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.

I know the only way to solve this...

TWO MEN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES

skkipper wrote:

Elessar wrote:As I've said already on YTTH, congrats to Tony. It's a shame TastyTaste has to degrade his coverage by trying to downplay Tony's achievement, but that's what he's built his 'career' on, so I'm not surprised or even that disappointed really.

Well done everyone who won all their games.

it was a great job by Tony to pull off the 8 wins.
but he needs to clean up his game. I played him one round on saturday(we won) and talked to several others that played him and there were issues in several games. this like extremely long movements and questionable assault moves, and stretching a few rules.

I could see this kind of thing in the first few rounds, but once you get into the third or fourth round wouldn't people start to call him on it?

BatManuel here on dakka was the Ork player that made it into the finals. Apparently he won some 2700 bucks in Nurgle army stuff...

Congrats Mike...you still suck compared to me!

Deadshane1 wrote:BatManuel here on dakka was the Ork player that made it into the finals. Apparently he won some 2700 bucks in Nurgle army stuff...

Congrats Mike...you still suck compared to me!

Damn dude! Thats a good Haul!

frgsinwntr wrote:I think jumping on the hearsay train is bad form

^Definately this. Without proof or a firsthand account, it honestly just comes off as trying to downplay his win, which is unfair and unclassy, imho.

I may just not know a lot about Adepticon, but what's the difference between the First PDF (Overall) and Second PDF (Sunday Qualifiers).


And props to Mannahnin for 2nd Overall!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, wait, overall is the Ren Man and Qualifier is straight BP?

Overall includes soft scores, while Sunday Qualifiers is Battle Points (wins/objectives) only.


Some of the 2nd day qualifiers were down past the 80th place on the overall score. Some people prefer battling, some prefer other aspects of the game

Lol Just noticed Tony was 82nd overall, but 1st on Sunday. Thanks RB and grats again on appearance!

Yeah, I was number 21 in Battle (2-0-2 w/9/12 Objectives) but wound up at like 102 Overall....My poor nids are so not as pretty as they need to be

@Redbeard

It was great meeting you dude. Congrats again on best painted!

In Regards to Tony I watched at least his first game on day two (since I was an alternate but everyone showed) and I didn't see a single thing wrong. But whatev's. Figured I'd throw that out there.

pretre wrote:Lol Just noticed Tony was 82nd overall, but 1st on Sunday. Thanks RB and grats again on appearance!

If you look at the score, it was the sportsmanship score that killed him in the overall. I wonder if he really is that bad of a sport or something else....

On a side note, I don't mind when painting scores get lumped in but sports/comp is crazy as its based on your opponent judging you. Thats always objective....

To be fair, there is a strong correlation between "I got beat" and bad sportsmanship scores.

Knowing Adepticon, I am pretty sure, at the very least the last rounds, that you had judges watching those games. Saying he may have stretched anything is in poor taste, unless you played him and can give a specific example.

it was a great job by Tony to pull off the 8 wins.
but he needs to clean up his game. I played him one round on saturday(we won) and talked to several others that played him and there were issues in several games. this like extremely long movements and questionable assault moves, and stretching a few rules.

Like I said, I played Tony for 1st place. He did nothing even close to stretching rules or long movements. One of my buddies had played him earlier and said the same thing. He played and outstanding game. Don't take anything from that.

As for his sportsmanship, personally, I think he was perfectly fine to play against. I can see how someone could ding him since once the game starts he is in no nonsense mode. He knows his rules, plays fast, doesn't really chit chat during the game and is a 16 year old kid. I am guessing its those 4 things that some grownup couldn't handle after they lost to him and thats why he got knocked.

Wow, Tony got dinged hard on the sportsmanship for the overall. Only 10 out of 40. Ouch.

Like Lord Severus said I would imagine the combination of being a teenager and bringing what is a more generic list yet beating everyone probably contributed heavily to his sportsmanship score.

