Does the MeG Competition Scoring System reward wins enough?

[lionheartrjc]

In a four round competition, a player who doesn't win any game could in theory score 48 points.  A player who wins three out of their four games but loses the other one could score only 45 points.

Should a win be worth say 18 or 20 points rather than 15 points?

Discuss....

Richard (tossing in the clay pot filled with wasps and scorpions!)

[LawrenceG]

WEll, the 48 point no wins player has killed around 20 TUGS, gave all his opponents a very testing game without the embarrassment of actually being defeated, and is himself undefeated.

The 45 point three win player has probably killed around 18 TUGs as not many armies have a break point of 7. And he failed dismally to do any significant damage in his other game.

So I think we are about right.

[nikgaukroger]

I'd concur that we are about right.

[tarnowski1]

I'm another who finds the balance about right or at least its never occurred to me to think it does not work well as is.

[badhabum]

Someone told me "if it is not broken do not fix it"

[sstoker22]

12pts ignoring SUGS you have broken 5 TUGS
So a 10 TUG force would break anyway.
I also think the current scoring system puts a cost on Pyrrhic victories.

[AntiokosIII]

The current system rewards mayhem a la Conan the Barbarian-"crush your enemies, see them flee before you, listen to the lamentations of their women..."  as long as you don't break, the more damage you inflict the better off you are, regardless of the damage you take yourself. The system does not reward finesse or SunTzu type maneuver unless it results in the infliction of damage. In effect, you get a 3 point bonus for breaking the enemy army. I like the system for competition because it rewards aggression and risk taking. I don't know either way if it accurately represents 'winning' an ancient battle, but it reflects skill pretty well and that is fine as far as I am concerned.