|
|
Post by jay on Jan 11, 2010 20:11:06 GMT -5
Actually, comp is worth more than battle points (23 battle points possible to add compared to 32 comp points), is entirely subjective, has half the points awarded by your opponent, and seems to be based on chasing people who play wrong away. Painting is 26 points and Sports is 22 points. Uber fail i Why? I might agree or not agree with the system, but everyone has to chance to play or not play in the system. Just because you would not play in that system is not a Uber Fail. I personally don't care if i am playing with comp or without comp, with painting or without painting, along as i know before the rules before the tournament. I consider it a challenge either way. Maybe i just like playing the game. |
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Jan 11, 2010 21:54:47 GMT -5
I was just pointing out the distinction to make the discussion factually accurate. If they enjoy playing with more comp points than battle points, more power to them. I just choose not to participate in events that have that kind of scoring. It causes me way too much stress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Krusty (zack) on Jan 11, 2010 22:56:07 GMT -5
Maybe i just like playing the game. heresy, jay... utter heresy... |
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Jan 11, 2010 23:35:26 GMT -5
Playing the game is fun, when it matters so little in a tourney is where I draw the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Krusty (zack) on Jan 12, 2010 0:19:44 GMT -5
it matters even more if you are playing a game thats more based on playing than building a meaner list...
|
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Jan 12, 2010 12:01:21 GMT -5
Come on dude, you can't seriously believe that. There is no unbeatable list, no cheese, just the difference between good and bad players and the lists they run. A good player with a so-so list beats a bad player with a good list. Or a bad player with a good list beats another bad player with a bad list. What happens when you see two good players with two good lists? That's healthy competition, but we can't have that now can we? The best games are the real challenges, steamrolling somebody is no fun.
You learn the most from going up against better players and better armies. Having soft scores to hold your hand and limit what people can use limits competition and ends up hurting you in the long run. When faced with something new, the handicapper is more likely to cry cheese, but the guy who's been learning, experimenting and competing will see it as another challenge. I prefer the latter, and I think it would be great if we would try and get everyone to improve their game rather than just dumb down to the lowest common denominator. There are plenty of good players here, it sucks that they get their wings clipped for nothing.
There's nothing competitive about the three-legged race, there's nothing competitive about soft score tournaments. Sure it's amusing, but not nearly as satisfying as real competition.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay on Jan 12, 2010 12:32:22 GMT -5
I agree with mostly what you are saying about the soft scores, but i still have fun in beating a good list with a well balance army. That is why it is still competitive with soft scores. I also have just as much fun playing in a no comp tournament. I do understand your point.
|
|
|
|
Post by shilekjalan on Jan 12, 2010 13:16:29 GMT -5
Greetings,
On the other hand, it is nice to have tournaments where beating your opponent is not the whole point of going there. Tournaments where composition and thoughtful strategy matter are nice, where people are actually rewarded instead of punished for their hard work painting and converting their armies.
After all, there are Ard Boyz tournaments for a reason: let the cheese flow. After all, most of us like to be chased by mice sometimes. Composition limits the people who cannot win without being ultra cheesy. It makes people think, for one. Instead of being like "I play a high elf lord on a star dragon and my list is fair".....yea bs.
I for one like to have real strategy in the game, instead of just making the most pumped up list I can and then winning a lot with it. Thankfully, Da Boyz seems to foster that sort of mentality more then the "win at all costs" sort of mentality.
Of course, one thing to keep in mind is that in 40K there is in general less cheese to be had then in Fantasy (thank The Gods).
So this is for you Jay, to let you know that there are people that love composition and all the other parts of gaming besides building power lists and winning a lot with them. I know there are more people like me at Boldos store too :-D
I believe the best thing to do to please all of us, instead of just part of us, is to have both types of tournaments: Ard Boyz and normal tournaments. That way people who play both styles can be happy. Does that sound good?
Courage and Honour,
Ave Imperator
|
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Jan 12, 2010 20:41:27 GMT -5
I for one like to have real strategy in the game, instead of just making the most pumped up list I can and then winning a lot with it. Thankfully, Da Boyz seems to foster that sort of mentality more then the "win at all costs" sort of mentality. I think the objection (More specifically to this tournament's scoring) is that the same applies. When you have more points from comp than from battle you run into the same issue where what you bring is more important than your skill at playing. Granted, I believe that this tourney's scoring is an attempt to exclude people that don't play the same way that they do, and everyone else will get good comp scores which will in effect render the comp score mostly meaningless for the final scoring. That effect will turn the tournament back into one based on player skill rather than just what they brought. |
|
