What events should be ranked?

[mythicFOX]

There's been a lot of conversation recently about ranking events.  These seem to boil down to two questions;

1. What kind of events should appear in the UK Malifaux Rankings?
2. If there is a debate about how an event fits under point one how is that arbitrated?

I'll start by saying Kai is doing an excellent job running the rankings. As he 'holds the pen' his input will be vital, and he'll have the final say.

That said I think it's important to get community input.  So here's a thread for that.

[Joel]

My broad views on which events should be ranked are as follows:

1) the event has to actually exist - not be made up.  (I don't ever see this happening, but I think it's a valid requirement)

2) the event should be Malifaux second edition and should be singles (no doubles, teams)

3) the event should use tournament recognised strats/schemes - not story encounters.

4) the pairing system of the event should be fair and transparent - Swiss or close to it as its what we are all used to.

5) the event should be run in such a way that the community as a whole benefits.  This includes player conduct, TO impartiality, the behaviour of the whole community in a public venue (litter, parking, noise, language, etc). If the event is run for charity, then donations are transparent to all. 

6) the TO of an event is the final arbiter and authority for their event.

7) that no one way of running a tournament has to be 100% adhered to (e.g. We don't all have to stick to 100% gaining grounds)

Just my 2p for what it's worth.

 

Joel

 

[OldManMyke]

So whilst my tuppence worth may get discounted as I'm not personally in the rankings I do have some stuff with my TO hat on

For a lot of people the fact that an event is in the rankings is an additional carrot to attendance.  It shouldn't be IMO but I would be foolish to deny that it is.  So to get the maximum attendance ranking becomes an essential thing. Maximum attendance is good.  More people playing the game means more people seeing the game being played which leads to continued growth of the scene.  New blood is essential and I think as a TO group and as a community as a whole, we have done an excellent job of encouraging this and retaining new folks coming along.

With that said, as a TO I want the absolute freedom to run an event as I see fit.  This means no religiously sticking to Gaining Grounds, ability to do things with scheme pools and timings to fit the event etc.  It also means that if there is a person that in my opinion as a TO i feel the inclusion of will be detrimental to the enjoyment of the other players due to whatever factor then I have to have the right to exclude that player from an event.  Now if the community decides that this means that an event can't be ranked then so be it.  Given the Nationals is 2 days and 128 people (counting as 179 when the 2 day bonus is applied) and this means that just attending the nationals is going to skew everyones ranking scores massively (so many 90+ scores) I'm not convinced that it should be ranked in the first place, but really thats an aside.

So to answer the specific questions

1. Singles events at 40-50ss using a swiss matchup system.  Nominally open to all.  I say nominally because geography plays a big part.  If we were to run regular tournaments here in Norfolk we would get very few non locals attending, even if the tickets were on general sale because its a PITA to get to.  Are you going to unrank them because of that.  Same with the player exclusion described above. I very strongly feel that TOs have to retain the right to not include people that they have had complaints about.  However that needs to be transparent and names need to be named, along with a list of reasons why the decision has been taken.

2. Ultimately it boils down to Kai.  Secondary it boils down to whoever is running the masters because they can always choose to exclude a result from the calculations when determining who to send masters invitations to.  Because at the end of the day all rankings does is give you an invite to a tourny in January.

Hopefully that makes sense

 

 

[Clousseau]

Basically agree with everything Joel wrote.

As for Mike's points, I agree and think that even a PITA location can run a ranked event if it is open for anyone to attend. I understand the point about the Nationals, but on the other hand it would be really odd if the biggest event of the year wasn't ranked, especially as it meets all the criteria.

Whilst I agree that some flexibility around GG is healthy I think that some 'fun' formats would fall outside of being ranked where, for example, crews/schemes were being selected by opponents - TBH anyone attending those sort of events probably isn't worried about it being ranked. I'm not sure how I feel where there are 'achievements' which are being rewarded (e.g. by more raffle tickets) because although they can be great fun, they can sometimes distract from correct gameplay, and that could negative for some players or lead to skewed results. Probably just needs a bit of sensitivity/consideration of implications by the TO. (To explain - flipping a BJ for damage doesn't influence the game, play without a Control Hand would).

