|
|
Post by skyth on Nov 27, 2009 11:40:20 GMT -5
In my experience, most tournaments are run with an intended 'hobby' bias. Saying only 1% are is a huge exageration at best, inflamatory rhetoric at worst.
|
|
|
|
Post by stormboy97 on Nov 27, 2009 13:16:34 GMT -5
They reward battle points only, or if painting, comp and sportsmanship are scored they do not weigh enough (or have enough deviation in scoring) to make a difference in the outcome of the tournament.
I apologize if you took that sentence to mean what you described in your response that was not my intention. I am extremely respectful and thankful to anyone who devoted there time and effort to promoting or running tournaments.
[/quote]
why even have battle then, just do a painting compition where you match your army against someone else. winner moves on, loser cheers for the pretty army. This goes on till you have the overall painting winner. This could be done in a couple of hours, after which everyone has a group hug and than talkes about how they painted there armies.
That will do away with the evel people who want to try and win with battle and tactics instead of brush strokes and highlighting.
Would you still have a penalty if you only still used 3 pages out of your codex? If it was just painting do you still need comp?
|
|
Soleman
Chapter Master
The "Strait Talkin"
Posts: 1,389
|
Post by Soleman on Nov 27, 2009 15:17:36 GMT -5
I think you're missing the point stormBoy. What Chris was trying to say is that DaBoyz has an interest in the ENTIRE hobby, not JUST the battle aspect.
I can tell you that Chris is very much into the competitive aspect of the game as well, as can anyone who has played against him. But he'd rather use tactics and skill to make his balanced and fun army do well against a hard army than to bring 6 of the same units simply because they are the toughest his army choice has to offer. To him, it's just as important to ensure that his opponent has an enjoyable time playing as he does.
If you want to only embrace tough builds and battle points and don't care for modeling and painting, cool then 'ArdBoyz is the way to go.
If you want to add the rest of the hobby into your tournament by combining tactics to try to win without the toughest mathhammer you can muster, and spending some time making your army that you spent a lot of money on look the best you can and still be rewarded for your efforts, then try a DaBoyz GT.
|
|
|
|
Post by shilekjalan on Nov 27, 2009 17:22:49 GMT -5
I think you're missing the point stormBoy. What Chris was trying to say is that DaBoyz has an interest in the ENTIRE hobby, not JUST the battle aspect. I can tell you that Chris is very much into the competitive aspect of the game as well, as can anyone who has played against him. But he'd rather use tactics and skill to make his balanced and fun army do well against a hard army than to bring 6 of the same units simply because they are the toughest his army choice has to offer. To him, it's just as important to ensure that his opponent has an enjoyable time playing as he does. If you want to only embrace tough builds and battle points and don't care for modeling and painting, cool then 'ArdBoyz is the way to go. If you want to add the rest of the hobby into your tournament by combining tactics to try to win without the toughest mathhammer you can muster, and spending some time making your army that you spent a lot of money on look the best you can and still be rewarded for your efforts, then try a DaBoyz GT. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by danpearson on Nov 28, 2009 17:45:27 GMT -5
Hello All,
I was directed here by Will (who has been following this) and though I would share some comments from what I have observed trying to take the same problem.
I think it is safe to say that all (if not almost all) 40k tournament organizers face this same problem.....to comp or not to comp?....And if "to comp"....to what extent and how.
I have found in running a few RTs in Binghamton (and some in Syr a while back), that if there are no comp scores, the cheese will flow. And again, I am not making a character judgement here, that is what the 'Ard Boyz is for. But if you are trying to avoid that at your GT, having a comp system in some capacity is essential.
In the trial and error experiments I have been running, I am not convinced that player scored comp is the best way to go, and believe that Sportsmanship is not about giving everyone 2's and 5's (depending on who you are). The sportsmanship question is a question I have yet to crack, and will not address it in the rest of this post (that will be another conversation). I have been combining player and judge based comp, but now believe that I should 'underweight' player based comp and 'overweight' judge based comp. Even if you don't have player based comp scoring, I believe that multiple judge based scoring for comp and painting is a fairly reliable method, as long as you have enough experienced judges to make it work.
