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.

Here's the gist of it. I have an updated PDF but it's at home and I am not. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/downloadAttach/677.page

Soft scores do play a part in your overall standings, and they determine how well you do in the 'soft' scores--but the impact of soft scores on the overall tournament is limited by the following mechanics.

1) You have 3 soft scores. Sportsmanship, Painting, and Army Flavor (call it theme if you want, but don't call it comp because it isn't).

You give them all an equal rating. I know GW doesn't use Army Flavor, but I think players miss out when it is just a sub pattern of painting.

Painting is technical. Flavor means style. I hope this part makes sense.

Sportsmanship is the same in my system as it is anywhere else.

2) You mix'n'match your soft scores to determine your standings for Best Sportsman and Best Army.

Best Sportsman is determined by your Sportsmanship and Army Flavor (the total of the two scores).

Best Army is determined by your Painting and Army Flavor (the total of the two scores).

This does give meaning to the soft scores, and you'll see why...time for number three.

3) Minimum required score.

In the soft scores, you have 3 soft scores to give.

They can range from say 1-10, but whatever scores you want to give--you MUST give at least an 8 in ONE of them. You can give more than an 8, but at least ONE of them must be 8. Now how does this help?

Well, for determining the hard score awards you take the single highest value from each rounds soft scores to determine what your soft score is for that round.

Example:

StJohn scores 20 Battle Points, 7 Sportsmanship, 6 Painting, and 8 Army Flavor. His 'soft score' for hard scoring is actually an 8. If he'd gotten all 8's, it's still an 8. If he'd gotten a 9 or 10 in ANY category, then his soft score would be 9 or 10. You only combine the soft scores when determining the actual soft scores.

So continuing the example, for this round StJohn would have a '15' for Sportsmanship (combining his 7 sports and 8 army flavor) and a '14' for Best Army (combining his 6 painting and 8 Army Flavor).

The hard score awards are: namely, Best Overall (most BP's), Best General (2nd most BP's), and in my tournaments "The Butcher" (1st or 2nd most VP's).

This equates to a guaranteed 80% of the points possible for the hard scores being given out, but it also encourages players to score fairly on all elements as the ultra-competitive (myself included) can't really "fix" the system on the competitive side then there's no need to bother.

While the PDF above has a range of 1-5 and a cutoff of 4, I've run it without a problem at 1-10 with a cutoff of 8.

4) So while under your system you have a huge range (X-50 on sportsmanship, X-50 on painting) under mine across 5 rounds with even a 1-10 scoring system (and a minimum of 8 points given) you still have a statistically viable variable you don't have

5) Ties. Ties can occur, especially with so many people. Tracking VP's, BP's, and all these scores DO give you a fair way to determine who is the winner by just swapping to a secondary score. VP's are excellent for this, as it's so improbable for people to have the same VP score at the end of a tournament it's not funny. I realize 5th edition makes this a bit problematic, but writing down VP's is not that big a time cruncher if it will help resolve issues at the end of the tournament.

5) You can still score people on bad sportsmanship, judges can still rate painters, and army flavor actually means something instead of being a 1 or 2 point 'check'.

6) Painting score overrides. This one is easy. The judges give their painting scores for an army still, and to ensure there's a level of quality you do this:

Of the player given score in a round, and that of the judges given--whichever is HIGHEST is what is actually scored on a given round.

So let's say a player scores a 7 from the judges, and a 5/8/5/6/7. His actual painting score would then be 7/8/7/6/7.

7) Last but not least: If I can run a RTT by myself in less overall time than a GW event on a given Saturday--and use this system, and people love it because the feeling AND the impression of getting hosed is gone...why couldn't you? You have 9x the people playing and 20x my 'staff' of one.

Take it for what you will, but I built this system so everyone gets a fair shake. Note I do not play in my own tournaments.

I run them as I'd want them run for me.

Oh and I'm sorry if it's not written clearly, I've had a hell week here at work and I'm still quite out of it. lol

I think most things were clear, so you're fine on that respect. There are some interesting approaches here (Army Flavor itself, and having it do double duty)

I do have a couple of questions though, for my clarity.

• How is the Overall winner determined? Only on Battle Points?
• If I play against an unpleasant opponent who fields a sloppy looking army who's flavor leaves a bad taste in my mouth then I still have to give them an 8/10 in one of those categories?
• What criteria are given to the players to level the playing field when scoring the subjective elements?

Thanks for posting this. It is always cool to check out how others tackle the variety of issues that particularly the "soft scores" bring up.

Cheers
Dave

davetaylor wrote:• How is the Overall winner determined? Only on Battle Points?

Overall is determined by:

Battle Points plus total soft scores. An additional requirement is it must be fully painted, of course.

Best General:

Determined by 2nd Best BPs plus total soft scores. This army in RTT's need not be painted, but of course in a GT it does.

The Butcher:

Determined by best overall VP's and zero soft scores. This army in RTT's need not be painted, but of course in a GT it does.

davetaylor wrote:• If I play against an unpleasant opponent who fields a sloppy looking army who's flavor leaves a bad taste in my mouth then I still have to give them an 8/10 in one of those categories?

Yes. The alternative is the current sad state of scoring people badly, incorrectly, or plain unfairly.

In short, you WILL run into this where you don't want to score someone 'above' what you feel they deserve--but in the end, it gives everyone a fair shot at the top prizes without being hosed by a poor sport.

That's always been my (and pretty much every guy I've gone with and talked to) impression of the GW GT problem--is being hosed by even 1 guy can ruin your chances.

Keeping the entire tournament fair is I think the more important concern than a few players getting rated higher than they deserve to.

After all, odds are they won't win the 'soft score' titles because they'll usually get marked down in the other 2 categories and in the end I have 3 goals:

1) To give the competitive gamers no way to manipulate the system for the prizes they want, namely: Best Overall and Best General.

2) To give the friendly gamers a way to compete against each other for the prizes they want, namely: Best Sportsman, and Best Army.

3) To give the ultra competitive gamers a chance to win a prize that their 'soft scores' will kill them on, namely: The Butcher.

davetaylor wrote:• What criteria are given to the players to level the playing field when scoring the subjective elements?

I usually play the soft scores 'softly', but at my next tournament I will be using a version of your scoring for painting and sportsmanship. I think they're a little bit drawn out, like you needed 50 points and you put criteria in to satisfy the need for 50 points worth of criteria. So I'll be using less. As I haven't had time to go through and whittle it down to RTT level due to work, I can't answer yet. I'm hoping to have time soon.

Stelek wrote:

They can range from say 1-10, but whatever scores you want to give--you MUST give at least an 8 in ONE of them. You can give more than an 8, but at least ONE of them must be 8. Now how does this help?

Hmmm, this one I would have to disagree with. You're saying I have to give my opponent an 8 in at least one of the categories even tho he was an utter ass, his army was spraypainted 5 minutes before the tourney (Yes, I've seen it happen), and he had no "Flavor" whatsoever?

I think it is a good system, although I agree with Don_mundo that it seems a bit odd to me that if somebody completely ignored all ideas of soft scores, they still get an 8 somewhere.

I know it can be frustrating for a player to lose an award because one guy decided to be a prick and hit them hard in soft scores since they couldn't do it on the table top, so I definitely understand the need to remove that.

It makes sense to me, and maybe only to me, that when scores are tallied, that the judges look at any extreme outliers and have the ability to simply average it out it context of the other scores (so, Stelek gets 8 7 9 8 2 for Sportsmanship over a tourney, the judges can simply say : well, the average of 8, 7, 9, and 8 is 8, so goodbye 2 and hello 8) or simply drop the 2 and give the player the score they gave their opponent who docked them hard. (So, I give Don_Mondo a 2, cause I suck, and he gives me an 8, the judges would just switch the scores as clearly Mondo is a better sport. If both scores are the same, then maybe that's an indication the game was just horrible for all involved.) This would be more work for the judges, which can be a thankless job, but it might help ease some people's suffering.

Anyway, I like the system overall, I think it is definitely more fair to all involved.

don_mondo wrote:

Stelek wrote:

They can range from say 1-10, but whatever scores you want to give--you MUST give at least an 8 in ONE of them. You can give more than an 8, but at least ONE of them must be 8. Now how does this help?

Hmmm, this one I would have to disagree with. You're saying I have to give my opponent an 8 in at least one of the categories even tho he was an utter ass, his army was spraypainted 5 minutes before the tourney (Yes, I've seen it happen), and he had no "Flavor" whatsoever?

Actually yes.

Remember the following:

No painted means several prizes aren't eligible.

For a RTT, it's really not that big a deal. People who do all 3 of those things really do get penalized.

The scores are combined for the 'soft' score prizes, and any zero will pretty much automatically take you out of contention for those prizes.

Not being painted also takes you out of contention for Overall, and usually for best general.

So that leaves only one prize, The Butcher...which is there solely so people can participate without feeling like they can't get ANYTHING. That drives people AWAY from rogue traders, which we don't want.

Last bit: At GT's, being unpainted should not happen and so that still leaves alot of player judgement.

Also at GT's...you don't run into jerks until Sunday when 20 guys are in the running (or think they are).

Most players at GT's have some sort of flavor or theme, which is quite a bit different than at a RTT.

Two different worlds really, but the system scales up and down to meet the needs of both.

I'd rather not see players 'lose' to a pro-painted army or an ass kisser, which happens very often nowadays.

Remember, this system isn't designed to please everyone. It's designed to give a level playing field.

What are you expectations for scoring based on your checklists? What is the potential variance? Until I get a feel of the checklists I can't help feeling that you aren't being fair to those that do put effort into painting their armies, their background/flavor, and are truly great guys to play against.

But hey, I guess that's the danger with subjective scoring ; )

I look forward to seeing your checklists.

Cheers
Dave

As Dave said, it's all about the points spread.

If you're creating a tournament scoring system, ideally for an overall champion, that person is supposed to be the best that day in all the categories - battle, sportsmanship, painting, and theme.

If you really want to do that, you need to figure out what the projected points spread is in each category, and then balance it out.

The absolutely best system I've found for scoring is a ranking system as opposed to a rating system. So if you play four opponents over the course of day, you rank your opponents first, second, third, and fourth. Everybody does that, it removes the ability to tank someone, etc.

There are a couple of problems. One it makes it an absolute PITA for data entry, because all soft scores have to be entered after the last game is completed. If you can normally announce winners 30 minutes after the tournament is done, you need at least 45 minutes to tabulate results.

Second, I'm not sure (because I've never run it in a GT-sized event (although it was used at the AdeptiCon Championships a few years ago) I'm not sure how well it would work in an extremely large setting. Separation between the winners become a challenge. You need to add in some judge-scored categories to make it work.

Basically stelek...your system is too complicated. Too many conditions - if this, then that. If that, then this. KISS.

Dave when I have time I'll post it.

Cent, welcome to the world of computers. I use excel. I can post 20 guys scores as soon as the last set of results are entered. I use "formulas" to automate everything.

The scoring system you speak of is laughable and has long been ignored by professional tournaments as completely unworkable. Maybe you should investigate why ranking systems have been discarded by everyone, including GW.

Thankfully, with a laptop computer and excel I can generate round-by-round results and print them immediately--and all it requires is me to verify the results by both players match and enter the data.

Maybe the Utah gamers I bully around are smarter than the average bear and can decipher the clearly written instructions I linked above. If it's difficult for you, could you explain why?

I'm not going to assume you're just putting my system down because I wrote it and use it, so it must suck like everything else I say or do...and the assumption that I have NOT done a statistical analysis of the GW scoring system (and quite a few others, flawed and not-so-flawed) to figure out the points spread required and how best to solve this problem would be an incorrect assumption on your part.

Quite a few game companies like having huge points spreads so the odds of having a tie are literally astronomical. I think that just fosters players not liking your system, and leaving it for greener pastures where the scoring system has some balls behind it and hard decisions are built into it and given to the players straight up.

It isn't all about the points spread--it's about running a fair tournament for all involved. You seem to believe battle, sportsmanship, painting, and theme are key to determining the victor in a tournament.

I believe they are too, and getting 10's for your soft scores across the board is difficult. When you scale the table to say 50 points, you end up with a 50 point spread across 5 games. I know you didn't really think this through, but isn't 50 points enough of a spread?

Ask a few statisticians--is having a point spread of 0-200 really necessary for less than 200 players? The answer is no, it isn't. It's far too many variables. If you really want to determine an excellent overall winner, what you need to compute is:

Overall battle points.
Overall sportsmanship.
Overall painting/theme.
Overall victory points.

The middle two are subjective. They also are the problem with the current tournament system in use. You might be happy with it, but I don't hear many players yelling for joy that their tournament scene can be ruined by one player or even one judge. This needs to be evened out so the system is actually fair to everyone, not just to those that know judges/get pro-painted/or kiss the blarney stone.

So that takes us back to battle points, which is a bit simplistic. It rewards skill on the tabletop, not necessarily all aspects of the hobby. These are important aspects, after all--and they are absolutely essential to GW.

After all, it's embarressing if GW has a winner with a army that looks like sh~t. So we can't allow that.

How do you resolve this? Well, you've got to remember that at a RTT just being painted to a decent standard is enough to qualify for Overall. It's not like we're trying to run a GT, yes?

So, that said--and knowing we don't want to allow players to gimp scores to derail opponents...how do you accomplish having a excellent tournament winner with the overall prize?

If you interfere with the system, you'll go back to being unfair. If you 'demand' certain numbers, it goes right back to unfair.

What happens when you put out a 'code of conduct' and a 'required painting notice'? Players follow the code and meet the requirements for painting. Then you can let them judge each other, and knowing they can't jig the system you get the results you want (good players with good armies win your prizes).

Alot of players may not realize this, but there's been alot of 'pro-painted' army winners at GT's since the GT's started. GW didn't really turn their bale eye on the problem until recently...like the last couple of years. How do I know? I've seen complete schmuck painters come out at another tournament 3 months later with a 2 year propaint job and win. It's gotten so commonplace these days for pro-painted armies to show up and get max points that the problem has to be addressed. The steps Dave has taken are good ones, with clear definitions of what scores what in painting--but now with the birth of pro-painting services in countries where English is barely spoken (Poland, Ukraine, Zimbabwe--yes, really...etc etc) and these services promising confidentiality because they are here to get paid and don't care about our little tournaments...well, the crooks exist and the only way to deal with them is to remove the ability to cheat.

I feel my system does this. I feel my system takes alot of work off the judges. I've seen the various systems used, and I'm not really impressed when my little one-man show gets better results.

I think it's very important to have impartiality as much as possible. I guess the best way to think of it is this: If our gaming was regulated, do you honestly believe the way it is currently run would pass even a basic litmus test?

Be serious now. I hope one day our little hobby becomes popular enough we get a 'pro tour' like say Magic has. Their scoring system is far far different from ours, with reason. Even including painting being self-done, it's still a game right? Don't forget they run minis games too...

Just food for thought. Take it for what you will.

Stelek wrote: blah blah blah

Take constructive criticism much?

Let's suppose that you and I play a game.

By your system, I need to give at least an 8 in one of the "soft" categories.

But you're basically a pain to play against. Plus you probably don't paint as well as I do, and your theme is probably contorted so that you can win all 5 games.

So normally, I'd score you like this:
Sports = 4
Paint = 5
Theme = 2

But the system requires me to give you an "8" somewhere, even though you don't deserve it?

Hmm...

It sure isn't going into Sports, and I'll be damned if I'm going to overrate Painting.

So you get an 8 on "theme".

Now that I've given you 6 bonus points with an 8 for Theme, instead of a 2, I need to take them away for the total to be "right".

As you're more of a jerk than a painter, I guess I need to give you a ZERO for Sports and a 3 for Paint.

So your adjusted scores are:

Sports = ZERO (was 4)
Paint = 3 (was 5)
Theme = 8 (was 2)

Wow, thank God that you got that "8", because otherwise, the scores would have been all messed up and wierd... :S

Stelek wrote:Cent, welcome to the world of computers. I use excel. I can post 20 guys scores as soon as the last set of results are entered. I use "formulas" to automate everything.

Ooh...gotta start out with the ad hominem attack. Doesn't change the fact that your system is complicated...far more than needed. Or it doesn't really address what the real difficulties are.

1) Necessity of including subjective scoring (i.e. painting, theme, sportsmanship) along with the objective categories.
2) Ability of players to unjustly "tank" opponents for reasons unrelated to the actual category.

Now, there's a way to avoid all those: have a judge personnally observing all games played, and rating the players in the soft categories appropriately. Utterly unworkable of course, because no tournament has that many judges.

So we're left with the option that GW tournaments use - have judges score some of the stuff, but have other stuff judged by the opponents.

The biggest problem with your system is that it unjustly rewards players who may put no effort into being a good sport, painting, or putting together a thematic army. Under your system, a player who's a good sport, with a thematic army, and has the minimum painting requirements fulfilled, is just as likely to win an overall award as someone who's an equally good sport, has an equally thematic army, and has an army that deserves 8/10 points.

How is that fair?

Stelek wrote:
The scoring system you speak of is laughable and has long been ignored by professional tournaments as completely unworkable. Maybe you should investigate why ranking systems have been discarded by everyone, including GW.

Sources? What "professional" tournaments do you speak of? False appeals to authority don't exactly help your argument.

Stelek wrote:
Thankfully, with a laptop computer and excel I can generate round-by-round results and print them immediately--and all it requires is me to verify the results by both players match and enter the data.

