Hey Monty - first off - everything I've heard about BOLSCON from anyone who was actually there (and disregarding the internet trolls that "Epic Fail" anything that isn't there own) is that it was a great event. Congratulations!
My personal opinion is that the following would be the best solution for the "soft score" problems with tournaments - specifically painting and sportsmanship. This is from the Big Waagh forums - which was overall a good tournament - but had issues with paint judging:
1) Be sure that all the criteria and impacts are stated up front. It was stated that it was cheating to enter models that you didn't paint. It's only cheating if it's a stated criteria and it's lied about. This year it wasn't a stated criteria - and people got punished purely for being honest IF they were asked. That can't happen again.
2) I think that eliminating people who didn't paint their own models from winning overall is discriminatory. There are those that don't have the talent and ability to paint well, but are superior gamers and sportsmen. If they have enough passion for the game to drop serious coin to buy a painted army - then more power to them. They should not be eligible for the Best Painted - but that should be it. It should be done like GW did - mark the army not eligible for the painting awards - then judge it as it is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having someone else paint your army - as long as you are honest and upfront about it. People should not be penalized for it.
3) There needs to be a formal paint judging time. I suggest that it occur between the first and second game. Have an extended lunch time and have people set up their stuff to be judged. I also think that maybe the way to fix this is to work with the Square Basers. Get Square Baser judges to judge the 40K painting - and have the 40K people judge the square basers. That should minimize any conflict of interests etc. Also judges could play in the events that they aren't judging. The first day would go a little longer - but think it would work smoother. Another option would be to have it after the third game - that way anyone wanting to go play bloodbowl, gothic, etc. could leave their stuff set up and go do that. I would be willing to be a paint judge for the Fantasy as long as I could still play in the 40K.
4) Painting criteria - Ok - paint judging is always going to be subjective by it's nature. However I like the idea that you have a checklist of basic things - three colors, based, banners, shading, highlighted, etc. If that is met - you get X points - your base painting score. Then for the upper tier painted armies - have bonus points - bring in the subjective things - these highlights are superb, these are ok, etc. Maybe the "Base Painting" is what goes into the overall score - then the subjective points are what is used for "best painted"? That does a couple of good things. It makes the base painting criteria less subjective and something that people can wrap their arms around - a more tangible thing. It also streamlines the scoring for painting. Only the armies that are eligible for "Best Painted" and are potential contenders get the extra examination and reviews for the bonus points. An idea that I had while typing this up - if you have an army that is eligible and a contender for best painted - i.e. one of the top armies there - self painted - throw them an extra 5 points for the base painting that counts towards overall - thus making it still something important to the overall.
My two cents - good to see you getting your enthusiasm (or maybe just getting the time) back for the hobby!
Al Gleason
mkerr
· 3 months ago
No lack of enthusiam from me -- just a lack of time! I've been active locally, Bigred just likes to poke me with those "returning to the BoLS fold" comments. He just wants me to write more for the blog because I get people all agitated. :)
1) I agree completely. ALL of the scoring rules should be very clear on the website.
2) I also agree here. Pro-painted armies look as good on the table as armies you paint yourself. Personally, I have all of my armies painted because I can't paint as well as I want to.
3) I don't like the idea of player judged painting. It's impossible to keep the scoring consistent. Until an event reaches 300+ people, there needs to be a single painting judge for each tournament. "Player's Choice" awards would be a fine addition, but players rarely have enough time to walk around and look at models even if there was an extended break.
4) I agree that there should be a base point total that you get if you have the model painted and based to a basic level. The difference between table painting and best painting at BOLSCON was just a few points. If you got 22pts for basic painting, that still gave me 3 points to distinguish the best armies (which rarely exceeed 5%-10% of the armies at the event). That keeps the scoring tight for battle points - unless you have an unpainted or underpainted army -- but gives enough points to give the best painted armies a small bonus.
But my real question is what do you think of my sportsmanship solution, Al? Give me some feedback!
Aldonis
· 3 months ago
Ok - rather post here than do the work I should be doing anyways! Silly IT jobs anyway.....
