http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/7.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net
Soft scores do play a part in your overall standings, and they determine how well you do in the 'soft' scores--but the impact of soft scores on the overall tournament is limited by the following mechanics.

1) You have 3 soft scores. Sportsmanship, Painting, and Army Flavor (call it theme if you want, but don't call it comp because it isn't).

You give them all an equal rating. I know GW doesn't use Army Flavor, but I think players miss out when it is just a sub pattern of painting.

Painting is technical. Flavor means style. I hope this part makes sense.

Sportsmanship is the same in my system as it is anywhere else.

2) You mix'n'match your soft scores to determine your standings for Best Sportsman and Best Army.

Best Sportsman is determined by your Sportsmanship and Army Flavor (the total of the two scores).

Best Army is determined by your Painting and Army Flavor (the total of the two scores).

This does give meaning to the soft scores, and you'll see why...time for number three.

3) Minimum required score.

In the soft scores, you have 3 soft scores to give.

They can range from say 1-10, but whatever scores you want to give--you MUST give at least an 8 in ONE of them. You can give more than an 8, but at least ONE of them must be 8. Now how does this help?

Well, for determining the hard score awards you take the single highest value from each rounds soft scores to determine what your soft score is for that round.

Example:

StJohn scores 20 Battle Points, 7 Sportsmanship, 6 Painting, and 8 Army Flavor. His 'soft score' for hard scoring is actually an 8. If he'd gotten all 8's, it's still an 8. If he'd gotten a 9 or 10 in ANY category, then his soft score would be 9 or 10. You only combine the soft scores when determining the actual soft scores.

So continuing the example, for this round StJohn would have a '15' for Sportsmanship (combining his 7 sports and 8 army flavor) and a '14' for Best Army (combining his 6 painting and 8 Army Flavor).

The hard score awards are: namely, Best Overall (most BP's), Best General (2nd most BP's), and in my tournaments "The Butcher" (1st or 2nd most VP's).

This equates to a guaranteed 80% of the points possible for the hard scores being given out, but it also encourages players to score fairly on all elements as the ultra-competitive (myself included) can't really "fix" the system on the competitive side then there's no need to bother.

While the PDF above has a range of 1-5 and a cutoff of 4, I've run it without a problem at 1-10 with a cutoff of 8.

4) So while under your system you have a huge range (X-50 on sportsmanship, X-50 on painting) under mine across 5 rounds with even a 1-10 scoring system (and a minimum of 8 points given) you still have a statistically viable variable you don't have

5) Ties. Ties can occur, especially with so many people. Tracking VP's, BP's, and all these scores DO give you a fair way to determine who is the winner by just swapping to a secondary score. VP's are excellent for this, as it's so improbable for people to have the same VP score at the end of a tournament it's not funny. I realize 5th edition makes this a bit problematic, but writing down VP's is not that big a time cruncher if it will help resolve issues at the end of the tournament.

5) You can still score people on bad sportsmanship, judges can still rate painters, and army flavor actually means something instead of being a 1 or 2 point 'check'.

6) Painting score overrides. This one is easy. The judges give their painting scores for an army still, and to ensure there's a level of quality you do this:

Of the player given score in a round, and that of the judges given--whichever is HIGHEST is what is actually scored on a given round.

So let's say a player scores a 7 from the judges, and a 5/8/5/6/7. His actual painting score would then be 7/8/7/6/7.

7) Last but not least: If I can run a RTT by myself in less overall time than a GW event on a given Saturday--and use this system, and people love it because the feeling AND the impression of getting hosed is gone...why couldn't you? You have 9x the people playing and 20x my 'staff' of one.

Take it for what you will, but I built this system so everyone gets a fair shake. Note I do not play in my own tournaments.

I run them as I'd want them run for me.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290579.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290579.page GMT lol]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290606.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290606.page GMT
I do have a couple of questions though, for my clarity.

• How is the Overall winner determined? Only on Battle Points?
• If I play against an unpleasant opponent who fields a sloppy looking army who's flavor leaves a bad taste in my mouth then I still have to give them an 8/10 in one of those categories?
• What criteria are given to the players to level the playing field when scoring the subjective elements?

Thanks for posting this. It is always cool to check out how others tackle the variety of issues that particularly the "soft scores" bring up.

Cheers
Dave]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290611.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290611.page GMT
Overall is determined by:

Battle Points plus total soft scores. An additional requirement is it must be fully painted, of course.

Best General:

Determined by 2nd Best BPs plus total soft scores. This army in RTT's need not be painted, but of course in a GT it does.

The Butcher:

Determined by best overall VP's and zero soft scores. This army in RTT's need not be painted, but of course in a GT it does.

[quote=davetaylor]• If I play against an unpleasant opponent who fields a sloppy looking army who's flavor leaves a bad taste in my mouth then I still have to give them an 8/10 in one of those categories?[/quote]

Yes. The alternative is the current sad state of scoring people badly, incorrectly, or plain unfairly.

In short, you WILL run into this where you don't want to score someone 'above' what you feel they deserve--but in the end, it gives everyone a fair shot at the top prizes without being hosed by a poor sport.

That's always been my (and pretty much every guy I've gone with and talked to) impression of the GW GT problem--is being hosed by even 1 guy can ruin your chances.

Keeping the entire tournament fair is I think the more important concern than a few players getting rated higher than they deserve to.

After all, odds are they won't win the 'soft score' titles because they'll usually get marked down in the other 2 categories and in the end I have 3 goals:

1) To give the competitive gamers no way to manipulate the system for the prizes they want, namely: Best Overall and Best General.

2) To give the friendly gamers a way to compete against each other for the prizes they want, namely: Best Sportsman, and Best Army.

3) To give the ultra competitive gamers a chance to win a prize that their 'soft scores' will kill them on, namely: The Butcher.

