tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post9195933919478532410..comments2024-03-17T01:39:05.808-07:00Comments on Whiskey & 40k: Nuance - Competitive vs. Competitively EvaluativeMike Brandt; mvbrandt@gmailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00818846784767602047noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-86076594805068189622010-10-06T23:25:16.758-07:002010-10-06T23:25:16.758-07:00Mmmm. I'm not sure I really stand behind your ...Mmmm. I'm not sure I really stand behind your definition of "competitive" here- was that particular game competitive for those particular players? Sure. But that's not the same as being competitive in the broader sense. One atom having a ton of kinetic energy does not make an object hot- you measure the average energy across the whole thing.<br /><br />But really, it's just a matter of degree of competitiveness. Even the softest, fluffiest events tend to have 30-50% of their total score based on wins/losses, so it's not as though they are irrelevant or even the least relevant; indeed, it's a rare thing when they aren't the _most_ relevant. It's just that I, and many other people, I think, believe that they should be the _sole_ determiner of who wins the tourney. I am a gaming purist in the same way that I am a food purist- peas do not mix with mashed potatoes, and hobby competition does not mix with wargaming competition.AbusePuppyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07413248837734103198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-71062864929449627192010-10-06T03:45:32.057-07:002010-10-06T03:45:32.057-07:00+1 Mike. Well reasoned and it again seems to come ...+1 Mike. Well reasoned and it again seems to come down to different definitions for different camps. <br /><br />Really we just need a fire and some sing-a-longs.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07693773850422698445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-28539824836842531992010-10-05T20:46:37.245-07:002010-10-05T20:46:37.245-07:00Mike this reminds me of the college football BCS/p...Mike this reminds me of the college football BCS/playoff argument.MarkDawghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12319000646404771946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-48704545352645339732010-10-05T20:00:41.123-07:002010-10-05T20:00:41.123-07:00Good post - I especially like the comparison to ho...Good post - I especially like the comparison to how painting is evaluated. I imagine there would be some guys up in arms if they lost painting because battle points knocked them down in the rankings. That's why (for me at least) having a single winner at the end of the day is so appealing. <br /><br />Oh and by the way - I took you up on your offer for assistance Mike but you never got back to me. I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, I just shot you a couple of emails and never heard back so I'm trying this way to get your attention!<br /><br />Although I disagree with some of the ideas (some aspects of the invitational), your transparency and level of response all over the internet has been a great benefit to the hobby. Keep up the good work.<br /><br />-TimTimhttp://www.bugeatergames.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-26866439657462106852010-10-05T18:08:03.303-07:002010-10-05T18:08:03.303-07:00You must understand the distinction between a comp...You must understand the distinction between a competition and a contest. A competition determines the winner throught objective means. A classic example--a footrace: First across the finish line wins. There are no doubts about the winner. The same is true for other object based events. Hence the references to NOVA being competitive, because the gamer with the most victories, the undefeated guy, won. There is no argument about it. And the participants control their destiny.<br /> Painting contests are just that, a contest, in which judgement determines the winner, awards victory, gives first prize. Beauty pageants are contests. So are many Olympic events, or anything involving judges or an evaluation of the worthiness of the entrants. One can always argue and complain about Judge's Bias, politics etc. ad nauseum with a contest. You do not win a contest. You are awarded the victory. Your fate is not in your own hands.<br /> Any tournament that combines the two elements ceases to be competitive. Competition plus contest equals contest, not competition. With NOVA, you kept the elements separate, with the winner and the aces on the competitive side, and the Ren Man and painting awards on the contestative [word?] side. Gamers could chose their poison(s). This, I believe, is one reason for the happy feelings which NOVA participants had. And it is a good solution to the problem of rewarding good players and good hobbyists. It rewards both, sort of a separate AND equal approach. <br /> I should hope that other tournaments will recognize this distinction, and tailor their tournaments accordingly. Keep the contest out of the competition.<br /> Oh, and in response to a previous post, ( gonna say it is NSFW), http://www.coolminiornot.com/index/whatm/Wyrd/id/241104 <br /> ¡Dios Mio Perdita, como te has vestido! ...Now, what were you saying about breasts? ;)G Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00180174897038108755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-51589711466453335432010-10-05T17:41:20.451-07:002010-10-05T17:41:20.451-07:00Good read, as usual.Good read, as usual.Pathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15033875920115128291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-388453741033869908.post-90220771890759582762010-10-05T10:51:44.923-07:002010-10-05T10:51:44.923-07:00I think this is a much more honest evaluation of t...I think this is a much more honest evaluation of the nature of these events than the typical 'hobby' vs. 'competitive' cry you usually hear. Some people only see competitive meaning player skill, when in reality all events are competitive by nature. You really cannot turn to the dictionary to define words like 'competitive' and 'tournament' when speaking about multifaceted wargaming events. In reality there are different levels/flavors of competitive play or definitions of 'tournament'. If players know what to expect, then they can make informed decisions. If their expectations are in control, then they are in control. Problems players simply do not have their expectations in check. The non-attending internet simply will have no need for expectations and will therefore only lobby for their predisposed viewpoint.<br /><br />In regards to AdeptiCon - we have ALWAYS been a Hobby Competition. I know some people want to drop that label on us as a veiled insult, but we fully embrace it. Traditionally AdeptiCon has always been, and always will be, a social event first. Secondly it is celebration of the hobby. Somewhere after that, and not necessarily third, comes the friendly competition aspect.<br /><br />In 2011, the goal is to have one solid competitive event that is evaluative of player skill (or at least light years beyond where we have traditionally been). Does that change the above priorities? Not at all. Does that mean we are no longer a Hobby Competition - absolutely not!<br /><br />If the goal of systems like the NOVA are to be inclusive all all player types...then any event using this system is a Hobby Competition too. It's perfectly feasible to have evaluative competition within a Hobby Competition.<br /><br />Good article Mike. Refreshing viewpoint in opposition to the typical beating of drums.Matthiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01692546909563451253noreply@blogger.com