Sunday, June 19, 2011

Battle Points...and other discourse...

I played in an RTT yesterday.

I won't go into pairings, or scenarios...these were separate to the issue I had with BP scoring.

I don't like all. :)

I took third place, in this RTT, and I LOST my first game.
The scoring was the all.

I lost game 1, with scoring that netted my opponent full BPs after my concession.
Those totalled 8.
I netted 2 points.
My second game, I pulled 8 points, my opponent 2.
My third game, apparently, allowed for the possibility of somewhere in the neighborhood of 16(?) pts max. And I tabled my foe, honestly without just happened (and the first time I have ever tabled someone in tourney).

problem the 1st...consistency.

When developing an event around BPs, EVERY round should score precisely the same.
If there isn't a scoring method that is consistent between rounds, a single favorable pairing (be it RPS matchup, or skill level, or simply scenario favor) towards the end can significantly skew results.

problem the 2nd...transparency.

When putting scenarios to paper, ALL scoring must be 100% clear and concise.
In the first two scenarios, it appeared as though you could acquire bonus points beyond the 8 for a win, 2 for a loss (etc etc).
Yet after round 2 was over, we discovered that the 'bonus points' were actually a sliding scale of score based on various factors. Thus, all rounds were adjusted to scores of 2, 4(?) or 8.
After round three, we were informed THAT round's points were cumulative. If memory serves, that round could net you somewhere around 16 pts by that scoring method.
This meant we ALL played round 3 with 8 points in mind. Few players played for other victory conditions, just shooting for the primary (KP advantage).
I don't think anyone else tabled an opponent in round three but myself, and in doing so I MORE than doubled my total ONE round??? That sounds like a comment to 'problem the first', but it's more a problem of transparency. If other (better placed players) had played 'balls to the walls' to table, they would likely have scored enough to put me out of top 3.

Problem the 3rd...nerfing round 1

I did this...wholly unintentionally, but I did. NOT the way I would have set it up (had it been intent), but I did.
This is the concept of taking a minor win/minor loss round 1 in order to insure favorable pairings throughout the rest of an event. Afterward, if running a hyper-effecient list or simply being a high-speed player, you should find yourself seeding against opponents with slightly weaker lists/skill.
It relies on pulling a more manageable opponent round 1, but it happens often.

This sort of shenanigans was the main motivating factor behind me expanding points spreads/going to win loss with seeding bonus points.

Problem the 4th...points spread.

It's simple, and does not need much expounding.
The greater the points potential/spread between win/loss and bonus points OPENS UP THE FIELD.
When running BPs, you need at least a 10 pt gap between a massacre and being massacred.
That, (combined with bonus points for various advantage, superior play or secondary objectives) 'nerfs' the advantage for first round nerfing AND creates a more accurate seeding for round 2.

I don't feel totally 'clean' with my results from yesterday, and credit the 3rd round scoring directly for that placement...

But I did take the product, in this crazy economy we have!!! :)

No comments:

Post a Comment