This is a completely subjective scale, of course, but that seems to be the only way for people not to abuse a rubrik. The 'subjectivity' of the judge scores can be mitigated by doing 3 or 4 judges scores per army and dropping the lowest, with 4 judges dropping the lowest and the highest, or averaging a series of scores by the judges. As long as the comp is weighted enough and the battle points are weighted down, it can have the intended effect (if this is made widely known, of course). This of course will not deter people from bringing cheese lists (Chris can tell you about his experience with Fate-weaver deamons), but it does mean that they will have little if no chance at winning, which can act as an incentive to bring more fair and balanced armies.
I also believe that prizes play into it. The better the prizes, and the more concentrated they are in a couple categories, the harder the players tend to cheese towards those goals. I don't remember who said it previously, but no "Best General" is a good start. Spreading the prizes out among at lest 5 categories that are more or less equal in terms of value can also curb some of the cheese. Making sure that the "Best Overall" prize is not by-and-large bigger than the others also helps.
I believe that if you weigh comp enough, and have a subjective judge score that drops and/or averages scores, that a decent comp score can be achieved. I was fairly happy with the comp scores for the last tourney I ran, although there is still room for improvement. These are just my experiences, however. I'm sure Jay and Steve can both give their perspective on these ideas from the player's perspective at the last Binghamton RT, and my ideas are by no means "definitive" or even "really good" in my opinion, but they are as far as I have gotten in trying to come up with a decent comp system. I am still on the path, and nowhere near the end.
-Dan Pearson
[oh and Doug.....I will take you down at the next event ;-) ]
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Nov 29, 2009 12:29:56 GMT -5
A thought on best general. Someone mentioned that there was talk of including comp in the scoring for it at the last GT, but it wasn't done. I think this might be a decent idea. It gives the non-painters something to strive for, but keeps the cheese factor down since comp would still be an issue. Best general scored by battle and comp. I think (and I think other in the area agree) that it is a better testament of your tactical skill to use a comp friendly list to take all comers than to cheese out a list to curb stomp all comers.
Just a thought from the peanut gallery.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Nov 29, 2009 15:45:33 GMT -5
Only problem with that is that comp is not determined solely by how powerful the army is.
I'd rather suggest there not be an overall award so that everyone can go and play towards why they play. Would avoid a lot of the argument about how to weight everything too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horst on Nov 29, 2009 17:03:00 GMT -5
comp was scored fairly last gt, imo. it just didnt count enough. you can build a fluffy, balanced, fair list thats still quite good. a good example with chaos:
lash of submission sorc
lash prince
noise marines/ slaasnesh marked csm
vindicator
3 oblits
defiler
still very good. not as great as 2 prince/9oblit, but still competitive. intead of taking only 2-3 choices from a codex and building a list, make it themed, and well rounded. it can be done. the last daboyz gt handed down fair scores.
