arw
Joined: Jan 07, 2007
|
 Posted:
Nov 09, 2009 - 22:32 |
 
|
Well I didn't compete in the Tour.
I guess relatively few coaches are able and/or willing to play in every Tour event.
It would be nice to only count one event with the same race.
So if you lost the 4th round (8Pts) in Tour I playing Orcs and play Orcs again in Tour II you'd loose the 8 Pts of Tour I. Or you keep 'em and ignore the points you get in Tour II.
Just thinking. Guess I won't seriously compete in the Tour anyway- I just like the idea. It is a racial restriction that only works with the Tour and it's format. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 09, 2009 - 23:05 |
|
Purp - I doubt we will ever completely remove cheese from tournaments.
"Cheese" is tough to define but I think its generally considered to be achieved when you take competitiveness too far. This happens when you use a feature or flaw within a game to give you a distinct advantage. Stuff usually seems to be considered cheesy if the use of the feature/flaw seems to be against the spirit of the game or is particularly easy to exploit. Hence people rarely call foul on vampires with wizards but almost always decry the lameness of orcs, the count, and tuamadre.
However, cheese tends to lie over the edge of a non-existant boundary.
Personally I think the best way to deal with it is to build tournaments which have the lowest difference between super-competitive teams and teams run by the Joe Average. At the moment the best way to do this seems to be to avoid very high and very low TR caps.
BTW, I think that the presense of count toting teams actually increases competitiveness. Although cheesy they do two things:
- provide Joe Average with a team which is easy to construct and which stands a chance against the real monsters
- force constructed teams to have an anti-count weapon at their disposal which tends to make these teams more varied, interesting and subtle. It also decreases their power against Joe Average because the most abusive constructed teams tend to work by spamming power skills.
| CircularLogic wrote: | | The problem with filler teams is that it gives a few people free points. Which isn`t really a good thing. |
I would advocate the filler tournaments. However, theres no reason to award full credit for them.....
They should state "filler" somewhere in the tournament title (to distinguish them on profile pages). They should also only start awarding points from the first round with no filler teams. So if round one has filler teams and points are normally awarded 1/2/4/8/16/32 then points would be awarded 0/1/2/4/8/16. So everyone would get to compete but people on the low end of the TR spectrum would get a bit of a raw deal. Unfortunately it needs to be slightly unfair to make sure people dont abuse it for easy points. However, this would be better than the current situation where they dont get to compete at all. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 10, 2009 - 09:02 |
|
@arw:
I had thought about this, too. Because I really like the idea, that you have to come up with different things in each of the eight tourneys. There are only three problems:
1) It might be seen as racial restriction. Racial restriction isn`t something that people are hot on.
2) I`d have to check how hard it would be track the race and then have the points automatically deducted.
3) If I`m having problems to know who has used which race when, do you think each coach will be able to track what race he has already used?
@SillySod:
For me the high and low TRs are actually the better ones. TR200+, a star isn`t that much of a gameturner. TR125, having a star in round 1 means the rest of your team sucks alot comparted to your opponent, which again makes for an interesting match. I also strongly disagree on the whole 'count is good for a tourney' thing. Sure, everyone can throw together undeads with 150k and start with the count spree. But that means, that JoeAverage is restricted to undeads. If you look at the lower divisions later in the tour, that constructingJoe that picks your canonical undead with mass cash relates to Joe in the same way as the planning and constructing coach relates to JoeAverage without count option. What you do is you elevate those that are OK to restrict themselves to being a one trick pony to the top tier, where they are competitive teamwise with the others, that arguably invest more teambuilding skill just to have the same problem in the lower tiers, just with a different flavor. Also - what is an anti-count-weapon? If you mean stripball and then elf it, that really only works for a few team, most of which seriously strugle either with the format or the TR range or both. The problem is not only the count, but also that he is on a team that is really powerful at those TR ranges on its own. So in the end you`ll see more undead mirror matches if you promote count usage. Is that really desireable?
So I would really like to see at least half the tour event as flat entry. |
|
|
BooAhl
Joined: Sep 02, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 10, 2009 - 09:57 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Either this or teams get accepted by tourpoints first, then TR. The problem with filler teams is that it gives a few people free points. Which isn`t really a good thing. |
BUt it would be random, or? |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 10, 2009 - 10:12 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | @arw:
I had thought about this, too. Because I really like the idea, that you have to come up with different things in each of the eight tourneys. There are only three problems:
1) It might be seen as racial restriction. Racial restriction isn`t something that people are hot on.
2) I`d have to check how hard it would be track the race and then have the points automatically deducted.
3) If I`m having problems to know who has used which race when, do you think each coach will be able to track what race he has already used?
|
I hate it. It is fine at TR100 when anyone can create a new team.
At higher TR it is just reducing the chance that people will have a team near the right TR.
What I would really like is to have 'house' teams at the different TR limits that you could just click a button and clone. i.e. save the tedious grind just to have a tournament team. Especially for people who don't normally want to play in the [R] division.
If you want PGoo style ultra fairness restrict some tournaments to house teams only.  |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
GeneralMarauder
Joined: Jan 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 10, 2009 - 13:41 |
|
I'd personally like to see stars dropped(maybe not from stunty teams) out of below TR200 Tours as imo they dominate the game too much. Getting them during the cup is usually just based on luck as you might get enough money to get one or you don't. The ones having enough money for them are the bashers and on lower TR they don't really need that help against squishies. This would make pre-tour money hogging pointless and people would just have to concentrate on winning with their own personnel. If I remember correctly, I've lost about 80-90% of the games I've played against the Count and not because the opposing coach was that good.
This should bring more variation on usable teams on lower TR, making racial restrictions unnecassary.
(Imo wizards are not that much of a concern as they can be used almost only by the teams that require that edge on lower TR, if they even have the money for it)
PS. I understand that Tour is [R] tournament, so this will probably never be implemented, but one can have dreams =) |
|
|
Zombie69
Joined: Jul 02, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 10, 2009 - 16:39 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Also - what is an anti-count-weapon? If you mean stripball and then elf it, that really only works for a few team, most of which seriously strugle either with the format or the TR range or both. The problem is not only the count, but also that he is on a team that is really powerful at those TR ranges on its own. So in the end you`ll see more undead mirror matches if you promote count usage. Is that really desireable? |
Gotta disagree here. Strip ball is a good anti-Luthor weapon, no matter what race you're using. And if you enter a tournament at a TR level where you expect to meet Luthor, you'd be making a grave mistake by going in without a single strip baller.
Tackle + dauntless also works pretty well, of course. |
|
|
Zombie69
Joined: Jul 02, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 10, 2009 - 16:43 |
|
If you want to completely get rid of the pre-tournament team building aspect, there's of course one way to satisfy this perfectly : make all tour events only accept TR100 teams with no game played. I don't think this would be all that bad actually, as most real life tournaments are played that way anyway! |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 10, 2009 - 21:18 |
|
| Zombie69 wrote: | | If you want to completely get rid of the pre-tournament team building aspect, there's of course one way to satisfy this perfectly : make all tour events only accept TR100 teams with no game played. I don't think this would be all that bad actually, as most real life tournaments are played that way anyway! |
RL tourneys are also kind of non-progression. Which is what gives squishies more of a shot. I wonder if a non-prog tourney might be a good idea. With FE, there won`t be any star use and it might shake the standard patterns up for good. |
|
|
Zombie69
Joined: Jul 02, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 10, 2009 - 21:25 |
|
What's FE? Non-progression real-life tournaments do have stars, it's just that you need to pay full price for them.
I think a TR100 progression tournament would work. Sure, wood elves might get hurt, but then again, they might not, and they're also more likely to gain SPPs quickly and have more skills by the time they reach the finals. As for the few players they might lose along the way, hey, that's more handicaps for them! |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 10, 2009 - 22:35 |
|
FE is flat entry, so no cash, no stars, no wiz. And as far as I know most tourneys don`t allow stars in the lineup. |
|
|
Zombie69
Joined: Jul 02, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 10, 2009 - 22:57 |
|
Just because you don't see stars, doesn't mean they're not allowed! Because of their exorbitant price for one-off games, few teams apart from halflings, goblins and possibly the undead trio (at the detriment of lots of other stuff) can afford them at 100 TR.
Stars are in the rules, i don't see why they should be disallowed. For me, this makes no more sense than disallowing fouls or passes. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 10, 2009 - 23:37 |
|
TR100, non-progression, no-star, teams would be dull as hell.
Tabletop tournaments have more cash alongside interesting rulesets for progression. These, plus the option to take inducements, tend to spice things up enough to make TT tournaments interesting. Besides, non-progression isnt just about fairness, its also a way for TT tournaments to control cheating and makes sure that no one has a miserable no hope of a day two. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
James_Probert
Joined: Nov 25, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 10, 2009 - 23:47 |
|
I have to agree with SillySod here, non-progression wouldn't work for a KO tourney just because part of the challenge is keeping the team alive through the tourney, if it was non-progression, there would be a certain brand of team that would do much better (leaping WarDancers with no fear anyone?) as they wouldn't have to worry about team members dieing IMHO, and could just use the Apo on the first cas caused, to get an advantage in that game |
_________________
 |
|
Zombie69
Joined: Jul 02, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 11, 2009 - 00:13 |
|
Just in case this isn't clear, i'm not advocating non-progression (i too think it's a bad idea). I'm advocating tournaments which only accept TR100 teams with no games played. But once you're in, everything goes, stars and all.
This of course is only if we want to eliminate the pre-tournament team building aspect. Whether that goal is worth pursuing is another matter. Personally, i kinda like the fact that to win a tournament, you must not only be a good coach, but also a good general manager who built a good team. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Fumbbl and Android
Search
