Just to hopefully invoke discussion

typhoon · 02-15-2021, 11:10 PM,

Just wondering if the scoring system here at the blitz could get a look at. As I understand it now its is done on the scenario size modifier and the number of turns in a scenario. I have always thought this a bit unfair as many of the larger scenarios seldom get played to the actual turn finish. Would not a turns played and scenario size modifier work better as a general system. I know it could be cheated but at the moment you could play 50 turns of a monster scenario feel like your efforts are worth some points but record a major victory that grants lots more points than is warranted.
I mainly play the bigger monster scenarios and some have lasted years where as others have ended in a couple of months or even less each time the points rewarded would be the same 50 turns or 250. I know they did introduce a campaign bonus of 10 points I believe long ago when this was last bought up. Either way I hope others will have some thoughts on this and thanks as always for taking the time to read.

**Mr Grumpy** · 02-16-2021, 06:33 AM,

Thanks for your post, there is no problem at all with putting these subjects up for debate.

Just to clear up a couple of points, the size modifier (SM) does indeed dictate the amount of points that a reported scenario attracts, to arrive at the correct SM you actually cross reference the file size (in KB) with the amount of turns, this is somewhat crude but does reflect the size of the scenario (in units) and the turns to be played.

The bonus for completing a campaign game is 25 points, a campaign game is defined by any scenario of SM8 or greater (the SM goes up to 10).

If I had been around 22 years ago when the Blitz was launched I would certainly have asked for a scenario reporting system that took into account of the actual turns played, of course this would be reliant on players being honest when reporting, however the guys that coded the scoring system decided to go with the system we have now (perhaps anything else was beyond there ability to implement?) and that has underpinned the vast amount of results we have accumulated in two decades, even if we had a wonderkid webmaster I am not sure they would be able to retrospectively change those thousands of game reports if we tried to implement a new scoring system.

So although your idea makes sense, the reality is that the scoring system is what it is. Wink

Green · 02-16-2021, 07:37 AM,

Perhaps there could be some informal rules or guidelines regarding the reporting of results?

For example, one suggestion could be that games where less than 25% of the turns have been played should not be reported. I suspect many campaigns are recorded as Major Victories before reaching this point. Some after only a handful of turns, which distorts the ladder but more importantly the statistics on play balance. Even if players mutually decide to terminate a game and call it a Draw this still distorts the ladder and the stats. Many players already exercise some common sense when it comes to reporting but it would be good to have a more formal approach.

Any guidelines would depend on player honesty but so does everything else. I do not see that as an issue.

**Mr Grumpy** · 02-16-2021, 08:36 AM,

Well I am open to ideas like this (just my personal view), but these informal guidelines would only catch a certain percentage of reports from players who a) know about the guidelines and b) are happy to abide by them, we would still never actually know if the results reported were "completed" games (>25% of turns) or ones that fell under the <25% completed turns guideline? Idea2

If we had the admin resource we could check a game file from each reported game, but even if we could get a file from all the games the resource does not exist to check them all.

Green · 02-16-2021, 09:40 AM,

There is no need to check files. Players can be trusted and anyway both would have to agree to ignore the rules, which makes it less likely.

The guidelines could be mentioned in your "How to join the TOC ladder and info on active/inactive status" sticky thread. At least some people would see it there. Since only one player needs to be aware of it, they could refer their opponent to the thread when the issue of reporting a game arises. This information would soon spread through most of the community.

Some would not be aware of it and some would ignore it. But if it improves the average quality of reporting, the fact that it is not universally adopted is no reason not to implement it. So if something could be decided upon and the solution was posted in this thread and in your sticky, that should be enough to get the message out.

Not sure how something like this is decided. Wait a week or so to allow everyone to make suggestions? Have a poll?