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.

From what I've heard, soft scores are less prevelant in the UK and other European tournaments. Is this true? I'd like to know.

Soft scoring does not reduce competitiveness. it changes the lists that are brought. Players who win at US tournaments do well at other tournaments.

Yeah, but that means the most powerful/competitive lists don't get taken.

I will contend that the level of competition is independent of the "power" of lists. I will use Chess as my example.

skipmcne wrote:Soft scoring does not reduce competitiveness. it changes the lists that are brought. Players who win at US tournaments do well at other tournaments.

Soft scores change the focus of the event and cause many competitive players to skip it altogether, thus creating a much less competitive atmosphere. Many players who perform well or win US hobby competitions do well at actual tournaments.

Danny Internets wrote:

skipmcne wrote:Soft scoring does not reduce competitiveness. it changes the lists that are brought. Players who win at US tournaments do well at other tournaments.

Soft scores change the focus of the event and cause many competitive players to skip it altogether, thus creating a much less competitive atmosphere. Many players who perform well or win US hobby competitions do well at actual tournaments.

Are the people who are competing at these "US hobby competitions" competing any less fiercely? Because the winner is playing, nay competing by a set of rules that include paint scores does not mean the competition is less worthy.

Now if the OP had specified something along the lines of "most powerful army / list" / best general, or most tactically challenging I'd grant that the playing field in the US appears to be weighted more towards the Hobby as a whole, and less towards evaluation of who plays the game better.

It depends how you're defining competitive. I think most of us are using the competency of the competitors as the metric, not how hard they're trying. Otherwise you could argue that a foot race between a couple of six-year-olds is just as competitive as the Olympic Games.

Danny Internets wrote:It depends how you're defining competitive. I think most of us are using the competency of the competitors as the metric, not how hard they're trying.

No, it depends on how you define Competency of the competitors. You prefer to define it in a tactical sense. Current US Tourneys appear to be preferring to define it in a different manner. Your difference of opinion is noted.

This an excellent thread!

I am not going to say that a tournament that includes soft scores is just as competitive as a tournament that does not but often I find myself enjoying tournaments with soft scores more. I have played in purely competitive tournaments that were a lot of fun, it might just depend on who you happen to play. The lack of scores greatly reduces gaming politics and that to me is a good thing for sure. So I am not dead set against not using soft scores but TFGs tend to ruin any event they attend for the people who unfortunately have to play them. Maybe the focus should be more about DQing TFGs, or how to go about that.

G

Well, think about this.

People seem to have a disdain for Comp, for obvious reasons.

Painting scores are good, but shouldn't affect your overall ranking.

Sportsmanship, well, I like the idea but it doesn't help much. Just DQ the TFGs like Black Blow Fly said.

Thats my point in terms of "Competitiveness". I personally think it means the tournament is all about winning the most games. And obviously, more powerful lists should be more prevelant, but they aren't.

Snikkyd wrote:
Thats my point in terms of "Competitiveness". I personally think it means the tournament is all about winning the most games. And obviously, more powerful lists should be more prevelant, but they aren't.

Your initial question was either mis-phrased, or mis-leading. I would suggest you re-phrase your question to :

Do US Tournaments Value player Tactical ability and list building skills in the same manner as European or UK Tournaments.

I will point to the Germain Tournament that disallows Special Characters as a counter-point to the argument that UK tournaments do not have a limited competitive list-building experience.

skipmcne wrote:

Snikkyd wrote:
Thats my point in terms of "Competitiveness". I personally think it means the tournament is all about winning the most games. And obviously, more powerful lists should be more prevelant, but they aren't.

Your initial question was either mis-phrased, or mis-leading. I would suggest you re-phrase your question to :

Do US Tournaments Value player Tactical ability and list building skills in the same manner as European or UK Tournaments.

I will point to the Germain Tournament that disallows Special Characters as a counter-point to the argument that UK tournaments do not have a limited competitive list-building experience.

Yeah, sorry is that was misread. I think this is on a better track now though.

skipmcne wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:It depends how you're defining competitive. I think most of us are using the competency of the competitors as the metric, not how hard they're trying.

No, it depends on how you define Competency of the competitors. You prefer to define it in a tactical sense. Current US Tourneys appear to be preferring to define it in a different manner. Your difference of opinion is noted.

In exactly what manner do you think US hobby events appear to be defining what is "competitive"? You have refused my definition but not provided one of your own. This question is genuine and I am not asking it for rhetorical purposes.

Note that there are few tournaments in the US at all, most are tournaments with several other concurrent competitive events lumped together, such as composition, painting, and sportsmanship scoring. A tournament is defined as a series of competitive events that make up a single unit. Series here is the key word, which refer to the games which are played serially. The other competitions have nothing to do with the game itself, but rather with the hobby and the expectations of the community. That's not to say they aren't important in their own rights, but they fall outside of what can accurately be called a tournament. The UK GT would be an example of a tournament as per its definition. US indy GT's (thus far) do not fit this definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tournament

having played in us gt's, adepticon, several uk gt's, wps events(uk).

I find the toughness of opponents and quality of game higher in the US.

the uk seemed to have lots of "tough" list but they were played like poop.

the uk gt was fun but for better/harder games adepticon is the tops between uk and the US.

is it possible to win the uk gt with an army you painted with your butt made out of pure cheshire cheddar. yep, but that rarely happens.

Danny Internets wrote:
In exactly what manner do you think US hobby events appear to be defining what is "competitive"? You have refused my definition but not provided one of your own. This question is genuine and I am not asking it for rhetorical purposes.

I can play the M-W game too!
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/competitive.
Definiton 1 I choose you!
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/competition
Definition 1 I choose you!
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/competing

So, the ORIGINAL question (now rendered moot by the OP's re-phrasing) was: are US Tournaments Less Competitive than European Tournaments? Meaning (Quite literally) are the players entered in the Us Tournaments Competing (Striving Consciously for an objective/prize) or in a state of rivalry, involved in a less fierce competition, the act or process of competing, than our European counterparts.

I contend that the level of competition is independent of the Rules / Scoring / Prize support / Lists brought / tactical genius present.

I contend that the level of competition is Dependant on how hard the competitors are willing to work for victory, while abiding by the rules of the tournament.

I realize I'm being pedantic here. But I assure you that's wholly intentional.

Danny Internets wrote:
Note that there are few tournaments in the US at all, most are tournaments with several other concurrent competitive events lumped together, such as composition, painting, and sportsmanship scoring. A tournament is defined as a series of competitive events that make up a single unit. Series here is the key word, which refer to the games which are played serially. The other competitions have nothing to do with the game itself, but rather with the hobby and the expectations of the community. That's not to say they aren't important in their own rights, but they fall outside of what can accurately be called a tournament. The UK GT would be an example of a tournament as per its definition. US indy GT's (thus far) do not fit this definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tournament

There is nothing in the definition of a Tournament that requires all the events to be the same. Indeed the Very origin of the word (the English Knightly Tournaments were a series of heterogeneous events (or trials). You appear to be trying to be re-defining a tournament to be repeated trials of a single type of event, which is your choice.

Were I to accept your definition, then I would indeed agree that the US tournaments that I have seen scoring from are not attempting to determine solely the best player who is present on that day, but the best "hobbyist" present on that day (assuming that scores such as sportsmanship, painting, composition all help in ranking of a player as a hobbyist, and battle points solely determine generalship)

However, That is the choice of the organizer. Their competitions DO fit the definition of a series of games , contests or trials that make up a single unit of competition (determined by scoring, the announcement of victors, and the awarding of prizes). These contests are held serially. Even though participant preparation for them may begin many months in advance.

For example: If I decide to hold a tournament and I set the rules as "competitors have to cross-country-ski 100Km, then shoot at targets at 50 and 100 feet and repeat these rounds 3 times, the fastest time and best shooting combined will determine the victor." Simply being the best shooter will not win you a victory in my tournament. You may claim that you were the best shooter, and your record may hold up to that. But the tournament was scored on both aspects of competition.

I dont understand how lists at all contribute to "competitiveness"

If every single player brings lists with 6 x10 scouts + master of the forge + 3 whirlwinds the entire tournament would still be just as competitive if instead everyone brought nob bikers and IG

Basically the TO has the ability to totally @!#$ up the competitiveness by creating totally absurd missions, adding in his own bias and not being an educated judge

In that respect I sorta agree that US tournaments arent as competitive because we have a lot more lone wolf TO's who do everything their way while having very limited experience in what players actually enjoy playing :p

Danny Internets wrote:

skipmcne wrote:Soft scoring does not reduce competitiveness. it changes the lists that are brought. Players who win at US tournaments do well at other tournaments.

Soft scores change the focus of the event and cause many competitive players to skip it altogether, thus creating a much less competitive atmosphere. Many players who perform well or win US hobby competitions do well at actual tournaments.

So you're saying competitive [players can't hack it? I find that as nonsensical as it is unsupported by any sort of facts or data.

I personally know skilled players that skip tournaments that have high amounts of hobby scoring used to determine the winner of the event - they just don't feel it is that important to hire a professional to paint their army, or to buy a bunch a space marine battleforces to make a low comp army.

Do I still believe they would dominate? Yes, because they regularly trounce the players that do win when they do play them.

I'd say they are less competitive...

Comp hurts the competitive nature of the game...

for straight battle points that is...

FOR EXAMPLE:

Went to a tourny a few years back... won all of my games.. had a 1 comp, 10 painting

18/20
18/20
18/20

Lost the event to someone that lost all of their games, but had a huge comp score. 20... and a huge paint score 19
9/20
8/20
9/20

both scores came out to 65, but ties went to better comp... dude did not know how to play

There is a difference between using Comp/sports as a tie breaker or as different prizes as compared to using it to determine the over all winner

A lot of events I go to dont let comp/sports interfere with the tournament winner.. Although painting is figured into it

frgsinwntr wrote:I'd say they are less competitive...

Comp hurts the competitive nature of the game...

for straight battle points that is...

FOR EXAMPLE:

Went to a tourny a few years back... won all of my games.. had a 1 comp, 10 painting

18/20
18/20
18/20

Lost the event to someone that lost all of their games, but had a huge comp score. 20... and a huge paint score 19
9/20
8/20
9/20

both scores came out to 65, but ties went to better comp... dude did not know how to play

So competitive players can't adjust to comp? They don't sound very competitive then.

so has anybody else played in a uk gt and a us GT?

I have and the us is more competitive, if you haven't you are guessing.

skkipper wrote:My country is better than your country.

Fearspect wrote:

skkipper wrote:My country is better than your country.

in the last 8 years I have lived in the uk for three off and on. people asked about a which is better. I have played in both alot recently. I feel qualified to answer the question.

Danny Internets wrote:

Soft scores change the focus of the event and cause many competitive players to skip it altogether, thus creating a much less competitive atmosphere. Many players who perform well or win US hobby competitions do well at actual tournaments.

Most of the time Danny pretty spot on...

but I think it is kinda slowed to say that competitive just avoid events-- is it not the nature of competition to compete? Also it reeks of "Oh yeah I am one bad mamajama, but I cannot prove it because I make excuses"

As for the question itself. Well I think this is all hard to judge because the Euro game typically plays at a lower points level than America. I do not think their is really anyway to judge unless we had a universal system bad or good to base players on.

Also keep in mind that with the death of regular run GT style tournaments in the US every tournament can be different. I'm playing in a GT Qualifier in 2 weeks that has sportsmenship & painting worth more then battle points (51% vs 49%). I'm also playing in 'ard Boys in May that is all battle points. From my experiance it is rare to see a winner of a 5 game tournament in the US that did not win at least 4 of the 5 games.

Comparing the US tournament scene (everything indy run, different points levels, different factors in scoring) vs the UK Heat System (1500 points every games, W/L/T scoring with VPs for tie breakers, all run by GW) is really comparing apples & oranges.

Most of the time Danny pretty spot on...

but I think it is kinda slowed to say that competitive just avoid events-- is it not the nature of competition to compete? Also it reeks of "Oh yeah I am one bad mamajama, but I cannot prove it because I make excuses"

As for the question itself. Well I think this is all hard to judge because the Euro game typically plays at a lower points level than America. I do not think their is really anyway to judge unless we had a universal system bad or good to base players on.

Tasty, do you attend 40k hobby events? Would you still attend them if they included a 3-hour hardcore basket weaving competition making up 50% of the scores determining the overall winner? What if players were required to submit samples of fanfiction and were awarded points based on its quality? How about a no-holds-barred 40-man bare-fisted boxing match?

This is kind of what I'm getting at. Tournament organizers call these events "tournaments", which appeal and cater to competitive gamers, but then they include a bunch of events that aren't necessarily of interest to this same demographic and use these ancillary events to determine the outcome of the "tournament".

The grand prizes for US hobby events are only partially based on the outcomes of the tournament portions. In some cases, less than half of the score is determined by how people perform in their games. These events cater not towards competitive gamers, but towards well-rounded hobbyists. Just as there are many 40k players completely turned off by 'Ard Boyz because of its lack of painting scoring or even a painting requirement, there are lots of 40k players completely turned off by hobby events that push competitive play out of the spotlight. I find some marginal enjoyment in other aspects of the hobby, but I am mostly interested in competitive play. Why would I fly across the country, spend thousands of dollars, and take time off from work to play in events that are only of partial interest to me?

Of course, there are those out there who use this as an excuse not to have to put their self-proclaimed greatness to the test. But there are also a lot of us who are frustrated by the almost complete absence of events focused on genuinely competitive play in the US Warhammer community.

Until tournaments can guarantee each game gets the full set of turns and games (Especially 'ard boyz) stop ending on turn 3 then any kind of complaints about competitiveness are fairly moot to me.. Personally Ive always played full games because I play fast and accurate, but Ive seen LOTS and lots not go the full length

There needs to be a serious revision of time management across the board.. A lot of tournaments I go to have this issue and it seems barely anyone wants to address it. If a single game does not go the full length then imo the entire competitiveness of the tournament is a scam..

Danny Internets wrote:

Tasty, do you attend 40k hobby events? Would you still attend them if they included a 3-hour hardcore basket weaving competition making up 50% of the scores determining the overall winner? What if players were required to submit samples of fanfiction and were awarded points based on its quality?

Its still a tournament. Its still a competition. The fact you don't want or don't have the ability to compete in theose events doesn't make them less of a competition.

How about a no-holds-barred 40-man bare-fisted boxing match?

Now I'm interested. Sign me up. I'm married, with a teenager. At this point, I feel no pain.

There is no greater pleasure in gaming for a strong competitive player than to take the best build he can think of and face off in a tournament setting against another strong player with the best build he was able to conceive. Certainly we can measure the competitiveness of these same two players if they are forced to use mediocre builds but competitive players would find this to be a less enjoyable experience.

The great chess champion Jose Capablanca spent his retirement in Paris married to a Russian princess emigre. He frequented a cafe and would sit with his chess set idly leafing through the pages of Le Monde. One day a stranger approached Capablanca and challenged him to a game. Capablanca folded up Le Monde, and removed his queen from the board and told his opponent to make the first move. Offended, the stranger declared he didn't need this handicap, that he could beat Capablanca on equal terms. Capablanca sighed and said, "If you could beat me I would know you."