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 don't think ignoring Danny is what to do.

It is important to hear from the non comp camp (of which I am a member).

@Danny

I think that since they have a best general award that seems to get excellent prize support, there is a place at this tourny for even the most extreme tourny player.

If you don't like subjective scores, ignore them and play for best general.

The people playing for best overall should make getting this award even easier since thier lists will be softer.

I dont see much value in three to four pages of arguments about whether or not comp has a place in tournaments would be better served in a thread solely dedicated to that topic.

G

GBF, it's relevant to this tournament, particularly because the tournament organize is here claiming that this is a "battle points tournament" when it clearly is not. If you feel this is inappropriate then perhaps you should take off the hall monitor sash and write to a moderator.

I think that since they have a best general award that seems to get excellent prize support, there is a place at this tourny for even the most extreme tourny player.

If you don't like subjective scores, ignore them and play for best general.

I would like to give credit to them for giving away a golden ticket to Vegas to the person who wins Best General. As a tournament player though, this is of little interest to me because I have no interest in flying out to California to play in a hobby event so that I might get invited to fly out to Las Vegas to play in more of the same. The reason I'm chiming in on this thread is because the TO doesn't seem to be aware of the serious flaws in his soft scoring system, or at least refuses to acknowledge. Discussions can only help change the US tournament system for the better, in my opinion.

Danny it is just your opinion his system is flawed. If you have been following Dakka lately you'll see that comp seems to be very popular over on the west coast.

G

Popular among TO's, yes. I've attended many tournaments with comp in the past but I've never seen one where people were polled as to whether or not they like comp. People will go to just about any event now that GW is no longer in the business of running Grand Tournaments.

Judging by the poll here (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/282431.page), it would seem that people who favor comp represent a fairly small minority, would it not? Only 51 of 248 people voted for a system including comp scores. That's only 20%. How do you reconcile these results with comp being so "popular"?

@ GBF (or whatever your NOTM is) - Popularity does not mean that the system is not flawed. From an objective competitive stand point, the current versions of comp scoring used in tournaments is flawed. You may not accept the premise that subjective soft scores, scored by the competitors, have a high potential for corruption. If you do not, then that is your opinion.

On a different note, I do look forward to SiS2 and look forward to having fun, while still suffering from poor comp scoring

@ AB

Have you seen the comp scoring I am using for my GT?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:
Judging by the poll here (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/282431.page), it would seem that people who favor comp represent a fairly small minority, would it not? Only 51 of 248 people voted for a system including comp scores. That's only 20%. How do you reconcile these results with comp being so "popular"?

Danny I doubt the validity of those results.

G

Your not discussing it though Danny. Your just attacking the format. They've actually been very good about accepting criticism for their rules packet from the community. I also give props to being willing to come on here and discuss his view (one of several in charge of the tournament).

I feel bad for TO's honestly because it's a no win situation on the internet. The same 2 guys are going to attack any tournament that has comp on Dakka.

There are plenty of comp/no comp threads. I'd ask that you please take that discussion there. From this point forward I'm going to be reporting any thread derailments based on comp.

I'm not a fan of soft scores myself but bashing on people that are helping promote our hobby will just make people not want to try.

And as for Danny. You run a no soft score event and I'll fly, drive, or take a train to get to it. But until you do attacking others who are putting up the money, time, and effort is bad form.

Danny I doubt the validity of those results.

On what grounds? Please elaborate.

And as for Danny. You run a no soft score event and I'll fly, drive, or take a train to get to it. But until you do attacking others who are putting up the money, time, and effort is bad form.

Sorry to break it to you, but just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean I'm not discussing it. Criticism and discussion are not mutually exclusive.

As for the old "if you don't like it go start your own X!" argument...really? You're better than that. I'm as much a part of this community as anyone else who plays Warhammer and the dominance of hobby events in lieu of tournaments is having serious detrimental effects on the competitive aspect of the game. Despite the problems and complaints that comp scores always generate just about all of the indy GT's include it. Unfortunately the fallacy that soft scores are necessary and that comp scores are "popular" has become ingrained in those who control the tournament scene in the US. My hope is that pointing out why their scoring systems are bad will eventually be taken to heart and become an impetus for change.

The issue with the comp system is that it isn't based on the power of the list, but rather if they are playing 'right'.