[quote=davetaylor]• What criteria are given to the players to level the playing field when scoring the subjective elements?[/quote]

I usually play the soft scores 'softly', but at my next tournament I will be using a version of your scoring for painting and sportsmanship. I think they're a little bit drawn out, like you needed 50 points and you put criteria in to satisfy the need for 50 points worth of criteria. So I'll be using less. As I haven't had time to go through and whittle it down to RTT level due to work, I can't answer yet. I'm hoping to have time soon.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290632.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290632.page GMT
They can range from say 1-10, but whatever scores you want to give--you MUST give at least an 8 in ONE of them. You can give more than an 8, but at least ONE of them must be 8. Now how does this help?[/quote]

Hmmm, this one I would have to disagree with. You're saying I have to give my opponent an 8 in at least one of the categories even tho he was an utter ass, his army was spraypainted 5 minutes before the tourney (Yes, I've seen it happen), and he had no "Flavor" whatsoever?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290667.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290667.page GMT
I know it can be frustrating for a player to lose an award because one guy decided to be a prick and hit them hard in soft scores since they couldn't do it on the table top, so I definitely understand the need to remove that.

It makes sense to me, and maybe only to me, that when scores are tallied, that the judges look at any extreme outliers and have the ability to simply average it out it context of the other scores (so, Stelek gets 8 7 9 8 2 for Sportsmanship over a tourney, the judges can simply say : well, the average of 8, 7, 9, and 8 is 8, so goodbye 2 and hello 8) or simply drop the 2 and give the player the score they gave their opponent who docked them hard. (So, I give Don_Mondo a 2, cause I suck, and he gives me an 8, the judges would just switch the scores as clearly Mondo is a better sport. If both scores are the same, then maybe that's an indication the game was just horrible for all involved.) This would be more work for the judges, which can be a thankless job, but it might help ease some people's suffering.

Anyway, I like the system overall, I think it is definitely more fair to all involved. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290688.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290688.page GMT
They can range from say 1-10, but whatever scores you want to give--you MUST give at least an 8 in ONE of them. You can give more than an 8, but at least ONE of them must be 8. Now how does this help?[/quote]

Hmmm, this one I would have to disagree with. You're saying I have to give my opponent an 8 in at least one of the categories even tho he was an utter ass, his army was spraypainted 5 minutes before the tourney (Yes, I've seen it happen), and he had no "Flavor" whatsoever?[/quote]

Actually yes.

Remember the following:

No painted means several prizes aren't eligible.

For a RTT, it's really not that big a deal. People who do all 3 of those things really do get penalized.

The scores are combined for the 'soft' score prizes, and any zero will pretty much automatically take you out of contention for those prizes.

Not being painted also takes you out of contention for Overall, and usually for best general.

So that leaves only one prize, The Butcher...which is there solely so people can participate without feeling like they can't get ANYTHING. That drives people AWAY from rogue traders, which we don't want.

Last bit: At GT's, being unpainted should not happen and so that still leaves alot of player judgement.

Also at GT's...you don't run into jerks until Sunday when 20 guys are in the running (or think they are).

Most players at GT's have some sort of flavor or theme, which is quite a bit different than at a RTT.

Two different worlds really, but the system scales up and down to meet the needs of both.

I'd rather not see players 'lose' to a pro-painted army or an ass kisser, which happens very often nowadays.

Remember, this system isn't designed to please everyone. It's designed to give a level playing field.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290698.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290698.page GMT
But hey, I guess that's the danger with subjective scoring ; )

I look forward to seeing your checklists.

Cheers
Dave]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290796.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290796.page GMT
If you're creating a tournament scoring system, ideally for an overall champion, that person is supposed to be the best that day in all the categories - battle, sportsmanship, painting, and theme.

If you really want to do that, you need to figure out what the projected points spread is in each category, and then balance it out.

The absolutely best system I've found for scoring is a ranking system as opposed to a rating system. So if you play four opponents over the course of day, you rank your opponents first, second, third, and fourth. Everybody does that, it removes the ability to tank someone, etc.

There are a couple of problems. One it makes it an absolute PITA for data entry, because all soft scores have to be entered after the last game is completed. If you can normally announce winners 30 minutes after the tournament is done, you need at least 45 minutes to tabulate results.

Second, I'm not sure (because I've never run it in a GT-sized event (although it was used at the AdeptiCon Championships a few years ago) I'm not sure how well it would work in an extremely large setting. Separation between the winners become a challenge. You need to add in some judge-scored categories to make it work.

Basically stelek...your system is too complicated. Too many conditions - if this, then that. If that, then this. KISS. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290826.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/290826.page GMT
Cent, welcome to the world of computers. I use excel. I can post 20 guys scores as soon as the last set of results are entered. I use "formulas" to automate everything.

The scoring system you speak of is laughable and has long been ignored by professional tournaments as completely unworkable. Maybe you should investigate why ranking systems have been discarded by everyone, including GW.

Thankfully, with a laptop computer and excel I can generate round-by-round results and print them immediately--and all it requires is me to verify the results by both players match and enter the data.

Maybe the Utah gamers I bully around are smarter than the average bear and can decipher the clearly written instructions I linked above. If it's difficult for you, could you explain why?

I'm not going to assume you're just putting my system down because I wrote it and use it, so it must suck like everything else I say or do...and the assumption that I have NOT done a statistical analysis of the GW scoring system (and quite a few others, flawed and not-so-flawed) to figure out the points spread required and how best to solve this problem would be an incorrect assumption on your part.

Quite a few game companies like having huge points spreads so the odds of having a tie are literally astronomical. I think that just fosters players not liking your system, and leaving it for greener pastures where the scoring system has some balls behind it and hard decisions are built into it and given to the players straight up.

It isn't all about the points spread--it's about running a fair tournament for all involved. You seem to believe battle, sportsmanship, painting, and theme are key to determining the victor in a tournament.

I believe they are too, and getting 10's for your soft scores across the board is difficult. When you scale the table to say 50 points, you end up with a 50 point spread across 5 games. I know you didn't really think this through, but isn't 50 points enough of a spread?

Ask a few statisticians--is having a point spread of 0-200 really necessary for less than 200 players? The answer is no, it isn't. It's far too many variables. If you really want to determine an excellent overall winner, what you need to compute is:

Overall battle points.
Overall sportsmanship.
Overall painting/theme.
Overall victory points.

