Jump to content

OFCC 2015 Ideas


Recommended Posts

I think a process would need to be in place for teams signing up late as well. For situations where a team may have heard about the tourney just before or after the deadline.

I think we need to have an OFCC nomad team as well. That way if players can't find a team before the deadline or their team collapses, they don't have to stress finding another squad if it is late in the process.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol at the Chaos Dwarf hate. Kdai'a Destroyers are bent, and they can gunline up as hard as dwarfs can, but outside that their army is mid-tier at best.

Swedish Comp is a great idea, since it actually gives some direction beyond "bring a list that would rate as a 3 on a subjective scale that we won't tell you anything about." Dropping the points level to 2400 is kind of crap, though. 2,400 point lists preclude a lot of fun and interesting things you can do with a great many books, and would make this event "just another Swedish Comp tournament."

Why not keep it at 2,800 and bump the starting point from 300 to (2,800/2,400*300)=350. That way you still get the benefits of comp at a level that allows some more room for creativity.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NtK - While I completely understand your feelings and value what you are saying, with no disrespect intended I would pose this to you.  Did you not review the event rules in advance?  What was being permitted in the event was clearly defined.  If you chose not to go and review the units in those books that you were unfamiliar with ahead of time; well that's on you.

 

quickfuze - first, no offense taken at all!  Thanks for the discussion :)

 

To clarify, I certainly don't think there's anything unfair about the extra rules.  Yes, I absolutely could have bought the books and read up on the extra stuff that I might or might not have faced.  But I don't particularly enjoy reading rules for rules sake, at least not any more.  I generally like to learn the various armies by playing in my local gaming circles, rather than studying all the books. That was for when I was playing competitively at the GT level.

 

Again I think this is purely a matter of preference, so I'm just voicing my preference in hopes that if many people agree, the OFCC can move that direction.

 

And I should add, I have nothing against CDs per-se.  It's units that have a lot of special/strange rules (e.g. the Hellcannon) that I think bog the game down, detract from good game play, and give me a headache :)  If a whole army book with new awesome models (like the CDs) can be introduced using mostly stat lines and existing special rules, great!  And a new lore, a few magic items, and maybe a couple special rules in the whole book, are plenty of new things for your opponents to learn.

 

Plus these special rules invariably introduce all kinds of ambiguity and/or loopholes.  Part of why the newer GW games are getting so much cleaner is that they are mostly just re-using a common glossary of special rules, which are thought out and playtested, in interesting ways, rather than writing all kinds of Gav Thorpe "creative" garbage :)

 

Anyway this post has gone on way longer than I intended.  Suffice to say, I think it's a matter of preference, and I'm just voicing mine!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all I'd like to say thank you to all organizers, list raters, and everyone who volunteered time and effort to pull this thing together. It was a hoot!

 

I'm totally on board with doing Swedish comp but I don't know if I'm sold on greatly penalizing some of the "harder" lists. From what I've seen with Swedish comp is it does more to give an idea of the power of a list relative to other lists from that book, and less so relative to other books.

 

For instance, an orc army with a savage orc horde and a few doom divers is going to have a pretty low comp score, but may still struggle against other armies with similar or even higher scores. A 10 rating for book X might not be roughly equal in power to a 10 rating in book Y.

 

This is why I don't like the idea of taking the difference and multiplying it by 100 and adding that to the underdog's VPs. If captains are doing match-ups properly, there shouldn't be a great disparity anyway.

 

With regard to army size, I would prefer larger than 2500 points. Larger battles have always made the OFCC stand out more as a unique event, and I would rather not see that go.

 

I agree with people's concerns regarding the bathroom situation at the venue, etc. But overall I thought it was great. There was so much space around the tables for side boards, it was fantastic! I even thought it was quieter than the red lion because all the own windows let the noise put rather than make it echo down that long hall.

 

Regardless of what final decisions are made, I can't wait for next year!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll echo NTK and others about list deadlines. If a deadline is a deadline, people will make it happen. If they know that they can miss it, many will miss it. Why do people show up early for airline flights? Because we know they won't wait for us.