I don't have a problem so much with comp being a balancing act based on the relative power of the lists. I do have a problem with the general idea that you're a bad person if you don't play 'our' way. The TO had a holier-than-thou attitude when explaining the comp system which is a divisive force in the hobby and creates arguments.

My problem is the comp system that they are using is just a bit outdated. It seems like it is from the 4th edition of the game.

Minimum troops where taken care of by having them be the only scoring units. I played a guy once who had 5 land raiders, and had only 2 squads of 5 men which was easy to kill so the best he couple hope for was a tie.

Also with kill point missions, you no longer have to worry about mini-maxed squads. Small squads are at a disadvantage in 5th edition.

So a lot of comp issues are taken care of by the scenarios picked. Hulksmash did so well at the Broadside Bash because they refused to have any dawn of war missions so that let him set up his 18 missile launcher long fangs in the best position every game.

Take theme for example, Mech Guard is one of the best builds out there and should score low in comp, but it does not because it is themed well.

It really seems like the comp list is based on playing 'right' rather than the power level of the army.

When the TO has a problem with a list that can only really draw in objective missions, there is a problem.

Phazael wrote:The fluff bunnies paid the same price as the power gamers and they deserve a small say in the overall, even if it is less than half of what battle points say.

I thought I would make a note - it seems like your sportsmanship scores are actually player scored comp scoring, which is confusing to me. In the tournaments I've attended, sportsmanship is scored on your opponent, their knowledge of the game and ruleset, and how they interacted with you.

Your checklist is based around the opponent's army, its composition, and how your opponent used it during the game. Nothing wrong with sportsmanship scoring I suppose, but this the checklist isn't really sportsmanship. Then again, I could be missing something huge here and that might actually *be* the composition checklist or something.

Second; have you tried a tournament without that checklist? I've been to several major events with sportsmanship scoring and several major events without it (the largest being the SVDM GT last month) and things went smoothly without anyone having the douchebaggery that you're trying to avoid.

I will say this: A douchebag is a douchebag, and the presence of a sportsmanship score doesn't change their behavior. The other 95%+ of players have no problems...and it seems like at least 50%-75% of people in a tournament max out their sportsmanship score, so how is giving out a prize for best sportsman any fair? Perhaps an all-encompassing "favorite player" where everyone in the tournament casts a vote for one person in the tournament that has their favorite combination of army, theme, personality....fluffiness if you will. Call it the Fluffy award if you like.

Hrm....thought I'd share.

It's the comp checklist Dash that people posted up . The sports checklist is another 6 questions that deal with the actual game and opponent not their army.

Ultimately, given how subjective it really is, even with the checklist, I just choose to ignore it and build what I feel is a good, balanced, take-all-comers, list. Some people will find it "compy" and others won't. It truly is in the hands of my opponent and their experience to decide if what I a bringing is "compy" or not. I don't like it, but I don't like a lot of things... I mostly don't like that Codex: CSM has really poor Fast Attack options

I thought comp was being judged beforehand, was used for pairings, and nothing else?

So what does it matter?

Dashofpepper wrote:I thought comp was being judged beforehand, was used for pairings, and nothing else?

So what does it matter?

It's not just for pairing. It's also player rated as well for each match using the checklist Blackmoor mentioned. It's also 15% of your overall score.

At Broadside Bash I gave every single one of my opponents maximum comp scores and sportsmanship regardless of what they were playing or how they acted. The TO actually had the audacity to get mad at me for doing that. I found that absurd.

Kevin Nash wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I thought comp was being judged beforehand, was used for pairings, and nothing else?

So what does it matter?

It's not just for pairing. It's also player rated as well for each match using the checklist Blackmoor mentioned. It's also 15% of your overall score.

At Broadside Bash I gave every single one of my opponents maximum comp scores and sportsmanship regardless of what they were playing or how they acted. The TO actually had the audacity to get mad at me for doing that. I found that absurd.

Ouch. When I used to play 'hobbyist' tournaments I actually had a TO threaten to penalize me because I was giving all my opponents full comp and sports. It's a very strange mindset. But as for the socal slaughter, surely, Dash, you were aware of the scoring before you booked your transcontinental flight?

Non-player judged comp is being used for pairing only. The 12 point soft score checklist is being used at the end of each game. Technically 6 questions are sports and 6 are comp related. Last year this whole checklist was just considered "sportsmanship". Making it a 20/30/50 spread for painting/sports/battle points.

Reality is that most people will get 11/12 or 12/12 every game making soft scores not worth nearly as much. In fact last year there were exactly 2 people who didn't score minimum 11/12 every game.

Basically build what you want. Battlepoints really will be the determining factor.

olympia wrote: But as for the socal slaughter, surely, Dash, you were aware of the scoring before you booked your transcontinental flight?

No, but it wouldn't make any difference in my choice to attend. My wife has been bugging me for a vacation, California is suitably far away to meet that requirement, Hulksmash' wife has volunteered to befriend my wife and go to Disneyland (something my wife has always wanted to do, despite having Disney World in Florida where she is from) while Hulksmash and I got to the GT, so its a win/win on multiple fronts.

I agree with Blackmoor, that the checklist being used for comp in this case really is too subjective. The questions are extremely open to interpretation, and I can see how they will be interpreted a wide variety of ways by different players. Even if the judges are all on the same page, I can certainly see how the player won’t be, leading to mismatches of score like Blackmoor experienced at the Broadside Bash. OTOH I don’t otherwise object to what else I see of this event. Most of it sounds perfectly reasonable, if a bit higher-weighted toward soft scores than I might usually prefer.

Danny’s problem is that since he adopts the exact same strident tone regarding every soft score in every context and example, he may run into a “boy who cried wolf” phenomenon where people disregard his comments even if he is offering useful criticism on a given occasion.

Kevin Nash wrote: At Broadside Bash I gave every single one of my opponents maximum comp scores and sportsmanship regardless of what they were playing or how they acted. The TO actually had the audacity to get mad at me for doing that. I found that absurd.

If the organizers clearly explain (particularly on the score sheets) the scoring criteria, and you don’t follow them, that’s a breach of the social contract with them to follow the rules of the tournament. I could certainly understand why an organizer could be annoyed. OTOH if the scoring system is ambiguous and you are following it to the best of your ability, that’s really the organizer’s error.

Sometimes it’s a mix. Like Sportsmanship scoring systems which mark the highest scores as “This was the most fun game I ever played.” If it’s just a really fun game, but not the “best ever”, then the player is violating the rules by checking that top box. OTOH, I think it’s a mistake to even put that box on the chart, as it creates a situation where players are caught in the dilemma between exaggerating, and almost never giving anyone a top Sports score.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hulksmash wrote:Reality is that most people will get 11/12 or 12/12 every game making soft scores not worth nearly as much. In fact last year there were exactly 2 people who didn't score minimum 11/12 every game.

Basically build what you want. Battlepoints really will be the determining factor.

This concept is an important one that folks always need to bear in mind when evaluating scoring systems. The total points available in a given category, and what percentage of the potential maximum score that represents, is almost meaningless. It’s the possible (and actual, in practice) spread of points within each category that determines its real importance.

OTOH, I do think that organizers are well-served to re-assess their scoring systems in view of the actual numbers received in the events they run. Hulksmash, if the actual spread of scores you see in practice is so small, is there really a lot of value in having such a large range of possible scores? Would it simplify things and make the scoring more meaningful if the organizers narrowed the range?

Mannahnin wrote:I agree with Blackmoor, that the checklist being used for comp in this case really is too subjective. The questions are extremely open to interpretation, and I can see how they will be interpreted a wide variety of ways by different players. Even if the judges are all on the same page, I can certainly see how the player won’t be, leading to mismatches of score like Blackmoor experienced at the Broadside Bash. OTOH I don’t otherwise object to what else I see of this event. Most of it sounds perfectly reasonable, if a bit higher-weighted toward soft scores than I might usually prefer.

Player-judged comp isn't being used for matchups; it's just part of the overall score. Judge-scored comp is ONLY being used for matchups (in rounds 1 & 2); it's not part of the overall score.

As someone who is attending, I wouldn't mind tighter language on the comp checklists. Failing that, maybe print off the explanation Phazael provided in this thread, and stick it to the rules packet, so everyone is on the same page. (I, like Blackmoor, wouldn't read "#5) My opponent’s army did not unreasonably overwhelm the hand-to-hand or shooting phase." as being equivalent to "#5- Is playing an army with 20 Missile Launchers with Razorspam or Fatecrusher really fun? I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who said "yes" to that, so this point addresses those people." I don't know how an IG, Tau, or Tyranid player is supposed to get this point, as written - their whole codex design is generally built around one phase or the other.)

This concept is an important one that folks always need to bear in mind when evaluating scoring systems. The total points available in a given category, and what percentage of the potential maximum score that represents, is almost meaningless. It’s the possible (and actual, in practice) spread of points within each category that determines its real importance.

OTOH, I do think that organizers are well-served to re-assess their scoring systems in view of the actual numbers received in the events they run. Hulksmash, if the actual spread of scores you see in practice is so small, is there really a lot of value in having such a large range of possible scores? Would it simplify things and make the scoring more meaningful if you narrowed the range?

(Remember, Hulksmash isn't involved in running the event.)
Good point on evaluation of scoring systems. Everyone is harping on the "50% of total from soft scores," without considering that the actual difference in those scores should fall within 10-20% (meaning soft scores will affect overall by no more than 5-10%). Battle points, meanwhile, will vary across nearly the entire possible range (I don't expect someone to score exactly 0 points over 5 games, but it may come close).

I think the large range of possible scores is fine; I think the last couple points are too easy to get. If you want to weight a distribution curve, everyone should be getting something like 7 or 8/12. That way, only the truly problem players fall below 5, and only the exceptional ones rise above 10; both of those data points are valuable to the TOs. But getting that distribution is almost impossible, because of the expectation problem you noted - people don't want to "dock" the other guy for playing a very nice game, but not the "best game ever." So long as the perception of "points not achieved == points lost" persists, we're better off with a "vote for favorite opponent" option which grants a few bonus points.

Janthkin wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I agree with Blackmoor, that the checklist being used for comp in this case really is too subjective. The questions are extremely open to interpretation, and I can see how they will be interpreted a wide variety of ways by different players. Even if the judges are all on the same page, I can certainly see how the player won’t be, leading to mismatches of score like Blackmoor experienced at the Broadside Bash. OTOH I don’t otherwise object to what else I see of this event. Most of it sounds perfectly reasonable, if a bit higher-weighted toward soft scores than I might usually prefer.

Player-judged comp isn't being used for matchups; it's just part of the overall score. Judge-scored comp is ONLY being used for matchups (in rounds 1 & 2); it's not part of the overall score.

I know, and Blackmoor previously pointed out that this actually may exacerbate the issue in some cases. If the organizers are all on the same page, and pair armies based on their understanding of the comp scoring system, that’s cool, and may work out very well for pairings. But if a high-comped player doesn’t understand their criteria and sees the army he is facing as low-comp, Blackmoor may receive a lower opponent-scored comp rating in consequence.

BTW, thanks for reminding me about HS; I meant the editorial “you”, but he’s already corrected me once, and my phrasing could be clearer. I’ll edit my post.

If the organizers clearly explain (particularly on the score sheets) the scoring criteria, and you don’t follow them, that’s a breach of the social contract with them to follow the rules of the tournament.

I don't recall going over a rule book or contract or signing any kind of documentation prior to playing aside from my credit card receipt for the last comp tourney I played in.

I understand it's against the spirit of the soft score system to basically max out everyone's scores but if you are going to allow player voting then you have to accept any of the stupid results that come out of that. You can't allow people to vote in a subjective system and then tell them they are voting incorrectly. I could just as easily tank everybody's scores as well if I wanted and they can complain all they want but they have no leg to stand on regarding disproving the accuracy of my scores.

Basically the onus is on them to prove that my scores are somehow skewed. Since their system is not objective at all they cannot do this.

If you don't like soft scores being made into a mockery then don't allow player voting, or at the very least don't have it impact tournament invites to Vegas.

Kevin Nash wrote:

If the organizers clearly explain (particularly on the score sheets) the scoring criteria, and you don’t follow them, that’s a breach of the social contract with them to follow the rules of the tournament.

I don't recall going over a rule book or contract or signing any kind of documentation prior to playing aside from my credit card receipt for the last comp tourney I played in.

I understand it's against the spirit of the soft score system to basically max out everyone's scores but if you are going to allow player voting then you have to accept any of the stupid results that come out of that. You can't allow people to vote in a subjective system and then tell them they are voting incorrectly. I could just as easily tank everybody's scores as well if I wanted and they can complain all they want but they have no leg to stand on regarding disproving the accuracy of my scores.

