WWN League Points System

[marauder]

The purpose of having a points system is to reward community envolvement and encourage progress and innovation in our community and in water warfare as a whole. I liked isoaker's system last year, and think it has proved to be a good foundation. I have amended it in order to reward inovations in new areas (tactics, tech innovations, media, etc.) and streamlined it in order to make things as easy to grade as possible.

Please let me know what you think.

Fictional Reports/Roleplaying
2 points - write up a fictional battle report/story (<500 words)
5 points - write up a fictional battle report/story (500+ words)

Comics
3 points - per comic

Tactical Scenarios
4 points - propose a tactical scenario (must have map, weapons, personel, rules, and objective)
2 points - respond to a tactical scenario (more than 1 response per member is good for discussion but yields no extra points)

War Planning
2 points - write up for battlesite scouting for potential war (<500 words)
4 points - write up for battlesite scouting for potential war (<500 words)
+1 point - per photo of battlesite/scouting event (5 pts maximum)
+2 points - for a movie of proposed battlesite/scouting event/prep (2 pts maximum)
+5 points - for battlesite scouting/fort building/prep with another WWN member (+1 point for each member over 2, ie 2 members would get 5 pts each, 3 members would get 6 pts each)
members may submit 1 report per site

Combat
2 points - write up a brief battle report (<250 words)
3 points - write up a mid-length battle report (251-500 words)
5 points - write up a full length battle report (500+ words)
+1 point - participate in a duel or small skirmish (2-3 players)
+3 points - participate in a small battle (4-6 players)
+5 points participate in a large battle (7-10 players)
+9 points participate in a mid-sized water war (11-20 players); need at least 1 group photo for proof
+15 points - participate in a large water war (20+ players); need at least 1 group photo for proof
+1 point per photo (maximum of 10 pts per submission)
+2 points per movie, 1 movie per battle; eg: 4 points would be given if you submitted videos of Thunder Gulch battles 1 and 2, but only 2 points would be given if you submitted 2 movies of the first battle.
+5 points - for battling with another WWN member (+1 point for each member over 2, ie 2 members would get 5 pts each, 3 members would get 6 pts each)

Tech
6 points - post a new repair you made, cannot be previously documented
6 points - post a new mod you performed, cannot be previously documented
10 points - post a new homemade you created, cannot be a copy of already existing homemades
+1 points per photo (5 pts maximum)
+2 points per movie (2 pts maximum)

[SEAL]

Not bad. But you need to give points for good writing as well, so we don't get reports like this:

i had bttle & i won cps 2000 i used beat joe w/ mxl

[atvan]

I liked the points rewarded for warring with other members- this is not here. I also believe that there should still be more emphasis on the battling. I understand that that may be difficult to have happen for some (namely me), but the site is waterwar.net. Also, I belive that duration and gametype should be factors that affect points.

Would each battle in the Com war be eligable for seprate scoring, or would they be lumped? I feel that that nature of war, where multiple individual battles are waged, should have multiple scorings, though some aspects would not be added. For example, you would only recieve the # of participants score once across the battles, and perhaps it would all be counted as one report, and eligible as scoring as so. But if you had 10 pictures per battle, you ought to get points for at least some of the extra ones, as it is a seperate battle. Pehaps we just need conditional rules for cetain events which would be voted on by the community as the time came, pehaps under a motion and second type format to initiate the poll. Or was the point inflation of the Com war last year something you were trying to avoid?


Minor typo- the first two under war planning are the same.

[martianshark]

I like it.

[marauder]

I liked the points rewarded for warring with other members- this is not here.

+5 points - for battling with another WWN member (+1 point for each member over 2, ie 2 members would get 5 pts each, 3 members would get 6 pts each)

I also believe that there should still be more emphasis on the battling. I understand that that may be difficult to have happen for some (namely me), but the site is waterwar.net. Also, I belive that duration and gametype should be factors that affect points.

Would each battle in the Com war be eligable for seprate scoring, or would they be lumped? I feel that that nature of war, where multiple individual battles are waged, should have multiple scorings, though some aspects would not be added. For example, you would only recieve the # of participants score once across the battles, and perhaps it would all be counted as one report, and eligible as scoring as so. But if you had 10 pictures per battle, you ought to get points for at least some of the extra ones, as it is a seperate battle. Pehaps we just need conditional rules for cetain events which would be voted on by the community as the time came, pehaps under a motion and second type format to initiate the poll. Or was the point inflation of the Com war last year something you were trying to avoid?

The battles at the Com war were very distinct. Distinct enough to stand on your own, so you bring up a great point. I also like your idea of recieving the # of participants score only once across the battles (max # of ppl). Now, if other people agree with us on this, we have to ask... does this only count for com wars, other big wars, or any battle? And what counts as a battle? I don't believe that every refill break should count as the beginning of a new battle. I had a soakfest last year, which I posted about, where we refilled like 20 times. It was a ton of points, but I would have racked up as many points for that 2 vs 4 battle as for the Com war. I think your rule should only apply to major organized wars, like the Com War, Ridgewood, Vermin Wars, etc. This would keep things simpler AND more importantly encourage planning and promoting large(r) organized wars which are better for the community for a slew of reasons.

As for counting more than 10 pictures per war I think that sounds fair as long as its 10 pics per battle. I don't want members submitting 20 pictures that are variations of the same thing. If you're on FB you've probably seen this before, especially if you're friends with any sorority girls. They take about 500 pictures of them and their friends in the exact same outfit and exact same location making different kissy faces. haha It doesn't add any value.

I am trying to keep this on the simple side of things while still encouraging participation and innovation as much as possible. Giving points for duration and battle type gets a little too complex IMHO and people can easily exagerate the length of their battles to gain extra points and there'd be no way to check against that.