Maybe the Utah gamers I bully around are smarter than the average bear and can decipher the clearly written instructions I linked above. If it's difficult for you, could you explain why?

What's the largest tournament you've ever run? Seriously though...its easy to run and enter data for a 30-man tournament. A tournament with 160 players is another thing entirely.

Stelek wrote:I'm not going to assume you're just putting my system down because I wrote it and use it, so it must suck like everything else I say or do...and the assumption that I have NOT done a statistical analysis of the GW scoring system (and quite a few others, flawed and not-so-flawed) to figure out the points spread required and how best to solve this problem would be an incorrect assumption on your part.

Quite a few game companies like having huge points spreads so the odds of having a tie are literally astronomical. I think that just fosters players not liking your system, and leaving it for greener pastures where the scoring system has some balls behind it and hard decisions are built into it and given to the players straight up.

It isn't all about the points spread--it's about running a fair tournament for all involved. You seem to believe battle, sportsmanship, painting, and theme are key to determining the victor in a tournament.

I believe they are too, and getting 10's for your soft scores across the board is difficult. When you scale the table to say 50 points, you end up with a 50 point spread across 5 games. I know you didn't really think this through, but isn't 50 points enough of a spread?

Maybe, maybe not. You misunderstand entirely what I'm saying when I say "point spread". I'm not talking about the overall spread between the #1 guy and the #160 guy. I'm talking about the point spread in all the various categories, and then comparing them.

Say the max battle points possible for a four-game tournament are 120. Then say that the usual spread in battle points ranges from 20-120. That means that between the best and the worst players, you have a point spread of 100 points.

Now, in sportsmanship, say you have 40 points possible. Say that you've got a 20 at the low end, and a 40 at the high end. So you have a 20-point spread. Say that repeats for all the soft categories...sports, theme, & painting.

Now, theoretically, you have a system where the soft scores are equal to the hard scores in importance. After all, each is worth 120 points. However, what you've actually got is a system where the hard scores are the most important, unless you've got an extremely large number of players. Because the point spread for soft scores is 60, where the hard spread is 100.

It's up to the tournament organizer to determine weighting and the like (i.e. what categories are more/less important). If you want the overall to reflect primarily hard scores...than the hypothetical I posted would be fine. If not...the system needs adjustment.

But why make those adjustments after scores are earned (which is what your system does) instead of making that adjustment into the base assumptions of the system? Again, it seems to me that your system is designed to reward those who game the system.

Stelek wrote:
How do you resolve this? Well, you've got to remember that at a RTT just being painted to a decent standard is enough to qualify for Overall. It's not like we're trying to run a GT, yes?

You seem to be implying that the system scales up easily to GT/AdeptiCon level events. It very well could work in a tournament with 10-30 players. But I'm telling you its needlessly complex, and it may or may not work well at the GT/AdeptiCon level at all.

Stelek wrote:
So, that said--and knowing we don't want to allow players to gimp scores to derail opponents...how do you accomplish having a excellent tournament winner with the overall prize?

If you interfere with the system, you'll go back to being unfair. If you 'demand' certain numbers, it goes right back to unfair.

What happens when you put out a 'code of conduct' and a 'required painting notice'? Players follow the code and meet the requirements for painting. Then you can let them judge each other, and knowing they can't jig the system you get the results you want (good players with good armies win your prizes).

I agree with your goals, but think your methods are flawed. Because the fact is that judging painting, sportsmanship, and theme is ultimately a subjective exercise. You can try to set a minimum standard, but you also have to leave room to reward efforts that go above and beyond. Part of why I like travelling to events like the GT's and AdeptiCon is the sheer spectacle of it.

Stelek wrote:
I feel my system does this. I feel my system takes alot of work off the judges. I've seen the various systems used, and I'm not really impressed when my little one-man show gets better results.

And you're so unbiased... <grin>

Seriously though...I think taking work off of the judges is exactly the wrong tack. There's

Stelek wrote:
I think it's very important to have impartiality as much as possible. I guess the best way to think of it is this: If our gaming was regulated, do you honestly believe the way it is currently run would pass even a basic litmus test?

Be serious now. I hope one day our little hobby becomes popular enough we get a 'pro tour' like say Magic has. Their scoring system is far far different from ours, with reason. Even including painting being self-done, it's still a game right? Don't forget they run minis games too...

You can't compare miniature wargaming with card flopping. That's like trying to compare gymnastics/figure skating with track & field. After all, they're both individual sports, right?

Anything that has an artistic component (like 40K) is going to have a subjective component that largely defies objective scoring systems.

As to whether a pro-tour would be a good idea, that's a topic for another thread.

And if I would play JohnHwangDD I would probably score you about

Sport: 1 (0 if I could get away with it but lets say 1 just cause I have to)

Paint: probably 3 since I cant get away with lower if you at least have decent stuff. If you have extraordinary things I guess I will have to give you 6 as a max (motivating it that I have seen and played alot better armies LIE)

Theme: 2 probably unless you have made something that forces me to give you more.

This would be even if I had the best time every playing and a fun game, but I am a sore looser. And I will go smiling away since I know you are out of the race anyhow. I bet you would think that was fair. Thank god I didnt have to give you an 8 so you would have had any chance at all anymore.

No, but thats really what happes alot of the time when you dont have a system to balance it out. This system isnt perfect but its alot better and will give most pepole a fair chance.

Only thing that could be better was skipping it totally, haveing judged Painting scores and total battlepoints. Having some restrictions on painting for even beeing allowed in the tournament. And if you want an overall winner you can mix the battleposition vs the paining one. Like player1 scores 1st in battlepoints (winning best general) and 13th in paining while player 2 scores 10th in battlepoints and 1st in painting. (winning best painted and best overall).

Kallbrand, thanks for showing how tournaments attract a-holes who chipmunk.

But if the problem is chipmunking then the solution isn't to artificially distort scores by forcing a minimum of 8 points.

The solution is to incorporate anti-chipmunking (and anti-collusion) detection routines into the scoring program. For example, if a player is found to have scored another player significantly (i.e. more than one standard deviation) away from the norm (i.e. mean), then that player risks having their scores not counted if not well-justified to a judge. This would be the equivalent of a "yellow card" warning.

If a player is found to be doing this more than once, then that player can expect to have ALL of their scores for those games set to zero with maximum points being awarded to their opponent(s), and being removed from the event. This would be the equivalent to a "red card" ejection.

So in such a scenario, chipmunks would only be hurting themselves.

Stelek, can you explain how a player with an 8/0/0 score is any more staying in the running as a 3/2/2 score, when the top players are scoring 9/7/8 or thereabouts?

Seems to me the problem is the 8/0/0 player gets counted an "8" for that round, where the 9/7/8 player gets counted a "9". So there will never be a counted score lower than "8" for any given round.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Stelek, can you explain how a player with an 8/0/0 score is any more staying in the running as a 3/2/2 score, when the top players are scoring 9/7/8 or thereabouts?

More in the staying means 'in the running for a prize', correct?

Which prize are you referring to?

It seems you skipped over the soft scoring system and need to read it again.

whitedragon wrote:Seems to me the problem is the 8/0/0 player gets counted an "8" for that round, where the 9/7/8 player gets counted a "9". So there will never be a counted score lower than "8" for any given round.

Or if you're a asshat:

whitedragon wrote:blah blah blah

Or 30/40, or 40/50...whatever is needed for statistical probabilities.

If you look across 5 games, 8/10 gives you a 10 point 'soft score' spread for overall.

That really is enough. If you're really nervous that the guys who score maximum battle points and maximum soft scores will tie for Overall, well, the odds of them having the exact same VP total is extremely improbable.

Especially when you have scenarios that offer bonus VP's that aren't tied to the same objectives as BP's AND aren't 'freebies' you pick up when you wipe the enemy off the board.

======================

Oh and Cent I'm not arguing with you. You want the impossible and don't have realistic suggestions. When you do, post it in your own thread. Thanks.

Stelek wrote:
Oh and Cent I'm not arguing with you. You want the impossible and don't have realistic suggestions. When you do, post it in your own thread. Thanks.

Of course. Because you anyone who points out flaws in your system is obviously a moron. You can't even respond to some simple questions, like:

1) What "professional" system has not adopted a ranking as opposed to a rating system, after consideration of that, because its a "completely unworkable" system?
2) How is it fair to make a 10/9/8 player equal to a 10/9/0 player?
3) How does your point spread balance out between soft and hard scores across the board?
4) You've used this system in your local tournaments...how large were those tournaments? There's a world of difference between a 30-person tournament and a 160-person tournament.
5) Why are your arguments always so weak that you have to retreat to ad hominen attacks, appeals to false authority, and other logical fallacies?

Of course, you don't want to look at the flaws in your argument, because your arguments are perfect...

As I say in my sig...I'm not making fun of you personally...I'm merely heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly argument. And the core of your argument is this: it's possible to have an objective basis for subjective categories of scoring, when the number of subjective judges is equal to the number of players. That's utter hogwash.

It might piss you off, but your solutions to the "problem" really involve "let's screw the soft scores". For those who care only about their gameplay abilities, that's why there's a "best general" award. For those who care only about painting, there's a "best painted" award. If you want the Overall, then you're going to either have to get a judge to monitor every single game, or you're going to have to accept that a certain subjectivity and ability to tank an opponent is part and parcel of the game.

You're system is so obviously flawed I'm not even going to argue against it.



Ozymandias, King of Kings

What is the purpose of the minimum score of 8 again?

Can you put this on a chart/template? Can you link the template? if the template can easily be understood then its a start.

Stelek wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Stelek, can you explain how a player with an 8/0/0 score is any more staying in the running as a 3/2/2 score, when the top players are scoring 9/7/8 or thereabouts?

More in the staying means 'in the running for a prize', correct?

Which prize are you referring to?

It seems you skipped over the soft scoring system and need to read it again.

Yes, for a prize, since it appears that is what you're attempting (but failing) to achieve.

It doesn't really matter, but we'll assume Overall, as that is what you want, but will never win.

No, I read it. It's mostly stupid because it's far more complicated than it needs to be. It's also grossly self-inconsistent. You're building scores based on subjective factors, but you're not really using the subjective factors because you're requiring an arbitrary minimum score even where it isn't warranted. So you're not telling people to score fairly, or allowing them to do so.

In short, your proposal is practically the definition of EPIC FAIL.

Stelek wrote:Or if you're a asshat:

Particularly when this is the kind of "thoughtful discussion" that you provide to your critics.

Stelek wrote:That really is enough. If you're really nervous that the guys who score maximum battle points and maximum soft scores will tie for Overall, well, the odds of them having the exact same VP total is extremely improbable.

Especially when you have scenarios that offer bonus VP's that aren't tied to the same objectives as BP's AND aren't 'freebies' you pick up when you wipe the enemy off the board.

Yeah, because Tournaments should be about WAAC asshats trying to wipe the enemy off the board... :S

Stelek wrote:Oh and Cent I'm not arguing with you. You want the impossible and don't have realistic suggestions. When you do, post it in your own thread. Thanks.

Ever hear of the phrase: "Accepts constructive criticism"? You might want to look it up.

Centurian99 wrote:Of course. Because you anyone who points out flaws in your system is obviously a moron. You can't even respond to some simple questions, like:

1) What "professional" system has not adopted a ranking as opposed to a rating system, after consideration of that, because its a "completely unworkable" system?
2) How is it fair to make a 10/9/8 player equal to a 10/9/0 player?
3) How does your point spread balance out between soft and hard scores across the board?
4) You've used this system in your local tournaments...how large were those tournaments? There's a world of difference between a 30-person tournament and a 160-person tournament.
5) Why are your arguments always so weak that you have to retreat to ad hominen attacks, appeals to false authority, and other logical fallacies?

Well-put, Cent. Thanks. I look forward to seeing if he gives a coherent and rational response here.

Ozymandias wrote:You're system is so obviously flawed I'm not even going to argue against it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:[quote=Ozymandias

You're system is so obviously flawed I'm not even going to argue against it.

Ozymandias wrote:You're system is so obviously flawed I'm not even going to argue against it.



Ozymandias, King of Kings

Trolling at its best, but then again, it seems like this is promoted here at dakka sadly.

Most of the pepole here crying seem to be the same guys who wanted the old comp scores and I hear the same arguments as I did 10 years ago when that was the way to chipmunk. In Sweden many tournaments still run comp scores and are just a club for friends that can boost each other around with them.

This system seems very easy to calq and run, cant see why someone is trying to jack at that.. if you cant keep those scores you shouldnt run even a 10 man event. The flaw as pepole already pointed out is that someone who doesnt follow the theme or paint very well or just is a poor sport still can score to high, but at least you get away from the soft score abusing. Cant say its perfect but its definently as good as or even better if you really hate the subjective cheating wich is currently going around like wildfire.

Not saying that I think that Stelek's system is flawless (cause it's not), but just out of curiosity, what is more fair?

Having a 10/0/0 be equal to a 10/9/10 (for overall, not for other prizes)?

or

Playing a good list, only to lose the tournament because you got chipmunked by someone you beat? Especially when the guy in the last round realizes that if you give him a 10 sports and he gives you a 0, then his Minor Loss to you turns into a Tournament Win?

