Jump to content

Tournaments with High Stakes Prizes


Dead Scribe

Recommended Posts

What would the added value of big money prize tournament compared to a regular tournament?

The cons (high fee-entry, more organization required, rules conflicts, probably angry people, etc) seem to outweigh the pros (winner gets money, good for him?). I struggle to see the point of throwing lots of money in (more so considering the type of game AoS is, or most wargames in general).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

What would the added value of big money prize tournament compared to a regular tournament?

It brings more people out and is seen as more "legit".  It allows for setting up a tournament circuit where good players could conceivably make a living by doing well in tabletop tournaments the same way as magic players can.  It puts money into a pot and attracts endorsements and sponsorships, the same as esports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, VBS said:

What would the added value of big money prize tournament compared to a regular tournament?

Having a big prize money on any event makes it "serious, legitimate" in the eyes of many. But aside from that, it makes for a bigger news, A wider crowd is then interested. It becomes more than an event, it becomes a spectacle.

It's the same as with MOBA games. While LoL was popular, back in 2011 their prize money was 100.000 USD, and was still considered niche, not widely publicized. Then Valve came along and hosted its first DotA2 championship with a prize money of 1.6 million USD. Once that happened, MOBAs became truly a big spectacle in esports. Also after that the got widely publicized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

It brings more people out and is seen as more "legit".  It allows for setting up a tournament circuit where good players could conceivably make a living by doing well in tabletop tournaments the same way as magic players can.  It puts money into a pot and attracts endorsements and sponsorships, the same as esports.

So you have the referee and judges in place to help legitimize then?  Also will you be providing dice for every table?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are working on the logistics.  Yes there will be referees in place and yes there will be a general pool of dice on the table to prevent people showing up with dice that tend to roll high all the time as well as a pair of tape measures that are ensured to have not been altered in any way (this past summer there was someone at a tournament my group went to that it was discovered had altered a tape measure so that he was getting an extra half of an inch for every normal inch)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean this as an attack on you or the idea, but in my opinion this would be just about the worst thing to do to AoS. 

The game, while improved, is still just not designed to operate on this level (to put it kindly). You would have to do so much to it that it would no longer feel like AoS.

Also, I've seen what cash prizes do to people. It's bad enough when just bragging rights are on the line, but cash would inspire the most awful of people to be even more horrible.

Add in a judge's rules interpretation gone wrong and it's a disaster waiting to happen.

 

Lastly, just on a personal level, it would make me sad to see the hobby itself twisted into something like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vanger said:

Having a big prize money on any event makes it "serious, legitimate" in the eyes of many. But aside from that, it makes for a bigger news, A wider crowd is then interested. It becomes more than an event, it becomes a spectacle.
 

This is quite a debate. Different perception I guess. I'm sure the contrary is also possible as fighting over a bucket of money and companies/sponsors prey over a game don't measure how serious something is or qualify as legitimate requirement (more like undermines it, I'd say). If you add that the main drive is often not the game itself, trying to have fun or being the best player, but rather all the noise around it (news, adds, streaming views, profit-driven, drama, etc), I'd still be quite skeptical how this would be more legit compared to the average tournament that can also very well be serious.

And tbh, as others pointed out, AoS lacks all the elements that make a proper esport (unlike MOBAs, as you mention). Requires more logistics, time investment, barrier of entry, rules defintion, and more importantly, as a spectacle it would fail to deliver the visceral fast-paced action accesiblity that are the core of esports' success. Feels like really try-hard to shove AoS into something it is not, but best of luck to anyone who sees in it the next MTG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, VBS said:

Feels like really try-hard to shove AoS into something it is not, but best of luck to anyone who sees in it the next MTG.

Without de-railing too much, it will never be. I love playing AoS, AoS is boring to watch even at its best in well edited and produced battle reports. The amount of people who are going to tune in to watch a single match at 2.5 hours much less a full tournament is minuscule. Yeah I do dream of a world where I could be a professional AoS player but I understand the economics of the eSport world and I know that our hobby simply isn't suited for it. Disregarding issues with rules, rule sets, judges, etc., it isn't an exciting game to watch. Its exciting to play but to tune in and watch it - even as a committed player - it isn't thrilling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say having bought Nightvault at the weekend and played my first game last night that to me seems the way to go if you want a proper Warhammer adjacent tournament game (especially when I look at the Soul Wars models which I love but am still working through painting and will actually play properly with once in a blue moon).

Not saying it's perfect (having only played it once and also not having a Scooby what a good tournament game would be, apart from 'probably not AoS'), but just the fact a game only takes 30 minutes or so, is easier to understand for viewers, doesn't require hundreds of models with thousands of rules interactions that have just built up over the years with not a huge of thought given to 'balance' but does seem to have a bit of depth to it and skill required, that  all seem to be big ticks in the win column.

