Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Posted By beef on 12/24/2006 8:03 AM
Comp is just So Stupid, why dont they just get rid of it? we dont have comp scores here in the UK and after reading a few threads on comp I can see Why.
@onlainari REMEMBER its a competition, You donk go to a gunfight with a knife? Unless you want to lose.

Do you go to gunfights to look at pretty models and interesting guns that you wouldn't see at home? 

Do you go to gunfights hoping to have six different and tactically-varied gunfights?

This analogy has always seemed a bit weak.

I go to gunshows to see pretty and interesting guns I wouldn't see at home. I would also go to gunshows hoping to having varying gunplay such as a mega-gun bonanza or an anachronistic battle, such as a wild west gunfight or "The Battle for _____" thing they did at this year's Baltimore Game- er, Gunshow.

I voted Other.

Yak is right.

Comp is an attempt to rebalance combinations of units which turn out to be undercosted by the standard points system.

Mannahnin- Good points regarding comp creators and timelines. When thinking about those timelines, they did change comp a bit, w/o the % of troops etc... It went to the 'how fluffy or how min/maxed is the army' scoring. On it's face, I don't think the current comp is bad with one notable exception: players scored it.

With comp getting tossed out the window in the '07 GT season (U.S.), I'm very curious if we will see a drastic change in army builds. Did comp really do what they intended for it to do to begin with? I'm betting not as much as some folks may think.

You go to gun fights to win, if you want variety play friendly games and not tournies. Its always lame when peole complain about the same list over and over again.

These list wins so people will be more inclined to use them.

Why use a pistol when everybody else is using a basooka? If you wana be different thats great but doint hate on other people cos they want to win.

Posted By beef on 12/25/2006 3:28 AM
You go to gun fights to win, if you want variety play friendly games and not tournies. Its always lame when peole complain about the same list over and over again.

These list wins so people will be more inclined to use them.

Why use a pistol when everybody else is using a basooka? If you wana be different thats great but doint hate on other people cos they want to win.

Beef, I think you're CAPABLE of seeing the point, I just am not convinced that you're making the effort. 

One of the BEST parts about tournies is getting some more variety in your gaming.  Getting out and playing on different tables than usual, against different opponents than usual, using different armies than usual. 

If the tournament scene is so degenerate that you can't get the latter, then it's a flaw in the tournament system, plain and simple.  Comp is a way to address this flaw.  It's not perfect, but it's certainly usable.  It appears to be working pretty well for the folks in Australia, and for the folks at the WPS WH GT in Britain. 

One of the best parts about tournaments is playing games that test you and your list to the limits without having to listen to people whine about 'cheese'...

Surely the key point of tournaments is to let players battle it out for the right to be acclaimed the best.

Any discussion of comp inherently favors one list over another. On its face the concept is flawed. Add to that the "play to win crowd" vs. "play to play" crowds and its just a snarked concept in a tournament.

Posted By skyth on 12/25/2006 9:39 AM
One of the best parts about tournaments is playing games that test you and your list to the limits without having to listen to people whine about 'cheese'...

Do you really think people will stop whining about cheese? Tourneys is usually where I here it the most. Even with army comp (U.S.), folks still whine, a lot.

 

I just meant ideally...I don't think it happens alot, but my ideal tournament would have that happening.

Posted By Kilkrazy on 12/25/2006 9:49 AM
Surely the key point of tournaments is to let players battle it out for the right to be acclaimed the best.

The best what? At building army lists? Or best general?

See, if we're after best general, then we need comp. It's a way of saying "ok you guys scored equally on battle points, but you used a more powerful list, so we're going to give the other guy a few bonus points because he's obviously a better player".

It's not that hard to understand.

Remember, math comp is flawed, peer comp is flawed, TO comp for the win.

TO comp is flawed as much as any other form. Everyone has thier biases and people they like better that they'll score better.

