Jump to content

Tournament Sportsmanship: Goals, Methods


amysrevenge

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Marc Wilson said:

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. :)

I know what you mean, though I think it would be good, yeah. I don't think everyone would follow it, and I'm sure we wouldn't all agree with what GW did (no matter what they released) - I dont think any standardised pack will ever be completely followed regardless of who or where it comes from - but at least it would be a baseline and probably improve consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 hours ago, gjnoronh said:

Coming from someone in the USA that pack has a ton of issues and should not be used as a standard. There may be some good bits in there but it needs to be completely reworked. If you read all 53 pages I believe everyone will agree that this is just a compilation of ideas... 

The BLACKOUT player pack is much closer to a streamlined pack and if I was running an event this year I would probably start there.

https://aosshorts.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/BLACKOUT_2018.pdf

 

I do not think any reasonable player is truly against soft scores as long as they are attainable by all players and not open to manipulation. I personally like 3 separate awards: 1 battle, 1 sports, and 1 paint over 1 combined overall because that way I know that the TOs will not accidentally mess up the overalls soft scores by allowing arbitrary judging and club upvoting. But if you write and enforce a tight players pack with soft scores that everyone can attain you then are only differentiating placings on battle which is the entire point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying I  do/don't like either pack but highlights the issue with 'whose pack do we use' everyone likes something different. Someone went through the effort to write a standardized pack with tiered approaches to each size event.  

Little confused on your point.    I think as do all Best General should be differentiated on battle.   I think many would agree that Overall should be differentiated on more then just battle.   Minimum  attainable soft scores are what should allow you into the event not qualify you an equal shot for an "Overall" title.   

But that's my take - everyone is free to run their own event the way they like.    Again  it's an old argument different people want different things in how Overall should be determined. 

Bigger events tend to have almost always awards for Battle/Paint/Sports and and Overall.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, gjnoronh said:

I think many would agree that Overall should be differentiated on more then just battle.   Minimum  attainable soft scores are what should allow you into the event not qualify you an equal shot for an "Overall" title.   

And this is the crux of the issue... I recognize some people feel this way but I believe they are misguided. As a younger man this drove me away from the events in the USA. I stopped playing completely because no matter how much I tried I could not get full paint scores at events like NOVA where the standard to get max paint was excessive. 5 years later I finished school, got a good job and I'm back in the hobby. I have the funds to commission an army now so I am able to compete on a fair playing field with the top painters who typically win the overall prize despite losing more games.  Now, to me the way events are scored doesn't really matter, I have the cash, I can buy a painted army, I can win these events even in a system I feel is unfair. 

But Overall judged in a way that excludes the lesser painters from winning  will drive players away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?

In any  event exactly  1 person is going to walk away with the Overall award.   In a big event of say 60 players or so you know based on general ship skill levels and army choice there are probably only roughly  10 players who are in the running for the Overall or Best General win.  Should the other 50 quit the game like you did?  They know (if they are self honest and self aware) before they get there they aren't in the running for the Overall.  If someone is  an average player and they can't win Overall (or Best General)  why shouldn't they stop going to tournaments just like you did?  We're going to lose a lot of players if people with average and below table top skills drop out. 

What about the guys who can't afford to buy a new army with every shift of the meta? Should they just stop coming as they can't afford to buy a new army every few months when something new appears to be the new 'auto win.'   If they can't win the Overall apparently they should by your reasoning. 

How important is a plastic trophy that the very idea of not being in the running for the Overall award win drives someone away from playing with toy soldiers and hanging out with other gamers?   Is that "if I'm not going to win it all I don't wan't to be here" player the guy you want a room full of?  Or do you want the guys who are competitive but are there to hang out and have fun win or lose? 

Sure you can learn to play better, you can also learn to paint better and learn to win and lose with more grace.  That pressure to improve one's self is part of what's truly great about warhammer. 

At larger events there is almost always going to be an award for someone who only values one side of the three part hobby .  Why does not having the skills and  scores to compete  for an 'Overall' award stress out players who probably by nature of their skills and desires should be shooting for a "Best General" award?   Don't value the other parts of the hobby outside the tabletop then what besides excessive pride and hyper competitiveness makes you want an award that is based on those soft scores you don't value or aren't good at?   You don't see painting focused players  saying 'I'm going to be 0-5 it's not fair that Battle scores are scaled to keep me from winning the Overall.'

Put another way which players are going to make an event more successful (in terms of total ticket sales) long term?  The players who want to do the absolute bare minimum allowed on sportsmanship and painting to get in and compete (desperately apparently!) for the Overall trophy - the guys who will apparently quit the hobby if they aren't going to win the Overall. 

Or is it the players who are actively trying to make really great looking armies and give fun games to their opponents and are going to be happy to have a great weekend even if they didn't win it all?   I have a sense of which group of players would be more likely to entice  other players to come back to the event next year.   I'm also sure which group of players is going to give me more headaches as a TO to manage.

I also know whom I'd rather have crowned as the winner of an event I put my effort into running.  But that's my event.  You should run yours the way you like.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blood and Glory has the absolute best way of scoring painting, hands down. A high bar with lots of things you need to do, but no judging on *how* you do them. It encourages people to *try* the hobby side, and doesn’t punish them for not being great at it.

That’s true inclusivity, showcasing our hobby at its best - rather than exclusivity, telling people “you’re not good enough”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, svnvaldez said:

I am able to compete on a fair playing field with the top painters who typically win the overall prize despite losing more games.  Now, to me the way events are scored doesn't really matter, I have the cash, I can buy a painted army, I can win these events even in a system I feel is unfair. 

