Question about using a score system for tournament

[OliverFA]

Hi all,

I have recently found a problem in my tournament 2011 Adjacent Attacks Tournament related to the scoring system.

I know several tournaments use the scoring system by groups, so I suppose I am not the only one finding this problem. That's why I would like to see what other TOs think about this issue.

The thing is, this tournament is divided in 6 groups of 6 players, each group plays 12 games together and the top 3 players of each group advance to the next round. Each player receives points acording to their elimination place in the game:

Winner 10 points
last eliminated 7 points
4th eliminates 5 points
3th eliminated 3 points
2nd eliminated 2 points
1st eliminated 1 point

I think this is fair, because most times the second player has fougt a hard battle, almost winning, and I find unfair that he gets nothing. I assume the better you play, the longer you last.

Unfortunately, this system has a few issues:

The first issue is when players are eliminated the same turn by the same player. I am giving the attacking player the power to decide how many points each player gets. I am not sure if that's fair or not.

The second issue is when players look at the score table and start attacking their score enemy instead of the leading player. Personally that's a bit strange. I would always try to win because that gives me more points over all the other players, but not everybody thinks the same. In wonder if that behaviour is right. On one hand, the tournament score is the result of previous games. So if you are the enemy of a particular player score-wise, it's the result of your acts. If you re the top scoring player and everybody gangs against you, it's also the result of your acts. However, I am not 100% sure.

That's one of the reasons why I am experimenting with the Swiss System in my second active AA tournament and my currently accepting entries tournament. At least it avoids the "score enemies" problem. But probably it will have other issues...

[Night Strike]

Was there an actual question in there somewhere, or just a public service announcement??

The first issue is when players are eliminated the same turn by the same player. I am giving the attacking player the power to decide how many points each player gets. I am not sure if that's fair or not.

I've thought about that as well, but my thought is that if you put yourself in the position to be eliminated before some one else, then you were further away from winning the game (meaning you should get the lower position/score).

The second issue is when players look at the score table and start attacking their score enemy instead of the leading player. Personally that's a bit strange. I would always try to win because that gives me more points over all the other players, but not everybody thinks the same. In wonder if that behaviour is right. On one hand, the tournament score is the result of previous games. So if you are the enemy of a particular player score-wise, it's the result of your acts. If you re the top scoring player and everybody gangs against you, it's also the result of your acts. However, I am not 100% sure.

It's not against the rules to attack another player to make sure you advance in the tournament over them. If you don't have a chance to advance in the tournament, then it's NOT ok just to pound on the 1st place person over time. Organizers can outlaw it in their tournaments, but doing what you can to make sure you advance over the current leaders is a valid tournament strategy if the organizer doesn't put in any restrictions.

[OliverFA]

I changed the title. I think it's more clear now

That's also what I tend to think. In fact I got surprised when I started to receive complains about people "playing unfair" and "helping the leading player". When I looked at those games it became apparent that the player "helping the leading player" was also securing a higher score in that particular game.

I suppose it's like high ranked players in Terminator games complaining that they are targeted a lot more than low ranked players. It's not nice when it happens to you, but it's completely legaland moral.

[Dukasaur]

The first issue is when players are eliminated the same turn by the same player. I am giving the attacking player the power to decide how many points each player gets. I am not sure if that's fair or not.

Yes, I believe it is. There may be cases where this is exploited in some way, but in most cases the attacking player has little or no choice who to attack first. Getting a sweep, or even a partial sweep, requires attacking in a certain sequence in order to do it successfully. 99% of sweeps are Escalating, and the sequence is determined by the number of troops, the number of cards, and how well hidden the last tert is. You need to attack player A and get his cards, or you won't have enough to kill player B. If you try to attack B first you might succeed, but you are more likely to fail, so you are only hurting your own chances if you try it. Even in the rare non-escalating sweep, strategy still matters. You have to proceed in some way that's dictated by where the players have put their troops.

As to the other issues you raised: people will always play favourites. Whether they're trying to pick off the officers in a Terminator game, or kill someone they dislike on a personal level, or kill someone who they think might have a set, some decision-making process underlies it. You can't look into people's minds, so no point trying. Trying to knock off the tournament leaders is actually probably one of the cleaner reasons people decide who to kill first...

[barterer2002]

The first issue is when players are eliminated the same turn by the same player. I am giving the attacking player the power to decide how many points each player gets. I am not sure if that's fair or not.

Yes, I believe it is. There may be cases where this is exploited in some way, but in most cases the attacking player has little or no choice who to attack first. Getting a sweep, or even a partial sweep, requires attacking in a certain sequence in order to do it successfully. 99% of sweeps are Escalating, and the sequence is determined by the number of troops, the number of cards, and how well hidden the last tert is. You need to attack player A and get his cards, or you won't have enough to kill player B. If you try to attack B first you might succeed, but you are more likely to fail, so you are only hurting your own chances if you try it. Even in the rare non-escalating sweep, strategy still matters. You have to proceed in some way that's dictated by where the players have put their troops.)

This may be true for the first and possibly the second cash of cards but after that you can usually pick and choose who to take out next (not always but often enough). Still that gives an advantage to those who are paying attention to the tournament rather than just the game and I tend to think that's an OK thing to do.