Okay, starting a new thread for discussion of soft v. hard scoring, particularly as relates to Danny’s statistical analysis of the top ten results of the Yellow and Blue 2010 Adepticon Championship results. He and I have existing differences of opinion, and draw somewhat different conclusions from the data. I’d like to have a polite and constructive discussion, recognizing that I’ve thrown some heat his way in the past, so not putting all the blame on him for any unfriendliness. I’d also like to invite others to participate, as long as we can keep it polite and constructive.

Thanks!

Danny Internets wrote:

"Tournaments". You don't own the word. It's got an established definition, and you don't have the authority to change it. You're the latecomer to the hobby. You can try to change it, but that doesn't mean those of us in it already will go along.

This might be news to you, but the word "tournament" had an established definition before GW started mis-using it. You know, that whole being in the dictionary thing. I'm not changing the word, I'm simply reminding people what it actually means. And how is playing since 2nd edition a latecomer to a hobby? Perhaps you should climb off that high horse before you fall off and hurt yourself.

As has been pointed out to you on repeated occasions, “tournaments”, for hundreds of years, have come in many shapes and sizes, organized in many different ways, and often involving multiple different events and/or scoring criteria. Going back to the dictionary is less directly applicable than looking at how GW tournaments are and have been defined for the past 15 or more years. It’s called context. There is an established culture in the US, as in most other countries, though certainly with much range for variation.

Your attempt to apply a new label to events which do not meet your personal preference is misguided at best. It muddies the waters rather than clarifying them. If you were coming up with a new label for your own preferred type of event, I think people would be open to that. But what you’re doing instead is to try to rename the events OTHER people enjoy. That comes off as aggressive and insulting.

If you’ve been playing since 2nd edition, you’ve probably been playing longer than I have. So my labeling you as a latecomer would seem to be inaccurate. That said, I’m mystified about what seems to be your choice to play ignorant about the existing culture of 40k tournaments in the United States. Maybe you haven’t played in national events much? I only started 40k in 1999, but started going to GTs in 2001. I don’t mean to make this an e-peen measuring contest, but I don’t think your approach is very constructive, and I think you’d get more positive responses if you were more respectful toward the existing scene you’re trying to modify.

Danny Internets wrote:

If you look at the results of an actual event, the score range at the top is normally even tighter. For example, in the 2010 Adepticon Championship blue side, the top eight of us all had perfect Sports scores. On the Yellow side it’s more mixed, but the only guy who’s not within a 3pt spread is actually the overall winner, who more than made up for it in Battle points, proving my point.

OK, let's put this to the test. I created a spreadsheet to analyze the distributions of the data of the top 10 finishers for both the yellow and blue competitions. You can view the spreadsheet here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ak_2KkJADjGNdDdhWktWeUpxX1BXdUtCVThGOEFnT0E&hl=en

I added up all of the soft scores and compared them to the hard scores (battle points) and calculated the ranges, means, and standard deviations (σ) for each sample (not the most sophisticated method, but I'm not busting out mathlab for this). The standard deviations were then weighted according to ratio of possible soft score points (95) versus possible hard score points (135) in order to account for the difference (which is about 29%). Notice that your initial impression of the data that the soft scores had less overall impact on the blue set when compared to the yellow was correct. Also note how significant the soft scoring distribution was for both sets, and how it accounted for almost the same amount of deviance from the mean as battle points did in the yellow set. This completely undermines the argument that it's battle points, not soft scores, that make the difference in tight tournament finishes.

I’d like to invite some more folks with an interest in the math to join us in this discussion, as I do think it’s interesting and may bear useful fruit.

Looking at your numbers, I notice that the range of hard scores on the yellow side is 45pts, and on the blue side it’s 33. In soft scores yellow shows a 26pt range, and blue a 14pt range. So the battles range of points seems to be a bigger deal here. In terms of actual points awarded, Battles represents a larger portion of the range than all the “soft” scores put together. And when you consider that only the Sportsmanship scores are coming from your opponents, the relative difference in importance seems even more dramatic.

There’s also the interesting data point that the top ten on the yellow side are also the top ten, in exactly the same order, in battles scores. The same holds true on the blue side- the top ten finishers, if we completely ignored the soft scores, would be the same top ten finishers, in the exact same order.

Another suggestion I’d like to make for analysis of these numbers- I think you should really be figuring the Quiz (at the Championship, not the Team Tournament) as a Hard score. The Team Tournament quiz was a mix of fluff and rules questions. The one at the Championship is pure core rules knowledge. Every question is multiple choice, and every question has a clear answer in the main 40k rulebook. In my opinion its careful design does make it a valid and objective measure of the player’s knowledge of the actual game rules.

Danny Internets wrote:

As for tight results, anyone who’s actually placed high in one these things knows that it is the nature of the beast that a little luck in one place or another is what really separates the top ten. Virtually any of the top five or ten guys usually could have been the one to win it, with one slightly different table, or a slightly easier opponent in one round, or slightly luckier dice.

Poor reasoning. You can use this same argument to justify deciding the winner of the tournament by a die roll--hey, it's just the nature of the beast. The more luck, subjectivity, and overall bs involved in determining the winner the less the competition was based on skill and therefore less competitive the event was. This is the problem with soft scoring and "competitive" events.

If you don’t want luck involved, your best bet to minimize it is to play Chess. That said, White v. Black is still unbalanced. And draw of opponents (depending on the tournament format) will still be influenced by luck. Even in Chess, with pairings related to established national ranking, you may get lucky and be paired against someone against whose style your style matches up favorably. The variability of tournament tables, of armies, and of player styles and ability, makes luck in draw of table, opposing army, and opposing player an unavoidable variable. You can race yachts in the ocean, but you can’t control the wind and waves.

There’s also the interesting data point that the top ten on the yellow side are also the top ten, in exactly the same order, in battles scores. The same holds true on the blue side- the top ten finishers, if we completely ignored the soft scores, would be the same top ten finishers, in the exact same order.

I hope you're just wondering if this is true, because I just looked at the AdeptiCon 2010 results pages (http://www.adepticon.org/?page_id=1486 for yellow, http://www.adepticon.org/?page_id=1484 for blue) and that is not true at all. If you sort by battle points it would go 1,4,3,6,2,7,8,5,14,9 in yellow, meaning someone got missed out of the top 10. On blue side it would have gone 1,2,3,5,4,6,7,8,9,12.

Someone double check me on this, but I just had their page sort by battle points only to compare to the sort for overall points.

Deceptive title. I got excited for a second there

TimmyMWD wrote:

There’s also the interesting data point that the top ten on the yellow side are also the top ten, in exactly the same order, in battles scores. The same holds true on the blue side- the top ten finishers, if we completely ignored the soft scores, would be the same top ten finishers, in the exact same order.

I hope you're just wondering if this is true, because I just looked at the AdeptiCon 2010 results pages (http://www.adepticon.org/?page_id=1486 for yellow, http://www.adepticon.org/?page_id=1484 for blue) and that is not true at all. If you sort by battle points it would go 1,4,3,6,2,7,8,5,14,9 in yellow, meaning someone got missed out of the top 10. On blue side it would have gone 1,2,3,5,4,6,7,8,9,12.

Someone double check me on this, but I just had their page sort by battle points only to compare to the sort for overall points.

Good catch. I was apparently on crack for a minute there. Retracted.

Rephrase: the top ten on each side are still 9/10 the top ten Battles scorers. And the winner of each event was also the highest score in Battle points. While I personally believe that “soft” scores have a place and should impact the results, I believe my previously-expressed point is upheld by these scores. That in competitive events which do have other scoring categories, Battles scores remain the most important single factor, and that they represent a wider spread/variation of points actually scored than the soft scores do, making them more important than a simplistic evaluation of total points available would show.

This might be a bit of a segway but relates to the overall discussion. Take it as you will.

I have results from a series of GTs way back when at the start of 4ed and curious figured I'd look at battle as it related to overall. Not any real scientific analysis so take it however you want. Note that each GT was scored a bit differently so that could be a factor (all had the same categories but points available and other things were different as far as I recall).

Minneapolis GT:
--Overal was won by one of the 3 players tied for top in battle
--Overall winner edged out 2nd place by 4 points (2 from comp and 2 from appearance -- sports and battle was identicle for both).

--Top 10 overall dominated by top battle.
--Order of top battle matches overall (although some ties were broken and a few folks edged out of top 10 overal via soft scores)

Baltimore GT:
--Overall was not won by player with most battle points
--Player with most battle edge out of overall by 9 points.

--Order between overall and battle was different.
--One top 10 in battle was edged out of top 10 in overall by soft scores.

Seattle GT:
--Overall was won by player with most battle points
--Battle was definitely the decider here (15 point differnece between most battle points and the next highest in battle).

--Order between overall and battle was different.
--One top 10 in battle was edged out of top 10 in overall by soft scores.

Atlanta GT
--Overal was won by one of the 2 players tied for top in battle.
--Overall winner edged out the other top battle by 7 points (4 sports, 1 comp, 3 appearance).

--Order between overall and battle was different.
--Two top 10 in battle were edged out of top 10 in overall by soft scores.

LA GT
--Overall was won by player with most battle points

--3 of the top 10 in battle edged out of top 10 overall via soft scores.
--Player with 2nd higest in battle ended up middle of pack in overall due to softscores (he was one of several with the worst comp and his other scores were in the lower percentile).

Your attempt to apply a new label to events which do not meet your personal preference is misguided at best. It muddies the waters rather than clarifying them. If you were coming up with a new label for your own preferred type of event, I think people would be open to that. But what you’re doing instead is to try to rename the events OTHER people enjoy. That comes off as aggressive and insulting.

I'm afraid you have it completely backwards. I'm using the label "hobby event" not for personal preference but for clarity. We are speaking English and it is important to use words as they are defined in English in order to facilitate communication. The word "tournament" has a specific definition that is not satisfied by these hobby events but is satisfied by other events ('Ard Boyz, for example). They are very different events that attract different types of players and award different styles of play (and thereby emphasize, and arguably promote, different gamer "values"). It is important to contrast the two, particularly when discussing the merits of one versus the other. It has nothing to do with personal preference and everything to do with clarity of speech, despite your best attempts to paint the opposite picture.

If you've been playing since 2nd edition, you've probably been playing longer than I have. So my labeling you as a latecomer would seem to be inaccurate. That said, I'm mystified about what seems to be your choice to play ignorant about the existing culture of 40k tournaments in the United States. Maybe you haven't played in national events much? I only started 40k in 1999, but started going to GTs in 2001. I don't mean to make this an e-peen measuring contest, but I don't think your approach is very constructive, and I think you'd get more positive responses if you were more respectful toward the existing scene you're trying to modify.

How am I playing ignorant? I'm addressing head-on the misconception of what a tournament is within the Warhammer community. Just because ignorance of the term has become commonplace does not obligate oneself to participate in that ignorance. As stated previously, I have not participated in GT's because I do not have any interest in hobby events. That's not a judgment, they're just not my thing. If GW (or another organizer) hosted a major tournament I'd make every effort to attend just like I do with 'Ard Boyz. The NOVA Open is another I'm thinking of attending, though traveling far for a single day event is somewhat off-putting.

Looking at your numbers, I notice that the range of hard scores on the yellow side is 45pts, and on the blue side it's 33. In soft scores yellow shows a 26pt range, and blue a 14pt range. So the battles range of points seems to be a bigger deal here. In terms of actual points awarded, Battles represents a larger portion of the range than all the soft scores put together. And when you consider that only the Sportsmanship scores are coming from your opponents, the relative difference in importance seems even more dramatic.

Notice that the possible hard score range is 0-135 and the possible soft score range is 0-95. A larger scale is more likely to show a larger range and higher variance. This skews the variance observed in these separate data sets and for this reason you have to weight the measures of variance in other to compare apples to apples, so to speak. This is appropriate since we are, in part, discussing how much the relative differences between hard and soft scores amongst the highest ranking participants contributes to their overall position.

In the end, we have standard deviations which are close in one case, and extremely close in the other. (If you are unfamiliar, the standard deviation is the most commonly used measurement of spread in statistics and is directly calculated from the variance of a data set.) These data show that the soft scores varied to a similar extent when compared to the hard scores across the top ten finishers of both competitions. Yes, battle points account for a larger portion of the spread, but only by a very small margin in the yellow competition. I would expect the variance to be higher if comp scoring had been in place (due to its more subjective and sometimes even random nature) or if more emphasis was placed on soft scoring, as is the case in many of the GT's this season (SoCal Slaughter, for instance, has 50% soft scoring). In any event, what we have is clear evidence that soft scores have a very significant impact on how overall rankings are determined.

Another suggestion I'd like to make for analysis of these numbers- I think you should really be figuring the Quiz (at the Championship, not the Team Tournament) as a Hard score.

If it wasn't quantified by the games played then it's not a hard score, at least by every definition of "hard score" and "soft score" that I've ever encountered. In the context of this particular discussion it makes even less sense since we're talking primarily about how the tournament contributes to the overall scoring versus everything else.

If you don't want luck involved, your best bet to minimize it is to play Chess.

Wouldn't it be more constructive to talk about how the system can be improved (which it can be) rather than simply dismiss every criticism that suggests change? Luck is built into 40k, but there's no reason to also build it into tournament structure. The more nonsense included in scoring the less application of skill matters to outcomes and the greater (and more valid) complaints about events not being competitive will be.

Mannahnin wrote:The Team Tournament quiz was a mix of fluff and rules questions. The one at the Championship is pure core rules knowledge. Every question is multiple choice, and every question has a clear answer in the main 40k rulebook. In my opinion its careful design does make it a valid and objective measure of the player’s knowledge of the actual game rules.

In my opinion the quiz is a stupid addition to any tournament, I don't go to them to take tests, I go to play and see/display painted armies. I don't think obscure knowledge about fluff sections has any bearing on the game at all. I can't stand questions that derive from universe lore in books, I don't like the warhammer books, I don;t read any of it, so why should that be a penalty to my chances at overall?

I don't think it's a hard score, I thinks it's a complete waste of time. If sports scores, and comp scores are of controversial concern then what place does a quiz have?

Danny Internets wrote:...and the greater (and more valid) complaints about events not being competitive will be.

Doesn't winterman's post above (as well as TimmyMWD's breakdown of the same thing for Adepticon) show that these events are competitive? Top 10 in battle points almost always making up the full top 10 overall (only 1 or 2 missing out at times), and the top battle score almost always winning the tournament.

Danny Internets wrote:How am I playing ignorant? I'm addressing head-on the misconception of what a tournament is within the Warhammer community. Just because ignorance of the term has become commonplace does not obligate oneself to participate in that ignorance. As stated previously, I have not participated in GT's because I do not have any interest in hobby events. That's not a judgment, they're just not my thing. If GW (or another organizer) hosted a major tournament I'd make every effort to attend just like I do with 'Ard Boyz. The NOVA Open is another I'm thinking of attending, though traveling far for a single day event is somewhat off-putting.

The problem with this definition it that is it new on the scene. 'Tournament' in the GW realm always meant the classic RTT system and included painting and eventually sportsmanship. In this new era of internet 'competitiveness' the hardcore want to reclaim the word and hold it to a new/different standard - thus the division in how people view events.

I have no issues what-so-ever with pure Battle events. I think they have just as much place as anything else. What I take issue with is people trying to redefine events so they have something to complain about. The current 'competitive' environment is toxic as all hell and an event like AdeptiCon is stuck in the middle. We existed long before everyone and their mother got blogspot accounts and really could care less about 'true/hardcore competition' outside the friendly realm. We are, and will continue to be, a social event first and foremost, a celebration of the hobby second and somewhere after that (not necessarily third) a friendly competition. I have explained this to people time and time again only to find them complaining that AdeptiCon is not 'competitive'. Huh?

AdeptiCon IS a hobby event. AdeptiCon IS an RTT/GT in the classic GW sense. AdeptiCon is also much, much, much, much more than 1 or 2 40K events. Does that mean we will never accommodate a more competitive environment? Not at all - although I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that is very eager to given the way in which the event is lambasted and smeared for not being what you want. Not once has someone on this side of the fence contacted us directly and offered to spearhead an event of that nature at the convention. Not once. Every single event at the convention is run by a fellow gamer, every single event has a champion and the success of those events is directly proportional to their involvement. I am 100% positive you don't want me running a hyper-competitive event and I am 100% I won't. So who will?

I truly hope an event like the NOVA Open or something like a YTHCon does well - there is a massive hole in the scene right now in regards to that type of event - just quit trying to make us be that event. We are not interested.

It depends on the context in which you're talking about competitiveness. If many competitive players look at the event, balk at the wacky scenarios and the fact that soft scores make up 41% of the scoring, and don't bother to attend then how competitive is it really (on a community level)? Sure, the people who attended competed fiercely, but is that a good measure of the quality of competitiveness? Two six-year-olds might compete as hard as they can in a foot race but can anyone with a straight face say that this contest is as competitive as the 100 meter dash in the Olympics?

Indeed, the event is competitive, but the competition isn't about deciding who plays 40k best that day, but who is the most well-rounded hobbyist (hence the term "hobby competition").

RiTides It proves that gamers that have enough time to get good at 40k and travel to events also value painting and sportsmanship.

the same people win the hard only and soft events.

it isn't like there is a seperate group of people that rock all the hard events and always loss the soft events.
the fact is most gamers prefer soft scored events over hard scored events.
When I play hard boys my only recourse when playing a tool box is to return the favor.
there are plenty of jerks in anything you do. the softscores discourage the jerks from coming out.

both are just as competitive the difference one is a triatholon which most are decided in the the foot race. the other is just a marathon.

Danny Internets wrote:

Your attempt to apply a new label to events which do not meet your personal preference is misguided at best. It muddies the waters rather than clarifying them. If you were coming up with a new label for your own preferred type of event, I think people would be open to that. But what you’re doing instead is to try to rename the events OTHER people enjoy. That comes off as aggressive and insulting.

I'm afraid you have it completely backwards. I'm using the label "hobby event" not for personal preference but for clarity.

bs. Complete unadulterated bs.

A tournament is a competition involving a relatively large number of competitors, all participating in a sport or game. More specifically, the term may be used in either of two overlapping senses:

ne or more competitions held at a single venue and concentrated into a relatively short time interval.
A competition involving multiple matches, each involving a subset of the competitors, with the overall tournament winner determined based on the combined results of these individual matches. These are common in those sports and games where each match must involve a small number of competitors: often precisely two, as in most team sports, racket sports and combat sports, many card games and board games, and many forms of competitive debating. Such tournaments allow large numbers to compete against each other in spite of the restriction on numbers in a single match

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament

S: (n) tournament, tourney (a sporting competition in which contestants play a series of games to decide the winner)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=tournament

Golf tournament, shooting tournament, poker tournament, monopoly tournament they are all tournaments. Some are purely objective -golf, some have judges giving points: diving, gymnastics, etc. etc. all are tournaments.

You can debate the merits of including solf scores and the methodolgy therein, but seriously, cut the crap already.
This is the historical style for these tournaments. They've been styled as tournaments since 2nd ed. Put on your big girl panties on quit trying to snow us with bs. Only you and your two best friends are buying it.

I have no issues with that at all.

AdeptiCon IS a Hobby Competition. Period. Always has, always will be.

RiTides wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:...and the greater (and more valid) complaints about events not being competitive will be.

Doesn't winterman's post above (as well as TimmyMWD's breakdown of the same thing for Adepticon) show that these events are competitive? Top 10 in battle points almost always making up the full top 10 overall (only 1 or 2 missing out at times), and the top battle score almost always winning the tournament.

Yep.

Danny Internets wrote:I'm afraid you have it completely backwards. I'm using the label "hobby event" not for personal preference but for clarity. We are speaking English and it is important to use words as they are defined in English in order to facilitate communication. The word "tournament" has a specific definition that is not satisfied by these hobby events but is satisfied by other events ('Ard Boyz, for example).

I understand the intention you have expressed, but I have to reiterate that “Tournament” is a word with a lot of different real-world meanings. And that it applies equally well to GTs with soft scores as it does to those without. I maintain that attempting to limit the use of the word “tournament” as applied to GW events in an exclusionary manner, as you are doing, is fundamentally counterproductive. It creates division rather than clarity. It communicates a sense of “us vs. them” rather than a unified hobby. And you are never going to get the level of widespread adoption you would need to actually make your chosen application of labels any clearer than the current state.

Danny Internets wrote:I'm addressing head-on the misconception of what a tournament is within the Warhammer community. Just because ignorance of the term has become commonplace does not obligate oneself to participate in that ignorance. As stated previously, I have not participated in GT's because I do not have any interest in hobby events.

So you do not participate in these events, but you wish to change the terminology applied to describe them. And you don’t see a problem inherent to this idea? You are coming from the outside and attempting to change what we call our events, based on theory and quasi-applicable real world definitions, rather than experience with the existing culture, and without the buy-in of the people who presently participate in these events. You can’t make friends or win agreement that way.

Danny Internets wrote:Notice that the possible hard score range is 0-135 and the possible soft score range is 0-95. A larger scale is more likely to show a larger range and higher variance. This skews the variance observed in these separate data sets and for this reason you have to weight the measures of variance in other to compare apples to apples, so to speak. This is appropriate since we are, in part, discussing how much the relative differences between hard and soft scores amongst the highest ranking participants contributes to their overall position.

Okay. And the actual range of scores, as I’ve previously stated, shows more accurately the relative importance. So with Battle, in the Blue event, we have a range of actual scores for the entire event from 1 to 128. An 128pt range. In the other scores taken as a whole, the lowest actual total awarded is 43, and the highest is 87. So that’s an actual range of 44pts. Battle shows a variation almost three times that of the non-battle scores.

Danny Internets wrote:

Another suggestion I'd like to make for analysis of these numbers- I think you should really be figuring the Quiz (at the Championship, not the Team Tournament) as a Hard score.

If it wasn't quantified by the games played then it's not a hard score, at least by every definition of "hard score" and "soft score" that I've ever encountered. In the context of this particular discussion it makes even less sense since we're talking primarily about how the tournament contributes to the overall scoring versus everything else.

I disagree with both of your premises. First, given that you don’t attend these events, your personal experience of what constitutes a “hard” vs a “soft” score is not convincing evidence. Quizzes like the one in the Adepticon Championship are not a widespread feature of GW tournaments to the best of my knowledge, and deserve consideration on their own merits, independent of the judge’s prior lack of experience with them. Second, a quiz on the core game rulebook rules (not codices, not supplements) seems to me an eminently objective measure of a player’s knowledge of the game. And possibly a more objective measure of their skill at the game than their Battles score.

Danny Internets wrote:Wouldn't it be more constructive to talk about how the system can be improved (which it can be) rather than simply dismiss every criticism that suggests change?

This is why I’m talking to you. I think you are an intelligent person capable of making constructive suggestions and participating usefully in the tournament scene. I’m not going to dismiss all of your criticisms, but I’d like to address the ones which seem to me to be based on misconceptions, inexperience, and flawed reasoning, so we can get them out of the way, and hopefully not have such heated disagreements.

I am a competitive gamer. I am not the best in the world, but I’m no slouch. I have demonstrated some little success both in soft-scored and non soft-scored events. Speaking from experience, both can be and usually are competitive. And the events with soft scores usually better represent the hobby and better ensure an enjoyable experience for as many participants as possible.

Danny Internets wrote:

If you don't want luck involved, your best bet to minimize it is to play Chess.

Luck is built into 40k, but there's no reason to also build it into tournament structure. The more nonsense included in scoring the less application of skill matters to outcomes and the greater (and more valid) complaints about events not being competitive will be.

Luck is an unavoidable factor, though I agree that efforts to reduce its impact can be good ideas. Your choice to apply the word “nonsense” to describe some categories of scoring is provocative and unproductive, and prompts me to ask how you ever expect to get a respectful audience if you denigrate preferences other than your own?

I don't get the angst. People should run events as they see fit.

There's a significant hobby portion to the NOVA Open as well ... we're just trying to emphasize the separate but equal nature of "competitive" vs. "soft." That doesn't mean some of the guys who go 4-0 and win top commander awards won't also be in competition for soft awards.

I covered my experience of the Adepticon 1850 40k championships at http://whiskey40k.com in a recent post there ... I think the problem is not that Battle Points are not winning events, but that events do not pare down to clear winners. There were numerous successful "clear win" undefeated finishers at the 1850 championships who never go to play off against each other, so it leaves the event subject to interpretation and question regarding pairings, difficult challenges, etc. All Adepticon needs to do is consider not calling them "Championships" or making sure they clearly brand it as a hobby-level, fun event - which it WAS! I greatly enjoyed it.

Danny Internets - for what it's worth, the 8 people (across fantasy/40k) who go undefeated in 4 rounds will get a marginal 2nd day to their event, so travel out here and have at it

Danny Internets wrote:It depends on the context in which you're talking about competitiveness. If many competitive players look at the event, balk at the wacky scenarios and the fact that soft scores make up 41% of the scoring, and don't bother to attend then how competitive is it really (on a community level)? Sure, the people who attended competed fiercely, but is that a good measure of the quality of competitiveness? Two six-year-olds might compete as hard as they can in a foot race but can anyone with a straight face say that this contest is as competitive as the 100 meter dash in the Olympics?

Indeed, the event is competitive, but the competition isn't about deciding who plays 40k best that day, but who is the most well-rounded hobbyist (hence the term "hobby competition").

it has been shown that the people with the most battle points win!!!!!!! you continue to ignore this. the people on the top of soft tourneys are the same that on top of hard tourneys. there is no mystery pool of uber gamers that can beat anyone but choice not to go to events because they hate soft scores.

Augustus wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:The Team Tournament quiz was a mix of fluff and rules questions. The one at the Championship is pure core rules knowledge. Every question is multiple choice, and every question has a clear answer in the main 40k rulebook. In my opinion its careful design does make it a valid and objective measure of the player’s knowledge of the actual game rules.

In my opinion the quiz is a stupid addition to any tournament, I don't go to them to take tests, I go to play and see/display painted armies. I don't think obscure knowledge about fluff sections has any bearing on the game at all. I can't stand questions that derive from universe lore in books, I don't like the warhammer books, I don;t read any of it, so why should that be a penalty to my chances at overall?

I don't think it's a hard score, I thinks it's a complete waste of time. If sports scores, and comp scores are of controversial concern then what place does a quiz have?

Hey Augustus, did you not read the section you quoted? Where I specifically stated that the Team Tournament was a mix of fluff and rules, and described how the Championship quiz was utterly different?

So, two different things-

Championship quiz: Pure core book rules. I think straight core book rules knowledge is a desirable quality in any gamer, and I think it’s fun and appropriate to test and reward it.

Team Tournament: Mix of fluff and obscure rules, particularly less-used units from different armies. I can respect that you don’t like quizzes. I’m not a big fan of GW fiction either, and only mildly enjoy fluff quizzes. But I don’t mind the fluff quiz in the Team Tournament. If we’re given extra points for having matching t-shirts or dice, for having a banner or a team song, and for matching our armies to a Black Library book story, then I don’t think the TT quiz is out of place. It’s all for fun.

A tournament is just a competition with rules. What the rules are and how they're scored is not what is important.

If painting bothers you so much, try considering it the first round of the tournament, the painting competition. So it's subjective, whatever. They judge showmanship in some games/sports.

If comp bothers you so much, consider it handicapping, or difficulty scoring, such as in a pro-am golf tournament or things like figure skating or freestyle skiing aerials.

If sportsmanship bothers you so much...well, that one is harder, mainly because of chipmunking. Making gentlemanly behavior a requirement of the tournament doesn't invalidate it as a tournament, it's just part of the scoring. Measuring it poorly doesn't even invalidate it, it just changes the game you're playing (not just the miniatures, but your opponents attitude, your chipmunking methods, whatever).

No matter how much you hate all of these different aspects, it doesn't make it not a tournament, it's just a tournament with rules and scoring you don't like.

The big problem for most people is that unlike figure skating or aerials there is a way to run a Warhammer tournament that is completely objective...my grey plastic army against yours in a no holds barred deathmatch, winner is declared master strategist of the hobby game. And that is fine, they run it every year as the 'Ard Boyz. The rest may be unnecessary for a tournament, but it doesn't make it not a tournament.

Also - it is very important to know that we do listen to our attendees. I put a survey in the this year's Team Tournament packet with a number of question regarding that particular event, the convention and the general state of 40K. Out of 436 players we got 416 back and as a result of those surveys we will be making some changes to various events. There already has been a considerable amount of excellent discussion in regards to cleaning up some events, making events easier to manage and even adding a tablespoon or two of 'competitiveness' back into the mix. None of this is stone yet, but some ideas we have been looking at/considering based on feedback and discussions are:

1. Moving the Championships to Friday night. Make it a 4-round qualifier where the top players (12, 24, not sure) go on to play in a 3-round event on Sunday. Gladiator moves to Sunday and continues to be a goofy, over-the-top event like it was always intended to be.
2. Dropping Forge World/IA from the Team Tournament.
3. Providing dice to all attendees.
4. Removing the 0/3 comp score from the Team Tournament (something I advocated last year - but it slipped through the cracks).
5. Moving to a majority strikes method for Sportsmanship. That is, results sheets will only have two sportsmanship options. Sort of a flag/reward system. If a particular player receives a majority of negative marks, that is 3 in a 4 round event, then they would receive a penalty to their overall score. Rewards would not be worth any point towards overall, but would instead solely determine Best Sportsman.

Those all sound pretty good. I particularly like 1 & 2!

5 is pretty solid too, though I like the idea of a small points bump for favorite opponent votes. You just need to include it as a mandatory field on the final results sheet.

Matthias wrote:
1. Moving the Championships to Friday night. Make it a 4-round qualifier where the top players (12, 24, not sure) go on to play in a 3-round event on Sunday. Gladiator moves to Sunday and continues to be a goofy, over-the-top event like it was always intended to be.
2. Dropping Forge World/IA from the Team Tournament.
3. Providing dice to all attendees.
4. Removing the 0/3 comp score from the Team Tournament (something I advocated last year - but it slipped through the cracks).
5. Moving to a majority strikes method for Sportsmanship. That is, results sheets will only have two sportsmanship options. Sort of a flag/reward system. If a particular player receives a majority of negative marks, that is 3 in a 4 round event, then they would receive a penalty to their overall score. Rewards would not be worth any point towards overall, but would instead solely determine Best Sportsman.

Wow those all sound great to me. Well done! Looking forward to next year!

To clarify: there would be 3 options technically for #5. You can simply opt to call the game average and not reward or flag your opponent.

One idea was to award a small number of points for a perfect set of rewards - 4 checks in a 4 round tournament. Something like 10-20 points max. I think that has merit.

It stops any single individual from chipmunking a game. In essence 75% of your opponents would have to work together to dock you points. The reality of that happening...

It still gives the players a voice and allows us to know what tables need an extra set of eyes as the tournament goes on.

Danny Internets wrote:It depends on the context in which you're talking about competitiveness. If many competitive players look at the event, balk at the wacky scenarios and the fact that soft scores make up 41% of the scoring, and don't bother to attend then how competitive is it really (on a community level)? Sure, the people who attended competed fiercely, but is that a good measure of the quality of competitiveness? Two six-year-olds might compete as hard as they can in a foot race but can anyone with a straight face say that this contest is as competitive as the 100 meter dash in the Olympics?

The only Measure of Quality of competitiveness is the level of competition between the attendees. If you had your two six-year-olds competing in the 100 meter dash in the Olympics, OR Usain Bolt competing against his neighbor's six year old daughter you would have a more persuasive argument for a Non-contest, and thus a non-competitive entry or event.

You are attempting to use the level of competition at an event to make assertions about a community that the event does not represent. This is skewed. Your analysis of the spread of impact of soft scores versus battle points was also skewed, as you only looked at the top 10 finishers, rather than a random sample from the group. It is fair to consider that the top 10 finishers were all competing with a similar understanding of the event they were attempting to win. If you looked at the entire population (via a non-biased sample) you might be able to make better assertions regarding both the spread of "soft" scores and their impact upon the event.

Matthias wrote:Also - it is very important to know that we do listen to our attendees. I put a survey in the this year's Team Tournament packet with a number of question regarding that particular event, the convention and the general state of 40K. Out of 436 players we got 416 back and as a result of those surveys we will be making some changes to various events. There already has been a considerable amount of excellent discussion in regards to cleaning up some events, making events easier to manage and even adding a tablespoon or two of 'competitiveness' back into the mix. None of this is stone yet, but some ideas we have been looking at/considering based on feedback and discussions are:

1. Moving the Championships to Friday night. Make it a 4-round qualifier where the top players (12, 24, not sure) go on to play in a 3-round event on Sunday. Gladiator moves to Sunday and continues to be a goofy, over-the-top event like it was always intended to be.
2. Dropping Forge World/IA from the Team Tournament.
3. Providing dice to all attendees.
4. Removing the 0/3 comp score from the Team Tournament (something I advocated last year - but it slipped through the cracks).
5. Moving to a majority strikes method for Sportsmanship. That is, results sheets will only have two sportsmanship options. Sort of a flag/reward system. If a particular player receives a majority of negative marks, that is 3 in a 4 round event, then they would receive a penalty to their overall score. Rewards would not be worth any point towards overall, but would instead solely determine Best Sportsman.

Those sound excellent. plus I might actualy be able to attend next year. Hurray!

Buttercup wrote:It depends on the context in which you're talking about competitiveness. If many competitive players look at the event, balk at the wacky scenarios and the fact that soft scores make up 41% of the scoring, and don't bother to attend then how competitive is it really (on a community level)? Sure, the people who attended competed fiercely, but is that a good measure of the quality of competitiveness? Two six-year-olds might compete as hard as they can in a foot race but can anyone with a straight face say that this contest is as competitive as the 100 meter dash in the Olympics?

Indeed, the event is competitive, but the competition isn't about deciding who plays 40k best that day, but who is the most well-rounded hobbyist (hence the term "hobby competition").

Buttercup, you still haven't shown us this massive group of competitive players not showing up to events because of the soft scores. Adepticon sold out a 240 person 40k event with all the soft scores you so despise and there were over 400 players in the Team Tournament.

So c'mon, show us this legion of disaffected competitive gamers. Otherwise, you are talking out of your rear-end and spamming tournament threads with nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Matthias wrote:Also - it is very important to know that we do listen to our attendees. I put a survey in the this year's Team Tournament packet with a number of question regarding that particular event, the convention and the general state of 40K. Out of 436 players we got 416 back and as a result of those surveys we will be making some changes to various events. There already has been a considerable amount of excellent discussion in regards to cleaning up some events, making events easier to manage and even adding a tablespoon or two of 'competitiveness' back into the mix. None of this is stone yet, but some ideas we have been looking at/considering based on feedback and discussions are:

1. Moving the Championships to Friday night. Make it a 4-round qualifier where the top players (12, 24, not sure) go on to play in a 3-round event on Sunday. Gladiator moves to Sunday and continues to be a goofy, over-the-top event like it was always intended to be.
2. Dropping Forge World/IA from the Team Tournament.
3. Providing dice to all attendees.
4. Removing the 0/3 comp score from the Team Tournament (something I advocated last year - but it slipped through the cracks).
5. Moving to a majority strikes method for Sportsmanship. That is, results sheets will only have two sportsmanship options. Sort of a flag/reward system. If a particular player receives a majority of negative marks, that is 3 in a 4 round event, then they would receive a penalty to their overall score. Rewards would not be worth any point towards overall, but would instead solely determine Best Sportsman.

All of these are cool but I'm torn on #3 (especially #2, damn Hades Breaching Drills!!). I really don't think this is a big deal and I'd rather not pay more to have more dice that I really don't need.

The attempt to find a clear winner is one of the reasons BoLSCon is 7 rounds instead of the generally accepted 5 rounds. 7 rounds gives us a theoretical true winner from 128 competitors, unlike the true winner for 32 competitors given in 5 rounds. Because the system isn't binary, we could theoretically end up with a player with 7 low wins placing behind a player with 2 narrow losses and 5 high wins, (or even 4 and 3), but that is not what we saw last year. Our overall was 6-1, and beat the player that he lost to on the final table (who then finished 3rd in battle points).

Our top 2 finishers also had the most battle points; our third in battle points finished 6th overall, because his army was essentially just primed (which would have kept him from competing in just about any other tourney).

The range in sportsmanship points for the top 50% of the field was less than the value of a single secondary objective in one round. The top 10 finishers had a total variation of 6 points - 2/3 of a tertiary objective.

The range in painting, throwing out the primed and unpainted scores (who again, could not have even participated anywhere else) is less than HALF a single tertiary objective over the top 50% of the field.

The quiz scores had almost no variation, with almost every participant scoring 11 or 12.

@Matthias - those sound great - another idea for sports is to have people rank their opponents 1-5 also and give a bonus based on that. Seemed to work well at a tourney in CO recently as I understand it.

As a general comment - a tournament is what the tournament organizers want it to be. Some people keep wanting to force all 40K tournaments to be what they want - and are trying to political reference it down our throats. Not everyone wants that. Wish the spewage would stop that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Nothing is wrong with having both type of events. NOTHING

In regards to Adepticon as a whole - VERY well run tournament - Jobz a Gud Un!

In response to Winterman's post, in order for this argument to hold water it requires some cherry-picking of tournaments. I'd very much like to see the full sets of results for those tournaments in order to do a more in-depth analysis, since several of these examples don't provide numbers, just claims that they were "dominated" by high BP scorers and so on.

I spent a few minutes doing my own research and found several recent tournaments from the indy GT circuit that show people winning hobby events by virtue of their soft scores rather than their battle points:

Broadside Bash 2010 (53% soft scoring)
1st place had 4th highest battle points

Mechanicon 2009 (59% soft scoring)
1st place had 4th highest battle points
5th place had 2nd highest battle points
8th place had 3rd highest battle points

Gottacon 2010
1st place had 3rd highest battle points

Toywiz Conflict GT
8th place had 2nd highest battle points

You can debate the merits of including solf scores and the methodolgy therein, but seriously, cut the crap already.

No need to get all emotional, Frazzled, this is just a simple discussion. If you'd read the definition you provided you'd notice that a tournament is a SERIES of competitions. Series as in completed SERIALLY. It should be obvious that this refers to the games that are played serially. Painting, comp, and so on all exist outside of this series and thus function in addition to the tournament. When the winner of the "tournament" is decided in part (and even in majority) by non-tournament scoring then you no longer have a tournament, but a new kind of event. Hence, the term "hobby competition." Nothing wrong with that, it's just not a tournament. It's a tournament + other stuff. The winner of the tournament is not necessarily the winner of the hobby competition, as in the examples provided above.

I maintain that attempting to limit the use of the word “tournament” as applied to GW events in an exclusionary manner, as you are doing, is fundamentally counterproductive. It creates division rather than clarity. It communicates a sense of “us vs. them” rather than a unified hobby.

In order to illustrate differences you must use contrast. Contrast, by definition, creates division. I understand that you take offense at this, but there's really no reason to. There is no value judgment attached to the term. I'm sorry you don't like it, but I find it the most precise way of differentiating between the two types of events and will continue to use it. Even Matthias agrees that it is an accurate description of these events, and Adepticon is closer to a true tournament than many others.

So you do not participate in these events, but you wish to change the terminology applied to describe them. And you don’t see a problem inherent to this idea? You are coming from the outside and attempting to change what we call our events, based on theory and quasi-applicable real world definitions, rather than experience with the existing culture, and without the buy-in of the people who presently participate in these events. You can’t make friends or win agreement that way.

I don't really care if you adopt a more accurate (in terms of English) terminology for your hobby competitions. I have no interest in winning any Dakka popularity contests. I'm simply here to present a reasoned argument for a more precise way of describing our "tournament" scene. Perhaps by realizing that we don't really have much in the way of tournaments that might encourage people to push for a more diverse event scene that respects a wider variety of play-styles rather than catering exclusively to the well-rounded hobbyist.

I disagree with both of your premises. First, given that you don’t attend these events, your personal experience of what constitutes a “hard” vs a “soft” score is not convincing evidence.

Quit grasping as straws. I don't have to get wet to know it's raining. I used to play in a lot of RTTs back when they still existed and they featured analogous scoring with painting, sportsmanship, comp, and even quizzes. I'm no stranger to the event, and even if I was it wouldn't prevent me from analyzing the results and understanding the scoring system.

Ozymandias wrote:All of these are cool but I'm torn on #3 (especially #2, damn Hades Breaching Drills!!). I really don't think this is a big deal and I'd rather not pay more to have more dice that I really don't need.

Of all those that is one we are the fence the most about. *If* we can work out a good deal with a vendor, we might consider this. I don't think dice cheating is that much of an issue given our conduct policy - we would be approaching it from the coolness/swag factor first - if we can work that out then we can roll it into the general tournament changes. Like I said, nothing in stone...

Matthias -

I love the idea of 4 games, take a break for the TT, and 3 more games on Sunday. And it lets me not play Gladiator and not take grief from Bill for not winning two of them before I stop (assuming I can actually get into the Sunday portion, which is not a given).

How in the world is painting not part of a series? You can consider it the first event, the last event, whatever you want, but it isn't magically outside of everything.

player judged comp and sports are part of your total score for that round. Just because someone bothers to write them up in a separate column on the spreadsheet doesn't change that.

organizer judged comp can also be just considered round 0 (especially if also used for matchups) or round X. Just because you don't know when it was judged doesn't suddenly make not part of the series.

You're focusing way too much on the word series in one definition anyway. What's so bad about, say,

1. A series of contests in which a number of contestants compete and the one that prevails through the final round or that finishes with the best record is declared the winner.

So c'mon, show us this legion of disaffected competitive gamers. Otherwise, you are talking out of your rear-end and spamming tournament threads with nonsense.

The community that participates over at YesTheTruthHurts.com is fairly large and features many of these individuals, including myself. I also know several people in my own club who have chosen not to attend events based on predominance of soft scoring. Obviously it's impossible to quantify the impact of the results without some kind of omniscient mathematical model, but we do exist.

Everyone has their own concept of the ideal event.

There are tournaments with soft scores and tournaments without soft scores, so everyone should be happy.

If there isn't an event which fits your ideal, you can start one.

Ozymandias wrote:
Buttercup, you still haven't shown us this massive group of competitive players not showing up to events because of the soft scores. Adepticon sold out a 240 person 40k event with all the soft scores you so despise and there were over 400 players in the Team Tournament.

So c'mon, show us this legion of disaffected competitive gamers.

Like the subjective scores you love so much, the number of people who avoid this type of tournament because of its scoring system is impossible to objectively measure. Clearly TOs favor subjective scoring systems because, according to the TOs, many American wargamers are unable to behave in a civilized fashion without their presence.

How in the world is painting not part of a series? You can consider it the first event, the last event, whatever you want, but it isn't magically outside of everything.

Series
1 a : a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in spatial or temporal succession
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/series

It certainly exists outside of the game. It's not even related to the game except by virtue of the hobby. The games are played serially with each affecting the subsequent game via paring. The painting competition just gets throw on top, either before, during, or after and isn't part of the series of the games and has no impact on them whatsoever.

Kilkrazy wrote:Everyone has their own concept of the ideal event.

There are tournaments with soft scores and tournaments without soft scores, so everyone should be happy.

If there isn't an event which fits your ideal, you can start one.

AMEN brother!

Buttermuffin wrote:

So c'mon, show us this legion of disaffected competitive gamers. Otherwise, you are talking out of your rear-end and spamming tournament threads with nonsense.

The community that participates over at YesTheTruthHurts.com is fairly large and features many of these individuals, including myself. I also know several people in my own club who have chosen not to attend events based on predominance of soft scoring. Obviously it's impossible to quantify the impact of the results without some kind of omniscient mathematical model, but we do exist.

And we know these people are competitive because they say they are competitive and belong to a site that declares its competitive? I'm sorry, tautological reasons don't really hold water. I've been around YTTH and while I'm sure a lot of people do go there, the actual, regular contributors is not a very high number. I'm sorry that the vast majority of tournaments in the US don't hold up to the standards of the couple dozen or so of you. But from what I hear, there will be a YTTHCon so hopefully you can show us all how it's done!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Matthias wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:All of these are cool but I'm torn on #3 (especially #2, damn Hades Breaching Drills!!). I really don't think this is a big deal and I'd rather not pay more to have more dice that I really don't need.

Of all those that is one we are the fence the most about. *If* we can work out a good deal with a vendor, we might consider this. I don't think dice cheating is that much of an issue given our conduct policy - we would be approaching it from the coolness/swag factor first - if we can work that out then we can roll it into the general tournament changes. Like I said, nothing in stone...

The swag idea is kinda cool. If it were just a block of dice then no thanks. Overall though, not a huge gripe and obviously wouldn't preclude my participation next year!

What's wrong with a gaming contest? Why is determining who can play the game the best so evil? I posit that Danny's Tournament as determining the best game player who payed his money and showed up that day is a perfectly valid format for a tournament.

I further suggest we look at "draw" for such an event. Adepticon (with it's Non-Gaming Contest format) draws folks from all across the country. This could be because it's a well run event, where people have a fair assurance of having a good time pushing their little plastic and metal men around for 14 hours a day over a period of 3 days. I would assume that this draw, measured in number of paying attenders, makes Adepticon a viable convention but then I am no expert on the economics of conventions / tournaments. Would Adepticon be less fun for the attenders if there were fewer than 1/2 as many folks present?

Perhaps the Draw for a Gaming contest is limited because there can be only one winner. If you had a Gaming Contest that was fair, with good rules support that had 240+ attendees and only one champion would you have more or less fun if there were fewer folks present?

Danny Internets wrote:

So c'mon, show us this legion of disaffected competitive gamers. Otherwise, you are talking out of your rear-end and spamming tournament threads with nonsense.

The community that participates over at YesTheTruthHurts.com is fairly large and features many of these individuals, including myself. I also know several people in my own club who have chosen not to attend events based on predominance of soft scoring. Obviously it's impossible to quantify the impact of the results without some kind of omniscient mathematical model, but we do exist.

I Just don't think these mythical good players. I great player would show up and max battle points and go home happy. if these good players showed up and could play at the super level they would win every other event, because it is shown that the highest battle points almost always wins overall. The fact is these players are only mariginal in every aspect. I challenge you hate soft score gamers. send me a PM tell me what Circiut event you are going to. if you end up with the most battle points and fail to win overall. I will refund your entry fee.

you have to send me a pm before the event. I will publish a list so we can track how the hate soft score uber gamers fair in battle.

Matthias wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:All of these are cool but I'm torn on #3 (especially #2, damn Hades Breaching Drills!!). I really don't think this is a big deal and I'd rather not pay more to have more dice that I really don't need.

Of all those that is one we are the fence the most about. *If* we can work out a good deal with a vendor, we might consider this. I don't think dice cheating is that much of an issue given our conduct policy - we would be approaching it from the coolness/swag factor first - if we can work that out then we can roll it into the general tournament changes. Like I said, nothing in stone...

Mmmm, more dice.... I still have my Adepticon-branded dice from...2005, I think? Unfortunately, they warped - many of them are visibly bulged along at one face.

In response to Winterman's post, in order for this argument to hold water it requires some cherry-picking of tournaments. I'd very much like to see the full sets of results for those tournaments in order to do a more in-depth analysis, since several of these examples don't provide numbers, just claims that they were "dominated" by high BP scorers and so on.

These weren't 'cherry picked' -- they were the first GTs of 4ed. If I were cherry picking for my own gain I would have only gave data for Baltimore (or left it out). Or not given the data for the events that had ties in battle that were decided via soft scores.

And by 'dominated' in the one case where I wrote that, the top 10 overall was essentially also the top 10 in battle (9th and 10th overall was decided via soft score because those guys were tied for same battle points with several others).

This was the only tournament where this was the case -- the others had lesser battle points sneak in to top 10 overall.

If I have time I may throw up more specifc data and analysis but I honestly doubt it matters enough to spend the time to do it.

Danny Internets wrote:The community that participates over at YesTheTruthHurts.com is fairly large and features many of these individuals, including myself. I also know several people in my own club who have chosen not to attend events based on predominance of soft scoring. Obviously it's impossible to quantify the impact of the results without some kind of omniscient mathematical model, but we do exist.

That is just a way to "hide" within the system. I know plenty of players (including several of our Toledo group) that while we go to have fun, we focus a ton on the battle portion of an event. There is nothing wrong with going to an event solely for the game even if they account other aspects of the hobby. Quit being panzies, quit making excuses and just go to events to play the game. It really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp.

I personally always go into a tournament to win Best General. I know my painting isn't amazing (it's good but not top tier). I know I'm not a total dick to play. If there isn't a 0-6 comp score each game I might actually have a chance at an overall. But my focus is always for Best General. And I bring a list that compliments my mentality. I personally know a lot of guys that play the same way.

Oh and on a side note the Broadside Bash winner that won overall was a kinda a fluke. The second place guy was actually #1 in BP's and #1 in painting. But they used sports or comp as the tie breaker and the winner (who didn't place higher than 4th in any category) was had higher sports and comp than the winner.

Danny Internets wrote:

I maintain that attempting to limit the use of the word “tournament” as applied to GW events in an exclusionary manner, as you are doing, is fundamentally counterproductive. It creates division rather than clarity. It communicates a sense of “us vs. them” rather than a unified hobby.

In order to illustrate differences you must use contrast. Contrast, by definition, creates division. I understand that you take offense at this, but there's really no reason to. There is no value judgment attached to the term. I'm sorry you don't like it, but I find it the most precise way of differentiating between the two types of events and will continue to use it.

When you describe other scoring criteria as “nonsense” you make clear that you do in fact value them differently. If you think you are masking this value judgment, I’m afraid you’re not actually that successful.

Danny Internets wrote:

You are coming from the outside and attempting to change what we call our events, based on theory and quasi-applicable real world definitions, rather than experience with the existing culture, and without the buy-in of the people who presently participate in these events. You can’t make friends or win agreement that way.

I don't really care if you adopt a more accurate (in terms of English) terminology for your hobby competitions. I have no interest in winning any Dakka popularity contests.

It’s not about Dakka, or YTTH. It’s about the larger community. You can’t win people’s agreement by insulting them and denigrating the events they enjoy. Your efforts to reshape the tournament scene would work better if you put more effort into understanding how the current scene works.

Danny Internets wrote: I'm simply here to present a reasoned argument for a more precise way of describing our "tournament" scene. Perhaps by realizing that we don't really have much in the way of tournaments that might encourage people to push for a more diverse event scene that respects a wider variety of play-styles rather than catering exclusively to the well-rounded hobbyist.

I think the terminology issue gets in the way of useful constructive criticism of the tournaments themselves. I think your criticism would get better reactions if you didn’t insist on renaming events you don’t participate in. It’s a little like Stelek. He contributed a fair amount of useful content to this site, and I stuck up for him time & again. But he proved to be incapable of or unwilling to consistently communicate his ideas with courtesy. He was continually contemptuous of others, whether he was in the wrong or in the right. I can see already that you’ve got better social skills, and I encourage you not to emulate bad habits of his.

Danny Internets wrote:

I disagree with both of your premises. First, given that you don’t attend these events, your personal experience of what constitutes a “hard” vs a “soft” score is not convincing evidence.

Quit grasping as straws.

Quit ducking points, please. Does or does not a strong knowledge of the core rulebook rules help a person be a better player? Is or is not a multiple choice quiz featuring questions with clear answers in the rulebook not an objective measure of game knowledge?

Danny Internets wrote: I don't have to get wet to know it's raining. I used to play in a lot of RTTs back when they still existed and they featured analogous scoring with painting, sportsmanship, comp, and even quizzes. I'm no stranger to the event, and even if I was it wouldn't prevent me from analyzing the results and understanding the scoring system.

And you don’t have to live in Hungary to speak Hungarian, but it sure helps. Being outside the thing and not actually participating in it you are missing details, and filling gaps with assumptions and misinformation in some cases.

RTTs and GT-scale events have similarities, but the current GT scene has evolved from and improved on (for the most part) the old RTT systems. TOs have seen problems and taken criticism over the year and refined many systems. Adepticon, for example, has some absolutely wonderful phrasing and clarity in its missions and scoring.

The truth is - even if we ran our events as pure battle - it would matter little to this hidden subsection of gamers. They have a whole series of things they think they could do better, but don't. From scoring, to missions, to the INAT to the venue...the list is endless and it is foolish for us (or anyone for that matter) to assume pleasing them is within our means. The event is a compromise. We don't spend 6 months of our lives to cause anyone strife - we do it for the love of the hobby and to provide 3 solid days of good gaming fun. Period. If they want something else...quit looking at us. No matter what we change...they will still hate it and they will still spread that hate in an attempt to not feel so isolated.

Matthias, your event rocks. The questions you put for participant feedback were great questions. Just looking at that list in a vacuum, even if I had never played in your events, would make clear how solidly you have your heads on your shoulders and how well you know what you're doing.

Thanks again for putting on such a great event.

I've attended Adepticon twice now (this year and last) and have had tremendous fun each time. I hope to bring my aspiring gaming son in the near future as well.

However, I can say without doubt that if Adepticon shifted its focus to simple battlefield points, my friends and I would likely not waste the gas. I go to Adepticon to see hobby excellence and thus far, it's always delivered.

AgeOfEgos wrote:However, I can say without doubt that if Adepticon shifted its focus to simple battlefield points, my friends and I would likely not waste the gas. I go to Adepticon to see hobby excellence and thus far, it's always delivered.

I feel the same way (although I did not go to Adepticon) about the tournaments I attend. If it was simple battle points, with no other factors, it would be just like 'Ard Boyz- something which I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole...

It's marvelous as it is- if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

As one of two the Gladiator co-organizers (the most "competitive" event at AdeptiCon, since the only thing that matters is battle points), I wanted to toss my 2 cents in. If Greg (Inq. Malice) drop by, that'd be great, but I know he's busy as crap right now dealing with all the RL stuff that AdeptiCon makes us put on hold.

Quick Preface: I (along with Greg) run the Gladiator, and we do a lot of behind the scenes work, but I'm not speaking here for AdeptiCon... I'm speaking just for myself.

#1 - What is AdeptiCon?
I back up everything Matt says, in regards to what AdeptiCon is/was meant to be. First and foremost is that AdeptiCon is about a community of miniature wargamers coming together and having a great time. That's our #1 goal - as our motto says, "For Gamers, By Gamers."

We all got involved because we love the hobby, and we stay involved because its fun to work together with others who love the hobby as much as we do. We're always trying to find that perfect mix of tournaments, demos, seminars, and other events that will bring the most people together for a weekend that's really a celebration of the hobby itself.

Having said that...

#2 - Logistics

We've got three days. There's been some talk about eventually moving to a four-day schedule, but there are so many issues with that, dealing with so many different things, that I wouldn't expect that to go beyond the theory stage anytime soon (then again, those decisions get made above my pay grade). Three days may seem like a lot, but when you're trying to cram the schedule with as many different options for people as possible, you realize you can't include everything.

Then there's the venue limitations. Not just in terms of timeframe, but also in terms of space, layout, and appeasing the powers that be (people like the Fire Marshall who can shut down the event if they don't like the way its set up). Again, the point is that you can't do everything...you can just try to balance out everything as well as you can.

#3 - 40K at AdeptiCon
There are four main 40K tournaments running throughout the weekend, each with its own unique qualities.

At the smaller end, we've got the 40K Combat Patrol tournaments. These tournaments allow people to participate in a quick tournament experience that still leaves them time to participate in the many, many other events that are going on. Which isn't just limited to tournaments. Tournaments get the big press (for a variety of reasons) but an event like AdeptiCon is much, much, more than tournaments. Our hobby seminars give people a chance to learn from some of the best. Open, scenario'ed, and demo games give people a chance to play both new and familiar games in relaxed settings. Tons of other stuff is going on, and players in the Combat Patrol tournament get a chance to see that...something that the tournament players doing the big 3 for their respective systems don't get to see. Which is a shame...personally, I would have loved to have played some BattleTech this weekend...but the main Btech event ran at the same time as the Team Tourney, which made that an impossibility for me.

There's the 40K Team Tournament. This event really is the big enchilada of 40K events at AdeptiCon. It's what people remember most from the weekend. I've been going to AdeptiCon since year 2, played in or run the Gladiator every year, won the Gladiator twice...and the thing I remember most are the Team Tournament Games. Whether that was with a random group of Guard players that Janthkin pulled together, or the group I pulled together from 40K Fight Club, or Dakka Detachment 1 for the last five years...the experience of the TT is simply unique, ridiculously fun, and an experience not to be missed.

There's the 40K Chmpionships. Also known as the AdeptiCon RTT, because that's what most of us long-time gamers equate it to. Pretty standard stuff, if you've played in any tournament.

And then there's the Gladiator. The only thing that matters is battle points. And we allow dang near everything. Which makes the event something of a hybrid...its about the kind of craziness that you usually only see in Apocalypse...but its also about generalship and ability to play the game. It you focus on only one aspect of the Gladiator...you're missing the point. It's not just a chance to throw down some crazy stuff on the tabletop...and its not just a chance to see who has the longest e-peen on that particular day. Its both...at least that's the attitude that Greg and I have about the event.

#4 - Is the Gladiator AdeptiCon's "competitive" event?

Maybe. Depends on your definition of competitive, really. Could we make it more of a "who's the big dog" event? Sure. Will we? Probably not. To make it more purely competive, first, it needs to be longer. 4 games isn't really enough time to differentiate 140 players to make it uncontested. And IMNSHO, single-elimination type events don't show who's big dog either. To do that, you need far more time and games than is really practicable, at least until 40K becomes a spectator sport and we start raking in those fat endorsement checks.

On top of that...part of what's always made AdeptiCon special (in my opinion) is our missions. And I'll admit that there's a grain of truth to the idea that having the special missions the special structure and with special rules makes AdeptiCon's tournaments less "competive." Now ask me if I care.

Again, remember the logistics. The team tourney had 110 teams. The Gladiator had around 140 players. And the Championships had 220 players in two separate fields. And if you asked all of the tournament organizers (who are responsible for writing and playtesting their missions) what their main concerns were...the one commonality would be this: separation. As Gladiator organizer, I'm deathly afraid that after four games, two players will be tied for first place with exactly the same number of battle points. The Championships organizers face similar concerns. The Team Tourney...much less, because with 8 games/team, its not as easy to get teams with identical points.

#5 - Gladiator Missions

Yep, they're definitely not your missions from the book. They give us separation. They're designed to test players, pull them out of their comfort zones, and force them to achieve multiple, sometimes contradictory mission objectives, in order to obtain maximum points. They help us get separation. They give us an excuse to give away swag and highlight our sponsors (Special thanks to Flying Tricycle for this year's tokens and counters for the 2010 Gladiator). They generate separation.

And did I mention separation?

Seriously though...when Greg and I took over the Gladiator last year, we first tried to write the perfect competitive missions. Balanced, not favoring any army, etc.

And we ended up with four of the blandest, most boring missions that you've ever seen. Works for chess...not for 40K. So we switched tacks...and decided our motto was, "we hate everyone." And we tried to make sure that every army was disadvantaged throughout the day. This year, for example, mission 1 featured night fighting for the entire game...screw the shooters. Mission 2 required you to move...screw the static gunlines. Mission 3 made it tough to move fast...screw the assaulters. And mission 4 was about generating separation.

Did they find out who the best 40K player in the room was? Maybe. Did they test player's ability to adjust on the fly, handle multiple objectives, extrapolate and think tactically, adjust to new and changing circumstances? Almost certainly.

I realize I've been rambling (hopefully not ranting). I guess my point is this: If you want a so-called "competitive" event...first you have to define what "competitive" is. I'm certainly happy with the Gladiator as a competitive event, and based on the number of players each year who travel to Chicago and play in it, so are lots of other people.

If you've got different ideas...start your own tournament/convention and roll with it. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the more events there are, the better it is for the hobby as a whole. The good events will last. The not-so-good events will die naturally...and people won't attend the bad ones.

What I don't get and I speak as an analyst/ accountant here is the refusal to accept that even in an event that uses soft scores that battle points are most important. The POTENTIAL spread in points for battle points is incredibly extreme (range 0 to max) and the only scores that are affected by outside forces you cannot control.


CONTROLLABLE
Painting - spend more time painting you will get a better than average score

Comp - tweak it until you get a good balance between death dealing and not appearing to be someone who likes torturing kittens

Sports - don't be a dick and shower and you will get average/ above average scores

UNCONTROLLABLE
General Points - you get smacked around, roll badly, drink to much (whilst playing or night before), stare at occasion pretty girl etc and you lose points. Lots of them. Even if 50/100 are battle points you can go from 0-50.

Anyhoo, as a non-tournie player and {blushes} fluffy background list person I have to say either systems at a torunie work for me. A tournie, when I did them, was about bring a damn hard list to kick the crap out of some power gamer extremely competitive stomp all over you player. The soft scores didn't matter - beating the living daylights out of someone did.

At this point let me clarify - bringing a rock hard list and stomping the living daylights out of all of us stupid fluffy players who bring subpar lists to a tournie doesn't make someone a dick. Being a dick is what makes you a dick. Some of the most competitive players I have met are also some of the best games I have had.

If I go to a tournie I go with my hardest list and do my best to be competitive as possible. To do so is disrepectful to the person opposite me who may have travelled a great distance for a competitive game. The last thing I think about in that environment is soft scores.

On the flip side - when playing at my house in a fun scenerio game I don't expect to see a tournie strength list either!!!

Matthias wrote:. Gladiator moves to Sunday and continues to be a goofy, over-the-top event like it was always intended to be.

Wow selective memory Matt? It wasn't over the top the first year in Rosemont. No FW allowed back then and we played until there was only one undefeated person left (till 4am as I remember). I remember Josh running the Gladiators all over Illinois with those same rules. Jeff and I would drive far and wide to compete in that tournament. It wasn't a 'goofy' tournament the few years after that. It wasn't until the Apoc halfrules showed up and the missions took off could anyone say the Gladiator became a goofy event. If you want a goofy event then fine, but it was never the initial intention.

Thanks for posting that, Centurian99... sheds a lot of light on the thought process/planning for the event, which isn't always obvious from the final product. It sounds like a great event with a clear identity, and if it's not someone's cup of tea, they could always have gone to the myriad other events that happened that weekend!

DarthDiggler wrote:Wow selective memory Matt? It wasn't over the top the first year in Rosemont. No FW allowed back then and we played until there was only one undefeated person left (till 4am as I remember). I remember Josh running the Gladiators all over Illinois with those same rules. Jeff and I would drive far and wide to compete in that tournament. It wasn't a 'goofy' tournament the few years after that. It wasn't until the Apoc halfrules showed up and the missions took off could anyone say the Gladiator became a goofy event. If you want a goofy event then fine, but it was never the initial intention.

Sorry - strike my always in that sentence...you are correct...

When the Gladiator was basically the Championships without soft scores it had a different intention. Initially AdeptiCon did not want to mimic the standard RTT - we were swimming in those sort of events at that time. Once the convention settled and the Championships/RTT was added along with a 3rd day, the Gladiator consciously became something else. No one wanted to run the same event twice - one simply lacking in soft scores. I am just speaking in it's current incarnation (how 99% of the populace view the Gladiator) in regards to intention. By goofy/over-the-top I mean beatstick armies/large pieces of resin that you never get to play with and no whining. I don't mean to disparage the event, I just think people who claim the current Gladiator format as the end-all-be-all of competitive 40K are way off mark. It's competitive in it's own way, but it is unique and outside the scope of normal 40K.

For the record though...3 player games at 2AM on a round table is pretty goofy...

When you actually train for something well in advance, that is a tournament.

I consider street fighter competitions tournaments.

I consider chess competitions tournaments.

The only reason I dont play 40k 3-4 times a week with the intention of practicing for tournaments is that I have no one locally to play that is competitive. When I am into something I am hardcore about it. Watch your fingers when you eat around me, I take everything seriously.

Ok not that seriously

Centurian99 wrote: First and foremost is that AdeptiCon is about a community of miniature wargamers coming together and having a great time.

Hell yes that is my #1 reason for going. There is nothing like getting slop faced with people you love but only see once a year and then playing hardcore at 40k during the day. On top of that, you are playing the best *sportsmen* in the country. There is nothing like the level of sportsmanship on Sunday, at least in my experience.

And we know these people are competitive because they say they are competitive and belong to a site that declares its competitive? I'm sorry, tautological reasons don't really hold water. I've been around YTTH and while I'm sure a lot of people do go there, the actual, regular contributors is not a very high number. I'm sorry that the vast majority of tournaments in the US don't hold up to the standards of the couple dozen or so of you. But from what I hear, there will be a YTTHCon so hopefully you can show us all how it's done!

So you ask for evidence of competitive players dissatisfied with the "tournament" system in the US and then when I provide it you dismiss the players as not being proven competitive? Exactly what kind of "proof" are you looking for, or are you just being argumentative for the sake of disagreement? There are many competent players who comment regularly on that site.

That is just a way to "hide" within the system. I know plenty of players (including several of our Toledo group) that while we go to have fun, we focus a ton on the battle portion of an event. There is nothing wrong with going to an event solely for the game even if they account other aspects of the hobby. Quit being panzies, quit making excuses and just go to events to play the game. It really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp.

Would you go to a "tournament" if it also featured a 17-hour interpretative dance marathon that comprised 90% of the tournament scoring? After all, you can still go just for the tournament part and have fun competing for battle points. Just tough it out through the part you're not even remotely interested in. When it comes to spending hundreds or thousands of dollars and taking time off work and away from family to participate in events around the country it's important to decide whether or not it's worth it. When the focus is on the hobby rather than the tournament many of us decide it's not worth it to spend our money on something that isn't really geared towards what we like.

When you describe other scoring criteria as “nonsense” you make clear that you do in fact value them differently. If you think you are masking this value judgment, I’m afraid you’re not actually that successful.

Indeed, I personally do value them differently in the context of a competitive event, but making the distinction between these events is still not a judgment in and of itself. The distinction is a tool, a starting point for arguments that can go in any number of ways, one of which is to make judgments, but that does not mean the tool itself is a judgment.

It’s not about Dakka, or YTTH. It’s about the larger community. You can’t win people’s agreement by insulting them and denigrating the events they enjoy. Your efforts to reshape the tournament scene would work better if you put more effort into understanding how the current scene works.

If you take my comments to be insulting it's because you're interpreting some personal offense where there is none. I've stated numerous times in these threads that the chief reason why I dislike hobby competitions is because they put one type of play-style on a pedestal, demonstrating a narrow-minded view of what the hobby "should" be. Instead, I've suggested that an ideal GT would have completely separate scoring for all categories so that all play-styles are equally respected. This has, for some reason, been met with great anger by many, though I don't know exactly what about respecting others and how they enjoy the hobby is so infuriating to these people.

Quit ducking points, please. Does or does not a strong knowledge of the core rulebook rules help a person be a better player? Is or is not a multiple choice quiz featuring questions with clear answers in the rulebook not an objective measure of game knowledge?

Knowledge of the core rulebook only provides a foundation for being a good player but it is the intelligent application of rules that actually makes someone good. My computer knows all the rules of Warhammer--it's got the whole rulebook indexed and committed to its memory. Would that make it a good Warhammer player? Probably not. Does having a high visual-spatial IQ help a person be a better player? Probably. Perhaps the quiz should feature an IQ test too. By your logic, that should also be a "hard" score. Reductio ad absurdum.

The truth is - even if we ran our events as pure battle - it would matter little to this hidden subsection of gamers. They have a whole series of things they think they could do better, but don't. From scoring, to missions, to the INAT to the venue...the list is endless and it is foolish for us (or anyone for that matter) to assume pleasing them is within our means. The event is a compromise. We don't spend 6 months of our lives to cause anyone strife - we do it for the love of the hobby and to provide 3 solid days of good gaming fun. Period. If they want something else...quit looking at us. No matter what we change...they will still hate it and they will still spread that hate in an attempt to not feel so isolated.

I actually think Adepticon is the most competently run event in the community by a mile. I think many of the hobby competitions are run well. They're just not for me because I'm not a hobbyist, at least not to the extent that I want to compete for best hobbyist. I look forward to seeing more diversity, and this is one of the reasons why I look forward to 'Ard Boyz.

I show up to events for the challenge. I could care less about how I place. I just want to face other peoples toughest armies and hopefully beat them. Its all about having a good time though.

If you are playing 40k to make money you need to rethink your life. If you refuse to attend even local events because you dont feel they are competitive enough you should rethink why you play. Its arrogance to assume you would win if it was no comp ard boyz style, but if not then you wont because of soft scores. Maybe someone will come by and knock you out simply because they play better. Possibly the result of playing in any event they can. I know the previous years ard boyz players play almost any events they can. I can completely understand if you simply dont like the game set up itself. I dont go to combat patrol events for instance. Or events ran by someone I feel is particularly bad at running them. Fortunately we dont have anyone like that nearby. If it sounds like the type of game I will enjoy though then I will go. There was a tournament a few weeks ago I decided I wanted to play in an hour before it started. My list was in shambles and I got my ass kicked, but I had a lot of fun.

And that is the important thing. Fun.

I would also add that arguing whether 40k tournaments are really that or hobby competitions if frivolous and distracting. The majority of players call them tournaments. They have always been known as such. Language only exists within the context of a community. The 40k community organized competitions tournaments. If that agrees with the chess or football or whatever communities is irrelevant. The fact that Americans call soccer soccer and the rest of the world calls football football doesnt matter either. Its just a name, its a symbol, neither group is right or wrong so long as they use it within their community. It would be stupid when, upon seeing two separate math equations, you assume that the symbols representing variables mean the same in both.

skkipper wrote:it has been shown that the people with the most battle points win!!!!!!! you continue to ignore this. the people on the top of soft tourneys are the same that on top of hard tourneys. there is no mystery pool of uber gamers that can beat anyone but choice not to go to events because they hate soft scores.

Just on a personal note...Any tourney I've gone to where I've gotten the highest battle points (I can think of 3 off-hand), I haven't won best overall (2 I didn't even place in the top half)...Heck, the most recent big tourney I went to, even if I had gotten the highest battle score, I would have been in 5th place.

So the whole 'The people with the most battle points won the tourney anyways' is definitely not true in all cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fullheadofhair wrote:What I don't get and I speak as an analyst/ accountant here is the refusal to accept that even in an event that uses soft scores that battle points are most important. The POTENTIAL spread in points for battle points is incredibly extreme (range 0 to max) and the only scores that are affected by outside forces you cannot control.


CONTROLLABLE
Painting - spend more time painting you will get a better than average score

You can't control if the judges like certain armies/models/colors better than others.

Comp - tweak it until you get a good balance between death dealing and not appearing to be someone who likes torturing kittens

You can't control what the judge/opponent thinks is cheesy/overpowered/weak/unfluffy...Or what criteria they are going to use to judge the comp with.

Sports - don't be a dick and shower and you will get average/ above average scores

Nope. Not even close to the truth.

Danny Internets wrote:
No need to get all emotional, Frazzled, this is just a simple discussion. If you'd read the definition you provided you'd notice that a tournament is a SERIES of competitions. Series as in completed SERIALLY. It should be obvious that this refers to the games that are played serially. Painting, comp, and so on all exist outside of this series and thus function in addition to the tournament. When the winner of the "tournament" is decided in part (and even in majority) by non-tournament scoring then you no longer have a tournament, but a new kind of event. Hence, the term "hobby competition." Nothing wrong with that, it's just not a tournament. It's a tournament + other stuff. The winner of the tournament is not necessarily the winner of the hobby competition, as in the examples provided above.

Hold on a mo, we're deciding what constitutes a tournament based on which ORDER the events are played in?

So, if I have a schedule that goes

10am - Game 1
1pm - Game 2
4pm - Game 3

And judge the painting and theme while roaming around over the whole day, that's NOT a tournament by your definition, as the events are not serial.

But if I have a schedule that goes

10am - Game 1
1pm - Judging Theme
1.30 - Judging Painting
2pm - Game 2
4pm - Game 3

Then, by your definition, THAT is a legitimate tournament. So, you don't actually mind if soft scores are included, right? You just want them to be in the correct order???

BS

I'm going to stick with Tournament as the definition for a competition which involves multiple different events (like playing, painting, theming, quizzing) and call the ones that only have ONE event Battle-points Competitions.

There we go. Every event is a hobby event, since playing the game is a hobby too, but now we have Tournaments and Battle-points Competitions. Happy with that, Danny?

It doesn't matter whether a judge likes green better than blue. The same criteria apply to everyone. The playing field is level. Everyone has the same chance of winning, unless someone was secretly told in advance they should paint their army green.

Ditto for Comp, whether it is done by a system in advance or by some subjective idea of your opponents. The same for Sports.

Matthias wrote:To clarify: there would be 3 options technically for #5. You can simply opt to call the game average and not reward or flag your opponent.

One idea was to award a small number of points for a perfect set of rewards - 4 checks in a 4 round tournament. Something like 10-20 points max. I think that has merit.

It stops any single individual from chipmunking a game. In essence 75% of your opponents would have to work together to dock you points. The reality of that happening...

It still gives the players a voice and allows us to know what tables need an extra set of eyes as the tournament goes on.

Personally I think there should only be one yes/no box that reads:


Regardless of the outcome of the game (i.e. regardless of how badly you beat or lost to them), would you willingly choose to play this person again in the future.


You get no bonus points for getting perfect 'yes' in all your games and you get no negative points for a single opponent saying 'no', but for each 'no' after that, the negative penalty is applied exponentially. So if two 'no' votes was -10 points, then three 'no' votes would be '-25' points and four no votes would be '-50' points (or something like that).

This way, a single bad apple won't hurt your score but a trend of bad behavior will get hammered really badly...and obviously it would be tremendously fantastic if the tabulation software can identify someone who votes 'no' in two or more of their games and none of those opponents get another 'no' vote in any of their games, that these people should also be flagged and either talked to personally by a judge about their experiences or just have their 'no' votes discounted flat-out.


Finally, for a best sportsman award players should vote for their favorite player at the end of the tournament, but this vote should have no effect on overall tournament score IMHO.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:
No need to get all emotional, Frazzled, this is just a simple discussion. If you'd read the definition you provided you'd notice that a tournament is a SERIES of competitions. Series as in completed SERIALLY. It should be obvious that this refers to the games that are played serially. Painting, comp, and so on all exist outside of this series and thus function in addition to the tournament. When the winner of the "tournament" is decided in part (and even in majority) by non-tournament scoring then you no longer have a tournament, but a new kind of event. Hence, the term "hobby competition." Nothing wrong with that, it's just not a tournament. It's a tournament + other stuff. The winner of the tournament is not necessarily the winner of the hobby competition, as in the examples provided above.

I forgot to read the rest of the thread!

Read the follow-up post which defines what a series is. Perhaps it'll make sense then.

I analysed the Yellow Adepticon data using SPSS. The Hard Scores variable consisted of only Battle Points, while the Soft Scores variable consisted of Sportsmanship, Painting and Quiz Points. Overall Scores were considered to be the sum of the Hard Score and the Soft Score.

Since the data is all ordinal, Spearman's Rank Order Correlation (a non-parametric test) was used to compare Overall Scores to both Hard Scores and Soft Scores.

For the full data set, significant Correlations were found between the Overall Scores and the Hard Scores (rho = 0.944, p < 0.001) as well as between the Overall Scores and the Soft Scores (rho = 0.374, p < 0.001). Hard Scores appear to have a strong Correlation with the Overall Scores, while Soft Scores do have an influence on the Overall Scores (after all, there is a significant Correlation), but the Correlation indicates that this influence is fairly weak.

When only considering the Top 10 placements, a significant Correlation was found between the Overall Scores and the Hard Scores (rho = 0.758, p = 0.011). For the data of the Top 10 placements, no significant correlation was found between the Overall Scores and the Soft Scores. The lower values for significance might, however, be influenced by the low amount of data (N=10) when only considering the Top placements.


Analysis of Standard Deviation values (the most commonly used measure of variance) showed the following:

Standard Deviation of Overall Scores over all data (N=110): 29.665
Standard Deviation of Hard Scores over all data (N=110): 26.159
Standard Deviation of Soft Scores over all data (N=110): 10.470
Standard Deviation of Overall Scores over Top 10 placements (N=10): 8.168
Standard Deviation of Hard Scores over Top 10 placements (N=10): 12.658
Standard Deviation of Soft Scores over Top 10 placements (N=10): 8.744

This means that Standard Deviation of the Soft Scores of the Top 10 placements can explain a larger percentage of the Standard Deviation of the Overall Scores of the Top 10 placements, than Standard Deviation of the Soft Scores of all competitors can explain of the Standard Deviation of the Overall Scores of all competitors. This indicates that it is correct to assume that, the higher one ranks in the Tournament, the more important Soft Scores become.

yakface wrote:

Matthias wrote:To clarify: there would be 3 options technically for #5. You can simply opt to call the game average and not reward or flag your opponent.

One idea was to award a small number of points for a perfect set of rewards - 4 checks in a 4 round tournament. Something like 10-20 points max. I think that has merit.

It stops any single individual from chipmunking a game. In essence 75% of your opponents would have to work together to dock you points. The reality of that happening...

It still gives the players a voice and allows us to know what tables need an extra set of eyes as the tournament goes on.

Personally I think there should only be one yes/no box that reads:


Regardless of the outcome of the game (i.e. regardless of how badly you beat or lost to them), would you willingly choose to play this person again in the future.


You get no bonus points for getting perfect 'yes' in all your games and you get no negative points for a single opponent saying 'no', but for each 'no' after that, the negative penalty is applied exponentially. So if two 'no' votes was -10 points, then three 'no' votes would be '-25' points and four no votes would be '-50' points (or something like that).

This way, a single bad apple won't hurt your score but a trend of bad behavior will get hammered really badly...and obviously it would be tremendously fantastic if the tabulation software can identify someone who votes 'no' in two or more of their games and none of those opponents get another 'no' vote in any of their games, that these people should also be flagged and either talked to personally by a judge about their experiences or just have their 'no' votes discounted flat-out.


Finally, for a best sportsman award players should vote for their favorite player at the end of the tournament, but this vote should have no effect on overall tournament score IMHO.

seattles local two day event the seattle heart of fire does sportsmanship like this.

Sportsman 50
One Bad Game No Change
Two Bad Games -5
Three Bad Games -10
Four Bad Games -20
Five Bad Games -40

so they have 100 points for battle 50 points for paint and 50 points for sportsmanship.

the only change I would make would be to up the penalties 0 -10 -20 -40 -50.

at the event they had in march they had 48 players and 5 games each
so out of 240 games there were on 3 bad games checked so everyone got max sports. which is how it should be.
in the september event 1 player had 3 bad games so got dinged.

the next tshft 40k is in september and I highly recommend it.

This indicates that it is correct to assume that, the higher one ranks in the Tournament, the more important Soft Scores become.

This is the assumption I have been working with, but it's good to see that it supported concretely by the data. I looked at the data in order to compare overall variance attributable to soft scores versus variance attributable to hard scores as relative proportions. Looking at factors responsible for variance in the whole set versus top 10 is a different and equally important perspective that gives additional insight into the mechanics of the system.

Great analysis in general, and kudos for actually inputting all 500 or so data points (something I was trying to avoid).

EDIT(s): typos

ok math has failed me need more sleep.

soft score make for a better event and the guy with the most battle points usually wins. i just don't see how this is bad?

Paint is there to ensure a higher quality event.

Sports are there to ensure everyone is a gentlemen.

It isnt so much that they are there to change anyones attitude, its more to keep the bad apples at home. Most people who are fine with a sports score in a tournament are gentlemen at the table anyway.

Its pretty simple stuff.

GMMStudios wrote:Paint is there to ensure a higher quality event.

How does including painting in overall scoring ensure a higher quality event? Please provide specifics. It has no impact on the quality of the event from my perspective.

Sports are there to ensure everyone is a gentlemen.

And yet people act un-gentlemenly despite its presence. Some un-gentlemently conduct (chipmunking) is only possible because of its presence. If you're so convinced it works provide some evidence. Wishful thinking is not evidence.

Pretty simple stuff indeed.

Danny Internets wrote:

How does including painting in overall scoring ensure a higher quality event? Please provide specifics. It has no impact on the quality of the event from my perspective.

lol it ensures most people paint their armies...its why schoolteachers give gold stars to kids who try...kids who go to the bathroom by themselves...

Danny Internets wrote:

And yet people act un-gentlemenly despite its presence.

Yup and they know the consequences

Danny Internets wrote:

Pretty simple stuff indeed.

Indeed

Very insightful and constructive non-responses there. No gold star for you.

Im sorry I think its pretty obvious stuff. By rewarding paint more people are going to bring painted armies.

Nevermind. You are basically arguing the sky isnt blue. Obvious trolling, and I shouldnt even touch it. See ya.

Danny Internets wrote:

GMMStudios wrote:Paint is there to ensure a higher quality event.

How does including painting in overall scoring ensure a higher quality event? Please provide specifics. It has no impact on the quality of the event from my perspective.

Sports are there to ensure everyone is a gentlemen.

And yet people act un-gentlemenly despite its presence. Some un-gentlemently conduct (chipmunking) is only possible because of its presence. If you're so convinced it works provide some evidence. Wishful thinking is not evidence.

Pretty simple stuff indeed.

so I can bend and stretch rules and slow play and it has no effect on my score.
I can play an alpha strike guard army get my killpoints in first turn and you will be lucky to get three turns in as I move all 80 guards man 1 by 1 accurately (aka slowly) then run them to do it again. By the time you realize I am stalling and you go get a judge it will be too late for you to win. woohoo max points for me and you just walk away from a game grumpy.