The middle two are subjective. They also are the problem with the current tournament system in use. You might be happy with it, but I don't hear many players yelling for joy that their tournament scene can be ruined by one player or even one judge. This needs to be evened out so the system is actually fair to everyone, not just to those that know judges/get pro-painted/or kiss the blarney stone.

So that takes us back to battle points, which is a bit simplistic. It rewards skill on the tabletop, not necessarily all aspects of the hobby. These are important aspects, after all--and they are absolutely essential to GW.

After all, it's embarressing if GW has a winner with a army that looks like sh~t. So we can't allow that.

How do you resolve this? Well, you've got to remember that at a RTT just being painted to a decent standard is enough to qualify for Overall. It's not like we're trying to run a GT, yes?

So, that said--and knowing we don't want to allow players to gimp scores to derail opponents...how do you accomplish having a excellent tournament winner with the overall prize?

If you interfere with the system, you'll go back to being unfair. If you 'demand' certain numbers, it goes right back to unfair.

What happens when you put out a 'code of conduct' and a 'required painting notice'? Players follow the code and meet the requirements for painting. Then you can let them judge each other, and knowing they can't jig the system you get the results you want (good players with good armies win your prizes).

Alot of players may not realize this, but there's been alot of 'pro-painted' army winners at GT's since the GT's started. GW didn't really turn their bale eye on the problem until recently...like the last couple of years. How do I know? I've seen complete schmuck painters come out at another tournament 3 months later with a 2 year propaint job and win. It's gotten so commonplace these days for pro-painted armies to show up and get max points that the problem has to be addressed. The steps Dave has taken are good ones, with clear definitions of what scores what in painting--but now with the birth of pro-painting services in countries where English is barely spoken (Poland, Ukraine, Zimbabwe--yes, really...etc etc) and these services promising confidentiality because they are here to get paid and don't care about our little tournaments...well, the crooks exist and the only way to deal with them is to remove the ability to cheat.

I feel my system does this. I feel my system takes alot of work off the judges. I've seen the various systems used, and I'm not really impressed when my little one-man show gets better results.

I think it's very important to have impartiality as much as possible. I guess the best way to think of it is this: If our gaming was regulated, do you honestly believe the way it is currently run would pass even a basic litmus test?

Be serious now. I hope one day our little hobby becomes popular enough we get a 'pro tour' like say Magic has. Their scoring system is far far different from ours, with reason. Even including painting being self-done, it's still a game right? Don't forget they run minis games too...

Just food for thought. Take it for what you will.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291155.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291155.page GMT
Take constructive criticism much?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291318.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291318.page GMT
By your system, I need to give at least an 8 in one of the "soft" categories.

But you're basically a pain to play against. Plus you probably don't paint as well as I do, and your theme is probably contorted so that you can win all 5 games.

So normally, I'd score you like this:
Sports = 4
Paint = 5
Theme = 2

But the system requires me to give you an "8" somewhere, even though you don't deserve it?

Hmm...

It sure isn't going into Sports, and I'll be damned if I'm going to overrate Painting.

So you get an 8 on "theme".

Now that I've given you 6 bonus points with an 8 for Theme, instead of a 2, I need to take them away for the total to be "right".

As you're more of a jerk than a painter, I guess I need to give you a ZERO for Sports and a 3 for Paint.

So your adjusted scores are:

Sports = ZERO (was 4)
Paint = 3 (was 5)
Theme = 8 (was 2)

Wow, thank God that you got that "8", because otherwise, the scores would have been all messed up and wierd... ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291390.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291390.page GMT
Ooh...gotta start out with the ad hominem attack. Doesn't change the fact that your system is complicated...far more than needed. Or it doesn't really address what the real difficulties are.

1) Necessity of including subjective scoring (i.e. painting, theme, sportsmanship) along with the objective categories.
2) Ability of players to unjustly "tank" opponents for reasons unrelated to the actual category.

Now, there's a way to avoid all those: have a judge personnally observing all games played, and rating the players in the soft categories appropriately. Utterly unworkable of course, because no tournament has that many judges.

So we're left with the option that GW tournaments use - have judges score some of the stuff, but have other stuff judged by the opponents.

The biggest problem with your system is that it unjustly rewards players who may put no effort into being a good sport, painting, or putting together a thematic army. Under your system, a player who's a good sport, with a thematic army, and has the minimum painting requirements fulfilled, is just as likely to win an overall award as someone who's an equally good sport, has an equally thematic army, and has an army that deserves 8/10 points.

How is that fair?

[quote=Stelek]
The scoring system you speak of is laughable and has long been ignored by professional tournaments as completely unworkable. Maybe you should investigate why ranking systems have been discarded by everyone, including GW.[/quote]

Sources? What "professional" tournaments do you speak of? False appeals to authority don't exactly help your argument.

[quote=Stelek]
Thankfully, with a laptop computer and excel I can generate round-by-round results and print them immediately--and all it requires is me to verify the results by both players match and enter the data.

Maybe the Utah gamers I bully around are smarter than the average bear and can decipher the clearly written instructions I linked above. If it's difficult for you, could you explain why?[/quote]

What's the largest tournament you've ever run? Seriously though...its easy to run and enter data for a 30-man tournament. A tournament with 160 players is another thing entirely.

[quote=Stelek]I'm not going to assume you're just putting my system down because I wrote it and use it, so it must suck like everything else I say or do...and the assumption that I have NOT done a statistical analysis of the GW scoring system (and quite a few others, flawed and not-so-flawed) to figure out the points spread required and how best to solve this problem would be an incorrect assumption on your part.

Quite a few game companies like having huge points spreads so the odds of having a tie are literally astronomical. I think that just fosters players not liking your system, and leaving it for greener pastures where the scoring system has some balls behind it and hard decisions are built into it and given to the players straight up.

It isn't all about the points spread--it's about running a fair tournament for all involved. You seem to believe battle, sportsmanship, painting, and theme are key to determining the victor in a tournament.