No link between painting and overall scores.

Finally I think we need to avoid assuming that if someone wants to run the administration of the rankings that they also want to be responsible for what's in or out. Not trying to speak for Kai, but I just think we should avoid that assumed association as someone technically capable may not want the responsibility, and someone willing to take on the responsibility may not have the technical capabilities, if you see what I mean.

[mythicFOX]

All really good contributions above. I'm still mulling over what I think on this personally.  

I did go back a little over five years to find out the very first set of qualifying criteria for events. Just in case anyone is interested. So to quote my 2011 self...

Quote

Qualifying Events

An event qualifies for UK rankings if it meets the following criteria;

• The event has at least eight participating players
• It is advertised at least two weeks in advance on the Wyrd Forums
• The event uses one of the pairing and scoring methods from the Gaining Grounds document
• The event takes place in the United Kingdom
• A Wyrd Henchman attends the event

These criteria make it as easy as possible for players to run events. All they need to do is advertise in advance and get eight players and a henchman together. Simple, any FLGS or Club should be able to hold a ranking tourney. The advertising requirement helps prevent fake tournaments from happening. The pairing and scoring restriction keeps the Gaining Grounds document front and centre and makes sure the event is fairly rigorously run.

 

 

[ProximoCoal]

On 8/1/2016 at 10:08 AM, OldManMyke said:

I very strongly feel that TOs have to retain the right to not include people that they have had complaints about.  However that needs to be transparent and names need to be named, along with a list of reasons why the decision has been taken.

I don't know if this is flogging a dead horse, but here goes...

The main issues I have with naming people in this way is it can essentially ruin this players chance of enjoying the game even if they didn't do anything wrong. People will assume they did and thus may shun them etc.

However I also feel that people can't just ban people because they feel like it and the only way I can think of to make sure this doesn't happen is to keep it open.

I don't know what the answer is, but hopefully one of you clever chaps do. I thought it was just best to raise my concerns.

[Impact UK]

I think the guidelines from 2011 are fine and the only thing I would maybe consider adding would be a minimum amount of places available for ranked events.

For example we only have room for 10 players at our shop and have at least 16 active Malifaux players in our gaming group.  So to my thinking our events would not qualify for being ranked due to our gaming group tending to take all the available spots (yes we are looking at possible venues for holding a larger event).

The events are listed as open to all but our primary push is to keep our gaming group active and keeping their interest alive in the hobby.

On the topic of Banning Players, I assume this comes from concerns of stopping high ranking individuals entering so to improve those lower down to improve their standing.  I could only suggest that any ban should be done in writing well in advance of the event with all the details of why the person is being disallowed to participate.

Then if the individual feels it is unfair or a unwarranted ban they need someone they can address the issue with (preferably a 3^rd party), in this way a paper trail of sorts is created so if a TO is regularly disallowing ranked players from entering their Open Ranked Events said 3^rd party should be able to pick up on it and take according action.

Though I seriously doubt the rubbish I have just written about Banning Players would ever need to be put in place (and who is going to be stupid enough to volunteer for sorting out squabbling over small plastic models).

Maybe people just take this all a lot more seriously than I do, but anyway sorry for this tuning into a wall of text (it was not intended).

[Clousseau]

11 hours ago, Impact UK said:

I think the guidelines from 2011 are fine and the only thing I would maybe consider adding would be a minimum amount of places available for ranked events.

 

For example we only have room for 10 players at our shop and have at least 16 active Malifaux players in our gaming group.  So to my thinking our events would not qualify for being ranked due to our gaming group tending to take all the available spots (yes we are looking at possible venues for holding a larger event).

The events are listed as open to all but our primary push is to keep our gaming group active and keeping their interest alive in the hobby.

 

On the topic of Banning Players, I assume this comes from concerns of stopping high ranking individuals entering so to improve those lower down to improve their standing.  I could only suggest that any ban should be done in writing well in advance of the event with all the details of why the person is being disallowed to participate.

Then if the individual feels it is unfair or a unwarranted ban they need someone they can address the issue with (preferably a 3^rd party), in this way a paper trail of sorts is created so if a TO is regularly disallowing ranked players from entering their Open Ranked Events said 3^rd party should be able to pick up on it and take according action

 

8 players for a ranked event (its written down in the rankings info).

<Off topic a bit> If you have more players than space (and even more players if you get people from a wider environ) then maybe its time to look for a bigger venue. For me one of the big pleasures of playing this great game is playing new people and by finding that new venue will open up the possibilities for your locals and prevent stagnation. Contact me or one of the other experienced TO if you'd like help/advice on this.

I don't believe TOs are banning specific (high ranked) players from entering small tournaments because they can score highly against 'newbies' (more like to be mediocre players like me trying to get a cheap tournie win ). If any players do get banned then we'll need to find a way for this to be open, and also visible.

There may be a problem if a 'ranked' event is being advertised for local players first, potentially filling all the places before being advertised more widely. Maybe there could (should) be a requirement that the event is advertised everywhere at the same time (so on the Wyrd forum as well as the local store as a minimum).

[Impact UK]

10 hours ago, Clousseau said:

There may be a problem if a 'ranked' event is being advertised for local players first, potentially filling all the places before being advertised more widely. Maybe there could (should) be a requirement that the event is advertised everywhere at the same time (so on the Wyrd forum as well as the local store as a minimum).

I like that idea.

[Psientologist]

I think this above "issue" is not really so much a problem and kind of unavoidable.

First, the TO is surely going to be chatting with their friends/local playgroup first so they would be more aware of the event going on sale etc.

Second, local events will always have a high population of local players as is obvious. I can see the potential problem arise that Store X only can fit 28 players and actually they have a buzzing community of 30+ and immediately sell out to locals, that then meaning one player "good in that meta" could make masters this way. However, this mostly seems unlikely and though I am one for being proactive this should problem just be fixed if it happens.

(as an aside, I do still believe the "needs to be publicly advertised first" should be a rule)

Third and lastly. The tournament scene is big, there are multiple new places running events all the time. A good few events I've attended are firsts and one of the reasons these stores run tournaments is to get players. Most stores do not have a player base that fills capacity and the ones that may (because space is so little) those events being ranked really do no effect much.
As I believe Mike has said, the only real thing rankings can earn is a ticket to masters.
Winning four 8 person events (and that's your best scores) would only get you in the top 40. Even winning four 18 person events doesn't quite get you in the top 16 I don't believe.

[Psientologist]

My 2p on the discussion as whole though is:

The old James quote is fine bar, I think 2 weeks isn't really long enough and also if the above "issue" is a worry then this is another reason advertisement should be further ahead (a month I reckon).
That and "wyrd henchman be present" seems unnecessary, I do feel all TO's should sign up to be Henchmen but it's really down to what the aim of that TO is and if that lines up with the program.
When I originally TO'd that's what I wanted to do and that was it (I'd only just left GW where I was for 8 years so I had no want to run demos) which didn't align with the program.

The only real point this thread seems to be open for is regarding the old conversation of "is it open if players are banned".

I still stand by the fact that a TO can let who they want to an event and ban people if they deem it necessary. It is up to Kai if he calls that ranked and if I were him I'd want a few things:

First, I'd want to be consulted about why a player is banned, have a discussion and if I think it's unfair I wouldn't allow it.
If the banning isn't clear cut then I'd want to consult with people and the best for this situation would be James Doxey and Dave Brown as both long-serving community members and the ones with "the keys" to the Masters.

If a player has been banned because of tournament ejection, fine rank it, that person should probably be barred from a few events even if in a "rehabilitation" type stage.

Lastly, I'd want everyone to realise that as the person running the rankings (if I were Kai) then my decision with what happens with it is final, same as a TO decides what's what at their events.

People will speak up if Kai became a tyrant, the rankings has been run by different parties and if Kai were to go crazy with power I'm sure someone else would step up.
However, I don't see that happening, I trust Kai, I trust James and Dave and all I want to be able to trust now is that people, TO's especially, will grow up and have conversations, even the awkward ones.

 

[Clousseau]

Agree that a Henchman being present is not necessary though one probably will be even if playing.

[ProximoCoal]

I agree Henchman shouldn't be compulsory. I want to run events but I do not want to be a Henchman.