New CONSTRUCTIVE comments Team Tournament thread

The place to discuss all that was! Visit the AdeptiCon website (www.adepticon.org) for past coverage, event results and photos!

New CONSTRUCTIVE comments Team Tournament thread

Postby Papa_Nurgle » Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:09 pm

Okay, so we've seen the whining, now, how do you suggest fixing it, given the staffing levels?

Issues that seem to be recurrent:

Missions: No issues that I've seen. Lots of variety and kudos to the developers for coming up with balanced missions that challenge a variety of forces.

Scoring:

Paint: Lots of worries about what is being looked for, technical versus overall appearance. How would you suggest fixing this given 1-2 people to judge the 80 or so teams?

Checklist: Much like the original RTT days, checklists lead to people "checking the block" and very similar paint scores. Given the overall appearance at A-con, does this do the event justice? From my limited experience, it seems like the overall quality here is sufficient to win best painted at most regional tournaments. How do you separate that high a painting standard? Do you want to see a 50 point scale with most people scoring 40-45 with a couple of standouts at 50? A quick look at the results shows most teams in the 30-40 range with only a couple of standouts. If you suggest a checklist, what would it be? How would you break down the painting scores to provide a distribution so that painting has an effect?

Sportsmanship: Haven't seen much about this, but how would you do it differently? What check blocks would you want to see. In general, the competition at the Team Tournament is high, with solid players. How do you differentiate between 80 solid teams? Checklist? Subjective questions? How do you prevent "tanking" by the unscrupulous while still providing a vehicle for people to fairly rate their opponents?

Theme: How do you evaluate theme differently? How would you allocate the points? How would you differentiate between a theme army, and a tough army that has theme without being completely subjective?

Quiz: How was the quiz? Did you like it? What would you want different? Would you like more rules questions or more fluff questions?

Heads and Mulligans: How were they? Any issues?

Okay, so here are my suggestions for painting, sports, and theme.

For Painting:
One judge, for consistency, rates each team as a whole. 40 points available. Assumption that all armies are 3 colors and based.
1) Armies are all shaded and highlighted 5 points.
2) Armies look like an army. Painted in similar colors or with similar motifs. 5 points.
3) Armies have conversions or paint schemes that accentuate the theme. 5 points.
4) Armies have consistent basing throughout the forces. 5 points.
5) Army basing contributes to the theme of the army. 5 points.
6) Army has display base that shows a degree of effort and helps show the overall theme. 5 points.
7) Army has advanced painting techniques included - NMM, layered painting, airbrushed tanks, etc.. 5 points.

Between rounds 1 + 2 submit a form for teams to write down the best painted army.
Most Votes 5 points
2nd most 3 points
3rd Most 1 point.

In the case of a tie, full points are awarded.

What does this do? It establishes a set criteria that people can work towards and tells the teams exactly what the judges are looking for - basing, display base, advanced painting techniques. It also brings player judging into it as they get to pick what THEY think is the best painted, meaning that a perfect score shows that the players thought the army was well painted as well.

What doesn't it do? Provide separation. Teams will generally score and easy 20 points and getting to 35 will require a great deal of additional work. I'd be fine with that as it gives a 20 point overall bonus to the best painted over and above the rest of the field. It also requires ALL models in the 4 team force to meet a standard in order to get the points - a challenge for those with poor painters, but part of the team tournament is the team aspect, and helping someone with their painting skills is part of it.

Sportsmanship:
Make it 88 points maximum.
20 points per game with 8 bonus.

Checklist with the following questions on score sheet.
Did you have fun? 2 pts.
Did your opponents have everything they needed, rulebook, dice, codex? 2 pts.
Were all disagreements settled in a friendly manner? 2 pts.
Did your opponents go out of their way to help make the game fun - no pouting, whining, etc... 2 pts.
Did you complete 6 turns - or reach a point where one side conceded? 2 pts.

With the final scoresheet, include a spot for most fun opponent team. Each team gets a 2 point bonus for each vote.

This would establish the standard for good play. Fun, prepared, excited, and capably of playing a full game. It also works in team feelings and ensures that a perfect team has the support of their opponents. It provides a platform where the expectation is to settle issues in a friendly manner, discuss and roll off or call a judge.

Theme:

oof. This is hard. Theme to one person is cheese to another. So, break theme into 60 points. Give 40 to the judges and 20 to the players.

Each game, a 5 part questionnaire.

