Jump to content

UK Malifaux Rankings


mythicFOX

Recommended Posts

I think that my experience in rankings tournaments (and that's 40k and Fantasy btw) is that once it becomes about rankings, then the other elements become less important, BECAUSE the bragging rights for a start, so you get the win/loss ratio becoming more important than the I-had-a-great-game-and-it-was-a-loss-but-what-a-cinematic-ending-with-the-final-shootout/melee which is, in all honesty, what I play malifaux for. I'm a competitive at best player, and i'm fine with that, but I don't want to be squeezed out of a scene because I'm not optimising my lists or what have you.

From my calculations on the for/against comments, it looks like there are more in favour of that line of thought than against, but perhaps that's because rankings systems cause people to migrate to other games...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, and having re-read your comments up front MythicFox, i'd say that 'changes the way a significant minority approach tournament/event play' is a significant con, though I accept this is a by-product of the system rather than a direct output, nor am I suggesting that anyone or any of the henchmen posting here would aim for that as a goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok , so I’ve deliberately stayed out of this for most of the day to collect my thoughts and listen to the arguments. I’ll start by saying I believe there are valid points on both sides of the argument and I’m glad to see so many people care about Malifaux.

Listening to the concerns expressed by players I believe they broadly breakdown into three distinct areas, I’d like to provide my thoughts on them;

Driving out the casual players

There is a concern that rankings may make the tournament scene more results oriented, driving ‘casual’ players away from tournaments and/or Malifaux altogether. Some players are concerned about a split in the game.

Personally I think this divide exists already. The local groups I play with have at least as many players who don’t travel to tournaments at the moment as do. I think for every current tournament player there are probably one or two players playing Malifaux who have no desire to play tournaments. If these players don’t want to go to tournaments now, or only want to go to very local events, then we shouldn’t be unduly concerned about those players making that choice.

Tournaments are a great way of attracting new players from other systems. Something RHQ and rankings should really help us with. Malifaux on RHQ will expose the game to more players from other systems and that’s a good thing.

Does that mean we should abandon those ‘casual’ players who don’t want to play tournaments? No, of coarse not!

Years ago Wizards of the Coast figured out there were three broad caricatures of Magic; the Gathering players, they called these; Timmy, Johny and Spike. They all played MtG, but for different reasons. WotC recognized this and began evolving their game to appeal to all three groups. There is no reason Malifaux has to be any different. Let’s face the fact that different players play for different reasons and provide options for them all.

Tournaments are not the only form of group play out there. We should be looking to innovate, set up campaign and story based events. Let’s use this as an opportunity to tune in to the needs of the ‘casual’ player and put together non-tournament group play events to suit their needs.

Rankings will only pose the risk of driving players away if we, as a community, choose not to offer them an alternative. We can do that. So lets see those players concerned about the ‘casual’ player get their thinking caps on and plan some exciting story based campaign events.

Playing every event to win

People have mentioned that rankings will force players to be ultra-competitive at every event. They’re concerned about having to bring their A-game every time to avoid dropping points.

I understand this, I do.

One thing I think that’s being overlooked is that the rankings use your best three results in a rolling 12 months. So once you’ve got your competitive events in there’s no ‘penalty’ for turning up to other events and doing less well with something random. Finish last? It makes no difference, none, because your three competitive finishes are still the ones in your rankings.

Get one good result every four months, then play with random stuff for fun. Keep in mind that we’ll be living the rankings with events already loaded, so if you’ve got strong recent finishes then you can still tone it down over the summer and kick it back up as your last big finish comes close to dropping off.

That or opt out of the rankings, you don’t have to be ranked at all if that’s not fun for you.

Net-Decking/Listing

I call it Net-Decking because I come from MtG, but the point is the same. Players are concerned that rankings will drive players into picking up the latest net-list and they’ll play against the same list five times in a row.

I think this ports a lot of assumptions from GW games. An absolutely key skill in Malifaux is constructing your crew to the best match up against your opponent and the objectives you face. There are 25 combinations of core strategies, five different factions, 26 possible leaders and countless scheme combinations. Players have to adapt their lists in this game, there is no one list to rule them all. You have to build for the game and opponent your playing there and then.

