Strength Of Schedule As First Tiebreaker in SR2012

[Rightfin]

I don't like SoS, a tournament result based on something outside of a participant's control can't be "the best option out there"

The problem with control points as the first tie breaker is that it ranks scenario over assassination as a win condition. While some of you may believe a scenario win is better than an assassination win, the only way to make that "fair"would be to remove assassination as a win condition for the tournament.

Why is eliminating the assassination win required to be "fair"? What is that trying to equalize? If the game ends due to scenario victory and or assassination the game is won. Due to current tournament scoring, that counts a a point towards winning. Scoring 2nd/ 3rd/ 4th via tie-breaking via control points is completely fair - the rules of the game and a potential path to victory are established prior to start.

I'm not being obtuse, I just don't understand the rationale for your reasoning. Can you provide some clarification where this would be required?

I believe that SoS, averaging win percentage, and deathclock are self-fufilling problems: People are dropping tournments due to simple math - lose your first game and there really isn't any point to playing anymore. The problem is compounded in smaller formats, and events that have odd number players. If a daily event scoring can be based on the sum of your games then this will only encourage people to actually play games.

[Terraneaux]

I'm not being obtuse, I just don't understand the rationale for your reasoning. Can you provide some clarification where this would be required?

I'll comment that in my example above, where a player makes a mistake early and exposes their caster to an assassination victory, if the scenario did not end at that point it would allow the player who had pulled off the caster assassination to likely score quite a few scenario points before the end. If you immediately pack it up when a caster is dead it punishes players for killing casters, as they will likely have less scenario points per win.

[Josh]

I think CPs are probably the worst possible tie breaker other than maybe flipping a coin. I think APs destroyed is a better indicator of how well you played, and they are still an awful tie breaker. I could get 7 CPs and still lose the match. SoS using opponents match win % with a baseline of 33.3% is the best tiebreaker. And I also don't think someone failing to make masters after going 3-1 with one of thier wins coming from a bye is a good enough reason to rework tie breaks.

[Mattias H]

I'm rooting for control points for the following reasons:

It is a lot easier for the players to keep track of, they can push for control points if they need. SoS is a lot harder to keep track of on the fly and also there is nothing you can do to about it as you play. The element of the feeling of having the final destiny in your own hands is something I think players appreciate. It is also very easy to compare players between rounds as CP often shows in the pairing lists for the next round.

Even if loosing both players have something to fight for in the current game swell.

Games can't go on for ever either due to time restrictions such as death clock, timed turns etc.

[nicholas_342]

In the last tournament I played in 2nd through something like 6th place were all tied 2 wins 1 loss. The guy who took 2nd place overall played against me in the last game where I tabled him. Playing a 35 pt battle he only got 5 army points from me. He got second, I got fifth. If I had dragged the game out to win by scenario I would have placed higher possibly second judging by the previous scenario's. But that is kind of a crappy thing to do. Sorry, your army is dead but I am going to surround your warlock with my light jacks while I waste our time scoring victory points, instead of just finishing you off. All because I want to place in the top 3. Yah, I play to win and I've been accused of being too competitive, but winning or losing I still want to have fun. I also tend to play to assassinate which it seems like it means that I am playing the game wrong, but shuffling my models a little bit and calling turn isn't fun.

Could SoS have helped me out more, I don't know. My one loss was in the second round against the guy who went undefeated. But as has been said earlier, losing because you got stuck playing a rookie in the first round is rather crappy too.

[Rightfin]

I'll comment that in my example above, where a player makes a mistake early and exposes their caster to an assassination victory, if the scenario did not end at that point it would allow the player who had pulled off the caster assassination to likely score quite a few scenario points before the end. If you immediately pack it up when a caster is dead it punishes players for killing casters, as they will likely have less scenario points per win.

I understand the point, however the end result is that the game is a "WIN", and thereby awards 1 tournament point towards the conclusion, and your opponent will not score this point. In all games, the winners from this round are precisely equal, each with one tournment point. The only time the lack of CP will be relevant is at final conclusion of the tournament for establishing 2/3/4th.
I fail to see how this result is less desirable than determination based on how your previous pairings faired, especially since all tournaments are paired based on winner vs winner rounds.

Example: Given your example above, lets assume your player goes winless the entire tournament - he will detract from your SoS for the rest of the event. If that was his single error, and your opponent advances for the rest of the event - he will improve your SoS standing. How, in either case, does this reflect the result of your game?

[PG_Pszito]

Many good points being brought up here about the validity/justification for placement seeded on either scoring method. Many good points but missing the most important one (imho); when you are gunning for CPs you have no investment in how well your fellow players do (in fact you usually want to thoroughly crush to the point of delaying play for points advantage) but when you go by SoS the primary thing that matters is shaking your opponent's hand and wishing them the best of luck! It's about community, not points.

In SoS primary, every 'winning' player knocks their opponent down a bracket and are inherently shorting themselves on future wins. It simply funnels from there, in a logical seeded way. I also do prefer it on the basis that it rewards players for taking matches vs stronger opponents rather than CPs who, again, reward the run-away matches.

Dont get me wrong, I do much enjoy a good old race for CPs! Especially when that is the known plan and everybody brings their trixxiest casters! However there are inherent faction balance issues centered around CPs/scenarios and I largely feel tournaments as such appeal to certain types of players.

TBH, there's nothing wrong either way. I simply prefer anything that encourages good will and deters more cut-throat play.

[perilsensitive]

When I used to play in warhammer fantasy tourneys, we would have a battle points/sportsmanship/painting cumulative scoring. Without ging anywhere near a sportsmanship/composition scoring method, couldn't we do some sort of cumulative CP/AP/SoS system?

[absent]

Any tie breaker is going to be a little arbitrary, i'd rather it went to the person that had the roughest day opponent wise than the person that could collect the most control points.

Grading strengths of victory and stuff like that is even more arbitrary imo

[PG_General Nemo]

I see tie-breakers as ways to encourage certain types of lists and play styles in tournaments. I prefer to use Control Points as the first tiebreaker in my Steamroller events because I think it rewards more tactical and well thought out play. I want to reward players for being good at the game and for bringing lists that reflect that. There is personal bias here, however, as I find attrition and methodical play much more interesting than crazy all-in assassination runs. Both have their places, though, and we have several Press Gangers in the area so the rules vary from the volunteer to volunteer.

[hackdZ]

I'm fairly new to competitive WM/H, and I'm curious as to why Assassinations aren't weighted more like scenario wins?

In most of the scenarios I've played (mostly SR2012/War-Torn Alliances) they state under the Win conditions that a player wins when they either meet the victory requirements (CP's or w/e) OR they have the last remaining Warlock/Warcaster in play.

After reading the responses to this thread I think you could avoid some of these seeding issues by awarding CP's for assassinations. (even just 1) They are after all, part of the Scenario.

[PG_Cloud-Gatherer]

It might be worth pointing out that we went round and round on SoS in the PG forum a while back, and hashed all this out with DC and Hacksaw. The Steamroller people are well aware of all these concerns, and decided to stick with SoS anyway. We even tried to come up with a formula that would distill SoS, CP, and AP destroyed into a single tiebreaker score, but even the most elegant solution ends up being more complicated than you're going to want to do on paper, so the TO would need a spreadsheet and any player that wants to keep up with his or her own score had better be good at algebra.

I would like to also point out that SoS, while commonly blasted as being "random," is anything but. What is random is the first-round pairing process. ANY tiebreaker score will have to contend with that randomness unless we implement a world-wide ranking system, and that's not happening. SoS deals with the randomness by acknowledging that some people got harder opponents and ranking them accordingly. CP or AP destroyed, as tiebreakers, deal with the randomness by doubling down on the rewards for getting an easy opponent - not only do you get a Tournament Point, you also get to farm the tiebreak conditions. SoS tiebreaking is a more accurate reflection of the day's events, and therefore I don't see how it isn't the most preferable option. Is it somehow preferable to punish people who randomly get paired against Farmington, Flanzer, or Watt in the first round instead of Joe Schmoe, local perennial loser?

People have posted two opposing claims in this thread. First, it is claimed that a loss in round 1 makes it harder to have a good SoS and is therefore unfair. Second, it is claimed that it is unfair to go undefeated all the way to the "final table" (more on that in a second) and then lose on SoS. Combining these, we see that SoS's detractors think it's unfair not to get second place if they lose in the first or last rounds of an event - shall we assume it's okay for tiebreakers to rank someone lower who loses in the second or third round, then? That seems pretty arbitrary at best, and at worst it just seems like sour grapes.

Lastly, let's talk about the "final table." Specifically, let's talk about how there is no such thing in a Steamroller unless a particular variant is used - a variant that is specifically stated to be less objectively fair and therefore not preferred. When the last round starts, it is true that there will be two undefeated players and that one of them will become the champion. This leads people to see this game as the "championship game," but the champion has defeated (assuming a four-round event) three other people, ALL of which could theoretically be 3-1 at the end of the day. Losing to the champion in the last round may make you 3-1, but it doesn't make you some kind of special 3-1 that's automatically better because you lost later in the day. You still won three games and lost one, and to make the standings accurate, SoS has to kick in and see who had the harder group of games.

SoS isn't necessarily the most fun or dramatic way to rank players with equal win-loss records, but it IS the most accurate, and that's what any ranking system should strive for. It may not feel like it's fair to rank lower because you randomly got paired against a total nublet in round one, but SoS isn't what makes it unfair. Random first-round pairings, to reiterate what I said earlier, may be unfair, but with SoS you get results that account for the randomness in an accurate way. Any other tiebreaker is EQUALLY unfair because of the randomness, but then exacerbates the randomness by unfairly rewarding pushover pairings with tiebreaker conditions above and beyond a tourney point. That makes other tiebreakers both unfair AND inaccurate.

[wargolem]

Someone mentioned it quite a while ago, but my biggest beef with SoS is in small tournaments. Many of the tournaments in my local area have been 3 rounders for most of the past 8 months or so. In this case, if you lose in the first round, regardless of who you lose to, you have virtually no chance of placing even if you win your last two games. If you assume that you win your second and third games, then the absolute maximum number of wins you can count on from your 2nd and 3rd round opponents is 2 (one win each), and it's equally likely you'll end up with only 1. We have a couple of really tough players at my store, so most of the people are vying for 3rd place each time, and it always seems to come down to who managed to avoid playing against either of those guys for as long as possible. In this case it actually feels like we are penalized for playing the tougher opponents early in the tournament rather than rewarded.

I honestly don't have much of a problem with SoS in larger tournaments where I think things are more likely to even out in the long run. But I've become so infuriated with SoS in small tournaments that I've stopped attending them.

I agree with this. In large tournaments SoS will be much more fair, but most of us that play this game do not play in the "big" tournaments. If privateer would just put SoS on tournaments going 4 rounds or more, that would solve the problem for those of us in a small gaming community that normally see 8-12 players in the tournaments. We are trying to grow our community but it is what it is. Yes SoS is great in a large tournamnet, but in small ones it really makes it almost pointless to continue after a first round loss.

I also see both sides of the arguement, but really SoS and CP's are both about the same in terms of what list to carry and build. You either build to scenario victory or build a assassination list. If you want to get more scenario points build a list that achieves that goal. Same for assassination. I think the assassination route has more in common with page 5 than Scenario, but that is just me.

meh.

[Isante]

SoS is fine, to a point. The biggest issue is when you have opponents that drop and destroy your SoS. That is the main fault of the system and can sort of be fixed if you were to give some points to a person who had an opponent drop. The same thing with byes. Award something to someone who has to get a bye because it pretty much destroy any chances of placing if you get the bye. Those are pretty much the main issues I've encountered and they aren't that hard to fix. I still don't understand the amount of people that tend to drop from tourneys - in 14 years of playing that "other" game I've only ever seen 1 person drop.

[Coil]

I believe that SoS, averaging win percentage, and deathclock are self-fufilling problems: People are dropping tournments due to simple math - lose your first game and there really isn't any point to playing anymore.

I think that this is a big problem. I just cannot understand the attitude that someone decides to just give up because they can no longer finish in first place. What they are also doing is to screw up the SoS of the person that defeated them.

Out of all the bad ways SoS seems to be the least bad. The only adjustment I would want to see is something that does not punish you for playing opponents who dropped.

[PG_Malebolgia]

I don't like SoS, a tournament result based on something outside of a participant's control can't be "the best option out there"

This is exactly what I don't like about SoS: it measures something you don't have control over.

Do I have a good and simple alternative? Nope. Scoring CP or VP is not a good alternative IMO, as it pushes the focus of the tournament to one side. But I would really like an alternative system for determine a good ranking for tied scores instead of SoS.

[Jocke Rapp]

I actually have an alternative tie-breaker method, that uses CP but removes some of the major issues with the system. Instead of cluttering this thread I created a new one here: http://privateerpressforums.com/show...09#post1489309

[PG_Cloud-Gatherer]

This is exactly what I don't like about SoS: it measures something you don't have control over.

There is no practical system that will eliminate this factor. None. It is a simple, unavoidable fact that you have no control over your first-round pairing. Should we not, at the very least, attempt to acknowledge this fact and take it into account? Ignoring the randomness won't make it go away.

[The Happy Anarchist]

This is exactly what I don't like about SoS: it measures something you don't have control over.

Do I have a good and simple alternative? Nope. Scoring CP or VP is not a good alternative IMO, as it pushes the focus of the tournament to one side. But I would really like an alternative system for determine a good ranking for tied scores instead of SoS.

To be honest, the idea that you have control over VP or CP is an illusion as well - someone that plays against a newer/weaker player will have more VPs and CPs, and vice versa. Random match up factors and the scenario all factor in as well.

[Terraneaux]

I understand the point, however the end result is that the game is a "WIN", and thereby awards 1 tournament point towards the conclusion, and your opponent will not score this point. In all games, the winners from this round are precisely equal, each with one tournment point. The only time the lack of CP will be relevant is at final conclusion of the tournament for establishing 2/3/4th.
I fail to see how this result is less desirable than determination based on how your previous pairings faired, especially since all tournaments are paired based on winner vs winner rounds.

If there's a cut to top whatever it's pretty important. It actually affects how you rank so a tournament player *must* care about it, all of a sudden. Since these points directly affect your ranking, it's not just the 'win' point that counts. The fact that you fail to see how making the tournament care *how* you won instead of just whether or not you won changes playstyles and the over/under on certain tournament behaviors is surprising.

Example: Given your example above, lets assume your player goes winless the entire tournament - he will detract from your SoS for the rest of the event. If that was his single error, and your opponent advances for the rest of the event - he will improve your SoS standing. How, in either case, does this reflect the result of your game?

In theory a win against a more competent opponent is more difficult and thus means more.

[scout's honor]

There is no practical system that will eliminate this factor [SoS measuring something you have no control over]. None. It is a simple, unavoidable fact that you have no control over your first-round pairing. Should we not, at the very least, attempt to acknowledge this fact and take it into account? Ignoring the randomness won't make it go away.

I'm not sure the randomness is really the problem. True randomness means you can get lucky or unlucky, but it's fair in the sense that everyone has the same chance of getting lucky in his matchups or not.

If a win is a win is a win and no SoS is tracked you don't get rewarded for what in theory at least are harder victories but you don't get punished for byes either, or for meeting a stronger opponent sooner rather than later, or for getting a bad matchup with a particular scenario on a given round or whatever.

What rubs (at least some) people the wrong way about SoS is that it tries to both quantify and mitigate your luck of the draw but can't do this really well. It feels like standings are being tampered with by an imperfect system (in fact, that's exactly what happens - "feels like" only comes into it because it's the impressions and feelings players have about the proceedings that are the issue here). Pure (dumb) luck is not great either, but at least it's pure. So, if we can only use a measuring system that applies to effects outside our control, maybe the question should be if we should be measuring to begin with. Again, the only reason for this that I can see is that for the tournament formats used a ranking is needed that allows a predetermined cutoff point to be used. It doesn't objectively make the tournament experience better for the contestants and it doesn't necessarily result in a more correct ranking, it just lets you say "these are the X (theoretically) best players of the event, they get to decide amongst themselves who the winner is".

[PG_ikildkenny]

somehow I get the feeling this discussion is going in circles ... ...

But Cloud-Gatherer is right in one thing: any system apart from the "two reasonable ones" requires far more of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gENVB6tjq_M

BUT ... it got me thinking...

the main Problem of either system (well, mainly CP as first Tiebreaker) is the meta it forces - Assasination Lists are far more present in SoS as second tiebreaker tournaments ... whereas attrition/szenario-focused lists are more common in CP-as second tiebreaker tournaments...

so one Idea could be to "unite" both systems ... this can be complicated in SOME szenarios and will definatly change tournament pairings and placing a lot but it will eliminate the need for a tiebreaker to some degree so bear with me:

Usually a SR Szenario is won with 3 CP - let's use this as a baseline.

