Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: Chase on September 26, 2012, 04:44:59 AM
-
Here's a beta version of the scenarios I've been "editing." There's a ton of stuff left to do, like change page numbers, add points to the objectives, change deployment methods, and potentially change pretty much everything about any given scenario... but it's something.
scenario 1 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iaJWGgwLX5HY705WXMCgtSykVc0UXiBUdswwVg-dlBg/edit)
scenario 2 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W1fW3zwbqAYZLceAT2dI_uUuI_GH0M6k6IT11ZUhfvI/edit)
scenario 3 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xMct43T-MKO8E-CjLpfB_ijTlF4InmmyPk0XeeqmT7g/edit)
Some things I'm wondering if I should be concerned with:
How difficult the 1st objective in the first scenario might be to "win".
How difficult it might be for the top tables to "win" the 1st objective in the third scenario.
How difficult it might be for the top tables to "win" the 3rd objective in the third scenario.
If first round Night Fight should be included in all scenarios or not.
Personally, I think these scenarios are the most difficult to "completely win" of any we've had before. Part of me really likes that, but the other part of me foresees a situation where the top tables in round three all fail to score a lot of points and someone who was in 12th place going into the final round wins the event (which is not ideal).
Maybe we should play the scenarios in 3, 1, 2 order. I think that's probably most solid.
ps. It takes forever to "edit" .pdf files. Next time I hope to have the tools (and time) to create my own templates.
-
I'm not really sure why google docs (or whatever they're calling it now) messes with the format and adds a bunch of text at the bottom, but you guys will figure it out.
-
So the bonus points are 3 pts, 2 pts, and 1 pts each...
How many points are the main objectives worth? Did I miss it?
-
Yeah, I'm not clear how much 1st, 2nd and 3rd objectives are worth relative to each other.
Are you saying random (50%) chance of nightfight every turn, as per standard? Or just nightfight first turn for everygame? The first is good, really recommended, the second would be bad....I'm taking Tau with blacksun filters (nightfight), I would MURDER people first turn if it was always night.
How difficult the 1st objective in the first scenario might be to "win".
Pretty standard, this is fine.
How difficult it might be for the top tables to "win" the 1st objective in the third scenario.
Kill points? Probably not hard. But kill points probably shouldn't be the primary of the last mission, I think. Kill points got de-emphasized in 6th (comes 1/2 as often as before) and it's probably the easiest factor to "game". Most lists are probably 12-15 kp. Some lists could be 20+. But a few armies can make lists that are like, 5 kp, and they just will never lose kp missions unless tabled.
I think it's fine to have KP first, but it should be the first or second mission. IMHO.
How difficult it might be for the top tables to "win" the 3rd objective in the third scenario.
I think this objective is fine. It can get a little wonky, but smart players will play it smartly. :)
-
Points for the mission objectives havent been added yet. It'll be exactly the same type of thing we've used in the past (old school adepticon style).
21, 10, 0
14, 7, 0
7, 3, 0
-
I also can't stress enough that these are the "rough draft" scenarios. If you think these are the exact scenarios you'll be handed on the 13th, you're wrong.
They're close, but things will change... like Night Fight.
-
To be clear, I wasn't saying I would take blacksun fileters cuz your're making too much nightfight, I'm saying I have them anyway.
You should have nightfight be as per book (so, 50% of first turns, chance to have it last turns if it wasn't turn 1, so most games will have nightfight) OR you could assign it by the mission.....but the same ratios should apply. Since you can't have 1.5 games have nightifht first turn, I favor random. (I'm not really convinved the late game night fight matters anywhere near as much as a 1st turn).
-
You're not the first person to mention guaranteed 1st turn Night Fight being an issue, Matt. I appreciate the feedback on the topic.
Someone else did bring up the point that if it's a 50% chance that first turn will be Night Fight each game, we'll end up in a situation where 50% of the tables play with Night Fight and 50% do not. Is that the best thing in a competitive environment? I'm not sure it is.
That person also mentioned having us, as the TO's make the die roll for everyone each round. If we end up going with a die roll, I think that's what we'll do.
-
40k is random as shit now in the book. How are you handling warlord powers, are we using "mystery" terrain etc... I don't think it is that big of a deal for night fight.
Average is 1.5 games where you have night fight 1st turn.
-
40k is random as shit now in the book. How are you handling warlord powers, are we using "mystery" terrain etc... I don't think it is that big of a deal for night fight.
Average is 1.5 games where you have night fight 1st turn.
it's spelled out in the opening post for the tournament...
