Jump to content

UK Malifaux Rankings


mythicFOX

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Lol how about distinctly average and lacking the cut throat attitude needed to crush my opponents!? That's more it...

I think your problem is you believe it should be "fun" for some reason. You need to come to the realisation that it's about crushing your opponents into the ground and destroying their will to ever play again - even more so in tournaments.

You know it makes sense, come over to the dark side Jo....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a huge fan of ranking, especially if it ends up with ranked tournaments and unranked. I think you will find that you end up with an us and them mentality to the game. There will be those that only go to the ranked tournaments or go to them in preference and those that want to avoid them and only play at local level.

I would much prefer some kind of award for hitting a certain level of play. EG, placing top 3 with all 5 factions in a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd stop being so fun and laid back to play against if I joined a ranking system - I'd have to take the game seriously and try to win

See, I don't understand this sentiment. The point of the game is to have fun. Winning is just a side-effect of playing a fun game well.

If you are taking the game too seriously, you need to reconsider the fact that it is still just a game.

I like the idea of a Rankings system. It shouldn't change the current tournaments in any way, shape, or form. The fact that someone is tracking the numbers at the end of the whole event shouldn't change how or why you play the event.

Sure, some people take the game more seriously. That is true, and it's not a bad thing. But to change your attitude and playstyle simply because it is ranked? I don't see it, especially since there's not really anything except bragging rights at the end of the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I don't understand this sentiment. The point of the game is to have fun. Winning is just a side-effect of playing a fun game well.

If you are taking the game too seriously, you need to reconsider the fact that it is still just a game.

Firstly the quote you took was aimed at people who know me so you may have taken it out of context. However, your answer begs the question why have a ranking system at all?

I like the idea of a Rankings system. It shouldn't change the current tournaments in any way, shape, or form. The fact that someone is tracking the numbers at the end of the whole event shouldn't change how or why you play the event.

Sure, some people take the game more seriously. That is true, and it's not a bad thing. But to change your attitude and playstyle simply because it is ranked? I don't see it, especially since there's not really anything except bragging rights at the end of the line.

I disagree personally with this, if I was ranked there's no way I'm going to take a three-legged crew just for fun in a tournament if it's going to affect my ranking - I'd feel obliged to play for the win. That's my concern and also why I'd opt out.

I play this game for fun, but also I like the fact I'm good at it - all I'm saying is personally I'd take objection to a system where I'd end up mid-table just because I chose to put fun above winning in some tournaments.

And anyway, that's not my main concern - I still think thought needs to be given to people who would be put off by being ranked or "not being good enough" to let themselves be ranked. Even if they're a minority, is that a minority we want to say goodbye to just because the better players wanted to see who had the biggest... well, you get the idea.

Edited by magicpockets
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd stop being so fun and laid back to play against if I joined a ranking system - I'd have to take the game seriously and try to win

Why Adam? Who cares where you are in the rankings? It's just nice to see. If anything, the fantasy rankings made me become a much more chilled out player, taking the 'chaff' armies (Ogre, beasts of chaos and O&G) in a vein bid to try and get best general with them, but having fun at the same time.

Surely you have that mindset already Adam, if you'll want to win just because of some stupid rankings, then you'll want to win now because of the fact it's still winning. Competitive people will get no more competitive, if anything, it'll spread them out across different builds to try and pick up best master icons.

What zee just said is 100% what I think...

However I don't believe anybody on the UK scene takes "filth" for the sake of it (except maybe ukrocky)

Bit unfair Adam. The 2 crews I've taken to tournaments so far, when I bought them both I had no idea of the power level, I bought them for the fact I liked the models. Gremlins I got with Som'er and they haven't done well since I won with them, and Collodi I used before any information came out about her and rocked her at the GT and she did well unexpectedly. I then took her to Leeds as I had little else with me at uni.

I'm now taking Marcus, so yeah...I pick the crews I like the look of, nowhere near what I think is broken.

Unlike a certain someone we know who bought 2 certain masters after people had played with them before...ey...Adam? :P

No you're not...I was hungover and you tool advantage....

YOU were hungover?!? :|

I play this game for fun, but also I like the fact I'm good at it - all I'm saying is personally I'd take objection to a system where I'd end up mid-table just because I chose to put fun above winning in some tournaments.

Why?!? You only need 3 events for rankings, you can then play the rest for fun as opposed to rocking up at a random tournament where you have all to play for as only that event counts?!? If you put fun above winning it won't neccesairly change your rankings as only your top 3 count, and who cares if they're mid-table in the rankings?

And to go back to a point Adam said about me only going for them because I'm near the top, I couldn't give 2 monkies where I am in the rankings, I like them just for the competition on best masters, which I reckon will spread out the better gamers across more masters...

Edited by ukrocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely you have that mindset already Adam, if you'll want to win just because of some stupid rankings, then you'll want to win now because of the fact it's still winning. Competitive people will get no more competitive, if anything, it'll spread them out across different builds to try and pick up best master icons.

I think you're missing my point, at the minute I (and I think you too) only want to "win" at certain tournaments - the rest we can chill out and have fun at even if that means losing horribly. A ranking system could change that depending on how it was implemented.