Posted By jfrazell on 12/25/2006 10:07 AM
Any discussion of comp inherently favors one list over another. On its face the concept is flawed. Add to that the "play to win crowd" vs. "play to play" crowds and its just a snarked concept in a tournament.

I contend that every statement made here is untrue.  I understand that these are your sincere opinions, but my experiences are to the contrary.  

I am also putting my concepts into practice by running successful tournaments featuring comp.  YMMV, but I highly recommend running events which fit your vision of a good tournament, testing how your ideas work and how many players enjoy them.

No-comp, no-whining, pure Battle events (sometimes referred to as Gladiators in the US) are also a successful tournament format.  But I don't foresee them becoming the most popular type of tournament.

Posted By skyth on 12/25/2006 8:41 PM
TO comp is flawed as much as any other form. Everyone has thier biases and people they like better that they'll score better.

This is easily solved by giving the lists to the judges sans player names.  It really just requires a little thought and effort.  If you're not willing to make the effort, obviously you're not going to succeed.

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/25/2006 9:31 PM

Posted By skyth on 12/25/2006 8:41 PM
TO comp is flawed as much as any other form. Everyone has thier biases and people they like better that they'll score better.

This is easily solved by giving the lists to the judges sans player names.  It really just requires a little thought and effort.  If you're not willing to make the effort, obviously you're not going to succeed.

And different TO's have different opinions on what is good comp.  One of the basic problems with comp is the belief that something is bad if either loyalist Marines can't do it or it kills MEQ's easily.

Besides, it's not like TO's wouldn't know who's list is who's if they'd be biased towards certain people.

Add this to the problem of people scoring sportsmanship by composition also.  People cheat this way, but in the end, it means that comp counts for more than winning or losing on the battlefield.   In a competition that is a bunch of bull.

 

Edit-Where I play, battle is only 30% of total score, painting 27%, and the rest is comp/sports.  That right there is a bunch of bull, but no one else in the area runs tournaments.

>>The best what? At building army lists? Or best general?

Some people would argue that building lists -- the ability to recognise good units and combine them in a force to achieve a mission -- is part of being a general. Anyway, the list doesn't win the battle by itself.

Comp scores become part of a meta-game. In an ideal world, comp would be built into the codexes so that any legal army would get the same comp score, and there would be no point in comp scoring.

The problem with comp scoring is that every system I've seen can be shown to penalise one or more non-cheesy armies as well as cheesy armies.

And what is cheesy varies from person to person.

Comp is evil, we understand that in Australia. It's flawed and sucks. We had a fricken 91 page discussion on it last year. 1811 posts.

Anyway, the point is, in the end, comp is what people here want. They want varied lists, and don't want to face the kind of lists you see at the UKGT (highly efficient lists). Comp delivers. You have to give it that.

You can play your fun lists and not get slaughtered turn 2.

Seriously the arguments against comp are all straw man arguments. When there's an experienced TO judging comp and it's only worth 10%, it's great. When it's 30% and math based to the extreme, it sucks.

Here's a gem from the thread I was talking about:

Posted By Ziggy on 8/23/2005 1:12 PM
While I may disagree with a tourney model that relies on comp scores and sports scores, I cannot fault the logic that brought them about.

By forcing all players to "please the masses" these tournaments have successfully won over the average player, who I like to think of as the Lowest Common Denominator (LCD). The LCDs are in the majority, so if you can make them happy time and time again, numbers will be large and the potential for growth is huge. The LCD-approach has made GW tourneys the successes that they are today, and more power to GW for seeing this opportunity and capitalising on it. What is ironic, however, is that people are quick to complain (in these forums no less) whenever GW's marketing division caters to the LCDs for product development and sale (i.e. young children), but are 100% behind the same LCD-based attitude applied to tournaments. Hypocrisy anyone?

