|
Post by voodoo on Aug 3, 2016 17:02:54 GMT -5
I think Shannon means to make it a true "intro" tournament and thus disallow superheavies of any kind.
Also, I'll add a +1 to the question of painting.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Aug 3, 2016 17:13:45 GMT -5
the status quo would be no superheavy/GMC's with the exception of a single knight. if people do not want imperial knights allowed at this, please say so. painting would not be a requirement..... but it's 1k... try your best please
|
|
|
Post by nekekami on Aug 3, 2016 21:27:36 GMT -5
I think Shannon means to make it a true "intro" tournament and thus disallow superheavies of any kind. So then how many Riptides, FMCs, and AV14 vehicles will we be seeing? I mean, I get why limiting things makes sense, but really, how far do things go? Until we start enforcing comps as part of scoring again, and really focusing on what makes a game fun, in a tournament scenario or not, we're never going to see an actual balance. As soon as the game started shifting, we should of as well, and you're seeing people who really push things around here starting to lose interest in the gaming aspect of the hobby itself. Honestly, we'd be 100% better off putting more focus on players enjoying the game as a whole. The last big tournament was won by painting scores giving almost as many points as the game itself, with no more than a thumbs up or down given to sportsmanship (that might be a lie, I wasn't there, but it's how it's been the last few that I was). Switch those points to sportsmanship, and we'll see the meta balance itself right goddamned quick, and if not, then we'll see powergamers winning games, but not tournaments. Now this isn't anything new coming from me, but it's getting to the point where I'm not the only one saying it now. You want balance in the local meta? Comp it, and let players give an actual sportsmanship score. If it's actually important, and has a chance to actually tip a game/tournament score, you'll see people try and be competitive while being considerate, trust me.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Aug 4, 2016 5:49:29 GMT -5
Sorry, let me be clear...
I'm trying to say no superheavy / LOW... but current status quo is a single knight is fine.
if people have an issue with knights I need them to voice their concerns is all. Personally I don't have a problem with knights at all. I think the meta is such that every army has tools to deal with them if they come prepared.
I'd rather have a discussion surrounding it then someone be surprised/upset when they see a knight if they thought 'no superheavies'
As for sports scores, the reason I switched them for thumbs up / down was because EVERYONE gave each other a "5" except for a couple of people which meant a 15-20 person tie for sportsmanship. Like for EVERY tourney I ran for years. thumbs up/down is how most GT's have gone to avoid chipmunking, which WAS a problem here in the past.
so because I'm kind of not getting your point about comp can you please elaborate - do you WANT comp scores to come back? (I'm not talking sports scores, I'm talking comp which is a different thing altogether) and if so what would that look like?
The goal I have is for people to have fun. That's it.
|
|
|
Post by thesanityassassin on Aug 4, 2016 9:30:22 GMT -5
I feel like a 1-5 scale sports system works great in theory, but in all my experience running events and every one of Shannon's events I've attended the problem that Shannon pointed out above was super apparent. People are either so concerned about their opponent seeing what sport score they give them, or else just want to be nice, that waves of 5's come in, punctuated by the odd 1 if some particular person we all remember was around.
I know I personally tried to give "honest" sports scores the last time I went to an event with a 1-5 scale, and ended up feeling really dirty at the end because I knew I gave out a bunch of 3's for "Yup, this was a typical 40k game that I enjoyed but wasn't special", and realizing that I was one of the few in the bunch not giving out 5's by default.
As for Knights, I'm personally fine either way. My only real concern, as I think I touched on above, is that you'd hit a situation where people are forced to play against a pair of Knights without anything on the table that can handle them. Not every team is going to be able to tailor all their lists to be able to handle multiple Knights at once. Perhaps some kind of rule giving a bonus to the roll for 1st turn or...something...if two Knights will be on the field on the same team?
|
|
|
Post by Khalai on Aug 4, 2016 16:14:46 GMT -5
I love the 1-5 Sports scale. I've always tried to give honest scores when that was the case. You have to earn a 5 in my books, and unlike Matt, I don't feel dirty whatsoever. Good game where I trounced you and took it like a trooper? Still only a 4 at best. You trounce me and weren't a dick about it? 3. Showed me what I could have done to win and were super nice while doing it, letting me fix some errors I made? That's how you get a 5. Did you purposely cheat? 0. I will never feel bad about giving someone that 0, but nor will I ruin my game by calling someone out on it. I think I made a better post about sports in a thread just before the Championship last year, and I have to say my experience overall with sports this year was much better than last year. I've gone 30/30 for the last 2 years in a row and not exactly sure I deserve it, but I definitely try to be the guy that you want to play against even if I'm playing Eldar If I remember correctly, only Tom and I went 30/30 for sports at the club championship, out of 34(?) players. That seems like we've moved in the right direction there. Though I will say it is WAY easier to get those results when you play 6 games as opposed to 3. I bet we would find the same results if the scale was large over less games, but I think it would be silly to have scores out of 10.
|
|
|
Post by calitom on Aug 4, 2016 22:24:24 GMT -5
I agree about the sports subject and feel like tournaments where there is no tertiary category to earn points makes it feel like painting heavily skews the scoring. The last tournament even, the paint scoring made up nearly two games worth of battle points! The only person I felt earned a 5 at the club championship in scoring was Carreiro and thus he was the only person I gave a 5 to, also considering that was the first tournament we ever played against each other in I made sure to give it genuinely and not for any other reason than reasons similar to what he listed above for "earning" the sports score. I very frequently give out 3s and 4s and don't feel bad about them at all. You have to really fuck up and make me want to punch you to get a 0.
