2010 Warhammer 40K Team Tournament Survey Results

by AdeptiCon 2011 Staff on 9/02/2010

Below you will find the results of the AdeptiCon 2010 Warhammer 40K Team Tournament survey. The survey was generally aimed at gathering information regarding the team event; however there are some additional questions concerning Warhammer 40K, tournaments in general and other aspects of the convention at the bottom.

How was this data used? Like any customer satisfaction survey, the goals were to gather concerns, feedback, criticism and praise for the Warhammer 40K Team Tournament. This data was then used to inform a number of changes to the event rules and mission structure for 2011. A copy of the 2011 Warhammer 40K Team Tournament draft rules can be found here.

A total of 314 people responded to the questions below. This won't necessarily be pretty, I'll try to reformat it when I have some time.

SD = Strongly Disagree; MD = Moderately Disagree; U = Undecided
MA = Moderately Agree; SA = Strongly Agree

TEAM TOURNAMENT QUESTIONSSDMDUMASA
I enjoyed the Team Tournament as a whole (including rules, missions, opponents, registration process, rules/painting judge interaction, etc).
0%
3%
1%
36%
60%
My team spent a substantial amount of time preparing for the event (modeling, painting, list-building, practice games, display base, Team Spirit items, etc).
2%
5%
8%
31%
54%
I found the missions to be overly complicated and difficult to understand.
22%
22%
36%
16%
4%
I enjoyed the added Command Counter mechanic.
7%
9%
20%
35%
29%
I found the interaction between special rules, Command Counters, objectives and tactical bonuses forced us to make some difficult decisions and work as a team.
4%
7%
19%
41%
29%
I found the Floor Judges to be knowledgeable and prompt in resolving issues.
3%
3%
29%
18%
47%
Even with 110 teams/440 players, the event ran smoothly and on time.
0%
2%
1%
17%
80%
I enjoy the limited inclusion of some Forge World units in the Team Tournament.
28%
8%
24%
13%
27%
I would prefer 2-person Teams for the Team Tournament.
53%
11%
16%
11%
9%
GENERAL WARHAMMER 40K and CONVENTION QUESTIONS
I think Composition scoring should be included in most Warhammer 40K events.
18%
9%
19%
19%
35%
I think Sportsmanship scoring should be included in most Warhammer 40K events.
6%
3%
10%
24%
55%
I feel that cheating (rules abuse, abuse of soft scoring, weighted dice, etc) is rampant within the Warhammer 40K tournament community and something needs to be done to remedy it.
20%
35%
23%
14%
8%
I would be willing to pay an additional $2-$5 for my Weekend Badge if AdeptiCon provided a brick of approved standardized dice to all attendees and required them to be used in all tournaments.
20%
12%
13%
18%
37%
I am in favor of an Overall award that is based on total points earned across all categories.
3%
3%
13%
25%
56%
I found the Warhammer 40K terrain to be playable and of high quality.
1%
4%
5%
35%
55%
I am in favor of a document like the INAT FAQ being in use at AdeptiCon, even though I may not agree with some of the rulings contained therein.
4%
5%
11%
24%
56%
I would like to see the Gladiator Tournament become a standard Apocalypse-style event.
35%
6%
32%
11%
16%
I would like to see a more purely competitive-oriented event at AdeptiCon (no soft scores, no Imperial Armour rules, standard missions, etc) to replace the Gladiator Tournament.
35%
9%
29%
9%
18%
SDMDUMASA


