Bad habits

So I have this really bad habit of writing things and then not posting them. This post, for example, I wrote several weeks ago and then did nothing with it. Because of working and going to school so much in the last 2 years, I have sort of developed this mindset that any second of the day that I'm not working, doing school, or doing something leisurely (playing videogames or reading, usually) is a complete waste of my time. Despite being graduated, this has sort of still stuck with me to some degree. I'm trying to get over it, but it's hard sometimes. This mindset is what causes me to go a long time without posting anything here. I might start several articles, but if I put more than a few minutes in at a time, I feel like I'm wasting precious time that could be spent elsewhere.

In any case, here is the article I wrote a few weeks ago. It's about a topic that was relevant at the time when there were conversations going on at YTTH about it. Without further ado:

Yet another reason 40k should be more like fighting games.

This week, there was a friendly discussion (oddly enough, I do mean that it was actually fairly friendly) over at YTTH about the way 40k tournaments should be scored. I've had some thoughts on this that got completely neglected in the midst of MVB being awesome (come on guys, I even submitted the clutchest-shit-ever video) so, in an effort to practice putting thoughts into words I'm going to write about it here.

Seeding and pairing is something that is also quite important to establishing a "winner" in an objective way, but since it doesn't really have a correlary in fighting games* I won't be talking about it here.


40k tournaments are ranked using a system that seems very alien and, well, wrong to me. Ok, obviously, there are a lot of soft scores thrown into the mix; comp scoring is stupid and does more harm than good**, painting scores I am very supportive of but they should be their own category**, and sportmanship should be a requirement. I am strongly against these in their own right, but that's not what I'm referring to.

40k tournament rankings are based on a points system that is itself based on strength of victory. By that I mean, if you eke out a win in a close game you might get 5 or 6 points, but if you seriously paste someone you might get 4 or 5 times that. This causes things that shouldn't happen like someone going undefeated being ranked second after someone who went 3-0-2 because of total points earned.

This is bad.

Like I said over at YTTH, Daigo Umehara didn't get less credit because he only barely won. In fact, he won that match by literally the smallest margin possible and it still only counted as a W. This is the way it should be in 40k too.

The scoring is usually done with objectives. Primary objective grants X points, Secondary objective grants Y points, bonus objectives... etc. This is good for tactics and such ensuring that games aren't all about last man standing, but it really hurts the rankings.

I understand that Warhammer games take a lot of resources to play. A fighting game tournament can take place in a day or two and can easily accomodate hundreds (or thousands even, in the case of EVO) of players, where Warhammer in this format would be basically impossible; the NOVA Open had 88 players and it was a fairly solid two-day event. (this is a fairly interesting thing, in my opinion, that I will probably talk about at a later date) This is how it needs to be, however.

The point is that the way Warhammer is typically scored is flawed and can lead to unfair rankings. Not only this, but it necessitates being a complete waac asshole in order to place well.

At the end of the day, I feel like BP scoring creates rankings that are more objectively accurate towards the end of the list, where WLD is more objectively accurate towards the front.*** Obviously in a tournament, nobody cares about how accurately the bottom players are represented (or anyone out of the top 4 or 5, really) so if we can ensure the top 4 are reported accurately, then why not?

============================================

* - Fighting game tournaments (usually) use a double-elimination bracketed ladder system. (except most of the big national ones, which I believe are single elimination ladders) There is probably some basis for round 1 pairings (qualifier round performance, region of origin, TO's wanting to keep big names away from each other to keep big hype games from happening until close to the end, or whatever else) but I am not especially familiar with what mechanisms they use, and considering the double elimination it doesn't really make that big of a difference in the long run anyways. Pairings in later rounds are obviously determined by the brackets.

** - Comp scoring is bad. Please stop it. I was going to write about it here, but I think it deserves its own post. Perhaps later.

Painting scores are also bad. I love the creative half of the hobby as much as the next guy that loves the creative half of the hobby, but figuring creative scores into generalship scores hurts both halves of the hobby. Not only does it hurt the good generals who are bad painters (or who can't be bothered to paint their stuff), but it also hurts the badass painters who aren't such great generals. Both tactical and createive geniuses get swept under the rug, unnoticed, in favor of people who are maybe slightly above average at both. Bad.

I understand that games involving painted armies are a lot more interesting than games without. Want to give some incentive to bringing painted armies? Fine by me. Make it a requirement (3 color+, or whatever), make it some sort of fair extra scoring (1 for paint 0 for no paint, or best painted as tie-breaker or something - although, that doesn't quite seem like a good idea either), or I bet if you make a secondary painting tournament with equal rewards to the gaming side enough people will make an effort to paint their stuff just to increase their chance of winning something. In this regard, the NOVA Open did it right.

*** - BP rankings will have people who have lost and done mediocre spread fairly accurately in the lower half of the list, but the top will be more about whoever got lucky with their pairings and such. On the other hand, the WLD system will have undefeated in first place, X-1 in second place, X-2 in third place etc, but as you get to the bottom it gets a little less accurate because many people probably went 1-X or 2-X.