So, we come back to forumitis's evil twin brother... Comp.
It is a well known fact that all true WAAC competitive gamers hate comp, as it ruins all that they stand for, by introducing variety in lists, even playing fields and a fun gaming environment.
Any of you sitting there now, nodding agreement, shame on you.
Comp is meant to do these things, but rarely, if ever, does. Now before you switch off and tag me as a douche, let me bring one fact to light here.
I am pro comp, and I have a dream...
You can leave now if you still desire.
For those whose only comment will be "Don't use comp kthxbi" (ahem VT!), you can leave too..
For those 3 readers left, let's try something that has been tried before, a new comp method, with less hate and more reality. The reason I am revisiting this, is that I have yet to see a comp method that satisfactorily does what it is meant to do.
First: What is comp.
Comp is supposed to foster variance in list building. It is supposed to encourage softer lists instead of powerhouse net lists. It is supposed to promote the other, extra parts of the hobby beyond just pounding your opponent into the ground.
Analysis:
Fail, C-, Fail.
I will admit that comp allows players to utilize non-powerhouse-netlists in game, and not feel like you are going to autolose the event, but be aided by the comp score you receive. Everything else, it does not do. I cannot take a BW Blitz list to a comp event and expect to place anywhere with the comp' score received, which stops me taking it. If I do take it, I need to cream all opponents to pull off a place, which isn't fun gaming for the 5-6 unfortunate souls who draw me.
So, Mr fester, I presume you have some sort of a solution, yes?
Well, kind of. I don't believe that anyone will come up with the one ring, err, I mean solution.
Okay, the issues with Comp in events are multiple, and depending on where you come from and what environment you play in, the issues change.
So I want to define some issues with Comp. (this isn't just 40k comp either ladies, this covers Fantasy as well)
1. Full mech is not appreciated.
2. Foot Horde is not appreciated
3. Special Characters are not appreciated
4. Modifying Troops choices (Bike Captains, Deathwing/Ravenwing) is not appreciated
5. Pre-defined combos are not appreciated - LashOblit, Nob Biker, Leafblower, Razorwolves etc.
Wow, what is left? Battleforce armies? Joy :/
Why is this? The restrictions put on the design of your army are arbitrarily set down by some mythical TO with a hate of [your army here]. However, if you play [TO's Army] you get great comp, or if you [suck TO's, err, toes] you get great comp.
Righto then. Let's look at my solution, and ridicule it heavily in the comments section.
Solution
1. Comp is Panel Judged.
What this means is that the 4-5 people who comp the lists are TO's from other similar sized events, from outside of your local Meta. This means store owners from the next state over, TO's from Adepticon, Kirby, Me, whatever.
2. You have a set of predefined questions that the Judge must answer.
3. You publish all this information, with scores received, PRIOR to the event on your website/blog/forum/front door
So... fester... nothing really new here.
Well, there is one more thing I want to add, and that is the questions to be answered. Well, the ONE question that answers all the goals of comp (to my mind).
Q: How many games do you think this list will lose at this event. (0-5)
Why so simple? Simple! (ahahahah... erm)
All we are interested with in comp is levelling the playing field. It is, at it's barest, a handicap on hard lists, and a helper to soft lists, allowing soft lists to beat harder lists overall. This "encourages variety", stalls "net lists" and makes for "fun games" between softer, or evenly matched lists... I am not stopping you take Mephiston and Dante, nor am I stopping you take Cron Hordes, nor am I stopping you take Razorwolves. Each has a strength, each has a weakness, and each deserves to be at the event.
The logic is simple: If I can beat your Razorwolves using nothing by firewarriors and gundrones, that must say something about my skill (yeah, I know, wont happen blah blah VT), and your list is craptonnes harder than mine, so that should also count for something.
Anyway, I think I have made enough enemies, in both camps, so I will quieten down. I know this is still subjective, and still open to abuse, but by pushing this out to TO's and simplifying the criteria (and still getting a semi-reasonable result), I feel I might be pulling in close...
TO's of Comp'd events... Thoughts?
Logging you in...
ShotDownMind · 757 weeks ago
fester40k 73p · 757 weeks ago
Polymorphine 1p · 757 weeks ago
Apathyman 36p · 757 weeks ago
Jason · 757 weeks ago
I think Panel Comp is the best way to go though, if that is your main point.
Eltnot 45p · 757 weeks ago
The TO already donates HUGE amounts of time to running the event as is. If you want an opinion on your list before submitting it to the TO, then ask on forums, you should be able to get a reasonable idea of what you might score at the event from other TO and panel members who regularly post on forums.
abusepuppy 121p · 757 weeks ago
SageoftheTimes 77p · 757 weeks ago
fester40k 73p · 757 weeks ago
Eltnot 45p · 757 weeks ago
Unfortunately most people think about this the wrong way. They decide they want the highest possible comp score, keep on making their list ever softer to get it, and then complain when they get smashed on the tables.
Also, there is movement within the Australian and in particular Queensland tournament community to try and have clearer guidelines as to what an army might expect to score before the player submits. Unfortunately this all takes time and effort that is donated by individuals. Panel markers don't get paid for what they do, and they do a lot.
Jason · 757 weeks ago
Bro_Lo 82p · 757 weeks ago
Otherwise, meh, I'm anti-comp and there is nothing here to change my opinion. I'll elaborate later ;)
Kirby 118p · 757 weeks ago
fester40k 73p · 757 weeks ago
Bro_Lo 82p · 757 weeks ago
first of all, comp will NEVER foster more variety. The only way of doing that is for GW to release codices more frequently and update all of the non-5e ones. Privateer Press manage to do this on an almost monthly basis, it's been about 6 months since the last 40k one. Until the time when all of the codices have made the transition into 5th Edition, there will never be a level playing field.
Do we need to 'level' the playing field? In my opinion, no, it's sufficiently level that any interference will only confuse people. Most local tournies are not 'competitive' enough to worry about comp scores (see the number of tournaments Orks/Chaos still win and Tau don't win. Some codices will sadly not have a chance at winning either - comp or no comp - unless you want to give a tournament victory to a Necron player with draws and minor losses.
Taking it up to 'bigger' tournaments, list building SHOULD be taken into account and therefore comp fails.
If you want a hobby event (and that is not a slur), then by all means comp the hell out of lists, do what you please, but don't make out that giving people bonus points for being bad at list building. Not cool.
If you want to comp how should it be done? The Swedish way. I don't agree with it, but it's most definately the most comprehensive, open and objective system I've seen, and by a long way. Panel comp is fail. No matter who you chose to comp lists, there will always be personal influence. If you get a good number of sensible, open-minded individuals, then fine. But I've probably only met a handful of people in RL that are sensible when it comes to codex review. The majority (including club presidents and shop owners), all think 40k is broken system with codex creep. How are those individuals geared toward sensible comp scoring. 5 Kirbys - great. 5 Steleks - great. 5 Abuse Puppys - great. I could list many more, but my point is there are very few of these on the internet, let alone a local hobby area. The Swedish way of doing things allows the whole country to be involved and gives you a dedicated set of rules to go by. It's not win-win, but with comp involved, it never will be.
Sorry... I know I turned out to be one of those, "it'll never work, RAWR' commenters, but that is what my head says.
Eltnot 45p · 757 weeks ago
"first of all, comp will NEVER foster more variety. The only way of doing that is for GW to release codices more frequently and update all of the non-5e ones. Privateer Press manage to do this on an almost monthly basis, it's been about 6 months since the last 40k one. Until the time when all of the codices have made the transition into 5th Edition, there will never be a level playing field. "
At most tournaments I go to, I usually see at least someone playing: Daemonhunters/Witch Hunters/Necrons/Deathwing. These codicies cannot compete on the same level as newer versions (maybe Witch Hunters with Immolator spam). I'd call that diversity.
GW won't ever be up to date with ALL of their codices. By the time we get all of the 3rd ed codices updated, 6th ed will be just around the corner and so the cycle begins anew.
"Some codices will sadly not have a chance at winning either - comp or no comp - unless you want to give a tournament victory to a Necron player with draws and minor losses. "
If you have two players, of varying skill levels. One has taken necrons, the other Space Wolf MSU razor spam. After their five games, both are on the same battle points total and have been playing against similar level opponents due to matching by battle scores. Which is the better player? The guy with Necrons of course, because he did well despite having a weaker army. Thus naturally he is a better general than the Space Wolf player. Comp is supposed to reward that kind of achievement.
"How are those individuals geared toward sensible comp scoring. 5 Kirbys - great. 5 Steleks - great. 5 Abuse Puppys - great. I could list many more, but my point is there are very few of these on the internet, let alone a local hobby area."
Panels are usually made up of experienced players who either have a lot of experience in running events and/or are experienced players who often place at tournaments. Sure a panel of random people will give a poor result, but using experienced people, less so. Panel judges don't have to be local, this is made feasible by the wonder that is the interwebs. I currently have 24 lists in my Inbox waiting to be marked for an event in Adelaide SA whilst I'm in Rockhampton QLD. Getting an experienced panel together is no longer as hard as it used to be. There's no reason that you can't have Kirby, Stelek, and Abuse Puppy as part of a panel assuming that they are willing to give up their time to do the marking.
Kirby 118p · 757 weeks ago
A non-comp event with Necrons (1), DA (2), Daemons (3), BT (1), DH (1)
http://www.lordsofterra.com/GT.htm & http://www.lordsofterra.com/masters.htm
Two comped events with Necrons (1), DA (2) , Daemons (2), BT (1), DH (2)
Only looking at three events with roughly the same numbers for both sides in terms of participants and certainly no significant difference between uncommon/sub-par armies between them. Most tournaments appear to have some players playing these lists which comp should be helping whether or not there is comp.
Eltnot 45p · 757 weeks ago
Out of 73 players you had:
Black Templars - 1
Chaos Daemons - 3
Necrons - 4
Witch Hunters - 2
Dark Angels - 3
And that doesn't take into account the variety of lists styles that you might see also. Codices like Eldar and Tau which are getting long in the tooth and have fewer viable "competitive" list styles can still run a greater variety of lists and still be able to do well.
Bro_Lo 82p · 757 weeks ago
"At most tournaments I go to, I usually see at least someone playing: Daemonhunters/Witch Hunters/Necrons/Deathwing. These codicies cannot compete on the same level as newer versions (maybe Witch Hunters with Immolator spam). I'd call that diversity.
GW won't ever be up to date with ALL of their codices. By the time we get all of the 3rd ed codices updated, 6th ed will be just around the corner and so the cycle begins anew. "
I'm assuming you mean comp'd tournaments? I also see Necrons, Daemons, SoB (non-immo spam), Templars and Dark Angels in non-comp'd tournaments. All the time. Making a tournament a completely subjective affair just to get 20% (from your subsequent post) of the attendees to use older codexes doesn't really stack up for me. Especially as those 20% would have probably taken those lists anyway (even in a competitive environment, most people still play the minis they love). Now take those 80% of attendees that are not taking 3e/4e codices. They've been bullied into taking sub-optimal builds for fear of the nerf-bat. How is that suppose to 'help'. Helping 20% to disable 80%. Seems silly to me.
Why won't GW update all of their codices into 5e? Have I heard of a single rumour about 6e? Nothing I place any weight behind. I have however heard discussions of GK, Necrons and Tau being updated. That would then only leave WH, BT, DA, Orks and Chaos, and the only really naff codex in that bunch is DA - suck it up, life IS unfair. With GW finally getting some business sense, they may actually stick with a popular edition and continue to make good codices. It's not business sense to change something that's not broken.
"If you have two players, of varying skill levels. One has taken necrons, the other Space Wolf MSU razor spam. After their five games, both are on the same battle points total and have been playing against similar level opponents due to matching by battle scores. Which is the better player? The guy with Necrons of course, because he did well despite having a weaker army. Thus naturally he is a better general than the Space Wolf player. Comp is supposed to reward that kind of achievement."
This is sadly NOT true and is another fallacy about comp. It is true that going 5 rounds undefeated with Necrons is an achievement (or a display that your opponents were stupid ;) ), but it does NOT mean he is a better general. Battle scoring doesn't ensure equal pairings in early rounds as you well know. Mission type is also just as important (I assume you're not running Stelek's 5x5 or Nova's Mission Pack as it's a comp event) and how battle scores are given out is equally important. What equal battle scores at the end of means, is just that. That is why I liked Nova's system of the winner is the ONLY person undefeated. I've also always said that Generalship starts at codex selection. Taking SW razorspam does not mean point-shot-win, yes it's easier to get A win, but 5 wins takes a lot of skill. I'm sure with both seen people fail miserably with a list they've taken off of the internet and have no concept of how to play with it.
Bro_Lo 82p · 757 weeks ago
Please email Stelek and ask if he's willing to panel comp. Pleeeeease!
I understand what the aim of panel comp is, but such a system is just not open/clear or repeatable and is subjective. I re-itterate my sentiments that I do not trust these local store owners, tournament organisers, club presidents to mark comp. There are still so many of them that do not understand 40k and I don't mean they're bad players. I've mentioned discussions I've had before. One thinks genestealers and BA librarian dreads are 2 of the most 'broken' units in the game. Really? I want to play that game, cus that's not 40k. And you want these people to mark my comp? Pass. Oh... and I know similarly experienced 40kers (that have previously run tournaments) that think Hive Guard are bad. Pass.
Stelek, Kirby and AP (some of the best writters on the net IMO), will not mark comp, because they understand it. My opinion - you want to be 'nice' to everyone, run a hobby event (again, this is not a bad thing). You want to eek out the best general, encourage COMPetitive 40k and this means a comp without the comp. I would attend a hobby event and I'd have fun doing so, what bothers me is hobby events trying to disguise themselves as competitive 40k.
Eltnot 45p · 757 weeks ago
Given that I'm not much of a fan of Stelek (just too much drama going on there, and he seems to have issues when someone proves him wrong http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2009/05/gun-drone... that's almost tempting if just for the lols.
stillfrosty · 757 weeks ago
Heretic · 757 weeks ago
Jake · 757 weeks ago
Does a 40k tournament need another subjective score? In my experience, it's the subjective that pisses people off the most.
Painting/Converting/Basing/Display Board/Sportsmanship, all of these are already factors in a tournament, are highly subjective, and occasionally seriously piss people off (What do you mean I only get a 2 on basing? This is clearly a 4! those 2 points cost me best overall! etc)
Even if panels were a good idea, and could arrive at "fair" comp scores, I'd wager it would take far too long. 4 people, even taking only 5 minutes per army adds up to nearly 11 man-hours of work in a 30-man tournament. (and some would probably generate "discussion", otherwise the panel is too homogeneous to be worth using anyway) I'd much rather have those 4 people being rule judges, setting up, cleaning up, or whatever else necessary to actually run the tournament. I don't care if a tournament has the best comp rules and board in the world, if the tournament never actually happens, it's all for naught.
black_rose_00 29p · 757 weeks ago
Here are the points
2 pts no identical HQ choice (no 2 captains, no 2 demon princes, etc)
2 pts at least 40% troops
2 pts not have 3 identical selections from the same org chart outside troops (no 3 predators, no 3 sternguard squads, etc)
2 pts have selections in 2 out of the 3 optional selections (2 out of elites, fast, heavy)
2 pts no more points in one selection then in troops
2 pts have a story to justify your army
0-3 pts given by each of your opponents
Because of it's subjectivity the points given by your opponents are dropped in some tournaments. This list doesn't put too much of contraints on most armies so is widely accepted. A lot of players do not want to play in the tournements if comp is not present so the TO's always have comp to keep the players coming back to their events and a basic comp like this makes most players happy.
Eltnot 45p · 757 weeks ago
Your system also fails to support often fluffy non powerful armies because they get hurt by not taking a wide variety of units.
SageoftheTimes 77p · 757 weeks ago
The problem is, in and of itself, a lot of people don't know how to play 5th ed, and giving them the driver's seat is not the best way to do things.
fester40k 73p · 757 weeks ago
Simply putting it down to a "how many games will i expect this list to win" is much more likely to level the lists in the overall event, rather than ranking on 4th v 5th ed lists, personal hate, etc.
nfluger 60p · 757 weeks ago
1. OFCC method. Event is a team-based (4 person teams), and all lists are submitted ahead of time. List are graded on a scale from 1-5. At the event, team captains try to match up similarly rated lists that should present a good challenge for both players. Idea is to get 5 great, close games in over the weekend regardless of how tough your list is. In other words; if you bring a competitive list and play only competitive lists, you're happy. If you bring a weaker list and play only weaker lists, you're happy.
nfluger 60p · 757 weeks ago
Kirby 118p · 757 weeks ago
nfluger 60p · 757 weeks ago
You start with a ranking of 1000, and it goes up or down from there. Group A is players above 1025 points IIRC, and Group C is players below 950 IIRC. Zen (the TO) is planning on a major revamp of the website and so the stats should be current (the posted rankings are from December 2009; I'm currently number 2 after Jayson).
nfluger 60p · 757 weeks ago
Kirby 118p · 757 weeks ago
nfluger 60p · 757 weeks ago
Kirby 118p · 757 weeks ago
That would be questions for organisers like Mike and fester though...
Eltnot 45p · 757 weeks ago
1. What am I comparing the list too? All the other lists in the tournament? If so, what happens when everyone takes strong lists? I'd have to mark each list several times until I got the balances right across the board.
2. It's hard to take into account player skill and also how the matching of opponents will factor into how many games I expect them to lose.
3. I find often that a score of 0 to 5 is a little too general and a score of 0/1 to 10 gives better detail.
fester40k 73p · 757 weeks ago
However, I also want to note that Comp should be assessed agains the field you are playing in.
If 9 people take Razorwolves, and one takes Necrons, the comp scoring should reflect this.
RavenTalon · 757 weeks ago
The biggest problem with comp is that it needs to be clearly stated ahead of time. I'm playing in the local tourney anyway - it's right here. The only people that I feel bad for are those that drive or fly to get there not knowing the "rules." As long as comp is articulated clearly and concisely when the event is announced, I simply cannot fathom the issue behind it. If you do not like it, you have to find someplace else to play.
I understand that this is not the best answer. I live in the middle of no where. I accept that, and so I have to drive to find some place to play if it's not with the local buddies. I still think that it is the only answer.
fester40k 73p · 757 weeks ago
I.E. a 5/10 Marine List might score 2/10, 6/10, 5/10, 5/10 across 4 judges, as one guy just HATES Ultramarines.
Total then is 18/40, which is closer to its deserved score of 5/10 than the TO's 2/10 personal hate score.
By increasing the amount of "qualified" input (let's be honest, most TO's actually play a lot of 40k), you can get a closer result.
Maybe.
Tratchenberg · 757 weeks ago
fester40k 73p · 757 weeks ago
Kirby 118p · 757 weeks ago
tehixe · 757 weeks ago
Really, the whole solution is a logical faceplant. You identify the problems with comp, and you propose a solution that doesn't fix any of them. The person who writes the questions will still be the one who decides what gets chipmunked according to his own likes and dislikes. Or if a panel writes them, is it really gonna be balanced? The panel is going to be the TO's friends more likely than not, it's not gonna be some random group of people without biases.
tehixe · 757 weeks ago
I think it still doesn't accomplish any of your goals. You're asking the panel to judge how bad the list sucks. That's going to be very highly subjective, I've met incredibly good 40k players with polar opposite views of what's good and what isn't. And with only one question, you make comp into even more of a popularity contest than it already is. People who hate mech can still give it a low score, whether or not it's a good list.
fester40k 73p · 757 weeks ago
That is why you are getting a group of TO's from outside of the local meta, and from outside the TO's personal group of friends.
In Australia, where I play, all TO's who panel comp their events also put up their hands to comp other events. It's a scratch-my-back-i'll-scratch-yours type setup, and it works.
However, there is often a large disconnect between the scores and reality, which I am attempting to resolve by simplifying the criteria into a more logical question. Any TO worth their salt can look at a list and have a 80% guess on what other lists it will beat and which it will fold to. Of course, this isn't 100%, but comp never is.
Ianos666 29p · 757 weeks ago
There should be an ELO ranking system in 40k though, it would make things so much easier an more pleasant for all players competing.
Messanger of Death · 757 weeks ago
Alternatively, don't waste your time trying to make comp work. Utilize the time to write useful tutorials that teach players basic concepts such as deployment, shooting, assaulting or something else. The community needs tutorials on tactics more than it needs another 'discussion'...
OR use the time to develop solid mission packets that do not favour a particular play style... OR work on ensuring EVERY table in your local tournament has 25% terrain.
Messanger
Messanger of Death · 757 weeks ago
Messanger of Death · 757 weeks ago
Has anyone else taken a look at the sort of thing that painters, converters and sculptors offer to the online community? There is a ducking shyt tone of high quality content out there.
Just take a look at what Ron from FTW has compiled...
http://fromthewarp.blogspot.com/2009/01/tips-and-...
That doesn't even include the really high end quality stuff like you see from these places...
http://massivevoodoo.blogspot.com/2009/10/tutoria...
http://masteroftheforge.com/list-of-tutorials/
http://volomir.blogspot.com/search/label/tutorial
http://towerofheroes.blogspot.com/2010/04/tutoria...
http://leskouzes.blogspot.com/search/label/Tutori...
http://www.the-vanus-temple.com/?page_id=448
http://thepaintingcorps.blogspot.com/p/painting-t...
Do I need to go on? That is just the tip of the ducking iceberg of what is out there. You also have the forums which are filled with amazing painters, including Golden Demon winners, who go out daily and share their knowledge with other painters.
What do the competitive elite offer?
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/10/40k-space-...
http://www.houseofpaincakes.com/2010/10/user-cont...
http://blackmoors40k.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-to-...
These 'skilled' generals who have won multiple events don't even bother to give decent pictures. They tell us for the nth time that we should do something the meta-game doesn't expect. They make broad generalisations that scrubs see as words of wisdom. This is a Ducking joke.
I can count on my hands alone the bloggers who have produced useful tutorials for tactics. If I'm feeling generous we could include my left foot. That is how utterly pathetic this community is at helping others.
If it weren't for bloggers like Kirby, Bro Lo, Stelek, Raptor1313, Danny Internet and Dverning this community would consist of scrubs and baby seal killers.
Don't waste bandwidth telling us why Orks/Tau/Landspeeder Storms are good or bad for the nth time. There are dozens of tutorials on how to paint Ork skin to a really high standard. And each of them teaches a beginner something new. The editorials on why Orks are good/bad are the same shyt just wrapped up differently. They don't teach beginners anything new... they just fuel the fire and help certain personalities stroke their e-pens during arguments.
Stop wasting your time, and ours, by posting the same shyt but with a different packaging. Instead give the community something useful. Something that is actually lacking.
Messanger
N.B. this is not directed at Fester... his article just got me in the mood to express myself :)
Bro_Lo 82p · 757 weeks ago
...and consider that FTW page bookmarked.
Messanger of Death · 757 weeks ago
Bro_Lo 82p · 757 weeks ago
I do appreciate being named in the same group as Kirby, Stelek, Danny etc... but not sure how they'd feel about it though. I personally think you're crazy for doing so :P
Messanger of Death · 757 weeks ago
http://imperial-life.blogspot.com/2010/11/waste-o...
Messanger