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:

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

no actually if some body chipmunks me I don't get grumpy I had a good game.
come play me at hardboyz. you will lose and I will stretch the rules and mock you while doing it and you have no recourse but to lose the game. get the judge, Slow playing isn't against the rules. I can't find it anywhere in the rule book or in the hard boyz hand outs

Kilkrazy wrote:

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

Neither do I.

So much for the "objectivity" of battle scores.

False Analogy...

Something that is effectively cheating by the TO(Deliberately stacking the deck to help people win) is an entirely different from having a different opinion on something.

Danny Internets wrote:Would you go to a "tournament" if it also featured a 17-hour interpretative dance marathon that comprised 90% of the tournament scoring? After all, you can still go just for the tournament part and have fun competing for battle points. Just tough it out through the part you're not even remotely interested in. When it comes to spending hundreds or thousands of dollars and taking time off work and away from family to participate in events around the country it's important to decide whether or not it's worth it. When the focus is on the hobby rather than the tournament many of us decide it's not worth it to spend our money on something that isn't really geared towards what we like.

There have been and still are plenty of events where the soft scores are a smaller portion than the hard scores. Best Generals typically receive the second most in product or prize support. Soft scores are normally only involved in best generals for tie breaking.

Hell - I've played in DaBoyz GT where I got raped in comp. I won best general and didn't care on the comp side. I also lost 10 points in NW Conquest due to not painting the army I brought myself. I knew that ahead of time, still took the army and won best general there as well. Perfect examples of someone getting to do what they want and still getting the result that they desire.

In short - while I don't attend Gamesdays for the hobby side (which fits your example perfectly), there are plenty of events that fit the bill for players who are more interested in the game and not as much on the hobby side. All you have to do is open your eyes a little. It's not a big scary world out there. Again - your groups simply need to quit making excuses, jump off that false pedestal of yours and get in the game.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote: jump off that false pedestal of yours and get in the game.

Absolutely! If a tournament has a component you don't like (or maybe are REALLY bad at) - then don't play - or go to have fun and don't worry about the end result.


All this cry baby whiny @ssing about "I get chipmunked on sportsmanship and comp" is really silly. It's part of a lot of tournaments - I'm just as glad it is as others with it's not. It's the way it works - suck it up and play the game!

So where exactly are the truly competitive tournaments being held? I would love to attend one and have plenty of Frequent Flyer Miles. It's one thing to knock a tournament for not being competitive (in your opinion) but if you can't provide some good examples of tournaments you consider to be competitive then it looks like you are trolling this forum. Backyard events don't count either, it should be something on the scale of a GT. YTTHcon sounds like a good start but we will have to wait and see if it materializes. It's one thing to talk about running a tournament but it's absolutely something else to organize and run one plus draw a large crowd.

I think enough solid examples have been provided that demonstrate a tourney with soft scores can still be competitive. Most of all of the best players I have met have been at GTs. Some of them have posted in this thread. I think you need to first establish a credible reputation as a top player before you shoot off at the mouth dinging events as non competitive. Otherwise at the end of the day you come across as an obvious troll.

G

no actually if some body chipmunks me I don't get grumpy I had a good game.

I understand that you seem to get enraged at every comment I make, but please do try and read more carefully. My post had nothing to do with chipmunking.

come play me at hardboyz. you will lose and I will stretch the rules and mock you while doing it and you have no recourse but to lose the game. get the judge, Slow playing isn't against the rules. I can't find it anywhere in the rule book or in the hard boyz hand outs

I'd love to play you at 'Ard Boyz despite the fact that you plan on blatantly cheating (the first page of the 'Ard Boyz rules makes it clear that stallers will be asked to leave). I look forward to my free massacre! I'll probably be playing at one of the NJ locations this year--PM me if you want to find out which and maybe we can arrange a game.

@GBF: Locally, Brothers Grim in Selden, NY (Long Island) runs 40-man tournaments every other month and they always fill up. We also host 2 a year (also 40 players) at the Battle for Salvation club. I mention these because they are the same size as some of the indy GT's this past serason and several of the regulars have won indy GT's or at least placed in the top 3 (you're familiar with both Rob Baer and Jawaballs, and perhaps Alex Fennel who came to our last tournament). Awards are for highest battle points and highest painting score (total killpoints for the day are used as a tie-breaker). Missions are variations on the core rulebook scenarios with primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives to encourage a wider spread of scores. They're run exceptionally well and people are willing to come from pretty far to attend.

