|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Dec 6, 2011 7:11:23 GMT -5
Alright folks... in our ever expanding look at having an event that everyone can enjoy, we have a simple little poll which requires a little explanation too. Should we have a comp system? If so... post here what it should be.... yep... what do YOU think is fair... Astro has been running major tournaments successfully in four cities per year (Toronto, Dallas, Winnipeg & Vancouver)... they've had an ongoing debate on comp and no one can agree, and they're almost to the point where they're saying NO comp system and just relying on people to restrain themselves... ... or there's "relative comp" where everyone's list is simply ordered from top to bottom in terms of competitiveness... nastiest to niceness... you score what you rank... there's a million different systems... what are our favorites?
|
|
|
Post by connor on Dec 6, 2011 7:22:48 GMT -5
I like the idea of relative comp, we shouldn't limit anybody because that wouldn't be fair to people if someone found a loophole, but if your marked on how mean your army is then you might just take a fair list.
|
|
|
Post by calitom on Dec 6, 2011 8:44:36 GMT -5
I agree with Connor, Relative comp sounds a whole lot better of a deal.
|
|
|
Post by fritzthedwarf on Dec 6, 2011 8:47:25 GMT -5
It's a tough one. I'll have to look at some comp systems out there to see what I think might work. Comp has to be done carefully and whatever is done it should be 100% clear to all players well beforehand how the system will work so that each person knows what to expect with the army they bring.
If the tournament is leaning to fluffy armies, some armies made to follow their fluff will still be brutal while others will be mediocre. It is difficult but worth looking at.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Dec 6, 2011 9:27:43 GMT -5
What Astro has used....
you get no comp penalty for base 1HQ, 3Troops, and 1 each of Fast attack, Elite and Heavy (swarms never count against you for comp... have as many as you're allowed with no penalty)
20 points if you stay within these restrictions.
-1 comp for your second HQ, 4th troop, 2nd FA, 2nd Elite and 2nd Heavy -2 comp for having a fifth and sixth troop, 3rd FA, 3rd Elite, and 3rd Heavy
So for example if you stayed within the base restrictions but maxed out your Heavy support choices, you'd have a comp score of 17. Likewise if you had a maxed out FOC you'd score a comp of 6
The only problem with a system based on FOC though, is a very unfriendly Draigowing (because Paladins are now troops!) could easily score max comp while a horde army (nids/orks) would have a harder time staying within the comp system
|
|
|
Post by BewareOfTom on Dec 6, 2011 9:30:52 GMT -5
well maybe have penalties for having little us of FOC? like if you only have 1HQ 2 Troops or something. Or you pick a couple systems that look good and we could vote on them? or make our own hybrid?
|
|
|
Post by calitom on Dec 6, 2011 10:06:53 GMT -5
16 Psycannons, Crowe - 30 purifiers, 3 psycannon razorbacks, an inquisitor and a dreadnought for 19 comp you say? I agree, let's do the monster mash! (bash our own)
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Dec 6, 2011 10:53:47 GMT -5
yeah the problem Astro found was the new books completely broke their comp system (especially grey knights!) that's why they had to toss it out!
|
|
|
Post by danydaigle24 on Dec 6, 2011 11:15:14 GMT -5
Yeah I wish we had comp but I had to agree that its gonna be complicated is there a way to judge a fluffy list then that can be still good but like people are not bringing purifier spam or whatever spam its just boring playing against that... Like for exemple Tom's Paladin list was the worst game I ever played we stayed in a corner and shoot each other and he won 2-0 KP game.... BTW im not saying that I hate playing against Tom I really like it
|
|
Canex
Warrior
Hwaiting!
Posts: 224
|
Post by Canex on Dec 6, 2011 11:54:53 GMT -5
Comp should be used throughout the tournament but not in determining matchups, only for determining prizes, etc. Similarly, comp should be used to help determine the overall winner, but not the winner of the competitive championship (i.e. the one who gets the plaque card with their name on it).
|
|
|
Post by calitom on Dec 6, 2011 12:02:14 GMT -5
Hahah, yeah. Imagine how Tau vs Tau players feel now Dany. Also, if we are in fact running it at 1850 (ROCK THE VOTE!) it'll require a larger comp allowance then say Astro, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Dec 6, 2011 13:44:14 GMT -5
Comp should be used throughout the tournament but not in determining matchups, only for determining prizes, etc. Similarly, comp should be used to help determine the overall winner, but not the winner of the competitive championship (i.e. the one who gets the plaque card with their name on it). First matchups if you don't do random pairings need to be based on something... someone who brought a fluffy list shouldn't expect to get slammed by a nasty netlist their first game... maybe if they do well and start moving up the rankings over the two days, then sure they're gonna have to face the very competitive lists. And just to be clear, best general is the only award based solely on battle points in this tourney and only one of the awards available. There will be three trophies made: Best overall, Best general and Best army. There's no plaque card for 'competitive championship'.
|
|
|
Post by garrett on Dec 6, 2011 16:26:28 GMT -5
I've got an idea going back to the point system. No point system you win you get 1,2, or 3 depending how bad you crushed them you lose 1,2, or 3 depnding how bad you were crushed.
|
|
|
Post by nekekami on Dec 6, 2011 16:42:20 GMT -5
There's already a great scoring system in place for the games themselves.
The comp system is a set of points in place that scores directly on your list, and is in place to limit things like abusing FOC selections and general min/maxing. There are pros and cons on both side, and the arguments are akin to the fluff vs. crunch that's already been talked about.
Sometimes comp is a direct score like in a lot of bigger tournaments (Notably, Astro has dropped comp from the 2012 Vancouver and Dallas events) and sometimes it's reflected in soft scoring like opponent-rated Sportsmanship, which is how we used to do it. All Shannon is asking, is should we use a comp score; How it's implemented would be the purview of him (since I assume he's running it), or whoever does.
Personally I'm in favour of soft scores, which is why I voted in favour of comp. It really does have an impact on how the scores add up at the end of the day, and reflects a lot on you as a gamer as a whole. If you want to bring GK Purifier spam, or some similar OP/FotM Netlist (and we know who you are), or play the game in a way that would lend itself better to RISK than 40k, expect to be harshed on it, even as you massacre your way through the 6 games.
|
|
|
Post by calitom on Dec 6, 2011 17:59:32 GMT -5
I disagree though. I don't think that your soft scores should have anything to do with your list itself. The list you bring shouldn't be a deciding factor of your painting ability or the sportmanship you were able to bring to the table.
I'd rather it be in Shannon's / whoever is decided to handle the comping system in whatever way it winds up going, but if I just say eff it and bring a competitive list- I don't want people to chipmunk me on soft scores because of something that has nothing to do with them.
Comp, yes. Policing ourselves, no. At least that's my opinion.
|
|