Slitherine

I've seen some reposted on The Page That Cannot be Named http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/topics.mv?id=63

madaxeman wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:49 pm I've seen some reposted on The Page That Cannot be Named http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/topics.mv?id=63

Bugger! I'm barred plus it's not easy to follow that site.

Blimey, is that creaky old thing still going!

Can't believe we're up to 6 pages on this....however I believe there are some things in this thread that may be worthy of further consideration.

Dan Hazelwood from the States told me recently that he awards prizes for those at the bottom of the results table of a competition. These can be terrain / figures etc and are designed to encourage continued participation. Those on the podium still get trophies but no added prizes. I think this is something that the BHGS could consider adopting?

I have the email addresses for most of the regular competition participants and we do communicate as and when the need arises. I do not have yours Chris but if you’d like to remind me of it via PM I’ll happily add you to my list. And if anyone else would like to do the same please feel free.

I like the idea of a handicap system and we’ve discussed doing something similar at our club as you should at MAWS if you wish to. On reflection though I can’t see this has any mileage or justification for the competition circuit. I’ll give you a couple of examples as to why. We have several good FoG players at our Hampshire club who enter Belgarum and sometimes Warfare. But due to family / travelling restrictions they, thus far, are unable to go to events that are further afield. I suspect that is the case for many people around the country. So giving them additional AP will not make any difference to them attending more events. Having mentioned Warfare – this is already fully booked for FoG and several other periods. Several regular FoG tournament players are on a waiting list. So we are already over-subscribed.

Another example. Graham Evans is an excellent FoG player who for various reasons has not played for a while. As a result he is way down the rankings and presumably would be in line for a positive handicap with your proposal? I’d certainly back him to win on that basis which doesn’t seem very fair to the rest of us.

A final example - I was given a damn good thrashing at Belgarum by an unranked player. I think he was pretty chuffed. I suspect the win would not have tasted quite so sweet if he had been awarded a shed load more points to give me an excuse for losing.

petedalby wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:27 pm Can't believe we're up to 6 pages on this....however I believe there are some things in this thread that may be worthy of further consideration.

I like the idea of a handicap system and we’ve discussed doing something similar at our club as you should at MAWS if you wish to. On reflection though I can’t see this has any mileage or justification for the competition circuit.

Any golfers in the house?

petedalby wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:27 pm A final example - I was given a damn good thrashing at Belgarum by an unranked player. I think he was pretty chuffed. I suspect the win would not have tasted quite so sweet if he had been awarded a shed load more points to give me an excuse for losing.

Interesting viewpoint. I looks like you have assumed that the handicap was that mentioned by Chris based on extra army points so 800 vs 850 for example. The above is not unambiguous.

Of course the handicap could be in VP with both of you using 800 point armies. Then after your trashing your opponent can revel in his victory safe in the knowledge that his handicap played no part whatsoever (unless it forced you to be stupidly aggressive).

Another advantage would be that it could be calculated in advance by the list checker and no player would have to bring more troops than they would normally.

petedalby wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:27 pmAnother example. Graham Evans is an excellent FoG player who for various reasons has not played for a while. As a result he is way down the rankings and presumably would be in line for a positive handicap with your proposal? I’d certainly back him to win on that basis which doesn’t seem very fair to the rest of us.

Graham could waive his handicap.

petedalby wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:27 pm I like the idea of a handicap system and we’ve discussed doing something similar at our club as you should at MAWS if you wish to. On reflection though I can’t see this has any mileage or justification for the competition circuit. I’ll give you a couple of examples as to why. We have several good FoG players at our Hampshire club who enter Belgarum and sometimes Warfare. But due to family / travelling restrictions they, thus far, are unable to go to events that are further afield. I suspect that is the case for many people around the country. So giving them additional AP will not make any difference to them attending more events.

I agree travel can be an issue but we're not looking for a panacea but something to have some positive impact especially with new or casual players to increase the pool of tournament FOG AM players.

