Nibbler wrote:Just wanted to come back to your last point, Carebear.
I assume you mean this one:
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.
Before we start I want to point out something, when you joined the site you made an introduction with the following statement:
Nibbler wrote:I've played Dip for years now, on and off. Never entered any tournaments but just played happily away.
Then on this thread you made the following gripe which started part of this discussion:
Nibbler wrote:My personal gripes are related: Tournament scoring (for FTF tournaments) [...].
You have never played in a FTF tournament and you want to gripe about their scoring methods?! I can see that from a purely academic discussion. But, unless you attended tournaments just to watch and then discussed them with top players, your research lacks primary source information. Further, based on some of your statements before and below, it sounds like you are unfamiliar with the history of tournament play. I won't claim to be an expert in the area, but I have significant experience with tournaments and have talked with some of the best players in the world about tournament histories and scoring systems.
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.
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.
No. As stated in my "last point", older tournament scoring systems were primarily draw based not SC count. That was the established thinking. Somewhere about 2000 the thinking shifted and people moved away from this towards SC based systems. Today, in the US, I believe DixieCon is the only major FTF event that still uses a draw based system.
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.
Again, this is a relatively recent event ~15 years in the US. Prior to that, they were primarily draw based. This changed for a number of reasons. One of which was the degenerating play towards three-way draws.
To finish off, I am not advocating SC based scoring. Over the years, other mechanisms have been tried and others favoured. Right now though, based on actual experience
, the hobby has drifted towards SC based systems. I have been pushing back because you have made incorrect points about current scoring systems in use, about where the hobby has been, and discounted efforts to design better systems on top of singling out SC based scoring in ways that apply to all scoring methods.
You mentioned you were working on your own system. I applaud the effort. Maybe you will create a better system. Until then...