Jump to content

SC Match Play-Please Comment


Jim Boggs

Recommended Posts

With a nod to Immer for starting this and also to Zappsweden, Terif, Rambo, BtW, Kuniworth, and Sven for sharing their great matches with us I would like to float the following for the community's comments and thoughts.

What would be the feeling of establishing a league based (due to time zone differences) on geographical location?

My thought is that each match would consist of two games-1939 scenario-with the two players alternating as allied and axis. Scoring would be as follows:

Player A wins Game One as Axis by Jan 1945

Player A loses Games Two as Allies by Oct 1945

In this scenario Player A wins match and gains one point.

Player A wins game one as Axis by Jan 1945

Player A forces stalemate in game two as allies

In this scenario Player A wins match but gains 2 points.

Player A wins game one as Axis by Jan 1945

Player A wins second game as Allies by Mar 1945

In this scenario Player A wins match and gains 3 points.

Player A wins game as Axis by Jan 45

Player A loses game as allies by Jan 45

In this scenario the match is tied and no points are won.

We could set up a schedule and post standings of each of the divisions and at the end of the season the winners in each geographical area would meet in the playoffs to determine the annual SC Championship.

While not addressing the ability to cheat, I think it does provide play balance and a fair scoring sytem.

Please comment-the pre-season has already started.

[ January 12, 2003, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sure like the idea of a league - sign me up.

Regading the proposed match scoring system, there seems to be considearble weight given to the victory timing. If I understand it right, If "Player A" wins as Axis in game one and holds out just one week (or month?) longer losing as Allies, he wins the match and gets 1 point while "Player B" gets 0 points. Suggest that every win should get a point, and maybe have a an additional point available based on earlier victory. Thus, in the 1st case "Player A" gets 2 points and player gets 1 point. Stalemates could perhaps be 1/2 point each?

I feel we should deal with cheating when and if it happens. I think most will play with honor. Personally, I just don't have to win that bad. I get over a defeat in a year or two - sometimes even less:), and will no doubt improve with more "defeat practice".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, forcing a stalemate is part of the system. Tough if you do it too far it will make people tire. Make Capitol fall rules... I.E. if London and Moscow still stand at said point then it is not a draw, it is an Axis victory. Similarly for Berlin & Rome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the notion of a league in a general way.

I think grouping players by time zones has merit.

It should be remarked though, some of us can be active in the morning to respond to our opposites that are experiencing their evening.

I have encountered this effect while chatting online.

I never chat with 2 slices of the world just for this reason. When I am asleep I miss a slice of the world due to me being well you know asleep.

There is always going to be some of us intrinsically available, but always some just plain not available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jim Boggs:

What would be the feeling of establishing a league based (due to time zone differences) on geographical location?

Maybe before establishing a league on anything we should establish a "Player List" with time zones and contact info first? Just a suggestion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WACHMEISTER:

Good point, how about the following:

Win game = 1.0 points

Stalemate = 0.5 points

Win Match = 1.0 points plus victory

This would change the scoring for the original example to the following:

Player A wins first game as Axis by Jan 1945

Player A loses second game as Allies by Mar 1945

Player A gets 1.0 point for winning first game, Player B gets 1.0 point for winning second game

Player A gets 1.0 point and victory in match for winning in less turns

Net result-Player A gets win plus 2.0 points

Player B gets loss plus 1.0 point

Player A wins first game as Axis by Jan 1945

Player A forces stalemate as Allies in second game

Player A gets 1.0 point for winning first game

Player A and Player B get 0.5 points for stalemating second game

Player A get victory plus 1.0 points for winning match

Net result-Player A gets win plus 2.5 points

Player B gets loss plus 0.5 points

Player A wins first game as Axis by Jan 45

Player A wins second game as Allies by Mar 45

Player A gets 1.0 points for winning first game

Player A gets 1.0 points for winning second game

Player A gets 1.0 points for winning match

Net Result-Player A gets victory plus 3.0 points

Player B gets loss and 0.0 points

Player A wins first game as Axis by Jan 45

Player A loses second game as Allies by Jan 45

Player A gets 1.0 points for winning game one

Player B gets 1.0 points for winning game two

Match is tied -no point awarded

Net result-Player A gets tie plus 1.0 point

Player B gets tie plus 1.0 point

LIAM:

I included the stalemate as it is an actual game result, however your idea of a time limit has much merit. What would be a reasonable ending date in your opinion?

SARGE:

Valid point-geography may not be the best way to go. Availability would also have to be a key feature.

HUERISTIC

There seems to be an interest in playing, if we can just come up with some organized way to make it really count. These pre-season games that we have already had are sure exciting to watch, but if we can begin sorting out the real top players in a league, we can really have some fun.

Thanks for your responses guys, I think this can work.

[ January 12, 2003, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...