Pairings and new objectives.

Latest news and chat from the European Fantasy Team Championship.

Moderators: ETC moderators, Keepers of the Peace

Dim
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:49 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby Dim » Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:23 pm

I respond here.
Something to consider is the complexity of proposed options.

The pairing process already takes a lot of time, to the point where we've had to shift the schedule to 2 games per day.

This is just plain wrong. We switched to 2 games per day to get more time for the social part (beers and so on). We started at 10:30...
We can easily fit a 3rd game per day if we really want to.

I think that the pairing process will take the same amount of time with selection of the objective or without. There is the same number of steps, the number of options from which to select is a bit bigger but on the other hand one can have a similar strategy (no rotation of the objectives depending on the round) every round.

Adding another level of complexity won't help. If you ask me, I'd rather get more games in (say, 8 instead of 6) if possible.

I like the idea of a "game inside a game" as much as the next person, but this is becoming ridiculous.

As an ETC player (and with no concertation with the rest of the Belgian team) I believe that randomly determined scenarios and deployment types is the most straightforward way to do this. It is also the best way to test the mettle of the would-be top players of the world. See if they can devise a list that can play any scenario and deployment, against any opponent.


Go play ESC. Team event is about team strategy.

It's so easy and quick, too. You do the pairings like last year, only in the end you randomize tables. Then, you roll a d6 two times per match: first is deployment type, second is secondary objective. No need for veto rules or objective cards. The game is complex as it is, lets not make it more so.

My 2 cents

Smith
Team Switzerland 2008-2010, 2013-2015: Empire Player
Team Switzerland 2016: Captain

SmithF
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:36 am
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby SmithF » Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:08 pm

Thank you for your reply.

Team tactics and Team strategy are two different things. I find that it makes all the difference in the world.
You're talking about out-of-game tactics, which I think we could do without.

Again, just my 2 cents.
Last edited by SmithF on Sat Feb 03, 2018 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mike newman
Posts: 1416
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:26 pm
Pick number 4 to enter: 1
Location: manchester
Contact:

Re: Request for scenario / deployment vote options

Postby mike newman » Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:10 am

Objectives

I think a good halfway measure is to each round have pairings 1-4 play objective A and pairings 5-8 play objective B

Rotate the objectives each round, with each objective used twice - in different sets of pairings.

That way at the end the team has played 8 games of each scenario (just like if it was one scenario per round)
It also allows teams a bit more complexity/tactical decision making in the pairing process
Armies on the whole have to be balanced as it may be difficult to avoid a bad match up and a bad scenario
The pairings/objectives are simplified and easy to follow

More than happy for the deployment to tied to the table number, or to be rolled randomly - deployment has a much lesser bearing on the game than objectives.
@mikeygolem
Team England 2015 - Dwarfs
Team England 2016 - Dark Elves
Team England 2017 - Captain - Vampire Counts
Team England 2018 - Captain

Galadros
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:15 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby Galadros » Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:55 pm

orion 76 wrote:I was actually going to suggest that now that we have the same number of objectives as number of rounds... that each round 1 objective is played by everyone. So round 1 for example, every single game played in all tables uses Hold the Centre, and so on. This guarantees that every army plays every objective exactly once, meaning you cant really cater your list heavily to compete for on or two objectives and ignore the rest.


I fully support this idea. To expose every army to each secondary scenario is in no way unfair to any regional meta or gaming tendency. When playing a friendly game or small tournament, you have to be prepared for any of the six possibilities. Why should ETC be much different? This doesn't preclude a team from choosing to create a skew list that they believe will crush face at 4 of the 6 secondaries. The risk is that the same army might flounder at the other 2. So be it, if the team makes that choice. Having a fixed scenario each of the six rounds will not degrade the strategic element of the match-up process. In fact it may add to the intrigue of it!

Dim
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:49 pm
Anti-Spam Filter: No
Pick number 4 to enter: 4

Re: Pairings and new objectives.

Postby Dim » Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:51 am

Galadros wrote:
orion 76 wrote:I was actually going to suggest that now that we have the same number of objectives as number of rounds... that each round 1 objective is played by everyone. So round 1 for example, every single game played in all tables uses Hold the Centre, and so on. This guarantees that every army plays every objective exactly once, meaning you cant really cater your list heavily to compete for on or two objectives and ignore the rest.


I fully support this idea. To expose every army to each secondary scenario is in no way unfair to any regional meta or gaming tendency. When playing a friendly game or small tournament, you have to be prepared for any of the six possibilities. Why should ETC be much different? This doesn't preclude a team from choosing to create a skew list that they believe will crush face at 4 of the 6 secondaries. The risk is that the same army might flounder at the other 2. So be it, if the team makes that choice. Having a fixed scenario each of the six rounds will not degrade the strategic element of the match-up process. In fact it may add to the intrigue of it!


The problem is not about being unfair to a given meta, but a given meta to not have a consistent strength across rounds, which mess with the swiss system for deciding which country plays which country.

As I said earlier, it is like a sport tournament where you would play squash in the first game, tennis in the second, badminton in the 3rd, and table tennis in the 4th, and you can design a unique racket.
Whatever you do, given a choice of army, like say Sylvan Elves, it is unrealistic to think you will be as good in each of them, even if you put all your efforts in trying to do so. Sylvan Elves have some objectives in which they are obviously better than other.

Already 6 rounds are not enough to create a decent ranking except maybe for the first 2-3 countries, the rest depends too much on the last round to be significant. Already one team can get luckier than another with facing "easier teams", if we also design the system so that one cannot even compare results of two teams against a single other team because they played on different objectives, well, it become a mess and the results of the tournament are even less meaningful.

Another concern is about build variability. If what you proposed get through, it would probably be a bad idea to bring Sylvan Elves to the table and probably better to bring something like Vampire Covenant, because it is easier to play the 6 objectives with Vampires than Sylvan Elves.

With objectives determined by pairing, you may want to bring sylvan elves, because you can have it play on the 2 objectives that it can do reasonably well.

Having armylists fitting different roles inside a meta is a feature, not a bug. It's like the different units fitting different roles in an army. The team aspect is way more interesting with this than without.
Team Switzerland 2008-2010, 2013-2015: Empire Player
Team Switzerland 2016: Captain


Return to “Fantasy - European Team Championships”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests