Post by dg1 on Apr 9, 2013 12:23:54 GMT -6
This is from a long e-mail (as if my unfortunate natue) I sent to participants for feedback. I'm posting it, with a few edits for further comment.
This was originally planned as a warm-up event for Lone Wolf (in March) and as a test format for future moderate to decent sized GT format tournaments in our area. If we had moved the event to the Lone Wolf date, we probably would have picked up another 8 to 10 players (based on feedback received; I had approximately 15 persons express interest that ultimately did not show up) that were conflicted with the date we chose (plus two persons registered cancelled a day or two before the event.).
I’d appreciate feedback and suggestions as to whether events like this are worthwhile. There is a hole in the schedule created by the cancellation of Rock Wars in September and we would welcome someone to fill it. The advantage of Area 51 as a venue is that we avoid having to rent a facility and Area 51, as set forth in the table below, works with us on prize support in the form of store credit (which, as one can see from the results summary, the store credit amounts were quite generous).
The biggest question is: Is this the type of event people would enjoy and should we consider offering events like this when there are gaps in the regional Indy GT schedule? If so, what is the best way to get feedback as to timing and provide information in advance for planning purposes? Also, is this the type of event with the size of the store we should promote in our region more?
1. Army Construction Rules
a. Was 2800 points a good number? Did it help with balance (except maybe for the high elf army) [It seemed to allow more flexibility to run interesting lore and rare and hero combinations without being broken.]
b. Was the sideboard interesting or unnecessary or too much of an advantage to some armies relative to others in terms of match-ups? [No real issues were provided. A few people really liked the sideboard idea and it did not take a lot of time in the end to implement from what I was told.]
2. Tournament Schedule
a. Did you like 3 hours per round as opposed to two and a half hours plus the ability to complete games as needed in most rounds?
?
c. Did we get posted matches for each round and results done soon enough? {Results were ready in 30 minutes after the last results were handed in and within 20 minutes of the last sports tracking sheets received. I would have had results even sooner except for a couple of issues where I had to look up who played who in what round to verify best game votes and took extra time to double check all of the entries for battle and objective points and sports results. I ran two sets of results, one using Overlord because of its ability to set up matches, randomize tables, and lock out people playing each other twice and from the same area at least through round three and a second using Microsoft Excel simply because it is easier to format the results and see all the awards together when people have multiple awards. I used the multiple awards to give bumps on store credit a couple of times.]
3. Awards
a. Would you prefer more tangible awards (certificates, framed certificates, trophies)? [If we had gotten to 40+, I would have committed the funds for something more. I’m not big on spending on such things rather than simply giving store credit.]
b. Was the store credit appreciated and useful? [We felt that store credit is more tangible and fungible and works better for Area 51 in terms of justifying hosting the event. Also, it allows you to get what you want.]
c. Rather than having some random door prizes, we gave store credit to everyone that did not receive an award. Was that appreciated?
4. Battle Scoring
a. Did you like the stratification of results by draw, minor, moderate and major wins?
b. Was the objective scoring of 4 to 6 points possible per round and some possibility for both players to win overlapping points appropriate? [Most seemed to pick up at least some objective points such that they made sense and, also, gave the player losing the battle something to play for, which is what we intended.]
5. Scenarios: Any comments, good, bad, tweaks? {I will include a summary of feedback I received watching games and between rounds.]
a. Round 1 Alien Possession:
b. Round 2 Gifts from Above: [Most people l spoke with liked this scenario at lot except for the fortitude points/break points at 4. Two persons commented that they would not have minded setting the break at 3 instead. One person preferred straight victory points. Two commented that the gifts often went to units with concentrated fortitude points where destroying or breaking that unit caused a loss of too many fortitude points and a loss of the battle even though they may have been close or even able to win on victory points. Although counting wounds remaining to figure out when a larger unit began to receive the augment was an issue, it was appreciated that the augment rewarded more moderately sized units as a balance.]
c. Round 3: Independence Day: { This was the least favorite scenario for most that I spoke with. This was the last scenario chosen and was chosen over a Mars Attacks scenario which as a fixed unit of twenty quick but weak Martians that deployed in the center and had limited shooting (pistols). The problem with the Mars Attacks scenario is high armour and fast units simply charged the unit and destroyed it before the other side ever got a chance. The most common issues were that the alien ships were a bit overpowered at S6 shooting and S6 attacks -hurting high value units/models- and the ships could get stuck on one side, constantly shooting or fighting one player. We wanted the ships to be annoying to encourage people to charge them and push them to the other side of the table (like the Alamo piñata scenario). We also wanted the ships to not be too easily killed in order to allow both sides a chance at objective points. One interesting outcome was that the loser of the battle often picked up most of the objective points in this scenario. Another concern at one table was that the alien ships got in the way of the armies fighting each other and interfered with movement too much. I received no negative comments on the suicide specialist component and might adapt that element to be by itself. Part of the issue is that we wanted something to fit within a theme of a movie and that meant adding too many special rules and stuff, where it is clear that the simpler the better.]
d. Round 4: Alien Crash Site [This one received mixed reviews. The idea of a crash site objective with a comet-like effect that goes off at some point was commented favorably on by a number of players. We wanted to play a Meeting Engagement scenario and fit the theme with the night rules. Most people I received feedback from did not mind the night rules and felt that the rules were a decent compromise with the problem of people wanting to bunker in a back corner in this scenario. One person does not like Meeting Engagement because of both the issue of people bunkering in the corner and the angles being off.]
e. Round 5: ET Go Home [Received mostly positive feedback on this scenario. While the special rules for ET were a bit long, they merely were there to address FAQ type questions that arose in simulation. The augment for ET was found to be interesting by limiting it to a small unit but also allowing a larger unit to initially carry ET. I noted a couple interesting strategic decisions in battles where one person was able to run ET from one unit to another when the first unit was at risk of being charged and killed. In another battle, a player won the opposing ET but the other player won it back at the very end. I also introduced a partial victory point system to reward MASU/MMU units over larger units. One mild concern was that it took more time to calculate victory points at the end of the battle, if close, but there were a couple that liked the twist and understood its purpose.]
f. Posting scenarios and Reading scenarios. Did it help to see the scenarios posted and send out in advance in an e-mail.
6. Paint Scoring:
a. We used a matrix to judge painting based off what was used at Shiloh but with some changes. Was it reasonable? [Fully painted armies with some effort put into them scored in within a reasonably tight range. We made an effort to reward extras but not so much that it made a huge difference in the overall score.]
b. We gave a bonus to those with players’ choice votes. c. While we used an 80 point max point total, paint scores were counted as half toward the overall score. The concern was situations where someone does well on sports and battle but gets killed on paint scoring and ends up close to last. Having a less than full painted army did cost a lot in the overall rankings for a few players, but also not so much that they had no chance at all.
7. Sports Scoring:
a. Did the Conduct Policy discussion in the tournament package help? [We received only a few “bad” games, as intended, and everyone was understood but not serious from my perspective. The goal was to discourage “retaliatory” bad games and people giving “bad” games just because they did not have fun because they got beat badly.]
b. Were the point amounts sufficient and did the extra second best game allow for rewarding more people as intended? [The 1st and 2nd best games allowed both for more stratification in the final sports award outcome and avoiding ties, even though we still had a tie for first, and seemed to give more of an appropriate amount of bonus to sports without having sports dominate battle and objective points in determining the overall outcome. This was derived from Bayou’s system and seemed to work well from a TO standpoint in giving more positive feedback and more of an ability to distinguish players for sports awards.]
8. Accommodations[This seemed to be a positive with so many hotels and suite hotels within a few miles in the area. This location seemed to work well with some fast food and bars within walking or short driving distance of a few blocks around the store.]
9. Tables
a. Was there enough terrain, too much terrain?
b. Was the mix of terrain appropriate? [We did not use mysterious terrain. We tried to put at least one building, one river, one forest, one swamp, one impassible terrain feature, and one fence or wall on each table and made some hills high enough to block line of sight. Also, we had either or forest or hill block line of sight in one scenario.]
c. Was the condition of the tables appropriate?
This was originally planned as a warm-up event for Lone Wolf (in March) and as a test format for future moderate to decent sized GT format tournaments in our area. If we had moved the event to the Lone Wolf date, we probably would have picked up another 8 to 10 players (based on feedback received; I had approximately 15 persons express interest that ultimately did not show up) that were conflicted with the date we chose (plus two persons registered cancelled a day or two before the event.).
I’d appreciate feedback and suggestions as to whether events like this are worthwhile. There is a hole in the schedule created by the cancellation of Rock Wars in September and we would welcome someone to fill it. The advantage of Area 51 as a venue is that we avoid having to rent a facility and Area 51, as set forth in the table below, works with us on prize support in the form of store credit (which, as one can see from the results summary, the store credit amounts were quite generous).
The biggest question is: Is this the type of event people would enjoy and should we consider offering events like this when there are gaps in the regional Indy GT schedule? If so, what is the best way to get feedback as to timing and provide information in advance for planning purposes? Also, is this the type of event with the size of the store we should promote in our region more?
1. Army Construction Rules
a. Was 2800 points a good number? Did it help with balance (except maybe for the high elf army) [It seemed to allow more flexibility to run interesting lore and rare and hero combinations without being broken.]
b. Was the sideboard interesting or unnecessary or too much of an advantage to some armies relative to others in terms of match-ups? [No real issues were provided. A few people really liked the sideboard idea and it did not take a lot of time in the end to implement from what I was told.]
2. Tournament Schedule
a. Did you like 3 hours per round as opposed to two and a half hours plus the ability to complete games as needed in most rounds?
?
c. Did we get posted matches for each round and results done soon enough? {Results were ready in 30 minutes after the last results were handed in and within 20 minutes of the last sports tracking sheets received. I would have had results even sooner except for a couple of issues where I had to look up who played who in what round to verify best game votes and took extra time to double check all of the entries for battle and objective points and sports results. I ran two sets of results, one using Overlord because of its ability to set up matches, randomize tables, and lock out people playing each other twice and from the same area at least through round three and a second using Microsoft Excel simply because it is easier to format the results and see all the awards together when people have multiple awards. I used the multiple awards to give bumps on store credit a couple of times.]
3. Awards
a. Would you prefer more tangible awards (certificates, framed certificates, trophies)? [If we had gotten to 40+, I would have committed the funds for something more. I’m not big on spending on such things rather than simply giving store credit.]
b. Was the store credit appreciated and useful? [We felt that store credit is more tangible and fungible and works better for Area 51 in terms of justifying hosting the event. Also, it allows you to get what you want.]
c. Rather than having some random door prizes, we gave store credit to everyone that did not receive an award. Was that appreciated?
4. Battle Scoring
a. Did you like the stratification of results by draw, minor, moderate and major wins?
b. Was the objective scoring of 4 to 6 points possible per round and some possibility for both players to win overlapping points appropriate? [Most seemed to pick up at least some objective points such that they made sense and, also, gave the player losing the battle something to play for, which is what we intended.]
5. Scenarios: Any comments, good, bad, tweaks? {I will include a summary of feedback I received watching games and between rounds.]
a. Round 1 Alien Possession:
b. Round 2 Gifts from Above: [Most people l spoke with liked this scenario at lot except for the fortitude points/break points at 4. Two persons commented that they would not have minded setting the break at 3 instead. One person preferred straight victory points. Two commented that the gifts often went to units with concentrated fortitude points where destroying or breaking that unit caused a loss of too many fortitude points and a loss of the battle even though they may have been close or even able to win on victory points. Although counting wounds remaining to figure out when a larger unit began to receive the augment was an issue, it was appreciated that the augment rewarded more moderately sized units as a balance.]
c. Round 3: Independence Day: { This was the least favorite scenario for most that I spoke with. This was the last scenario chosen and was chosen over a Mars Attacks scenario which as a fixed unit of twenty quick but weak Martians that deployed in the center and had limited shooting (pistols). The problem with the Mars Attacks scenario is high armour and fast units simply charged the unit and destroyed it before the other side ever got a chance. The most common issues were that the alien ships were a bit overpowered at S6 shooting and S6 attacks -hurting high value units/models- and the ships could get stuck on one side, constantly shooting or fighting one player. We wanted the ships to be annoying to encourage people to charge them and push them to the other side of the table (like the Alamo piñata scenario). We also wanted the ships to not be too easily killed in order to allow both sides a chance at objective points. One interesting outcome was that the loser of the battle often picked up most of the objective points in this scenario. Another concern at one table was that the alien ships got in the way of the armies fighting each other and interfered with movement too much. I received no negative comments on the suicide specialist component and might adapt that element to be by itself. Part of the issue is that we wanted something to fit within a theme of a movie and that meant adding too many special rules and stuff, where it is clear that the simpler the better.]
d. Round 4: Alien Crash Site [This one received mixed reviews. The idea of a crash site objective with a comet-like effect that goes off at some point was commented favorably on by a number of players. We wanted to play a Meeting Engagement scenario and fit the theme with the night rules. Most people I received feedback from did not mind the night rules and felt that the rules were a decent compromise with the problem of people wanting to bunker in a back corner in this scenario. One person does not like Meeting Engagement because of both the issue of people bunkering in the corner and the angles being off.]
e. Round 5: ET Go Home [Received mostly positive feedback on this scenario. While the special rules for ET were a bit long, they merely were there to address FAQ type questions that arose in simulation. The augment for ET was found to be interesting by limiting it to a small unit but also allowing a larger unit to initially carry ET. I noted a couple interesting strategic decisions in battles where one person was able to run ET from one unit to another when the first unit was at risk of being charged and killed. In another battle, a player won the opposing ET but the other player won it back at the very end. I also introduced a partial victory point system to reward MASU/MMU units over larger units. One mild concern was that it took more time to calculate victory points at the end of the battle, if close, but there were a couple that liked the twist and understood its purpose.]
f. Posting scenarios and Reading scenarios. Did it help to see the scenarios posted and send out in advance in an e-mail.
6. Paint Scoring:
a. We used a matrix to judge painting based off what was used at Shiloh but with some changes. Was it reasonable? [Fully painted armies with some effort put into them scored in within a reasonably tight range. We made an effort to reward extras but not so much that it made a huge difference in the overall score.]
b. We gave a bonus to those with players’ choice votes. c. While we used an 80 point max point total, paint scores were counted as half toward the overall score. The concern was situations where someone does well on sports and battle but gets killed on paint scoring and ends up close to last. Having a less than full painted army did cost a lot in the overall rankings for a few players, but also not so much that they had no chance at all.
7. Sports Scoring:
a. Did the Conduct Policy discussion in the tournament package help? [We received only a few “bad” games, as intended, and everyone was understood but not serious from my perspective. The goal was to discourage “retaliatory” bad games and people giving “bad” games just because they did not have fun because they got beat badly.]
b. Were the point amounts sufficient and did the extra second best game allow for rewarding more people as intended? [The 1st and 2nd best games allowed both for more stratification in the final sports award outcome and avoiding ties, even though we still had a tie for first, and seemed to give more of an appropriate amount of bonus to sports without having sports dominate battle and objective points in determining the overall outcome. This was derived from Bayou’s system and seemed to work well from a TO standpoint in giving more positive feedback and more of an ability to distinguish players for sports awards.]
8. Accommodations[This seemed to be a positive with so many hotels and suite hotels within a few miles in the area. This location seemed to work well with some fast food and bars within walking or short driving distance of a few blocks around the store.]
9. Tables
a. Was there enough terrain, too much terrain?
b. Was the mix of terrain appropriate? [We did not use mysterious terrain. We tried to put at least one building, one river, one forest, one swamp, one impassible terrain feature, and one fence or wall on each table and made some hills high enough to block line of sight. Also, we had either or forest or hill block line of sight in one scenario.]
c. Was the condition of the tables appropriate?