To all concerned:
I wanted to clarify that there are currently two separate issues:
-
What should the scoring system be?
-
What are the definitions of terms proposed to
be used within the scoring system?
To date, I believe I’ve seen the following terms used/proposed for use:
victory
major victory
minor victory
surrender
conditional surrender
unconditional surrender
forced surrender
draw
concession
forced concesssion
agreed upon concession
I propose we stick with the following, and propose the following definitions:
Major Victory: Victory via the One ring,
or via “force out” (over 2x the players - we will never get to “total elimination”
with an “auto out” provision that kicks in at > 2x the number of nations
- think about it!)
Minor Victory: The game lasts through turn
52, and one side has a more players then the other (but not enough for
a “force out”)
Draw: Game ends on turn 52, and both sides
have the same number of nations. Alternatively, a draw may be declared
where both teams end the game prior to turn 52 via a mutualy agreed upon
cessation.
Surrender : A mutually_agreed-upon
cessation of the game, prior to turn 52. The team offering surrender is
conceding a minor victory (as defined above).
Proposed Scoring System:
Major Victory: 3 pts. to winner, 0 pts. to loser
Minor Victory: 2 pts. to winner, 1 pt. to loser
Draw:
1.5 pts. to each side
Is this clear? Is it acceptable?? It is not “perfect”
but I believe balances most of the (many, many) concerns/issues pointed
out during this protracted discussion. I believe this would also
be acceptable to my team in terms of applying it to the allready-completed
(and much-discussed) Game 30.
Let’s tackle length/number of games in the tournament separately (I
think this can safely be “separated” without dramatically changing the
impact of the proposed scoring system).
b (on behalf of Team USA)
