Quote:
Originally Posted by wriggz
After running a few tournaments, and watching some great players, play some good armies I have a theory: Slow and Steady Wins the Race.
I was watching two stinger, rat, raelin armies go at it and It struck me how slow everything moved. More over I noticed how much energy went into knocking raelin out, and when she was down how quickly the rest of the army followed. Then I realized how many of the "slow" armies end up being called for time, and winning on points.
So much of the attacking went into Raelin, it seemed also impossible for the "fast" player to do enough damage to the rest of the army in the time left after Raelin fell.
I wonder how many other events have this secondary result where slow armies have the advantage simply because it is difficult to do enough damage in the time allowed.
To this end, when ever I score an event I'm going to use hockey scoring, 2 for the win, 1 for the tie (neither army wiped out) and 0 for a loss. No more need to keep track of points and turtling armies are at a disadvantage. I know this isn't a perfect solution, but It will be fun to metagame with.
What army would you bring?
|
It sounds interesting Wriggz, but, as Airdroppers pointed out, how often will you be able to ENTIRELY wipe out an opponent's army within 50 minutes? You said it yourself that, between good players, the time alotted to the games is not nearly enough to finish it (Airdroppers vs Krav-Raelin-Stingers-Deathreavers guy in the last tournament).
The DOWNSIDE is twofold:
1) Almost all games between good opponents with competitive armies will end in draws.
2) The good players who are lucky and get to go up against the ones whose armies can be wiped out (or who play "wacky" armies in a "wacky" way) will have a huge advantage against those that encounter only good opponents that they can't entirely wipe out in 50 minutes to get the two points. In other words, you'll be rewarding lucky pairings instead of good play. Thus, if Airdroppers wins against-but does not eliminate-his 5 opponents, he'll have only 5 points. If I do the same but have the fortune of playing a couple of kamikaze doorknobs, I'll get 7 points. That's not right. It wouldn't be his fault he didn't get to play the putz'z. In fact, he had to play harder to get his five points than I did to get my 7 (since I would only have played 3 tough games vs his 5).
You see... the good players will NOT change their game/armies just because you have made it harder to win. They will not go for broke every game with a unit like Runa or Braxas because, sure, they may WIN a game, but she'll cost them 3 or more. The net result would be negative. The best armies are still the same unless you force us to play other things (as you did very creatively in your last tournament). It's just far harder to get a win.
I think this might also lend itself to king-making. Thus, a player who is behind might decide to rush his troops in to be slaughtered or not depending on whether he wants his opponent to get one or two points. I'm not suggesting that it would be common, but it is something to consider.
I really liked the format you used last time. I wish you'd use a similar one again. The only thing I would ask is that you be ruthless with the time limits and, when the clock rings, the one with more points on the board is declared the winner.