Nationally, you've got 'Ard Boyz, but that's about it, and its not without problems (but it's the best we've got, competitively speaking). The indy GT's obviously have a wide range of competitiveness to them because of the different scoring formats. Some have soft scores as high as 60% while others as low as 20%. I think Adepticon gets pretty close, but at the end of the day it still suffers from the fact that soft scores have a significant impact on the rankings and the champion is not necessary the tournament winner but the best hobbyist at the event. The NOVA Open is another that looks to be shaping up well with what seems to be a more sophisticated format more conducive to fleshing out the best players.

I was also looking forward to YTTHcon but it had been put on the back burner indefinately last I heard.

As for credibility, and as I stated earlier, it's not necessary to play in a tournament in order to understand the mechanics of its scoring and its largely the mechanics by which I justify my claim that these tournaments are less competitive. For instance, it's entirely possible to look at the dynamics of how soft scores impact overall rankings just by doing some rudimentary statistical analysis of the results, as demonstrated in the spreadsheet I linked to and by Airmaniac's sampling in SPSS.

But if you really want to get into it, I've beaten at least 4 GT winners (1 GW, 3 indy) whom I can recall. If I can compete with people who have this so-called credibility then perhaps I'm not totally clueless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Again - your groups simply need to quit making excuses, jump off that false pedestal of yours and get in the game.

I don't need to do anything. I'm simply providing reasons why I (and some others) don't attend hobby competitions.

I have to wonder though if you demand the same from hobby-centered gamers who decline to participate in 'Ard Boyz because of its lack of painting, sportsmanship, or comp scoring. I've seen some beautifully painted armies at 'Ard Boyz and have encountered some of the best sportsmen. But I guess we all love a good double standard.

Danny Internets wrote:

I have to wonder though if you demand the same from hobby-centered gamers who decline to participate in 'Ard Boyz because of its lack of painting, sportsmanship, or comp scoring. I've seen some beautifully painted armies at 'Ard Boyz and have encountered some of the best sportsmen. But I guess we all love a good double standard.

I'm not quite sure if that's fair. For example, on the continuum of modeling/painting-----winning/list building I'm definitely heavy to the left. However, I don't criticize ArdBoyz when I see seas of unpainted plastic. It is what it is, some people get a kick and it's their show. I feel since we are involved in a hobby however, that hobby excellence should be awarded (That incorporates etiquette/modeling/tabletop). If someone wanted to run their own tournament that only judged battle points, hey I'm sure some would attend but it certainly wouldn't interest me....and that's just fine . Doesn't make me wrong or right...or you wrong or right...just makes the forum diverse....

However, I have an honest question. If tabletop skill is the only skill set one is interested in...why choose 40k? D6 probability + vague rules + true LOS does not lend itself to judging pure skill. I would think computer games would better suit that desire?

Well maybe I can come up for one of those big tournaments. I know of the people you mentioned.... I Alex at Adepticon last Friday playing him in the third round of the Gladiator... It was by far my favorite match over the entire weekend. I will give cred in regards to your statement claiming to have beaten some GT winners... Good for ya and it helps to better clarify your position. I happen to be a good friend of Rob Baer as he is a fellow member of the 40k Wrecking Crew. I know of Jawaballs and he presents himself as an up and coming tournament gamer with a popular blog and some decent tactical articles. I think it might be fun to attend one of these 40+ player tournaments you've mentioned so I'll keep an ear to the ground.

It sounds like you are starting to move towards the middle in this discussion and in my mind that can only be a good thing. Obviously we won't all agree on everything presented here but if we can politely share some ideas I think we will be that much better for it. Bascically stating that if an event includes soft scores is non competitive and then classing it as a hobby event is a broad stroke of the brush and often it presents an event in the wrong light. It just seems to me that often enough the truly top players can find a way to reach a top table in the final round and have a shot at the proverbial golden ring. Really there is nothing wrong with soft scores if they are properly applied, their inclusion does not in any way shape or form make these events any less competitve if done right. TFGs will always present a problem wherever they go, a lack of soft scores does not make them any easier to deal with during actual game play. A lot of have found through lots of experience that soft scores can be an effective method of dealing with the woeful TFGs. It's obviously not always the case but it is there. Many people feel that the exclusion of soft scores then to provide TFGs with more room to twist their games to their favor as they don't have to worry about being marked down for unsportsmanlike conduct. Sure a TFG can game the soft scores so to me it's the responsibilities of the TOs to be on the lookout for this type of behaviour and based upon my experience I think it's completely feasible.

G

Danny Internets wrote:Nationally, you've got 'Ard Boyz, but that's about it, and its not without problems (but it's the best we've got, competitively speaking).

We get it that you love the 'Ard Boyz style format, and that it's similar to your local tourneys, and you like that format of tournament.

You're certainly entitled to this preference, but it's clear most people don't think this way.

So let us have fun and attend the events we like, and you can attend the ones you like, and we don't have to argue about it constantly in this forum... there are a lot more things worth discussing than just this dead-beat-horse!

Hi

I can't say that I understand the line of thinking that places:
Battle Only = Hardcore
within the context of the GW hobby.

To me Hardcore = excelling in every element of the hobby to win.

Example:
Adepticon Team Tournament: Sons of Shatner (my team) finished #1 in battle and #1 in combined painting and theme, taking first overall by a wide margin.

Was it dumb luck? No, it is because we each poured hundreds of hours putting together, converting, and painting an army (and display board) that we were very good with on the table.

That, in my not so humble opinion, is what hardcore in this hobby is all about. Do everything well.

Branding battle as hardcore is a fallacy in this context. Battle only is, to be blunt, the lazy approach to excelling at just one area of the hobby, and hoping to convince the complete hobbiests, or at least tournament organizers, to lower their standard to give lazy a chance.

For myself, if Adepticon ever went that way, it would lose all of its appeal. A big part of the pleasure of going is the excellent work so many people do to bring their very best in all aspects of the hobby.

Cheers,
Carlos the Craven

Danny Internets wrote:@GBF: Locally, Brothers Grim in Selden, NY (Long Island) runs 40-man tournaments every other month and they always fill up. We also host 2 a year (also 40 players) at the Battle for Salvation club. I mention these because they are the same size as some of the indy GT's this past serason and several of the regulars have won indy GT's or at least placed in the top 3 (you're familiar with both Rob Baer and Jawaballs, and perhaps Alex Fennel who came to our last tournament). Awards are for highest battle points and highest painting score (total killpoints for the day are used as a tie-breaker). Missions are variations on the core rulebook scenarios with primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives to encourage a wider spread of scores. They're run exceptionally well and people are willing to come from pretty far to attend.

Best General and Best Appearance awards accomplish the same thing for representing the hobby and game side at all the events you shun. A ton of the events that are out there already use the primary, secondary, and tertiary objective system. So at this point, you really aren't running anything that is "super special beyond all belief". This is the problem with YTTH and your club groups. You give the impression that you are striving for something that is extra special and you have exceptional talent beyond the world's understanding. But at the end of the day, all of you are just the same as the other high caliber groups and events. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether you like to admit it or not, you are just like everyone else. But then again - everyone likes to think they are special in their own unique way. It's only when you finally realize you fall within some statistical distribution that things come into perspective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote: I have to wonder though if you demand the same from hobby-centered gamers who decline to participate in 'Ard Boyz because of its lack of painting, sportsmanship, or comp scoring. I've seen some beautifully painted armies at 'Ard Boyz and have encountered some of the best sportsmen. But I guess we all love a good double standard.

Nope, I really only know people that are willing to play or don't play the game at all. In your case - I only call it like I see it. You claim to be all about generalship, but yet events exist that are very similar in nature to the one's you quote "run in your area." Based on your own description, you're events are not created on some higher plain of thought and implementation. If you want to believe it, then great - more power to you. But the reality of it is not so much.

So in the end - you can relegate yourself to your corner of the world (which is completely fine). However, if you want to get out and really challenge yourself (instead of just being all talk), then come on out and try some of the larger venues.

skyth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

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

Neither do I.

So much for the "objectivity" of battle scores.

False Analogy...

Something that is effectively cheating by the TO(Deliberately stacking the deck to help people win) is an entirely different from having a different opinion on something.

Results are the same though.

However, I have an honest question. If tabletop skill is the only skill set one is interested in...why choose 40k? D6 probability + vague rules + true LOS does not lend itself to judging pure skill. I would think computer games would better suit that desire?

You'll have to ask someone who is purely interested in tabletop skill. For me personally, it's the only part of 40k that I'm interested in enough to participate in competitions. I like the fluff and I put time into painting my models, but overall they're not that important to me. I like poker too, just not enough to go to Vegas and play in the WSOP.

To me Hardcore = excelling in every element of the hobby to win.

And that's totally cool, but not everyone plays the game for the same reasons you do. Fortunately for you all of the national events are geared specifically towards your perspective and I understand why you probably want to keep it that way. But what's wrong with diversity and respecting others' points of view?

Best General and Best Appearance awards accomplish the same thing for representing the hobby and game side at all the events you shun. A ton of the events that are out there already use the primary, secondary, and tertiary objective system. So at this point, you really aren't running anything that is "super special beyond all belief".

Please read the whole thread before jumping in head-first. I covered this earlier. And please don't misrepresent my argument, doing so only distracts from the discussion. I understand that you haven't bothered to read my other posts, but even so your summation of my position is purposely distorted.

The difference between our local tournaments and hobby competitions like Adepticon stems from the selection of an "overall champion" of the "tournament" which is decided by scoring elements that aren't part of the tournament at all (soft scores). This format selects rewards and emphasizes one play-style (the well-rounded hobbyist). If players want to compete successfully in the event they will need to participate in all areas of the hobby whether they want to or not--the system itself pushes a system of values. I firmly believe that all play-styles are equal and should be respected and rewarded equally at these kinds of events (through separate scoring and equivalent prize support). For whatever reason this seems to get everyone's panties in a twist.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

So let us have fun and attend the events we like, and you can attend the ones you like, and we don't have to argue about it constantly in this forum... there are a lot more things worth discussing than just this dead-beat-horse!

No one forcing you to read and participate in this thread, you know. Perhaps follow your own advice of live and let live by letting those who wish to discuss this topic do so?

Danny Internets wrote:

So c'mon, show us this legion of disaffected competitive gamers. Otherwise, you are talking out of your rear-end and spamming tournament threads with nonsense.

The community that participates over at YesTheTruthHurts.com is fairly large and features many of these individuals, including myself. I also know several people in my own club who have chosen not to attend events based on predominance of soft scoring. Obviously it's impossible to quantify the impact of the results without some kind of omniscient mathematical model, but we do exist.

Then the community over there (yourself included) should be putting forward a battle points only tournament at Adepticon.

Let the hardcore players smack each other with Uzis at a knife fight and bask in the glory of a successful tournament.

Don't dream the dream, pull your (by 'your' I mean the hardcore gamers as a collective) finger out and live it, instead of the constant, incessant whining and moaning about a tournament scoring style for a tournament they haven't attended, and enjoyed (it seems) by all the players who did.

Danny Internets wrote:I don't need to do anything. I'm simply providing reasons why I (and some others) don't attend hobby competitions.

I have to wonder though if you demand the same from hobby-centered gamers who decline to participate in 'Ard Boyz because of its lack of painting, sportsmanship, or comp scoring. I've seen some beautifully painted armies at 'Ard Boyz and have encountered some of the best sportsmen. But I guess we all love a good double standard.

This hardly fair or a double standard. Last I checked there are not endless forum and blog posts complaining about the state of 'Ard Boyz and how soft scores are handled there. Sure some people may decide 'Ard Boyz is not their cup of tea, they simply choose to go and participate in another event. There are plenty of people do not like the hyper-competitive nature of singly-focused events like this. The difference is - the hobby community has existed far longer and actually built a number of major events in the real world as opposed to the internet/blogosphere. People really just need to quit trying to turn what they hate into what they want and get out there and create their own event. In the end, what you create will not be perfect and will not even please your player base. You will find yourself with a subsection of your subsection telling you how you should do it. How it could be better. Blaming you for inadequacies in missions or scoring or seeding...then we'd have some lovely common ground to continue this talk...

Danny it seems like you are pretty much alone here on your side of the line drawn in hte sand. It just seems like most people are happy with the way things are. Which I believe you have agreed is fine. Hopefully you will be able to reach Vegas.

G

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

Then the community over there (yourself included) should be putting forward a battle points only tournament at Adepticon.

Isn't the Gladiator BP only?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

skyth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

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

Neither do I.

So much for the "objectivity" of battle scores.

False Analogy...

Something that is effectively cheating by the TO(Deliberately stacking the deck to help people win) is an entirely different from having a different opinion on something.

Results are the same though.

I like your argument...Having soft scores is the same as cheating

Matthias wrote:This hardly fair or a double standard. Last I checked there are not endless forum and blog posts complaining about the state of 'Ard Boyz and how soft scores are handled there.

Check harder? I see tons of complaining about 'Ard Boyz on forums like Warseer every year. And I've seen plenty of whining in recent threads on Dakka about how people supposedly act at the tournament.

Sure some people may decide 'Ard Boyz is not their cup of tea, they simply choose to go and participate in another event. There are plenty of people do not like the hyper-competitive nature of singly-focused events like this. The difference is - the hobby community has existed far longer and actually built a number of major events in the real world as opposed to the internet/blogosphere. People really just need to quit trying to turn what they hate into what they want and get out there and create their own event. In the end, what you create will not be perfect and will not even please your player base. You will find yourself with a subsection of your subsection telling you how you should do it. How it could be better. Blaming you for inadequacies in missions or scoring or seeding...then we'd have some lovely common ground to continue this talk...

Yes, the old "if you don't like it go start your own X!" argument has reared its head again. Not everyone has the time or resources or even desire to do this. I want to play in a tournament, not run one. Sure, it's selfish, but that's how it is. But if I did want to run an event how would I know what event to run? Perhaps I might listen to what people are saying on the internet/blogosphere. There's value in discussion and just because the "tournament" scene has been traditionally dominated by a single hobbyist perspective doesn't mean that it cannot be improved or is even a good thing at all.

As I've repeatedly said, and which has been repeatedly ignored, I don't hate these events. I don't even think they're bad events. I've said this half a dozen times at least. Please read those statements carefully. Just like the people who don't like 'Ard Boyz and don't participate, I don't like hobby competitions and therefore I choose not to participate. I would personally like to see more varied events out there, or at least events that place equal emphasis on all aspects of the hobby.

Blaming you for inadequacies in missions or scoring or seeding...then we'd have some lovely common ground to continue this talk...

If a desire for mutual respect doesn't put us on common ground then there is little hope for this discussion.

skyth wrote:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

Then the community over there (yourself included) should be putting forward a battle points only tournament at Adepticon.

Isn't the Gladiator BP only?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

skyth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

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

Neither do I.

So much for the "objectivity" of battle scores.

False Analogy...

Something that is effectively cheating by the TO(Deliberately stacking the deck to help people win) is an entirely different from having a different opinion on something.

Results are the same though.

I like your argument...Having soft scores is the same as cheating

No. My argument is that so-called Hard Scores are as liable to be affected by judge bias as so-called Soft Scores.

Danny Internets wrote:Yes, the old "if you don't like it go start your own X!" argument has reared its head again. Not everyone has the time or resources or even desire to do this. I want to play in a tournament, not run one. Sure, it's selfish, but that's how it is. But if I did want to run an event how would I know what event to run? Perhaps I might listen to what people are saying on the internet/blogosphere. There's value in discussion and just because the "tournament" scene has been traditionally dominated by a single hobbyist perspective doesn't mean that it cannot be improved or is even a good thing at all.

I don't see anything wrong with this line of reasoning. There is plenty of talk about 'manning up' in the competitive circles. No one is saying you in particular needs to do this, but someone in your like-minded circle really ought to to man up and build something. In a similar manner, we have built want we primary wanted to build with the support of like-minded individuals. Again, quit asking us to be something else. It is not going to happen. There is plenty of room for both types of events.

Danny Internets wrote:As I've repeatedly said, and which has been repeatedly ignored, I don't hate these events. I don't even think they're bad events. I've said this half a dozen times at least. Please read those statements carefully. Just like the people who don't like 'Ard Boyz and don't participate, I don't like hobby competitions and therefore I choose not to participate. I would personally like to see more varied events out there, or at least events that place equal emphasis on all aspects of the hobby.

Then start one or support someone starting one instead of trying to usurp events that have different goals.

Matthias wrote:Blaming you for inadequacies in missions or scoring or seeding...then we'd have some lovely common ground to continue this talk...

Danny Internets wrote:If a desire for mutual respect doesn't put us on common ground then there is little hope for this discussion.

Ha - mutual respect? Common ground? Really? Have you paid any attention to how AdeptiCon is attacked by the competitive crowd - most who have never even attended (or lie about attending)? Hope checked out a long time ago...

Danny Internets wrote: The difference between our local tournaments and hobby competitions like Adepticon stems from the selection of an "overall champion" of the "tournament" which is decided by scoring elements that aren't part of the tournament at all (soft scores). This format selects rewards and emphasizes one play-style (the well-rounded hobbyist). If players want to compete successfully in the event they will need to participate in all areas of the hobby whether they want to or not--the system itself pushes a system of values. I firmly believe that all play-styles are equal and should be respected and rewarded equally at these kinds of events (through separate scoring and equivalent prize support). For whatever reason this seems to get everyone's panties in a twist.

Good thoughts from the equality standpoint. I'm heavily involved in the awards and prize allocation at AdeptiCon. For the specific awards of Generalship and Appearance, the scoring for those awards are completely separate and we have always worked to have prize support equally weighted across both categories. We celebrate both aspects of the hobby and value both equally. What each person receives is going to be different simply because for example we are not going to give a best appearance award painting company gift certificates. We also tend to shy away from large amounts of painting supplies for a best general. We work to give equal award values, but also awards that the winners would hopefully really like.

The only difference is that there is "also" an Overall Champion that combines all categories.

So what I see is that this system exists from the mission style, equality of hobby skill representation, equivalent prize support and more. AdeptiCon for example has embraced this for years along with other events as well. Like I said before - your local tournaments are not unique from this standpoint. The only difference is the inclusion of one award for Overall or a best in all categories. Interesting that one single item prevents your groups from attending similar events when all of the other areas match your promoted system/interest.

Greg's post is spot on. People get way too hung up on the language of 'Overall Champion'. Best General exists, is held in high regard and is richly rewarded. Play for it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

I like your argument...Having soft scores is the same as cheating

No. My argument is that so-called Hard Scores are as liable to be affected by judge bias as so-called Soft Scores.

Cheating is entirely different than bias. However, when a judge specifically changes the rules to help/hamper a player it's easily proven and published...Letting people know to stay away from the tournament in the future.

When it's about bias in soft scores, with them being subjective, there's no way to prove bias (In fact, with sports scoring, there's no way to prove which person gave you a low score).

Plus, cheating is possible in the soft scores department too, and just as likely to happen as the battle portion, add in bias to that, and you can have definite issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Matthias wrote: Best General exists, is held in high regard and is richly rewarded. Play for it.

It doesn't always exist, and is sometimes linked to an entirely subjective soft score when it does.

skyth wrote:

Matthias wrote: Best General exists, is held in high regard and is richly rewarded. Play for it.

It doesn't always exist, and is sometimes linked to an entirely subjective soft score when it does.

In regards to AdepitCon, Best General/Tacticians are decided by:

Gladiator: Pure Battle
Team Tournament: Pure Battle with # of Commanders killed as a tie-breaker
Championships: Battle Points. Sportsmanship then Quiz for tie-breakers.

So out of 3 tournaments, one uses soft scores and then only in the case of a tie-breaker. With possible changes to the way we handle Sportsmanship in 2011, the part you dislike is even further minimized, if not entirely eradicated altogether.

Danny Internets wrote:
Yes, the old "if you don't like it go start your own X!" argument has reared its head again. Not everyone has the time or resources or even desire to do this. I want to play in a tournament, not run one. Sure, it's selfish, but that's how it is.