 

The only argument that I can think of against strict deadlines, is that we might lose some players who didn't get their act together in time. I think the event is established enough that we shouldn't worry about that. If it happens, it will not likely happen again. The greater good will be served by being able to see lists in advance and prepare (if you choose to do so) for any oddball stuff. Even setting the gameplay benefits aside, strict list deadlines will serve a very important function: they will make it easier on the event organizers.

 

Another pint that was raised above concerned teams that "found out about the event late". This is also something that really shouldn't be a concern. The organizers (bless'em) had the date set something like 10 months in advance. That should be enough.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the biggest benefit to the swedish comp change is that someone else manages it.  the moment we start manipulating the math it becomes a duty that the organizers have to manage and test and deal with issues.  If we can free up their time they will be able to put more of it into prizes, scenarios and other stuff.  It even says in the comp rules themselves that the numbers don't work unless the points are close to 2400.  I will say that looking at lists for next year its much more of a choice as to what I want to bring.  I kind of like that overall, makes people have to sacrifice for their level 4s and their hordes.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note: for those that assumed every list got rated equally. It did not. In fact some lists weren't turned in until the day of the event.

The ratings committee this year didn't have a huge win on the side of timelines and clear goals, for that its a big ole apology.

The one thing that is very clear to.me however is that captains did NOT talk to their teams equally about what makes a good event, what the OFCC core values are and didn't go over their lists with the players as evidenced by the amount of illegal lists and power level creep we saw.

 

 

Swede comp will.NOT fix this at all. Ever. It's a system. Systems can be abused, quite easily in fact.

 

It's up to the captain's to be responsible to regulate and represent the best of the ideals rather than just being a spokesman for a group.

 

I think we need to set the bar a little higher for captains and hold them and their teams to a bit.more responsibility.

 

And no I'm not exempting myself here, I feel I thoroughly did nt do enough in several areas.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mr. Bigglesworth

My experience as a 40 K captain I made sure that my team turned in their lists about a week before the deadline. That have me the ability to be able to give them feedback.I think that's easily attainable goal for anybody.

 

If you have a deadline you will meet it . As a captain our duty is to enforce it. I cut a player who would not respond in a timely fashion :( weeks between responses. We are also their to filter lists and make sure they are not too tough.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hero, while I don't think the swedish comp will fix every issue, I do think it is a good start.  At the very least, you would get a power level of the list.  Once the list is submitted to the review committee, it is still reviewed and could be kicked back for corrections or changes which need to be made.  I strongly believe that the captains should kick back lists prior to the committee having to kick them back.  If someone is afraid their list may get kicked back before it's sent in, well the list will most likely be kicked back.

 

So, yes, I think the swedish comp system could greatly help the rating committee.

 

No, I don't think it's a full proof system, but with experienced players on the rating committee this shouldn't be an issue if a rating scale is set by the HoG for the fantasy open.  Like I stated previously, if players were responsible for submitting lists rating betweeen 12-15 then this will allow the following:

 

1) Players know what type of list to build and cannot argue if their army has a final swedish comp rating outside the set range of lists.

2) Captains will know if players are trying to cheat the system by using models/units which are not in the spirit of OFCC

3) The rating committee could use this as a guidline as to what type of armies are wanted for the OFCC (i.e, 12-15 are softer armies while a 5-7 are the harder ones)

4) Teams could get paired against other teams with the same average swedish comp score for their team

 

Again, it's not a full proof system.  In all honesty, there never will be.  It's ultimately up to the HoG, list rating committee, captains, and finally each individual player to ensure this happens.  It just provides a solid tool, IMO, to assist everyone involved with what is being looked for for the OFCC.

 

I talked to several people who attended the original fantasy OFCC events and from what I gathered from them was that the original intent was to get "good-close games".  What's a good game?  To some it's friendly players.  While to others, it's a competitive game.  A competitive game doesn't mean a WAAC game.

 

Finally, I believe there needs to be firm deadline for lists to be turned in by.  This means there can be no exceptions to any player or team captain.  I don't think it's unreasonable to have a deadline to have all lists turned in by a captain two months in advance.  This gives everyone involved in the process accurate time to review, kick back, re-adjust, re-evaluate, and have the final approved list in time for the event.  I also think there needs to be hard punishment to captains who can't get their teams to submit lists.  If you were to inform captains that lists need to be turned in by "X" date and failure to submit the lists for their team by "X" date will result in their team not being allowed into the event then I see more captains ensuring that their players are adhering to the guidelines set forth.

 

What I witnessed this year was deadlines being put out.  People not adhering to the deadlines.  No kind of punishment enforced.  Lists at the event which were not reviewed by the committee allowed into the event.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what you're putting down mexicaninja. I was just trying to iterate that no system is perfect, and that Swede comp will not be the panacea to fix all ills.

 

I want to reinforce how important captaincy is, and how that's being eroded in the last two years. I can't speak past the last three but its definitely not the same OFCC as before.

 

Can we bring back hard captaincy requirements/enforced ideals?

 

A question I feel isn't being asked is: "why do I need to win so bad" when making lists.

If we did I doubt we would see the creep we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I talked to several people who attended the original fantasy OFCC events and from what I gathered from them was that the original intent was to get "good-close games".  What's a good game?  To some it's friendly players.  While to others, it's a competitive game.  A competitive game doesn't mean a WAAC game.

 

I am glad you pointed this out and I agree.  One of the things I love most about OFCC is the diverse group of players.  Anything from amazing painters, to beginners,  to competitive tournament players.  This obviously leads to a difference in opinion of what is a good game.  I for one love a hard tactical competitive game.  While others might like the opposite.

 

This is a reacurring theme through out our hobby.  Some people love to paint while others hate it.  Some people think avoidance armys are awesome and others think it ruins the game.  You can spend five minutes on this forum and see how opinionated we all can be (which I think is a good thing).

 

My point is that the more we try to define "what is a good game" the more harm we are doing to this event.  Why?  Because even if a large portion of us define "what is a good game?".  It's still just an opinion that will always be open to interpretation. 

 

We need to come up with ways to bridge the gap between different players.  I love the idea of sharing a bio about yourself with the other team before hand.  If I know ahead of time more about a player vs. Some stranger with a list.  I will be more inclined to focus on the person and enjoy what OFCC is supposed to be about.  Another suggesstion would be having one of the games be a 2 on 2 game.  Where you are matched up with teamate that you don't know.  I think we can come up with tangible ways to shape a friendly environment we can all enjoy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Krieger...for example I think my score was torpedoed by two things: I think I was given low sports scores because my opponents didn't like losing, I joked with people, told stories, and I am very lenient on what opponents do (i.e forgetting to move or shoot etc).  I played Chaos Dwarves, so I ran only 3 war machines all different (not double magma cannons), no lore of hashut, and no bull centaur character.  My book is limited in what I can take.... dwarves and more dwarves (yes I even took some hobgoblins).  Second is paint, I know that everyone likes bright, smooth blended armies that snap the eye, but that is not what CD are.  I would be interested to see my complete paint score and whether the judges are experienced enough to recognize that the armor on my dwarves has no less than 3 different tones and 4 weathering pigments (7 steps).  Yes they look dirty, it's intentional.  Appears to be alot of subjective-ness in final standings....

 

All that being said....in the end I had a blast, met some great people and got to roll lots of dice! That's a win! and the OFCC crew were friendly, and professional.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't per se.  My point was to support the points that Krieger made.  That it is a fine line trying to create an all inclusive environment of "fun" when everyone's definition of fun is well, not definitive.  That the more "subjective-ness" you tie into an event, the easier it is to manipulate the standings, or for people to arbitrarily "punish" players if they don't like the way things went.  As a tournament player, yes  I care where I finish, but that comes second to the overall enjoyment of the game in and of itself. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the player bio idea. I think a combination of that and Swedish will help balance the matchups. Swedish is not perfect, but it will get all of the lists into the same ballpark, especially if the bar is set a little further towards the softer end, like a 12. Then, the captain would not have to focus so much on pairing lists of similar power, and can focus on pairing players with compatible bios. Like pair the two most competitive players, the two players that are most interested in the spectacle of the game, etc etc. I agree with Krieger that we need to respect how each individual derives fun from the hobby, which isn't achieved by just putting a blanket ban on competitive play.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A two vs two game sounds like a great idea!

Horrible idea, from what i saw people struggled with the rules this year, let alone how rules in a team game would work. If anything i think OFCC needs to streamline it's self and figure out exactly what it wants to be.

 

Merging all the game systems is more than just a way to make things easier on the organizers. it was a way to become more efficient financially as well. If they want to be able to go to big venues then they are going to need to bring in big dollars, this year it looks like entry fees brought in around 10,000 (19 40k 21 fantasy 300 a team) this will hopefully give them some serious leverage with venues. however in order to maintain this level or grow on it, they will have to make serious decisions. If you want to get bigger and become the premiere team event, then your going to have to be more open about scoring, painting, and sports. You will have to show how things work and why you are doing them, the scenarios will have to be more balanced yet still fun. If you don't want to do these things then i suggest making it a true invite only event and limit the teams to what can fit in a much much smaller venue.

 

The more people you draw from outside of your area the harder it will be to control the fun fluffy side of the event, people will come to try and win, I wouldn't fault them for it, the bigger the event the more glory to the victor. You guys are so quick to say it's not about the rankings yet you have rankings, award medals. The event is fun but trust me it has very little to do with the actual organization behind it, it's the people attending the event that make it fun.

 

This was my 3rd year at OFCC and it was different then the other years because there were less Canadians there I went out and got to know a few great americans. I had as much fun as I ever had out side of the event, but found the event it's self to be somewhat difunctional, from the room rates, to the obscure scoring system which appeared to have little if no checking system for abuse.

 

I hope you guys figure out what you want this event to be and then stick to it, I would love to continue to attend regardless of which way you decide to go, but don't be naive, this was not your best year and it was because you no longer have a strong sense of self and are pulling in two distinct different directions.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quickfuze: An excellent response. Thank you for that.

 

That being said, my 2 cents does not agree with Krieger and perhaps that's just because I was at most of the early OFCC's and really had it hammered into me that the event at the time wasn't a tournament, more like an event. It was effectively an event for a lot of the hardcore tournament goers and their mates to gather for beers, switch off from that mentality. The only purpose to keeping score was bragging rights (also see the invention of the Smash Hammer challenge where game score bragging rights weren't enough. Poor Tomb King Chariot. Anyways, I'm weaving off).

 

It seems like the longer the event has gone on, the more that this wasn't the purpose. And that's cool. It doesn't matter to me either way, but it does matter to define the event. Maybe we just don't have enough events here in the PNW, but in my mind, all events don't have to cater to all types of gamers. If there's a play style or a restriction or whatever else one doesn't like, the one shouldn't go and attend something else.

 

More then anything else I have to point to things listed off by Failed Charge above. The OFCC is stuck currently with one foot each in two philosophies. Do they push the fun/sportsmanship focused event and do something like removing battle points/who win's right from any measurements they take to really make it clear to people what matters? Or do they push on and make this more like a team scoring event like it was in previous years (in previous years for anyone who doesn't know, team sizes were not set. You could have 2 people or 20, you played your games like any other event and scoring for what team "won" was done via aggregates. It was decided by many at this time that this didn't feel "teamish" enough and so was abandoned).

 

I think the OFCC really needs to define what they want to be as an event by what a good game is or what kind of player they're looking for. I think that will help more then it will hurt unless the only goal of the event is to grow as large as possible. And if it is, well, the choice about how that is defined has already been made.

 

The aside to that is I don't see why both can't occur. You have the OFCC Open. It's being run as a Master's qualifier and it's being run well from everything I can see. So there's your tournament for people to really measure themselves. Then you can run the team challenge after that where there's story driven scenario's each round and battle points don't matter or are some way skewed to not matter as much. Huzzah. Happy hardcore competitive gamers and the fluffiest fluff bunny that ever did have floppy ears under one roof.

 

Whatever happens, I'm good. The only reason I missed out this year was my vacation being revoked at the last moment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...