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 see, I see.

So the GW scene reinforced my viewpoint, correct?

Pika_power wrote:I see, I see.

So the GW scene reinforced my viewpoint, correct?

I don't know. What is your viewpoint?

The biggest issues I have with Comp scoring are that it is too subjective and it creates an imbalance in scoring. What does a WAAC/OTT/OP list look like?

Is Landraider spam WAAC/OTT/OP?

Is Terminator spam WAAC/OTT/OP?

Is Dreadnought spam WAAC/OTT/OP?


Black Templar have LRC as a standard option for their Troops choice-- does taking 4 or 5 Troops choices in a standard dedicated transport make a list unfluffy or WAAC/OTT/OP?

Dark Angels can take Terminators as Troops-- does taking 3 or 4 Troops choices make their list unfluffy or WAAC/OTT/OP?

Orks can field 2 Deff Dreads as Troops choices-- does taking several dreads make their list unfluffy or WAAC/OTT/OP?

All three of those lists are codex legal, have a basis on the fluff, and meet the blindly objective Comp rubrics some people propose (40% Troops, etc...).


There's no way to create a useful, objective Comp standard, short of going Codex by Codex and weighing the values of things or imposing penalties for taking different units-- on the plus side, someone has done this for us already!

It's called points values and FOC. Any other Comp system is going to just introduce an additional, artificial, and inherently biased/unfair points skewing.
---------------------------

Sportsmanship should certainly be scored each round by the opponent (with judge oversight)- but should not exceed 10% of total scoring. Painting... eh. There should DEFINITELY be a standard for playing-- we don't let people play with proxies or unassembled models. Requiring a minimum paint job (3 colors, e.g.) for fielding a model should be par for the course. If you must have points scored for this category, use a standard rubric, and judge scored to avoid as much bias as possible.

I agree with many of the above posters that playing the game is the reason people go to tourneys. It's disingenuous to claim otherwise. I can paint my models and play friendly games without having to pay an entry fee. People are paying for the chance to compete. People shouldn't be penalized for not being great painters-- if there's an effort made, and I don't have to play the grey legion, then all is right in the world.

Edit for spelling[i]

Comp scores are silly for a clear reason. Consider the tournament scene to be a pond. Now consider each list to be a fish, with the strength of the list determining their size. We now have a pond with various sized fish, with the bigger ones preying on the smaller. If we remove all the big fish, the medium sized fish begin to dominate, and all we've achieved is lessening the variety in the pond.

I'm not sure I see how comp creates more "varied" armies. If you're not allowed to duplicate (or "spam") units then everyone's going to be running a list that looks pretty much the same anyway, with one of everything except troops.

I just don't get it I guess. And maybe I don't want to. :\

I've gone to a couple comp-heavy tournaments, and all my opponents just blurred together (Marines with little variation...)

Three quick comments:
1. Comp. Just get rid of it outright. It has no place in a competitive tournament.
2. Sport. Get rid of it but read the riot act at the beginning of the tournament and have judges that are EXTREMELY proactive in
watchinig games. Have a yellow/red card system. A yellow card is a warning and a red card means you are out. Yellow card people for declaring that they can pop smoke in the wrong turn phase, failing to roll for reserves, etc...or even for arguing about rules and being wrong. Fire off a few yellow cards in the first round and people will get the message quickly.
3. Painting etc. Give a tropy for best painted but do not award any points for it. Treat as a non-competitive, completely unrelated prize. Rather demand that all armies be painted and based and again have the judges be proactive and remove unpainted models. In many tournaments judges just sit on their asses or chat with a friend. They need to on the floor going from table to table.

In my opinon:

Painting scores:
Should be min 3 colours, based etc to be allowed to play.
Should be scored by a judge for a smaller prize, but is seperate from the main games

Sports:
Rank opponants in order. Either seperate prize or ~10% of overall.

Comp:
Not sold on this. If you can get a system that works, use it for ~10% OR to place 1st round opponants.



On a slightly different track, what do you think the best method of scoring battle points is?
Win/Draw/Lose
Massicare/Major/Minor/Draw
Points for Primary, Secondry, Tertery

I probably lean more towards the PST method, with something like 15/8/4 and 3 one point objectives.

This allows you to have a wide range of possible scores (to allow clear differences between the places) and means the entire battle isnt fought over 1 central objective. One part of the PST would always be objectives/table quaters and one KP/VP. This encorages more balanced lists and discorages deathstars, as you need to forfill more missions at once. I alos think it makes for more varied, interesting and balanced missions. The 3x1point parts allow a minor peice of psudio-comp (ie Kill all the enemies FA) and can be a bit of (nearly harmless) fun.

I have played the full gamut of scoring styles, with only the proposed 'no overall' being one I have yet to play (that will change in 2 weeks, as a FLGS is doing just that - no overall and one award for each of Battle, Sports and Appearance -- same prize).

For the most part I have fun and attend tournaments regardless of scoring systems. I think the only thing I really don't care for is subjectively scored comp and theme and any tournament that has Battle way below 50% of overall (eg I would not spend money to attend Broadside bash or a similar event)

For the common categories:

--Battle should be 50% or more of an overall score.

I prefer missions that differ from the book ones. Ones that have a story or theme to them are the best in my opinion.

I dislike single objective missions that rank points by massacre, major, minor etc (eg late 3ed most of 4ed GT style). Also many of the ard boy missions were horrible and marketing guys should not be writing missions.

--In my opinion comp is uneccesary in 5ed.

However I do attend and love astronomicon, which uses a pretty simple math comp score. I don't think their method rates armies effectively but it plays a part in the meta, determines matchups, is less the 10% of overall -- so it makes the tournament interesting but doesn't overly screw people and their armies.

--In my opinion theme should be limited in its effect on scoring.

Favorite army is the best place for it -- if you really like a theme you can vote them your fav army. Happens all the time.

Another place you could place theme scoring is in points for creative army lists (not comp but in how the army list is presented, looks, creativity, theme, etc).

Astronomicon has a small score and a prize for the best army list. This allows for alot of theme to be displayed clearly and effectively without subjective scoring of the army selections themeselves.

--Sportsmanship is kind of a silly thing to rank, rate and score. Prizes for them are even more strange to me.

That said most of my tourney awards are best sportsmanship That might be why the idea of a sports score is so strange to me -- because I am not the type of person the system is geared toward. I don't need a carrot to behave in a sporting fashion.

If you are gonna score it though, I think the voting and or ranking of your oppents from most fav to least is the best way to do it. Hard on a TO at a large tournament but is the best, least controverial way to score it and does away with the all points problem and limits chimpmunking for the most part.

--Appearance. Combination player judged and TO judged checklist, normalized and with highest and lowest score tossed out would be the most ideal way to do it. If that isn't possible then just 3 TO judges normalized would work ok. Pure player scored doesn't work in my experience.

Big events should have a 3 color minimum policy -- only exceptions are for emergencies and things of that nature. I don't pay a large entree fee, travel and hotel expenses to play unpainted armies.

--Overall I think should be a prize but should have equal weighting with other categories if at all possible. Meaning the prize should be the same all around. Impossible to do if on the circuit though. If I were running a circuit event I would make overall 1st, 2nd and 3rd a trophy and 1st and 2nd getting the golden ticket. Those 3 would then be eligible for the category awards should they earn them (and any monetary prizes would reside there)

Black Antelope wrote:Sports:
Rank opponants in order. Either seperate prize or ~10% of overall.

On a slightly different track, what do you think the best method of scoring battle points is?
Win/Draw/Lose
Massicare/Major/Minor/Draw
Points for Primary, Secondry, Tertery

Only problem with the "rank opponents" method is that you are forced to ping someone. I can have 5 good games over two days, all highly enjoyable. But I would have to give one of my opponent's the bottom score for 1 point (assuming 5-1 scale). Now if someoen deserves to be docked points, I'll dock them. And usually not too bashful about telling the judges why, either.

I've grown to like the P/S/T system. Makes it harder, especially for my gunline IG, but that's OK.

don_mondo wrote:

I've grown to like the P/S/T system. .

P/S/T?