I am still foundering on this point. On what grounds do you deserve to win an Overall prize, which includes painting, if you are not going to paint your own army? That seems like the opposite of "fair".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ianob said:

Blood and Glory has the absolute best way of scoring painting, hands down. A high bar with lots of things you need to do, but no judging on *how* you do them. It encourages people to *try* the hobby side, and doesn’t punish them for not being great at it.

That’s true inclusivity, showcasing our hobby at its best - rather than exclusivity, telling people “you’re not good enough”. 

It used to be actually better - I recall back in 8th edition the brackets were the same but you were given a sheet where you scored yourself and a judge checked. This worked very well and ensured that tiny bit of freehand or that subtle conversion wasn’t missed. For me that was the best soft painting scoring ever. @Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't take all the glory for this but thanks for the comments.  At Blood and Glory we endeavour to make the event as a whole have a high standard of painting.  

We are not looking to produce a single amazing army, but we do have a painting award for that.  Instead we have painting scores geared towards ensuring that everyone attending has put some effort into their army.  If you don't want to go to that extra effort then thats fine.  You have the choice of clearly knowing you are out of the running for all prizes, or just choosing another event.  I think the key is that everyone knows upfront.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2018 at 6:20 PM, amysrevenge said:

Related to "I can't win overall so I quit the hobby". How about those people who don't even show up on Sunday if they aren't 3-0 after Saturday? That's a good way to succeed at your event, loading up on those guys...  hahaha

I admit I'm one of those guys.  If I have no chance to win the event after day 1, then everything after that is a waste of my time so I pack it up and call it an event and head home to rethink the next event and what I did wrong to cause me to lose a game on day 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2018 at 3:37 PM, Kirjava13 said:

I am still foundering on this point. On what grounds do you deserve to win an Overall prize, which includes painting, if you are not going to paint your own army? That seems like the opposite of "fair".

This is why painting shouldn't be a part of a competitive tournament.  Especially now a days.  You have no control over who gets their army painted by someone else, why is it a part of your overall score?   There is no way to enforce something like this, stating that if you don't paint your own army you can't score high in painting, because you have no way of knowing who did and did not paint their armies at the highest level of play where the players are coming from literally all over the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never understood the stigma with people dropping on the second day.  It is a hobby with the ultimate goal of enjoying it.  If the first day was a bad experience, for whatever the reason, why fault someone for wanting to do something else with their free time the next day.  I find it ironic that we celebrate, or at least have a good laugh, when Joe Gamer doesn't make it the second day because of a nasty hangover, but if Johnny Player has three miserable games and is honest that he is not having fun, the general view is that he is a poor sport and looked down upon for wanting to do something else the next day. 

As for the whole debate about formats and what should be included in scoring, the best option is diversity.  Right now I am finding that I really like ITC events because there is no pretense to them.  I don't need to feel pressured to produce an amazing looking army and I can walk in expecting the majority of the players are there to win.  Knowing that is the general attitude of the event means that I can set my own expectations at the right level before walking in the door.  I know I am an average player at best, so no surprises when I get clubbed for 3+ games.

With that said, I don't want the "traditional" tournaments to go away as I know plenty of people who enjoy them and they should not feel pressured to change the overall goal/approach to their events.  As others have mentioned, if you really want 100+ player, ITC/JustSaying style events, make them happen in your area.   I know that is much easier to say than accomplish, but I also get the sense that for some folks it is a matter of them wanting to play and place the burden of running the event on someone else.   

 

*Note:   People argue that it places a burden on the TO, but anyone with decent organization skills can address the problems pretty quickly (assuming the players who drop are courteous about informing the TO).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding pro painted armies.   The TO  could  simply ask, and if someone is willing to lie in order to cheat  to maximize their chances of a win- well so be it. I've paint judged at tournaments for over 20 years and I've met plenty of players with pro painted armies who were quite happy to be quite honest about it.  

Same issue as noted before occurs on the tabletop.   "Did you move that model while my back was turned' "No"   "Was that dice a six or a 3" "It was a six you must have missed it" 

Why not use loaded dice?  If you are willing to cheat to get the win that would also be reasonable and again hard for anyone to prove.  

A player determined to lie/cheat  to maximize their chances of winning is an issue   not unique to soft scores.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same can be said why they don't just ask athletes if they are using performance enhancing drugs, and instead they test them.

Because people will lie to get an advantage.  In competitions, people will push the boundaries hard.  

There are people that use loaded dice as well.  I've known a good half dozen in the past eighteen months or so that were known to be using dice that rolled high most of the time and wouldn't change their dice out because they knew they rolled high most of the time.

All of those things are expected at tournaments, particularly the big ones.  Thats why I'm for removing as many of those things as you can (like painting scores).  Loaded dice are a different animal altogether.  You'd have to basically give dice out at your tournaments and say you an only use those.  I'm not opposed to that avenue either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo I agree. And that's my point.  You know at least 6 people who apparently are using loaded dice to cheat to  improve their battle score.

 As a TO I can either assume most people are ethical players and  aren't going to cheat . Or I can say any measure that people could theoretically choose to cheat on should be dropped from the event scores (which is your assertion for painting and someone else's for sports.)  Strangely it's not your assertion for Battle Points - the one in which you know people who have cheated.     

This game and it's tournaments are designed with the assumption people aren't going to actively try and cheat their opponents out of a fair chance.   It's very easy to cheat on a game designed to be a relaxed fun time amongst friends.

 If someone is willing to cheat they can fairly easily do it on any score component measurable.  We can either live with that (and recognize most people aren't cheats) or say forget it for competitive gaming in Warhammer.  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...