Handicap system for comps...

[ChrisTofalos]

Just thought I'd post on the results so far in our handicap system as used in MAWS's Warlord Trophy this year (in three periods).

Players have been divided into three groups: 'veteran' (who get the standard 800 points), average (850 points) and less experienced/beginner (900 points). There have been fifteen games played so far. Of these ten featured a handicap but only three resulted in wins for the lower ranked player and these were all involving 50 point differences. In the three games that did feature a 100 point difference, the veteran player won in each case.

I'm quite keen on doing something to help out beginners and the less experienced players. We need to try and keep them involved, so they gain the required experience and, hopefully, reverse the overall trend of declining numbers. Although the basics of FOG are pretty simple learning the finer points does take time. I'm still getting caught out four years into playing!

There have been suggestions of a couple of possible problems:

(1) What do you do if someone doesn't want, for whatever reasons, to take advantage of the handicap? Easy enough - it's entirely their decision and they don't have to take it.

(2) Fielding an extra 100 points might present painting problems. Could be a problem for some but upgrading a TC to IC or FC and/or adding an extra general would eat up most of the extra points, so that should deal with it where necessary.

I hope the powers that be will consider using handicaps. It doesn't make a major difference (two of the three overturns we've had involved suspect army choices by the losing players) and it might just keep more players in the pool.

[grahambriggs]

An option would perhaps be to give the beginner 800 points and the veteran 700? Less painting.

Also, it might be an idea for beginners to discuss their army lists with more experienced players. The three major advantages of veterans are list design, deployment and tactics. Reducing the differential in the first would be good.

I very much like the idea of handicap tournaments. One of the issues for a novice FOGAM tournament player is that most competition players have been playing or some time now hence the learning curve is quite long really. Something to bridge the gap would be useful. I think though that, rather than some mechanics based around ranking or similar, it might be better to rely on the benign dictatorship of the organiser as to who is a beginner.

[ChrisTofalos]

I think though that, rather than some mechanics based around ranking or similar, it might be better to rely on the benign dictatorship of the organiser as to who is a beginner.

That might cause problems of its own, Graham. Different organisers could come up with different handicaps for players. A very simple formula would work: If you're in the top 20 of the current rankings you don't get any handicap; in the next 20 and you get an extra 50 points and below that an extra 100. For situations where a normally top player hasn't played for a while, if you've had a top three finish in any ranking qualifying tournament (since records began!) you don't get any handicap.

There's also another way of sorting it out. Instead of getting extra army points you could increase the value of points scored by the less experienced. For example, a player in the lower rankings might get triple points for his kills, instead of double. Care would need to be taken in calculating multipliers for the middle rankers, who could get lucky! Might work...

I'm glad you like the idea of handicaps. Anything that's going to help keep people playing FOG has got to be good...

[dave_r]

There are issues in identifying those players that are in the top20 of the rankings - would you base this at the year end? I'd recommend that you would. That way people know how many points they can potentially use prior to the tournament starting. Might be a bit tricky as a lot of comps no longer use 800 pts as standard.

What I'd like to see is an overall number of points available for players to use in a competition - so allow players to use 3200 points over four games, but allow the player to decide how many points they will use in each game.

[ChrisTofalos]

...would you base this at the year end? I'd recommend that you would?

Sounds like the logical answer and players would know exactly what their situation is at the start of each year.

Is the top 20 too large a number? What about top 15, then next 15?

Might be a bit tricky as a lot of comps no longer use 800 pts as standard

If average players get +50 and beginners/less experienced get +100 it doesn't matter whether the comp is 800 or 900.

What I'd like to see is an overall number of points available for players to use in a competition - so allow players to use 3200 points over four games, but allow the player to decide how many points they will use in each game.

Interesting!

Can we get a vote on this handicap thing? As we've found out at MAWS, it doesn't make a massive difference and, at least, we're doing something to try and retain players.

[petedalby]

There are issues in identifying those players that are in the top20 of the rankings - would you base this at the year end?

Having mentioned the year end rankings how are you getting on with them?

[davidandlynda]

I quite like the idea of rankings , the Society of Ancients had a good system back in the 70''s and 80's .people were ranked as 3,4 ,5 pointers etc and there was a comparitive points difference in games , of course this was before organised competitions and it was to for the SofA league.
For a modern competition Dave's idea would work better, Ilford ran this type of competition a few years ago , Rampage ?
What is needed is a willing club and volunteer to run and organise ,I would think you would get enough takers as long as it fits in the calender
David

[nikgaukroger]

For a modern competition Dave's idea would work better, Ilford ran this type of competition a few years ago , Rampage ?

It was indeed Rampage - it was an excellent format IMO.

[dave_r]

Well, as I've seemingly inherited the organisation of the Godendag competition, we could try it there.

[ChrisTofalos]

Well, as I've seemingly inherited the organisation of the Godendag competition, we could try it there.

Good man!

[philqw78]

Well, as I've seemingly inherited the organisation of the Godendag competition, we could try it there.

Handicapping?

[dave_r]

Well, as I've seemingly inherited the organisation of the Godendag competition, we could try it there.

Handicapping?

No variable points for each game. I'll mail you.

[philqw78]

No variable points for each game. I'll mail you.

Translates as

I'll dick you with some job I can't be arsed with

[dave_r]

Why? Are you volunteering to be list checker?

[philqw78]

You said you'd mail me. I have no idea what you have volunteered me for

[dave_r]

You must have been included in about 20 emails today????

[philqw78]

That wasn't my email address

[azrael86]

Not sure about the handicap idea as such, if you look at the rankings then there are a number of very good players outside the top 20 (however did Chris think of 20 as the cut off, I wonder...) - who typically play only at Britcon, or in 2 or 3 local tournaments.....

As a secondary point it didn't appear to have much effect, although reducing the points for the experienced player may have more impact than giving the inexperienced competitor more points.

But the Rampage event was good, though you need a fiar sized field to makeit work - in reality this is probably the heart of the problem in that currently fields(particularly in 25mm) are sometimes too small for the Swiss system.

One idea I recall being mentioned way back was a "pick the army your opponent will use" - under DBM I think, because you had commands made up of strange combs,likedifferent speed impetuous troops.... unlikely to work wellin FOG I suppose.