Sorry, I was referencing the quoted text from Black Antelope's post, Primary, Secondary, Tertiary objectives.

Ah, gotcha.

Yeah, I've been a fan of that for Battle Points, too. Helps to spread the field out a bit in 1-day 3 rounders.

On Sportsmanship...

Let me throw this out, I like to have the highest score for sportsmanship awarded based upon the criteria was this your most favorite game ever. How many opponents deserve the "best game ever" mark? Honestly, one possibly every few tourneys. This not only prevents ties but helps to avoid chipmunking... that one guy who always tanks everyones scores. I also feel its a good way for gamers to know how good of a sport they are. In the old RTT way I always got full scores. Now if we someone hand out five best games ever we know something is up.

The old systems were pure politics... now we have to consider what is a good sportsmen and to what level - fair play, courtesy.....if you're straight OWNing your opponent then maybe in the spirit of being a good sport you show them some courtesy of backing off a notch later in the game to ensure they have a chance to also enjoy the game. Exhibit a level of fair play and an attitude considered as befitting both participants.

G

Sportsmanship is tough. I often see “best game ever” listed as the top mark, but then in the results I can often see that it is apparently being given away like candy. So people clearly often don’t even read the sheets.

One system I think is pretty good is what Adepticon (and some other events; like tournaments I’ve run) use, which is to give a list of check marks of specific good or bad behaviors or qualities. It’s easier to give a yes or no answer to stuff like “did the guy stall” or “was he cursing or whining about his dice luck” than to differentiate between an abstract 3 or 4 on a sliding scale of 1-5, much less a 7 or 8 on a ten point scale.

Another one I’ve heard good things about is a simple Pass/Fail, or one question “Was this guy a jerk?” system. You can either do it on a straight scale (like -2pts per opponent who checks it), or a progressive scale- like 1 check = 1pt off; anyone can have a bad game. 2 checks = 3pts off; not looking good. 3 checks = 9pts off; good chances this guy is really a jerk. You can also say that anyone getting more than “x” number of checks is ineligible to win any prizes, and anyone getting ALL checks is invited not to come back to the event. In this kind of a system it’s a good idea to ask players to explain the downcheck to a judge, and/or for judges to keep an eye on the table of anyone who’s gotten “Bad Sportman” marks, to see how bad the problem really is.

Either of the above systems can also be accompanied by requiring every player to award a “favorite opponent” vote at the end of the event, and giving a bonus point (or more, depending on the total scoring scale) for each vote you get.

don_mondo wrote:Only problem with the "rank opponents" method is that you are forced to ping someone. I can have 5 good games over two days, all highly enjoyable. But I would have to give one of my opponent's the bottom score for 1 point (assuming 5-1 scale). Now if someoen deserves to be docked points, I'll dock them. And usually not too bashful about telling the judges why, either.

This. Why should any of my opponents get low marks if they were all great sports? A player should only get bad marks for sports if they were a BAD sport.

@GBF what the hell are you doing starting a meaningful insightful thread? Can't you just post more about stelek trolls?

Seriously though. I agree that sportsmanship is kinda broken. I also think it should be an only positive thing, as in "I had such a great time playing this person that they should get recognition for it." And that would make a great tie breaker and maybe warrant a special shout-out if one person gets that comment from all his opponents (As happened last year at Battle For Stones River).

The Green Git wrote:

don_mondo wrote:Only problem with the "rank opponents" method is that you are forced to ping someone. I can have 5 good games over two days, all highly enjoyable. But I would have to give one of my opponent's the bottom score for 1 point (assuming 5-1 scale). Now if someoen deserves to be docked points, I'll dock them. And usually not too bashful about telling the judges why, either.

This. Why should any of my opponents get low marks if they were all great sports? A player should only get bad marks for sports if they were a BAD sport.

Agreed completely! I used this system at my last GT and found it is not fair to outsiders.

G

The Green Git wrote:

This. Why should any of my opponents get low marks if they were all great sports? A player should only get bad marks for sports if they were a BAD sport.

This type system is usually not tallied into Overall Points, but is used to determine Best Sportsman. I really like it, as it means you can still determine who was the best/worst sports, as someone consistently ranked last will obviously have been a less-than-great game.

In a perfect world with everyone in attendance being a great sport, the scores are likely to be muddled... but that's a problem I'd invite with aplomb. For most tourneys, it works out well-- you know who people enjoyed playing against the most, and you know who people enjoyed playing against least.

The next painting contest I go to better have a "how competitive is this unit" score to completely undermine it's purpose too

That's circular reasoning, I think. You're assuming your preferred definition of a tournament as being what a GW tournament should be. Of course you're perfectly welcome to run or attend events which only reward the Battles part of the game, but that doesn't automatically make it the standard.

It happens to turn out that most players want painting to be recognized and factored in too, and a good percentage like Sports and Comp to matter as well, because the GW hobby is about all of these things, and we'd prefer to recognize and reward people who embody all of these qualities, not just guys who crush on the table regardless of their painting skills or their attitude toward their opponent.

I had a good time at 'Ard Boyz last year. Most of my opponents were good guys and fun to play against, even without any Sports scoring. But I still saw more shadiness and attempted shananigans there than at any three or four normal events with Sports scoring.

Mannahnin wrote:, and a good percentage like Sports and Comp to matter as well, because the GW hobby is about all of these things,

I don't know that the GW hobby has anything to do with Comp...

The rest of your points are well taken, though. I think paint should be scored separately, but that it should also be required, i.e., no paint, no play.

I had a great time at 'ard boyz, too. Only one guy, in the semis, was douchey, and he was (luckily!) at a different table. The finals were great-- mostly painted lists, everyone was friendly, even going into the final round (lost to the guy that took 3rd).

skyth wrote:One problem with soft scoring, specifically in sportsmanship, is that the scores don't vary much...People automatically mark full points sometimes, sometimes they don't...But there is little variance in the scores in general.

A possible way to fix this is to have a ranking given rather than a rating...IE rank the players that you fought against.

I agree completely, among competitive players it is customary to simply mark full points. The competitive player doesn't mind if his opponent isn't a great guy to play and doesn't want to get chipmunked so often marks full points in view of his opponent. I've only played 2-3 people who forced me to take a look at the sheet and score them honestly. Even then the best I could do was give them a 7-8 out of 10. It's very rare to find someone who is actually unpleasant enough that they need to be scored. Generally I don't really care because they have to live their life and I feel that is punishment enough.

Most of the soft scoring in tournaments is arbitrary or in the case of judges painting mistakes can be made by judges who are short on time. If you spend some time with the judge going over your figures you are almost guaranteed to get a higher score than if he looks at them alone. And there is nothing much good to be said about scoring for theme, comp and sports.

I really like a ranking system for all soft scores(like you have a 1,2,3,4 and 5 to give to each of your 5 opponents). Every local tournament where we ranked opponents for sports worked very well. Now you are competing and it should bring out the best in people. This system is still problematic though because you would have to have it done at the end of the tournament and not all or even half of the people will stick around to do it.

However it would work very well for non-opponents walking around and using these numbers to vote for their favorite armies in multiple categories like theme, painting, and even composition.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hulksmash wrote:I actually find it silly that someone who doesn't place in the top 4 of any category can walk away with a ticket to Vegas. Especially in a tournament with 15 swing points at the end for "favorite" votes (i.e. opponent, army, theme).

Yeah I don't know, if it was like Willy Wonka and we were going to the design studio and going to get to ride in a Titan than ok 2 tickets per tournament. As it stands it is a ridiculously small amount of people. Why limit the number of people if you aren't flying them to the event, you aren't putting them up and you are going to rent an entire ballroom anyways? Need some more terrain? Go ahead and make some them. You are a multi-million dollar corporation you can afford it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kirasu wrote:Equal prizes is a very good way to also quietly discourage super competitive people from attending..

Prizes aren't much of a factor in 40k tournaments. There aren't many prizes, and often times the kits are for factions you might not even play. There are also very few money prizes.

Competitive players play simply for the sake of competing. They aren't licking their chops over undisclosed types and amounts of loot.

Nicorex wrote: But one Tourny I attended really sticks with me, They used all the same rules as a standerd GW National tourny(at the time, this was a few years ago) with one major change. All armys have to have 50% or more dedicated to Troops.

This still screws Necrons and it probably changes the viability of certain armies. Like if you play Dark Eldar or Tau you might need to seriously add or alter your list just to make it legal.

If there is some change to the FoC for a tournament I would prefer that all non-troop units are unique. This would also satisfy alot of the hobbyists and fluff lovers. At this point you no longer really need theme or comp.

@ WC_Brian

I wish I was lucky as you. I have played my share of arseholes at big events. They have it coming.

About Necrons... do you really see someone winning best overall or best general with Necrons at a big competitive event? I mean be really honest about it. Anyone bringing Crons are self-gimping.

G

So, why not alter Comp to put Necrons at an even playing level?

Adjusting the scores amounts to cooking the books. It's not cool.

The thing about Necrons is except possibly for Walter in ATL nobody that is a competitive player is going to bring them to a GT. So complaining about how the Necrons get the shaft due to comp is not a sound argument when you take a wider view of winning at a GT.

G

Some people might feel that one cool thing for a tournament to do is to give a reason for people to bring the "weaker" armies, as this will make the play experience more varied and interesting, and therefore more fun!

If you know that a given army sucks out loud, adjusting scoring ahead of time to give them a handicap is not an unreasonable response.

"Cooking the books" means manipulating numbers in a deceptive way to achieve a dishonest/fraudulent result.

As long as you publish the rules ahead of time and the players understand what's happening, no deception and no fraud is taking place.

But I thought the whole thing with embracing all aspects of the hobby was to discourage the pure-competition crowd. If Necrons, out of the gate, have no chance of winning, shouldn't a full-hobby scoring system take this into account, to encourage all parts of the hobby to be expressed?

I am hoping that the new Necron codex they get Green Lantern as a stargod... it's just so darn fluffy...



But seriously 5th edition wrecked their shat...

Mannahnin wrote:Some people might feel that one cool thing for a tournament to do is to give a reason for people to bring the "weaker" armies, as this will make the play experience more varied and interesting, and therefore more fun!

If you know that a given army sucks out loud, adjusting scoring ahead of time to give them a handicap is not an unreasonable response.

"Cooking the books" means manipulating numbers in a deceptive way to achieve a dishonest/fraudulent result.

As long as you publish the rules ahead of time and the players understand what's happening, no deception and no fraud is taking place.

The problem with this is if someone does bring an actually competive list (Necrons for example) and then you would be giving them an unfair advantage. Damned if you do and damned if you dont...

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Adjusting the scores amounts to cooking the books. It's not cool.

The thing about Necrons is except possibly for Walter in ATL nobody that is a competitive player is going to bring them to a GT. So complaining about how the Necrons get the shaft due to comp is not a sound argument when you take a wider view of winning at a GT.

G

A) I'm not complaining. I'm going to point out the flaws in any proposal so people can see what the pros and cons are. I'm trying to help the conversation you started.

B) What is the point of trying to make a good system for tournaments when your perspective is Necrons are just bad anyways. I guess you just aren't trying.

I find your statement to simply lack merit. You often respond to statements as if you are defending your way of doing things when we aren't talking about your tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I think a poll on the main page would be very helpful. If there are really 20k lurkers to 1k posters than I would like to see what the people think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I think a TO can do anything and it be fair as long as all the rules are spelled out months in advance before tickets go on sale.

If the TO recognizes this I don't see why they can't subsidize themed or weak lists with a comp system. The problem in practice is that alot willing to run an event aren't necessarily the kind of people who actually understand the power levels. For example at Necro in Orlando they would put the popular lists like Nidzilla and Tri Falcon against each other at the top tables and then pair up strong lists like 3 Gargantuan Squigoth with 3 Cannons each, 80 Str 5 Orks with Choppas and the original Nob Squad on Cyber boardz at the bottom tables against random space marine armies. This is obivously unbalanced. I think their is a big disconnect between what people think is good and what is. For example Dual Lash is no longer Tier 1 and yet you will probably see alot of TOs(who frequently are casual players) who think it is "cheesey".