A handicap system will not fit every circumstance and to be honest I doesn't sound as if the players you mention are the real target of such a system: they sound too good. And as I've said already, they can always waive their handicap if they are that good.

I have the email addresses for most of the regular competition participants and we do communicate as and when the need arises. I do not have yours Chris but if you’d like to remind me of it via PM I’ll happily add you to my list. And if anyone else would like to do the same please feel free.

Sounds like you already have the makings of a FOG-AM Players' Association. Might increase your workload but what a valuable addition it would be.

I've sent you my e-mail address by PM, Pete. And thank you for your considered response to some of the suggestions made. Your's and Martin Stephenson's 'voices of reason' were a pleasant relief from the 'can't do/won't work/illegal/impossible/etc' torrents of others.

vexillia wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:05 pm
Graham could waive his handicap.

PMSL
Have you ever met him?

ChrisTofalos wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 8:25 pm

I have the email addresses for most of the regular competition participants and we do communicate as and when the need arises. I do not have yours Chris but if you’d like to remind me of it via PM I’ll happily add you to my list. And if anyone else would like to do the same please feel free.

Sounds like you already have the makings of a FOG-AM Players' Association. Might increase your workload but what a valuable addition it would be.

I've sent you my e-mail address by PM, Pete. And thank you for your considered response to some of the suggestions made. Your's and Martin Stephenson's 'voices of reason' were a pleasant relief from the 'can't do/won't work/illegal/impossible/etc' torrents of others.

Thanks Chris.

Exactly

I don't enter enough competitions to get a good ranking score so I shall look forward to my handicap.

It's like advanced submarining!

prb4 wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:44 amI don't enter enough competitions to get a good ranking score so I shall look forward to my handicap.

I doubt a simple system based on current rankings will work because the rankings depend on the number of tournaments played as well as the outcome of games.

We probably need something based just on results. So if you did well in your last outing don't expect a large handicap even if it was two years ago.

vexillia wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:59 am

prb4 wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:44 amI don't enter enough competitions to get a good ranking score so I shall look forward to my handicap.

I doubt a simple system based on current rankings will work because the rankings depend on the number of tournaments played as well as the outcome of games.

We probably need something based just on results. So if you did well in your last outing don't expect a large handicap even if it was two years ago.

The rankings are based purely on results and not games....

But, IIRC, they are for just 12 months results and you cannot get a "full" ranking unless you do 6 (?) comps. So a good player who hasn't played recently, or plays occasionally, will be ranked low even if their last games were all victories.

dave_r wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:06 amThe rankings are based purely on results and not games....

Hmm! I was confused by this from the BHGS site:

BHGS - FoG Rankings

• The number of tournaments required for a full ranking is four
• Only a players best four tournaments will count towards the rankings ...

Looking at the ELO rankings (if they are used) gave me a headache this early in the morning. Worryingly they look incomplete. But they too are dependent on the number of games played. A good player with a small number of good results will still have a lower ranking than a regular player who's played a lot of mediocre opposition.

prb4 wrote: ↑17 Jul 2018 07:44
I don't enter enough competitions to get a good ranking score so I shall look forward to my handicap.

I doubt a simple system based on current rankings will work because the rankings depend on the number of tournaments played as well as the outcome of games.

We probably need something based just on results. So if you did well in your last outing don't expect a large handicap even if it was two years ago.

Exactly, Martin. Some sort of system based on rankings AND previous results is the way to go. Peter, you won Britcon not long ago! Don't think you'd qualify by any stretch of the imagination.

The ELO rankings don't work. We've been down this route many, many times....

Thanks Chris.

Don't fall out with me, Dave. I like you, you've always got a smile on your face (and not always alcohol-induced!) and you've earned the respect of all FOG players at MAWS (and, no doubt, elsewhere). But I think you're wrong on this one.

Some of the replies I've received border on trolling and I actually felt my blood pressure rising - which is not good at my age! That's what prompted my reply.

The order of the day should be, what can we do to bring in more FOG players, and if other rules have to follow suit, so what?