If you do not win by szenario (or loose the game) all your CP are lost in the ether of your 2nd tiebreaker - and rarely see the light of day again. Whereas the wins and losses of your opponents get important. Sure, winning by Szenario is great, since it bumps your tiebreaker, but I rarely see that having any effect since SoS kicks in.
On the other hand, you WILL take the assasination if it presents itself - and might regret it (vide supra).

SOOOOOO

Here's the Idea:
A win (no matter if via Szenario of Assasination) gives you 3 (!) Tournament points. In case of a Draw or a Loss, you get your CP as TP - in the case of "overscoring" (e.g. a szenario, that needs more than 4 CP or situations where you not only need 3 but more than your opponent as well) one would have to make a table, that "reduces" the made CP (so if a szenario would be won with 4 CP, the table would say something like "3/2 CP gives you 2 TP, 1 CP = 1TP etc.) ... that would require some work, I admit, but it will do 2 things:

- you get smaller pairing pools and thus are more likely to play against someone who ist approximately your own level of gamingskill in later rounds ... as a bonus a "downpairing" of odds would effekt the mathes far less

- SoS could still work as a Tiebreaker, but a) will be used slightly less (since most of the finetunig has allready be done with above mentioned system) and b) will be a higher number, so even more accurate, than it is atm.

in a regular Steamroller this would still result in a certain winner (only person with 3*Games TP) but places second to last will be slightly varied. One little Problem here could be, that because of the influence of CP, the winner's opponent might not finish 2nd even more often than he does under SR ...

just my thought - please discuss

[Jestor]

Good Ponts Ikildkenny.

I have yet to hear one of the SoS supporters here who has really put forth a valid arguement. Does it force a different meta to play with a different tournament system? Absolutely.

You can artificially add SoS to a CP (or other in game scoring method) type system. Instead of pairing people based solely on Tournament points and randomizing all the players who have the same tournament points, how about putting them matched up in order from toughest to weakest. That way the guy with the most control points (or whatever system we add) is matched up against the guy with the second most control points. This would force the people with the highest amount of secondary points to play other people with high amount of secondary points. Making their trip to second and third place more difficult.

[quindraco]

Did some quick arithmetic on my handy whiteboard. After lg(n) steps - note that lg is log base 2, and n is the number of players - of the naive tournament approach (as soon as your position in your own bracket is known, you face the person in the other bracket with as close a position as possible), you know:

1) The winner.
2) Which two players could deserve second place.
3) Which two players could deserve second to last place.
4) The loser.

In one more step you can solve for second place, but third and fourth are going to take you an unacceptably large number of steps to resolve. I think it makes more sense to just solve for second place - since you need exactly one more round to do it, which is a low constant - and give up on solving for third and fourth based on tiebreakers.

[PG_carnage4u]

I have yet to hear one of the SoS supporters here who has really put forth a valid arguement.
.

There have been reasons in this thread why SoS is better then counting CP or VP's. If you choose to ignore them, then that is your choice. I have stated why counting assassnation or CP is worse then using SoS, while admitting SoS isnt perfect, but better then the other options.

[Jestor]

There have been reasons in this thread why SoS is better then counting CP or VP's. If you choose to ignore them, then that is your choice. I have stated why counting assassnation or CP is worse then using SoS, while admitting SoS isnt perfect, but better then the other options.

You have not given a reason. You have stated an opinion that being able to play certain army builds could possibly favor one player. I asked why that was a bad thing and you haven't followed up that response. I gave an alternative, in the thread you quoted but did not answer. That alternative is MUCh better then the current system. You have yet to respond to that either.

You see, for a discussion to happen one needs a point and a counter point. If you state an opinion and are unable to actually discuss something that is preaching, totally different.

[PG_ikildkenny]

I think we can all agree, that neither system (be it CP before or after SoS) is perfect and definatly has it's disadvanteges ... which are kind of on opposite sites of the spectrum (SoS is non-controllable by the player, whereas CP are situational and depend on playstyle) ...

so the solution lies (imho) in combining the two WITHOUT giving one of them an "edge" over the other (which atm is clearly the case)

hence my suggestion - CP are marginally higher weighted than SoS - but only if you loose a game. Winning a Game makes no difference for you. With the small bonus of giving you SOMETHING even if you loose (which is nice)

[PG_Tionas]

You have not given a reason. You have stated an opinion that being able to play certain army builds could possibly favor one player. I asked why that was a bad thing and you haven't followed up that response. I gave an alternative, in the thread you quoted but did not answer. That alternative is MUCh better then the current system. You have yet to respond to that either.