Most important is to make sure everyone knows what the criteria is for the tournament ahead of time. I also think it's cool to spice things up by having "comp" tourneys - sometimes, 'ardboyz tourneys - sometimes, balanced tourneys - sometimes, with the thought that all aren't the same. Would be fun to have a 3 day tourney someday where each day is a mini-tourney of the types above - then have daily awards - then overall awards at the end. Just rambling there....
That being said - here are my personal comments (and realize that I'm the type that will play in any type of tourney and enjoy them all).
For Overall - I'm for keeping it in - although I think that painting should be a yes/no component. My reason for that - you can control and improve your gaming (Battle), you are responsible for your actions and can work to have fun games with people (Sports) - but natural talent can and does limit painting. Don't exclude those that can't paint from overall. Maybe throw the uber-painters a little extra for above and beyond. Prize support for overall might be a little higher - but all the categories should be recognized. Personally - I think it would be better to give more - but smaller prizes for each category - give 1st, 2nd, 3rd all something in all categories- along with a plaque, certificate, etc. Come up with some kind of award for each mission or something (ala the apoc tourney GW did at the Balt GT in 2007 - sorry to bring up bad memories of my harleys again <grin>). Have club awards,etc. These things get people jazzed up - part of the appeal of Adepticon. My opinion is most people go to tourneys for the fun and recognition - if they REALLY needed another army or whatever - they would buy it in place of the tourney in the first place. Being the ego-maniacs we gamers all are - it's all about our names in lights and the ability to nerd-brag to our buddies.
Painting - what you propose sounds very workable. I always thought that it would be fine if the "players choice" votes counted for more points towards overall myself (and in this case - to be eligible you should paint your own stuff - and maybe that becomes the "bonus points" - but might need a cap for max available - i.e. up to 5 or something). Best painted should be judged separately though for overall stuff.
Sportsmanship - this is a near and dear topic for me (as it's the only one I ever have had success at from the GT level). I like it. You can be a good and fun opponent - win or lose. You make a lot of gaming buddies along the way. One of my now good buddies here in TN moved to the state a year or so ago - we had played at Chicago GT back in 2001. I think the way to do it is a basic checklist - and let the favorite opponent vote be the deciding factor - and you can't vote for someone you didn't play or that is from the same club. No offense - but I think the option you used at BOLSCON is a little to narrow. Don't you have lots of ties? What is the tie breaker criteria without a favorite opponent or something?
I don't like the part about both people getting the lowest score idea at first thought. I can only be responsible for my own actions. In what has got to be getting close to 20'sh GT's, I've probably had 2 people that I scored less than max points. I'm usually a top 25'sh placing person overall at GT's - but that covers playing people that have used me like a two bit hooker, those I've beaten like a red-headed stepchild, and a lot of close, tight, not decided until the last turn games. The majority of people are good, decent folks that are more interested in having fun vs WAAC - my opinion. I think that the noise around sportsmanship comes from those that REALLY lack social skills or are just plan dick heads. The group that whines - I never lose a game but don't win a tournament because of my sportsmanship - really need to take a long, hard look at themselves. Unfortunately that is pretty much an impossibility. As I type and think though - this might work better - especially if anyone getting a "bad" score will result in both people being talked to in order to understand why.
Again though - you gotta have some criteria for tie-breakers here. I've had a lot of discussions with folks around this - some think it should be highest battle points (it's harder to keep people happy with you when you beat them up on the table), others think it should be lowest battle points (hard to be a good loser if someone tables you). I personally like the favorite opponent as the first one - and probably agree with the highest battle points as the secondary tie breaker myself.
Hope this is what you were looking for!
mkerr
· 3 months ago
Baltimore wasn't where I crushed you with my Blood Angels? That was probably Chicago then, lol.
Great suggestions!
Comments:
1. We had a 2-way tie in the Championship tournament for Best Sportsman. Both had 50 (of 56 points) -- which is an indication that people we're just giving out Great games. We broke the tie with battle points.
Ties are much tougher when you have to justify your score -- and having 7 games also helps.
2. If we thought people would actually walk around and vote for best painted, we'd probably do it. Maybe we'll start with a "Player's Choice" award next year and see what percentage vote. If enough vote (say 50% plus), we can use that to help us choose best painted.
Who knows, "Player's Choice" might end up being more coveted than Best Painted.
3. I also like the idea of more awards. I've always said that the challenge of an event is making the guys who lost have fun. Most events focus too much on the winners without realizing that 99% of the players lost. That's where the Consolation, Team Drawing and Open Gaming stuff game into play. I like the idea of Player's Choice, Judges' Choice and other recongnition (even if there are small or no prizes associated with them).
4. The idea of the Shared Sportsmanship score is to remind players that the real goal of a game is to make sure BOTH players have fun. That really gets lost in a tournament. If you know that you are going to get the worst score, you are much more likely to try to start the game with a smile and a handshake instead of the "Colby Stare".
But I agree that there are just some players that can't bring themselves to be nice guys. In that instance, you'll be able to bring that to a judge and not get dinged. Trust me, we know who the problem players are. If you had 2 Good games and then got a Bad game -- and the guy that dinged you just got his 3rd Bad game, then we know where the problem lies and you won't get dinged.
Also keep in mind that EVERY game scored with a Bad will lead to an interview with a judge -- for both players.
John
· 3 months ago
Your comments regarding how well the rules at BoLScon worked to illustrate your point, just doesn't wash with trying to find a common ground between "pro-overall" and "anti-soft" opinions. You've completely marginalized paint to the point of why bother, wiped out any kind of comp and sports was a 30 point give away for anyone that acted like a normal human being. your soft scores were pretty much meaningless from what I see with the exception of a couple points here or there or a tie breaker. That does nothing to attract someone who's from the "pro-overall" camp.
You also have to differentiate between 40K and WFB because tourney standards are much different, soft scores for each game should be handled differently
I appreciate the uber well thought out response here, and thought with your 1st couple paragraphs you were going somewhere else, Sports in 40K really needs to be punitive on the overall it's the only way to police the frothing WAAC masses I'd suggest a card system like the do in the UK or something similar..you could use your bad game/good game/ great game as -1/0/+1 modifer in Soft outside the card system for overall control, I don't know what the gripes in the 40K realm about getting points for good paint are, but in WFB paint scores are expected getting that couple extra points for top 10% of paint is coveted (yes I am talking GT and Adepticon standards) Yes Comp is subjective, Its up to you guys as TO to enforce a type of Comp that will make your players have the best time, what that is will dictate your turnout., you want to go wild west, no comp style..ok cool but your basically then running a Gladiator, that will turn some people off.. again keep in mind totally different approaches between 40K and WFB,
Anyway, thanks and good luck
mkerr
· 3 months ago
There's a lot to be said for a player with a painted army that acts like a normal human being, lol.
I think that minimizing the impact of soft scores, but allowing them to have an impact is the goal. You want to discourage bad sportsmen and barely painted armies (and you want to encourage great sportsmen and top painted armies), but you don't want to give them an unreasonable amount of weight either.
The large amount of Battle Points available in the 7-round Championship tournament prevented Sportsmanship and Painting from having much of an impact (the Overall Winner was the guy with the most battle points). However, Sportsmanship did have a bigger affect in the 3-round Consolation tournament (by design).
As far as your suggestions:
1. I don't want to ever subtract from a player's score. It creates confusion. But that's easy to fix -- your -1/0/+1 just becomes 0/1/2.
2. I completely agree that WFB is a different beast than 40K. JWolf had a decent understanding of that, but I certainly didn't. We learned a lot about WFB this year and are going to apply that painful education to improving next years event (suggestions would be welcome and much appreciated!).
3. It sounds like Comp is a much bigger deal in WFB than it is in 40K. In 40K, players really don't like restrictions on how to build an army -- so Comp becomes a very subjective and usually punitive tool. That does not seem to be the case in WFB.
I'd love to hear where you think I was going with the article. How would you do it in our place?
Side Note: At BOLSCON, we didn't have a problem coming up with the Best Painted Army award (a single Painting judge helped with this) but we had a tie for Sportsmanship (both had 50 out of a possible 56 -- meaning they got 3 Good games and 4 Great games). We broke that tie with Battle Points.
John
· 3 months ago
Hah!, no doubt -if everyone had painted armies and acted like human beings there'd be no need for these discussions..as soon I get a few I'll get back to you on the rest..thanks!
John
· 3 months ago
What I meant by anticipating a different direction of your article was once I got past "Common Ground". I thought you'd go into your thoughts on reaching more Common Ground- Instead you went into what worked within this years BoLScon framework and how that appealed to the Anti-Soft score crowd to make for an overall successful event.
I was hoping for your take on what didn't work this for you guys this year with a "common ground" perspective in mind and where you might go to change it.
Trying to run massive events like BoLScon happen is a massive undertaking..it's going to take years to get events humming where you guys want them. Hell even the changes at Adepticon between 2006 and 2009 where massive, with next year going bigger than ever. If it were me- I would do as much internal compartmentalization as possible with veteran tournament players that follow the national scene heading up the rules committees for each system. See whats working on a national level (whose traveling to what and why) and if you like it -follow suit.. I hope you guys can make it work Once you start talking WFB on the forums for next year I'll gladly put my 2 cents in..
RealGenius
· 3 months ago
With your sportsmanship solution aren't you just going to force people to bite their tongue and give Great games so that they each score most and move on?
It is like the Prisoner's Dilemma except that the cooperative solution is the highest value, instead of second highest. There's no reason then to not always cooperate, unless of course you are furious and forget how to use logic.
There's no real reason for them not to cooperate now. That also goes for mission objectives that both players can achieve. But for some reason, it just doesn't happen.
I was actually surprised with low number of Great games at BOLSCON. I think that having the Sportsmanship scoring explained at the beginning helped.
And keep in mind, you have to work a bit to get a Great. Start one time, no judge calls, and finish your game. If you do all that and want to bite your tongue and give out Greats, that's fine with me!
RealGenius
· 3 months ago
I think a lot of people were misled by the rules themselves.
"2. My opponent was incredible and I had a great time with them. Yes/No (8 points) ... Selecting items 2 or 3 will have a judge speak with you, and possibly your opponent about the game."
I'd be discouraged from giving a Great game so that I didn't have to waste time with a judge and you're giving them an extra 2 points (which could be 14 points over the course of the weekend-- more than a Secondary objective).
Why bad, good and great? Why not just bad and good to choose from?
How about bad = 0, good = 4 and then if you have 5-6 goods (out of assumed 7 games) then you get 10 bonus Sportsmanship points and if you have 7 good games you get a 14 point bonus.
It is almost the same amount of points, but you make it a good/bad, either/or decision. Then you could have an option checkbox: [ ] I would like to talk to a judge about this game/my opponent.
mkerr
· 3 months ago
I agree that we could've done a much better job explaining what was going to happen and been more consistent in the applications of the rules once we sorted them out.
A better website and forum experience will help with this -- and a longer runway to the next event will help too.
mkerr
· 3 months ago
Hey Jim,
I loved the Blog post! But I do have a couple of comments:
1. I'm the one that pushed the consolation bracket, but Jwolf was smart (or crazy) enough to recognize the value right away. It evolved from the fact that big tournaments have a high drop-out rate on the second date (which really makes pairing tough).
2. We also evolved the idea of "every game counts" Team Play. I don't think we executed well on it, but I expect to improve it a lot for next year. The idea is that the guy at the bottom table contributes as much to his "team" as the guy at the top table. You are playing to win prizes, but you are also playing to help your team. If we do it right, this makes it much more likely for you to stick around.
3. The higher weight of soft scores was intentional in the Consolation bracket
4. I don't like the term "Consolation" (even though I think I coined it). Maybe we'll split the tournament next year into 2-day "Championship" and a 1-day "Laureate" tournaments.
5. I think you had some great suggestions on the tournaments, but moving from one tournament to the other would be a book keeping nightmare. Just splitting the tournaments at the end of day 1 was a giant pain in the tookus.
Thanks for posting!
RealGenius
· 3 months ago
I like the idea of the Consolation bracket, as is solves a lot of problems, but I'm not sure it is the most optimal choice.
"Team Play"? Was that the Chaos gods on name badges thing? Granted I was over in the Narrative track, but I really had no idea what was going on with that. (Especially since it wasn't pre-announced or explained anywhere in writing that I saw.)
Regarding #5, execution is a different problem completely. But since there's plenty of time I don't see any reason a system couldn't be put in place to figure it all out. That's why we have computers and smart people.
mkerr
· 3 months ago
It was the Chaos Gods name badge thing. The real problem was that we didn't prepare people for the metagame. We'll do a better job next year, lol.
Shavnir
· 3 months ago
Regarding comp for Fantasy have you considered a system similar to the WPS GT Army Comp rules that have been floating around the net? I think they could use some tweaking but I think they're a step in the right direction for Fantasy. They are a tad strong though but I think that's mostly necessary to bring Demons of Chaos et al to the same level as the rest of the armies.
John
· 3 months ago
WPS has been playtested both as a rule of thumb and officially with minor tweaks for the last year up here ( Chicago) from what I see the consensus is it only really works if you stick to it verbatim..(i.e no tweaks, no 2K median scores instead of the recommended 3K) I personally like, there isn't alot of wiggle room in list building if you want a good scoring list and it heaving penalizes magic, but in the end if you play by its rules it puts balanced armies on the tables...
TheKingElessar
· 3 months ago
I think that solution is a great idea. I seriously recommend trying it out.
As regards painting, I disagree in the sense that, no player I've ever met, or (almost) any player from the UK I've spoken to, would not rather win Golden Daemon than Throne of Skulls.
Maybe it's because the US is too large to run an event like Golden Daemon successfully - perhaps only Painting events are just unfeasible in a country that large. I pity the Canadians that play given they've got, what, 1 1/2 times your landmass? As for Russians...lol.
All Comments
My personal opinion is that the following would be the best solution for the "soft score" problems with tournaments - specifically painting and sportsmanship. This is from the Big Waagh forums - which was overall a good tournament - but had issues with paint judging:
1) Be sure that all the criteria and impacts are stated up front. It was stated that it was cheating to enter models that you didn't paint. It's only cheating if it's a stated criteria and it's lied about. This year it wasn't a stated criteria - and people got punished purely for being honest IF they were asked. That can't happen again.
2) I think that eliminating people who didn't paint their own models from winning overall is discriminatory. There are those that don't have the talent and ability to paint well, but are superior gamers and sportsmen. If they have enough passion for the game to drop serious coin to buy a painted army - then more power to them. They should not be eligible for the Best Painted - but that should be it. It should be done like GW did - mark the army not eligible for the painting awards - then judge it as it is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having someone else paint your army - as long as you are honest and upfront about it. People should not be penalized for it.
3) There needs to be a formal paint judging time. I suggest that it occur between the first and second game. Have an extended lunch time and have people set up their stuff to be judged. I also think that maybe the way to fix this is to work with the Square Basers. Get Square Baser judges to judge the 40K painting - and have the 40K people judge the square basers. That should minimize any conflict of interests etc. Also judges could play in the events that they aren't judging. The first day would go a little longer - but think it would work smoother. Another option would be to have it after the third game - that way anyone wanting to go play bloodbowl, gothic, etc. could leave their stuff set up and go do that. I would be willing to be a paint judge for the Fantasy as long as I could still play in the 40K.
4) Painting criteria - Ok - paint judging is always going to be subjective by it's nature. However I like the idea that you have a checklist of basic things - three colors, based, banners, shading, highlighted, etc. If that is met - you get X points - your base painting score. Then for the upper tier painted armies - have bonus points - bring in the subjective things - these highlights are superb, these are ok, etc. Maybe the "Base Painting" is what goes into the overall score - then the subjective points are what is used for "best painted"? That does a couple of good things. It makes the base painting criteria less subjective and something that people can wrap their arms around - a more tangible thing. It also streamlines the scoring for painting. Only the armies that are eligible for "Best Painted" and are potential contenders get the extra examination and reviews for the bonus points. An idea that I had while typing this up - if you have an army that is eligible and a contender for best painted - i.e. one of the top armies there - self painted - throw them an extra 5 points for the base painting that counts towards overall - thus making it still something important to the overall.
My two cents - good to see you getting your enthusiasm (or maybe just getting the time) back for the hobby!
