PDA

View Full Version : Request for tournament data on comp vs no comp



Lord Inquisitor
11-02-2012, 00:14
There have been a number of threads on comp recently. I want to test the hypothesis that comp promotes diversity in armies attending. In order to do this, I need data.

I have data on a few tournaments but I'd like more. If possible post the name of the tournament, where it was held (i.e. which country), which comp system was in place (if any - as much detail as possible if it isn't something standard like "ETC") and a link to the final standings (it needs to include which army each player was using). Something like rankings HQ is ideal.

If I can get a dozen or so tournaments with a reasonable number of comp and no comp I can do some stats on it. Cheers!

Duke Ramulots
11-02-2012, 01:13
will any hole in the wall tournement do? Or are you looking only at established ones at well known venues?

Lord Inquisitor
11-02-2012, 05:17
The bigger the better really. Ideally GTs or other large events.

Bodysnatcher
11-02-2012, 10:00
It's quite hard to find the 2010/2011 UK Throne of Skulls results. Does anyone have a link?

Lord Inquisitor
15-02-2012, 17:03
Yeah that'd be a good one. The results must be on Rankings HQ but that is a devil of an interface to search on. I can search for a player and then access the tournament results through that - I can search for me and then use that to pull up the results for any tournament I've been to. (Although if all else fails, that will work. I can work my way down the top players and use them to find big GTs. Not sure that's very random sampling but it'll work.)

In terms of calculating "diversity" I'll use some form of diversity index, and then if we can get a bunch - at least 3 - tournaments roughly the same size of comp and no comp and I can compare their diversity indexes. That can be done for the whole tournaments and the top 10, say.

pointyteeth
15-02-2012, 17:55
Here's a link to the tournament data for Gottacon which was held a couple weeks ago. No comp, no army restrictions besides No Forgeworld Rules.
Linky (http://www.wcp-vancouver.com/Gottacon12Results.php)

When you say diversity, are you meaning a diversity of armies played or a diversity of lists from each army book?

Count Zero
15-02-2012, 17:58
At the Autumn Uk ToS there were 143 players, unfortunately i can't read one of them as the fold in the sheet has worn it away, so from 142 armies there were:

Dwarfs 10
OK 12
Liz 10
DE 14
DoC 18
Beasts 8
WoC 11
Brets 2
HE 10
TK 10
Skaven 9
O&G 9
VC 9
WE 6
Empire 4

Lord Inquisitor
15-02-2012, 18:07
Here's a link to the tournament data for Gottacon which was held a couple weeks ago. No comp, no army restrictions besides No Forgeworld Rules.
Linky (http://www.wcp-vancouver.com/Gottacon12Results.php)

When you say diversity, are you meaning a diversity of armies played or a diversity of lists from each army book?
At this point ONLY armies played. It's going to be far harder to look at intra-list diversity - I'd need lists from every player and some way of categorising them - for the time being just the diversity of armies on the premise that some armies are over/under subscribed and comp alleviates that.

At the Autumn Uk ToS there were 143 players, unfortunately i can't read one of them as the fold in the sheet has worn it away, so from 142 armies there were:

Dwarfs 10
OK 12
Liz 10
DE 14
DoC 18
Beasts 8
WoC 11
Brets 2
HE 10
TK 10
Skaven 9
O&G 9
VC 9
WE 6
Empire 4
Terrific. Zero comp for ToS, correct?

Can you post the top ten armies?

Duke Ramulots
15-02-2012, 18:17
6 WE's and 10 Dwarfs is a good turnout for the older armies. Only 2 Brets is depressing :(

pointyteeth
15-02-2012, 18:28
At this point ONLY armies played. It's going to be far harder to look at intra-list diversity - I'd need lists from every player and some way of categorising them - for the time being just the diversity of armies on the premise that some armies are over/under subscribed and comp alleviates that.

Ok, good to know. I'll make the job of reading the rankings I posted easier and post the army quantities.
Beastmen 1
Brettonians 2
Daemons 6
Dark Elves 4
Dwarves 2
Empire 5
High Elves 3
Lizardmen 3
Ogres 1
Orc & Gobbos 2
Skaven 4
Tomb Kings 1
Vampires 3
Warriors of Chaos 5
Wood Elves 2

1st overall was Warriors, 2nd Daemons, 3rd Ogres, 4th all Gobbo Orcs & Goblins

There are some factors to consider besides comp for what armies are the most popular. At Gottacon, Daemons had the most representation, but after talking to some of them the reason they brought Daemons is not because of no comp, but because they no longer feel bad about playing with Daemons at a tournament since the changes 8th has brought. Most of them had put their Daemon armies in the closet in 7th because of the stigma they got for playing them with the 7th rules.

Hinge01
15-02-2012, 18:52
Of the Indy GT tourney’s I attended in the last year that are on Rankings HQ and have the army listed:

SAWS- Hard comp system designed by TO. You can go to their web site to look over last year’s comp rules.

http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?TournamentId=2141

SoCal Slaughter- Soft Comp determines first two match ups but takes no part of final score for placement.

http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?TournamentId=2496

DaGrand Waagh-No Comp

http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?TournamentId=2554

The Alamo- No Comp

http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?TournamentId=2685

Lonewolf (2012)-No Comp

http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?TournamentId=2922

I am also one of the Organizers of Quake City Rumble, we use a Soft Comp. While our system tends to tone down most (though not all) of the lists, I am not sure it changes what people bring. Though I have never really asked people.

http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?tournamentid=1773


Hope this helps.

Hinge

ewar
15-02-2012, 19:16
At the Autumn Uk ToS there were 143 players, unfortunately i can't read one of them as the fold in the sheet has worn it away, so from 142 armies there were:

Dwarfs 10
OK 12
Liz 10
DE 14
DoC 18
Beasts 8
WoC 11
Brets 2
HE 10
TK 10
Skaven 9
O&G 9
VC 9
WE 6
Empire 4

ToS is no use for this purpose though as it doesn't rank players by score - GWs system only picks a winner, the rest of the players aren't ranked.

LI - take a look in the ETC thread where Snake posted an interesting analysis of the ETC data, which I think he pulled from RHQ.

vorthrax
15-02-2012, 20:58
Bayou Battles (2011)
http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?TournamentId=2599

The only other GTs I've been to are Alamo (2011) and Lone wolf (2012) which Hinge01 has already listed, but I'm not sure if they can be defined as comped or not. They, and Bayou Battles, DO have SOME restrictions, but they are very few and minor.

Feefait
15-02-2012, 21:49
Question on the Ranking HQ stats...

It says:
"The "Average" is simply the average points per game. So an average over 10 means this army on average beats the army in question."

So an army that has an average points per game of 13 would be more likely to beat the army in question? For example Beastmen show an APG of 16 vs Dwarves but only 4 vs Dark elves. So they will, statistically be more likely to lose to DE's and beat Dwarves? This seems strange to me. I can't imagine Dwarves being 'easier' for Beastmen then a lower toughness, less armored army.

But I divulge. I love seeing results and stats. Would love to see this developed. If I am ever in a tourney I'll post. :)

Echunia
15-02-2012, 22:43
Wow, this thread seems really constructive and nice!

I hope you do the top 10 armies diversity. As one of the raging arguments in the ETC thread has been which system gives more competetive diversity. My bet is that it'll be pretty much the same. Good armies are good in both comp and no comp, the builds might be different but that's way to hard to analyse.

Snake1311
16-02-2012, 11:27
There are some factors to consider besides comp for what armies are the most popular. At Gottacon, Daemons had the most representation, but after talking to some of them the reason they brought Daemons is not because of no comp, but because they no longer feel bad about playing with Daemons at a tournament since the changes 8th has brought. Most of them had put their Daemon armies in the closet in 7th because of the stigma they got for playing them with the 7th rules.

Thats dissapointing to hear, because it makes this first batch of results fairly unreliable. Unfortunately, playing nice skews the results, since by doing so you are (presumably) not using your armies to its full, dirtiest capacity. I think for this to be as accurate as possible, it will have to focus on the WAAC crowd.

To achieve this I propose the following:

- Only use the top X players from any tournament, as they are likely to represent the players who went there to win. I wouldn't go with a top X, because tis a static number - 11th out of 150 is very good; 11th out of 20 is meh. I'd recommend a % - the top 20% would be fairly representative, and will give you more than 10 results in the bigger tournies. After all, if little Billy brought [insert top army] to his first tournament and didn't do very well because he's still learning the rules, that doesn't really provide any useful information and should be discarded.

- Remove soft scores whenever possible. For example, a very quick over the Gottacon results reveals the Bret player only made the top 10 due to painting bonuses. This is important, because some armies attract the painters and converters more than others - Brets being a good example.

In terms of comp games, I recommend using ONLY data from the last 2 (8th ed) ETCs.
- It will take like 2 mins to pull off, and its already got the army performance analysis done. I can do this for you if you are struggling with the RHQ interface.
- It will provide a consistant comp pack to compare to - after all, comp differs greatly from place to place, and badly implemented comp can really skew results.
- It represents 30ish teams x 8 players x 6 games x 2 years, so near 3000 games; all more or less WAAC (well, at least on par with top 20% from random tournies anyway). Its closer to a census than a sample really.

Loving the initiative and the tone of the thread, well done so far.

EDIT: Oops, most of these suggestions have to do with analyzing army power more than army diversity. The ETC is probably not the best indicator of diversity, since due to the team format, and important consideration is whether an army brings something unique to the team - like, for example " we need to bring one gunline out of Empire and Dwarfs to drop cannons against big-target heavy armies".

Snake1311
16-02-2012, 11:36
Question on the Ranking HQ stats...

It says:
"The "Average" is simply the average points per game. So an average over 10 means this army on average beats the army in question."

So an army that has an average points per game of 13 would be more likely to beat the army in question? For example Beastmen show an APG of 16 vs Dwarves but only 4 vs Dark elves. So they will, statistically be more likely to lose to DE's and beat Dwarves? This seems strange to me. I can't imagine Dwarves being 'easier' for Beastmen then a lower toughness, less armored army.

But I divulge. I love seeing results and stats. Would love to see this developed. If I am ever in a tourney I'll post. :)

Yep, you've understood correctly. I imagine the Beastmen example you brought forward occurs because a) Dark Elfs with magic buffs are on par or better in combat than unbuffed dawi, and beastmen dispelling is meh, and b) the dark elves have more speed and throwaway units and can delay combat for longer. Beastmen monsters don't get taken much, so the cannons don't have optimal targets. This is just speculation on my part though.

When looking at those numbers, have a look at the game sample - some matchups happened more than others, and ther esults are therefore more reliable. For example, last year Wood Elves were surprisingly the top army; however if oyu look at it you can see the sample size is only 6 games - i.e. ONE wood elf player out of about 240, who happened to do very well. Since its only one guy, its hard to tell whether Woodies are imba (probably not), whether that one guys is a warhammer superhero (possible), or whether everyone in the meta was massively unprepared for a match against WE (very likely).

Echunia
16-02-2012, 14:33
Thats dissapointing to hear, because it makes this first batch of results fairly unreliable. Unfortunately, playing nice skews the results, since by doing so you are (presumably) not using your armies to its full, dirtiest capacity. I think for this to be as accurate as possible, it will have to focus on the WAAC crowd.

To achieve this I propose the following:

- Only use the top X players from any tournament, as they are likely to represent the players who went there to win. I wouldn't go with a top X, because tis a static number - 11th out of 150 is very good; 11th out of 20 is meh. I'd recommend a % - the top 20% would be fairly representative, and will give you more than 10 results in the bigger tournies. After all, if little Billy brought [insert top army] to his first tournament and didn't do very well because he's still learning the rules, that doesn't really provide any useful information and should be discarded.

- Remove soft scores whenever possible. For example, a very quick over the Gottacon results reveals the Bret player only made the top 10 due to painting bonuses. This is important, because some armies attract the painters and converters more than others - Brets being a good example.

In terms of comp games, I recommend using ONLY data from the last 2 (8th ed) ETCs.
- It will take like 2 mins to pull off, and its already got the army performance analysis done. I can do this for you if you are struggling with the RHQ interface.
- It will provide a consistant comp pack to compare to - after all, comp differs greatly from place to place, and badly implemented comp can really skew results.
- It represents 30ish teams x 8 players x 6 games x 2 years, so near 3000 games; all more or less WAAC (well, at least on par with top 20% from random tournies anyway). Its closer to a census than a sample really.

Loving the initiative and the tone of the thread, well done so far.

EDIT: Oops, most of these suggestions have to do with analyzing army power more than army diversity. The ETC is probably not the best indicator of diversity, since due to the team format, and important consideration is whether an army brings something unique to the team - like, for example " we need to bring one gunline out of Empire and Dwarfs to drop cannons against big-target heavy armies".

Totally agree, an uncomped event can still have massive painting / sports scores. For it to be an unbiased analysis we need pure battle points. Also there has only been 1 ETC with the 8th rules. The one right at the beginning of 8th used 7th. Also I agree with your edit that it's not a good indication. But there's plenty of good comped tournaments in the UK like south coast to use.

Mid'ean
16-02-2012, 15:17
I will be attending the Colonial GT here in the New England, US area at the end of March. Here is a link to the rules packet and comp rules. There will be 80 people in the tourney so it will be interesting to see what armies turn up and in what numbers.

http://www.thecolonialgt.com/Colonial2012/ColonialGTTournamentPacket2012.pdf

Main site

http://www.thecolonialgt.com/entry.html

Snake1311
16-02-2012, 15:45
I thought everything in the US was bigger and grand-er, how come you guys can't even hit a 100 people at your GTs? Poor effort :P
/jokes

Good catch on the 2010 ETC still being 7th Ed; I suppose the sample is half of what I thought, so 1500ish games and 250 players. The diversity spread is pretty abysmal, but I doubt it will be any better in uncomped. All thats left to do now is look at around 25-ish uncomped tournies :P.

I'd still say use the ETC even with the team format; otherwise there will be massive inconsistancies because of differences in comp packs. I mean, in one tournie I attended, the model cap was in place, and yet there was no point cap (!?!?!). Queue in the Irongut and Chosen deathstars everywhere; it was bizzarre - even though they might have not necessarily won all the top spots, they definitely upset the metagame balance.

Mid'ean
16-02-2012, 17:15
I thought everything in the US was bigger and grand-er, how come you guys can't even hit a 100 people at your GTs? Poor effort :P
/jokes

Ha!....Well seeing as this is the second location the TO went to cause he ran out of room at the first one and maxed out I think we are doing pretty good.....:p I guess the fun part will be seeing if they can come up with terrain for another 20 tables.......:eek:

Duke Ramulots
16-02-2012, 19:15
I thought everything in the US was bigger and grand-er, how come you guys can't even hit a 100 people at your GTs? Poor effort :P
/jokes

.

The only thing we do bigger is Cars and food(and waistlines, but thats because of the food)...lol

pointyteeth
16-02-2012, 20:07
The only thing we do bigger is Cars and food(and waistlines, but thats because of the food)...lol

and lets not forget roadside attractions in the form of "Worlds Largest...." :D

Mattino
16-02-2012, 20:10
This site might help you:

http://www.tabletopturniere.de

It lists a lot of tournaments from several countries, along with the tournament rules (including comp), the results, which armies participated and so forth.
It also does support english, but maybe not from beginning (you might have to change the settings in the preferences).

Hope this help,
Cheers

Lord Inquisitor
20-02-2012, 18:08
Okay then ... thanks for the replies. Been away at a tournament myself this weekend so I can look through it now.


- Only use the top X players from any tournament, as they are likely to represent the players who went there to win. I wouldn't go with a top X, because tis a static number - 11th out of 150 is very good; 11th out of 20 is meh. I'd recommend a % - the top 20% would be fairly representative, and will give you more than 10 results in the bigger tournies. After all, if little Billy brought to his first tournament and didn't do very well because he's still learning the rules, that doesn't really provide any useful information and should be discarded.
Agreed. Top 20% seems reasonable. I think overall might still be interesting.


- Remove soft scores whenever possible. For example, a very quick over the Gottacon results reveals the Bret player only made the top 10 due to painting bonuses. This is important, because some armies attract the painters and converters more than others - Brets being a good example.
Hmmmm. This is going to be tricky. I'll have a look but Rankings HQ doesn't provide that data AFAIK. I don't think it's [i]necessarily an issue. It really doesn't matter too much if Brets attract good painters as long as they do so equally between comp and no comp. Since that's what we're testing, any biases like that aren't a problem as long as comp and no comp are equally biased. Make sense? Much more problematic would be systematic differences between comp and non comp. Comp tournaments might assign more points for painting, for example, or those with comp scores might assign less (only so many points for soft scores to go around after all). But I think it's reasonable at this point to assume no differences in biases between the two treatment groups (comp and non-comp).


- It will take like 2 mins to pull off, and its already got the army performance analysis done. I can do this for you if you are struggling with the RHQ interface.
- It will provide a consistant comp pack to compare to - after all, comp differs greatly from place to place, and badly implemented comp can really skew results.
- It represents 30ish teams x 8 players x 6 games x 2 years, so near 3000 games; all more or less WAAC (well, at least on par with top 20% from random tournies anyway). Its closer to a census than a sample really.
Okay. Ideally there would be 4 groups - "Really zero comp" (everything goes, inc. all special characters), "Limited restrictions" (no SCs, possibly no double rares but everything else goes), "ETC" (just ETC or similar "hard restrictions") and "comp score" (either comp council or a scoring system). That way we can compare no restrictions, limited restrictions, hard comp and soft comp.



Of the Indy GT tourney’s I attended in the last year that are on Rankings HQ and have the army listed:

SAWS- Hard comp system designed by TO. You can go to their web site to look over last year’s comp rules.

http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?TournamentId=2141

SoCal Slaughter- Soft Comp determines first two match ups but takes no part of final score for placement.

http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?TournamentId=2496

DaGrand Waagh-No Comp

http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?TournamentId=2554

The Alamo- No Comp

http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?TournamentId=2685

Lonewolf (2012)-No Comp

http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?TournamentId=2922

I am also one of the Organizers of Quake City Rumble, we use a Soft Comp. While our system tends to tone down most (though not all) of the lists, I am not sure it changes what people bring. Though I have never really asked people.

http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?tournamentid=1773


Hope this helps.

Hinge
Excellent. When you say "no comp" does that really mean zero comp - are special characters allowed, for example?


This site might help you:

http://www.tabletopturniere.de

It lists a lot of tournaments from several countries, along with the tournament rules (including comp), the results, which armies participated and so forth.
It also does support english, but maybe not from beginning (you might have to change the settings in the preferences).

Hope this help,
Cheers
Thanks. I speak a little german so I should be able to manage.

Hinge01
21-02-2012, 19:15
Lord Inquisitor-

The "no comp" tourneys I listed usually allowed the SC from the new books and Hero lvl only SC from the old. No other comp rules generally, though my understanding is a particuarlly brutal list mey get a "are you sure you want to take that list?" e-mail from the TO.

Snake1311
22-02-2012, 11:44
Lord Inquisitor-

The "no comp" tourneys I listed usually allowed the SC from the new books and Hero lvl only SC from the old. No other comp rules generally, though my understanding is a particuarlly brutal list mey get a "are you sure you want to take that list?" e-mail from the TO.

This is what amuses me with "no-comp" tournies - they fact that they all do actually have comp, and that its just as aribitary as the heavy comp packs :D (in this scenario for example, Skulltaker and the Masque will be there in almost every DoC army).

Do truly uncomped tournaments even exist on a large scale, or are all the trolls in the ETC thread just kicking up a fuss because they don't like the pack? The difference between very soft and very heavy comp is only in where exactly you draw the line - but its the same idea in principle.

Defining your categories might be more challenging than you initially thought.

Bodysnatcher
22-02-2012, 18:45
Skulltaker and the Masque don't seem to be anywhere near as popular in 8th as they were in 7th.

Lord Inquisitor
22-02-2012, 19:18
I've started crunching the numbers. Urgh, this is going to take a while.

Okay how do you guys search for specific tournaments on rankings HQ? I'm going to have to hand in my geek card but it's only letting me search players or clubs.

I'm in the need of:

True zero-comp tournaments. Anyone know of any sizable ones? All I know of is Ard Boyz but that's so different in format I'm hesitant to use it.
Soft score tournaments. There's that fancy (Swedish?) comp score system. Anyone know of any big tournaments that use it?

Hinge01
23-02-2012, 05:45
Go to rankings page and you will see 4 tabs (Player Rankings, Club Rankings, Army Rankings, Tourney Rankings). The Tourney rankings tab shows all tournaments posted during the last twelve months. It is sorted by date and does not give much info, so it may take a while to research.

Looking over the top ten players for the US, you have strong representation from Texas, then Northern California (though they travel to texas as well) and a couple from the North East. Clicking through their profiles, you will see the tournies they atended and how many attended each one. Might also be a good place to start.

PM me about specific data points you want for the Quake City Rumble (101 players, soft comp) and I can pull my spread sheet and see if I can put something together for you. I can also answer any specific comp questions you may have on the tournies I attended (5 with at least 50+ players).

Hinge

Tomalock
23-02-2012, 06:15
One thing to point out about Quake City Rumble is that they keep their comp system hidden. Unless you are a member of their club you have no idea what your score will be until you arrive and ask for it at check in. We have a good sized group go from Reno every year and none of them bother tailoring their lists towards the comp system anymore, after years of attending, because the same list will score differently each year. Unlike the Contest of Champions year long tournament series in Sacramento, where the comp system is very specific and each hit is associated with a specific value of lost comp points, at QRC everyone I know that goes just builds the list they want to play and ignores the secret comp. I personally prefer no comp tourneys (like the 2011 Bay Area Open GT), but I would probably lump the secret comp tourneys like QRC into the same catigory for the purposes of this study because they both have a similar method of preparation by attendees in my experience.


EDIT: I want to point out that I am not attacking QCR. I had a great time last year and would attend again in a heartbeat if I wasn't Relocating to the other side of the country for a couple years thanks to the army. I only caution the author about lumping it with other comped tourneys because none of our group seriously considers the hidden comp when choosing what to attend with.

Hinge01
23-02-2012, 16:15
The Comp is not secret, It is a judge based system. Since the judges, edition and armies have changed over the years, there likely is a little variance from one year to the next for the same army.

The judging is finaled the week before the tourney and Ld2 members that are playing were not involved the last year and going forward (though the lists were blind and they could not judge their own previously. Last year was the first year we had enough people who opted out of the of the tourney). So at best, they found out the week before.

There are participants who will send their list prior to submission for an opinion, which I give (though I am only one judge), so I know people think about it. You are correct that there is a segment of people who do not care. Look at Ld2. Every year their are two or three that have the lowest comp in the tourney because they don't care. I would say the system fosters more extremes. The people bringing the pain are still going to bring it while others really attemept to soften their lists.

Finally, I think the difference between the two tournys that you mention is what I call soft comp v. hard comp. Soft being a judge based system and hard being a specific published "point" or "checklist" style (ETC, SAWS). Both have advantanges and disadvantages. I am happy to argue the merits of both but do not want to derail this thread.

Tomalock-

I am pretty sure you have posted that you have had a great time at past QCRs on this very forum, so I know you are supportive of QCR as a whole. For that I thank you and am not offended at some criticism leveled at a specific aspect. If we hear enough of it, we may very well change. We are changing how Sports is handled this year because of player feedback. Our goal is to continue to provide a great tournament on the west coast. Once again, we sold out in thirty days, so I think we are doing a good job.

Bummer that you are not making it this year. Hopefully you can make a future QCR. We will keep the beer cold for you!

Hinge

Lord Inquisitor
23-02-2012, 18:22
Just to clear up something, there seems to be a difference in terminology. When someone says "Hard comp" I'm thinking something that has restrictions - so, no units above 40, no special characters, steam tanks 0-1 etc. "Soft comp" I would regard anything that gives you a comp score so nothing is banned but you are penalised in your score for powerful combos. So both scores assigned by a specific pre-defined system (what I would call a "comp score system" or "objective scoring system") and a judge panel assigning a score ("comp council" or "subjective scoring system") would be "soft comp" to me.

I don't see any real distinction between knowing what your soft comp score is before or not. I've tried out both kinds of soft comp and even with a comp council where you don't know what your score will be, you still have an incentive to make your list look as fluffy as possible and people make real concessions to try and up their comp score. Now, this is a lot more about internal balance than external but I think it's okay to lump them together. We can still parse things out later and examine the two kinds of soft comp if desired.

Lord Inquisitor
23-02-2012, 18:34
(like the 2011 Bay Area Open GT)
I can't find their tournament rules online. Was this true zero comp (Teclis and Kairos allowed?)

Lord Inquisitor
23-02-2012, 18:52
I was looking to include touranments with the Swedish comp score system (soft comp, objective). I can't find any on Rankings HQ. Anyone know of any?

Hinge01
23-02-2012, 21:44
To be honest, there is almost no large indy GTs that do not have some restriction on SC. Teclis being the most common/universal. I am not familar with the Swedish sytem.

Lord Inquisitor
23-02-2012, 22:07
Okay then I have 3 tournaments for each comp category. A little pathetic but I can run the numbers and see if we see anything with a bare bones sample size.

So far I have:

Zero Comp:
North American Throne of Skulls
Bay Area Open
Merry Meyhem

Min Comp:
Lone Wolf GT
DaGraandWaagh
SoCal Slaughter
SAWS Challenge

Soft Comp:
Quake City Rumble
Southern Assault GT
Bayou Battles

Hard Comp:
Colonial GT
Border Raids (this one might be excluded because really extreme comp but I'll leave it in for now).
Niederrhein Cup

I'll crunch the numbers tomorrow if I have time. I'm going to assign each tournament a Shannon Weaver diversity index number for the whole tournaemnt and for the top %. I think I'll start with the top 50% of each tournament as the tournament sizes are a bit low for some of them.

Hinge01
24-02-2012, 00:00
As an avid tourney player, I will be interested in the results.

kramplarv
24-02-2012, 00:29
I was looking to include touranments with the Swedish comp score system (soft comp, objective). I can't find any on Rankings HQ. Anyone know of any?

Most of the swedish tournaments are not listed there. :)
this is the Swedish comp score system.

http://forum.sverok.se/download/file.php?id=2736

different tournaments have different point sizes and objectives, which may influent the results. If you want to have the results and army lists from Swedish tournaments you have to
mail the organizers. register yourself here http://swfbr.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=idx and ask for it. :) The site is in swedish, but google translate will translate it with understandable english.

shay
27-02-2012, 19:05
Some recent swedish tournament results (note: most of these use the swedish comp system which you can read about here http://forum.sverok.se/download/file.php?id=2709 ). If another comp-system is used I'll try to note that below. The pages are obviously in swedish but that shouldn't be a problem as the results are kind of obvious :) Points for painting and sportsmanship can affect the end-results; if you want to just get the results based on the battles as such, look for the column "poäng" ("points" in swedish) which shows the unmodified result from the games.

QFA nov 2011 results: http://swfbr.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4241 - swedish comp
Slättaslaget jan 2012: http://swfbr.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4345 (scroll down just a little bit in the first post) - swedish comp
Lincon 2011 results: http://swfbr.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3808 (more or less ETC- restrictions; see here for more info in english http://swfbr.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3656 )
Gothcon 2011 results http://swfbr.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3685 (as above, but only 2000 points)
Gates of Westridge 2011: post #10 in this thread shows what people played http://swfbr.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3997 (used swedish comp)

There are several more tournaments in sweden but these are the ones where theres easily available on what armies people played. Some tournaments also differ to much from the normal way to play Warhammer to be of interest for your collecting of data (for example, team-tournaments or play-two-armies-at-the-same-time- events).

Hope this is of any help!

Lord Inquisitor
27-02-2012, 19:31
Thanks shay!

I'll dump these in after I've crunched the first set. I'm quite interested in the swedish comp.