|
|
Post by Dubber on Jun 1, 2011 7:39:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Jun 6, 2011 10:55:53 GMT -5
For Simplification of scoring display (like I did in my report) here is the code:
[table]
[tr][td] ...Winner... [/td][td] ..Opponent.. [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] -n (total) [/td][td] +n (total) [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] [/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[/table]
I found it easiest to do this is a spreadsheet program. If you copy the code above and paste it into excel (or equivalent) you should find it easy to build your own reporting table.
|
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Jun 11, 2011 14:50:35 GMT -5
Of all times to get a bye, I get it for the three-month-long summer...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Jun 12, 2011 9:36:36 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I counted a stab as a spell -- for all that, technically, it's a physical knife.
If I should not count > as a spell, let me know and I will adjust my scoring in the Dubber v Hermit battle report
|
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Jun 20, 2011 18:06:00 GMT -5
I would think that > and surrender both wouldn't count as spells, but let's see what others think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Jun 21, 2011 7:40:45 GMT -5
MikeEB has confirmed for me that > and Surrender are not spells, per se; therefore they should not be counted in the spell tallies.
|
|
|
|
Post by ourjake on Jun 21, 2011 10:22:36 GMT -5
it is functionally the same to count ALL the spells that each player cast and total them against each other. you don't have to pick out only the unmatched spells because they cancel out in the totals anyway. i don't know about coding and that looked like a lot of trouble to go through  |
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Jun 22, 2011 10:50:00 GMT -5
I agree that ourjake's approach may be simpler. Fun as the table looks, I will probably just report the number of distinct spells each player cast.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Jul 8, 2011 8:05:26 GMT -5
I've been looking at Ourjake and Ellipsis battle reports and I agree: functionally, adding up each distinct spell is the same result. The interesting piece, which is brought out by the table (but not so clearly in the raw list) is the strategy choices. Some games have a vast number of spells cast, many only be one player, others have very few spells cast with lots of overlap between the players' casts. (I posit that the players who choose to use a variety of spells do better than the players who tend to repeat spells) Just for example, I will post tables of the 3 (not me) battles reported to date: Ourjake v Utis = +16 | OurJake | Utis | | -4 | 10 | | -1 | DFW | | DPP | DPP | | DSF | 1 | | DWFFd | 1 | | FFF | FFF | | P | P | | -1 | PSDD | | -1 | PSDF | | PSFW | 1 | | SD | SD | | SFW | 1 | | SPFP | 1 | | SPFPSDW | 1 | | -1 | SPPc/SPPFD | | SWD | 1 | | WFP | 1 | | WFPSFW | 1 | | WPFD | 1 | | WWS/WPP | WPP/WWS |
v Ephemerion = +13 | OurJake | Ephemerion | | -2 | 5 | | -1 | cDPW | | DFW | 1 | | DSF | 1 | | FFF | 1 | | FoD | 1 | | P | P | | PPws | PPws | | PSDF | PSDF | | SD | SD | | SFW | SFW | | SWD | 1 | | WFP | WFP | | -1 | WWP |
v Ephemerion = +12 | Ellipsis | Ephemerion | | -4 | 6 | | -1 | cDPW | | -1 | cw | | DFFDD | 1 | | DPP | 1 | | DWSSSP | 1 | | DWWFWD | 1 | | FFF | FFF | | FPSFW | 1 | | P | P | | PPws | PPws | | -1 | PSDF | | PSFW | 1 | | -1 | PWPWWc | | SD | SD | | -1 | SFW | | SPFP | SPFP | | SPPFD | SPPc | | -1 | SSFP | | SWD | SWD | | WFP | 1 | | WPFD | 1 | | WPP | WPP | | -1 | WSSc | | WWP | 1 |
PS the table is really easy to build and use, PM me your email and I'll send one to you if you don't want to make it yourself[/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Jul 8, 2011 17:29:10 GMT -5
I have noticed, actually, that players with this rule are tending to win with extra bonus points to spare, and rarely win with less variety than the loser. This particularly pleases me as I made a long post about the value of variety after the tourney at the end of last year.  Anyway, if I'm not feeling super lazy next time I report a match, I may use the table. It is interesting to see the breakdown. |
|
|
|
Post by ephemerr on Jul 17, 2011 10:01:12 GMT -5
I have noticed, actually, that players with this rule are tending to win with extra bonus points to spare, and rarely win with less variety than the loser. This particularly pleases me as I made a long post about the value of variety after the tourney at the end of last year. This difference could appear just due initiative winning. |
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Jul 19, 2011 17:41:36 GMT -5
I have noticed, actually, that players with this rule are tending to win with extra bonus points to spare, and rarely win with less variety than the loser. This particularly pleases me as I made a long post about the value of variety after the tourney at the end of last year. This difference could appear just due initiative winning. You mean because they get ahead in initiative they have the chance to complete more spells - spells which disrupt their opponents' weaves and thus reduce the number of spells they complete? Possible, but that seems to suggest that one player has and holds onto initiative advantage the entire game, which I doubt is the norm. Also, the only exception to this I've seen so far is when Saypin beat me, but completed fewer spells than I did...I don't suppose that would have anything to do with him being a paramancer? But the point that correlation does not imply causation is well taken. Also, might I point out that I'm looking at a "force surrender" button in my game with MikeEB? Where did you go, Mike? Granted, I apparently have until the end of the summer to complete this match, so I guess it's not terribly pressing. |
|
|
|
Post by ourjake on Jul 21, 2011 0:50:53 GMT -5
in the Xade vs me match i also cast maladroit (10), cause heavy(11), and charm person(7) they still count even though he was invis at the time
score should be +11 to xade
|
|
|
|
Post by xade on Jul 22, 2011 7:25:02 GMT -5
oh bugger- countered and foiled spells still count! I'm gunna need to revise all my scorings.  |
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Jul 23, 2011 23:05:17 GMT -5
Due to personal issues, I'm pulling out of the league for the next round.
|
|