Buttercup wrote:

Sports are there to ensure everyone is a gentlemen.

And yet people act un-gentlemenly despite its presence. Some un-gentlemently conduct (chipmunking) is only possible because of its presence. If you're so convinced it works provide some evidence. Wishful thinking is not evidence.

With the same players consistantly taking top spots in tourneys, I think that the fact that some random schmo can get "chipmunked" is largely their own fault. The "soft" scores of a tournament enhance and complement the GW Gaming/Hobby experience, and are therefore necessary to determine an "overall" winner of a tournament. Hence why most tourney's have Overall, Best General and Best Painted awards.

This does not in any way make a tourney less competitive, and I guarantee the players on the top tables will agree.

Your argument, or whatever it is you are trying to say, is invalid. Maybe if you actually came to a tournament and got into the fun, you'd understand better what we're all trying to say. Otherwise, you can remain a faceless, irrelevant handle on an obscure internet community.

Danny Internets wrote:

This indicates that it is correct to assume that, the higher one ranks in the Tournament, the more important Soft Scores become.

This is the assumption I have been working with, but it's good to see that it supported concretely by the data. I looked at the data in order to compare overall variance attributable to soft scores versus variance attributable to hard scores as relative proportions. Looking at factors responsible for variance in the whole set versus top 10 is a different and equally important perspective that gives additional insight into the mechanics of the system.

Great analysis in general, and kudos for actually inputting all 500 or so data points (something I was trying to avoid).

Thanks for the appreciation, but inporting the data really wasn't that much work. When you press the Control button you can select the data you want from the Adepticon site you linked earlier. This way you can import, for example, all Battle Points Scores in one copy and paste move.

Kilkrazy wrote:It doesn't matter whether a judge likes green better than blue. The same criteria apply to everyone. The playing field is level. Everyone has the same chance of winning, unless someone was secretly told in advance they should paint their army green.

Ditto for Comp, whether it is done by a system in advance or by some subjective idea of your opponents. The same for Sports.

Assuming that this was in response to me...I was just commenting on the point someone else made that your soft scores are totally in your control, which is patently false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whitedragon wrote: I think that the fact that some random schmo can get "chipmunked" is largely their own fault.

Sorry, blame the victim approach doesn't work.

@Danny Internets

your definition of Series is too strict, or you're reading it too strictly. Try:


se·ries
   /ˈsɪəriz/ Show Spelled [seer-eez] Show IPA noun,plural-ries, adjective
–noun
1.
a group or a number of related or similar things, events, etc., arranged or occurring in temporal, spatial, or other order or succession; sequence.

Are judging your army and playing your army related? Of course they are. Nothing says the series needs to affect pairings or something.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/series

Plus the definition of "Tournament" in no way requires the word "series"

How about:

Any contest of skill in which there are many contestants for championship; as, a chess tournament

http://www.dictionary.net/tournament

whitedragon wrote:I think that the fact that some random schmo can get "chipmunked" is largely their own fault.

You can't be serious about this. It is someone's own fault when he happens to win a game against a sore loser, who then decides to give him a 0 for Sportsmanship?

GMMStudios wrote:Im sorry I think its pretty obvious stuff. By rewarding paint more people are going to bring painted armies.

If you want everyone to bring painted armies to the table (and you do), than you should just create a rule that all armies need to be painted in order to enter the competition. Rewarding points for the level of painting only allows players to cheat their way to a high Overall Score (as in bring an army they did not paint themselves).



Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the hobby part of the game, and I think there should be seperate prizes for painting, I just think the Overall prize is overrated.

skyth wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

whitedragon wrote: I think that the fact that some random schmo can get "chipmunked" is largely their own fault.

Sorry, blame the victim approach doesn't work.

Airmaniac wrote:

whitedragon wrote:I think that the fact that some random schmo can get "chipmunked" is largely their own fault.

You can't be serious about this. It is someone's own fault when he happens to win a game against a sore loser, who then decides to give him a 0 for Sportsmanship?

I'm serious. I also think that in practice, this "chipmunking" that you are all so worried about is not very prevalent, or isolated cases at best. Once again I submit that it doesn't matter what tournament you go to, the same players consistantly place in the top tables, and seem to have no issues with any of their scores, soft scores included.

It's just another talking point to beat to death on the internet, however.

It was in response to you.

The important point is that whether you are in control or not, the competition is fair.

I don't consider favoring locals to be fair. I don't consider scoring with unknown biases to be fair either.

To break it down...if you get to a tournament and find out at the end of the tournament that if your age is under 30, you take a 5 point penalty to your painting scores...Is that fair? The possibility of a penalty applies to everyone and no one knew about it before the tournament.

How about favouring locals with matchups and judging decisions during the battle phase?

I don't consider that fair either.

I'm glad I don't play where skyth plays.

In every 40K event at Adepticon, #1 overall was also #1 in battle points.

In the Yellow Championship, #2 in battle was #4 overall, and #2 overall was #5 in battle. If the #2 in battle had painted his army to an average level, he would have tied or placed second overall.

Otherwise, #2 overall was also #2 in battle points in every event.

So in one case (of 6), a superior painter with perfect sportsmanship and better knowledge of the rules ended up ahead of people who performed slightly better than he did on the tabletop. Seems entirely fair to me; but everyone knows I'm just a big old fluffy hobbyist anyway.

Five of six ending with the top 2 in purely battle points order indicates that in the set of placings that contribute to GW invititations, Battle Points is the #1 most significant indicator of success. Even if we toss out Gladiator, we still end up with 90% (9 of 10 spots) going strictly to those with the most battle points. COULD they have not won, even with their battle points being highest? Yes, they could have. They also all could have spontaneously combusted. What actually happened is that the guys who won the most also placed at the the top.

I can play an alpha strike guard army get my killpoints in first turn and you will be lucky to get three turns in as I move all 80 guards man 1 by 1 accurately (aka slowly) then run them to do it again. By the time you realize I am stalling and you go get a judge it will be too late for you to win. woohoo max points for me and you just walk away from a game grumpy.

So you're saying that if you can use some passive aggression penalty system on your opponent after the game his cheating you won't make you grumpy? Stalling is easy to recognize, call a judge when it happens. It's not rocket science. Good TO's check up on games throughout rounds to make sure they are progressing appropriately. Also, "alpha strike" IG armies don't usually field 80 infantry unless you're talking about 2500+ points.

@Whitedragon: please read the whole thread before participating. Most (all?) of your points have already been explicitly addressed. If you take issue with how they are addressed please feel free to quote the relevant points and we can go from there, but repeating things is unnecessary when all you have to do is scroll up.

Plus the definition of "Tournament" in no way requires the word "series"

O rly? Even the dictionary YOU linked to says a tournament is a "sporting competition in which contestants play a series of games to decide the winner." Helps to read your own links, no? http://www.dictionary.net/tournament

skyth wrote:I don't consider that fair either.

Neither do I.

So much for the "objectivity" of battle scores.

Danny Internets wrote:

O rly? Even the dictionary YOU linked to says a tournament is a "sporting competition in which contestants play a series of games to decide the winner." Helps to read your own links, no? http://www.dictionary.net/tournament

Yes really. Each individual definition stands alone, series can be used in definition of tournament, but doesn't need to be. Amazing how a dictionary works.

Also, you've completely ignored the fact that "series" doesn't need to be defined as strictly as you want it to, either.

So The Collaborative International Dictionary of English is the ultimate authority? Sorry, but I've never even heard of that fly-by-night operation. All other English dictionaries I can find (Random House, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, and the Oxford English Dictionary) use the word series in the definition. The one you cherry-picked (from the multiple definitions on the the site you linked, all of which use the word "series" except the one you pasted) is the only one that does not.

Dictionary.com:

2.
a meeting for contests in a variety of sports, as between teams of different nations.

Sorry, you're right, that other dictionary isn't nearly cool enough.

No comment on series I see. I must have cherry picked that as well.

Anyway, what is even the point of renaming the tournaments? To insult the people who run them and consider them to be tournaments? To insult the players for not being hard core enough? What?

Nice selective pasting again. Also from the same entry at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tournament):

1. a trial of skill in some game, in which competitors play a series of contests: a chess tournament.

Had you bothered to read the alternative definition you'd posted you would have realized that it doesn't at all apply to hobby competitions and is therefore irrelevant anyway, unless you consider army composition and painting "sports."

Right, so if it's sports...it doesn't need to be in a series, but if it's a board game or a hobby game, it does need to be...I see! I feel so enlightened.

I am not selectively pasting. Any of the definitions work. There is no compulsion to pick one of two or three just because it does or doesn't have the word series in it.

Anyway, this has devolved into pedantry. Since I actually would also rather tournaments didn't include sportsmanship or comp (except maybe for deciding early matchups) I'm just going to drop it.

Danny Internets wrote:

I can play an alpha strike guard army get my killpoints in first turn and you will be lucky to get three turns in as I move all 80 guards man 1 by 1 accurately (aka slowly) then run them to do it again. By the time you realize I am stalling and you go get a judge it will be too late for you to win. woohoo max points for me and you just walk away from a game grumpy.

So you're saying that if you can use some passive aggression penalty system on your opponent after the game his cheating you won't make you grumpy? Stalling is easy to recognize, call a judge when it happens. It's not rocket science. Good TO's check up on games throughout rounds to make sure they are progressing appropriately. Also, "alpha strike" IG armies don't usually field 80 infantry unless you're talking about 2500+ points.

@Whitedragon: please read the whole thread before participating. Most (all?) of your points have already been explicitly addressed. If you take issue with how they are addressed please feel free to quote the relevant points and we can go from there, but repeating things is unnecessary when all you have to do is scroll up.

Plus the definition of "Tournament" in no way requires the word "series"

O rly? Even the dictionary YOU linked to says a tournament is a "sporting competition in which contestants play a series of games to decide the winner." Helps to read your own links, no? http://www.dictionary.net/tournament

no actually if some body chipmunks me I don't get grumpy I had a good game.
come play me at hardboyz. you will lose and I will stretch the rules and mock you while doing it and you have no recourse but to lose the game. get the judge, Slow playing isn't against the rules. I can't find it anywhere in the rule book or in the hard boyz hand outs

Kilkrazy wrote:

skyth wrote:I don't consider that fair either.

Neither do I.

So much for the "objectivity" of battle scores.

False Analogy...

Something that is effectively cheating by the TO(Deliberately stacking the deck to help people win) is an entirely different from having a different opinion on something.

Danny Internets wrote:Would you go to a "tournament" if it also featured a 17-hour interpretative dance marathon that comprised 90% of the tournament scoring? After all, you can still go just for the tournament part and have fun competing for battle points. Just tough it out through the part you're not even remotely interested in. When it comes to spending hundreds or thousands of dollars and taking time off work and away from family to participate in events around the country it's important to decide whether or not it's worth it. When the focus is on the hobby rather than the tournament many of us decide it's not worth it to spend our money on something that isn't really geared towards what we like.

There have been and still are plenty of events where the soft scores are a smaller portion than the hard scores. Best Generals typically receive the second most in product or prize support. Soft scores are normally only involved in best generals for tie breaking.

Hell - I've played in DaBoyz GT where I got raped in comp. I won best general and didn't care on the comp side. I also lost 10 points in NW Conquest due to not painting the army I brought myself. I knew that ahead of time, still took the army and won best general there as well. Perfect examples of someone getting to do what they want and still getting the result that they desire.

In short - while I don't attend Gamesdays for the hobby side (which fits your example perfectly), there are plenty of events that fit the bill for players who are more interested in the game and not as much on the hobby side. All you have to do is open your eyes a little. It's not a big scary world out there. Again - your groups simply need to quit making excuses, jump off that false pedestal of yours and get in the game.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote: jump off that false pedestal of yours and get in the game.

Absolutely! If a tournament has a component you don't like (or maybe are REALLY bad at) - then don't play - or go to have fun and don't worry about the end result.


All this cry baby whiny @ssing about "I get chipmunked on sportsmanship and comp" is really silly. It's part of a lot of tournaments - I'm just as glad it is as others with it's not. It's the way it works - suck it up and play the game!

So where exactly are the truly competitive tournaments being held? I would love to attend one and have plenty of Frequent Flyer Miles. It's one thing to knock a tournament for not being competitive (in your opinion) but if you can't provide some good examples of tournaments you consider to be competitive then it looks like you are trolling this forum. Backyard events don't count either, it should be something on the scale of a GT. YTTHcon sounds like a good start but we will have to wait and see if it materializes. It's one thing to talk about running a tournament but it's absolutely something else to organize and run one plus draw a large crowd.

I think enough solid examples have been provided that demonstrate a tourney with soft scores can still be competitive. Most of all of the best players I have met have been at GTs. Some of them have posted in this thread. I think you need to first establish a credible reputation as a top player before you shoot off at the mouth dinging events as non competitive. Otherwise at the end of the day you come across as an obvious troll.

G

no actually if some body chipmunks me I don't get grumpy I had a good game.

I understand that you seem to get enraged at every comment I make, but please do try and read more carefully. My post had nothing to do with chipmunking.

come play me at hardboyz. you will lose and I will stretch the rules and mock you while doing it and you have no recourse but to lose the game. get the judge, Slow playing isn't against the rules. I can't find it anywhere in the rule book or in the hard boyz hand outs

I'd love to play you at 'Ard Boyz despite the fact that you plan on blatantly cheating (the first page of the 'Ard Boyz rules makes it clear that stallers will be asked to leave). I look forward to my free massacre! I'll probably be playing at one of the NJ locations this year--PM me if you want to find out which and maybe we can arrange a game.

@GBF: Locally, Brothers Grim in Selden, NY (Long Island) runs 40-man tournaments every other month and they always fill up. We also host 2 a year (also 40 players) at the Battle for Salvation club. I mention these because they are the same size as some of the indy GT's this past serason and several of the regulars have won indy GT's or at least placed in the top 3 (you're familiar with both Rob Baer and Jawaballs, and perhaps Alex Fennel who came to our last tournament). Awards are for highest battle points and highest painting score (total killpoints for the day are used as a tie-breaker). Missions are variations on the core rulebook scenarios with primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives to encourage a wider spread of scores. They're run exceptionally well and people are willing to come from pretty far to attend.

Nationally, you've got 'Ard Boyz, but that's about it, and its not without problems (but it's the best we've got, competitively speaking). The indy GT's obviously have a wide range of competitiveness to them because of the different scoring formats. Some have soft scores as high as 60% while others as low as 20%. I think Adepticon gets pretty close, but at the end of the day it still suffers from the fact that soft scores have a significant impact on the rankings and the champion is not necessary the tournament winner but the best hobbyist at the event. The NOVA Open is another that looks to be shaping up well with what seems to be a more sophisticated format more conducive to fleshing out the best players.

I was also looking forward to YTTHcon but it had been put on the back burner indefinately last I heard.

As for credibility, and as I stated earlier, it's not necessary to play in a tournament in order to understand the mechanics of its scoring and its largely the mechanics by which I justify my claim that these tournaments are less competitive. For instance, it's entirely possible to look at the dynamics of how soft scores impact overall rankings just by doing some rudimentary statistical analysis of the results, as demonstrated in the spreadsheet I linked to and by Airmaniac's sampling in SPSS.

But if you really want to get into it, I've beaten at least 4 GT winners (1 GW, 3 indy) whom I can recall. If I can compete with people who have this so-called credibility then perhaps I'm not totally clueless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Again - your groups simply need to quit making excuses, jump off that false pedestal of yours and get in the game.

I don't need to do anything. I'm simply providing reasons why I (and some others) don't attend hobby competitions.

I have to wonder though if you demand the same from hobby-centered gamers who decline to participate in 'Ard Boyz because of its lack of painting, sportsmanship, or comp scoring. I've seen some beautifully painted armies at 'Ard Boyz and have encountered some of the best sportsmen. But I guess we all love a good double standard.

Danny Internets wrote:

I have to wonder though if you demand the same from hobby-centered gamers who decline to participate in 'Ard Boyz because of its lack of painting, sportsmanship, or comp scoring. I've seen some beautifully painted armies at 'Ard Boyz and have encountered some of the best sportsmen. But I guess we all love a good double standard.

