Pitman said:
I am rather mind-boggled at this response. It is a common practice for tournament organizers to provide balancing provisions to make certain scenarios suitable for tournament play. There is absolutely no reason for them not to do so.
If they publish that fact beforehand, sure, fine.
But to have the TD walk by two guys setting up to play and then snap up an MMG from one side bcause the scenario is perceived to be a dog, well that is not fine.
I am not saying that that is what happened in the aforementioned case BTW.
Pitman said:
Incidentally, the question is not whether the scenario is a "dog." There are countless scenarios that are not "dogs," but which may not be balanced enough to be suitable for tournament play.
Uh, that would in fact make the scenario a dog Mark ... hello!
Pitman said:
Making sure they are balanced means that the tournament organizers are not limited to those scenarios which are perfectly balanced.
Mark, your inexperience as a TD screams through here.
It is unlikely that a TD can create a scenario list with perfectly balanced scenarios without having the same scenarios appear time after time. IMHO, scenarios that dip to the 65-35 range are suitable for a tournament and without having to tinker with mandatory balance.
Pitman said:
As I recall, losing the MMG is the German balance in the scenario. Having played the scenario, I don't think it helps the German player enough. But at least it is a step in the right direction.
Maybe you should play a better game as the German player ...
If losing the MMG is the published balance, fine, let the players decide. If invoking the balance is mandatory (losing the MMG in this case) make that information known before players decide if they want to play that scenario.
Pitman said:
That is a silly "observation" that perhaps does not deserve a response,
... wait for it ... but you will?
Pitman said:
On time and as expected ...
Pitman said:
... respond anyway. No scenario becomes a dog by virtue of the fact that a skilled player is playing it.
That is a fairly obvious observation.
Pitman said:
A scenario is a playing field, not a team. The goal is to create a level playing field so that one player's skill may be applied against another.
"The goal is to create a level playing field ... etc."?
So how is this level playing field to be created when Steve Pleva is paired against a much less skilled player (taking into account that some very good players are much less skilled that Mr. Pleva)?
It would be wrong to handicap Steve outside of any OB given play balance provisions. Do you force the players to play a dog scenario and then make Steve play the dogger side in order to create this level playing field?
I don't think so.
Having said that, if both players are in agreement, they can make whatever changes they would want to make to the OoB. Bottom line is, they have to both be in agreement.
Pitman said:
You are simply introducing a straw man by bring up the issue of trying to balance between potentially different skill levels.
Mark, put your straw man card away already! You wave that thing around with such vigour and regularity the poor bugger is wearing thin.
Pitman said:
That is all just ridiculous. Not being perfectly balanced is not equivalent to having "serious structural faults...which should have been caught during the playtest process."
You seem hung up on the "perfectly balanced scenario" rock. I don't believe I said that that was the goal.
A scenario with "serious structural faults" is very often a dog.
Pitman said:
And there is no reason--no reason whatsoever--that a scenario must be played as published.
That I agree with. What I don't agree with is having a third party, the TD in this case, come up to the match and intercede. If the TD's info is posted information fine, if not, he is KIBITZING!
Pitman said:
Many tournaments are predicated on this not being the case, including every tournament that has used the Australian balance system,
Information that is posted beforehand BTW.
Pitman said:
and every tournament that has a process to choose sides which involves giving one player or another the balance.
And why should published play balance not enter the equation? If there is a balance provision on the scenario card, it is there for a reason.
Pitman said:
That's in addition to all the tournaments, such as the World Boardgaming Championships, which include balancing provisions for certain scenarios that have come to be known over time to favor one side over another.
Louie Tokarz used to have scenarios in the ASLOiC that had play balance automatically in effect in some scenarios. I have no problem with that as long as that information is known beforehand.
=Jim=