On the one hand I agree with the, no arm greaves and just one type of lance, on the other hand I like the diversity it adds to the field. Yes it was slightly harder to set up but in the end it is worth it IMO.
On to the scoring.
My first thought is: if it isn't broken dont fix it.
The numbers are a lot of behind the scenes calculations only needed to be understood by the people running the event. The spectators should only know 0 points for a miss, 1 point for a shield hit, points for a body hit and 3 points for an unhorsing. It may even be that it gets more complicated adding these other terms, and different point values.
The honour system while a noble (get it get it get it) idea is indeed not adding a lot to the tournaments and can easily be scrapped IMO.Sorry going to get technical now.
The big problem for me is that we will be messing a lot with the percentages.
the current percentages are:
0 points = 27%
1 point = 44%
2 points = 19%
3 points = 8%
the new percentages would be:
0 points = 16,7%
2 points = 16,7%
3 points = 16,7%
4 points = 16,7%
5 points = 16,7%
6 points = 16,7%
This has a couple of effects:
The average number of runs needed for a match goes from 2,8 to 2,1 (excluding unhorsing in the second system).
The chance of a double unhorsing goes from 0,7% to 2,8%.
I personally liked the slightly longer matches, the increased chance of a double unhorsing seems irrelevant so I'm ok with that.
I had my excel sheet doing all the calculations so it wasn't any more/less cumbersome for me. I think most people don't care at all what kind of system we use and don't really want to understand all the number behind it. they just want an entertaining photo story.
Then again I am not married to this system and will happily abondon it for good reasons and a better replacement.
I am fully behind dropping the honour points.
Sorry for being difficult.