You see, for a discussion to happen one needs a point and a counter point. If you state an opinion and are unable to actually discuss something that is preaching, totally different.

its not that we are not positing points, its that you don't like them. I am general a good spirit, but your ignoring what we say as either trivial, or nonsensical. In addition, its not that SoS is perfect, its that it is better, less random and more fair than CP.

Let me see if I can take a few minutes, and have you read and look at, in simple terms, what we are saying, because its not getting across. I probably sound terse, but its because I feel your bending the arguments to your side, without looking, or caring to look at ours. Please, read the list below to see what were talking about.

1. we find the idea of encouraging CP-collection based armies repellent. In a game that, at its core, is an assassination based game, changing that basic assumption is poor form, and not something to be encouraged. CP gathering armies are good and fine, and we have no problem with them existing, being competitive, and having a slot. However, they are to be equal to, not higher than, Assassination based armies, and this would not be the case with CP based tiebreakers. Are there flaws now? Yes. Is Epic Dengrah the biggest notification of that, yes. but pushing the envelope even farther is taking the game away from its fundamental baseline.

2. CP's are, empirically, NOT more controlable by the player than SoS. CP's are easier to gain against poorer opponents. a system that rewards you for playing against opponents below your level is not one to be encouraged.

3. SoS rewards you, baring drops outs, on playing better opponents. This is good.

4. This was discussed, for a very long time before SR12 went live. no good, non-complicated, easy to do without a computer, accurate acceptable solution was found, control points included.

5. CP scoring Draws games out. Time is a concern. If you need CP's to tie, ending the game via caster kill becomes less viable for the person who is winning, and more viable to those who are loosing. Why should you be penalized for being in a strong position, OR, vice versa, why should you be rewarded for not taking care of your warcaster, because you have 1 CP, and your opponent has less, and needs them for tiebreakers, so CANT end the game without sliding down the ranks.

These are a number of issues.
You have only stated your OPINION about CP scoring, and have not given any better arguments for CP than you suggest we have for SoS. sit back and take a minute. Counterpoint me with your ideas, if you need to.

[rwould]

SoS does not work any better in a large tournament (see UK Masters results).

The difference between SoS and calculating on CP's is that CP's are conditions that dictate how you win a game. SoS is purely based upon how the people you have played perform.

Surely you are better going off something that is part of the win conditions and demonstrating you are playing towards winning than something based upon how other players perform. I'd rank caster kills ahead of SoS in determining placing never mind CP's.

[PG_Tionas]

honestly, I get the angst and bitterness toward strength of schedule. its something that's completely out of the hands of the player, and its insanely frustrating. you can even win first round and suffer a blow because they go 0-fer, or because they drop. but I feel its the best option out of the bunch, because if you play harder opponents, you deserve more accolades than smashing easy dudes all day.

the times when it really bothers me is the time when there is not enough time to run the full rounds to determine a single undefeated. then there is no reason to go, as its all up to chance.

[PG_ikildkenny]

@Tionas

In a game that, at its core, is an assassination based game,

I understand, that one might think this way, but imho the game is scenario-based and assasination is merely another winning condition. But stating the game is about assasination in its core is only half-true ... so taking CP into consideration more IS a valuable concept

However, they are to be equal to, not higher than, Assassination based armies, and this would not be the case with CP based tiebreakers.

EXACTLY! both concepts should be EQUALLY viable ... but because SoS (something you have NO influence towards) is counted before CP (by which CP become allmost completely irrelevant - the more the bigger the event gets) those two are NOT equally viable ...

the goal of this thread should NOT be to best one "party" before another ... we should rather try to find a compromise, that both sides could agree on...

btw... IF I had to choose I'd take SoS over CP ... mainly because not every szenario has a equal amound of CP to offer and an early Casterkill could present itsself, winning me the game, but denying me the CP (sort of)

[PG_Tionas]

@TionasTHAT is a missconception ... sorry to break it to you, but the game is in its core a szenario-based game ... assasination is just one of the possible objectives to win ... so taking CP into consideration more IS a valuable concept

Ok. that might be the basis of our contention. glad we had this breakthrough, honestly.

