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

It was certainly gamed, along with sportsmanship. Ironically though it was mostly gamed by "teams" of hyper-competitive people who would go to an event and try to slag everyone else to raise their own standings (e.g. an agreement to give everyone other than their own people 0s in both). At least from what was said back in the days when it was eliminated.

I actually, in all honesty, like the way the official GW GT does it with the "favorite army" thing. It seems like a good compromise between not caring about anything but winning games (which as I have stated I feel should NOT be the only thing that matters in Warhammer as it's a social hobby at its core, not a sport) and putting too much on "You beat me and I'm butthurt so I'm going to give you 0s"

Well I kind of a do get them. I did once caused an inujry in my weight class just so two people from my school go through to regionals, because the person that couldn't wrestle was removed from placings at the event.

Wayniac wrote:
It was certainly gamed, along with sportsmanship. Ironically though it was mostly gamed by "teams" of hyper-competitive people who would go to an event and try to slag everyone else to raise their own standings (e.g. an agreement to give everyone other than their own people 0s in both). At least from what was said back in the days when it was eliminated.

I actually, in all honesty, like the way the official GW GT does it with the "favorite army" thing. It seems like a good compromise between not caring about anything but winning games (which as I have stated I feel should NOT be the only thing that matters in Warhammer as it's a social hobby at its core, not a sport) and putting too much on "You beat me and I'm butthurt so I'm going to give you 0s"

The advantage of the 'favourite' system is it is harder to misuse as a competitive tool.

When you have to rate every opponent you get to gank their scores and give no extra points at all. At least with the favourite system you are forced to give points out, even if you may 'game' the system by awarding your favourite game to someone who is a competitive non-factor.

Yes, lets stack rank our opponents!

This way, it's most important that you're not the *worst* person they meet. You can still be a raging donkey-cave, just make sure they believe everyone else they played was *worse*!

I get that it may be better than a straight-up rating if it's a concern, but it has some drawbacks, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overall should be W/L/D before score.

In my last tournament, I got 2nd after going undefeated, even having beaten the actual victor, because I won that game 3:2 and they got more points in their other matches than I did.

Wayniac wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The person who brought a cheesy filth army to curb stomp people may have won all their games and might win Best General, but they would likely be dinged on Comp and, usually, Sportsmanship (those sorts of people are usually the rules lawyer/argumentative types)

Oh the projection. By all accounts, Nick Nanavati is possibly one of the hobbiest nicest people. In fact I think I could say the same for most the top players in the game.

If you don't vibe with competitive it's fine, but theres zero reason to gak on people who just enjoy competing.

My point is that's what the Comp score was meant to do. The person who brought an army designed only to win, would get their comp score low and be prevented from winning the tournament overall (although they would still likely get Best General). As it should be, because designing the most min/maxed army does NOT best represent the hobby.

And why doesn't it best represent the hobby? Why is hobby quality defined by losing games more frequently?

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The person who brought a cheesy filth army to curb stomp people may have won all their games and might win Best General, but they would likely be dinged on Comp and, usually, Sportsmanship (those sorts of people are usually the rules lawyer/argumentative types)

Oh the projection. By all accounts, Nick Nanavati is possibly one of the hobbiest nicest people. In fact I think I could say the same for most the top players in the game.

If you don't vibe with competitive it's fine, but theres zero reason to gak on people who just enjoy competing.

My point is that's what the Comp score was meant to do. The person who brought an army designed only to win, would get their comp score low and be prevented from winning the tournament overall (although they would still likely get Best General). As it should be, because designing the most min/maxed army does NOT best represent the hobby.

And why doesn't it best represent the hobby? Why is hobby quality defined by losing games more frequently?

Because, despite the fact you only seem to care about competitive gaming and winning, the hobby is more than winning games.

Karol wrote:

Wayniac 773029 10405970 wrote:

My point is that's what the Comp score was meant to do. The person who brought an army designed only to win, would get their comp score low and be prevented from winning the tournament overall (although they would still likely get Best General). As it should be, because designing the most min/maxed army does NOT best represent the hobby.

That is like saying the sportsman with the best physical and mental capacity shouldn't work, because there is more to sport then just the competition. No one actualy believes that. Not even the sports official or the people that sponsor sport.

It's more saying that who we choose to honor the most highly isn't necessarily the one who can run up the highest technical metric - even if that metric is points or W/L ratio.

Most people would rather celebrate the guy who did well and is fun to be around over the guy who did slightly better but is toxic to deal with.

That makes sense. No one likes losers.

Karol wrote:
That makes sense. No one likes losers.

Everyone considers Loser to easily have two different definitions:
-The lowest scores or W/L ratios
-The guys nobody wants to deal with

The term "Winner" has the same two variants.

Wayniac wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The person who brought a cheesy filth army to curb stomp people may have won all their games and might win Best General, but they would likely be dinged on Comp and, usually, Sportsmanship (those sorts of people are usually the rules lawyer/argumentative types)

Oh the projection. By all accounts, Nick Nanavati is possibly one of the hobbiest nicest people. In fact I think I could say the same for most the top players in the game.

If you don't vibe with competitive it's fine, but theres zero reason to gak on people who just enjoy competing.

My point is that's what the Comp score was meant to do. The person who brought an army designed only to win, would get their comp score low and be prevented from winning the tournament overall (although they would still likely get Best General). As it should be, because designing the most min/maxed army does NOT best represent the hobby.

And why doesn't it best represent the hobby? Why is hobby quality defined by losing games more frequently?

Because, despite the fact you only seem to care about competitive gaming and winning, the hobby is more than winning games.

So having a powerful list means it isn't painted well? Having a powerful list means you can't be a nice guy and fun to play against? Just what part of the hobby is missing from a powerful list, and why is it important?

Well if you have all of them then you shouldn't need to worry, would you? It's only the types who bring some "powerful list" that doesn't adhere to any of the background, are jerks, and are 3 colors minimum that has to worry about being kicked out of the running for Best Overall and may have to be content with Best General.

Oh yeah, because three minimum colors is worse than human sacrifice and all that.

Looks like no Necron player will ever be scored well unless they like making them look like clowns!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Oh yeah, because three minimum colors is worse than human sacrifice and all that.

Looks like no Necron player will ever be scored well unless they like making them look like clowns!

Necrons don't seem to have an issue with this now, why would they? Besides, doesn't your precious ITC require 3 color minimum at its events? Don't pretend you don't know what I was referring to. The type of model that's like prime one color, add a splash of a second to the gun, paint the base flat brown and call it 3 colors min to play in the event.

Wayniac wrote:
Well if you have all of them then you shouldn't need to worry, would you? It's only the types who bring some "powerful list" that doesn't adhere to any of the background, are jerks, and are 3 colors minimum that has to worry about being kicked out of the running for Best Overall and may have to be content with Best General.

Except the context here is discussing comp scoring and comp scoring is purely a penalty for having a strong list, ignoring any other factors. Don't move the goalposts and act as if it has anything to do with sportsmanship or painting.

Wayniac wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Oh yeah, because three minimum colors is worse than human sacrifice and all that.

Looks like no Necron player will ever be scored well unless they like making them look like clowns!

Necrons don't seem to have an issue with this now, why would they? Besides, doesn't your precious ITC require 3 color minimum at its events? Don't pretend you don't know what I was referring to. The type of model that's like prime one color, add a splash of a second to the gun, paint the base flat brown and call it 3 colors min to play in the event.

Only two colors: silver and green! Too bad it doesn't fit your definition of well painted huh?

That does fit. it's not slopped together.

And again, I feel comp scores are great. They reign in extreme builds WHICH IS THE ENTIRE fething POINT BECAUSE THIS IS A HOBBY NOT A SPORT.

Err, what? That's at least three colors: body, gun, and the hose thing on the gun. Plus more colors on the base, and any highlighting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
That does fit. it's not slopped together.

And again, I feel comp scores are great. They reign in extreme builds WHICH IS THE ENTIRE fething POINT BECAUSE THIS IS A HOBBY NOT A SPORT.

Again, why is being bad at winning an essential part of the hobby? Why do "extreme builds" need to be penalized?

Wayniac wrote:
That does fit. it's not slopped together.

And again, I feel comp scores are great. They reign in extreme builds WHICH IS THE ENTIRE fething POINT BECAUSE THIS IS A HOBBY NOT A SPORT.

The problem I have with comp scores is they tend to actually rein in whatever the comp system creator dislikes, which may or may not be what you want to nerf. Depending on how they're implemented they don't even rein in extreme armies, they just shift the goalposts for what counts as an extreme army. Swedish Comp for WH was a great example of that - hugely complex, did a good job of removing the most abusive builds from non-comped WH, but simultaneously created a whole host of just as abusive builds within its own rules due to the way it warped the meta.

Wayniac wrote:
That does fit. it's not slopped together.

And again, I feel comp scores are great. They reign in extreme builds WHICH IS THE ENTIRE fething POINT BECAUSE THIS IS A HOBBY NOT A SPORT.

I don't care about your opinion of my unit choices. Nor do i care about a "judge"'s opinion.

Martel732 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
That does fit. it's not slopped together.

And again, I feel comp scores are great. They reign in extreme builds WHICH IS THE ENTIRE fething POINT BECAUSE THIS IS A HOBBY NOT A SPORT.

I don't care about your opinion of my unit choices. Nor do i care about a "judge"'s opinion.

Then maybe you should find another hobby that only cares about your win rate.

Why is it that winning is the only thing that matters?
Why is it that if the larger fanbase is generally happy and playing games (and buying models) that only the views of the hper-competitive matter?

Why is this topic on '40k being in a generally good place' focusing so much on 'ITC decress this to be bad and unbalanced, so all of 40k is bad an unbalanced'?

It's easy to find events with no comp score. So why would i?

On second thought maybe we need MORE comp. We could have painting comp where you get penalties for having too many characters/banners/etc because they give too much space to use advanced painting techniques, and bonuses for bringing necrons and their limited options for painting. We could have sportsmanship penalties for each beer you drink because drinking and not caring makes it too easy to be relaxed towards the game, and bonuses for having rule arguments because you took on the challenge of having sportsmanship even during conflict.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Why is it that winning is the only thing that matters?
Why is it that if the larger fanbase is generally happy and playing games (and buying models) that only the views of the hper-competitive matter?

Why is this topic on '40k being in a generally good place' focusing so much on 'ITC decress this to be bad and unbalanced, so all of 40k is bad an unbalanced'?

Because ITC skews the balance due to having their own missions that reward listbuilding instead of trying to reign in extreme builds (which the GW missions, especially CA18, do via twists in each mission). This then spiraled into whether or not that's a good thing.

I still find ca2018 woefully inadequate. Maybe itc can adopt them and add secondaries? Hordes need a downside.

Martel732 wrote:
I still find ca2018 woefully inadequate. Maybe itc can adopt them and add secondaries? Hordes need a downside.

Model count is a bad way to control objectives in general.

Martel732 wrote:
I still find ca2018 woefully inadequate. Maybe itc can adopt them and add secondaries? Hordes need a downside.

You know, with all due respect, your counterpoint to everything seems to be "but Hordes". ITC doesn't give a downside to Hordes other than having secondaries that, again, just focus on killing gak. Which is part of the whole problem; ITC *only* focuses on two things, so you see lists that are optimized around doing two things. Which is why you see what you see at major ITC events and not any major non-ITC events.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Oh yeah, because three minimum colors is worse than human sacrifice and all that.

Looks like no Necron player will ever be scored well unless they like making them look like clowns!

Necrons don't seem to have an issue with this now, why would they? Besides, doesn't your precious ITC require 3 color minimum at its events? Don't pretend you don't know what I was referring to. The type of model that's like prime one color, add a splash of a second to the gun, paint the base flat brown and call it 3 colors min to play in the event.

Only two colors: silver and green! Too bad it doesn't fit your definition of well painted huh?

At a glance, I count ten.

Undercosted models are a big deal. Especially large numbers of them.

 Peregrine wrote:
Err, what? That's at least three colors: body, gun, and the hose thing on the gun. Plus more colors on the base, and any highlighting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
That does fit. it's not slopped together.

And again, I feel comp scores are great. They reign in extreme builds WHICH IS THE ENTIRE fething POINT BECAUSE THIS IS A HOBBY NOT A SPORT.

Again, why is being bad at winning an essential part of the hobby? Why do "extreme builds" need to be penalized?

Black isn't under the definition of a color.