|
|
Soleman
Chapter Master
The "Strait Talkin"
Posts: 1,389
|
Post by Soleman on Nov 29, 2009 19:12:47 GMT -5
A thought on best general. Someone mentioned that there was talk of including comp in the scoring for it at the last GT, but it wasn't done. I think this might be a decent idea. It gives the non-painters something to strive for, but keeps the cheese factor down since comp would still be an issue. Best general scored by battle and comp. I think (and I think other in the area agree) that it is a better testament of your tactical skill to use a comp friendly list to take all comers than to cheese out a list to curb stomp all comers. Just a thought from the peanut gallery. This is a decent idea. The challenge might be in finding a good balance of comp and battle points. For instance, if someone can cheese out their army enough to more than make up enough battle points for what they lose in comp, it kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it? Any ideas on how we could accomplish this? |
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Dec 1, 2009 13:27:24 GMT -5
Hey guys, just decided to start pestering y'all here (thanks for showing me the place SoB). Personally, I don't like comp, never have. Tournaments are for winning, and handicapping certain armies over others based on judge or player bias, common (mis)conceptions (omg nob bikerz are t3h cheeze! lolno), or checklists that don't affect each army equally seems to restrict competition and take away from the purpose of the event. I see the argument that it's all about the hobby or that it is just to keep things fair, but what does that even mean? The hobby entails not just fluff and painting, but generalship and army building. It's part of strategy to build an army that fits your style of play and overall game plan. An event that rewards all of these would be a-ok in my book. Taking the rug out from under anybody with a blacklisted army right off the bat doesn't encourage anything but being forced to play a particular way, perhaps a way you don't enjoy as much. Fairness comes up to, and I don't see the problem. 5th edition is the most balanced edition of 40k as of yet and it's at the points that every army can compete reasonably well, barring sad stories like Necrons (not totally hopeless though). Any army can win, any player can lead their dollies to victory. Any chump can throw a netlist together, but it takes a good player to win with anything. A better player running a suboptimal list against a noob with the latest netdeck is going to win 9 times out of 10, because they understand how the game works and how to stop popular builds. Restricting certain units doesn't help build your skill, it boosts it artificially. Rather than learn how to stop hard units like Nob Bikers, assault Terminators, or Thunderwolf Cavalry, people just bomb them on sports and comp and they never have to worry about it because people stop fielding it. That doesn't sound like learning anything beyond how to be a sheltered and selfish girly baby man  Anyway, comp is not my friend. I find it too restrictive and encouraging not fair play but cliqueyness and conformity. As for the GT itself, here are my humble suggestions: 3 big prizes: Best General (BP only, no comp), Best Painted/Best Army, Best Sport. All scored separately, all equally important so everyone can enjoy every aspect of the hobby. Throw in prizes for runners up and fun stuff like "Worst Luck", "Best Theme", and "Chummy always gets the best prize". And on the subject of restricting special characters, I am so against it. My Ravenwing/Deathwing army is far from what you would call broken and it needs Sammael and Belial to work halfway decently. I don't see any problem with running 2 SCs, often it ends up hurting you considering how expensive they are. So, that's my spiel, if you got this far you win a cookie. |
|
MajorSoB
Moderator 
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Dec 1, 2009 17:58:37 GMT -5
I am glad that this topic has sparked a little life back into the board! Thank you everyone for your input and your opinions. They are all welcomed, though not all are agreed with.
Let's me start by saying this: I fully accept that no two gaming groups play the same way and that their isn't a universal right or wrong. I understand that some people play to recreate epic battles from the fluff while others simply move pieces around the table to see whom the victor will be. Neither is right or wrong. We, the members of DaBoyz, embrace a multifaceted style of play with no one aspect dominating another. Army build is important, but so is composition as well as painting and overall good sportsmanship while playing. 40K is a social event for us, a way to interact with our friends and a way to make new ones. We like the hobby and the people who play. Yes we enjoy victory but it is often short lived. The friendships that have been made have been far more important than anything else.
With this being said we are planning next year's event. We have decided that the event will reflect our style of play and approach to the game. This has ignited debate and controversy mainly from some people who do not like comp because of some bad experiences with it or from some people who also dislike it because it will somehow nerf their competitive edge over their competition. I can say I understand and feel your pain but in the end comp will stay. The system that we put in place will actively seek to penalize what we deem hard builds while rewarding softer, fluffier armies. It will penalize net builds and armies that focus on undercosted/overpowered units. We have been playing this game for years and we have some idea what we are talking about. While we are not experts and above learning, I am sure we can come up with something decent. This is not the right or wrong approach but it is our approach and will be used. Attacks and insults to my intelligence that I cannot "think outside of the box" to defeat these builds and that I am somehow handcuffing the superior players by "limiting their choices" will not change my mind. Our tournament will reflect our style of play, and rather than arguing with us please begin preparing an army that will fit within these guidelines so that you can win the prizes that we are lining up. I never once heard a complaint that Jay didn't have enough loot at the GT and next year looks to be event bigger.
On a side note, please take the time to read the standard bearer article in the new White Dwarf. It is written by a guest writer and talk about what he enjoys and his love of the game. Not once does he talk about crushing victories and his total domination in tournaments but rather what draws his attention and why he does what he does. Read it! I enjoyed it and I couldn't help but agreeing with him. I would say he "get's it" maybe you can read it too and tell me what you think.
Again thank you for the input. It is helpful and appreciated. Some suggestions have been very good and will be used. Thank you.
(BTW Dan Pearson, I reject your challenge since crippling your falcons is no challenge, but if you need a refresher course on the finer aspects of 40K I would welcome a game with you!!! ;D)
|
|
|
|
Post by Horst on Dec 1, 2009 18:11:46 GMT -5
time for another well thought out posting by horst!
The main problem I have with super hard builds at tournaments, especially ours, is that they are normally the minority. This means there are not too many other hard armies out there for them to fight, so they end up playing fluffy balanced lists. Because there are like 60 people in the tournament, and maybe 5-6 actual "problem" lists in that mix that are very over the top, and maybe another 10-15 that are not quite over the top but very nearly, that leaves alot of gamers that aren't interested in playing that way fighting against these hard gamers for the duration of the matches.
I had a pretty cool way of fixing this... here goes :
First off, all users must submit their lists via email 2-3 days before the GT starts.
Second, all lists are scored for comp by the tournament organizers before the game is played, in a manner announced by the TO before the GT starts. Note that in this system, a low comp score is considered better, while a high score would be considered worse.
Third, first round pairings are determined entirely based on the comp score.
Fourth, for 2nd round and on, add the comp score to the player's total battlepoints. This is the figure used to create pairings from this point on.
Fifth, at the end of the tournament, subtract the comp score from the battlepoints instead of adding them, to determine their overall score.
this penalizes them for bringing poor comp lists both actively and passively, lowering their tournament score while forcing them to square off against other, similarly comped lists. In addition to this, I would advocate a removal of all awards other than best overall for places 1-10.... including comp/sports/painting/battlepoints into this.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Dec 1, 2009 18:59:21 GMT -5
Not a bad system for pairings Steve, you are on the same track as we are!!! In years past we tried to keep gaming groups apart until the later rounds ( since no one likes to travel X amount of hours just to play their friends) but pairings according to army power levels does seem more fair and should override this. The addition/subtraction of comp score can be done quite easily in an Excel spread sheet. Good job, it will be discussed and most likely implemented.
As for only rewarding 1-10, its a good idea but I don't see it happening due to these reasons. If you eliminated the painting/appearance prizes you take away an incentive for the players who love modeling, converting, and painting. There are people every year who show up with a mediocre army that has been painted and modeled to perfection. They know they won't win the GT but they like playing and displaying the army they have spent so much time on. The first year we had a Space Wolves drop pod army show up back when the rules for wolves were bad. It was awesome to see and I believe he won some prizes for it while not finishing near the top. this army was later highlighted in White Dwarf. This is one of the facets that I speak of, not everyone plays just to win and not every prize should support that. If you take out an award for best sportsmanship or losing with honor what have you accomplished? Some of the most enjoyable games I have had were against some newer and under experienced players. They show a real love for playing and know in their hearts that they are improving but have no real shot of winning yet. This is the reason we have recognized these individuals and will continue to do so. If the event grows larger like we hope maybe we will recognize the top 5 overall, but if we do it will not be at the expense of the other awards. These awards are important to us and speak of what we enjoy about this game and why we play.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay on Dec 1, 2009 20:40:59 GMT -5
Again this is an open discussion. The final decisions have not been made yet. There is a council that will make the final decisions.
There are five community members with two past judges to way in on the big issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by shilekjalan on Dec 1, 2009 21:17:18 GMT -5
Greetings Brothers,
To the people who are actually running this event, I have a suggestion that maybe you guys will find usefull. To help encourage people to play fluffy, interesting armies, why not have an award just for army comp? I did not think that was done before. Like, there could be a award (and prize) for painting, comp, sportsmanship, battle points. Do you all already do that?
Courage and Honour,
Ave Imperator
|
|
