Scoring Result higher than 'X'.

[RicardoRix]

So games can end in 20 or higher when 'X' is set to 15...?

In round robin tournaments the score difference is used as a tie breaker.

So players in all games, players are trying to win by the largest amount. They get a known winning position and then force the losing player to continue playing (knowing they've lost) in order to maximise the win. This does not provide a very good gaming experience for the loser.

I think this could be easily rectified by making the winners score equal to X. After all they are in fact supposed to be playing to this number and not a number higher.

Can this be fixed?

[diamant]

So games can end in 20 or higher when 'X' is set to 15...?

Of course, the players have not to reach exactly the score of X, and the final score, for the winner, depends of the number of stones in the last fenced bloom. When the number of captured stones reachs X, I think the game should end immediatly, so I don't understand why you want to modify the final score for the winner.

The true issue is the method to break ties in tournaments. It can disregard the winner's score, and consider the only loser"s score.

[RicardoRix]

Complete plagiarism of what RicardoRix just said.

There is no need to win 30-5 rather than 15-5. A win is a win and it's just not necessary. Taking just the losers score would have the exact same outcome, but restricting the winners score to 'X' would be easier and clearer.

[A-dam]

Sure it can be quite easily done. But Im not sure it is the right way to solve your problem with tournament games. It is a type of game where the point difference has not much meaning. So rahther than change game scoring it will be much more beneficial to have better tournament settings to avoid tie breaker

[diamant]

A win is a win and it's just not necessary.

I completely disagree about this point. The correct display of the scores as defined in the rules is absolutely necessary for any game, and Blooms should not be an exception for some ridiculous reason.
Using scores in a relevant way or ignoring them is a decision whose scope should be limited to tournaments.

[RicardoRix]

There is nothing in the rules to say how the result is displayed, only who has won.

If you DON'T want people to play blooms in tournaments and completely put off new players then indeed keep it the way it is now.
(not exactly a completely ridiculous reason).

[diamant]

There is nothing in the rules to say how the result is displayed, only who has won.

Your captured stones are collected by your opponent, and vice versa ; indeed, each player can count them. When the game ends, the players know theirs final counts. The expectation for a BGA implementation is to mimic a game in real life. Therefore, scores have to be displayed as long as they are known in the real game.

Please resolve any tournament problems without impacting the free games.

[RicardoRix]

You can also count your pieces in chess after checkmate, but nobody does because it's immaterial to the real result which is who has won, not how many pieces do I have more than you, or in bloom - how many stones.

So if the same ill-formed results were used in chess, then you'd have people delaying checkmate and taking all the opponents pieces before delivering checkmate, which is analogous to what is happening in Blooms tournaments.

Obviously if this makes no difference to the game being played then what's the difference, only in tournament play it DOES make a HUGE difference to the game play and solely in an unfriendly LET'S BEAT UP ON THE NOOBS kinda way.

[A-dam]

So it was updated, end score always stops at X value. Statistics remained unchenged.