Ok everyone, here is the discussion. What did we do wrong? What did we do right? What can we change to make it better? Did the maps have enough terrain? To much? Should we have bad weather on all tables? None? Snow? Mud?

Which missions did you like? Not like?

In other words, help us have a better tournament next time.

Chris

I think that we should get rid of the free for all mission, but I liked all of the other ones.

I personally do not like free for all either and would have preferred at least one hold the line over FFA or Encounter. Maybe next time.

Chris

My suggestions.

For sportsmanship, all players must wait until the last game is played, and then they rank their three opponents as 1, 2, and 3. What do you think of this and would it help at all?

I don't like the bad weather table. I didnt play on it, but this table might prevent someone from playing a unit they purchased and only discourages the use of air power. If the players know there are bad weather tables then they are less likely to bring AA too. I do however like the tables with mixed terrain, such as snow. This forces people to bring very diverse forces.

Would it help to make the missions random instead of declaring them ahead of time? Free for All is a lot more fun since the change from V1.

Sean Cruz

Sean,

That is a good idea on sportsmanship. Rate the three players you played at the end. But what if you played three perfect gentlemen, like I did. Both you and Sean Curl and Jeremiah deserved 5's. I would have had to cheat two of you out of a good score and one of you out of a medium score.

How would you have felt if I gave Jeremiah a 5, Sean Curl a 3 and you got a 1. Yet in reality you were all equal?

Chris

I agree that if you play three great opponents one of them is going to get shafted and no one should ever take these personaly. I would propose 1==5 points, 2==4 points, and 3==3 points. None of these are bad scores. This should help aleviate the problem, but not totally solve, the problem some people brought up about unfaire scoring at other tournaments. The only other idea I can think of is to have an impartial judge do all the scoring for sportsmanship. The problem with that however is that for the judge to do a good job he needs to be present at all times on all tables.

sean

This is the way I'm doing sportsmanship scoring for my Blood Bowl events. (I feel that good sportsmanship should be the norm, not the exception)

Rate all opponents at end of tournament, (feel free to make notes if it will help you in comparing your opponents).

Points are given in a 1, 4, 5 format. You may give only one opponent a five and only if he was above and beyond the rest.
4's should be the normal and what we all should expect to get and give out.
1's should only be passed out in extreme circumstances.

Anyone with a perfect sportsmanship score (given the 5 by all his/her opponents) gets a bonus 5 pts.

Mike,

That's not a bad way to do it. The 4 score wouldn't handicap you to much, but is better than getting a 1 or 0 under some systems. A single 5, as many 4's as needed and 1's only with Judge review. Fair and easy. I wouldn't give the bonus 5 points for three 5's, unless it was used as a tie breaker.

Otherwise to be fair you would have to give a bonus 5 to best painter or best history if they got perfect scores.

Chris

ogre wrote:

Otherwise to be fair you would have to give a bonus 5 to best painter or best history if they got perfect scores. Chris

Remember, that with only one 5 to give out, odds are that the same guy won't get 100% 5's, and if he is voted the best by all of his opponents he deserves the bonus.

Also my BB events are normally 4 games, have a 1st & 2nd based off of game points only, and an overall award given to best of the rest including painting & sportsmanship, both of which are voted on by opponents. With best painted and best sportsman getting bonus pts.

Total pts avail are about 70% 15% 15% game, paint, sport) .

Mike, That really sounds pretty good. Seems to handle the situation without over loading the scoreing.