Feedback thread - Let us know what you think Options

[Starfire]

We did have a gumby organised for Sat, but it fell through. We also had two or three "no shows", including one where the players army was lost or stolen on the flight to Sydney.

That's awful news!

[Reunion-Round]

including one where the players army was lost or stolen on the flight to Sydney.

Thats a kick in the teeth... who was it?

Hope it was all sorted at the least.

[Moiden]

The battle points worked very well.

I was not a fan of the subjective scores for painting maybe you should reduce the subjective component to a smaller percentage of the overall score. Considering over half of the painting score was if you like the painting or not is alot. Reducing it to 20 - 25% might work alot better and make marking the armies quicker. Also keeping the same score between marking an army and posting the score might be nice, I was supprised when I lost about 5 point between marking and recording.

The missions were good, not to sure about the select your own mission one.

Overall the weekend went very well in my opinion.

[MarkC]

Also keeping the same score between marking an army and posting the score might be nice, I was supprised when I lost about 5 point between marking and recording.

I think that we have all the paperwork still from the event. I will see if I can find the piece of paper with the scores that Alex wrote down and make sure that your score was entered correctly.

EDIT - There was an error in the data entry for Brian's paint score. I have sent him a PM and will fix this on the Lords web site at lunchtime. The net result is that he moves up from 8th to 7th Overall. I have checked that all the other Paint/Hobby scores in the Open were entered correctly.

On the subject of data entry, it appears that there were just two mistakes over the entire weekend that were entry errors (Brian's paint score and Matthew Trivitt's round 1 battle scores swapped with his opponent which we fixed after round 2 when it was pointed out). While there were other mistakes, upon checking they all turned out to be that we correctly entered score sheets that the players incorrectly filled out (eg transposing names and scores or failing to add up correctly).
/EDIT

Regards

Mark C

[mjb]

Alex, I think your painting criteria and judging were superb


Michael

[AJenko]

Alex, has to rely apon US, the gaming public and local clubs, for terrain, and so was restricted by terrain placement by who brought what tables, I mean, you don't want all of (say, my terrain) spread over 40 tables! You would want them in a small area so it would be simple to packup (imagine searching that room for a hill you own).

I actually did that, as there were a couple of pieces spread as far as the high lords.

As for terrain, if possible in the future could you please give the clubs at least 2 weeks of warning. I know it is stressful/time consuming but it would really assist in repairing terrain, and organising pick up plans (which were changed 2 or 3 times lol).

In the future (were possible) could you please and try and use all of the terrain supplied. While Area 37 supplied up to 15 tables worth, in reality only enough was pulled out to cover 8-10 tables. In addition one of the large tubs containing pieces that blocked line of sight (i.e. trees, buildings) was left untouched and could have been used to fill in some blanks.

Lastly please keep all the terrain, belonging to clubs/people within an area. It is hard enough searching for terrain that belongs to you. So far Loriness has lost a river, and i have yet to check the club stuff.


Now the Good News.
For next years Lords of Terra, i will begin to make some more Line of Sight blocking terrain. With this i will plan to make about 8-10 tables worth of terrain that will Block LOS, provide cover and annoy any opponent. If need be, and i am driving i will personally deliever these tables to the venue (providing it is within Sydney, or driving distants).

Edit: Would people like to see the Foam Rock pieces back next year???

This post has been edited by AJenko: Jul 27 2010, 05:42 PM

[Loriness]

I will get off by backside and paint up my ruins/buildings/trees, so at least I can have sufficient terrain for my table. instead of just hills and craters painted.

[ArchonCryx]

Re terrain issues - I need a system to coordinate what we have. One that gives the clubs time to prepare, and for us all to plan how we'll put it all together.

We are fortunate this year in being able to utilise the venue for a week for storage. Next year may require more time constrained coordination. SO we need to integrate better. What really needs to happen is that we have all the terrain available for Friday evening set up. That *almost* happened this year, so I think we can do so next time.

I propose we have a brainstorming session about 5 weeks before next year's High Lords - Area 37, WSGS, Western Warriors, and any other Sydney clubs who might come on board. And for smaller groups or individuals like Lonestar, or the Orange Boys, we can cater to allow for their best tables to be shown off.

Also As Richard will be involved as part of next year's TO team, and he felt I had made some errors, particularly with pack-up, I think his input will lead to a more robust method for next year.

This post has been edited by ArchonCryx: Jul 27 2010, 06:41 PM

[Spakka]

Battle Points:
For starters, I liked the original tiered system with a minor win/loss tier added in. The only problem I had in LOT 2009 was that the secondary was worth far too many points and could result in the losing player actually earning more BP than the winner.

ie. if player one achieved a a minor win and player two had the minor loss but got the secondary mission, player 2 would end up scoring the equivalent to a major win and would usually earn more battle points overall than player 1 who actually won the primary mission (before factoring in any of the extra bonus points).

The current idea for 8 points for the draw, 2 points for a major loss to 14 points for a major win is good, but I'd also have 5 points for minor loss and 11 points for minor win. Keep the secondary at 3 points, and leave the bonus points as they are and I think it would work very well.

