TKort
Sergeant
583 Posts
    
 | | 09/12/2005 1:00 PM |
| | recovered topic 8581 | |
| |
|
TKort
Sergeant
583 Posts
| | 09/12/2005 1:00 PM |
| Well to start things off on a negative, I think the whole thing is ridiculous. Maybe it's a neat idea, but it makes the whole thing completely "wishy washy". Right now there are two win conditions, warlord lives or dies. He gets 1000 for living, 500 for dying. The LT experience is a factor of that, and is cut and dried. Your choice is which surviving, elgible character gets the exp. As you know I'd like to adjust the current pointing system a little, but my proposed change only got a vote of 9 to 5 so didn't pass. I do, however, like the simplicity of it. It makes resolving a battle, reporting results, and (I presume) recording statistics, as simple as possible while reflecting the possible outcomes of the matches fairly.
What you are talking about would get out of hand in a huge hurry. For one thing I think Galneweinhaw would end up completely snapping and then we'd NEVER understand his posts, instead of only 75% understandability now :). With all that flexibility, it would be up to the players to post everything perfectly the first time, and whoever is in charge of recording everything to get everything exactly right after that. Because there would be no easy way to go back and make sure it was recorded properly and after a couple weeks any errors would be lost in the ether.
To clarify, right now, after 3 wins and 2 losses, you know exactly what your experience should be (3500), and if it's off, it's because your warlord proably died at some point, and he will be 500 exp lower. VPs follow accordingly.
In this other proposal, it's up to the player to decide who gets what exp, and we'll never be able to calculate back and realize that something is wrong.
The hard part in matching pairings is not in figuring out a number that is universal across the board to represent how powerful a warband is, it's in the fact that different warlords level differently, and some become more powerful with levels than others. There is no perfect system, and it is somewhat unbalanced, but for the most part, warlords of the same level, given the same sized warbands, end up having a reasonable chance against each other, and if we go screwing around with how the Exp is assigned, we end up risking that already touchy balance, which I believe is why many people voted against, and several abstained from voting on the LT exp adjustment issue. For the record, IMHO that change would have simply slowed the Warlords down just slightly and allowed the LTs to catch up a bit to make life a little more interesting in the long run, while still keeping recordkeeping a part time job :).
Tkort.
| |
| |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1993 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 09/12/2005 1:29 PM |
| Jai, hey that's a really interesting idea! Not sure how to best implement, but there are ways of avoiding chaos.
Perhaps we could steal a feature of GodEmperor's system: A "form" for reporting battles, it could guide you through to fill in blanks then go right into the warlord page (or perhaps have an approval / review step, and once approved flushes into warlords page)?.
That would allow us to tune in our progression more. As long as warlord always has the most XP, and everything stays in 250XP increments. | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
|
The Mighty
jai
Commander
3235 Posts
| | 09/12/2005 1:59 PM |
| TKort: I understand your points and i agree that it can be nasty, i was just hoping we could come across a simple solution that would be fun.
quote:
Originally posted by Zippy
Perhaps we could steal a feature of GodEmperor's system: A "form" for reporting battles, it could guide you through to fill in blanks then go right into the warlord page (or perhaps have an approval / review step, and once approved flushes into warlords page)?.
You want me to work more don't you? [)]
quote:
Originally posted by Zippy
That would allow us to tune in our progression more. As long as warlord always has the most XP, and everything stays in 250XP increments.
Not a bad way to minimize the pain. | | | |
|
TKort
Sergeant
583 Posts
| | 09/12/2005 2:04 PM |
| I don't disagree that it could be streamlined and made workable, I still don't see why though.. there are still only two win conditions :). Everyone has already voted that LTs get less exp than Warlords no matter what, so it seems like a dead horse to me.
Tkort.
| |
| |
|
The Mighty
jai
Commander
3235 Posts
| | 09/12/2005 4:20 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by TKort
so it seems like a dead horse to me.
One of my big reasons for playing EC was to try some different things, namely strange commanders. Since i clearly lack the ability to even win half of my games, i am greatly limited in my chances to try such things. That is the only real reason i am pushing for this [:)]. | | | |
|
jjbeezer
Sergeant
633 Posts
| | 09/12/2005 5:19 PM |
| I wanted to try out all of the different commanders in the EC so I started my own EC on my home computer. I have a spreadsheet that tracks the warlord and up to 3 Lts for each warlord. The Standings for each round is based on Warlord Level and Campaign points. The campaign points term is calculated by Warlord XP + Lt1 XP + Lt2 XP + Lt3 XP.
This helps separate Brother Grim (Grim Necromancer) with no Lt XP since he likes to use Undead from Ruin (Cleric of Lathander) with 2 Lvl 1 Lts. This forces Ruin to play competition with more Lts, and it allows Grim to face Warlords who have more recently obtained his same level. However, it also puts Grim having a greater chance of being at the bottom of his current level. That would increase his chance of facing support troops.
The system is simple for me to keep up with since I am the only one playing the games. As soon as the game is over, I flip to the spreadsheet, update XP and treasures, and then set up the next battle. After all the games are complete for that round, I make new matchups based on a sort by Level then by Campaign Points.
Having admin'd the campaign in the past, this would not be so easy to keep up with for 60+ warlords and 40+ players. As evidenced by TheCloakedRanger this week, someone might post a win with Lt XP, but all his Lt eligable units were killed. If the report is then not updated to reflect no Lt XP, that info will be incorporated and things will be lost.
It would be very tough to change the system now. If we were starting over from scratch (and I was running the campaign [which I don't want or have time to do anymore]), I would create a tool that would keep the Campaign point total to be Warlord + Lt XP. This would give a truer picture of a Warlord's strength. Also, it would allow the assignment of any number of XP for each victory or loss condition (die and win = 500 Warlord and 500 Lt XP [or whatever is chosen]) since the "tool" would take care of adding things up.
Of course that means Galneweinhaw should probably get his masters in computer programming, focused on Microsoft Office and Visual Basic. I sure he has time for that, right? | |
| |
|
The Mighty
jai
Commander
3235 Posts
| | 09/12/2005 5:28 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by jjbeezer
Of course that means Galneweinhaw should probably get his masters in computer programming, focused on Microsoft Office and Visual Basic. I sure he has time for that, right?
You underestimate the ease with which non-programmers can jump into Visual Basic and root around ...
... and thus tell their bosses that they don't need to pay for a real programmer ... which is followed by a developer losing his job and a project going under because a manager has no grasp on the reality of the situation but loves saving money ...
Seen it once or twice [)], but seriously VB can actually be useful with very little training. | | | |
|
The Defenestrator
AesophDarkfable
Warlord
5628 Posts
| | 09/12/2005 6:05 PM |
| | Im for something like that, but I just want to make sure it is the easiest system. I really want a LE build but don't want to run any of the current LE commanders. So I either wait and pray theres a good under 35pt commander in LE, or I use either the Grim Necro or Urthok and build the Direguard as a commander (taking alot of time often as not). So I'd like an easier route to get lts xp, but I feel systems where we get to give them more xp (and our commanders less)hinders the ability to do even matchups. As if I choose to give my lt xp and not my commander or some such my commander will have items and lts of someone 2 levels or so higher than he is. | |
Im out- find me on Hordelings if you want to chat. | |
|
Aravis
Underboss
1155 Posts
| | 09/13/2005 12:12 AM |
| | I think this is a great idea. Because I also would like to play a weird LG warlord but I dont like any of the clerics that you can play atm. So I think getting 1500 xp and splitting it how you want (in increments of 250 xp) is a GREAT idea, it allows you to pick and choose what you want to happen and level up your Lts faster so you can make them crazy new Warlords :D. | |
Welcome to Eternal Crack...
"Corn is no place for a mighty warrior!"
Champion of the Frost Salamander | |
|
The Mighty
jai
Commander
3235 Posts
| | 09/13/2005 10:00 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by AesophDarkfable
As if I choose to give my lt xp and not my commander or some such my commander will have items and lts of someone 2 levels or so higher than he is.
The rules currently state you cannot have another commander with a higher commander rating than you. So your Lts. cannot gain enough levels to surpass your warlord. (Example: Snig's Lts can become Level 1, but not Level 2 until Snig levels up twice and gains Cmd Rating 1.) We could also state that Lts must be at least one level lower than your warlord (Lt and Warlord lvls).
The Standings page already tracks level of Warlord and Lts, so a matchup based on those combined levels would theoretically be even. | | | |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1993 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 09/13/2005 10:36 AM |
| 1) Warlord should always have the most total XP
2) To implement this, total band levels would have to be used to determine matchups and support troops (Level= Warlord Level + All Lt. Levels), so it would not matter which creatures have levels, it would only matter the total creature levels.
3) This would be a fundamental rules change and would require overhaul of match up system and band sizing system. Not something we could successfully toss into place. EC V3 rather than V2 running change. | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
|
E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 09/13/2005 10:45 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Zippy
2) To implement this, total band levels would have to be used to determine matchups and support troops (Level= Warlord Level + All Lt. Levels), so it would not matter which creatures have levels, it would only matter the total creature levels.
This might force a player to bring all his Lt's to have an even match, screwing up his warband. Players with a higher level Lt as opposed to a few lower level ones might be at more of an advantage than they may be now.
...interesting discussion. | |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
The Mighty
jai
Commander
3235 Posts
| | 09/13/2005 10:50 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by galneweinhaw
quote:
Originally posted by Zippy
2) To implement this, total band levels would have to be used to determine matchups and support troops (Level= Warlord Level + All Lt. Levels), so it would not matter which creatures have levels, it would only matter the total creature levels.
This might force a player to bring all his Lt's to have an even match, screwing up his warband. Players with a higher level Lt as opposed to a few lower level ones might be at more of an advantage than they may be now.
...interesting discussion.
Good point ... but. In the most recently proposed version, you would get to Divvy up your XP between Warlord and Lts. So if you favorite Lts die, you could just give all the XP to warlord. So he is right in that adding this change to the current play would be unbalanced. We would have to start from scratch so that all Warlords are on the same level. | | | |
|
lowlevelstatic
Sneak
134 Posts
| | 09/13/2005 11:31 AM |
| If simplicity is the driving goal, we could drop lieutenant xp completely and focus on lieutenant levels, granting +1 to any lieutenant (surviving or not) when a commander gains an even numbered level. That might be even easier to track, because lieutenant levels will always equal half the warlord level (rounded down). It removed the need to track three different lieutenants with 250 xp, and removes the danger of squandering the xp on units that never end up gaining levels (ever wish you had the points during your first match to give that first 500 xp to a unit you actually wanted to level, rather than having to give it a cheap unit?).
I should point out that, as far as I can see, the only real practical difference here is that the previously posted method allows you to advance a warlord exclusively, rolling the lieutenant xp into the commander. This method (and the method currently in the rules) provides xp/levels that must be used on lieutenants. | | | |
|
The Mighty
jai
Commander
3235 Posts
| | 09/13/2005 2:03 PM |
| Good idea.
Good point.
*sigh*
Even if this doesn't work out, at least let me have the illusion of it one day working. [:)] | | | |
|
Richard II
Commander
3663 Posts
| | 09/13/2005 2:49 PM |
| | I like the way things are now. The more we open it up for new lieutenants becoming commaners the more we open it up for rather broken things to come into play. | |
 | |
|
E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 09/13/2005 3:05 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by jai
Good idea.
Good point.
*sigh*
Even if this doesn't work out, at least let me have the illusion of it one day working. [:)]
It will..... some day.....some day [)] | |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
The Mighty
jai
Commander
3235 Posts
| | 09/14/2005 9:38 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by galneweinhaw
It will..... some day.....some day [)]
If i can "break the code" on how much each ability and stat point "costs" what are the chances we can start a side campaign or mini-tourney with custom built figures? | | | |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1993 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 09/14/2005 11:08 AM |
| FYI each faction very likely has different values - so when "decoding", start with something like CE, huge population of creatures all within a single faction.
I tried decoding and correlations looked best within factions but not from faction to faction for many DDM stats.
Custom minis would need to be a separate campaign imho, but would be really fun (like the way old "Mail Order Monsters" video game from days of yore). | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
|
The Mighty
jai
Commander
3235 Posts
| | 09/14/2005 1:05 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Zippy
FYI each faction very likely has different values - so when "decoding", start with something like CE, huge population of creatures all within a single faction.
I was going to write an algorithm to do it ... not by hand for me [)]
This way i can feed it a list of minis and it can find correlations within that list ... so i can work with any combination/faction i want to mess with.
Although, this idea is down the road *way* beyond my current projects. | | | |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1993 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 09/14/2005 4:55 PM |
| Yes I used algorithms, too, but found so many exceptions there were a lot of handjobs in the mix. I think they manually tweak the points also (perhaps based on if they want to boost or nerf that faction in that set).
Hmm did I word that properly...? Good luck! | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
|