Bit unfair Adam.

Next time quote me in full, I think the ":lol:" you went to the length of deleting from the quote to change its context shows it was in jest - I only joke because you beat me comprehensively whenever we've been in the same tournament. I'd have thought that was obvious by now...

I'm now taking Marcus, so yeah...I pick the crews I like the look of, nowhere near what I think is broken.

Unlike a certain someone we know who bought 2 certain masters after people had played with them before...ey...Adam? :P

How does that work? I had Hamelin on pre-order for ages before release and iirc it was me who at the last Malestrom event was saying I was moving away from NB as they were too over powered and going to Hamelin because I liked the fluff. You yourself know (and I've posted here before) I was also looking at Guild etc and would never have gone the Hamelin route if I'd have known how over-powered he was - and now having spent a fortune on rats etc can't really justify changing again. Also, I'm one of the few people trying to find ways to lower Hamelin's power level - not something I'd be doing if I bought him to power game now would I?

That's a sh*tty comment Craig just because you know how it'll come across - even though you know full well it's untrue.

Why?!? You only need 3 events for rankings, you can then play the rest for fun as opposed to rocking up at a random tournament where you have all to play for as only that event counts?!? If you put fun above winning it won't neccesairly change your rankings as only your top 3 count

Like I said above, depends on implementation

And to go back to a point Adam said about me only going for them because I'm near the top

Re-read my post on this (I see it's the only time you didn't quote me) ->

Don't forget you're speaking as one of the best Malifaux players in the UK, would you see it that way if you weren't particularly any good but played just because you loved the game?

I don't say that at all, I asked if you'd have the same opinion if you weren't as good as you are - that's all mate. Nothing like what you're insinuating I said...

Edited by magicpockets
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll just add my few pence.

In theory the rankings seem like fun. Bragging rights with your mates and so on.

In practice it can have some negative and positive effects. These are from what I have seen in the WHFB scene.

Pro's.

Bragging rights and banter with friends.

Encourage players to attend more events.

Bring in new players who like a challenge.

Stat analysis as to what crews/builds are dominating.

Encourage players to try new crews/builds.

Increased sales for Wyrd which may go back into further game development.

many more that I cannot think of at the mo.

Con's.

Net lists will start to creep in.

Painting standards will drop as players just want to get the latest net list on the table.

Players becoming more competative at the expense of their opponents fun.

Rules lawyering ever slight quirk for an advantage.

Good players not attending events that are not ranked.

These are just some off the top of my head and the lists are not everything.

Just my oppinion.

dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The henchman requirement is logical but would limit the option geographically to areas with game stores (that support Malifaux).

Now, I don't imagine there is a huge Malifaux fanbase in say, Inverness, but if there did happen to be then they could not run a ranked event as there is no LGS which a Henchman could be affiliated to.

In the entire North East area I am yet to find a store that stocks it or appears particularly interested, so a Leeds Henchman appears to me to be about the most northern-most in England, yet there is certainly a big enough player base to support such a tournament.

Not a big point but felt it worth making.

In terms of the idea as a whole, I see no problem with a ranking system as a whole. Those that take the game relatively seriously now will continue to do so and attend as many events as possible. Those who attend for fun as and when they can will also do this. I fail to see that the introduction of such a system will inherently change the game itself.

Although I would rather hope to avoid set power builds, most people know what they are and would use them if winning was all important to them. Fairly sure the dynamics of the game and crews will be sufficient to prevent beginners just storming in with such a build and start dominating tournaments.

I also think there are sufficient characterful crews to prevent seeing ten or so of the same master in a twenty player tourney - I hope so anyway.

Edited by Chucklemonkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I've made a thread here;

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=88726&p=1080331#p1080331

where people from WFB (The game most affected by Rankings...) can post :)

Adam, I apologise if any of my comments offended you, I do take back the bit about Hamelin.

But surely you must concede that with or without rankings you'd want to be a competitive player? Rankings main point for me (in WFB) was to give players that don't want to be competitive something to work toward (Best master)

If anything it would limit power builds IMO as the 'top' players try to pick up as many best master icons as possible?

(and I think you too) only want to "win" at certain tournaments

I disagree with this, I couldn't care where I finish. And the bit after about depending on how it's implemented, well, it's up on the first page that only your top 3 count.

My point still stands, even if I knew I was entering the rankings in last place, it's a great idea, so yes, I would have the same opinion as I've been involved in the rankings for a good 3 years now.

BLEH. I had another point. But my brain's melted from having 3 jobs. I'll edit it when I think of it. Erm.

Oh and Adam, if you wanna chat outside of this thread, you have my facebook, and I'm still more than happy to chat about the ETC, including telling you what it is ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The henchman requirement is logical but would limit the option geographically to areas with game stores (that support Malifaux).

i think the requirement is only that a henchman attends the event not host so if you held a tourney up north as long as someone like MythicFox (who travels to alot of tourneys) or Clousseau attends it can still count.

one question i have is would you use the rankings to pair first round matchups at tournaments?

Edited by Scurry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information