It is currently Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:48 pm


Turnament-Rues upgrade

Tell the world your Dropzone related trials and tribulations!
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Defaint_2k

  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 6:27 pm

Turnament-Rues upgrade

PostTue Nov 21, 2017 8:48 am

So i Play alot Warmachine/Hordes.
And one thing i love about that games is the Steamroller rules!
For everyone who don't know what Steamroller is, it is a Turnament rules pack which is absolutly amazing.
Actually it is so good that i and my gaming group only play with these ruleset.
And I think it would work with dropzone commander perfectly.

So why do i like it so much?

1. There are Six specifically desigend turnemant scenarios in it.
2. There is a two list concept.(Everybody makes two lists and before the game you look at the lists of your Opponent and then you decide which one you wanna Play in secret(vice versa). Then Both Show which list they Play at the same time) Awsome!
3.It is played with a chessclock where both Players get a overall time of 60 minutes per Player for a Standart Size game.

That would make the game more balanced towards bad match ups and the time pressure leads to mistakes! Great!


So what do you think?
Offline
User avatar

Cry of the Wind

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 1044
  • Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:27 pm
  • Location: Airdrie, Alberta, Canada

Re: Turnament-Rues upgrade

PostTue Nov 21, 2017 4:43 pm

I'm not a fan of multiple lists. I feel you should make one that can handle anything that comes its way. If you suck a a mission its because you over compensated in some other way. All this would encourage is more strike carriers in DFC as you no longer have to worry about space station missions at all and infantry lighter/heavier lists depending on if there is Intel vs Focal Points in DZC. It might work in other games where the missions are radically different and there are serious balance issues between the factions but I don't see a need for Dropzone/fleet with the balance and mission types we have.

I do like the idea of set missions in a tournament package and we already have that provided. Infinity ITS seasons are a really cool idea with a large selection of missions (22 this year) for organizers to pick from and they change each year. You see which missions the tournament will use ahead of time. Knowing the missions ahead also helps eliminate the need for 2 lists, you have no excuse for being surprised.

As for deathclocks, I've seen this brought up before but I don't feel that they add much of anything but pressure for the sake of pressure. When I used to play Warmahordes before the deathclocks came in the tournaments were fine. Nothing changed for me once they were brought in. The only reason I see the need for them is if your gaming group is toxic and you have people that are willing to slow play (cheat basically) because they can't stand to lose at toy soldiers. Otherwise you add pressure to the weaker players and the more experienced ones get even more advantages (since their turns are normally faster as they know what they are doing!).
Offline

Egge

  • Posts: 1368
  • Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:01 am

Re: Turnament-Rues upgrade

PostTue Nov 21, 2017 5:03 pm

I'm all for a negative impact on slow players but also prefer people can take their time in their games. I can see that one use a clock and wouldn't mind that but I prefer it to only be used to check the really slow players and not speed all games up.

So a chess clock and 3 hour game would be nice. But with ample enough time I doubt it is needed.

When it comes to missions we already have a tournament pack. With only a few missions I think some of the forced balance in DZC could be lost so I think to have a lot of missions is only a good thing. A double list could be possible but would be open to abuse as it would mean you prefer two lists based on missions instead of the opponent's list.
Offline

Defaint_2k

  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 6:27 pm

Re: Turnament-Rues upgrade

PostWed Nov 22, 2017 10:14 am

Maybe you don't need a two list concept right now for DFC, but you could start to use one for dzc.
And it's not about inbalanced Army's or games its about model/unit Counts. At some Point every game wich is expanding will probably have a model count where it is impossible or too ineffective to build allcomers lists.
Also 2 list concept brings another layer of strategy into the game.
And the Argument "It is open to abuse" is not a really one cause there is still a Opponet you have to Play against.
It would take a while until the meta would set but ultimatly it would make it a better experience.

And pressure for the pressure sake is valid. Games (espacially in turnament enviroments) live from the aspect that your Opponent makes bad decisions or Forgets something to do. If you wouldn't make mistake every game would be just a random calculation in the end. Nobody should be afraid of the clock ! Everybody should embrace it! :D
Also the newbe argument is bit of a brick. You can apply it to nearly any argument and that brings no one any further. Everybody know (normally) how to handle new Players so this doesn't Count.
Offline
User avatar

Cry of the Wind

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 1044
  • Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:27 pm
  • Location: Airdrie, Alberta, Canada

Re: Turnament-Rues upgrade

PostWed Nov 22, 2017 5:49 pm

How is it impossible to build an all comer list? If you know the missions ahead of time there should be no reason for it with the way DZC/DFC are balanced. I don't understand how 2 lists would somehow overcome whatever the problem you are seeing is. In fact in other game systems it just seems to be a cop out that people want a 'perfect list' all the time and are not capable of making the hard choices about what their army will be weak at. If you can't build a list that can handle most situations that's on you not the tournament or missions. In DZC you need armour/infantry/AA and things to kill them in some balance. All new models since the game came out have been in those categories and I don't see how that is going to change. Where I place the counters in my list changes with new models (like say moving my AA from tanks into flak troopers) but the balance still needs to be there.

When you roll up to the FLGS do you tailor your list? I have never seen anyone do that and you have even less info about what mission and opponent you will be facing. All I see this add is selling more models (another deterrent to new people coming out) as people need bigger armies to make multiple lists. I personally don't even bother with multiple lists when I am allowed to take them, never hurt me in the standings at any event I went to.

I don't see why added pressure makes things more fun (and the goal is to have fun). You already know you have a time limit and in most cases it is going to be better to play faster regardless of a clock ticking on the table or on the TO's wrist. This games is also new and niche enough that I don't want to be pushing new players away from it. Warmahordes has left a bad taste in many gamer's mouth with its ultra competitive nature. Deathclocks are an element of that game that push people away from the tournament scene all together. As a Talon I struggle enough getting people to come to tournaments at all because they think they are too competitive and they would rather play 'friendly' games. Tournaments are just an excuse to play multiple games in one day and maybe meet some new people. A couple people might take them more seriously than that but that's the minority. If the newbie never even shows up because of the extra pressure then future events are put in jeopardy. If people don't show up because of the perceived over competitiveness or don't want the added pressure it's not a brick argument. This is from conversations with other gamers and what they look for in a friendly game community over the last 23 years of my playing games and 7 years of running events for them in several different cities.

As someone in charge of growing the local community things like multiple lists and deathclocks make the tournament scene harder to break into. I want people playing the game as much as possible and if they are turned off on day one because of those things everyone loses. This has never been a super competitive game system (roll 6's turn 2 you win in several missions :? ) and I'd rather not see it looked at in such a way. Having tournament missions and standards that are published and easy to find are one thing and allow people to travel to other cities and know what they are getting into. Introducing elements of games that I have many refugees coming from is not something I see any value in.

All I need is a standard format that has the correct year on the package. The rest of it can be left to the local TO and their community. You have a super competitive group that wants them sure as a local TO play to your crowd but I'd rather not see the more controversial elements of gaming added to a niche game.

Edit:

I much prefer the ITS style from Infinity. You have tons of missions that change each year (22 this season). You have special events and rules that effect them as well so each season is unique. For example the PanO faction won a global campaign event this year so have access to a new special army list and there are a couple special rules that apply this year (they are basically beta testing new errata ideas). Having campaign events effect the tournament scene is a great way to get people involved. Not to mention the story lines for factions and characters can be effected by these events as well. Makes special characters more special and have a reason for them to be on the table. All of this makes people get excited to play more games and get involved in the global community.
Online

Nobody

  • Posts: 796
  • Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:25 am

Re: Turnament-Rues upgrade

PostThu Nov 23, 2017 5:26 am

I disagree that DZC/DFC needs multi-list formats. When it comes to Warmachine/Hordes, the game is purposefully designed so encourage skew. Each warcaster/warlock is designed with the idea that they're really good at one specific aspect of the game while weak at others. Whenever a warcaster or warlock shows signs of being good against everything PP will deliberately tone down an aspect of their abilities to introduce a weakness. For example, Haley2 was a good drop into almost every other list, so her feat was nerfed to make her less attractive as a drop into infantry heavy lists.

Meanwhile with Dropzone/Dropfleet, it's not really designed to skew, the main goal of an army design here is to try to cover enough bases while leaving yourself enough leeway to play a little bit, like going gunship heavy. Usually if models are found to be too good at something here, there's a unilateral nerf rather than a nerf to an aspect to create a weakness.

As far as Deathclock goes...there are a few things that present a problem on that end. CQB is the big one as it takes place over multiple phases and involves a lot of switching back and forth between players. WM/H doesn't have that problem for the most part (just recording damage on the other player's turn).
Offline

Shikatanai

  • Posts: 213
  • Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: Turnament-Rues upgrade

PostThu Nov 23, 2017 7:58 am

I think for Dropfleet it might be an interesting approach to go for 2 List Tournaments.
It would make things actually worth taking for building around specific scenarios that would most likely be DOA in an allcomers list and it would make Scenarios currently not in the tournament set worth considering.
E.g. right now I would never play Power Grab in a tournament as certain factions can build an allcomers list with this scenario much easier and much more effective for the other scenarios as others. If you allow multiple Lists this suddenly evens out a little bit.
In addition it would be possible to build specific lists to counter current meta lists. Thus it might also help the meta that is very onesided right now imho.
Offline
User avatar

Cry of the Wind

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 1044
  • Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:27 pm
  • Location: Airdrie, Alberta, Canada

Re: Turnament-Rues upgrade

PostFri Nov 24, 2017 1:18 am

Nobody wrote:I disagree that DZC/DFC needs multi-list formats. When it comes to Warmachine/Hordes, the game is purposefully designed so encourage skew. Each warcaster/warlock is designed with the idea that they're really good at one specific aspect of the game while weak at others. Whenever a warcaster or warlock shows signs of being good against everything PP will deliberately tone down an aspect of their abilities to introduce a weakness. For example, Haley2 was a good drop into almost every other list, so her feat was nerfed to make her less attractive as a drop into infantry heavy lists.

As far as Deathclock goes...there are a few things that present a problem on that end. CQB is the big one as it takes place over multiple phases and involves a lot of switching back and forth between players. WM/H doesn't have that problem for the most part (just recording damage on the other player's turn).


Spoken better than I did with a perfect example of why we don't need those things in DZC/DFC. I've seen Warmahordes die off in 3+ game communities and the reason why as always been the macho too competitive atmosphere the game encourages. Deathclocks also don't fit this game and are poorly received by most people I encounter and this is yet another reason they don't fit this community.
Offline

Shikatanai

  • Posts: 213
  • Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: Turnament-Rues upgrade

PostFri Nov 24, 2017 1:53 pm

Cry of the Wind wrote:Spoken better than I did with a perfect example of why we don't need those things in DZC/DFC. I've seen Warmahordes die off in 3+ game communities and the reason why as always been the macho too competitive atmosphere the game encourages. Deathclocks also don't fit this game and are poorly received by most people I encounter and this is yet another reason they don't fit this community.


Besides that Deathclocks do not fit well into DFC (DZC might fit much better) because of the way the game is designed this is just a completely subjective perception that deathcloks are poorly received by most people. Of course they are poorly received by casual gamers but we are acutally talking about tournament games here and I think the amount of competitive players that are more on the pro side of deathclocks in general is not as small as this statement might suggest (if they can be implemented well).
Noone forces casual/narrative players to play a competitive/tournament setup. Warma/Hordes can also be played without deathclock, noone forces players to play Steamroller / Tournaments. So I really wonder why Deathclocks are such a pain in the ass for a lot of people as long as noone is forced to play with it.
Besides that the reason why Warma/Hordes is dying lie somewhere else imho - PP made a lot of poor decisions during the last 1-2 years and they are slipping into GW-like approaches.
Offline

wundergoat

  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:42 am

Re: Turnament-Rues upgrade

PostFri Nov 24, 2017 7:06 pm

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it assumes that tournaments are wholly competitive affairs, when really they are community play events. I feel like a deathclock is pointless since it will be a non-factor on the top tables and overly punishing to newbies and casuals on the lower tables.
Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests