NOVA Hate

PS - (that's pre script, no postscript, CONTEXT!!) This post is super long. I didn't mean for it to be, but I got sort of excited and started ranting at a few points. These things just make me so crazy sometimes...

The NOVA Open was basically a huge success. There's been a few dissenting opinions (mostly from people who didn't go?) but for the most part, it was an awesome event for all parties.

There's been one specific criticism that I've seen a few times that I really don't get at all. How can anyone hate on the scoring? It is very clearly superior to every other method both competitively and casually. So why all the hate?

If you don't like the transparent missions, whatever, that's your opinion. I mean, you're wrong, but it still is the type of thing where I could at least consider your argument for having secret missions*. Secret missions can be good in that they negate list tailoring in favor of balanced lists (or completely unbalanced lists, either you build a list to take all comers, or you build a list that focuses on tabling regardless of the scenario) and it seems to make games more about player skill. This, of course, assumes that all scenarios and codices are balanced. They tend not to be, however, so what might seem like an otherwise balanced force, might become unusable if the scenarios are bad. (see 'Ard Boyz 2010 round 1)Scenarios aren't something I'm remotely qualified to talk about, though, so I will just leave it at both sides of the coin have some decent arguments (providing *) and move on.

I've seen some talk about how the Nova's single elimination format was bad compared to the usual system with battle points and/or massacre/major win/minor win/draw/minor loss/major loss/whatever. This is quite untrue, if you ask me. Frankly, the single elimination format is the best there is**. Ironic in that it is especially the best option if you are a "less-than-competitive" gamer. (meaning that it is the best format no matter what you're goals are in the tournament)

How is it better?
Let's do a bit of analysis on both types of scoring and then in the end I'll give my thoughts on why one is so much better than the other for both parties.

BP/Massacre/Major/Minor/...
GW created this system, and it has been used in basically every tournament since the game's inception. I know of two tournaments in all of history that have used anything else. (the NOVA being one and the other being the BMF tournament of recent infamy thanks to DashofPepper***) That's not to say other systems never get used but, frankly, they don't.

First of all, this system causes inaccurate rankings. So what if you went 5-0, if all your wins were minor victories then you'll still be far behind anyone with a couple of massacres and a remotely positive WLD. So prevalent is this, that I've almost never heard of a tournament that didn't end up getting ranked this way. It seems a given that, in any event, someone with the best WLD will be somewhere other than first place.

Maybe that's not so bad, right? I mean, the fact that someone with 3-0-2 got 3 massacres means he's probably better than someone that only barely won 5 times, right? Perhaps. Or perhaps the 5-0 guy played SW all day, when the 3-0-2 guy played against 3 Necron lists. This system makes matchups and pairings worth more to the rankings than the games themselves. Any good players facing each other are doomed to life outside the top 4, because it is unlikely either of them will get a massacre.

Which brings me to my second (and more important) point: massacres are necessary to win. Even a single game resulting in anything less than a massacre (especially a draw or a loss) basically eliminates you from the tournament. Therefore, it is necessary for all players to strive for a massacre. Meaning that the tournament format requires players to play like jerks.

Ah, so we finally get to the meat of it. Suddenly every tiny rules discrepency, every millimeter of movement, every cocked die, every everything becomes direly important. If there is something that you are even just barely unsure about, it is worth questioning because it could mean the difference between massacre and elimination.

Not only this, but forcing the massacre means your game plan in every game will be some variant of "table the opponent as fast as possible". Obviously objectives, table quarters, etc. come into play as well, but generally speaking the best way to ensure a massacre is to completely wipe out as much of the opponent as possible while sustaining as few casualties yourself. This is surely a good game plan regardless, sort of akin to saying "don't die, kill the badguys", but when it becomes absolutely necessary to rank well in the event, people are forced to play like rules-lawyer jerks and games often end with bad feelings.

Single Elimination
In this type of system, at the end of the day the winner is 5-0, then everyone else is ranked in order behind that: 4-1, 3-1, etc. There is never any question of how anyone is doing, or who will come in first, or anything like that. Like Stelek said over at YTTH, (paraphrasing) "In this system, I know whoever wins has to go through me to get there." This is an especially good point. In this type of system there will never be a case of somebody winning because they got lucky and dodged all the hard opponents. It's a safe bet that in order to be (legitimately) considered better than Andrew in a tournament, you're going to have to either beat him or beat someone else that beat him. This system ensures that this happens, meaning that only the person who could beat everyone else wins. (ie, the best player)

Best of all, nobody ever has to worry that they aren't doing well enough as long as they are winning. This system encourages games to be fun. Sure, players are still trying to win, but playing hardcore, balls-to-the-wall games isn't necessary. Pairings and matchups can and will still cause one-sided games, but in these situations rather than mercilessly slaughtering the weaker player, the stronger player can play a slightly more casual game. Go ahead and charge solos Mephiston and Logan Grimnar into each other just for fun to see what happens. As long as it doesn't necessarily affect the outcome of the game (in the case of a veteran player facing a novice, where it's fairly obvious who will win anyways, for example), you can do fun things like this. In the end, everyone has enjoyable games, even if they lose, but it isn't necessary to play like a dick in order to win.

Conclusion
Any system utilizing BP, or massacres, or whatever, necessitates grabbing every advantageous opportunity and running as far and as fast as possible before the other guy can do anything to stop you. Not only does this type of system cause strife between various player groups, but it also makes the final rankings a bit less than accurate.

Elimination systems, on the other hand, encourage more enjoyable games (because it doesn't matter how you win as long as you do) and give more objectively accurate ranking results in the end.

For these reasons, it is fairly easy to see that an elimination style event would be more enjoyable for all parties. "Competitive" types because of the more objective rankings, and "fluffy" (or otherwise "less-than-competitive") types because of the more enjoyable games. Now, when I say things like "less-than-competitive" or "fluffy", I don't mean it in a derogatory manner. It is an undeniable fact that some people attend tournaments to try to win them (those being "competitive" players [not to be confused with WAAC players!]), and some people attend them because they like the environment and just want to play games (those being "less-than-competitive" players). Both halves of the hobby are not wrong, and we should strive to include everyone in our events. This is the real benefit of the elimination style****: everyone who is part of this hobby can and will enjoy themselves in this type of event.

BP/massacre rules don't especially lend anything to less-than-competitive events, unlike things such as soft scores, for example. For this reason, I do not really understand why so many people have been resistant to this new style. Perhaps it is a matter of it being new and scary. Perhaps it is a matter of GW made it so it must be good. Perhaps there has been such a long-standing rivalry between the two "factions" of 40k, that the "goodguys" can't accept anything done by the "badguys" no matter how great it might be. I don't know what the case may be, but it seems to me like where "competitive" gamers everywhere should be happy about how great a change the NOVA's rules were for them, "less-than-competitive" gamers should be hoisting Mike on their shoulders and parading him through town like that kid on TV that invented tacos with square bottoms. Mike has put together an incredible competitive event, but I'd think he'd be more accepted as the champion of "less-than-competitive" gamers at this point.


What do I think?
I think this scoring system is an incredible step in the right direction. This single change will probably lead to uniting this hobby more than anything else from the NOVA. (other than, perhaps, Mike himself, obviously) Ultimately, uniting the hobby is what we all want. There are some people out there on their internets who seem to want nothing less than this very thing, however I can assure you this is the ultimate goal of every reasonable 40k-playing human in the world. Every reasonable "competitive" player and every reasonable "less-than-competitive" player out there would enjoy the game more if everything were unified. WAACs and CAACs****** obviously need not apply. (but they're all jerks anyways, so nobody cares) More enjoyable games in tournaments, means more tournaments, means more GW support, means more... you get the point.

So what do I think about the format itself? It's good, but double elimination is better. Double elimination is more complex and can easily take twice as long or more, but I believe it provides a more fair and objective outcome while still maintaining the same level of enjoyment for all participants. (more even since you will ultimately get to play more games, which is good right?)

Both single elimination and BP/etc. systems can be ruined by a single game. Even if everything is completely balanced, how hard is it to lose a single game? Maybe your dice turn up less than average and your opponent's turn up better than average for a game. Maybe you've been up since 7am, have been playing a number of seriously intense games all day, and your brain starts to crap out on you. Who knows what the reason may be, but it is quite conceivable to lose a game "on accident", so to speak. I'm not talking about a game that you should have totally won if it had ended on turn 5 instead of going to 6, or anything like that. Just, it's possible that perhaps your one loss may not have been a fair representation of your ability.

Everyone knows that flukes happen, but with double elimination you get a second chance to prove yourself. In this system, the winner will be the only one with one or less losses. (instead of just the one left with no losses) The only awkward problem that could happen is the final table having to play twice. A scenario:

Final Round:
Player A is undefeated
Player B has one loss
Player B wins, but since it's only A's first loss they have to play again

This happens occasionally in fighting game tournaments which very often employ this type of ranking. It is fair in fighting games and not such a big deal, but due to the nature of 40k (or more specifically, its average game length) it might be sort of annoying to have to do another. Especially if it was a close, tiring, or otherwise mentally draining game.

I'm not exactly sure how to circumvent this, but it really won't happen every time, and if that's the only bad thing about the format then I still say it's fairly clear that it's superior.

Ah, I mean, other than the fact that double elimination is a lot more involved. The complexity and sheer number of games/ammount of time required might make it less than ideal for something with more than the NOVA's worth of attendees. If we're talking about sheer objective ranking power, though, I say it can't be beat.

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

* - I am referring to actually secret missions, not the 'secret to everyone that doesn't live here and playtest' missions.

** - Personally, I prefer double elimination. It takes longer and is significantly more complicated, but I feel like it is a more balanced ranking system. It is entirely possible to have a bad game, or get some unlucky dice, or whatever else that causes you to lose a single game, but with double elimination you get a chance to redeem yourself and to balance out any unfortunate happenstance.

*** - Such a shame, all that nonsense. Hits home with me especially because I too live in Jacksonville. I'm on the other side of the city from Dash though, and the store in question is a much longer drive than I'm willing to put in so I've never been there before. And now I never will.

**** - I prefer Sosetsouken myself.*****

***** - Totally. Lame. Pun...

****** - WAAC is obviously "Win At All Costs", but what is CAAC? CAAC is an acronym that I just invented for "Casual At All Costs".******* It's a term that I really can't believe hasn't been invented yet.******** I feel like it really deserves to exist though. If for no other reason than to prove a point. CAAC gamers are people who are completely insane about casual games. They will do everything in their power to keep games they play as casual as possible. Regardless of any consequences to others. (people like that don't exist...) They are not above having people banned from gaming venues if they feel like they play too competitively. (starting to sound more like reality?) At the very least, they will verbally berate "competitive" players at every turn, tell them they are ruining the hobby, 'how dare they not play the correct casual way', and will most likely refuse to ever play in a game against anyone branded as "competitive". Hope to The Emprah that you never accidentally mention anything other than casual gaming around these guys. There will be hell to pay.

But, "less-than-competitive" gamers say, that's only a small portion of us. Most of us are actually fairly reasonable. We just prefer to play casual games.

You don't say?

See where I'm going with this? Playing petty name-calling games may not get us anywhere, but the situation is the same on each side of the coin, and that is what needs to be understood. One of the things I saw in the DashofPepper fiasco that enraged me the most (other than the BMF thing, ARGH!!!! Seriously Jacksonville? Fucking, seriously? He brings a hard list (as hard as DE get, anyways) to your so-titled BADDEST MOTHERFUCKER tournament advertised as "NO WHINING, NO CRYING, WIN OR GO HOME", wins it, and then gets completely torn apart because "that's not the scene in Jacksonville" well what the fuck else did you expect him to think when the tournament was calledBADDEST MOTHERFUCKER, and the tagline was "NO WINING, NO CRYING, WIN OR GO HOME"? he was probably relieved that the scene was now supporting such things. Just imagine how he must have felt when everyone started yelling at him because he won. Imagine being adrift at sea for a few weeks, a ship happens to come by and pick you up, what's better they're the same nationality as you! Huzzah, you're saved! Nope, they say they're going to execute you the next morning because you might be a spy or some nonsense. A bit more extreme than what happened to Dash, but seriously guys. Fuck. Makes me ashamed that I live in the same city as these people. At least I'm way on the other side, but still. Just, fuck.)

...Ok, where was I? ah yes: one of the things I saw in the Dash fiasco was that a lot of people were yelling at him with things like "how dare you try to push your beliefs of the right way to play the game on us..." I'm going to yell at you for trying to change the way I play to conform to the way you play, and then yell at you for not playing the way I play. See how hypocritical this is? This is the argument I see get used at pretty much every argument against "competitive" gamers. If I say that I expect that the people that use this argument tend to be CAACs, then I hope you will see what I mean by the term and why I think it is necessary to prove a point.

******* - Alternatives include: Fun At All Costs, Fluff At All Costs, or Hobby At All Costs. None of these really quite capture the point though. The point being that these people are the same type of asshole fuckshits that WAAC players are, except they are that about non-competitive games. Also, it kind of sounds like a funny way to say cock, so, you know. Win.

******** - Sorry for all these footnotes, but I need to say something. Yes, I can believe it's never been invented before. WAAC was a term invented by "less-than-competitive" gamers about "competitive" gamers. It refers to a type of person that is a complete asshat that all competitive players get stereotyped into being. The fact of the matter is the reason CAAC has never been invented before, is because where "less-than-competitive" players feel like they need this sort of thing, "competitive" players are almost universally laid back about the whole thing and have never had a need to create petty labels like this. "Fluff bunny" and other such terms aren't quite the same, because it doesn't really hold any detestable attributes to it. Nobody thinks fluffy games are bad. Perhaps not for everyone, but if that's what you like to play, nobody is going to hold it against you. (unless you try to pull that shit in a tournament) WAAC on the other hand, is someone who is completely without any redeeming qualities. For potential reasons why, check out a previous article I wrote with the part about "less-than-competitive" players feeling victimized because they never get to win. That, or perhaps "competitive" gamers are just more mature. (obviously I mean that with the greatest amount of sarcasm and/or facete)