Well we all like to complain and criticise, I think mainly because you need to be more vocal about change, or opposing proposed change, in order to achieve the desired outcome. But sometimes it can appear with enough complaint and counter complaint that the game is in a poor state. [note: Now when I say “game” I mean tournament game].
Now before I push forward I would argue that for Australia to regularly produce 50 and 100 player tournaments we need a system that is far stronger than Europe or the US, simply with how small and dispersed our population is means we need to provide tourney goers with a greater level of enjoyment than our European cousins.
This is one thing that frustrates me when people hold up European systems and suggest that if it works there it must work here? Now setting aside the inevitable cultural differences that could lead to a concept working in one and not the other the fact remains that you need a lower percentage of both the general and war gaming population in Europe to accept the system in order to make it successful.
So with that in mind I thought it might be time to put out a positive stock take of the 5 best things about the Australian game I see today versus the game I saw in 1992.
Attendance: I don’t think I ever would of envisaged being able to pick and choose between 50 player tourneys. Back when the tourney scene first started heating up in Brisbane (special thanks to Ken Remington and Adrian Roberts who drove that and strangely composition in QLD) we were stoked at 35 players and most tournaments had a circa 20 field. Now 50 seems to be the standard benchmark for a good sized tourney and many “small” events are coming in at 40 players and shocking the organisers.
For me the most positive sign is that these tourneys aren’t being propped up by the travelling contingent anymore. The past few years you really needed to attract the 10 or so guys who would travel in order to hit 50 plus, now we have 50 locals trotting out once a month.
Now it’s impossible to determine what led to the increase, was it online forums giving players access, a successful GW marketing ploy etc. But I’d like to think that soft scoring actually contributed somewhat – I’m sure it pushed some players out but I’m relatively confident it brought more players into the game as it gave the impressions that hyper competitiveness was tempered and that opponents were considered a part of the game not an obstacle.
The Cliques: Remember I said this would be wholly positive? Well I’m using the cliques in an entirely positive manner. I see it as exceptionally positive that the scene has developed into almost a sub society. Players care enough about the game to actually form social groups that are bigger than a simple extension of their playing group or club. To me I think this is more encouraging to a newcomer that this is indeed social atmosphere and that the different groups give someone to relate to.
General quality of play: Moving to NSW I noticed a sharp increase in the depth of quality players, the ability of the top players was roughly the same but it was the second tier guys who were substantially tougher in NSW. I’m still not sure if this was a product of NSW having a more competitive “tourney” club set up or that I just moved to NSW in 2002 which was probably the year tourney play started to really take off here following on from dogcon.
Either way I think currently with the increase in tournaments, and a lot more tournament focused clubs propping up, the depth of quality players at tournaments have improved dramatically. More importantly the quality of play in the mid tables has, form my observation, lead to a muck quicker progression for new players to the tournament scene.
Soft scores: Now that the pro painting debate ahs been seemingly put to bed by making painting scores something eminently achievable by anyone willing to put in a measure effort I think it is fair to say most tourney goers believe sports and painting scores are a positive for tournament play not part of a black box system.
Composition: yes that’s right I think this is one of the 5 best things today. Sure composition will always be a somewhat controversial issue as people invariably succumb to self interest in these matters. But I think we’ve come a long way to a point where the majority of the arguments are more at the fringes than fundamental opposition. Anything which improves the balance, or at least has players thinking about their opponents enjoyment, has to be a positive for new players in general.
There will always be people alienated by comp these are generally the more hyper competitive [because comp only affects you if you are really concerned with winning] who will be alienated under any system which doesn’t allow them to gain an edge.
Furthermore I think that having a system which only disallows the most abusive of builds provides the freedom necessary to attract new players and encourage diversity.
So there we go 5 positives amid the quagmire of negativity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I had originally questioned how someone could possibly compare the freedoms available under the current comp system and the freedoms available under the comp system based solely around restrictions as I fail to see how anyone who gave it any thought could come to that conclusion, given that restrictions by definition are more restrictive.
It appears that one person in particular has taken the entire two page post as an opportunity to slip that comment in – this was not the case. That comment was inserted to highlight that people should be look through the reasons behind such comments and be wary of giving up freedoms for simplistic restrictions that on the face of it affect only others and not themselves. Freedoms in any system are easily given up and hard to win back once entrenched.
But take all this with a grain of salt given that apparently the number one thing wrong with the tournmanet game in Australia is my involvement and the second biggest detraction is the involvement of people of my ilk (I am not sure if I have spawned these people or they occur naturally – tests are being conducted as we speak).
I am the first to admit I am often arrogant and condescending when met with a comment that I feel is ill thought out, not entirely truthful or patently incorrect. I often call people to task to back up or amend their comments. Could my approach be more moderate, perhaps, is it likely to be, probably not. Others prefer quiet and subtle manipulation to achieve change or preserve the status quo to open conflict which they find harsh and insulting in the same way I find their approach dishonest and far too often hypocritical when they sway their public views with public opinion whilst beaver away to amend in the background. But these are far less “confronting” and hence more palatable for many is either side wrong? Depends on who you ask?
Post a Comment