Comp needs to be abolished. GW started out in the UK, We dont have comp and for good reason, like Sarigar said what is cheesy varies from judge to judge. The point of a tournie is to win. you should gets points based only on that. The tournies I play at here in the Uk have seperate awards for painting, sportsmanship, overall champ Ie the guy thats scored the most points for winning games.
No stupid comp to reduce scores

Wow beef, I'm expecting you to pop out and yell "O'Doyle RULES!!!" or at the very most be one of those generals in WWI saying "80,000 men are dead and we won, we won, we won!" I kind of feel sorry for you, that winning at any cost is the high accomplishment you can achieve in this hobby.

You go to powergame to a tourney? Great that is awesome, im proud of you.

I goto a tourney to enjoy the whole thing, the playing, the various conversions, the various shops, etc etc. I want to see a Forgeworld table, and drop some bank on some gaurd or orky things or anything else i choose.

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/25/2006 9:31 PM

Posted By jfrazell on 12/25/2006 10:07 AM
Any discussion of comp inherently favors one list over another. On its face the concept is flawed. Add to that the "play to win crowd" vs. "play to play" crowds and its just a snarked concept in a tournament.

I contend that every statement made here is untrue.  I understand that these are your sincere opinions, but my experiences are to the contrary.  

Please provide support to your contention that those arguments are untrue. Each list has strengths and weaknesses. It is impossible to develop a comp list that is nuetral between codexes, that does not favor on over another.

Posted By moosifer on 12/26/2006 9:37 AM
Wow beef, I'm expecting you to pop out and yell "O'Doyle RULES!!!" or at the very most be one of those generals in WWI saying "80,000 men are dead and we won, we won, we won!" I kind of feel sorry for you, that winning at any cost is the high accomplishment you can achieve in this hobby.

You go to powergame to a tourney? Great that is awesome, im proud of you.

I goto a tourney to enjoy the whole thing, the playing, the various conversions, the various shops, etc etc. I want to see a Forgeworld table, and drop some bank on some gaurd or orky things or anything else i choose.

So what is your point here?  Are you saying thats its unfair that he came to a TOURNAMENT to win? 

Your not even there to win, (supposedly) So why do you care that his list is vastly superior to yours... 

Maybe he finds it fun trying to outplay opponents with a powerful, refined lists instead of calling them power gamers who care about nothing but winning at any cost.  (just for giggles, why don't you go to a magic PTQ and tell them they're power gamers after going 0-6.  Then see what kind of reaction you get.)

There is going to a tourney to play to win, and then there is going to a tourney with an army list you had little to do with creating except here or there. This is not to say beef does that, I have never played, nor probably will ever play him.

There is something definitely wrong when the same armies consistantly come out on top, ultramauleens and the drop pod legion of doom to name a few. As a player what satisifaction do you find in taking someone elses work then claiming it as your own? It is with the internet and other mediums thru which super armies can be found a mouse click away, the neccessity of a numerical/player/TO comp score to exist. When I make a list, I might see something good from something I have seen but I dont copy it. What satisifaction can be gained by playing an army that has proven time and again to win. This is called being a bandwagoner, and it holds true in 40k, as well as other gaming hobby's.

I respect beef, while I dont agree with him, he has stuck to his guns. That is not to say his attitude is one of the reasons why many gamers refrain from going to big tourney's, because they already know what they are going to face. Mech Tau/Eldar, Ultramauleens, Lysanderwing, SAFH. It really is no fun when you, as a player, want to beat someone on generalship, instead go up against a list that is really not my oppenents at all, but instead a copy of someone who found a loophole, or a super-combo that works.

And to contest your



my list is 100% better, because I came up with it, not someone on the intraweb

Posted By moosifer on 12/26/2006 1:14 PM There is something definitely wrong when the same armies consistantly come out on top, ultramauleens and the drop pod legion of doom to name a few.

There might be a problem with the rules that allow such army lists.  There's absolutely no problem with choosing to play such a list.

What satisifaction can be gained by playing an army that has proven time and again to win. This is called being a bandwagoner, and it holds true in 40k, as well as other gaming hobby's.

No, it's called playing to win, which is what you're supposed to be doing in a competitive environment, not whinging about people who are better (read smarter) players than you because they chose to use what is already known to work.

my list is 100% better, because I came up with it, not someone on the intraweb

Really?  Your list is 100% better at winning while following the rules as written?  Because that's the only thing that matters in any competitive environment for any human activity.  If you want to play recreationally, then play recreationally, don't try and drag competitions down to the level of the lowest common denominator.

Comp scores serve absolutely no worthwhile purpose in a competitive environment.  Al they accomplish is to punish people for having the audacity of playing a game with the intention of winning it.

Posted By Buoyancy on 12/26/2006 5:35 PM

Comp scores serve absolutely no worthwhile purpose in a competitive environment.  Al they accomplish is to punish people for having the audacity of playing a game with the intention of winning it.

I've said it over and over and over, but you obviously don't read. Maybe because I'm quoting you you might read it this time.

Comp produces variety.

It also means players can go to tournaments with the lists they want to use and not get their arse kicked without having a chance.

Yes my list is 100% better because I made it, not copied and pasted it from some internet forums. Whining about comp is what makes the "powergamers" sleep better at night, because they know that their lack of creativity can be made up for by someone else's list. I applaud the ORIGINAL owners of the big 5, the ones that win every tourney, because THEY thought of difficult strategies and listings to beat the crowd. Would I be upset if I played the ultramauleens if it were played by mauleen? Hell no, the list is name after him ffs. But if you buoyancy, were to play ultramauleens, i would consider you absolute trash. Make up your own list, I sure did.

This back and forth over comp will never end, the players who want to see some "balance" in the game have their chance with comp. The majority of those against, sans a few, say it has no purpose because it affects their army in a negative way. And if it were only their list, then maybe some more mature individuals would not dock them for their list. But it is the attitude that you are displaying not just here, but at the tournaments that get you docked.

Stop being huge pricks and take a look at who you are playing. Sure you might have wiped his army off the table by the end of turn 2, but Im willing to bet dollars to peso's you still have a crap attitude about how great a general you are. And the worst part is you are not a good general at all. A good general takes a list, that is not tooled out beyond belief, and wins with it. He uses his imagination, tactics, and feel of the game to best an opponent.

Comp is my way of telling you, up yours hoser, learn to play nice

At a tourney it's the same as any other similar hobby - people will do what works to win.

I don't play tournies, so my lists are never optimized 100%. I make sure I can put up a good showing, but I don't worry about optimizing every single point.

A tournament list is the same thing as a Magic the Gathering deck. Every card/unit is going to be carefully optimized to be the best possible in terms of contributing towards winning the game. This leads to lists looking a lot alike since gamers will independently settle on the same lists and being the most powerful. Top tourny lists were similar in 2nd edition too - long before places like Dakka.

Similarly, the top contenders at Street Fighter II and Tekken tournaments tend to use largely the same characters and rely on the same special moves. In a competition people will find what's most effective and exploit it to the utmost.

You can't fault a competitive gamer for making a competitive list. If I was to play such a list, I'd probably get smoked. It doesn't come up much though since I don't play them (I wouldn't refuse to, it just doesn't come up).

The solution for more variety in tournaments is to better balance the armies and the choices within each army so more units are viable.

Posted By skyth on 12/25/2006 10:55 PM

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/25/2006 9:31 PM

Posted By skyth on 12/25/2006 8:41 PM
TO comp is flawed as much as any other form. Everyone has thier biases and people they like better that they'll score better.

This is easily solved by giving the lists to the judges sans player names.  It really just requires a little thought and effort.  If you're not willing to make the effort, obviously you're not going to succeed.

 

 

"And different TO's have different opinions on what is good comp."

Different TOs do have different opinions, but if they're experienced and mature they can certainly make good judgements.