I believe they are too, and getting 10's for your soft scores across the board is difficult. When you scale the table to say 50 points, you end up with a 50 point spread across 5 games. I know you didn't really think this through, but isn't 50 points enough of a spread?[/quote]

Maybe, maybe not. You misunderstand entirely what I'm saying when I say "point spread". I'm not talking about the overall spread between the #1 guy and the #160 guy. I'm talking about the point spread in all the various categories, and then comparing them.

Say the max battle points possible for a four-game tournament are 120. Then say that the usual spread in battle points ranges from 20-120. That means that between the best and the worst players, you have a point spread of 100 points.

Now, in sportsmanship, say you have 40 points possible. Say that you've got a 20 at the low end, and a 40 at the high end. So you have a 20-point spread. Say that repeats for all the soft categories...sports, theme, & painting.

Now, theoretically, you have a system where the soft scores are equal to the hard scores in importance. After all, each is worth 120 points. However, what you've actually got is a system where the hard scores are the most important, unless you've got an extremely large number of players. Because the point spread for soft scores is 60, where the hard spread is 100.

It's up to the tournament organizer to determine weighting and the like (i.e. what categories are more/less important). If you want the overall to reflect primarily hard scores...than the hypothetical I posted would be fine. If not...the system needs adjustment.

But why make those adjustments after scores are earned (which is what your system does) instead of making that adjustment into the base assumptions of the system? Again, it seems to me that your system is designed to reward those who game the system.

[quote=Stelek]
How do you resolve this? Well, you've got to remember that at a RTT just being painted to a decent standard is enough to qualify for Overall. It's not like we're trying to run a GT, yes?[/quote]

You seem to be implying that the system scales up easily to GT/AdeptiCon level events. It very well could work in a tournament with 10-30 players. But I'm telling you its needlessly complex, and it may or may not work well at the GT/AdeptiCon level at all.

[quote=Stelek]
So, that said--and knowing we don't want to allow players to gimp scores to derail opponents...how do you accomplish having a excellent tournament winner with the overall prize?

If you interfere with the system, you'll go back to being unfair. If you 'demand' certain numbers, it goes right back to unfair.

What happens when you put out a 'code of conduct' and a 'required painting notice'? Players follow the code and meet the requirements for painting. Then you can let them judge each other, and knowing they can't jig the system you get the results you want (good players with good armies win your prizes).[/quote]

I agree with your goals, but think your methods are flawed. Because the fact is that judging painting, sportsmanship, and theme is ultimately a subjective exercise. You can try to set a minimum standard, but you also have to leave room to reward efforts that go above and beyond. Part of why I like travelling to events like the GT's and AdeptiCon is the sheer spectacle of it.

[quote=Stelek]
I feel my system does this. I feel my system takes alot of work off the judges. I've seen the various systems used, and I'm not really impressed when my little one-man show gets better results.[/quote]

And you're so unbiased... <grin>

Seriously though...I think taking work off of the judges is exactly the wrong tack. There's

[quote=Stelek]
I think it's very important to have impartiality as much as possible. I guess the best way to think of it is this: If our gaming was regulated, do you honestly believe the way it is currently run would pass even a basic litmus test?

Be serious now. I hope one day our little hobby becomes popular enough we get a 'pro tour' like say Magic has. Their scoring system is far far different from ours, with reason. Even including painting being self-done, it's still a game right? Don't forget they run minis games too...[/quote]

You can't compare miniature wargaming with card flopping. That's like trying to compare gymnastics/figure skating with track & field. After all, they're both individual sports, right?

Anything that has an artistic component (like 40K) is going to have a subjective component that largely defies objective scoring systems.

As to whether a pro-tour would be a good idea, that's a topic for another thread. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291421.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291421.page GMT
Sport: 1 (0 if I could get away with it but lets say 1 just cause I have to)

Paint: probably 3 since I cant get away with lower if you at least have decent stuff. If you have extraordinary things I guess I will have to give you 6 as a max (motivating it that I have seen and played alot better armies LIE)

Theme: 2 probably unless you have made something that forces me to give you more.

This would be even if I had the best time every playing and a fun game, but I am a sore looser. And I will go smiling away since I know you are out of the race anyhow. I bet you would think that was fair. Thank god I didnt have to give you an 8 so you would have had any chance at all anymore.

No, but thats really what happes alot of the time when you dont have a system to balance it out. This system isnt perfect but its alot better and will give most pepole a fair chance.

Only thing that could be better was skipping it totally, haveing judged Painting scores and total battlepoints. Having some restrictions on painting for even beeing allowed in the tournament. And if you want an overall winner you can mix the battleposition vs the paining one. Like player1 scores 1st in battlepoints (winning best general) and 13th in paining while player 2 scores 10th in battlepoints and 1st in painting. (winning best painted and best overall).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291423.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291423.page GMT
But if the problem is chipmunking then the solution isn't to artificially distort scores by forcing a minimum of 8 points.

The solution is to incorporate anti-chipmunking (and anti-collusion) detection routines into the scoring program. For example, if a player is found to have scored another player significantly (i.e. more than one standard deviation) away from the norm (i.e. mean), then that player risks having their scores not counted if not well-justified to a judge. This would be the equivalent of a "yellow card" warning.

If a player is found to be doing this more than once, then that player can expect to have ALL of their scores for those games set to zero with maximum points being awarded to their opponent(s), and being removed from the event. This would be the equivalent to a "red card" ejection.

So in such a scenario, chipmunks would only be hurting themselves.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291541.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291541.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291543.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291543.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291695.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291695.page GMT
More in the staying means 'in the running for a prize', correct?

Which prize are you referring to?

It seems you skipped over the soft scoring system and need to read it again.

[quote=whitedragon]Seems to me the problem is the 8/0/0 player gets counted an "8" for that round, where the 9/7/8 player gets counted a "9". So there will never be a counted score lower than "8" for any given round.[/quote]

Or if you're a asshat:

[quote=whitedragon]blah blah blah[/quote]

Or 30/40, or 40/50...whatever is needed for statistical probabilities.

If you look across 5 games, 8/10 gives you a 10 point 'soft score' spread for overall.

That really is enough. If you're really nervous that the guys who score maximum battle points and maximum soft scores will tie for Overall, well, the odds of them having the exact same VP total is extremely improbable.

Especially when you have scenarios that offer bonus VP's that aren't tied to the same objectives as BP's AND aren't 'freebies' you pick up when you wipe the enemy off the board.

======================

Oh and Cent I'm not arguing with you. You want the impossible and don't have realistic suggestions. When you do, post it in your own thread. Thanks.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291705.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291705.page GMT Oh and Cent I'm not arguing with you. You want the impossible and don't have realistic suggestions. When you do, post it in your own thread. Thanks.[/quote]

Of course. Because you anyone who points out flaws in your system is obviously a moron. You can't even respond to some simple questions, like:

1) What "professional" system has not adopted a ranking as opposed to a rating system, after consideration of that, because its a "completely unworkable" system?
2) How is it fair to make a 10/9/8 player equal to a 10/9/0 player?
3) How does your point spread balance out between soft and hard scores across the board?
4) You've used this system in your local tournaments...how large were those tournaments? There's a world of difference between a 30-person tournament and a 160-person tournament.
5) Why are your arguments always so weak that you have to retreat to ad hominen attacks, appeals to false authority, and other logical fallacies?

Of course, you don't want to look at the flaws in your argument, because your arguments are perfect...

As I say in my sig...I'm not making fun of you personally...I'm merely heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly argument. And the core of your argument is this: it's possible to have an objective basis for subjective categories of scoring, when the number of subjective judges is equal to the number of players. That's utter hogwash.

It might piss you off, but your solutions to the "problem" really involve "let's screw the soft scores". For those who care only about their gameplay abilities, that's why there's a "best general" award. For those who care only about painting, there's a "best painted" award. If you want the Overall, then you're going to either have to get a judge to monitor every single game, or you're going to have to accept that a certain subjectivity and ability to tank an opponent is part and parcel of the game.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291825.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291825.page GMT


Ozymandias, King of Kings]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291832.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291832.page GMT
Can you put this on a chart/template? Can you link the template? if the template can easily be understood then its a start. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291865.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291865.page GMT
More in the staying means 'in the running for a prize', correct?

Which prize are you referring to?

It seems you skipped over the soft scoring system and need to read it again.
[/quote]

Yes, for a prize, since it appears that is what you're attempting (but failing) to achieve.

It doesn't really matter, but we'll assume Overall, as that is what you want, but will never win.

No, I read it. It's mostly stupid because it's far more complicated than it needs to be. It's also grossly self-inconsistent. You're building scores based on subjective factors, but you're not really using the subjective factors because you're requiring an arbitrary minimum score even where it isn't warranted. So you're not telling people to score fairly, or allowing them to do so.

In short, your proposal is practically the definition of EPIC FAIL.

[quote=Stelek]Or if you're a asshat:[/quote]

Particularly when this is the kind of "thoughtful discussion" that you provide to your critics.

[quote=Stelek]That really is enough. If you're really nervous that the guys who score maximum battle points and maximum soft scores will tie for Overall, well, the odds of them having the exact same VP total is extremely improbable.

Especially when you have scenarios that offer bonus VP's that aren't tied to the same objectives as BP's AND aren't 'freebies' you pick up when you wipe the enemy off the board.[/quote]

Yeah, because Tournaments should be about WAAC asshats trying to wipe the enemy off the board...

[quote=Stelek]Oh and Cent I'm not arguing with you. You want the impossible and don't have realistic suggestions. When you do, post it in your own thread. Thanks.[/quote]

Ever hear of the phrase: "Accepts constructive criticism"? You might want to look it up.

[quote=Centurian99]Of course. Because you anyone who points out flaws in your system is obviously a moron. You can't even respond to some simple questions, like:

1) What "professional" system has not adopted a ranking as opposed to a rating system, after consideration of that, because its a "completely unworkable" system?
2) How is it fair to make a 10/9/8 player equal to a 10/9/0 player?
3) How does your point spread balance out between soft and hard scores across the board?
4) You've used this system in your local tournaments...how large were those tournaments? There's a world of difference between a 30-person tournament and a 160-person tournament.
5) Why are your arguments always so weak that you have to retreat to ad hominen attacks, appeals to false authority, and other logical fallacies?[/quote]

Well-put, Cent. Thanks. I look forward to seeing if he gives a coherent and rational response here.


[quote=Ozymandias]You're system is so obviously flawed I'm not even going to argue against it.

[/quote]

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291894.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291894.page GMT
[/quote]
[/quote]
"It is amusing, but it's still pointless tripe."

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291916.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291916.page GMT


Ozymandias, King of Kings[/quote]

Trolling at its best, but then again, it seems like this is promoted here at dakka sadly.

Most of the pepole here crying seem to be the same guys who wanted the old comp scores and I hear the same arguments as I did 10 years ago when that was the way to chipmunk. In Sweden many tournaments still run comp scores and are just a club for friends that can boost each other around with them.

This system seems very easy to calq and run, cant see why someone is trying to jack at that.. if you cant keep those scores you shouldnt run even a 10 man event. The flaw as pepole already pointed out is that someone who doesnt follow the theme or paint very well or just is a poor sport still can score to high, but at least you get away from the soft score abusing. Cant say its perfect but its definently as good as or even better if you really hate the subjective cheating wich is currently going around like wildfire.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291962.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291962.page GMT
Having a 10/0/0 be equal to a 10/9/10 (for overall, not for other prizes)?

or

Playing a good list, only to lose the tournament because you got chipmunked by someone you beat? Especially when the guy in the last round realizes that if you give him a 10 sports and he gives you a 0, then his Minor Loss to you turns into a Tournament Win?

