Handicap System

[Ratarsed]

I Just thought I would share with you a handicap system we are starting up in my gaming group. It works like this.
Each time you play against an opponent you record the result, and for every defeat you suffer you gain a 5% army size bonus next time you play that opponent. For every victory you score you reduce your bonus by 5% to a minimum of zero. That's it.
The idea is you end up with as near a 50% win ratio as possible with the difference in ability countered by the handicap. All it needs is a little booklet kept with your magic deck and a pen.

Thoughts? Any potential problems? We realise that using different armies is one, as a player might be better with one army than another. However in our group most players end up at a similar level whichever army they take and recording seperate results for different armies used is impractical as the combinations are just too many.

[Jind_Singh]

It's workable - personally I'll limit my own lists depending on the skill level of the opponent - if they are newbs I'll take a very weak list but still do my best to beats them!

[T10]

If you don't mind adjusting your lists on the fly each time you play in the handicap-zone, I guess that would work.

Classic mistake on the internet there, friend: Coming up with something reasonable that people like and won't object to. Flame wars are the way to fame and notoriety.

-T10

[samael]

Not for me personaly. It feels a bit like a crutch solution, I prefer to win once after a 100 defeats without any help or advantage beforehand.

But if someone would ask me if they could add 5% to their army after numerous defeats I'd be willing to give it a go.

[Ratarsed]

Not for me personaly. It feels a bit like a crutch solution, I prefer to win once after a 100 defeats without any help or advantage beforehand.

But if someone would ask me if they could add 5% to their army after numerous defeats I'd be willing to give it a go.

It's not really a crutch solution. That is a very negative view to take. A more positive view would be to see it as a system to increase the excitement and challenge in the games. I notice how you will be willing to offer a handicap to another, but not take one yourself. Why is that? Pride?

What I notice at my gaming club is players with all sorts of gaming styles and approaches to playing the game. The Highly competative, tournament attending players tend to win most of their games, whilst the laid back just for fun types lose much more often than they win. What delvelops is a tendancy for the good players to prefer to play each other because they get a more challenging game. One solution is for the better player to tone down his list and play in a sub-par way (for him). What Jind Singh says he does.

Your fluff bunny player very rarely will change his style, as if losing mattered that much then they would probably have already done so.

So with the Handicap system you have a way where your competative type gets the challenge he likes and the fluff bunny gets to use more stuff and still play in the style he likes.

As for the problems of list writing I can see that as a potential issue. However at our club games for the following week are normally arranged the week before so it is not an issue.

It's only just started at the club and i'm interested to see how far the handicaps go. Will they ever get to +50%? At the moment I am +5% against 2 players and -5% (ie opponent gains +5%) against one.

[druchii]

So essentially you're rewarding sub-par playing?

Sounds incredibly counter-productive to me.

What's the problem with competitive players playing competitive players when they want competitive games? And those same players playing non-competitive players when they want to trounce a chump?

Either a player drives as much fun losing with his "fluffly" army as a competitive player does winning with is "WAAC" army, or they're on completely different scales?

Is your goal to get different sorts of players to play each other? Do your competitive players dislike playing fun players because they hold no challenge? Do your fun players dislike losing to competitive players because they feel the games aren't fun?

I'm curious as to why no other sorts of competitive environments reward losing, but we feel that something like warhammer should?

d

[stiltjet]

Sounds like an interesting way to get more exciting games. Good luck trying it out. As for druchii´s comment about rewarding sub-par playing, I can only say that I think that is a misinterpretation of what the first poster aims to achieve. More exciting games between players is what the goal is here, more enjoyment for everyone, not rewarding one group of players at the cost of another. Surely a player who wins most of his games without much effort would benefit from getting more of a challenge when playing against someone with less skills or a less competitive build. But I think this need a mature group of players who all agree to the suggested rules and consider them worth trying out for a period of time.

[Jind_Singh]

well today i played an ogre player - he is a newb - so I took an all Night Goblin list with no BSB/Magic, no common gobbos, no no forest gobbos - and I got creamed!

I played the best I could - almost had him at one point - but luck was not on my side - got my entire army tabled actually!!

Had a blast - he had fun, he loved beating me, I got to try out new tricks - and we both had 2000pt lists - and as i explained to him before we started 2000pts vs 2000pts is going to be a fair fight - had we been of equal skills though it would have been an uphill struggle.

Either way it kept us both entertained! It's similar concept to the OP but instead of more models it's just limiting my access to my tried and tested units

[Harwammer]

It's worth pointing yout the BRB recommends using handicaps for veterans vs new players et cetera.

[samael]

Why is that? Pride?

Actually, yes, but please don't take it as hubris.
For me it feels fantastic that the guy that basically thought me the game of warhammer (and my long time nemesis ) and myself have reached a point where we're equal in the amount that we win/loose instead of me getting my butt kicked every time.
I've reached that point by learning how to play better and build my armies better, I see it as an achievement and indeed something to be a little proud of.What it comes down to is that I get more enjoyment out of reaching that point by slogging it out on equal footing (pointswise atleast) than by playing with a bigger army than my opponent.

But like I said , that's me. I can perfectly see that some people might get disheartened if they keep loosing, and that this might drive them out of the hobby completely, if your idea gets them to win and helps them stay in the hobby more power too you (and them.....and us, more players is win for all)

[Moss]

I like the spirit of the idea, and I will bring it up to my buddies to see what they think. However, a side effect you may be overlooking is that WAAC players (the very ones you're trying to even the field against) are going to become even more WAAC-y when they are playing with a 300pt deficit. While the "weaker" player technically has a better shot at winning, the game is unlikely to be very fun for him since his opponent is more likely to field things like Tzeentch Chosenstars and such.

[Ratarsed]

Hmmm. It's not about winning or dealing with WAAC players, the whole point is to make the games more exciting and challenging for all. I think maybe a bit of where I'm comming from might better shed light on why I think it will work (although still early days yet so could be wrong about the whole thing)

I've been going to my club for 15 years now and so have many of my regular gaming buddies, Others have joined and left, some have joined and stayed. So entrenched are we in our ways that anyone wanting to join us plays our way or probably doesn't play at all. Elitist? Yeah, probably. But that is beside the point. The point is we are now past the point of developing as players, set in our ways but still after 15 years some of us win much more often than we lose, whilst others hardly win a game. Myself being a former tournament attendee sit in the win more than lose bunch, but wouldn't say I'm the best WFB player, That accolade goes to Andy. Adam on the other hand can count his victories against me on the fingers of 1 hand (after 15 years!). So if I was to list our regular part of the "elite" group of WFB players in order of game Victories against me my guess would be:
Andy (40% wins against him) Still attends tournaments and builds highly efficient lists.
Pete (50/50) Very competative, great tactician, can make stuff work that shouldn't.
Neil (60-70% wins against Neil). Comes up with the best cunning plans but so often the winds of fate conspire to stop him ever pulling them off.
Owen (75% wins against Owen) Our youngest recruit. Starting to develop some powerful builds and showing remarkable improvement. Great painter
Malcolm (80% wins against Malcolm) Relies on his army to do the work. Never fully grasps the rules.
Adam (95% wins against Adam) Combination of rubbish armies, poor decision making and a seemingly never ending run of bad luck.

I got to thinking wouldn't it be great if every time I go to the club to play a game it was 50/50 if was to win or not. One of my core beliefs is that the greater the chance of defeat the greater the pleasure there is in achieving victory. When you balance that with the fact that victory is always preferable to defeat (all else being equal) I believe the best games are those where both players have an equal chance of Victory. Thus I came up with this system we are testing at my club to see if it does indeed balance things out and the players like it.

As for samael's point about improving oneself the handicaps may not hinder one at all. Because every time you win your handicap against that player decreases if you want to repeat the achievement you need to improve. Win again and your handicap will get lower still. Keep improving and your opponent will have more points and so you now have the challenge of fighting uneven battles, which could make you an even better player still. On the other hand if you are not the sort of person that bothers about the result a great deal, you still get to play games with more toys and even win some whilst giving your opponent a challenging game.

I can actually see the handicaps becoming competative in their own right with bragging rights as the better WFB player if your handicap is negative against a fellow club member.

[theunwantedbeing]

I take it that the added 5% isn't manditory?

[Ratarsed]

Not at all. You could have handicaps against some people and not against others. It's all voluntary, as is just about anything in this hobby. Afterall if someone doesn't want to do something you can't force them to (except perhaps pay taxes )

[T10]

So essentially you're rewarding sub-par playing?

Sounds incredibly counter-productive to me.

So essentially you place no value on the game that was just lost?

It is no reward. Victory in the next game will have 5% less significance than did losing the previous game.

I'm curious as to why no other sorts of competitive environments reward losing, but we feel that something like warhammer should?

Have you ever heard of a game called golf?

-T10

[theunwantedbeing]

Not at all. You could have handicaps against some people and not against others. It's all voluntary, as is just about anything in this hobby. Afterall if someone doesn't want to do something you can't force them to (except perhaps pay taxes )

I meant more along the lines of not having to use that extra 5% if you simply don't have the troops available to fill it.

[Ratarsed]

I meant more along the lines of not having to use that extra 5% if you simply don't have the troops available to fill it.

Haha! I hadn't even considered that. I didn't imagine anyone not having the troops to increase their army. Games at the club rarely go beyond 3000 points as there just is not the time to play bigger games. We all have armies of substantial sizes 5000+ points. However I could forsee a new starter with potential size issues. You could always decrease the size of your opponents army if the handicap became too large. Say you had a maximum of 2500 points and you were at + 30% against a particularly strong player just play a 1800 point game as opposed to a 2000 point game. In fact if handicaps do get that big then we would have to decrease the base boints level anyway just to get the game done.

[Gaargod]

I Just thought I would share with you a handicap system we are starting up in my gaming group. It works like this.
Each time you play against an opponent you record the result, and for every defeat you suffer you gain a 5% army size bonus next time you play that opponent. For every victory you score you reduce your bonus by 5% to a minimum of zero. That's it.
The idea is you end up with as near a 50% win ratio as possible with the difference in ability countered by the handicap. All it needs is a little booklet kept with your magic deck and a pen.

Thoughts? Any potential problems? We realise that using different armies is one, as a player might be better with one army than another. However in our group most players end up at a similar level whichever army they take and recording seperate results for different armies used is impractical as the combinations are just too many.

Couple of problems.

1: This requires having multiple lists. +5% (i.e. 100pts at 2k) is a fairly significant addition, and I know for myself I'd want to rejig most things rather than just add 100pts of stuff. It's a pain to have to carry around multiple lists (and learn them - I much prefer perfecting one list at a time)

2: Leading on from 1, you will basically know what that particular points level is for. Let's say my gaming group has 6 players - after a while, I could be at different points level for every player. Further, each player may be using one army (or one army mainly currently) - thus I then know what my army at, say, -10% will be fighting against. And I could then tailor against it, rather than having an all-comers list.

3. +/- 5% per battle is too much. That's a 200pts swing for every single game. For every best out of 5 (or maybe 3) at a certain points level, yeah, fair enough - that shows you really are winning at that level. But an individual battle is way too easily swung by one dice roll (i.e. irresistible uberspell, for example). Sure, logically, you'd then move back the next battle to what you should have been, but it would just be a pain to know that each battle would screw around with points.


By the way, I like the actual idea. It's just it needs revision.

[theunwantedbeing]

You could always decrease the size of your opponents army if the handicap became too large.

Change the game size to one you can play!
So there really aren't any issues.

I think it's a brilliant idea

[unknown_lifeform]

I really like the spirit of the idea. I've been playing starcraft II recently which uses a league system so that you end up playing people of roughly equal skill. That's completely impractical in a setting with a limited pool of players like a wargames club but the principle is a good one. Close fought, even games are more challenging and entertaining for both involved. If you beat someone all the time all that really says is that you are playing someone who isn't challenging you. Also, hotly contested games tend to be the ones you learn the most from - if you thrash someone silly or just get rolled over its very hard to take anything productive away from that. A handicap system could end up helping players of all levels of ability to improve.

I can't agree with those objecting to the idea on competition grounds. Firstly, it doesn't remove the competitive element, it just shifts it. Your ability as a player is shown by your handicap rather than the result of each game. I also think its actually healthy to lose a good proportion of your games - it encourages you to learn and develop and getting used to losing stops you investing all of your ego in the result of a game. Instead the emphasis gets shifted to being the best you can rather than the result of the game itself. Being able to lose with grace and dignity is a skill everyone should learn.

Like Gaargod says, it does create a problem with having to keep lots of different lists. Also, I like to have several different themed builds and that would create an exponential explosion on the number of lists I need. It also assumes all army books are equally balanced, which is patently not true. I remember playing beastmen vs chaos daemons in 7th ed (before the latest beastmen army book) and the result of the games said very little about the skill of either player. Admittedly balance is a lot better now.

Instead of keeping a win loss record against each player I'd instead favour a more global system - you keep track of wins and losses and have an overall handicap with each army you play. When you get a game you just compare handicaps and select the appropriately pointed lists. Not to say this system doesn't have its flaws - it assumes everyone plays each other evenly. If high handicap players mainly play amongst themselves it could create a "micro climate" out of sync with the rest of the group.