Wizard
|
 |
« on: August 12, 2010, 07:43:58 PM » |
|
Fixed scenarios seem to be confusing in the league. The idea I had was that to make the league fair, everyone would play the same games. I put out one scenario and everyone plays that scenario through the week. After 5 weeks, everyone's score is based off of the same five scenarios. This seems fair to me. Armies being allowed to choose their PL in all cases seems wrong. Not only are the Elite squads generally better, but you gain Support points based on your army's PL, so one player might have a GP squad, a FS squad, and 2 Support points, while his opponent has a Strike Cadre with 5 support points, and some extra points for light tanks or something. That is why I decided on fixed PL.
Now there are other schools of thought. I could write separate scenarios for each match up, tailoring the PL to the armies involved. This would solve the Leagueless/SRA PL problem, but then there could be a perception of one player having an easier time due to the scenarios he played.
I could disallow armies from participating if they can't join at the scenario's PL. Maybe SRA players at PL 1 could play MILICIA for that game. Or Leagueless could play POC for a PL 3 scenario. Or the player automatically loses. But then how many OPs does his opponent get, either all and he perhaps gets an advantage he shouldn't have, or none to half and he is screwed by the match up.
I could require a list to be made as closely as possible to the listed PL. So Leagueless in PL 3 or 4 would play at PL2. But then what if the scenario was theme around a PL 4 strike team. the Leagueless player has to spend a majority of his points on 2 Cores, and can't outfit a high quality squad.
I could allow players to choose the PL that they wish to play at, but why would anyone choose 2 when they could choose 4? You get better choices, fewer minimums, and more power.
In the end, this League is to figure out how we should do this, so let me know what you think.
|