Scoring systems - proportional to supply centres

Use this forum to discuss Diplomacy strategy.
Forum rules
This forum is limited to topics relating to the game Diplomacy only. Other posts or topics will be relocated to the correct forum category or deleted. Please be respectful and follow our normal site rules at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/rules.php.
Post Reply
Message
Author
teccles
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:10 pm
Karma: 269

Scoring systems - proportional to supply centres

#1 Post by teccles » Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:30 am

I was thinking about a really simple scoring system:
  • 1 for a solo.
  • In a draw, (SCs you own)/(total SCs owned)
This is like sum of squares without the squaring.

At a glance, this seems to have good properties, particularly compared to SoS.
  • It is simple to calculate.
  • Points totals don't become meaninglessly small for tiny powers, so surviving matters.
  • It's completely neutral when centres switch between other powers; so there's no incentive either to cut down the draw or to keep small powers alive - you just want to do whatever is best for your chances of solo, or failing that your centre count.
It seems unlikely anyone would invent sum of squares without thinking of this first, so I was wondering why SoS was preferred to this.

[I know that there was a "Points per supply centre" system on the website at some point; but as I understand it this was a) not this and b) an abomination]
1

Brumark
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:05 pm
Karma: 62

Re: Scoring systems - proportional to supply centres

#2 Post by Brumark » Fri Jul 17, 2020 6:44 pm

I read a really interesting article on scoring systems:

http://windycityweasels.org/wp-content/ ... ystems.pdf

I say "really interesting" that clearly depends on your personality and the extent to which you are a geek like me. Now knowing you Teccles I am pretty sure you too will like it but others be warned.

I particularly like how it sets out the key tenants of what a scoring system could/should promote (One I was wondering if she be included was the incentive to eliminate other players).

Building on that one of the things what you set out misses (and of course its a bit subjective as to whether incentivising this is desirable) is the incentive to maintain balance, to peg back the board leader. Under sos cutting the board leaders advantage helps you even if that centre goes to a third party - it doesn't here.
1

Brumark
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:05 pm
Karma: 62

Re: Scoring systems - proportional to supply centres

#3 Post by Brumark » Fri Jul 17, 2020 6:57 pm

Oh and also your simple system does not factor in relative positions. Most people would agree that say if you topped the board with 8 you deserve more points than say you get 8 in a 8-11-15 draw. There is no difference under what you said but there is in SOS
1

teccles
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:10 pm
Karma: 269

Re: Scoring systems - proportional to supply centres

#4 Post by teccles » Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:05 pm

Thank you, that was indeed a very interesting read. Particularly this bit, which explains what is (for me) the most counterintuitive incentive; bringing down the leader.

"The balance of power incentive is more esoteric but is perhaps the most interesting of all; I value it for its effect on gameplay, which is to promote second chances. If there is strong incentive for everyone to pull the leader back to the pack, then the game should be more dynamic, offering everyone a greater chance at succeeding even if they’ve fallen behind."

I think I agree that this is a good thing; though quite often, this is achieved naturally because either other powers want to dominate themselves (early in the game), or because they need to stop a solo (late in the game). But I agree that SoS provide this incentive, and that proportional scoring fails to do.

RoganJosh
Silver Donator
Silver Donator
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:02 am
Location: Stockholm
Karma: 461
Contact:

Re: Scoring systems - proportional to supply centres

#5 Post by RoganJosh » Fri Jul 17, 2020 11:09 pm

One has to question whether tribute actually gives a balance of power incentive.

Sure, picking a center the board leader give 2 points, and picking center of anyone else gives 1 point. But cutting down the draw gives 1.6 / 2.2 / 3.3 / 5.5 / 11 points, depending on draw size (the smaller draw the more points). To me, it feels like once a player has given up on actually becoming the board top themselves, their incentives will be to cut down the draw, and not to balance power.
1

bartogian
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 4:37 am
Location: Melbourne
Karma: 21
Contact:

Re: Scoring systems - proportional to supply centres

#6 Post by bartogian » Sat Jul 18, 2020 12:11 pm

The simple system you propose is better than squares, and fairly similar to KISS (http://daanz.org/sc-kis.htm). KISS has not been used much, but Cricket, which is similar again, has been used successfully.

I do not understand the popularity of squares. The first place it appeared to my knowledge was in the late 90s in Australia, where it was quickly dropped as it was acknowledged to be crap, and inferior to Cricket/Detour. Chicago adopted it around 2010ish and it became popular from that point on in North America.

The diplomacy hobby has a long history of inventing and using crap scoring systems. I don't know why.
1

ben9990
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:13 pm
Karma: 41

Re: Scoring systems - proportional to supply centres

#7 Post by ben9990 » Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:54 am

Kind of an aside, but anyway - I dont like the board-top focus of the Weasels. It is the wrong/bad way to play/think about the game. It **disincentivizes** a crucial aspect of actually winning games, which is making sacrifices to cross the stalemate line.

A power at 8 centers who has crossed the line is way better off than a power at 9 who has not achieved the same.

This is also an issue with SOS scoring, which overrewards board topping.

Claesar
Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:34 am
Karma: 1479

Re: Scoring systems - proportional to supply centres

#8 Post by Claesar » Sun Jul 19, 2020 4:35 am

ben9990 wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:54 am
Kind of an aside, but anyway - I dont like the board-top focus of the Weasels. It is the wrong/bad way to play/think about the game. It **disincentivizes** a crucial aspect of actually winning games, which is making sacrifices to cross the stalemate line.

A power at 8 centers who has crossed the line is way better off than a power at 9 who has not achieved the same.

This is also an issue with SOS scoring, which overrewards board topping.
Tribute is created by Face-to-Face players, so it really desires that board-top aspect to accomodate for games with a fixed end.

teccles
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:10 pm
Karma: 269

Re: Scoring systems - proportional to supply centres

#9 Post by teccles » Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:31 am

I think that is some of the answer to why there are so many odd/bad scoring systems. There are at least three things people might be trying to achieve with a scoring system:

1) A fair outcome given the final result of a stalemated game (many proponents of DSS focus on this).
2) A good set of incentives for powers who won't win (the Tribute article focuses on this).
3) A fair outcome for a tournament game with an early end date (I think this is where most scoring systems actually come from, including SoS).

(There remains a mystery - what possesses the inventor of any scoring system to award points to players who lose through elimination or solo?)

Searching for CRICKET led me to this list of scoring systems, for the curious: http://www.world-diplomacy-database.com ... coring.php.
1

RoganJosh
Silver Donator
Silver Donator
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:02 am
Location: Stockholm
Karma: 461
Contact:

Re: Scoring systems - proportional to supply centres

#10 Post by RoganJosh » Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:33 am

teccles wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:31 am
(There remains a mystery - what possesses the inventor of any scoring system to award points to players who lose through elimination or solo?)
It's the need to separate players on the aggregate in a tournament setting. These small amounts of points distributed to losers are basically tiebreakers. All other things equal, who survived the longest in the games they lost is an acceptable tiebreaker.
1

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest