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.

Super Survivor #3 is winding down, and there seems to be an excessive amount of complaining that probably ought to be addressed before Super Survivor #4 kicks off. This thread is to proactively address Rules and Structure to address concerns and incorporate feedback.


Super Survivor Voting Rules

1. You may vote +1 for one choice -or- -1 for each of 2 *different* choices. You may *not* bump 2 choices, nor may you vote one choice up and another down.

2. You may *not* vote again until:
- four (4) other valid votes (not posts) have been cast, -or-
- two (2) hours have passed without *any* valid votes from anyone (not any posts, any votes).

3. You may *not* change the names, grouping, or ordering of choices, aside from typograpical or spelling errors.

4. Any detailed or extensive metagame analysis, strategy, and game theory shall be conducted in a separate thread. Only voting and regular table talk, please.


Rules Commentary

1. Making it easier to attack than defend should generally speed the rate of play, due to the +1/-2 bias.

2. Sticking with the 2 original voting criteria keeps things simple for all players. The 40k Transport and Horus Heresy games tested a 4-hour delay for repeat voting, and this appears to have slowed the games down.

3. The grouping and ordering is for the convenience of *all* players. Constantly renaming and reshuffling items creates unnecessary confusion.

4. Excessive meta does a lot of finger-pointing and creates a lot of acrimony. This is supposed to be a light-hearted game for fun, and not a place for complaining. Players who engage in such behavior to derail the game will be warned and banned from the game at the OP's sole discretion.


Super Survivor Choices

CHAOS
Daemons ... 5
Black Legion ... 10
Death Guard (MoN) ... 5
Emperors Children (MoS) ... 5
Thousand Sons (MoT) ... 5
World Eaters (MoK) ... 5
Lost and the Damned ... 10

ELDAR
Alaitoc ... 5
Biel-Tan ... 10
Iyanden ... 5
Saim-Hann ... 5
Ulthwe ... 10
Dark Eldar ... 5
Exodites ... 5
Harlequins ... 5

IMPERIAL GUARD
Armageddon ... 5
Cadia ... 10
Catachan ... 5
Krieg ... 5
Mordian ... 5
Tallarn ... 5
Tanith ... 5
Valhallan ... 5
Vostroyan ... 5
Ad Mech ... 5
Squat Homeworlds ... 5

= INQUISITION =
Hereticus (WH/SoB) ... 10
Malleus (DH/GK) ... 5
Sicarus (OA) ... 5
Xenos (AH/DW) ... 5

NECRONS
Deceiver ... 5
Dragon ... 5
Nightbringer ... 10

ORK KLANZ
Bad Moons ... 10
Blood Axes ... 10
Deffskullz ... 10
Evil Sunz ... 10
Goffs ... 10
Snakebites ... 10

SPACE MARINES
Blood Angels ... 5
Black Templars ... 5
Dark Angels ... 5
Space Wolves ... 5
Ultramarines ... 10

TAU SEPTS
T'au home ... 10
Farsight ... 5
Shadowsun ... 5

TYRANID HIVE FLEETS
Behemoth ... 20
Hydra ... 5
Kraken ... 20
Leviathan ... 10


Choices Commentary

In general, forces are now ranked 5 - 10 - 20 based on their Fluff prominence, with 1 or 2 "lead" forces:

CHAOS
- Black Legion & Traitor Guard

ELDAR
- Biel Tan & Ulthwe

GUARD
- Cadia

INQUISITION
- Sisters

NECRONS
- Nightbringer

ORKS
- (none - too disorganized)

SPACE MARINES
- Ultramarines

TAU
- Tau

TYRANIDS
- Behemoth & Kraken [20! - Hive Fleets are *hard* to kill!]

While the faction count remains the same, the overall vote volume shrinks by 30-40%, speeding the game considerably.

Also, with small forces only starting at 5, faction lists should shrink faster as well.

Overall, the game should be much bloodier, with small players potentially dropping very quickly.



Thoughts and comments?

I think the switch to 5 - 10 -20 Choices is a terrible idea and a decision based on any one person's bias (the listmaker, not you directly). I think 10s (or 5s or 7s or whatever) for all is the most fair.

For example, why are all the Orkz 10s? Or maybe I feel Cadians and Ultras should be 20s. Who really deserves the privilege of choosing? I think the same numbers for all is the best option.

Should Be faster and bloodier, we will see
how hard orkz become as Single 10 points each
faction.

@Smash: Listmaking is actually very hard, although it seems like it would be easy. Particularly with something like SS, with a lot of entries. It seems like you can kitchen sink it, but that's not entirely true.

why not all 10s?

As listmaker for SS1, SS2, and SS3, I can tell you that fixed 10s have a rather insidious effect in how the games are constructed. In many ways, 10s are very unfair, while giving the *illusion* of fairness.

On the one hand, you want to include lots of options, because people whine when their pet army isn't included at all (i.e. Imperials).

On the other hand, you have factions with huge numbers of options (i.e. any 2E force, esp Guard) that are hard to balance against more nameless forces (e.g. Nids).

Locking at 10s places the entire burden on inclusion. If it's part of the list, gets a 10. If not, it's a 0. It's a tight restriction.


why use 5s & 20s?

Looking at Guard vs Nids, there are easily a dozen well-known Guard (and SM) options that can be entered into the game, but only a handful of well-known Nids. But balancing Behemoth or Kraken against Tanith First & Only is a real problem. Being able to start Tanith (and Mordian, Vostroyan, etc.) at 5 and Behemoth at 20 solves that problem rather neatly.


why Orks 10s?

The Orkz are 10s because they're a big Fluff threat, they're big hordey, and 60 total Ork points isn't excessive.


why not Cadians / Ultras 20s?

With 5s as the default, I reserve 20s for truly massive threats. So big, significant forces like Cadians and Ultras get 10s. Cadians and Ultras getting 20s would result in massive game inflation. If Cadia is 20, then Behemoth needs to be 50, etc and the game wouldn't move at all due to its inertia.

Also, point inflation with 10s as base and 20s and so on creates a seeming need for more unnecessary granularity, as people will want 15s and 25s and so on. This becomes more of a pain for the OP creating the list.

The privilege of choosing sits with the OP, who tries to make a "balanced" game that gives all forces some chance to win. It's much harder than it sounds.


List Starts & Finishes

40k Armies [210]
- 40 Chaos
- 20 Eldar
- 10 Guard
- 20 Inquistion
- 10 Necrons
- 10 Orks
- 80 Space Marines
- 10 Tau
- 10 Tyranids

1st Imperial Guard
2nd Eldar
3rd Orks


40k Armies SS1 [410]
- 70 Chaos
- 60 Eldar
- 60 Guard
- 40 Inquistion
- 20 Necrons
- 50 Orks
- 60 Space Marines
- 30 Tau
- 30 Tyranids

1st Black Templars
2nd Blood Angels
3rd Dark Angels
SS1 was *entirely* Imperials at the end: 5 Guard (44), 3 Inquisition (25), 4 Marines (39)


40k Armies SS2 [470]
- 70 Chaos
- 80 Eldar
- 100 Guard
- 40 Inquistion
- 20 Necrons
- 60 Orks
- 50 Space Marines
- 30 Tau
- 30 Tyranids

1st Eldar Exodites
2nd Tallarn Guard
3rd Dark Eldar


40k Armies SS3 [500]
- 70 Chaos
- 80 Eldar
- 110 Guard
- 40 Inquistion
- 30 Necrons
- 60 Orks
- 50 Space Marines
- 30 Tau
- 40 Tyranids

2nd Chaos LatD (draw)
2nd Tau Farsight (draw)
3rd Eldar Harlequins


SS4 [365] (proposed above)
- 45 Chaos
- 50 Eldar
- 60 Guard
- 25 Inquistion
- 20 Necrons
- 60 Orks
- 30 Space Marines
- 20 Tau
- 55 Tyranids

The biggest change is that Imperials go for 38-40% of the points down to 32% of the field. Significant, but no longer the obvious dominating game threat. Proportionally, Chaos drops the most, from 20% in 40k Armies down to 14% in SS3. Nids gain a bunch, but the rest generally shrink down like the Imperials.

These changes seem like a step in the right direction considering that the larger question is "why do we need so many seemingly identical back-to-back games of super survivor?".

@Manchu: I dunno - why do we play so many Pitched Battles in WFB, or MEQ-MEQ games in 40k?

Just because it's based on a previous game, doesn't mean it's not worth playing. Genestealer game 4 is proof of that.

OK, I updated above with results from SS3, also added vote correction proposal below:

Super Survivor Voting Rules Update

1. You may vote up (+1) one choice -or- down (-1) each of up to 2 *different* choices. You may *not* vote 2 choices up, nor may you vote one choice up and another down; however, you may vote a single army down. Votes shall be marked by plus "+" signs for up, and minus "-" signs for down.

2. You may *not* vote again until:
- four (4) other valid votes (not posts) have been cast, -or-
- two (2) hours have passed without *any* valid votes from anyone (not any posts, any votes).

3. You may *not* change the names, grouping, or ordering of choices, aside from correcting typograpical or spelling errors.

4. Any detailed or extensive metagame analysis, strategy, and game theory shall be conducted in a separate thread. Only voting and regular table talk, please.

5. Erroneous votes, in which an excessive number of choices are made (e.g. +2, +1/-1, -3, -4), may be corrected within 2 subsequent votes. The first poster (not necessarily voter) prior to 2 subsequent votes being cast shall *remove* (1st) choices marked up, (2nd) choices marked down, (3rd) numbers changed up, (4th) numbers changed down. Any correction of an erroneous vote must result in a valid vote. If no reasonable correction is possible, then the erroneous vote may be rejected.

6. Ambiguous votes, in which the vote markings and numbers changed do not agree, may be corrected within 2 subsequent votes. The first poster (not necessarily voter) prior to 2 subsequent votes being cast may interpret the vote consistent with: (1st) numbers changed down, then up; (2nd) choices marked down, then up. Any interpretation of an ambiguous vote must result in a valid vote. If no reasonable interpretation is possible, then the ambiguous vote may be rejected.

7. If 3 (or more) valid votes are cast following an erroneous or ambiguous vote, the invalid vote may stand if the margin of error is a single valid vote (i.e. +2, +1/-2, -3 or -4). If the margin of error is larger (e.g. +3 or -5), then the incorrect vote may be corrected (but not rejected outright) by the first poster.


Rules Commentary

1. Making it easier to attack than defend should generally speed the rate of play, due to the +1/-2 bias. Require marking for clarity.

2. Sticking with the 2 original voting criteria keeps things simple for all players. The 40k Transport and Horus Heresy games tested a 4-hour delay for repeat voting, and this appears to have slowed the games down.

3. The grouping and ordering is for the convenience of *all* players. Constantly renaming and reshuffling items creates unnecessary confusion.

4. Excessive meta does a lot of finger-pointing and creates a lot of acrimony. This is supposed to be a light-hearted game for fun, and not a place for complaining. Players who engage in such behavior to derail the game will be warned and banned from the game at the OP's sole discretion.

5, 6 & 7. Vote correction to prioritize "intent" based on numbers down, then numbers up, then marks down, then marks up. Vote correction priority based on speed of correction, with timeout.

Ya know, I'm all for fairness, but this be getting a wee bit too complicated for my tastes. A simple two votes system is better without extraneous rules... it just confuses people

Hmm... What say the rest of you WRT 2 votes vs +1/-2?

Why can't you vote one up & one down? I think you could even have a mandatory one up/two down system (i.e., you must vote one choice up one point AND another one choice down two points each turn) for fast an furious play. I like this precise support/thrash as it makes one person holding up a choice's demise pretty difficult. You could balance it by allowing player's to vote two separate choices down but none up in lieu of one one point up/another two points down--so a blunt, wide attack with no defense OR a powerful, narrow attack with some defense each turn. This would move the fighting away from stalemated attrition to risky fortress-building, I'd guess.

Oh, and I think Genestealer (which is more accurately on something like its tenth iteration) has been popular for two main reasons: (1) it allows for a lot of talking and (2) it changes significantly between most games. SS has neither quality. But I like that we're at least working on (2) in this thread. Figure out how to work on (1) and we might make this game popular again.

I think that since you incorporated this new system, you should balance all armies...

(ie: chaos-50 imperial guard-50 tau-50 tyranids-50...) Split it up still, though provide a wee bit of balancing.

Thinking about the update, maybe:

1) Inq'syphonious idea of less "wounds" at all has been incorporated a bit with the reduction to 365. Wouldn't fewer entries speed up the game too? I somehow like the balance, but equal starting points could lead to less prominent armies sneaking to the finals because of lack of attention. So maybe equal points should be standard survivor mode, whilst we try to find a balanced points level for bigger
setups. I would like to give your actual setup a try.

2) Like Manchu's idea of +1/ -2 or spread -1 at different targets.
If it should become more killy, why not drop those +2hours votes?
Reduce the mandatory votes to 3, reduce defense and call it super survivor turbo.
Before I hear you cry: "how do I vote if nobody else has?", let me add its not impossible to recrut more players.
I for one was invited to join.

