This thread is meant for sort of "brain storm". Blitz is closer and closer to main overhaul (new site etc.) so maybe it is a good time.
I wondered about one thing lately - from the very beggining I was always told Blitz is more about gaming than winning and I always felt it really was (and is). That's why scoring system appears to me not exactly right. Quote :
50 points Overwhelming Victory to the Winner
40 points Decisive Victory to the Winner
30 points Medium Victory to the Winner
20 point Minor Victory to the Winner
10 point Draw to both players
5 points Loss of a scenario
Above is more about winning, at least in my opinion.
Shouldnt it be rather that we award certain amount of points for the game reported and distribute it among players depending on level of winning AND loosing ?
For example 60 points for a game (size modifier are obviously different story and should stay as they are):
55 points Overwhelming Victory to the Winner
50 points Decisive Victory to the Winner
45 points Medium Victory to the Winner
40 points Minor Victory to the Winner
30 points Draw to both players
20 points Minor Loss of a scenario
15 points Medium Loss of a scenario
10 points Decisive Loss of a scenario
5 points Overhelming Loss of a scenario
Wouldn't that be more fair ?
regards
maciej
I agree with your way of thinking.
Just before Christmas I finished a game against Seahawk. I was loosing and could see it happening over a number of turns before the end. In real life a commander would withdraw his forces from the battlefield as it would be the most sensible thing to do. However, due to the way our scoring system work, I slogged it out till near to the end, when I surrendered. The reason was that, irrespective of how many of my units I had slaugthered, I still scored 5 points. The only difference it would make for the winner is the level of victory and the points that goes with it. By retreating early enough, it would also let the loser deny the winner a major victory in terms of the number of units killed. A succesfully orchestrated retreat should also be rewarded as that is also some form of achievement.
I see some of the other games on the Blitz are scoring it the way you are suggesting.
I like your suggestion, you have my vote.
Interesting idea.
How do we deal with previously scored games?
Is everyone going to get three turns in, lose a couple of units and figure they might as well go on the defensive and try for a small loss?
Will this system promote aggressive play?
Does that matter?
What other issues does this throw up?
Good food for thought here...nice one bringing it up Maciej.
My first thought is that there needs to be a bigger penalty for losing than the ratios you initially suggested.
I agree that we are here to play and not just to win, however the nature of war, and wargames is that you are trying to win...and that should be rewarded more than not losing heavily.
Just my 2 cents.
I have no idea how difficult this would be to implement at this point, nor whether the new version ofr the site will make things even more difficult (or easier) to change around.
Cheers
Jason,
I am aware of many issues connected, but right now I am off to go for mountains for 3 days, so I write my comments when I am back.
maciej
Walrus Wrote:How do we deal with previously scored games?
Is everyone going to get three turns in, lose a couple of units and figure they might as well go on the defensive and try for a small loss?
Will this system promote aggressive play?
Does that matter?
All previous games are still there and you can see the result too. Shouldn't be too hard to build an agent to recalculate them.
I don't think that the scoring will change the way I play. I always aim to highest possible win and have not retreated from battle even against unbeatable odds. Good example is a campaign against July where I've been beaten three times without a smallest chance to win. Still in fourth battle my brave men will start advancing in a meeting engagement.
I don't think that this system will give any more changes of misuse than the previous, you still have to play well to avoid losing and if you retreat all your troops before contact it will be a big lose for you. I can't see anyone starting a lot of battles just to retreat at earliest point to score points. He will have a very short career here because no one wants to play a battle without contact to enemy.
Walrus Wrote:Is everyone going to get three turns in, lose a couple of units and figure they might as well go on the defensive and try for a small loss?
Will this system promote aggressive play?
Does that matter?
Well maybe to counter 'negative' playing styles, we could leave a minor loss at 10, a medium loss at 5 and any bigger losses than that could either result in a zero or even a negative, like -5 or -10. Just to make sure that the loser at least tries to prevent a negative score by playing a bit more agressively than purely retreating from turn 3
I think the scores for a draw and the 'lesser' losses are to high in the suggested table though. A 30 for a draw is the equivalent for a medium victory in the current system !!
Ratel Wrote:I think the scores for a draw and the 'lesser' losses are to high in the suggested table though. A 30 for a draw is the equivalent for a medium victory in the current system !!
It doesn't matter if the old results are converted to the new scoring, what matters is does this new scoring unbalance points between different ladders. That may make this suggestion impossible to execute at least in this form.
I'll toss in my opinion.
Scoring is like providing feedback to the players to help them improve where they are weak. A raw number really doesn't say much and a qualitative rating says even less. (We use qualitative ratings to avoid getting sued because they are easy to defend in court.) So I suggest that any new system should first establish what its purpose is. If it is just high score, then maybe what we have is good enough. I don't think any winner would mind giving the loser some points as long as the points he gets is commensurable with his win. However if you want informative feedback to both players then one would have to establish what metrics to use. I can throw out some, but others may have some betters. My metric list would be:
Hit ratio - ratio of shots on target to misses
Kill ratio - (basically excludes VH points)
Stealth rating - (several def possible)
Artillery Effectiveness
Aircraft Effectiveness
Leadership
Maybe there should also be two scoring systems. The basic scenario type games (including pvp) really only have one objective which is to win regardless of cost. Be it marginal or decisive, a win is a win. The other type of game are the campaigns. What distinguishes these is that you get to carry your forces onto the next battle. So playing one vs the other requires a different mine set if you intend to fair well in the game. This last statement I say with caution since I haven't played a campaign to end yet, so I don't know how the game scoring and battle to battle force replenishment works. But I will venture to say that maybe a different way of scoring is worth considering. One could use the existing system (maybe modified for score to loser) for the basic game types. For campaigns, maybe accumulative score reflecting performance throughout the campaign could considered.
Unfortunately, not all of these are readily implementable in this game system. Although, I think if the scoring file is dumped to disk instead of just screen display a lot more options become available. Alternative, screen capture the page and then OCR is another option. So we may be stuck with either a score for just the winner or giving the loser some points too.
Thanks
Is there a log file or where do you get the metric list information?