|
|
Post by skyth on Dec 4, 2009 16:06:24 GMT -5
If I was still playing, I'd enjoy playing against either list.
|
|
Soleman
Chapter Master
The "Strait Talkin"
Posts: 1,389
|
Post by Soleman on Dec 4, 2009 16:30:29 GMT -5
If we stick to our preliminary plan of partial judge based comp/ partial player based comp, are there any decent suggestions how we should implement this. Should it be off a matrix or should it have some subjective questions like " Did you feel this was OTT." or something similar. Let's here some ideas... Personally, I'd like to see a combination of the two. Most of us here have a good idea of what we as a group think good comp should be, but it would be good especially for out of towners to see it in a matrix. I think that subjective questions would help offset those who would find the cracks in the matrix and exploit them. Just my $.02 |
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Dec 4, 2009 18:11:42 GMT -5
When people discuss comp, lists would invariably come up as examples of what is or is not acceptable.
If you have two players of equal skill going up against each other, it's down to dice and army lists. The player with the army better suited to winning the scenario or crushing their opponent's army will come out on top. The better army would win, but it probably wouldn't be a pure netdeck. Netdecks are a framework, designed to give newbies or players unfamiliar with a certain army a good idea of what will be successful, so they can try it out, figure out what works best for them, and adapt their army to suit their style of play. Vets don't typically run netdecks since they have a better understanding of how the game works and how to best fit their skillset, unless they made it up or it suits their style of play.
I like the idea of using comp to determine matchups and influencing the overall score. That way nobody gets annoyed playing their tourney list against a fluffy bunny hand holding flower party or playing their fluffy and friendly army against the evil netdeck spawn of satan. Leaving comp out of best general gives competitive players something to strive for, making it the equivalent of best painted or sports (which don't have side scores influencing their overall winner). Overall encompasses everything, like it should.
As for the comp system itself, as long as it is fair and as little biased as possible, I'd be ok with it. That's of course easier said than done, but we've got a good 7 months to hammer it all out. Big ones for me are making sure the system is transparent, so everyone knows how and why they got the score they did; reducing arbitrary components that affect various armies differently, creating imbalance; and of course, rewarding fluffy and themed armies rather than punishing "power builds".
|
|
|
|
Post by shilekjalan on Dec 4, 2009 19:09:00 GMT -5
When people discuss comp, lists would invariably come up as examples of what is or is not acceptable. If you have two players of equal skill going up against each other, it's down to dice and army lists. The player with the army better suited to winning the scenario or crushing their opponent's army will come out on top. The better army would win, but it probably wouldn't be a pure netdeck. Netdecks are a framework, designed to give newbies or players unfamiliar with a certain army a good idea of what will be successful, so they can try it out, figure out what works best for them, and adapt their army to suit their style of play. Vets don't typically run netdecks since they have a better understanding of how the game works and how to best fit their skillset, unless they made it up or it suits their style of play. I like the idea of using comp to determine matchups and influencing the overall score. That way nobody gets annoyed playing their tourney list against a fluffy bunny hand holding flower party or playing their fluffy and friendly army against the evil netdeck spawn of satan. Leaving comp out of best general gives competitive players something to strive for, making it the equivalent of best painted or sports (which don't have side scores influencing their overall winner). Overall encompasses everything, like it should. As for the comp system itself, as long as it is fair and as little biased as possible, I'd be ok with it. That's of course easier said than done, but we've got a good 7 months to hammer it all out. Big ones for me are making sure the system is transparent, so everyone knows how and why they got the score they did; reducing arbitrary components that affect various armies differently, creating imbalance; and of course, rewarding fluffy and themed armies rather than punishing "power builds". Greetings Brothers, Chuma you are so incredibly wrong!!!! If there are two players of equal skill, then it does not come down to army lists or army composition! The following on the other hand would matter..... If one player secretly makes sacrafices on a altar overflowing with blood, down in his basement where his prisoners he captured in hand hand combat can scream and no one will here.... If that player has offered up his soul to the only true god....... If that player has bested a mighty Shaggoth in close combat..... If that player takes fiery blasts and hunters spears without a scratch...... IF THAT ONE PLAYER WORSHIPS THE ONE TRUE GOD..... KHORNE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that would decide the fate of that game ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Dec 4, 2009 19:40:11 GMT -5
That too.
|
|
|
|
Post by colonelellios on Feb 17, 2010 11:51:26 GMT -5
1) Hello everybody! ;D I'm finally home so trying to follow the local tourney circuit again... 2) Oh, and another point...If you use comp to determine pairings, there generally isn't a point in making it part of any score. Assuming the point of comp is to balance powerful lists against less powerful lists, then theoretically everyone had equally hard fights and points should be determined by thier performance on the battlefield. As an example: The guy who plays a 5 comp list fights against a 4, 5, and 6 comp list while the person that plays a 15 comp list plays against a 14, 15, and 16 comp list. Both had theoretically equally hard fights. Why should the person who scored the higher comp score quite a few more points for the tournament then? Maybe use a comp differential for scoring? (Say for instance, you have a 14 comp. You fight 2 14 comp armies, a 10 comp, a 9 comp, and a 7 comp army. That would give you +16 points of comp differential). Use this while trying to keep the comp scores as close together as possible for pairings, but make sure the comp differential for any given game does not exceed the points difference between winning and losing. This! |
|
|
|
Post by colonelellios on Feb 17, 2010 11:52:23 GMT -5
Uh-oh. Why's this thread been dead for two months?
|
|
|
|
Post by jay on Feb 17, 2010 15:49:41 GMT -5
The daboyz GT is not dead. Just this thread discussion has been taken offline.
|
|
|
|
Post by spacecurves on Mar 6, 2010 9:22:14 GMT -5
I wanted to chime in with my 2 cents.
Last year was the first time I went to Da Boyz GT and I had a blast, I'll definitely be attending every year from now on.
I like the idea of a major GT that encourages themed armies, however...
Any, and I mean ANY comp system that is introduced can be "gamed" in exactly the same way as normal codexes. There will still be "nasty" builds that slip through the cracks of whatever system is devised. Comp systems that directly affect your tournament score do nothing to encourage themed armies, because there is still a theme vs. power tradeoff that players can optimize.
The problem isn't that comp is a bad idea, its that 40k is so complicated! For all the griping we like to do, this game is incredibly well balanced. People work full time on developing new codexes, we are not going to be able to intelligently modify the game without breaking things with a few armchair discussions.
Second, there really isn't a problem. From reading the thread thus far I know many of Da Boyz will disagree with me, but my position is that there are NO "broken" units whatsoever, and a good player can win any tournament with most any army. So you can have a great event with no comp whatsoever. Let it also be said that most tournaments these days have a token comp system at most, and they do just fine.
So what do I propose? Well since everyone wants Da Boyz GT to have a strong comp component, the idea I like the best is to do this:
A wise judge scores armies on "theme". (dont even call it comp, because the word has such baggage) Themed armies are those that most closely fit the backstory of their codexes. So its fine for IG to have 3 heavy support choices, eldar to have lots of fast attack, etc.
Theme is not part of your tournament score directly.
Each round, when determining pairings, amongst players with the same battlepoints, theme is used to determine pairings. So if 4 players had 20 battle points, they would be paired such that opponents had theme scores as similar as possible.
Note that battle points are still the first determiner of pairings, if you are kicking ass with you all grot army, expect to play non themed armies in the later rounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Mar 7, 2010 14:22:08 GMT -5
I'll drink to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by fishboy on Mar 23, 2010 5:46:04 GMT -5
Guys I am pretty new to your tourny scene so have been very interested in watching your scoring. I have to say that as a past GT runner I am not a fan of comp and as a past GT winner I am not a fan of comp. In 3rd and 4th ED comp was needed to help balance out some of the codex's and encourage people to take more than the min 2 troops and stop min/max the units.
In 5th Ed however with the requirements of troops to score the system itself adds some comp back to the game and most of the codex's are now limiting the min/max issue. However not all troops are equal and not all armies have multiple choices.
I think with some of the systems you are talking about implementing limit weaker lists as well as stronger lists and people will still find ways around the scoring. There will always be the guys that can pick up the codex and pull the best units out even with comp lists to give them the best advantage in a certain rule set (by the way...I have never been able to do this heh ;D)
I actually think that your initial rule set with the 4 points is a great starting point. It seems to affect most armies in similar way but rather than banning certain things score them lower. I also like the pairing dependence on the comp as well.
|
|
Garou24
Chapter Master
Posts: 1,530
|
Post by Garou24 on Apr 23, 2010 22:41:48 GMT -5
So is 1850 the points? Just curious, I would like to work on a list and make sure I have time to paint any touch ups.
But I really want to try for the apocalypse game, that still on?
|
|
|
|
Post by Horst on Apr 23, 2010 23:24:34 GMT -5
1850 seems to be the standard.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay on Apr 24, 2010 8:42:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fishboy on Apr 24, 2010 9:24:48 GMT -5
Let me know when the registration is up. I am looking forward to my first major in this area!
|
|