Think about the values. A 5 is easily overcome with -2 votes. 3 posters = 1 army down. But also more voters neccessary to fight the nids or orks, no way to make it without alliances.

3) the winner of a SS could be suspended for the next SS. Call it hollidays, victory celebration, recreational phase or so...

4) the editing rules are too complicated. The poster should be responsible and be contacted if possible.
Obvious mistakes like leftover +- could always get edited.
But do you really believe we all can remember the editing rules after page 3 or more than 3 days of voting..?

Manchu wrote:Why can't you vote one up & one down?

I think you could even have a mandatory one up/two down system (i.e., you must vote one choice up one point AND another one choice down two points each turn) for fast an furious play.

You could balance it by allowing player's to vote two separate choices down but none up in lieu of one one point up/another two points down

One up and one down doesn't really advance the game overall, as it's a net zero.

I also think that a two down (-2) change is harder to track visually, whereas single +1 and -1 votes are easier to follow. Also, it raises the question of what happens when a choice is at 1. Does the double down vote waste a down, or do you need to wait for someone to up it to 2? Single votes don't have this problem.

On net, one up *and* two down is effectively the same as mandated one down, and will be generally slower, than one up *or* two down as it's still net one down per vote.


Thanks for your input - I think that one up *or* (up to) two (different) down is easiest. Regardless, fortress building is going to be much harder.
____

Manchu wrote:Oh, and I think Genestealer (which is more accurately on something like its tenth iteration) has been popular for two main reasons: (1) it allows for a lot of talking and (2) it changes significantly between most games. SS has neither quality. But I like that we're at least working on (2) in this thread. Figure out how to work on (1) and we might make this game popular again.

SS3 had a lot of talking, mostly meta and negative. I think the talking that took place actually hurt the game, and would like others' thoughts here.

Switching to base 5, with 10s and 20s is a big shakeup, along with rules changes, so this should be an interesting variation. Hopefully it goes well
____

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:I think that since you incorporated this new system, you should balance all armies...

(ie: chaos-50 imperial guard-50 tau-50 tyranids-50...) Split it up still, though provide a wee bit of balancing.

So you're suggesting a total of 50 points for all Imperial choices? I can definitely do that: 20 IG, 10 SM, 5 Ad Mech, 5 SoB, 5 Inquisition, 5 PDF.

1hadhq wrote:1) Wouldn't fewer entries speed up the game too?

2) If it should become more killy, why not drop those +2hours votes?
Reduce the mandatory votes to 3, reduce defense and call it super survivor turbo.

A 5 is easily overcome with -2 votes. 3 posters = 1 army down. But also more voters neccessary to fight the nids or orks, no way to make it without alliances.

3) the winner of a SS could be suspended for the next SS.

4) the editing rules are too complicated.

But do you really believe we all can remember the editing rules after page 3 or more than 3 days of voting..?

Good points and commentary.

1. Fewer entries loses the point of Super Survivor, I think. Having a dozen IG regiments is kinda neat.

2. So 3 votes / +1 hour minimum? That could be done, I suppose, but I'd kinda like to push for more players. The end of SS3 wasn't bad, once we had more people playing.

Double votes go against 5s quickly, but factions with 5s tend to have a lot of them (Guard, Eldar)

3. There's pretty obvious hate against winners, so I wouldn't worry about. Besides, it's not like I pulled all of the Imperials from SS2 after they completetely swept SS1...

4. They're there so people don't QQ over corrections. Don't make a mistake and there won't be a problem.

It's quite simple: down beats up, and numbers beat marks. Everybody can remember that.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
1. Fewer entries loses the point of Super Survivor, I think. Having a dozen IG regiments is kinda neat.

2. So 3 votes / +1 hour minimum? That could be done, I suppose, but I'd kinda like to push for more players. The end of SS3 wasn't bad, once we had more people playing.

Double votes go against 5s quickly, but factions with 5s tend to have a lot of them (Guard, Eldar)

3. There's pretty obvious hate against winners, so I wouldn't worry about. Besides, it's not like I pulled all of the Imperials from SS2 after they completetely swept SS1...

4. They're there so people don't QQ over corrections. Don't make a mistake and there won't be a problem.

It's quite simple: down beats up, and numbers beat marks. Everybody can remember that.

1) Options are neat. But sometimes overwhelming too.
Ever tried to post from a mobile device in a SS-thread?


2) why are you so settled on +xhours? Main advantage of SS1 was lots of players and only a few +2hours votes.
Yes it may block one from posting if nobody replies so you need a way to post again. But lately, the +2h posts got used to vote exactly after 2hours instead of shoving the thread back to move when silent for half a day.
I must admit I prefer to play in a lively thread and I am not so happy with the 'ninja' games we had actually.
Sadly, if one doesn't counter fire with fire, he/she won't be able to make his/her votes count.

SS1 did run well as it had several posters from start, now SS4 needs some recrutement and the return of fun, thus behaviour
has to change alongside the rules.

I still would kick the +xhours voting out.
Maybe those +xhours votes should be different from the last vote of the poster if he/she made the last vote him/her-self?
Like you can't vote pro/con the same armies in a row?

3) IIRC the non-imperials stayed and played it out until the end. The winner wasn't purely a imperials decision then...

5) Lets look at the votes:

=>Johns: either +1 or -1 and -1.

example: 2 armies are left.

If I intend to vote against one of them, I have to vote against the other too?
Or do we fall back to -1 vs a army but forfeit the second vote?
Then we may look at a +1 vs -1 fight , again.

=> Manchus: either +1 and -2 or -1 and -1.

example 2 armies left.

If I intend to vote against one of them, may I forfeit the +1 vote and double down?
Or do I vote -1 and forfeit to -1 my own choice?
Or is it mandatory to +1 and -2 as its unlikely to -1 and -1?

IMO, its important to mention if votes are mandatory or not in the header of the thread.
In manchus' ruleset, I would make the use of both votes mandatory.
In johns ruleset, we will need to forfeit a vote, as I doubt anyone will vote against his choice.

I think manchus idea provides killyness, as its hard to regenerate wounds from -2 hits.
No wavering, just get done with it. If you're not using it, maybe we still could run a test to see how it does in a small standard
survivor thread?

1. Yes, I've posted from mobile. But mostly not. I have a life, too...

2. Look, I know you don't like games in which people can re-vote. You've said so many times. In SS4, +2 hours will definitely be a part of it. If you don't like people getting the drop on you at +2 hours, then don't play.

3. I don't really like the Manchu proposal. It's harder to check.

4. I'm not worried about the end game. If people dislike both choices, they can -1 each of them.
____

hmm... this came out way more negative in tone than I intended. I'm sorry about that. The +2 hours thing is part of the original rules, so I really want to keep that if possible. I do like Manchu's 1 vote per day as an alternative in his game, but I also see that as separate game.

JohnHwangDD wrote:1. Yes, I've posted from mobile. But mostly not. I have a life, too...

4. I'm not worried about the end game. If people dislike both choices, they can -1 each of them.

Life? Is this a new expansion of 40k?

4) We'll see if there is enough variety in players to stop a +1 / -1 endgame.

Should hand this over to other commentators..

50 was just an example, and I figure space marines, guard, and all them would be seperate.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:50 was just an example, and I figure space marines, guard, and all them would be seperate.

Because the Imperials need to dominate the starting position?

Kind of off-topic, but would you guys take a look at this please:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/301617.page#1689332

Manchu wrote:Kind of off-topic, but would you guys take a look at this please:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/301617.page#1689332

I approve!

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:50 was just an example, and I figure space marines, guard, and all them would be seperate.

Because the Imperials need to dominate the starting position?

I don't know though, I mean I certainly like some imperials, (inquisition/marines) though I don't like others... (SoB/guard)

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:the Imperials need to dominate the starting position?

I don't know though, I mean I certainly like some imperials, (inquisition/marines) though I don't like others... (SoB/guard)

OK, understood. I'm not sure that the balance will be entirely to your liking - it's a lot harder than it sounds.

Unless there are any other inputs, I'm thinking to kick this off on Monday.

That'll give people 3 more days to get comments and suggestions in. Then, we'll see if the changes are good, or not.

And we're off!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/302560.page

We're a a few days in, so I'll ask the question:

What do *you* think about the changes?

To me, I think the changes are more-or-less working as planned:
- Very little "+" reinforcing, due to strong incentive to "attack"
- the deliberately tougher armies (Orks & Nids) are taking strongly concerted efforts
- a couple of the smaller (5 start) armies have already fallen
- not much vote irregularity, tho unfortunately we did miss one correction opportunity (sorry!)

If it's working like it's supposed to, is it "better"?

I can't answer this one, perhaps you all can?