What leads you to believe that, in the end, its a scenario based game? To me, the idea that no matter how far ahead you are, how good of a board position you have, or how strong your game is, if your leader dies, you LOOSE, with no duration (starting on the second players second turn, or some such), leads me to consider the game an assasination based game, with scenarios to keep you from hiding. I do not see this game as one in which scenarios are the primary method of winning, with assassination only coming if you can't win by scenario.

[scout's honor]

Surely you are better going off something that is part of the win conditions and demonstrating you are playing towards winning than something based upon how other players perform.

Surely? I don't know about that. SoS is meant to be based on how difficult your track was, which in itself is a pretty good concept. The problem with it is first that it's practically impossible to accurately measure that difficulty and second that the difficulty of a contestant's track such as it turns out to be on a given event is not equally well suited for all contestants.

Going with something that is part of the win conditions is also a pretty good concept, but comes with its own problems as well. It's practically impossible to weigh the different win conditions proportionally for one, so lists and players that favour going for one win condition over another are unequally rewarded or punished for that. Uneven matchups for the different rounds you play mean uneven opportunity to build towards your standing as well.

Neither is great, to be honest, and individual preference for either is not really based in a clear-cut comparison since the systems aren't really comparable. It's just an opinion.

if your leader dies, you LOSE

Except that's not the case if caster kill is not a victory condition, which is an option. One that is effectively used sometimes (used to be fairly common in France, although I believe with the particulars of SR2012 that's no longer the case), before people start asserting they'd never want to play in an event that didn't have caster kill. Obviously the reverse is possible as well, just look at Hardcore.

[PG_Tionas]

Except that's not the case if caster kill is not a victory condition, which is an option.

Agreed, however, its a core assumption that you have to change, not an option to add. That games can work just fine (though brutal, sometimes) without scenario, but that the game tends to fall apart for a number of factions once you take out caster kill. As well, caster kill, even if it does not end the game, pretty much ensures the loss of the player with no caster, without the support of the caster, and with the jacks also disables, it is highly unlikely that they can pull a win against a caster and jacks. not impossible, mind you.

[scout's honor]

Agreed, however, its a core assumption that you have to change, not an option to add.

On the other hand you don't even have the option to play without scenario in Steamroller.

That games can work just fine (though brutal, sometimes) without scenario, but that the game tends to fall apart for a number of factions once you take out caster kill.

All factions can field a caster that can do well without scenario, that's true. I'd say all factions also have casters that lose out on a lot of viability if they can only win by killing the enemy caster though.

Overall I feel that removing caster kill as a victory condition has less of an impact on lists and factions in general than removing scenarios has (partly because, as you say, killing the enemy caster is half the win even if it isn't a direct victory).

[PG_carnage4u]

I also dont believe the game is more "assassionation based either" its a valid way to play the game, but I enjoy the mix of a good sceanrio, that you have to always be aware of the possiblity of having your caster killed.

It doesnt change my viewpoint on the overall topic.

I have played in events where they tried to use CP as primary tiebreaker, and it was not fun. It had lots of odd results. People that lost quickly would screw over the person that defeated them, because they gave up no CP.

[PG_Tionas]

I'm more speaking on a global level. I'm going to put this in a factual way, and I know others will disagree. Warmachine is not based on tournaments. Warmachine is a game that is to be played between two people who want to play a challenging, competitive game. The rulebook includes no steamroller scenarios to play with. If, as many assert, the game is a "tournament based" game, they would have online rankings, and manners to make each tournament more applicable to every other tournaments. this is not the case.

Steamroller does not have a way to play without scenarios, but Iron Arena and Everyday Games do. I enjoy having both scenario and assassination mixed together as a basic game, but, if your not looking for, and trying to capitalize on any way to kill the caster that presents itself, i'd be surprised.

if the choice comes up: Kill the caster now and win the game, or keep plowing forward and hope you win by scenario, their is no real option. You kill the caster and win, right?

Maybe my choice of wording is making it come across wrong. I don't think that the game is "Based" upon killing the caster, but it sure as hell is the primary method for achiving the games objeectives, that of winning any given game.

see... two different "games" perhaps the problem is there.

[PG_ikildkenny]

Ok. that might be the basis of our contention. glad we had this breakthrough, honestly.

What leads you to believe that, in the end, its a scenario based game? To me, the idea that no matter how far ahead you are, how good of a board position you have, or how strong your game is, if your leader dies, you LOOSE, with no duration (starting on the second players second turn, or some such), leads me to consider the game an assasination based game, with scenarios to keep you from hiding. I do not see this game as one in which scenarios are the primary method of winning, with assassination only coming if you can't win by scenario.

firstoff - I edited that part in account of being possibly offensive and IF I offended you with it I'm sorry (though it seams I didn't)

second - you are right ... assasination is A way to win, sometimes kind of a "last resort" way to do so. BUT it is not _the_ way ... we sometimes joke around in my meta with conversations (pre game) like: "What Szenario should we play?" "CasterKill!" ...
I do agree with you. But tournaments should be about more than who you played and how fast you could kill there caster. Neglegting scenarios means neglegting a part of the game thats equally challenging (and should be mastered by someone who considers themself a goog player imho) as simply "I can kill your Boss 120934602 times over because you moved .00001 millimeters to far!"

@scout's honor

SoS is meant to be based on how difficult your track was, which in itself is a pretty good concept.

yeah ... but unfortunatly it's a way to measure your luck of getting paired against someone who happened to play a good tournament ....

It's practically impossible to weigh the different win conditions proportionally for one, so lists and players that favour going for one win condition over another are unequally rewarded or punished for that.

In case I repeat myself ... but it is to a certain degree possible by awarding tournament points based on controllpoints. That could mean (as mentioned above) to give 3 TP to the winner and (a slightly downcalculated) his won CP to the looser. So a game could end 3-0, 3-1 and 3-2, depending on how many CP the looser managed to get in the end. SoS should still be the second Tiebreaker (and the regular CP Tiebreaker would of course be discarded) but this way CP will have a higher impact, will be more desirable to achieve and would only make a difference for the looser.

I admit, that this would make CP-Winning-Based armies more compelling for someone who lost at least once regarding his future rank at the end.

Just imho winning the game by assasination is far more appealing than via szenario. And that is sad.

[Jestor]

Tionas - I appreciate the attempt. I am not trying to be a nudge. Half of the points you raise are you opinion. You are entitled to your opinion. I encourage people to have an opinion! I asked a direct question - How are CP's more or less random then SoS. You still haven't answered that. In the steamroller document it actually says players should be randomized. The document itself says Strenght of Schedule should be random!

I will now offer a solution that combines SoS, assassination, attrition and Control Points. I would love some feedback here, or in my blog or in a PM. Please be 100% honest but also look at it with open eyes. It is not a perfect system, no system is.

http://jestorsminihouse.blogspot.com...and-other.html

[scout's honor]

I don't think that the game is "Based" upon killing the caster, but it sure as hell is the primary method for achiving the games objeectives, that of winning any given game.

It's the quickest way, arguably, but primary? If I were to check my percentage of caster kill victories with the Old Witch I probably don't need two digits for it.

Like I said above, IMO not playing with scenarios has a much more profound impact on the game overall, taking into account all factions and all their casters, than not playing with caster kill as a victory condition. Take that for what it's worth, of course - my two cents. I'lm just saying it's a matter of perspective.

In case I repeat myself ... but it is to a certain degree possible by awarding tournament points based on controllpoints. That could mean (as mentioned above) to give 3 TP to the winner and (a slightly downcalculated) his won CP to the looser. So a game could end 3-0, 3-1 and 3-2, depending on how many CP the looser managed to get in the end. SoS should still be the second Tiebreaker (and the regular CP Tiebreaker would of course be discarded) but this way CP will have a higher impact, will be more desirable to achieve and would only make a difference for the looser.

The underlined part is actually the problem. Making a certain course of action more desirable than another for reasons that have nothing to do with the game you're playing, only with the competition that game is a part of, is not a good thing. If I play an assassination list, I don't want to have to work towards the scenario beyond preventing my opponent from winning that way - that's enough of a distraction already, and likely a significant drain on the resources I'd ideally use to kill my opponent's caster.

I'm not saying that what you're suggesting can't be better. It'll certainly be better for some, likely worse for others. I can't honestly assess if it's an improvement and if so, by how much. I'm just saying it doesn't really solve the whole problem, and probably doesn't make it a whole lot better at least.