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.

Danny Internets wrote:
Anyone who stacks the deck in their favor by manipulating pairings and match-ups isn't even remotely interested in competition. They're interested in winning.

These are two sides of the same coin. At some point, you know that someone else is better than you are. I'm not going to play chess against Kasparov. That doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy a chess tournament. I'm not going to play poker against Phil Hellmuth, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy a poker tournament. There is no competition in me playing those people.

Back to 40k... If the same guy wins all the local tournaments, is it really a competition if he's involved? He's clearly better than the other players. In an economic sense, why should other players keep showing up, paying their entry fee, just to watch this guy take the prizes, time after time? Does wanting to compete against everyone except the guy who is clearly better not competitive? Is wanting a shot at winning the prize, after paying the entry fee, wrong, simply because you know there's a better player there? Should you just hand that guy your $10 and get it over with?

Back to our two-tier tournament idea... Same thing really. If I know that I cannot beat the top player at the event, why should I be forced to give away my entry fee with no chance of winning, instead of putting myself in the second tier tournament, where I actually have a shot at it?

If they were competitive in the true sense, they would be interested in competition for competition's sake and would want no more and no less than to be matched against their peers.

But that's the whole thing - the definition of peers. Is it every possible player? Or is it players who are roughly at my skill level, where the games might actually be enjoyable?

This is one of the fundamental misunderstandings in our community, and why so many members can't seem to get past the idea that there are a lot of people who derive their enjoyment of the game from its competitive aspect, but don't really care about winning or losing as long as the playing field is fair.

I understand the idea that some people solely enjoy the competitive aspect of the game. If you take those people and let them have a tournament, nationally, you might get 32 players. Maybe. Last year at Adepticon, they had the invitational tournament running alongside the championships, but not everyone invited took part, and those are supposedly the good players... I think we had 19...

What these purely competitive players don't seem to understand is if they self-segregate themselves, and ignore the players who want to win, and the players who want to paint, and the people who are just looking to spend an afternoon gaming, they'll be very lonely on their high horses.

I'm a competitive player, believe it or not. I'm not saying this stuff to say that being competitive is bad. But, in GW games, there is more to it than just competition, and if you ignore that (by getting rid of soft scores, for example, which keep the causal players and painters showing up), then the number of tournaments will dwindle. You'll have big national things, which won't be as big, and you'll have poorly attended local events. And that's not good for competitive players, or anyone else.

Back to 40k... If the same guy wins all the local tournaments, is it really a competition if he's involved? He's clearly better than the other players. In an economic sense, why should other players keep showing up, paying their entry fee, just to watch this guy take the prizes, time after time? Does wanting to compete against everyone except the guy who is clearly better not competitive? Is wanting a shot at winning the prize, after paying the entry fee, wrong, simply because you know there's a better player there? Should you just hand that guy your $10 and get it over with?

I'm curious as to why you think people participate in tournaments for economic reasons. Tournaments are competitions--if you're not there for the sake of competition it might be a good idea to evaluate whether or not these kinds of events are for you in the first place. A person genuinely interested in competition doesn't go to tournaments to win prizes, they go to compete. Winning, losing, prizes, etc. are all secondary. If removing prizes from the equation would weed people focused on winning them out I'd be all for it.

But that's the whole thing - the definition of peers. Is it every possible player? Or is it players who are roughly at my skill level, where the games might actually be enjoyable?

Obviously the definition of a peer is subjective. However, in your example it is also obvious that a chess player who prevents himself from being accurately ranked so that he can club baby seals in competitions is not interested in playing against peers.

I understand the idea that some people solely enjoy the competitive aspect of the game. If you take those people and let them have a tournament, nationally, you might get 32 players. Maybe. Last year at Adepticon, they had the invitational tournament running alongside the championships, but not everyone invited took part, and those are supposedly the good players... I think we had 19...

Really? 32 nationally? I can name half a dozen in my club alone. Our area regularly sees tournaments that fill their 40 person limit weeks in advance without running any soft scores. The demand for these events is much higher than you assume. Your Adepticon example is terrible--just because someone is invited to a tournament doesn't mean they will attend even if they want to given the cost of travel, lodging, taking off work, etc.

I'm a competitive player, believe it or not. I'm not saying this stuff to say that being competitive is bad. But, in GW games, there is more to it than just competition, and if you ignore that (by getting rid of soft scores, for example, which keep the causal players and painters showing up), then the number of tournaments will dwindle.

GW games are about more than competition, however a tournament is not. A tournament is about competition by its very definition. What you're talking about are hobby events, which are very different animals. I have no problem with them existing, but let's not pretend they're something they are not. What I would personally like to see is a legitimate tournament seen in the Warhammer community. Unfortunately, nothing of the sort exists.

Danny Internets wrote:
I'm curious as to why you think people participate in tournaments for economic reasons.

I'm curious as to why you think people do anything for non-economic reasons. Note, I am talking about economics, not financial gain. Economics is the study of why people do things. For any activity, there is a cost (not necessarily financial) and a payoff (also, not necessarily financial). For example, in order to go to a day-long tournament, my costs are the time it takes (seven hours at the bunker, two hours in traffic), the entry fee (nominal, but a cost none-the-less), whatever bargain I have to make with my wife in order to maintain happiness at home (and, by bargain, I don't mean that we sit there and haggle. It might be as simple as spending the next evening watching a chick-flick with her keeping her company), and so on. The payoff is theoretically enjoyment, but may also include a trophy (not really a financial reward, but something nice to have) or some sort of prize support (more clearly financial).

Anything I can do that increases my potential payoff (the chances that I leave with a trophy, or prize support, or even simply bragging rights) without increasing my costs is an intelligent thing to do. Some costs aren't as easily described either. For example, if I cheat, that may increase my odds of winning, but at the cost of my integrity. That's a cost I'm not willing to pay, therefore, I do not cheat.

If I spend the same amount of my time, make the same bargains with my wife, pay the same entry fee, but play against slightly weaker opponents by virtue of being in the losers 2nd day tournament, rather than the winners second day tournament, I may increase my financial payoff, at the cost of possibly some enjoyment (although, not necessarily - I might be frustrated by playing against stronger opponents all day with no chance of winning), and at the cost of having the bragging rights of winning the entire tournament. But, if my odds of winning the entire tournament were slim-to-none to begin with, that's not really a cost, is it...

Economics is simply the study of why people do things. It may well be that some players who are good, but not great, would derive more enjoyment beating on people who aren't as good as them, than being beat on by people who are better than them. That difference in personal satisfaction may explain why they choose to lose some games on the first day...

Obviously the definition of a peer is subjective. However, in your example it is also obvious that a chess player who prevents himself from being accurately ranked so that he can club baby seals in competitions is not interested in playing against peers.

You have no background in competitive chess do you... If you're a borderline player, you're either playing near the top of one category, or near the bottom of the next. It's not about preventing yourself from being accurately ranked, it's about believing that you're not yet ready to play at the next bracket. And, this is not at all uncommon in chess. There's no stigma attached to it, it's up to what a person wants to do. You're often allowed to play up a category (it's the easiest way to increase your rank, if you're good enough to win in that category), but you're never allowed to play down a category.

Really? 32 nationally? I can name half a dozen in my club alone. Our area regularly sees tournaments that fill their 40 person limit weeks in advance without running any soft scores. The demand for these events is much higher than you assume. Your Adepticon example is terrible--just because someone is invited to a tournament doesn't mean they will attend even if they want to given the cost of travel, lodging, taking off work, etc.

Yes, 32 nationally. Because, as you said, just because someone hosts a tournament doesn't mean anyone want to travel, take the time off work, etc. I'm happy for you that your area is able to do that. I guess New York is a big place or something. In Chicago, our tournament scene pretty much died out when soft-score tournaments stopped being held. And, it came back when they did.

I'm curious as to why you think people do anything for non-economic reasons. Note, I am talking about economics, not financial gain.

Fair enough. The way it is defined in the context of your argument makes it an explanatory term for quite literally all human activity, so in the end it's meaningless without referring to subcategories such as psychology, finances, logistics, and so on for the purposes of contrast. I had assumed you were talking more about the practical reasons why people do (and refrain from doing) things.

My point was that people go to these tournaments because they want to, not simply because the cost and prize support are right. Economics in the financial sense tends to dictate why people don't attend events rather than why they do. A GT could be held in my own backyard for free, but I still wouldn't attend because I don't like hobby competitions. On the other hand, I'd be willing to attend a tournament in the true sense even if I had to pay for the expenses normally associated with traveling to these events.

You have no background in competitive chess do you... If you're a borderline player, you're either playing near the top of one category, or near the bottom of the next. It's not about preventing yourself from being accurately ranked, it's about believing that you're not yet ready to play at the next bracket. And, this is not at all uncommon in chess. There's no stigma attached to it, it's up to what a person wants to do. You're often allowed to play up a category (it's the easiest way to increase your rank, if you're good enough to win in that category), but you're never allowed to play down a category.

You had said earlier that "Some chess players deliberately do not allow their ranking to put them in the master category, because they still wish to compete against the non-masters." You said players are not allowed to play down a category, so how are the players in your example deliberately preventing themselves from being categorized as masters as your example suggests they should be? Furthermore, why would a chess player who should be ranked as a master not want to play other masters if he is interested in competition? Sounds more like he's interested in dominating lesser players.

Yes, 32 nationally. Because, as you said, just because someone hosts a tournament doesn't mean anyone want to travel, take the time off work, etc. I'm happy for you that your area is able to do that. I guess New York is a big place or something. In Chicago, our tournament scene pretty much died out when soft-score tournaments stopped being held. And, it came back when they did.

Anecdotal evidence from the Chicago area doesn't support your absolutist view on the scene as a whole; I offered experience from my area to show you that your scene isn't representative of the rest of the country. Furthermore, 'Ard Boyz doesn't feature soft scores and it's been extremely popular for several years. Given how poorly some of the recent GTs has been run, it goes to show that people will attend just about anything in the absence of official GTs.

Danny Internets wrote:
Furthermore, 'Ard Boyz doesn't feature soft scores and it's been extremely popular for several years. Given how poorly some of the recent GTs has been run, it goes to show that people will attend just about anything in the absence of official GTs.

Either that, or the potential payoff for participating in 'ard boyz makes it an attractive proposition. Do you think 'ard boyz would be so popular without the incredible prize support offered for the free event? I don't. (And, I base that also on the complaints I heard while at the finals, about how it was a waste of money to travel to the finals when the prize was just a replica shoota and less store credit than the cost of the trip)

The preliminaries have virtually no prize support and they are also very popular. I think it would be just as popular without the huge prizes because it's the only major tournament in the US that's actually run like a tournament. That alone attracts a significant number of people who aren't into hobby competitions. It has the added benefit of maintaining interest for all of the hobbyists who enjoy the competitive aspect of the game. If someone likes competition and painting he generally won't pass up an event just because it doesn't feature both.

(And, I base that also on the complaints I heard while at the finals, about how it was a waste of money to travel to the finals when the prize was just a replica shoota and less store credit than the cost of the trip)

And yet these same people will probably make the trip again this year if they qualify. People love to complain, especially on the internet. The demand for any major events is huge and still unsatisfied despite the growth of the independent circuit. Look at the recent SVDM for instance--lots of people were pissed off at how poorly it was run, but I doubt the TOs will have any problem filling spots next year. Until the community reaches its saturation point with events they'll continue to make compromises and just go to bad events because it's either that or nothing.

I went to 'ard boys preliminaries last year because

It was free

There was a chance to win $60 worth of lewts.

not becuase it was a hyper-competitive event with no soft scores. In fact, the lack of soft scores just meant that a couple of D-bag players also went to the event and ruined the fun for everyone there. The only people who had a "good" time were those couple of D-bags, because they were able to unleash theirs bags of D all over everyone without penalty.

