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.

MVBrandt wrote:As far as the NOVA format goes, when assessing it keep in mind the value of the Ren Man part - that's our Best Overall, our top finisher. Hard to talk about the system w/out including it.

In a way that reminds me off the discussion over Best General vs. Best Overall. The award was always there, people just refused to accept it as a viable or equal award. The NOVA format is seeing the flip side of that. Place the emphasis on Best Overall and people devalue the Best General Award. Place the emphasis on the Best General and people devalue the Best Overall award, even if they are awarded equally in terms of 'value'.

Both the Battle Points system and something like the NOVA format have always provided different avenues for specific styles of play or the hobbyist (mission format and scoring aside). It's all about perception and expectations.

Phazael wrote:Secondary (5 Points) – Score this if you eliminate at least one enemy HQ unit during the game.

Bonus (3 Points) – Score this if you end the game with at least one unit of any type in the opponent’s
deployment zone.

This is a typical mission set for us.

One of the worst parts about this type of scoring is it allows people to negotiate scores. "Oh - since neither of us will get a good score since we both can't get the secondary and tertiary objectives right now, why don't we just say we achieved both. You can get 8 points and I can get 20." We have seen that in action and it's horrible to allow that potential to even happen. Both players should not be able to get max points for an objective in any mission.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Phazael wrote:Secondary (5 Points) – Score this if you eliminate at least one enemy HQ unit during the game.

Bonus (3 Points) – Score this if you end the game with at least one unit of any type in the opponent’s
deployment zone.

This is a typical mission set for us.

One of the worst parts about this type of scoring is it allows people to negotiate scores. "Oh - since neither of us will get a good score since we both can't get the secondary and tertiary objectives right now, why don't we just say we achieved both. You can get 8 points and I can get 20." We have seen that in action and it's horrible to allow that potential to even happen. Both players should not be able to get max points for an objective in any mission.

Agree. This is a potential problem w/ BP in general, where "softer" players can be bullied into agreeing to give a clear winner massacre points one way or another. Further reason to de-emphasize margin of victory, IMO.

MVBrandt wrote:Agree. This is a potential problem w/ BP in general, where "softer" players can be bullied into agreeing to give a clear winner massacre points one way or another. Further reason to de-emphasize margin of victory, IMO.

But isn't that like giving up, Mike?) There's probably a lot of ways to fix that potential problem, and still use BP, without getting rid of the system entirely. Like you said:

Innovation can solve all of these problems, and it's that "throw hands up in the air oh well you just can't do it any other way" entrenched position that leads to a tournament organizer not ... well, innovating.

There really is a lot of ways to do things. You're finding a good way to run your event. But that doesn't mean other people have to give up on other approaches. Innovation works best with lots of people going in different directions.

This thread has a lot of good ideas, but we should also remember that this isn't YMDC where we should batter the other guy to come around to our way of thinking. There will always be lots of different formats for the hundreds of tournaments that get run each year.

I've got over 24 events in several different game systems to run next year. Several are going to be 40k, and at least 4 different styles with BP's, team tournaments, Adepticon Gladiator, Throne of Skulls, and I might even steal your system for one. Diversity is good.

mikhaila wrote:I've got over 24 events in several different game systems to run next year. Several are going to be 40k, and at least 4 different styles with BP's, team tournaments, Adepticon Gladiator, Throne of Skulls, and I might even steal your system for one. Diversity is good.

Diversity is essential. Different formats are incredibly healthy for the hobby. Nothing would be worse then homogenization of the event environment. It happened back in the early 2000's with the GW GT's and it became a very non-Grand affair very quickly.

The presentation and execution of an event is far ore important than the actual format. If people are having fun, your event is a success.

Couldn't agree more that diversity is good.

As said earlier, what matters is deciding on what you want your event to be, and then executing it to the satisfaction of those who attend.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Phazael wrote:Secondary (5 Points) – Score this if you eliminate at least one enemy HQ unit during the game.

Bonus (3 Points) – Score this if you end the game with at least one unit of any type in the opponent’s
deployment zone.

This is a typical mission set for us.

One of the worst parts about this type of scoring is it allows people to negotiate scores. "Oh - since neither of us will get a good score since we both can't get the secondary and tertiary objectives right now, why don't we just say we achieved both. You can get 8 points and I can get 20." We have seen that in action and it's horrible to allow that potential to even happen. Both players should not be able to get max points for an objective in any mission.

This can happen in any tournament without a judge standing at every table. All it takes are two guys from the same club to play each other. In the Nova format, two guys in the same heat can simply agree to play to a result, because one is out of the running and he wants his club buddy to bennefit. This sort of crap happens all the time and its basically something that cannot be completely stopped. I can't stop the collusion, but I can reduce the amount of baby seal clubbing that goes on by allowing mutually achievable goals, so its a trade off I live with.

Pure W/L/D with Swiss tie-breakers (Head to Head, Strength of Schedule) has been working great for us for a year now. The only caveat is that you have to ensure you have enough rounds to accommodate enough players. We do this by usually running smaller games (1500 points) and therefore shorter rounds but more of them. Our RTT's are always 4 rounds for example.

And before you say you don't like tie breakers just remember that battle points are exactly that: A tiebreaker.

I dont realy want to re-animate any kind of debate, but there was a tourney near me (I wasnt able to go (whip cracking sound)) and it used the NOVA format and a Dark Angel Player came out barely in 2nd, but only due to points at the end (he was 3-0). I like the idea that a Dark Angel player can barely win 3 missions straight against strong lists and win a tourney. I hadnt thought of the Nova format giving those "also ran" armies a chance at a real win if the mission is played correctly. I guess I was blinded by the guard/angel/wolf/ tidal wave cramming the top tables at most tourneys.

Now,
1. 19 people at his tourney so not neccesarily common since the player still is what makes a list work, and Ill take an experienced player with an ok list over a newer player with a "more points efficient" list, and with 19 players, a good player can go 3-0 by outplaying 3 opponents straight.

2. If there were more players and several were of equal playing skill, you would be more likely to play them and end result might not be the same.

3. The more players the more rounds required and a "lucky" streak may come to an end game 4 ending the tourney run (see codex deamons).



As a whole I just wanted to point out that the NOVA format was used at a local smaller tourney and it gave Dark Angels a heart beat. Something I have not heard in a while. Now if forced to make a choice for which tourney format I prefer (since we are programed to inherently put our faith in a two party system) I would go battle points for 20 players or less, BUT I am inspired by these NOVA tourney results to maybe give those crons one last shot at the Adepticon 1850 tourney this year as all I have to do is win...and not wrack up points. This format does mean if you can figure out a way to WIN with an "older" codex and not WIN BIG you still can win the whole tourney, perhaps it is a better way to run a large scale tourney (provided you have the rounds to make it a true playoff)

Hell thats what everyone is clamering for in college football, why not beat them to the punch for major tourneys and within 5 years more people will be watching 40K Adepticon championship finals on TV (or webcast) than the Fiesta Bowl

I think the Hobby as a whole has so much potential as people are always looking for something to do. Our hobby is growing as the Adepticon registration is showing. I think the NOVA tourney next summer is having similar success with pre-registration. At what point are these tourneys going to be.........Registration open...........Registration closed.........like a major concert. I am encouraged by these trends and I think Mathais..Milkhalia...and MVBrandt are on the right track to promote diversity, not taking criticism (constructive or not) personally and responding with cooler heads to getting this hobby to more and more people. Now I know its not just you folks, as it takes an entire commmunity to make this trend happen. Its everything from the polarizing figures that write battle reports, have controversial BLOGS, down to the local tourney organizers who donate countless hours of prep time to make an exciting weekend if even for just a handful of people.

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:As a whole I just wanted to point out that the NOVA format was used at a local smaller tourney and it gave Dark Angels a heart beat. Something I have not heard in a while. Now if forced to make a choice for which tourney format I prefer (since we are programed to inherently put our faith in a two party system) I would go battle points for 20 players or less, BUT I am inspired by these NOVA tourney results to maybe give those crons one last shot at the Adepticon 1850 tourney this year as all I have to do is win...and not wrack up points. This format does mean if you can figure out a way to WIN with an "older" codex and not WIN BIG you still can win the whole tourney, perhaps it is a better way to run a large scale tourney (provided you have the rounds to make it a true playoff)

I think this is a great way to look at this style of format. Another thing to keep in mind is that this format also gives those few rare/odd armies a chance to actually compete. For example, an all Death Company army could actually win games in the AdeptiCon Championships by disregarding the mission goal centered around scoring units. While the road to victory might be a bit tougher and not provide as many avenues to a win - it is still possible. Under a weighted PST system, a majority of scenarios objectives and Battle Points are simply out of reach for are army like this.

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:Hell thats what everyone is clamering for in college football, why not beat them to the punch for major tourneys and within 5 years more people will be watching 40K Adepticon championship finals on TV (or webcast) than the Fiesta Bowl

Ha! We have been discussing live over-the-table coverage for years. Live podcasting is one means to an end, but we have some plans this year to take it well beyond that. Some of this might not see fruition until 2012, but this year will be our 'demo tape' for sure.

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:I think the Hobby as a whole has so much potential as people are always looking for something to do. Our hobby is growing as the Adepticon registration is showing. I think the NOVA tourney next summer is having similar success with pre-registration. At what point are these tourneys going to be.........Registration open...........Registration closed.........like a major concert. I am encouraged by these trends and I think Mathais..Milkhalia...and MVBrandt are on the right track to promote diversity, not taking criticism (constructive or not) personally and responding with cooler heads to getting this hobby to more and more people. Now I know its not just you folks, as it takes an entire commmunity to make this trend happen. Its everything from the polarizing figures that write battle reports, have controversial BLOGS, down to the local tourney organizers who donate countless hours of prep time to make an exciting weekend if even for just a handful of people.

The open/close thing very well might happen...and not just for W/L format and/or competitively-minded events. While the 40K Championships is selling out fast (at a rate of about 10x that it did last year), an event like the 40K Team Tournament just buried it. 110 teams...totally sold out in less than 3 weeks with currently 11 more teams on the waitlist. That is 484 people. To give you an idea of how crazy that is, last year after pre-registration being open for 3 weeks we had exactly 9 teams signed up.

There are a great number of amicable and respectable people involved in running events. We can all learn something from one another. Old grizzled vets like us might understand the logistics and organizational aspects of an event better, while new blood will approach tournament design and implementation from an entirely new and exciting angle. That sort of collaboration and idea-sharing is to everyone's benefit. Not only do we then get to collect and respond to comments based on our own event, but we can learn and adapt based on the experience of other events. The blog, podcast and forum communities are an absolute driving force in making so much of this happen. I'd disagree that having a 'controversial' blog is helpful to the overall goal of building a better wargaming community...they tend to promote division and are in direct opposition to the diversity and richness of said events...but that is neither here nor there.

Just to touch on this again, I'd like to point out that I will be running pure W/L tournaments. That determines the group you play against (bracket).

For pairings between brackets I'm using battle points as a Rank for seeding. You get a massacre then you're #1 seed. You barely win and you're the bottom seed.

I'm familiar with three groups of Winning Conditions / Battle Points:
1) GW One Win Condition: Massacre / Major Win / Minor Win Battle Points tend to be clumpy in these when you don't have bonus points

2) P/S/T Weighted Points for W/D/L on each. The weights can vary and have a vast effect on the possibilities. WLL can be always greater than DWW or WLL = DDD = LWW. It all depends on the 9 weights. Heck, you can use the same W/D/L weight all wins the same.

3) Win Condition / Tiebreaker 1 / Tiebreaker 2 Take % WC + % 1st tie + % 2nd tie as battle points. I separate this from 2 because it actually puts weight on the % of the goals. For example if I score 4 of 5 objectives, my WC% is .80, where as in #2 I may have just got 21 points by winning 4 - 0 or 1 - 0.

I really love the simplicity of knowing how to win #3. Primary if you win this you win the game. If tied go to the Secondary Objective... The thing that bothers me about #3 is that there is no weight given to win condition over 1st tiebreaker, then 2nd tie breaker. Each of the 3 give you a score of 0 - 1. So I guess I've got to find a #2 with just the right weights. I think I have found one I'm happy with, but I'll finalize all my thoughts and post it Friday evening.

Please, post your thoughts on 1, 2, 3 and other??? Any ideas for a two goal format?

I've always preferred the 'Ard Boyz scoring system for the tournaments that I help organize. I see the bonus points as a way to reward players for keeping their eye on the prize and also a method to help everyone get at least 1 point per round.

I found a weighted scoring that I like. The following will give you a unique result between 0 and 26 for all 27 possible P/S/T results.
P 18/9/0
S 6/3/0
T 2/1/0

The lowest win (DDW) is 14 pts and the highest loss (DDL) is 12 pts. 13 is a DDD, but I guess after you go to the tiebreaker, you give the winner +1 and loser -1 so they have different scores.

After 3 rounds you will have the following point spread
3-0 42 - 78
2-1 28 - 64
1-2 14 - 50
0-3 0 - 36

The overlaps are not a problem if you first sort by number of wins and then points. However, if you just want to sort by points to get a final result, you need to add in a bonus for winning the scenario. This bonus (W) is based on the number of rounds ( R ) in the tournament. The formula for determining W is: W > 12 * R – 14 . 12 is the spread of winning scores (26 – 14) and 14 is the Max Win – Max Loss (26 – 12). There’s the explanation if you want to apply this to other weights. Here is the minimum W for different rounds:
3-- 23
4-- 35
5-- 47
6-- 59
7-- 71

To make it easy to remember, for R = 3 through 6 just use R * 10. After three rounds using W = 23 you have the following possible scores
3-0____111 - 147
2-1_____74 - 110
1-2_____37 - 73
0-3______0 - 36

For my tournaments I plan on just using the basic scoring without adding in a winning bonus. I set the final standings by # wins, then strength of schedule and then points.

Let me ask a question - why do you want to weight the caliber of a victory?

If I am an awesome player, and I draw and barely beat another awesome player, is my victory not way better than some good player massacring a nub?

It's fundamentally flawed, one would think, to use that as your basis. While I understand having to establish a "best overall" in a limited-run number of games in a tournament, it always comes back to this approach for me:

Give a Best Overall that uses soft scores to break ties, and give EQUAL prizes split out to all players who win all their rounds during a day.

Margin of victory is an impossible thing to evaluate in a limited-run event. It's one thing if you run a league over several months, and all players play each other at least once, and you establish the best from among tied records by the guy who most consistently won and won big ... but ... in a 3-5 round tournament? It's an impossible thing to evaluate properly.

Just my $.02

I'm weighting caliber of victory for seeding in further rounds. I rank by # wins, strength of schedule and then BPs.

How do you run / score 3 or 4 round events?

Renaissance Man for Best Overall (equal sports/"battle"/painting, or just equal painting/battle), equal prize support to all undefeated, complex enough missions to justify w/l.

This should also help:
http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/11/nova-mission-thought-process-goal.html

Seems to me like the best tournament scoring would be 4-5 rounds of swiss scored games followed by 3 or so round single elimination brackets to decide the overall winner (non-seeded players can either be split into lower leveled brackets ie 1-16 in bracket A 17-32 in B etc) or continue playing swiss scored games, or could be split into teams for a single elimination team tournament.

This would allow two good players who draw against each other but win their other games to have a shot against someone who won against 3 lesser players who happened to win. It's how every huge tournament in other things I've seen have all been scored.

One point is that, after playing a few tournaments this year with cutom mission scoring and multiple BPs, I think it's MASSIVELY important that the scoring to be very easy to understand and keep track of during a game.

I've been in a few situations recently where both of us thought we were following the objectives, thought that one person had convincingly one, possibly almost tables the other, and yet, when we followed the 'scoring' guidelines, it turned out that one person had only a very minor victory.

This makes people feel cheated in a tournament setting, as they're never completely sure what they're meant to be doing.