I just want something that balances things out.

btw - it may not work for a larger scale, but anyone that would merit a 0/0/0 in Stelek's system gets booted after/during the first round anyhow... I've been to 2 of his tournaments and they've been fairly universally praised (aside from the lack of terrain at the last one).

Kallbrand: Lighten up. Didn't you see the little Ork winking at you. And I fail to see how quoting a poster is considered trolling? All I'm doing is "responding in kind."

Ozymandias, King of Kings

You know what Stelek's system reminds me of?

Anybody ever heard about the US Army's Bradley IFV, and what it took to make sure that Bradleys were safe? The problem was that it kept failing tests...like when they shot live ammunition at it and the fuel would explode. So what was the solution...fill the fuel tanks with water.

This argument goes around and around. I remember having a quite heated argument about tournaments on a different forum years ago.

I think you have a decent idea here stelek but will run into criticism because:

a) You aren't a good salesperson.
b) Don't seem to respond well as a representative.

You might have to work on your people skills a bit more to reduce the crinkled brow syndrome.

In regards to JohnWangs "EPIC FAIL" comment:
I'm not sure what you are critising here but it obviously doesn't fall into the constructive critisism category either. His idea just needs some simplification. If you got your cookie (Able to score people freely on sports, painting and comp/theme whatever) would you be happy? I think giving people what they want is important...so give them the option to write whatever they want in the boxes...and just automate your excel sheet to read that soft score for those categories that matter with a 3 point spread.

The long and short of all the previous arguments about tournament scoring systems were 3 main problems.

1) Chipmunking - Nothing worse than running into one of these. I think just experiencing this once (I have and it wasn't fun, apparently I had it coming for calling him politely when he blatantly cheated in a WHFB game). I think these "rules discussions" are always the points of contention to where lesser chipmunking occurs, but is still a frustrating element to tournaments.

Making a 3 point spread is a good idea to stop these shenanigans.

2) "Hide the sausage" clicks - Almost as bad as chipmunking but who wouldn't give their "chum" maximum points if they might get something out of it later?

This is more insidious than chipmunking. What does your system do to stop these sausage hiding shenanigans?

3) Most importantly the education of people attending the tournament in regards to code of conduct, what numbers represent what on the arbitrary scale they've been handed this time for the painting, sportsmanship etc classes, and how to score the third soft score (that is the most arbitrary of them all whatever it is called).

Again to reiterate comments to Centurion99's post:
I don't think steleks idea is impotent. Filling the fuel tanks with water isn't a fair metaphor for his whole system, as it simply places less emphasis on one factor. The three point spread solves one of the above problems in an environment that you have admitted is arbitrary and hence open to abuse.

I don't think his system is extremely superior to others I have seen, but with anything like this, good support and communication between the players and organiser seems to be the critical factor in making the event more enjoyable for all.
I think a system needs address all aspects of the problems listed above to be deemed superior to what has been in place for GW for the past decade or so (excluding the addition of the check lists...which do go a ways to minimising the spread...with justification).

BeefyG wrote:
I think you have a decent idea here stelek but will run into criticism because:

a) You aren't a good salesperson.
b) Don't seem to respond well as a representative.

You might have to work on your people skills a bit more to reduce the crinkled brow syndrome.

You hit the nail on the head. Stelek has been told many times that he comes off abrasive, and he just carry's on. All of the comments directed against him are the direct result of his posting style. In any case, everyone has said the same thing and Stelek has yet to address this. How is a 10/0/0 the same as a 10/9/9 going into the running for overall. That's the main hang-up that everyone seems to have with this system.

Maybe the easiest way to fix it is to make the minimum score a 5, rather than an 8. On the whole, I think it's still a tad more clunky then it needs to be. I really like the checklist approach that the new GT's and RTT's have.

While Stelek frequently draws fire to himself with the heat of his own rhetoric, I concur that the level of spite in some of these responses has really been unnecessary. There are several people who need to to to keep their comments on a more constructive and civil level. This thread was doing pretty well before EPIC FAIL and "blah blah blah".

The system’s not bad for what it does. As noted, it minimizes the potential for chipmunking. The cost of that benefit is that it also reduces the functional point spread for softs. That it substantially inflates the functional scores of people who realistically should score below 8 in all three categories. Whether that’s a price worth paying to minimize the impact of chipmunking depends on the needs and priorities of your gaming community.