies isn't something to
crow to the world about in my opinion. Beating up on the elite?
Definitely worth a few glory points.

Regards,
Asif Chaudhry






Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[scott holder]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Ewan
> You and I are in agreement on the speed issue. But unless the
umpire is willing to enforce, there is no real solution except player
enforcement.... :)

What exactly should the umpire be "enforcing"? Seriously, everybody
knows I'm a fast player and designed the current point system to
reward fast play. Aside from the chess clock idea (which I don't
like) or some "blitz" end of game stuff that won't work in the Warrior
system, what can be done to "enforce" fast play aside from penalizing
players where they hurt, ie., the point system? Yes, players playing
not to lose are what we're talking about here. My experience has been
that those players, like water, will find a way.....to continue
playing not to lose.

scott

[joncleaves]

Ewan, I do think (know, actually....) that the fact that we play Swiss impacts.
Given that the example below is a three round swiss, those combinations are not
possible.

I think we'd benefit from a look at possible alternative systems. But I will
also say that you cannot look at the one we use in a theoretical sense without
doing a set of matchups that take into account swiss pairings. Once a person
loses, he's not going to meet another player who is on a 3 x 5-0 run....

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:27:16 -0400
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re:Speed of Play (was Turns)





shahadet_99 wrote:
> Hey, no problem Scott. Nice to have you back 'State-side.
>
> For what's it worth, I think the current system makes a lot of sense.
> If I look up at the standings and see:
>
> Ewan Mcnay: 3 x 5-0 victories (Asif, Gary, Cole)
>
> Scott Holder: 4-2, 5-3, 5-2 (Dave Markowitz, Dave Stiers, Frank Gilson)
>
> ....then you can bet top dollar I expect S. Holder to have a higher
> standing in the tournament. Beating up on newbies isn't something to
> crow to the world about in my opinion. Beating up on the elite?
> Definitely worth a few glory points.

Scott and I agree there.

But if while Scott is beating Dave, Dave and Frank as you note, Jon plays
them and wins 5-0, 5-0, 5-0, he gets no benefit. If Jon beats me, Tim
Brown, and Todd Kaeser 5-0, 5-0 and 5-0, he is in danger of *losing* to
Scott because Scott has gained 0.8 + 1.5 + 1.0 points by allowing his
opponents to score against him - even without one of those wins being a
5-pointer.

Am I being clear, or not? [Not like I mind you disagreeing , just want
to make sure you have my position right before disagreeing with it!]





Yahoo! Groups Links






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

Scott,

I understand that you play tested the scoring system and that it works. My
question is why did you not do it in reverse. If you won 5-0 you got the
points in the ratio that you get if you win 5-3 etc. I think that the
assumption is if you win 5-0 you played against a weak player and winning 5-3
meant
you played against a good player. After the first round since you match
winners against losers does this still apply? I was just curious what you play
testing found out.

Mike Kelly


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

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
> That and the scoring system quirk that makes it better to win 5-3
than
> 5-0. Hey, fix the two and I'll be quiet - that should give Jon at
least
> sufficient incentive... ;)

This is a huge fast-play incentive, btw. But like many cuts both
ways (punishes both players) causing its own problem I guess.

> The UK has gone to a system for DBM where if some number of
bounds (8?)
> is not reach with 15 min left, they go to blitz - you get 2 min to
move
> your troops each bound, or some such, until a minimum bound number
is
> reached.

Actually, imo this is not a bad idea at all. It is still kind of
mellow and "nice" non-intrusive but kicks into gear in the event
that there may be an issue.

I like it, if you need to do something I vote to take a look at this.

Aleviates any need for chess clocks.

> > If I look up at the standings and see:
> >
> > Ewan Mcnay: 3 x 5-0 victories (Asif, Gary, Cole)
> >
> > Scott Holder: 4-2, 5-3, 5-2 (Dave Markowitz, Dave Stiers, Frank
Gilson)
> >
> > ....then you can bet top dollar I expect S. Holder to have a
higher
> > standing in the tournament.
> Scott and I agree there.
>
> But if while Scott is beating Dave, Dave and Frank as you note, Jon
> plays them and wins 5-0, 5-0, 5-0, he gets no benefit. If Jon
> beats me, Tim Brown, and Todd Kaeser 5-0, 5-0 and 5-0, he is in
> danger of *losing* to Scott because Scott has gained 0.8 + 1.5 +
> 1.0 points by allowing his opponents to score against him - even
> without one of those wins being a 5-pointer.
>
> Am I being clear, or not? [Not like I mind you disagreeing ,
> just want to make sure you have my position right before
> disagreeing with it!]

{Silly teasing mode on}

Ahh....the return of my favourite stoat! How I doth admire the
chance to joust with thee! ;>

{S.t. mode off}

(a little more) Seriously, YES Ewan, I did see the point of your
argument - you were quite vociferous in explaining your disdain for
the mathematics involved earlier. ;>

Besides taking into account Jon's equally valid point (posted
earlier in this thread) about Swiss style tourney play and the size
of field neccessary to accomodate your number of winning players, I'd
like to point out another fact that causes me to favor this point
system as is.

Your argument seems to be predisposed towards looking at
singular results against only the 1 opponent who is in title
contention (the 3 x 5-0 results for Jon vs the 3 winning scores for
Scott).

But as I understand the current point system, you get a
percentage of the TOTAL points of any opponents you defeat.

Hence, to use your chosen paragons of great play vs. the names I
picked:

If Dave M., Dave S., and Frank have final tourney scores of 12, 13,
and 12

and Ewan, Tim and Todd have scores of 10, 10, 10 (having notched up 5-
0 wins vs their other opponents in the other 2 rounds):

,Then it would be my argument that Scott had the tougher "play
schedule" than Jon.

You argue that "Yeah, but your holding it against Jon that he
whipped his opponents while Scott eeked out wins against his"...

...But I would argue that if those 3 players all coughed up the
big "donut" to Jon, obviously there was some lack on their part that
they couldn't even rout/destroy one lousy LI unit. Obviously there
was some let down on their skill level or bad luck that day, and Jon
notched up some eas(ier) opponents than Scott that day.

Your counter argument of "But perhaps Jon is that much more skilled
than Scott that he could hold his opponents to nothing"....

...Invariably falls to my inescapable logic of "Well if Jon was THAT
much better that he can hold his opponent to zero points, why did he
not just "feed" some lousy LI units to his sad-sack opponents and get
some cheap bonus points that way? I mean, at 5-0, he is OBVIOUSLY in
control of the game. Granted, if you feed units too soon, you might
endanger your ability to fight, but if he's on his way to a 5-0 win,
he can probably see some places late in the game where he can make
a "dumb mistake" and "accidentally" lose some little units that don't
matter to him in the long run.

Sorry Ewan, but even after understanding your argument, I'm still
siding with Scott on this one - the point system seems good to me
right now.

- Asif Chaudhry

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, darnd022263@a... wrote:
> Scott Holder: 4-2, 5-3, 5-2 (Dave Markowitz, Dave Stiers, Frank
Gilson)
>
> Scott would never do this.
>
> Derek

Shhh! Play nice Derek. ;> Besides, I'm a newbie - I'm still
picking names out of a hat. Grabbing Scott's name with the other 3
was easy, given I'd seen most of them from the Cold Wars posts.

Heck! - I haven't even met 99% any of the people I'm chatting with
here.

Although it helps that of that 1%, Ewan does about 80% of the talking
on the yahoogroup <big grin> - helps me to feel more a part of the
community.

Although, to be fair, and in Ewan's defense, he probably has figured
out that if you add together his multidinous posts, with Dave "Silent
Assassin" Markowitz's lack thereof, the 2 of them probably average
out to about the same as most other listees. ;>

-Asif Chaudhry