|
Post by hyv3mynd on Apr 17, 2012 14:31:35 GMT -5
Also as a single player, you need to keep track of what you kill during the game (playercard), you get one point for each force org slot that you destroy, up to a max of 5. Dedicated Transport’s do count towards this. I.E. : Killing a wolf lord(HQ), lone wolf(elite), grey hunters(troops), land speeder (fast) and long fangs (heavy) would net you five, where killing a wolf lord(HQ), grey hunters(troop), and a rhino (troop) would only net you 2 bonus points. Both player score in combine efforts: I.E. If a unit that is killed do to running away from both players shooting them, or being ran down or run off from combat. Either your wording or math is off. If transports DO count, then the second scenario would be worth 3 bonus points right? Will there be points for draws also or extensive tiebreakers for missions. As it stands, there are only points for wins and losses.
|
|
|
Post by Icemyn on Apr 17, 2012 14:43:16 GMT -5
Its only 2 points because two of them are troops and you can only get 1 point for killing troops. Max of Five is only possible if your opponent is playing a choice from each slot.
That being the case if the other team only plays HQ and Troops (see my list) it seems a bit unbalanced for these bonus points.
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Apr 17, 2012 14:47:41 GMT -5
Ahh I see. So if I only bring HQ and troops, I can only ever give up 2 points? Yeah seems exploitable.
|
|
nutter
Sergeant
Ben "Ginger Gotee" Lucko
Posts: 304
|
Post by nutter on Apr 17, 2012 21:38:28 GMT -5
You could do that, but you still have to win. So one If bought that list, all the shooting is going into your troops, secondly, you can still kill your partners stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Icemyn on Apr 18, 2012 6:52:57 GMT -5
I suppose my main point isnt that it is easily exploited or even that it encourages non Compy lists, it is that your reason for scoring this way is to balance getting placed with a bad partner.
Based on this scoring system lets say I Kill 4 Troop Transports and 6 Troops, my partner kills 1 HQ 1 Elite 1 Heavy and 1 Troop. (Our opponents played no fast). I get one point he gets 4 I suppose he did 4x the work right? With this scoring system it encourages not playing as a team but rather to maximize bonus points. I.E. Shoot down the Land Speeder instead of the Terminators about to hit your friends lines because why not its his problem your getting bonus points!
It seems like the bonus points for supporting the team should be based more on the objective of the mission not what the other team happens to be bringing to the table. With this setup you now not only have to worry about getting a bad partner but also a bad pair against opponents only using 2 Force Org slots.
For arguments sake lets say that you start with 5 points for team participation and then you gain from or lose points to your partner based on the mission objective. So its Kill Points you get 3 your partner gets 2, then you would get 6 bonus points at the end and he would get 4. In objective games you both hold 1 together and you hold another one as well so 2-1, you get 7 he gets 3. This system is in no way perfect of course, but at least it forces the teams to focus on the objectives of the current game and not Force Org Hunting to complete the set.
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Apr 18, 2012 7:10:54 GMT -5
I suppose my main point isnt that it is easily exploited or even that it encourages non Compy lists, it is that your reason for scoring this way is to balance getting placed with a bad partner. Based on this scoring system lets say I Kill 4 Troop Transports and 6 Troops, my partner kills 1 HQ 1 Elite 1 Heavy and 1 Troop. (Our opponents played no fast). I get one point he gets 4 I suppose he did 4x the work right? With this scoring system it encourages not playing as a team but rather to maximize bonus points. I.E. Shoot down the Land Speeder instead of the Terminators about to hit your friends lines because why not its his problem your getting bonus points! It seems like the bonus points for supporting the team should be based more on the objective of the mission not what the other team happens to be bringing to the table. With this setup you now not only have to worry about getting a bad partner but also a bad pair against opponents only using 2 Force Org slots. For arguments sake lets say that you start with 5 points for team participation and then you gain from or lose points to your partner based on the mission objective. So its Kill Points you get 3 your partner gets 2, then you would get 6 bonus points at the end and he would get 4. In objective games you both hold 1 together and you hold another one as well so 2-1, you get 7 he gets 3. This system is in no way perfect of course, but at least it forces the teams to focus on the objectives of the current game and not Force Org Hunting to complete the set. +1 to all of that. Based on the last tournament (yeah I know the format was 100% different) the spread from #1 to #3 was 5 points out of ~113 which basically came down to who got the most bonus points. Assuming a couple players go undefeated at the team event, the same will happen. Not only will bonus point denial become a viable tactic, but also effect targeting priority like Dean said. I'd prefer to see a bonus system that rewards participation rather than list tailoring or playing for self benefit.