1) Did the grouping make sense in the 40k universe with the materials your opponent has? (for example, blood ravens and eldar may make sense if based upon the books but without background or a story, no). 2 points

2) Did you feel your opponents took items and combinations of units fitting the background and not as a means to gain an advantage? 3 points


So, if a team takes Eldrad and Yriel and fields an aspect warrior heavy force instead of lots of Ulthwe guardians, they would lose (most likely) 3 points a game, or 12 points overall. Since the top 3 spots this year were separated by 3 points, this would certainly make a difference in the overall results.

Judges would have a discretionary 40 points to award for:
Display base
Background information
Team coordination
Fitting with the 40k universe
etc.

I think that publishing the basic guidelines of what the judges are looking for would go a long way to stopping some of the misunderstanding.

Just my $.02

Btw, instead of telling me what won't work about the above, which I whipped up in about 5 minutes, think about how you would do it differently and how that would impact the overall scores and enjoyment of the event.

Thank you for your support and time.
Team TnA Founding Member.
WHABSAB!
Every Time you use the word "fluff," a kitten dies.

Purple ticket owner.
Papa_Nurgle
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:38 am

Postby Matthias » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:00 pm

Mick,

Great stuff. I was hoping someone would sum up the previous thread.

Another thought I had was to split theme into two subcatagories.

Codex Theme: How the 40K army fits into the 40K universe, background stories, cohesion of forces, thematic presentation of army etc.

Team Spirit: For all the oddball stuff like Team hats, shirts, pants, dressing up like the Village People, banners, etc.

I think in the past those two things overlap in a way that makes the Theme score difficult to understand.
User avatar
Matthias
Techpriest
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:21 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: New CONSTRUCTIVE comments Team Tournament thread

Postby Redbeard » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:24 pm

Papa_Nurgle wrote:Okay, so here are my suggestions for painting, sports, and theme.

For Painting:
One judge, for consistency, rates each team as a whole. 40 points available. Assumption that all armies are 3 colors and based.
1) Armies are all shaded and highlighted 5 points.
2) Armies look like an army. Painted in similar colors or with similar motifs. 5 points.
3) Armies have conversions or paint schemes that accentuate the theme. 5 points.
4) Armies have consistent basing throughout the forces. 5 points.
5) Army basing contributes to the theme of the army. 5 points.
6) Army has display base that shows a degree of effort and helps show the overall theme. 5 points.
7) Army has advanced painting techniques included - NMM, layered painting, airbrushed tanks, etc.. 5 points.


I have to add that I like the idea that they're going to try at the GT this year, where the checklist has more boxes than the highest score - as two equally nice armies could vary in how they got there - one with lots of conversions, for example, and another with more advanced painting techniques.

Having a wider range variable for each checkbox (1-5, instead of 1-3) with average getting a '3' might help with separation too.

Finally - and this would take a little more coordination with the judges, rather than anything else - I think that scores might be more normalized if the judges walked around the hall and picked their favourite armies FIRST, and then went back through everything for checkboxes.

In many 'judged' fields (such as auditioning for a position in an orchestra), both going first and going last are seen as weak positions. Being judged first often has the effect that the judge won't give as high marks as deserved because they want to be able to go higher, as warranted, later on. Going last is seen as bad because towards the end, the judges have already seen too much, and are just wanting to be done.

I don't know how much extra time would be added to the process by having the judges go through and see everything once, even if only briefly, before they started recording scores. I realize this is a tradeoff.

Sportsmanship:

Did you complete 6 turns - or reach a point where one side conceded? 2 pts.


I'd say that getting to turn six is not a mark of sportsmanship. It takes two sides to play slowly, and more leisurely games can actually be more fun/sportsmanshiplike. (And, I'll save someone the time of pointing out that I played horde orks by mentioning that I played them in the Gladiator, and we still got through 5-6 turns each game) Perhaps a better phrasing here would be "Did my opponent play at a reasonable pace"

Sometimes, you just get a big mass combat early on that eats a lot of time.

Also, I am not a fan of awarding best sportsmanship ties to high battlepoints. Looking at the scores at the TT and the Championship, it made 'Best Sportsman' into almost a second best general award. There were a lot of teams out there that got 56 for sportsmanship. I think that having the 'favorite opponent' vote was a better way to handle the top spot here than battle points. I asked why it was removed, and was told it was a matter of time to record the answers. That's unfortunate.


Theme:

oof. This is hard. Theme to one person is cheese to another. So, break theme into 60 points. Give 40 to the judges and 20 to the players.




I like the "give points to players" here. To me, good theme = memorable. I remember a handful of armies from the last few years, and unfortunately, none of the ones that won best theme are among them. Memorable, to me, is the Pre-fall Eldar, the drive-in orks, or zombie-movie Lost and the Damned. These are themes that I remember from years past.

They're not, however, serious 40k themes (well, the eldar might be), which might turn off other people. Allowing players a vote on theme points will allow everyone's opinion on this to be heard. Some people like the purist 40k themes, others like the not-so-serious themes. Both are valid. Personally, I don't think that "i have some <insert army type here> all painted the same" makes for a good theme, regardless of how many pages of fluff are written to go with it.

I'd like to see more emphasis on the armies, and less on the paraphenalia too. I'll pick on the Wrecking Crew guys here a little, because I already gave them props above. The ork drive-in was a great theme. Carrying foam ork weapons around didn't add anything to it in my opinion. But again, that's just me.
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Postby Turtle » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:36 pm

i think the for a quiz you could do a 20 queston quiz with 10 questions on rules and 10 on fluff. It'll help eliminate alot of the ties that get broken by battle points. And Its more fair to people since some know rules and some know fluff, and a quiz should be a test of knowledge about the game as a whole. as a side note im a big fan of the really hard quiz like the one for sundays championships, the 2nd quiz that is
"Here have a beer, Marines play better with beer: Rhysk
Turtle
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: just outside of mil-town

Postby Green Blow Fly » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:49 pm

Add rules for placing terrain and if it is appropriate to do so.

G
Death is a door to a new beginning - take my hand and I will lead you there...
http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com
User avatar
Green Blow Fly
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Terminus Est

Postby Carrick » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:43 pm

Also, I am not a fan of awarding best sportsmanship ties to high battlepoints. Looking at the scores at the TT and the Championship, it made 'Best Sportsman' into almost a second best general award.


I agree.
Adepticon '08 - Sixth Worst 40k Sportsman.
Adepticon '09 - Ninth Worst 40k Sportsman.
User avatar
Carrick
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:28 am
Location: Ravenswood, Chicago

Postby Dal'yth Dude » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:10 pm

I also agree that Favorite Opponent would be better than battle points to decide draws on Sportsmanship. It looks like something similar was done for mulligans since some teams scored more than 8.

I don't mind the suggested Sportsmanship slots for playing against one opponent, but I believe that can break down when judging a pair of opponents.

For example, one of my opponent's teams had a wonderful guy to play with while his teammate came across as an aggressive ass to me. I checked most of the boxes automatically, but when it came to "I'd play this opponent again" I paused because I'd play one of the guys while absolutely avoiding the other at all costs. In the end I checked the box, but I would prefer another option.

Perhaps changing the checkbox to "I'd play these two players again" would be an improvement? I'm sure somebody else could come up with a better suggestion. I also want to point out that in 3 TTs this has only occurred to me one time.
Dal'yth Dude
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:49 am

Postby crashwell » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:15 pm

Actually, I'd think that the team with the lowest Battle Score and the Highest Sportsmanship score should get the Sportsmanship Award. It's much more challenging - in my opinion - to be a good sport when you're getting your fanny kicked.

Being genial and fun to play against when you are winning handily isn't that hard. Being a fun opponent when you are getting thrashed is much harder - and should be recognized.
Be well,

Dave
crashwell
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:22 pm

Re: New CONSTRUCTIVE comments Team Tournament thread

Postby domus » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:21 pm

Redbeard wrote:I think that scores might be more normalized if the judges walked around the hall and picked their favourite armies FIRST, and then went back through everything for checkboxes.


This is how I do it when I judge fantasy painting. I just have always thought to fairly judge painting I had to walk around to get a feel for the overall playing field. Then I can walk around with the detailed checklist and give the army a thorough exam.

Also, I am not a fan of awarding best sportsmanship ties to high battlepoints. Looking at the scores at the TT and the Championship, it made 'Best Sportsman' into almost a second best general award.


That sounds like a problem we have in fantasy where most everyone gets max sports all the time. Taking subjectiveness out of sports prevents tanking, but basically turns it into this kind of "2nd best General" type award.

How to fix it? The only things I can come up with are subjective sports scoring which can lead to tanking or a single Yes / No question "Fun Game?" and fav. opponent votes.
domus
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:54 am

Postby domus » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:24 pm

crashwell wrote:It's much more challenging - in my opinion - to be a good sport when you're getting your fanny kicked.


I think it can be just as hard to keep it fun for the other fella when you are wiping the table with him.
domus
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:54 am

Postby Drunken Mick » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:06 pm

domus wrote:
crashwell wrote:It's much more challenging - in my opinion - to be a good sport when you're getting your fanny kicked.


I think it can be just as hard to keep it fun for the other fella when you are wiping the table with him.


It's a tough line to walk between good sport and rubbing their nose in it. Totally agree. It's almost harder to be a good winner sometimes. How much do you show how excited you are without gloating / going overboard.
Lord of the Drink

Eat that Flatly!
Drunken Mick
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:53 am
Location: Chicago SW Burbs

Postby Zaeon » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:09 pm

I was bummed when our judges got around to our board and saw that we were half eldar and half dark eldar they didn't even try to listen to our theme (eldar corsairs) and told us we were building lists to win. :(

There wasn't a single model in my army that wasn't converted in some way and I don't think the judge even picked up a single guy.

I would like to see points awarded by oppanants for theme also as they spend more time looking at the army than the judges.

That said, all the staff were great and I hope they stay as patient as they have been. 'Twas a good first year for our team
Zaeon
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:37 pm

Theme

Postby DragonScythe » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:32 pm

Proposition for theme

Theme seems to boil down to the composition of the army and what teams are paired together. I do understand that one of the options is to let the players grade theme to a degree, but that can also lead to the common gripe of "they just nickel and dimed me for points"!

Perhaps if it was REQUIRED for teams to turn in a min. of 1 page of background, i.e. theme for their team, then 1 lone judge can review the themes over the day, compared to army lists. If there are 320 players, or 80 teams, then 80 different themes can be reviewed within the span of 4 hours. There can also be a maximum number of pages, to keep it reasonable, too.

I just think that if this were done, it can be done away from the tournament area, undisturbed, totals tallied and submitted before round 3 begins, and it won't necessarily be rushed.

Just my 2 cents
Come to the Dark Side, we have cookies...
DragonScythe
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:02 pm
Location: Wheaton, IL

Re: Theme

Postby Redbeard » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:50 pm

DragonScythe wrote:Perhaps if it was REQUIRED for teams to turn in a min. of 1 page of background, i.e. theme for their team, then 1 lone judge can review the themes over the day, compared to army lists.


Oh please no.

Seriously. Give me a page and I'll write you a justification of why tyranids, necrons, daemons and witchhunters are working together. People can write anything. I'll explain how a hole in the warp opened and that I've got borg, and daleks working with the rebel alliance to overthrow the emperor, who is apparently now not just a near-dead psyker, but also a sith lord.

Theme should be obvious from looking at the armies. If it isn't, then it's not a good theme. One army I saw this year that pulled this off well was, I think, three imperial armies, with a tyranid army. The tyranids were locked in some sort of containment field. I get it. I didn't need to read anything, I didn't need to know the history of the imperium. It's there on the display, done with the models.. That's how theme should be portrayed - in the army itself. Cause anyone can write a page to justify anything.
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Postby Primarch » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:26 pm

Maybe if we understood just how the current theme criteria is scored?



The only thing our team didnt have, was a unified display board and we scored 12 points lower than one of the high ones. That was with a banner, matching shirts, an all Eldar army, hell, we had Eldrad, but he was in the Ulthwe contingent, that matched his paint scheme.

As ive said before, we lost the overall by 1 point, and scored a 26 in theme, right now im tempted to say you cant score even average in theme if you dont have a unified display board. When I say average here, i mean average for the people who cared about theme, or attempted to put something coherent out there. Of course there are some 2s and 3s or so, but they are the exception rather than the rule.


Its hard to give ideas when its obvious noone has a clue how they currently judge the theme.


Are there some judges here that can give us some idea, and we can go from there?


OH, before i forget. The people that are saying shut up, quit whining, and if we dont like it we can just not come back, really need a reality check. The gamers of Adepticon have helped grow this event by their word of mouth and encouragement as much as anyone has. This is OUR Adepticon, no we dont host it, but by god we show up 400 strong for that one Tourny. This is a constructive thread, and if Adepticon really doesnt want any gamer feedback, then lock all the forums, before a guy says a bunch of stuff about all the gamers giving feedback, then the thread gets locked with no chance at a reply.



Clay
Primarch
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:16 pm

Next

Return to AdeptiCon 2008

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron