Tournament attendance down across the board.

I've been reading a lot, and hearing a lot, of feedback from tournament organisers from all over the world. The majority of them say that event attendance is dipping down into the red. Some events have had half the number of players, some have even been cancelled. I'm sure there have been a number of events who have had the opposite (some of the big events worldwide still draw 100+ players), but it seems the general feeling around the place is that monthly tournament attendance is coming down. I want to just throw some of my thoughts into the void, and see what comes back.

The competitive scene is slowly dying:

I'd say this is true. Some of the independent RAW tournaments have become something of a league of their own. Rules precedence is flying everywhere, and as much as they say that it is open to everyone who can come, realistically it isn't. The newbie who doesn't bring a proper list is always in last place. I know a number of guys who used to be keen on tournament attendance just for the painting prizes, but even that has become too much of a chore when they waste their weekend being tabled. One of those number told me: "I've abandoned attendance all together because I get the same painting score for spending 50+ hours on my army as the guy who paid for his to be painted." I can understand his frustration at that, especially since he himself claims to not be the best tactician - thus giving him no chance of winning on battle points. I don't blame the commission painters at all, in fact I think they do a great service to those guys who don't have the time to paint their models but still want to game. The scoring problem is, at least, mitigated slightly by the fact that you cannot claim the Best Painted prize with a commission painted army, but that runs of a loyalty system, so I'm sure it's not always true.

Another common complaint I hear is that tournaments are consistently won by the same people over and over again. Who wants to pay $50 for a weekend of losing games? No one! One guy has even told me that he leaves his tournament sign up until the very last minute so he can find out who is attending! Declining if he discovers the same winners are going. I can understand this. I would be pissed off too if I turned up fresh to a tournament and was paired with no. 1. 2. 3. 4. in the country. Wouldn't you? I bet you would. However, I should point out that many larger tournaments are introducing bracketing. I am in 100% support of this, even if it halves the value of first prize. Most of the competitive community are after the 1st place spot for kudos anyway, especially if they are hoping to slingshot themselves into the Masters spots. 

Overall, I'm pretty sure attitude has a lot to do with this problem. I think there Is absolutely nothing worse than arriving at your assigned table and your opponent sitting down with his arms crossed and a smirk on his face. I remember vividly that Optimus Prime Time had to endure that at one of the big tournaments last year. Spicerack and I were in the doubles across the hall, but each time we went over to check up on him, his opponent was just smirking to himself. No thanks. The reality is it's only a small proportion of the players that ruin it for the majority. Unfortunately, that is enough to drive a lot of players towards less competitive tournmanets.

Smaller tournaments:

The reign of two-dayer tournaments is shrinking. I have absolutely no interest in attending one, simply because I have other priorities to deal with. As do most people. Most guys with families only just have enough time for a one dayer, and only if they get two months notice and it's on a Saturday. Larger point size games are also bad for people with priorities, or beginners for that matter. Most guys want to paint up their own army, but would find it overly difficult to get everything done for an 1850 sized tournament. Even if they have had two months notice. Smaller tournaments solve these problems. They give someone the peace of mind about not having to commit to two days, they take less time to prepare for, and they make it much easier for new players to enter into without getting creamed by a tailored meta list (that's not to say they don't still exist at 750, but they are less common). 

750 point tournaments seem to be the way. GW runs singles with this size, so do a number of independent stores. We run our singles at 750 points as the 90 minute time frame doesn't allow for much more. Some competitive players say that 40k can't functionally work at 750 points but, in all seriousness, no social gamer is even remotely concerned about something like that. 

Other factos:

Of course, one of the other recurring factors with tournament attendance is choice. Every month there is a major tournament down here in Sydney, and those are just the independently organised ones. That doesn't even include the GW events, nor the smaller ones organised by other gaming groups. Furthermore, if you're like me and play all three systems, it is common for there to be multiple events on the same day. I have to choose which system I want to go with and roll with it. "Next month" syndrome is also quite common. You plan to go to an event, but end up bailing close to sign-up by saying that you promise to attend the next one. Can't be helped a lot of the time, especially if you have kids.

Comp is a continually debated topic amongst organisers and the rest of the 40k community. GW tournaments have used a "whose list was the softest" system for a while now, but it's not entirely reliable. Quite often it becomes a case of who lost, rather than who actually had the softer list. However, if you even mention the word "comp," a lot of competitive players begin to poke holes in the system. It will always be an ongoing issue. Who decides on the comp? How much will it be worth? Etc. I don't neccesarily agree that comp should be a set 10/20/30%, but rather, change the margins of victory. If you bring a super competitive list, your major victory only counts for 15 points instead of 20. Whilst those with "softer" lists are given 20 for a win. What do people think?

Changing prize formats:

This is something that needs to happen. At all of our Warzone events, you can only win a single prize. We don't care if you come first, have the best painted army and also score the highest on sports, you only get one. The highest valued one that is. We also don't have a third place prize unless we meet 16 player minimum. Additionally, there is a cap placed upon the value of the podium placements. It means that the prize for first place in a 16 attendance event is the same as a 32. Where does the rest of the money go? Back into other prizes such as:

- Best overall themed army.

- Random door prizes.
- 2nd place best sports and best painted.

Those are only a few examples. The random door prizes are usually a big hit. The number of such prizes is determined by player turnout, but it's usually one per every four players after twelve. It means that the guys who didn't win any of the podium spots, or "best" anything, can still go home with a monetary voucher greater than their entry fee.

Having the cap on first, second and third place, also means that the less competitive gamers will be more likely to attend. No one wants to attend an event knowing they have little or no chance of winning anything! No one! So I think in order to address attendance, organisers need to change their format. Okay okay, we are pretty lucky in that we have the opportunity to run our events at a hosted store, so we don't have to worry about renting spaces and food, etc. However, it is still something to ponder.

Tournaments and me:

Now that we organise tournaments, most of my attendance will be spent at GW organised events. I doubt I will make any of the major two day events this year, most likely because it will be clashing, or be too close, to another event I'm attending. I don't enjoy spending two weekends in a row at an event, neither do the rest of the boys. 

----

Phew, well that's a big jumble of rant/info/thoughts! I'll finish by asking you guys if you think that smaller tournaments are back on the rise? Or if you think the larger ones are here to stay? Shoot any comments down into the box below.

- Out.