From Cornolio:Well DUH! :nuts:
I had assumed RW had already tried that first.
But just in case... hey Redwolf contact Cornolio.... :whist:
:laugh:
Maybe we can stop trying to "fix" things that aren't broken.
Or just read jdsu's comments, which accurately summed up the situation in our game.All that aside, what did you think of the hypothetical scoring system itself? (I was just looking for a bit of discussion...)Maybe we can stop trying to "fix" things that aren't broken.
Or label things that don't need labelling.
And as for my "extreme" behaviour, if you are referring to me, perhaps wait for the AAR before you comment on it.
I think the current one is better, honestly. The way these scenarios are set up, they encourage middle-of-the-road play anyhow, so I doubt we'll see a lot of scores at the opposite ends of the pole, and if we do, I would attribute it to either skill or foolhardiness, or both. In my game with jdsu, I gambled on a high-risk strategy, and he countered with solid tactics and knowledge of the game system. It wasn't luck that got him 95, so he deserved the 95 points, and consequently, the 13.
In a tournament, where it is reasonable to expect that everyone is trying to do his best, it seems obvious that anyone taking extreme action (such as giving up or playing foolhardy) is not trying to do his best... The best moderator can be forgiven for not anticipating the extremes and their tendency to skew the results... I agree, it wasn't luck that got him the 95: it was his skill combined with his opponents extreme behavior that got him the 95 instead of an 85 or a 75 etc. (BTW he gets 15 points - not 13)I think the current one is better, honestly. The way these scenarios are set up, they encourage middle-of-the-road play anyhow, so I doubt we'll see a lot of scores at the opposite ends of the pole, and if we do, I would attribute it to either skill or foolhardiness, or both. In my game with jdsu, I gambled on a high-risk strategy, and he countered with solid tactics and knowledge of the game system. It wasn't luck that got him 95, so he deserved the 95 points, and consequently, the 13.
If one wanted to get ridiculous they could introduce Bayesian curves to the scores just to ensure no one without a math degree knew what was going on.
I wouldn't encourage much discussion on this point until after the tournament in any event; seems rude given the amount of work that has gone into it. Like discussing who your favourite caterers are - while sitting at the table of a dinner party hosted by your best friend.
Disagree completely. Going for a 100 percent win is "best". As opposed to hoping for a dull stalemate.
Not if your objective is to win the tourney. As you said above the scenarios encourage middle of the road play so if you go for a low probability option with
You do better at winning the tourney with a 95 score than a 65.
Heh. That is true, but if you only get that 95/05 victory 1 in 3 and get 05/95 for the other 2 in 3 you will still do worse, with high probability, over a 4 round tourney.You do better at winning the tourney with a 95 score than a 65.
You mean like when Rommel mounted canvas and wood on Kübelwagens as soon as he arrived in Libya and called them tanks? Please note, I am not comparing myself to Rommel. I also don't think he was half as good as people seem to think he was. But he was a high-stakes player.
You may wish to reserve judgement until you've read an AAR, or at least glimpsed in the scenario you're suggesting has "lowered your immersion". Read my AAR, and you'll see I approached the battle in a perfectly sensible manner.
Well, like I said, first tourney and I raised some questions for discussion and now I have much to ponder...
