Talk Fantasy Football

The same, correct, scoring system?

A joyful, wonderful place where innovation, flair and intrigue are all still encouraged, but funnelled into the appropriate areas. I support your initiative!

Awareness of a scoring system isn't the point, really. I'd rather myself and my opponents be unaware and not be encouraged to play poorly.

Anyway, it's a personal hobby horse, and one I shall now dismount.

Purplegoo wrote:The same, correct, scoring system?

Again, many people disagree, proving my point that it is debatable.

There are two things I will never dismount: my bonus points hobby horse and Phil's mum.

lunchmoney wrote:At the end of the day, though, everyone who goes to a tournament (either as a competitor or a funster) should be aware of the scoring system (and tiebreak method) being used.

They are, although I'm not quite sure about this as argument. If I said at my tournament that entry requires you agreeing to me slapping you round the face with a haddock, people would be aware of that. Not sure that changes the consequences. Either way, people are able to vote with their feet if they don't like it as I am increasingly choosing to do.

lunchmoney wrote:Again, many people disagree, proving my point that it is debatable.

Excellent. We provide a reasonably thought out argument presenting our case. To which your only response is "well somebody might disagree". TFF in a nutshell.

OK, some adjustments made, to put in more caveats (though I thought there were lots in there already), and some additions:

- Dark Elves moved to tier 1 (oops), and also said that it is a moveable feast, that was just an example
- Strength of schedule added, my oversight
- 105 added as a reference, as both are used

Anything else hugely important? I took out the more transparent bit, along with a few other subjective words

I prefer TD's and Cas for tie breaks overs SoS.....

at least you have some control over your tie break , pushing for a TD in a match you've lost or setting up on turn 8 to try for a cas, not "Oh goody, Ive draw a player in round 1 who goes on to to do really well so thats my SoS sorted" (which was something I actually benefited from at a tourney)

Nice summary of the tournament experience.

How about including a bit on the social side of things? i.e. someone often takes it on themselves to organise a tournament meal, meet in a specified bar, people meet and play other games (or whatever, you get the idea).

Bonus points – agree in spirit with Goo and Joe. We should remember the history of BPs i.e. something put in place to separate teams when W/D/L alone (2/1/0, 3/1/0 or whatever) would lead to too many ties. That’s where casualties and TDs came in. But when you can beat the guy on a better record by racking up a few crushing single wins, it’s not the best. I’ve seen effective cas/TD BP systems using 100/50/0 for W/D/L then bonus points in single figures (or something like that). I’d hesitate to say SoS is necessarily the best, but it’s pretty good.

glowworm wrote:I prefer TD's and Cas for tie breaks overs SoS.....
at least you have some control over your tie break , pushing for a TD in a match you've lost or setting up on turn 8 to try for a cas, not "Oh goody, Ive draw a player in round 1 who goes on to to do really well so thats my SoS sorted" (which was something I actually benefited from at a tourney)

I think that's a fair point, and the best one for bonus points for TDs/cas. It's certainly better to lose 2-1 than 2-0. However, your 1 TD difference is easily outweighed by someone who plays a stunty team with wood elves round one. I think valuing a draw against a good player with a good team more than against a weaker player with a weaker team is more desirable.

For casualties though, I don't think you have much control over that. It's down to luck, how much mb/po you choose and how many stunties you draw.

Sorry to derail your thread Mike. I think it reads nicely.

Maybe add points for "tiers" of skills. Monkeybowl and Flamebowl do this.

Also, the CCKO in Canada has a skills draft, which I really liked.
Day 1 3 skills. Day 2, 3 more skills, but a finite number of skills (eg 2 of each depending on players). The bottom player overnight chooses first, and so on. Would love this to become more common.

Personally I think some of the emotion is discounted in previous comments. I agree with Joe and Phil from a technical perspective but in matches I would suggest that many coaches 'psychologically' more than anything else want something to play for. If a less than expert coach goes 2-0 down which could happen in a half they are likely to loose and very possibly know that, the bonus points leave something on the table that 2/1/0 SOS don't i.e. they are playing half a match hoping that the luck goes their way.

Using the welsh Open at the weekend, after a couple of rounds there is likely to be more than half of the coahes thinking I'm not going to win the tournament so the scoring system set-up to balance the top is ignoring the majority of coaches, even if it's just there 'feeling' more than anything likely to be hurt.

I have been at the wrong end of a 4/1/0 vs 3/2/0 + bonuses points and it doesn't feel good but even with that experience I try to leave bonus points in without letting a two draws disproportionately outweigh a win and a loss and a 5/1/0 should not ever out weigh a 6/0/0.

Leaving bonus points in gives the majority of tournament attendees further strategies to achieve enjoyment from the game, diversity brings its reward, as does the previously argued for conformity.

I do so hope that being NAF president doesnt drain the happiness and great enthusiasm for BB out of our Sann. Things are starting to feel positive and I'd hate for him to be broken by the community. It's a good post Sann, keep up the great work

Interesting one about the social side - hadn't thought of that, I guess that's a slightly different article?

And don't worry Itchen, I'll stay strong!

Loki wrote:
Leaving bonus points in gives the majority of tournament attendees further strategies to achieve enjoyment from the game, diversity brings its reward, as does the previously argued for conformity.

That's why 100/50/0 then +0-3 on cas / TD is preferable. Protects the superior record, gives the field something to play for.

At Monkeybowl I used to give named bonuses round by round, each time a completely different goal not necessarily designed to boost those who crush stunties 6-0 / 6-0. I feel that could be revisited, developed to create something balanced but retaining the sense of being in control of your own destiny. Just a thought.

Carry on

pipey wrote:

Loki wrote:
Leaving bonus points in gives the majority of tournament attendees further strategies to achieve enjoyment from the game, diversity brings its reward, as does the previously argued for conformity.

That's why 100/50/0 then +0-3 on cas / TD is preferable. Protects the superior record, gives the field something to play for.

At Monkeybowl I used to give named bonuses round by round, each time a completely different goal not necessarily designed to boost those who crush stunties 6-0 / 6-0. I feel that could be revisited, developed to create something balanced but retaining the sense of being in control of your own destiny. Just a thought.

Carry on

But that said in 99% of all tourneys there ARE side prices for CAS and TDs.

That said I really liked the UKTC-practice of not considering winners overall for the side prices. I will never forget the tournament at which the woodelf who won the overall ranking also collected prices for most TD AND most CAS

RoterSternHochdahl wrote:That said I really liked the UKTC-practice of not considering winners overall for the side prices. I will never forget the tournament at which the woodelf who won the overall ranking also collected prices for most TD AND most CAS

I've not allowed someone that finished 1st, 2nd or Stunty Cup to win more than 1 prize since I ran my first event in '08.

Another thing Sann - is "Rules and Regulations" the best title for this? Few of those things are rules, rather common practices. Maybe guidelines or conventions is better? Not to be confused with the NAF sanctioning rules of approval I guess.

Another convention is the inclusion of the subsidiary prizes, which almost all tournaments include. Talking TD and Cas etc. Stunty Cup has become very popular, and I'd personally like to see a mention for Best Painted in particular - just so we keep in focus a central part of the hobby.