I just want something that balances things out.

btw - it may not work for a larger scale, but anyone that would merit a 0/0/0 in Stelek's system gets booted after/during the first round anyhow... I've been to 2 of his tournaments and they've been fairly universally praised (aside from the lack of terrain at the last one).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291985.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/291985.page GMT
Ozymandias, King of Kings]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292017.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292017.page GMT
Anybody ever heard about the US Army's Bradley IFV, and what it took to make sure that Bradleys were safe? The problem was that it kept failing tests...like when they shot live ammunition at it and the fuel would explode. So what was the solution...fill the fuel tanks with water.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292132.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292132.page GMT
I think you have a decent idea here stelek but will run into criticism because:

a) You aren't a good salesperson.
b) Don't seem to respond well as a representative.

You might have to work on your people skills a bit more to reduce the crinkled brow syndrome.

In regards to JohnWangs "EPIC FAIL" comment:
I'm not sure what you are critising here but it obviously doesn't fall into the constructive critisism category either. His idea just needs some simplification. If you got your cookie (Able to score people freely on sports, painting and comp/theme whatever) would you be happy? I think giving people what they want is important...so give them the option to write whatever they want in the boxes...and just automate your excel sheet to read that soft score for those categories that matter with a 3 point spread.

The long and short of all the previous arguments about tournament scoring systems were 3 main problems.

1) Chipmunking - Nothing worse than running into one of these. I think just experiencing this once (I have and it wasn't fun, apparently I had it coming for calling him politely when he blatantly cheated in a WHFB game). I think these "rules discussions" are always the points of contention to where lesser chipmunking occurs, but is still a frustrating element to tournaments.

Making a 3 point spread is a good idea to stop these shenanigans.

2) "Hide the sausage" clicks - Almost as bad as chipmunking but who wouldn't give their "chum" maximum points if they might get something out of it later?

This is more insidious than chipmunking. What does your system do to stop these sausage hiding shenanigans?

3) Most importantly the education of people attending the tournament in regards to code of conduct, what numbers represent what on the arbitrary scale they've been handed this time for the painting, sportsmanship etc classes, and how to score the third soft score (that is the most arbitrary of them all whatever it is called).

Again to reiterate comments to Centurion99's post:
I don't think steleks idea is impotent. Filling the fuel tanks with water isn't a fair metaphor for his whole system, as it simply places less emphasis on one factor. The three point spread solves one of the above problems in an environment that you have admitted is arbitrary and hence open to abuse.

I don't think his system is extremely superior to others I have seen, but with anything like this, good support and communication between the players and organiser seems to be the critical factor in making the event more enjoyable for all.
I think a system needs address all aspects of the problems listed above to be deemed superior to what has been in place for GW for the past decade or so (excluding the addition of the check lists...which do go a ways to minimising the spread...with justification).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292165.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292165.page GMT I think you have a decent idea here stelek but will run into criticism because:

a) You aren't a good salesperson.
b) Don't seem to respond well as a representative.

You might have to work on your people skills a bit more to reduce the crinkled brow syndrome.
[/quote]

You hit the nail on the head. Stelek has been told many times that he comes off abrasive, and he just carry's on. All of the comments directed against him are the direct result of his posting style. In any case, everyone has said the same thing and Stelek has yet to address this. How is a 10/0/0 the same as a 10/9/9 going into the running for overall. That's the main hang-up that everyone seems to have with this system.

Maybe the easiest way to fix it is to make the minimum score a 5, rather than an 8. On the whole, I think it's still a tad more clunky then it needs to be. I really like the checklist approach that the new GT's and RTT's have.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292254.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292254.page GMT
The system’s not bad for what it does. As noted, it minimizes the potential for chipmunking. The cost of that benefit is that it also reduces the functional point spread for softs. That it substantially inflates the functional scores of people who realistically should score below 8 in all three categories. Whether that’s a price worth paying to minimize the impact of chipmunking depends on the needs and priorities of your gaming community.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292275.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292275.page GMT
I think it's overly cumbersome, but then again, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Anything that takes that long to explain would confuse me, probably leading to incorrect scoring on my part.

My favorite style of scoring is the old ranking system. I understand that it has been thrown out according to Stelek, but that seems to give a good range of scores. Ranking also gives each player the same number of soft score points to spend so the people who say, "I always give my opponent max points." end up giving the same amount of points as the people who score their opponents fairly.

Every system has its problems. The difficulty is in determining what aspect of the tournament you want to concentrate on and designing a scoring system to reflect that.

Making a fair system for a small 20-30 person tournament when you know over half of the attendees is quite a bit different from designing a scoring system for a 140 person tournament. What works for one may not work for the other. It's a matter of scale and it certainly doesn't invalidate any of the positive characteristics of the other system.

That said, I don't like the proposed scoring system, and won't until I try it and see how it works. Conceptually, I just can't wrap my slimy, yet normally agile, mind around it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292299.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292299.page GMT I'm not sure what you are critising here but it obviously doesn't fall into the constructive critisism category either. His idea just needs some simplification. If you got your cookie (Able to score people freely on sports, painting and comp/theme whatever) would you be happy? [/quote]

Right up to the "EPIC FAIL" rating, I was trying to give criticism, however Stelek simply ignored it. He simply refused to address the issue. And keep in mind that this is after Stelek derailed his own thread by calling someone an asshat.

And to be honest, I don't see any "simplification" that could save it, because it is conceptually flawed. He is trying to build a castle upon quicksand, so it is no wonder that parts fall into the muck.

I could care less whether we score freely, or guided by a series of checkboxes. The important thing is that the system is fair to an honest scorer. And his system doesn't do that.

His system grossly distorts scoring by forcing strict graders like myself to give unnatural scores to so-so players like Stelek where they may not be warranted. Players who would score low (e.g. 4/5/7) are forced to give a high score where they wouldn't.

His system also screws things up by ignoring high scores for those lenient graders who would score uniformly high (e.g. 9/8/10), because the other high scores don't gain any credit.

Meanwhile, players can still chipmunk with something like a (0/0/8), so that problem isn't solved. A chipmunker like Kallibrand only takes away a maximum of 22 points instead of 30. But normally, Kallibrand would have chipmunked by giving a total of around 6 points (e.g. 1/3/2), so the net change is only +2. Either way, that player is out of the running.

So based on this, we see that:
- confuses strict graders / so-so players (e.g Stelek)
- discounts lenient graders / great players
- supports chipmunks (e.g. Kallibrand)

If this was supposed to stop asshats like Kallibrand from chipmunking, it failed. And it now means that strict graders like me give Stelek wierd scores. And great players get screwed, too?

I see no redeeming feature in his system. It is overly complicated and counter-intuitive.


The correct solution is to have chipmunking / collusion detection in the program that flags and/or discards and/or mitigates anomalous reports.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292404.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292404.page GMT
You want a system thats fair to the honest scorer but the thing you preach is exactly the opposite. The honest guys gets screwed by those who abuses, how can that be a good thing?

Also, chipmunking/collusion detection only works if the pepole you are trying to "catch" are nimbwitz that you could spot a mile away(if they have half a brain the dont push the limits over what they can motivate).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292449.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292449.page GMT
Indeed.

[quote]Guess personal insults is the way to go when you know the point is right but dont understand the rest. [/quote]

I.e. "asshat" Stelek.

[quote]If I really were serious about chipmunking, would I like a system like this?[/quote]

Probably. Stelek's 8/0/0 thing works pretty well.

[quote]You want a system thats fair to the honest scorer but the thing you preach is exactly the opposite. The honest guys gets screwed by those who abuses, how can that be a good thing?[/quote]

Explain.

[quote]Also, chipmunking/collusion detection only works if the pepole you are trying to "catch" are nimbwitz that you could spot a mile away(if they have half a brain the dont push the limits over what they can motivate).[/quote]

If chipmunking or collusion can't be detected, then it probably isn't chipmunking or collusion. In other words, if the worst chipmunking ends up looking like strict grading, and the most collusion looks like lenient grading, then the net effect is only +/-3 points from the true score. You'd have that much variation from an inexperienced scorer anyways. That's a far cry from the 20-odd point swing that Stelek's system allows.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292456.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292456.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292473.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292473.page GMT
8/7/6
4/2/5
9/10/8
6/6/7
2/7/10

and then just drop the highest and lowest score in each category and average the remaining three?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292476.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292476.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292479.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292479.page GMT
First off, the mini score here is 1 not 0, so I guess you are fighting the system without even readin how it works. (I call collusion)

Secondly, if you get a 8 as worst for the battlescore total and a judgescore for the painting minimum the 8/0/0 will mean very little(you will loose out on one price for beeing chipmunked really). So no, this system doesnt work very well for chipmunking and that would be clear if you read it before arguing.

You want a free scoring system, of course that allows for the more devious players to screw the honest guy. I dont know how to explain it since it is as plain as that. The bigger the score you can get from softscores the bigger the opportunity to chipmunk is.

Last and not least, you seem to think chipmunking/collustion is so easy to detect, why is it such a big problem? Depending on how many softpoints that you can score there is more or less possibilities. And you know what? Those who wanna cheat usally have no problems lying either, so they can make up whatever story they want about why they score as they do. Anything from pepole moving their models to far, to not beeing there on time or not knowing the rules.. you name it. Also, the "smarter" guys just dont act like an idiot and give everyone 0s, they just do it when it matters more and even then its not 0 or 1.. but just as much as they can get away with. The same way but the other way for collusion, not straight 10s but as good as you can get away with for just the 1 game that matters. So with Steleks system, the net diffrence for getting screwed this way 1 time would be 2 points in the battlepoint section.. not so much I would say.

Chipmunking means you will underscore someone to take them out of the run for 1st place. Revenge or giving your mate a better chance to win beeing the most common reasons.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292481.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292481.page GMT
Probably because the guys writing the scoring programs aren't that smart to think about incorporating it into the system.

Chipmunking and collusion *is* easy to detect when you have multiple scores from multiple independent sources.

All you need to do is run some statistics against the scores.

Let's look at Scruffy's scores for his 5 games:
8 / 7 / 6 - Andy (21)
4 / 2 / 5 - Chip (11)
9 / 10 / 8 - Bud (27)
6 / 6 / 7 - Dave (19)
2 / 7 / 10 - Eric (19)

If you run statistics you get the following:
5.8 / 6.4 / 7.2 average (19.4)
2.9 / 2.9 / 1.9 standard deviation (5.7)

Adding or subracting the standard deviation from the average gives us the range of variation for his scores, Scruffy's scores should be in the following ranges:
2.9 / 3.5 / 5.3 minimum (13.7)
8.7 / 9.3 / 9.1 maximum (25.1)

So when we look at the scores, Andy and Dave are completely in range for all of their scores. Clearly, they're not doing anything unusual. Eric's 2 and 10 are both out of range, but on net, they cancel themselves out, so his scores are odd, but not problematic. Chip and Bud, however are unusual. Chip has 2 scores out of range, and they're both low, so we would consider him to be a chipmunker. Bud also has 2 scores out of range, and they're both high, so we would consider him to be in collusion buddy-buddy with Scruffy. More importantly, their totals are outside the range, whereas Eric's total is still average, for a total of three strikes against them.

So Chipmunk and collusion detection is pretty easy!

Now Kallbrand would object that Chip and Bud wouldn't be so blatant. If they wanted to "sneak" their scores below the radar, they would have had to rate something like this:
4 / 6 / 6 - Chip (+5)
8 / 7 / 8 - Bud (-4)
In this case, the scoring differential is much smaller compred to the average total, so the impact of playing either of those opponents is much smaller. Also, note that the adjustments pretty much offset each other - the penalty of playing Chip is equal to the bonus of playing Bud.

In the mean time, the question is what to do with the scores. In the case of chipmunking, I would suppose that it's easy enough have Scruffy simply receive agerage scores where he would have been chipmunked, and penalize the chipmunker with the scores that he gave. Similarly for collusion, one might give Scuffy might receive the upper variation score where he would have been inflated, and lower Bud down to lower variation score.


