Switch Theme:

Southwest Master's Cup  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Janthkin wrote:
Phazael wrote:I like the idea of 2500, but it only would be feasable as a two day event. I think the horde argument is not an issue, since anyone who would be at this event would have to be a capable player and able to run a horde army quickly and efficiently, anyhow. Anyone running mass Nids/IG/Orks is going to know how to play quick and clean or they would not have high placing in a tournament. I also think that 2500 opens up the field a little, since it lets other armies be more diverse, particularly the second tier armies like GKs and such.
Phazael, you're a lovely fellow, but have you tried playing with 2500 pts of horde orks in the recent past, in a mission that required them all to be in motion? Simply deploying that many bodies takes a lot of time.

I use every shortcut available, up to and including deployment/movement trays, and my genestealer-heavy Tyranids still take a lot of time to play; 2k pts in 2.5 hours is about the best I can manage against most opponents. 2500 is just not reliably practicable below 3 hours for non-mechanized armies.

I think the points level should be dictated by the circuit - use the majority point level used by the events included (or, for variety, maybe use the actual average).


The people who know me will confirm that I am not a horde army player by nature, but I have experience running horde armies at that size, including my wife's Green Tide + Kan Wall ork list with over 200 models. Is it easy? No, but if I can knock out my turns quickly I would expect an expert player who has more experience with the army to be able to do the same, unless they are intentionally stalling. Generally, its the foot slogging guard players who pull that crap, though. Unless someone is being a massive douche and making you measure each model individually (or you are being a tool and trying to space every single model perfectly to counter templates), theres no way a top tier player should not be able to get their turns in on time with that kind of list. In fact, in some ways its easier because when you carpet so much of the table there are less tactical decisions to be made, since you cannot really avoid LOS or being charged and so on.

Again, not saying its easy or that 2500 is even really optimal for games, but we are not talking about the noobs here (and hard boyz draws in a bunch); we are talking about people with high placements in other events who know how to execute their turns rapidly. If the tournament were two days and could have 3-5 to 3 hour rounds, I would love to see it be 2500. The amount of diversity that point level opens up makes it more interesting and it levels the playing field in certain ways. Specifically, SW lists can't stuff any more razorbacks or long wangs in their army once the force org fills up at 2k. Guard pretty much get all of their major toys by 2k as well. On the other hand, Tau can start putting in some extra goodies like stealth suits, path finders, and the like. Nids can think about troop options other than Tervs and the min spec guant units that enable them. To reiterrate, I am not saying Reese should do 2500, but don't dismiss it as an option out of hand, either.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




As a player who plays all armies including hoard orks, tyranids, and gaurd I have to agree that there is no reason they cant finish a 2500 point game with 2 hour turns if they want to (I have done it in arrd boyz on two seperate years). I always felt that it was my descision to play a hoard army so it was my job to learn to get thru the turns. I even remember a 2000 point tournement where I ran orks and Phazael ran nids and we were the first players done with our games.(two hour time limit)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/11/20 19:08:39


Imperial Gaurd 18,000 Orks 16,000 Marines 21,900
Chaos Marines 7,800 Eldar 4,500 Dark Eldar 3,200
Tau 3,700 Tyranids 7,500 Sisters Of Battle 2,500
Daemons 4,000
100% Painted
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Pasadena

Any movement on this Reecius? I am definitely excited to see how this would work out.

Las Vegas Open Head Judge
I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings or pride, but your credentials matter. Even on the internet.
"If you do not have the knowledge, you do not have the right to the opinion." -Plato

 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

I have not done squat on anything in the past week and a half. Had a wedding in San Diego and then went home for Turkey Day and jut got back to the bay lat night. I'll get moving on it today though.

   
Made in us
Plaguebearer with a Flu




Southern Gate of Chaos

Very nice to be thought of as a "celeb"! LMAO!!! And here I thought everyone just hated playing my armies! (or me?)


I've been laying low as of lately, at least in the Tournament scene. Not even an RTT in several, several months. I dropped out of the League because I needed a breather, instead of becoming venomous towards it. Recently my efforts have concentrated on the Mega-Apocalypse Events i've been running out of GMI Games, and now just over a year later, we're about to make bigger steps! I've had a ton of fun running them, organizing them, and chuckin' dice with the boyz!


Now, i'm kind of interested in starting the 2011 Season off fresh, and the Broadside Bash is one of the events I'm debating on attending, solely to get back in the groove of things, and help support another event i've had fun and done well at over the past few years. There's quite a few other Tournies i'm looking at...just haven't made those all important decisions yet.


As to a "Masters" Tournament, I think the idea is VERY cool, and I'm definitely all for it! HOWEVER, something that has bothered me about GW's decision with their 2011 Vegas GT, the Tournament of Champions is bothering me about the ideas ya'll are tossing around here.

I think GW had the right idea of letting the gaming community at large run their own qualifying events, and just hold the "big dance" themselves. That's totally cool. I do have a problem with who/how they've decided to pick the attendees. This is a hobby, and in the Tournaments, ALL facets of the hobby are presented and scored according to importance of each Tournament Organizer and his staff. Players are then awarded "X" amount of points for these aspects of the hobby, and a total tally is taken and given at the end. Top placements are then rewarded with "loot" and often trophies, plaques, certificates, etc. So the Best Overall, Best Army, Best Sportsman, Best General, etc. are suppose to represent the epitome (at that Tournament) of that particular aspect of the hobby. And the Tournament of Champions to be held by GW in Las Vegas is suppose to be the cream of the crop, yet it really won't be...

Awarding the Top 2 players at a Tournament "Golden Tickets", or the Best Overall and Best General just falls short of encompassing all the aspects that make this hobby great and fun!

If you guyz are going to do this, please keep that in mind. I feel that the Best Overall, Best General, Best Sportsmans and Best Army should ALL get the chance to compete, not just those peeps that win games or have others paint for them.


Just my thoughts, hope they help.

from the Southern Gate of Chaos,
theDarkGeneral
Chaos Khorne
Forever
Follower of the Dark 4 
   
Made in us
Imperial Recruit in Training




San Diego, California

I like the idea of Masters. It was actually something I had discussed with others in the past but have yet to implement it. I would say a 1500-2000 point total be set and plan on that for all games. If you wish to maintain your top battle points idea, you can but have them as a means to determine who to invite. Take the top 30-50 scores and invite them to a tournament. Granted, it can't be strait invite since you would have to pay the bills on the venue, but have those people play off. Have a committee of people that help design the scenarios and play test them, etc and have people submit their lists ahead of time to be reviewed by the committee in order to avoid problems with people going over or using items that can't be used in a given squad.

Looks like there are already some good resources already into this and I look forward to seeing the progress on this.

Host/webmaster of Imperial Vox Cast
http://imperialvoxcast.com 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





I agree with TDG in principle, but the reality is getting dozens of TOs to agree on some form of unified system is the proverbial herding cats. I went with Overall and Best General because the hobbyists get their guy and the gamers get their guy. Turns out the Throne of Skulls wants the hobbyist, but wants them to play like a gamer.
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

Hey, thanks for the input guys, I really appreciate it.

I think the system that is the most objective and makes the most sense for the purposes of this idea is to go with a straight points system. As Phazeal said, every tournament is so different that it is unrealistic to try and format a system that incorporates all of them.

What is objective is best general. That is something that comes down to who played the game the best.

I would love to either include, or see a painting side of it, but that is very difficult to include without opening the door to subjectivity. We could award the army at the masters event with best painted 1st through 3rd, or, we could organize a completely separate event in which we take the best painting scores of people from events and use the same points system to determine who the best painted is, and then award a prize. This would actually be pretty easy as no one would have to travel and it shows who the best players are and who the best painters are which covers the entire gamut.

   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Los Angeles, CA


I think another route you could go would be to contact the events that you want to include in the initial circuit and get them to submit their scores to rankings HQ. I'm pretty sure rankings HQ allows you to set up a custom set of players, so you could then create a custom set just for the selected tournaments. Then at the time the 'west coast cup' tourney rolls around each year you just invite all the players who are at the top of the rankings for that group.

I don't know if Rankings HQ allows you to filter only for battle points, but maybe they do (and if they don't perhaps you can contact them about adding it)?


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis






Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)

Agreed, it would be easier since your using and existing and known system, they get more exposure out of it, and it's the first step in kinda codifying the US tourney scene (results wise) and could grow from there. Creating a true ranking system for the US.

Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Los Angeles, CA


Hmmm, looking at rankings HQ you can definitely create a 'club', but that only allows you to group players as opposed to a group of events, so this may not be possible.

However, I would definitely think about emailing them letting them know you'd like to use their system to help organize an event but that it doesn't provide the flexibility yet that you need. I'm sure they'd be interested in getting that kind of feedback and maybe eventually implementing something that would work for this idea.


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

I am all about using preexisting systems as it saves on man hours and it helps to focus the community on a single resource. I will hit them up and see what they say.

Eventually, if we could standardize tournament scoring, that would be huge. We would have an actual system that applied equally across the country and then we really could have a true ranking system which would be good fun.

   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

Update:

I have been talking to the team behind RankingsHQ to see if we can piggy back on their site to host our Masters/Southwest Cup event.

Thanks to Yakface for the help as he also reached out to RankingsHQ to keep the momentum going on this project.

Also, you guys should check out the video they put on their site covering the Australian Fantasy Masters which is a big inpsiration for what we are trying to do here.

http://rankingshq.com/

So, everything should be sorted out be early January and then we can start to hype this up and have some fun!

   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

UPDATE:

The owner of RankingsHQ has agreed to work with me to implement our scoring system on his website!

He is a great guy and I am very thankful that he is willing to track a different set of metrics in order to accommodate our system. I think this will allow for some great cross-pollination and hopefully take us another step closer to a true, standardized tournament and ranking system in the USA.

So thanks to Yakface for suggesting the idea and helping to get that moving forward! We should have a section of the Rankings HQ site dedicated to tracking the Southwest Masters Cup, soon!

Reece


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and for those who are curious, the system is very simple but works as such:

Every player gets a score based on their ranking amongst the number of players present in terms of painting and generalship score with a bonus for coming in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd and the amount of rounds played.

Number of players-placement+1+(10 x rounds)+bonus for rank=score.

So, if you play in a 3 game tournament with 20 players and come in 3rd place for battle points/generalship, you would have the following score:

20(number of players)-3(the players rank)+1+30(3 round event)+5(3rd place bonus)=53 points.

Painting works the same way but uses your painting rank and does not include a bonus for rounds played.

This way every event, no matter it's size, will count and every player will be in the hunt, so to speak. My aim was to create a system that was simple and would incorporate any type of tournament regardless of its format. If a tournament uses battle points or straight W/L, it will score the same. This system disregards soft scores as well, as these vary so widely from event, to event. This system will hopefully allow every event to be ranked equally based on the number of players and length. So therefore, if you play in a 3 game RTT with a lot of players, it can count for as much as a 5 game GT with less players. The aim was to allow players to get involved anywhere in the region even if they can't make it to big GTs all the time.

At the end of the year, we will take the top 16 painters and players based off of their top three event scores, and invite them to the masters cup. The players will play a tournament, the painters will have a painting competition.

Everything will have prize support, sigs for forum posting and trophies.

Looking forward to seeing this realized! Any C&C are welcome.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/03 16:54:48


   
Made in us
Tzeentch Veteran Marine with Psychic Potential




Great job reece. Cant wait to see it happen, and be apart of it haha.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.

Looks great, Reece.

I may have to make the trip when this thing happens.

Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

Thanks, fellas! Yeah, this is cool to see it coming to life. I am excited for what this may lead to. We eventually could have regional master cups all over the USA and perhaps one day a national masters cup, with the top players from each regional meeting at a national event.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




You know, it would be really easy to roll those regional tops into ... a certain event already being established ....
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

Yeah it would, and you already have market share and momentum behind you and your event. Plus I know you have the know-how and drive to host a great event. If we can pull this off this year and it is popular, I see no reason not to try and combine forces.

   
Made in us
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine





Los Angeles

Good job getting this together Reese, but I have to say, I don't get the scoring system at all.

In your three game, 20 person tournament, if you finish 3rd you get 53 points.

If others play in a three game, 40 person tournament...everyone who finishes 18th or above will get more points than you.

I can understand disagreeing about how the size of the tournament affects how competitive it is...but this seems very extreme.

Taking only the top three scores will completely crowd out small events with this scoring system - I can repeatedly win sprue posse events for example but even with 16 players my scores will be worse than someone who just finishes 20th at three larger 3 game events, much less a 5 game event.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/03 22:02:03


'12 Tournament Record: 98-0-0 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

I was having the same issue with trying to determine a system that would weight everything equally.

I agree that a 16 man event with higher caliber players should be worth more than a 30 man event with 80% lower caliber players, but that is something that is impossible to quantify right out of the gates (more on that to come).

