On April 06 2010 05:49 Hot_Bid wrote:
1. "Old" Scoring System - 09-10 PL R1
Win = 2, Loss = -1, Lineup = 1, Ace Selection = 2, Ace W/L = 2/0, Team Win = 1
2. "New" Scoring System - 09-10 PL R2
Win = 4, Loss = -2, Lineup = 0, Ace Selection = 2, Ace W/L = 4/0, Team Win = 1
3. Hybrid Scoring System - ??
Win = ??, Loss = ??, Lineup = ??, Ace Selection = ??, Ace W/L = ??/??, Team Win = ??
Possible hybrid arrangement, propose your own and give reasons.
I just wanted to put up some examples of what these numbers work out to for certain player stereotypes:
Team Ace ( Flash, Leta)
A good record for an ace player would be 10-3 (2-1 in ace games) and, say, his team goes 8-3.
Old: 20 for wins + 10 for appearances + 6 for ace appearances + 8 for team wins - 2 for losses - 0 for ace loss = 42 points for the round.
New: 40 for wins + 0 for appearances + 6 for ace appearances + 8 for team wins - 4 for losses - 0 for ace loss = 50 points for the round.
-> The new system scores noticeably higher (+19%) for this record.
Workhorse (Really, Mind, HiyA)
I'd say a decent record would probably run to 7-4 for this type of player, giving him a 1-1 ace match record just because. Because they tend to be on all sorts of teams, I'm awarding a "neutral" record of 6-5.
Old: 14 for wins + 9 for appearances + 4 for ace appearances + 6 for team wins - 3 for losses - 0 for ace loss = 30 points.
New: 28 for wins + 0 for appearances + 4 for ace appearances + 6 for team wins - 6 for losses - 0 for ace loss = 32 points.
-> The new system scores slightly higher, but not appreciably (7%).
-> Mid-range players scoring much less in the new system in comparison to ace players (18 point difference vs 12 points in the old system)
Place-filler/Sniper ( HoeJJa, Last, s2)
These guys tend to end up with weak records. Stuff like 3-4 with an unexplainable ace appearance for a loss and a game they just didn't get to play. Again, they show up on every team, but since the players aren't that good we'll go with the other side of neutral, 5-6. And this is a "good" player of this type.
Old: 6 for wins + 6 for appearances + 2 for ace appearance + 5 for team wins - 3 for losses - 0 for ace loss = 16 points.
New: 12 for wins + 0 for appearances + 2 for ace appearance + 5 for team wins - 6 for losses - 0 for ace loss = 13 points.
-> The new system scores a decent bit lower (19%)
-> It's not that many points difference per player but these are the guys filling out your roster so it will add up.
Slumper
Finally I want to consider the guy who goes on a wild slump - the one you don't see coming. The round firebathero or  BeSt starts sucking ass, or whoever your personal favorite inconsistent player is. The ones where the guy ends up with a 3-8 record for the round, including going 0-2 in ace games, and his team crashes to a 4-7 record.
Old: 8 for wins + 9 for appearances + 4 for ace appearances + 4 for team wins - 8 for losses - 0 for ace loss = 17 points.
New: 16 for wins + 0 for appearances + 4 for ace appearances + 4 for team wins - 14 for losses - 0 for ace loss =10 points.
-> The new system scores these guys much lower (42% fewer points)
-> The new system scoring drops these guys' value even below the "bad players" who serve as snipers and guys just there to meet race requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My major problem with the new system was that the differences between players became much more pronounced, which is only to be expected when you switch from 3/0 scoring to 4/-2, doubling your point spread. Especially this was problematic because it devalued the mid-range players, making them much less valuable even if they performed and - since they tend to be the players most liable to slumps - much more dangerous to your team as well.
Of course, the old system did have some weak points, mostly that the bad player on a good team could end up making a significant difference (it's far more viable to pick up a player like, say, Barracks for team points only under the old system than the new). Lineup points are not a problem for me: the map orders and play orders are so unpredictable, and there's simply no way to include enough possible trades to offset this; lineup points are vitally important to making teams stable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT 5: Explanatory note: My system is based on the idea of correlating the difference between winner's and loser's points for the ace game with those of a normal game, rather than lessening the difference as both "old" and "new" scoring systems did. </end edit>
I'm perfectly happy with the old system's conception, and upping the winning points seems like the easiest solution to its minor problems. My proposed system would just kick up the win value. I also want more distinction in the scoring of ace games, for a total scoring system like this:
Appearance: 1 point
Win: 3 points
Loss: -1 point
Ace appearance: 2 points
Ace win: 4 points
Ace loss: -1 point
Team win: 1 point
I feel like once you get to the ace match, your performance really really matters and this should be reflected more, rather than less, in the difference between the players. In a normal match, the "old" scoring gives a +3 difference to the winner (3,0), and the new gives a +6 (4, -2), but in an ace match this difference is reduced by the old system to +2 (4, 2), and by the new to +4 (6, 2), when the ace game decides the outcome - this seems weird to me.
