Feedback Thread

Okay. I haven't heard much from anyone either good or bad.

Let me have it. What are you liking and what are you not liking? I don't promise I can fix it this time, but for future leagues changes can certainly be made.

I wasn't a big fan of the 3-game average. In Conway, we had a lot of people quit out, and it left us without games down here because when someone would pick up a win, they would stop playing to keep a good score. I've had fun, though, as I just enjoy playing, but it's just been hard finding people to play around here.

LanceLiezure wrote:

when someone would pick up a win, they would stop playing to keep a good score.

That metagaming feature could be defeated by averaging the games by a factor of three, if you want people to play three games. If you play one game and get 300 points in that one game then your weekly score is 100. If you played three games and got a total of 900 points for all three games then your weekly score is 300. This will stop the metagamers from trying to beat the system.

Prolly a bad idea, it popped into my head while I was eating La Huerta for lunch. I blame the idea on mexican food.

we havent really had that problem up here... most of the time everyone is playing to play the game. Everyone i know and play has been getting 3 every chance they could, and some people are playing beyond their 3 so others can get games. I like the system because it allows you to try different things agaisnt different opponents every week. I know Conway is having trouble with this, so maybe they should add some more people to the league. I'm sure that would help alot, and i know yall have alot of players down there.

also i think a single elimination tournement would be interesting to decide the winner. Something like the top ten players

Yeah, we started with a lot of people, but a lot fell of quickly! I think it was just the wrong time of year for a lot of us. As most everyone around here is college kids, and it is finals right now.

I must say I've had a good time, but I don't know why we couldn't keep people interested here.

Overall, the league is pretty good. Unfortunately for myself, work and kids make it difficult to get in games. (Over 40 hours at work plus sick kids made it all but impossible to get in a game this last week.) I imagine this is problem for more than just me.

And we don't have an overall list of contact numbers for players and I just chance on games for the most part.

But I like the concept and playing in the league when I can.

-Christopher

I guess i'm kind of out of the league as I generally can only get 1 game of 40k in a week and no one shows up to play in the league at H-town on Tuesdays.

I could put themcfadden in a headlock and make him play league games with me, but there's no sense in just making our weekly game the league games.

When I get my army finished up I plan on stopping in on a Tuesday.

i would be happy to come up on a tuesday, but it would have to be after 5-5:30 as that's when i get off work. If that works for you pm me and we can set one up.

I think the biggest problem I've seen, and had to work around myself, is that changing the game every week means you have to play every week. It's easier for me since I work up there so I'm up there all the time, but I think it might work better if the league itself was stretched out a bit and changed to 2 week Scenarios instead of every week. Other than that I think it's going pretty well, I really like the way all the scenarios are tied together.

/agree

I think there should be like a top 8 single elimination tournement at the end of the league.. It could be the same setup as the league, like you have a week to play your opponent of declare a forfeit or something like that... I only say this because Ive only taken one loss (pointwise) since week 2 and keep getting edged out by people who are losing to their opponents but getting more points. I'm not trying to complain (despite the way it looks ), but merely suggesting what I think would add balance.

It would look something like (think of it as a two side bracket, like the Elite Eight of NCAA Basketball Tournement)

Week 1 playoff

#1 v. #8-------------game 1
#4 v. #5-------------game 2

#2 v. #7-------------game 3
#3 v. #6................game 4

Week 2 Playoff (would look like the Final Four)

Winner of game 1 v. winner of game 2-------game 5

Winner of game 3 v. winner of game 4--------game 6
Final

Winner of game 5 v. Winner of game 6


I realized after I typed all that, that it was probally way too intense....
anyway, It wouldnt necassarily have to be in any given time frame, I'm just throwing things out there

I just found out there was a prize associated with the league. If we did do this tournement I would vote to still give whatever that prize is to the person who won the league without the tournement. I'd feel like it would compromise the legitamacy of the league otherwise. The only reason I'd want to do the league tournement is out of good natured competition

One thing I'd also like to point out is that the 40k tournement system doesnt really work with a league. This is because you dont have a set opponent each week. For example, in a tournement you have one opponent every round, meaning that if you beat/lose to that opponent, they are going to move down or you are going to move up. So winning has a weight to it. In a league, you dont play a set person each week, and you dont have a set number of opponents. So, if you win there is no weight to it. You could win three times in a week, at different scales, and inevitably move down. An example is winning 10 to 7, then winning 18-15, then winning 15 to 9. You have won every game in the week, yet the opponent you played the second game(assuming they play one game that week) has 15 points to your 14.33 average for the week. So because you like to play more games, you lose ground to them even though you won. In a tournement the point system allows the players who win to keep playing each other, making sure that if you win, you carry that win on against someone who is also winning.

Again not trying to step on any toes here, just pointing out what I see

On a side note, this is coming from someone who thinks the Gamesworkshop system of tournement is flawed. Should be based on # of wins, with points being secondary in my opinion...

I agree that the "average" system really hurts those that like to play a lot more games than those that play maybe one a week. There doesn't seem to be a way to balance it at this time but maybe we can come up with a way to balance it for the next league. I realize that we simply can't force people to play a set number of games, but still we need to figure something out that keeps those that play more games from being penalized.

RetroPengo wrote:

I agree that the "average" system really hurts those that like to play a lot more games than those that play maybe one a week. There doesn't seem to be a way to balance it at this time but maybe we can come up with a way to balance it for the next league. I realize that we simply can't force people to play a set number of games, but still we need to figure something out that keeps those that play more games from being penalized.

Loving the feedback so far. Running this and keeping scores is very time consuming but its worth doing as long as people are having fun.

Something to remember is that no one forces you to play more than one game a week.

Also, remember that there is not a way to run a perfect league. If it were one game per week, people would be unhappy they couldnt get more games in. If it were three games a week people who can only game once a week would be unhappy all of the others scores are counted.

I have played in many leagues, all of them different, and there is no way to make it perfect even if only 4 people are playing. Believe me I have tried it many many times and seen it attempted many many times. One person drops out, one person can only play every other week, one person changes armies 3 times, and the other player wants to get in 10 games a week.

Things I got out of the league (correct me if I am wrong!)

Too long! I think 4 or 5 weeks needs to be the length of time a league would run.

No escalation. The escalating points value took a lot of players out of the league - more than I thought it might add. I think a set points value would have been better.

Maybe a narrative campaign next time? Establish teams and let players play out games and change things as they happen over the course of the campaign? Less of a focus on points, ending in a mega apocalypse game?

I thought it was pretty good. 5 or 6 weeks would be better, yes. Also, instead of a full escalation maybe a mini-escalation. like:

Week 1&2 - 1500

Week 3&4 - 1850

Week 5 - 2000 point apocalypse "all comers" if possible. dunno how we would schedule something like that.

teams sounds cool... I really liked the uniqueness of the different weeks, just not the one where one player could win turn 1... In hindsight there was really no way of knowing that would happen though. I loved the league, great job and thank you!

Oh, definitely a great job. It was really cool, but then I missed a couple of weeks and just figured I wouldn't be able to catch back up.

I've heard from some that each round should take two weeks to play instead of one. That way more time can be spent in trying to get new opponents to play. Some at CHG said that trying to get three games in each week with different players was very hard.

No, no; Retro. Three players were not hard at CHG each week; three games with three players were hard...

Oh never mind. You'll twist around my innocent words around no matter how innocuously I try to put the sentence.

Oh I will not!

...

...

...

...

...

*snicker*

Instead of a league, make it more of a campaign.

In the General's Compendium(fantasy book) it gives detailed info on how to run a campaign while keeping it fresh and fun.

You start by using the Mighty Empire tiles and the 40k equivilent(name escapes me atm) to build your campaign map. The map should also include some special features to fight over. For fantasy there was a bridge, wizards tower, forest, a mine, you get the idea. Each special feature gave the controlling player a bonus. For example the forest allowed you to build an extra war machine. In 40k it could be a spaceport. Which could produce pretty much anything. Anyway I think you know what I am getting at.

So after you have the map established each player will get to pick a hex to be "home". Each player will have two different army lists. Say 2k list for the home base army and 1500 for the attacking force. The way your attacking force gets bigger is to gain control of more spaces. You can have each space worth points or you can say every 3 spaces you control you get X amount of more points to build your army.

Battles are fought when you enter a hex controlled by an opposing player. Furthermore the battlefield reflects the space being fought over. So if it is a space with a river going through some woods, guess what kind of terrain is being used. If keeps things interesting and adds another level of strategy to the game.

The trick to making this work was getting the players to show up and make the appropriate moves each week. However, I don't see why you couldn't post a picture of the map and let everyone pm the moves to the admin of this event. Afterall, the moves would need to be secret.
You can make these as simple or as complicated as you want. There is some more details to the campaign, but I think you get the general idea.

thats what we are trying to put together in a couple weeks