|
Post by netter on Sept 23, 2010 9:08:47 GMT -5
Moving forward again. If you scrap the notion of a comp system being implemented anytime soon, what sort of system works best?
Boldo, messing with the percentages is okay, to a degree. At 15% rare, are there any single units that are left out? If so, I think that's a bad number. Otherwise, it's playtest worthy. I'm not in love with adjusting the percentages unless broken combinations cqan be demonstrated in multiple lists. Limiting/penalising a single, duplicate special choice would not be very good, in my books. It's one thing to curtail spam, and another to handcuff theme.
I like a soft comp. An old system is fairly generic and not too limiting, but I don't know how well it translates to 8th. How about this, score 1 point each for:
-More than minimum 2 core choices. -40% or less in combined special/rare. -40% or less in combined lord/hero.
This score could be used to adjust the tournament score to whatever degree you want 'comp' to have an impact. I understand that there is huge potential for abuse with this type of system, much like the zero-comp system, however it does discourage min-maxing within the character, special and rare choices. Unfortunately, I can already see armies with relatively weaker core being penalised but it is a start.
Keep in mind that this is a basis point for a comp system in the future. Thoughts??
Netter
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Sept 28, 2010 10:21:01 GMT -5
So Doug, does this mean that you are going to play in the 40K event?
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Sept 28, 2010 22:45:36 GMT -5
So Doug, does this mean that you are going to play in the 40K event? Does that mean there are tickets left? last I checked it was sold out.... You get me a ticket and I might play, but last I checked they were gone so why even ask? I am confused was that a serious question or just a dig?
|
|
Soleman
Chapter Master
The "Strait Talkin"
Posts: 1,389
|
Post by Soleman on Sept 28, 2010 23:10:13 GMT -5
So Doug, does this mean that you are going to play in the 40K event? Does that mean there are tickets left? last I checked it was sold out.... You get me a ticket and I might play, but last I checked they were gone so why even ask? I am confused was that a serious question or just a dig? Doug, Have you checked since this? We are going to open it up to 90 people. we have enough tables. We are at 85 tickets sold. There are still spots left for the Apocalypse event. The tables look great and the event should be a great time.
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Sept 29, 2010 9:35:15 GMT -5
It was a little bit of both - but more of a dig ;D. I hope I didn't offend - too much ;D.
At last count, there were 5 tickets left as Jay opened it up to 90 players. I really was only messing with you based on the comment posted.
|
|
|
Post by netter on Sept 30, 2010 8:04:33 GMT -5
What the GT needs is 5 more Canucks to show up!
Netter
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Oct 4, 2010 6:52:48 GMT -5
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Oct 5, 2010 1:49:22 GMT -5
OK here is the problem as I see it. While I understand that judges think that they can improve upon the system with there own restrictions in combination with the restrictions already in place by GW in the Fantasy rule book to make a "perfect" system, all that really happens is that the power balance in shifted rather than producing a leveled playing field. I read through it and already with my limited knowledge of Fantasy I can see several powerful armies that can squeeze quite nicely through the "restrictions" while it seems to hammer some themed mid power lists. To put it bluntly matrix style systems always seem to fail due to the inherent differences between each army. Another thing I found distasteful was the Valorous Volunteers. Giving some armies "free" units while not giving others anything is not fair. ( I saw no Daemons of Chaos "free" unit but Tomb Kings get 4 Ushahbti for "free"!) I play Tomb Kings and that leaves me saying "WTF!!!" One of the biggest complaints against comp that has been stated here is that " it penalizes people for playing a different way." ( Did I get that quote right? ) Again you have core rule book restrictions in place so why again do you need additional comp, is it to truly balance the system for everyone or is it to shift it back to your way of thinking how the game should be played? I sit here patiently and await all the brilliant responses that will soon come flooding in...
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Oct 5, 2010 5:14:37 GMT -5
I favor restrictions for comp because it is above board, open, and honest about what they want to see. And yes, there still will be a power disparity with a restriction based comp system, but the difference in power level between the most powerful and the least powerful list is less, often a lot less, under this type of system.
Not to mention, that the abuses under a subjective scored list are worse and unpredictable. There is also a greater disparity in the power level of the lists, which leads to unfun games (Bad match-ups are typically not fun for either player). With a greater disparity in power levels, who you are matched up with is more of a determining factor, compared to player skill, in determining the final outcome of the tournament. The whole system just seems to be rather passive-agressive.
I do agree with you that I don't really care for the added units. If you want to give more points to certain armies, that's fine...But no set units. Like I said, this specific tournament has a bit harsher restrictions than I care for. I don't really like banning things, but rather have a 'if you take x, you can't take y' type system. For instance, I wouldn't ban the Steam Tank, but I would count it as 2 or 3 war machines and keep the 5 war machine limit.
Eight edition is no where closed to balanced as currently stands and for tournaments, generally needs some sort of comp system to balance the game out.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Oct 5, 2010 22:23:30 GMT -5
While I still don't agree 100% with your explanation, I do like the way you phrased your answer. I do agree that when two armies meet and the power levels are worlds apart it makes for a bad game. I admit I haven't seen enough 8th edition played to be a valid judge so I asked some people today their opinions. What I came away with was that the construction restrictions as written in the 8th edition rule book seem to generally work but that magic can be game changing since casting certain spells with irresistible force results in that army controlling the game. With that being said I can see some sort of limiting factor being included for magic in addition to what is already in place in the rule book.
With these things in mind I still think it is too late to impose a comp system on this years GT, but as Pete has suggested detailed note and feedback can be used to come up with something better for next year.
|
|