Switch Theme:

A rant on tournaments and how they are no indication of skill at all  [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
Fixture of Dakka



Chicago, Illinois

A lot of people seem to think that there is ultimately a skill level that is higher in competitive play than in normal friendly games. Supposedly the purpose of tournaments is so that players can be involved in a higher level of competition and that ultimately the best out of them wins the prize.

It also follows the belief that tournament play is somehow inherently more difficult than friendly games and that at tournaments is where the "meta" game of 40k comes out in the form of dominating armies which provide proof ultimately of which armies are superior.


These are all false, in fact their actually worse than false because they give the wrong impression upon which armies are more dominant.


Here are the following reasons why ultimately overall Tournaments do not really matter in larger scale of playing 40k.

1. Without a Standardized point and mission set up along with standardized rules your armies performance will vary according to which convention/ tournament you go to and place in. Your army may be fine tuned for a 1850 tournament but fall apart at the 2000 point level at another even. Without non standardized missions you can ultimately gear your army to play according to the convention rules you play at.

2. 1 Game matches indicate that your army succeeded against that mission and player once, which does not indicate anything. Odds, miscellaenous factors can more than attribute to a victory. This is why in baseball as well as other tournaments we have more than one match up against an opponent.

3. Scoring, most tournaments score players and match highest versus highest. However with compositional, painting, sportsmanship scores, you can face players who ultimately won through extraneous methods. Without a clear system of match up it is perfectly possible for you to play 2 players in a row that are not at your level of experience. Think of it if the Chicago Cubs started playing 2 rounds versus little league teams. Without a player ranking system and the addition of other misceallaneous scores indicating player skill and Age Ranking systems accordingly then this is not a indication of skil lat all.

4. Compositional Scoring, Sportsmanship, and Painting are not indicators of players skill level at the game. They are all opinions, you cannot state a opinion as a fact. Where as you may say Jim's painting is excellent, I may say it looks like dogshit. However, stating Jim won his 3 games by X and has this many points is a fact. When in the form of Composition and army structure simply are just opinions on how armies should be built. The game already has a composition in the form of FOC slots which are equal for everyone. The balance is that some armie have stronger Fast Attack options to make up for their weaker Heavy support options.

5. Sportsmanship; short of cheating there is not reason to have a sportsmanship award at all. It also creates the possibility of collusion for wins between players, if 4 people participate together in a 20 man tournament and state to each other before hand. We will give all of our opponents low sportsmanship scores then what happens is that the odds of their sportsmanship awards increasing is greater and places their winning in greater odds.

For Example.

At Z tournament, Sportsmanship Scoring by opponents is a 1 to 3 ration and you receive 5 points for a win. 4 Players agree to score all opponents 1s. Where as if Matched they will score themselves 3.

In a 24 Person Tournament your odds of getting one person from that group is 16 percent of receiving a score of 1. At the beginnning of the tournament. Lets say you have 4 rounds and everyone evenly matches and goes 2-2. 2 losses and 2 wins for each player with each player having the equal number of points and a equal chance to play each other player.

So you have 10 points, you have a 16 percent chance each round to score 1.


This is why collusion and sportsmanship awards and points are ultimately a horrible idea. This isnt even factoring in that you could play all 4 players win each game and still lose.



6. Missions ; without a standardized set of missions that all armies are equally capable of adjusting to these automatically place some armies as well as compositions in a disadvantage to win or place a handicap unnecessarily onto certain players as well as armies.

Ultimatley it is the luck of the draw at your table if you have randomized missions. Granted this does lead to more take all comer lists so to speak but still presents a randomization of winning which does not indicate skill at all.




In closing, without standardized points, player ranking, age ranking, removal of compositional score, sportsmanship , painting and a system of determinination that does not involve randomization of handicaps, tournaments ultimately are not a indication of anything but who won on that particular day and under what circumstances.

If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated. 
   
Made in nz
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




New Zealand

Replying to each statement in order.

1. Fine, some armies excel at certain point ranges and not at others. Some excel at more point ranges or more common point ranges than others. Thus we still have a best army. Also, most armies can keep the general idea of the 2000 point winning army when downgrading to the 500 point zone, and any army that is owning in the 1850 zone will be able to just add a squad or two and get up to 2000 without much change.

2. This is why it depends how much of a margin you win by. If I sweep the table of my opponent, that's a bigger win than the guy who wins by one objective due to a last-turn landspeeder denial. You can attribute one match to luck, but if a person successfully tables his opponents nearly every time, I'd presume he/she has some skill.

3. I agree, painting should be a separate contest. In many cases it is. There is no need for age matchup. If little eight year old Johnny wants to play in 'Ard Boyz, he faces opponents from 'Ard Boyz.

4. Exactly. So let's have a tournament where all that is taken out of calculations. I'm sure some do it that way, and those are the ones we judge by. Even so, if Orks win a tournament consistently, I'd say something is being said about them.

5. Like painting, sportsmanship is a thing on the side. It should never come into the rankings. Some people like to recognise courtesy though.

6. Missions are points of adaption. Your army may take all objectives, but when killpoints roll around, you lose big time. Missions prove who can adapt and win in a pinch.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/08/02 19:50:08


 
   
Made in us
Junior Officer with Laspistol






The eye of terror.

Don't forget also that the pool of players at a tournament is entirely made up of people who could afford to spend the money and take the time to go to the tournament.

While I have seen players attend a tournament series and consistently win (5/6 tournaments, with one tournament every two months) most tournaments are one-off events. If a person is consistently winning among of a pool of players, it does show that player has more skill than the other players who attend the event.

If a person wins one tournament, it means that he is likely to be a good player, but he might also have received more favorable matchups than the other players, had some particularly good dice luck during one more more matches, etc.

Why did the berzerker cross the road?
Gwar! wrote:Willydstyle has it correct
Gwar! wrote:Yup you're absolutely right

New to the game and can't win? Read this.

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka



Chicago, Illinois

Placing Age Restrictions on Tournaments is completely legit. It's like the example stated, players may be fine to play other 12 year olds but not older players.

This is why tournaments should dissuade that.

They may be good at just winning that particular style of tournament.


Such as the Hardboyz tournament lists can be customized to maximize success at the missions. Some armies are able to do this alot better than others.

If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Tournaments are little indication of skill, but the are often a good indication of army balance (or lack thereof).

   
Made in us
Dominar






If tournaments aren't a good indication of skill, then they can't be a good indication of army balance either. We can like or dislike it, but player ability factors into the quality of their list-making and their selections from the codex overall.

For example, if somebody shows up with a hard-as-nails 4th edition Nidzilla list and runs up against three new/bad players whose Space Marine army is selected entirely from 4 Battle Force kits and completely stomps them, then that says as little about the quality of the SM codex as it does about the Nid player's skill level.
   
Made in au
Killer Klaivex






Forever alone

Of course tournaments are a good indication of skill. It takes a massive amount of planning to use Lash/Oblits or Nob Bikers.

People are like dice, a certain Frenchman said that. You throw yourself in the direction of your own choosing. People are free because they can do that. Everyone's circumstances are different, but no matter how small the choice, at the very least, you can throw yourself. It's not chance or fate. It's the choice you made. 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

*spits* Fething tournament gamers. They're like the STD of the gaming world. *spits*

I'd much rather continue being a casual gamer - the very paragon of humanity and the apex of creative spirit.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Swindon, Wiltshire, UK

H.B.M.C. wrote:*spits* Fething tournament gamers. They're like the STD of the gaming world. *spits*

I'd much rather continue being a casual gamer - the very paragon of humanity and the apex of creative spirit.


Another broadcast from the casual gaming mafia? (CGM)

our way is the only way!
   
Made in us
Dominar






H.B.M.C. wrote:*spits* Fething tournament gamers. They're like the STD of the gaming world. *spits*

I'd much rather continue being a casual gamer - the very paragon of humanity and the apex of creative spirit.


Dunno if this is intended as satire, sarcasm, etc. but in my experience nothing motivates myself or the others that I know to get fully painted and attractive display armies, or to perfect our lists and tactics like knowing a tournament is around the corner.
   
Made in au
Killer Klaivex






Forever alone

H.B.M.C. wrote:*spits* Fething tournament gamers. They're like the STD of the gaming world. *spits*

I'd much rather continue being a casual gamer - the very paragon of humanity and the apex of creative spirit.

You sound like the Hitler of wargaming.

Are you going to round up tournament gamers and force them into painting chambers?

People are like dice, a certain Frenchman said that. You throw yourself in the direction of your own choosing. People are free because they can do that. Everyone's circumstances are different, but no matter how small the choice, at the very least, you can throw yourself. It's not chance or fate. It's the choice you made. 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

I didn't post that. The CGM did. Don't blame me.

And I'm suddenly having the weirdest sense of deja vu... like we've had this exact converstation before - not the OP - just this conversation, with Sourclams and Cheese and me. Weird...

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Swindon, Wiltshire, UK

H.B.M.C. wrote:I didn't post that. The CGM did. Don't blame me.

And I'm suddenly having the weirdest sense of deja vu... like we've had this exact converstation before - not the OP - just this conversation, with Sourclams and Cheese and me. Weird...


I believe you have had a similar conversation when the whole casual gamer mafia comment first came about and was sigged by someone
   
Made in au
Killer Klaivex






Forever alone

H.B.M.C. wrote:I didn't post that. The CGM did. Don't blame me.

And I'm suddenly having the weirdest sense of deja vu... like we've had this exact converstation before - not the OP - just this conversation, with Sourclams and Cheese and me. Weird...

It's like some kind of eternally looping orgy.

People are like dice, a certain Frenchman said that. You throw yourself in the direction of your own choosing. People are free because they can do that. Everyone's circumstances are different, but no matter how small the choice, at the very least, you can throw yourself. It's not chance or fate. It's the choice you made. 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Yeah I wouldn't have used the word 'orgy'... but then again, you would, and that's what I hired you for. Good work.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka






Chicago

I'd agree that winning any given RTT is not necessarily something that can be attributed to player skill, winning at the larger events, where there are more games, and a larger pool of players does seem to require skill. There has to be something to it when you have some players who have won GTs year after year, with multiple different codexes in multiple editions of the game.

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Face it 40k tournaments are about luck. Luck with your dice, luck with your match ups, and luck with the judges. When you win a 40k tourney all it says about you is that your the luckiest S.O.B that attended.

   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission




The Eye of Terror

Linkdead wrote:Face it 40k tournaments are about luck. Luck with your dice, luck with your match ups, and luck with the judges. When you win a 40k tourney all it says about you is that your the luckiest S.O.B that attended.



This only applies in any meaningful way at lower points values. At 1850-2500 the amount of dice being rolled evens out the luck factor enough so that you can't say it's "all about luck"

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Canonness Rory wrote:This only applies in any meaningful way at lower points values. At 1850-2500 the amount of dice being rolled evens out the luck factor enough so that you can't say it's "all about luck"


Your entirely correct...

The last tournament I won I got a draw against a rock player in the first round, and went on to massacred two people playing scissors. I was playing rock and I only saw one person playing paper. My 2nd round scissors opponent beat him pretty easily so I know I would have owned his face. Anyway I took first place and exude skill.
   
Made in nz
Charging Wild Rider




Wanganui New Zealand

Linkdead wrote:Your entirely correct...

The last tournament I won I got a draw against a rock player in the first round, and went on to massacred two people playing scissors. I was playing rock and I only saw one person playing paper. My 2nd round scissors opponent beat him pretty easily so I know I would have owned his face. Anyway I took first place and exude skill.



   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

He's trying to say that tournaments involve no skill by drawing a comparison to needing skill to win at paper/scissors/rock.

A false comparison, that is.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Hellacious Havoc





Wales

Hmm, see IMO any game/event/campaign where players have focussed excessively on the metagame will not be a good indicator of skill. This is why I have no interest in designing powerful lists, and why I think metagaming is generally harmful to the hobby, whether you're a casual player or not. If competing is important to you, in terms of proving your skill, games should be won or lost based on how well people play, not on how refined their lists are. And for casual gamers it kills variety and prevents us from being able to play 'friendlies'.
But that's just me. Any group of gamers who are happy to compete in that way are of course free to do so. I would never tell someone else how to enjoy the game.
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan




Florida

Hollismason wrote: A lot of people seem to think that there is ultimately a skill level that is higher in competitive play than in normal friendly games. Supposedly the purpose of tournaments is so that players can be involved in a higher level of competition and that ultimately the best out of them wins the prize.

It also follows the belief that tournament play is somehow inherently more difficult than friendly games and that at tournaments is where the "meta" game of 40k comes out in the form of dominating armies which provide proof ultimately of which armies are superior.


These are all false, in fact their actually worse than false because they give the wrong impression upon which armies are more dominant.



First, my experiences are based upon playing in the U.S.

I'd have to ask the question; who are these 'a lot of people'? I've never really read or heard anyone make a claim like that. I also question what you state the purpose of a tournament is for. GW hasn't posted a statement like that (except maybe for the Ard Boyz) for their GT's that I can ever recall. Many of the 'Indy GT' events appear to follow in the same tradition (scores for Sportsmanship, Painting and Army Comp). They are events that help showcase the hobby. There are folks who attend these events as a way to get together with old friends (myself included).

I agree with you that some folks will look at the armies that win these events and equate them to top performing armies. I don't agree, but it makes for interesting conversation.

For the most part, a person would need the following to win at one of these events:

a. not get chipmunked
b. have a decent to very well painted army
c. get lucky with army comp scores
d. actually win some games (how many games and by what margin is greatly impacted by a, b, c).

Is there some skill involved at winning games? Sure. Are GW events or Indy GT's based purely on player skill? No, but I don't think they've ever made that claim either. If folks do believe only player skill will win at a GW event, it's most likely they've never attended one.


For the record, I thought GW was going in the right direction back in 2007 as they dropped Army Comp.






No earth shattering, thought provoking quote. I'm just someone who was introduced to 40K in the late 80's and it's become a lifelong hobby. 
   
Made in us
Sslimey Sslyth






Busy somewhere, airin' out the skin jobs.

"40k tournaments are no indication of skill at 40k."

Thats cool.

I'm more skillful at 40k tournaments than you are then.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/08/03 12:39:57


I have never failed to seize on 4+ in my life!

The best 40k page in the Universe
COMMORRAGH 
   
Made in us
Nimble Pistolier





lol this game is based entirely on a dice. you could create the most point efficient killing machine ever but it wont matter if you roll ones all day long. the game is based on luck. if you play this hobby to win all the time i dont think you'll find it very fulfilling. its a hobby. its about having fun.

501 Agathonian Grenadiers
Blood Angels strike force

Glory for the first man to die!

the caption says " when there is something scary at the front, put something even scarier at the back." 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Deadshane1 wrote:"40k tournaments are no indication of skill at 40k."

Thats cool.

I'm more skillful at 40k tournaments than you are then.


Several of these issues could be obviated by everyone playing the same exact list. Then it comes down to talent and dice rolls. Frankly you need the dice rolls or else the talent aspects make themselves apparent immediately (although list making is indeed its own strataegery with random minimization see I are smart too).

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Just being a good 40k player is no guarantee of winning a tourney. You need some luck, either in dice rolls or match-ups or both. But, being a bad player can guarantee that you won't win.

If you don't want to play in tourneys, don't. They're not the end-all-be-all gaming experience. I enjoy them, mostly because it: 1) motivates me to paint and 2) is a chance to get away from the kids and play 3-4 games in a day (which maybe the only games that I play for a couple months).

Winning a 40k tourney is like a sports team winning a championship - especially sports where this a single play-off matchup (NFL, NCAA Basketball, etc.) instead of a series (MLB, NHL, NBA). Sometimes, the 'best' team doesn't win. That helps to make it more exciting. And while a bad team may occassionally win (except for the Detriot Lions), they won't win consistently enough to win a championship.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/08/03 15:02:03


In the dark future, there are skulls for everyone. But only the bad guys get spikes. And rivets for all, apparently welding was lost in the Dark Age of Technology. -from C.Borer 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

The Angry Commissar wrote:lol this game is based entirely on a dice. you could create the most point efficient killing machine ever but it wont matter if you roll ones all day long. the game is based on luck. if you play this hobby to win all the time i dont think you'll find it very fulfilling. its a hobby. its about having fun.


There are so many things wrong with this post I think I have to break it down:

1. Game based on dice/Won't matter if you roll ones.

The problem with statement is that it is ignorant of probability. Whilst yes, every roll of the dice is random, number crunching 40K allows a player to work out what is more likely to occur. Doesn't mean that what he wants will happen, only that it has more of a chance of happening. At its most basic 40K can be broken down to finding a statistical advantage over your opponent (via a list) and then pressing that advantage.

2. The game is based on luck.

No. It's not. A player with a crappy list and a player with a great list, or equal skill level (comparatively) will not have their game decided on luck. You'd be mad to think that true.

3. Playing this hobby to win all the time.

No one has said that. You're the first person to mention it. Red herrings and straw mans are not appreciated. Please refrain from such silly and pointless utterances in the future please.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Plastictrees



UK

I always thought that tournaments where for powergamers so they dont have to use there horrible powerleist on us casaul gamers

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Grab your club, hit her over the head, and drag her back to your cave. The classics are classic for a reason.
 
   
Made in us
Pragmatic Collabirator





Dark Side of the Mood

This is one area where games like FOG & DBx games tend to trump 40k/WHFB/Warmachine/Hordes since they were designed for tourney play.


   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: