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.

So I should lead in with my own personal experience; yesterday I played a tournament, three rounds, and in each round you could get a maximum battle-score of 20 for a Major victory with two tertiary objectives completed. This was for a total of 60 possible points overall. However, the TO also had each game include a sportsmanship score, 1-2 being the person was one of the most rude people you'd ever play, and 9-10 being the best game you've ever played with someone. Needless to say, a lot of sour losers were putting 1's, and a lot of genuinely nice people just rated 10 to be kind and simple. I even gave an 8 to a player who was quite possibly one of the least likeable, most sore losers I've ever had the displeasure of battling (only to find he gave me a 6 for the simple reason of getting a major victory over him, even though I was incredibly helpful, lent him my tape measurer, held his templates, etc.) Come to find at the end of the tournament, the score was added into your battle-score, so if you scored perfectly, you'd get 60 points for your games, and 30 points for sportsmanship. Of course, this heavily influenced the overall winner of the tournament, which I find ridiculous, coming from competitive athletics all my life.

In my eyes, sportsmanship should not be included in rating of your performance in a game, especially in tournaments where your goal is literally to get a huge victory over your opponent. It especially should not be a third of each game's score. I believe, at most, sportsmanship should be a yes or no rating, and if a no is selected, the TO merely discusses it with the pair and sees if something can be resolved. A Good sportsman and average player should never be able to beat a Great player and sub-par sportsman; that is ridiculous and eliminates the objectivity of a tournament.

Granted, this was my first tournament, so I'm not sure if this is how it usually works, but I find this ridiculous. Am I crazy? Or do others agree?

I think it has a place, but not be a major factor in the final standings. I've been in a tournament where sportsmanship was its own award. Each player would pick the player they enjoyed playing against the most and whoever got the most won a prize. Also you could record your worst experience as well (optional) and if a player received too many "downvotes" they could be warned and then banned from future tournaments. (Usually receiving multiple votes across a few tournaments.) They have talked of forfeiting prize if people receive bad votes, but usually the best players are good people to play against and it won't affect the TFGs who don't win anything (which in my experience is usually the case.)

Sports scoring is tricky to implement well, but I think it has an important place in tournaments. I discuss the pros and cons of various systems in my article presenting my system.

Mannahnin wrote:Sports scoring is tricky to implement well, but I think it has an important place in tournaments. I discuss the pros and cons of various systems in my article presenting my system.

Excellent article, and exactly how I would have it scored.

I think it does help with some TFG syndrome, but I think it would be better to do it based on a 'best person/worst person of the tourney' type of award.

Sportsmanship shouldn't influence the final tournament result because it is far too vulnerable to manipulation.
Perhaps a separate category for the best sportsman might be better.

My system (and ones like it, such as the one Adepticon uses) has minimal exposure to manipulation. Most players are honest and reasonable, so we shouldn't have too much fear of a few jerks.

Sportsmanship has a very important place.

Sportsmanship as a soft-score bundled numerically in with everything else just becomes another mechanic.

The best way I've seen sportsmanship implemented is basically where people nominate their favorite opponent and favorite opponents get tickets for prizes. That way it's not something that can be tanked and you're providing an active incentive not to be an ass.

It is a good idea in theory, but it is so skewed by personal perception that the same action can easily be seen as sporting or unsporting:

Player doesn't learn the rules, is his opponent pointing out each error being a poor sport instead of rolling off constantly?

Is a player who rushes through their movement or rolling doing so because they have a horde and time is an issue, or trying to sneak some extra distance or flub rolls by not giving their opponent time to see each model move?

Is a player using a specific list that is legal but known to use a lot of 'under costed' units or specific combos not being sporting?

Is a player that accusing another of cheating being unsporting?

I can't see the scores ever reflecting true sportsmanship, but as an overall attempt to promote positive game play there isn't a better alternative.

Sportmanship scores can be a good thing but people tend to abuse them by intentionally giving people a significantly lower score in a game than they deserved in order to place better in a tournament. People also tend to give unfair scores because they didn't win or the game went poorly.

