Two Tier Scoring

[Restitution]

I am hosting a test game for my version. If anybody wants to join, please PM me.

[jay65536]

jay65536, when you mentioned you designed this system for "tournament games", not "cash games" - do you think mine or Mercy's system would be better for cash games? Because, when it comes to implementing a system for webdip, all games are cash games.

Since this thread is very long, I guess let me start by recapping what I remember yours and Mercy's systems to be?

Restitution's system: On a 170-point scale, in any draw, first place gets 5 times their center count, second place gets 5 times their center count, all remaining (DIAS) survivors split all remaining points equally. In case of ties, a 3+ way tie for first is an equally split draw, and a tie for second means only the top player gets their center count as their score.

Mercy's system: On a 180-point scale, in any draw in which no one has more than 13 centers, the draw is equally split. In an Nway draw in which someone is topping the board with 14 or more centers, the board-topper get 90 points and the remaining survivors each get 90/(N-1) points. In case of two powers tied at 14 or more centers in an Nway draw, the other (DIAS) survivors each get 90/(N-1) points, and the joint board-toppers each receive 45 + 45/(N-1) points.

So I guess from here, the first thing I'd say is, asking which system is "better" is futile. You can't really theoretically argue about this stuff without some kind of testing to know how players react (both in terms of how they play to the system and also how well they like it).

Restitution, your system is different enough from mine that I wouldn't presume to say which is "better"--but I think you are really underestimating how much different it is from mine. Changing the incentives for second place actually changes a lot. Not only does it remove a good deal of the incentive for second place to compete against first place, but also, the "remaining" part of the pot that is split equally is now going to be a lot smaller. What that means is that I think this system is going to play much more similarly to just a straight center-based system than to my two-tier idea.

The exception is if there's a tie for first or second. In particular, ties for second are handled very weirdly. For example, in your system, a 15/8/7/4 finish is worth less for the small power than if it were 15/8/8/3 (on a 170-point scale, it would be 27.5 for the 4-center result but 31.67 for the 3-center result). That seems like a "perverse incentive", which seems like a problem.

But in general, I just think if you think your system's good, you may as well just use an even simpler system of straight points per center. I think the top two powers having only center-based incentives will basically make the games play as if they were all center-based. (Contrast with my system--or Mercy's--where the second-place power has much different scoring incentives than the top power.)

As far as Mercy's system goes, it is similar to mine in structure. Some differences are:

1) There is one huge leap, from 13 to 14 centers, and no incentive to keep gaining centers after that, as long as you're topping the board but can't solo.

2) There is no "buffer zone" at the top--a board top is a board top. So for example, in a 17/16/1 3way draw, the scores break down 90/45/45. (In my system, the 1-center power still gets 45 but the top 2 would each get 67.5.)

3) Below the 14-center threshold, draw size is the only scoring motivator.

So, I do think this system is clearly better for "long games" than it is for tournament play. But is it better for long games than the other two systems (Restitution's or mine)? I'm not sure. That's not rhetorical--I'm really not sure. Here are some ways I think the gameplay could end up being different.

For one thing, I'd reiterate my observation from earlier, that by having such a high threshold in (3), the system will almost always make draw size the primary motivator of play. As an example, let's say it's 10/9/9/3/3. In my version of two-tier, each of the top three powers can claim a good score by hurting another top power--so the 3-center powers could have interesting roles to play. In Mercy's version, since no one is close to 14, the motivation for the top powers to compete is simply not there. And it doesn't show up until someone starts getting in striking distance of 14.

But now, on the other hand, let's say it's 13/10/6/5 in an endgame. In my version of two-tier, the scores break down 66/38/38/38; if the game ended 15/11/8 (for example, if the 5-center power were whittled out), it would be 78/51/51. All three powers have gained. (The difference from regular CP is that the top power is gaining from gaining centers--if the two middle powers tried to whittle out the fourth power but freeze out the leader, the leader could step in and stop it with no scoring hit.)

But in Mercy's system, each power is currently earning 45. If the 13-center power crossed the 14-center threshold, and the draw were whittled down to three, it would be 90/45/45. In other words, once someone nears 14 centers, the motivation to keep that power under 14 is TOTALLY driving the action--the smaller powers have (seemingly) no incentive to do anything but stop the leader.

That, in turn, could lead to the exact situation Mercy and I don't want--the leader giving up centers to whittle the draw down for scoring purposes. In order to get past 14 in this scenario, the leader would have to convince one of the smaller powers that they'll be whittled out if they don't help the leader get over that threshold. In other words, I think this system would be prone to "half-solo-throwing", just as draw-based games are prone to actual solo-throwing. It would, in other words, play very similar to a draw-based system in a LOT of cases. If you like draw-based scoring, maybe this is not a drawback, but then why not just keep playing CP?

I could be wrong about my assessments, of course, and this the point of saying I want to try play tests.

[jay65536]

For anyone who may have been interested, the original article has been revised.