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.

I wanted to slap the Ork player because he was a whiney b$%#@ that is just a terrible person. As a painter he is pretty darn good but as a person he just sucks. Also, he loved playing against me since I got best sportsmanship .

In the last 3 tournaments I have been in, I have had no issue with anyone's comp. Funny since they were at 3 different stores in 3 very different areas. 2 of the tournaments shared quite a few of the players. If I think people will be toting things in that are a little on the cheesey side, I just pony up a more competetive list. I would do it for a tournament anyway. Some armies are just a little more obvious than others. Would I take my LatD to the GTs? I don't know... maybe? Maybe I would take more daemons and use the BT / DP combo in it. Its a different game then. I am up for the challenge and don't mind it if the consensus is to do the same.

Knife to a gun fight as others before me said. You bring a gun to a knife fight and I'll hit you with my truck!

Posted By jfrazell on 12/13/2006 4:10 AM

Posted By MadEdric on 12/12/2006 4:27 PM
If the complaining lessened the fun of the game, then yes it's bad sportsmanship. I believe one of the criteria is something like "all problems were settled amiably, this guy was a joy to play against".
I've docked people for not meeting this, whether they were complainers or the one guy that didn't say a thing the whole game, that guy creeped me out.

I agree that would be boring.

More than boring. I usually chatter throughout a game and quit by turn 2 because all my jokes/comments were met with a dead stare. Guy made me feel like if I said anything more than "this unit targets that unit" I was in the wrong.

ewww. You don't have to be a chatterbox by the niceties of society do apply. If a game is enjoyable I usually find myself chattering away with them.

chatting is fine, its the fun part to play with somebody who is having a good time and generaly getting to know that person as long as thats not all they do and actually play.

What is crap is if the person justs plays and says nothing, its kinda creepy cos you think this guy has no social skills.

Posted By Augustus on 12/12/2006 12:28 PM

Here lies the problem, everyone has a different algorithm, it's not objective.  Whatever the criteria, the problem lies in the scoring system. 

Comp/Sportsmanship is inhernetly flawed, that's what a judge is for, to judge.  There should not be an arbitrary factor in an award like overall. Eliminate it.  A restructuring solves all of this.  Predicated on a decent FAQ, a published scoring system,  the elimination of comp, and judges who actually make consistent rulings; the awards should be:

Best sportsman, a noble concept, but an utter failure, is completely meaningless because "theme" and "niceness", are abstract concepts that defy metrics.

 

Sportsmanship has its issues, but the overall assessment I get from everyone who attended GTs prior to it, is that there was a much higher percentage of out and out jerks in attendance. 

The existence of Sports scoring, and in particular the fact that it figures into the Overall scoring, forces people to at least make an effort to be a nice guy.  Most folks will anyway, but in any competitive arena, you need some mechanism to rein in the overcompetitive bell ends.

The fact that Sportsmanship scoring is subjective doesn't make it useless.  At least some fraction of painting scoring is also subjective, but we're not tossing it out- common opinion holds that tournaments are better events if everyone is painted, and people make an effort.  If the scoring requires painting if you want to do well, even the guys who don't give a toss for painting have an incentive to make an effort.

I've seen several different metrics for Sports scoring, and while the 1-5 scale is a long way from perfect, with good descriptions for each level it works decently.  People who ignore it, or themselves ruin its validity by being bad sports themselves, are not a reasonable excuse for tossing the whole thing.   Two wrongs don't make a right.

Anyway, it is possible to design a better system, too.  I've come up with one and used it at two tournaments so far to generally good reviews.  If we criticise GW for lazy game design, it's a bit hypocritical for us not to put a little effort into good tournament design if we're running events.

Biggest problem I find with the sportsmanship score is how it can be abused. I know in some of the GTs I've been in game clubs had a system where they would dock players if they knew  they had a chance to rival their top tier players. Instead of a fair score they'd give them 1-2 points less in both sportsmanship and comp. Anything to give their friends an edge.

yes that does happen here in the UK with sportsmanships as all the guys just vote for there friends.

Posted By beef on 12/14/2006 8:56 AM
yes that does happen here in the UK with sportsmanships as all the guys just vote for there friends.

Then there is nothing so to speak wrong with the system, just the ethics and morals of your competitors

Posted By moosifer on 12/14/2006 9:41 AM

Posted By beef on 12/14/2006 8:56 AM
yes that does happen here in the UK with sportsmanships as all the guys just vote for there friends.

Then there is nothing so to speak wrong with the system, just the ethics and morals of your competitors

When the system allows loopholes for unethical behavior, there is indeed something wrong with said system. There are many people caught up with winning that their usual morales go to the wayside when it comes to competition.
There's nothing wrong with "cheese" as the rules allow for it.
There is a problem with soft scores as many people will use it to punish or handicap others if they see a benefit in it.

Just have to Quote Crimson Devil on another topic he posted on, I agree with him.

"in the GW universe winning is rude. The moral high ground goes to the loser and the winner should feel shame for the rest of his days.

Comp is garbage. The only way to resolve this is to have predetermined army lists for each army. No alterations. Play this army, then play this list. Everyone uses the same stuff. Only then will best general be determined. Of course people will still complain."

True and the worse is when they fain suprise at winning when you knew it was a forgone conclusion from turn 2.

Read the next post by him beef, he was being sarcastic

duh I did I do get sarcasm, sometimes. but he was still right.

That's crap. Sorry Beef, but it's just a failure of intelligence and imagination.

I came up with new comp and sports scoring systems, with help from a bunch of other gamers. I've put them into practice in two small tournaments so far, and they seem to work.

Just because you've never seen it succeed doesn't mean it CAN'T work if someone puts a little more thought and effort into it.

As long as your not tyranids its ok to tank.

Armored company must always tank.


Whining is the devils answer to gaming. i.e how can I make this sh!t and miserable.

On to the original question. If your at a no comp tourney and you whine about comp, then you must be given a zero. In fact I would make it a law.