Organised play (tourney rules)

[Travis Syxx]

I am getting a group of player's going on Malifaux and this post has me a bit nervous as tournaments historically, have done well for me for most games. I like leagues and campaigns but keeping interest through out can be challenging versus a one day tourney.

Based on my experience with other events I would put forth that all tables should stay static for the event. If possible make it so if a payer has played on a table they don't have to/ get to play on it again.

With schemes it seem like everyone having to use all 6 in a 3 round event makes the most sense. I would add that player's should draw two and if they don't like one of the schemes be able to shuffle it back in and draw again. If they get the same one then so be it. That way you don't have to burn better schemes on easier match-ups and player's get some control, while also playing on Malifaux's chaotic nature.

For crews, having to play a static crew with a side board around 25% of total soul stones seems good. Player' should hand each other their roster and then make a crew before the match. The only down side to this is that it will hold up play while people are fretting over what to play.

Being able to pick whatever you want seems crazy. As one of the other posters wrote it takes some of the fun and strategy out of it. It makes it more difficult for the new player's to feel competitive and no one wants that. It would be like playing in a sealed card tournament for the new player versus another player using there 15 year old collection.

My hesitation towards two crews is that someone can exploit schemes easier based on what they build. They can also switch out for a more favorable crew based on terrain layout. Neither one of these mean someone is a good player it just means they can build two diverse lists. If it's a list building contest why even play? Just look at each others list and have the player's vote on the best one. Saves the time of flipping cards.

Having to play against bad match-ups is what competition is about. Complete balance in anything is very difficult to achieve. The harder fought the battle, the tastier the victory. Sometimes you face lists you can't beat. Knowing your local meta is important and bringing a list to compete locally is a skill of a good player.

I would love to see something official as it concerns tournaments. If not I will just run events based on what the player's want. As a retailer, I am nothing without my player base. Making them as happy as possible is the most important part of what I do.

[tadaka]

I'm fairly sure you can't steal relic against Perdita. Also assassinate vs Kirai / Pandora will be very tough.

Ok i will give you that steal relic cant be done by some crews. others do have a chance at that one. So some limits would need to be played with.

As far as very hard to do that would be the whole point of such a game setting. All the goals would be very hard. Might work well to change it over to 3 options.

[Wodschow]

Tournaments could also be set strategies/schemes so people knew from before what they'd be fighting for.

Tons of solutions.

You could actually give alot of info prior to the tournament which'd probably reduce some of the crew drafting time.

[yames]

i have only played in 1 turny so far but what i learnd from it is that having straight vps determine final standings can be a little demoralizing to other players when one person ends a game with a 8 to 0 or a 6 to 6 tie and sumone pulled off a good close win with 4 to 3. it also hurts those players who choose to not take a scheme and grab the extra soulstones thow that is there choice and risk. and it also realy messes with buys we did a system were the player with the buy plaeyd the to for vps but averageing might work thow.

i also will say that a sideboard idea is probly the fastest way to get games rolling while still adding some crew changing to the mix.

just my thoughts from my limited xp

[oozeboss]

:bump:

(Right, time to get some life back in to this thread!)

CANCON will be held next weekend (22-23 January, with some games on 24th) & is Australia's oldest & largest wargaming convention. It is held in the national capital (Canberra) and literally attracts competitors from almost all of Australia (Perth - capital of Western Australia - is actually closer to Singapore than Canberra, so very few Sandgropers ever make it). Even a fair few New Zealanders come across as well.

This is the showcase event of Australasian gaming, and it should be where our game gets its biggest push in to the mindset of the Australasian gaming community. Instead, the Malifaux competition at CANCON currently has a field of 5 (including me, doing a Lazarus & recommitting), and as such, will be basically parked well away from where it can inspire, seduce & basically spread the word.

Malif-oz tournaments tend to be frequent, small (no more than a dozen players at best), isolated (as in, very rarely held as an element of the major conventions here) & geographically parochial (unlike players of almost all other games over here, we don't tend to travel out of our home bases). We seem to lack a focused fixed core of enthusiasts who apply universally accepted goals & strategies in order to most effectively reinforce & expand our community.

This has got me thinking about how we in the Antipodes, and probably across the Malifearth, need to become strategically focused & united. For the game to evolve and consolidate in the collective mindset of our gaming community, I am convinced that we need to develop a basic set of guidelines with which to promote our game, and that a cornerstone of this would be to define that which constitutes a successful & effective tournament.

So I put these questions to all of you here:

* What is the purpose of a tournament?

* What defines a successful tournament?

* What elements of the hobby need to be given the highest priority in order to achieve that success?

[yames]

So I put these questions to all of you here:

* What is the purpose of a tournament?

* What defines a successful tournament?

* What elements of the hobby need to be given the highest priority in order to achieve that success?

my answers would be

1. to have fun and compete in a organized and competive setting for prizes of any sort or value

2. players having fun

3. to me gameplay and sportsmanship

[Serigala]

The main reason I dislike scoring on VPs over Win/Loss/Draw record is this; it actively encourages collusion.

If I get a match up where my opponent and I think the probable game result is going to be a hard fought 4-2 win to one of us, why wouldn't we agree to avoid one another and complete our objectives without fighting? That way we could each get 6 to 8vps by playing evasive.

It doesn't even have to be by implicit agreement. If only the number of VPs matter, there is no reason to prevent your opponent from scoring VPs. Why should I attempt to stop my opponent getting holdout? There's literally nothing in it for me. In fact it would almost be actively setting out to harm his tourney chances out of spite.

There's no reason total VPs can't be used as a tie break, in fact in most cases they'd probably need to be. However the outcome of the games HAS to matter, or else you open the door to this sort of abuse.

Surely the answer to this problem is to score both VP points for and -VP points against.

Thus, a 1-0 win would be worth the same as an 8-7 win.

Anyone wanting to do well in the tournament needs to score high while also restricting their opponent.

If you can't actually complete your strategy or scheme, then you just go all out to stop the opponent completing a greater points value of theirs.

If you are successful, you should still squeak a narrow victory.

The only disadvantage in this is if tournament participants are unequally matched and there are a few easy 8-0 games, but that can happen in any scoring system, and is usually countered with some form of seeding or round manipulation.

[oozeboss]

I really like the concept of 'goal difference' being the primary consideration in determining winners, with - perhaps - most VPs being the tie-breaker (in order to encourage players to actively seek to achieve vp's instead of merely preventing their opponents doing so).

To apply a sporting analogy, what would you prefer to see: a 1-0 win or a 9-8 game?

[mythicFOX]

Surely the answer to this problem is to score both VP points for and -VP points against.

Thus, a 1-0 win would be worth the same as an 8-7 win.

Anyone wanting to do well in the tournament needs to score high while also restricting their opponent.

If you can't actually complete your strategy or scheme, then you just go all out to stop the opponent completing a greater points value of theirs.

If you are successful, you should still squeak a narrow victory.

The only disadvantage in this is if tournament participants are unequally matched and there are a few easy 8-0 games, but that can happen in any scoring system, and is usually countered with some form of seeding or round manipulation.

The Winning VPs - Losing Vps = Event Points systems is something I’ve considered before. The first Question that leaps to mind is how do you score draws and losses? Are they both worth zero?

The scoring on VPs system is designed to be softer than scoring by W/L/D, as it rewards both players performance in game rather than the outcome. The system you propose above actually does the complete opposite, it’s more competitive than the W/L/D.

To do best out of the W/L/D system a player has to win doesn’t matter how much they win by, they just need to win. To do best out of the opposed VP system you don’t just have to win, you have to hammer your opponent into the ground. That requires a harder play style than the W/L/D system.

You’re also creating a higher burden on players than in a normal game. Under the above a player is effectively playing with 2 strategies and 4 schemes, completing their own plus preventing their opponents. Some crews can’t do that as effectively as others.

IHMO the right approach is to score on Win/Lose/Draw first, and then on Total VPs won (max 8 per game) second.

[Justin]

To apply a sporting analogy, what would you prefer to see: a 1-0 win or a 9-8 game?

I think I'll go right for the analogy:

I think both games would be equally fun. I don't see the problem.

[Justin]

The Winning VPs - Losing Vps = Event Points systems is something I’ve considered before. The first Question that leaps to mind is how do you score draws and losses? Are they both worth zero?

The scoring on VPs system is designed to be softer than scoring by W/L/D, as it rewards both players performance in game rather than the outcome. The system you propose above actually does the complete opposite, it’s more competitive than the W/L/D.

To do best out of the W/L/D system a player has to win doesn’t matter how much they win by, they just need to win. To do best out of the opposed VP system you don’t just have to win, you have to hammer your opponent into the ground. That requires a harder play style than the W/L/D system.

You’re also creating a higher burden on players than in a normal game. Under the above a player is effectively playing with 2 strategies and 4 schemes, completing their own plus preventing their opponents. Some crews can’t do that as effectively as others.

IHMO the right approach is to score on Win/Lose/Draw first, and then on Total VPs won (max 8 per game) second.

Simply to answer the question of how to differ losses from ties, losses would be negative points.

So to get a player's total points for a game you subtract the VPs their opponent scored from the VPs they scored. A draw is zero, a loss is negative, and a win is positive. Seems fairly simple.

However, that point addressed, I agree with you. I think W/L/D is absolutely the way to go.

[mythicFOX]

I think I'll go right for the analogy:

I think both games would be equally fun. I don't see the problem.

Just to expand on this point;

With an 8-7 or 1-0 both games are equally close, the winner snatches victory from their opponent by only one point. I'd expect them to be about as fun, all things being equal.

In a 8-0 game one player probably got flattened, and that's generally less fun.