|
|
Post by jay on Oct 7, 2009 9:49:40 GMT -5
Ok, you final angered the beast. My opinions that comp is dead and no one really fully understands it. I have had this feeling for years. BUT I also fully understand and respect why someone would not want to play an army with two daemon princes with lash, greater daemon, and three vindicators in it.
I really don’t care what I play because it is still a challenge to me to beat that list. I do not care how nasty of list there is because I can still beat it.
Some examples of why comp is dead and no one fully understands it. I think it was 2002 or 2003 Baltimore GT and bunch of us went down in played in it. I took my very comp Saim Han and Chris took this Dark Angles. I only took one troop, but 6 fast attack (because that was very comp for the army) Chris took 1/3 of ravenwing, 1/3 deathwing and 1/3 dark angles. The judges killed us in comp because they did not fully understand the army. We did not get the additional 10 points, so either of us won the overall award. Chris and I were only 3 to 4 points out from the overall score.
The other two examples is from this weekend. Brad brought a “big ones army” and he got killed in comp from his opponents, but why? Because he they got beat? So what you can not deal with MC.
My other example is Gabe’s army. He should of got perfect comp, but didn’t. Because people do not fully understand comp.
Four guys can go to a tournament with the same army and they will get different comp scores.
And Paul is right, the system in place worked.
Tournaments are not perfect. Do we not hold them? Or do we dumb down the tournament so people don’t get screwed and don’t have a reason for whining.
Or maybe we should hand out random army list as you walk in and that is list you had to play.
Being a judge a couple of things I noticed, but no one else is whining.
Mike Norton had to play a tough match up first round (the guy that came in second overall).
The hobin’s also had to play tough first round and got tabled. No whining from them.
Cory the guy that won it had to play the only army that could beat him in the tournament on table that he could not shoot all the MC. There was a big piece of terrain blocking LOS in the middle of the board. He managed to get some points in the game so he could win the overall award, but almost did not do it. But there was no whining about the table he had to play on.
Two guys from Ohio that came together had to play each other in game 4 that knock them both out of the running. No whining.
What Nate having to play Steve in round 2 with very little blocking LOS on table. He battle suits would have liked to hide behind something! No whining from Nate. Also no whining from Nate when Steve walk to his car to get a crater where his rhino blow up.
There were ton of reasons for whining, but I only hear one person. If you expect to win a tournament with this size you will play at least one hard army that does not comp well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horst on Oct 7, 2009 11:24:05 GMT -5
sorry about the wining. And nate tried to pull a fast one on me in the game (removing a wounded suit from an instant death weapon instead of an unwounded one to stay in coherency)... which is why he was mad at me and insisted i use a crater instead of a large blast template to mark the crater. (it should be noted that sparks used blast templates to mark craters in our game... i had no objection)
and overall, i believe i could have beaten sparks army, if the mission was different, or if i adopted a different strategy. I lost fair and square to him, and im just more angry at myself for playing like an idiot than greg for bringing such a hard list. sorry if i came across as a jackass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Oct 7, 2009 13:23:16 GMT -5
I think a lot of people walk away from tournaments frustrated with something. I know I was. But the idea is to direct the frustration appropriately (and constructively), which isn't always easy to do right away.
For example...me:
As Jay said, I think I should have comped higher than I did. My army was built based on an Iyanden theme. The only living unit in the army was Dire avengers, and that is because the shrine of asuryan is on Iyanden. It fits. I didn't expect perfect, but I certainly hoped for higher than I got. But, I can see why some people marked me down. It's a hard list to kill. Most of my army was T6 or higher. I thought I was being good by not bringing a farseer to make them harder to kill. Aparently, the T6 was enough to scare them. Oh well.
I came to the trouneu not expecting much in the way of battle points. I figured that being a unidimensional army would hinder me. I was quite surprised to have done significantly better than I expected in the first three rounds. I will admit that this got my hopes up for a high finish. Then I hit a wall. Two rounds with only 1 pt achieved in each. The first was bad dice, and even my opponent (Horst) will acknowledge that. My second was a bad match up for me. It was against a low comp army that relied on lash and oblits. Like I said before...no farseer, so no anti-psyker. Nothing against my opponent. He played well, and I got beat. In retrospect, I realize I could have plaed much differently and stood a chance, but at the time, I was very upset about the match up. Took me a day to realize it wasn't the fault of my opponent. I knew some people bring those armies, and there was a chance I would hit one of them.
I can honestly say that the 2nd day of the tourney was very dissapointing for me. Got stomped in two games and walked away with no prizes. Not whining, just dissapointed. But, after some time, I can look at it and learn. And I also had fun dispite the dissapointment.
I used me as an example. I hadn't really planned on posting my issues since they weren't relevant to the way the tourney was run. But I put them up there to show that anyone can have the feelings of frustration and dissapointment. Just try not to broadcast it, and direct it appropriately. If you have a legitimate gripe, by all means, let Jay know IN PRIVATE.
In the mean time, I'm planning for next year. I have an idea in mind, but I won't know for certain if it will work for a few months. We shall see.
|
|
jdubb
Sergeant
oh yeah
Posts: 490
|
Post by jdubb on Oct 7, 2009 13:48:05 GMT -5
I have some feedback on the wording of the player-based comp questions, specifically these two:
I think this one should be expanded to include repetition in unit selection as well. There isn't anything in player based comp that dings multiple oblit squads, 2 kitted-out nob biker squads, 2 seer council jet bike squads, etc.
For me, I couldn't penalize my opponent who had a lash sorcerer and 2 squads of oblits. Truthfully, I don't play against these very often and they did make the game more enjoyable for me. But, that probably skews the overall tournament ranking for comp.
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on Oct 9, 2009 17:11:05 GMT -5
Hey Guys, Check out this "free" article/book by Sirlin: www.sirlin.net/ptwI've read his articles over the years and believe that he provides some useful insight into gaming in general. Even through this past weekend, I witnessed a lot of these points in the games I played. Overall - I not going to jump into the debate about comp or how to play the game. Take the article/book for what it is worth if you are interested. If not, no big deal. Later, Greg |
|
|
|
Post by "LAST FREAK'N DRAGON" on Oct 9, 2009 19:40:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by grubnards on Oct 16, 2009 19:10:35 GMT -5
I wanted to thank the organizers for putting on a great tourney and my opponents for the great games. It was my first DaBoyz GT and even though I finished 61st I had a blast. 3 out of the 5 armies I played were ones that I normally don't see around these parts and all 5 of the players made the weekend enjoyable! My game against the SoB army (I believe Wyatt was the chap who played that army) was one of my most memorable.
There were so many great armies there and I look forward to seeing some of you throughout the coming year at the local tournaments and at next years GT.
- Kevin
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator 
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Oct 19, 2009 19:30:14 GMT -5
Hey Guys, Check out this "free" article/book by Sirlin: www.sirlin.net/ptwI've read his articles over the years and believe that he provides some useful insight into gaming in general. Even through this past weekend, I witnessed a lot of these points in the games I played. Overall - I not going to jump into the debate about comp or how to play the game. Take the article/book for what it is worth if you are interested. If not, no big deal. Later, Greg OK I will take the bait.... I clicked on the link that you posted and took the time to read through this person's ideas on winning. I cannot say that anything surprised me, in fact it seemed to fit all to well. As i read you didn't ask outright for a debate but in essence the fact that you posted this screams to me that you want one so here goes. You probably have been lurking on this board seeing what fallout would occur as a result of this years tournament. Using your mentor's words this would be described as good Yumi, the skill in gaining knowledge so you will know what to expect and how to adapt to it. As you can see overall most people were quite satisfied by their gaming experience and the quality of this event. I would include myself in this group however I would not say that improvements could not be made. Most people were happy we attracted such a wide a diverse group of gamers, and going forward they do not want to risk losing or alienating anyone since they feel quantity speaks of quality. I too agree somewhat but I also feel there are somethings that could change. Let me explain... This tournament was intended to be fun, first and foremost. The concept of fun is one that is scoffed at by the author of the link you posted. This person believes in the concept of playing to win. I believe everyone playing at the event also shares this thought but in no way the depth that the author believes. Winning is an important element but by no means the sole reason for competition. Through this author's writing he is encouraging the concept of winning at all cost. This is something I am diametrically opposed to but not everyone shares my opinion. Games by their nature are intended to be fun. They are to challenge the mind and provide competition. Games also reveal the true nature of people as well, a concept that the author also puts forward. I have played many games throughout my life. I have won many games throughout my life, and lost as many. Winning has its lessons and joys as well as losing. I know that I have had the opportunity to win alot more than I have allowed myself. In the author's words this would make me a scrub. In my words the author and those like him are tools. ( I can say that here right Tommy?) I scrub is a lose right, that is what I got from the article. I tool is a bad winner. I would rather be a scrub than a tool any day. Because I played within the rules defined and did not attempt to use every unfair advantage available does not make me any less a competitor than someone who won by bringing a gun to a knife fight. Was that wrong, who is to say, but I do find the author's words offensive and child-like. he encourages winning while losing sight of the overall experience and love of the game. I put forward that someone who breaks down a game to that level has no real love for it, it is equivalent to a porn star's actions to the act of love as they "get off" in each tournament they play in. I did find it funny that the topics of Sportsmanship, Banning and Cheating were also included. Sportsmanship is not talked about in what is fair and sporting but as some analysis as to the consequences of the actions listed. Banning talked about patching and what is enforceable, warranted as well as "It's Too Good". I am certain that there were people who knew EXACTLY what was too good at our event and brought it anyway. In the future bans may have to be put in place to eliminate these unfair advantages, and understand full well I am aware that when one loophole is closed another will be sought. Cheating was talked about in regard to Street Fighter and soft bans imposed in that game. It is a concept that works in Japan where honor is ingrained in the general thinking of the populace but the concept of soft bans is not a reality here. This was made evident by what was brought to the event which highlighted painting, sportsmanship and comp. Conscious decisions were made to max out gaming scores while ignoring others in an effort to win. This may have been legal but was far from sporting. My final thoughts can be expressed in this comparison. Ultimate Fighting is an event just as a Martial Arts competition is an event. Both have their set of rules. One awards just one aspect of the game ( pure fighting ) while another awards various aspects of the art ( form, etc ) as well as fighting. I can respect someone with whatever discipline they chose however I would not respect an Ultimate Fighter who showed up at a Martial Arts event solely to bloody their competition. I would direct him to another event where all the competitors had an implied consent that that behavior was accepted. In 40K terms that would be a 'Ard Boyz style event, not the one we have attempted to sponsor. I would also question the heart of that fighter knowing that he was competing against those who may have brought a lesser army. Victory may have been had but was it a real victory, and could you have also won with the same tools that you competition used? Understand too that I have learned throughout the years that I can enjoy a person for whom they are and separate some ideas they share that conflict with mine and agree to disagree. Again I don't wish to debate on comp or how to play the game either. Later, Doug |
|
|
|
Post by paintraina on Nov 15, 2009 20:08:58 GMT -5
From Greg's linked book: "fun” of the great debate, at least to me, occurs when you push the opponent by arguing your point, then that opponent is able to push back forcefully, yet you are able to withstand this thrust. By beating me, would you then say that you withstood my thrust Sparks? -Wyatt |
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Lord Snorville on Nov 16, 2009 16:44:34 GMT -5
Comp really is the most difficult thing to score in 40k.
Part of the reason we have such a difficult time scoring comp is that there are 2 different types of composition that we tend to combine when we score composition.
Army Theme vs Army Strength.
On one hand, composition is used as a handicapping tool to put softer lists on a more even playing field with a hard or burly army list.
On the other hand composition is a gauge of how much an army represents the theme of the codex it was drawn from.
As a group we tend to try and combine both of these into one composition score.
In some cases, this works out fine. An army list with 2 demon princes tends to be both a harder amy, and doesn’t theme as well either because chaos is not an army where you would expect two characters to share leadership.
The problem comes when a player makes their army less strong, but not more theme friendly. They then feel like they were unfairly punished even though they have taken a weaker list than they normally do.
|
|
Garou24
Chapter Master
Posts: 1,530
|
Post by Garou24 on Nov 16, 2009 18:52:16 GMT -5
Wait.. who is thrusting who?
|
|
|
|
Post by Krusty (zack) on Nov 16, 2009 20:12:40 GMT -5
well based on what orville said, maybe it shouldnt be "comp" that is scored, but have 2 smaller categories, theme and cheese-o-meter...?
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on Nov 16, 2009 22:52:28 GMT -5
By beating me, would you then say that you withstood my thrust Sparks? -Wyatt Dang it Wyatt - I'm supposed to be working on organizing AdeptiCon and not wanting to read all this.  I would just say that I parried your thrust due to my "Lord Sword" being bigger than yours. _________________________________________________ Oh - and SOB - just a point of clarity. Scrubs aren't losers and nor would I personally consider them to be. Scrubs just put their own artificial limits on a game. These limits vary so much from player to player, that we no longer try to even guess what is right/wrong because it is never the same. We just play the game within the confines of the rules that are measurable and provided (ie: unit/gear points/rules, FOC requirements and missions). |
|
|
|
Post by Horst on Nov 16, 2009 23:08:16 GMT -5
sparks, know this... your going down at adepticon.
this time... its personal.
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on Nov 16, 2009 23:09:40 GMT -5
I'm not blaming greg for bringing a 2 special character eldar army (though 400 points in characters is insane...) Ok - I am getting my posting kick in and done really quick. Again - D.a.m.n you Wyatt!!! @steve - You should ask Jay how his Trygon faired against my 400 point Chaos lord in the Gladiator three years ago. Jays exact quote with quite the confused look- "Wow, I've never had that modeled pulled that fast before." 700 points between my lord and lieutenant then. This 400 points in characters is small beans. Well - I just expended all of my posting power points. Time to recharge. See ya' in a few months.  |
|