I wanted to create a system where not only the winners were rewarded but to include as many people as possible. If we only gave points to first, second and third, that would exclude all of those who got 4th or lower at a 50 man event.

I turned it around over and again but could not come up with a system would make everyone happy. In the end, I chose to go with a system that was simple and based on easily quantifiable metrics: number of players, size of event, placement.

That is why I included the bonus for 3rd, 2nd and 1st. It allows the winner to jump up quite a bit, as if he were playing at a larger event.

For example, if you won a sprue posse event, you would get 61 points. That equates to getting 10th place or better at a 40 person event. However, the 40 person event has more than three times as many people, and it deserves more weight due to a larger field.

As time goes by, we can develop a second layer of weighting the points, we can rank tournament difficulty but that opens a door to huge amounts of subjectivity unless done mathematically. What I was thinking was that as we develop a respected ranking system, we can develop a multiplier to increase the weight of an event based on the rankings of the players involved. So, if a 16 man event has all highly ranked players, that will affect the score the players involved get. We can't do that right out the gates though.

Lastly, I seriously considered the size of the average event in the region. Right now, there aren't many that even draw 40 players so I don't think it will be much of an issue. Most RTTs in the region are under 20 players and most GTs are right in that 40 player range as of now with a few outliers like Da Grand WAAGH! and some of the Sacramento RTTs. Those will skew the data, but I could not come up with a way around it.

If you have a system that you think would be more equitable, or anyone for that matter, I'm all ears. I am not married to my ideas and will gladly junk my system if someone has one that is better.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/03 22:15:06


   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis






Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)

What is the allowed event cap? Like RHQ has a 3 highest point cap. Does this? Just curious

Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok





LaLa Land

Is it just me or does this thread keep changing names???

Team Zero Comp
5th edition tourny record 85-32-16 (2010-12) 6th 18-16-4
check out my Orky City of Death http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/skipread/336388.page 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

Hahah, yes it keeps changing names, Grimgob! Haha, I have finally settled on a name for it, and it went form an idea to actuality so sorry for the confusion.

@Hulk
Yes, top three scores.

To remain competitive, you must go to big events, which is as it should be, IMO.

   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis






Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)

Figures this would happen when I wind up in friggin Minnesota for the forseeable future.....Oh well, I'm trying to get back for at least one event in Cali this year

Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok





LaLa Land

I know Reece, just bustn ur chops
Do you get a green jacket?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/04 00:20:00


Team Zero Comp
5th edition tourny record 85-32-16 (2010-12) 6th 18-16-4
check out my Orky City of Death http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/skipread/336388.page 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

Hahaha, that is a great idea! A green Jacket with some cool stuff on it, might have to be Orky since it's green! It would make for a great picture at least!

@Hulk
yeah, that sucks you won't be able to partake, but it does mean someone else will get to go since you won't be there to swipe the spot!

   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Los Angeles, CA


I definitely agree with Reece on the scoring. For people who only attend big tournaments because there aren't any good local RTTs (for example) it would suck to get 'shut out' by a bunch of people who play in the same series of small tournaments against each other and just 'rotate out' who gets to win this time (even if it isn't intentional).

On the flip-side, people who don't generally play in big events (too far or too expensive, for example) are going to feel like the system doesn't take into consideration the quality of players they may feel their local (small) tournament scene has.


But at the end of the day, I think you have to weight it slightly towards the larger events because there is no way to know the quality of players in those smaller events AND it gives people another reason to come attend those larger events (which is good, IMHO).


If nothing else, each 'season' can be a new test run for Reece to fine tune the scoring system. Getting it started (and getting events to send their results into rankings HQ) is the most important thing. Tweaking the system to perfection can come later.


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think there's a solution here that accomplishes a much more perfect beginning without laboring under intense deliberations until the idea passes into history.

There's nothing mutually exclusive about getting a system going, and refining it.
   
Made in us
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine





Los Angeles

I completely agree with wanting to weigh it towards larger events. I also agree with wanting to give non-winners points that could qualify them. I just think the weighting is off. I will think about it a little bit and see if I can think of a way to tweak this basic framework and come up with something fairer, and if I can't I'll shut up . And I definitely won't complain about the scoring system once the season starts, regardless of how it is done. But assuming the set of tournaments/time period hasn't been set yet, it doesn't hurt to try to tweak it.

It may just be simpler to give points based on some ratio of placement to event size.

'12 Tournament Record: 98-0-0 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: