Scoring for BBDBA

[Gregorius]

Hi All,

I ma considering running a BBDBA comp at CANCON in 2012. This will be a 2 day event with 3 rounds over each day. There are a few questions I have.
What scoring system have organisers used when running such a competition?

Secondly what would be considered the maximum number of players that could be coped with?

And finally, what you would consider the minimum number of players needed for a round robin?


Any advice would be appreciated.

Cheers,

[Stephen Webb]

I believe any scoring system should be based on wins then points. How to award points is up to you. You may borrow my method, if you desire.

The maximum number of competitors depends on how many tables, terrain etc you can provide.

For a round robin, you need at least two players. The question is not how many players, but rather how many rounds.

You need one less round than players, as each player has to play every other player.

That is if you have six players, you need five rounds.

So if you are allowing six rounds, you can only have seven players.

[David Schlanger]

Hi All,

I may considering running a BBDBA comp at CANCON in 2012. This will be a 2 day event with 3 rounds over each day. There are a few questions I have.
What scoring system have organisers used when running such a competition?



Gregorius,

I have used the NASAMW system to run Big Battle here at the Big East US Cons for almost a decade with no problems.

http://www.nasamw.org/NASAMW%20BBDBA%20Scoring%20System.pdf

It has the Win/Loss built into the system.

You can also find more info about it at: http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/guides/NASAMWBigBattleDBA.html

Good luck!
DS

[ferrency]

I have used the NASAMW system to run Big Battle here at the Big East US Cons for almost a decade with no problems.

http://www.nasamw.org/NASAMW%20BBDBA%20Scoring%20System.pdf

Having played in this system but not run any games using it, I second this nomination. I especially like the modifications to deployment, victory conditions, and board size, but the scoring works just fine.

The only point about scoring that not everyone seems to agree with is how to score with unfinished games, but I think the NASAMW system is fine as long as you're lenient when letting people finish if they're almost done.

Alan

[ferrency]

Secondly what would be considered the maximum number of players that could be coped with?

And finally, what you would consider the minimum number of players needed for a round robin?


I'd work the other way around.

How many rounds do you want to play? This is the ultimate limit, since 3 rounds takes approximately "all day."

This sets your minimum number of players at 4, which is the minimum number required for everyone to play 3 rounds against 3 different players.

Once you get up to 8 you have enough players to split into two groups if you want to. If you're willing to separate into groups and are using a point-based scoring system, there's no real upper limit to the number of players you can handle.

Alan

[miros]

The NASAMW BBDBA scoring system has been used across the US with a lot of success over the years. The way the points are awarded provides a clear break between wins and losses.

[John Loy]

Yes, but it punishes unfinished games by awarding both players a loss. While, sometimes this is applicable; it hurts someone that gets matched with a slow, deliberate player. And what do you do when the finals of 2 unbeatens runs out of time with no decision in sight?

John

[David Brown]

Hi there Greg

>>>>>>>>>
ma considering running a BBDBA comp at CANCON in 2012. This will be a 2 day event with 3 rounds over each day. There are a few questions I have.
What scoring system have organisers used when running such a competition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

DB. I use an 84-0 scoring system. It's zero sum, which is critical for any 'serious' event.

The 84 points is the two armies ie (2 x 36) + the two camps at 6 each (2 x6).

So there are 84 points to had on the table. Every game regardless of outcome has 84 points to distribute.

If you win the game you get all 84 points minus the score of the loser. The loser's score is the number of elements/ camp points he kills.

I also have '1/2 points killed' for elements of a demoralised command not yet killed.

Unfinished games are score 42-all plus or minus the net elements killed. So if you kill 5 more elements than the other guy, your score goes to 47 and he goes to 37.

If you like you could round it up to a score out of 100, wining players get a 16 point bonus and unfinshed games get 8 each.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Secondly what would be considered the maximum number of players that could be coped with?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


DB Cancon has lots of space, if you can give them accurate numbers in advance they'll probably let you have any number, but in reality I reckon 24 would be the upper limit of interested players


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And finally, what you would consider the minimum number of players needed for a round robin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

DB. With two days of three games each, which I guess this means 8 players as a minimum.


On to questions you didn't ask, the go/no-go for me to play is the BB terrain system which is not up to scratch for competition play. I'd recomend you have a go at cooking up a random system (perhaps ask PB to trial DBA-3 if it's no published by then) or simply pre-set terrain and have players randomly dice for table side.


I'd also like to use DBMM army lists at half the minimum and half the maximum elements to choose to a 36-element army.

Regards

David B

[David Schlanger]

Yes, but it punishes unfinished games by awarding both players a loss. While, sometimes this is applicable; it hurts someone that gets matched with a slow, deliberate player. And what do you do when the finals of 2 unbeatens runs out of time with no decision in sight?

John

An unfinished game is a battle where victory condition was not achieved, kind of like a loss in that way. You get a lot of points for achieving victory, if not... not so much.

If the finals of 2 unbeatens runs over time, you can just let them play to conclusion... or you can call it on time and go with elements killed. Whatever the GM prefers. Add those points to the previous total and get your winner. It isn't that hard.

DS

[david kuijt]

Yes, but it punishes unfinished games by awarding both players a loss. While, sometimes this is applicable; it hurts someone that gets matched with a slow, deliberate player.

Pick your poison, John.

Treat unfinished games as a loss -- perhaps an "innocent" player who is matched with a "slow" player won't get a result, when the same Innocente could have had a result against a "faster" player.

Do anything else (give more points for unfinished than for losing) and you might make the Innocente a bit happier -- but he still won't win the tournament (in most tournaments you need to win all your games to win the tournament), so does that really matter? And you also make the Slowboat player happier -- so he is less likely to modify his behavior (learn to play faster) in the long term. In other words, Slowboat is going to ruin someone else's tourney in the future, and continue doing so, rather than learning how to move and finish a game in a reasonable time.

Worst of all, rewarding unfinished games can get you into a position where someone in the last round of a tournament might have enough points that he can just stall (become a voluntary Slowboat) and win. That is waaaaay more offensive, and behavior that should never be rewarded.

[John Loy]

An unfinished game is a battle where victory condition was not achieved, kind of like a loss in that way. You get a lot of points for achieving victory, if not... not so much.

If the finals of 2 unbeatens runs over time, you can just let them play to conclusion... or you can call it on time and go with elements killed. Whatever the GM prefers. Add those points to the previous total and get your winner. It isn't that hard.

DS

That's all true, but if one player is really slow ( and there are a few); then his opponent gets screwed just because of the match up.

John

[david kuijt]

That's all true, but if one player is really slow ( and there are a few); then his opponent gets screwed just because of the match up.


True but irrelevant.

If you are matched against a slow player, you are screwed regardless of the point system -- unless the point system gives you the same points for a win as an unfinished game (which will REALLY encourage slow players to be slow!).

To be clear -- in a 3-round tournament (which is what you run, if I recall correctly) you cannot win the tournament with an unfinished game OR a loss, unless there are only 4 players. That is regardless of whether you get 0 points for an unfinished game or 50 points.

If you get 8, 10, 14 or whatever players, and you only run 3 rounds, the points for unfinished games won't do any more than differentiate between whether someone came 6th place or 8th place (for example).

In other words, if you play a slow player and don't get a result, you are screwed. So why not do as much as possible to encourage slow players to change their evil ways?

[Rich Gause]

That's all true, but if one player is really slow ( and there are a few); then his opponent gets screwed just because of the match up.

John

His opponent is going to get screwed anyway even if you give a draw more points than a loss so doing so doing so does not help the fast player win the tournament. If you score draws better than losses you will get more draws and the especially abhorrent occurrence of somebody deliberately trying for one. Trying to implement a solution that makes people feel better while actually making the situation worse is irrational.

[david kuijt]

Trying to implement a solution that makes people feel better while actually making the situation worse is irrational.

Word!

<extra text inserted to allow the above brief response>

[pozanias]

His opponent is going to get screwed anyway even if you give a draw more points than a loss so doing so doing so does not help the fast player win the tournament. If you score draws better than losses you will get more draws and the especially abhorrent occurrence of somebody deliberately trying for one. Trying to implement a solution that makes people feel better while actually making the situation worse is irrational.

Perhaps, but I don't think so. If an extra 10 or 15 points were awarded for a draw, I don't think that would inspire a lot of people to play for a draw. It's still a bad result. Or perhaps the extra 10 or 15 points should only go to the player in the draw with more points at the end of the game. Presumably (but certainly not always) that player would be closer to achieving victory conditions and would therefore have every incentive to keep playing for a victory because the reward is FAR greater for a victory vs. a winning draw than the penalty for a loss vs. a winning draw.

As has been said, both players are screwed by an unfinished game. Even with an extra 10 or 15 points, both players would still be screwed. So, I think it would be very uncommon for someone to play for a draw. But I could be wrong.

I think it should be said, though, that these bonus points for a draw (or perhaps just a "winning" draw) should only be used by people if they believe that a draw is a better result than a loss. If you don't think a draw is better than a loss (a perfectly valid position), then it makes NO sense to give the bonus points.

These bonus points are usually only going to affect the rankings of players in the middle or bottom of the table. For example, giving the player with 2 losses and 1 draw a slightly better ranking then one with 3 losses. Of course, it could affect the top spots as well -- but this is less likely.

Anyway, this is an old debate. Not really a right or wrong IMO, just a matter of preference. But I will say, that if this system were used and it did encourage people to play for a draw, I would immediately abandon it.

[Pavane]

At Hotlead this year we tried a modified NASAMW scoring system where we add 5 points to each of the players completing their game. I am not convinced that this modified the behaviour of slow players, and it did further penalise fast players playing against them, but we thought that we would give it a try. I do not think that the outcome was worth deviating from the standard point system.

Why would anyone ever consider awarding more points for an incomplete game that for the loser of a completed game?

[Rich Gause]

I have read plenty of tournament reports where draws are scored better than losses where players seemed to play not to lose so they would get the draw points, especially if they felt they were disadvantaged.

[david kuijt]

To some extent, we are arguing about whether Alpha error or Beta error is better (in statistical terms).

Alpha error: penalizing an upright, upstanding, reasonable player who would have been able to get a result playing anyone but the boogerhead he ended up against.

Beta error: rewarding an evil (or just slow) boogerhead player who habitually cannot get a finished game in the time allotted.

Ignoring the (very rare!) cases of extreme freakish weird luck, it is clear that more than half the players who don't finish games are too damn slow. It is easy to prove -- there are two players in every game, and at least one of them was slow -- because if both of them weren't slow, the game would be finished. In some cases both of them are guilty. Therefore, more than 50% of the players with an unfinished game are guilty, planetwide.

Strangely, if you ask players, the number who will agree that they are too slow is very, very small. It is always the other guy's fault. Nobody stands up and says "Hey, I'm too slow, I take 25 minutes to set up terrain and deploy, and I screw up the chances of everyone who faces me in a tourney." Weird, eh?

[Rich Gause]

How about changing the set up rules so the defenders get 11 minutes to set up terrain and deploy(stopping time when terrain and 1st two commands have been placed), the attackers get 10 minutes to deploy all 3 commands and the defender then gets whatever time he hasn't used to place his last command. Either side goes over time the other side gets 5 minutes to finish for them, placing the undeployed elements in one group with the front of the group facing straight ahead at the front of the deployment area.

[david kuijt]

How about changing the set up rules so the defenders get 11 minutes to set up terrain and deploy(stopping time when terrain and 1st two commands have been placed), the attackers get 10 minutes to deploy all 3 commands and the defender then gets whatever time he hasn't used to place his last command. Either side goes over time the other side gets 5 minutes to finish for them, placing the undeployed elements in one group with the front of the group facing straight ahead at the front of the deployment area.

Excuse my honesty, Rich, but... GAG!

I don't want to play with timeclocks like competitive chess. I don't want the GMs to have to adjudicate deployment with stopwatches and whips.

Playing DBA is a social event, not a bitter contest full of cheaters and malcontents that require policing in 60-second intervals. And I'm not at all happy with any suggestion that would require the DeploymentTime Police, because I want to have fun while crushing my friends, and I want them to enjoy their time being crushed by me.

[Tony Aguilar]

We use the NASAWM scoring and I just don't think it is that big of problem to cause a re-invention of the wheel.

In nearly 500 recorded games I have only drawn TWO games.
One was in DBA-RRR where try as we may Jim Riley and I could get our armies to kill each other. The other one was a situation with a slow player that caused the game to go over as he couldn't agree with the outcome of a combat resolution involving elephants.

[david kuijt]

Why would anyone ever consider awarding more points for an incomplete game that for the loser of a completed game?

Exactly my thoughts on the matter. Why should someone who tried real hard, and managed to finish his game in spite of a negative result, be penalized compared to some lame-ass slow-playing move-reversing ditherer who couldn't get a result?

[pozanias]

To some extent, we are arguing about whether Alpha error or Beta error is better (in statistical terms).

Alpha error: penalizing an upright, upstanding, reasonable player who would have been able to get a result playing anyone but the boogerhead he ended up against.

Beta error: rewarding an evil (or just slow) boogerhead player who habitually cannot get a finished game in the time allotted.

Ignoring the (very rare!) cases of extreme freakish weird luck, it is clear that more than half the players who don't finish games are too damn slow. It is easy to prove -- there are two players in every game, and at least one of them was slow -- because if both of them weren't slow, the game would be finished. In some cases both of them are guilty. Therefore, more than 50% of the players with an unfinished game are guilty, planetwide.

Strangely, if you ask players, the number who will agree that they are too slow is very, very small. It is always the other guy's fault. Nobody stands up and says "Hey, I'm too slow, I take 25 minutes to set up terrain and deploy, and I screw up the chances of everyone who faces me in a tourney." Weird, eh?

Even if a small bonus were given to the player in a "winning draw", all players would still have the greatest incentive to finish their games. I'm not saying there aren't slow players, I'm only saying that I don't think that offering a few extra points for a draw will actually encourage more of that behavior than already exists.

[pozanias]

Why would anyone ever consider awarding more points for an incomplete game that for the loser of a completed game?

Its not a reward for an incomplete game. Its a quantitative reflection of the subjective belief that a draw is a better result than a loss.

If the points system is meant to rank players by their peformance, offering a few extra points for a draw (or just a winning draw) is a way of accurately classifying the players.

Its comparable to measuring performance by Wins - Draws - Losses. Draws generally being given preference over losses. In soccer/football for example, most teams get 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss. This rewards draws over losses, but in my opinion does encourage some teams to play for a draw --- because wins are not worth enough more than a draw. I would translate this in DBA to 10 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, 0 points for a loss. That way a draw is worth more than a loss -- but no one in their right mind would ever play for a draw.

Having said all of that -- I like the NASAMW scoring system and am not advocating that NASAMW change. I am only suggesting that someone like Gregorious who is looking to adopt a scoring system may want to consider these concepts.

[david kuijt]

Its not a reward for an incomplete game. Its a quantitative reflection of the subjective belief that a draw is a better result than a loss.


Combined with the delusion that an unfinished game is a draw, which it isn't.

I have no problem with draws. A hard-fought draw is glorious.

Unfinished games, and people who habitually create them, are anathema to all right-thinking people.

So I'd be happy to support any system that would reward draws, so long as it would never reward an unfinished game.


Having said all of that -- I like the NASAMW scoring system and am not advocating that NASAMW change. I am only suggesting that someone like Gregorious who is looking to adopt a scoring system may want to consider these concepts.

Given that the NASAMW scoring system is reliable, simple, well-tested, and doesn't reward unfinished games (which every righteous GM and organizer would agree are not-to-be-rewarded), and we know Greg is a fine fellow, I can't imagine he wouldn't want to adopt it. :2up

[pozanias]

Combined with the delusion that an unfinished game is a draw, which it isn't.

I have no problem with draws. A hard-fought draw is glorious.

Unfinished games, and people who habitually create them, are anathema to all right-thinking people.

So I'd be happy to support any system that would reward draws, so long as it would never reward an unfinished game.



Given that the NASAMW scoring system is reliable, simple, well-tested, and doesn't reward unfinished games (which every righteous GM and organizer would agree are not-to-be-rewarded), and we know Greg is a fine fellow, I can't imagine he wouldn't want to adopt it. :2up

I'll accept that it's not a draw, if you will accept that it is not an unfinished game either. The game is in fact finished (unless all those unfinished games are merely in a perpetually suspended state). They are games that finished with neither player achieving victory or defeat conditions. So a game with no winner and no loser. Some people would call that a draw, from now on I will not.

Also, if I were to develop a new scoring system, I would only give the bonus points in the "no winner/no loser" game to the person with more points at the end of the game. This is the player that almost certainly has every reason to try to finish the game. But perhaps they play too slowly, or they may be playing a slow or overly defensive opponent. Or maybe its two heavy-foot armies struggling to come to blows and get decisive kills. Don't know. But if they are anything but really dumb, they should be trying to get kills and trying to finish the game.

I can tell you that I have played slowly against you and also against DS in singles, and particularly in BBDBA when you are playing together. But I always play to win, and I play very quickly against everyone else. I haven't actually had that many games end with "no winner/no loser" but the times it has happened have been because of my opponent or circumstance (e.g. that one scenario game against you with a "6" River which neither one of us wanted to cross -- but only I tried). They have all been frustrating and I have always felt a little cheated that they were treated as though I lost.

But I can also tell you in all sincerity that I don't promote this system for my sake. I accept the NASAMW system and despite how this may appear am not trying to change it (which is not to say I wouldn't accept a change). I am only defending what I think is the ideal system.

I will also say that I might be way wrong about this being better. As I said before, if it were implemented and people did start to play for "no winner/no loser" games -- I would abandon it immediately and never look back.

[Pavane]

Its not a reward for an incomplete game. Its a quantitative reflection of the subjective belief that a draw is a better result than a loss.
Except that it is not a draw. There is no such result in DBA. It is an incomplete game. Some people may like to draw analogies to other games, but there is not real justification for it.

[pozanias]

Except that it is not a draw. There is no such result in DBA. It is an incomplete game. Some people may like to draw analogies to other games, but there is not real justification for it.

There's also no such thing as time limits in DBA (actually, I'm not sure if that's true or not -- but I think it is). Once we introduced time limits, we also introduced draws --- eh, I mean "no winner/no loser" games.

[pozanias]

My final word on the subject, which probably should have been my first word on the subject:

I believe that there are two main purposes to a scoring system:

1. to rank players according to their performance
2. to incentivize certain behaviors, or perhaps better put - to discourage some behaviors.

I think a non-loss is a better result than a loss and therefore should earn more points. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with that.

I think a *small* bonus for a winning draw would not encourage the unwanted behavior of a player intentionally playing for a "non win/non loss". I admit this could be an incorrect assumption.

I think the points system should provide an overwhelming bonus for winning the game.

[Rich Gause]

Excuse my honesty, Rich, but... GAG!

I don't want to play with timeclocks like competitive chess. I don't want the GMs to have to adjudicate deployment with stopwatches and whips.

Playing DBA is a social event, not a bitter contest full of cheaters and malcontents that require policing in 60-second intervals. And I'm not at all happy with any suggestion that would require the DeploymentTime Police, because I want to have fun while crushing my friends, and I want them to enjoy their time being crushed by me.

Or we could just play with the NASMW scoring and count unfinished games as double losses, which is what I prefer. I was just momentarily horrified that somebody could take 25 minutes to put out terrain and deploy 2 commands....

[Pavane]

We are mainly quibbling over the middle ranking, so I could live with your scoring. The primary reason that we use the NASAMW scoring system is to conform to the big U.S. conventions so that no matter where you play it will be with the same rules interpretations and scoring.

I think a *small* bonus for a winning draw would not encourage the unwanted behavior of a player intentionally playing for a "non win/non loss". I admit this could be an incorrect assumption.

At Recon I was up 3-1 in a game, but eventually lost 4-3 because I ran out of options (and to a certail degree PIPs). I might have been able to procrastinate for a "draw", but didn't as there was no incentive (not that I would anyway, but for the sake of argument...).

[david kuijt]

Or we could just play with the NASMW scoring and count unfinished games as double losses, which is what I prefer. I was just momentarily horrified that somebody could take 25 minutes to put out terrain and deploy 2 commands....

You don't understand the enormity of the horror -- that occasion was in a singles game. It took my enemy (in the first round of a tournament) 23 minutes to choose and place terrain and to deploy his 12 elements. Although I must admit that 35 seconds in the middle of that was me rolling for sides.

I told him at the 20 minute mark (his forces still not completely deployed) that there was no way we were going to finish this game and he was surprised that I would say that. It was even worse -- he had a dismounting knight army and put out a number of steep hills, one of which ended in his deployment zone, so he deployed his knights on them (I had no Psiloi) and dismounted them all as single elements into Blades.

Time was called before we got into contact. I had to move my Later Hungarians with two WWg through a gap in BGo to get in front of his Hill of Doom covered in French Dismounted Men-at-Arms. I'm not sure what he was thinking.

That was the first round of a tournament at Congress of Gamers maybe four years ago. Needless to say, I didn't win the tournament (DS did). Get an unfinished game and you're always screwed -- regardless of the point system.

[dicemanrick]

You don't understand the enormity of the horror -- that occasion was in a singles game. It took my enemy (in the first round of a tournament) 23 minutes to choose and place terrain and to deploy his 12 elements. Although I must admit that 35 seconds in the middle of that was me rolling for sides.

I told him at the 20 minute mark (his forces still not completely deployed) that there was no way we were going to finish this game and he was surprised that I would say that. It was even worse -- he had a dismounting knight army and put out a number of steep hills, one of which ended in his deployment zone, so he deployed his knights on them (I had no Psiloi) and dismounted them all as single elements into Blades.



Maybe he was simply in awe of your DBAptitude:rotfl

[david kuijt]

Maybe he was simply in awe of your DBAptitude:rotfl

Yes, that must have been it.

[David Schlanger]

That was the first round of a tournament at Congress of Gamers maybe four years ago. Needless to say, I didn't win the tournament (DS did). Get an unfinished game and you're always screwed -- regardless of the point system.

It was called TriaDCon at the time... and don't forget that I initially didn't win the event, as I had an unfinished game in the finals against the other undefeated player - who had more total points. It was close to a year later that we discovered that he was a dirty scumbag cheater who had been systematically cheating at multiple DBA events including that one over the course of the previous year. I just couldn't seem to get the kill I needed in that final match, despite some excellent attacks. What I didn't know was that my opponent was rolling dice that had only 4's, 5's and 6's on it!

So that single event had both the insanely slow and cheating bastard players in it. Fun memories :P

DS

[Martyn]

Combined with the delusion that an unfinished game is a draw, which it isn't.

I have no problem with draws. A hard-fought draw is glorious.

Unfinished games, and people who habitually create them, are anathema to all right-thinking people.

So I'd be happy to support any system that would reward draws, so long as it would never reward an unfinished game.

Just picking up on this and more out of curiosity than anything, what constitutes a draw rather than an unfinished game?

Presumably in both they have reached the timed end with the victory conditions not being fully met.
Are you suggesting that a drawn game is one where part of the victory conditions have been met but not all, that is, a 4/4 or 5/5 so that each side has lost 4 or more elements but not more than their opponent. Would this also apply to 1G/1, etc type finish?

[david kuijt]

Just picking up on this and more out of curiosity than anything, what constitutes a draw rather than an unfinished game?

Presumably in both they have reached the timed end with the victory conditions not being fully met.
Are you suggesting that a drawn game is one where part of the victory conditions have been met but not all, that is, a 4/4 or 5/5 so that each side has lost 4 or more elements but not more than their opponent. Would this also apply to 1G/1, etc type finish?

I am suggesting nothing of the sort -- there are no draws in DBA.

A draw is a game that completes but is tied. A tie game in Soccer. A tie game in Hockey in the regular season before the introduction of the Shootout. A tie game in baseball played in Japan. A stalemate in Chess without time clocks.

There are no draws in many games -- Hockey now, Baseball except in Japan, American Football. Chess played with time clocks. And in DBA.

One of the major constraints of getting a whole bunch of people together to play in a DBA tournament is that you must establish a time limit on games. Of its nature, this means that some games will not finish. How many games do not finish depends upon the time limit set, which is a compromise between what is good for individuals and what is good for the group.

But no matter what your threshold is, there is nothing magic about an unfinished game in DBA. In Chess there are specific rules for what constitutes a stalemate -- a game that neither player can win (or will win). In DBA there are no such rules. An unfinished game is an unfinished game, not a draw.

[Martyn]

I am suggesting nothing of the sort -- there are no draws in DBA.

I must have misunderstood your meaning when you refered to I have no problem with draws. A hard-fought draw is glorious. as applying to DBA.

A draw is a game that completes but is tied. A tie game in Soccer. A tie game in Hockey in the regular season before the introduction of the Shootout. A tie game in baseball played in Japan. A stalemate in Chess without time clocks.

There are no draws in many games -- Hockey now, Baseball except in Japan, American Football. Chess played with time clocks. And in DBA.

