Baseball Scoring System - Second Round.

[Frankie]

There was no majority in the first vote. Therefore we try again excluding scoring system No. 2, because it got the least votes. This means only 2 scoring systems in this poll.

Here comes a reminder of them.

----------

Scoring System No.1 by Roncli:

100 for a win, 50 for a draw, and 0 for a loss. If you win, add the point difference to the score.

Player 5, Computer 5 - 50 points for a draw.
Player 40, Computer 0 - 100 points for a win plus 40 points difference, 140 total.
Player 0, Computer 40 - 0 points for a loss.
Player 40, Computer 20 - 120 points for a win plus 20 points difference, 120 total.

----------

Scoring System No.3 by Matt Denham:

Formula: 1000 * (player's score + 1) * (player's score - computer's score) / (loser's score + 1)

Examples:

Player 8, Computer 3: 1000 * (8+1) * (8-3) / (3+1) = 11,250
Player 6, Computer 0: 1000 * (6+1) * (6-0) / (0+1) = 42,000
Player 11, Computer 1: 1000 * (11+1) * (11-1) / (1+1) = 60,000
Player 4, Computer 14: 1000 * (4+1) * (4-14) / (4+1) = -10,000
Player 5, Computer 6: 1000 * (5+1) * (5-6) / (5+1) = -1000
Player 0, Computer 1: 1000 * (0+1) * (0-1) / (0+1) = -1000

Pros: Ties are almost impossible, and, for the most part, final scores are relatively logical (shutouts are worth the most of any game where you score a certain number of runs, and games are worth more the more runs you score).

Cons: Games where the player loses are worth negative amounts of points (and losses by N runs are worth simply N*(-1000)).

----------

This vote will run for 7 days.

[Chad]

Since this poll involves a lot of recordings and is still close, I would like to extend this poll so that the four people that voted in the first poll (and haven't voted here yet) can vote in this one.

jbd41
rough
seymore
jmd

Does anyone have any objections? I.e. does anyone think the people who didn't vote in this one really just didn't want to vote a second time?

I've notified these four people via personal messages, hopefully they can vote today before the dead line, but i really don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to vote because the 2nd poll got lost in the board to them (only the 1rst poll was mentioned in the news page on the marp site.)

[jmd]

Thanks for the tip-off, skito. Vote cast again. Wouldn't have seen the tiebreaker otherwise.

[seymour]

I wouldn't have noticed, either. I just voted (although it's still a tie, heh).

[Chad]

rough looks like he picked up my mail (i.e. it's not in my OutBox anymore but hasn't voted) jbd41 hasn't voted and hasn't got the personal message as of now. anyone know who jbd41 is?

[Chad]

****** jdb appears to be Jason Dyer although he doesn't have an email adddress

[roncli]

So what's the status?

[MDenham]

So what's the status?

8-8. Pfah. Can we PLEASE stop getting so many ties on these polls?

[Frankie]

So what's the status?

Well, it ended in a tie. Any suggestions? We could ask for more scoring systems and see if we can find one we all agree on, or at least most of us.

We could run another poll, running for a longer period, promoting it more.

Any ideas?

[roncli]

Run it again, and promote it more on the front page. I bet that was the downfall of this one.

[***PL***]

I think we need to run this again one last time. I would add one more scoring system, probably Phil Lamat's suggestion (same system used for soccer games). I would also like to let this run for 14 days or longer and expect a minimum total vote of 20 (whichever comes first).

On a similar note, MARP Editors are in the process of deciding a minimum number of participation votes for public polls. Two votes just doesn't do it. Vote!!

[roncli]

We already ran a poll with three options. Adding another option would be going backwards, and I would contend that we would have to bring Chad's option back in to be fair.

That's not to mention that Phil's option ranks 10 on the lame-o-meter. If that were the case, I'd run up the score infinitely in extra innings and let the defense catch up just so I can have thousands of points, regardless if I win the game or not. Baseball is one of the few sports games I know of with unlimited time to score points in (if you can avoid outs, you can avoid ending the game), and that needs to be considered before we go adding options that reward you for running up the score.

Now, I'm all in favor of extending the poll and requiring a minimum number of votes, but I'm more in favor of just seeing this get over with.

[MDenham]

discussion of scoring and extra innings

Funny, I wanted to make games in extra innings worth less and you complained about it. (Or was that Chad?)

[roncli]

First of all, I never wrote that. If you're gonna quote me, quote me right.

Secondly, I never have wanted games to be worth different amounts based on the number of innings played. RunsFor - RunsAgainst is optimal. 1000 * (player's score + 1) * (player's score - computer's score) / (loser's score + 1) is tolerable, as you have no advantage or disadvantage by playing longer or shorter periods of time. 10*RunsFor - RunsAgainst is ludicrous, and allows for 1000+ points if you can control the game good enough.

My suggestion remains... restart the poll with the same options, but get Barry to advertise it on the front page.

[Chad]

if we have the same options it would be necesary to have the same people who voted for the first (second) one vote again (or at least mention that they are willingingly abstaining). If not then it wouldn't be worth anything.