I'm just throwing ideas out here, so forgive the rambling ill thought nature of this post.

Premise- The scoring system is flawed, encourages bad deck design and makes competitive play very difficult at best.

Goal- To find a system that not only tracks how effective a deck is at winning a scenario but also find a way to make a system that could work in a competitive environment and be fair to all deck types that contribute to winning a quest.

First let's take a look at the basics of what should be important in the scoring system. What is deck supposed to do? Win. I know that the current (official) system does not take into account win/loss ratio and that there are alternate added methods to take this into account, but they still allow a focus on a deck that can win occasionally with a great score but has a relatively poor win percentage. This cannot work in a tournament setting where you only have a limited number of games and is overall, I think a bad way to view deck design. I propose that in any scoring system winning a scenario should be paramount and that any scoring system should be average score of all games played. A deck that wins every game with 49 threat and 1 Health left for each hero is better than a deck that wins 1 in 5 in 3 turns with a 0 threat and no damage.

I saw a scroing system which uses something you described.

Player forms a deck, plays a scenario 3 times, scoring each won at the end.

Then, he sums all his scores and divides by amount of wins. Then he miltiplies the result by 1+0.5*Losses.

So, for example I won 2 times in the scenario, resulting in 146 and 184 scores. The averge will be 146+185=330/2=165.

Now, because I lost 1 time, I 165*1.5=247,5. Thats my ranking score.

Lets now take the guy who had the worse scores but won all 3 times.

Let it be 158, 173 and 195. 158+173+195=526/3=175,3.

Since he didn't lost a singe time, 175,3 will be his ranking score.

I agree with but I also think the entire format for scoring supports certain deck types which is unfair. I do have a lot more to post I'm just working on some points and want input every step of the way. What I'm really looking at is official tournament possibilities and how that could work. I want a player to be able to walk into a tournament with a solid deck using any sphere(s) and be able to sit at a table, play their deck and have a chance.

That is how I would do it:

The more wins you got, the higher you rank.

In case of a tie, the lower cumulative score of all your won scenarios decide.

End.

I think the scoring system is fine, and that you got it all wrong from the beginning; of course a deck that wins more often is better than one that only wins 10% of games, even if that deck scores very little in that particular game… the system doesn't even have a way to score on a failed game!.

No, the scoring system is there to decide who played better between two decks that won the same % of games, and obviously, a deck that wins the same number of games but faster, with less hero losses and with less damage taken, is a better deck

So, if you want to run a competitive cooperative tournament, the scoring system is the lesser of your problems, it exists only as a tiebreaker between the decks that had the same number of game wins, and since the score is shared in the same game (all players of the same game have the same score) it's even effective to judge deck quality in a cooperative enviroment, just pair the players with different players each round.

Things as how to pair players that use the same heroes or the inability to proper enforce rules on such tournaments without one judge per table, are worse concerns than the scoring system.

True. I don't even care about points or tournaments since I find co-op competition a contradiction I just throw some thoughts out and see what people think. I play just for fun anyway

plueschi said:

Hmmh, what about a round limit in which you have to end all your games and then you count the completed wins? Say, a player has 100 rounds to play a scenario as often as he can. He gets one point for each win. The player with the most points wins. This rewards a combination of constant and fast winning.

EchPiEl said:

Agree. You explained everything I intended to say, but was too lazy to write down in detail

leptokurt said:

Interesting idea. It might work, but on the other hand I think it seems to complicate things a bit.

All valid points and I agree that the (player modified) overall scoring system works for home play, but I think for the scoring system to work in a competitive format it would have to allow for a few things-multi-player games where the individual decks received scores based on their contribution to winning and games that could be played without a constant outside observer. In the current scoring system a primary function of many cards and decks (combat) only results in a secondary effect on scoring. It seems that to prevent large scale cheating and victory manipulation the games would have to be set up where you could score individual decks playing at the same table. Where even 2 decks cooperating to win were still competing to be more effective. I was looking for alternative ways to score so that a competitive environment could be possible. After trying a few things and looking at the record keeping and maths involved I don't really think that this would be possible. Given this and based on FFG's lack of sportsmanship rules resulting in a legal tournament win based on some one throwing a game to let some one win in AGOT I think I will have to toss the idea and accept that for the LCGs I play I will not get to play in tournaments.