Basically the onus is on them to prove that my scores are somehow skewed. Since their system is not objective at all they cannot do this.

If you don't like soft scores being made into a mockery then don't allow player voting, or at the very least don't have it impact tournament invites to Vegas.

Nothing in writing prevents you from throwing all of your games either, or paying your opponent to do the same for you. And yet, I don't see people arguing that it's their right to do so, and I imagine even the most hard-core supporter of tournament play wouldn't endorse such behavior.

That's the essence of a social contract - everyone is agreeing to be governed by the same set of rules. If you are intentionally violating those rules, you are damaging the system. In the real world, failure to abide by the underlying social contract can result in penalties (e.g., break a criminal law, suffer the appropriate sanction, even though you never signed anything stating that you would abide by the criminal laws of your jurisdiction). In the gaming world, it ought to be the same; players who intentionally misuse the soft scores (in either direction) get booted from the tournament. How is "intentionally misuse" determined? TO's discretion; this isn't a democracy.

Sorry Kevin, I assumed too much that you’d know what I meant by social contract. I mean that when you agree to play in a tournament, you agree to play by the rules. No? If the rules include sportsmanship scoring by the players, the player’s obligation is to follow the instructions to the best of their ability.

If a player disregards the tournament's scoring instructions (like say, putting himself down for bonus battle points he did not earn), he is violating the rules of the event, undermining the validity of the scoring, and breaking the implicit social agreement between himself, the organizers, and the other players, to all play honestly by the same rules, which the organizer has established.

If the criteria are genuinely so badly-explained or ambiguous that your honest effort to use them results in a surprising / unpleasant result for the organizer, that’s clearly a problem with his system / explanations. If, on the other hand, you don’t invest the honest effort to abide by the rules, that’s your responsibility.

I know that some folks use giving all max scores as effectively a “protest vote”, but I disagree that it’s a reasonable or appropriate response. It’s disrespectful to the organizer, and effectively challenges him to throw you out of the event for breaking the rules. The more ethical course of action is just not to participate, or to follow the rules as best you can and then give reasoned, thoughtful criticism.

Mannahnin wrote:I know, and Blackmoor previously pointed out that this actually may exacerbate the issue in some cases. If the organizers are all on the same page, and pair armies based on their understanding of the comp scoring system, that’s cool, and may work out very well for pairings. But if a high-comped player doesn’t understand their criteria and sees the army he is facing as low-comp, Blackmoor may receive a lower opponent-scored comp rating in consequence.

This all falls on the judges' heads. If they can recognize the stealth lists, then things like the Blackmoor Bash don't occur. If they miss them, than a hammer list ends up paired against softer opponents. (That said, Blackmoor lost his first matchup against a "soft" list.)

Janthkin wrote:Good point on evaluation of scoring systems. Everyone is harping on the "50% of total from soft scores," without considering that the actual difference in those scores should fall within 10-20% (meaning soft scores will affect overall by no more than 5-10%).

I usually see those types of soft scores as 'Exclusionary' soft scores. It's intended to keep someone unpopular (ie plays differently) from winning anything so they don't bother even showing up, but not to matter for the 'in' crowd...

I don’t think that’s the intent at all, but I can understand how it could feel like that, and hurt people’s feelings as a result.

@Skythe

I can see you point in a broad brush style as far as soft scores Skythe. I personally despise soft scores. I'm pretty friendly regardless of what's happening and am normally there just to roll dice. However at this event since one of the tickets to Vegas (arguably the reason to play in these events) is going to the highest battle point player I can't see how it applies. If your goal is to smash face with a nasty list and get to Vegas this event allows you to do it w/out being the best painted/sport/comp player. If you goal is to be the ultimate hobbyist and go to Vegas you can.

Personally I think that by being the first Indy GT to give out a ticket to Vegas based purely on battle points is ballsy. They decided to cater to the purely competitive tourney gamer. Which says a lot for the type of event they want to run. They aren't excluding anyone and are in fact encouraging a slightly more cutthroat environment. The ultimate prize (i.e. the vegas ticket) is up for grabs on purely battle results.

Now I'm sure some people will still bill this tourney as uncompetitive but this is still the first tournament in the US this year to award the best general on the same level as the best hobbyist. And as far as I know only GBF's tournament is planning on doing the same thing. An idea I threw out there in his original thread based on how the Slaughter crew was doing theirs.