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.

First let me begin by saying I have read the previous threads about this in their entirety, but they most ended up being philosophical debates about using handicaps and not. We don't care about the merits of each argument, we intend to give it the good old college try to create some parody with our DA friend. Let me also say that we have also already done some person handicapping by not taking Heldrakes, Trip-tides, Wave Serpents spam, old SW Longfang spam and so forth. Unfortunately, we found this closed the gap, but not enough. Our DA friend enjoys the game, but strategy/tactical games have never been his strength.

Right now we are looking at a few different systems, two of which directly revolve around running averages.


Approach 1: Handicap is relative the average number of victory points that you lose by and adds those directly to your score. This is a pretty overt way to bridge the gap. We would likely cap this to a max value so that no one starts with 11 points and doesn't have to act the entire game.

Approach 2: Handicap is again related to the average vp you would lose by, however you add points to roster rather than VP directly to your score. This would provide an edge, but still rely on the player rather than just the Handicap.

Approach 3: Independant of averages. In a previous week, wins or losses affect the total points in your roster the next week. A victory reduces your roster by a given value (we propose 25 points for now), and a loss increases your points by the same value. IE Player 1 wins 2 games, and goes to 1450 next week, while player 2 [1w/1l] gets 1500, and player 3 [0/2] is at 1550 week 2. This hopes to create a floating equilibrium. Win and loss adjustments would go against the new roster [Player 1 winning 2 games the next week would reduce his score to 1400] and continue for the weeks following.


I acknowledge these are require people to not be sandbaggers and that week to week things change with lists and such. We would likely go a few weeks before creating averages and such to work from for the first 2 options, while the 3rd wouldn't necessarily require as much data to implement.




Has anyone tried any approaches like these, or have others they think might work better?

how many hours does it take to calculate how much you win or lost post game and how good at math do you have to be to understand the system.

We've refrained from handicap systems since they kinda rob people of the motivation to get better. I have to admit though that we have a very friendly environment where winners explain to losers how they can do better next time. Hell, one of them even sat down with his opponent and tailored a list with him to beat his own winning list. But I guess you can't expect that in every environment. I wonder why, though.

Wait , he bought his opponent the units needed beat his army?

Handicapping players just for playing well (especially if you've removed a lot of strong units, thereby reducing the issue of strong lists) just seems a bit backwards to me.

General Duf wrote:
Our DA friend enjoys the game, but strategy/tactical games have never been his strength.

I've no wish to sound cruel or unpleasant here, but isn't this his problem?

It just seems like this is more a way to avoid the problem, rather than actually deal with it. I mean, even if this lets him win games, it's not because he's improving but because everyone else is being pulled down.

I think the better solution would be to try and help that player improve his tactics.

I think that any of those systems should work. I would recommend implementing the 3 week waiting period before they get their handicap. You Could keep weekly records of folks handicap totals. That is up to you as to how much bookkeeping you choose to do.

I think any good handicap system should be designed with allowing the games to be competitive without allowing the underdog to win without doing anything to automatically win. That means setting a cap on how much handicap a player can accrue. No system will be perfect out of the starting gate. You will have to adjust the system.

I'll try to address the responses in order.

@Makumba: It won't take much, we are all engineers, scientists and Mathmaticians so doing some averages is a joke, and we have excel. Simple bookkeeping is fine with me.

@Murenius: I have tried that for two years. I have financed his army, and urged him to use things. Mostly by buying them for him. He's got a bunch of ravenwing bikes for just that reason.

@Vipoid: We don't aim to handicap players that do well so much as provide the means for the others to do better (I prefer option 2 from my list, while a friend prefers option 3). Yes his ability is the problem, but he is competing, even if in a friendly manner, with 3 players that have spent their lives playing Starcraft, Warcraft, AoE, and half a dozen other strategy games. Its not the way he thinks. I spent the first 6 months helping him through list making. And even step by step turns.

@SYKOJAK: I agree with you on waiting on all counts. I'm afraid to give out too many points (vp or otherwise) for that reason. I was hoping someone had experiences with one of those systems until we can correct the problem.

Last year in our community- I implemented something like "option 3" in a league- Everyone plays a game at 1500 points- if you win, you reduce your points for the next game by 50, if you lose, you add 50 points- as soon as a player reached 1250 points- they would win a prize, and the league would end.

It went over PHENOMENALLY well- I had an overwhelmingly positive response- and players requested that we keep the board up, and continue running the league. Players move up and down the scoreboard, players who previously wouldent play each other (because of varied skills or perceived codex power) happily play each other now- and it has produced some awesome games (our best player, using tau, playing with 1300 points against a 1600point green tide- and having a really awesome, close game!

Far more games at our store are now "league games" than anything else.

obviously, this could be totally different in your environment, but for us- it has been great- I thought I would just share our experience.

Endalyon wrote:
Last year in our community- I implemented something like "option 3" in a league- Everyone plays a game at 1500 points- if you win, you reduce your points for the next game by 50, if you lose, you add 50 points- as soon as a player reached 1250 points- they would win a prize, and the league would end.

It went over PHENOMENALLY well- I had an overwhelmingly positive response- and players requested that we keep the board up, and continue running the league. Players move up and down the scoreboard, players who previously wouldent play each other (because of varied skills or perceived codex power) happily play each other now- and it has produced some awesome games (our best player, using tau, playing with 1300 points against a 1600point green tide- and having a really awesome, close game!

Far more games at our store are now "league games" than anything else.

obviously, this could be totally different in your environment, but for us- it has been great- I thought I would just share our experience.

Fantastic, this was exactly the kind of input I was hoping for. I think it fills our needs and still makes it sound interesting.

I do a less formal option 3 quite often actually. A points handicap can really help turn a boring game for both players into a challenging and fun game for both. The best part though is that the player that the handicap benefited actually feels like they won if they do win as opposed to loosing 10-0 but then getting told they "won" after they just got shut out.

An alternative option if you don't have the models or don't want to rework lists is to add fortifications and terrain advantages to the player who needs a boost. Giving an IG player a 2 ADLs, 2 bastions, and 4 quad guns goes a long way toward evening out differences in skill.

Another option I sometimes use when I badly misjudge the skill level of my opponent (or take a list much stronger than I thought it was) is to give my opponent an extra turn. Essentially when I see that I am going to end up taking an irreversible lead and it is checkmate with average rolls I let my opponent take another turn.

I understand where you are coming from. Sometimes you have a limited gaming community and limited models so if you don't want to club baby seals you have to make allotments beyond just friendly advice. Also if your opponent is just poor at strategy and tactics you will end up nagging them and ruining the fun if you constantly "advise" them.

BTW I recommend staying away from mechanics where the correction happens after you calculate the points each player got. These remove the sense of satisfaction for winning and if there is no prize to win they are pretty much pointless.