RE: Discussion on scoring systems ...

Yeah, R and S are obvious.  I'll think about your recommendation.  Preserving the ratio is a good idea; my only objection at this point is that I've published the system on the games and I'm hesitant to change it after players have agreed to it.
RE: A.  While people are venomous in face to face play, I don't find that in a lot of my on-line play experience.  To be sure, there are exceptions.  The biggest problem I have as a GM and as a player is that people don't talk after 1901.  As a GM, I see the number of press go down by much more than half, even in "super" games with people who are well known.  I wanted something to promote more communication and this seemed a good way to do that.
I don't understand "an unlevel playing field" in "E".  Could you provide an example?
Ok, now on to "C".  I remember this being the most contentious and understandably so.  However, it's not the only measure.  I tried to create something where a TM would look at multiple aspects of play.  But, I also wanted a measure that would look at the strategic ability (i.e. movement) and also got away from an SC focus.  In the game you played over the weekend, what if you were F or G?  Wouldn't you want the points since your strategy was so effective?  I had thought of weighting each component but that took a degree of complexity I don't think people are ready for.  I'm pretty sure that "R" and "A" would rate higher, "S" coming in close behind, followed by "E" and "C".  I don't know how far they would, but I'm pretty sure that "C" would come into play, just with less emphasis.  I guess what I'm asking is would it be more palatable if "C" only accounted for 5 or 10% of your score instead of 20%?
One more thing I'm not sure I made clear.  This only works in on-line play; doing this face-to-face would be ridiculous and an exercise in futility and frustration.

 -- Sam
W: 425.228.3440 x.3363
P: 206.469.1305
F: 425.656.5558

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Maletsky
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:52 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dpjudge] Discussion on scoring systems ...




Going through the criteria one by one:

R:  I find it difficult to imagine anyone having a serious objection to the "R" criterion.  You might consider adding some sort of appeal to the GM process for cases of extreme tragedy... like, someone was maimed & lying in a hospital, someone's immediate family suddenly died, etc.  But the basic concept is sound, regardless.

A:  The acronym seems to break down here... it could very well be that someone sends a ton of venomous e-mails, and wins many "a"micability points.  I'm on the fence about this one, and I'd like to hear more of the rationale why you think it's a positive scoring element.

C:  I'm not a fan of this one, and I'll give you an example from this past weekend why I'm not.  I was Turkey on a board where come S1902, it was extremely obvious to me that F/G were married, and were going to roll England faster than I would be able to break out of my corner, unless I did something about it.  However, being in Turkey, I couldn't directly affect events in the West.  So, I established good relationships with A/I/R, waived my build in 1902, and tried to push them into F/G before it was too late.  Sadly, R misordered frequently and A/I, while individually trusting me, didn't trust each other, so the prophecy came true and F/G both finished in excess of 10, well over stalemate lines, while I was only at 6 when the game was called.  Point being, I made the optimal strategic decision for my position, and under "C"apability scoring, I would be punished.  Note that tempo isn't just about moving one's own position forward in a vacuum... it's about moving one's position forward relative to the tempo of everyone else on the board.

E:  I think this criterion has one significant merit, and one significant cost, and that it's a matter of preference how you end up weighing them.  The merit is that it provides small powers motivation to remain active, particularly newer players; the cost is that it creates an unlevel playing field, that is to say, game 1 has more total points available than game 2.

S:  For sake of ease, preserving the same ratio, you might want to make a solo worth 68 points, and have 34 points divided on the basis of number of supply centers.  Center-based scoring is one of the least objectionable, in my experience, so I count this as a positive element.






DISCLAIMER: 
This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s)
and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are
notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this
information is strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in
error, please notify the sender then delete this message.