Tournament Sportsmanship: Goals, Methods

[amysrevenge]

Just now, Dead Scribe said:

To be honest, like any real athletic sporting event, teams or athletes aren't scored on their sportsmanship.  I don't think sport scores have a place in tournaments, just like I don't think painting scores have a place in tournaments.  I think that the idea of having referees walking about and yellow/ red carding poor behavior is more the way to do it.  

Sport scores are just another way to game the game and aren't really an indicator of a person's sportsmanship.  I've seen people get tanked for beating someone, I've seen people get tanked for not being part of the clique, and I've seen really bad sports get ranked high because they were part of the clique.  

I've seen enough of that to feel that the scores are bogus and they don't do near what people want them to do (encourage good behavior).  

What I see here is a critique of one of the possible methods from way back in my OP.  This doesn't have to mean that the entire endeavour is fruitless, only that this one method is no good.

I agree with you that any scheme that allows for this sort of gaming of it is fatally flawed.  But there are other things to try that can still have a meaningful impact on the environment without throwing competitiveness in the garbage.

[svnvaldez]

I think for the most part this has been a very good discussion. Thank you for laying out the opening post the way you did @amysrevenge

[gjnoronh]

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

To be honest, like any real athletic sporting event, teams or athletes aren't scored on their sportsmanship.  I don't think sport scores have a place in tournaments, just like I don't think painting scores have a place in tournaments.  I think that the idea of having referees walking about and yellow/ red carding poor behavior is more the way to do it.  

Sport scores are just another way to game the game and aren't really an indicator of a person's sportsmanship.  I've seen people get tanked for beating someone, I've seen people get tanked for not being part of the clique, and I've seen really bad sports get ranked high because they were part of the clique.  

I've seen enough of that to feel that the scores are bogus and they don't do near what people want them to do (encourage good behavior).  

I think you have confused grown men playing with toy soldiers with a real athletic sporting event    

Real sports teams also don't get points towards winning for having better looking uniforms (or even uniforms at all).  But that's a part of this tournaments in this 'hobby' most TO's tend to want to have. 
I understand you don't like sports scores.  Again everyone should  host the event with the rules pack they  want to have with the winner that meets their goal for the event.  

Note in the sports analogy  real professional sports have a variety of ways to incentivize non competitive related behaviors, from fines for uniform violations to required press conference sessions,  player off field conduct,  and injury reports.   Why? Because those non on field performance issues have an impact on whether customers (fans)  want to tune in to the sport in the future.    Their impression of the sport is shaped by those non "on field" issues as well as the competitive product on the field.

In our hobby world  the analogy would be  whether people want to buy a ticket to the event next year our customers are also the players.   Someone certainly could create a pro league with no standards for anything outside of the on field during the game behavior.   Most professional leagues believe it's in their long term interest to put those standards in.  Soft scores are fairly analogous I would guess.   

 I don't think Warhammer is just a large competitive board game  - we would  use proxied paper chits  instead of models if it were.  it's a hobby not just a simple game.  That's part of what makes it so attractive vs card games or board games.      I think personally the 'total package' is the player who plays well on the board, but also provides enjoyable games for their opponents, and people think their army looks great.  

I know  whom I'd like to see win the event if I have 2 players with the exact same battle scores and one guy is universally voted 'favorite opponent' by his opponents and the other is not.  But that's me.    I also know whom I'd like to have win the event if I have 2 players with the same battle points and one is accused of cheating/shady play by several opponents but without ever being proven to have cheated (in the latter case I'm assuming the caught cheater would be disqualified.)  But again that's me.   

Certainly agree some sports measures are better then others, and none are perfect.  But as noted nothing we can measure in tournaments is a perfect measure including battle scores as a measure of generalship skill given randomness in pairings or dice.  

[svnvaldez]

43 minutes ago, gjnoronh said:

I think you have confused grown men playing with toy soldiers with a real athletic sporting event    

That is a very old school way of thinking in an era of Esports and the card games such as poker and it’s competive circuit.

[gjnoronh]

My point was partially tongue in cheek - this is still a game where grown men play with plastic man dollies.  

That being said whether Warhammer is a 'real sport' or not lets not make it to be a more serious life and death issue then it seems to be.  Pro 'real sports' involve grown men playing a game that in many cases 4 year olds play.   Plenty of pro atheletes and social commentators have noted attaching excess importance to the results of the game isn't healthy.    

 I'm not sure my goal for the future of my hobby is to be an Esport.   But again that may be part of the difference in approaches to this discussion.   If a pro circuit of well paid table top athelete's is someone's goal for Warhammer that may make them value different tournament structures then someone who values building events and communities where people want to get  together to have a weekend of fun games.  Those aren't mutually exclusive but they are different goals.  I'm in the latter camp for sure.    

 

 

[Overread]

I've always held the view that a good community event is one that is well run and fair for all those taking part. So having sensible guidelines and officials and a structure works - especially once you're not just running the local club tournament; but running it for strangers all gathering together in great numbers. 

In online tournament discussions most are talking about events held for bigger numbers of people and where many attending are not known locally at all. 

I think some mix it up with smaller scale club events where its basically just the weekly club meet, plus those couple of guys that only show up now and then and perhaps only one or two people who are totally unknown who just happened to hear about it. Otherwise its little different to a normal game night save that it might go on longer; might be on a weekend and there might be £50 or so in prize at the local store. 

[AaronWilson]

I think Ian nailed it where he said there 100% should be something in place to ensure good sportmanship however it shouldn't be arbitrary and if something is in place it should be a standard across all events.  

[stato]

I think most of the discussion here is focused around big events, 80+ players. Maybe those do need a better system to prevent 'gaming' of the system.  

Smaller events of 40ish players, which are the majority of tournaments, really dont need anything like what is being suggested. Most people know each other or are known, and the TO is much more involved in games going on so can spot issues.

Regarding the discussion about including sports and painting scores in events. Why are they there? because small events are typically run by great people who are giving up their time and want to run a fun event, lovely painted armies and good atmosphere are part of that.  You dont really get that many hardcore power gamers running events because they prefer to be playing (thats not to say TO's are not top tier players, many are, but they are more invested in the gaming than the winning).

If people want events where there are no soft scores, get organised and run your own event (and if you need help ask nicely and other event organizers will likely help as they are nice people).

[Dead Scribe]

I think you have confused grown men playing with toy soldiers with a real athletic sporting event

Not at all.  ESports are a thing.  Magic the Gathering is grown men playing with cards making six figures a year in prize money.  There are countless video game professional circuits where players can make tens of thousands and upwards of six figures in prize money.  

Professional gamers are already a thing.  There's no reason why with as large of a tournament player base that Games Workshop games have that they cannot compete with xwing and have a professional circuit as well.

[gjnoronh]

5 hours ago, AaronWIlson said:

I think Ian nailed it where he said there 100% should be something in place to ensure good sportmanship however it shouldn't be arbitrary and if something is in place it should be a standard across all events.  

Why? We don't have standardization of how paint is judged, what battle plans will be used, what the terrain will look like and how much is on the table, how much time per round, whether we are on a 0-20 or WLD scale etc.  Nothing in the world of 'competitive' warhammer is standardized including things that have a much bigger impact on the actual event results then sportsmanship.  We can't agree in this thread whether there should be sportsmanship scores at all (and I'm sure the same folks on a painting scores thread would chime in they don't want those either.)

 

@Dead Scribe again read the full post you quoted and my next.   If your goal is a competitive esport circuit go for it.   Host that event with zero paint and sports components.    In my experience that seems to make a less attractive event for the average player then one that values that total hobbyist experience but really it's up to you.  

[LLV]

I can go to pretty much any McDonald’s anywhere in the world and get a similar experience. Likewise I can go to any competitive REL event for mtg and get a similar experience. The concept of brand familiarity and standardization is what makes McDonald’s and MtG wildly successful.

There’s no reason why warhammer events can’t be like that.

[AaronWilson]

38 minutes ago, gjnoronh said:

Why? We don't have standardization of how paint is judged, what battle plans will be used, what the terrain will look like and how much is on the table, how much time per round, whether we are on a 0-20 or WLD scale etc.  Nothing in the world of 'competitive' warhammer is standardized including things that have a much bigger impact on the actual event results then sportsmanship.  We can't agree in this thread whether there should be sportsmanship scores at all (and I'm sure the same folks on a painting scores thread would chime in they don't want those either.)

 

@Dead Scribe again read the full post you quoted and my next.   If your goal is a competitive esport circuit go for it.   Host that event with zero paint and sports components.    In my experience that seems to make a less attractive event for the average player then one that values that total hobbyist experience but really it's up to you.  

I agree nothing is standardised but I actually think as a community if we could move towards a standardised event pack It would be advantageous for all of us. 

[Dead Scribe]

A competitive set of standards is crucial.

[BobbyB]

I absolutely cannot get my head around this desire to have tournaments standardised.  Variety keeps things interesting and gives people who want different things from different events the opportunity to have their needs met

[LLV]

3 minutes ago, BobbyB said:

I absolutely cannot get my head around this desire to have tournaments standardised.  Variety keeps things interesting and gives people who want different things from different events the opportunity to have their needs met

Why does it have to be one or the other? TOs would choose and list if they were using standardized rules. Maybe there could different tiers like MtG REL levels- but regardless you’d know what you were getting going in.

Also there are narrative events and Throne of skulls for those that want a further focused ‘hobby experience’ 

[gjnoronh]

38 minutes ago, LLV said:

I can go to pretty much any McDonald’s anywhere in the world and get a similar experience. Likewise I can go to any competitive REL event for mtg and get a similar experience. The concept of brand familiarity and standardization is what makes McDonald’s and MtG wildly successful.

There’s no reason why warhammer events can’t be like that.

I don't know how long you have played but we've had pushes like that now and in the past with the Warhammer community.  ITC currently particularly for 40K, ETC in particular for 8th ed Fantasy.     There is currently a suggested pack for the entire US (or other regions of the world)  available created by the organizer of the NOVA open.  

My experience after having watched various discussions about tournament set ups for 20+ years has been a standardized pack that doesn't take into account what your local community actually wants isn't great and isn't well received.   People argue about Warhammer pretty consistently and local regional differences in preferences are the rule.    Folks want what they want and can't agree - at best you can get a sense of what your local community wants.  

Lets say the standardized pack requires a large and arguably subjective  Sportsmanship score are the anti sportsmanship score people here going to be eager to go to AoS events?  Lets say it doesn't have a sports and paints score,  is a guy who gets crushed by a grey plastic army wielded by a rude and obnoxious player going to want to come to an event again? 

 

[Overread]

@Bobby B The idea of standards isn't so much that each one plays the same, but that each one has the same standards in terms of how they award prizes and how things are formally structured - ergo much like who two different matched play games can be totally different* and yet both still use the same structure underneath to run (ergo same rules)

Things like how many officials to X number of tables; how reports are made when an official is required to step in to a game; how reports on bad and good behaviour is logged and stored. How that information is then shared with other standard groups etc... Ergo allowing different events to oversee the games fairly and sensibly and also collate data between them to identify patterns of behaviour within the game - both positive and negative.

It's about creating a fair and known set of boundaries and structure that can then allow greater freedom to be bolted on top.

 

Think of it like a house. If you build a house with no foundations then sure you can build a nice fun creative house; but its going t obe seriously limited in size and scope. Plus it might fall down a lot quicker.

Build a really strong foundation though and whilst the foundation is REALLY boring and dull - the house itself can be utterly fantastic; it can be expanded upon and built up huge and if anything does go wrong it should be a minor issue to resolve. 

 

The foundations are the rules of the game and the event and how its structured and organised. 

 

Personally I think the lack of standard Warhammer format is mostly because GW has been totally hands off with it. Wizards of the Coast is fully hands on with MTG organising and if you look at any major sport or competitive event with national and internatinoal organisation then there are companies involved. The issue with leaving it up to the fans is that you can end up with so many people in charge of their own patch that they can never agree upon anything. Each want to be in charge; each thinks their ideas are best and there is no formal structure to really push forward with one single vision (for good or bad). so it gets a fit of attention and then fizzles out - esp as there's no regular pay or money so that people come and go. Many clubs rotate their leaders fairly regularly based on how life treats them.

* one a straight up fight; the other a mix of objectives, roaming NPCs all woven into a realm themed narrative event with a series of games before and after. 

[stato]

4 minutes ago, BobbyB said:

I absolutely cannot get my head around this desire to have tournaments standardised.  Variety keeps things interesting and gives people who want different things from different events the opportunity to have their needs met

Exactly, and thats why tournament organizers will continue to provide varied and interesting  and fun tournaments, because there is a significant audience for that (at least in the UK).  If people want to make Warhammer more competative there is already that approach from Frontline gamings ITC formats.  However its already regularly discussed how ITC 'spoils' local scenes as many players will not play anything but ITC for each and every game.

[gjnoronh]

Sure but me saying everyone in the world must use the same foundation, irrespective of what size house you are building, what your local materials are available if you are on a high or low water table, if your area is prone to flooding is that  logical?

AoS is the rules of the game  and arguable 'the universal foundation. '   What TO's do is decide what's right for the kind of house they want to build.  Some of us want an esports model apparently - others think that there is something unique about miniature games compared to computer games.  Neither are wrong just different houses we want built.  

[LLV]

4 minutes ago, gjnoronh said:

Lets say the standardized pack requires a large and arguably subjective  Sportsmanship score are the anti sportsmanship score people here going to be eager to go to AoS events?  Lets say it doesn't have a sports and paints score,  is a guy who gets crushed by a grey plastic army wielded by a rude and obnoxious player going to want to come to an event again? 

 

Subjective Paint scores and sports scores have no place in someone’s final playing result. However painting and sports should be required at events. This is easy to achieve. Is your stuff painted? If not you can’t win or maybe even enter the tournament. Are you a ****** to people? If you are you will be given penalties and not win the tournament. 

Youre assuming a standardized set would be extremes but it wouldn’t.

dont want to harp on too much but riddle me this- how would all the people looking to pickup painting awards feel if their gaming scores were added to that equation? 

Would it be fair if an army with all golden demon standard models that lost all its gam es lost out in a painting award to a say a solid tabletop army that went 4-1? 

If the answer is ‘no’ then why do people feel it’s ok to judge the other way around?

[gjnoronh]

Because we are awarding an "Overall" award at most large events.  No one here  is suggesting Battle results should be based on painting or sportsmanship.    

If all you care about is painting you look at the Paint Score and hope to win Best Painted.

If all you care about is table top success you look at the Battle Score and hope to win Best General.

If all you care is being thought to be a fun player you look at Sportsmanship Score and hope to win Best Sports.

If you don't like soft scores and think they don't count - ignore Overall awards.   Consider them the 'renaissance hobbyist' award and just ignore them. 

You are exactly right we'd all laugh if someone says for the Overall award Battle scores shouldn't be part of the final total.   And yet we're having the exact analog of  that discussion about whether the only thing in an "Overall" award should be Battle.  

The angst here is some folks hate the idea that the Overall award isn't the same criteria as the "Best General" award.   Some TO's (and gamers) want to incentivize  and reward more then the bare minimum painting standard and behavior.    There  isn't one right answer on how events should be set up- run the event you want to run.  I think based on many years of experience it's better 'business' (meaning I sell more tickets in the long run) for my events to value all those things.  I also think it's better for the AoS Community's long term health but that's my opinion.  

 

Note guys this isn't a new discussion the warhammer community has been having this same discussion for at least 20 years.  .  . google can probably find at least ten years of them but trust me it goes back a very very long way.  

[Dead Scribe]

37 minutes ago, BobbyB said:

I absolutely cannot get my head around this desire to have tournaments standardised.  Variety keeps things interesting and gives people who want different things from different events the opportunity to have their needs met

Because without a standardized ruleset for tournaments, you can't take tournaments to the professional level.

[stato]

10 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Because without a standardized ruleset for tournaments, you can't take tournaments to the professional level.

The problem there standardization is only wanted by a few, yet implementing it (on a level enough to make it work) impacts many, and its impact spoils it for more people than it benefits.  This is why, despite there being a way to standardise (just play the base game, no other criteria) each tournament introduces variety to make it how they and their attendees want.  I dont have enough history in the game to say for certain but ive read a bit about the various different organisations trying to implement standardization (ITC, ETC, etc) that just dont get picked up on a big scale because it just doesnt suit everyone.

Im sure if GW went that way it might get carried through a bit, but look at the variation we have with realms etc, even despite GW suggesting they should all be used in their entirety.

Again i quote second hand info, but I was told by a TO in scotland that they stopped submitting 40k tournament results to the UK standings as it was 'souring' the local scene as it was attracting people who were going all out Win at all costs even for little friendly tournaments purely to see their name jump 2 places in the overall standings.

 

[Marc Wilson]

I recently read a tournament pack that covered Sportsmanship in great detail. In fact 3 pages of the 12 page document covered this in forensic detail. My immediate emotional reaction to this was 'Woah - they're really expecting a lot of shenanigans at this Tournament', and what does that do - puts me at guard and makes me wary. Imagine a tournament were everyone was wary on the lookout for transgressions so they can wave the rulespack at the perpetrator , 'Look, look! You just broke offence 1.3 subsection C. Referee!' In some peoples dream scenarios there would be a dozen referees ready to swarm over to put the s h i t s up people event more. Net result of highlighting a problem that doesn't really exist to any significant level - awkwardness, paranoia and fun-sapping misery.

What subset of players want to 'take tournaments to the professional level'? It must be minute and all six of them are probably posting in this thread. Uh this thread is a painful read.

[Dead Scribe]

The problem there standardization is only wanted by a few

While there is no way to prove what the overall Sigmar population would want, this same sentiment was expressed in many esport and professional games like magic and even xwing.  Yet when the world standards appeared, the competitive circuit exploded with activity. 

So I am doubtful that few want standardization.  I think with Sigmar its more like its never happened before and the competitive people are happy to not want to rock the boat but would embrace it fully if it were to happen.

I also think that sales would explode because a lot more people would get involved that don't right now because they don't see any real valid global ranking or world title.