But yeah, it's just as easy to do like Scruffy suggests and pull the high and low results. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292512.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292512.page GMT
However...

Why not just have:
1) Best General
2) Best Painted
3) Best Theme/Unity

where we do away with Best Overall and tally it such that the scores in one category do not affect the scores in the other categories? That way, we can do away with Sportsmanship altogether, as it seems like people abuse it anyway. Then, we could all behave like how we truly want to and not treat these tournaments as political events.

Or would that simply mean that NO ONE would have fun?

Perhaps GW should just make online versions of these games where no one can cheat and no gamer ever has to meet another face to face.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292562.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292562.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292575.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292575.page GMT
Oh, sorry. That last point was facetious and not meant to be taken seriously. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292577.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292577.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292609.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292609.page GMT Again to reiterate comments to Centurion99's post:
I don't think steleks idea is impotent. Filling the fuel tanks with water isn't a fair metaphor for his whole system, as it simply places less emphasis on one factor. The three point spread solves one of the above problems in an environment that you have admitted is arbitrary and hence open to abuse.[/quote]

It's perhaps a bit extreme, but the point was that his system doesn't address the core problem that he claims to address: chipmunking (where the heck did that term come from). All it does is sort of patch over chipmunking for the overall, by effectively greatly reducing the importance of soft scores in the overall award, while also (essentially) encouraging it for soft score awards.


Essentially, what's needed isn't a straitjacket...its greater education, and essentially, maturity.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292622.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292622.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292623.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292623.page GMT
I think you can get a much better result simply by making sportsmanship/theme/paint judging open, as opposed to secret. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292712.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292712.page GMT
You are still influencing behavior by removing the anonymity.

If you're looking for a lesser of an evil you really should be favoring the people who actually win the game instead of the person who lost it.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292753.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292753.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292764.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292764.page GMT
First, I would like to clarify that JohnHwangDD is someone I think I would enjoy playing 40K with. I like to play for fun more than for the win. Good times is more important than winning or losing. This would be like us playing golf for fun between friends and betting drinks on the outcome.

However, I have to disagree with the quoted statement, with regards to a tournament setting. The purpose of a tournament is to kick @$$ and take names. Period. You think Tiger Woods lets up if he's ahead by 5 strokes? Hell no. And I would fully expect my opponent [b]in a tournament[/b] to play his best and not insult me by pulling punches if he is winning by too much. If I get massacred, then I probably deserved it and he deserves to gain from my mistakes. And I hope he realizes that if I outplay him the only conclusion is that he was not the better player for [b]that specific[/b] game (but perhaps he will learn and beat me next time). Sorry to say, but tournament settings take competition to a higher level, and that's how it should be. And the only Sportsmanship I would expect from my opponent is full knowledge of the rules and that he has the integrity to not cheat or stall for time.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292768.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292768.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292769.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292769.page GMT
Agreed. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292772.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292772.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292810.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292810.page GMT GT where I took a Sportsmanship prize (thanks to all max Sports marks and two votes for favorite opponent). The system certainly CAN work.

But I agree that it’s worth exploring better and easier systems, and ones which incorporate some detection mechanism to recognize collusion and chipmunking. I agree that educating the players and the judges as to how the scoring works and is SUPPOSED to work makes a substantial difference. There are a whole lot of areas in this game, by its nature, where shady behavior and cheating is possible. While we should work hard to minimize their impact, we do need to bear in mind that some shannigans will always occur. You can’t remove them completely.

The main function of Sports scoring has always been to make clear that civil and friendly behavior are important components of the hobby. That consideration for your opponent and his experience is a core value. Any system that mitigates this, or makes it possible for a player to act badly without consequence, is IMO going in the wrong direction. This is not like the old Pro circuit for Magic: The Gathering. We don’t need trash talk (except between friends) and attempts to psych out the opponent by offering to arm wrestle for first turn. Those kind of competitors have all kinds of other sports and hobbies they can enjoy.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292867.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/292867.page GMT
LOL I'll have to try this one ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293375.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293375.page GMT
For one example, Shawn "Hammer" Regnier used to be well known for his trash talking and efforts to deliberately demoralize his opponents. He was a perfectly nice guy in real life (he owned a comic & card shop in my town), but that behavior was tolerated in the tournaments, which became tacit acceptance and encouragement. Nowadays they have a very strict, point by point set of tournament bylaws and rules.

Interesting resource for anyone interested in emulating Magic’s pro-tour:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/suspended

http://www.wizards.com/dci/downloads/DCI_PG_080301.doc

http://www.wizards.com/dci/downloads/DCI_UTR_1Jun07_EN.doc
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293520.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293520.page GMT
Ozymandias, King of Kings]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293615.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293615.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293625.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293625.page GMT
Ozymandias, King of Kings]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293672.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293672.page GMT
[img]http://www.wizards.com/sideboard/images/PTBAR01/667.jpg[/img]]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293690.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293690.page GMT
Seriously, [i]that[/i] guy plays with Magic cards??

Ozymandias, King of Kings]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293778.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293778.page GMT Of course, the friend of mine who dragged me to the only Pro Tour qualifier I ever attended was a big high school athlete before he got into gaming. He's well over two bills and used to leg press about half a ton. And played Pokemon compettiively after he got out of Magic.

Fun fact for poker buffs: David Williams, 2nd place finisher in the 2004 World Series of Poker main event, started with Magic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Williams_(card_player)
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293802.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293802.page GMT


Ozymandias, King of Kings]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293839.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293839.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293889.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/293889.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/294116.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/294116.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/294172.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/294172.page GMT
Ozymandias, King of Kings]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/294308.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/294308.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/294361.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/294361.page GMT
There are two types of people in the world. When they lose badly-

One blames their opponent
One blames themselves.

Which is the better sport I wonder?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/294413.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/294413.page GMT
Ozymandias, King of Kings]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/294418.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/294418.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/294422.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/294422.page GMT
One thinks the world can be divided into two types of people.

The other thinks that’s a misleading oversimplification.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/294423.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211616/294423.page GMT