what kind of comp should/will be implemented

[sinistermind]

what kind of comp should/will be implemented under 6th Ed.?

I personally am for a set rubric over peer/judge scored comp maybe a few points given to judges to deem whether an army deserves them or not but IMHO that should be the extent of subjectivity

I know this topic has had some flame wars on this forum before but maybe 6th ed. has made some people change their position on the matter? or not, either way just finding out opinions

[chaoscraig]

s far the best fantasy gt i have played in used army sprcific comp and a tier system. it graded your list 1,2,3 an far as a competetive build. it then paired equally graded lists against each other. after the first 2 rounds you were then paired by battle points. all 5 of my games were very competetive and it seemed to be like that for nearly everyone. chris p could tell you more about it.

[evil_red_orks]

I have already expressed my displeasure to a couple of the judges over lack of comp. This was the least amount of fun I have had at any tourney I have been to. Our events have always been a shining beacon to offset all the WAAC tourneys out there. I really hope we go back in that direction.

I think the comp rubric we used last year was good, as was getting first round matchups with other players based on our comp scores.

[Ahrimaneus]

While I agree that last year's comp system for 40k was a nice change from the truly hardcore armies around, I think it should be customized for each individual codex. While a much more painful process, I think it will, in the end, be a much better way to balance the game. As a Dark Eldar player, I can say that the hit for dedicated transports last year hurt me a lot, as the army is/was very difficult to play without them. However, I also felt that the dedicated transport limits were made with an eye toward IG chimera-spam and razor-spam lists, not so much to Dark Eldar. While I'm certainly not a proponent of the 9-venom nonsense, I do think that there's a big difference between seeing 5 AV10 open-topped vehicles across the table and seeing 5 AV12 Chimeras across the table.

Regardless, my point simply applies that all codices are not created equal, and the same restrictions that are used to prevent certain uber-builds may severely hamper some other codices and prevent them from being taken. A more comprehensive approach towards creating diversity from each individual codex would be much more beneficial, even if they all just wind up being slight tweaks and variations on a central comp rubric.

Regardless, still had a great time even against the no-comp armies this year. Having a chance for 3rd best general in the final round with mono-dark eldar was pretty sweet. Great games all and had a blast. I'll be back next year.

-Frank Doyle

[teecypher]

I also believe army specific comp would be better because of people who play death wing or raven wing armies really any army an IC affects . The IC for armies of this nature should involve

less of a negative to comp if any. I also believe the TOs should take a serious look at air force armies and not kill them completely but restrict them.

[lordnurgle]

lack of comp was the reason i went square bases this year. though coming in last place, maybe i should have played 40k, couldnt have done worse.

I like the idea of codex specific comp. I bet if the comp rules came out early enough, you could have a "break the comp contest" with prizes for those that made lists that skirted around the rules. then we could fix them. 1 or 2 rounds of that and I think theyed be perfect.

[crimthaan]

I can tell you already exactly where this thread is going.




Having said that I am more than happy to talk to Shaun, Jay, and the other TO's about having people submitting their own ideas on army specific comp rubrics. For the past two years that I have been a TO (and I'm sure longer for other TO's like Jay and Smitty) people repeatedly complained about comp we enforced, have their own ideas for comp, or complain about comp in general. This ALWAYS ends badly on our forum. It's not a matter of "if" but "when". What I have not seen, not once, is people contacting Jay, Shaun, Smitty (if he even wants to be involved anymore though, I know he's gotten busy and tired of the same old complaints) saying "Hey, I want to help with comp. Tell me where to start sending my ideas".

So I implore anyone that is going to or is thinking about posting on this thread...PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND EVERYTHING GOOD AND RIGHT IN THIS WORLD be prepared to step up and help us out before you comment here. Figuring out comp is a process and not everyone is going to agree on it....but maybe if we get enough heads together we can figure something out that MOST people will be happy with.


In my own 2 cents I also profess making every choice in ALL codex's (except troops) 0-2 will force people to explore their codex's more. That's just my opinion though.

[Iron Warrior]

What I have not seen, not once, is people contacting Jay, Shaun, Smitty (if he even wants to be involved anymore though, I know he's gotten busy and tired of the same old complaints) saying "Hey, I want to help with comp. Tell me where to start sending my ideas".

Oh its been done. I will put my name out there and say first hand a few years back I helped in a Da Boyz GT where I helped with the titanic (but imo nessasary) burdon of comp. I will agree its not easy and I will say right now, you will not please everyone (judges included). I would suggest before going too far with this thread that you show up to Shuans invitation to discuss the GT on the 2nd (I beleive). And give him your input there. I encourage it.

There has been a comp discussion every year just about, its just the nature of the beast. Do try to keep it civil though.

[lordnurgle]

whats this about this thing on the 2nd to discuss the GT. i thought i read this pretty closely, not sure. If given enough notice i'm sure at least some of beef and wing can show up for planning (also would like to have a say on the tourney schedule for next year). you can definetly get us there if alchohol is provided

[Iron Warrior]

daboyzateam.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=tournamentnewsandannounceme&thread=3567&page=3#32703

Mentioned in that topic.

