|
|
Post by fishboy on Nov 17, 2010 22:18:23 GMT -5
What you do see at the non comp events is people female doging about sports, colusion, and paint scores. It does not matter what you do at an event, it is rare to not have comments like this pop up.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordnurgle on Nov 17, 2010 23:19:07 GMT -5
I wonder if a solid rubric could be constructed that would be very consistant. you know, start with space marines, more than 6 terminators -1 point, more than 2 troop choices less than 7 models -1 points (penalizes razorback spam),has a captain without a jump pack +1 ,etc. over a month or so, you could come up with a rubric by concensus that would be harder to abuse.
Also when people build a security system, they sometimes would hire someone to break into it to find the faults. there is more than enough people that could help do that online.
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on Nov 17, 2010 23:48:33 GMT -5
I personally feel that comp is bad. However, knowing Da Boyz history and the desire for the type of events that you like, here's an option.
As stated above, this event needs a rubric that is accessible for the public prior to the event (it should be included in the event packet at the very beginning). For example, everyone starts with 120 points. Then they receive deducts for certain things like:
1. Special Characters < 100 points (5 point deduct)
2. Special Characters 101-200 points (20 point deduct)
3. Special Characters 201+ points (40 point deduct)
4. Duplicate Units (-10 points per unit); note that you must clearly define what is considered a duplicate unit.
This only solves part of the problem. If you want a certain standard and wish to avoid having crazy beat stick armies, then you need to have a minimum comp score to even play (ie: 60 point minimum).
Can you game the system? Sure. However, understanding Da Boyz desire to have a comp friendly event lends itself to this type of system.
The number one complaint that I heard across the board was the lack of having a transparent comp scoring system. I could tell along with many others that initial judging in the presubmission stage was not done in conjunction with the examples provided. In fact, some of the ratings were way off. This type of bias needs to be removed. Transparency is the key. A publicly available rubric is the only way to achieve this (see Astronomicon). Player happiness will increase dramatically in this area just because they can determine what type of army they want to play and not get blindsided by local bias. You will also save yourself a ton of work.
Overall, comp is just another system to game and break. However, this is another option to build from just in case if comp is kept at the event.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator 
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Nov 18, 2010 0:23:29 GMT -5
I should probably remain silent but I won't. If you know me you know I have the balls to say what I am thinking to your face rather than backstab you when you aren't looking. Let's start off with a few things... 1) Shut your mouth Chumpy. I for one am sick and tired of listening to you mope and cry because your parents are moving across the country. Big F---ing Deal. I have lived on my own since I graduated highschool, put myself through college, yeah life isnt always fair but get over it. And before you start criticizing the event you need what is legally known as standing to do so. You have none since you missed last years event as well as this one. Yeah you have some excuse that makes sense to you but at the end of the day its just another in your series of excuses. You know nothing of what transpired so go back to packing boxed and wallowing in your self pity. 2) I read Brent's article and find it laughable. Am I wrong or did he take the Daemon list that had 18 fiends ( none of which were actual fiend models! ), was gifted a decent comp score by are panel of well informed and non biased judges, then has the nerve to rant about comp? I duplicated a unit three times and received a much lower score, if anyone should complain it should be yours truly! 3) Terry you are absolutely correct, Daboyz was founded on comp and fluffy armies. You should be congratulated for your outstanding play! Yes comp is a hard thing to judge, but I agree 100% with you it should never be eliminated in our tournaments. I also know as I write this that comp will be dead, not because the majority of DaBoyz want it eliminated but the ones who count will do what they want regardless of the sentiments of the majority of the local players or anyone post game survey. If it isn't evident to you now what direction our event will head in, you just aren't paying attention. You opinion matters as much as mine did when I backed out of the committee that ran this years event. I will give you a quote, " I am the tournament organizer and you are just here to help me." Brian, a split tournament will never happen since the majority of the national players will opt for the non comp event and without enough others signing up for comp, that portion will be eliminated if it already hasn't been by now. This event is now geared to the national tournament player not a small group of local players who still hold on to their love of comp. It isn't a secret that they are planning on deciding a spot for next years ETC Team America by the top battle score in next years DaBoyz event. Click this link if you doubt me==> teamamerica40k.com/?page_id=6 So tell me who will bring a fluffy army when they want to win their spot? 4) Hey here is a thought, why not let the players judge comp next year? It could be any worse than it was this year! 5) Here is another thought, how about playing the game as it was written in the rule books rather than coming up with missions that favor a certain style of play. Where was Dawn of War deployment? 6) Why was sportsmanship eliminated? Giving everyone the same score is affectively the same as not even having the category. It didnt serve any purpose at all. I personally spoke to someone who had a disrespectful and obnoxious opponent ( I will name names if this person says its OK to do so ) and the scoring did not allow anything to be done. Had he reported the incident it still would have taken 2 more offenses before anything would have occurred. Rather than ranking opponents at the end, you took the easy way out and had a column for sportsmanship that amounted to a mear placeholder. The bottom line was this, I enjoyed the 5 great games I had against some great opponents but next year I plan on saving my $50 ( or more ). I mean I got a nice ruler, made a friend with someone who got screwed in comp just like me, and went out to dinner with some of my closest friends. I don't think I need a tournament for that to happen, especially one with bias ( be it real or perceived ) and one that doesnt include some reasoned form of comp. I do not wish to debate my opinions but please understand I am being honest and I am not alone in what I have the balls to write. You do whatever you like from here on out, I am tired of talking to deaf ears. |
|
Smitty
Sergeant
Marines die, thats what we're here for, But the Marine Corps lives 4ever & that means YOU live 4ever
Posts: 324
|
Post by Smitty on Nov 18, 2010 8:05:11 GMT -5
MajorSoB if you want to rant you can rant to me but I'm not going to get into it with you on the forum. You say you have the balls to tell people then you know where to find me. As you have pointed out before it doesn't take a lot of balls to blast people on the internet, especially behind a forum name. (but I know who you are) And actually if ANYONE else wants to talk or even female dog to me one on one I'll happy to do so. Yes I am not a happy with how SOME things went down and I will admit it to any of you. BUT as a whole I think we did alright. Now back to this topic.. Yes are looking at splitting the tourney BUT it is not set in stone. Here are some of the things we are LOOKING at, they are not set in stone either. - Sportsman ship WILL be looked at and brought back in.
- The painting sheet will be looked at as well to help differentiate the scores.
- I will be trying to come up with a rubric for the comp and get other input. (hopefully Tommy can let me barrow his to reference)
- To hopefully prevent stream line we will be looking at hard dates for prejudging & judging, so all list are review together at all 3 points.
- We will try to rotate the tables a little more so everyone can experience the terrain.
- Only promise not playing players from you area the first day
- Give one sheet out for players to judge painting, theme, and tables. Let players know to look around the first day and see all the armies. First thing Sunday morning before the first game have all the armies set up near each other for judging of theme & painting. This will allow everyone’s army equal amount of viewing.
- We are looking to move it back October.
|
|
|
|
Post by warmasterprimus on Nov 18, 2010 8:45:12 GMT -5
Hey guys, I have a couple of thoughts on a few of the points brought up. Splitting the tournament (as I understand it, calculating the comp scores and splitting it down the middle) sounds like a good idea. Besides catering to the different wants of the player base, dealing with a smaller number of people per event (let’s just say 2 tourneys with 64 players each) also gives you the opportunity to utilize a Nova-esque system if you want. With a 6 round event, you have the potential to crown an undefeated champ. I personally don’t have a preference for the style of event. I figure each system is just a different way to run an event. Now if I could have not play 3 Nid player out of 5 games I might have done better. I think that you may have been the only person not to play 3 space wolf players. I think that Ranger Dude brings up a good point, Why make every GT non-comp? I think that it’s good to have a diverse range of events out there to cater to different wants. I love the idea of going to Da Boyz, Nova and other events that are all different and exciting ways to play the game. I think that moving to a monoculture of tournament play would be more stifling. |
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Nov 18, 2010 9:40:55 GMT -5
Fishboy, I didn't see any problems like that coming out of Nova or BFS, apart from the illegal list (which nearly everybody who attended didn't mind). lordnurgle, a checklist comp is probably preferable since it is less open to abuse. It would need to be stress tested hardcore, but I'm confident that the good players could make it more robust. We did something similar over on 3++ with the Swedish comp system, maybe that can give folks some ideas. kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2010/09/swedish-comp-hilarity-ensues.htmlkirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2010/09/swedish-comp-part-2-electric-boogaloo.htmlkirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2010/09/swedish-comp-third-times-charm.htmlDoug, you left your bridge unattended. Hopefully you'll be around Saturday so we can have a mature discussion. Smitty, if I'm gonna be around for next year I'd be more than happy to help out. Things are hectic right now, but I'm always available by e-mail or PM and I'll be at Millennium on Saturday for a bit. warmasterprimus, comp gets taken out because it's divisive, subjective and open to abuse (echo, echo). What does comp do, really? Everyone defines it differently, so I want to see what your particular take on it is. Which positive (if any) aspects of comp can be applied to a normal game to make people happy? If it's the hate-on for netlists or power armies, then avoid the competitive aspect altogether and run a campaign, Battle Missions or Apoc. If it's a desire for diversity, then get folks to play 5th edition armies or go to the campaign/Apoc set up or use lopsided scenarios. If it's the desire to win without having a good army, then tough luck  If there was a split, between say a purely competitive tournament and a relaxed campaign weekend, I'd be bummed that I had to miss one to play in the other. Having the tourney 1.5 days and the campaign before or after would be an awesome set up, giving people the competition they want as well as a more relaxed narrative for the comp crew. |
|
|
|
Post by warmasterprimus on Nov 18, 2010 12:24:33 GMT -5
warmasterprimus, comp gets taken out because it's divisive, subjective and open to abuse (echo, echo). The game isn’t devise? Rules aren’t open to subjective interpretations? The normal rules aren’t open to abuse? The game isn’t made by a god, it’s made by designers that are human and they make mistakes. I’m fine with comp because I know that all the armies in the game aren’t balanced. I have no problem with anyone that wants to take the game and make it his or her own. I think comp is an effort to correct for abuses in the normal rules. As long as we’re trying to cut the abuse down, I’m cool with it. What does comp do, really? Everyone defines it differently, so I want to see what your particular take on it is. Comp is just a different way to play the game. It tries to correct for disparity in the rules. Which positive (if any) aspects of comp can be applied to a normal game to make people happy? If it's the hate-on for netlists or power armies, then avoid the competitive aspect altogether and run a campaign, Battle Missions or Apoc. That is assuming the “competitive aspect” that you’re talking about if fair. I would love to go to NOVA and play in the fair competitive environment, where I could play my Necrons or Tau. To me, some events like NOVA aren’t fair because the armies are balanced. Also, I like the competition, but I don’t have the money to drop for a bunch of Hive Guard and Tervigons. I don’t care much about net-lists and power armies, but what about the people that don’t like running those kinds of lists? Why exclude them from a portion of the hobby? Why should they settle for battle missions or Apoc when they want to compete? If it's a desire for diversity, then get folks to play 5th edition armies or go to the campaign/Apoc set up or use lopsided scenarios. If it's the desire to win without having a good army, then tough luck Who are we to tell people what they should or shouldn’t play? Aside from the money issue again, I think it’s a bit of a thingy move to tell people how they should play and enjoy their time. I’m not going to tell the guy who loves his Tau army to shelf it. And speaking of subjectivity, how do you rate a good army? Does a beat face SW army mean it’s good? Not to me. How about any of my opponents from the GT? I think they all had great armies. They were all fantastic in their own ways. |
|
|
|
Post by fishboy on Nov 18, 2010 18:16:03 GMT -5
@chumby-I have run about 8 GT events and can tell you it happens from experience. For some reason the guys that come to win find a reason to complain no matter what you do. I have not heard much about the event you are referencing so I can not tend to that, sorry.
Smitty-I do not think your sportmanship score is off base at all, I just think it is missing a step. In my GT's I used a system similar to yours. Then after the 5th round every player judged their opponents 5-1,5 being favorite and 1 being less. So basically no matter what happened you could only give one five and one one. This was added into the overall score and helped define the true best sports. In the event of a tie the award went to the lowest battle points. The initial score sheet was simply there to help identify troubling players.
|
|
|
|
Post by warmasterprimus on Nov 18, 2010 19:44:57 GMT -5
Down at Crossroads GT we had the players rank their opponents after round 4 (total 5 rounds). While the final round opponent wasn't factored in, it allowed enough times for the judges (me) to enter all the scores. Seemed like a fair trade. After 4 rounds, it was apparent who was going to get the high scores.
I was definitely surprised that there was no favorite opponent score. Especially since there was that sports award.
|
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Nov 18, 2010 20:08:53 GMT -5
The game isn’t devise? Rules aren’t open to subjective interpretations? The normal rules aren’t open to abuse? The game isn’t made by a god, it’s made by designers that are human and they make mistakes. I’m fine with comp because I know that all the armies in the game aren’t balanced. I have no problem with anyone that wants to take the game and make it his or her own. I think comp is an effort to correct for abuses in the normal rules. As long as we’re trying to cut the abuse down, I’m cool with it. It's divisive when people try to restrict or dictate what others can do based on their own personal biases. Rules are straightforward unless some idiot is looking for an advantage (case in point: Doom of Malan'tai and Deff Rollas). The game is actually quite well balanced with all the new Codices, even older books like Necrons and Witch Hunters can hold their own, albeit with a much more limited range of choices. Comp made sense in 3rd and 4th when things actually were unbalanced, but it's a relic nowadays. In theory, comp is an attempt to address perceived imbalances, but in practice it is always colored by biases and groupthink and ends up causing more problems than it solves. It attempts to fix what isn't broken, making things worse. Changing the goalposts of what is "best" in a tournament setting isn't fixing anything, it's just punishing people for playing something you don't like. Tau and Necrons can compete, but they are outdated and have fewer options than IG or BA. That isn't a problem with the tournament, it's a problem with GW. What about the guys with Tervigons and Hive Guard? They're forced to buy Pyrovores and Rippers to "compete" in a comped environment. But that's ok because they're jerkfaces for using an army you don't like? Comp is exclusive. You can definitely run a suboptimal army at NOVA, you just end up playing for Renaissance Man (67% soft scoring) or the usual Sports/Painting. In a comp environment, people with hated armies can't even run for something like Best General because it's too heavily influenced by comp and they won't get Sports/Painting because of the aforementioned hate-on. That's actually my exact argument for comp. If you enjoy your Tau army, play it. You may not win all your games, but you can always play for Ren Man, Sports, Painting, etc. In a restrictive comp environment, somebody who wants to use a competitive list just gets derided and goes home empty-handed. An army's "goodness" is subjective and defined differently for everyone. A good army for me is a well put together, balanced and competitive army. It could also be an awesomely painted army or have a bunch of cool conversions or be taken right from the pages of a Black Library novel. A great event will encourage and reward all aspects of the hobby, not just the few that the TOs like best. |
|
Soleman
Chapter Master
The "Strait Talkin"
Posts: 1,389
|
Post by Soleman on Nov 18, 2010 22:05:15 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure (in fact I'm positive) it's been said time and again, but there are tournaments for those that like net lists and hard "competitive" lists with no consideration for painting or other aspects of the army.
It's called 'Ard Boys and there are several of those style tournaments in this area. What about those that don't like that style? You say that we force our comp on you, but truly it's you trying to force your style on us by saying that no tournament should have comp. Why can't both styles have a place in a 40K community as large as this?
Maybe a Space Wolf player doesn't feel the need to run a Logan Wing or tons of Thunderwolf cavalry. Maybe some of us have been playing Space Wolves since before they were good and like to take some of everything because there are so many fun options that aren't necessarily the "best" ones from a competitive standpoint. Do I then deserve to be forced to only take a few choices to compete in a tournament because only 'Ard Boys style tournaments are "allowed" in the area?
Bottom line: there are two (if you'll go with the pure black and white way of seeing things) ways to play in a tournament, comped or not comped. If you don't like comped tournaments, don't play in them, but those of us that do should be able to without all the whining.
I do believe that there should be a clear published matrix for comp, which would at least allow me to either conform to the "compy" list or knowingly take a hit and why I took it. I have all confidence that some sort of compromise or solution will be found on how best to deal with this before the next GT.
I do have some constructive comments on how we might make the Apocalypse event better next year that I'll not post here. If the powers that be want to hear them, please pm me and I'll be happy to share.
|
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Nov 18, 2010 22:28:19 GMT -5
Let's not lose focus on how positive and successful the event was and how well it was executed.
They told us last year the biggest complaint was special characters abounding and made efforts to discourage it this year. I'm sure they will makes adjustments based on the surveys from this year.
I will disagree with Soleman's perception of local tournaments. Between Boldos and MG, we have a comp tournament every month. The lock-in was forced comp, the gt was comp, and the invitational will be comp. I enjoy both but need a little more balance than 1 Ard Boyz a year mixed in with 9 comp events. I gave Travis HUGE props for splitting the mix down the middle for next year and I'll gladly bring fluffy lists to the comp events.
Keep in mind the dynamics of internet mob mentalities. People come here and praise comp because it's the majority preference. People rail on comp on BoLS because most of those readers agree.
I personally like the idea of a split tournament and think it would draw more players than one tournament of an exclusive stance. I'd say level the prize field regardless of how many play in each. Add theme to the comp side and remove soft scores from the competitive side. Make best painting/presentation available to both.
|
|
Soleman
Chapter Master
The "Strait Talkin"
Posts: 1,389
|
Post by Soleman on Nov 18, 2010 23:35:15 GMT -5
I'm all for a split tournament as well, and I agree that we should not lose focus on how well this was run this year. Major props to the organizers of the Daboyz GTs, I don't see myself playing in any other big event, it's not really my thing, but they run these very well.
I just get sick of the same few people complaining about comp and non comp. Some people state that the comp tourneys force them to play with comp in mind, and not to bring the hard lists they want in order to compete. While non-comp tourneys would force those of us who like to play the fun units that aren't so great competitively speaking to not take them in order to compete. How is that better than the other way around? I'm not likely to pay money to get my fun and balanced list stomped into the ground for a day. If that's your thing, go for it, but it doesn't sound fun to me.
My point was that we have both formats here and there is room in our large 40K community for both styles. In my assessment, I was taking into account Travis' tourney schedule for 2011. There should be plenty of opportunities for both styles of play, so let's all stop the whining and go play with our little army men like adults! ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by professor on Nov 19, 2010 8:30:03 GMT -5
There can be arguments made either way about comp. However, I saw a ton of different lists with a ton of variety. Da Boyz this year had 100 registrants and 90+ attendees from around the country.
They came knowing that it was a comped event and it was really unique in that participants got to have their lists pre-judged. That said, the Da Boyz tournament needs to decide what its identity is and stick with it. It may be possible that the same number of people drawn to Da Boyz for purely competitive play are also drawn to it for its composition, modeling and hobby emphasis.
Splitting the tournament itself is a half measure, a change moving forward needs to be decisive and consistent. Don't try to cut the baby in half, choose a mother (comp or non) and give it to her.
|
|