It wasn't free for me--I had to drive 1.5 hours and pay for gas. I went because it was a tournament.

not becuase it was a hyper-competitive event with no soft scores. In fact, the lack of soft scores just meant that a couple of D-bag players also went to the event and ruined the fun for everyone there. The only people who had a "good" time were those couple of D-bags, because they were able to unleash theirs bags of D all over everyone without penalty.

I'm sorry that you're so sensitive as to let the behavior of a couple of players out of the entire attendance of the tournament ruin your day. Given your comments in these threads on the subject perhaps tournaments aren't for you, and especially not 'Ard Boyz. Perhaps you had a bad time because the only reason you went to an event that you had no actual interest in aside from winning money. It's like going to a basketball game even though you hate basketball and then complaining afterwards about how bad the game was.

Demogerg wrote:I went to 'ard boys preliminaries last year because

It was free

There was a chance to win $60 worth of lewts.

not becuase it was a hyper-competitive event with no soft scores. In fact, the lack of soft scores just meant that a couple of D-bag players also went to the event and ruined the fun for everyone there. The only people who had a "good" time were those couple of D-bags, because they were able to unleash theirs bags of D all over everyone without penalty.

Oh wow, you mean you (1 person) didn't have a good time because you thought other people there were jerks?

That must be true for every single instance of this tournament then!

Meh... I went to 'Ard Boyz Prelims and Semis because I wanted to see if I was any good or not. I'm a very pessimistic person, so I knew I wasn't going to get any loot (certainly not anymore than I would at a local RTT). I had 8 great games (played at a second prelim as a ringer for 2 games) against tough opponents who were fun to play with and were complete sportsmen.

I also have had horrible games at events with soft scores where my opponent was a chore to play because of shenanigans/rules disputes/sore-losing.

YMMV... trying to make generalizations from anecdotal evidence (for either side of this argument) is fail, IMO.

I think the real problem is that we, as a community, have accidentally adopted the term 'tournament' to mean any gathering of two or more players regardless of competition or standard rules.

If you want to compare your paint jobs and talk about how well your army matches up to what the current edition of a codex says your army should play like, stop calling it a tournament. Try 'gaming day' or even 'hobby tournament'.

The fun is in the competition - in being challenged. Not finding out later that a TO had an agenda against the way you like to play or whatever other slew of reasons the best players lose points for. Definitely not in propping up a weak player to the detriment of others because he is new or lazy or doesn't care.

I am a "let's roll some dice and have fun" losing tourny player.

Danny and Timmah.

Neither of you were at that specific event, and I attend Tournaments frequently (at least once a month) and I enjoy myself even if I lose terribly

I do frequently win said tournaments, and we have soft scores for sportsmanship with a separate category for painting, having painted minis is not a requirement.

I made no generalizations based on my anecdotal evidence of an 'ard boys event, you both however made sarcastic and rude comments about either my person or my case persented. I go to a tournament to have fun playing Warhammer, not to deal with whiney, cheating scumbags who make a big fuss and start arguements over obvious and clear rule in an attempt to slowplay.

In this case I think that posting replys to threads on this forum might not be for you, because following Rule #1 appears to be beyond your comprehension.

Demogerg wrote:Danny and Timmah.

Neither of you were at that specific event, and I attend Tournaments frequently (at least once a month) and I enjoy myself even if I lose terribly

I do frequently win said tournaments, and we have soft scores for sportsmanship with a separate category for painting, having painted minis is not a requirement.

I made no generalizations based on my anecdotal evidence of an 'ard boys event, you both however made sarcastic and rude comments about either my person or my case persented. I go to a tournament to have fun playing Warhammer, not to deal with whiney, cheating scumbags who make a big fuss and start arguements over obvious and clear rule in an attempt to slowplay.

In this case I think that posting replys to threads on this forum might not be for you, because following Rule #1 appears to be beyond your comprehension.

My reply was anything but rude. I think the problem you have with tournaments is probably an issue with hypersensitivity and readiness to take offense. I myself have never had a game of Warhammer that I did not enjoy in the 9 years I have been attending tournaments. Your experience seems to suggest that you find TFGs around every corner. Have you ever stopped to think that the social problems you're having at tournaments may be on your end, and that the other players aren't to blame for "ruining" your event?

I did not have the "pleasure" of playing against TFG, I played all of my games against good opponents with fair games, and the event was spoiled not by me or my games, but by the other games that were played that resulted in overall dissatisfaction in the event.

this was a mutual attitude that was shared by all of the regular players at that store.

maybe with 9 years of playing and never running into a TFG, maybe you are TFG?

in 14 years of playing I have run into VERY few TFGs, I can think of only 5 total, one from way back in 97, 2 from THAT tourney, and 2 from a different (team) tourney.

maybe with 9 years of playing and never running into a TFG, maybe you are TFG?

Do TFGs usually win Best Sportsman awards? Because I've won two of them. If you want proof I can scan the certificates. As a matter of fact, the only time I've ever not gotten a perfect sportsmanship score was when I got chipmunked on table 1 in the final round of a tournament, which was one of the reasons why our TO decided to drop the scoring altogether.

and I believe you 100%

But that doesnt change my anecdotal evidence of the 'Ard Boys event I attended.

Demogerg, what does your anecdotal evidence try to prove? That no soft scores = more TFG at the event?

Your statement makes it sound like the TFG guys only went to 'Ard Boyz because there was no soft score component... do you really have a way of knowing what their reasons were?

If someone can show me real evidence that more TFGs go to events with or without soft scores I'd definately listen to it. However, anecdotal "I met a TFG at a RTT/'Ard Boyz doesn't count as real evidence.

its not attempting to "prove" anything.

its just supplying more information based on observations.

2 out of 5 people who I would choose to never play against appeared at the same tournament which did not have soft scores. The only other event that had 2 TFGs had something else in common aside from tournament organization.

Which proves absolutely nothing, so why did you even bring it up?

This is a thread for gathering opinions, and I was supplying relevant information based on my opinion...

Timmah wrote: Which proves absolutely nothing, so why did you even bring it up?

This proves absolutely nothing, so why did you even bring it up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
See what I did there?

See what I did there?

Yes, we see that you're desperately trying to blame the bad time you had at 'Ard Boyz on the lack of soft scores and some TFG's whom you apparently didn't even play against...

Dannyboy wrote:Yes, we see that you're desperately trying to blame the bad time you had at 'Ard Boyz on the lack of soft scores and some TFG's whom you apparently didn't even play against...

and I see that you are both now just trolling Dakka.

Good Job.

Demogerg wrote:

Dannyboy wrote:Yes, we see that you're desperately trying to blame the bad time you had at 'Ard Boyz on the lack of soft scores and some TFG's whom you apparently didn't even play against...

and I see that you are both now just trolling Dakka.

Good Job.

I find his opinion to be valid.

willydstyle wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

Dannyboy wrote:Yes, we see that you're desperately trying to blame the bad time you had at 'Ard Boyz on the lack of soft scores and some TFG's whom you apparently didn't even play against...

and I see that you are both now just trolling Dakka.

Good Job.

I find his opinion to be valid.

As do I. He's the reason I haven't really been posting on this thread, because every point I would make he does already. And much more eloquently than I would.

I have to wonder... Do the people with a big problem with a lack of a sportsmanship score have any experience with being involved in any kind of sports or other extremely competitive activity? I'd say that anyone who has ever played a pickup game of basketball has dealt with things that someone complaining about poor sportsmanship in a 40k match would scarcely be able to comprehend.

Monster Rain wrote:
As do I. He's the reason I haven't really been posting on this thread, because every point I would make he does already. And much more eloquently than I would.

I have to wonder... Do the people with a big problem with a lack of a sportsmanship score have any experience with being involved in any kind of sports or other extremely competitive activity? I'd say that anyone who has ever played a pickup game of basketball has dealt with things that someone complaining about poor sportsmanship in a 40k match would scarcely be able to comprehend.

Wouldn't a pickup game of basketball be a 'casual game' rather than a tournament?
So an organised game of basketball would be the analogy, those have referees as I understand it (I'm a brit and never seen a full basketball game). In the organised games, much is ridding on them and the lack of referee could lead some to cheat.

Whilst there are refs in tourneys, they are not one per game. Isn't the sportsmanship aspect making some inroads at compensating for lack of immediate refereeing?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
As do I. He's the reason I haven't really been posting on this thread, because every point I would make he does already. And much more eloquently than I would.

I have to wonder... Do the people with a big problem with a lack of a sportsmanship score have any experience with being involved in any kind of sports or other extremely competitive activity? I'd say that anyone who has ever played a pickup game of basketball has dealt with things that someone complaining about poor sportsmanship in a 40k match would scarcely be able to comprehend.

Wouldn't a pickup game of basketball be a 'casual game' rather than a tournament?
So an organised game of basketball would be the analogy, those have referees as I understand it (I'm a brit and never seen a full basketball game). In the organised games, much is ridding on them and the lack of referee could lead some to cheat.

Whilst there are refs in tourneys, they are not one per game. Isn't the sportsmanship aspect making some inroads at compensating for lack of immediate refereeing?

The 'casual game' bit isn't really the point. Competition breeds unpleasantness. It's sad but true.

If you've ever watched a NBA game, you'd see that players are constantly talking to the other players and since I have also played in "official" games(high school) it goes on there too.

They're saying horrendous things to each other, specifically to affect their game.

The refs are only going to call flagrant things, the little bits of nastiness flying around that they don't catch are just part of being around other competitive males. The TO is going to call players on flagrant violations also.

Which isn't to say that I excuse such behavior. I'm a pretty good sport, and have the "best sportsman" wins to prove it. I'm just saying that I understand that there are different personalities in the world and expect to have a few terse conversations when I'm entering a competitive environment.

Monster Rain wrote:
The 'casual game' bit isn't really the point. Competition breeds unpleasantness. It's sad but true.

If you've ever watched a NBA game, you'd see that players are constantly talking to the other players and since I have also played in "official" games(high school) it goes on there too.

They're saying horrendous things to each other, specifically to affect their game.

The refs are only going to call flagrant things, the little bits of nastiness flying around that they don't catch are just part of being around other competitive males. The TO is going to call players on flagrant violations also.

Which isn't to say that I excuse such behavior. I'm a pretty good sport, and have the "best sportsman" wins to prove it. I'm just saying that I understand that there are different personalities in the world and expect to have a few terse conversations when I'm entering a competitive environment.

Well, I've been a rugby player for many years. When stamping someone's head into the mud, it has been known to use some choice language along the lines of 'I have every intention of taking your mum up the dirt track' etc to encourage the opponent to lose his cool and flip out.

But if I went to a tourney and someone spoke to me like that, they'd be wearing a penitent engine up each nostril and taking a trip to cystocopy to play 'hunt the razorgor'...

I don't really see 40k like competitive sports, perhaps my lack of tournament attendance but I associate it more with chess.

I would say I'm semi-competitive & when I play with friends I like to play at Tourny speed but still showing lots of sportsmanship.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
Well, I've been a rugby player for many years. When stamping someone's head into the mud, it has been known to use some choice language along the lines of 'I have every intention of taking your mum up the dirt track' etc to encourage the opponent to lose his cool and flip out.

But if I went to a tourney and someone spoke to me like that, they'd be wearing a penitent engine up each nostril and taking a trip to cystocopy to play 'hunt the razorgor'...

I don't really see 40k like competitive sports, perhaps my lack of tournament attendance but I associate it more with chess.

Right...

But my point is that nothing that anyone in this forum has had an experience with a TFG has involved him bringing up one's sainted mother in reference to an anal prolapse. I think that allowing one douche to ruin your whole tournament experience is more of a reflection on you, not the maladjusted tool that you had the misfortune to draw as an opponent.

Why is this all inside of a quote box?