Competitive Heroscape is not dominated by A+

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

I'm not saying you guys, kolakoski and xraine and others, are wrong to accept DA's premises for the purpose of debate, but please bear in mind that his facts are not, in fact, facts. You do not have to sacrifice competitiveness for fun.

WOW. So now you are disputing that Raelin has been in the Gencon Main Event Winning Army 5 Straight years and that Rats have been in 3 of the 4 Gencon Main Event Finalist Armies the last 2 years.

Since these are not facts, please inform us what the Real armies are that were played in the Gen Con Finals the last 2 years. We also should inform Dok that he really did not win the most recent one since Dad_Scaper is saying otherwise.

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Hell, I've probably finished top 3 at half the tournaments I've been to and I've never once used Raelin competitively.*

A large reason might be that many of the tournaments you go to/host are not competitive events but rather oddball formats that are opposed to the rules at the largest formats and those upon which the power rankings are based.

*For example, if you are counting your 8/22 380 Point Unique Hero Tournament results as proof that Rats or Raelin do not dominate then that is pretty ridiculous. Also, will your 5/21/2011 tournament that bans B or higher units be another example that you use of a tournament where Raelin and Rats do not dominate?

(Since A+ units do not dominate then I admit to not understanding the need to ban B or higher figures from it. If A+ units don't dominate then surely A, A-, B+, or B shouldn't either. By banning figures you are at least partially admitting that they would dominate the scene or else the rule makes no sense if people already are bringing tons of low ranked units)

[mad_wookiee]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

A large reason might be that many of the tournaments you go to/host are not competitive events but rather oddball formats that are opposed to the rules at the largest formats and those upon which the power rankings are based.

You've never answered my question about what the fact that Gencon this year will not feature an event that you would call "competitive" does to your definition of the term.

[BoneSnap]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I wonder if Dad_Scaper is familiar with the term Ad Hominem

The fun in games/sports derives from competition, particularly the intellectual/physical challenge of performing at optimal capactity and seeing if someone else's best can beat your best.

Let's just drop this one right now. Different people enjoy games for different reasons. I personally enjoy enjoy Heroscape the most when I'm playing some pretty dismal armies. Part of it is the challenge of winning with them and part is having fun with some cool figures that aren't necessarily competitive. I'm sure others have different aims for game playing, so we can argue this all day long and all we're gonna get for it is a load of angry people. Moving on…

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Wow. Our philosophies are 100% opposite. The goal in any competition/game is to give the opponent as little of a chance to win as possible (within the rules of course). I would be insulted if I felt my opponent was giving me a chance to win and not trying their hardest since it would be quite demeaning.

*I also object to saying it is normal to want competitors to do well. If your son is hitting home runs in baseball are you going to tell him to start striking out intentionally so that the pitcher or other team has a better chance to win? If so I would suspect that you are in the vast, vast minority.

Here I think you simply missed the point. I could be wrong, and feel free to correct me if I am, fomox, but what was being said here had nothing to do with trying to lose. What I think he's getting at is not needing to win so much that you'd do anything. I'm sure he still tries to win, he just doesn't feel the need to pick top armies and play a perfect game to do it. The idea is that you can pick an army you'll have fun with, let loose and just enjoy the game with someone, even though you still try to win. We play a weekly game in our group and I have to say that if we all showed up with the intention of winning at all costs, I'd quit, pure and simple. The reason I love playing is the atmosphere -- the food, jokes, laughs, and general interaction. I still try to win, of course, but I don't pick an army for that purpose. I pick what I feel like playing and see how much I can do with it. There is no disrespect in that. By far, some of the most fun games I have ever played I have lost, though they were all close.

So, to wrap it up, what I'm trying to say is simple.
-Picking an army that isn't competitive is not demeaning, nor does it mean you are trying to let your opponent off easy. It simply means you're picking for fun and not effectiveness, but you'll still do what you can to win. We that do that just aren't uptight about it.
-I, though I can't speak for others, want my opponents to do as well as possible. I don't want them to win, nor will I "go easy" just to make it a close game, but It's far more fun to have a good, challenging game where we both feel like the other could win as easily as we can. Wishing your opponent does well has nothing to do will making it easy for them.

Again, fomox, let me know if I got it wrong, though I think I'm pretty close.

I apologize if this sets off the debate again, but I've had one of those days where enough is enough. Too many petty people today…

Edit: I seem to have missed a few pages of the debate… If what I've said has already been covered or dropped, just ignore me.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

(Since A+ units do not dominate then I admit to not understanding the need to ban B or higher figures from it. If A+ units don't dominate then surely A, A-, B+, or B shouldn't either. By banning figures you are at least partially admitting that they would dominate the scene or else the rule makes no sense if people already are bringing tons of low ranked units)

I've said all along in this thread and elsewhere that I want a variety of formats. In a game that was not intended or developed for competitive play, it's the best way to get people to think about different builds. Any format - be it Heroes-only (Krug? Jotun?), Heat of Battle (Warriors of Ashra, Heavies?), Vanilla (Raelin, Rats), whatever - will tend to favor some units over others. So I mix it up.

If you play the same format every time, including the GenCon Main Event format, some units will dominate. So I change the formats around. They are Heroscape tournaments, they are competitive, they are competitive Heroscape. Only you insist "competitive Scape" means precisely one format, and for evidence you point to one thread, and if you go to that thread you will not see anywhere a definition of "competitive Scape."

Too bad this year's GenCon Main Event won't be competitive Scape under your definition.

Anyway. I'm glad you like the look of my next event. I've encouraged you in the past to run events in your area, and you've said you might. I hope you do. I hope you use whatever format will bring people through the doors, and I hope they all have a wonderful time and will come back again for your next one.

[mad_wookiee]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

I've said all along in this thread and elsewhere that I want a variety of formats. In a game that was not intended or developed for competitive play, it's the best way to get people to think about different builds. Any format - be it Heroes-only (Krug? Jotun?), Heat of Battle (Warriors of Ashra, Heavies?), Vanilla (Raelin, Rats), whatever - will tend to favor some units over others. So I mix it up.

Originally Posted by vBulletin Message

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dad_Scaper again.

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by BoneSnap

-I, though I can't speak for others, want my opponents to do as well as possible. I don't want them to win, nor will I "go easy" just to make it a close game, but It's far more fun to have a good, challenging game where we both feel like the other could win as easily as we can. Wishing your opponent does well has nothing to do will making it easy for them.

Overall your post was pretty good I thought. Out of curiosity does this extend to other aspects of life for you or only for board games?

For example, when I watch the Green Bay Packers play football, my dream game is for them to win 80-0 where they gain 1,000 yards and the opponent ends with 15 turnovers where the Packers not only defeat their opponent but crush their spirit to remove their desire to even want to step onto the field against my team due to their brilliance. Accordingly, other than the Super Bowl, their 2 most satisfying games this year to me were their destructions of the Giants and Falcons. For me, this reflects how not only I root for my teams but also how I perform when playing a sport, playing a board game, etc.

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

For example, when I watch the Green Bay Packers play football, my dream game is for them to win 80-0 where they gain 1,000 yards and the opponent ends with 15 turnovers where the Packers not only defeat their opponent but crush their spirit to remove their desire to even want to step onto the field against my team due to their brilliance. Accordingly, other than the Super Bowl, their 2 most satisfying games this year to me were their destructions of the Giants and Falcons. For me, this reflects how not only I root for my teams but also how I perform when playing a sport, playing a board game, etc.

DA, if you were watching a Packers game and it was 60-0 at halftime, would you watch the second half to bask in the lopsided victory, or would you watch a closer game where the outcome was unknown?

If I played you in chess and you had all of your chess pieces, but I only had one pawn and a king, would you think this was a fun victory?

Is winning the only enjoyment that you obtain from a competitive activity? Isn't the process just as (if not more) important?

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by Rich10

DA, if you were watching a Packers game and it was 60-0 at halftime, would you watch the second half to bask in the lopsided victory, or would you watch a closer game where the outcome was unknown?

I would definitely be reveling in the Packers glory the entire 2nd Half. A chance to watch Brilliance is exceedingly rare, having my team being the 1 operating at such a level would be amazing. It would take the apocalypse to get me to stop watching the rest of that game. Not only that, but I would likely spend the next few hours after the game watching all the awesome highlights and listening to all of the post game comments and then later would probably watch the game 1 or 2 times on NFL Rewind.

Originally Posted by Rich10

Is winning the only enjoyment that you obtain from a competitive activity? Isn't the process just as (if not more) important?

Winning is by far the larger portion of the enjoyment. Even a close win isn't great (although better than losing of course) because you spend some of the time trying to analyze why you almost lost and what you could have done better to avoid it having been so close.