One of the major constraints of getting a whole bunch of people together to play in a DBA tournament is that you must establish a time limit on games. Of its nature, this means that some games will not finish. How many games do not finish depends upon the time limit set, which is a compromise between what is good for individuals and what is good for the group..

I have no complaint about the need for time limits on tournament games, without it there would be chaos. I thought you had expressed a different attitude to scoring those games where every effort had been made compared to those where this was not the case. Thanks for the clarification.

But no matter what your threshold is, there is nothing magic about an unfinished game in DBA. In Chess there are specific rules for what constitutes a stalemate -- a game that neither player can win (or will win). In DBA there are no such rules. An unfinished game is an unfinished game, not a draw.

Don't forget there are many on this forum who think that the best game in the world is played over five days and can still be incomplete :rolleyes, which is then called a draw. :silly

[david kuijt]

I have no complaint about the need for time limits on tournament games, without it there would be chaos. I thought you had expressed a different attitude to scoring those games where every effort had been made compared to those where this was not the case. Thanks for the clarification.


Ah, I understand. Fair enough. I was unclear because, well, I was unclear.

There are some rare games where both sides make every effort to win, and a huge amount of combat occurs, and by a bizarre oddity of chance, elements do not die, or they die in parallel numbers. This continues for so long that everyone nearby is struck in awe, and timelimits are exceeded.

Percentage-wise, this type of game represents 1% or less of unfinished games -- massively fewer even than corner-sitting games (where one side or the other turtles up in the corner to play deliberately for an unfinished game) or Nanee-nanee-boo-boo games (where one side takes a defensive position giving huge advantage due to BUA or terrain and tries to get the other side to commit suicide). But everyone cites this one game they've played or seen, where both players made every effort and had full vigor of martial fervor (full vigour of martial fervour outside the US) and yet the game still didn't finish.

So when I referred to that type of game, I was in essence trying to separate out that unique occurrence because in intent of the players and in rarity it is an extreme outlier. That way the debate wouldn't have been inundated with people saying "in Botswana in 2003 I saw a game that went three hours with 3000 combat rolls, and it was 6G-6G when the power went out and an earthquake stopped the game..."

I wasn't really trying to establish a nomenclature that I would like to defend in debate, where that one type of unfinished game is a "Draw" and all others are "Unfinished." Because (as mentioned in the many previous times this discussion has come up in the last decade) differentiating that type of game from the others requires a qualitative decision by the GM, and there is a social price for that that isn't worth paying in practice.


Don't forget there are many on this forum who think that the best game in the world is played over five days and can still be incomplete :rolleyes, which is then called a draw. :silly

Yes, but those people obviously haven't been exposed to hockey, so they shouldn't be disparaged for their misbelief.

[pozanias]

A couple of thoughts that have popped into my head as a result of this discussion:

1. I am devoted to the ideas of fairness and rightness (for better or for worse), and those concepts are influencial in my original ideas re: scoring. But I have had the thought that: is it more important to get the scoring right at the very top than it is to get it right in the middle and bottom? I, personally, care much more about how 1, 2, and 3 are sorted out than 9, 10, and 11. If I'm outside the top 2, I don't really care where I finish. But yet as a point system designer, I would want to create a system that treated spots 9, 10, and 11 just as fairly as 1, 2, and 3. And I'm wondering if thats not a little misplaced. I know I don't care for my own sake, do others?

2. As has been mentioned, unfinished games (I'll cave and call them that -- even though I still think they do have a finish and that "draw" is a better descriptor) are a bad result. Nobody wants them, and they are usually caused by slow play, poor deployment, or overly defensive strategy. And being on the innocent end of an unfinished game really sucks and could easily prevent someone from winning an event that would otherwise have challenged for the top spot.

3. With these two thoughts in mind, does Rich Gause have it right by severely penalizing unfinished games. In other words, make it better to lose than to have an unfinished game. This would surely be a better way to motivate people to finish games.

My only worry is that it *might* create a culture where people intentionally play defensively forcing their opponent to charge "suicidally" because they know the opponent won't want an unfinished game???? I don't think so, but its definitely a possible side-effect.

p.s. I'm allowed to post comments after my "final thoughts" because these are different from my old ideas. : )

[david kuijt]

1. I am devoted to the ideas of fairness and rightness (for better or for worse),


As are we all, all honorable men. And Larry.


But I have had the thought that: is it more important to get the scoring right at the very top than it is to get it right in the middle and bottom? I, personally, care much more about how 1, 2, and 3 are sorted out than 9, 10, and 11. If I'm outside the top 2, I don't really care where I finish. But yet as a point system designer, I would want to create a system that treated spots 9, 10, and 11 just as fairly as 1, 2, and 3. And I'm wondering if thats not a little misplaced. I know I don't care for my own sake, do others?


My first reaction is twofold -- (1) it is much much easier to sort out 1/2/3 (and almost every points system will do so the same way), and (2) what do you mean by "fairly" in this context? To quote Count Rugen when sucking the life out of the Man in Black, please, be specific.

The reason I ask is that concepts of fairness (mine, yours, everyone's) often include a number of non-quantitative issues, and scoring systems (which is what we're talking about originally) are (and must be) purely quantitative. Having spent a huge amount of work and discussion on this issue, I'm quite satisfied with the fairness (in all quantitative senses) of the NASAMW scoring system -- but as with any purely quantitative system, it is incapable of differentiating between any of the following root causes for an unfinished game:

Evil Cornersitter
Plays too cautiously
Plays too slowly -- needs rehab
Too afraid of the matchups
Staring Match (BGo troops in BGo vs GGo troops in GGo)
Freak Statistical Anomaly
Spent 23 minutes deploying terrain
Had a sudden bout of intestinal troubles due to volunteering at a Cholera Clinic the night before
Realized the point system would ensure his victory if he didn't finish the game
Long, bitter rules dispute
Moving/removing/taking back removing elements then losing track of where they started
Had a sudden bout of intestinal troubles due to drunken debauchery the night before
Well-intentioned Innocent Victim of an opponent who had one or more of the above


All of the above (and more) might contribute to to an unfinished game.

For any non-victim reason above, a "fair" system might still penalize the person who is the cause of the unfinished game. But how can any system accurately judge the truth of any of the above? Most situations are not cut-and-dried, black and white.


And being on the innocent end of an unfinished game really sucks and could easily prevent someone from winning an event that would otherwise have challenged for the top spot.


