Skip to main content

Tournament Scoring - Part 5: Other Scoring Systems

Image
By
There are, perhaps, three other types of scoring system: Placement or Rank scoring, hybrid systems that seek to combine DSS and SCS, and Tier scoring systems.  I want to have a look at each system.


Placement or Rank systems

Essentially, these are Supply Centre Scoring systems with the addition of bonus points.  I'm going to have a look at some more regularly used systems.  Again, here is the map I will use as an example:

  1. England - 12 SCs
  2. Russia - 9 SCs
  3. Turkey - 8 SCs
  4. Italy - 5 SCs
France, Germany and Austria-Hungary were eliminated, with 0 SCs each.

C-Diplo

In a drawn game points are awarded for:
  • Participating in the game: 1 (for an online tournament, I'd only award this for participating and not surrendering).
  • Each SC held at the end of the game: 1.
  • The player that 'tops the board' (has the most SCs): 38 pts.
  • The second placed player (second highest number of SCs): 14 pts.
  • The third placed player: 7 pts.
If players are tied for positions, find the average number of points: so, if two players top the board they score 26 points each.  If two players are tied for second they score 10.5 pts each.  The total points awarded in the game there equals 100.  If you solo a game, you score 100 pts and nobody else scores.

Using the eg:
1. England 1 + 12 + 38 = 51 pts.
2. Russia 1 + 9 + 14 = 24 pts.
3. Turkey 1 + 8 + 7 = 16 pts.
4. Italy 1 + 5 = 6 pts
5. Austria-Hungary 1 pt.
= France 1 pt.
= Germany 1 pt.

This is a very... simple system.  Easy to understand.

Detour 98F

In a drawn game points are awarded for:
  • Each SC held at the end of the game: 1
  • Players that survive to Spring 1905: 1
  • The player that tops the board scores the difference in SCs between her and the second placed player(s) as points.  If no single player tops the board, nobody scores points from this.
  • The top four players are awarded points thus: 1st = 4 pts, 2nd = 3 pts, 3rd = 2 pts, 4th = 1 pt.  If players are tied, they receive the lower total.  If players are tied for 4th place, they receive 0 pts.
Scores are then standardised.  A solo scores 110 pts and nobody else scores anything.

Using the eg:
1. England 12 + 1 + 3 + 4 = 20 pts. Game score: 37.74
2. Russia 9 + 1 + 3 = 13 pts. Game score: 24.53
3. Turkey 8 + 1 + 2 = 11 pts. Game score: 20.75
4. Italy 5 + 1 + 1 = 7 pts. Game score: 13.21
Let's assume Austria was eliminated before Spring 1905.
5. France = 1 pt. Game score: 1.89
= Germany = 1 pt. Game score: 1.89
7. Austria = 0 pts. Game score: 0

Again, a pretty simple system.

Super Pastis

In a drawn game points are awarded in two different scenarios as follows.
If the game ends and no single player tops the board:
  • The eliminated players get 1 point for every full year they survived.
  • All survivors score 10 pts.
  • All survivors score 2 pts for each SC they hold at the end of the game.
  • The players who finished on the highest number of SCs score 48/x pts (x = the number of players tying for top spot, also below).
  • Any player(s) 1 SC below the top SC count score 12/x pts.
  • Any player(s) 2 SCs below the top SC count score 6/x pts.
  • Any player(s) 3 SCs below the top SC count score 3/x pts.
If the game ends with a single player topping the board:
  • The eliminated players get 1 point for every full year they survived.
  • All survivors score 10 pts.
  • All survivors score 2 pts for each SC they hold at the end of the game.
  • The player who tops the board scores 51 - the second highest score for being within SC count.
  • Any player(s) 1 SC below the top SC count score 12 pts.
  • Any player(s) 2 SCs below the top SC count score 6 pts.
  • Any player(s) 3 SCs below the top SC count score 3 pts.
Using the eg:
Super Pastis games usually end at the conclusion of 1909.  Let's say Austria was eliminated in 1904, Germany in 1905, France in 1906.
  1. England 9 + 10 + 24 + (51-3) = 91 pts.
  2. Russia 9 + 10 + 18 + 3 = 40 pts.
  3. Turkey 9 + 10 + 16 = 35 pts.
  4. Italy 9 + 10 + 10 = 29 pts.
  5. France 5 pts.
  6. Germany 4 pts.
  7. Austria-Hungary 3 pts.
If Russia had picked one more SC from England. so that England ended on 11 SCs and Russia on 10, the scores for England and Russia would have been:
  1. England 9 + 10 + 22 + (51-12) = 80 pts.
  2. Russia 9 + 10 + 20 + 12 = 51 pts.
If a game ends in a solo, the winner scores 102 pts and every other player scores points for every full year they survived.

This is a more complicated system and designed, primarily, to provide everyone with points and create a different number of points so that there is little need to split ties.

Hybrid scoring systems

These seek to combine DSS and SCS in, often, over-complicated systems.  The idea, I guess, is that players get the best of both systems.  In practice, I think it makes the scoring system unworkable.  Let's look at the system used at Weasel Moot in 2007.

A solo scored 450 pts and nobody scored.

For a draw:
Every player in the draw scored 60/x (where x = the number of players in the draw).
Every survivor scored 10 pts per SC held at the end of the game.
Eliminated players scored 1 for every full year played.
If a single player topped the board she scored 2 pts per SC more than the second placed player(s).

Using our eg:
  1. England 15 + 120 + 6 = 141
  2. Russia 15 + 90 = 105
  3. Turkey 15 + 80 = 95
  4. Italy 15 + 50 = 65
  5. France 5
  6. Germany 4
  7. Austria-Hungary 3

Tier system

The Tier system separates players who solo from others.  If a player solos, she moves up a tier and is only compared, points-wise, with other players who solo.  Here's one such system.

In the case of a draw, positions are based on SC count.
  • 1st scores 7000 pts
  • 2nd scores 6000 pts
  • 3rd scores 5000 pts
  • 4th scores 4000 pts
  • 5th scores 3000 pts
  • 6th scores 2000 pts
  • 7th scores 1000 pts
Players who are eliminated are ranked by the time they were eliminated.

SCs held at the end of the game score 1.

Using the eg:
  1. England 7012
  2. Russia 6009
  3. Turkey 5008
  4. Italy 4005
  5. France 3000
  6. Germany 2000
  7. Austria-Hungary 1000
Very simplistic and, if there are no solos, tie-breakers are more than likely to be needed.

Summary

Without looking at each type of system it is perhaps easy to see that these systems have the same pros and cons as DSS or SCS systems, just mixed together.

Rank, or Placement, systems rely on SCS, so they are basically the same.  And they have bonus points.  I dislike bonus points.  They're added simply to differentiate.  I especially dislike bonus points based on when a player was eliminated or surivived until: What difference does that make at the end of the game?  At the end, if you've not survived, you're out!  Simple.

Hybrid systems can be impenetrable.  I chose a simple system to illustrate this.  Others involved some sort of complexity that is... well, I've said, impenetrable.  What are you playing for in a hybrid system?  A draw?  Collecting SCs?

I once asked this question on the Playdiplomacy forums and someone came back with: "You're playing to the scoring system, of course."  He hadn't understood what I meant.  Yes, you are playing to the scoring system but when that system sends out mixed messages as to what you're playing for...

A Tier system has some appeal.  If someone solos in a tournament, they are lifted above the scoring system, unless more than one player solos.  And if a player solos twice, she's placed on yet another level.  Let's face it, if a player solos more than once in a tournament, she's probably done enough to win anyway... and if the scoring system that's used wouldn't recognise that, it's a damn poor system.

The strength of a Tier system is that you could use almost any scoring system for games that end in a draw.  What you are comparing is like-for-like; solos v. solos, draws v. draws.  But you're back to debating the merits of the scoring system for those games that end in a draw.  And, arguably, it means that a player could have one brilliant game and be completely crap in all her others.  Would she really deserve to win?

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