Malifaux Rankings - what should be ranked - you decide

[NoMoreMrNiceKai]

The rankings at present have 2 rules.

• All games will be played with a master. No Henchmen led games
• Minimum number of players for a ranking event will be 8

I'm wanting to add all the "unwritten rules" to make it clearer for TOs. I have put together a few questions to that you can tell me the level of the restrictions or whether you even want the restrictions in. Remember, this effects the USA, Italy and Netherlands Rankings too (not sure whether to put in anywhere else). I'll leave them up for a week.

[Psientologist]

I think there should always be an ability for exceptions, I say this as May Feng had 1 Henchman game and 3 Master led games. 
I can't imagine that event not being ranked really.

Also, part 3 did you mean just the schemes are strategies (I may've voted wrong)?
I think schemes and strategies should be current, but not necessarily their rotation or all the other rules restrictions (though used as a basis) such as proxies.

[Clousseau]

Any UK event going on the forums will be added to the calendar by me, usually within 24 hours. So "on the forum" is the decider (and apart from that the calendar is not open to everyone to modify).

[mythicFOX]

<modhat>  Pinned. </modhat>

[mythicFOX]

Voted above.

Can I suggest that if this amounts to any substantial change to the rules these don't take effect until the end of the season. So no events people may have organised / paid for drop out of rankings eligibility. 

 

[Wake of Godzilla]

Thanks for putting this up - I would agree with James re this should be for 2017.

A lot of people seem to be voting for any Wyrd Publication, this essentially put the story events as part of the rankings.

While I love story events (and it would be great to see more of them) they are not built for balance hence why they had been previously discounted. 

Also a personal plea - could TO's put up the events in a rough format of event name - date - location with postcode (or some combination of that!) so that its easy to scan when looking for events.

[mythicFOX]

Yeah can we clarify what we mean by 'Any Wyrd Publication' in this context.  

I think we absolutely should not be ranking story encounters. This was specifically discussed at length fairly recently and roundly rejected.

[NoMoreMrNiceKai]

Thanks for the pin.

Maybe that question is misleading. I could change it to:

Gaining Grounds Current (e.g. Strats from GG15 & Rulebook, Schemes from GG16)
Gaining Grounds Any (e.g. Strats from GG15 & Rulebook or just Rulebook, Schemes from GG16 or Rulebook)
Any Wyrd Publication (e.g. Strats from GG15 & Rulebook or just Rulebook or Story Encounters from the rulebook/chronicles, Schemes from GG16 or Rulebook or Story Encounters)

I added that because I wanted to see if public opinion had changed. I assume that it wouldn't.

Thoughts?

Personally I voted for the first based on the idea that most tournaments I have been to are GG16 schemes. I am out of practice on the old schemes now :s

[Tapdancer]

Bugger I miss-understood the question, thought never even thought about GG15 for Q2 response 2.  thought the difference between option 1 & 2 was the strict rotation of strats and deployment in GG16 vs just randomizing.  Who in there right mind would do a GG15 based tournament these days.

[NoMoreMrNiceKai]

I only put this on as I found one the other day when we were looking at possible tournaments to go to in August, and it put us all off.

[OldManMyke]

Worth pointing out that at lease one of the games at Nationals will use book schemes rather than GG2016 

[jondoe297]

What? Sacrilege, you can't use original schemes, the game has been rebalanced using them, mental idea to not use gg16 blah blah

Note, don't actually care, think it's actually cool to mix and match, keeps peeps on their toes

[mythicFOX]

Ben, complaining about re-balancing, surely not!?  

There's a genuine question about whether the test should be looser than the ones given above. Maybe simply say 'a tournament broadly in line with the current Gaining Grounds', get into the specifics of pairing / game size / objectives.  That allows for the expected level of TO variation.

That being said I'm an advocate of less variation, some of which often looks like variation for variation's sake, and is to the detriment of new players.

[jondoe297]

woah, i just have issue with Neutralise the Leader, havent played enough with the master that shall not be named to make more than a passing comment

[Psientologist]

6 hours ago, OldManMyke said:

Worth pointing out that at lease one of the games at Nationals will use book schemes rather than GG2016 

Not a fan. Sure you don't care (I don't have to come etc.) but I don't see what the pros are of changing it up for the sake of it.

[Oshova]

7 hours ago, OldManMyke said:

Worth pointing out that at lease one of the games at Nationals will use book schemes rather than GG2016 

Probably worth putting on the Nationals thread...

[NoMoreMrNiceKai]

Seems I completely messed up wth question 3. As Paul has pointed out, you can still use rulebook schemes in Gg16. So this should be "story encounters : aye or naw"

This post was to get a general feel for if what I considered a rankable event was what everyone else did. Not a serious "let's change the rules" discussion. 

However, Anything that is decided will not come into effect until next season (2017) as suggested above. It is only words on a page through that I am sure all TOs automatically adheared to anyway.

[Vorpalhit]

hi, just had a thought but should the 1st round not be random and instead seeded based on their current standing in the rankings? The top two players who attending play off against each other first match and then down the rankings than them usually playing off in the final match of the day?

 

This might be fairer than the top person playing the lowest ranked at the event while second and third ranked play straight away due to random draws. (though I do believe you learn to be better by playing the Big Boys and Girls in this game)

 

[katadder]

not everyone is in the rankings (the polish contingent for example)

[M_Ruckuss]

19 hours ago, Vorpalhit said:

hi, just had a thought but should the 1st round not be random and instead seeded based on their current standing in the rankings? The top two players who attending play off against each other first match and then down the rankings than them usually playing off in the final match of the day?

 

This might be fairer than the top person playing the lowest ranked at the event while second and third ranked play straight away due to random draws. (though I do believe you learn to be better by playing the Big Boys and Girls in this game)

 

If this happened, I would have played Maria round 1 at 7 events this year. We both love meeting and playing new people- it's part of the fun. Swiss system may come up with random pairings, but random is Adair, if that makes sense. Otherwise, to make this work, you would need to adopt ELOI, which the community has rejected on at least 2 occasions.

[Psientologist]

Agree with Mark, well except where he typed ELOI (I assume he meant Elo [it's not capitalised people]) as any form of seeding could cause the first round of events to be dull AF.

Also doesn't seeding not do 1v2, 3v4 etc. seeding is usually 1vBottom 2v2ndfromBottom. 
If seeding it 1v2 etc were a thing it could be a bit lame having the "finals" of an event first.

[Oshova]

Yeah, seeding either of those ways would be lame. It's either have the final round first, or get a load of new/less good players to play really good players. Either way, you are not giving the best gaming experience to as many people as possible.

Probably the only ways I will accept people modifying round 1, are to avoid clubmates playing each other (where possible), and avoid same faction match-ups (again, where possible). This at least gives 1 game where you get to play someone you don't usually play, with a faction you aren't playing (hopefully). Obviously, from round 2 onwards, then stick to Swiss and the job is a good'un.

[Clousseau]

On ‎11‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 0:32 PM, Vorpalhit said:

hi, just had a thought but should the 1st round not be random and instead seeded based on their current standing in the rankings? The top two players who attending play off against each other first match and then down the rankings than them usually playing off in the final match of the day?

This might be fairer than the top person playing the lowest ranked at the event while second and third ranked play straight away due to random draws. (though I do believe you learn to be better by playing the Big Boys and Girls in this game)

 

Over the years I've tried a variety of techniques for round 1, but ranked 1 vs 2 is never an option as described above. I have tried splitting the field into groups based on rankings and then randomising and that has had success in specific circumstances. Ultimately high ranked players will always meet low ranked players in the first couple of rounds, which is usually a good learning experience if nothing else.

[ProximoCoal]

Late to the party and probably should have read the post before voting. 

My opinion is do not rank story events, swiss and advertised on forums.

I don't want people to get too ott with swiss though. I like it when TOs fudge the first round draw to allow clubs to not play each other.

As for seeding I don't like it because as posted above I think the cool think about tournaments is playing new folk so I think it's not so cool. 

I think that it should just be singles events too. Not team, doubles, story or other stuff.