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.

The best bloodbowl tournaments play to a simple scheme of

Best score.
Best sport.
Best painted.

The only way that soft scores come into effect is for penalties to your base score.

-1 or -2 Depending on how bad your opponent was to play.

-1's are described as someone throwing a tantrum and not being an enjoyable opponent (some tantrums are funny and are perfectly acceptible...cursing in front of kids and making things un-fun is not however).

-2's are described as someone acting in an unacceptable way...such as deliberate cheating (The rules in bloodbowl are painstakingly clear compared to 40k so this one is quite easy to enforce), throwing dice, damaging opponents miniatures or being threatening. -2's are the kind of score that a tournament judge will come over and talk to people about and check if removal from the tournament is required.

Painting negatives (such as unpainted miniatures) and the lack of minimum standard (4 colours to an acceptable level) do not affect point in game, but give an in game bonus to the opponent - +1 Fame at first level or +1 Reroll at the second.

Its not that hard to implement this kind of system and removes TFG's from the equation. TFG's who give -1's as a form of chipmunking do not work when you factor in the average score at the end.

If the player gives everyone a -1 then it is averaged as a 0 for all players, which means that their game results are not affected. Hooray.

Giving players an average sports score of 3 (out of 5) and assigning 1 player in the tournament a 5 means your vote actually counts and that player is potentially in the running for a sportsmanship prize.

Similarly goons who hand out 5's for everyone average their +'s out to 0 and it has no effect.

Simple and effective. Anything attempted beyond what this system regulates is basically unavoidable and if discovered is the kind of thing to bring up with tournament organisers later.

I feel bad for the guy that couldn't afford to have a professional paint his stuff for him and had an artificial restriction placed on him during all his games...

How does that resolve anything again? I still missed it after reading your point through twice.

Also, it is very easy to give everyone that you played that was good a low score, and handing your one high score off to someone you feel is not in the contention.

With these issues stated above, why even have it?

Fearspect wrote:The best solution to this I have seen was a tournament that was run back in September in my area. You could sign up for one of two events:

Event A) Hard battle points, only thing close to a 'soft' score was requiring your miniatures to not be just primed.

Event B) All soft scores. Casuals even had the joy of being evaluated on a one-page story about their army. No battle points were used at all, as I recall.

Those that went I hear enjoyed the split, and they were able to fill both. The best part was that if someone wanted to enter Event B just to win, there was no real way to do it considering the entire score was based on comp/theme/painting/sportsmanship.

I should have thought it was much easier to win the soft scores. Anyone can nail together a story, follow the comp rules, be nice for a few hours, and put a half decent paint job on their figures. It just takes a bit of effort.

That's assuming that there actually ARE rules for comp that are followed, and that you aren't tanked in sports for playing different/winning/having blue eyes...

I don't think they actually got any points for winning their games. Sounds about as interesting as watching grass grow, but to each their own. Enjoy the casual 'tournament'.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you enjoy playing against miserable bastards who make every game a misery?

I don't know how many people there really are like that -- you hear more about from US players than UK, maybe because they are more competitive -- it could be just Internet exaggeration is what I mean.

If it's a tiny proportion it probably isn't worth bothering with.

No more so than I enjoy playing against someone that doesn't know the basic riules or even the rules for their own army. The 5th or 6th time I have to correct someone on how something really works (And I mean simple basic things, like "No, you cannot assault with your Necrons after they Veil of Darkness since they count as Deep Striking", "NO, rapid fire range for all weapons is 12"", really basic not even up for debate stuff. Well, about then I become TFG. I do NOT enter tournies to teach someone how to play. I do that enough as is.
Point being, even if I don't get exasperated with the idiot across the table from me, well, he's probably going to tank my sportsmanship score because HE doesn't know how to play and I've had to spend most of the game correcting him or telling him that it doesn't matter how they play it whereever he is from, the rules actually say so-and-so!! So I'm punished because I know how to play and my opponnent doesn't. Yeah, I really like that.........................

don_mondo wrote:No more so than I enjoy playing against someone that doesn't know the basic riules or even the rules for their own army. The 5th or 6th time I have to correct someone on how something really works (And I mean simple basic things, like "No, you cannot assault with your Necrons after they Veil of Darkness since they count as Deep Striking", "NO, rapid fire range for all weapons is 12"", really basic not even up for debate stuff. Well, about then I become TFG. I do NOT enter tournies to teach someone how to play. I do that enough as is.
Point being, even if I don't get exasperated with the idiot across the table from me, well, he's probably going to tank my sportsmanship score because HE doesn't know how to play and I've had to spend most of the game correcting him or telling him that it doesn't matter how they play it whereever he is from, the rules actually say so-and-so!! So I'm punished because I know how to play and my opponnent doesn't. Yeah, I really like that.........................