Warlord powers roll 2 and pick
not using mysterious terrain
most everything else is also spelled out in the OP, psychic powers, no fortress of redemption, etc.
about the only thing i didn't see explicitly spelled out was mysterious objectives but i imagine that will be cleared up in the mission packets.
these rough draft mission packets seem to pick and choose from 5th and 6th
in 6th there is no more guarenteed night fight so that shouldn't be in the first mission, and then mission 2 and 3 dont seem to say anything about the roll for night fight.
either stick with 6th and make it random for each mission, or go back to 5th rules and set it on or off for each mission
the night fight thing certainly needs to be clarified for all missions, if Chase wants to have Sam roll off and every single table uses that roll then that's certainly one way to help make it a level playing field.
-
ight fight should be in for ALL missions and then rolled on per the rulebook.
Leave it to the players to roll their night fight results.
-
ight fight should be in for ALL missions and then rolled on per the rulebook.
Leave it to the players to roll their night fight results.
Which player rolls the Night Fighting results?
-
Yes, I'm not sure it makes total sense to have one big night fighting roll at the beginning... If we're playing with book rules, you then have to start rolling again for night fight on turn 5. Everyone's turn 5 is going to happen at a different time, and you're not supposed to know the result in advance, so players would STILL have to roll their own "end of game nightfight".
-
Does it really matter which player rolls for night fight? Seriously? If you have to have a designated person then make it the person who won the roll to go first.
But I seriously dont think the person that rolls it is important at all.
-
Yes, I'm not sure it makes total sense to have one big night fighting roll at the beginning... If we're playing with book rules, you then have to start rolling again for night fight on turn 5. Everyone's turn 5 is going to happen at a different time, and you're not supposed to know the result in advance, so players would STILL have to roll their own "end of game nightfight".
I thought nightfighting was beginning OR end of the game and never both? Unless Necrons happen...
-
Yes, but his point still stands. If don't get it turn 1, you have to start doing as he says turn 5.
-
Lots of mention of "any unit, scoring or not" - does this overwrite the book's definition of denial units? That is, can a vehicle/flier now deny objectives and table quarters? (I hope not...)
-
I would agree the notion of hoping not. I dont think Chase has any intention of letting vehicles contest.
-
I'm aware of some of these issues and they will be changed before the event.
It is important to note that these are NOT the scenarios from the book. Applying rules that are in the book scenarios and are NOT in the mission packet is a mistake.
Also, please excuse the lack of diligence on my part, I have been preparing for tonight + this weekend. Both Battleground locations are likely to see more people come through the doors and play in events from 6:00pm this Friday to 10:00pm this Sunday than any other weekend before.
-
If you are looking to standardize the person to roll the Night Fight, I would suggest the person who lost the roll to go first.
Personally I don't think it matters who rolls the random outcome, but this will simplify who does it.
-
If you have to have a designated person then make it the person who won the roll to go first.
If you are looking to standardize the person to roll the Night Fight, I would suggest the person who lost the roll to go first.
A disagreement! You two should 4+ it. Just as soon as you decide who rolls the 4+. :P Of course, I'm being an ass to illustrate the point, that the simple act of rolling game-changing dice should come with a rule that states who actually rolls the dice. Personally, if I felt it was important in a situation I'd want to roll, but if my opponent feels the same way, then what? Starting games off with disagreements leads to two hours of uncomfortableness.
-
Honestly Ben you are missing the point. The night fight roll is in no way shape or form a game changing result. With the changes in night fight it is an obsticle at best and not a game changer. As for the roll is honestly DOESNT matter so I would let the loser of the go first roll, roll it. There problem solved and no need for a dumb 4+ roll added to it.
See how easy that was....
-
I get your point. You don't care and you don't think it's important. That said, what's the harm in having a rule? If you don't care who rolls, why would you care if we made such a rule?
-
I'm sorry, but I don't care and I don't think it's important. I thought you were bringing it up as a joke.
This has never, never been an issue in my recollection.
-
LOL your right Ben house rules over minor issues that need complicated resolution are always a plus and add to the game experience...
Good luck at the tourny. Chase always hosts a great event.
-
What's simplest is if there's no Night Fighting at all. That would solve all my concerns in one fell swoop.
Random global effects are the type of thing one would see in Ard Boyz... well, if that were actually still a thing.
-
I'm pretty sure NOVA did "round 1 = Night Fight" which is why I originally asked if each round should start that way.
Several people said they would like to see it rolled. It's weird.
-
Nova did night fight exactly by the book.
-
... and I should add that I never heard anyone complain about it.
-
What is "by the book"?
-
Page 124, BRB.
"If a mission has the Night Fighting special rule, roll a d6 before deployment: on a roll of 4+, the Night Fighting special rule is in effect during game turn 1.
If the Night Fighting rules did not take effect during game turn 1, roll a d6 at the start of Game Turn 5, On a roll of 4+, the Night Fighting rules are used for the rest of the game. On a roll of 3 or less, you must roll again at the start of every subsequent game turn - as soon as a roll of 4+ is rolled, the Night Fighting rules come into play for the rest of the game."
I just wanted people to know I'm not impaired. That's exactly as the rule appears in the book.
-
What's simplest is if there's no Night Fighting at all. That would solve all my concerns in one fell swoop.
Random global effects are the type of thing one would see in Ard Boyz Sixth edition 40k
Odd, That is what you are playing now, right?
-
I just wanted people to know I'm not impaired. That's exactly as the rule appears in the book.
So, nothing about that text jumped out to me as being problematic... does it to you?
-
Odd, That is what you are playing now, right?
Yeah, about that...
So, nothing about that text jumped out to me as being problematic... does it to you?
There's a comma where a period should be. I don't know if "game turn" is supposed to be capitalized or not, because both happen. I never have seen a dash connect two complete sentences.
I never would want anyone thinking that is how I write.
-
Any progress on the scenarios, or clarity on whether vehicles can contest table quarters and/or objectives?
-
Is there a question on if they can contest? They are not denial units. Seems pretty clear.
-
Is there a question on if they can contest? They are not denial units. Seems pretty clear.
What Bill said, that's right out of the big rule book
-
Any progress on the scenarios, or clarity on whether vehicles can contest table quarters and/or objectives?
I have not had time to work on the scenarios since I posted them. Like I said earlier, I am aware of the changes that need to be made and will edit them to reflect all of it when time allows.
The gist of it all should be clear enough. Non-Denial Units can't contest.
-
Sounds good.
This is what was confusing:
It is important to note that these are NOT the scenarios from the book. Applying rules that are in the book scenarios and are NOT in the mission packet is a mistake.
When I asked before and saw the response above I was very concerned, as the scenarios explicitly refer to (emphasis mine)"any unit, whether scoring or not" one logical conclusion is to ignore applying the denial rules from the book. As I was not the only one concerned, I wanted to double check. Allowing fliers to deny would be horribly unfun, and slightly more important to me than who gets to roll for nightfight. ;D
-
An important thing to realize is that quarters is no longer a mission type in the book. So applying 6th ed scoring, denial, etc rules to them is sort of problematic to start with.
That's not advocating either position, I just important to realize that you can't take the BRB as gospel on this because it doesn't really apply. Table-quarters are largely a tournament-construct these days, and require house-ruling by their nature.
NOVA let no vehicles score quarters, so you saw basically vehicle-less lists. Battle for Salvation is NOVA-like, but 1/3 of missions Fast scores (like scourging, from the book) and 1/3 Heavy does (Big Guns) so it's kinda half&half. Feast of Blades on the other hand, vehicles never score objectives, but count for quarters just fine, while Flyers do not.
Point is, it's all over the place. Precedent, there is not.
-
Quarters were not in 5th ed either... what is the point?
6th made a specific ruling that vehicles don't interact with objectives. Whether it is a point on the table or a giant region on the table, what is the difference?
-
The GW ruling is that vehicles cannot contest objectives. Table quarters at the Nova open weren't very much like objectives. Table quarters were won by totalling up all of the victory points in each quarter - whereas objectives are a binary - either you're controlling it or not.
I would actually say that the Nova Open quarters mission was most similiar to good old fashioned Victory points (before Kill Points was a twinkle in GW's eye). Saying that a vehicle doesn't contest objectives is not the same thing as saying it doesn't even count as a source of Victory points; this latter is what really hurt vehicles at Nova. Mech lists were essentially playing a victory point game where they started off with like 800 VP's, and the other guy could start off with up to 2000- literally, if the mech list lost 0 casualties, and killed over half of the other guy's army, they would still be behind on the total # of VP's to divide up amongst the quarters.
-
Quarters were not in 5th ed either... what is the point?
6th made a specific ruling that vehicles don't interact with objectives. Whether it is a point on the table or a giant region on the table, what is the difference?
My point is the two things are not related, whether GW has decided vehicles are scoring or not is not a precedent for whether they should for quarters.
Doesn't mean I think they should, either, still on the fence. For now, I kinda like how BFS is doing it.
-
I am almost done with the scenarios. I have to make a couple of quick, last minute changes, like getting rid of KP as the primary objective in the 3 mission, but I'm almost there.
If I have time I'll get them up tomorrow. They aren't super different than the original.
1 - Night Fight (by the book)
2 - Straight up
3 - Night Fight (by the book)
People seem to care about that a lot.
Denial Units are the only ones that can contest.
Points for the objectives have been added. They're posted earlier in this thread.
Document cleaned up a little bit.
That's about it.
-
I am almost done with the scenarios. I have to make a couple of quick, last minute changes, like getting rid of KP as the primary objective in the 3 mission, but I'm almost there.
If I have time I'll get them up tomorrow. They aren't super different than the original.
1 - Night Fight (by the book)
2 - Straight up
3 - Night Fight (by the book)
People seem to care about that a lot.
Denial Units are the only ones that can contest.
Points for the objectives have been added. They're posted earlier in this thread.
Document cleaned up a little bit.
That's about it.
So when you say night fight by the book you mean chance for night fight then?
-
So when you say night fight by the book you mean chance for night fight then?
Yeah, the chance of Night Fight happening at least. If Night Fight isn't successful at the the beginning of the game, roll toward the end of the game until it's Night Fight or game over.
-
What about adding variable points for each objective in the mission?
Like;
Primary:
Calculating Kill Points: (Max: 6 Pts)
Difference between the scores
Draw Each Player 1 point
1 to 3 2 pts
4 to 5 4 pts
6+ 6 pts
and the same for secondary and a tertiary? Can cut down the chances of a tie in a 3 round tourney.
-
Still need to be remotely fair Jeff.
Someone shouldn't be able to get a gigantic lead by playing an easy first round matchup.
Secondly, VPs are better than KPs, unless KPs have drastically changed how they are counted.
-
Someone shouldn't be able to get a gigantic lead by playing an easy first round matchup.
This does give me what I think is a good idea. Traditionally, each round is weighted equally. I think it would be better overall to reduce the effect of randomness by scoring higher for subsequent rounds. Maybe weight a three-round event like 25%-35%-40%. The last match-up is more likely to be against an equally skilled player, for which there should be a greater reward for victory. Also, I think it gives more hope to more players to keep playing on, knowing it is possible to make greater leaps in each round.
-
While I was trying to take a nap, I thought about the math for a weighted-round tournament. The end result looks different, but I feel can be well understood.
Suppose one could score a maximum of 50 points per round (a random number for demonstration purposes). X = 1st round pts, Y = 2nd round pts, Z = 3rd round pts.
.25 * (x/50) + .35 * (y/50) + .40 * (z/50) = Final score
With a set-up like this, a total of 1 is a perfect score. Final scores would be a decimal, probably better thought of a percentage or batting average.
I really want to know what people think about this. I'm not seeing a downside, other than it being slightly more complicated for the score-keeper... who's just punching numbers into a spreadsheet anyway.
-
I think a downside that it is a bit harder to figure out for ANYONE who is keeping score (not just the official scorekeeper). In between rounds everyone chats over Piezoni's pizza (TM) about how many points they scored, how many the leaders scored, how many points behind or ahead they are, etc etc. I guess the chatting and Piezoni's aren't as important as the idea that each player is confident throughout the even that he understands how the scoring works and how well he is doing, how much he needs to score in the next round to make up ground, etc. More transparency (and therefore less complexity) is better.
-
First things first, I need to edit the formula in the post and explain this a bit more, I think. I should also stress, I don't see something like this being used until... maybe February/March, if it all?
I guess the chatting and Piezoni's aren't as important as the idea that each player is confident throughout the even that he understands how the scoring works and how well he is doing, how much he needs to score in the next round to make up ground, etc. More transparency (and therefore less complexity) is better.
I think the word you're looking for is comprehension, maybe even accessibility. Transparency implies something may be hidden, where I'm actually trying to figure this all out in the open.
I agree, it's more complicated to figure out exactly where one is during the tournament, in that there's another step in the calculation. No more instant gratification. To that end, I have an observation, and I have a solution or at least a pacifier.
The observation is that the net effect doesn't change. Players are still trying to score as many points as possible every round. How well you are doing (especially after the first round while you're in Piezoni's) is still based on whether you have scored more or less points than your opponents. And it's really only after the second round where things get layered. Points in later matches simply matter more.
A solution / pacifier is to include the scores on the match-up sheets at the beginning of every round. (Everyone's scores aren't known until then anyhow, because once they're calculated, the match-ups are made.) Since they're done up on a spreadsheet, again this is pretty much done automatically for the scorekeeper with formulas and stuff and things.
-
I confess I don't know exactly how Google Docs (or Drive or whatever) works. But here I'm attempting to share the file, a basic version of the spreadsheet. You should be able to punch in numbers and have results in real-time.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtuaJDE7Iqy1dDVFbURGRzktUXItNGhya0tPTEtJT2c
Also, with technology now, one can put the spreadsheet on their phone, figure out who among their friends stands where.
-
i thought between rounds like magic they post the standings and next battles. i could be mistaken but even if they don't that is something they could start doing. then there would be no problem.
-
Maybe you could also do away with the multiplier aspect, and simply make it so that more points are available to score as the tournament goes along? If the packet says that the primary objective is worth 16 points in the last round, whereas in the first round it was only worth 8, that would make it less headache-ey.
I guess we're getting sidetracked on the implementation details a bit, rather than talking about the question, "is it a good idea for the later rounds to count more than the early rounds"? Nobody is really chiming in on that. I think that in general, I like the idea, for the reasons you mentioned.
-
So, just to clarify my earlier post: I'm not afraid that there won't be a way for people to know who's winning. I'm saying that it is a good thing when someone can easily look at what happened during the game, and easily grasp of what score he earned and exactly what that means for his standings within the tournament. To me, even if I am given a tool (like a spreadsheet) that does the calculation for me afterwards, it makes it harder to THINK about during the game. Regardless of the availabilty of helpful tools, I think that it's better to strive for fewer and simpler mathematical operations.
-
... "is it a good idea for the later rounds to count more than the early rounds"? Nobody is really chiming in on that. I think that in general, I like the idea, for the reasons you mentioned.
I agree. I'd rather be talking about whether it's a good idea if the later rounds count for more. I just can't help myself, I rush right ahead with examples and math.
If we did take take out the more complicated equations and went with a straight-forward increasing-number of points, the numbers might seem a little different than we're used to seeing. But it can still work. If I understand the idea correctly and using the same ratio as above, for example...
Objective in Round 1 - 5 points
Objective in Round 2 - 7 points
Objective in Round 3 - 8 points
Or maybe 10, 14, 16, whatever. The scale would have to be bigger to incorporate the smaller mission objectives in a balanced way.
See? Already back to the math, I can't help it!
-
I like it. it makes sense because the farther you go along the closer you and your oppenent have been playing.
-
Well, this is interesting.
I needed to simulate an event, but had trouble figuring out how to do it realistically. So I skipped the simulation and instead decided to apply my first concept (involving percentages) to the results of BG's latest 40k Singles tournament.
Google Document, ahoy!
(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtuaJDE7Iqy1dGw0Q0s5OWlPQUVHQ0FCZGVrZm8zUkE#gid=0)
I expect Hans to feel neutral. "What makes a man turn neutral?"
I don't know what to think. But there it is.
-
This is very interesting.
-
well yes and no. i changed things but wouldn't the pairings have changed to so the same people would not have play in rounds 2 and 3 or at least 3. i wish i could see the original pairings also unless i am missing them.
-
The original pairings should still be there on the far right.
The event would have had different pairings only in the third round. Clearly, that changes the result, since the third round is weighted the most.
-
ok they are the original i wasn't sure if those were the ones you added
-
Making later rounds be worth more only helps submariners. It makes it easier for people who are a little further behind to leapfrog the people on the top 1-3 tables. It makes it more advantageous to leave a few points on the table in round 1 or 2, to possibly avoid Bill S or Alex Fennell in Round 3.
My point was Jeff;s example RE: winning by moar is moar points, you have to be careful that it doesn't make a leads too hard to overcome.
-
Making later rounds be worth more only helps submariners.
Bill Souza is a submariner. Go on. :P
It makes it easier for people who are a little further behind to leapfrog the people on the top 1-3 tables. It makes it more advantageous to leave a few points on the table in round 1 or 2, to possibly avoid Bill S or Alex Fennell in Round 3.
I understand your point about sandbagging, but there's absolutely nothing in our current format that prevents the exact same strategy. It's more likely that the Bills and Alexes of the world are still maxing out points (or close to it) in the third round after they've maxed out Rounds 1 and 2, regardless of format.
I have the results from other BG tournaments and I'm going to keep grinding out retroactive results, probably for each tournament in 2012.
-
I feel silly posting this, because these results are exactly the same as the first weighted results.
What I did this time is very simple.
Round 1 * 5
Round 2 * 7
Round 3 * 8
Onward, to Google! (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9uaJDE7Iqy1NlhTU0lDWUVhN0U)
Like I said, exact same results this time as the first weighted results.
However, time was not wasted. This clearly shows there's an easier way for all to weight a tournament than I originally thought.
EDIT TO ADD:
I fixed the link to the October results. And I'm adding two more tournaments' worth now.
March Weighted (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9uaJDE7Iqy1akxPUEpyY212ZTQ)
June Weighted (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9uaJDE7Iqy1M3ZabnRqeldlRVk)
In both of these tournaments, I lost places by having bad third rounds. So this system is officially stupid and I hate it and anyone who likes it is officially stupid and I hate them. I take my Warhams super serial.
Nah, not really. I mean, when I have I ever done anything officially?
Further edited to add...
There were no draws/ties in the final results in all three revisions. So depending on how important that is, this is a way to reduce the likelihood.
-
Making later rounds be worth more only helps submariners.
Bill Souza is a submariner. Go on. :P
It makes it easier for people who are a little further behind to leapfrog the people on the top 1-3 tables. It makes it more advantageous to leave a few points on the table in round 1 or 2, to possibly avoid Bill S or Alex Fennell in Round 3.
I understand your point about sandbagging, but there's absolutely nothing in our current format that prevents the exact same strategy. It's more likely that the Bills and Alexes of the world are still maxing out points (or close to it) in the third round after they've maxed out Rounds 1 and 2, regardless of format.
I have the results from other BG tournaments and I'm going to keep grinding out retroactive results, probably for each tournament in 2012.
Except when they are forced to play each other. Often tournaments are decided by which top guys get paired against which other ones in rnd 3.
-
that makes sense. the top 2 guys should play for the win. just like in almost any other competition. unless you wanted the top guy to play the bottom guy to guarantee a win.
-
I would try to use something similar to Magic's OMW%, in that the person that had the harder path gets the higher finish. Maybe you could use your opponent's total points as a tie break.
I dislike weighting the later round, as your most difficult game could be game 1 vs Bill. The weighting should be based on your opponents performance at the tournament, not what round you play them; though i still don't like weighting rounds different.
-
I would try to use something similar to Magic's OMW%, in that the person that had the harder path gets the higher finish. Maybe you could use your opponent's total points as a tie break.
I dislike weighting the later round, as your most difficult game could be game 1 vs Bill. The weighting should be based on your opponents performance at the tournament, not what round you play them; though i still don't like weighting rounds different.
I do like the Magic OMW. I don't know how it'd work out for 40k. In principle I agree, the harder path should garner the most reward.
The last tournament had to use strength of schedule as a tie-breaker. I'm assuming opponent's points were added up.
The random first match-up is really just that, random. It's a necessary evil. The more I think about it though, random should factor less in a competitive event.
What if the last two rounds are weighted equally? Something like 30%-35%-35%. I know I'll want to see numbers, but I've already started drinking wine...
-
Seeded Matches at the Invitational :P.
-
I was going through the results I had done up and noticed an error in the calculations. One of the formulas added 3 instead of cell O3. Oddly, this affected almost nothing, which is why no one noticed. Go figure!
So revised weighted results for 25-35-40.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9uaJDE7Iqy1amRsc0FRMlVMYkE
And new weighted results for 30-35-35.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9uaJDE7Iqy1Q2pjTnM2U2hDblE
I like how the 30-35-35 weighs out the last two rounds slightly more. The one strange thing, is there was an improbable tie for 15th place. I expected ties if any at the top and bottom of the results. I think the tie here is just a strange coincidence of math.
-
I just had an idea for a scenario. It's one of those so-crazy-I-can't-tell-how-crazy things.
Have a set number of mission types and a set number of deployments. The winner of a roll off determines the mission type. The other player determines the deployment. Play the game as normal.
Here's an example of what I'm thinking. Player 1 wins the roll-off and chooses a mission from the following list: Purge the Alien, Relic, or Crusade. Player 2 then chooses between Dawn of War, Vanguard or Hammer and Anvil.
I really think I'm onto something. The scenarios themselves are not random, so the game would be legitimate. Just be ready for anything and everything.