<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Tournament Scoring"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/93.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net Tournament Scoring http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/224035.page and I'm thinking about using a W/D/L + Bonus Battle Points vs using the tiered victory scoring system they are using at the GTs.

To demonstrate.

Under W/D/L system: Win=15pts, Draw=10pts, Lose=5pts + up to 3 battle points per scenario

Whereas the GT system: Massacre=17pts, Solid Victory=14pts, Minor Victory=12, Draw=0, Minor Loss=8pts, Solid Loss=6pts, Massacred=3pts + up to 3BPs

I prefer the first simplying because it doesnt punish a player who manages to squeek out a win against another solid player while another player massacres a newbie. It just make more sense to me in a 3 round event.

Thoughts/suggestions?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/479295.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/479295.page GMT Tournament Scoring Just my two cents.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/479316.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/479316.page GMT Re:Tournament Scoring ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/479321.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/479321.page GMT Tournament Scoring vp tiers.

But you should make those bonus points things like killing the enemy general, and killing his most expensive unit, and holding a quadrant on your opponent’s side of the table, to give the edge to aggressive players as opposed to the ones who would try to just kill a couple of things for the minor win and then hide.

I played in a really good event nine days ago. Rules were as follows:

http://www.dangerplanetgames.com/dpnuke/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=14370

In this one, there were three generic bonus points each game, AND a two point bonus objective based on the scenario. This worked really well.

I really liked their Sportsmanship scoring system too. Five simple questions after each game, check all that apply. You got two points per check.

Precision: My opponent didn't fudge guess ranges, move units sloppily, or try to squeak out an extra few inches on the charge.
Efficiency: My opponent played in a quick and timely manner, and didn't try to stall the game. Experience should be taken into account.
Composure: My opponent was gracious in victory and noble in defeat. He kept his cool when the dice went south, and didn't whine about my list.
Generosity: In a case where there was no clear answer to the rules, and it could go either way, my opponent defaulted to my interpretation.
Cameraderie: My opponent helped make the game fun; both of us felt engaged and had a good time trying to crush each other's armies!
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/479388.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/479388.page GMT Tournament Scoring http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/479499.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/479499.page GMT Tournament Scoring
I think a well organized tournament matters much more than any one particular scoring system. With the number of players you expect, your proposed system should work just fine. Just make sure to pair properly! A computer spreadsheet helps immensely with this.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/479839.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/479839.page GMT Tournament Scoring http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480206.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480206.page GMT Tournament Scoring
gardeth wrote:Im running a tournament in January http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/224035.page and I'm thinking about using a W/D/L + Bonus Battle Points vs using the tiered victory scoring system they are using at the GTs.

To demonstrate.

Under W/D/L system: Win=15pts, Draw=10pts, Lose=5pts + up to 3 battle points per scenario

Whereas the GT system: Massacre=17pts, Solid Victory=14pts, Minor Victory=12, Draw=0, Minor Loss=8pts, Solid Loss=6pts, Massacred=3pts + up to 3BPs

I prefer the first simplying because it doesnt punish a player who manages to squeek out a win against another solid player while another player massacres a newbie. It just make more sense to me in a 3 round event.

Thoughts/suggestions?


Well, you're not punishing a player for squeaking out a win, but you're not rewarding a player who tables his opponent either. IMO, there is a difference between barely winning and tabling your opponent, and at least in tournies, it should be reflected. In addition, the tiered scoring system makes it easier to actually determine a winner in shorter (3-round) tournies. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480555.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480555.page GMT Tournament Scoring
If I offer a big reward for massacring your opponent, people will understandably aim for the most points. But, if a win is a win, and you make no points distinction between the various levels, then their is less to be gained from consistent massacres, which in theory (and only in theory) is an environment less encouraging of power lists, and certainly one less dominated by them.

There are a few ideas bouncing around in my head for discouraging power gaming in a Tournament. Not all, or even any, are necessarily good or practical!

Also, in terms of Sportsmanship scoring, I would make it a blind score. Essentially, each player has say, 5 Sportsmanship points at their disposal. After all their games have been played, they mark down on their own card how they are distributing these amongst their opponents. Rather than judging whether or not they enjoyed the game, they are nominating their *favourite* opponent. Still abusable should you come up against a friend of course, but a lot more meaningful in the long run.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480561.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480561.page GMT Tournament Scoring
A method that minimizes any kind of cheating or collusion is to rank your opponents. 3 for the best, 2 for the middle, 1 for the least fun (or whatever points you choose). This theoretically removes the possibility of chipmunking, but still gives a bad sport/cheater the ability to rank his opponents dishonestly; for example, giving the lowest score to the person he thinks is doing the best in the tournament and thus is greater competition. It also adds some more bookkeeping and delay to the very end of the tournament, as everyone has to remember and rank their opponents, and the organizers have to make sure everyone submits their rankings.

A system that’s seen some discussion lately is an escalating progression. Specifically for bad sports. Make sports scoring a simple yes/no question. If a person gets one bad sports vote in a tournament, it’s a minor deduction. Say 2 points out of a possible 80 overall. If they get two scores it’s progressively worse; say 6 points. If they get three downchecks, maybe it’s a 12pt or a 15pt deduction, or an automatic disqualification. The idea behind this is that anyone can have a bad game, or just not get along with a particular opponent. Or be downchecked by an attempted chipmunker. But if it happens multiple times, the odds are much better than there’s actually a problem with the player.

Personally I think people respond better to positive reinforcement, as in the system with the five questions I detailed above.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480625.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480625.page GMT Tournament Scoring
Also, the one about Generosity seems badly worded. It suggests that a good player just accepts his opponent is correct. Probably the best way to proceed with anything like that is the reasonability factor. Rules Lawyers will always try to force their opinion, however wrong it might be. To allow this for fear of getting a bad Sportsmanship is wrong. And yet, if you agree for flows sake on one rule, and your opponent returns the favour at some point, all is well, as he is clearly more concerned with getting the game played in a smooth fashion than just quibbling to buggery over a wording or pronounciation!

Of course, the trouble is that with any system, there are explotiable flaws. I don't really know what 'chipmunking' is or where the term comes from, but I'm guessing it's not good.

I have to say though, that I for one would have the Sportsmanship score be make or break in a Tournament. The winner might have taken a really powerful list, but as long as he wasn't an arrogant arse, who feels it was his ability rather than list that factored most, I wouldn't be that bothered. If he was a friendly opponent happy to shoot the breeze, who cares what his list was like? One thing I like to do when I beat someone is to point out parts where I though it was about to go south. Rather than be derogatory, I am complimenting my opponent, and hopefully arranging myself a closer (and dare I say, more worthwhile) game next time.

I think another thing would be to award points for the more unique forces out there. Again, this is purely personal preference/snobbery. I myself like to field odd armies made up of units rarely or never seen. If this is handled correctly, it could encourage Tournaments more towards a way to get interesting games in than a way to win accolades. Even if it has little to no bearing on the final score, perhaps a trophy for the most unique force would be a nice touch. In itself it has a certain prestige, and might encourage the less competitive players in with their heavily themed and converted armies? That it acknowledges the unique compositions rather than painting etc, it is seperate from best army.

I dunno. I'm just a non-competitive gamer looking to make Tournaments more appealing to others like himself!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480661.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480661.page GMT Tournament Scoring
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:If I offer a big reward for massacring your opponent, people will understandably aim for the most points. But, if a win is a win, and you make no points distinction between the various levels, then their is less to be gained from consistent massacres, which in theory (and only in theory) is an environment less encouraging of power lists, and certainly one less dominated by them.


A simple win/loss/draw encourages people to, once they get a lead, preserve that lead...So they do thier best NOT to engage in combat, which leads to a boring game.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480690.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480690.page GMT Tournament Scoring
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Also, the one about Generosity seems badly worded. It suggests that a good player just accepts his opponent is correct. Probably the best way to proceed with anything like that is the reasonability factor. Rules Lawyers will always try to force their opinion, however wrong it might be.


Thus pointing out the need for any tournament to have a written FAQ available BEFORE the tournament for the players to look at, prior to making thier lists.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480694.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480694.page GMT Tournament Scoring
skyth wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:If I offer a big reward for massacring your opponent, people will understandably aim for the most points. But, if a win is a win, and you make no points distinction between the various levels, then their is less to be gained from consistent massacres, which in theory (and only in theory) is an environment less encouraging of power lists, and certainly one less dominated by them.


A simple win/loss/draw encourages people to, once they get a lead, preserve that lead...So they do thier best NOT to engage in combat, which leads to a boring game.


A simple w/l/d might encourage that, but thats where the extra BPs come into play. Earning those points is what will seperate the overall winners from the rest and as long as the criteria for earning those points involve getting stuck in someway (killing enemy heroes/general, capturing standards, getting in your enemies deployment zone, etc) that should keep people from getting the lead and trying to hide.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480707.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480707.page GMT Tournament Scoring
I don't tend to plan that far ahead in a game. I'll know what I want to achieve, how to achieve, and roughly when my opponent will be past the point of no return. However, I am aware that games can swing dramtically with just the odd combat won here or there, especially in fantasy (my main realm of expertise).

You know, I fancy a thread about preferred Tournament Scoring etc. I shall have my tab then start on methinks.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480709.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480709.page GMT Tournament Scoring UKGTs. When they’ve done simple W/L/D with no other differentiating factors, people have observed players using maneuverable shooty/magic armies to snipe enough points for the win and then disengage.

This is less of an issue In Warhammer than in 40k, as WH armies generally aren’t as maneuverable, and march-blocking allows you to pin people down better. But it’s still possible to some extent, which is why I recommended making the secondary objectives ones which require more aggressive play.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480898.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480898.page GMT Tournament Scoring
Certainly for 40k, I would dispose of any and all non-objective related VPs, including KPs.

The Missions to my mind should be a test not just of the players capability to lead, but also to write a balanced list. Personally, I wouldn't reveal them until the the players were at the setting up stage. This means a truly flexible list is the order of the day, as you just don't know what is going to secure you victory.

The second VPs come into a game like 40k, things get unbalanced due to the relative power of each unit being more disparate. With Fantasy, everything can be a threat, and even the hardest unit will have disastrous consequences to face from a bad combat. VPs work well that way, as it becomes very difficult to play VP denial.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480927.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/480927.page GMT Re:Tournament Scoring
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/484383.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/224773/484383.page GMT