With my proposed system, your normal game comes in at a +4 difference (4, 0), while ace is stretched to a +5 difference (6, 1). This may make ace players for poor teams less valuable, but then they're not winning, are they?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, I want to demonstrate, so I'm going to take my examples above and rescore them with my proposal:
Ace (10-3 (2-1), team 8-3): 42 old, 50 new, 53 mine
Workhorse (7-4 (1-1), team 6-5): 30 old, 32 new, 37 mine
Sniper (3-4 (0-1), 1 no-play, team 5-6): 16 old, 13 new, 20 mine
Slumper (3-8 (0-2), team 4-7): 17 old, 10 new, 18 mine
A couple things to note:
-> My scoring system does inflate point totals for everybody.
-> Notice that losses do eat into a player's point total, only partially offset by ace appearances (compare the sniper and slumper, who now end up about the same "again").
Point differences:
Old: 42 -(-12)-> 30 -(-14)-> 16 -(+1)-> 17
New: 50 -(-18)-> 32 -(-19)-> 13 -(-3)-> 10
Mine: 53 -(-16)-> 37 -(-17)-> 20 -(-2)-> 18
My system splits the difference fairly evenly between the two systems, so real winners are still rewarded without imbalancing the FPL too heavily in favor of ace players and making other strategies not viable, which to me is the main goal of reforming the scoring system.
Sorry I kind of went on for a while here, I like numbers.
EDIT: Also my system is awesome because it's virtually identical to the one Grobyc proposed up above. I do the ace scoring at -1 for the loss, and that's the only difference. So I'm almost just like Grobyc, except nicer. 
EDIT 2: I'd also consider dropping the ace match appearance point to just 1 point. This has the benefit - if you think of it as a benefit - of lowering the relative value of ace games.
EDIT 4: The scoring then would be:
Appearance: 1 point
Win: 3 points
Loss: -1
Ace appearance: 1 point
Ace win: 4 points
Ace loss: 0
Team win: 1 point
Ace win can't be returned to 3 points (normal win) without counting the winner/loser difference as less than that for a normal game, as mentioned above. The only difference from my main proposed system is that this give the winner 1 less point. It differs from Grobyc's scoring in that it gives the winner 1 less point and the loser 1 more (which messes up the win/loss difference correlation; not good).
EDIT 3:
On April 06 2010 12:30 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 08:27 Grobyc wrote:
My hybrid:
Win = 3, Loss = -1, Lineup = 1, Ace Selection = 2, Ace W/L = 4/-2, Team Win = 1 My problem with a setup like this is that it puts so many points into those ace matches. ...better than the players gaining a bunch ... because they lost an ace match, ...should Flash really be scoring 10 points/night...? I don't see why it shouldn't be a pretty small bonus for going to/winning the ace match since that match is almost always icing because that player has already won a game earlier in the match...
Since I'm claiming my system is basically the same as Grobyc's, the same criticism applies, so I thought I'd reply to it. I'm going to refer to our system (despite the slight difference with ace scoring) as M&G, for Musoeun and Grobyc.
Taken straight up, the ace match is just another game
3/0 (old), 4/-2 (new), 4/0 (M&G).
This is one way to do it; if we take the hypothetical you propose, "Flash already won another game". Let's say Flash wins. He is going to get 7 points on the night (old), 9 (new), 9 (M&G). The other game winner on the winning team gets 4 (5, 5) and the game winners on the losing team get 3 (4, 4). So even with "normal scoring" the ace player is going to almost double his own teammate's score regardless of which system, and more than double the opponent's game winners.
But only almost double: and instinct says the ace match is more than just a normal game; common sense says a player who wins his game and then wins the ace match should get at least twice the points of the other game winner on his team: in short, taking that score (4 old, 5 new, 5 M&G) as a benchmark we say the ace game winner should be getting a score of at least 8 (10, 10).
Old ace scoring gave the 2-game winner 8 points (1+2+2+2+1), which does in fact double the score properly.
New ace scoring gave the 2-game winner 11 points (4+2+4+1), which we discovered helped inflate the ace players' importance since they're earning more than double.
For Flash or another hypothetical game-winner, special ace game scoring is adding 1 point in the old system, 2 in the new system, to the total score as against pure standard scoring. This is a maximum of 22 extra points across a round IF every match goes to ace and IF a team sends the same ace every time and IF he has played every time and IF he wins every match - which is a lot of points on the one hand, say about what a 5-3 player would contribute, and if a player goes on a 22-game win-streak then, DAMN, they earned those points.
The M&G system still gives the 2-game winner 11 points (1+3+2+4+1), This looks like it has the same inflation dangers as the "new" system. I don't believe it really matters though, as the real culprit lies in the losing scores, which the M&G system fixes by correctly correlating ace win/loss difference with the normal game win/loss difference (see above).
|
EPT
