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.

Matthias wrote:To clarify: there would be 3 options technically for #5. You can simply opt to call the game average and not reward or flag your opponent.

One idea was to award a small number of points for a perfect set of rewards - 4 checks in a 4 round tournament. Something like 10-20 points max. I think that has merit.

It stops any single individual from chipmunking a game. In essence 75% of your opponents would have to work together to dock you points. The reality of that happening...

It still gives the players a voice and allows us to know what tables need an extra set of eyes as the tournament goes on.

Personally I think there should only be one yes/no box that reads:


Regardless of the outcome of the game (i.e. regardless of how badly you beat or lost to them), would you willingly choose to play this person again in the future.


You get no bonus points for getting perfect 'yes' in all your games and you get no negative points for a single opponent saying 'no', but for each 'no' after that, the negative penalty is applied exponentially. So if two 'no' votes was -10 points, then three 'no' votes would be '-25' points and four no votes would be '-50' points (or something like that).

This way, a single bad apple won't hurt your score but a trend of bad behavior will get hammered really badly...and obviously it would be tremendously fantastic if the tabulation software can identify someone who votes 'no' in two or more of their games and none of those opponents get another 'no' vote in any of their games, that these people should also be flagged and either talked to personally by a judge about their experiences or just have their 'no' votes discounted flat-out.


Finally, for a best sportsman award players should vote for their favorite player at the end of the tournament, but this vote should have no effect on overall tournament score IMHO.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:
No need to get all emotional, Frazzled, this is just a simple discussion. If you'd read the definition you provided you'd notice that a tournament is a SERIES of competitions. Series as in completed SERIALLY. It should be obvious that this refers to the games that are played serially. Painting, comp, and so on all exist outside of this series and thus function in addition to the tournament. When the winner of the "tournament" is decided in part (and even in majority) by non-tournament scoring then you no longer have a tournament, but a new kind of event. Hence, the term "hobby competition." Nothing wrong with that, it's just not a tournament. It's a tournament + other stuff. The winner of the tournament is not necessarily the winner of the hobby competition, as in the examples provided above.

I forgot to read the rest of the thread!

Read the follow-up post which defines what a series is. Perhaps it'll make sense then.

I analysed the Yellow Adepticon data using SPSS. The Hard Scores variable consisted of only Battle Points, while the Soft Scores variable consisted of Sportsmanship, Painting and Quiz Points. Overall Scores were considered to be the sum of the Hard Score and the Soft Score.

Since the data is all ordinal, Spearman's Rank Order Correlation (a non-parametric test) was used to compare Overall Scores to both Hard Scores and Soft Scores.

For the full data set, significant Correlations were found between the Overall Scores and the Hard Scores (rho = 0.944, p < 0.001) as well as between the Overall Scores and the Soft Scores (rho = 0.374, p < 0.001). Hard Scores appear to have a strong Correlation with the Overall Scores, while Soft Scores do have an influence on the Overall Scores (after all, there is a significant Correlation), but the Correlation indicates that this influence is fairly weak.

When only considering the Top 10 placements, a significant Correlation was found between the Overall Scores and the Hard Scores (rho = 0.758, p = 0.011). For the data of the Top 10 placements, no significant correlation was found between the Overall Scores and the Soft Scores. The lower values for significance might, however, be influenced by the low amount of data (N=10) when only considering the Top placements.


Analysis of Standard Deviation values (the most commonly used measure of variance) showed the following:

Standard Deviation of Overall Scores over all data (N=110): 29.665
Standard Deviation of Hard Scores over all data (N=110): 26.159
Standard Deviation of Soft Scores over all data (N=110): 10.470
Standard Deviation of Overall Scores over Top 10 placements (N=10): 8.168
Standard Deviation of Hard Scores over Top 10 placements (N=10): 12.658
Standard Deviation of Soft Scores over Top 10 placements (N=10): 8.744

This means that Standard Deviation of the Soft Scores of the Top 10 placements can explain a larger percentage of the Standard Deviation of the Overall Scores of the Top 10 placements, than Standard Deviation of the Soft Scores of all competitors can explain of the Standard Deviation of the Overall Scores of all competitors. This indicates that it is correct to assume that, the higher one ranks in the Tournament, the more important Soft Scores become.

yakface wrote:

Matthias wrote:To clarify: there would be 3 options technically for #5. You can simply opt to call the game average and not reward or flag your opponent.

One idea was to award a small number of points for a perfect set of rewards - 4 checks in a 4 round tournament. Something like 10-20 points max. I think that has merit.

It stops any single individual from chipmunking a game. In essence 75% of your opponents would have to work together to dock you points. The reality of that happening...

It still gives the players a voice and allows us to know what tables need an extra set of eyes as the tournament goes on.

Personally I think there should only be one yes/no box that reads:


Regardless of the outcome of the game (i.e. regardless of how badly you beat or lost to them), would you willingly choose to play this person again in the future.


You get no bonus points for getting perfect 'yes' in all your games and you get no negative points for a single opponent saying 'no', but for each 'no' after that, the negative penalty is applied exponentially. So if two 'no' votes was -10 points, then three 'no' votes would be '-25' points and four no votes would be '-50' points (or something like that).

This way, a single bad apple won't hurt your score but a trend of bad behavior will get hammered really badly...and obviously it would be tremendously fantastic if the tabulation software can identify someone who votes 'no' in two or more of their games and none of those opponents get another 'no' vote in any of their games, that these people should also be flagged and either talked to personally by a judge about their experiences or just have their 'no' votes discounted flat-out.


Finally, for a best sportsman award players should vote for their favorite player at the end of the tournament, but this vote should have no effect on overall tournament score IMHO.

seattles local two day event the seattle heart of fire does sportsmanship like this.

Sportsman 50
One Bad Game No Change
Two Bad Games -5
Three Bad Games -10
Four Bad Games -20
Five Bad Games -40

so they have 100 points for battle 50 points for paint and 50 points for sportsmanship.

the only change I would make would be to up the penalties 0 -10 -20 -40 -50.

at the event they had in march they had 48 players and 5 games each
so out of 240 games there were on 3 bad games checked so everyone got max sports. which is how it should be.
in the september event 1 player had 3 bad games so got dinged.

the next tshft 40k is in september and I highly recommend it.

This indicates that it is correct to assume that, the higher one ranks in the Tournament, the more important Soft Scores become.

This is the assumption I have been working with, but it's good to see that it supported concretely by the data. I looked at the data in order to compare overall variance attributable to soft scores versus variance attributable to hard scores as relative proportions. Looking at factors responsible for variance in the whole set versus top 10 is a different and equally important perspective that gives additional insight into the mechanics of the system.

Great analysis in general, and kudos for actually inputting all 500 or so data points (something I was trying to avoid).

EDIT(s): typos

ok math has failed me need more sleep.

soft score make for a better event and the guy with the most battle points usually wins. i just don't see how this is bad?

Paint is there to ensure a higher quality event.

Sports are there to ensure everyone is a gentlemen.

It isnt so much that they are there to change anyones attitude, its more to keep the bad apples at home. Most people who are fine with a sports score in a tournament are gentlemen at the table anyway.

Its pretty simple stuff.

GMMStudios wrote:Paint is there to ensure a higher quality event.

How does including painting in overall scoring ensure a higher quality event? Please provide specifics. It has no impact on the quality of the event from my perspective.

Sports are there to ensure everyone is a gentlemen.

And yet people act un-gentlemenly despite its presence. Some un-gentlemently conduct (chipmunking) is only possible because of its presence. If you're so convinced it works provide some evidence. Wishful thinking is not evidence.

Pretty simple stuff indeed.

Danny Internets wrote:

How does including painting in overall scoring ensure a higher quality event? Please provide specifics. It has no impact on the quality of the event from my perspective.

lol it ensures most people paint their armies...its why schoolteachers give gold stars to kids who try...kids who go to the bathroom by themselves...

Danny Internets wrote:

And yet people act un-gentlemenly despite its presence.

Yup and they know the consequences

Danny Internets wrote:

Pretty simple stuff indeed.

Indeed

Very insightful and constructive non-responses there. No gold star for you.

Im sorry I think its pretty obvious stuff. By rewarding paint more people are going to bring painted armies.

Nevermind. You are basically arguing the sky isnt blue. Obvious trolling, and I shouldnt even touch it. See ya.

Danny Internets wrote:

GMMStudios wrote:Paint is there to ensure a higher quality event.

How does including painting in overall scoring ensure a higher quality event? Please provide specifics. It has no impact on the quality of the event from my perspective.

Sports are there to ensure everyone is a gentlemen.

And yet people act un-gentlemenly despite its presence. Some un-gentlemently conduct (chipmunking) is only possible because of its presence. If you're so convinced it works provide some evidence. Wishful thinking is not evidence.

Pretty simple stuff indeed.

so I can bend and stretch rules and slow play and it has no effect on my score.
I can play an alpha strike guard army get my killpoints in first turn and you will be lucky to get three turns in as I move all 80 guards man 1 by 1 accurately (aka slowly) then run them to do it again. By the time you realize I am stalling and you go get a judge it will be too late for you to win. woohoo max points for me and you just walk away from a game grumpy.

Buttercup wrote:

Sports are there to ensure everyone is a gentlemen.

And yet people act un-gentlemenly despite its presence. Some un-gentlemently conduct (chipmunking) is only possible because of its presence. If you're so convinced it works provide some evidence. Wishful thinking is not evidence.

With the same players consistantly taking top spots in tourneys, I think that the fact that some random schmo can get "chipmunked" is largely their own fault. The "soft" scores of a tournament enhance and complement the GW Gaming/Hobby experience, and are therefore necessary to determine an "overall" winner of a tournament. Hence why most tourney's have Overall, Best General and Best Painted awards.

This does not in any way make a tourney less competitive, and I guarantee the players on the top tables will agree.

Your argument, or whatever it is you are trying to say, is invalid. Maybe if you actually came to a tournament and got into the fun, you'd understand better what we're all trying to say. Otherwise, you can remain a faceless, irrelevant handle on an obscure internet community.

Danny Internets wrote:

This indicates that it is correct to assume that, the higher one ranks in the Tournament, the more important Soft Scores become.

This is the assumption I have been working with, but it's good to see that it supported concretely by the data. I looked at the data in order to compare overall variance attributable to soft scores versus variance attributable to hard scores as relative proportions. Looking at factors responsible for variance in the whole set versus top 10 is a different and equally important perspective that gives additional insight into the mechanics of the system.

Great analysis in general, and kudos for actually inputting all 500 or so data points (something I was trying to avoid).

Thanks for the appreciation, but inporting the data really wasn't that much work. When you press the Control button you can select the data you want from the Adepticon site you linked earlier. This way you can import, for example, all Battle Points Scores in one copy and paste move.

Kilkrazy wrote:It doesn't matter whether a judge likes green better than blue. The same criteria apply to everyone. The playing field is level. Everyone has the same chance of winning, unless someone was secretly told in advance they should paint their army green.

Ditto for Comp, whether it is done by a system in advance or by some subjective idea of your opponents. The same for Sports.

Assuming that this was in response to me...I was just commenting on the point someone else made that your soft scores are totally in your control, which is patently false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whitedragon wrote: I think that the fact that some random schmo can get "chipmunked" is largely their own fault.

Sorry, blame the victim approach doesn't work.

@Danny Internets

your definition of Series is too strict, or you're reading it too strictly. Try:


se·ries
   /ˈsɪəriz/ Show Spelled [seer-eez] Show IPA noun,plural-ries, adjective
–noun
1.
a group or a number of related or similar things, events, etc., arranged or occurring in temporal, spatial, or other order or succession; sequence.

Are judging your army and playing your army related? Of course they are. Nothing says the series needs to affect pairings or something.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/series

Plus the definition of "Tournament" in no way requires the word "series"

How about:

Any contest of skill in which there are many contestants for championship; as, a chess tournament

http://www.dictionary.net/tournament

whitedragon wrote:I think that the fact that some random schmo can get "chipmunked" is largely their own fault.

You can't be serious about this. It is someone's own fault when he happens to win a game against a sore loser, who then decides to give him a 0 for Sportsmanship?

GMMStudios wrote:Im sorry I think its pretty obvious stuff. By rewarding paint more people are going to bring painted armies.

If you want everyone to bring painted armies to the table (and you do), than you should just create a rule that all armies need to be painted in order to enter the competition. Rewarding points for the level of painting only allows players to cheat their way to a high Overall Score (as in bring an army they did not paint themselves).



Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the hobby part of the game, and I think there should be seperate prizes for painting, I just think the Overall prize is overrated.

skyth wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

whitedragon wrote: I think that the fact that some random schmo can get "chipmunked" is largely their own fault.

Sorry, blame the victim approach doesn't work.

Airmaniac wrote:

whitedragon wrote:I think that the fact that some random schmo can get "chipmunked" is largely their own fault.

You can't be serious about this. It is someone's own fault when he happens to win a game against a sore loser, who then decides to give him a 0 for Sportsmanship?

I'm serious. I also think that in practice, this "chipmunking" that you are all so worried about is not very prevalent, or isolated cases at best. Once again I submit that it doesn't matter what tournament you go to, the same players consistantly place in the top tables, and seem to have no issues with any of their scores, soft scores included.

It's just another talking point to beat to death on the internet, however.

It was in response to you.

The important point is that whether you are in control or not, the competition is fair.

I don't consider favoring locals to be fair. I don't consider scoring with unknown biases to be fair either.

To break it down...if you get to a tournament and find out at the end of the tournament that if your age is under 30, you take a 5 point penalty to your painting scores...Is that fair? The possibility of a penalty applies to everyone and no one knew about it before the tournament.

How about favouring locals with matchups and judging decisions during the battle phase?

I don't consider that fair either.

I'm glad I don't play where skyth plays.

In every 40K event at Adepticon, #1 overall was also #1 in battle points.

In the Yellow Championship, #2 in battle was #4 overall, and #2 overall was #5 in battle. If the #2 in battle had painted his army to an average level, he would have tied or placed second overall.

Otherwise, #2 overall was also #2 in battle points in every event.

So in one case (of 6), a superior painter with perfect sportsmanship and better knowledge of the rules ended up ahead of people who performed slightly better than he did on the tabletop. Seems entirely fair to me; but everyone knows I'm just a big old fluffy hobbyist anyway.

Five of six ending with the top 2 in purely battle points order indicates that in the set of placings that contribute to GW invititations, Battle Points is the #1 most significant indicator of success. Even if we toss out Gladiator, we still end up with 90% (9 of 10 spots) going strictly to those with the most battle points. COULD they have not won, even with their battle points being highest? Yes, they could have. They also all could have spontaneously combusted. What actually happened is that the guys who won the most also placed at the the top.

I can play an alpha strike guard army get my killpoints in first turn and you will be lucky to get three turns in as I move all 80 guards man 1 by 1 accurately (aka slowly) then run them to do it again. By the time you realize I am stalling and you go get a judge it will be too late for you to win. woohoo max points for me and you just walk away from a game grumpy.

So you're saying that if you can use some passive aggression penalty system on your opponent after the game his cheating you won't make you grumpy? Stalling is easy to recognize, call a judge when it happens. It's not rocket science. Good TO's check up on games throughout rounds to make sure they are progressing appropriately. Also, "alpha strike" IG armies don't usually field 80 infantry unless you're talking about 2500+ points.

@Whitedragon: please read the whole thread before participating. Most (all?) of your points have already been explicitly addressed. If you take issue with how they are addressed please feel free to quote the relevant points and we can go from there, but repeating things is unnecessary when all you have to do is scroll up.

Plus the definition of "Tournament" in no way requires the word "series"

O rly? Even the dictionary YOU linked to says a tournament is a "sporting competition in which contestants play a series of games to decide the winner." Helps to read your own links, no? http://www.dictionary.net/tournament

skyth wrote:I don't consider that fair either.

Neither do I.

So much for the "objectivity" of battle scores.

Danny Internets wrote:

O rly? Even the dictionary YOU linked to says a tournament is a "sporting competition in which contestants play a series of games to decide the winner." Helps to read your own links, no? http://www.dictionary.net/tournament

Yes really. Each individual definition stands alone, series can be used in definition of tournament, but doesn't need to be. Amazing how a dictionary works.

Also, you've completely ignored the fact that "series" doesn't need to be defined as strictly as you want it to, either.

So The Collaborative International Dictionary of English is the ultimate authority? Sorry, but I've never even heard of that fly-by-night operation. All other English dictionaries I can find (Random House, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, and the Oxford English Dictionary) use the word series in the definition. The one you cherry-picked (from the multiple definitions on the the site you linked, all of which use the word "series" except the one you pasted) is the only one that does not.

Dictionary.com:

2.
a meeting for contests in a variety of sports, as between teams of different nations.

Sorry, you're right, that other dictionary isn't nearly cool enough.

No comment on series I see. I must have cherry picked that as well.

Anyway, what is even the point of renaming the tournaments? To insult the people who run them and consider them to be tournaments? To insult the players for not being hard core enough? What?

Nice selective pasting again. Also from the same entry at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tournament):

1. a trial of skill in some game, in which competitors play a series of contests: a chess tournament.

Had you bothered to read the alternative definition you'd posted you would have realized that it doesn't at all apply to hobby competitions and is therefore irrelevant anyway, unless you consider army composition and painting "sports."

Right, so if it's sports...it doesn't need to be in a series, but if it's a board game or a hobby game, it does need to be...I see! I feel so enlightened.

I am not selectively pasting. Any of the definitions work. There is no compulsion to pick one of two or three just because it does or doesn't have the word series in it.

Anyway, this has devolved into pedantry. Since I actually would also rather tournaments didn't include sportsmanship or comp (except maybe for deciding early matchups) I'm just going to drop it.