[inquisitormalice]

Hello Everyone,

Here's some general feedback.

1. Composition - Whatever rubric system you settle on is fine whether it be army specific or a more generalized system. The only thing we (and a lot of other people) ask is that the system is completely transparent. The "judges and/or players opinion" component in the system should be marginalized to almost nothing or completely eliminated. This is to eliminate personal bias from which we have all seen unfair ratings given. By having an army or generalized rubric, removing judges/players opinions and making the system publicly available, players who are traveling in from outside the Rochester area do not have to continually second guess what is expected.

2. Sportsmanship - I personally do not like the ranking system used in this event. I had fun games with every opponent in the GT and not one of my opponents deserved a rating of 1 or 2. I felt horrible giving those rankings, which to me is a strong indicator of a poorly designed rating system. So how to possibly improve it?

a. Start with a total pool of sportsmanship points (ie: 20).

b. Each player awards points to their opponents with a total of 5 max at the end of the event (similar to this year's system).

c. The total number sportsmanship points available should not be divisible by the total number of rounds to a whole number. (ie: 20 ponits / 6 rounds =3.33, 21 points / 6 rounds = 3.5, etc). You do not want 24 points / 6 rounds = 4. This would not force differentiation.

d. Players do not need to use all 20 points.

For example:

If each player were to receive 3 points per round, that would be a total of 18 points. The extra two points could be awarded to the better sportsman (+2) or 2 x sportsmen (+1 ea).

Or players could differentiate more with a couple getting 2 points, a couple getting 5 points, and the rest getting 3 points. Players would also have the option to not use all 20 points.

Overall, by not having a total sportsmanship points pool that is divisible to a whole number by the total number of rounds, you will create the differentiation the organizers desire, without "punishing" players unnecessarily. This also helps prevent just blanket max points every round, which I know organizers want to get away from as well.

Overall, that's about it for now.

Talk to ya' later,

Greg

[horton]

I very much missed the comp in this years GT. I had fun but not as much as the prior year.

I think the comp by army is the only way to go in this edition. Remember when doing this to take the allies into consideration as they are a balancing act in some aspects.

I think that sportsmanship should be a 1 to 5 points awarded by questions as opposed to opinion. Allow all players to award 3 bonus points to their favorite opponent over the tournament. I think that would balance that out.

I think painting rubric is great but there should be two judges who check each army and average out the scores.

Just my humble opinion for what it is worth.

Brian Horton

[sinistermind]

Well over 10 posts and no flame wars...just warnings of it. I think there are some great ideas here just to name a couple crimthaan's 0-2 restriction and hortons concept for sportsmanship sounds much more...effective..than ranking opponents,why should you have to rank people 4th or 5th who might have been just as fun to play as the person you ranked 1st and had maybe 1 bad apple(which was my experience) that actually deserves a 6th place sports rank. I understand the need o prevent everyone from getting/giving max sports and i like hortons idea for its simplicity.

As for going to the meeting, i guess thats a great idea for anyone who can travel to talk... this post so far is a collective of idea that can be added/drawn from at said meeting by people(at least me) who cannot attend

[warmasterprimus]

I have to say that I like the ranked sportsmanship scores, but the implementation could be tweaked to address everyone's concerns.

What we do at Crossroads is have a round by round score that factors into your overall, while opponent ranking determines Best Sports. This way, you're not dinging opponents for good games, but you are still choosing which one was the best.

By the end of the weekend, half the people in attendance will have perfect round by round scores (ie, all great games), which makes picking best sports a pain in the ass. By ranking them, you're creating the separation you need to determine best sport.

Here an example:
Round 1 I give my opponent a Great Game! (6 points)
Round 2 I give my opponent a Good Game. (4 points)
Round 3 I give my opponent a Bad Game (0 points)
Round 4 I give my opponent a Great Game! (6 points)

At the end, I rank my opponents: Round 4, Round 1, Round 2, Round 3

There's a good chance the players in rounds 1 & 4 got all great game scores. How do you differentiate between the two?

Using this method, you're able to reward consistent players for having good games, and you get a meaningful ranking of scores to determine best sports.

Does that make sense?

---


In terms of comp, we've been doing a comp banding. Play randomly within your band for round 1, then pair within your band & battle points for rounds 2 or 3. After the 3rd or 4th round, pair using battle points against all the players. We have the software to do it (shout-out to the guys from Buckeye battles for making it happen), and it worked well. We posted battle points and pairings to the website after each round. I think they're also trying to develop an option where you can have your pairings & table assignment texted to you.

For the people that want to bring a smash face list, let them play each other.

Hope that helps.

-Crispy

[Ahrimaneus]

I would be happy to help try and compose army-specific comp builds. I'd even be happy to help build a general comp rubric to base it off of. I think we need to set some ground rules and a total point system before we go off onto the army-specific rubrics, but i'd be happy to help.