Talk Fantasy Football

At the ARBBL I give bonus points for Tds scored and Cas caused, to try and stop the boring (imo of course) 1-0 stall-games (for tourney play - I understand why we do it for league play), to the point where a high-scoring, high-cas draw is worth almost as much as a 1-0 win.

But would this also work: Give a bonus number of points every time x number of TDs/cas are scored. So say I set it as 11/5/1 for w/d/l and 1 point per 2 TDs, and 1 point per 3 Cas, a player winning 3 games 1-0 would have 34 points, but a player winning 2 4-3, 3-3cas, and drawing 2-2, 3-1 cas would have 35 points.

Would it bug players to have "partial points" carried over from game to game (I've got 2 TDs, another gives me a bonus), or would people perfer to have a fixed score per round?


I haven't finished the scoring system for ARBBL yet, so any input gratefully received.

You lost me at hello.

I won't be going, but my 2p is that I really dislike that a 3-0-0 record could be ranked lower than a 2-1-0 or even a 2-0-1 - and I think a lot of coaches feel the same way. Sure use TDs/Cas to tiebreak identical records but it should not allow you to normally equal or even overhaul someone on a better tournament record.

The Maelstrom Cup have decided to use this, but that's because they're coming from playing Warhammer a lot and want to reward people for getting stuck in.

I personally don't the proposal. To me a win is a win is a win. And 2 wins are better than 1 win and 1 draw/loss. Happy to use it as a tiebreaker (e.g. 3,000 for a win, 1,000 for a draw, 0 for a loss, then + bonus) but the bonus should never cause a draw to become a win, etc.

lucifer wrote: Happy to use it as a tiebreaker (e.g. 3,000 for a win, 1,000 for a draw, 0 for a loss, then + bonus) but the bonus should never cause a draw to become a win, etc.

Joejawmanjiron are using a scoring system along those lines.

http://talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopi ... 74&start=0

A win is a win. And a win is always better than a draw.

I hate it when you can get as much for a draw as a win, or double for a big win as a 1-0.

The scoreline of a game does not tell the story. A "boring 1-0" can be more exciting than a 4-3. The ball could change hands many times, there could be failed GFIs in the endzone, interceptions, the lot. A 4-3 is likely just two WE teams scoring on each other - no skill involved.

Also, there is no way IMO that (for example) a 3-0 is worth significantly more than a 2-1. As a tiebreaker use the TD difference, sure. But the scoreline conceals any number of stories. WEs 3-0 against e.g. Ogres is IMO a terrible performance. Whereas Dwarfs 1-0 against Khemri could be masterful. If I bear Pippy or Geoff 1-0 I would feel delighted, why should I get less points that someone next to me who has drawn a chump? Some teams can play badly and win 3-0, some teams will almost never win 3-0 without huge luck.

Example - WE coach receives, but his Dwarf opponent puts on good pressure and forces him to score early, risking several rolls along the way. Moral victory to the opponent, and the 2-1 grind is on. The WEs then roll Blitz! on an unprotected ball and get an easy 2-0. Dwarfs don't have enough time to score before the half. Second half the WE player should stand off so that the Dwarf player can't score 2 in the half. But he dives in and gets lucky, turns over the ball and scores the third. Finishes 3-0.

I too live in the records > bonus points for scorelines / cas / comps / whatever camp. Whomever has the best record should win the thing, and so on.

Though I am a boring 1-0'r by nature (who has been stung by bonus points more than once), perhaps I'm bias.

Joemanji wrote:Example - WE coach receives, but his Dwarf opponent puts on good pressure and forces him to score early, risking several rolls along the way. Moral victory to the opponent, and the 2-1 grind is on. The WEs then roll Blitz! on an unprotected ball and get an easy 2-0. Dwarfs don't have enough time to score before the half. Second half the WE player should stand off so that the Dwarf player can't score 2 in the half. But he dives in and gets lucky, turns over the ball and scores the third. Finishes 3-0.

Sounds like that wood elf player has played exceedingly well and deserves as many points as there are going.

I'm all for set points for win/draw/loss for the same reasons stated earlier, especially regarding casualties as it is so unpredictable how many you will get from game to game. A lucky CAS or two can see to it you win the game big, and now you get more points for doing so.

Ok, bad idea for the power-gamers out there.
Idea dropped.

I have no issue with this at all, if it is clearly set out in the rulespack what the scoring system is then there is no complaints, the powergamers need to adapt their team selection or game to still win. If they were as good as they think they are then it wont be a problem, if your a pretender like me your screwed

I understand that argument, but respectfully disagree. Heavy weighting for bonus points makes a tournament a lottery. Whoever draws the most chumps wins.

Joemanji wrote:Whoever draws the most chumps wins.

You can only play Gazza once.

Joemanji wrote:I understand that argument, but respectfully disagree. Heavy weighting for bonus points makes a tournament a lottery. Whoever draws the most chumps wins.

I suppose it depends on what your going to a torni for, 6 fun games and possibly winning a nie little prize at the end but all in all having a fun time, or going to win and that is it

Darkson wrote:

Joemanji wrote:Whoever draws the most chumps wins.

You can only play Gazza once.

LOL!

I can see what you mean. But I don't see "having fun" and "wanting to win" as mutually exclusive. It is the effort of trying to win that creates the excitement and makes a game enjoyable. It is a competition, there is a winner. Nothing wrong with that, despite what the government says. I think that it is possible to "have fun" and want the best player on the day (not necessarily yourself) to win.