Painting:
Whilst Alex made a champion effort job marking all those armies, I think it was better last year when Mark and Alex both marked paint scores seperately and then averaged their scores. Everyone will see an army differently, so having two people marking painting removed some of the personal bias towards some armies and resulted in more reasonable paint scores across the board.



Terrain:
This was by far my biggest issue at Lords. Whilst there was plenty of cover to go around, out of all 5 games, I only had a single LOS blocking piece of terrain that I could hide a whole squad behind.
Despite the fact I was playing Tau and had great fields of fire, there were plenty of times I found myself wanting something to hide my Kroot, Vespid, and carbine Firewarrior squad behind whilst they moved up the board.

From the stuff I bought along, I had 6 decent sized pieces of good LOS blocking terrain that were left in the crate unused which was a shame, cause they could have been put to good use.

I intend to bring along a lot more terrain next year - there is already plenty of city terrain around, so I will be focusing more on a good mix of jungle, desert and ice terrain, as well as some themed non human terrain. I hope to have both my necron and Tau themed sets completed, possibly the Eldar and Tyranid terrain too.


Missions:
Overall, they were pretty good.

The idea of the secret missions was interesting, but as it is, I don't think it's good for tournament play as the current choices are not varied enough.

I would consider something like the following lineup to add variety between the missions and make it far more interesting (and harder to guess what your opponent has chosen):
Recon - get more units into your opponents deployment zone than they get into yours
Take and Hold - capture the objective in the center of the table and ensure no enemy units are within 6" of the objective at the end of the game
Seize ground - capture more table quarters than your opponent.
War of Attrition - break the enemy (cause at least 75% casualties), but ensure you lose less than 50% of your own forces.
VIP's - Pick any 2 units in your army - you must keep both these units alive until the end of the game.

With the above, there is plenty of variety between each mission and there is something to cater for all armies. It also keeps you guessing at what missions your opponent may have taken. Less prone to draw hammer as well.

[ArchonCryx]

Wow; that blog is like a poor imitation of Steleks 'Yes the truth hurts' Nerd rage in its puriest form lol!

I like the fact he gloats about beating Julian who was both deathly sick; hungover and a hour late for his game...

I just love the armchair criticisms... beautiful stuff indeed.

The fguy is piss#d about his paint score yet admites only 80% of his termagants were finished.

His reading of the paint scoring = fail.

So I can't help him. I wish his mate had given the prize back for encouragement if it pissed him off so much. Perhaps he could donate it to wagga like a real gamer?

This post has been edited by ArchonCryx: Jul 27 2010, 07:03 PM

[ÆON]

Kudos to Mark and Alex; Mark will be sorely missed as he was a great admin fiend

Also thanks to everyone who brought terrain; especially Jason Miller supplying 5 tables from his own stash and helping cart the Area 57 Terrain to and from the event - for someone who couldn't make the tournament due to family; the fact he came and helped solve the terrain issue - big props from me!

[AJenko]

Kudos to Mark and Alex; Mark will be sorely missed as he was a great admin fiend

Also thanks to everyone who brought terrain; especially Jason Miller supplying 5 tables from his own stash and helping cart the Area 57 Terrain to and from the event - for someone who couldn't make the tournament due to family; the fact he came and helped solve the terrain issue - big props from me!

Agree, a big thanks to Jason Miller is needed for his help.

[Reunion-Round]

My other bit I forgot to add in my sheet.

My second day saw 2 fantastic games. To pick between those two was incredibly hard, I would have scored both 5/5 in a normal score sheet.

I mentioned it to Mark as he walked past and he said it was not compulsory, though I went to ask him if I could put both down and he had dissappeared.


The other thing was paint scoring during games. Alex judged armies during 3 of my games. With Damien, Scott A and Scott G. My games with the first two of those both finished on turn 5 due to running out of time (game against Scott A it would have made a difference in BP's). Game with Scott G finished on turn 4 due to wipe out, but it still finished close to time.

I'm not sure how to reconcile that though. Possibly asking some people to stay back if possible or during lunch.


Once again, smallish stuff but food for thought.

[ArchonCryx]

I dunno how to do paint scoring differently. This way players knew exactly where there score was coming from. While it takes some time out of your game, it is the same for almost everybody. Certainly in the High Lords everyone's games were interrupted by paint scoring.

As I said earlier, I need about 5 minutes per gamer. I am unsure how even ten minutes out of your game time is the sole factor in your game finishing on time.

As for Mark doubling up on painting last year, while it was definitely helpful, it was also abundantly clear that I was picking up more detail. In the end we pretty much had me making the final decision on paint scores last year anyway. Essentially it meant we both needed to view every single army, losing much of the potential time gained by using 2 judges.

[ArchonCryx]

Of course, next year we'll be back to 2 paint judges - Richard is a pretty good painter himself - far better than me - and I expect to utilise his skills extensively.

Again I point out that anyone looking to volunteer some time to assist us next year is more than welcome. Many nof the issues that crop up are simply down to the small size of the TO team.

As to gumbies - I like the idea touted sonmewhere that we can offer a free meal as well as the chance of games for a gamer willing to serve as possible gumby. If it needs to be said, there was never any onus on a gumby to field a fully painted army. Assembled and essentially wysiwyg is all we ask.

My problem is having no one else to ask, I did put it out there amongst several people, no one responded. So ask around, next year, nominate your mate for gumby...

[Loriness]

Battle Points:
For starters, I liked the original tiered system with a minor win/loss tier added in. The only problem I had in LOT 2009 was that the secondary was worth far too many points and could result in the losing player actually earning more BP than the winner.

ie. if player one achieved a a minor win and player two had the minor loss but got the secondary mission, player 2 would end up scoring the equivalent to a major win and would usually earn more battle points overall than player 1 who actually won the primary mission (before factoring in any of the extra bonus points).

The current idea for 8 points for the draw, 2 points for a major loss to 14 points for a major win is good, but I'd also have 5 points for minor loss and 11 points for minor win. Keep the secondary at 3 points, and leave the bonus points as they are and I think it would work very well.

The new scoring method means you have to focus on the primary objective and that is the key. If Player A destroy 90% of Player B army but Player B hold the objectives, he should win because he played to the mission.
Even with a loss, you can gain secondary and the bonuses resulting in 14-8 which is similar to minor win in the old system.
The new system means, if you win, you will always have more points than your opponent, which I believe is important. Because win is a win, specially against a tough opponent. It also gives less chance to submarine

[Sile]

I really liked the Primary and secondary mission idea, but What would have been cooler in my opinion would have been to have both the primary and secondary mission Weigh the same e.g. 8/4/2 for both of them, making it more worthwhile to try play both missions rather than denying one to your opponent and getting the other.

I dunno, I just found in one of the missions where you had to capture table quarters by having more units in that quarter than your enemy did, and the one where only scoring could hold a quarter if you had no enemy unites in that quarter, it was easy to deny those points.

On the other hand it could cause problems in leading to a lot of draws.

[Kirby]

Well a lot of rage on this site because of some thoughts on a tournament. Not complaints, thoughts. Ya I’m upset about my paint score but *shrug*, so Alex didn’t like my paint job and I don’t think he followed his on guidelines? I’ve seen some comments about that here. Ya I should have been docked points for some of my extra gants only having 3 colors and black bases but the vast majority of my army was based and painted to a decent standard (and looking at the guidelines on the document we‘ll notice it says “majority of your models painted to at least 3 colors & is the army fully painted (3 colors and WYSIWG)”. I haven’t found anyone at the tournament, on the blog or here who has disagreed with that and that I should of gotten a higher score. Neither here nor there however as that was my only “rage” so to speak and I was happy with the compliments I received on my models, conversions and bases. .

To the issues of byes. I know you had shoo-in player(s) and I know one didn’t turn up having contact with this person. That’s fine, it happens. I said that. The player who played Julian (which wasn’t me Aeon, good reading btw) and got 19 battle points and the other player who was referenced by Mark got an advantage over the other players who get Byes if they are given less points. It sucks that people got Byes but as I said, I understand that happens and it’s the inconsistency I would like to have seen changed.

This is why I avoid wargamerAU. I post thoughts on a tournament and some individuals here understood what it was about, feedback just like in this thread here (and you’ll find most of what I’ve said on the blog said here by separate people), not raging. And I get flamed for it. Did I mention names or say it was #### or anything? No. Ya my feelings for the tournament were soured over some things (not to say this) but as I said multiple times I had a great time, some great games and met some great people.

[Sile]

I had a great time, some great games and met some great people.

This is something I want to highlight - and something I agree with entirely.

Stuff 'Oh poo poo this, poo poo that.'

That right there, is what this tournament was about. Good games, good people, good times.

Prizes were an added bonus, and scores were there to give more intense and fun games against players who by their similar scores would give you a good challenge.

I still remember fondly my game with Mr Satmaka, by far one of the most crazy and intense games that I've ever played as through each of our turns who I thought had the upper hand kept changing over and over again. Great bloody game, that said, all the games I had on the weekend were amazing.

[Chevynova]

Well a lot of rage on this site because of some thoughts on a tournament. Not complaints, thoughts. Ya I’m
This is why I avoid wargamerAU. I post thoughts on a tournament and some individuals here understood what it was about, feedback just like in this thread here (and you’ll find most of what I’ve said on the blog said here by separate people), not raging. And I get flamed for it. Did I mention names or say it was #### or anything? No. Ya my feelings for the tournament were soured over some things (not to say this) but as I said multiple times I had a great time, some great games and met some great people.

You might want to re-think the tone you use to post then because when I read your blog it came across as very negative (even abusive in places). I don't know you, but I formed an opinion of you based on your blog very quickly. Most of what you put down were'nt "thoughts" but outright TO bashing in my opinion. If I was the TO and copped that, I'd put you to the top of not playing next year list very quickly.