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.

You know, in golf, people develop a Handicap score. I wonder if a person who wins a lot (and I include myself in that boat) could maybe voluntarily have a handicap and the store could recognize players with those handicaps. Because if there was at least some RECOGNITION that could come with such scores, I think players like me could totally play at -100 points or something and opponents obviously would be appreciative of you acknowledging that "Hey, this game could be over and FAST if I don't cut this first year player some slack".

PLus then as a better player, you're challenging yourself to become even BETTER at normal tournies. So there is some value to playing at weaker points levels.

Lets say someone is a -100 Handicap and the opponent is -50. Split the diff and play at -50 for that game. Now it would be a point of pride that one can play with les points and win and people playing against certainly will not cry that you did so.

Maybe? Thoughts?

When you play at your local store, do you have pre-arranged games set up or do you play pick up games when you show up. I would think for pre-arranged games, you have some of the handicapping already worked out.

I can see this certainly being of value though

I've won games of 2500 vs 5000. I had the 2500. (Obviously, or I wouldn't be bragging about it...)
In one escalation league I joined, you got less points if you won a lot and more if you lost a lot. It was something like +100 points for winning a game, and +200 if you lost. So by game five there were matchups of 1000 vs 1500.

Could work, but how would you decide how many handicap points someone would get from the middle ground of 0? It's not quite as simple as golf where you can basically just use an average of a bunch of scores that are not as subjective.

Might be a bit of a challenge, but I like the idea.

Ninja'd by above, I like the +/- 100 for winning a game, that would keep it pretty simple. Would also be a point of pride to keep playing with lower and lower points until you can't win anymore.

 Ifurita wrote:
When you play at your local store, do you have pre-arranged games set up or do you play pick up games when you show up. I would think for pre-arranged games, you have some of the handicapping already worked out.

I can see this certainly being of value though

Both. We use our local forum to set up games but we also just show up. I think it's easy for most people to know, once they are used to having to, what they would add or subtract, given a few more or less points to throw around. I think this could become a thing. It just makes a lot of sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 rabidguineapig wrote:
Could work, but how would you decide how many handicap points someone would get from the middle ground of 0? It's not quite as simple as golf where you can basically just use an average of a bunch of scores that are not as subjective.

Might be a bit of a challenge, but I like the idea.

Ninja'd by above, I like the +/- 100 for winning a game, that would keep it pretty simple. Would also be a point of pride to keep playing with lower and lower points until you can't win anymore.

In this case you SET your own handicap and then adjust it until you feel you're still competitive vs. not. I think it would be a point of pride.

So lets say that you handicap yourself 100 for three months. then you handicap yourslf 200 because it felt like too little. then you said "wowa, too much, how bout 150? And last three month you go to 125. So you now have an average over the last year of 143. The handicap will be your choice the first year and then be an average thereafter. Each year you recalculate. So in year one, you can do any number, commit for a month and change it for next month. In the end a total average will come out that you're comfortable with.

You WILL lose some games for doing this and that's kind of the point. We get tired of having people get viscerally MAD at us because our "list is broken" when its just skill. So to prove it, we adjust until, regardless of whether its list OR our skill, we are evening the odds and no one can say we didn't. So we lose a few. So what. I'd rather lose an extra game or two and have people NOT saying bad things about me, my list or anything else. Anyone else tired of hearing about how "broke" this or that is? Anyone? I am.

I'm the guy who plays a Melee Night Lord List, who plays without Broadsides and only two Riptides. I'm the guy who plays with NO vehicles in his Eldar list and I'm the guy that still enjoys playing Dark Eldar with the Flesh Circus theme. No one has any right to criticize ME for my lists and yet... They still will because they hate losing THAT much.

This could simultaneously solve the preceived imbalance of a matchup and that of skill.

As I said elsewhere - (and as a golfer) very interesting idea - I have posted it on our club forum for thier thoughts

I would suggest handicaps be done as percentages rather than points. A 100pt handicap is less important in a 3000 pt game than it is in a 1000 pt one.

I impose a handicap on myself. I keep track of my wins/losses by opponent, and reduce my point limit by 5% per accumulated victory I have over them.

Been doing this for years against players who I know. We don't do a points handicap, it's more a unit handicap, where we have a unit we want to use but don't think it's good enough to spend points on. It's a good way to playtest stuff.

I think the main problem is that a point-based handicap doesn't account for list strength. I'm going to have a much better chance of winning a 1500 point game with my handicapped 1400 point hardcore competitive list than with my 1500 point fluff/casual list, and playing at a 100 point disadvantage with the weaker list just because I'm a "-100 player" isn't going to be much fun. The only way you're going to get valid handicap numbers is if your list, or at least the power level of your lists, remains constant for long periods of time. If you're the kind of person who likes to try something new every week it's just not going to work very well.

I see a value to going with points (percentages) So a 5 Handicap is a 5% handicap maybe. I guess that makes sense.

 Jancoran wrote:
I see a value to going with points (percentages) So a 5 Handicap is a 5% handicap maybe. I guess that makes sense.

Peregrine's point is valid, by the way, although the whole reason I started handicapping myself is to avoid having to switch up my playstyles for each opponent. I want to play competitively, and the handicap system allows me a little wiggle room to still be able to play competitively against opponents who are playing casually.

We often use 'handicaps' such as 500 vs 600, 1000 vs 1200, 1200 vs 1500.
I think I've even had a 1500-1600ish vs 2000 once

 Peregrine wrote:
I think the main problem is that a point-based handicap doesn't account for list strength. I'm going to have a much better chance of winning a 1500 point game with my handicapped 1400 point hardcore competitive list than with my 1500 point fluff/casual list, and playing at a 100 point disadvantage with the weaker list just because I'm a "-100 player" isn't going to be much fun. The only way you're going to get valid handicap numbers is if your list, or at least the power level of your lists, remains constant for long periods of time. If you're the kind of person who likes to try something new every week it's just not going to work very well.

Would it not be if you are both just setting up to blow stuff you would not bother but the handicap would come into play for more serious games? I thkn thats the idea but not sure?

As you may know a Golf Handicap is quite complicated and its much easier to go down if you havesome good scores than it is if you are having some bad matches.

http://www.mygolfexperience.com/golf/uk/golf-handicap.asp

its a interesting thing for those of a mathematical mind set

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
I see a value to going with points (percentages) So a 5 Handicap is a 5% handicap maybe. I guess that makes sense.

Peregrine's point is valid, by the way, although the whole reason I started handicapping myself is to avoid having to switch up my playstyles for each opponent. I want to play competitively, and the handicap system allows me a little wiggle room to still be able to play competitively against opponents who are playing casually.

I never see Peregrines posts (he's just too abusive a lot of the time so i blocked him). What point do you mean?

Don't be an ass. If you block a guy, let it be. If you want to see what he said, unblock him and reblock him. No need for nose-thumbing.

You can voluntarily handicap yourself whenever you like. At our gaming store people usually show up with a handful of lists at different point levels. Helps to prevent list tailoring, but also lets you pop in and play right away.

So if your store typically plays 1000, 1500, and 2000 points, just show up with lists for those levels, but also 900, 1350, and 1800 point lists. Or something of that nature. 10% is a notable handicap, and tends to level players that are reasonably competent to experienced players.

Being an ass is what gets you blocked. Nothing else does.

You can voluntarily handicap at any time, that's true. But the FUN in doing so is to compete. It gives an already competitive person another WAY to compete while he plays. The guys with high handicaps could qualify for some award each year. I think a minimum of 50 games in a year would be necessary to qualify the handicap. that's 12 tournies a year plus practice games (or some equivalent amount of gaming).

Such a minimum would also encourage people to do the gaming itself. more gaming means more opponents to play. Quietly you've given a reason for the competitive types to come outta the woodwork and play again even if they hadn't in a while.

Lots of benefits to this.

Perhaps a scorecardto show all 50 games and the handicaps, signed by the opponent.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a little condescending?

Not sure how I'd feel if someone told me to take more points than them so we could both have a good time.

 greatbigtree wrote:
If you want to see what he said, unblock him and reblock him.

You can just click on the hidden post without needing to unblock/block anything.

