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.

IMO, effective Comp results in de-correlation between Army & Battle, along with Army & popularity.

That is, if Comp works, then
- specific Armies aren't taken for power,
- specific Armies don't provide any net advantage

Looking at the Crossroads example, Army popularity is like this:
10 Daemons
10 LM
8 DE
8 WoC
6 VC

5 Dwarf
5 WE
4 Empire

3 HE
3 Gnoblar
3 O&G
2 CD
1 BoC
1 Bret
1 Skaven
1 TK
NO DoW

4 "Top Tier" armies of "Big 3" (DoC, VM, LM) plus DE, it's 34 - fully 50% of the field. People brought power with them, and as expected, they overperformed to take most of the top 10 spots for Battle, top Battle score, and top Overall score.

5 "Bottom Tier" armies (BoC, CD, DoW, O&G, OK) were only 9 total armies (1, 2, 0, 3, 3 respectively), or just over 10% of the field. Not a single one piloted to a Top 10 Battle score.

No surprises, but the Judged Comp didn't really influence things, IMO.

Not to mention the comp at Crossroads had some problems...For instance, the judges knew who's list they were judging...And there were rumors of collusion to bring down certain people's scores. And there were definite biases.

It's possible to have thematic and viable lists. Comps scores are great in theory but I do agree they do make it harder for certain lists. Cult CSM come to mind.

I love the sportsmanship approach and how they did it at adepticon. We tried the adepticon approach at the last doubles tournament at my flgs and it went extremely well. Best sportsmen took 2nd place and their armies were ranked highest in comp.

What's the actual method by which comp was judged at the Crossroads? I couldn't find it anywhere, other than a reference to a list being created to give people an idea of what the judge is thinking.

There were a group of 8-9 judges and they were given the army, who's playing it, and what club they were from at least a month in advance and they gave a subjective rating out of 20.

I'm not sure who the judges were, I believe all were playing in the tourney and several were from the same club.

Wait... the judges were in the tourney and several were from the same club? That smacks of not only allowing but encouraging collusion in comp scoring.

skyth wrote:There were a group of 8-9 judges and they were given the army, who's playing it, and what club they were from at least a month in advance and they gave a subjective rating out of 20.

I'm not sure who the judges were, I believe all were playing in the tourney and several were from the same club.

Sounds like something those trolls from Arvard Ard Boys would do.

Polonius wrote:What's the actual method by which comp was judged at the Crossroads?

I couldn't find it anywhere, other than a reference to a list being created to give people an idea of what the judge is thinking.

As I understand it, it's entirely subjective scores from secret panel of local Judges. This combines the advantages of subjectivity, arbitrariness, and secrecy. Plus, it allows the TO to assign Comp to pair players in the first round. Oh, yeah, as it's a panel, this further allows the locals to review incoming lists and tailor them against them.

If the data were available, it would have been amusing to test the correlation of Comp vs distance traveled, to see how much the judges biased their scores in favor of locals that they know. I would suspect that there would be a strong negative correlation between the two, such that local players got much higher scores compared to out-of-towners.

While opponent-scored subjective Comp has some problems, at least, he had to have looked you in the eye at some point...

Very few of the judges were local. As opposed to previous years, when it was the TO and one local friend of his who did the scoring. The judges were not actually secret, though not specifically announced. I could tell you who most of them are easily enough.

It was a notable surprise and oversight that the comp scoring was not anonymous; that's being corrected for next time. That said, there were very few and pretty small scoring anomalies. The comp judges were all required to submit their lists and be scored prior to seeing anyone else's lists.

@Mannahnin: Thanks for the information.

The key point I was making was a lack of transparency to outsiders, intentional or overlooked.

Without transparency, people will easily assume the worst, which is where I was poking towards.

That is why, subjective, opponent-scored Comp, while certainly problematic, at least you know who's scoring you. Sure, there are guys who'll shake your hand and smile as they stab you in the back, but at least you know who they are.

I'm in favor of open, transparent Comp, whether subjective or objective - at least let people know where they stand as the scores go out.

Yes, it's more upfront work on the TO, but it simplifies things by reducing some amount of grousing and questioning afterwards.

Or better yet, how about just not having any comp scores at all?

Looks like the main reason people don't like comp systems is because there are some people who will give you a lower score because of spite. Though a valid concern, that's not a comp system problem, per se, but it's a problem with sore losers / TFG types.

I don't have too much problem with comp scores, personally. Most of the time they're worth so few points that it doesn't really affect the outcome (painting and sportsmanship are usually worth a significant amount more). If you completely stomp all your opponents and a tournament and have at least passable painting and good sportsmanship, your comp score is probably not going to make you lose that "Best Overall" / "Best General" place. And if, for some reason, you are tied with another person on every category except for comp, and he beats you. Well, fair play to him, then. Nothing to get in a huff about.

The simplest solution is: If you don't like comp scores, don't play in tournaments that have them. Not trying to come off as rude or "elitist" in this. If something bothers you enough, you have every right not to participate. That said, I wouldn't lose any sleep if I went to a tournament that didn't have comp scores, as long as it had painting and sportsmanship scores, as I feel those are more important. Someone who really loves fluff etc, will bring a themed list regardless and the same will be said for someone who is just playing for "Best General".

Zomro wrote:Looks like the main reason people don't like comp systems is because there are some people who will give you a lower score because of spite. Though a valid concern, that's not a comp system problem, per se, but it's a problem with sore losers / TFG types.

