Suggestions for standard major league PB

[raehl]

Big difference between us and soccer...

When was the last time you saw a soccer tournament with 100 teams? I thought so.

And yes, other sports do reward the "magnitude" of the wins. American college football is one - almost totally based on the magnitude of the win. Not only do big wins count more than small ones, wins against tougher opponents count more than wins against weaker ones. That's actually the sport with the best parallel to paintball as well - 125 or so Div. I-A schools competing against each other in undefined brackets - only difference is they have one game a week instead of one game an hour, and just bowl games instead of playoffs (mostly, some conferences have playoffs.)

When you're talking about soccer, you're talking about a league where each team plays EVERY other team in their division a certain number of times. Counting the same number of points per game makes more sense when you have 1) Lots of games 2) Against all of the same teams the same number of times 3) When you're only compared to those teams.

Not the case in paintball currently.

I'm not againsts a 2-1-0 point system - IF paintball is played like X Ball is. *NOT* if you throw 100 teams in one tournament with cross-divisional play and 10 minute games.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to say my hypothetical arguement was right, just that it wasn't more or less right than yours was because the assumption both arguments were based on was flawed.

As someone earlier in the thread suggested, what we should REALLY do is at the next tournament, take the hypothetical time-bases scoring system and run it along side the real one and see what happens. Does it appear to work? Does it look like using i would improve the events?

As it stands, we've all got opinions, but we're a little short on good information to back them up. Instead of trying to pass off our respective personal opinions on what would happen, we should just do a good test case (even if it's entirely hypothetical) and see if the result is better or not.

- Chris

 

[Gyroscope]

The point you bring up is interesting Chris. You don't have to run a tournament by these rules, just keep track of what the score would be under these rules.

The problem is that the rules (any rules) encourage a certain kind of behaviour that teams wouldn't be otherwise so apt to apply.

Teams often play the score board. When we were a new team, we got ourselves into the finals in a wide field of teams by getting the (center) flag, no matter what. We didn't hang very often, but it scraped us into the finals, where we could go on a rampage.

 

[Beaker]

No problem, I'm all for testing these kind of things. I would suggest you don't even need to do a whole tournament, just take a resonable sample (say 5-8 teams in the same division) and noting their game times.

Then apply many different rule variations and see what the results would be. Plus Gyro, one test would be whether the scoring (on existing playing styles) completely upsets the apple cart.

Chris - I will plead complete ignorance on College Football, I can only follow NFL here . Please explain in a bit more detail how their scoring system works.

I am all for taking an established system from some other sport and amending it to paintballs needs - if what you are trying to achieve is the accessibility thing (much like Xball is basically *******ised Hockey).

There is more, but I've only had 3hrs sleep........

 

[Wadidiz]

I'm not so sure I'm good at scoring schemes but how would the following work?

0 points for allowing the other team to hang the flag and not getting the first pull.

25 points for "not-getting-hung-on"

25 points for first pull

25 points for flag hang

Maximum 25 time-bonus points that start kiciking in at 5 minute games and max out at 25 points for 30 seconds or less.

So Mighty Ducks play Freaky Freddy's and lose two players but eliminate all the FFs and hang the flag in two and a half minutes. MD get 25 points for not losing (kind of a win or hold bonus) + 25 points for first pull + 25 points for the hang + 11 time-bonus points = 86 points. FFs get 0.

If the Red Ring Inflictors lose against Get Some but get the first pull and hold the other team until 1 minute was left: RRI 25, GS 50. RRIs get 25 for the first pull and GS get 25 for the hang and 25 for not losing and 0 time-bonus points.

I believe this point system is fairly simple (a time-bonus chart would be in the rulebook) and there should be enough point permutations to avoid ties. It also gives a definite but not overwhelming incentive to finish games quickly as it also awards first grabs and resisting the flag being hung by your opponents.

How does this sound? Would this be interesting?

Steve

 

[Wadidiz]

Here is a schedule I drew up for time-bonus points:
________________________
Time-bonus Points (edit note: since I don't know how to properly format this table, the first time is elapsed game time, the second time is remaining game time and the third number is amount of time-bonus points)

Elapsed Remaining Points

7:00 - 0:00 0
5.00 - 2:00 1
4:45 - 2.15 2
4:30 - 2:30 3
4:15 - 2:45 4
4:00 - 3:00 5
3:45 - 3:15 6
3:30 - 3:30 7
3:15 - 3:45 8
3:00 - 4:00 9
2:45 - 4:15 10
2:30 - 4:30 11
2:15 - 4:45 12
2:00 - 5:00 13
1:50 - 5:10 14
1:40 - 5:20 15
1:30 - 5:30 16
1:20 - 5:40 17
1:10 - 5:50 18
1:00 - 6:00 19
0:55 - 6:05 20
0:50 - 6:10 21
0:45 - 6:15 22
0:40 - 6:20 23
0:35 - 6:25 24
0:30 - 6:30 25
_____________________

More possibilities point-wise:

Royal Reign beat Carousing Canines in 25 seconds by pulling and hanging the flag with 5 of their own left and 3 of their opponents left. Score: 100--25 points for "not losing" + 25 points for first pull + 25 points for flag hang + 25 points for maximum time-bonus.

I have looked at the scores from NPPL Vegas and it looks like there would be a wide variety of scores not even considering the time-bonus. It would be impossible to predict what impact the time-bonus would have. But I'm sure keen to find out!

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Beaker
No problem, I'm all for testing these kind of things. I would suggest you don't even need to do a whole tournament, just take a resonable sample (say 5-8 teams in the same division) and noting their game times.

Then apply many different rule variations and see what the results would be. Plus Gyro, one test would be whether the scoring (on existing playing styles) completely upsets the apple cart.

Chris - I will plead complete ignorance on College Football, I can only follow NFL here . Please explain in a bit more detail how their scoring system works.

I am all for taking an established system from some other sport and amending it to paintballs needs - if what you are trying to achieve is the accessibility thing (much like Xball is basically *******ised Hockey).

There is more, but I've only had 3hrs sleep........

Application of alternative scoring systems applied to games being played with different scoring system will only tell you so much cos the teams aren't responding to your test system--they are playin' in accordance with the existing rules.
Somewhere down the line games will need to be played actually keeping score with the modified system to see any realiable result.
And of course you are upsetting the whole applecart for how prelims in a given tourney are scheduled so you will now have to re-think organization and seeding.

Separately with regards to Chris's characterization of college football it was misleading at best. It's wins and losses bottom line. The "weighted scoring" is a computational factor used to try and sort out who might be the best team from a variety of identicial or near identical win-loss records given teams are playing diverse schedules and seldom play any of the same teams. The purpose is to assign national rankings which impact end of the season bowl game match-ups.
As you might imagine it actually solves nothing and is subject to many heated arguments by football fans every year.

PS--Steve, is it still raining?

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
And of course you are upsetting the whole applecart for how prelims in a given tourney are scheduled so you will now have to re-think organization and seeding.

PS--Steve, is it still raining?

I admit that I am not the best at quickly thinking through the ramifications of new scoring suggestions...but...

...I don't see how the suggestions I made would mean a need to change anything in scheduling, organization and seeding. Except to maybe plan on finishing the tournament early. Maybe I'm missing something here.

Yep, it has been raining, chilly and grey all weekend.

Steve

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Wadidiz
...I don't see how the suggestions I made would mean a need to change anything in scheduling, organization and seeding. Except to maybe plan on finishing the tournament early. Maybe I'm missing something here.

This thread started with the notion that modified scoring would create a more appealing style of play. That has since been back-burnered in favor of justifying the idea with the notion new scoring will more accurately reflect a given match on the field and produce more diversity of scoring likely eliminating ties, etc. (Which happens now how often?) But any time-based factor is really little more than a complication unless the final scores reflect a schedule match-up as well.
For example, if Team A beats Team B in 1 minute and Team C beats Team D in 4 minutes what does the result tell you about the relative relationship between Team A and C? Answer: Nothing. Now apply that across mixed divisions with more or less random draws and what exactly has the new system accomplished?
Overall, I'm not suggesting your latest scoring concept is a bad thing per se but--
In the current big tent style of tourney PB any scoring system that might create situations where fewer wins scores more points without taking into account equity in the draw, particularly across divisions, makes the results less fair, not more fair. In which case the only justification for the change is to alter style of play.

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
This thread started with the notion that modified scoring would create a more appealing style of play. That has since been back-burnered in favor of justifying the idea with the notion new scoring will more accurately reflect a given match on the field and produce more diversity of scoring likely eliminating ties, etc. (Which happens now how often?) But any time-based factor is really little more than a complication unless the final scores reflect a schedule match-up as well.
For example, if Team A beats Team B in 1 minute and Team C beats Team D in 4 minutes what does the result tell you about the relative relationship between Team A and C? Answer: Nothing. Now apply that across mixed divisions with more or less random draws and what exactly has the new system accomplished?
Overall, I'm not suggesting your latest scoring concept is a bad thing per se but--
In the current big tent style of tourney PB any scoring system that might create situations where fewer wins scores more points without taking into account equity in the draw, particularly across divisions, makes the results less fair, not more fair. In which case the only justification for the change is to alter style of play.

Of course this point system isn't neutral. It has a value system in it, to encourage some kinds of activity more than others through points. Become assertive enough to grab the flag first and your team gets themselves 25 points and increases their chances of getting another 25 points for the hang. If it seems like you can't make the hang, then you make damned sure you don't let them hang it so you can at least get 25 points.

So, yes, one justification for change is to alter playing style to reward faster, more aggressive games. Another justification is simplification (and don't say that looking at a chart to see how many bonus points are earned is very hard), spectator friendliness and overall better tournament flow.

I agree it needs to be tried first on a somewhat smaller scale.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Wadidiz
So, yes, one justification for change is to alter playing style . . . Another justification is simplification, spectator friendliness and overall better tournament flow.

Silly me. I thought we wanted Paintball as Sport when apparently the goal now is Paintball as Exhibition.

I can see it now--couple of guys sitting in the stands thumbing through their time chart after Rattlesnake 7 squeaks out a win over Choad Central, "No bonus points! Those guys suck!" "Hey, let's hurry over to field 6. We have 23 seconds before a match starts over there."