That's the root of the debate, right there. And I have great sympathy for that issue, because I've been in that position.

But everyone is innocent, in their own mind. And the social price for any system that is qualitative (requires the GM to make some judgement of morality) is much higher than just solving it in a purely quantitative way.

[pozanias]

The reason I ask is that concepts of fairness (mine, yours, everyone's) often include a number of non-quantitative issues, and scoring systems (which is what we're talking about originally) are (and must be) purely quantitative. Having spent a huge amount of work and discussion on this issue, I'm quite satisfied with the fairness (in all quantitative senses) of the NASAMW scoring system -- but as with any purely quantitative system, it is incapable of differentiating between any of the following root causes for an unfinished game:

Evil Cornersitter
Plays too cautiously
Plays too slowly -- needs rehab
Too afraid of the matchups
Staring Match (BGo troops in BGo vs GGo troops in GGo)
Freak Statistical Anomaly
Spent 23 minutes deploying terrain
Had a sudden bout of intestinal troubles due to volunteering at a Cholera Clinic the night before
Realized the point system would ensure his victory if he didn't finish the game
Long, bitter rules dispute
Moving/removing/taking back removing elements then losing track of where they started
Had a sudden bout of intestinal troubles due to drunken debauchery the night before
Well-intentioned Innocent Victim of an opponent who had one or more of the above


All of the above (and more) might contribute to to an unfinished game.

For any non-victim reason above, a "fair" system might still penalize the person who is the cause of the unfinished game. But how can any system accurately judge the truth of any of the above? Most situations are not cut-and-dried, black and white.

Well, I guess the point in my original argument, is that I don't know what caused the unfinished game, so I am neither going to reward nor penalize the players for their INTENTIONS. However, I am going to reward you for the RESULT.

The NASAMW system makes the judgement that its more important to not-reward people for draws because even if the result is technically better, the majority of draw players are "bad" (e.g. slow, overly defensive, etc).

The PRIMARY basis for my old scoring system was purely the RESULTS of a game. And the understanding that a "not-loss" is a better *result* than a "loss". And therefore, its more fair for someone (regardless of intentions, because I can't read minds and don't want to witness every game and make subjective conclusions) that didn't lose to receive more points than someone that did lose.

The SECONDARY basis for my old scoring system was to be sure that no one ever be motivated to play for an unfinished game. That's why I would give "bonus" points only to a player "winning a draw" to be objectively measured as the player with more points at the end of the game. And crucially, to have a win be worth WAY more than a "winning draw".

But I am coming around to the idea that scoring RESULTS may not be as important as behavior modification (e.g. discouraging slow/defensive play).

Rich's idea (and my current idea) is that if unfinished games are so bad, we should be DISCOURAGING them (rather than just not encouraging them, and not rewarding them). Sure, this might not be as "fair" from the perspective of results = points, but who cares as it will only affect those in the middle and bottom of the table (the top will still be "fair") and it will result in a much better overall tournament (finished games = happy).

And if it works right, unfinished games will be eliminated. Which has the knock-on effect of eliminating the "unfairness" (from a results perspective) of penalizing unfinished games because there won't be any.




But everyone is innocent, in their own mind. And the social price for any system that is qualitative (requires the GM to make some judgement of morality) is much higher than just solving it in a purely quantitative way.

For the record, I have never suggested any qualitative judgements. In fact, up until now, I would argue that I have been more "objective" than NASAMW in that I have NOT made the judgement that players in unfinished games should be punished (or not-rewarded) because they may have bad motives.

[david kuijt]

The NASAMW system makes the judgement that its more important to not-reward people for draws because even if the result is technically better, the majority of draw players are "bad" (e.g. slow, overly defensive, etc).


Not at all! The philosophy behind the NASAMW system is that judgement should be left to an omniscient being. The result (unfinished) isn't technically better than a loss (which is I assume what you meant).
The justification for any unfinished game is irrelevant; the game was not finished. The only people who should be rewarded are those who win a game within the time allotted. All else have failed.

I do agree that a Tie (in horse racing, for example) is better than a loss. But a DBA tournament is like two people playing snakes and ladders tied to a bomb. If the game is over, they can hit the off switch and go report the result. If the bomb goes off, they don't get a tie and feel better about themselves, they are blown into little tiny pieces.



And therefore, its more fair for someone (regardless of intentions, because I can't read minds and don't want to witness every game and make subjective conclusions) that didn't lose to receive more points than someone that did lose.


Which is more fair: to let 90% of all murderers free, because we are not absolutely certain of their guilt, or to let 10% of all innocent people to be put in jail, because we made a mistake?

You are saying it is more fair to reward the guilty. I'm saying I'm not happy with that -- both because I don't accept that letting the bomb go off is better than losing the game, and because (as a tournament organizer) I want everyone to make every effort to avoid having the bomb go off.


The SECONDARY basis for my old scoring system was to be sure that no one ever be motivated to play for an unfinished game. That's why I would give "bonus" points only to a player "winning a draw" to be objectively measured as the player with more points at the end of the game.

Perhaps an example will make clear why I find the concept of "winning draws" anathema.

Three or four years ago there was an occasion where I lost in the semi-final round of Midnight Madness against a fellow who was up 1-0 against me in an unfinished game.

This frustrating result led to a discussion between a number of the movers and shakers (i.e., the people running tournaments), in which it came out that the same player (my opponent) had four unfinished games, all of which led to his advancement due to being one or two elements ahead.

After some discussion between DS, Diceman, and I (I think Larry was already asleep), Rich came up with the best idea for dealing with it, and every Midnight Madness since has been using it.

If you get an unfinished game in Midnight Madness, you are ELIMINATED. Period. Up 3-0? Eliminated.

Because there is absolutely no reason why someone who cannot finish a game should advance.


For the record, I have never suggested any qualitative judgements. In fact, up until now, I would argue that I have been more "objective" than NASAMW in that I have NOT made the judgement that players in unfinished games should be punished (or not-rewarded) because they may have bad motives.

That's a perspective difference, as far as I can see. You are focused on the issue of not-punishing unfinished games that you see as better than losing within the time limit. The NASAMW system is focused on the issue of not rewarding unfinished games because they are... not finished games. Your viewpoint is perfectly valid, but so is the NASAMW one, and neither seems more objective than the other to me.

[pozanias]

But a DBA tournament is like two people playing snakes and ladders tied to a bomb. If the game is over, they can hit the off switch and go report the result. If the bomb goes off, they don't get a tie and feel better about themselves, they are blown into little tiny pieces.

Remind me not to play in any more of your tournaments. : )

You see winners and not-winners. I see winners, losers, and others (not winners/not losers). Fine.




Which is more fair: to let 90% of all murderers free, because we are not absolutely certain of their guilt, or to let 10% of all innocent people to be put in jail, because we made a mistake?

You are saying it is more fair to reward the guilty. I'm saying I'm not happy with that -- both because I don't accept that letting the bomb go off is better than losing the game, and because (as a tournament organizer) I want everyone to make every effort to avoid having the bomb go off.

This kind of example could be twisted all sorts of ways. I could make it look like you support murderers. Suffice it to say, I disagree with the argument, because it only involves "intent" (i.e. murderer or not murderer). You ignore the "result" side in the analogy.



Perhaps an example will make clear why I find the concept of "winning draws" anathema.

Three or four years ago there was an occasion where I lost in the semi-final round of Midnight Madness against a fellow who was up 1-0 against me in an unfinished game.

This frustrating result led to a discussion between a number of the movers and shakers (i.e., the people running tournaments), in which it came out that the same player (my opponent) had four unfinished games, all of which led to his advancement due to being one or two elements ahead.

After some discussion between DS, Diceman, and I (I think Larry was already asleep), Rich came up with the best idea for dealing with it, and every Midnight Madness since has been using it.

Doesn't clear things up in the least. In all the scoring methods we have discussed, this player would have finished in the bottom 1/3rd of a points tournament (not a single elimination tourney like MM).


If you get an unfinished game in Midnight Madness, you are ELIMINATED. Period. Up 3-0? Eliminated. Sounds good. But MM is a completely different kind of tournament. I'd also like to add that based upon this discussion, I am now advocating that we consider penalizing unfinished games.


Because there is absolutely no reason why someone who cannot finish a game should advance. You may not be able to conceive of any reasons, but I assure you there are some.

Anyway, I've given up my original position. And now going to lay to rest my revised position. The truth is that, although I obviously have opinions on the matter -- it doesn't really matter that much to me. I'm content with the NASAMW system. I saw this more as an intellectual exercise to guide Gregorious that has turned into something else entirely.

[Bobgnar]

I agree with all the comments up to the process suggested for solving a tie game in a single elimination event. This is really pretty short sighted, By taking a player out of the brackets you create an imbalance that impacts the other players. Someone must sit out for a game to get back to even numbers.

Better to do a count back of the tied players' games to get a score, as we do in tied events. Better to roll a die for a winner, flip a coin. This all being done for the sake of other players in the bracket tournament.

\

After some discussion between DS, Diceman, and I (I think Larry was already asleep), Rich came up with the best idea for dealing with it, and every Midnight Madness since has been using it.

If you get an unfinished game in Midnight Madness, you are ELIMINATED. Period. Up 3-0? Eliminated.

Because there is absolutely no reason why someone who cannot finish a game should advance.

[david kuijt]

This kind of example could be twisted all sorts of ways. I could make it look like you support murderers. Suffice it to say, I disagree with the argument, because it only involves "intent" (i.e. murderer or not murderer). You ignore the "result" side in the analogy.


Okay, how about Manslaughter, where intent does not need to be proven? Or Tax Evasion, where the Gov't doesn't really care what you were thinking when you didn't pay taxes -- it just wants its money, regardless.


Doesn't clear things up in the least. In all the scoring methods we have discussed, this player would have finished in the bottom 1/3rd of a points tournament (not a single elimination tourney like MM).


It sure clears up why the concept of winning draws sucks to me, and that was why I mentioned it.


I am now advocating that we consider penalizing unfinished games.


Sounds fine with me. Or maybe just public mocking. A Board of Shame?

[pozanias]

That's a perspective difference, as far as I can see. You are focused on the issue of not-punishing unfinished games that you see as better than losing within the time limit. The NASAMW system is focused on the issue of not rewarding unfinished games because they are... not finished games. Your viewpoint is perfectly valid, but so is the NASAMW one, and neither seems more objective than the other to me.

If the NASAMW system does not award points for unfinished games SOLELY because you truly do not recognize the difference between a lost game and an unfinished game -- then 'yes' I agree with you.

But you have stated on many occaissions that you do not want to reward unfinished games because more than 50% of the players in unfinished games played slowly, defensively, etc. I have no problem with that, but it's introducing a subjective element that my original plan didn't have.

[Rich Gause]

I agree with all the comments up to the process suggested for solving a tie game in a single elimination event. This is really pretty short sighted, By taking a player out of the brackets you create an imbalance that impacts the other players. Someone must sit out for a game to get back to even numbers.

Better to do a count back of the tied players' games to get a score, as we do in tied events. Better to roll a die for a winner, flip a coin. This all being done for the sake of other players in the bracket tournament.

\

Better to pick the highest scoring loser from a finished game than allow a guy with unfinished game(s) to advance.

[David Schlanger]

I agree with all the comments up to the process suggested for solving a tie game in a single elimination event. This is really pretty short sighted, By taking a player out of the brackets you create an imbalance that impacts the other players. Someone must sit out for a game to get back to even numbers.

Better to do a count back of the tied players' games to get a score, as we do in tied events. Better to roll a die for a winner, flip a coin. This all being done for the sake of other players in the bracket tournament.

\


In half the cases it actually would even things up.

DS

[pozanias]

Okay, how about Manslaughter, where intent does not need to be proven? Or Tax Evasion, where the Gov't doesn't really care what you were thinking when you didn't pay taxes -- it just wants its money, regardless.

That's not really what I meant by intent. There are two aspects of the system that we have been discussing: 1. results, 2. player behavior. Often times I have used "intent" as a substitute for player behavior. Originally I wanted the system to reward "results" without encouaging bad behavior. Your analogy only speaks to the bad behavior side, not the results side. Anway, now I have shifted to explicitly discouraging bad behavior, even at the expense of properly rewarding results.



It sure clears up why the concept of winning draws sucks to me, and that was why I mentioned it..

Right, but in all of the scoring methods this person would finish last or next to last. I'm good with that and always have been. I think from a fairness point of view, he should finish only ahead of a player with 4 losses. But from a player behavior perspective, I'm now okay with the 4 draw guy finishing below the 4 loss guy.


Sounds fine with me. Or maybe just public mocking. A Board of Shame.

I think we may actually agree now more than you think. You should go back and re-read my last 4 or 5 posts.

[david kuijt]

I think we may actually agree now more than you think.

Yes -- the subtle clue being when I said "Sounds fine with me."

You should go back and re-read my last 4 or 5 posts.

Why, did you edit them?

[david kuijt]

I agree with all the comments up to the process suggested for solving a tie game in a single elimination event. This is really pretty short sighted, By taking a player out of the brackets you create an imbalance that impacts the other players. Someone must sit out for a game to get back to even numbers.


Numbers are rarely even in MidMad, Bob. And byes are delayed for as long as possible (to reduce their total number), so there are often odd numbers in a round late at night. You must be thinking of some other format.

[david kuijt]

Better to pick the highest scoring loser from a finished game than allow a guy with unfinished game(s) to advance.

Now that's a good suggestion. Since strapping a bomb to players is probably illegal, even in Pennsylvania.

[pozanias]

Yes -- the subtle clue being when I said "Sounds fine with me."



Why, did you edit them?

No, but I posted a major shift in my thought process and you have largely ignored it.

I just wonder (and its really just speculative at this point) whether it makes sense to have unfinished games count as zero or negative points. IMO, this is less "fair" but mightmake for bettertournaments.

[Rich Gause]

No, but I posted a major shift in my thought process and you have largely ignored it.

I just wonder (and its really just speculative at this point) whether it makes sense to have unfinished games count as zero or negative points. IMO, this is less "fair" but mightmake for bettertournaments.

Scoring unfinished games as 0 for both players might be a good idea........
Even if you are going to lose there is then a great incentive to at least try for a kill or two to better your score.

[kontos]

Scoring unfinished games as 0 for both players might be a good idea........
Even if you are going to lose there is then a great incentive to at least try for a kill or two to better your score.

How do you better your score if all you get is zero for an unfinished game? :???

[Tony Aguilar]

How do you better your score if all you get is zero for an unfinished game? :???

What he is saying is it is better to finish a game with loss as you will at least get points for what you killed.

A 3-3 draw gets you 0 points.
A 4-2 loss gets you 2 points.

[kontos]

What he is saying is it is better to finish a game with loss as you will at least get points for what you killed.

A 3-3 draw gets you 0 points.
A 4-2 loss gets you 2 points.

Ahhh. Gotcha. Rule #1: never read a post before morning coffee. :D

[Rich Gause]

How do you better your score if all you get is zero for an unfinished game? :???

If you play to kill as many elements as you can rather than not to lose there will be fewer unfinished games.

[michael guth]

I'm fine with the scoring system as played at HMGS east events. The one situation that makes things very sad for me is when a game goes down to the wire, where the loss of a single element by either side decides the game. A one element loss is not much different from a 10 element loss as far as the scoring is concerned, even though the former may have been a much closer fought game than the later.

For DBR I once tried a scoring system to grade wins and losses. The loser would count up the minimum number of opposing elements he needed to kill to win the game. So, in a bad defeat the loser might have still needed to kill 30 elements, and would have a score of -30. But, in a close game, the loser might have only needed to kill 2 more elements to have reversed the outcome, so would score -2.

Of course in BBDBA there would be difficulty because breaking a small CinC command still wins the game. So if one army had a 6 element cinc command, then anyone who lost to him would score a -2 at worst.

Its best just to win as many games as possible. Leave the corner sitting for FOG players.

[dicemanrick]

Numbers are rarely even in MidMad, Bob. And byes are delayed for as long as possible (to reduce their total number), so there are often odd numbers in a round late at night. You must be thinking of some other format.

Also, the tie "formula" is always stated at the beginning of MM, so all players are aware of it. I have occasionally "stretched' playing time a turn or two if the game looks like it may finish.

The suggestion about the next highest scoring loser to advance is a good one, but often players in MM leave as soon as they lose so they can get some sleep!

I'm comfortable with this scoring but only advise it for such a single-elimination event.

[Gregorius]

Hi All,

Thanks for all the responses. Who would have thought that a simple question about scoring could set off such a great discussion. Once again thanks for the input.

Cheers,

[kontos]

Hi All,

Thanks for all the responses. Who would have thought that a simple question about scoring could set off such a great discussion. Once again thanks for the input.

Cheers,

See what you started! :D

[Alex Bostwick]

I've played hundreds of games, both friendly and in tournaments, over the past eight years (next month will be my eighth Historicon, and eighteenth convention), and I've never not gotten a result- ever. And I don't always play all aggressive-like, either- I've turtled up a few times, although that's rare for me. My philosophy is that a slow player is a worse player, and will therefore need many, many more bounds than I will to close, so I do it as quickly as I can, before he can shake out his Master Plan. Most of the time, it works. Sometimes it doesn't. But I'd much rather lose than not finish.

Chris Brantley ran the "Big Wheel" event on Sunday morning at Fall-In 2003- unless it's the dementia talking, there were eight players on each side, all with one full DBA army. He had an egg timer, and had one minute bounds. (And, later, he told my father- in confidence, which I am now breaking- he shaved about one second off the timer each bound, which was pretty hilarious). While that was fun, having clocks is just not an option for regular games, although it would be amusing to watch certain players break down under the pressure.

Since we can't have clocks, we need to keep a system that discourages games that don't get a result. Otherwise we not only run the risk of getting people playing for draws, but also have the possibility of bleeding over into another event's time slot, which isn't fair to the players of the other event, or its GM. The NASAMW scoring system achieves that, I think.

I can understand people being upset when they lose a tournament due to a slow, nitpicky, turtling, bad-going-cluttering, heavy-foot, rules-lawyering, finicky player (I can go on with some more adjectives, if you like- some a rather colorful, and include symptoms similar to diptheria). That said, it's the nature of a tournament- you can't pick who you play against, otherwise I suspect DK would have very few battles, and Larry would only play my dad.

Draws, or unfinished games, if you prefer, should be reserved for Siege simulation games, not DBA. A stalemate on a battlefield only lasts as long as its weakest link- a rogue psiloi that gets three-oned, or some other such nonsense. Get a result.

I recommend, to discourage draws, a type of DBA Dunce Cap. Or, perhaps, a pin depicting the likeness of a three-toed sloth? I'll leave that up to the Game Masters to pick one. Honestly, I'm okay with either.

-A-Bos