It's also a problem which will never go away. It exists in sports scoring too.

However, a mathematical scoring system removes that objection.

I have been victim to comp scoring before in the past, and I have to say in most cases its like assigning yourself free points by marking down your opponent. In most cases there is no oversight, and you score your opponent for each match. Play 5 matches, score your foes with a 1 out of 10 and you have effectively taken any/all of them out of the running; and if if they score you even remotely fairly (with say a 5) well then the problem simply compounds itself.

I give most players 9 of 10 unless they show a good amount of variety or their list didn't have any cohesiveness when it played out (10 -7 pts), if the army was just 6 units of Type A with Special Character X, well then I would probably mark low for originality. Problem is its still completely subjective and in many cases nothing prevents you from being the asshat, scoring others low to move yourself up the ladder.

Composition judgment should be done once, prior to any battles (much like a painting adjudication), preferably by the judges not the other players; if by the players then provide a sort of checklist to prevent people from being asshats because they have a bad matchup against said army.

If my opponent was playing 2 nob biker squads and lootas, it shouldn't mean that he has bad comp. same if he has a Nidzilla list or Seer Council or TH/SS terms.

I posted this in another thread, but it bears repeating here:

So I played in a tournament this weekend at the FLGS. I got the Bye second round because someone got sick and went home, so I had the option of playing the TO, with the worst result I could get being a tie, or just to take the tie straight up. This tourney had a sportsmanship score, including a few bonus points for having a "balanced" list (with a few specific criteria given). I decide to play the TO. He informs me that his list is no way balanced. Whatever, that's fine, even though I held to the stupid balance rules and hurt my list off the bat. We play and I scoop at one point because I'm really just getting toasted and I hate my "balanced" list. Come to the end of the tournament, I'm missing 3 points from the max sportsmanship score. I'm friends with everyone I played, so I know I got 10 points from them, saw them write it down myself, so I asked them to make sure and they all confirmed. The TO who wasn't even competing in the tournament dinged me on sportsmanship. WTF? Had this been for a top 3 spot I would have cared more, but it made the difference between top 50% or bottom 50%. Needless to say, I'm done with those tournaments.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Zomro wrote:Looks like the main reason people don't like comp systems is because there are some people who will give you a lower score because of spite. Though a valid concern, that's not a comp system problem, per se, but it's a problem with sore losers / TFG types.

It's also a problem which will never go away. It exists in sports scoring too.

However, a mathematical scoring system removes that objection.

Of course, it also goes away in a system where judges score the lists before the tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Mannahnin: Thanks for the information.

The key point I was making was a lack of transparency to outsiders, intentional or overlooked.

Without transparency, people will easily assume the worst, which is where I was poking towards.

Absolutely.

JohnHwangDD wrote:That is why, subjective, opponent-scored Comp, while certainly problematic, at least you know who's scoring you. Sure, there are guys who'll shake your hand and smile as they stab you in the back, but at least you know who they are.

True enough, though I like that judge-scored comp removes one chipmunking option, and it's the one more easily explained away as having different standards about what constitutes a "compy" list.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm in favor of open, transparent Comp, whether subjective or objective - at least let people know where they stand as the scores go out.

Yes, it's more upfront work on the TO, but it simplifies things by reducing some amount of grousing and questioning afterwards.

Yeah. Crossroads gives everyone their scores at check-in. If a list is being scored at the very bottom, they also offer the player the option to change it beforehand. The grousing and questioning has always been very mild at Crossroads, because the TO is very organized, knows his stuff, and is very well-respected in the Northeast Indy GT circuit. This year Comp was pretty close to dead-on. Virtually everyone I talked to in the hall thought their list was scored a point or two low, on a twenty point scale. That's pretty darn consistent. There were a couple of outliers, like the guy with the zombie dragon who probably deserved higher, but they were rare.

Comp is tough to get right. I really appreciate it when people do it well.

Judge-based scoring allows a different way to chipmunk people they don't like or that they think stand a chance of beating them also.

The 1000 gnoblar list also was scored too high at Crossroads. No way a massive point-denial army deserves perfect comp. If the units had banners, then I would say yes it did.

The only fair comp scoring is using a checklist that is available before hand (WPS comes to mind).

KingCracker wrote:Im not a tournament type of player. And I read the battle reports and such often. I hear people talking about comp scores and they actually have something to do with winning. What the hell is a comp score? And what do you need to do to get a decent one?

Comp is a handicap system that makes it so powerful lists start with a penalty.

In order to get a good comp score you have to make a list that your judge will not realize is strong.

frgsinwntr wrote:
Comp is a handicap system that makes it so powerful lists start with a penalty.

In order to get a good comp score you have to make a list that your judge will not realize is strong.

That's a really good point. Or on the opposite, avoid creating a list that the judge thinks is strong. I suppose that system can penalize "net lists", that are basically copies of effective builds.

So, maybe comp can be done with a panel of judges, a month lead time, and efforts to include judges that aren't local. For big events, it looks good, I don't know how doable that is for smaller events.

For very small events, (as in less than 12 or so people), I say just have everybody look at the rosters, and rank the comp of every army at the tournament, from hardest to fluffiest. Add up the ranks for every army, divide by some factor, and that's the adjusted comp score. So, if my army was ranked 4, 6, 2, 1, 3, 4, 2, and 4 I would have a total of 26 comp points. Figure out some way to convert that to whatever system you're using, and add it in.