DaBoyz Tournament 08

[Wolf Lord Snorville]

The biggest problem I see with players self regulating the comp of armies is when you get new players at a tournament. Most players I've seen at a tournament for the first time will give their opponent high scores for comp and sportsmanship with no real relation to what that player probably deserves. Players getting high scores for comp in a WAAC army simply because their opponent doesn't recognise it or the opposite can happen to an army with a a great theme to it becuase the new player doesn't recognise how great it really is.

There's always the jerk factor too. some people will just score you low because they want to beat you. the more points placed at the players discretion lead to some players scoring way higher than they should and other players scoring way lower than they should.

[Catachan Colonel]

wolflord said:

There's always the jerk factor too. some people will just score you low because they want to beat you. the more points placed at the players discretion lead to some players scoring way higher than they should and other players scoring way lower than they should.

Gotta agree on this i remember a simconn where i got 3 sportsmanshop scores with my guard. 1,0,5

what was in my guard you may ask a couple platoons a big command platoon, a leman russ and a armored fist squad. Yup very shooty, yup lots of guys but if i handed most people the army list before the game to be judged they would have called it a blah fair guard list.

After two games shooting dark angles and dark eldar off the table from afar i get called over by Kemp who says you would be playing tor top place but they rated sports and com with almost the lowest they could.

game 3 i got stuck playing a not so hot space marine newb who had done well. He gave me 5s what changed not the army, just that game 150 guard raced across to hand to hand.

Some people just dont like getting beat.
I vote for judge based comp. it may vary according to the judge a bit, you amy argue arbitrary sometimes but if we keep having diffrent judges than it even out over the year.

[MajorSoB]

I think something to consider is "the jerk factor" vs "hometown scoring" (favoritism).

What would you rather see, players self scoring (which by law of averages should work out over 3-5 games) or independent judging where you rely on one person's opinion? Yes there are problems with both ends but the major problem with independent judging is that players perceive the judging as being biased when their scores do not reflect what the player self scored in his mind. In both DaBoyz GT and in Assault Phase 07, there was griping and grumbling that teh comp and painting scores were not fair and biased. I trust the integrety of Shaun, Chris, and Jay, as well as Ed and Kevin, and know that every effort was made to be as fai as possible. The bottom line is that no one is ever 100% satisfied with the scores and results, so the people who worked hard to put on the events tend to get the fingers pointed back in their direction unfairly. This is why I am a big proponent of the players self scoring, because at the end of the day you have no one to blame but yourself and your fellow competitors. Opinions of what is OTT, well painted, good comp, etc should be midigated through the volume of numbers generated, you know, simple math, the law of averages, using a large sample to get a more accurate result....

In the end, do what you like. I enjoyed running SIMCON the way that I ran it, and I felt it went well for everyone involved. I didn't hear any biatching about it (except fron Ron and that is to be expected ;D) so if I were to do it again I would run it very similarly since it seemed to please the majority of people. Besides, the way GW is going with these new codexes, we will have fewer and fewer options, hell 10 years from now we all will probably play the same army rules, just different models if the current trend persists....

[Wolf Lord Snorville]

The only complaints I heard about the 06 daboyz GT was the composition/theme because we didn't really provide any guidelines relating to what type of army that we thought should score well.

We as Daboyz know what will score well comp wise when courtney, jay and shaun are in charge of composition, but it's not so easy when you're from out of town coming into a tournament.

Bugs with lots of guns doesn't really fit the theme of Tyranids...
Space wolves with 9 land speeder tornadoes does not fit their theme...
Vanilla marines with six, 6 man las/plas squads, a librarian with fury/fear, and a chaplain with "his most holy jump pack" doesn't really fit the space marine theme either...

The real key is finding the balance between an army's known and written theme, and selecting an effective combination of units to get the job done.

Many players don't play as often as we do here, and don't regularly see the diversity of armies that we do. As a result, they will not have the same opinion of theme and composition as someone who has played against several different armies from a given codex.

[Iron Warrior]

I agree with Wolf Lord.
I disagree with SoB. I think putting the judging in the hands of the player is a bad idea especially when your competing for some nice prizes, paid a bunch of money for an entrance fee, paid for travel expenses (for the out of towners) to have some player hose because you won a game against him. The jerk factor can be completly eliminated with judges doing everything.

Chris/Jay/Shuan will have to try and explain a little better on what to expect from them from comp and painting. Yeah thats a little pressure on thier shoulders but it was the only gripe I heard of last year. Other than that I though it was an awesome run.

[MajorSoB]

With all do respect, you both are missing the point.

If you want our tournaments to continue the way that they are where we get 10-12 local guys together to exchange money, then by all means we should keep the format we have. I agree that not everyone plays as often as we do, and most players do not have the same attiutude torward fluff as we do, but this by no means makes our way the right way just because it is how we do things. I believe if we are to have a large tournament where we get people to come back year after year we need to accommidate other views on the game that may be different then ours. I am certain that some of the players that came last year will think twice about coming again because they felt that judging was not fair according to how they play the game. I did think Shaun, Chris and Jay did an outstanding job, however I am also certain that not everyone there felt that the way their armies were judged was fair. You can say, "Well if they don'tlike it then they can stay home" etc, and then we are back to square one, playing between the standard 10-12 people we always play with, oh boy, what fun! Trusting in the judges 100% does not solve everything like you wish it would. Maybe you missed the conversation I had with Shaun yesterday. In regards to Adepticon, the best painted army did not win best painted. Judges can influence pairings, etc as well as comp. Ask Jay how he felt about his 5 in comp for his bug army, when the deamon bombs scored considerably higher. Yes, our tournament was awesome, but it did have room for improvement. Play how you want, judge tourneys how you want, I am sick of argueing about it. Keep things like they are and we will keep having our little tourneys where the only ones who show up are the guys from the store.

[jay]

I agree with what SOB is saying. we give the "other way" shot last time and it did not work. Let's gave this way a chance to work.

I don't believe you give 100% in the opponents hands. For painting and Comp it should be like 75% by players and 25% by judges. or may 80/20 or 70/30. To Balance things out.

Really the best painted army should go to the best painted. For instance the best painted scores only 47 out of 50 and there are like three 50 out of 50 armies because of the being scored by your opponents. The judges can balance it out.

This same goes for Comp. Some times you get hammered because you destroy someone in game 2. so they gave you a zero. But your army is not a zero. The judges can give points to balance that out.

Also this can balance out the cheese armies.

We have even decided points values yet.

I think it is more important to find a place and get the date set first.

One last think on the bug list in Syracuse. I scored bad, i was not upset about that. I new i would, but the guy that brought 2 monolith and a c tan scored better then twice i did.

The system needs to be fair.

[MajorSoB]

jay said:

One last think on the bug list in Syracuse. I scored bad, i was not upset about that. I new i would, but the guy that brought 2 monolith and a c tan scored better then twice i did.

The system needs to be fair.

Exactly my point. I know you weren't upset but suprised was probably a better term. Do I think your bugs deserved a 5, no. I think they are very tough yet beatable where there were far worse armies there, but again this all boils down to someone opinion.

I did drop the ball Jay. I saw Alex last everning and did not ask him about GAGG and hosting the GT in Geneseo. I will ask the next time I see him!

[Wolf Lord Snorville]

Problems I had with Simcon this year

1) The best painted army almost did not win best painted... To me it seemed pretty obvious which army deserved best painted.

2) The player awarded soft scores = the total amount of battle points winnable in games... It kind of felt more like a popularity contest than a competition.

3) 1-5 did not feel like a big enough range to accurately pick where an army and opponent belongs in the chart. I really liked the 1-10 system we used for sportsmanship at last years DaBoyz gt... I thought it worked better than any I had filled out before...


now on to other stuff


4) Jay is 100% right... finding a location is more important than this conversation... But this conversation still needs to be had.

5) I think the theme portion of the chart should be a clear, concise rubric... each level requires a specific element to be present to reach that level. here's an example of what I mean:

1- All characters and monstrous creatures have a non-generic name.. i.e. Chaos Lord is not a name, while Lord Asteroth Hellforge would be. Obviousley named characters like Belial or Logan Grimnar would count as named.

2- Everything is named

3- There is a write up included with the army that describes the theme of the army.

4& 5- The player has created and painted a display board for their army

Lost my track of thought now... so this is where I stop.

just thought... Geneseo + February may also hurt the attendance of out of towners...

[Iron Warrior]

I agree with woldlord, Simcon had its problems. It was a popularity contest...I could go on to name some names but that would be tasteless but some people have opinions of armies and just will score it low no matter what is in it.

Its unfortunate you did not keep record of it because we could see what was score and how many 0 or 5 were actually scored. and How many 3s (where by the sheets is where everyone should be at)

As the person that came in first place I can honestly say that my painting was a 3, Comp: no one likes Iron Warrior despite what I had in the list...2 or 3 is where that would score, sportsman...Knowing I would most likely score low if I win and score high if I lost...I did not expect to score higher than a 3 there...maybe a 4 if I put on an acting job (which most people do...*cough* shuan) Not to mention that people beilive comp and sprts are the same thing so my sports would most likely suffer. Fairness or fun was the other section...well again..did i win = low...did I lose = maybe high.

So im looking at 2-3's Some 4's And low an behold I was not surprised by my soft scores...now that means I just have to crush my opponents in the first 2 rounds and win my last round. Wow...thats exactly what I did.

Before the tournament I went around with wolflord and pointed out Best painted..and He almost didnt get the award.

Something which I though was a poor move was that there was no best sportsmanship award. Some would consider this a big award as it promotes the spirit of the game. If it was given I may have missed it as I was cleaning up the mess of tyrnanid gothic ship bits that fell on the floor near me. Could you remind me who won it?

Dont get me wrong, Im glad someone ran simcon, I had fun. But there were errors in the system for soft scores. Its became play the system and popularity contest.

But when a players soft scores TRIPLED thier battle points in a tournement..something has to be wrong. And this person got nothing. Apparently being a nice player, with a fun army to play against which is comped well, with decent painting means nothing. Its about the battle points again.

Not that this much matters anyways, as it will most likely fall upon deaf ears and be over stepped by those that want to run it the way they want, but theres my 2 cents. Player scored comp/painting/fun is not a good way to go. I would prefer Judge scored. And not to toot our own horn but we have 3 of the best qualified judges I would say with Several GT wins in All catagories. If anyone would know how to score things then would it not be the champions of The Grand tournaments?

[dragons3]

My opponent will always know what his or her scores is from me.

He or she will get an explanation on scoring, a hand shake and a positive note of something that occured during the game.

I don't do anonymous surveys, this is standard "DRAGON" policy.

CIAO!

[Wolf Lord Snorville]

Another thing I also liked from last years tournament was splitting up the players while the ranked the other players soft scores because it eliminated the peer pressure element of the scoring. A player that sits across from someone who says "I'm giving you all 4's" is probably more likely to do the same in return than someone who is scoring out of earshot and eyesight of their opponent.

[jay]

I think once we have a place to play and a date. We should meet once a month to talk about how we are going to run it.

For instance we can discuss:

Comp,
Sports,
Prizes,
Tables and scenery,
Website,
Missions,
What armies are allowed?
Flyer's
and anything else.

maybe we have a committee/ group and take a vote on stuff.

[MajorSoB]

I think one of the major issues in tournament scoring comes from differences in player's reasons for participating. There are many reasons to hold a tournament and to play in one. Think of it like this:

Why hold a tournament?
- To help grow the hobby?
- To reward the top players?
- To have a competition to determine who is the best?
- Fun?
- To make money (yeah this is a joke)?

Why do you play in tournaments?
- To win?
- To have fun?
- To play different armies and players?

Not all players have the same reasons for playing or participating. Some people could really care less how well they do as long as they have fun. Some people cannot have fun without winning. Some people are quite happy just to play. However, most people however want things in a competition to be fair. Most people want to have some say so in determining their fate and that of the winners.

There was alot of talk here that the best painted army ALMOST didn't win SIMCON, but as I remember, it did, so why are we having any discussion there? No offense to anyone, after all we are discussing here, not slamming each other, but what would YOU have done different? What would YOU do if YOU were in charge. Specifically how would YOU organize things? What would YOU use to determine results and winners? What categories do YOU think should be rewarded? I am not interested in general "This was good" or "This was bad" armchair quarterbacking, specifically, it is your tourney, go, give me a list of criteria for judging, missions, pairings, etc. It is real easy to sit back and say " I would have done this" or " You should have done this" but the time to say any of these things is before the event, not afterwards. If you don't like player scoring, and I admit you may have some valid points, but I do want to see a specific list for judging that you put together that will be fair and liked better by everyone.

One thing that does disturb me is the talk about how newbies judging just break the system, whe at SIMCON there was a (dis)honest attempt by some unnamed veterean players to break the system. I think the newbs did great, and although they didn't place, they had fun and believe it or not, they didn't complain like some of the winners seem to do not matter where they place.

What do you want DaBoyz tournement to be about? Should it be a competition for the gaming elite to bring the biggest and baddest armies to the determine the best player in the universe? If so I am sure we will see the Warmongers here, great bunch of guys but they definitely believe comp scores should not be used, after all if its in the codex its fair! Do you want the tournement to be fair and balanced where a good painter and good player has an equal chance to finish first as someone who just plays burly armies with no attention to painting? Do you want the tournement to attract a wide variety of players or do you want it to be the typical homer event with homer scoring and homer rules? Shaun, Jay and Chris did a great job last year, and much like the Syracuse tournament, the only critism was directed at the nebulus comp scoring since what is good comp to us (or a small handful of judges) is not a universal good in the 40K world of players.

Again, I could care less what anyone thinks, I play because I enjoy the game and enjoy seeing different armies. I like to win but really could give a rat's azz if I do or not. If you need to slant the rules so that your army will score better, eliminate any newb player input, etc., just so you can win, fine, do it, whatever, just don't expect to attract alot of prize money or players from the outside since I am sure they will not come.

Tired of talking about this...

[Iron Warrior]

That last post was contradicting itself. You want feedback, but you don't want to talk about it?

but the time to say any of these things is before the event, not afterwords

And feedback can only come AFTER a tournament was ran not BEFORE

If you want feedback read on,
If not ignore this post.


Here is how I would of ran Sim Con and How I would run Daboyz.
Sports judged by Players. Comp/Painting Judged by judge(s). You could use the sheet you used at Sim con for sports.

Now we would have to be a bit more specific in what we are looking for in terms of painting and comp.

Painting...(im not going to write out a chart, but..) At least 3 colors are used and based and every model in the army is painted in order to qualify NOT getting a 0 for painting. If you have this done you should get an average score based on did you slop on your paint or did you take your time and made it look good.

Extras for painting: Can you tell squads apart, do they have markings. Marines are your chapters banners, squad markings, shoulder trim for the right company, Veterans helmets, painted correctly or represented. Necrons can you differentiate between your Warrior squads? Chaos, is your iconology present, legion specific symbols, squads? ect...you get the point

Above and beyond for Painting: Great conversions! Shadings. bases are more than just sand or grass. They have a display base. Everything looks like its an army when placed next to each other. Eyes are even painted! Did the put EXTRA effort into the army to make it look great!?

Comp could be given similar explanations:

Base comp: Did they take a variety of choices from the list they have available to them. Did the have different choices for weaponry, or are the the same squad over and over again? Was this army built just to win? The big thing here is the REPETITION of squads/vehicles. TOO MUCH will get you dinged. Whats too much you may ask...well do you take the choice because its good

Extras for comp: Does this look like a typical (Ultra marine, Space wolf, Black legion, etc...) Army. Did they take units that are underpowered, that no one takes. Did they take choices that are ONLY for their army..for example: Did space wolves take a rune priest, did blood angels take a furioso, Did IW take a vindicator, did IH take an Iron Father etc...

Above and beyond in comp: Do they have a write up explaining their army and selections the took. Do the have a story line with their army, Are Characters like Lords named.

That can be elaborated further but it gets the point across. Thats how I would run it.

One thing that does disturb me is the talk about how newbies judging just break the system, when at SIMCON there was a (dis)honest attempt by some unnamed veteran players to break the system. I think the newbs did great, and although they didn't place, they had fun and believe it or not, they didn't complain like some of the winners seem to do not matter where they place.

This dishonesty is where the system is flawed. Discussion of the scores is where the system is flawed. Allowing players to score is where the system is flawed. Regardless of new or veteran. If you put the scores in the hands of the players your going to get skewed scores because of Ignorance, Competitiveness and Loyalty (to a friend or club).

All that other stuff about what, who etc...we want the tournament to be about is irrelevant to this conversation. The way we ran it last year was fine, just needed to elaborate on what is being looked for in terms of painting and Comp.