I don't do Discord, so I can't join that link; but Restitution, if you get a bunch of people for a play-test, keep me apprised by PM. My original plan was to see if enough people PMed me about play-testing that I could organize a game or games myself, but maybe your way will yield better results.
Sorry I have not had time to write a real reply lately. I'm going to start here, and then segue into a response to RoganJosh.
foodcoats wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:31 pm
Is any of this relevant outside of tournaments?
...
But, by the same token, it wouldn't really matter to me if such a system were implemented - I already "play DSS" in SoS games and would play DSS if I found myself in this sort of game, too. But I remember reading or hearing somewhere that one of webDip's design philosophies is simplicity and ease of entry for new players. My recommendation would be to make any tourney scoring, such as this or SoS, available to TDs but hidden from regular games.
So, first off, in case I wasn't clear, yes, I intended this as a tournament scoring system, not an alternate rating system. Since getting back into the online scene 3 years ago (I consider myself mainly a FtF player), I have noticed a shocking, zealot-level devotion to Calhamer points as a scoring system. It's totally pervasive, and I'm not interested in trying to change that.
Instead, my goals in trying to make this system include (but maybe aren't limited to) the following:
1) Trying to make a tournament system that preserves what I consider to be the good aspects of Calhamer points. If you were to play a competitive FtF tournament today, it is extremely rare that the system you'd be playing under even has draw-based scoring as a component, let alone its primary component. The reason for that, as I pointed out in my original article and Mercy seems to agree, is that draw-based endgames are just less fun.
So if draw-whittling and playing expressly to eliminate people aren't the good parts of Calhamer points, what is? Well, in my opinion, the best part of Calhamer points is the lack of emphasis on center count at the end of the game. If you make it to a 14/10/10 endgame, there's no motivation for the 14-center power to dot someone, like there is in SoS (or some other quadratic system--see Peter McNamara's comment on my article). And there's also no motivation for a 10-center power to dot the other 10-center power, like there would be in a rank-based system. In this endgame, as soon as each power is convinced they can't solo, they take the draw. (Well, or there's a 2way push, but whatever, you see what I mean, right?) As another example, if a 2-power coalition is stalemating someone on 17 centers, draw-based scoring doesn't care about the distribution of centers between the stalemating powers.
I am in the minority among FtF players, I think, but I consider those things to be positives. The negatives are that in real life, the "you take a draw as soon as everyone knows they won't solo" ideal isn't reached. Another negative is that in a tournament, you need a way to create "separation" so there can be a winner. Draw-based systems in use in FtF tournaments today do this by considering center count, which of course means that what I consider the good parts of Calhamer points are partially if not entirely diluted.
So I tried to make a scoring mechanism that preserves the lack of caring about center counts as much as possible for a tournament scenario. Hence two "tiers" of scoring instead of one. This is also the main reason why my system has the "buffer zone" at the top, that 1-center difference exception that none of the proposed alternatives are considering. But I do think, based on personal experience, that the rank-based component is important in a tournament setting also, which is why I want to have the top score for the board leader even in scenarios where that top power is too small to be a real solo threat.
(Mercy, our disagreement about how the endgame scoring will or will not drive midgame decision-making is something I feel is best settled by play-testing, not arguing. Although I will somewhat address your comment later on below.)
2) I started making my system before realizing this was a thing, but now that I know it is, it dovetails really nicely. In the above quote, the poster cites the mentality of just always playing for draw size and not caring about the scoring system in use. In my system, if you do that, but manage to achieve what you consider a good result, you aren't heavily penalized (and sometimes you are not penalized at all).
I first noticed this mentality while observing the 2019 ODC on this site. There were multiple games in which people played out 2way draws simply because they were playing for a CP result instead of a SoS result. One of the two participants in the 2way was actually costing themselves points (and potentially a berth in the semifinals) by playing the way they were used to instead of adapting to the system. I was not the only one who noticed this; Dave Maletsky (longtime FtF player and inventor of the Carnage system) played in the tournament and commented on this mentality on the forum (the post must still exist somewhere).
I guess there is an argument to be made that if people choose to be ignorant of the system then they should be penalized, but I'd counter that we primarily want people to have fun in a tournament, otherwise what's the point? So in my system, draw-based players can play the way they are used to and not risk torching their tournament prospects. As I said above, I'm a pluralist, so I don't believe every good system must have this property; but most systems in use today don't, and so I wanted to try to make one that does.
* * *
OK, now to RoganJosh, who is trying to speak my language. (I am extremely used to these kinds of calculations.) I take it I'm not the only poker player here, since I saw someone else using the term "cash games". RoganJosh's calculations, unfortunately, assume we are in a "cash game" scenario. What I mean by "cash game", if you're not familiar with the analogy, is a standalone game where, once it's done, you just move on to the next one, of which there always is one. In that scenario, a smart cash game player will play to maximize their expected utility at all times. This is the basis of the calculations RoganJosh is doing.
However,
this is not true for tournaments. This is because in some scenarios where your EV is maximized by a high-risk, high-reward option, you have to pass on that option anyway because you know those spots don't come up enough for the reward to appear before the tournament is over. This is directly applicable to the 15/8/7/4 example if we remember that it is a tournament. EV considerations take a backseat to tournament considerations.
In that light, actually, the most pertinent question for Germany isn't "What is the EV of going for the solo?" Instead, the first question is "What are the tournament standings?" and the next question is "What are my chances of getting the solo if I push for it?" If we assume it's the last round and Germany can't make the top board without a solo, Germany will push for the solo no matter what his chances are. But if we assume it's the first round and everyone still has 0 points, the chances of getting stuck in a 4way matter more than the EV.
I can tell you, from personal experience playing under draw-based systems in high-level tournaments, that all top tournament players intuitively grasp this. 4way draws are absolute anathema to them. Getting stuck with one 4way draw over the course of 3 rounds will usually torpedo their chances to get a high finish in the tournament.
This gets back to what Mercy was saying about how the downsides of draw-whittling only play a role in the endgame. My experience is that this isn't true. In a midgame with 4 roughly equal powers, good players are going to be thinking ahead to make sure it'll be easy to procure a 3way, not trying to put maximum pressure on their opponents. I will grant you, though, that some of this may be due to it being a FtF environment, where real time (as opposed to game time) is a factor. Even in untimed rounds, there is always the "let's get this done so we can go [to sleep/out drinking/to dinner]" factor. But even in some recent online games I have played, people will play passively in the opening and midgame just because they know that a 3way is a good result andn they don't need or want anything better. But ultimately, I'd rather try to test who's right than argue.