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.

Osbad wrote:Obsessing about tournament placing is sad. Does it really matter?

Who here is obsessing about it? You're attempting to take people that are 'interested' and make them 'obsessive'.

BYE

Osbad wrote:HBMC mate, there's only one person getting their panties in a wad in this thread mate, and it ain't me.

Am I the only one amused by seeing this statement followed by (depending on screen size) twenty lines of text (explaining in no uncertain terms that this fella surely does not have his panties in a bunch, nooooo siree, no way no how...)?

In the end, Techboss really nailed the issue;

Techboss wrote:I think the overall point being missed. I dare say that most people want to start any game knowing that they have an equal chance of winning as their opponent. In chess, if I play black, I have the same chance to win as if I play white. The same holds true for all most every game; the two opposing players have an equal chance to win the game from the start. In most games, this is done by mirroring each side, both sides in chess have the exact same abilities and the sides are balanced.

Look at the most popular, long lived games, what we see is balance. Being concerned about slipshod balance and codex creep isn't (just) a sign of being an uptight "powergamer", it's a logical reaction anyone concerned about the long term health prospects of a game many of us have devoted significant time and money to.

It's a hobby, not a life-style choice. It doesn't have to matter 'cause it's something you do for fun, and if people want to be competative about it, in a formal 'tournement' setting or otherwise, who the hell are you to judge?

Lol, HBMC, and how many points do you have across all your armies?

Anyways, I think that regardless of whether or not you tabled your opponnent, a win is a win. And I advocate for that system in tournaments. Simply because the opponent you played first round might have been the second place person while your the first, you draw a really close win. Then the third place guy goes and plays against a noob and utterly crushes him and gets more points for dumb luck. Thats a flawed system. A wins a win. (And in a perfect world everything would be done by round robin.)

As for the DA Players Woo Hoo! You go guys! Dark Green Pride For The Win!

H.B.M.C. wrote:No, ok, look you know what, I'm done with this yet.

Everyone, I want you to follow me here and see if you can make the same logical connections that Osbad has made. Imagine this dialogue and see if it makes sense to you:

Person 1: I like playing in tournaments.
Person 2: So do I. Who's coming first in the rankings? What armies are doing well?
Person 1: Let's find out.
Osbad: My God! You want to find out what armies are doing well in a tournament. I'm ashamed that people would take it so seriously.
Me: Who are you to judge how people enjoy their hobby? How is this any differen to any other hobby with any sort of competative element (RC cars, model planes, historical battles, multiplayer console or PC gaming - anything)? How is wanting to know what's good, what's doing well and who isn't a bad thing?
Osbad: GO CURE CANCER IF IT MATTERS SO MUCH TO YOU!
Me: Wha... what? What are you talk-
Osbad: Feed the Africans! FEED THEM!!!!!
Me: It... what? It's a game dude, calm down.
Osbad: The orphans! The orphans! My God why won't someone think of the children!
Me: You must be kidding? It's a game. GAME. It doesn't have to be serious.
Person 1: So... Orks then?
Person 2: Yeah, Orks.

Osbad, it seems the only one here taking it too seriously is you.

BYE

Quoted for truth.

Buzzsaw wrote:
Am I the only one amused by seeing this statement followed by (depending on screen size) twenty lines of text (explaining in no uncertain terms that this fella surely does not have his panties in a bunch, nooooo siree, no way no how...)?

Of course not. Analysis of social deviance is usually amusing. Osbad has no reason to belittle other people, and it's a bit rich for him to accuse others of becoming upset when he make inflammatory remarks. He also stated something along the lines of not taking forum discussion seriously. This is a valid community, on the internet, whether he likes it or not, and all the media-addled adolescents on MySpace won't change that. Perhaps if more people posted about Lord of the Rings he wouldn't get so bored. He has expressed perfectly valid opinions with regard to the topic at hand, he just doesn't have to be a jerk at the same time. I'm sure everyone here would be willing to take him seriously otherwise.

wynnstudio wrote:Sports at the the US GT's this year really isn't anything. YOu would have to be a total tool to lose 10 points max.


wynnstudio

not entirely true.

a person could be a fine opponent and score 8 or so points. namely, not receiving marks because a player brought a "win without regard to theme/40k universe", or "I would not like to play this person again", or they didn't know the rules all that well becasue of the fairly recent introduction of a new edition, etc.


overall, this was the best sportsmanship scoring method used at the US GTs, IMHO.

take care

albinoork wrote:

wynnstudio wrote:Sports at the the US GT's this year really isn't anything. YOu would have to be a total tool to lose 10 points max.


wynnstudio

not entirely true.

a person could be a fine opponent and score 8 or so points. namely, not receiving marks because a player brought a "win without regard to theme/40k universe", or "I would not like to play this person again", or they didn't know the rules all that well becasue of the fairly recent introduction of a new edition, etc.


overall, this was the best sportsmanship scoring method used at the US GTs, IMHO.

take care

I guess I mean more in the top ten finishers. The player with the lowest sports in the top 10 still finished 2nd and even if he had a 50 he would have still placed second. Sports really made no difference. I use to advocate for sports scores but now I don't think they matter. I played some tough as nails lists on the upper tables but the players were great.

From Baltimore GT:
Sports overall
50 180
46 168
48 164
47 164
50 162
48 160
48 157
48 157
50 156
50 154


wynnstudio

wynnstudio wrote:I guess I mean more in the top ten finishers. The player with the lowest sports in the top 10 still finished 2nd and even if he had a 50 he would have still placed second. Sports really made no difference. I use to advocate for sports scores but now I don't think they matter. I played some tough as nails lists on the upper tables but the players were great.

wynnstudio

good points.

sportsmanship has moved onto something other than a way of differentiating the "best hobbyist".

the sportsmanship checklist now acts as way of managing expectations. GW GT's now have a standard of behavior that each participant is expected to follow and each participant should expect to receive.

players are now expected to show up on time, bring all materials needed to play, take a reasonable amount of time to play a round, etc. (whatever the rest of the checklist states).

the sportsmanship still matters, but only as way of determining if a player is conforming to GW's expected behaviors.

take care

albinoork wrote:
good points.

sportsmanship has moved onto something other than a way of differentiating the "best hobbyist".

the sportsmanship checklist now acts as way of managing expectations. GW GT's now have a standard of behavior that each participant is expected to follow and each participant should expect to receive.

players are now expected to show up on time, bring all materials needed to play, take a reasonable amount of time to play a round, etc. (whatever the rest of the checklist states).

the sportsmanship still matters, but only as way of determining if a player is conforming to GW's expected behaviors.

take care

I can buy that

Now I would like to see paint scores be the same as battle points. I think that would change the dynamic a bit. Or at least bring it to 80 hobby, 100 battle.

To win overall you have to massacre at least 4 times to win but can have a average paint score.

wynnstudio

There are a couple of issues with making paint scores more important.

1. Without an objective paint judging protocol, the scores are basically not fair.

2. It may encourage the use of pro-painted armies, which isn't the point of it, IMO.

I don't think GW really cares if you painted your army or not. From a company stand point, I would rather have a bunch of pro painted armies roaming around my tournaments, rather than have poorly painted power gamer armies. This is especially true when a gamesday is done in conjunction with the GT, as I remember a lot of gamesday people walking around to ooo and awww the armies while they were on display between games and such.

Kilkrazy wrote:There are a couple of issues with making paint scores more important.

1. Without an objective paint judging protocol, the scores are basically not fair.

2. It may encourage the use of pro-painted armies, which isn't the point of it, IMO.

Pro-painted isn't really a problem. The interwebs will out anyone that does this and Dave T has said they would take back a GT award for that.

The current scoring favors a few builds and leave the rest out. Bringing painting up to par would help even this out.

The current protocol works IMO. It has improved each GT this season. For Baltimore they double checked all the highest and lowest scores. If painting was going to decide the winner by a point or two they would call in all the paint judges for a last check.

And it is called best overall, not best gamer and sorta hobbyist.

wynnstudio

This

Ork wrote:I don't think GW really cares if you painted your army or not.

and this

Ork wrote:From a company stand point, I would rather have a bunch of pro painted armies roaming around my tournaments, rather than have poorly painted power gamer armies. This is especially true when a gamesday is done in conjunction with the GT, as I remember a lot of gamesday people walking around to ooo and awww the armies while they were on display between games and such.

don't jive.

GW should want to have a bunch of painted armies that look good on the table. My army isn't pro painted by any stretch of the imagination, but looks good on the table from about 3 feet away. At one time, to play at the local GW store in my area, you had to have your entire army painted a minimum of 3 colors and based. Once they figured out that having that rule was a huge entry level hurdle, they got rid of it.

IMO:

- At the local level of casual, GW shouldn't care if your army is painted or not
- At the GT level and any tournament, GW should require the armies be painted 3 colors and based.

Well, a higher painting score would get rid of a lot of horde ork armies.

The 180 shoota boy armies that remain would deserve to win just on account of the player's perseverance.

::EDIT:: As a side note, while I like armies to painted, basing is a bit of a hassle. Half the time they don't even match the board.

wynnstudio wrote:The current scoring favors a few builds and leave the rest out. Bringing painting up to par would help even this out.

How much painting rates doesn't effect what builds are good.

Studies have shown that when players of a certain 40k army learn that their army has done poorly at a major tournament, spouse abuse in that demographic increases.

Do not try to argue, it is science.

Boxant: Try adding a statistic next time, you could get tons believing it then

Like, "Studies have shown that spousal abuse increases by 49% after any Grand tournament in which Space Marines do more than 20% worse than the top 10% of the players"

skyth wrote:

wynnstudio wrote:The current scoring favors a few builds and leave the rest out. Bringing painting up to par would help even this out.

How much painting rates doesn't effect what builds are good.

It doesn't but a someone could play witch hunters or another "mid level" army and try to make it up with painting what they may not get ion battle..

The highest paint score in the top 3 of 2008 GT's was a 39 and it was an eldar player. The rest were around 30. If you upped the points for painting you may see some more variation in the top 3 placers. Also If you look at a lot of the scores the overall winner they could have also won the best general too but they only give one award per player. The painting change IMO would make overall really be overall and make best general have more weight to it.

wynnstudio

wynnstudio wrote:

skyth wrote:

wynnstudio wrote:The current scoring favors a few builds and leave the rest out. Bringing painting up to par would help even this out.

How much painting rates doesn't effect what builds are good.

It doesn't but a someone could play witch hunters or another "mid level" army and try to make it up with painting what they may not get ion battle..

And you're better off still getting the higher battle score in addition to the higher painting score with the 'top tier' army.

Again, how unless you have people who cheat and give painting scores based on army comp (And those do exist), upping the painting points doesn't affect army variety.

Battle scores are battle scores and soft scores are soft scores. One very rarely has the ability to cancel out the deficiencies in the other.

Battle points are really the only thing that you as a player can more or less directly control. You can be dinged on sportsmanship or painting for any number of reasons.

A second comment regarding painting: many (although not all) top tournament players pay to have parts or all of their tournament armies painted. Its just the way the game is meta'd now.

I do not think painting, sports, comp, etc. are realistic solutions to acting as a counter for mid level armies. Because anything you can do to improve your soft scores, someone else will also do with their top tier army.

The only way to neutralize the horde superiority phenomenon is by having the organizers design missions which do not favor them (on top of a rules set that already favors them). I'm not saying they should be handicapped by any means, but rather missions that emphasize KP's, large troop selections, etc., should probably be discouraged in favor of more tactically oriented objectives.

JMHO.

I don't think upping the painting would stop the current top armies nor do I want too. I just would like to see the paint and sports be equal. IMO that may bring in other armies in the top. It would be nice to see a bit more of a mix. If a high paint score forces the guys winning overall currently to paint better or pay more money (which I don't really see happening) then thats better too and they deserve there overall more so.

wynnstudio

They were always advocating for more troops and taking a lot of troops. Well I think they got their wish with orks... Space Marine troops are overpriced imo. Notice I don't play SM, only Crons, Eldar and Orks. I would say IG are over priced too, but they're changing to 4 points.

wynnstudio wrote:I don't think upping the painting would stop the current top armies nor do I want too. I just would like to see the paint and sports be equal. IMO that may bring in other armies in the top. It would be nice to see a bit more of a mix. If a high paint score forces the guys winning overall currently to paint better or pay more money (which I don't really see happening) then thats better too and they deserve there overall more so.

Note that painting and sports aren’t equal now- painting really is bigger, because it has a larger amount of variance.

50 possible points for Sports is not as big as it looks. Given that really only about 5-10pts separate the low scores from the high scores, functionally Sports is pretty close to only 10pts of the actual scoring.

yea, painting his judged... pretty strangely

Think about this for painting:

I have a friend who won Best Painted in the Atlanta GT a couple years back. He took more or less the same army/models (with a few changes) to LV this past year and scored a 17.

Painting is kind of like how the Olympic figure skating is scored. It all depends on which judge you get and whether they woke up in a good mood that day; whether they like your style; whether they like your army; whether they actually follow the listed guidelines; whether you are a "noted" favorite player; and whether or not they have connections to you outside of the tournament. Kind of sad really...

That is why all the judges should look at all the armies and make an aggregate score.

I agree with you. The sad thing is, the company that actually makes the game and sells the product puts on the messiest tournaments.

Even if pro-painting were outlawed (which was tried several years ago) GW almost never can find the players doing it. And as stated earlier, it is actually in their interest to have more better painted armies than in enforcing this policy. This is why the GT mantra of overall winner and "best hobbyist," as well as "best painted," ought to come with an asterisk.

EDIT:

On second thought, they ought to change it to "prettiest army." Then the award would sound as light and fluffy as it sometimes is.

Eldanar wrote:Think about this for painting:
It all depends on which judge you get and whether they woke up in a good mood that day; whether they like your style; whether they like your army; whether they actually follow the listed guidelines; whether you are a "noted" favorite player; and whether or not they have connections to you outside of the tournament. Kind of sad really...

Do you have any real way of proving that.

Because if that so I should have scored a 40 this year at Baltimore. I knew who judged my army and we are pretty friendly and I do side work for GW. Instead I got a 27 which was fair. There are inconsistencies which have gotten less with each event but I have yet to see favoritism in the scoring.


wynnstudio

I wasn't really referring to favoritsm so much so as to inconsistencies. Although there are several regular tournament goers who are friendly with the judges and/or are known to lobby for themselves.

See my prior post above. How does an army go from being Best Painted in a GT one year, and then score a 24 in a GT the next year (I originally posted a "17" but it was actually a 24). Assuming 90% of the models are the exact same ones, and the other 10% are painted to the same standard. [That is almost a 50% drop...although I do realize the scoring methodology has changed from year to year, but it still should not be that large of a drop off.]

The problem with painting is that it is completely subjective.

I have not gone to any GT's this past year (work issues, etc.). However, I had several friends who went to multiple GT's, and took the same armies. They had pretty significant disproportionate painting scores from event to event.

For example in Chicago, the army scored a 30. But in LV, it scored a 24. That is a 20% drop from one event to the next with the same models.

If the judges are using their little "check the box criteria" that the website listed for painting, then they should, theoretically, be within a point or two of each other, if not identical (assuming no extra work was done in between tournaments, which I do not believe was the case).

The only possible difference I can see is that a different person judged them in each different event, AND, in one tournament, the models were borrowed by player A from player B, who could not go (and player A wanted to try out a different army just for fun); although player B used them in the other tournament.

30 versus 24 is not that huge of a difference really... Certainly not enough to raise a serious eye brow.

Seeing that all of the top ten at the Baltimore GT scored 45 points or more for sportsmanship indicates this category is a relative non-factor in the big event environment. To be honest I hate to see a pro painted army score so many points for appearance but what are you going to do if you can't paint well or afford to buy your army already painted?

G