Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Throne of Skulls ... Thoughts on Tournaments / GW Approach





So, some of you in the blogosphere/etc. may have read about the Throne of Skulls tourney pack written up by Jervis Johnson.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1240205a_ToS_Rules_Pack.pdf


I have some issues with the way this is presented.

To present them in short, prior to an inevitable ramble, I believe they intend to accomplish a couple of things ...

1) Be fun for all players, regardless of skill level, and de-emphasize competition
2) "Comp" the difference in various codices in terms of perceived strength, and reward the best general, as opposed to the best codex
3) Promote fun
4) Get people to want to play in their tournaments

I believe they accomplish, instead, the following ...

1) Create an extremely negative environment for the least skilled players, and annoy the more skilled players; furthermore, in the aftermath, it will reinforce an already-negative GW (Jervis) mindset toward "competitive players," as they will be blamed for the problems instead of the format (which emphasizes them)

2) Encourage players to game the system by bringing hyper-optimized lists from known underpowered codices; since codex imbalance is not nearly as significant as many without deep thinking skills would believe (and sadly this appears to include JJ), tournament "gamers" will simply break the system and ... again, lead to an increased perception of "competitive" players being the problem

3) Not be very fun, especially in terms of how it screws "lesser" gamers

4) Get "kudos" from people who don't like tournaments anyway, and so still won't attend, and generate anger from tournament goers who dislike the system

I believe the system is inherently geared toward disillusioning the average observer's mindset, punishing competitive players both in execution and perception of a "problem," and disenfranchising a significant percentage of the customer base (if not a majority). Either the author of this packet and this style of tournament is seeking the fulfillment of these actual results on purpose, or he simply isn't capable of developing a packet that avoids them without better oversight and input from outside sources.



So, into the argument and break-down ...

Let's start with the name; "Throne of Skulls." There's nothing casual or laid back about it. The implication is clear and straightforward - battle it out and claim your spot atop a throne of skulls, atop Khorne's throne of skulls, etc. - be a god / master of war. Sounds pretty competitive. Sounds like a tournament. OK, I'm fine so far. Let's see if hypocrisy will be tabled and consistent speech utilized ...

Our Grand Tournaments are all about having a great time playing one of your favourite(sic) games ... Our aim is simply to get people together so they can play their favourite(sic) game, meet up with their mates and immerse themselves in the hobby for a day or two.

Alright, thanks for defining what our HOBBY is about (having a great time playing with your mates and immersing yourself in the hobby). Thanks for butchering the definition of tournament, however. Go ahead and look it up, or don't and trust me that basically any definition of a tournament refers to it as a competition or series of competitions. OK, so what's a competition? I'll give you a hint - determining a winner is an integral part.

Let me be clear: there is NOTHING WRONG WITH JUST PLAYING TO HAVE FUN. That's not the issue. Calling a "weekend for gaming fun" a THRONE OF SKULLS TOURNAMENT, however ... is likely to lead to you sounding like either a) a really shitty salesman who visibly thinks he's smarter than his customers (big mistake #1), or b) simply stupid.

Let me restate. People are arriving at a *Grand* Tournament entitled Throne of Skulls. You then use words like "weekend of gaming fun" right afterward. Look, we should all have fun gaming, in any venue, but am I the only one that doesn't see the blatant double speak right off the bat?


OK, so let's move past that to the actual way the tournament works ...

Here's problem numero uno ...

You will play against a randomly selected opponent in each round.

If anyone doesn't see the problem here, let me make it simple ...

2 players attend a tournament. One (A) has a really fluffy laid back simple list that will get its teeth kicked in if it goes up against a hardcore list. The other (B) has a super potent hardcore competitive list that is ready to go toe to toe with any army out there.

Round 1, each gets paired off against a super nasty opponent. A gets utterly annihilated, B wins. What now? RANDOM PAIRING AGAIN! A gets paired off against ... ANOTHER NASTY OPPONENT (even though he lost round 1), and B gets paired off against ... a really easy opponent that also lost. B annihilates his poor now-0/2 target, and A ... loses again, horribly. Who is having a "fun" time here? The person who came ready to super compete, or the person who read the rules packet and came with a laid back list to have fun with his mates?

After the tournament, when A complains about how he got mauled by all these power gamers, who do you think is going to take the heat? The flaming idiot who came up with random pairing every round, or the "power gamers" that ruined the event by coming "just to win?"

Maybe Jervis hates power gaming (as he sees it), and is doing this on purpose to further sully their reputation. Shame he has to do it at the expense of "casual" gamers ... further shame that he would be so quick to treat a percentage of his customer base so poorly. Alternately, he simply wasn't capable of or willing to think that deeply about the import of his system.

Final issue ...

The way the scoring works, your final score is based upon how well your army book or codex does across the tournament. So, if you bring a Necron army and score 10 points, and the average of the Necron armies present at the event is a 5, your adjusted score is a "5"
I don't know what they do if you're the only Necron ... I guess you score a 0.

Either way, on face value this appears to be a unique and smart way to do "comp," so that you're not competing against the "hardcore" codices, but simply against your own. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

5 Demonhunters players show up. 4 of them have pure grey knight armies, one of them has abused the inducted guard rule as much as possible and is loaded up on cheapo chimeras, autocannon heavy weapon teams, and the like, and runs rampant all over the tournament, while his pure grey knight buddies get hammerfaced into the ground.

Aftermath, he wins by a wide margin. Again, what do you think happens here?
a) Wow, Jervis was really stupid to use this crazy system that was so easy to game
b) THOSE STUPID POWER GAMERS BROKE THE SYSTEM AND BROUGHT A CHEESY ARMY THAT ABUSED AN OLD ALLY RULE!

Nobody has "fun" regardless of who they blame ... the blame is there b/c angst is generated by the system.

The reason that you do pairings in a tournament, and brackets as the thing goes on, and the reason that you have separate paint and sports and conversion and army awards (which they don't, of course) is so that you actively provide reward and award for those people that don't come with the "best" army list or "best" skills, and you rapidly pit the nasty powergamers AGAINST EACH OTHER, where angst diminishes as competitors compete and hobbyists hobby. Asymmetrical competition against same-codex, random pairing regardless of success/record, and double-speak about GRAND THRONE OF SKULLS TOURNAMENTS and "fun hobby weekends" ... all leads to a situation where the blame gets shifted someplace other than the organizer (smoke and mirrors, or stupidity, whatever), nobody is happy afterward (except for the people who would be happy if you threw down cardboard tables with origami terrain while screaming WAAAAGH! in their ears ... aka, happy no matter what), and your own credibility is at best dinged, and at worst destroyed ... among the very people you seek to serve.

What's best, is this is a self-fulfilling prophecy situation. After all the inevitable fall-out and internet bitching, because this is the way the people at GW and I guess Jervis have ALWAYS worked, guess which of the following will happen ...

a) Tournament gamers are always bitching, they don't like what we do, and they aren't worth our time ... plus, the internet is something we should just avoid, b/c it's always unhappy.
b) Wow, we really need to improve our tournament offering, we're obviously doing something wrong!

If you guessed B, you are probably a new guy.

So, what do I suggest ...

Well, I really like GW. I like their minis, I think 40k is actually a balanced and competitive game (ask a certain someone who has been playing against Necron, Tau, etc. armies I've proxied in with his optimized guard to get practice for the tournament scene), I'm freaking ecstatic at all the support GW and Ed Spettigue have given me and other Indy GT's for their circuit.

I wish they would take a page from some of our books.

The NOVA Open is in its first formal year. I've run plenty of tournaments and leagues before, but this is my first major GT. We sold out 40k with 2 months to go, and sold out 16 additional spots the day we opened them. What have I done that's gotten so much attention? It's not b/c all these people went and had fun last year.

Develop your tournament approach. Document the thought process you went through developing it. Open it up to input and critique from the global community of players, who have combined for thousands of hours more experience than the "creators" at their own game. Those who wrote the rules wouldn't last 4 turns against the world's top players - mark my words on it. USE THAT. The Open has been more and more polished by the DAY not because I'm an egomaniacal bastard stuck to his own notions and ideas for what the game should be, but because if you drop the ego, accept that not everyone will like it one way or another, and actively use the minds and inputs of thousands of gamers ... you actually might get a really great product put out.

What's more, if you build it they will come. Look at Adepticon. Look at what the Open has gained in its first year - over 25 states and 2 countries attending, with people as far away as Germany inquiring about attending this year or next. If GW reconsiders how it runs its own tournaments, it will generate revenue and players for them. It's not rocket science, but it's certainly not done the way they're doing it with the above linked Throne of Skulls packet.

This got a little rambly, and I hope it doesn't sound self-promoting on the Open front. I don't think of it as "my" tournament ... I think of it as an expression of a clearly expressed need from a wide variety of gamers made manifest. It's a reaction to what people bitch about in regard to tournaments across the web (which actually is a useful resource), and a presentation of an event that rewards hobbyists and competitors alike, without a format that lends itself to anger and post-event unhappiness. It's not complicated to do this - tournaments and leagues for sports and games the world over have perfected tournament approaches, and all I did was hijack from all of those. Come on GW ... give it a shot. Sending one of your aging old hands up to his office to crack out some ill-edited, ill-reviewed BS isn't going to help the company we ALL LOVE.

$.02,
- Mike

17 comments:

  1. Their is another person who gets completely screwed using this format as well. The actual painters and hobbyists that they are trying to promote.

    If you went to Adepticon last year you probably saw the guy who came with the Pirate Chest Chaos Army. Such a pretty army. The guy was obviously their to show off his army and hopefully win "Best Painted" and/or "Players Choice". And that's great...that army was so awesome looking he should have gotten some recognition for that.

    Lets say he wins a ticket and goes to Throne of Skulls. He'll probably get 5 points because a couple of people picked him as favorite opponent...but then again maybe not because that scoring is so subjective. He army might be able to win a couple of games, but any real competitive list would probably beat him. So he's looking at a finish somewhere in the middle of the pack. Meaning no prize, title or really any kind of recognition. About the only thing he can hope for is a couple of pictures showing up in White Dwarf...and maybe if he's really luck a feature article.

    Of course as we all know traveling across the country is hard on Armies, so he would be undergoing a significant risk shipping/flying to get his army down to Vegas, for no real benefit.

    This isn't the competitive culmination of 18 months of national tournaments. I really just wish they would have called it an "Invite Only Games Day with the GW staff" instead of a "Grand Tournament Circuit". And then we would know what we are getting into and then the event would be cool.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey guys, take it easy will you. I'm sorry but you are making assumptions that are just not there. For Example:

    1. Why does random player mean any random player and not one with the same win loss record as you? Why not random player in your win-loss-draw bracket.

    2. That this format of tournament is for you? GW isn't saying all tournaments from now on are Throne of Skulls events, just giving us a standardized format to run if we want to. Mike didn't you say you wanted a standardize tournament to compare people against, here it is. This tournament has elements of the old RTT system with out the complicated scoring system that changed every year.

    3. The winner is decided based upon their personal score verse the average score of same codex armies, compared to the field.

    The average.

    So Mike in your example, one DH player does well winning all their games and the others don't. Lets say we are playing 3 games.

    So two players lose all their games netting 3 points each, two win 1 game netting 5 points each, and one wins all 3 netting 9 points. So that is 3+3+5+5+9=25.

    But then two of the players that lost a lot get 1 vote each for favorite army (basically Soft Scores all rolled up into one), one player gets 2 votes, and one gets 3 votes. 1+1+3+5=10 additional points for a total of 35 total points earn by the DH players. The power gamer that won all 3 games get no favorite army points.

    35 divided by 5 is and average of 7pts. The differential is 2pts for the power gamer, enough to win best DH (if the guy that got 3 favorite army votes also didn't win at least one game) but probably not best overall. But what if that player had been the one to get 2 votes, making his total score a 12. The difference would have been 5pts, probably putting him in the running for best overall.

    What this system does is reward sportsmanship and having a good attitude while enjoying playing the game. Armies that are built to table the opponent by turn 4 probably won't do well here, but good solid armies built to interact with the opponents army so that both players can have fun playing the game will. That is what this tournament system is all about is isn't meant for everyone.

    Also ease up on the name, would you; as a 40K player would you play in a tournament called "A Happy Fun Time Tournament," heck no. Throne of Skulls has been going on in the UK for years and is just making its first appearance here in the states, and we play a much different game then over there. Either it will change to us or those that want to will change to it.

    Also if you had read all the way through the rules you would know that if you are the only player for your codex, the average score is considered a 3 for 3 game tournaments and 5 for 5 game tournaments. It is spelled out pretty clearly in the summary on the last page.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, the one thing I do not like is the tie breaker for overall. The person with the most detailed, nicest looking army list wins. Should be the player with the most victories, or the most favorite player votes, or even strength of schedule.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jay, in reply ...

    1. Jay, it's randomly matched ... not randomly matched within brackets. There are no brackets. Random player in your win-loss-draw bracket would be superior, but please let's use Occam's Razor where reasonable to do so. This is actually a case of you making an assumption that is just not there, to quote you. You're *ASSUMING* / hoping that it's "within your bracket" at the end of "randomly paired." That's *just not there* ... if it turns out that's what's intended, you can believe he'll get a sharp community rap for not reviewing his packet, but as of now it REQUIRES assumptions for it to be anything other than terrible.

    2. The Throne of Skulls is their major circuit in Europe, and it's what they are using for the LAS VEGAS NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS. It's their GRAND TOURNAMENT focus. It's not a RTT "option" format, at all. It's actually what they want you to use in their biggest events, and it's fail to boot. Sadly. It would make more sense if it was just an optional tourney format. Unfortunately, standardization of a BAD approach is not good. The packet linked above does not enforce or determine results fairly and competitively, which is what a tournament by its very definition should do. If he'd like to rename it the Carebear Stare Weekend of Hobby Fun I'd sign up and attend myself. That's what it is, after all ... NOT a "throne of skulls" grand tournament. That's my point.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your next / major point is quote by quote ...

    "3. The winner is decided based upon their personal score verse the average score of same codex armies, compared to the field.

    The average."
    Yes, I got that.


    "So Mike in your example, one DH player does well winning all their games and the others don't. Lets say we are playing 3 games.

    So two players lose all their games netting 3 points each, two win 1 game netting 5 points each, and one wins all 3 netting 9 points. So that is 3+3+5+5+9=25.

    But then two of the players that lost a lot get 1 vote each for favorite army (basically Soft Scores all rolled up into one), one player gets 2 votes, and one gets 3 votes. 1+1+3+5=10 additional points for a total of 35 total points earn by the DH players. The power gamer that won all 3 games get no favorite army points."

    Why does he get no favorite army points? Because the people he faces are all bigoted against someone using the codex in a fashion they don't approve of? Sounds like an excellent reason to be scored down for. Complying with other peoples' notions of how you should follow rules that don't exist ...

    "35 divided by 5 is and average of 7pts. The differential is 2pts for the power gamer, enough to win best DH (if the guy that got 3 favorite army votes also didn't win at least one game) but probably not best overall. But what if that player had been the one to get 2 votes, making his total score a 12. The difference would have been 5pts, probably putting him in the running for best overall."
    So the guy who won 3 games could lose best DH to the guy who won a single game? I'm confused as to why you're seeing this as good yet.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "What this system does is reward sportsmanship and having a good attitude while enjoying playing the game. Armies that are built to table the opponent by turn 4 probably won't do well here, but good solid armies built to interact with the opponents army so that both players can have fun playing the game will. That is what this tournament system is all about is isn't meant for everyone."

    Sportsmanship should be demanded and expected of ALL players, but certainly not judged by your peers. Shenanigans arise all over the place when your PLACEMENT is based upon opponent-judged subjective scoring. Make it a separate award.

    My point in explicit detail is exactly the one you make, interestingly. This is not a TOURNAMENT. Random pairing, "fun game for the weekend" ... opponent-judged "sportsmanship" / scores ... awards to a winner of 1 vs. a winner of 3? This is just a "gathering of gamers." It's not a tournament, not by any definition, other than Jervis' own trumped up one ... and sorry, he's not an expert on the subject of the English language.

    "Also ease up on the name, would you; as a 40K player would you play in a tournament called "A Happy Fun Time Tournament," heck no." If the rules clearly were "Happy Fun Time Tournament," yeah sure if that was my thing. Branding it with a name that screams COMPETITIVE TOURNAMENT and having it ... not be, is simply false advertising. So you're saying they should continue with the false advertisement to get people to attend the Happy Fun Time Tourney b/c it turns out people don't like happy fun time tourneys?

    "Throne of Skulls has been going on in the UK for years and is just making its first appearance here in the states, and we play a much different game then over there. Either it will change to us or those that want to will change to it."
    I generally think that's true.


    "Also if you had read all the way through the rules you would know that if you are the only player for your codex, the average score is considered a 3 for 3 game tournaments and 5 for 5 game tournaments. It is spelled out pretty clearly in the summary on the last page." Well that's interesting ... silly, still, but interesting.



    I appreciate you pointing out some more of the flaws in the system, Jay and Ryan ... namely, that it's a hobbyist's weekend branded as a competitive tournament. NOTE - there's NOTHING wrong with a fun, relaxing, hobbyist's weekend! In fact, I'd happily participate in it ... so long as they weren't attempting to sell it to me as something it isn't, or attempting to rebrand our tournaments as ... hobby events galore ;)

    Keep in mind this is what they are doing for Vegas, and what they want all the GT's to do.

    ReplyDelete
  7. OH, PS,

    This is NOT WHAT THEY'VE BEEN USING IN EUROPE.

    They *WERE* using a qualifying ---> finals system, that was pretty darned competitive. They just changed it, and the Euros are freaking out about it too.

    Just fo' the record,
    - Mike

    ReplyDelete
  8. Where does it say that. No where. Show me where it says that? I read it all the way through. If GW wants to run it as the Vegas GT and you have a ticket, don't go.

    It is a tournament, where players compete under a set of guidelines to win or lose a prize.

    Here is the definition of Tournament from the MSN Encarta Online Dictionary.

    Tournament - series of games: a sports event made up of a series of games, rounds, or contests

    That fits with what this is. Maybe it is not your version of a tournament, or what you want. But why does Jervis need to take in your account of what a tournament is for a game he has been playing and writing for years? The tournament is how he wants to see the game played. If you don't like it, don't play in it.

    Also the point I was making if you read it closely about scoring. A player in the ToS system that plays to win and only to win is likely to not get any votes for best army (should really be called favorite opponent). A player that comes to win but also to make sure him and his opponent have fun doing so will do better if he wins all his games. You do not get penalized for being a play to win player, but you don't get rewarded either.

    Sure you could split prizes up but that is how your system works, not this one. Besides there is already best of for every codex and an overall. And if you follow any of the GW guys blogs their is usually best army as well.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Conversation from the overall circuit coordinator is that the Throne of Skulls *IS* being used for Vegas, period. The packet above is the massive overhaul of what was previously a very popular and competitive qualifier --> finals format in Europe, and is now catching hell from everywhere.

    The general point to be made is that GW/Jervis in this case is "homebrewing" a system that changes an already-popular system, and is doing so with no input from the global community of players, which are as a whole far more experienced than he or any individual could be.

    Reference point near the end of my article above - the NOVA Open isn't "my" system ... it's an amalgamation of ideas, creativity, and constructive criticism from a massive collection of gamers, most of whom I don't even know personally, and within whom is included the commentary of even you, Jay :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. "...and is now catching hell from everywhere."

    For example, Col. Gravis has said he wont be attending the UK ToS because of the new system. Have a look at his blog to get an idea of what sort of gamer does he seem like.

    http://colgravis.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-uk-gtthrone-of-skulls-2010-fail.html

    @ Mike - as always you have articulated your views in an understandable manner (almost like a PG version of Stelek's holy nerd rage lol).

    Messanger

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have been seriously wondering if any kind of legal action could be taken against GW's defining this as a 'tournament'. Unlikely, though. :(

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dude, seriously, fly out here. Play in the Open.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Jay - the name of the event DOES matter. Sure, maybe "Puppies and Rainbows!" isn't a good draw name for 40k, but, seriously, Throne of Skulls doesn't exactly seem touchy-feely. Hell, IMO, ToS seems more hard core than 'ard Boys.
    I'm playing in the NoVa Open and I'm super excited about it. Why? Because MVB took an idea, GOT FEEDBACK, made changes, GOT FEEDBACK, etc. We see this all time time in IT. Some self-proclaimed genius has an idea, launches it, and sails away on the Failboat, because he didn't get any input from the users. If you talk to the people who will use the product/service, you'll invariably make it more appealing to them, since their ideas are now part of it. Hell, since they helped, they may even become converts and preachers for it. Getting people involved is not a bad thing. Look at some recent examples where crap was not tested: 2010 'ard Boys scenearios, ToS. Not exactly models of success from a user acceptance point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have no problem with the Nova Open system, well other then is does not allow for ties, but that is another topic all together. But it is a different system then the ToS system, and that is all there is.

    If you want tournaments that reward both hard armies and themed armies play in the Nova Open (I am). If you want a system that encourages having fun with the game and forces players not to play win at all cost style armies, play Jervis's ToS.

    GW has the right to put any system in that they want for the Vegas final. They want GW games to be Beer and Pretzel "for fun" games and not hard nosed tournaments. Is that what everyone wants, no. But it is their game. You don't like it? Fine don't play.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think the angst here generated is based around that subject, Jay.

    Their playerbase, by a large margin, does not want the Throne of Skulls. I think by the same margin, their playerbase does not want Ard Boyz. Fortunately, Ard Boyz is intentionally marginalized by GW ... they brand it that way.

    Unfortunately, Throne of Skulls is their premier GT approach. Which is the problem.

    The standard for tournaments should be the most widely appealing, fair, and balanced. TOS isn't even close.

    It's not a knock on what it is, but the presentation and placement of it in the GW hierarchy of tournaments, where everything else comes into play.



    Thanks for the comments on the Open, too :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. As a PS, to my point above, GW's constituency is its player base. Going "I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK WE'RE PLAYING IT MY WAY" when it comes to something like a tournament is ... stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "your favourite(sic) games ... Our aim is simply to get people together so they can play their favourite(sic) game"

    This didn't warrant a [sic] on your part; in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand (or most likely any of the countries currently/once were part of the Commonwealth), the correct spelling actually IS favourite. Despite whatever Microsoft Word will try and make you believe.

    Just sayin'...

    ReplyDelete