Al Gleason
1) I agree completely. ALL of the scoring rules should be very clear on the website.
2) I also agree here. Pro-painted armies look as good on the table as armies you paint yourself. Personally, I have all of my armies painted because I can't paint as well as I want to.
3) I don't like the idea of player judged painting. It's impossible to keep the scoring consistent. Until an event reaches 300+ people, there needs to be a single painting judge for each tournament. "Player's Choice" awards would be a fine addition, but players rarely have enough time to walk around and look at models even if there was an extended break.
4) I agree that there should be a base point total that you get if you have the model painted and based to a basic level. The difference between table painting and best painting at BOLSCON was just a few points. If you got 22pts for basic painting, that still gave me 3 points to distinguish the best armies (which rarely exceeed 5%-10% of the armies at the event). That keeps the scoring tight for battle points - unless you have an unpainted or underpainted army -- but gives enough points to give the best painted armies a small bonus.
But my real question is what do you think of my sportsmanship solution, Al? Give me some feedback!
Most important is to make sure everyone knows what the criteria is for the tournament ahead of time. I also think it's cool to spice things up by having "comp" tourneys - sometimes, 'ardboyz tourneys - sometimes, balanced tourneys - sometimes, with the thought that all aren't the same. Would be fun to have a 3 day tourney someday where each day is a mini-tourney of the types above - then have daily awards - then overall awards at the end. Just rambling there....
That being said - here are my personal comments (and realize that I'm the type that will play in any type of tourney and enjoy them all).
For Overall - I'm for keeping it in - although I think that painting should be a yes/no component. My reason for that - you can control and improve your gaming (Battle), you are responsible for your actions and can work to have fun games with people (Sports) - but natural talent can and does limit painting. Don't exclude those that can't paint from overall. Maybe throw the uber-painters a little extra for above and beyond. Prize support for overall might be a little higher - but all the categories should be recognized. Personally - I think it would be better to give more - but smaller prizes for each category - give 1st, 2nd, 3rd all something in all categories- along with a plaque, certificate, etc. Come up with some kind of award for each mission or something (ala the apoc tourney GW did at the Balt GT in 2007 - sorry to bring up bad memories of my harleys again <grin>). Have club awards,etc. These things get people jazzed up - part of the appeal of Adepticon. My opinion is most people go to tourneys for the fun and recognition - if they REALLY needed another army or whatever - they would buy it in place of the tourney in the first place. Being the ego-maniacs we gamers all are - it's all about our names in lights and the ability to nerd-brag to our buddies.
Painting - what you propose sounds very workable. I always thought that it would be fine if the "players choice" votes counted for more points towards overall myself (and in this case - to be eligible you should paint your own stuff - and maybe that becomes the "bonus points" - but might need a cap for max available - i.e. up to 5 or something). Best painted should be judged separately though for overall stuff.
Sportsmanship - this is a near and dear topic for me (as it's the only one I ever have had success at from the GT level). I like it. You can be a good and fun opponent - win or lose. You make a lot of gaming buddies along the way. One of my now good buddies here in TN moved to the state a year or so ago - we had played at Chicago GT back in 2001. I think the way to do it is a basic checklist - and let the favorite opponent vote be the deciding factor - and you can't vote for someone you didn't play or that is from the same club. No offense - but I think the option you used at BOLSCON is a little to narrow. Don't you have lots of ties? What is the tie breaker criteria without a favorite opponent or something?
I don't like the part about both people getting the lowest score idea at first thought. I can only be responsible for my own actions. In what has got to be getting close to 20'sh GT's, I've probably had 2 people that I scored less than max points. I'm usually a top 25'sh placing person overall at GT's - but that covers playing people that have used me like a two bit hooker, those I've beaten like a red-headed stepchild, and a lot of close, tight, not decided until the last turn games. The majority of people are good, decent folks that are more interested in having fun vs WAAC - my opinion. I think that the noise around sportsmanship comes from those that REALLY lack social skills or are just plan dick heads. The group that whines - I never lose a game but don't win a tournament because of my sportsmanship - really need to take a long, hard look at themselves. Unfortunately that is pretty much an impossibility. As I type and think though - this might work better - especially if anyone getting a "bad" score will result in both people being talked to in order to understand why.
Again though - you gotta have some criteria for tie-breakers here. I've had a lot of discussions with folks around this - some think it should be highest battle points (it's harder to keep people happy with you when you beat them up on the table), others think it should be lowest battle points (hard to be a good loser if someone tables you). I personally like the favorite opponent as the first one - and probably agree with the highest battle points as the secondary tie breaker myself.
Hope this is what you were looking for!
Great suggestions!
Comments:
1. We had a 2-way tie in the Championship tournament for Best Sportsman. Both had 50 (of 56 points) -- which is an indication that people we're just giving out Great games. We broke the tie with battle points.
Ties are much tougher when you have to justify your score -- and having 7 games also helps.
2. If we thought people would actually walk around and vote for best painted, we'd probably do it. Maybe we'll start with a "Player's Choice" award next year and see what percentage vote. If enough vote (say 50% plus), we can use that to help us choose best painted.
Who knows, "Player's Choice" might end up being more coveted than Best Painted.
3. I also like the idea of more awards. I've always said that the challenge of an event is making the guys who lost have fun. Most events focus too much on the winners without realizing that 99% of the players lost. That's where the Consolation, Team Drawing and Open Gaming stuff game into play. I like the idea of Player's Choice, Judges' Choice and other recongnition (even if there are small or no prizes associated with them).
4. The idea of the Shared Sportsmanship score is to remind players that the real goal of a game is to make sure BOTH players have fun. That really gets lost in a tournament. If you know that you are going to get the worst score, you are much more likely to try to start the game with a smile and a handshake instead of the "Colby Stare".
But I agree that there are just some players that can't bring themselves to be nice guys. In that instance, you'll be able to bring that to a judge and not get dinged. Trust me, we know who the problem players are. If you had 2 Good games and then got a Bad game -- and the guy that dinged you just got his 3rd Bad game, then we know where the problem lies and you won't get dinged.
Also keep in mind that EVERY game scored with a Bad will lead to an interview with a judge -- for both players.
You also have to differentiate between 40K and WFB because tourney standards are much different, soft scores for each game should be handled differently
I appreciate the uber well thought out response here, and thought with your 1st couple paragraphs you were going somewhere else, Sports in 40K really needs to be punitive on the overall it's the only way to police the frothing WAAC masses
I'd suggest a card system like the do in the UK or something similar..you could use your bad game/good game/ great game as -1/0/+1 modifer in Soft outside the card system for overall control, I don't know what the gripes in the 40K realm about getting points for good paint are, but in WFB paint scores are expected getting that couple extra points for top 10% of paint is coveted (yes I am talking GT and Adepticon standards) Yes Comp is subjective, Its up to you guys as TO to enforce a type of Comp that will make your players have the best time, what that is will dictate your turnout., you want to go wild west, no comp style..ok cool but your basically then running a Gladiator, that will turn some people off.. again keep in mind totally different approaches between 40K and WFB,
Anyway, thanks and good luck
I think that minimizing the impact of soft scores, but allowing them to have an impact is the goal. You want to discourage bad sportsmen and barely painted armies (and you want to encourage great sportsmen and top painted armies), but you don't want to give them an unreasonable amount of weight either.
The large amount of Battle Points available in the 7-round Championship tournament prevented Sportsmanship and Painting from having much of an impact (the Overall Winner was the guy with the most battle points). However, Sportsmanship did have a bigger affect in the 3-round Consolation tournament (by design).
As far as your suggestions:
1. I don't want to ever subtract from a player's score. It creates confusion. But that's easy to fix -- your -1/0/+1 just becomes 0/1/2.
2. I completely agree that WFB is a different beast than 40K. JWolf had a decent understanding of that, but I certainly didn't. We learned a lot about WFB this year and are going to apply that painful education to improving next years event (suggestions would be welcome and much appreciated!).
3. It sounds like Comp is a much bigger deal in WFB than it is in 40K. In 40K, players really don't like restrictions on how to build an army -- so Comp becomes a very subjective and usually punitive tool. That does not seem to be the case in WFB.
I'd love to hear where you think I was going with the article. How would you do it in our place?
Side Note: At BOLSCON, we didn't have a problem coming up with the Best Painted Army award (a single Painting judge helped with this) but we had a tie for Sportsmanship (both had 50 out of a possible 56 -- meaning they got 3 Good games and 4 Great games). We broke that tie with Battle Points.
I was hoping for your take on what didn't work this for you guys this year with a "common ground" perspective in mind and where you might go to change it.
Trying to run massive events like BoLScon happen is a massive undertaking..it's going to take years to get events humming where you guys want them. Hell even the changes at Adepticon between 2006 and 2009 where massive, with next year going bigger than ever. If it were me- I would do as much internal compartmentalization as possible with veteran tournament players that follow the national scene heading up the rules committees for each system. See whats working on a national level (whose traveling to what and why) and if you like it -follow suit.. I hope you guys can make it work
Once you start talking WFB on the forums for next year I'll gladly put my 2 cents in..
It is like the Prisoner's Dilemma except that the cooperative solution is the highest value, instead of second highest. There's no reason then to not always cooperate, unless of course you are furious and forget how to use logic.
I wrote a little on my Lounge Blog about scoring, and how maybe to not marginalize those that want both painting and generalship to matter more: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/blog.php?...
-Jim
I was actually surprised with low number of Great games at BOLSCON. I think that having the Sportsmanship scoring explained at the beginning helped.
And keep in mind, you have to work a bit to get a Great. Start one time, no judge calls, and finish your game. If you do all that and want to bite your tongue and give out Greats, that's fine with me!
"2. My opponent was incredible and I had a great time with them. Yes/No (8 points)
...
Selecting items 2 or 3 will have a judge speak with you, and possibly your opponent about the game."
I'd be discouraged from giving a Great game so that I didn't have to waste time with a judge and you're giving them an extra 2 points (which could be 14 points over the course of the weekend-- more than a Secondary objective).
Why bad, good and great? Why not just bad and good to choose from?
How about bad = 0, good = 4 and then if you have 5-6 goods (out of assumed 7 games) then you get 10 bonus Sportsmanship points and if you have 7 good games you get a 14 point bonus.
It is almost the same amount of points, but you make it a good/bad, either/or decision. Then you could have an option checkbox:
[ ] I would like to talk to a judge about this game/my opponent.
A better website and forum experience will help with this -- and a longer runway to the next event will help too.
I loved the Blog post! But I do have a couple of comments:
1. I'm the one that pushed the consolation bracket, but Jwolf was smart (or crazy) enough to recognize the value right away. It evolved from the fact that big tournaments have a high drop-out rate on the second date (which really makes pairing tough).
2. We also evolved the idea of "every game counts" Team Play. I don't think we executed well on it, but I expect to improve it a lot for next year. The idea is that the guy at the bottom table contributes as much to his "team" as the guy at the top table. You are playing to win prizes, but you are also playing to help your team. If we do it right, this makes it much more likely for you to stick around.
3. The higher weight of soft scores was intentional in the Consolation bracket
4. I don't like the term "Consolation" (even though I think I coined it). Maybe we'll split the tournament next year into 2-day "Championship" and a 1-day "Laureate" tournaments.
5. I think you had some great suggestions on the tournaments, but moving from one tournament to the other would be a book keeping nightmare. Just splitting the tournaments at the end of day 1 was a giant pain in the tookus.
Thanks for posting!
"Team Play"? Was that the Chaos gods on name badges thing? Granted I was over in the Narrative track, but I really had no idea what was going on with that. (Especially since it wasn't pre-announced or explained anywhere in writing that I saw.)
Regarding #5, execution is a different problem completely. But since there's plenty of time I don't see any reason a system couldn't be put in place to figure it all out. That's why we have computers and smart people.
As regards painting, I disagree in the sense that, no player I've ever met, or (almost) any player from the UK I've spoken to, would not rather win Golden Daemon than Throne of Skulls.
Maybe it's because the US is too large to run an event like Golden Daemon successfully - perhaps only Painting events are just unfeasible in a country that large. I pity the Canadians that play given they've got, what, 1 1/2 times your landmass? As for Russians...lol.