40k OFCC Idea

[PourSpelur]

I appreciate the amount of time/effort that gets put into OFCC. Just wanted to say that right off the bat so I don't sound like a negative Nancy;)

I'm super against changing the format.

1) There's already a doubles tourney, I'm all for it expanding if more people want in but please don't force it on me.

2) For me OFCC is about the hobby as a whole. Fun games and awesome/crazy armies. 1250 is simply less models to lovingly convert and paint. Less options for the oddball stuff too.

3) People's complaints....touchy subject. Let me start by giving my point of view. I didn't win a single game last year, my team came in dead last and I enjoyed every minute. I loved the captain's pairings. When done in the spirit of OFCC they make sure everyone has close matchups.

4) I don't think that changing formats will stop complaints, you'll just get different complaints. Those that are there for the fun of the hobby will play for the fun of the hobby. Those that are there to smash faces and take home loot should realize that they're in the wrong place and go somewhere else.

[InfestedKerrigan]

 

 

 

+1

[Skkipper]

I not fan of doubles

I like captains choice on match ups.

[Mr.MoreTanks]

Thanks, go to the poll please guys!

[fluger]

Thanks, go to the poll please guys!

[Skkipper]

I voted in the polls already

[WestRider]

Just to clarify a bit, I'm pretty sure the event you describe here would be really popular, and a lot of people would enjoy it. But the Captain's Matchup system with the one-on-one Games has pretty much become a trademark element of the OFCC, as much as the List Rating and the Marshall Johnson Award. There have been a ton of variations in pretty much every other aspect of the event, but those have remained constant, at least through the nine years I've been attending. Personal issues with Doubles games aside, I just don't think it would feel like OFCC, if that makes sense.

[PourSpelur]

I'd happily try your doubles event! I love OFCC as it is though. Double Trouble™ (I've already named your new event and volunteered you to run it) would be solidly in my number two, must go event slot.

[pretre]

 I think having a separate doubles event is still a good idea and keeping the standard event somewhat the same.

[Xavier319]

I would enjoy a mini tournament, like the one on Friday being like this. But i Would not like for all of OFCC to be like this. Hell, even maybe the fifth game could be a doubles game, that would be fun. But OFCC is the only time I really play in that kind of environment, and nothing really beats the one on one games for having fun. I'd say one game of the five could be like that, maybe the fifth (usually slotted in the old days for the 'crazy' mission).

[Xavier319]

Just to clarify a bit, I'm pretty sure the event you describe here would be really popular, and a lot of people would enjoy it. But the Captain's Matchup system with the one-on-one Games has pretty much become a trademark element of the OFCC, as much as the List Rating and the Marshall Johnson Award. There have been a ton of variations in pretty much every other aspect of the event, but those have remained constant, at least through the nine years I've been attending. Personal issues with Doubles games aside, I just don't think it would feel like OFCC, if that makes sense.

 

This +1

[InfestedKerrigan]

I don't see how Modern Monetary Theory would have any impact?

 

:p

[Lord Hanaur]

I love team tournaments.  i don't know if the price of the event would be worth paying if it was a pairs thing but it would probably draw a lot more people so that might not present a problem.  Our best attended events outside the Ambassadorial tournament are the team tournaments.  

 

Ranking the players on your team from 1-4 is cool except to be honest, its the TEAM of 2 that really is ranked.  So i think that the committee should still review those two lists and determine who is IN FACT #1 and #2 so its as simple as "show up and you know who the matchups will be".  Otherwise, more sandbagging as you say.

 

Except round 5 as you say.

 

Now that's what i would say if I wanted a team tournament for OFCC.  I don't want one, but if there was one, that's the constructive thoughts I had.  Slightly lower price of entry would be a positiove, lots more participants would be a positive and a one day ACTUAL GT type thing like we have in the past tied into it would allow all the people who dont like team tournies to have their way.

[Xavier319]

I appreciate the amount of time/effort that gets put into OFCC. Just wanted to say that right off the bat so I don't sound like a negative Nancy;)

I'm super against changing the format.

1) There's already a doubles tourney, I'm all for it expanding if more people want in but please don't force it on me.

2) For me OFCC is about the hobby as a whole. Fun games and awesome/crazy armies. 1250 is simply less models to lovingly convert and paint. Less options for the oddball stuff too.

3) People's complaints....touchy subject. Let me start by giving my point of view. I didn't win a single game last year, my team came in dead last and I enjoyed every minute. I loved the captain's pairings. When done in the spirit of OFCC they make sure everyone has close matchups.

4) I don't think that changing formats will stop complaints, you'll just get different complaints. Those that are there for the fun of the hobby will play for the fun of the hobby. Those that are there to smash faces and take home loot should realize that they're in the wrong place and go somewhere else.

At the risk of sounding disingenuous, being best generals this year, i agree with this completely and totally. PS has hit the nail on the head.

 

Rankings at OFCC and win-loss is not what is important. What is important is having a blast. getting to build awesome models, and see people you've not seen for a year. I won all my games, but I also would have been happy to lose all my games. All of my opponents were great sports, had fun, awesome armies, and we had a blast. THAT is OFCC.

[InfestedKerrigan]

Ranking the players on your team from 1-4 is cool except to be honest, its the TEAM of 2 that really is ranked.  So i think that the committee should still review those two lists and determine who is IN FACT #1 and #2 so its as simple as "show up and you know who the matchups will be".  Otherwise, more sandbagging as you say.

 

Except round 5 as you say.

 

Let's say you are Player 1 for your team.  Game 1 your are partnered with Player 2 from your team.  Game 2 with Player 4.  Game 3 with Player 3.  Game 4 with player 5.  Game 5, captains or challenges, if there is a game 5, and it's going to be with someone you've already partnered with in one of the other 4 games.  So that's 4 lists per player being handed in.  Well, 10 lists per team, with each players name appearing on 4 of the lists.  That's a lot of committee review going on. 

[pretre]

Seeing as how complaints are inevitable, there should just be an award for 'Best Complaint' or 'Most Prolific Complainer'.

[AbusePuppy]

[insert 2,000 word argument about how the Best Complaint award is flawed and unfair complete with nested quotes, references to a BoLS article, and poorly-contrived statistics about dice.]

[InfestedKerrigan]

[insert 2,000 word argument about how the Best Complaint award is flawed and unfair complete with nested quotes, references to a BoLS article, and poorly-contrived statistics about dice.]

 

[Lord Hanaur]

Let's say you are Player 1 for your team.  Game 1 your are partnered with Player 2 from your team.  Game 2 with Player 4.  Game 3 with Player 3.  Game 4 with player 5.  Game 5, captains or challenges, if there is a game 5, and it's going to be with someone you've already partnered with in one of the other 4 games.  So that's 4 lists per player being handed in.  Well, 10 lists per team, with each players name appearing on 4 of the lists.  That's a lot of committee review going on. 

right so your just have two pairs playing together the whole time.  Thats simpler.

[pretre]

If I was going to HoG, I wouldn't get all crazy on it. I would just deliver a solid experience based on the standard OFCC setup.

 

I would do two events, but clearly delineate them:

 

• OFCC Team Invitational
• OFCC Open

 

OFCC Team Invitational

This would be based on the standard existing format but would have a Captain's handbook (as CaptainA mentioned) explaining exactly what type of lists would be and wouldn't be allowed with examples of lists that would be appropriate and would not. It would clearly set a time frame for acceptance of lists and set expectations that lists/teams that don't meet the standards are free to go to the Open. 

I would also think that the adaptation of the player skill ratings mentioned previously would be a strong addition to the event. This comes up a lot in LRC discussions, but having the Team Captains actually rate their team member's skill would help a lot in toning down lists/players for matchups.

(Example, make the ratings .5, 1 and 1.5 for Noob, Standard Player, Tournament Player/winner. Use those as modifiers for the standard 1,2,3 ratings of lists.

So, for example to pick on someone, MikhailLenin would not be allowed to bring anything over a 2 list because of his 1.5 modifier for skill.)

 

I think the key to the Invitational is strong, clear expectations for lists/teams. Every year people end up with different expectations of what will be allowed in the Team event and this causes friction. The more expectations are set at the beginning, the less problems we have the day of. I also think an accelerated timeline for list submission/grading to give everyone time to complete their armies and make sure they are approved would help here.

 

 

OFCC Open

This would be advertised as and worked as an ITC circuit event completely separate from the Team event. Think 2 day Guardian Cup, but at OFCC. Any teams unwilling or unable to meet the demands of the Invitational could split up and play in the Open event.

 

I think the key to this is advertising and promotion. Get this up on FLG and out there. Bring in folks from all over to get a high double to low triple digit competitive event. It pulls the sting out of not going to the Invitational if you're at a major competitive event instead.

 

If you want to make it more interesting, throw in an OFCC twist and allow Team Based standings for anyone who wants to affiliate with a team. This allows 5 people to register as a team and compete independently. They are guaranteed no matches against teammates in the first round and in subsequent rounds their team status would be used as a tie breaker when considering two opponent matchups (So if I could be matched against two players with similar performance, I would play the one who isn't on my team preferentially.). Event awards would include standard Best Overall, etc but also include Team Awards for Best Team performance.

 

 

This would obviously make for a slightly smaller Invitational and a much larger open but I think would deliver a better experience for both groups.

 

As an aside, I think a database/record of player performance at previous OFCCs should be kept as a tool for LRC/HoG/Senate. Knowing how well a player has performed at a battle, sports, paint, etc. level as well as their previous list and general ratings could be a powerful tool for future events. 

 

edit: Added my later post here:

 

An alternate solution for the OFCC Open would be to mirror the Open to the Invitational as a separate event. (This would be my suggestion if the Senate was not pro-ITC Open event.)

 

OFCC Team Open:

 

Create teams governed by Captains with no LRC or list restrictions. Captains still decide matchups in the manner of the Invitational, but it is from a competitive standpoint. Standings for the end of the event are Team Based entirely. It puts forward a new type of event for OFCC where you can directly port teams that don't fit the Invitational rubric into the Open. 

 

From a competitive standpoint, it makes a pseudo-ETC experience combined with an OFCC experience. Teams would want to balance their lists to give themselves the best matchup possibilities and create a Take All Comers type team. 

[pretre]

An alternate solution for the OFCC Open would be to mirror the Open to the Invitational as a separate event. (This would be my suggestion if the Senate was not pro-ITC Open event.)

 

OFCC Team Open:

 

Create teams governed by Captains with no LRC or list restrictions. Captains still decide matchups in the manner of the Invitational, but it is from a competitive standpoint. Standings for the end of the event are Team Based entirely. It puts forward a new type of event for OFCC where you can directly port teams that don't fit the Invitational rubric into the Open. 

 

From a competitive standpoint, it makes a pseudo-ETC experience combined with an OFCC experience. Teams would want to balance their lists to give themselves the best matchup possibilities and create a Take All Comers type team. 

[pretre]

I kind of like the idea of the Team Open. Man, I should run for HoG.

[Torg]

… just spit balling….

 

what about "teams" being made up of people playing in different events…  over the flow of the weekend - the team members would represent their teams in totally different games or events.  The teams would be larger of course to account for this.  I have no idea on scoring or ranking or whatever.  I am just the big picture/ idea guy in this … :)

 

-d

[pretre]

… just spit balling….

 

what about "teams" being made up of people playing in different events…  over the flow of the weekend - the team members would represent their teams in totally different games or events.  The teams would be larger of course to account for this.  I have no idea on scoring or ranking or whatever.  I am just the big picture/ idea guy in this … :)

 

-d

Ooh that's neat.

 

So, you'd have say 'Best General of Open', 'Malifaux Winner', 'Team Event Best Sports' and they would all add together to a team score for OFCC as whole?

[InfestedKerrigan]

That would make it more of a CLUB Challenge, wouldn't it?