Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Following of the Hobby RTT thread, I wanted to put up a strawman idea of how I might score such a RTT. I'd go for something hobby-oriented, with lower emphasis on Battle, and higher emphasis on other aspects. This is with the clear understanding that there are non-hobby RTTs out there, and that this is to be an alternative.

Note: if you want to argue against the idea of Hobby RTTs, or argue against Comp, please take it somewhere else - It will be interpreted as threadjacking and Trolling, and will be alerted. This thread presumes that Hobby RTTs have interest, and that Comp is a useful component thereof.


Concepts

I would like to break things out to into discrete categories that are either scored wholly objectively or subjectively. For example, I distinguish between Comp and Theme.


RTT Scoring

20% Battle (10% primary, 5% secondary, 5% kills)

10% Comp (FOC chart)
10% Theme (subjective)

10% Gaming (timeliness, list provided & matching)
15% Sports (dice mechanics, dispute resolution)

15% Painting (3-color rule, based)
10% Artistry (subjective)

10% Quiz (Fluff trivia)

+5% favorite opponent (theme, sport, paint)
+2% favorite overall (army, paint)
+3% Judges discretion (comp, theme, paint)

Total 110% possible


Event Breakdown

Walking in the door, you will know your Comp (10%) and Paint base (15%), because these are technical checkbox elements.

Each game, you can control Battle (20%), and Gaming (10%). You influence opponent's perception for Theme (10%), Sports (15%), and Artistry (10%).

The Judges / TO have 10% from the Pub Quiz which is semi-random.

At the end, 5% bonus that is given out to your opponents plus 2% bonus to give out anywhere in the room.

The Judges have the ability to give bonus points to correct for / make up for oddities that might be missed in the objective / technical scoring.


Subjective Scoring

Opponent scoring would be by checkbox, such as:
[] Opponent was on-time
[] Opponent provided a copy of the army list
[] Opponent's army matched the army list
[] We didn't have any arguments over rules
[] We finished the game on time
[] Opponent's army was well-themed
[] Opponent's army was not designed strictly for winning
etc.

I think that this helps keep subjective feelings from bleeding over into other areas excessively.


Anyhow, nothing here is graven in stone, and I'm not organizing any RTTs, so this is just a discussion exercise.

[] We didn't have any arguments over rules
should probably be
[] We didn't have any game-freezing disputes over rules

Chrispy wrote:[] We didn't have any arguments over rules
should probably be
[] We didn't have any game-freezing disputes over rules

Why not just:
[] Any rules disputes were resolved quickly and amicably?

Sure, the language could definitely be tweaked - this isn't a formal / precise proposal, more conceptual than anything else.

I like Janthkin's version best, btw.

Janthkin wrote:

Chrispy wrote:[] We didn't have any arguments over rules
should probably be
[] We didn't have any game-freezing disputes over rules

Why not just:
[] Any rules disputes were resolved quickly and amicably?

Agreed.

Pretty much what you mention here but no comp.

The idea of check boxes is a good one and pretty much the way I see all of the scoring being done. I'd prefer to stay away from subjective scoring i.e. "Rate you opponent's sports on a scale from 1-10" and more objective scoring.

By breaking any scoring category into as many questions as possible you greatly increase the opportunity for detecting attempts to load or throw scores in an area. Someone marking their opponent for every question under the heading indicates trouble.

I would also leave room for subjective *JUDGES* observations. If someone is observed being a prick there needs to be an opportunity for that to be reflected in sportsmanship. Likewise, armies that truly show attempts to be fluffy and true to background theme need a way to get some small reward from the TO. Certainly nothing swinging the results wildly but something.

The Green Git wrote:I would also leave room for subjective *JUDGES* observations. If someone is observed being a prick there needs to be an opportunity for that to be reflected in sportsmanship.

Funny story...A friend of mine got judges called on him by the next table because they thought him and the person he was playing were going to go over the table at one another...In actuality, they were best friends just giving each other a good ribbing and enjoying themselves.

The Green Git wrote:The idea of check boxes is a good one and pretty much the way I see all of the scoring being done. I'd prefer to stay away from subjective scoring i.e. "Rate you opponent's sports on a scale from 1-10" and more objective scoring.

Yup. "Rate from 1-10" is just a disaster waiting to happen. Having checkboxes is preferable, although there is some room for subjectivity in whether to award various checkboxes, such as "I enjoyed playing against this person" or "This army is well-themed" or "This army looks like a coherent army".

The Green Git wrote:I would also leave room for subjective *JUDGES* observations. If someone is observed being a prick there needs to be an opportunity for that to be reflected in sportsmanship. Likewise, armies that truly show attempts to be fluffy and true to background theme need a way to get some small reward from the TO. Certainly nothing swinging the results wildly but something.

That was covered in my "bonus points" 3% as Judges discretion for Comp / Theme / Paint. If there is something cool, the Judges will give those bonus points.

But if a guy is being a prick, it's easier to simply Yellow Card / Red Card (1 Warning by Judge, then Ejection by TO). IMO, too many TOs and Judges pussy-foot around and let bad players inflict themselves on nice players.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

But if a guy is being a prick, it's easier to simply Yellow Card / Red Card (1 Warning by Judge, then Ejection by TO). IMO, too many TOs and Judges pussy-foot around and let bad players inflict themselves on nice players.

QFT. Hell, far too many players let stuff go on without alerting a TO or judge. My good buddy will kvetch about a bad player after a tournament, and I'll ask him if he said anything to the TO, and he'll invariably say no.

But judges should be more empowered to toss out guys that are ruining other players fun in a malicious way.

DD I think you should have this on the score card:


[] Would you ever play this person again

as for [] We didn't have any arguments over rules. We all have arguments over the rules. I think you should change that one to either the rules were worked out in a rational, sporting way or something to that like.

Yup, agreed.

Hobby oriented tournament is a nice idea to balance the Hard Boyz style of battle oriented tournament.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
But if a guy is being a prick, it's easier to simply Yellow Card / Red Card (1 Warning by Judge, then Ejection by TO). IMO, too many TOs and Judges pussy-foot around and let bad players inflict themselves on nice players.

QFT. If one or two guys ACTUALLY got tossed, maybe those on the fence would tone it down a notch.

Has anyone seen anyone get tossed in real life? I have not.

Nope, but then again I've never played someone who should be booted out. I've had heated rules arguements before but that was an exception during the game, not the norm.

And booting them out better come with a refund since it's totally subjective as to whether they were out of line or not. Oh and you better have a ringer on hand since most people, whether it's a hobby RT or not, did pay to play 3 games so you should have someone who can play to take the booted guys spot.

I'm not saying it would be wrong to boot someone. If that person was verbally threatening other players or being extremely derogatory then go for it. Just be ready for the consequences.

Why should any prick get a refund? He entered the tournament, got to play at least part of 1 game, and was kicked out for cause. If he makes any trouble, he can be subdued, restrained, and arrested for Trespassing. If he resists arrest in the process, that's just too fething bad.

Whether the TO is subjective or not doesn't matter, as *ALL* such judgements are subjective. The rules are crystal clear that the TO's word is final, and nowhere would it say that an ejected player is entitled to a refund.

But yes, there would always be a ringer - sometimes you have an odd number of players, or someone quits / gets called home / can't finish the event.

But let's be clear:
- he payed to attend the event and be judged like anybody else
- he was required to conform to code of conduct and TMIR, but failed to do so
- he was given a warning, that he ignored
- therefore, he may be summarily ejected without refund

TMIR?

If the warning is "stop being a jerk" then your kinda hosed too. Based on the way things in the real world work though if you don't want trouble then you better post a code of conduct if you serious about booting people. The reason I say that is someone who is a big enough dick to get ejected is normally a big enough dick to make a scene. And he paid for services in this case that aren't being fully given to him. Hence he didn't get what he paid for and deserves a refund.

And if your talking about subduing and restraining someone your already over the line. It sounds like you'd be ready to escalate a situation which wouldn't warrant it. Is $10-$20 bucks really worth all the hassle when you boot a guy?

Personally I'd just hand him his money back and boot him. Easier, less messy and far less likely to cause a scene. But I can tell you this why most people are shy about booting "jerks" from tournies.

Your right about the TO having the final say in everything and his word being law. But we've seen just on here how reputations can get started which will in the long run affect your event.

How many of you have actually ran into a guy that was so over the top he deserved to get booted? And for every guy that has did you talk to his other opponents? Did they have as bad a time as you? Sometimes 2 people just rub each other the wrong way. It's not easy, especially if they came with people, to boot people.

ex. My buddy and I went to Broadside 5 weeks ago. I played a guy second round that my buddy played 4th round. My buddy thought the guy was a total dick and ranted about his army and demeanor. I didn't have a problem with the guy. It turns out the real reason my buddy thought he was such a dick was his list and the other guy not playing the game his way. Since he thought the army was OTT he was in a crappy mood before the dice were rolled and naturally had a bad game.

If you focus on people having fun people will have fun. If your looking for "bad" behavior you'll find it. Really what I feel it comes down to.

Just my 2 cents.

All this said I think the idea is great for some people. The scoring will need tweaking to really work but I think at this point it's more a trial and error thing than anything else. I wouldn't attend but the concept is excellent I'm a fan of everyone having fun with their hobby how they want to. The more people that buy, paint, and play with GW toy soldiers the longer my favorite hobby stays in business

JohnHwangDD wrote: If he makes any trouble, he can be subdued, restrained, and arrested for Trespassing. If he resists arrest in the process, that's just too fething bad.

JohnHwangDD wrote:...I'm not organizing any RTTs, so this is just a discussion exercise.

Thank goodness for that.

I can see how a store can defend itself from people going that far over the top, but I have yet to see ANYONE be that much of a TFG (and I have seen my fair share, most assuredly) to be restrained as you state. Over the top reaction to an unlikely scenario doesn't even begin to describe...

Anyways to the subject at hand, I like the idea of hobby oriented RTT's and with a bit of tweaking I am sure it is possible to create a successful hobby based RTT. I have still not seen a system that can do it successfully when people from outside a certain locale or club are introduced, but there is always hope I suppose.

You have to be careful how you spread the points I'd it can just become a popularity contest. I would go with 35-40% in battlepoints to help negate that factor. I do like the check boxes and have seen these types of forms used before.

G

Hulksmash wrote:TMIR?

if you don't want trouble then you better post a code of conduct if you serious about booting people.

And he paid for services in this case that aren't being fully given to him. Hence he didn't get what he paid for and deserves a refund.

And if your talking about subduing and restraining someone your already over the line. It sounds like you'd be ready to escalate a situation which wouldn't warrant it. Is $10-$20 bucks really worth all the hassle when you boot a guy?

It's not easy, especially if they came with people, to boot people.

If you focus on people having fun people will have fun.

The scoring will need tweaking to really work but I think at this point it's more a trial and error thing than anything else.

"The Most Important Rule" - it's in it's own highlighted box on p.2. Edit: insult removed. --yakface

The Code of Conduct is exceedingly simple: "Act in a gentlemanly fashion, play in a sporting manner, and treat your opponent with respect.".

He paid to enter the door, and that's as far as it goes. If you buy a ticket to a theater performance, and you are disruptive, you will be ejected without refund. If you buy a ticket to Disneyland or some other event behave inappropriately, you will be ejected without refund. The negative value of your disruption to the rest of the people is far greater than the pittance that you paid. There's a lot of inappropriate entitlement that you're expressing that I completely disagree with.

If I'm kicking TFG out on his ass, it's totally worth it to make an example of him. If he's all butthurt on Dakka later, too bad.

If they want to Trespass, in an age of cell phones, go for it. As the TO, I have no problem having someone call the police while deputizing more people in making arrests and pressing charges.

Part of having fun for everyone is being prepared to ensure that everyone has fun. If a bad apple gets in, then as the TO, you need to kick them out, because he ruins the day for all 3 opponents, while making life difficult for the staff. So the negative of just one person is far disproportionate.

And of course scoring would need tweaking. There are many more moving parts than in a battle-only system. But I'm not sure that it really matters as long as everybody goes in with their eyes wide open. Especially with a focus on checkboxes to limit crossover.

Without commenting on comp itself, this scoring system doesn't have enough details to determine whether it actually works to empasize non-battle points. As I said in the other thread, the actual points assigned to each category are almost completely meaningless. The only thing that matters is the point spread in each category.

I see nothing in this scoring system that will create the point spread necessary to make battle less important.

What I do see is a whole bunch of subjective areas where chipmunking can play a huge part, and other subjective areas where undefined biases on the part of the judges can play a huge part.

@Johnhwang

I don't appreciate the personal attack. I was and am pointing out that TFG isn't the same for everyone. And that just because you or one other person think he is doesn't mean everyone else does. Please refrain from personal attacks.

Being disruptive in a theatre is different than what your talking about. Your talking about someone annoying you or another judge. Not annoying everyone around him or maybe even his opponent. That is totally different than annoying and entire room of people.

I'm familiar with that rule, just not the acronym. But my point is what's fun for some people isn't fun for others. What if someone brings *gasp* a reasonably powerful list or a list that you hate? Are they TFG?

As for "deputizing" people to "restrain" someone who is "trespassing" good luck man. You may find my sense of entitlement wrong but I find your outlook on the situation in general wrong.

@Topic

I agree w/Centurian. Oddly enough unless chipmunking nails you and if everyone is a "great" guy then battle points are still going to make up an enourmous actual percentage of points. Then again by the system you set up you can pretty much determine the winner for yourself since you can add +10% of the total points. That's the main reason I voted I wouldn't attend since this varient could quickly turn into a game of favorites.

@hulk: I'm sorry that you perceived my comment as "a personal attack", and I apologize for that. I normally assume that everybody is familiar with TMIR, and would now recommend that it be added to the list of acronyms.

From your posts in this thread, it does seem that you go out of your way to assume that trouble will occur at a "hobby" tournament, and then you go out of your way to promote special treatment or handling of the presumed troublemaker. That is my perception of what you are repeatedly saying, and I am sorry that I perceived this in a negative way.

As for standards and impact, in a theatre, repeated kicking the chair of they guy in front of you is disruptive to only 1 other person in the theatre. But it's surely enough to get you kicked out without a refund.

And as for bringing a "powerful" list that is un-fun / OTT, they'll likely take themselves out on comp, and opponents / Judges will likely rate them poorly on theme as well. They'll probably also not gain any bonus points from the Judges, opponents, or overall. The thing is, it's not for the Judges to decide if a list is "too powerful".

Anyhow, I find it exceedingly strange to assume that such a person would be at this kind of event in the first place. So given that you place the hypothetical person there, the hypotheticals can go whereever we like.

I appreciate the apology Johndwang but it wasn't a "percieved" personal attack. It was quite obviously an attack.

As for going out of my way for trouble happening I didn't post anything until your way of dealing with a possible TFG was posted. I was responding to the way you stated you would respond to the situation which I felt was over the top.

As for a TFG it could be just as much a hobbyist as a tourney player. That is why they could be at the event. And all the soft scores leave a lot of room for someone to exploit the system.

When your definition of a TFG is 'anyone who doesn't play the way I do' and you boot them for that, unless you have a full FAQ for the tournament (See also INAT) then you better be giving them thier money back.

It would be a good policy to refund them their money. I think if you told someone to pack up and leave they might complain a bit but I don't think you would have to resort to phsyically throwing them out.

G

Allow me to try to translate John's posts into human English:

A player should be removed from the event when his behavior includes any of the following, after an official verbal warning:
1) Outright cheating
2) Excessive hostility, profanity, etc. toward the judge or another player
and that will usually occur after repeated complaints by other players about his behavior, not generally on the TO's own motion.

This isn't a case of tossing a guy because he's a jerk, it's tossing a guy who is either cheating or abusive, other players complain about, and has already received a warning.

Frankly, I'd imagine you wouldn't need to toss very many people, simply stating up front the following:
"If any player is caught cheating or is overly abusive to other players or tournament staff, they will receive an official warning. If that behavior occurs again, they will be asked to leave. If you see any such behavior, please alert a judge immediately. We hope this won't be a problem, but our goal is to assure that everybody has a pleasant day of gaming, and behavior that ruins other people's good times will not be tolerated."

Polonius wrote:
Frankly, I'd imagine you wouldn't need to toss very many people, simply stating up front the following:
"If any player is caught cheating or is overly abusive to other players or tournament staff, they will receive an official warning. If that behavior occurs again, they will be asked to leave. If you see any such behavior, please alert a judge immediately. We hope this won't be a problem, but our goal is to assure that everybody has a pleasant day of gaming, and behavior that ruins other people's good times will not be tolerated."

This is all you would have to do. And it makes it simple. It's actually what I said he would need to do if he is serious about booting people. John just pointed out that he didn't need to post anything which I felt could lead to trouble should someone be ejected.

Excellent work Polonius (no sarcasm, totally serious) And I agree, if this is posted you probably won't have to boot anyone. Then again I've only ran into one guy that needed to be booted and that was because he was slightly autistic and prone to violent outbursts against himself when he rolled bad.

Looks good. I appreciate your efforts in thinking about how to score everything. I hope your event goes well.

Hulksmash wrote:John just pointed out that he didn't need to post anything

For the record, I said:
- Judge's Warning, then Ejection by TO
- Code of Conduct requiring "good behavior"

You can scroll up and see for yourself.

You have to define 'good behavior' also, as that is subjective.