As for the handicap the idea is certainly good but as with so many other ideas it too will only work in groups where people can agree on how to do it. I once saw a tournament give bonus points to armies from older, weaker Codexes for example.

Thud wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a little condescending?

Not sure how I'd feel if someone told me to take more points than them so we could both have a good time.

I've had opponents tell me that they feel like the handicap is condescending. Then again, I've had opponents (maybe even some of the same people) tell me I play too competitively and that they don't enjoy our games. I think maybe the only way for everyone to win here is for me to limit myself but not tell them.

Check my signature down below, it's a good handicap system at my LFGS

There are ways of handicapping yourself without points discrepencies. In every codex there's tons of low-power junk you can throw in to lower the over all power level to make the game closer/more of a challenge/more fair.

Plus, you get other advantages as well, like getting to play with strange or fluffy lists.

 Ailaros wrote:
There are ways of handicapping yourself without points discrepencies. In every codex there's tons of low-power junk you can throw in to lower the over all power level to make the game closer/more of a challenge/more fair.

Plus, you get other advantages as well, like getting to play with strange or fluffy lists.

These are all true, and if that's the kind of game you want, they are great options. I think we're exploring the handicap system as a way to play games that are a little closer to fair/balanced without having to sacrifice competitiveness.

What do you guys do if your army or codex doesn't have 100pts type of units which you can add or substract to make the lists works. If someone wants to play a 1400 and finds it fun to play against 1500 ,awesome for him , but how do you mechanicly do it when units cost don't come in those 100points blocks.

Makumba wrote:
What do you guys do if your army or codex doesn't have 100pts type of units which you can add or substract to make the lists works. If someone wants to play a 1400 and finds it fun to play against 1500 ,awesome for him , but how do you mechanicly do it when units cost don't come in those 100points blocks.

The same way you make any other list. A 1400 point list isn't any harder to make than a 1500 point list.

This maybe a language barrier thing , but to me making a normal list in to a 1400 seems huge . I have not a single unit that costs 100pts and I don't think other codex have those either .

Makumba wrote:
This maybe a language barrier thing , but to me making a normal list in to a 1400 seems huge . I have not a single unit that costs 100pts and I don't think other codex have those either .

But why are you trying to turn a 1500 point list into a 1400 point list? Start over from the beginning and just make a 1400 point list. There's nothing special about the common point totals that makes list-building easier, they're just even numbers that people like to use.

Makumba wrote:
What do you guys do if your army or codex doesn't have 100pts type of units which you can add or substract to make the lists works. If someone wants to play a 1400 and finds it fun to play against 1500 ,awesome for him , but how do you mechanicly do it when units cost don't come in those 100points blocks.

Clearly the points changes don't have to be in perfect 100 point increments. After all... You're under no obligation to reduce points at all!

So do what seems comfortable to you and track it over time. Tell the opponent that each game, you may adjust it til you feel like it is fair enough that you still have a chance to win too. I mean we're not here to throw games. Just to find a workable way to mitigate what can SEEM like an unfair advantage during our games, while giving a superior player or list the acknowledgement they probably deserve, but don't get, through the haze of sour grapes.

Maybe its a culture thing, but honestly, Id rather suffer a harsh defeat time and time again, then win due to a hanicap.

Its...insulting in a way when the opponent goes "I'd take less points, because I'm better at this game", I feel as if he's looking down at me, and even if its rightfully so as he has far more experience, its still an insult.

Handicaps only work well when an outside ranking system places them-without direct control by either player, that way you can at leas subconsciously tell yourself "its just the ranking system, I jst need to prove that I AM better then that"

So in a league system or something, where high places get a penalty against low places-it would be fine.
In random games, its better to crush people then to insult them. worst case, you see the result is obvious and you dont want it to be too crushing? let your last few turns be sub-optimal, or try insane tactics just to see it works.
You already know you would have won.

This thread is all about trying to have the most fun in games?

So if for you it doesn't work likely best not use it

but thinking about your opponent - is he or she having much fun crushing you easily each time - do they want more of a challenge to hone their skills?

In pick up games simply crushing people and walking away is for me not much fun at all - not that it happens very often