Comments Addendum
  • I would like the Team Tournament to be 6 games over 2 days.
  • Too many Space Puppies!!!
  • I think the use of the scoresheets should be better explained. Two teams we played were not sure which sheet to mark for Sportsmanship.
  • More comprehensive composition scoring would be nice. 1-5 points perhaps.
  • Need more Line of Sight blocking terrain in the middle of the boards.
  • Still use AdeptiCon unique missions. Screw the ones in the book!
  • Need more seating. Maybe a little bit more spread out to alleviate crowding.
  • Always not enough time vs. points values. Games rarely finish completely.
  • Don't change the Gladiator!!!
  • Thanks!
  • Paint judge was excessively rude.
  • Please review unique characters and make taking them consistent in all armies.
  • Maybe a later start time with shorter breaks?
  • Not a fan of Forge World. Too expensive!
  • No to Imperial Armour. Not balanced.
  • I would like to see a Player's Choice award for Team Theme and/or Team Spirit.
  • Disagree with Imperial Armour. Apocalypse oriented. Points not balanced.
  • Excellent event. AdeptiCon sets the bar.
  • Where was Forge World? Also, have you any cheese 'n crackers? I am very hungry.
  • Very great event again! Thanks for the hard work!
  • Less Imperial Guard Chimeras in army lists.
  • Fantastic job! Thank you so much for all your time and effort!
  • Very much appreciate all the work put into making this such an amazing event!
  • More terrain.
  • Random pairings? We played friends first round.
  • More chairs please. Thank you for hosting a VERY fun event.
  • Some rules in the INAT need revisions.
  • Thanks again for another amazing tournament. You all do a great job. Very much appreciated.
  • Forge World stuff is kind of BS and bogs down games. A no holds barred, no comp tournament would give a true competition.
  • HATE the GW modular boards.
  • Gladiator has been taken over by Forge World/single, powerful units.
  • No comp!!!
  • You should supply craters!!!
  • More battlefield objectives, less focus on getting/rewarding massacres.
  • Avoid inventing rules in INAT FAQ.
  • I don't know about the total number of Imperial Guard Chimeras in a single army list...
  • Thanks for an awesome event!
  • Thank you again you guys. And I love you.
  • 2500 point 'Ard Boys style event instead of 2250 super heavy spam like Gladiator.
  • You guys rock! Keep up the good work!
  • Army Builder with details would save the time asking about powers I am not familiar with.
  • I like the Gladiator. One of the few times I can play with my big stuff.
  • Frankly, I think the INAT FAQ makes the 40K game playable. Without, the game would be unplayable in a tournament setting. If I were GW, I would be ashamed at the poor clarity of my product. In order for it to be playable an outside source must to this work. Nice job.
  • Rules for flyers were unclear. No comp.
  • No comp!!
  • Include APOC data sheets.
  • Awesome time - except when playing against drunks.
  • I would have preferred if the floor judge (or someone) would periodically reset the terrain on each table - especially since display boards usually force them to move.
  • Taller terrain - need LOS blockage.
  • Dreadnought Drop pod is BAD.
  • Count as models really need to "count as the model". Rules for this are too vague and needs better enforcement of people who abuse this.
  • Boards need more LOS blocking terrain features.
  • More chairs and places to put armies if you do not have a cart or a stand.
  • Great tournamnet. Forge World is mostly cool, but occasionally leads to abuse. Matthias hit on my mom.
  • Don't use the loud speaker when games are being played except for time warnings.
  • Track wipeouts on scoresheets. If people can reliably win games with max points WITHOUT wiping out theirIt's OK for Vulcan, Tigiurius, Shrike and Pedro to be in an army, but it's not OK for Hybrids to take Snikrot and the Changling? I don't get it. opponent, then the missions aren't too complex.
  • Rounds should be three hours with an hour break between rounds three and four.
  • The first two games were horrible. Abusive opponents and lots of roles contention. Last two games redeemed the tournament completely.
  • Need more floor judges to be stationed around the hall.
  • The all-tree table had too much terrain. I like Imperial Armour units. Dislike soft scores.
  • Tired of fighting the same armies time after time. Please bring back the Favored Opponent vote for everything.
  • Good job!
  • The judges seemed overly disfavorable to Hybrid teams. If the judge's are going to not mark Hybrid teams the same, then you should not allow them. Is this a convention where you can play with your friends, or is this another very subjective event loosely defined by a few?
  • Don't include Imperial Armor.
  • Thank you!!!
  • Question for the INAT FAQ/rules for next year: Clarify exactly how Bjorn's rule that makes him an objective interacts with the mission scenarios.
  • Kris is Kool.
  • I love you [something illegible]!!!
  • Mission were not complicated - more like fin!
  • Make the Gladiator an APOC event! I want to play in it now!
  • That Chris guy that was running the tournament is a hottie, like really. I would do sooooo many things to him, although [a bunch of X-rated stuff follows...]

