Jump to content
Toqtamish

Organized Play Update

Recommended Posts

I am probably over reacting here, but the "balancing" mechanism for minor guilds seems like a colossally bad idea.  It screws up the math significantly.  I would gladly play play and 8 man roster for that advantage, and if I recall correctly Botts won worlds with and 8 man roster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Banjulhu said:

Do all the major guilds currently make viable use of their two captains in tournaments?

You could reasonably argue that the following captains could be dropped from a roster:

Ox

Esters

Midas (?)

Scalpel

Brisk3t (but there's still Rage and BH)

Skatha

 

Not saying they should be, but it's something that could be discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Skatha. :)

I'm surprised they didn't address the gameplan timing issue - I fear Dice Downs ahead (I mean you could be a total dick and NEVER pick a card when up on points...noone would obviously but a ruleset shouldn't allow this abuse).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, EpicChris said:

I'm surprised they didn't address the gameplan timing issue - I fear Dice Downs ahead (I mean you could be a total dick and NEVER pick a card when up on points...noone would obviously but a ruleset shouldn't allow this abuse).

What is to stop player A from measuring out and entire turn or possible outcomes (even when they know they are going first). It is very odd to me to have an unlimited amount of time to decide something because there aren't issues with measuring during that time. I hope this gets changed as I can see issues coming from it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Banjulhu said:

Do all the major guilds currently make viable use of their two captains in tournaments?

Coming at it from the opposite way, is there any guild that would suffer a significant effect if they could only take one captain?  

Engineers I think would suffer for it, but other then that I think losing a captain choice would be an irritation for most teams not a major handicap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, THE_DOJO_MIKE said:

What is to stop player A from measuring out and entire turn or possible outcomes (even when they know they are going first). It is very odd to me to have an unlimited amount of time to decide something because there aren't issues with measuring during that time. I hope this gets changed as I can see issues coming from it. 

Well, firstly I'd be interested to see if anyone actually does that.

Secondly, if it really is an issue just call a judge over for time wasting. 

Lets give people a chance before we convict everyone without trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, EpicChris said:

Seriously though shouldn’t players who make quick decisions be rewarded? I like the idea that the first person to choose starts opponent clock. 

No. This would just further favour players who play more games and plan more, and pile more pressure and stress on newer or less frequent players, creating more turn off from the game. Some people just naturally process faster or slower. We want more players to keep the game fresh and interesting, not to make events restricted to the core 100 or so regulars/'VIPs' (talking UK rather than global here). Just keep to Wheaton's Law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jamie P said:

Well, firstly I'd be interested to see if anyone actually does that.

Secondly, if it really is an issue just call a judge over for time wasting. 

Lets give people a chance before we convict everyone without trial.

If there's a free trip to England on the line, I'd be tempted...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, S_A_T_S said:

No. This would just further favour players who play more games and plan more, and pile more pressure and stress on newer or less frequent players, creating more turn off from the game. Some people just naturally process faster or slower. We want more players to keep the game fresh and interesting, not to make events restricted to the core 100 or so regulars/'VIPs' (talking UK rather than global here). Just keep to Wheaton's Law.

But we already do this in the game. Every other action and decision is on clock why would these not be. 

I can see your point but I think the decisions in turn will burn up more newbie time. 

We could just increase clock time to 50/55 minutes to incorporate this time while keeping everything on clock. Actually I would quite like this to happen to avoid the current weaponisation of the clock anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SonofMars said:

I am probably over reacting here, but the "balancing" mechanism for minor guilds seems like a colossally bad idea.  It screws up the math significantly.  I would gladly play play and 8 man roster for that advantage, and if I recall correctly Botts won worlds with and 8 man roster.

I'll point out 12-14 choose 8 is a very different thing than 8 choose 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Zombiepops said:

I'll point out 12-14 choose 8 is a very different thing than 8 choose 8.

Fair enough, but I am not sold the idea that only having access to 8 players is that much of a handy cap.  What guild (besides possibly Engeineers and Farmers) has 8+ players that are more then just interesting tech choices for certain matchups?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SonofMars said:

Fair enough, but I am not sold the idea that only having access to 8 players is that much of a handy cap.  What guild (besides possibly Engeineers and Farmers) has 8+ players that are more then just interesting tech choices for certain matchups?

But having access tech choices of kind of my point. If you know what the metas your going into in a tournament looks like you can capitalize on those tech choices with your roster choices. Rat catchers can't do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zombiepops said:

But having access tech choices of kind of my point. If you know what the metas your going into in a tournament looks like you can capitalize on those tech choices with your roster choices. Rat catchers can't do that.

My argument is that having that choice is far less useful then +1 to a roll off.  Sure being able to have a couple tech choices up your sleve is nice, but if you reduced every guild down to its 8 core models most of them would not suffer much.  In comparison winning 2/3rds of your kickoff rolls is very powerful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long form thoughts regarding +1 kickoff roll to minor guilds.

https://wordpress.com/post/momentoustackle.wordpress.com/309

TL;DR. Not a fan. The Homogeneous roster means even if their average win rate is competitive, Minor Guilds are likely to have wider match up variance. That is to say their results will be more polarizing due to good/bad match ups. This rule adjustment will simply increases their global win rate, it does not correct for the actual variance.  You make the bad match ups a little better, but you also make the good match ups stronger in the process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t like the cludge for minor guilds, and that’s not even my least favourite thing.

Going back to the days of having to deal with asking “can I use this model in this event” sucks to the highest power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that bugs me about the internet is the crazy hyperbolic situations that are made up. "People measuring our there whole turn while there opponent twiddles there thumbs because he's picked his plot card". We're all adults here and it's normally very obvious if someone is slow playing on purpose (though I may just be more attuned to it due to it old WMH clock rules). 

Call a judge, speak to person across the table, etc. There's no need for a fix to a problem that has not yet been made, even then most issues can just be resolved between two adults across the table speaking to each other. 

In regards to the OPD update, it's a interesting bonus for Minor Guilds. It's almost as SFG have said "we feel they are competitive enough rules wise but they need a bonus in flexibility" which makes sense due to there limited roster. I'm interested to see how that pans out :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am against an artificial +1 I think. This skews the game in the Ratcatchers favour and is basically annoying and unfair. 8 models limits choice NOT on pitch ability. This just compounds my problems with Reverie as now the Ratcatchers will easily be able to get that 1 goal. I already hated the out of activation move AND shot. This compounds it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, EpicChris said:

I am against an artificial +1 I think. This skews the game in the Ratcatchers favour and is basically annoying and unfair. 8 models limits choice NOT on pitch ability. This just compounds my problems with Reverie as now the Ratcatchers will easily be able to get that 1 goal. I already hated the out of activation move AND shot. This compounds it. 

 

It certainly seems "better" for a team that have such a strong ability for a turn one goal. Maybe on the following Minor Guilds it won't feel like such a massive bonus? Or maybe Ratcatchers were designed with the mind that they should get the first turn goal? It's a interesting statement by SFG essentially saying we think to help balance a guild they should decide to kick or receive most of the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ruminated on it last night. I hate it. If they had concerns on 'flexibility' they should have allowed greater access to Major Guild players. Not break a core rule. Breaking core rules for the sake of balance is super bad. In Rats case (because Piper) it's even worse. This is a bad decision by SFG. Either Rats were balanced by design or they weren't - they shouldn't need a +1 to compete in a tournament because that just says 'oops, our design ethos for minor guilds doesn't work'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone complaining about the +1roll for first turn being unbalanced doesn't understand how restricting only having access to eight players can be.. Most Major guilds will have a minimum of 14 players, four of which are captains or mascots to pick their "best" ten and then six from for any situation.. Opposed to this, the Minor or guilds have eight players they have to take regardless of whether they are on the power curve or vet graves.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×