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.

My thoughts included below:

Kesher wrote:
Scoring. How is the event going to be scored? Be clear on how the scoring will work, and provide values for that scoring. Events running a comp component that is shrouded in mystery, may do not as well as a tourney that has comp and is open how they are scoring it. We could even go so far as to standardize the scoring; there must be a sports, paint, and battlepoint system and it is "x".

YES - everything must be specified and communicated up front - no surprises or home team advantages to be gained. I think that a standardized approach would ultimately be the best - and the same used for the Tourneys is the same for the final big show tourney. The criteria for qualifying for Vegas should be the same if I play in LA, Boston, or Nashville.

Points Limit. Staying within a normal perceived points limit may be attractive to most players. I remember GW some years doing 1850 with 150 point blocks, and some mandatory models for some mission such as messengers etc. Does this need to be standardize?

Again - all qualifiers should be the same point cost. The game changes at different points levels - so standardization would be the key here.

Rounds and time. What is the normal number of rounds to be a GT? I would assume its 5. Time limit per round could be 2+ hours with 2:30 being the perceived norm from what I have seen.

It should all be the same - some qualifiers are one day events - others are two days now. I would be ok if they said that the minimum would be 4 game tourney's to qualify - that can be done in a single day.

Price. Well i think that can't be standardized but I'm sure that many will attest that price is a big decision make on whether to attend an event at all. I guess it all comes down to getting what you feel you pay for, but that can be said for anything.

This one may vary - different locations have different costs - and the organizers have to at least want to break even.

Missions. This is a biggie for me. Are they going to be standard type missions, or custom ones that have to be corrected via forums or during the rounds over and over again? Personally I just want something standard with a mechanic I'm used to playing. Missions converted poorly from 4th to 5th, ridiculous kill points, or even the dreaded 2 objective mission are all my pet peeves. I'm okay with somethng new as long as I can understand it at first glance OR it conforms to a particular mechanic. I'm not sure if this can be standardized, but maybe made into a guideline.

One side of me says that they missions should be standardized as well - to be fair. The other side says that variety is cool and it's good to have more than one objective in a mission - separates the men from the boys. Someone suggested a standard list of 15-20 missions that each tourney would choose 4 of - that sounds awesome.

I was worried about this when GW came up with the idea of all the independent tourneys having the golden tickets.

Of course all the cheating has come from the d*mn Yankee's up North or the Liberals out West. Need to have more tourneys in the South where we know how to deal with them Cheating Bastiches. Ever see someone tarred and feathered....

I'll throw in my .02 as I have run several large(50 man+) tourneys and over a 100 RTTs.

Battle: needs to be 60% or more. Can't be the overall winner unless you won your games.

Paint: Very important, should be roughly 20%. Painting scores ensure serious participants, as in people who care more than winning.

Sport: In a perfect world we wouldnt need it. But we do. It should be scored simply. A simple checklist for being prepared followed by ranking your opponents from first to last.

Comp and Theme: These scores are very subjective. Unlike painting you cant have a checklist to go over. I like both categories but only for awards of their own and not to include points towards overall.

Battle needs to be the prime factor in winning a tournament. I prefer 60-70% of the total points

Painting is still important but should not take up more than 20%

Sportsmanship is a weird one since its open to chipmunking but at the same time how can you enforce TFG who do show up. Checklist seems the and low scores require justification other than "he beat me badly"

Comp and theme I would like to see in a tournament but I do not want to see as part of the overall score but more so separate scores for things like best army, best theme, etc.

The missions need to be challenging and hard to pull massacres but at the same time do not make missions that screw army types over.

For sports I had been thinking for some time of using the old ice skating scoring. Drop the highest and lowest scores, or more likely just the lowest and should avoid most if not all chipmunking. If you are a totally a-hole it will show, one person tries to knock you out it saves you.

wynnSTUDIO

At the end of January we ran a grand tournament in harrisburg, pa. (that did not feature a golden ticket). Our tournament (based on the cost for the venue) was $75 for 5 games, catered lunch (both days), 9 major trophies (1-3 overall, 1-3 best appearance, and 1-3 best sport).

Our grading criteria was as follows:

up to 20 points for victory in each game (100 points)
up to 40 points in appearance
up to 15 points for exam (knowledge of rules)
up to 50 points in sportsmanship
up to 15 bonus points for the favorite of the weekend (sport, appearance, and theme/comp.)

for an overall score of 220 points max.

We ran 5 rounds with variations between old style scenarios and standard scenarios from 5th ed. book.

from another thread I would state. Sportsmanship is of as much importance as generalship, but sportsmanship is everything. I had participated in the Baltimore Grand Tournaments from 97 to 08. A tournament to me is the sum off all things listed above. Anyone can get a list from the internet and play basic scenarios every time, gets boring. I challenge my players to think outside of the box, sometimes they work great for you, sometimes they do not. and yes, I have had comments on both sides of the fence about this issue. I prefer sportsmanship (player rated) and appearance (Judge rated) as additional marks of the entire picture of the gamer. Great, you are a good general and you can get victories, now be a great game and have a fantastic looking army, know the rules and have a good time.

Our sportmanship card (of the 10 points per game) has roughly 7points worth of quantifiable points. did they show up at their table on time, did they have their materials, did they practice good hygine. the remaining 3 points come down to would you ever play this person again, or recommend this person to your friends and so on. yes there is a chance for chipmunking, but I have a lot less jerks showing up at the tournaments to begin with and less of the sniping that comes from a purely subjective sportsmanship style.

The guys at Mechanicon in West Chester, Pa did a great job at their tournament this past November and for one that can't get to a lot of events, I felt they gave me a good game for my money.

My tournaments are not prefect, and I am always looking to improve how I run my games.

I look forward to what others put up here to evaluate how I can do things better in the future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When we see a score come in that's too big or too low we go and look at the scoring history and talk to both of the players and see how things went. If there is a serious problem we will normally let it stand, if it looks like someone was torpedoed I reserve the right to adjust it to a more normal average. (I may go to dropping the highest and lowest instead, like Wynnstudios suggested) We also impose a minimum sportsmanship score to receive an invite back to next year, and a higher minimum to get a trophy. (the scores are very reasonable and you really have to be a jerk to lose out.) I would be very hard pressed to ever remove sportsmanship from my tournaments and my customers love it.

This is a great thread.

To play devil's advocate for a moment...

1. There's no point in having indy tournaments sanctioned by GW. In fact it's a contradiction in terms.

2. There's no way to enforce a uniform code on all Indy tournament. Like Kid_Kyoto said, there is value in diversity, offering a range of formats for different tastes.

Having said that, the thread is collecting the thoughts about different aspects of tournaments. There are some good points being made, and it will be a very useful source of "marketing research" for prospective tournament organisers.

I'm sure there are will be some dominant themes emerging.

Regarding Sports scores, my understanding is that the UKGT scores everyone either 19/20 or 20/20. I don't know how or why this is done, as I've never been. It seems to prevent complaints about Sports scoring though. At least I've never heard about "chipmunking" happening.

That means it is well worth looking at how some of the established tournaments are organsied, bth GW's and Indy.

Kilkrazy wrote:This is a great thread.

To play devil's advocate for a moment...

1. There's no point in having indy tournaments sanctioned by GW. In fact it's a contradiction in terms.
That means it is well worth looking at how some of the established tournaments are organsied, bth GW's and Indy.

The problem is that Indy GTs are nevertheless in charge of giving out the "Golden Tickets" for the Vegas championship. So you have a perverse situation where someone can win a tournament based on primarily paint/comp/sports and get a ticket; while another person can win a ticket based on competitiveness. I suppose you could pick your poison--make the trip with your uncompetitive to a softscore tournament or take your nob bikers. But what will the scoring be based on at the Vegas final? do we know?

olympia wrote:
The problem is that Indy GTs are nevertheless in charge of giving out the "Golden Tickets" for the Vegas championship. So you have a perverse situation where someone can win a tournament based on primarily paint/comp/sports and get a ticket; while another person can win a ticket based on competitiveness. I suppose you could pick your poison--make the trip with your uncompetitive to a softscore tournament or take your nob bikers. But what will the scoring be based on at the Vegas final? do we know?

That is one of my biggest gripes, there is no standard for golden ticket from event "a" vs. event "b".

Kesher wrote:

olympia wrote:
The problem is that Indy GTs are nevertheless in charge of giving out the "Golden Tickets" for the Vegas championship. So you have a perverse situation where someone can win a tournament based on primarily paint/comp/sports and get a ticket; while another person can win a ticket based on competitiveness. I suppose you could pick your poison--make the trip with your uncompetitive to a softscore tournament or take your nob bikers. But what will the scoring be based on at the Vegas final? do we know?

That is one of my biggest gripes, there is no standard for golden ticket from event "a" vs. event "b".

Exactly. So whatever form the Vegas final takes it will alienate one group or the other.

olympia wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:This is a great thread.

To play devil's advocate for a moment...

1. There's no point in having indy tournaments sanctioned by GW. In fact it's a contradiction in terms.
That means it is well worth looking at how some of the established tournaments are organsied, bth GW's and Indy.

The problem is that Indy GTs are nevertheless in charge of giving out the "Golden Tickets" for the Vegas championship. So you have a perverse situation where someone can win a tournament based on primarily paint/comp/sports and get a ticket; while another person can win a ticket based on competitiveness. I suppose you could pick your poison--make the trip with your uncompetitive to a softscore tournament or take your nob bikers. But what will the scoring be based on at the Vegas final? do we know?

If GW want to give away super prizes that's their decision. I would not let it influence the way I wanted to run my own Indy tournament. Players can decide if they want to attend a tournament based on its overall merits.

IMO the prizes are getting excessive at some tournaments. That helps drive bad sportmanship because people are playing for high stakes.

"IMO the prizes are getting excessive at some tournaments. That helps drive bad sportmanship because people are playing for high stakes. "

That right there. That post basically sums up everything. People are only jerks when there's something on the line. I remember once upon a time the local RTT's just handed out trophies & that's it. IMO bring it back to that and I think everything would be gravy.

never mind.

I wonder why comp is so popular in the Indy GTs?

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I wonder why comp is so popular in the Indy GTs?

G

Because some tournaments seem to feel the need to toss it in thinking the majority of people want it. But fail to realize that the majority of people don't spend all day on these forums like they do and thus their logic is not validated.

Because its the new bright shiny toy people have to discuss and talk about.

Comp is worthless. A bad attempt to make people feel better about the game and in the end just causes more argument and confusion.

Bad organization will lead to a bad tournament does not matter if you have comp, sportmanship...... Its really that simple.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I wonder why comp is so popular in the Indy GTs?

G

It's popular among tournament organizers in the U.S.

sabote wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I wonder why comp is so popular in the Indy GTs?

G

Because some tournaments seem to feel the need to toss it in thinking the majority of people want it. But fail to realize that the majority of people don't spend all day on these forums like they do and thus their logic is not validated.

You've got that backwards. Most tournament organizers are busy folks with businesses which keep them from spending that much time on sites like this. IME the anti-comp crowd is common on sites like this, but not so prevalent among the folks I actually meet at events.

sabote wrote:[Because its the new bright shiny toy people have to discuss and talk about.

This you've also got backwards. Comp isn't new at all. Comp was much more prevalent in the US in the 1999-2003 range, and in GW's events has progressively been reduced in importance since. But the players, particularly the ones who run and attend Independent events, have kept it alive. IMO this is because the players are well aware of the imbalances between codices, and like having an offset to allow weaker and stronger armies to compete with greater parity within the hobby tournament.

Mannahnin wrote:

sabote wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I wonder why comp is so popular in the Indy GTs?

G

Because some tournaments seem to feel the need to toss it in thinking the majority of people want it. But fail to realize that the majority of people don't spend all day on these forums like they do and thus their logic is not validated.

You've got that backwards. Most tournament organizers are busy folks with businesses which keep them from spending that much time on sites like this. IME the anti-comp crowd is common on sites like this, but not so prevalent among the folks I actually meet at events.

sabote wrote:[Because its the new bright shiny toy people have to discuss and talk about.

This you've also got backwards. Comp isn't new at all. Comp was much more prevalent in the US in the 1999-2003 range, and in GW's events has progressively been reduced in importance since. But the players, particularly the ones who run and attend Independent events, have kept it alive. IMO this is because the players are well aware of the imbalances between codices, and like having an offset to allow weaker and stronger armies to compete with greater parity within the hobby tournament.

The only thing you have correct in your statements is Comp was more prevalent in the US between 1999-2003, that TOs are busy.

Beyond that you are in incorrect.

Codex are inbalanced. So what. Get over it. While they may be a certain degree imbalanced. No army on its own is going to win every tournament. To much depends on the missions, terrain and your opponent. Those three alone help balance things out.

Its the fact that TOs are busy that they tend (yes its a generalization) to overstretch themselves and thus many tourneys fall to pieces and are picked apart by their participants.

I have been playing independent tourneys across the country between 97- 2010 and with the exception of the years you mentioned had not seen any comp standards in those tournaments. Granted there is a sh... load of tourneys and I have not been anywhere close to them all. So hey maybe the ones you have been at have it all the time. But not me. Now 2010 seems to be the year that comp is being revisited.

Sorry that reality is so unpleasant for you.

I hope you're able to find plenty of events that you like.

No doubt you will easily charm any wayward TOs into agreeing with you.

One thing is that you really should be taking a strong list to a tournament. If you aren't taking a strong list, you are knowingly handicapping yourself. You shouldn't expect a bonus for that.

Kesher wrote:

olympia wrote:
The problem is that Indy GTs are nevertheless in charge of giving out the "Golden Tickets" for the Vegas championship. So you have a perverse situation where someone can win a tournament based on primarily paint/comp/sports and get a ticket; while another person can win a ticket based on competitiveness. I suppose you could pick your poison--make the trip with your uncompetitive to a softscore tournament or take your nob bikers. But what will the scoring be based on at the Vegas final? do we know?

That is one of my biggest gripes, there is no standard for golden ticket from event "a" vs. event "b".

At least with the old "Dave Taylor" GT circuit, overall results were weighted differently from others for circuit points. IE winning a Games Day RTT was worth less than winning say Adepticon. So yeah winning a small 50 man GT should be perhaps different than winning Adepticon.

I guess that gets back to my overall point of this post; making all Circuit events standardized to a point so you can say that everything was done the same running the event, at each one.

You're kidding, right?

You've played in as many events as you have, and met as many organizers as you have, and you honestly think they'd be interested and willing?

Darkness wrote:

Sport: In a perfect world we wouldnt need it. But we do. It should be scored simply. A simple checklist for being prepared followed by ranking your opponents from first to last.

I wish I could link this to Why Need Sports? thread. You say we need but why? What does a simple checklist do? These two things you mention are not about sportsmanship. What does my level of preparation have to do with sportsmanship(whether I am or am not someone you like to play)? Sure if I don't have my codex and you don't know it's rules that is a problem but most of the items on the checklist are just things 99% of people do anyways. They print out their lists, they have the tools they need, and they show up on time unless they are late getting back from lunch or something like that.

Ranking your opponents from first to last is also unsatisfactory. What if they were all perfectly nice people to play? Now one of them has to get a 1 out of 3 or 5 for no good reason? This is unfair is included in your overall score.

So the criteria on the checklist actually prevent you from giving a TFG a low score unless you decide to lie or he happens to show up late, have no codex, no templates or dice, and scrawled his list on a piece of paper.

I think people are really dogmatic about these soft scores, they just accept them as status quo and like the matrix they just resist change as opposed to make a reasonable and sound argument for their inclusion in events.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Standardizing the 40k tournament scene will never happen. That is something for a game like magic that is completely objective in it's scoring. Also GW would have to be heavily involved in running tournaments and organzing competitive play. Which they are not and never will be.

Shinkaze wrote:sportsmanship(whether I am or am not someone you like to play)?

That's the rub. What you mentioned (Whether I am or am not someone you like to play) also has nothing to do with actual sportsmanship. Unfortunately, that is how it is used, so you have people that are a little shy, play with a different style army than you like/use, or different rules interpretations getting marked down when none of that has to do with actual sportsmanship.

Actual sportsmanship is not cheating, not gloating when winning/getting upset when losing, having an army list/supplies available, being consistant with die rolling and rules, and similar things.

I love me some good sportsmanship. We can always use some mores too!

G

sabote wrote:[Its the fact that TOs are busy that they tend (yes its a generalization) to overstretch themselves and thus many tourneys fall to pieces and are picked apart by their participants.

(Personal opinion only and not as a Mod)

Actually it looks only like basement dwelling mouth breathers who don't have a life except to foam on the internet are the ones claiming tourneys are falling to pieces, based on nothing but the vomitous filth coming out of their mouths. Thats not an accurate statement for anyone on this board though, I'm sure though.

Tournaments are doing fine. They can be improved sure, but so can everything. Suggest improvements for that and discuss the merits, but blanmket statements are just pulling foam out your ass.

/glances at SVDM thread...

Why are the mods frazzled and mannihim so defensive? Who pissed in your cornflakes? TOs make silly albeit minor mistakes and get called out. I'm glad. They sure as @#$^ won't make dumbass mistakes like having participants subjectively judge comp. Frazzled commenting 'not as a mod' in no way excuse the reckless generalizations you make. tsk. tsk.

olympia wrote:Why are the mods frazzled and mannihim so defensive? Who pissed in your cornflakes? TOs make silly albeit minor mistakes and get called out. I'm glad. They sure as @#$^ won't make dumbass mistakes like having participants subjectively judge comp. Frazzled commenting 'not as a mod' in no way excuse the reckless generalizations you make. tsk. tsk.

Not as mod means I can post the same craptacular statements as the rest of you losers. After all I are one too.

I've run tournaments, I've played in tournaments. Discussing tournaments and improving them is great. But there's a crapload of mangina whiny baby going on from people who've never run them, have no support, and I'd bet good money have never done .

In Real Life (TM off GW I got it first!) I've rarely, rarely heard of anyone complaining about a tournament itself. Other players yes, but rarely about the tournament.

olympia wrote:Why are the mods frazzled and mannihim so defensive?

Is it being defensive to give a contrary opinion? Tournament organizers put a lot of work in to the benefit of the community, and in general, most folks have a lot of fun. It is absolutely appropriate for attendees to give constructive criticism and feedback, but it should be done with maturity and courtesy. Anyone who was NOT actually there needs to assume that they are working from limited and potentially inaccurate information, and should preface and disclaimer their comments taking those facts into account.

Frazzled wrote:

olympia wrote:Why are the mods frazzled and mannihim so defensive? Who pissed in your cornflakes? TOs make silly albeit minor mistakes and get called out. I'm glad. They sure as @#$^ won't make dumbass mistakes like having participants subjectively judge comp. Frazzled commenting 'not as a mod' in no way excuse the reckless generalizations you make. tsk. tsk.

Not as mod means I can post the same craptacular statements as the rest of you losers. After all I are one too.

I've run tournaments, I've played in tournaments. Discussing tournaments and improving them is great. But there's a crapload of mangina whiny baby going on from people who've never run them, have no support, and I'd bet good money have never done .

In Real Life (TM off GW I got it first!) I've rarely, rarely heard of anyone complaining about a tournament itself. Other players yes, but rarely about the tournament.

We are probably more similar in our opinions than I came across. My point with TOs is that any mistake they make good or bad always gets highlighted and thus we have these long internet discussions.

Like you I have never heard of alot of people complaining in person and if they have a complaint I certainly dont think it warrants such discussions on how to change the whole tournament scene.

Yes I have gotten rulings that I disagree with or paint scores I thought were unfair. So what, thats part of a tournament. You know these things happen. Life is not a perfect world.

Yet these discussions in the internet over comp and cheating IMO are building a much bigger paranoia than warrants the many threads spread across multiple forums(in many cases by the vary same people or groups)

Where as before after a tourney you would go home and sulk about how unfair(right or wrong) certain aspects of a tourney was to your friends. Now people seem to feel the need to jump on the internet and blast left or right.

If you go to a tournament, read the rules and standards set by the TO(hopefully this is done ahead of time). Expect things wont be perfect. There is no reason you will not have a fun time.

There are tourneys for everyone now. Ones with comp(i have yet to play in one and don't intend to unless thats all there is), sportsmanship and ardboyz. Why standardize? YOu will never get everyone to agree and thus will end up full circle again with another person starting a topic about whats wrong with tournaments all over again. In fact its the diversity of tournaments that I like. It would get tiring if they were all the same and certainly people will spend much more time on "gaming the game"