This. After a few corrections things generally devolve into how 2nd/3rd/4th Editions were all better and how all the new rules are stupid, etc. And because you had to correct them so much you are labeled a "rules lawyer." Fun times.

IMO sportsmanship scores are a good thing because they 1) act as a deterrent, preventing rude behaviour, and 2) help build a sense of community among the tourney gamers by forcing people to at least TRY and get along

I've been reading most of this thread, and I have still yet to see a convincing argument as to why sportsmanship scores are an actual "deterrent" for rude behavior, and not just a vehicle for said rude players to screw you with.

At the moment, everyone doesn't agree that good sportmanship is a good thing. Or at least, they say they aren't worried by bad sportmanship.

If you aren't concerned by sportsmanship, obviously there is no purpose in sports scoring.

If you want to achieve either encourage good sportsmen or eliminate bad behaviour, then the means to do so can be discussed.

Just to clarify, I think sportsmanship itself is important, and I think everyone who plans on playing in tournaments (and even those who don't really) should practice good sportsmanship.

Sporstmanship scoring however, is about as stupid and pointless as they come. I really don't see how it deters bad behavior. If someone is being a jerk and you tank their score, big deal, they tank yours, too. And then there are those people who see it as a way to improve their chances of winning and tank everyone's score just because. If you're really that interested in dealing with these people, then you need to call them on their behavior and get the TO to do something about it if it really becomes a problem. The checklist doesn't solve anything, it just gives him another way to ruin your day.

If a method could be designed which avoided the mutual tanking problem, would you support its use for Sports scoring?

I have not yet played at a tournament (I am attending my first in April) and therefore have no experience in whether or not sportsman ship points actually work.
The bigger picture is what is the point?

What I do think though is people here are confusing sportsmanship with cheating.
There is no reason why any player should not question a rule during a tournament. Wagaming is a complex business and often throws up areas which are not clearey defined in the rulebook. Clarifying these descrepancies does not make one a bad sportsman.
A bad sportsman is some one who moans and bitches all the time when the dice go against them and deliberatly bends the rules. This sort of person is an idiot, and it is not usually a pleasant experiance playing them. But should they be penalised in game terms? No. If they think it is worth sacrificing self respect and basic personel skills to do slightly better in a game that is thier choice.
People who actually cheat (i.e people who do something clearly against the rules on purpose) on the other hand should suffer some in game consequences such as conceeding the game or, in severe circumstances, being ejected from the tournament. A paltry points deduction is not going to stop these players and only leaves more avenues open for abuse.

I play 5-a-side and like to conduct myself in a sportsman like manner, i.e I never purposly foul anyone, never argue with the ref and never dive. This hasn't helped the teams results, in fact it has probably hindered them a small amount. But thats not why I do it. The fact that our team has a reputation for being good to play and providing a fair contest is reward enough for me.

Kilkrazy wrote:If a method could be designed which avoided the mutual tanking problem, would you support its use for Sports scoring?

In that purely hypothetical situation, sure I would.

In a perfect world it would be evaluated by a neutral third party.

What do you think of Mannahnin's Type 3 scoring?

If the tournament had a referee for every few tables then sportsmanship would work, cos the referee could keep an eye on it. BUT, I can't see there being that many people up for being a referee, who aren't the organiser, or one of their few assistants. But hypothetically, if a situation arises that TFG is being unsportsmanlike, or anyone for that matter. Then the ref could be called over and a penalty could be given as needed. However, sadly the sportsmanship is left up to the players to decide, and therefore it's pointless and really open for bias.

So yes it is good to have sportsmanship scores in tournaments, but unless they can fulfill my hypothetical requirements, I can't see it being viable. =]

Oshova

Kilkrazy wrote:At the moment, everyone doesn't agree that good sportmanship is a good thing. Or at least, they say they aren't worried by bad sportmanship.

If you aren't concerned by sportsmanship, obviously there is no purpose in sports scoring.

If you want to achieve either encourage good sportsmen or eliminate bad behaviour, then the means to do so can be discussed.

The problem that no one has addressed is that in a lot of (or most) cases, the sportsmanship score doesn't reflect actual sportsmanship, but rather how well personalities match.

What do you call sportsmanship?

Don't cheat, don't brag/gloat.

Lemme chime in here.

The reason I hate sportsmanship scores:

I'm in a game with an opponent. He exploits a grey area of the rules - bringing it up, getting into an argument, calling over a judge will all decrease my sportsmanship score. My opponent moves 6.3 inches instead of 6". Calling them on it will hit my sportsmanship score. I tend to feed off my opponent. If they're laid back, I am laid back. If they're being TFG - I'm also TFG.

Sportsmanship is important, but sportsmanship scoring is not - its a subjective, player driven, clearly abused system with no place in a game unless its being judged by someone watching the game.

Cheating should not enter in - it should lead to an expulsion. This includes 'tactics' such as slow playing.

Other than that, who cares? Man up and call someone on things if they are acting like a douche, rather than passive-aggressively marking someone for a low score on a sheet without addressing the issues. It seems akin to those types that regularly post on here about how they were cheated, but never seem to say anything to the person's face about it; they just find it easier to slag a guy online.

Kilkrazy wrote:What do you call sportsmanship?

I call it something different than you will, repeat for every other person that gets queried. Another good argument against sportsmanship scoring; if it isn't quantifiable or enforceable in a standardized format, how can anyone possibly be judged against it?

So those that don't like - won't ever like it....and those that do like it....will probably continue to like it. It depends on if you are a player who most always gets good sportsmanship - or one that struggles with it.

Good thing that both types of tournaments exist and people can pick which ones they want to play in.

Aldonis wrote:So those that don't like - won't ever like it....and those that do like it....will probably continue to like it. It depends on if you are a player who most always gets good sportsmanship - or one that struggles with it.

Good thing that both types of tournaments exist and people can pick which ones they want to play in.

I know players who get good sportsmanship scores (because lets be honest, at most tourneys most players get max or close to max anyways) and they don't think sportsmanship scoring is necessary.

Aldonis wrote:So those that don't like - won't ever like it....and those that do like it....will probably continue to like it. It depends on if you are a player who most always gets good sportsmanship - or one that struggles with it.

Good thing that both types of tournaments exist and people can pick which ones they want to play in.

Well... it's more of a situation where those who are against it have posted appropriate arguments against having it (mostly the fact that it can too easily be gamed and has proven to not be effective) whereas the other camp has effectively put their fingers in their ears while yelling, "LALALALALA, CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

sourclams wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What do you call sportsmanship?

I call it something different than you will, repeat for every other person that gets queried. Another good argument against sportsmanship scoring; if it isn't quantifiable or enforceable in a standardized format, how can anyone possibly be judged against it?

It certainly is quantifiable and enforceable in a standardized format, though everyone might not agree with that format.

I think you understate the difficulty of execution.

In any form of gaming, having your opponent "grade" your performance , without moderation, is a broken system. As many have indicated, the issue is not "sportsmanship", it's opponent interpretation of sportsmanship and poor sportsmen yield situations that force you to call judges and refs or debate rules which could lead to your opponent "docking" you.

If I am playing a poor sportsman, what incentive does he even have to see me as a good sportsman, even if I am on my best behavior. This sort of scoring also enables adverse collusion. While not making it obvious, one opponent could slightly doc another sportsmanship score, assisting his team-mates chances for best overall. It enables corruption, it doesn't prevent it.

Fearspect wrote:I feel bad for the guy that couldn't afford to have a professional paint his stuff for him and had an artificial restriction placed on him during all his games...

How does that resolve anything again? I still missed it after reading your point through twice.

Also, it is very easy to give everyone that you played that was good a low score, and handing your one high score off to someone you feel is not in the contention.

With these issues stated above, why even have it?

LOL please get this in perspective, Bloodbowl is 11 players on the pitch + a few reserves, in terms of painting standards. That level is just a guide to make sure that you aren't playing against bare metal/plastic or primed models. It is variable.

It resolved sportsmanship scoring bearing almost zero impact on the eventual tournament results. With a scoring system in the 40 points for a win, 20 for a draw and 10 for less than 1 TD loss, the -1's or -2's from being a bad sport impact on results that are very close.

The people that are consistently getting these scores are generally pointed out to a tourney organiser who normally have a polite conversation with the individual at the end and if they can't shape up, then bar them from entering next time.

In all honesty the angst raised by the fear of TFG at tourneyments is not equal by a large margin to the reality of most tourney goers experience. I don't think fear should drive a tournament systems function. Design the system to cater for the vast majority. People who likes sportsmanship scoring...should be trying to win the sportsmanship award, which is a valid incentive to being a good sport.

Minmum behaviour standards and courtesies spealt out by a TO in a tourney pdf serve as the basis for arbitrary rulings should they be infringed.

Thank you BeefyG, finally someone managed to stop going in circles . . . my dizziness is receding.

Also you make a good point =] double win!

It's true that sportsmanship makes little or no difference to your eventual position. Maybe mid table . . . but generally I find that at the top there is a clear difference in scores.

Oshova