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I would definitely be reveling in the Packers glory the entire 2nd Half. A chance to watch Brilliance is exceedingly rare, having my team being the 1 operating at such a level would be amazing. It would take the apocalypse to get me to stop watching the rest of that game. Not only that, but I would likely spend the next few hours after the game watching all the awesome highlights and listening to all of the post game comments and then later would probably watch the game 1 or 2 times on NFL Rewind.

You're a sick man, although I still think that this is just an internet personality.

[xraine69]

Originally Posted by Rich10

You're a sick man, although I still think that this is just an internet personality.

I could think of a lot more descriptors Rich10, but all would be inappropriate for the forum.

As to the Brilliance DA, in a blow out like you describe, there is no brilliance. Now playing an evenly matched team and having a close game takes brilliance to win. And much more interesting to watch.

As for your definition of competitive Scape; I guarantee that in all the different formats of Scape being played, D_S and all the others compete to succeed at winning those events. That is the definition of competitive. When a skilled player takes a lesser army to an event, they are challenging themselves to be a better player and make matches against less skilled players more interesting for themselves and their opponent.

I think you really need to reread something I posted earlier because I see a lot of it in your posts. I truly hope you are not the persona in real life that you portray here. That would truly be sad.

….and Unhealthy Competition:

· Encourages the view of reward & punishment
· The demoralizing nature of loss
· Increases anxiety & lowers self esteem
· Winning builds up ego & encourages antisocial behavior
· Reduces other players to obstacles to be overcome
· Increases stress & lowers performance levels
· Winning is the goal, not having fun
· Leads to envying winners & dismissing losers

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by xraine69

As to the Brilliance DA, in a blow out like you describe, there is no brilliance. Now playing an evenly matched team and having a close game takes brilliance to win.

I think this is just wrong. Blowing out a strong competitor takes something special and briefly reaching a moment of greatness is something that should be strived for. If you want the Definition of Brilliance it is found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u16T...eature=related

(I would add in a Spoiler tag what the link is but I do not how to do that)

People still remember where they were the Day the day they witnessed such Greatness. If you are saying that this performance is not Brilliance then many would disagree.

Originally Posted by xraine69

Unhealthy Competition:

· Encourages the view of reward & punishment
· The demoralizing nature of loss
· Increases anxiety & lowers self esteem
· Winning builds up ego & encourages antisocial behavior
· Reduces other players to obstacles to be overcome
· Increases stress & lowers performance levels
· Winning is the goal, not having fun
· Leads to envying winners & dismissing losers

It seems that by this criteria that Professional Sports for example are Unhealthy which I disagree with. Accordingly, as with testing a hypothesis I must reject this criteria since I do not view professional sports as unhealthy (you may think they are). Heck, even Dating would seem to fail your checklist.

· Encourages the view of reward & punishment (check-fame and money)
· The demoralizing nature of loss (check-players and coaches take losing extremely difficult)
· Increases anxiety & lowers self esteem (check-lots of anxiety before and during critical games)
· Winning builds up ego & encourages antisocial behavior (debatable)
· Reduces other players to obstacles to be overcome (check)
· Increases stress & lowers performance levels (these 2 do not go together, some people perform better under stress others don't)
· Winning is the goal, not having fun (check-winning is all they care about)
· Leads to envying winners & dismissing losers (check)

[xraine69]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I think this is just wrong. Blowing out a strong competitor takes something special and briefly reaching a moment of greatness is something that should be strived for. If you want the Definition of Brilliance it is found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u16T...eature=related

(I would add in a Spoiler tag what the link is but I do not how to do that)

People still remember where they were the Day the day they witnessed such Greatness. If you are saying that this performance is not Brilliance then many would disagree.

It seems that by this criteria that Professional Sports for example are Unhealthy which I disagree with. Accordingly, as with testing a hypothesis I must reject this criteria since I do not view professional sports as unhealthy (you may think they are). Heck, even Dating would seem to fail your checklist.

· Encourages the view of reward & punishment (check-fame and money)
· The demoralizing nature of loss (check-players and coaches take losing extremely difficult)
· Increases anxiety & lowers self esteem (check-lots of anxiety before and during critical games)
· Winning builds up ego & encourages antisocial behavior (debatable)
· Reduces other players to obstacles to be overcome (check)
· Increases stress & lowers performance levels (these 2 do not go together, some people perform better under stress others don't)
· Winning is the goal, not having fun (check-winning is all they care about)

· Leads to envying winners & dismissing losers (check)

Now he has jumped to horse racing.

And just look at all the troubles professional athletes have. Drugs, rapists, alcoholics, domestic violence, gambling problems and a lot of them end up broke after retirement.