Don't take this the wrong way...but I think the saying, "lead, follow, or get the #$@# out of the way" applies.

I really slacked this year in relation to AdeptiCon...mainly due to the fact I just started law school. But even with that, I probably spent an average of 3-4 hours a week writing copy, working on Gladiator stuff, INAT conference calls, etc, from July through March. Many other people put in far more hours than that...Hank, Jeff, and Matt (along with Greg) essentially are working two full-time jobs in the months leading up to AdeptiCon. Doesn't make my opinion unquestionable...but I think I've earned the right to have some experience backing up my words. I'm proud of what we accomplished, and I think that the majority of our attendees would agree that our end result was worth the effort.

If you feel so strongly about this...do something. Otherwise, to be honest, I don't really care, and your opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else out there in the interwebs. Get out there and show that there's a large number of people who support your opinion and are willing to travel to play games in the manner you describe, and maybe people will pay more attention to you.

Danny Internets wrote:But if I did want to run an event how would I know what event to run? Perhaps I might listen to what people are saying on the internet/blogosphere. There's value in discussion and just because the "tournament" scene has been traditionally dominated by a single hobbyist perspective doesn't mean that it cannot be improved or is even a good thing at all.

I resent the implication that current tournament organizers (including myself) don't listen to feedback. At AdeptiCon, we take attendee feedback very seriously. After all, if our attendees aren't happy, than we don't have an event. You're trying to cloak your opinion with some mythical weight of internet opinion...when the fact that hundred and thousands of people willingly and happily play in events that don't follow your principles speaks against it. Listening to feedback doesn't mean adopting it...we listen to what our attendees have to say, weigh it against our own experience and knowledge, and make the decisions from there.

Again...lead, follow, or get out of the way. Step up to the plate and run your own event, but don't tell other people how to run theirs. I can't stand Stelek, and I think his blog is critically wrong in many of its core assumptions...but at least he's trying to demonstrate, through his ridiculous bet and attempts to start a con, that there's both value and support for his way of thinking.

What you're just not getting is that the vast majority of 40K tournaments out there ('Ard Boyz and Gladiator excepted) are celebrations of the hobby as a whole, not just the gameplay portions. Nobody owes you anything, aside from the same consideration given to any other attendee.

Danny Internets wrote:
If a desire for mutual respect doesn't put us on common ground then there is little hope for this discussion.

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of a discussion. I and others are listening and reading to what you say. We just don't agree.

Guess what...you're not saying anything new. People have been saying it for years.

Agree to disagree, and move on, because honestly, you're statements have gone from, "this is my opinion and what I'd like to see" to "*whine whine whine* poor me."

Danny who are the four GT winners you beat?

Maybe we could have an internet only tournament so all the people who hate real tournaments can go and play in it

However it might just be 6 hours of posturing and playing theoryhammer ..

skyth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

I like your argument...Having soft scores is the same as cheating

No. My argument is that so-called Hard Scores are as liable to be affected by judge bias as so-called Soft Scores.

Cheating is entirely different than bias. However, when a judge specifically changes the rules to help/hamper a player it's easily proven and published...Letting people know to stay away from the tournament in the future.

That isn't what I said though.

Judges can sway games in favour of one side or another without changing the rules. This is not obvious cheating and can be hard to prove. It is the same situation as applies to soft scoring.

I will say that I would not change anything about the Adepticon Championships. While I can say with great certainty that making soft scores count for more would definitely help me exponentially, you won't see me complaining about it or sitting out.

I think the seething horde of eternally grinning nerds (including myself) speaks for itself. In other words, for those of you that run Adepticon and are reading, don't change a thing, this is proof the grumpy people are going to stay home anyway.

@greg - yes I was happy to not get one of my own gift cards this year It's all good though I do it for the plaques and I would have a heart attack trying to sort all that prize support out myself so Im not judging hehe. I didnt even notice until I got home but this year's plaques are a lot nicer than last years. Pretty sweet.

Dustin was telling me all you guys do to set the con up - it's much appreciated. Speaking of which I need to email Hank..

Adepticon is a lot of fun. I havent gone the last two years because I dont feel its worse the cost for me. But its always been a blast. If I dont like it I wont. But with the numbers you guys had this year you are doing something right