Not bad. But you need to give points for good writing as well, so we don't get reports like this:

i had bttle & i won cps 2000 i used beat joe w/ mxl

+0 pts for the above writing style
+1 understandable, good quality writing
+2 enthralling writing with few grammatical or spelling errors

Sound good?

[isoaker]

One of the unstated rules in the original iSoaker League rule set is that points were awarded only for accepted reports; this actually also meant if a report was too poorly written, it could be rejected (not accepted), thus not getting any points. I would not recommend giving points to poorly written reports or articles since that makes the community look more amateurish. However, I'm all for bonus points for those who have particularly good writing styles (but that, of course, is a subjective thing).

Also, while the number and level of detail makes point earning more specific, I wonder if there is a way to make general scoring simpler/easier to do: Perhaps the idea of having submitted self-score themselves first, then have judges come in to do the final scoring to speed up the scoring process. Some scoring rules could definitely be grouped together, though I understand why it is currently split apart by general subject area.

Just some things to mull over.

[marauder]

I think reports should be allowed to be denied by judges, and I'm also cool with people tallying up points for an expected score, prior to being confirmed by a judge. We need to nominate judges or whatever you want to call the position.

But first, I want more input from the general membership, even if it's just saying that you think these are all good ideas and you agree with them.

[isoaker]

In general, I like the breakdown, but I would definitely recommend slimming down the number of variations on some of the points (and bonus point modifiers) as well as reducing some of the higher point values. I'd say cap the maximum amount of points (or bonus points) for a particular achievement should be no more than 10 points.

[isoaker]

Are other members happy with this above point system? Is it time to formalize it onto the Wiki?

[martianshark]

It's good.

[GJIV]

Sounds good


Hei Martianshark^^ Long time ago that I read thing/posts from you Where have you been or was this my failure that I did not recognise your posts ?

[martianshark]

I make a post or two a day. I'm not quite as active as I used to be, but I'm definitely here.

[Nitro123PG]

Sound fine to me.

[SEAL]

Are we still going to do that "Judging Panel" thing that I suggested? Where all three of the league heads award points (Mainly to avoid favoritisim.), with iSoaker filling in whenever a league head submits something. I think it's a good idea, but we'd have to triple the amount of points needed to recieve a prize.

[HBWW]

Does anyone get any points for working on Project Soaking Trident? If so, I'd better get cracking.

All joking aside, I do like the judging panel idea. Having a set "this points for this thing" kind of system can diminish the variations that occur on a type of contribution. For example, the OP stated 2 points for a video. What if the person creating it prefers to pack more material into one video as opposed to splitting it up? Is an unedited 2 minute clip worth as much as a 4 minute video that was edited together?

[marauder]

I don't thnk you get points for working on project soaking trident, but if you completed it I'm almost certain we'd unanimously vote you member of the year anyway.

Your question about video quality is valid. I attempted to address this, to some extent, by saying you won't get more points for having 2 videos of the same battle, it'd be better to just have 1 quality video.

With that being said, we are still a small, tight knit community. There are some things you just can't answer with rules, some things you just have to negotiate when they happen. If something like this comes up, the person submitting the videoclip can ask the moderators/admins for additional points or if it's complete crap (doubtful) the modertors/admins can talk about possibly denying a certain amount of points. I see no problem with talking about it, and then coming to a conclusion.

[HBWW]

Can't say much on PST right now particularly since I'm more in a hands-on mood right now to repair blasters and build homemades. I just need about $20 worth of parts and then I can build another WBL. I really got to get back into the grind that I did during the last holiday break, and if I ever managed to, the map and models would be finished up considerably sooner. For now I'll probably just try to get work in during my free time, but this sort of thing is hard to work on if the time spent on it isn't continuous.

Rules are always nitpick-able, and I'd have to say that it takes much more time to edit a lot of video together than it does to, say, pack up a 1500 and happen to be able to go to a large war. On the other hand, said wars are difficult to find and we need to encourage them to happen.

Anyway, I got an oddball of an idea, and that is to reward varying points in the community war based on combat performance! This would open up a big can of worms though, even if good performance only gave very little extra points.

[marauder]

You bring up a good point which leads me to some ideas. Perhaps, instead of just having prizes based off of overall points, we also give out specific awards for combat performance.

Last year at Downpour, Seal's team won both AP only 1hk games, not only that but he was the sole survivor each game. I think that's certainly commendable. On a similar note, I made more eliminations than everyone else combined in the standard 1hk game. Lastly, DX was hit less (by far) than anyone else in both 1hs games.

Perhaps, at the end of the year, or at least the end of the onseason, we can meet on skype and discuss specific awards based on combat performance, for most kills made or most likely to survive/evade. Something along those lines.

[SEAL]

I like the idea of awarding points based on performance in combat. My performance so far this year has been mostly positive (Got 10 wins and only 2 losses.), but I still feel as though I'm not doing as good as I could be.

Last year at Downpour, Seal's team won both AP only 1hk games, not only that but he was the sole survivor each game. I think that's certainly commendable. On a similar note, I made more eliminations than everyone else combined in the standard 1hk game. Lastly, DX was hit less (by far) than anyone else in both 1hs games.

Don't forget that legendary bathroom ambush by you and wetmonkey. Would that even count? It wasn't really in a serious battle.

[DX]

We could have Best of awards as well, like Best Ambush, Best Trick Tactic, Most Unusual Death, etc. You should be able to get a commendation if you manage to hit someone with a Thunder/Electrostorm or a dollar store pistol (same thing right). Maybe these awards could each have their own patch. Everyone should get something if they survive the all-night war.