I'm not quite sure if that's fair. For example, on the continuum of modeling/painting-----winning/list building I'm definitely heavy to the left. However, I don't criticize ArdBoyz when I see seas of unpainted plastic. It is what it is, some people get a kick and it's their show. I feel since we are involved in a hobby however, that hobby excellence should be awarded (That incorporates etiquette/modeling/tabletop). If someone wanted to run their own tournament that only judged battle points, hey I'm sure some would attend but it certainly wouldn't interest me....and that's just fine . Doesn't make me wrong or right...or you wrong or right...just makes the forum diverse....

However, I have an honest question. If tabletop skill is the only skill set one is interested in...why choose 40k? D6 probability + vague rules + true LOS does not lend itself to judging pure skill. I would think computer games would better suit that desire?

Well maybe I can come up for one of those big tournaments. I know of the people you mentioned.... I Alex at Adepticon last Friday playing him in the third round of the Gladiator... It was by far my favorite match over the entire weekend. I will give cred in regards to your statement claiming to have beaten some GT winners... Good for ya and it helps to better clarify your position. I happen to be a good friend of Rob Baer as he is a fellow member of the 40k Wrecking Crew. I know of Jawaballs and he presents himself as an up and coming tournament gamer with a popular blog and some decent tactical articles. I think it might be fun to attend one of these 40+ player tournaments you've mentioned so I'll keep an ear to the ground.

It sounds like you are starting to move towards the middle in this discussion and in my mind that can only be a good thing. Obviously we won't all agree on everything presented here but if we can politely share some ideas I think we will be that much better for it. Bascically stating that if an event includes soft scores is non competitive and then classing it as a hobby event is a broad stroke of the brush and often it presents an event in the wrong light. It just seems to me that often enough the truly top players can find a way to reach a top table in the final round and have a shot at the proverbial golden ring. Really there is nothing wrong with soft scores if they are properly applied, their inclusion does not in any way shape or form make these events any less competitve if done right. TFGs will always present a problem wherever they go, a lack of soft scores does not make them any easier to deal with during actual game play. A lot of have found through lots of experience that soft scores can be an effective method of dealing with the woeful TFGs. It's obviously not always the case but it is there. Many people feel that the exclusion of soft scores then to provide TFGs with more room to twist their games to their favor as they don't have to worry about being marked down for unsportsmanlike conduct. Sure a TFG can game the soft scores so to me it's the responsibilities of the TOs to be on the lookout for this type of behaviour and based upon my experience I think it's completely feasible.

G

Danny Internets wrote:Nationally, you've got 'Ard Boyz, but that's about it, and its not without problems (but it's the best we've got, competitively speaking).

We get it that you love the 'Ard Boyz style format, and that it's similar to your local tourneys, and you like that format of tournament.

You're certainly entitled to this preference, but it's clear most people don't think this way.

So let us have fun and attend the events we like, and you can attend the ones you like, and we don't have to argue about it constantly in this forum... there are a lot more things worth discussing than just this dead-beat-horse!

Hi

I can't say that I understand the line of thinking that places:
Battle Only = Hardcore
within the context of the GW hobby.

To me Hardcore = excelling in every element of the hobby to win.

Example:
Adepticon Team Tournament: Sons of Shatner (my team) finished #1 in battle and #1 in combined painting and theme, taking first overall by a wide margin.

Was it dumb luck? No, it is because we each poured hundreds of hours putting together, converting, and painting an army (and display board) that we were very good with on the table.

That, in my not so humble opinion, is what hardcore in this hobby is all about. Do everything well.

Branding battle as hardcore is a fallacy in this context. Battle only is, to be blunt, the lazy approach to excelling at just one area of the hobby, and hoping to convince the complete hobbiests, or at least tournament organizers, to lower their standard to give lazy a chance.

For myself, if Adepticon ever went that way, it would lose all of its appeal. A big part of the pleasure of going is the excellent work so many people do to bring their very best in all aspects of the hobby.

Cheers,
Carlos the Craven

Danny Internets wrote:@GBF: Locally, Brothers Grim in Selden, NY (Long Island) runs 40-man tournaments every other month and they always fill up. We also host 2 a year (also 40 players) at the Battle for Salvation club. I mention these because they are the same size as some of the indy GT's this past serason and several of the regulars have won indy GT's or at least placed in the top 3 (you're familiar with both Rob Baer and Jawaballs, and perhaps Alex Fennel who came to our last tournament). Awards are for highest battle points and highest painting score (total killpoints for the day are used as a tie-breaker). Missions are variations on the core rulebook scenarios with primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives to encourage a wider spread of scores. They're run exceptionally well and people are willing to come from pretty far to attend.

Best General and Best Appearance awards accomplish the same thing for representing the hobby and game side at all the events you shun. A ton of the events that are out there already use the primary, secondary, and tertiary objective system. So at this point, you really aren't running anything that is "super special beyond all belief". This is the problem with YTTH and your club groups. You give the impression that you are striving for something that is extra special and you have exceptional talent beyond the world's understanding. But at the end of the day, all of you are just the same as the other high caliber groups and events. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether you like to admit it or not, you are just like everyone else. But then again - everyone likes to think they are special in their own unique way. It's only when you finally realize you fall within some statistical distribution that things come into perspective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote: I have to wonder though if you demand the same from hobby-centered gamers who decline to participate in 'Ard Boyz because of its lack of painting, sportsmanship, or comp scoring. I've seen some beautifully painted armies at 'Ard Boyz and have encountered some of the best sportsmen. But I guess we all love a good double standard.

Nope, I really only know people that are willing to play or don't play the game at all. In your case - I only call it like I see it. You claim to be all about generalship, but yet events exist that are very similar in nature to the one's you quote "run in your area." Based on your own description, you're events are not created on some higher plain of thought and implementation. If you want to believe it, then great - more power to you. But the reality of it is not so much.

So in the end - you can relegate yourself to your corner of the world (which is completely fine). However, if you want to get out and really challenge yourself (instead of just being all talk), then come on out and try some of the larger venues.

skyth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

skyth wrote:I don't consider that fair either.

Neither do I.

So much for the "objectivity" of battle scores.

False Analogy...

Something that is effectively cheating by the TO(Deliberately stacking the deck to help people win) is an entirely different from having a different opinion on something.

Results are the same though.

However, I have an honest question. If tabletop skill is the only skill set one is interested in...why choose 40k? D6 probability + vague rules + true LOS does not lend itself to judging pure skill. I would think computer games would better suit that desire?

You'll have to ask someone who is purely interested in tabletop skill. For me personally, it's the only part of 40k that I'm interested in enough to participate in competitions. I like the fluff and I put time into painting my models, but overall they're not that important to me. I like poker too, just not enough to go to Vegas and play in the WSOP.

To me Hardcore = excelling in every element of the hobby to win.

And that's totally cool, but not everyone plays the game for the same reasons you do. Fortunately for you all of the national events are geared specifically towards your perspective and I understand why you probably want to keep it that way. But what's wrong with diversity and respecting others' points of view?

Best General and Best Appearance awards accomplish the same thing for representing the hobby and game side at all the events you shun. A ton of the events that are out there already use the primary, secondary, and tertiary objective system. So at this point, you really aren't running anything that is "super special beyond all belief".

Please read the whole thread before jumping in head-first. I covered this earlier. And please don't misrepresent my argument, doing so only distracts from the discussion. I understand that you haven't bothered to read my other posts, but even so your summation of my position is purposely distorted.

The difference between our local tournaments and hobby competitions like Adepticon stems from the selection of an "overall champion" of the "tournament" which is decided by scoring elements that aren't part of the tournament at all (soft scores). This format selects rewards and emphasizes one play-style (the well-rounded hobbyist). If players want to compete successfully in the event they will need to participate in all areas of the hobby whether they want to or not--the system itself pushes a system of values. I firmly believe that all play-styles are equal and should be respected and rewarded equally at these kinds of events (through separate scoring and equivalent prize support). For whatever reason this seems to get everyone's panties in a twist.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

So let us have fun and attend the events we like, and you can attend the ones you like, and we don't have to argue about it constantly in this forum... there are a lot more things worth discussing than just this dead-beat-horse!

No one forcing you to read and participate in this thread, you know. Perhaps follow your own advice of live and let live by letting those who wish to discuss this topic do so?

Danny Internets wrote:

So c'mon, show us this legion of disaffected competitive gamers. Otherwise, you are talking out of your rear-end and spamming tournament threads with nonsense.

The community that participates over at YesTheTruthHurts.com is fairly large and features many of these individuals, including myself. I also know several people in my own club who have chosen not to attend events based on predominance of soft scoring. Obviously it's impossible to quantify the impact of the results without some kind of omniscient mathematical model, but we do exist.

Then the community over there (yourself included) should be putting forward a battle points only tournament at Adepticon.

Let the hardcore players smack each other with Uzis at a knife fight and bask in the glory of a successful tournament.

Don't dream the dream, pull your (by 'your' I mean the hardcore gamers as a collective) finger out and live it, instead of the constant, incessant whining and moaning about a tournament scoring style for a tournament they haven't attended, and enjoyed (it seems) by all the players who did.

Danny Internets wrote:I don't need to do anything. I'm simply providing reasons why I (and some others) don't attend hobby competitions.

I have to wonder though if you demand the same from hobby-centered gamers who decline to participate in 'Ard Boyz because of its lack of painting, sportsmanship, or comp scoring. I've seen some beautifully painted armies at 'Ard Boyz and have encountered some of the best sportsmen. But I guess we all love a good double standard.

This hardly fair or a double standard. Last I checked there are not endless forum and blog posts complaining about the state of 'Ard Boyz and how soft scores are handled there. Sure some people may decide 'Ard Boyz is not their cup of tea, they simply choose to go and participate in another event. There are plenty of people do not like the hyper-competitive nature of singly-focused events like this. The difference is - the hobby community has existed far longer and actually built a number of major events in the real world as opposed to the internet/blogosphere. People really just need to quit trying to turn what they hate into what they want and get out there and create their own event. In the end, what you create will not be perfect and will not even please your player base. You will find yourself with a subsection of your subsection telling you how you should do it. How it could be better. Blaming you for inadequacies in missions or scoring or seeding...then we'd have some lovely common ground to continue this talk...

Danny it seems like you are pretty much alone here on your side of the line drawn in hte sand. It just seems like most people are happy with the way things are. Which I believe you have agreed is fine. Hopefully you will be able to reach Vegas.

G

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

Then the community over there (yourself included) should be putting forward a battle points only tournament at Adepticon.

Isn't the Gladiator BP only?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

skyth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

skyth wrote:I don't consider that fair either.

Neither do I.

So much for the "objectivity" of battle scores.

False Analogy...

Something that is effectively cheating by the TO(Deliberately stacking the deck to help people win) is an entirely different from having a different opinion on something.

Results are the same though.

I like your argument...Having soft scores is the same as cheating

Matthias wrote:This hardly fair or a double standard. Last I checked there are not endless forum and blog posts complaining about the state of 'Ard Boyz and how soft scores are handled there.

Check harder? I see tons of complaining about 'Ard Boyz on forums like Warseer every year. And I've seen plenty of whining in recent threads on Dakka about how people supposedly act at the tournament.

Sure some people may decide 'Ard Boyz is not their cup of tea, they simply choose to go and participate in another event. There are plenty of people do not like the hyper-competitive nature of singly-focused events like this. The difference is - the hobby community has existed far longer and actually built a number of major events in the real world as opposed to the internet/blogosphere. People really just need to quit trying to turn what they hate into what they want and get out there and create their own event. In the end, what you create will not be perfect and will not even please your player base. You will find yourself with a subsection of your subsection telling you how you should do it. How it could be better. Blaming you for inadequacies in missions or scoring or seeding...then we'd have some lovely common ground to continue this talk...

Yes, the old "if you don't like it go start your own X!" argument has reared its head again. Not everyone has the time or resources or even desire to do this. I want to play in a tournament, not run one. Sure, it's selfish, but that's how it is. But if I did want to run an event how would I know what event to run? Perhaps I might listen to what people are saying on the internet/blogosphere. There's value in discussion and just because the "tournament" scene has been traditionally dominated by a single hobbyist perspective doesn't mean that it cannot be improved or is even a good thing at all.

As I've repeatedly said, and which has been repeatedly ignored, I don't hate these events. I don't even think they're bad events. I've said this half a dozen times at least. Please read those statements carefully. Just like the people who don't like 'Ard Boyz and don't participate, I don't like hobby competitions and therefore I choose not to participate. I would personally like to see more varied events out there, or at least events that place equal emphasis on all aspects of the hobby.

Blaming you for inadequacies in missions or scoring or seeding...then we'd have some lovely common ground to continue this talk...

If a desire for mutual respect doesn't put us on common ground then there is little hope for this discussion.

skyth wrote:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

Then the community over there (yourself included) should be putting forward a battle points only tournament at Adepticon.

Isn't the Gladiator BP only?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

skyth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

skyth wrote:I don't consider that fair either.

Neither do I.

So much for the "objectivity" of battle scores.

False Analogy...

Something that is effectively cheating by the TO(Deliberately stacking the deck to help people win) is an entirely different from having a different opinion on something.

Results are the same though.

I like your argument...Having soft scores is the same as cheating

No. My argument is that so-called Hard Scores are as liable to be affected by judge bias as so-called Soft Scores.

Danny Internets wrote:Yes, the old "if you don't like it go start your own X!" argument has reared its head again. Not everyone has the time or resources or even desire to do this. I want to play in a tournament, not run one. Sure, it's selfish, but that's how it is. But if I did want to run an event how would I know what event to run? Perhaps I might listen to what people are saying on the internet/blogosphere. There's value in discussion and just because the "tournament" scene has been traditionally dominated by a single hobbyist perspective doesn't mean that it cannot be improved or is even a good thing at all.

I don't see anything wrong with this line of reasoning. There is plenty of talk about 'manning up' in the competitive circles. No one is saying you in particular needs to do this, but someone in your like-minded circle really ought to to man up and build something. In a similar manner, we have built want we primary wanted to build with the support of like-minded individuals. Again, quit asking us to be something else. It is not going to happen. There is plenty of room for both types of events.

Danny Internets wrote:As I've repeatedly said, and which has been repeatedly ignored, I don't hate these events. I don't even think they're bad events. I've said this half a dozen times at least. Please read those statements carefully. Just like the people who don't like 'Ard Boyz and don't participate, I don't like hobby competitions and therefore I choose not to participate. I would personally like to see more varied events out there, or at least events that place equal emphasis on all aspects of the hobby.

Then start one or support someone starting one instead of trying to usurp events that have different goals.

Matthias wrote:Blaming you for inadequacies in missions or scoring or seeding...then we'd have some lovely common ground to continue this talk...

Danny Internets wrote:If a desire for mutual respect doesn't put us on common ground then there is little hope for this discussion.

Ha - mutual respect? Common ground? Really? Have you paid any attention to how AdeptiCon is attacked by the competitive crowd - most who have never even attended (or lie about attending)? Hope checked out a long time ago...

Danny Internets wrote: The difference between our local tournaments and hobby competitions like Adepticon stems from the selection of an "overall champion" of the "tournament" which is decided by scoring elements that aren't part of the tournament at all (soft scores). This format selects rewards and emphasizes one play-style (the well-rounded hobbyist). If players want to compete successfully in the event they will need to participate in all areas of the hobby whether they want to or not--the system itself pushes a system of values. I firmly believe that all play-styles are equal and should be respected and rewarded equally at these kinds of events (through separate scoring and equivalent prize support). For whatever reason this seems to get everyone's panties in a twist.

Good thoughts from the equality standpoint. I'm heavily involved in the awards and prize allocation at AdeptiCon. For the specific awards of Generalship and Appearance, the scoring for those awards are completely separate and we have always worked to have prize support equally weighted across both categories. We celebrate both aspects of the hobby and value both equally. What each person receives is going to be different simply because for example we are not going to give a best appearance award painting company gift certificates. We also tend to shy away from large amounts of painting supplies for a best general. We work to give equal award values, but also awards that the winners would hopefully really like.

The only difference is that there is "also" an Overall Champion that combines all categories.

So what I see is that this system exists from the mission style, equality of hobby skill representation, equivalent prize support and more. AdeptiCon for example has embraced this for years along with other events as well. Like I said before - your local tournaments are not unique from this standpoint. The only difference is the inclusion of one award for Overall or a best in all categories. Interesting that one single item prevents your groups from attending similar events when all of the other areas match your promoted system/interest.

Greg's post is spot on. People get way too hung up on the language of 'Overall Champion'. Best General exists, is held in high regard and is richly rewarded. Play for it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

I like your argument...Having soft scores is the same as cheating

No. My argument is that so-called Hard Scores are as liable to be affected by judge bias as so-called Soft Scores.

