Skip to main content

Tournament Scoring - Part 3: Draw Size Scoring (DSS)

Image
By
If we're looking to score Diplomacy games based on the rules of the game, there are just three outcomes: a win, a draw, and a loss.  A scoring system based on these outcomes would therefore be based on whether the game was won, or whether it ended in a draw.  These systems are called Draw Size Scoring systems (DSS).


The basic model for DSS systems is:

  • The result is based on how the game ends only.
  • If you win the game outright (solo), you take all the points in the game.
  • If you are part of the draw at the end of the game, you receive the points avaialble in the game divided by the number of players in the draw.
  • If you lose the game, you receive 0 (zero) points.
The most basic version of this is the Calhamer Point system, designed by the great and good ABC himself.  If you soloed, you earned a point.  If you drew the game, you scored a number of points based on how many people you drew with.  So a 4-way draw would provide 0.25 points, a 5-way draw 0.20 points.

Other versions use the 100 point total, or even a common multiple of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7, such as 42 or 420, which means that only whole numbers are involved.  Sometimes, players may be able to discount the lowest scoring game (or games).

Evaluation based on objectives

In a previous post I identified what objectives a scoring system should meet.  Let's have a look at how DSS meets these objectives.  Green objectives are achieved, orange objectives are partially achieved, and red objectives are not achieved.
  • Players should be aiming to win the game.  The highest number of points on offer is for a solo.  However, because a solo isn't worth more than a specific number of draws, eg two 2-player draws or three 3-player draws, solos aren't over-exaggerated.  Still, some systems will score a solo as being slightly higher than this, or reduce the points on offer for draws.
  • If unable to win, players should be playing to (be included in the) draw.  As the system is based on the result of the game, this is objective is also met.
  • As far as possible, being able to play each game as you would a stand alone game.  Although the games are scored on results and therefore the objectives of a stand alone game, because more points are awarded for fewer players being involved in the draw, this results in draw-whittling.  This is when players deliberately play to eliminate players to get a better result.  Not how a stand alone game is normally played.
  • Within the practicalities of the tournament, games should be played to a natural finish.  Again, draw-whittling means that the game doesn't necessarily finish as it would do naturally, although this is the only aspect that is affected.
  • Games should be fun and interesting, not predictable.  This is the main problem with this system. Players tend to play to draw, although the best draw they can get.  Assuming you can be part of a 4-way draw at worst, you can usually guarantee doing fairly well.  Obviously, the fewer players in the draw is better but a draw is usually the best result you can get.  This means that players are not often prepared to use risky strategies, and alliances are rarely broken in order to try for a solo.  The big criticism of DSS scoring is that it produces boring games.
  • Players being able to play a game which allows them to play to the scoring system.  It's a simple scoring system and easy to play towards.

Practical Considerations

One of the biggest problems this system has, over a small series of games which is the norm for a tournament, is that scoring will not easily differentiate between players.  Most games will end in a draw and, on pure DSS scoring, it's possible that many players will end on the same number of points.

This often means that tie-breakers are used.  For instance, players on equal points may be differentiated by the number of games they had better results in.  Here's an example:
Pos  Player   Pts     Solos  2-way   3-way   4-way
1.     Anne     100     1         -            -            -
2.     Barry    100      -         2            -           -
3.     Colin    100      -         1            -           2

The problem is that you are still going to get ties, so it may be that bonus points are awarded, and this is often linked to the number of SCs a player has when the game ends.  When this happens, however, it can mean that grabbing of SCs becomes as important as getting a result.


TOURNAMENT SCORING series:

  1. Tournament Games are Variants
  2. What should a good scoring system do?
  3. Draw Size Scoring (DSS)
  4. Supply Centre Scoring (SCS)
  5. Other Scoring Systems
  6. Summarising the Problem with Scoring Systems
  7. The Mystery Scoring System Explained
  8. Does Mystery Scoring meet the objectives?

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

What do you think?

Popular posts from this blog

Tournament Scoring - Part 4: Supply Centre Scoring

By
The thing with tournaments is that a lot of games end in a draw.  This means that DSS systems aren't necessarily going to produce a great result because a lot of players could well finish on the same score.  An alternative to DSS is a  Supply Centre Scoring  (SCS) system. I'm going to use the game above as an example to explain SCS systems.  (The game is from Playdiplomacy and so the colours are different from those I use for my maps.)  The game ended with the following outcome: England - 12 SCs Russia - 9 SCs Turkey - 8 SCs Italy - 5 SCs France , Germany and Austria-Hungary were eliminated, with 0 SCs each. Supply Centre Scoring systems are based on the number of SCs the players owned at the end of the game.  The basic pattern is: A solo results in all the points available.  No other player scores points. A draw will be scored using the number of SCs the players hold at the end of the game.  In the above game, on ...
Post a Comment
Read more

WHAT IS DIPLOMACY? - Part 5: Variants

By
A variant is a game of Diplomacy where the rules or context are different from the standard game as designed by Allan B Calhamer.  There are three types of variants: context variants, map variants and rules variants. Context Variants Context variants are those games that are played with a wider context.  They may be tournament games, other scored games, or remote format  games.  These aren't often recognised as variants as such, as variants tend to be within the other two types discussed below.  But the context the game is being played in will have an impact on how some players will play the game, and so they are certainly a variation of Dip. Maybe they should be called "variations" rather than variants but does it really matter? Map Variants Diplomacy has been adapted to different maps, or boards.  Not surprising as the general idea of the game, pitting competing powers against each other in a localised region and time in history, can be adapte...
Post a Comment
Read more

Tournament Scoring - Part 1: Tournament Games are Variants

By
Tournaments have come to be a big part of Diplomacy, whether face-to-face or online.  If you're running a tournament you need to be able to find a winner, and so a scoring system has to be introduced.  In this series of posts I'm going to look at different types of scoring systems and discuss the pros and cons of each one.  And I'll end the series by discussing my own, as yet, prototype system. The first thing to be aware of is that a scoring system will change the way people play the game.  It has to do.  If you're playing and you need to do well then you need to play to the system.  This means that the way the system affects the way Diplomacy is played. Tournament games are already a variant of Dip.  Ideally, they wouldn't be.  Players would be able to play x  number of games and play them as they would any other game.  In FTF play, you'd expect the game to run until they're finished or time runs out.  Online, there should ...
Post a Comment
Read more