For reference, in my book an average game of 40k is a 3. A game where I felt really involved and enjoyed the back and forth, and feel like my opponent was easy going and we both enjoyed ourselves is a 4 (what I give out more often than not with our group). A 5 is where we both feel the highs and lows of each others dice, neither seem to complain too much about what's going on and just enjoy the game- allow mistakes or missed movements to be corrected and even mid game advice exchanged back and forth; trying to help your opponent enjoy the game and make it as close as possible is what really gets me to a 5... Where you're more focused on enjoying the game and your opponent doing it as well, and having winning be a secondary priority while playing. (It's a dice game, sometimes we alpha strike each other off the table, and sometimes we slog through the average to bad dice for six turns. Difference situations merit different approaches to how you converse and treat your opponent; who is generally also a friend in this hobby group of ours.)
Overall while I would be totally behind a comp system and would love it, I don't want to change the entire tournament meta because of one or two peoples' lack of enjoyment in the tournaments lately, just because I haven't been enjoying it as much as I used to doesn't mean I think you should turn everything on it's head.
Edit :
To clarify, I have been more than pleased with the Feb tournaments' scoring system in general. It feels like a solid chunk goes into each category (Battle, Painting and Sports) but also think the lack of the triad in other tournaments throughout the year heavily skews the scoring to people who bring high scoring painted lists that were already around from Feb, rather than many of us who change lists and either lack the motivation or time to fully paint extra parts of every tournament army we're trying out for a fun tournament mid year. (As a reference, I was 75% painted at the last tournament- due to things I was trying that just weren't something I was certain I wanted to paint and finish converting until I saw how they played out.)
I am pro sportsmanship scoring coming back for all tournaments and am pro comp being reinstated, though don't want to push too hard for comp unless if it's something a majority of the community wants.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Aug 5, 2016 5:45:13 GMT -5
the painting score at the club championship seems heavily weighted until you realise that there's a 100% painting requirement, therefore EVERYONE gets the baseline number if they followed the rules to enter the tournament.
The actual range for painting is about 15 points from three colours to perfectly painted. If you are talking about people that put genuine effort into painting, having a display board etc. we're talking a difference of 10 points or less.
Painting is not part of the team tourney scoring at all. It's strictly battle points and thumbs up/down for sports
Tournies outside of the club championship, it's 5 points max score per game, with the minimum score 1, so it's 4 point spread between completely unpainted and painted, or 12 points over a three game tourney, equal to slightly less than one win. If people feel this is too much focus on painting it can certainly change. I personally like having a painting component to have it a focus on all aspects of the hobby, but given these points are just arbitrarily made by me, I can change them at any time if people want! (it's YOUR tourney after all!)
I agree completely about what Tom/Justin(s)/Matt said above with sports being a component and if people truly give out actual sports scores it makes for a MUCH fairer system. However it's been my experience that the majority of people will score 4 or mostly 5 every game. As Matt said above, people don't want to be giving those low numbers unless the person was truly horrible.
TL:DR - if we want comp let's figure it out. If we want painting skewed less and sports more we can do that too! It's your tourney - tell me what you want!!!
|
|
|
Post by calitom on Aug 5, 2016 10:26:02 GMT -5
Yeah for sure Shannon, I understand how the paint scoring happens at the Feb tourney- no issues with that at all. Just the previous tourney that was 4 rounds I think wound up with a 20 point paint score possible at the end for one that didn't have a painting requirement. My only thought was that it was to help compensate for points that also might have been missing from a sports possible score was all. You do a much better job running everything than I ever would, I just also think we can make it better, faster, stronger. We have the technology!
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Aug 5, 2016 10:47:45 GMT -5
agree completely that we can always improve!
I think what I'm hearing (if I'm hearing it right and if not please correct me) is in any tournament where there is zero painting requirement, there should be either NO points for painting, or a reduced painting score.
so if there's no painting requirement, I do want to give some kind of bonus for someone going through the hassle of painting their army - would any of these work?
- an average of all painting scores - ie: if you got 5, 3, 1 for your painting scores you'd average a 3 point paint score for a three round tourney?
- just have a set score done by the tourney organizer - ie: at lunch break I give a 1-5 score - subjective then, no chipmunking possible, and easy to record.
- no paint score unless there's a painting requirement.
- a reduced scale for painting: ie: 0 = not painted at all, 1= partially painted, 2= fully painted, 3= fully painted and at a high level of skill
(I'm kind of leaning towards the last option - lower score impact while still rewarding those who paint)
|
|
|
Post by calitom on Aug 5, 2016 12:17:54 GMT -5
The last option sounds great for non Feb tourneys to me. Maybe a similar scale for Sports at non Feb tourneys just try to explain again how it should work.
Also I'll think up some comp ideas and hit you up with them before we start a general discussion about it.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Aug 5, 2016 13:23:35 GMT -5
sounds like a plan!
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Aug 7, 2016 10:46:43 GMT -5
sign up is now live: kingstonnexus.ca/events/2016-warhammer-40k-team-championships/put team captain as Attendee 1 when you register and make sure you have a team name (even a working title is fine!). Only register your team when you have four - as on the site it actually only puts the one name (captain) as attending and takes off four of the available spots.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Aug 11, 2016 7:54:50 GMT -5
Five weeks til the tourney - anyone attending? Please sign up your team if you are!
|
|
|
Post by raceygaming on Aug 11, 2016 11:29:11 GMT -5
just waiting to confirm a 4th just to make sure its all gonna work.
|
|