Changes to Masters for NEXT season - UK

[MalifauxMartin]

I really like the henchman idea for the next 16 players

[ProximoCoal]

^ agreed

[ProximoCoal]

I wasn't at the GT so thanks to Joel for putting this out to wider discussion.

I agree with Maria, it seams like we are talking about a few things on the thread (all good things but a little confusing).

In short I don't think that the Masters format should change to much, its good fun and provides a nice book end to the year. Maybe it should become larger in the future if required.

Though I appreciate that the Masters event then becomes tied to the rankings but while far from perfect I think that its the only fair way. Otherwise having to judge based on the format of the event would inevitably lead to controversy around what should count and what shouldn't. This isn't to say that the community shouldn't look at some different formats or a few invitational and internationals across the year. 

Joel's aims of promoting a more friendly play environments and a diversity of event formats are really good ones and I would love to discuss them openly either here or on another thread but I don't think messing with the Masters format is the right way to do this. 

^agreed

[ProximoCoal]

I think the idea of the henchman tournament is OK, but I suspect that this format could get very messy very quickly. Would you have the open side event otherwise? Because that's something I have always liked. Then you'd be running three events on the same day! I also don't think it really actually combats any of the proposed cons. 

[Oshova]

I think the idea of the henchman tournament is OK, but I suspect that this format could get very messy very quickly. Would you have the open side event otherwise? Because that's something I have always liked. Then you'd be running three events on the same day! I also don't think it really actually combats any of the proposed cons. 

Yeah, it gets very complicated very quickly. Which is a worry. 

[Psientologist]

 Not keen on the henchman 16 idea, too many little events when we already have League of... for those players.

[Nasty Nathan]

I like the Masters the way it is. I was lucky enough to get in to one year (long ago) and really enjoyed the process but I've been rubbish ever since and still enjoyed the game and tournaments.

I think people who behave badly always will, if they want to win that badly I could see them getting even more frustrated if they've not quite got that first place.

I agree that rankings gets more people to events, after the nationals I going to push to get higher up the rankings again and I know the only way to do this is more events. It's clear to see that players higher up tend to attend more events and that's how they get good.

I to prefer GG and this year I've not even looked at the rankings but I still would avoid story encounters for the reasons other have said. I like the format of the game and of tournaments. I also like to see changes and different things tried, I think not getting the schemes and starts was great Mike as that's how the game was written to be played you sit down and flip for start and schemes so you have to think on your feet. I'd also like to see announcing Master before crew selection but that's another topic.

I think everyone at the moment can buy into the ranking as much or as little as they like, I didn't last year but after lots of practice with Hamelin I realise with more practice in general I could do better and I'm going to try for that now. But the only thing that's going to change is playing more to get better, not my attitude. (despite my nickname Mike )

[Grez90]

As already stated, glad to see this discussion open up, as a change to one of the most loved events of the community does need to be discussed "by the community for the community". With Joel being one of my best mates on the Faux scene I know he only has the best intentions of the scene in mind, but even I was shocked when he made the announcement.

That being said, when you look at the stats, had this decision been taken for THIS years masters, we would be sat here looking at 30 players (currently posted as winning an event on the rankings site, and not passing the tokens off to 2nd place). As much as this does open the event up to more people 17 of these 30 are ranked 1-17, with the others attending less tournaments (due to choice, passes etc.), so for the top players this changes absolutely nothing and may mean people attend less due to not needing to achieve 4 strong performances. As much as I LOVE the idea of a champion of champios style event, for it to replace the masters I think is not the right idea. The masters has an "aura" (pardon the faux related pun) around it, and is loved by many, including those who miss out and are in the side event. I got knocked out 0-3 from last years masters, but was extremely delighted to have made it into the event, and everyone in the side event day 2 was still intrigued with what was going on in the knockouts.

Having a single elimination event replace it causes huge numerical issues. Firstly you have to have knockouts of 1-2-4-8-16-32-64 etc. any other number of entrants means someone somewhere either gets entered in to the tournament unfairly, or is cut unfairly. As stated previously by Connor & Maria I believe, it also means that if your knocked out, you have nothing to do for the rest of the day and may have spent a lot of money on attending.

I think we need to keep the masters "as is" or increase the number to say 24. The idea of hosting the Champion of Champions at a convention does really excite me though. Means elimination (single/double) could be introduced and people could take part in other events throughout the day, and to me that would be the best location for a "knockout" tournament.

[Clousseau]

Interesting discussion and time for my two pennyworth. Its amazing what happens in the world between breakfast and dinner!

Masters

I've both played in (long ago), and organised, the Masters, and feel quite strongly that at should remain in basically the same format (16 players). Its a highlight of the year for the more competitive players, has a unique format, and retains its popularity as far as I can see. Also good to see someone aspiring to be in a position to be invited.

As for the side events, which have evolved over the year, a parallel "next 16" tournament could work, with a 'normal' tournament as side event on the Sunday only (with the 16 dropouts from the Saturday + whoever else wants to play). Alternatively 2 separate standard events as last year would be OK as well.

New Event

The idea of an event open to winners of single events is OK, and having it lead to a 'final' invitational with a potentially different format has merit. Whether seen as serious or fun I'm sure there would be a place for such an event - timing would be key to avoid clashing with the Masters and avoiding the busy months. We also need to consider any potential clash with the 'golden tickets' given away for free entry to the Nationals (Mike - was this a request from Wyrd as I know they are doing the same in America?). I agree with the other points raised.

Story Encounters

Separate debate required, but I consider them 'non competitive' and very entertaining. All the ones I've run (including at Colours show this year) have been well received, and I will run more. I'd also exclude them from consideration towards the new event as I think the format goes against 1 clear 'winner'.

 

[ProximoCoal]

 

Separate debate required, but I consider them 'non competitive' and very entertaining. All the ones I've run (including at Colours show this year) have been well received, and I will run more. I'd also exclude them from consideration towards the new event as I think the format goes against 1 clear 'winner'.

 

dragging the story event bit out again, but I agree with Dave. My own planned event could have people win even if they were to lose all three of their games and it's not beyond question that there could be a team of many winners and possibly no winners (which I had considered as a possibility for mine)

[shakes1066]

If we are going to allow winners of story events to go to the masters why not just rank them? Same for the winners of team or doubles events or were these going to be excluded? 

If the incentive to go to events is to qualify for masters then the original proposals would surely promote dickish behaviour not stop it. Now your only interested if you are still in the running to win, if you lose your first game you might as well go home, look at two day events in America half the field don't turn up for day two. In the UK we have a very healthy and vibrant rankings and this gives people an incentive to come 1st or 21st based on ability, personal goals and teammates achievements. The ranking actually stop dickish behaviour because we do not have a win at all costs mentality, there is a reward for every placing however small.

Just ramblings, but I wanted to put it down that most of the community I have spoken to think rankings are a good thing and continue to be a good thing. 

 

[Joel]

Maybe one way to encourage more story encounters would be to come up with a second rankings table and develop a method of objectively awarding points that isn't based on winning games, but fulfilling the story conditions of the event - a story encounter gaining grounds document.

If story encounters had an invitational event too, and a way of earning it, would we see more being run/better attendance?

thoughts on having a parallel story rankings table?

[ProximoCoal]

It's interesting. If you run with it I'd be happy to be involved, but I am concerned that it may not work out so well. At the moment I don't think there are enough events to make it functional

 

 

I am also still a bit iffy about trying to make story events more competitive

 

As an alternative how about we introduce a tournament season achievement challenge? You could incorporate it into the rankings as part of your own profile, when you click your name from the main screen, so you could get a list of the things you have done and within this you could get achievements for completing a story event, winning best painted, attending multiple story events etc.

 

 

 

ou could also keep in some of the stuff the rankings already has to some extent, like play in 15 tournaments and play all factions at an event in the year

 

Edited November 25, 2015 by ProximoCoal

[Big Ned]

Re: Story encounter Masters.

Perhaps have the criteria for 'winning' being more than just scoring the most VP.

 

Solving mysteries, resolving stories, most achievement points etc...

 

A bit vague, I know, but it's an idea.

[Soul Puppet]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the way the Masters runs currently (other than having nothing to do if you get knocked out at the QF stage  )

To address Joel's points in favour of the proposed changes:

1. Bigger event. I could possibly see the Masters being a little larger but I also think there's something to be said for the way it is now, since it is more difficult to get in and therefore perhaps more prestigious if you do.

2. Why are we linking the Masters to other types of Malifaux event? It's a competitive tournament, so it stands to reason that competitive events are what should qualify you for entry. If you believe that the Ranked Tournament environment detracts from other events, that's a separate discussion. I don't feel that we should be trying in any way to start to link Story Encounters or other non competitive events to Masters qualification.

3. Once you have won an event, it would probably make a lot of people less likely to attend more events. Yes the pressure would be off but the flip side is that the pressure for someone that has not yet qualified would increase, more so towards the end of the season, when the event timetable is coming to a close. Overall, I feel this would be more likely to create dickish behaviour.*

 

*On the subject of dickish behaviour, this is something that we thankfully have a minimal amount of in the Malifaux scene. It's a sad part of wargaming that some people feel the need to behave in a manner unbecoming over a game of toy soldiers. I feel that we, as a community, have done exceedingly well in tackling this for the most part. I dare say, it would be unlikely that we could eliminate it completely but we ALL have a personal responsibility in this and, as long as the majority work with the TO's, we can continue to make the Malifaux scene in the UK the best that it can be. I do enjoy qualifying for the Masters, if I can. I just worry that we may be changing things for the wrong reasons.

 

Besides all of this, as some of you are aware, I am planning to take a break for much of next year. I will be involved in the DaffCon Malifaux Story Encounter (which I'm really looking forward to!) and I will probably go to some tournaments in Wales but no plans for further afield as yet. That being the case, everyone else has a chance to take my Masters spot for 2017 anyway!

My tuppence worth anyway.

Martin

 

[Psientologist]

I'm not really sure what the issue is with having Story Encounters being less popular. As long as they are still happening, are promoted and attended to a level then that is cool.

Questioning why people (in general) prefer "standard GG" events to story encounters is like asking yourself why you play "standard" 50ss games at home for the most part. It's not that there isn't a subset of people who enjoy story over GG but the majority of people just like playing the game as it's designed to be played at, at a base level.

Tournaments are great to expand who you play, be it players or masters. For some people pride is a thing and although I will never deny I like winning I look at tournaments as the best way to get variation in the standard games and learn and experience more about it.

Story Rankings just sounds bonkers.

If someone wanted to run say something like an "achievements" site, that could maybe work. Have opponents sign and date when you got these achievements at whatever event and log them on a site, that sort of thing. However, this is more work for whoever really wants to push this.

I'm all for moving forwards and evolving the scene, but rather than "if ain't broke, don't fix it" the thing that comes to my mind is "who is asking for these changes?".

oh and Martin you better still come to my events if they're on 

[Psientologist]

Double post.

I've already said it, but however I understand the pros of making the masters event larger, realizing that there is a good chance I'd qualify if that were in place now makes me think it is not the right way to go.

I'd love to qualify, but I don't think I deserve it now.

I will admit though if the scene does increase even further it may just be logical. If 30+ player events are fairly common, more 2-dayers, a 120+ Nationals then increasing from 16-24 might just be a nice reflection of the percentage increase. Again, currently, I don't feel that is right.

[Big Ned]

Re: Story encounters

 

Maybe rather than have rankings, how would people feel about a set of open regional events where you could qualify for an invitational final?

The invitational would be the conclusion to the overall narative of the linked story encounter games.

[Psientologist]

Re: Story encounters

 

Maybe rather than have rankings, how would people feel about a set of open regional events where you could qualify for an invitational final?

The invitational would be the conclusion to the overall narative of the linked story encounter games.

This makes the most sense for a big Masters like finale.

[shakes1066]

I don't really understand this obsession with story encounters, there seems to be little or no appetite for them in the UK. I don't think it is the lack of rankings that is stopping attendance, I just don't think that many people like them or at least like them more than a GG style event. I like oranges but given the choice I would always prefer an apple, give people choice and they will vote with their feet. 

Now don't get me wrong, I think they work great in a multi system event or Con style weekend. Smogcon was a prime example, three very different events but all on the same weekend. If you are not trying to get an extra pass then why not try the story encounter.

 

[Big Ned]

One of the things I've always enjoyed in Wargaming are scenarios with a strong narrative element e.g.

Historical reenactments

campaign stages

special objectives

basically things with a little more context than a standard pitched battle.

 

Story encounters offer this along with a chance to have a more lighthearted game while telling a story with my opponent.

A lot of the older players which go to my club also like story encounters for much the same reason.

IMO Malifaux being a 'character-driven skirmish game' has the most character when telling a story with some of the personalities of this rich setting.

 

[Big Ned]

As you say, they're apples and oranges.

 

Sometimes I like to offer the best apples, other times, the best oranges.

[ProximoCoal]

As you say, they're apples and oranges.

 

Sometimes I like to offer the best apples, other times, the best oranges.

The solution is not to try and DNA splice apples and oranges, because I am pretty sure that's how you get ants...

[Clousseau]

Couple of comments.

Story encounters appeal to less people, so let's stop worrying about that. They'll take place with lower numbers (planned & actual) and will be great. End of.

Masters going up to 24 has a number of issues (apart from 16 being a cosy number, and a good fit in the current venue). 24 players means the following;.

• 8 pools of 3 means 2 games in a day and 2 hours of hanging about. 1 winner from the pool. Not good in my opinion
• 6 pools of 4 gives 6 or 12 through to the next round which is also not good because neither give a clean knockout down to a final
• 4 pools of 6 means too many games (5) before elimination down to a final 2 per pool, or a result being based on not playing everyone in a pool

32 is too many for the Masters (its no longer special)

Conclusion - stick to 16

[Psientologist]

Couple of comments.

Story encounters appeal to less people, so let's stop worrying about that. They'll take place with lower numbers (planned & actual) and will be great. End of.

Masters going up to 24 has a number of issues (apart from 16 being a cosy number, and a good fit in the current venue). 24 players means the following;.

• 8 pools of 3 means 2 games in a day and 2 hours of hanging about. 1 winner from the pool. Not good in my opinion
• 6 pools of 4 gives 6 or 12 through to the next round which is also not good because neither give a clean knockout down to a final
• 4 pools of 6 means too many games (5) before elimination down to a final 2 per pool, or a result being based on not playing everyone in a pool

32 is too many for the Masters (its no longer special)

Conclusion - stick to 16

4 Pools of 6 can play 4 games sat and the 5th on Sunday with quarters, semis and final then too. Issue is time squeeze plus no one getting to play LoEH 2nd day.

8 Pools definitely doesn't work.

6 of 4 could work, you just have to determine a way 4 players can get first knock out round byes. Probably by their own TP and then VP diff.