"One of the basic problems with comp is the belief that something is bad if either loyalist Marines can't do it or it kills MEQ's easily."

This would clearly be a prejudice of immature and inexperienced players who lack the perspective of playing multiple different types of armies.  Not the kind of people you would choose as TOs.

"Besides, it's not like TO's wouldn't know who's list is who's if they'd be biased towards certain people."

TOs who would actively attempt to subvert anonymity and the validity of the scoring system would also be bad TOs.  You can't say a system is inherently bad because it wouldn't work using incompetent and biased organizers.  Duh.  NO system will work with such a  stone around its neck. 

"Add this to the problem of people scoring sportsmanship by composition also.  People cheat this way, but in the end, it means that comp counts for more than winning or losing on the battlefield.   In a competition that is a bunch of bull."

Again, you are tarring all comp systems and tournaments which use them with the same brush.  Who says comp has to count for more than winning and losing?  At my tournaments, Battles are half your potential points allowance.  Comp is a max of 25-ish points out of 150-odd.   Sportsmanship is a clearly defined list of questions unrelated to army composition.  Your complaints are based on certain specific situations and systems, but you're applying them to EVERY tournament system involving comp.  It's bad reasoning based on a lack of experience with better systems, and it's leading you to inaccurate conclusions.

Posted By jfrazell on 12/26/2006 12:04 PM

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/25/2006 9:31 PM

Posted By jfrazell on 12/25/2006 10:07 AM
Any discussion of comp inherently favors one list over another. On its face the concept is flawed. Add to that the "play to win crowd" vs. "play to play" crowds and its just a snarked concept in a tournament.

I contend that every statement made here is untrue.  I understand that these are your sincere opinions, but my experiences are to the contrary.  

Please provide support to your contention that those arguments are untrue. Each list has strengths and weaknesses. It is impossible to develop a comp list that is nuetral between codexes, that does not favor on over another.

"Any discussion of comp inherently favors one list over another."

Untrue. A discussion of comp can make an effort to be impartial and to be inclusive of every army. So can a system of comp (which is probably what you meant to write). Due to the differences between codices, it is difficult to come up with a system that accounts for everything. It is particularly difficult (and perhaps impossible) to come up with a MATH-BASED comp system which is perfectly evenhanded in judging every codex. This can be compensated for by using a committee of tourney judges who have experience with multiple armies, and who make the judgements. The perfect system may be one which includes both components. I've been using one such system at the tournaments I've run this year, and it's been pretty successful. It could probably be better, but so far its seemed to work fairly well at the points level (1500).

"On its face the concept is flawed."

This is a statement of opinion, which I disagree with and believe the evidence does not support. You may be content with it, but I don't think I have to leap to conclusions based on a gut assessment of how something works "on its face." From the evidence of the UK GTs, the balance between armies in 40k is flawed, and not implementing some sort of comp system leads to proliferation of unfun, boring, cookie-cutter army lists. If a No-Comp tournament format encourages someone to field an army consisting of two 40pt Defender squads and a 1419pt UIthwe Seer Council, then the No Comp system is clearly flawed.

"Add to that the "play to win crowd" vs. "play to play" crowds and its just a snarked concept in a tournament. "

A tournament is actually the place where it works best, as long as it's well-organized.  You make the rules and publish them in advance.  If I run a tournament using comp and tell everyone that fact and how it works beforehand, everyone has the choice to play or not, and if they choose to play they're choosing to abide by the rules.  If I run a Gladiator with no comp and a "no whining" policy, and you sign up for it, you're choosing to abide by that rules.  If the tournament format is one that you won't enjoy, or you can't obey the rules, don't play. 

 

Posted By onlainari on 12/26/2006 5:59 PM
Comp produces variety.

It also means players can go to tournaments with the lists they want to use and not get their arse kicked without having a chance.

If you take an underpowered list to a competition why shouldn't you get your arsed kicked?  If you didn't choose an army optimized to win then why should you be surprised when you lose?