|
|
Post by chrisallen on Feb 20, 2024 23:03:00 GMT -5
There was nothing that anyone was doing that required my intervention this weekend. If Nick wanted to play his own way, then he can play his own way, even if it meant he wasn't winning any best general/overall prizes for doing so. Only person that impacted was himself. Seems to be he and Drew had an awesome final game as they were both laughing and talking about it. So sounds like at least in that game aftermath I witnessed, they both had a blast. Of greater concern to me is people dropping last second which actually prevent people on the waiting list a chance to play. Nick certainly did not take any spot away from someone on a wait list who "really wanted to win best general". 90% of the players at any event do not win the top awards. I'm most concerned that those people have fun and come back, or we do not have a club or the ability to have tournaments. If all that matters is top placing then we'd be like MTG and have people drop each round when they lose a game, and I don't think anyone wants that.
I think our community can accommodate multiple ways to have fun. As someone on the periphery of the community looking in wondering about joining more fulsomly, this is the most reasonable and inclusive, thoughtful statement I think I could read. TBH this alone might have me broaden my horizons and play within the community at large. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Feb 20, 2024 23:04:10 GMT -5
Since it was brought up, this is why we don't have a detailed painting judge (for many years me who individually judged each army to a standard set of criteria which was a checklist pretty much identical to the self scoring rubric):
- some people made me want to quit being a T.O. over how I judged their armies. Otherwise reasonable people turned into downright assholes over it. People got pissed off at OTHER PLAYERS who scored higher than them when they felt it was undeserved (even though I was the one doing the judging!) some people NEVER SPOKE TO ME AGAIN (I'm not even kidding) or came back to another tourney.... So then I went to the player checklist self scoring.
.....and this is why we don't have player checklist self scoring:
- cheating. People would score themselves WAY higher than what was warranted. Suddenly we had multiple people having some of the highest paint scores ever, when it wasn't deserved. Then I'm in the uncomfortable position of having to make the final call anyways, leading to pissed off people.
What we had this year is pretty much my last ditch effort to have a best painted competition at clubs. Small group of people, ranked by impartial judges. Some of which know what makes for good painting (I was one of the judges, so was John from Tabletop live, so was Mike who regularly adjudicates the golden brush) some are there for just an objective "this looks coolest" style perspective. In the end the majority of votes wins, and despite all of the differing experiences, the majority came to a consensus.
This works for the vast majority of people. However, I understand some may want more "expert judged" for best army. That is not feasible, or frankly desirable by me to have during a tournament. There's just not enough time in the day to do it to that level, and the amount of headaches it has caused me is just not something I'm willing to revisit.
If someone else wants to run a separate "army on parade" style 40k army painting competition separate from clubs, totally go for it. It's just not worth it for me to do it during clubs, repeat stuff that didn't work, didn't make players happy, and just wreck my weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrmanstory on Feb 20, 2024 23:17:56 GMT -5
For what it’s worth I enjoyed this years style of best painted. I am a tabletop quality painter at best so having to fill out a checklist and see how few points some of my armies I thought looked good scored super low was kinda demoralizing.
Maybe my opinion is worth less since I don’t compete for best painted but I figured it’s worth putting out there either way
|
|
|
|
Post by cmcd on Feb 20, 2024 23:24:03 GMT -5
I like the idea of a On call spot. for last minute drop outs. Maybe who ever is on deck on the waitlist comes in . If they play they play . if they dont, then there is some incentive or thanks (Draw prize Tickets or something to show appreciation or their entry fee is covered ect.
|
|
|
|
Post by evad on Feb 21, 2024 8:05:44 GMT -5
Since it was brought up, this is why we don't have a detailed painting judge (for many years me who individually judged each army to a standard set of criteria which was a checklist pretty much identical to the self scoring rubric): - some people made me want to quit being a T.O. over how I judged their armies. Otherwise reasonable people turned into downright assholes over it. People got pissed off at OTHER PLAYERS who scored higher than them when they felt it was undeserved (even though I was the one doing the judging!) some people NEVER SPOKE TO ME AGAIN (I'm not even kidding) or came back to another tourney.... So then I went to the player checklist self scoring. .....and this is why we don't have player checklist self scoring: - cheating. People would score themselves WAY higher than what was warranted. Suddenly we had multiple people having some of the highest paint scores ever, when it wasn't deserved. Then I'm in the uncomfortable position of having to make the final call anyways, leading to pissed off people. What we had this year is pretty much my last ditch effort to have a best painted competition at clubs. Small group of people, ranked by impartial judges. Some of which know what makes for good painting (I was one of the judges, so was John from Tabletop live, so was Mike who regularly adjudicates the golden brush) some are there for just an objective "this looks coolest" style perspective. In the end the majority of votes wins, and despite all of the differing experiences, the majority came to a consensus. This works for the vast majority of people. However, I understand some may want more "expert judged" for best army. That is not feasible, or frankly desirable by me to have during a tournament. There's just not enough time in the day to do it to that level, and the amount of headaches it has caused me is just not something I'm willing to revisit. If someone else wants to run a separate "army on parade" style 40k army painting competition separate from clubs, totally go for it. It's just not worth it for me to do it during clubs, repeat stuff that didn't work, didn't make players happy, and just wreck my weekend. Shannon I completely understand and empathize with you here. I stopped being a judge at military model shows years ago for this reason. The only sure thing in a contest based upon a judgement, even if it is guided by a rubric, is that someone inevitably gets pissed off. I had a mental rubric in my head to keep me as objective as possible. It was based upon my own experience as a miniature painter (albeit a mediocre one), a student of art history and my experience as a judge at historical model shows. This latter experience was at medium and smaller shows so nothing spectacular-full disclosure. As always, the selection and ranking for the excellently painted armies was VERY DIFFICULT but not without measured consideration on my part. Additionally, I think that a "complete novice" can, and perhaps even should be included as one of the judges. Art is for everyone and often they are the most raw and authentic of judges as they know what appeals to them. Sometimes they can even tip the scales in a deadlocked decision- but this opinion may not be shared by others and I respect that. Ranking objects of quality is always a challenge but I think under the circumstances it was done successfully as a winner selected. It is a testament to the quality of painting in our community that the decision was not an easy one. Dave |
|
|
|
Post by dressedspring1 on Feb 21, 2024 8:13:09 GMT -5
1. What do you think went well this year?
- for whatever reason level of sportsmanship from my opponents was very high, I didn’t have a single game where my opponent sulked or was combative and in each game there felt like there was a mutual drive to ensure both players enjoyed the game.
2. Was there something that particularly made your individual experience better?
- BCP having lists to review ahead of time was a great improvement.
3. What did you think about having tabletop live there?
- thought it was cool, didn’t interact with the stream at all so didn’t have strong feelings either way.
4. Did a fuller incorporation of BCP improve your experience?
- yes. Reviewing lists, finding pairings easily, quick access to standings all were appreciated.
5. Did you like the ability to see lists on BCP before the tournament?
- very much so
6. How did you find signup this year? easier or more confusing? (ie: should it go back to being handled solely by Nexus, not BCP)
- seemed smooth to me. Paid online through nexus’ web site then registered on BCP. Had no problems either way.
7. Do you have any suggestions for how to handle last minute drop outs? (last minute means we cannot get someone off the wait list)
- No. I think no refunds is as good as it can get and sometimes life happens with drops, it’s just a reality of in person events.
8. Is there anything we can do to improve the next one?
- It may not be feasible so it’s not something I’d be upset if it never happened, but I’d love to see the more standardized terrain set ups with l shaped ruins and footprints used. Most of my games were actually pretty fun trying to work around the terrain limitations but I also had a game where I was tabled from my opponents deployment zone which can be disappointing when you’re trying to compete.
Overall though, amazing tournament. Probably the most fun event I’ve done in tenth and a big part of that was that all five of my opponents genuinely brought great attitudes to the table.
|
|