Categories: --|--

41 comments »:

  1. Please don't tell me you guys are thinking of forcing chessex dice cubes on us.

    Tanks will rule the day even more than they do now. ><

    (and yes that's the main thing I took away from the survey) :)
    ReplyDelete
  2. No decision has been made in terms of dice at this time.
    ReplyDelete
  3. It would be a shame to have dice forced. I've seen several teams make thematic dice as part of their display (one year I was even given a few Inquisition dice from one of the teams). As partial disclosure, we were planning on making thematic dice this year as well....

    When are you planning on making the call on dice?

    Cheers
    ReplyDelete
  4. First off, I have to applaud you guys for doing this survey. I think that gathering more data like this is a good idea and helps to identify what the community wants.

    Specifically, I think that the question concerning comp is very interesting. While there are a number of outspoken critics of comp, there does seem to be a bit of a demand for it. That said, it is entirely possible that the respondents are skewed to that aspect of the hobby.

    I'd be interested in seeing a similar survey for the next con with data points spread across the different attendees. I think it would help design specific events aimed towards specific interests. If you need help crunching numbers,I can lend a hand.
    ReplyDelete
  5. @Crispy - Thanks! Most importantly, the survey was meant to get a feel for what actual AdeptiCon attendees wanted. Granted they are small subset of the larger community, but they are our #1 priority.

    We had a year or so of good, constructive feedback and we were wondering how it would shake out at the event. In the past we have done more generic surveys of the attendee base, but nothing this specific in regards to an event or game system.

    The comp question in regards to 40K is a strange one. Being an event that really hasn't had comp in a 40K event in years, I really thought that would go the other way.

    Definitely interested in more surveys of this nature in the future. Anything in particular you'd like to see? I think a survey aimed at WFB this year is in order for sure.
    ReplyDelete
  6. Ok, so don't take this the wrong way but I think this survey is pretty useless to be honest. At least for other 40k events.

    It was taken during a very Hobbyist centric event that is much more about kicking back and playing some games with friends while showing off your pretty army. Yes I know there's a competition, but correct me if I am wrong, its a much more casual event then something like the 40k championships.

    Anyways, that being said, it really shows through the survey. Many of the questions are answered the way a stereotypical hobbyist would answer. Comp, sportsmanship scores, liking the inat faq solely because it stops arguments ect ect.

    So sadly, I just don't think the information you got translates to other events very well.
    ReplyDelete
  7. @Timmah - It's not meant to have any significance outside AdeptiCon. We are polling our attendees on our events. Period.

    AdeptiCon attendees and attendee feedback is our #1 concern when making adjustments to the convention. Does that mean we don't look outside the event? Of course not, the Championships is proof of that, but like I have said elsewhere - attendee feedback is what will ultimately drive this event.

    You are reading your own intentions into the purpose of this survey.
    ReplyDelete
  8. Wow, all the good information in that survey from over 300 players of that event and we are talking about dice. : )

    *IF* and this is a big *IF* we provide dice it would be part of the AdeptiCon Swag Bag. The opportunity for a dice company to provide dice or someone to provide custom dice in the swag bag exists. If we can work that out we will. That said, while there might be some tweaks to our dice policy from last year:

    Dice: AdeptiCon does not require the use any specific type of dice, however your dice must ALWAYS be made available to your opponent to use if they so desire. AdeptiCon reserves the right to remove any dice showing excessive wear, obvious tampering or other questionable deformities.

    I don’t see us “forcing” people to use a standard set of dice either supplied in the swag bag or table provided. Feels a bit to “Police State” to me. But a player should always have the option of questioning the dice in use and asking for his opponent to roll a common pool of dice. Might be a good option for the final 16 at the Championship to provide dice and that is something to consider.

    I’ve played more games than I can count or remember in my wargaming career. The number of times I’ve actually thought someone was attempting to “dice cheat me” have been extremely rare.. Generally those instances have had more to do with the method of rolling the dice than the actual dice themselves. There exists some good information about gaming dice. Yes I’ve watched and read the “Game Science” dice stuff and other media that is available. It’s interesting stuff.

    @AgeofEgos - A word of warning on custom dice… while I totally get it and I like custom dice as a memento from an event , a gift to your opponents or for “taskers” for damage or turn markers. I will say that full sets of custom dice can be problematic and not from a results standpoint. I generally think they roll “within” acceptable levels and in line with other commercially available dice. But, because you are replacing a face side with an unfamiliar symbol it creates a “perception” problem for some opponents and those are the sides stand out more in your opponents mind. Put the symbol on the 1 perception of those dice will be they roll cold. Put the symbol on the 6 perception will be they roll hot. When the truth is most likely they roll the same.
    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. I should have just said.

    Taking a survey during a very hobby centric event, (you guys agree that the team tournament is much more an all encompassing hobby event than a WAAC tournament right) is going to skew your survey results a bit.

    When I say it doesn't translate into other events, I mean it doesn't translate well into other adepticon events. Unless you are making them of the same nature of the team tournament.

    Obviously this is just my opinion and I have never been to adepticon so I could be way off in my assumptions.
    ReplyDelete
  10. @Hank
    On the dice subject. I think people would be happy if you asked everyone to only use 1 type of dice. You can bring whatever dice you want but make sure they are all the same manufacturer/size/type ect.

    Maybe this is a bit too totalitarian but it could be an easier way of making everyone happy and not feel like got gamed by dice. (pulling out the small dice for leadership rolls and such)
    ReplyDelete
  11. The thought of including the survey during the Team Tournament is this:

    We had 436 40K players in the event. The same pool of players make up the majority of attendance in other events. And to restate:

    The survey was generally aimed at gathering information regarding the team event; however there are some additional questions concerning Warhammer 40K, tournaments in general and other aspects of the convention at the bottom.
    ReplyDelete
  12. @Timmah – Last year was the first year of a full blown Team Tourney Event Survey. We choose that event for the survey because it was the largest event at AdeptiCon and to test the water. We also did a more general demographic raffle survey last year but are looking at more effective ways to get feedback. We expect this will expand and do similar focused surveys for a number of events at AdeptiCon. Things like the Hobby Seminars, Warhammer Fantasy Events, Flames of War events. Ideally we would like to include one for every event but it is always a fine balance of staff resources.

    But, I also would not totally discount the results, it is a good gauge of how we are doing running that particular event and the majority of that group plays in other 40K events throughout the weekend.

    I think the Comp question can be explained by this:
    The “idea” of “Comp” is not where most people have issues. It is the systems of enforcing “Comp” that are problematic. Most people if some 100% completely fair system for applying “Comp” existed and everyone could come to agreement would be all for it. It’s just that system doesn’t exist and there in is the issue..
    ReplyDelete
  13. @Timmah - That might be a good tweak to the dice policy and certainly something to discuss.

    I once played a guy that had blocks of dice that looked like some tie-dyed hippie from the 70's. No one dice in that block was the same. In fact he told me that his friends had all given him dice. He sort of collected dice from his opponents. There was a story to every single one this guy had and he would tell it as each one had a purpose. Recounting failed checks or valiant last stands. It was surreal. Course I also suspected that he was using some recreational "performance enhancing" substances. It was also a huge time waster as I had to wait while he dug out his *lucky* dice for this roll or that. Didn't help him roll any better, and he lost, but was certainly entertaining.
    ReplyDelete
  14. It's great data with a great subset of the gaming enthusiasts.

    Hard to say an event is anything but successful that has this amount of feedback and the fact that the TO's take it an work to make a great event even better.

    Keep on doing what you guys are doing - Adepticon is still the pinnacle of 40K gaming geekdom as far as myself and many are concerned.

    Jobz a gud un!

    BNB Revenge of the Smurfs will be back again this year for the team tourney! Third times the charm!
    ReplyDelete
  15. Fair enough. Totally discounted, no. Realize the because of who it was taken by and when it was taken, that it might be skewed slight, yes. If you had run it during the gladiator event or the 40k championship even I would be you would get slightly different results that reflected what those events were about.


    I do however disagree with you on comp. I don't think there should ever be comp. Ever, no matter how fair. I think you should take the game as given to us and not try and fix/balance/tweak it yourself. Which is why I have such a problem with the inat faq.
    ReplyDelete
  16. This survey provides good information, as long as it is used carefully. Matthias, one point I would like to make which I think is VERY valid even considering how you want to use the data -

    You say that you are only concerned about attendees at Adepticon, because that is your target audience. Great, but shouldn't you also be equally concerned with the potential future attendees of Adepticon?

    That is why you should take the survey results with a grain of salt. You ask a bunch of people who have already chosen to attend an event whether it's the type of event they enjoy (yes this is an oversimplification but you get the point).

    Now, you need to ask the people who chose NOT to attend the event WHY they didn't and what kind of event THEY would enjoy. See where I'm going?

    Finally, I'm a bit confused about the last question, are you asking the attendees whether they would like a more "competitive" TEAM event to replace the Gladiator?
    ReplyDelete
  17. @Purgatus - Point taken, but I think people are misreading this data. I am saying that this survey is interested in what AdeptiCon 40K attendees like/dislike about this event. Period. We have not used this data in regards to an event like the Championships...in fact the changes to that event are 180 degrees from this feedback in many ways.

    I am not claiming it has any merit outside the team event at all. That info was used to make some changes to the Team Tournament draft rules, which can be found here: http://www.adepticon.org. That was the main the purpose. It wasn't about propping the event up on itself as much as it was about fine tuning the event based on feedback from people that were actually there and experienced it.

    Of course we are concerned about new attendees. Part of that survey was an attempt to judge the complexity of missions and rules and how it relates to newer players. 99% of the Championships changes are inspired by/influenced by outside sources and people who have never attended. If we stuck to that survey, the Championships would not be changing at all...

    The final question was perhaps a bit hastily worded. Basically we were attempting to see if people wanted the Gladiator to become what the Championships have in a way, although there is plenty of room for both. It wasn't meant to imply a competitive Team event.
    ReplyDelete
  18. @Matthias - That's great. ALL data is good data, as long as you are careful about understanding what it really is. This represents the opinions of the attendees of a specific event, that chose to respond to the survey. Given that, I think it's great and actually from a non-Adepticon viewpoint is still USEFUL (though again, I understand you don't care as much about that).

    It makes me wish we had a good method of gathering this kind of data on a wider scale which would not be plagued by self-selection bias...
    ReplyDelete
  19. It's the largest data point I know of collected at an actual event by the attendee's of the event.

    No place else do we have real data about what the gaming community enjoys in tournaments from people that attend tournaments.
    ReplyDelete
  20. I think perhaps some of the more competitive minded are jumping on the data simply because if someone reads it who doesn't understand that it is not representative of the 40k community at large, they may use it to justify the diminishing or elimination of competitive events. I think if you had disclaimered it a bit when posting it would have prevented some of that angst.

    I am a very pro-competitive person, but it doesn't stress me out because of the very things we just discussed.

    For your purposes, I would think that the best sources of information moving forward would be the that standard dice would be appreciated, and that even attendees of your team event are split on the inclusion of Forge World.
    ReplyDelete
  21. I added a little bit of explanation to the actual post - I can see where the intentions of this survey were perhaps not clearly presented. I should have stated just what this data influences in regards to the convention at large - my mistake. I spent far too much time trying to get clean HTML out of MS Word and was rushed when I got around to posting.

    I also haven't gotten around to posting the Team Tweaks article...because I haven't gotten around to posting part 3 of the Championships...so I guess I also forgot the link to the draft rules!
    ReplyDelete
  23. FWIW I did not have the impression this data was being used to push a point.

    It's merely data.

    Timmah and Purgatus have points, so do Hank and Matthias.

    I think the information here is interesting, not in determining anything, but simply in seeing who attends your team tournament event and what the motivations for many of them are.

    Other than that, I don't think we can read minds based off of a survey.

    The only portion I would 'use' here would be 40% of your attendees did not 'strongly agree' they enjoyed the team tournament as a whole.

    Often in such surveys, you have a field for comments. Was there such a field? Were there comments actually left, so you could get a feel for what made so many people happy and so many not-as-happy? Did you break them down into winning teams loved the event, and losers didn't (sour grapes?) or anything like that? That's the information I'd want to see--because in my own experience, I don't give someone a maximum rating unless they earned it. So I'd really like to know if these were new people, or repeat attendes, you know, all the unknown and probably unknowable variables to gauge what someone thought of an event.

    You have lots of staff, maybe someone knows someone who does marketing or polls, could help you do an exit poll for free (interns) for school credit or cheap (friend of a friend, favors etc)?

    Just some ideas, collecting data is great. Getting a third party to identify the correct questions to ask would probably be more useful to you than getting answers to questions you want answered--as I have learned myself, getting your own questions answered often leads to bias for you. Getting to the true questions is something you often cannot do yourself, and getting those 'right' questions identified and answered in yes/no format would probably get you more insight into your events. People are wishy-washy, thus the 'yes/no' rather than the 'subjective'. Hell, even the asking of questions later can have a huge impact on what people really say--many people won't want to criticize right when an event is ending.

    Just my 2 cents.
    ReplyDelete
  24. I am perfectly happy with 96% of the people agreeing in some fashion they had a good time. The 36% that moderately agreed were also people that had issues with FW/IA units or felt the missions were too complex. There is a direct correlation there and it was pretty easy to see what the motivating factors for not circling 5 were. Those issue are being addressed (see 2011 TT rules draft), but the fact that they still had a good time is telling in and of itself.

    Yes, there was a comment field. Most of the additional comments were: Chris is cool. I want to have Matt's baby. F*ck IA. F*ck FW. That said, there is some additional useful stuff in there. It will take me a little to transcribe, but I will add it as an addendum to this post after Labor Day.
    ReplyDelete
  25. *Screen shot*

    Stelek and Matthias exchange critique/response. No feelings or bones were broken. News at 11:00. ;D
    ReplyDelete
  26. @Hank

    Cheers for the information Hank. I agree about custom dice...perception and confirmation bias can add up.
    ReplyDelete
  27. I find it odd (/concerning?) that 47% Strongly Agreed about Judges being great...was this primarily being supportive of the event/being supportive of INAT, or were judges actually being used that much in the Team Tournament? I would expect judges to be called upon LESS in that event, IA rules or no.
    ReplyDelete
  28. That figure has no bearing on the direct number of times a judge was called to a specific table nor does it solely involve rules disputes. It is more of an overall measurement involving announcements, mission clarifications, paint/theme judging, results collections, rules disputes and the like.
    ReplyDelete
  29. Okay, that makes sense - though I admit I wouldn't consider a Judge 'great' myself if they hadn't actively done something (I considered) to warrant it.
    ReplyDelete
  30. "Rhysk"

    These are the types of things that I take away from this survey:

    1.) 96% of peole enjoyed the event, but 40% would need to see some improvements to strongly agree. So we continue to head in the right direction but can still improve.

    2.) 20% felt the missions were to complex, with no majority response. My interpretation, missions were a somewhat overly complex. Something to consider when drafting for 2011. While 7 out of 10 teams felt the mission felt the different interactions of the missions forced them to work as a team, which was the point.

    3.) The judges got a 65% approval rating, not bad. 29% didn't have a measurable response. Only 6% of the responding population were disappointed by the judges in some fashion. I'll take it.

    I could go on for every question but this is the type of analysis we did with the survey. We aren't trying to re-write peoples opinions of 40K, we are looking for successes and opportunities for the event.

    Hope this helps to clarify what Mathias was saying when he posted this.

    Regards,

    Chris

    3.)
    ReplyDelete
  31. I think the point 'some' might make to that, KillerCBR, is that you should LOOK for 'failures' not for 'successes', and work on those as a priority.

    Never having run an event, I can't say what I would do - but I think I would be looking for failure, if for no other reason than I could do it much more objectively than I could look for success. Self-praise is no praise, that's my motto!

    Well, it isn't, but it could work as one.
    ReplyDelete
  32. @TKE - Aside from disagreeing at what level you discern 'failures' or 'successes', this is exactly what we have done.

    To restate: How was this data used? Like any customer satisfaction survey, the goals were to gather concerns, feedback, criticism and praise for the Warhammer 40K Team Tournament. This data was then used to inform a number of changes to the event rules and mission structure for 2011.
    ReplyDelete
  33. Weird poll. 314 people?

    1,3,4,6,8
    16,18,18,20,20,
    35,35,35,
    55,55,56,56

    That's the frequency distribution on the SA/SD in the second poll. Did you check your excel file to see if you did something silly with a rounding command? I can honestly say that it looks like someone rounded where they really, really shouldn't have.
    ReplyDelete
  34. Except that is not the frequency distribution. The numbers above are expressed by the relative frequency distribution with the individual distributions for each question converted to their percentage equivalent.

    For example the final question had a frequency distribution of:
    SD 110 (RFD of 110/314 = .3503 * 100 = 35%)
    MD 28 (RFD of 28/314 = .0891 * 100 = 9%)
    U 92 (RFD of 92/314 = .2929 * 100 = 29%)
    MA 28 (RFD of 28/314 = .0891 * 100 = 9%)
    SA 56 (RFD of 56/314 = .1783 * 100 = 18%)
    ReplyDelete
  35. I wasn't saying anything *was* a failure - just that I think *I* would look for things I considered a failure if I ran it - for instance, if 40% of people didn't like FW rules in the event (as is the case) my initial thought would be to drop them completely, and, flawed as I am, this would probably take more of my attention than focusing on things people thought went well - with your data, say, the 'Command Counter' mechanic.

    It's just an example, because I wasn't sure if you thought I was saying you *should* do this - I was only saying some people would claim that finding failure more important than looking for success, and that I would probably do it that way myself. I'm intrigued that you don't (or don't seem to) operate that way around as it seems entirely natural to me. No snideness, no passive-aggression, just mild surprise. :)
    ReplyDelete
  36. But we did do that. Positive things like the Command Counter mechanic - nothing changed.

    Issues where there as a split, like FW, we changed the format to reflect the feedback (which is still slightly in favor for FW - you are reading the results backwards)! Compare the 2009 and 2010 docs with the survey.
    ReplyDelete
  37. Matthias, I was simply saying that in those two columns, having as much of one number as you did is very, very unusual. If that's how it played out, cool, but you have to admit it's an odd coincidence.
    ReplyDelete
  38. Quote TKE: "I think the point 'some' might make to that, KillerCBR, is that you should LOOK for 'failures' not for 'successes', and work on those as a priority."

    In any entitiy (even one such as AdeptiCon), you need to understand your strengths and weaknesses. Finding both actually allows you to understand how survey results fit into your overall organizational goals. If you do not ask the questions (even one's that end up with very positive feedback), you will most likely not find problem areas that need to be addressed.

    Quote TKE "if 40% of people didn't like FW rules in the event (as is the case) my initial thought would be to drop them completely".

    And this is where the pendulum can swing too much. More questions need to be asked when stats like this show up. For example, the question you need to ask after seeing this result is "why do 40% of the people not like FW rules in the event?". So instead of making a snap judgement and swinging the pendulum too far, our staff will ask further questions to hopefully develop a true understanding of why the result came to be. Unnecessary major shifts can be avoided, by making minor tweaks.
    ReplyDelete
  39. Ah, interpreting statistics. Lots of fun for everyone.
    ReplyDelete
  40. If you could highlight the cells of highest and lowest # say red and green, that would make my skimming and jumping to conclusions that much faster.
    ReplyDelete
  41. I find it humorous that people have to denigrate any data that doesn't agree with their perception of 40K.

    54% of the people asked said Composition should be included.
    27% said it should not be included.
    19% of the people said they didn't care.
    Sportsmanship had an even *greater* affirmative response.

    So, what is the immediate response from the people that dislike this data: "I wouldn't take this to seriously, Adepticon is just a fan-boy tournament anyway."

    Last time I checked, Adepticon is the single largest confluence of 40K talent in the US. Jon Wolf, Ben Mohlie, Greg Sparks, Nick Rose, Chris Mehrstedt, Da Boyz crew, Mark Parker, the tall skinny blonde kid from the Wrecking Crew, etc, etc, (this list is not meant to be comprehensive, just making a point). What other event draws that many great players? Many come close, but due to location (extreme edges of the US) or timing, most don't get that level of players in quantity.

    Why should the data gathered be tossed out simply because it disagrees with someone's preconceived notions on tournament 40K?

    Maybe the constant anti-Comp, anti-Sports ranting on forums across the intarwebz is a vocal minority, rather than the majority view of tournament-goers it is always touted to be ... No that *can't* be it.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)