Nothing annoys some people more than a "kid" whomping them with a "generic" army when they began the game thinking that it would be an easy win against said "kid" with the "generic" army.

The general trend towards mature responses in this thread make me happy.

I'm glad our hobby is getting to be competitive, and doing so in a grown up way.

We all deserve a round of beers!

Except Tony... he's too young

This is all interesting, but I think I speak for all of us when I ask if Dakka Detachment 2 did better overall than Dakka Detachment 1?

Sigh... wish I could've been there this year.

vonjankmon wrote:Like Lord Severus said I would imagine the combination of being a teenager and bringing what is a more generic list yet beating everyone probably contributed heavily to his sportsmanship score.

Nothing annoys some people more than a "kid" whomping them with a "generic" army when they began the game thinking that it would be an easy win against said "kid" with the "generic" army.

I think that this actually isn't the case nearly as much as people seem to think on the internet. Typically the "sports dinging" and other issues that make everyone fear sports/soft scores aren't nearly as abused in reality. I've only had it happen to me at one major event like 4 years ago. I've won two this year and am probably not the most model human being and have still gotten max/high sports scores. In fact, I think if anything sports scores across the board are abnormally high just because people feel awkward putting down a bad score in front of their opponent/etc.

That being said, his low sports score may indicate his opponents just didn't have a good time (I'm NOT saying this is true). I don't think they insinuate that he "cheated" or "fudged" things, which is probably a misinterpretation of the "data". If he's quiet, reserved, and no nonsense, thats probably why he got a low score, nothing more, nothing less. People want to chat and be social during games, esp. if their just getting stomped in the game to begin with. Getting stomped in silence is probably pretty devoid of enjoyment, as most players who lose and still have a good time give a reason like "but my opponent was a nice/fun guy, and we had a good time".

targetawg wrote:

vonjankmon wrote:Like Lord Severus said I would imagine the combination of being a teenager and bringing what is a more generic list yet beating everyone probably contributed heavily to his sportsmanship score.

Nothing annoys some people more than a "kid" whomping them with a "generic" army when they began the game thinking that it would be an easy win against said "kid" with the "generic" army.

I think that this actually isn't the case nearly as much as people seem to think on the internet. Typically the "sports dinging" and other issues that make everyone fear sports/soft scores aren't nearly as abused in reality. I've only had it happen to me at one major event like 4 years ago. I've won two this year and am probably not the most model human being and have still gotten max/high sports scores. In fact, I think if anything sports scores across the board are abnormally high just because people feel awkward putting down a bad score in front of their opponent/etc.

That being said, his low sports score may indicate his opponents just didn't have a good time (I'm NOT saying this is true). I don't think they insinuate that he "cheated" or "fudged" things, which is probably a misinterpretation of the "data". If he's quiet, reserved, and no nonsense, thats probably why he got a low score, nothing more, nothing less. People want to chat and be social during games, esp. if their just getting stomped in the game to begin with. Getting stomped in silence is probably pretty devoid of enjoyment, as most players who lose and still have a good time give a reason like "but my opponent was a nice/fun guy, and we had a good time".

I don't mean to flame the above poster, but you are pointing out everything that is wrong with soft scores.

Why should a player get penalized for being "quiet, reserved or no nonesense"? Why should a player be judged on thier ability to entertain your opponent. There is a place for this type of play, its at a 3 round FLGS tournie or garage hammer, not at a 200 person tournament.

This soft scoring stuff has got to go away. It is ridiculous.

Spire, he still won top place for the Qualifier. The event he was playing for. So what's the problem?

that is why there were two separate scoring systems for the event, so that you don't have to deal with sportsmanship if you don't want to.

1. Tony played exceptionally well, as did all the players in the finals. It was a high pressure set of games with judges, spectators (at a reasonable distance) and sometimes live video podcasting over your shoulder.

2. I was really worried that the top 16 wouldn't all show up so early, but not only did they all show, we also had 3 alternates. Additionally all 16 played through the 1st 3 rounds before we had a single drop. Many thanks.

3. Tony didn't get 'dinged' on Sportsmanship at all. He received 3 Average votes and 1 Postive result (each positive counting as 10 points towards Best Showing on Friday). Totally respectable. Negative marks did not earn you any negative points. It was simply a majority strikes rule. If you got 3 you were no longer eligible to win awards. No one received 3 negative marks.

4. While I am sure Tony would have been thrilled to win Overall, I am pretty sure he wasn't there to play to that part of the event and results reflect that to a degree. All the Overall awards were handed out Friday in a self contained event. There were no appearance or sportsmanship scores in the finals.

The 40K rules have been on the AdeptiCon site for months. The Sportsmanship system is explained in there as well as in the Dev Blog.

spireland wrote:

targetawg wrote:

vonjankmon wrote:Like Lord Severus said I would imagine the combination of being a teenager and bringing what is a more generic list yet beating everyone probably contributed heavily to his sportsmanship score.

Nothing annoys some people more than a "kid" whomping them with a "generic" army when they began the game thinking that it would be an easy win against said "kid" with the "generic" army.

I think that this actually isn't the case nearly as much as people seem to think on the internet. Typically the "sports dinging" and other issues that make everyone fear sports/soft scores aren't nearly as abused in reality. I've only had it happen to me at one major event like 4 years ago. I've won two this year and am probably not the most model human being and have still gotten max/high sports scores. In fact, I think if anything sports scores across the board are abnormally high just because people feel awkward putting down a bad score in front of their opponent/etc.

That being said, his low sports score may indicate his opponents just didn't have a good time (I'm NOT saying this is true). I don't think they insinuate that he "cheated" or "fudged" things, which is probably a misinterpretation of the "data". If he's quiet, reserved, and no nonsense, thats probably why he got a low score, nothing more, nothing less. People want to chat and be social during games, esp. if their just getting stomped in the game to begin with. Getting stomped in silence is probably pretty devoid of enjoyment, as most players who lose and still have a good time give a reason like "but my opponent was a nice/fun guy, and we had a good time".

I don't mean to flame the above poster, but you are pointing out everything that is wrong with soft scores.

Why should a player get penalized for being "quiet, reserved or no nonesense"? Why should a player be judged on thier ability to entertain your opponent. There is a place for this type of play, its at a 3 round FLGS tournie or garage hammer, not at a 200 person tournament.

This soft scoring stuff has got to go away. It is ridiculous.

It's redic. in your opinion is the key here. A lot of players like soft scores, a lot don't. Regardless of whether an event has them or not, it can still be quality. An important point in this is to identify your own personal bias, which you seem to have quite a bit of, as you've already determined where people are allowed to use "soft scores" and where they aren't. Not everyone agrees.

I'm personally not for sportsmanship usually, as the system is hard to get right, and typically ends up being fairly meaningless (everyone gets max, yay?). But being a good sportsman is a fairly subjective thing, and most sportsmanship scoring guidelines flat out state questions like "did you have fun?" "would you play this opponent again?".

This is a social hobby, if you are so focused on winning that you can't be an enjoyable person to be around, you get bad sports scores, that's just the way it goes.

Now, to take a step back, let's remember something key: this is a totally esoteric debate. Neither of us were there (or at least I wasn't, and I don't think you were) and neither of us played Tony. He may have been a total raging trogggdorrr screaming monster. He may have been the most absolutely nice, charming, and enjoyable individual since Charlie Sheen. Since neither of us has any real proof, it's probably best not to speculate on why Tony received a "low" sports score. That's something for him or his opponents to comment on.

Please read the AdeptiCon Championships Sportsmanship scoring and how awards are calculated. Tony did not receive low Sportsmanship. In fact he received slight above average (since four average games would be 0 points). Granted people were liberal with Positive marks, but that doesn't harm anyone.

Amen brother! I agree! This was Adepticon, not some tournament where gamers show up just to have fun! Tony, congrats on a well deserved win!
The young man showed up to play. Who cares about his age? Really? We shouldn't take away from what he accomplished. As I recall it, we're "GAMERS" not "ENTERTAINERS"! Makes me question who really was the matured one?
Stop crying about his age, approach, & army list!!!!

Matthias wrote:Please read the AdeptiCon Championships Sportsmanship scoring and how awards are calculated. Tony did not receive low Sportsmanship. In fact he received slight above average (since four average games would be 0 points). Granted people were liberal with Positive marks, but that doesn't harm anyone.

I guess I am a bit confused. I look at the top scorers in the over all, and they all have 40 points. You have to go 15 places down to see anyone below a 30. To me I see Tony's score as a 10 out of 40. How is that above average? Thats a 25% of possible points if I am reading it right. If I understand correctly this could be a case of too many bonus points?

I realize I am a on a bit of a soap box here, and as an earlier poster pointed out I have made my opinion on this matter clear. It is an opinion, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

I will say that I do understand that there is no such thing as a perfect scoring system for this hobby we all love. The hobby has many facets and it is VERY difficult to come up with a perfect system and easy to pick apart those that try. I do think the folks that organize this event have created the premier wargamming event and should be proud of what they've done and not take us nit pickers too seriously.

spireland wrote:
I guess I am a bit confused. I look at the top scorers in the over all, and they all have 40 points. You have to go 15 places down to see anyone below a 30. To me I see Tony's score as a 10 out of 40. How is that above average? Thats a 25% of possible points if I am reading it right. If I understand correctly this could be a case of too many bonus points?

Matthias gave you what the scoring criteria were. Also, you had to scroll 15 down because there were over 200 people. Try scrolling 100 down and see what the sports scores were like. Also, try taking a look at the whole thing and see how many 10's were handed out.

frgsinwntr wrote:I think jumping on the hearsay train is bad form

Yes it is.

I'm sure no slight was intended when this was first raised, so we'll just leave it there and get on with general congratulations and news from the event.

*obligatory congratulatory to those who won and did well*

.. now where are the pictures to entertain me ? *cracks whip*

Matthias wrote:Please read the AdeptiCon Championships Sportsmanship scoring and how awards are calculated. Tony did not receive low Sportsmanship. In fact he received slight above average (since four average games would be 0 points). Granted people were liberal with Positive marks, but that doesn't harm anyone.

The mark he was marked for may have been called "average", but the average we're talking about here is a numerical average of the actual scores that were awarded. I downloaded the scores and slapped em into excel, and the actual average score was a 30.27 for sportsmanship with a standard deviation of 8, meaning tony was more than 2 standard deviations off of the average. The median score was a 32, the mode was 32 as well.

So Tony did in fact receive "low" sportsmanship when it comes to the score he received, which is what we're interested in if we're evaluating how it impacted his overall performance. The difference here is that the system skews the numbers so that a result of a 0 is deemed to be an average quality sportsman (IE, 0 isn't "he has absolutely no quality as a sportsman and was the least fun opponent imaginable").

Sports scores are awful. So horde orks won? Or was it the teen with space wolves?

@olympia. Way to read the first post.

Teen Wolf won. Which is a horrible, and yet awesome, nickname.

In regards to the sports scoring I actually had Mathais explain it to me on Sunday morning while watching the first round. I was sad since I'd scored so poorly figuring someone might have actually dinged me. Once it was explained it made more sense.

I gave out 3 Average games and 1 Amazing game. The reason? I read the actual words on the paper, scored it appropriately, and only Redbeards game blew me away with the fun, awesome spirit, and general tone. The other 3 dudes were good games but not something I'll look back at next year and remember. But again non were bad enough for me to remember next year either so 3-Averages and 1-Awesome. But quite a few people are still in the habit of max sports. It's one of the reasons I like the rank your opponents method more.