Power SCs Square
England 10 100
France 3 9
Germany 0 0
Italy 7 49
Austria 0 0
Russia 14 196
Turkey 0 0
Sum of Squares 354
England (100/354) x 100 = 28
France (9/354) x 100 = 3
Italy (49/100) x 100 = 14
Russia (196/354) x 100 = 55
Total points 100
Nibbler wrote:So, OK, more sophisticated but still based on SC count.
Nibbler wrote:As for scoring systems which award points behind a solo, see here where the system awards bonus points based on how many SCs you hold at the end of the game as well as moderating the score earned depending what power you're playing and based on draws in tournaments not being DIAS. Whether this system has been used in tournaments, I'm not sure
Nibbler wrote:(And I am working on a different kind of scoring system based purely on game result - win, draw, lose or elimination. This may not produce as clear cut a result as one based on SC count, but could be combined with tie-breaking systems. Needless to say, it isn't easy but it could be worthwhile.)
Nibbler wrote:The main point ( ) is that scoring systems which are based mainly on SC count change the game.
Nibbler wrote:It's fine saying that a player will adapt the way he plays to meet the needs of the scoring system - of course he will. But that doesn't mean the way the games are played should be changed because of the scoring system.
Nibbler wrote:In Dip, the only way SC count matters is owning 18+ SCs. If you finish behind someone who achieves this, you lost. If the game ends with no solo, you either draw (in some fashion) or lost; if you draw, it doesn't matter how many SCs you have, you didn't win. What difference between a player having 17 SCs and one having 1 SC at the end of the game? They both survived but both failed to win. They drew the game, regardless of anything else (assuming a DIAS draw). The player on 17 SCs can argue that he obviously did better in the game than the player on 1 SC - but is this really "obvious"? How long had that player with 1 SC fought for survival? Is that any worse play than just failing to win? Only if you take SC accumulation as being important. If nothing else, the player with a single SC did his job in preventing the game leader winning.
Nibbler wrote:Just because something has been that way "forever" doesn't make it the best way to do something. Just because it is accepted for what it is doesn't make it good.
Nibbler wrote:Just wanted to come back to your last point, Carebear.
Carebear wrote:In fact, older tournament systems tended to be draw-based. It was found that they tended more towards three-way results and had other less desired aspects. That is why you see more SC based scoring. I am making the argument that people haven't really found something better. If there was a better regarded system, it would be more universally used.
Nibbler wrote:I've played Dip for years now, on and off. Never entered any tournaments but just played happily away.
Nibbler wrote:My personal gripes are related: Tournament scoring (for FTF tournaments) [...].
Nibbler wrote:I don't think that many people have looked for a different kind of scoring system.
Nibbler wrote:Almost all the systems use SC count in some way, for whatever reason. I tend to think this is either through the prior established thinking that, in some way, placing players based on SC count matters.
Nibbler wrote:Tournament scoring systems adopted the same principle: SCs are of exaggerated importance. While most do rate solos as the most significant result, this isn't always the way it works out.
Carebear wrote:Nibbler wrote:I don't think that many people have looked for a different kind of scoring system.
I am a bit incredulous that you made this statement. The game is about 60 years old. In that time, there have been major religious-esque discussions about various aspects of the game, including tournament scoring. You need only look at the World Diplomacy Database's documented Scoring Systems to see over 50 different systems broken down into roughly five categories (kind). The Used Scoring systems for North America alone contains about the same number with a lot of undocumented systems listed. You go to the various Diplomacy websites there are additional articles about scoring systems. Needless(?) to say people have "looked" to build a better mousetrap.
... is what I said, rather than the view Carebear seems to take about it being different systems.Nibbler wrote:I don't think that many people have looked for a different kind of scoring system.
as it might be.Carebear wrote:incredulous
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests