Soft Score Solutions

I’m sure you’ve all been waiting for me to weigh in on the “Soft Scores in Tournaments” issue, lol. Believe it or not, I actually agree with many points on both sides of the argument.
For those of you who don’t know, a soft score is a player-judged (or sometimes organizer-judged) score added to a player’s battle score to determine overall placement in a tournament. Soft scores are generally ingnored when determining the best general. These scores are generally made up of a Painting score, a Sportsmanship score and (rarely) a Composition score.
So here’s the issue in a nutshell:
PRO-OVERALL: The pro-overall side feels that there’s more to the hobby than just winning games. Assembling, painting, basing and displaying models is a huge part of the game and many players spend as much time preparing their army as they spend playing it. They also feel that sportsmanship is an integral part of any game. The pro-overall side also recognizes that army building (“composition”) is also important, but is decidely less vocal about composition.
Side Note #1: It’s worth stating that very few tournaments award prizes for painting, sportsmanship and composition. There are also very few independent painting competitions that aren’t linked to a tournament. When there are prizes for Best Painted and Best Sportsman, these prizes are usually eclipsed by the prizes awarded to the Best Overall and Best General winners. So although important to the game, Best Painted and Best Sportsman always get the short end of the prize pool.
So the pro-overall player wants the event to reward the best overall player and, to them, ”overall” includes important skills like sportsmanship, painting and army-building.
Side Note #2: It’s also worth saying that unpainted and/or badly based (or badly built) models can actually impact the game. When you are looking across the table at a sea of base-coated models, it’s almost impossible to determine which has an icon or a special weapon. WYSIWIG is pointless when you can’t distinguish model-from-model or unit-from-unit. So we can agree that some level of painting and basing is important to every game.
ANTI-SOFT: The anti-soft score side isn’t saying that painting isn’t important — they want to see painted armies too. And they aren’t saying that sportsmanship isn’t important. They are saying that a tournament is a contest of skill (match-up and luck) and that subjective soft scores are fallible.
Side Note #3: Most of the issue with soft-scores is that they are player-judged. Since players are competing against each other, it behooves every player to attempt to minimize his opponent’s soft score. Even organizer-judged soft-scores are suspect, because they are subjective and often inconsistent.
COMMON GROUND
There’s actually a lot of truth to both sides. Ignoring anecdotal examples, we can all agree that a system that allows a player to secret score his opponent in a competitive tournament is flawed. But we can also all agree that painting and sportsmanship are important parts of the game.
Large tournaments have been evolving the way soft scores work for years. I’m going to use BOLSCON as the latest (and I think the best) example of this evolution.
1) BOLSCON Composition: Like most major tournaments, BOLSCON has eliminated Composition scores. They are just too subjective and feel more like a “handicapping” system than of an integral part of scoring. Instead BOLSCON gave bonus points to players who submitted legal lists in advance of the tournament. So composition shifted from a subjective “well-built” army to an unbiased “legal” army.
Post BOLSCON Thoughts: This was awesome, but way too much work for a major event. I think all of the organizers agree that we’re going to have to find a better solution, like spot checking.
2) BOLSCON Painting: BOLSCON deviated from the Adepticon and GT method of scoring painting and dramatically narrowed the impact of painting on the scoring (and used a single judge to score it). A single judge and rigid scoring criteria made the range of score very narrow. If your army was fully painted and based, then it got 90% of the available painting score. Since painting was only 6% of the overall points available in the tournament and because the overage player got almost all of the painting points, the difference between an top painted army and a basic paint job was only a few points (less than 1% of the total battle points available in the tournament).
Post BOLSCON Thoughts: This worked very well. Painting had almost no impact on placement in the tournament and exceptional armies got a few extra points. There has been some feedback that allowing unpainted armies made the tournament less fun for some participants, so we’ll be looking at the painting scoring critically for next year.
3) BOLSCON Sportsmanship: BOLSCON also had an innovative Sportsmanship scoring mechanism. While it remained player-scored, there was a narrow and rigid range of points you could award. A Bad game scored 2 points, a Good game scored 6 points and a Great game scored 8 points. If you gave a Bad or Great score, you had to justify it to a judge.
Post BOLSCON Thoughts: This worked flawlessly on the first day. We averaged one Bad game per round (usually involving the same player) and we had very few Great games. On the second day, we had more Great games creep in because investigating Great games became a lower priority. We’ll probably look into something similar for the next BOLSCON. I wasn’t 100% happy with the system, but it worked well for a medium-sized tournament.
I feel that BOLSCON had a handle on Composition and Painting. I think the scoring systems will evolve, but overall the results were promising. But we still have Sportsmanship as a potential problem.
POTENTIAL SPORTSMANSHIP SOLUTION
With the risk of another “Mkerr’s Equalizer” thread, I have a model that I’d like to try. If any tournament organizers are reading, I’d love to get your feedback — especially if you try out the system in a local event.
SHARED SPORTSMANSHIP: “Players may score the game as Bad, Good or Great. BOTH players are awarded the lowest score given by EITHER player for the game. Players score no points for a Bad game, and 4 points for a Good and 6 points for a Great game.”
We’re putting a little game theory into practice here and it completely eliminates the problem dinging your opponent to gain an advantage. It also incents both players to do their best to make sure the game is fun.
“If a Bad game is scored, both players will be approached by a judge — if the judge determines that one player is at fault for the Bad game, then the judge may choose adjust the not-at-fault player’s score appropriately. Both players will be notified of the score change.”
Let’s be honest, the fault of most Bad games lies on the shoulder of both opponents. But there are times when one player woke up on the wrong side of the bed and just can’t be nice. We need a mechanism to protect a player that’s trying his best to get along and go along.
“Additionally, a game may not be scored as Great if either opponent is late to the table, if a judge was called to settle an issue, or if the game was not finished before time was called. Any non-Bad game turned in at least 10 minutes before time is called will automatically be scored a Great game.”
This gives the players some guidelines on scoring to encourage players to be on-time, resolve conflicts without help and finish their games. It also encourages players to turn in their results early — this makes scoring and pairing go faster which helps the tournament stay on time.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on my Soft Score Solution! Comments are welcome!