Tournament Scoring - Part 7: The Mystery Scoring System

Introducing the Mystery Scoring System.  This is a name that reflects that the actual points scored isn't known until the tournament is over.

OK, enough.  Let's get to it.  Here's a breakdown of what the system looks like.

The Mystery scoring system

The Mystery scoring system is based on DIAS games, where all survivors share in the draw.  (I have modified it to work with non-DIAS games.)

• In a draw, all players involved in the draw score 100 points.
• For games which are non-DIAS, players that survive but who are not part of the draw receive 10 points.
• Eliminated players receive 0 points.
• If a game ends in a solo, all other players receive 0 points.

Solos are scored using the following process:

• Find the sum of all points scored in games which end in a draw.
• Divide this total by the number of games that ended in the draw - the average number of points awarded.
• Divide the average number of points above by the number of games that ended in a solo. Each player who won a solo victory will receive this number of points.

Tournament Points will then be calculated by dividing each players points total by the number of rounds played in the tournament.

Where a player achieved a solo victory but joined the tournament after the first round and played in all rounds after they joined, Tournament Points are calculated differently, using the round in which they started a game OR the round in which they first scored points as the starting point.

• Calculate the solo victory points for these players. The final divisor remains the number of games that ended in a solo across the whole tournament.
• Add the player's solo points to the standard number of points for solos calculated above and divide by two - the average between the two solo points scores.
• If the player scores points for games that ended in a draw, the calculation is the standard calculation for draw points.
• Divide the total points for the player by the number of rounds under consideration.

Tie-breaker
Where players are tied on tournament points, the Mean Points per Power Difference (MPPD) will be used:

P = Points scored by the player for the power played in a game.

AP = Average points scored by that power in the tournament.

R = Number of rounds in the tournament.

So, find the difference between the points the player scored in a game and the average points scored by the power played. If a player controlled Austria in round 1, subtract the average points Austria scored in the tournament from the player's score. This may be a negative number.  Repeat this for every round played. Find the total of these scores by the number of rounds in the tournament.

If the final round of a tournament features a top board

A top board is typically played in the ultimate round of a tournament. The top seven players from the previous rounds play on this board and the winner of this game is the tournament champion.  If the game ends in a draw, points are awarded as normal, but the tournament can only be won by a player on this board.

Under the Mystery scoring system, though, a top board may not be appropriate.  This is because the number of points awarded for a solo has not been finalised yet (one round hasn't been played) and because the MPPD will also be altered by the results of the final round.

The system can be adapted, however, to include a top board in the final round by calculating points at the end of the penultimate round as if it were the final round to find the top seven players.

If the tournament features a final game

Online it is also common for tournaments to feature qualifying games and then a final.  That is, that a number of rounds are played and the top seven players are then invited to play in a final game.

• If this is the case, the final is a stand alone game, unless it ends in a draw.  If a solo victory is won in the final, that player is the champion.
• If the final ends in a draw, a table is generated featuring only the players in the final.  Points scored for the final will be calculated using the systems described above - the Mystery scoring system and the MPPD.  The final will be taken as an additional round and combined with the qualifying rounds.
• The table will be modified to place players who were involved in the draw above players not involved in the draw, regardless of points.  So, if the game ended in a 4-way draw, those players involved will feature in the top four positions, even though they may have a tournament points score lower than that of players below them.  The player with the highest tournament points after the final has been added to the calcultation will be the tournament champion.

This last part of the process may only be appropriate if the final is anonymous, ie if the players involved don't know which power others are controlling, otherwise the leading player from the qualifying rounds could be easily targetted - which defeats the idea of anonymity!

Features of the Mystery scoring system

Because of the way a solo is scored, solo victories will score significantly higher than draws.  In a four round tournament, a draw is worth 25 points, effectively.  A solo will probably be worth somewhere between 1.5 and 2 times higher.

This is not typical of DSS systems, where a solo is much more highly rated than a draw.  This may lessen the advantage of a player achieving a solo in the final reckoning.  However, for me, a player who achieves a solo in one game and then little else in other games, probably doesn't automatically deserve to be in the final or play on the top board, when compared to a player who attained a draw in every game.  In other words, one good result isn't going to make a player a contender on its own.

Because draws are scored equally, it doesn't seem to matter if a game ends in a 3-way or a 6-way draw: every player scores 100 points.  However, this isn't quite the case.  A 3-way draw is still marginally better than a 4-way because the fewer players involved in a drawn game reduces the number of points available for a solo.  So ending the game early by accepting a large draw isn't going to help many players.

On the other hand, a player who solos in round 1, say, is likely to want later games to end in large draws to maximise their solo points potential.  A player who soloed early on may be identifiable by the number of players they nominate in draws, therefore!

The system should also mean that a player who solos early on in the tournament, who may well be guaranteed a final or top board place under DSS can't truly afford to sit back and coast through later rounds.  This is because these players can never truly know just how many points the solo is worth.  This is especially true if other players achieve a solo!

A large number of players will end the tournament on the same number of points, simply because draws are scored equally across all games.  In a four round tournament, for instance, two draws will score 50 tournament points and a higher than normal number of players will achieve the same score.  This means that the secondary scoring system - MPPD - is key.

Features of MPPD

I took the inspiration from this from a system which used a similar approach but based on supply centre scores: if you play England in a game, the number of SCs you held at the end of the game and the average number of SCs England held in all games are used.

I've used a system that eliminates the use of SCs altogether.  If the primary system is based on draws, then it is a little counter-productive to use SC count to tie-break.  I've looked at previous tournaments and found that MPPD provides a difference in scores that breaks almost all ties.

It also compares performance power-for-power.  This means that, if two players have played the same power, then it compares how they did when playing that power.  So, if one player draws France and Turkey, and another player draws Italy and Austria, they are scored on how they did in comparison to other players who drew their powers, rather than comparing how results for France compare with those for Italy.  Achieving a draw as Italy may well be better than achieving a draw as France, in fact.  This should mean that even the ardent supporter of weighted scoring systems is satisfied!