Tournament Sportsmanship: Goals, Methods

[BobbyB]

 

36 minutes ago, Marc Wilson said:

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.

Thank god for this moment of sanity

[Lemon Knuckles]

 

53 minutes ago, BobbyB said:

 

Thank god for this moment of sanity

But it's really not either/or, is it?  

I read the thread as largely expressing a desire for some sort of more structured competitive track.  I absolutely love the hobby side of the hobby, but I also enjoy puzzling over a good chestnut.  Tabletop tactics, metagame strategy.  These things are also highly enjoyable, and I don't see anything wrong with exploring what a more purely competitive subset of the tournament scene might look like.  There's room for it all.

[Infeston]

I am really not a fan of introducing something like a competitive standard for AoS. I think GW provided a lot of tools for competitive players and every other kind of player to design events or matches the way they want. GW did a lot to cater to all different kinds of players and provided tools for everyone.

But establishing something like a competitive standard might sound good at first, but will eventually lead up to everything and every game being judged on this standard, because people will this treat as the "official way" to play the game.

I have seen many games going down this route and turning from more casual games to competitive games and often the atmosphere and mentality of players changes a lot after going down that route. These games might also get a big influx of players, but often at a high price. 

I think the way GW is doing things now is the best way to satisfy all kinds of gamers. 

 

Also what AoS, 40k and other tabletop games makes unique is that you have to communicate with your opponent a lot and find ways to solve problems or conflicts together with your opponent. By establishing a global standard for AoS you are removing this aspect of the game, because people can just say "We play global standard, so we don't need to find a common ground on how we want to play". But I think for AoS it is really important that you also put players in situations where they have to talk with their opponent on how they want to play. 

But this is my personal opinion. I have to say that I (personally) really don't want AoS to go full competitive. I like how they do things now, by providing something for everyone and not telling that something is the "right way" to play this game. 

[Lemon Knuckles]

Yeah, I guess it could be the end of AoS as we know it.  Or it could be just a bunch of people talking about some of the problematic experiences they've had at real tournaments and brainstorming different ideas.

[Dead Scribe]

There already is a standard though.  It is the matched play standard.  The only thing global standards would be doing is standardizing how scoring and painting and sportsmanship etc should be handled.  It wouldn't do anything at the casual amateur level, where the players would still be just using the matched play standard by default.  

[svnvaldez]

21 hours ago, Overread said:

 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 this is the most important quote of all when framing this discussion.

For me I am talking about the mindset of large events... specifically LVO, NOVA, and Acon since I am USA based. These events cost me quite a bit of money to make it to and I am competing for top placings and want a fair environment. With small local events I am not to bothered with scoring as I am there to hang with buddies. I know most of the players at a small event and we can figure out sports and paint our selves... If someone has a poor proxy or misplays a rule a "come on man" is sufficient.... at a large event standardization and prepublishing a pack  is a must since people truly do have different mindsets about the game.

[Overread]

Another point is that at a small local you already know that Dave spent all his money on a really nice commission paint job; whilst Steven and Joe both bought second hand armies that were pre painted whilst Jane spent all her evenings painting up the models in the club. 

Plus you all know that Bill clearly paid someone else to paint their army because he can never paint and suddenly turns up with a Golden Demon standard force! 

 

Local level things are fare more fluid and easier to change on the fly - you can even adjust to suit the group dynamic very readily. It is indeed the bigger events where you don't know people; where people might come from all over the country or even the world - they are the events that need more thinking about to produce a fair environment for all concerned. 

[AaronWilson]

When I meant a standardised event pack I probably should of been more clear, what I did mean was - 

A list of scenarios to be picked from to avoid those games that can lead to games to being total non games, or mathematically not being able to win turn post turn 2 (things like Relocation Orb or Better part of Valour) stand out. 

A look at some of the realmscape rules that can totally ruin someones day (your whole army can't shoot this game, flyers take mortal wounds) etc etc. 

A standardised system for award painting points so that's manageable, not arbitrary and while there is 100% scope for people to score more then others the standard deviation is in such a way it shouldn't be changing results but it is encouraging painting & hobby.

A standardised system for Sportmanship, 100% sportmanship should be promoted and celebrated but I personally don't think the scores should be drastically changing results, which they won't if they're done in the same way as above.

A event pack we can all follow as a community doesn't mean less variety, it means a even playing field for everyone and a stabilised tournament circuit where we all know what we're aiming towards and what boundaries we're playing within.  

[stato]

14 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

There already is a standard though.  It is the matched play standard.  The only thing global standards would be doing is standardizing how scoring and painting and sportsmanship etc should be handled.  It wouldn't do anything at the casual amateur level, where the players would still be just using the matched play standard by default.  

But you said in previous posts painting and sports score should not be used for placings, so why do you want them standardised?  Equally if all we care about is gaming scores then you say above we already have a standardized approach available. So its already ready for 'pro-level' gaming to come in.  In fact its been that way for years with the ITC, but its never taken off to a level enough to support 'pro-level' players.

[ianob]

I think people are missing the point on what is being talked about regarding standardisation.

We're talking about standardising scoring, soft scores, realm usage, "bad missions", and things like that. Mechanical things. Things to provide a consistent mechanical experience. No one is saying that every tournament will be the same, that's internet hyperbole.

If the only thing that makes your events varied and fun to go to is the scoring system, I'd hazard that you're going to the wrong events...

[stato]

19 minutes ago, ianob said:

I think people are missing the point on what is being talked about regarding standardisation.

We're talking about standardising scoring, soft scores, realm usage, "bad missions", and things like that. Mechanical things. Things to provide a consistent mechanical experience. No one is saying that every tournament will be the same, that's internet hyperbole.

If the only thing that makes your events varied and fun to go to is the scoring system, I'd hazard that you're going to the wrong events...

But who is going to decide these rules and who will run these standardised tournaments?  because most event organisers currently seem to be prefectly happy (and selling out) with their own custom packs giving a certain flavour, which would be quashed going to a standard pack. take BOBO for instance, this was their personal take on AoS at the time, much of that is changes to the 'mechanics' of the game. Im sure they would change with more time for AoS2 to settle. Would you accept this as the standard? I know other tournaments didnt take the same rules.

[ianob]

1 minute ago, stato said:

But who is going to decide these rules and who will run these standardised tournaments?  because most event organisers currently seem to be prefectly happy (and selling out) with their own custom packs giving a certain flavour, which would be quashed going to a standard pack. take BOBO for instance, this was their personal take on AoS at the time. Im sure they would change with more time for AoS2 to settle. Would you accept this as the standard? I know other tournaments didnt take the same rules.

Yes, that was a *great* rules pack. The game was horribly broken at that point and GW had not yet released their big FAQ. The first turn change was even reasonable, because a lot of people expected to see that in the FAQ too.

And again, I think you're still misunderstanding the standardisation part. Is it likely that every TO will use a standardised tournament pack verbatim? Almost certainly not. Would the overall tournament experience be improved if a standard pack made at least some impact? Absolutely.

[Overread]

"Who will decide the rules" 

 

And there is the issue. With most major sporting events a body arises that manages the bulk of the competing events at the large scale; for things like Magic the Gathering and most Computer game baed tournaments  that is the company that makes the product which steps in and sets the rules for better or worse. 

Warhamer has the issue that GW stepped right back, which is nice but it also sort of left everyone at a loose end. When you try to deal with national and international setups you end up with too many TO's wanting to lead and thus it all tends to fizzle itself out (partly because no one can fully agree and partly because its all done in peoples free time so it can all become rather a heavy amount of work for a fun hobby and thus many just pull back to manage their own events as they have done in the past). 

[Dead Scribe]

I don't think indy TO's should be doing the work.  I think too many want to be in charge and it just leads to this internet celebrity nonsense.  I think it is Games Workshop themselves that should standardize a world tournament format scoring structure.

[stato]

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

I don't think indy TO's should be doing the work.  I think too many want to be in charge and it just leads to this internet celebrity nonsense.  I think it is Games Workshop themselves that should standardize a world tournament format scoring structure.

Here is how GW chooses to score its AoS events in warhammer world;

Major Victory – 6 points

Minor Victory – 4 points

Draw the game – 2 points

Lose the game – 0 points

1 point for each Favourite game vote (i.e. max 5)

1 point for each Favourite army vote (i.e. max 5)

 

So max possible score in 5 game event would be 40 (30 game and 10 soft score).

[Marc Wilson]

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

I don't think indy TO's should be doing the work.  I think too many want to be in charge and it just leads to this internet celebrity nonsense.  I think it is Games Workshop themselves that should standardize a world tournament format scoring structure.

They are in charge though. The attain that level of responsibility and influence because they're doing all the hard work and exposing themselves to financial risks. Notwithstanding that TO's are generally people who have been in the hobby for many years and hence tend to have a reasonably good grasp of what players want. and what makes a good tournament.

[Dead Scribe]

There are also a lot of event organizers that the community tears apart despite their years of experience and efforts.  So I dont' fully agree.  I'd rather the official company run it.

[gjnoronh]

GW isn't running local events. It's stores and individual event TO's.  

If all goes well I break even on actual cash outlays on the events I run, I lose money overall given the time I take off from work to run it.   GW doesn't pay me anything.  Unlike a store running Magic events I don' t make money off selling cards to players or even make money off the entry fee.    My only interest is players having a good time and building my regional community up for AoS.   I am usually 100-200 hours of work minimum per year in effort before the 72 hours devoted to the event.   

Why would I want to invest all that effort to run an event that doesn't reflect what I or my local community seems to want?   

In it's history including AoS era GW hasn't always produced rules that worked for tournament play (the first entire year of AoS alone)

But again for the ESport model fans - run that event you want. There's a lot of room in the world for different models.  

[Dead Scribe]

The esports fans will never get what they want so long as there is no standardization.  Thats the point.  Multiple models defeats the purpose of the esports model in the first place.

[ianob]

3 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I don't think indy TO's should be doing the work.  I think too many want to be in charge and it just leads to this internet celebrity nonsense.  I think it is Games Workshop themselves that should standardize a world tournament format scoring structure.

This would absolutely be ideal. But it won't ever happen.

[amysrevenge]

I think we would find that a standardized GW tournament format might not be conducive to a hyper-competitive esports format.  In the past, GW has relied much more heavily on soft scores than many other Indy GTs for AoS.

A common set of tools, where there are already  worked-out methods to help attain specifically identified goals, would do a good job of at least evening out the experience, by helping manage expectations all around. 

If there was an easily accessed such set, maybe an event that markets itself as competitive might not accidentally set itself up as soft-score driven, and an event claiming to be narrative or easy-going won't mistakenly encourage cutthroat hard as nails play with ineffective soft scores.

[Dead Scribe]

True but AOS developers are from what I understand all pretty enthusiastic competitive tournament players.  So there is hope in my mind for something.

[amysrevenge]

1 minute ago, Dead Scribe said:

True but AOS developers are from what I understand all pretty enthusiastic competitive tournament players.  So there is hope in my mind for something.

They enthusiastically compete in events with heavy soft score components, and compete for those soft score awards just as hard as the gaming awards...

[gjnoronh]

Maybe this one?

https://aosshorts.com/us-age-sigmar-event-modular-pack/

Again we've been there in the past with Warhammer with ETC (and ITC)  a standard set really doesn't meet everyone's needs or desire (i.e. folks who don't want sports to be a component of the event.)     GW's old suggested rules systems for warhammer tournaments also used to include judging the composition or theme of an army often with a rotating or highly subjective check list.  I'm guessing our esports fans might not be excited by that.  

There are game systems (9th Age, KoW) that have more locked in standards for competitive play (and even then a fair amount of variation.)   

The real issue Amy's Revenge you are asking about is understanding the math on score variance which is harder to understand then whether or not soft scores exist.

Brief example if 3 rounds of battle you could have the minimum score per round be 10 and maximum 25 but make it very hard to get 25 and likely max 20.  Or you could have 3 rounds of battle with a max of 15 and a minimum of 0 and have all the scores in that range fairly likely to be obtained.  

Someone who doesn't understand the way tournament math works would look at event with 75 points of battle vs one with 45 (assuming the points attained on soft scores is the same) and think the 75 battle event had a bigger percentage on battle.  But they are missing the fact that someone who wins all three will have 60, and someone who loses all three will have 30 under one system will the other will have scores from 0-45

The event with a wider range of attainable score has the variance in any given score be a bigger potential driver  of final overall scores assuming other things are constant.   

For any measure (battle, paint, sports) whats your range, what's your average, and what's realistically attainable are important considerations when thinking through the math.  

 

[Marc Wilson]

28 minutes ago, ianob said:

This would absolutely be ideal. But it won't ever happen.

Would it, Ian? I've listened to / read  your arguments and though I agree with a lot of your opinions on mechanics and scoring I think a centralized diktat from GW PLC would be an enormous disincentive to independent TOs. Unless GV incentivised them - but them that's a bigger discussion firmly for the rabbit hole.