Plus a big bonuses that GW seem to actually want to push it as a tournament game from the off rather than AoS where it feels like they're been dragged into it, so more chance of support from them in the long run, and you wont have people (like me) grumbling that the spirit of wargaming is being defiled. And, of course, the more tournaments there are the more support there will be and I guess more cards etc, to give the game more depth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JPjr said:

I have to say having bought Nightvault at the weekend and played my first game last night that to me seems the way to go if you want a proper Warhammer adjacent tournament game (especially when I look at the Soul Wars models which I love but am still working through painting and will actually play properly with once in a blue moon).

Not saying it's perfect (having only played it once and also not having a Scooby what a good tournament game would be, apart from 'probably not AoS'), but just the fact a game only takes 30 minutes or so, is easier to understand for viewers, doesn't require hundreds of models with thousands of rules interactions that have just built up over the years with not a huge of thought given to 'balance' but does seem to have a bit of depth to it and skill required, that  all seem to be big ticks in the win column.

Plus a big bonuses that GW seem to actually want to push it as a tournament game from the off rather than AoS where it feels like they're been dragged into it, so more chance of support from them in the long run, and you wont have people (like me) grumbling that the spirit of wargaming is being defiled. And, of course, the more tournaments there are the more support there will be and I guess more cards etc, to give the game more depth.

 

I've not had a reason to post in this thread since I'm not a tournament minded player in general with regards to 40k/AoS, but now that Underworlds has been mentioned I feel it might be worth it to post in this thread.  

Right off the bat Underworlds was the first game I've played that I immediately knew was the only GW game I could see myself playing competitively.  Low model count for painting, broad universal rules and only a few faction specific rules, speed of play, etc.  I could go on but as someone who doesn't see how GW games are played at a competitive level now with regards to balance, Underworlds is the way to go for them as a company if they do want to stick their toes into an organized tourney scene.  So much so in fact that I've participated in all of my local GW's organized play since it became a thing, the game is too much fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I just say how disappointed I am in the TGA communities for this thread. Deadscribe came in describing an idea he and his local community are interested in. Something he knew may have issues and thus wanted legitimate help to make sure runs smoothly.

Instead he's been constantly attacked by people telling him it's a bad idea and he's trying to bring down ruin on the hobby. I'm sure he gets it. Many of us (myself included) see this as a bad idea. Does that really mean we should attack his community for wanting to attempt it though? Rather than telling him it's a bad idea, why don't people do their best to help him make sure it's as successful as possible.

I'd like to say that I agree with money on the line people are going to be more serious and you're going to have to seriously ensure rules are consistent and fairly implemented. A high number of judges youve veted will be a necessity. It may be worth including in the tournament pack how you're group is planning on running any rule issues that are likely to come up beforehand (can't think of any of the top of my head but people that go to tournaments more regularly may know of common issues).

I personally wish you luck Deadscribe even if I don't personally see your grand plan working out with the current edition of the game. If you find something that works it would be great to hear about it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Highlighting potential problems is critical in the early phase of any project like this. It arms the person with two key elements

1)  Awareness in the early stages lets you plan to prevent those issues arising before they actually become a problem. It also means that the first event can run as smoothly as possible because that first event is going to be the big all or nothing. If it goes really well then the idea can grow; if it fails then it can muddy the waters and attempts to try again in a year might fail simply because no one wants to take part in the mess again. 

2) It raises awareness of issues that might not be a real world problem, but which are concerns gamers (thus those who will compete) will have. This lets an organiser tackle those questions early on and even put out information in fliers and on the website etc... to ease peoples concerns. This is about community management and managing expectations of an event. 

It might be we all identified that earthquakes were a major concern of those attending a paid for event, that research in this potential concern proved that the chances are beyond tiny and thus when the fliers or website are put together to advertise "earthquake free" can be put on the FAQ or other info spot so that a common concern is already addressed and dealt with - instilling faith in the event from those considering attending.

 

 

Critical evaluation and tearing apart an idea now and finding solutions to those problems is far better done now before its a reality and before its held, than after when the problems have happened. Because even if you tackle every problem we think of here, there will still be issues that crop up - hopefully small easy to fix ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

@Yoshiya Have to agree with @AaronWIlson here, I've only read very well thought out comments & opinions - if there are any that you feel attack @Dead Scribe, please use the report tool as that's not something we encourage here.

I'll have to respectably disagree. If you look on this second page there is one piece of advice (ignoring my own comment which basically just parroted advice on judges) and the conversation has started to shift to why Underworlds would be better.

As I said, Deadscribe came here asking for advice on how to run an AoS tournament with cash prize. Having the thread shift to why another game system would be a better idea is just offtopic. Would it have been acceptable if I came in an told him to play X-Wing instead as it's better suited for tournament play?

Whilst I personally understand the comments explaining why people think it's a bad idea, I personally don't think it's relevant to this particular conversation. However, if the general consensus is in the opposite direction I'll agree to bow out here, i don't want this thread to devolve into slinging mud at each other.

As a side note, I phrased my original post badly. When I said attack I didn't mean to imply people were personally attacking Deadscribe or his community, just that he's come seeking advice and is being shot down over it. No one here has been rude outside of ignoring the plea for help and I'm sorry if people thought I was accusing you of that.

 

As for the original topic, one more thing I realised could be an issue is collaboration, ie. two friends who realise that if one of them loses/cedes a certain amount of points in a game then the other has a good chance of winning. Whilst Id like to think the chance of it occurring is somewhat slim it would be worth looking out for that. For now since it's a smaller community it may be easier to keep on track as you'll know who are close and can keep them on separate tables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My advice:

1. Start small and make it an invitational (even as small as 8 players 3 rounds would be fine).

2. Enforce GW rules/models/bases/terrain (Make sure the tables and models are proper, you play a game of LOL (league of legends) you know what the map will look like, which characters are available. You don't have to worry about what does this "Count As"). The table doesn't have to look as nice as the one below but you have to use GW kits if you want to use garrison rules, trees blocking LOS ect. Set up each table the same.

Image result for age of sigmar table

3. Stay away from all houserules (If your moving away from the RAW rules of the game just go play a different game... so many are much better for a tournament setting then AOS).

4. Use Chess clocks and allow equal time for players.

5. Have a ref at each table. Either an active one or passive one. I would recommend passive (I'm not sure active is practical in AOS). I would define a passive ref such that he is watching the game closely for misplay but only speaks when called on. Ie if say you want to dispel an endless spell (this happens at the start of the hero phase) and a player already cast a spell (this doesn't happen at the start). The ref would not interrupt  the game but if the other player said... stop you moved out of sequence the ref would agree with him and disallow a dispel attempt. If both players missed the misplay the ref doesn't speak. If a player recognizes a misplay but you have already moved on and its not practical to take it back the ref sides with the misplay and allows the game to continue (This isn't an issue in LOL because the rules are coded into the game... tabletop gaming is very different and there are a lot more variables in AOS then in chess leading to all kinds of issues... then there is mismeasuring and quick rolling... Id recommend something like if called on the ref would say yes that looked long to me as well or you scooped those dice really quickly, give a warning and the next time it happens disallow a move entirely and let the ref place the models back to where they were or something or if its fast dice just stop the attack sequence and assume it failed).

This will be a challenging endeavor and I know personally if I was the TO the headache would drive me insane and I would ask myself is it worth it? Why am I trying to make AOS competitive when I could just get really good at LOL and make millions off it. I think of myself as a competitive player and would rather just have a tight player pack at an event like LVO and have fun yet still play at a high level. Maybe after the cut for the top 8 after a 6 round event this could be practical at a large event but I would never hope to have true competitive AOS for more than a tournament of 8 ppl.

But I wish you the best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Yoshiya said:

As for the original topic, one more thing I realised could be an issue is collaboration, ie. two friends who realise that if one of them loses/cedes a certain amount of points in a game then the other has a good chance of winning. Whilst Id like to think the chance of it occurring is somewhat slim it would be worth looking out for that. 

This happens even in major sports. Attempting to fix results like that is against the rules, but can be a horribly hard thing to prove and catch. The only effective way is active monitoring and judging and collation of data relating to the event and review of that data. If every game has an official watching; if every game is recorded; if every game has logged details of any issues, interactions, concerns etc... 

Then you also need to log peoples names and addresses (even if its only the region/area they come from); another way is to log the name of their "homeclub(s)". Essentially you're pooling data so that you can compare the win/loss rates of people to see if there are any patterns - eg is everyone from Mikes Game Club pushing wins toward Steve from the same club. Steve could just be really good so then you'd have to review the matches played and see if there's a clear change in behaviour - reviewing other matches by those players to see if their playing style/pattern shifts noticeably. Because just as its possible they are losing to Steve to boost his points; it could be that Steve is just a much better player than them. 

The issue here goes beyond detection:

1) Money - reviewing games that take hours to finish is going to take even more hours to review, log and note details down. That's a lot of time for, ideally, more than one person to work for. It could be several days or even weeks to review all the information properly. A serious commitment like that is going to require compensation (pay). 

2) Coordination - right now many events are quite casual in that they can be setup in peoples free time. If you are reviewing and comparing data and such that's going to require bigger chunks of time which makes it harder to coordinate that free time for multiple people to review. 

3) Time - lots of time means its going to be a lot harder to fit this kind of review into peoples holiday/free/hobby time. In fact the more you put pressure on this area the more chance you've got of burning out and losing officials even if just after one or two events. It places the system very heavily on the strong commitment of a handful of very keen and dedicated people for a period of time until it can support itself in some professional capacity (even if its just a few months of work). 

4) Challenge/punishment - this can be nasty for gamers to deal with because its such a small community to start with. Punishments are likely going to be issued to friends/acquaintances/etc... and that comes with its own series of pressures on officials and events. 

 

 

Of course this is a worst-case situation and there might be more efficient means to detect this kind of cheating that I'm not aware of (MTG would be good to consult on this as they likely have to monitor for the very same kind of issue). It might also be that this area of cheating is one the hobby has to run the risk of contending with during its growth phase as it builds up toward something that has the skills, resources and manpower to tackle it in a proper fashion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can share some insights to this, I ran a 60 player 40k ITC event last year and this year it will be 80 for 40k and 40 for aos... for these kind of events it is also important for players to go back with something a 100 dollar buy in seems quite steep. We throw in a T-shirt, a custom mug with their quotes and also a bunch of lucky draw which included 2 imperial knights and a bunch of other items. One of the biggest costs are the tables + terrain, themselves not really the prizes. And at that ticket entry they will expect to see proper terrain.

My problem about running GW events is actually GW... outside of the more publicly known events, they really don't bother with the smaller ones, in my case their official stance was wait and see, their support was actually just giving us tips on how to build tables, and a small discount on items, which I manage to get a better deal from their own vendors, and we got gamemat.eu to give us a huge discount on mats and a UNI to allow us to use their hall free of charge. This year they want to talk to us again... but it is never at their cost... for example if u can pull off a 200 player event they can bring down warhammer community down to your event and some celebs from GW but it is at your cost... which is like... So in short get your local stores, gaming aid companies to support you, as they do a better job than GW. 

Its quite ironic but this year for our event there will be a warmachine nationals and a X wing nationals both supported via those companies... And the biggest events in ARDKORE is not supported by GW directly lol....

the event i run - https://www.facebook.com/ArdkoreOpen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a meeting this week.  We are all excited.  We have five referees ready to go.  We have the tables and terrain ready to go.  We have three food trucks ready to be on site.  We have the players signed up and fees paid.  We're not going to promote through GW right now because its a waste of time, as you said they only focus on the big events.  This is our pilot event.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

We had a meeting this week.  We are all excited.  We have five referees ready to go.  We have the tables and terrain ready to go.  We have three food trucks ready to be on site.  We have the players signed up and fees paid.  We're not going to promote through GW right now because its a waste of time, as you said they only focus on the big events.  This is our pilot event.

Regardless of what anybody thinks -  good luck and let us know how it goes :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

We had a meeting this week.  We are all excited.  We have five referees ready to go.  We have the tables and terrain ready to go.  We have three food trucks ready to be on site.  We have the players signed up and fees paid.  We're not going to promote through GW right now because its a waste of time, as you said they only focus on the big events.  This is our pilot event.

 

Good stuff. I'll be very interested to see how it works out. Would love to see you do an after event report with lots and lots of pictures ;);) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick comment about people giving away wins to their opponent.  It was mentioned here that MTG might be a source of how to police and avoid that and I can tell you that the answer is probably not what you want to hear.

In MTG it's against the rules to take any form of payment to concede a game or make the offer.  So I can't, for example, say to my opponent.  "I just need to win this game to get into the final and even if you win you won't make it on points so I'll give you money/goods to concede."   That is against the rules.

What is not against the rules is conceding the game.  So if I'm in that same position and say nothing but my opponent is also a friend or teammate they could come to the conclusion themselves and just concede, handing me the win and the spot in the final.  They get no reward for doing it other than knowing they gave up nothing in terms of final position to put me, their friend, into the final.  A lot of people think that is unhealthy for the spectacle of the game but you can't really stop it because if you say they can't concede then they just play 'badly' and lose for the same effect.  If you start punishing people because the made a 'bad' choice during a game you end up in a very bad position of having to punish people who simply did just make the wrong tactical choice during a game.

It's just the way it is I'm afraid.

 

Just to be clear.  I wish the OP the best of luck I'm just trying to highlight just one of the areas that you have to think about when you have more on the line than just a trophy and bragging rights.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...