Rules for start

[Tina]

WSoM Balancing

All terminals in WSoM is 3x harder to achieve than 13 orphans and yet they are comparable in riichi!

That\'s just because you hit the ceiling/limit in riichi. All Terminals is very much harder than 13 Orphans. Actually I think that when it comes to pure tile statistics WSoM is the most balanced scoring system. I have not played it, though I would like to give it a try.

I haven\'t considered the offense/defense balance; maybe you guys are right that it lacks the defensive element, but then some people think that about MCR too. While riichi is without comparison the variant with the strongest defensive incentive, defense is also a significant element of MCR.

[ryulusus]

For what I have been experiencing, attack and meld is the best way to win in MCR,
specially because I have been playing a version with 6 pts to call a win.
I've been winning on half flushes and straights alone.

Btw, is 6 Pts to win a standard in MCR?

[Shirluban]

No, in MCR you need 8 points to win, and the official rule don't allow variations.

However, 6 points scoring patterns will generally reward 8 points almost automatically.
All Pungs, Half Flush, All Types, Melded Hand are likely to have an honor pung -> 1 or 2 points).
Mixed Shifted Chows is close to All Chows -> 2 points.
Two Dragons Pungs have a fair chance to have One Voided Suit -> 1 point.

Plus, defense is pointless in MCR:
- Few scoring patterns need to have concealed sets, or they are so specific you can't meld anyway (Seven pairs, Knitted).
- You lose the same points if you throw a winning tile or if an opponent self-draw. While the opponent wins LESS by ron.
- You still lose points (8) if an opponent wins on somebody-else discard.
- When an opponent wins you lose 8 to 8+x, when you win you get 8*3+x to (8+x)*3. To said it loud, it's three times more. So you can afford to lose hands from time to time.

[Torgo]

WSoM/ZJ was created by a riichi player, statistician, and an avid game player. It removes the complexity and over-emphasis on defense of riichi, but still allows defensive play. The player who discards someone's big winner pays dearly. Neither does it have the high minimum score of MCR - going out with nothing to block a big win is a valid defensive play. (If you can't tell, ZJ is my favorite style.)

[xKime]

Well, as far as scoring goes, maybe it is a little bit more balanced for limit hands and such, but I am reluctant to paying points because someone else deals in. If there is a winner every hand, and that winner just doesn't happen to be you, you'll be at a great disadvantage, sinking every time more. At least in reach, you can choose to play tight against loose players, but in Zung Jung you pretty much just have to be loose yourself. If you get a hand 4 away from ready with no value tiles or anything at all in Zung Jung, you just know you will end up paying, no matter what you do.

Not only the defensive aspect, but I also prefer the importance of a concealed hand in reach. If you can just call every pon and chii and make a profit every hand, the skill factor is a little bit reduced as you don't really have to think about tile efficiency as much, since whatever tile you need may just come up on the board and you can just use it. You just go for it, as fast as possible, and a lot of that very "speed" depends on your initial hand, which is, essentially, luck. Sure, initial hands are also luck in reach, but you can at least gain the "defend and don't lose points / even if it's slow, go for a concealed hand and aim for a higher value" benefit in reach.

What I'm saying is, it's not something I'd normally play, or even regularly, however it has a lot of merit to be recognized concerning it's far less difficult to teach than reach, and that it brings aspects from different sets of rules into one thus getting players from Hong Kong, TW and reach fighting on an equal ground. So, as for WSoM, I think it really serves it purpouse, even though I'd much rather join a reach event. I still take my hat off to the creator of these rules.

[Torgo]

but I am reluctant to paying points because someone else deals in

I understand that to some degree. First, it's what you're used to. But from another angle, you didn't win the hand, so some minimal penalty seems in order. With ZJ 3.3, that penalty is now only 25 points, made up by winning a hand with just a set of dragons. You can even think of that 25 points as going to the winner instead, where in riichi, you'd be farther behind just because the winner needs a minimum score. The net effect is the same.

Not only the defensive aspect, but I also prefer the importance of a concealed hand in reach. If you can just call every pon and chii and make a profit every hand, the skill factor is a little bit reduced as you don't really have to think about tile efficiency as much, since whatever tile you need may just come up on the board and you can just use it.

Having a preference is fine. I've played some riichi, and in my experience, I get maybe two or three chances per hand to call a tile. More to the point, just going for it will give you fast wins. However, sometimes someone will win a big hand quickly, wiping out all your gains. One 50 point hand (say one suit plus a dragon) takes 50 no-point hands to recover, and games just aren't that long. So yes, ZJ makes it more profitable to win than to "not lose." That's not a bad thing in my book.

What I'm saying is, it's not something I'd normally play, or even regularly, however it has a lot of merit to be recognized concerning it's far less difficult to teach than reach, and that it brings aspects from different sets of rules into one thus getting players from Hong Kong, TW and reach fighting on an equal ground. So, as for WSoM, I think it really serves it purpouse, even though I'd much rather join a reach event. I still take my hat off to the creator of these rules.

I value these discussions with riichi proponents, but as far as I'm concerned, riichi has too many flaws to make it enjoyable, while ZJ modernizes the classical Chinese style and still allows for many offensive and defensive opportunities.