Ideally people would be good and honest and would score truthfully, but they aren't like that so sportmanship scores should not play a large role in tournament standings.

Scoring Sportsmanship points added into the overall score is a terrible way to score sportsmanship.

Sportsmanship should be its own category, so if you get someone that gives you a bad mark it does not go against the outcome of the actual game.

If people know sportsmanship goes against the total some will be more inclined to give a 6 where they would have otherwise have given a 7, 8, or 9 on the 1-10 scale.

This game relies on two people sorta-kinda getting along, and playing conventions can vary wildly from one group to another.

There needs to be some kind of official mechanism to prevent douche nozzles from ruining the experience for their opponents.

The system you had to use was too much though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I don't agree with sports scoring simply being a separate category. Too many players simply write it off and aim for the 'main' prize. IMO, the 'over-all' category needs to actually encompass everything the TO wants to rank. Usually battle score, paint score, sports score, and sometimes comp score.

My only complaint about sportsmanship scores is the generally very shoddy way in which they are executed.

TheCaptain wrote:sportsmanship should not be included in rating of your performance in a game

That entirely depends on your definition of performance.

If you determine "best" by exactly one metric - that of most games won - then literally any other consideration would be one that you would naturally consider to be pointless. Of course, if you determine "best" by any number of metrics, then said metrics would be relevant to the overall idea of performance.

The question, then, is what metrics should we use? I personally don't see the point of basing the sole determiner of a winner on a collection of the results of some games of chance, unless, of course, the only thing that constituted your idea of "best" was the person who was the luckiest over a couple of games of 40k. I mean, really, it's a matter of scale, not scope, if a tournament was just putting everybody at a table and rolling D6's in a series of roll-offs to see whose dice netted the highest score after five rolls.

Personally, I'd take a more comprehensive approach. 40k is a hobby and a social activity and a place to see how a few die show up. As such, a properly-executed sportsmanship score as well as painting and modelling would be a part of it. After all, how awesome your land raider looks is based on your skill as a painter. Whether you won a game by blowing up a land raider at the opportune time is based on the results of die rolls. If you want to make comprehensive skill the determiner of outcome, I'd certainly include more non-random elements.

The issue with including more non-random elements, such as sportsmanship, and composition, and painting, is they are subjective.

One person may view my Painting skills as a 8 on a 1-10 scale, whilst another views them as a 6.

It is fine to include those things if they are a separate category, but to include such a huge chunk of subjective points is insane. To have placed second in a tournament because the one TFG scored you a 1 out of 10 for sportsmanship, while the winner did not have to play TFG is ridiculous.

The middle of the road on Sportsmanship is a fuzzy area, but the common examples of "best and "worst" of player sportsmanship are the difference between me having fun playing or simply leaving a game halfway through.

Frankly the only thing that should matter to winning a tournament are the actual win.loss record. All the rest is too easy for asshats to manipulate out of spite when they lose.

AegisGrimm wrote:Frankly the only thing that should matter to winning a tournament are the actual win.loss record. All the rest is too easy for asshats to manipulate out of spite when they lose.

That's not a tournament I'd ever want to play in. People would be running down the clock, disputing rules decisions, using rubber rulers, and not even bothering to take the time to paint their models.

It is, of course, up to the tournament organisers to decide what the criteria will be, but IMO the best tournaments always have an over-all category which combines battle points, sports, painting, and sometimes comp scores.

How those scores are determined varies wildly, and always depends on good execution as well as good design, but they should always be represented in the over-all score.

Ailaros wrote:My only complaint about sportsmanship scores is the generally very shoddy way in which they are executed.

TheCaptain wrote:sportsmanship should not be included in rating of your performance in a game

That entirely depends on your definition of performance.

If you determine "best" by exactly one metric - that of most games won - then literally any other consideration would be one that you would naturally consider to be pointless. Of course, if you determine "best" by any number of metrics, then said metrics would be relevant to the overall idea of performance.

The question, then, is what metrics should we use? I personally don't see the point of basing the sole determiner of a winner on a collection of the results of some games of chance, unless, of course, the only thing that constituted your idea of "best" was the person who was the luckiest over a couple of games of 40k. I mean, really, it's a matter of scale, not scope, if a tournament was just putting everybody at a table and rolling D6's in a series of roll-offs to see whose dice netted the highest score after five rolls.

Personally, I'd take a more comprehensive approach. 40k is a hobby and a social activity and a place to see how a few die show up. As such, a properly-executed sportsmanship score as well as painting and modelling would be a part of it. After all, how awesome your land raider looks is based on your skill as a painter. Whether you won a game by blowing up a land raider at the opportune time is based on the results of die rolls. If you want to make comprehensive skill the determiner of outcome, I'd certainly include more non-random elements.

I just seem to find these ideas too broad to be clumped into one score. I'm all for having scores for painting, winning, and sportsmanship, but they should be separate. I understand your view of 40k as purely luck-based, though I disagree with it on the grounds of list-writing, unit positioning, etc. but even then, the winner being the luckiest player should be a separate award from the best painter and the best sportsman. I don't even feel painting skill should hold grounds in a tournament. Sure, only allow painted armies, or make unpainted pay extra, but painting skill should just be separate. Period. It would be cool for tournaments to ALSO hold a best painted competition, because everybody already has their stuff there, and more winners the better; but if two great players have differing skills at painting, their scores should be unaffected. It is, afterall, a 40k playing competition, when you get down to it. Unless I am missing the fine print where I've been playing in 40k tournaments of how good you are at the Hobby overall, how you play the game, how you act while you play it, and how you prepare (paint/model) the army deserve their own competition.

I must admit thats a pretty bad system, easily abused and not very accurate

and to have it affect who actually wins is terrible

Sportsmanship system should potentially be a separate score, a score that has such a major impact on who wins and loses

Tournaments should have : best general (most points), most sporting (assign 3/2/1 pts secretly in order of preference), best painted and best overall.

So dicks can be dicks and go for best general, the rest of us can have fun

TheCaptain wrote:Unless I am missing the fine print where I've been playing in 40k tournaments of how good you are at the Hobby overall, how you play the game, how you act while you play it, and how you prepare (paint/model) the army deserve their own competition.

Well, it's determined by the ethic of the tournament. If a tournament bills itself as games won ONLY, then it would be immoral (rather than just a bad idea) to take into account any information other than who won which games, and have that matter for the ultimate result.

Lots of possible ethics. Lots of possible tournament setups. I guess the only real advice I can give is to avoid playing at tournaments that don't line up with what you think the point of a tournament should be.

That or expand your ethos. Either way.

Events that don't let sportsmanship affect the score of the game all have one thing in common; judges present during the entire game.

Soccer have three judges.
Due to the increased speed and rapid nature of Football they have seven.
Cricket requires two.
Chess even have an adjudicator and/or arbiter (powermaul not included) present

That way any bad sportsmanship can be easily detected and dealt with accordingly.
Trying to determine sportsmanship AFTER the game while looking back is exceedingly hard to do without bias, and using that to affect the score is close to impossible to do impartially.
Letting the players do it.......is sheer folly.

I'm am a strong proponent of judging sportsmanship (during the game), and this should be done by judges present at the table.

Tournaments need to supply more judges (and on a personal note, they bloody well need to supply proper (amounts of) terrain as well.).

Such judges can maybe each oversee up to four tables, not only settling rules disputes, but also listening to/looking in on the game and judge sportsmanship.

Yes, I realize that this is placing an additional demand on TOs, but thems the breaks.


...

TheCaptain wrote:I'm all for having scores for painting, winning, and sportsmanship, but they should be separate.

Talamare wrote:Sportsmanship system should potentially be a separate score

In my experience, not linking sports and painting to the over-all score simply encourages people to ignore those criteria.

Yeah, pretty much.

"oh, you say that there are these other things that have no impact on whether I win the tournament or not? Ignoring...

Ignoring...

Ignored!"

Sportsmanship is excellent in tournaments as a separate category. In larger events it wouldn't be practical to do, but at a FLGS scale its not bad. I could be biased since I recently won that category myself at a tournament

I really don't like the idea of it affecting who is the best general overall though. At a tourney I expect the grand prize winner to have out played all his opponents. I don't care if he's an ass or not, it'll just make it more satisfying to take him down next time if he is.

Tournaments should have minimum standards for painted units (3 colors is common, or was at one point. I haven't paid attention to it lately) so how good it looks shouldn't factor in either.

I guess the search function is down, otherwise the other 75 threads about this would have been found.

Sportsmanship scores *should* be a good thing, however, they just become a way to ding an opponent for no apparent reason.

In my experience, the more granulated sportsmanship is, the more full of bull it is. The best I've seen have three categories:

"This person was great, my favorite opponent of the tournament."
-you only get to give this score once.

"This person amicably followed the rules, didn't stall for time, was open and forthright about rules, and had good personal hygiene."

"I had a serious problem with this person. Total jackass."
-this selection would require an explanation to the TO about what was wrong with how that person played.

The TO's personal preference can weight these answers to Battle Points how he or she sees fit, but it leaves less of a window for downscoring someone just because you can.

Often if sportsmanship and painting are separate categories, they get much smaller prizes than first and second place winners do, usually on a par with third place.

Suppose Gaming, Painting/Modelling and Sportsmanship were all separate categories with equal prize money (or cash equivalents) for each. Then there would be incentive to be a good sport and have a well presented army as well as to win.

And/or you could say that if any player got a (secret) blackball for sportsmanship in all of his games (or perhaps in 4/5, possibly even in 3/5), then he is automatically disqualified. That would be a powerful disincentive to playing to win at all costs but would also not allow too much easy manipulation (if only one or two people are balckballing you, you're fine).

Well, my personal feelings are that tournaments shouldn't be offering $$$ as prizes to begin with as all it does is to heavily encourage mercenary attitudes...

IMHO, a great tournament does the following;
a) Actual GW product is raffled off as door prizes. Now there's no reason to go out an be a donkey cave about winning every game and/or dinging opponent's to get ahead. If you want a better shot at a particular prize, then buy more raffle tickets!

b) Sportsmanship & painting scores have clearly marked descriptions per option. So for example, the one tourny I routinely play marks sportsmanship as such;
1-5pts for being a good person with a few words describing things like 1 = guy was a huge TFG, 2 = disagreements were hard to settle, likely wouldn't play this guy again, 3 = good, average game, 4 = great game, 5 = best game you've had in a long while!
1-5pts for army comp, which basically comes down to 'was this army a great example of the army's background' down to 'was this army designed purely to win games with no recourse for its established background'.
Low scores also requires the player to write down a quick few comments about why they scored so low. (ie: 'Bob' argued all game long about my army's special rules, made snide remarks, and complained every time the dice didn't go his way... Or else 'Joe was giant donkey-cave who abused a rule to stop me from putting a single model on the table for default 'win'... etc...)

Painting is exactly the same, with upto 30pts availible and easy to understand descriptions for gaining pts. For example, 0pts would be if there were primed/unpainted models. +1pts for 3 colours and bases unfinished, +pts for using a wash, +pts for being neat and tidy, +pts for highlighting, etc...
A basic solidly 'average' painter could easily earn a 15-20/30 for just basecoating neatly, using a wash, adding some drybrushed highlights and neatly basing their models! (seriously, it's not that hard to do!)

c) Offers seperate awards/throphies for each category. So the painters can go for 'best appearence', the competitive guys can slug it out for 'best general', etc... Then the 'best overall' is whoever scores highest across all the categories because they represent & encompass 'the entire hobby'.
Sportsmanship scores for example have no effect on the guys who want to be the outright winningest competitor, except perhaps as a tie-breaker if needs be, while a pure painter who wins no games isn't going to get the overall award just because they're golden demon painters!



I personally hate tournaments that place highest/only importance on just winning as it simply encourages douchebagery to gain that extra edge. Also the fact that there's nothing more depressing than showing up to an event I've paid money to enter, travel too, hotel costs, etc... only to sit across the table from a horde of unpainted/half-painted armies while I've spent months preparing my army! (to me it just feels like my opponent has no respect as they don't feel it's important to put the same effort into finishing their half of the game/experience).