|
|
|
Post by warmasterprimus on Apr 18, 2012 7:37:08 GMT -5
I'll help Ben! Malleus Inquisitor + termie, psycannon 80 Paladins x9 + bells and whistles 695 Strikes x5 + psycannon 110 Strikes x5 + psycannon 110 ...No, I'm not really bringing this. on the opposite end of things, I could finally put that Tide of Spawn box set to use. I'll drag you down with waves of Chaos spawn! (and by you, I mean my future teammate... Sorry)
|
|
sinistermind
Sergeant
Dice, the perfect example of a love/hate relationship
Posts: 315
|
Post by sinistermind on Apr 18, 2012 7:43:13 GMT -5
I suppose my main point isnt that it is easily exploited or even that it encourages non Compy lists, it is that your reason for scoring this way is to balance getting placed with a bad partner. Based on this scoring system lets say I Kill 4 Troop Transports and 6 Troops, my partner kills 1 HQ 1 Elite 1 Heavy and 1 Troop. (Our opponents played no fast). I get one point he gets 4 I suppose he did 4x the work right? With this scoring system it encourages not playing as a team but rather to maximize bonus points. I.E. Shoot down the Land Speeder instead of the Terminators about to hit your friends lines because why not its his problem your getting bonus points! It seems like the bonus points for supporting the team should be based more on the objective of the mission not what the other team happens to be bringing to the table. With this setup you now not only have to worry about getting a bad partner but also a bad pair against opponents only using 2 Force Org slots. For arguments sake lets say that you start with 5 points for team participation and then you gain from or lose points to your partner based on the mission objective. So its Kill Points you get 3 your partner gets 2, then you would get 6 bonus points at the end and he would get 4. In objective games you both hold 1 together and you hold another one as well so 2-1, you get 7 he gets 3. This system is in no way perfect of course, but at least it forces the teams to focus on the objectives of the current game and not Force Org Hunting to complete the set. +1 to all of that. Based on the last tournament (yeah I know the format was 100% different) the spread from #1 to #3 was 5 points out of ~113 which basically came down to who got the most bonus points. Assuming a couple players go undefeated at the team event, the same will happen. Not only will bonus point denial become a viable tactic, but also effect targeting priority like Dean said. I'd prefer to see a bonus system that rewards participation rather than list tailoring or playing for self benefit. well you could always just make it a set teams tourney with the same force org and just change what you get bonus points for...
|
|
|
Post by professor on Apr 18, 2012 9:40:58 GMT -5
Another option in this case is to award points if neither player fills a force org.
Example: Opponents have no heavy or elites choices and I kill an HQ - 3 points to me!
The problem with rewarding based on objectives is it really biases it against some players who win it for the team by sacrificing their army to contest objectives/trash troops. An Eldar player with a few turbo boosting serpents contests an objective and you win 1 - 0, that player is then docked 1 point for not holding an objective.
Probable need a 5 point draw in there, since a draw is worth less than a loss...then again, if you're not first you're last.
|
|
|
Post by Goldeagle on Apr 18, 2012 10:20:16 GMT -5
Just make the bonuses for scoring the compulsory choices (i.e. an HQ and one of the troop choices), ignoring dedicated transports. Give bonuses to both players on the teams to avoid the throwing teammates under the bus. This would make a total of 4 bonus points possible per team per round.
|
|
|
Post by Icemyn on Apr 18, 2012 10:22:30 GMT -5
The truth of the matter is there is going to be no perfect and acceptable way to decide who contributed most to the teams efforts each one is going to have its flaws.
Me personally Id prefer that you gain/lose contribution points based solely on the objectives for the mission at hand. If its an objectives game and you took more objectives or its a kill points game and you collected more kill points. You know at the beginning of the mission what is required of you, if you go all balls out and leave your partner to take objectives you know the consequences.
You could force comp as professor mentioned, take the Force Org slots or give away free points, but that only solves half the problem in my eyes. Having an arbitrary tertiary objective (Force Org Hunt) doesn't show a team members contribution IMO. This mission style will lead to alot of boring Bonus Point denial games or poor target priority choices.
|
|
|
Post by professor on Apr 18, 2012 10:42:07 GMT -5
Are we trying to show team member contribution with the tertiary (maybe I missed that part of the summary)? That is such an amorphous concept to attempt to quantify (which is the root of what you are saying Ice).
I like bonuses that lead to decision dilemmas for a player. Do I take out that last fleeing biker for a +1, or do I seal off the primary by committing another unit to assault? Do I expose my only Elite selection to withering enemy fire, or do I hold back to deny the +1.
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Apr 18, 2012 10:42:21 GMT -5
Agreed with Dean again.
You could make it mandatory to represent at least 4 different FO categories.
Or use an ATC/BAO style format with kp and objectives in every mission where denial and MSU lists are balanced by the format.
|
|
|
Post by Icemyn on Apr 18, 2012 10:51:33 GMT -5
Are we trying to show team member contribution with the tertiary (maybe I missed that part of the summary)? That is such an amorphous concept to attempt to quantify (which is the root of what you are saying Ice). I like bonuses that lead to decision dilemmas for a player. Do I take out that last fleeing biker for a +1, or do I seal off the primary by committing another unit to assault? Do I expose my only Elite selection to withering enemy fire, or do I hold back to deny the +1. It was previously mentioned that for the random team tournament some rule would be in effect that would show contribution. I cannot find it now but I thought it was page one of the 2012 tournament schedule which was recently cleaned up by Ben and it likely got removed. This "each player" keeps track of what Force Org they killed seems to be that rule. And I agree that I like having tactical choices to make, this would be a cool rule to have if everyone had to take one of every FO slot and it was like the secondary objective. But with no Forced comp and it being the contribution tracker it just seems flawed.
|
|
nutter
Sergeant
Ben "Ginger Gotee" Lucko
Posts: 304
|
Post by nutter on Apr 18, 2012 19:16:10 GMT -5
It's nice to have you guy's around and to just break shiitt;)
1) I'm adding in a draw point value, that was a error on my part, and then bumping the win total to a higher value to place more of a emphasis on winning.
2) Dean you were right, I did have something on the page before to try and make it so that someone carrying the load would get more points. I scrapped that idea when I realized that that it kinda becomes to much paper work for the T.O.(to organize the "winners and losers" and then secondly the way the math was working (at the time there was only one draft when I scraped it) you could basically draw to a victory.
3) Erich I think I'm going to steal that Idea to try and sway players from bringing min list, Also by request of the T.O. where just doing book missions. so no "real" secondary or tertiary objectives
|
|