Cheating is entirely different than bias. However, when a judge specifically changes the rules to help/hamper a player it's easily proven and published...Letting people know to stay away from the tournament in the future.

When it's about bias in soft scores, with them being subjective, there's no way to prove bias (In fact, with sports scoring, there's no way to prove which person gave you a low score).

Plus, cheating is possible in the soft scores department too, and just as likely to happen as the battle portion, add in bias to that, and you can have definite issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Matthias wrote: Best General exists, is held in high regard and is richly rewarded. Play for it.

It doesn't always exist, and is sometimes linked to an entirely subjective soft score when it does.

skyth wrote:

Matthias wrote: Best General exists, is held in high regard and is richly rewarded. Play for it.

It doesn't always exist, and is sometimes linked to an entirely subjective soft score when it does.

In regards to AdepitCon, Best General/Tacticians are decided by:

Gladiator: Pure Battle
Team Tournament: Pure Battle with # of Commanders killed as a tie-breaker
Championships: Battle Points. Sportsmanship then Quiz for tie-breakers.

So out of 3 tournaments, one uses soft scores and then only in the case of a tie-breaker. With possible changes to the way we handle Sportsmanship in 2011, the part you dislike is even further minimized, if not entirely eradicated altogether.

Danny Internets wrote:
Yes, the old "if you don't like it go start your own X!" argument has reared its head again. Not everyone has the time or resources or even desire to do this. I want to play in a tournament, not run one. Sure, it's selfish, but that's how it is.

Don't take this the wrong way...but I think the saying, "lead, follow, or get the #$@# out of the way" applies.

I really slacked this year in relation to AdeptiCon...mainly due to the fact I just started law school. But even with that, I probably spent an average of 3-4 hours a week writing copy, working on Gladiator stuff, INAT conference calls, etc, from July through March. Many other people put in far more hours than that...Hank, Jeff, and Matt (along with Greg) essentially are working two full-time jobs in the months leading up to AdeptiCon. Doesn't make my opinion unquestionable...but I think I've earned the right to have some experience backing up my words. I'm proud of what we accomplished, and I think that the majority of our attendees would agree that our end result was worth the effort.

If you feel so strongly about this...do something. Otherwise, to be honest, I don't really care, and your opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else out there in the interwebs. Get out there and show that there's a large number of people who support your opinion and are willing to travel to play games in the manner you describe, and maybe people will pay more attention to you.

Danny Internets wrote:But if I did want to run an event how would I know what event to run? Perhaps I might listen to what people are saying on the internet/blogosphere. There's value in discussion and just because the "tournament" scene has been traditionally dominated by a single hobbyist perspective doesn't mean that it cannot be improved or is even a good thing at all.

I resent the implication that current tournament organizers (including myself) don't listen to feedback. At AdeptiCon, we take attendee feedback very seriously. After all, if our attendees aren't happy, than we don't have an event. You're trying to cloak your opinion with some mythical weight of internet opinion...when the fact that hundred and thousands of people willingly and happily play in events that don't follow your principles speaks against it. Listening to feedback doesn't mean adopting it...we listen to what our attendees have to say, weigh it against our own experience and knowledge, and make the decisions from there.

Again...lead, follow, or get out of the way. Step up to the plate and run your own event, but don't tell other people how to run theirs. I can't stand Stelek, and I think his blog is critically wrong in many of its core assumptions...but at least he's trying to demonstrate, through his ridiculous bet and attempts to start a con, that there's both value and support for his way of thinking.

What you're just not getting is that the vast majority of 40K tournaments out there ('Ard Boyz and Gladiator excepted) are celebrations of the hobby as a whole, not just the gameplay portions. Nobody owes you anything, aside from the same consideration given to any other attendee.

Danny Internets wrote:
If a desire for mutual respect doesn't put us on common ground then there is little hope for this discussion.

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of a discussion. I and others are listening and reading to what you say. We just don't agree.

Guess what...you're not saying anything new. People have been saying it for years.

Agree to disagree, and move on, because honestly, you're statements have gone from, "this is my opinion and what I'd like to see" to "*whine whine whine* poor me."

Danny who are the four GT winners you beat?

Maybe we could have an internet only tournament so all the people who hate real tournaments can go and play in it

However it might just be 6 hours of posturing and playing theoryhammer ..

skyth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

I like your argument...Having soft scores is the same as cheating

No. My argument is that so-called Hard Scores are as liable to be affected by judge bias as so-called Soft Scores.

Cheating is entirely different than bias. However, when a judge specifically changes the rules to help/hamper a player it's easily proven and published...Letting people know to stay away from the tournament in the future.

That isn't what I said though.

Judges can sway games in favour of one side or another without changing the rules. This is not obvious cheating and can be hard to prove. It is the same situation as applies to soft scoring.

I will say that I would not change anything about the Adepticon Championships. While I can say with great certainty that making soft scores count for more would definitely help me exponentially, you won't see me complaining about it or sitting out.

I think the seething horde of eternally grinning nerds (including myself) speaks for itself. In other words, for those of you that run Adepticon and are reading, don't change a thing, this is proof the grumpy people are going to stay home anyway.

@greg - yes I was happy to not get one of my own gift cards this year It's all good though I do it for the plaques and I would have a heart attack trying to sort all that prize support out myself so Im not judging hehe. I didnt even notice until I got home but this year's plaques are a lot nicer than last years. Pretty sweet.

Dustin was telling me all you guys do to set the con up - it's much appreciated. Speaking of which I need to email Hank..

Adepticon is a lot of fun. I havent gone the last two years because I dont feel its worse the cost for me. But its always been a blast. If I dont like it I wont. But with the numbers you guys had this year you are doing something right

Matthias wrote: the part you dislike is even further minimized, if not entirely eradicated altogether.

I'm not sure I'm opposed to best general being comp+battle (Assuming the comp is a well done pre-known WPS style scoring, not a subjective rating by judges or opponents).

I'm just pointing out relevant facts and experiences that counter a point someone made




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
That isn't what I said though.

Judges can sway games in favour of one side or another without changing the rules. This is not obvious cheating and can be hard to prove. It is the same situation as applies to soft scoring.

Bias in soft scores is entirely different animal than TO's cheating to favor or disfavor a certain player. The TO's cheating will have an equal (well, probably greater as a good player can still win with the TO trying to screw him...I know I have...) effect on the soft scores too.

Bias in soft scoring (especially if some people know the bias and others don't) is more of a problem and you can't do anything to try to compensate for it...It is entirely out of your control, unlike a bad matchup (I've won those by outplaying the other person). Entirely different circumstances.

It isn't different. The judge is either biased in favour of a local player, or he isn't. If he is biased in favour of green armies, everyone is subject equally to the bias.

Apples and Oranges...You're talking about intentionally stacking the deck for or against a certain player...Basically cheating. That would happen with the soft scores too, so is not relevant in the hard scores vs soft scores debate.

No more than bribing your opponent (Or collusion) to get a better sports score or using loaded dice in battle.

And no, not everyone is subject equally to ANY bias...Thus it being a bias.

It seems to me that you do not understand what I am saying.

If a judge is biased in favour of a local player, his bias has the potential to affect the scores he gives for or against that player. That is clear discrimination against non-local players, which means the playing field is not level for all.

If a judge is biased in favour of green armies, his bias affects all the entrants equally, because anyone can make a green army. So the playing field is level.

Kilkrazy wrote:It seems to me that you do not understand what I am saying.

If a judge is biased in favour of a local player, his bias has the potential to affect the scores he gives for or against that player. That is clear discrimination against non-local players, which means the playing field is not level for all.

If a judge is biased in favour of green armies, his bias affects all the entrants equally, because anyone can make a green army. So the playing field is level.

Except that the local players probably know about the TO's bias towards Green armies, and will therefore be more likely to bring a Green army to the Tournament.

They probably also know that judge A always has a hangover on the morning of the competition and makes bad decisions.

Consequently they call Judge A when they want a ruling on an opponent's move, and a different judge to rule on their own move, because both decisions are more likely to favour them.

Kilkrazy wrote:It seems to me that you do not understand what I am saying.

If a judge is biased in favour of a local player, his bias has the potential to affect the scores he gives for or against that player. That is clear discrimination against non-local players, which means the playing field is not level for all.

If a judge is biased in favour of green armies, his bias affects all the entrants equally, because anyone can make a green army. So the playing field is level.

No, not everyone can make a green army...That is not level at all.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:
The only difference is that there is "also" an Overall Champion that combines all categories.

What if you just change "Overall" to something like "Combined" or Hobby". In terms of how it's calculated it's identical, but it drops some of the implied hierarchy that I think is causing some angst - Overall > everything else.

Overall is descriptive. The person has the best aggregate score across all categories.

Is Best General not adequately descriptive?

Mannahnin wrote:Overall is descriptive. The person has the best aggregate score across all categories.
Is Best General not adequately descriptive?

I think that both titles are adequately descriptive. But when used in the same context (like on a list of champions for a tournament), the term Overall implies superiority - the Champion over all of the others. Is that intentional, or are all of the top champions equal?

IMO the tabletop wargaming hobby is not purely about winning games. You can do that in anything. It is about playing games in an aesthetic environment of nice terrain and models.

That's my perspective. Some people would say it is elitist and exclusionary.

I typically hand out the title Warmaster to the person who wins hte best general award at my GTs. I think it sounds cool and people seem to like it. Personally I like the title Best Overall for the person who scores highest aggrately in the combined categories.... It sounds appropriate plus people have been using this term for years now.

G

The term "Overall" champion is appropriate, widely accepted, and very likely not to change, because so many people like the system. There are events that ignore soft categories, and just use battle points... but for almost all other events, there will be an "overall" winner accounting for battle points and soft scores.

I definitely prefer it this way... I like going to a tournament to play against gamers who know their rules, have a nice army, and want to have a good time. So I like the "overall" winner, as do most people I know (on Dakka, and irl).

Kilkrazy wrote:IMO the tabletop wargaming hobby is not purely about winning games. You can do that in anything. It is about playing games in an aesthetic environment of nice terrain and models.

That's my perspective. Some people would say it is elitist and exclusionary.

agreed. half the fun for me is seeing my toy soldiers on a table top with scale terrain facing off against the same. lets face it, we technically could play these games with an assorted flavor jar of jelly belly jelly beans with the vanilla ones as tactical marines, the cherry ones as assault marines (the plasma pistol ones would have flavored speckles), etc... the only benefit i see in that is that you could eat the "dead". we don't because it's nice to see the hobby part of the game. and yes, there were people that called that view elitist in the threads suggesting 3 color painting standards in future 'ard boyz.... sad but true.

When we're talking about the effect that any overall tournament scoring change has, the simple truth is that there really isn't a way to definitively and quantifiably find out what effect these changes have on the tournament.

You can poll the attendees of your tournament to ask them about what they thought of the changes but those answers aren't going to obviously include people who didn't attend your event and the reasons they didn't attend. And if you're polling each year, you're going to get a different group of people attending your event each year (for any number of reasons such as inability to raise the money or lack of time to attend, etc) so you're going to get a slightly different pool of responders each year.

The truth is, there is no way to quantify that *having* sportsmanship scores in a tournament actually encourages players to behave more sportsmanslike anymore then you can quantify that removing sportsmanship scores from a tournament would *cause* more unsportsmanlike behavior to occur.

At the end of the day, there is only one person (or group of people) that matter for each individual tournament, and that is the tournament organizer(s). If they believe that having sportsmanship scores helps to promote more sportsmanlike behavior then they're going to include a sportsmanship score in their tournaments. Again, there is nothing quantifiable to concretely say that this accomplishes what they're looking for, but since it is their tournament to run (and our choice whether to attend their event or not) those are the choices they get to make.

It is foolish to try to say that having sportsmanship scores, even something crazy like 60 or 70% of the overall score would somehow completely knock out all unsportsmanlike behavior. Some people just don't care, some people get caught up in the moment and can't control themselves and some people don't even know what sportsmanship even really means. On the flip-side, completely removing sportsmanship scores from a tournament doesn't instantly mean that everyone turns into giant a-holes, or all of the anti-social players will suddenly crawl out of their basements to make everyone's lives miserable. The truth is the vast majority of 40K players are nice people that will play nicely whether there is no sportsmanship score or sportsmanship is 70% of the overall tournament score.

But basic logic dictates that having a score for something in a tournament (provided most people care about winning said tournament) will have *some* effect on the tournament and players' behaviors in said tournament. If your tournament had 'anti-sportsmanship' scores that gave out bonus points for throwing dice across the room in a rage or taunting your opponents to their faces, you can bet that *some* players would attempt to gain these bonus points. Would most players in the tournament suddenly start behaving this way? Probably not, as I do believe most 40K players are good sports and even the inducement of bonus points to act unsportsmanlike wouldn't sway everyone, but the point is that SOME players would behave this way when they wouldn't likely have otherwise if those points weren't in play.

And that's the truth here...sportsmanship, painting, composition (soft scores), have *some* effect on players' behavior at tournaments. Exactly how much or how little is ultimately impossible to know, but it is daft to assume that they don't have any affect at all.

Because of this, a tournament organizer who wishes to emphasize these things in his tournament will utilize them, as that is the kind of tournament that he/she is looking to run. And tournaments are almost always a labor of love that require an insane amount of time, money and energy to run on a large scale, so by all means a tournament organizer can (and will) run the tournament they want to.

I am glad for events like the 'ard boyz and the UKGTs exist, as they show that non-soft score events can exist and the sky doesn't fall. I hope that more tournament organizers run events like this because I really think the best possible scenario for all of us is for there to be enough different types of events that every player has a wide selection of events to choose from, and they can therefore only attend the types that they enjoy.

But ultimately for the independent tournament organizer it comes down to the type of event that they like to run and that's never going to change because of the amount of time, money and energy it takes to run an event, why would anyone really run something they didn't like themselves?

I personally don't begrudge players like Danny Internets *at all*. He represents a type of player who feels that his preferred tournament type is under represented and he's trying to (passionately) convince each and every tournament organizer to see their point of view when choosing how to run their tournament. Obviously tournament organizers need to consider that this type of player exists and may not be attending their tournaments (because they only want to play in 'battle point only' events), and they may want to think about possibly changing their event, especially if you run several tournaments a year...perhaps one of these can be converted to a 'battle points only' event as a test to see how you enjoy it.

But conversely, players like Danny also need to accept that there are many, many people who are diametrically opposed to their viewpoint, including many (if not most) of the people who take the time to organize tournaments. Just because an event *has* soft scores doesn't mean it is any less 'competitive', it just means it is competitive in a style that you don't care for, which it totally understandable. So make your pleas heard, but know that ultimately the way in which *that* tournament organizer likes his tournament to be run is the way it is going to be run regardless of how often or loudly you make your points known. Yes, removing paint scores from the overall champion score of a tournament may not cause *all* armies to show up looking like crap, but that there will be some cases where players with incredibly nice armies don't bother showing up or players don't take the time (or money) to bring as nice an army as they would have. These things can and will happen just as much as you (and others who feel the same) will choose to boycott an event that includes such 'soft scores'.

Again, at the end of the day the best possible scenario would be to have every type of tournament conceivable equally represented so that players have the choice of which type to attend. But sadly the only way to help that vision along is to get out there and help put on an event that you love and if gets popular enough other people will copy you and run similar events. And this doesn't mean you have to create the event yourself! Find an event that is what you like and then volunteer to help them out. That's what I did with Adepticon. I attended one year and loved it so much I started helping out even though I live in California!


Okay, all done with my treatise! Sorry for the length.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with your "treatise," Yak.

As I've mentioned on other threads, those players who feel that non-soft score events are under represented are free to create their own battle-point only tournaments any time they want.

I've even volunteered to help if they're in the Atlanta area, because I agree that there needs to be more of this type of event to cater to those who like them.

I just get annoyed when people try to tell me that I am somehow "wrong" for preferring soft scores in tournaments I attend.

I think it's great to point out that those arguing for "battle points only" events have a very valid viewpoint, and should be encouraged to help out / promote / even just attend those events.

The NOVA Open posted below is a great example of something like this (not BP only, but more geared in that direction)

Black Blow Fly wrote:I typically hand out the title Warmaster to the person who wins hte best general award at my GTs. I think it sounds cool and people seem to like it. Personally I like the title Best Overall for the person who scores highest aggrately in the combined categories.... It sounds appropriate plus people have been using this term for years now.

G

The Dark Lord of Texas Likes!