Players also need to remember it can take your three or four games to work out how some crews actually work. It takes at least ten games to get really proficient with the crew. Player skill and experience is such a big factor here that I think net-decking is fundamentally unprofitable for anyone who isn’t going to spend hours and hours learning the crew.

I remember the end of Odyssey / Onslaught season of Type 2 MtG. The world championships had just finished and the Wake deck had won. For the next two months I was smashing net-decking Wake players apart with a tier 2 Reanimator build I’d played for months. How? I knew that deck and all its matchups backwards.

The other thing to remember is that net-deck wisdom is often wide of the mark. The clever player can almost always improve the build and flourish.

Stale formats are also less of an issue in Malifaux because the game is constantly evolving, if we get a new book every 12months or so the scene will continue to evolve. This is especially true if we don’t allow unreleased Masters and Henchmen. New masters will come out frequently, evolving the scene and forcing players to adapt their game.

Now I know some people will point out that some masters are very powerful and will always do well. I’d like to dodge that can of worms by saying no problem is insurmountable. Especially with the dedicated and talented people at large in this community.

---

Wow, that got long. Ok I'll wrap up. Overall there are risks, but there are rewards here too. What we need is the community to do what it can to support the player base, casual AND competitive. I think rankings are broadly positive, but we need to match that support in other areas so no one gets left out.

Let's face it if we all do something to help this great game I'm sure it has a fantastic future in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will all do our best to support and develop it. I'm sure that's what everyone wants.

I'm sure the other TO's will agree that if we get approached by someone not wanting to be ranked, we would make sure that this got back to you or Clousseau or whoever in fact and make sure that this happened.

I'm excited as to the things we could all do. I am.

You know where i am if you want anything James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had been thinking about an Opt-in/Opt-out system. So you would only get ranked against other players that want to play with ranking. I'm sure there are an awful lot of people out there that won't manage to make 3 tournaments a year, or just don't want to be ranked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mythicfox, I confess that I disagree with your prognosis, but I don't doubt your and your henchmen colleagues' intention to make it work, I'll watch with interest, but I think I'll need to be enticed to attend a ranking tournament, because it makes me very suspicious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mythicfox, I confess that I disagree with your prognosis, but I don't doubt your and your henchmen colleagues' intention to make it work, I'll watch with interest, but I think I'll need to be enticed to attend a ranking tournament, because it makes me very suspicious.

I have candy in my va- tournament, young boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tournaments are not the only form of group play out there. We should be looking to innovate, set up campaign and story based events. Let’s use this as an opportunity to tune in to the needs of the ‘casual’ player and put together non-tournament group play events to suit their needs.

That's a good point, and when we did our 'Intriguing Prospect' event, that was what we tried to do, but I'll be honest, it was a vast amount of work, including taking a week off work to make additional terrain, write individual background/stories for each table. It's hard work, but if more people were up for something similar, I'd be there!

I had been thinking about an Opt-in/Opt-out system. So you would only get ranked against other players that want to play with ranking. I'm sure there are an awful lot of people out there that won't manage to make 3 tournaments a year, or just don't want to be ranked.

A nice idea, it means that if I do get tempted by zee's candy (Now i feel a little unwell) and go to a tournament, then at least I can stand aside to some extent from those who's soul objective is to crush my competitive-at-best ass into the dirt. Or at least discourage them from playing with that attitude against me- which will mean we might play in a slightly different, mutually entertaining spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very impressive post James, kudos to you mate. As you'll hopefully expect I'm more than happy to support you in making it work if it's what the majority decide despite my own reservations.

Re the opt-in/opt-out - wouldn't that mean that the overall winner of a certain tourny could end up being different from the winner as far as rankings go? Say James plays three "non-ranking" players and Jo's games are all ranking - how would that work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very impressive post James, kudos to you mate. As you'll hopefully expect I'm more than happy to support you in making it work if it's what the majority decide despite my own reservations.

Re the opt-in/opt-out - wouldn't that mean that the overall winner of a certain tourny could end up being different from the winner as far as rankings go? Say James plays three "non-ranking" players and Jo's games are all ranking - how would that work?

Ranking points are not linked to who you play just your final position in the tournament.

So If James came 2nd in the tournament he would get the same number of points as Jo would if he came 2nd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the warm words guys.

Just to pick up on what Ratty said, you can be ranked from event one. Then get more points as you play your second and third events. It's one way of encouraging new players to attend more events.

TBH I'll be interested to see how many players opt out. I don't imagine it'll be many but then I wasn't expecting this level of nervousness from the community.

@Pharaoh - 'Intriguing Prospect' was a great idea. It was a shame I couldn't make it. That was in my mind when I was taking about non-tournament events. :D

@magicpockets - my understanding is it works like this. Anyone who opts out isn't included in the rankings, but they aren't removed from standings. So suppose a 20 player event, 1st would normally get 100pts, and 2nd 95, 3rd 90, 4th 85 etc. If 1st & 3rd opt out 2nd and 4th still only get 95 and 85 pts respectively. They aren't upgraded to 1st and 2nd.

Someone above mentioned the henchmen requirement, it is only a requirement a henchmen be there, playing or otherwise. This was quite hotly dented. In the end it was felt as henchmen (there are 10 in the UK) we get about enough to cover most bases. If a large community springs up somewhere in the UK we can't cover easily it was though this would encourage them to apply for their own henchman.

Edit: Ratty beat me to it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very impressive post James, kudos to you mate. As you'll hopefully expect I'm more than happy to support you in making it work if it's what the majority decide despite my own reservations.

Re the opt-in/opt-out - wouldn't that mean that the overall winner of a certain tourny could end up being different from the winner as far as rankings go? Say James plays three "non-ranking" players and Jo's games are all ranking - how would that work?

Ranking points are not linked to who you play just your final position in the tournament.

So If James came 2nd in the tournament he would get the same number of points as Jo would if he came 2nd.

It makes no difference to playing a person that is ranked or unranked. Just the unranked players would not appear in the ranking table.

Lets say over the year I attend 3 huge tournaments and come 1st. I would have 300 tournament rank.

So the table might be

1st Ratty 300pts

2nd Magic Pockets 275pts

3rd mythicFox 260pts

I choose to Opt out. the table would read

1st Magic Pockets 275pts

2nd mythicFox 260pts

3rd Hayzel 25pts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH I'll be interested to see how many players opt out. I don't imagine it'll be many but then I wasn't expecting this level of nervousness from the community.

I don't think the opt out numbers will show a true picture, as there will be a lot of people who just won't bother with ranked events as they don't want to be part of it. If something is flagged as a ranking points event, I think I'll probably skip it. You could end up with a divide where ranked events will be seen as WAAC events.

The community nervousness comes from seeing the effect of he system on the fantasy scene. Still, looks like the points system is coming in regardless, so academic really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rankings will only pose the risk of driving players away if we, as a community, choose not to offer them an alternative. We can do that. So lets see those players concerned about the ‘casual’ player get their thinking caps on and plan some exciting story based campaign events.

Just catching up with this discussion.

Very good posts from Mythic. I agree this shouldnt be a bad thing. I would like to emphasise Mythics point quoted....I think this is a brilliant idea, scenario led community gaming events..I for one have been thinking about this idea since I read a battle report on the Wyrd forum with this basis for the event.

Lets give the gaming community wants it deserves, both competitive environment and fun only environment.

I still feel anyone can rock up and enjoy a tournament that has ranking...like I said before its only the first game or 2 where u might face a super competitive opponent. But Mythics suggestions is great and I fully support it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

at least I can stand aside to some extent from those who's soul objective is to crush my competitive-at-best ass into the dirt. Or at least discourage them from playing with that attitude against me- which will mean we might play in a slightly different, mutually entertaining spirit.

Sorry for the confusion - I thought based on pharaoh's post above that games against non-ranking players wouldn't be counted. To be clear, if a newbie etc drew a player in the ranking system they'd still get mullered as their game (and final position) influences ranking points?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, if a newbie etc drew a player in the ranking system they'd still get mullered as their game (and final position) influences ranking points?

Yep. Lovely, eh? You get the ranking points based on final placement at the event, so theres no point in playing softly - crush them for the most amount of VP's possible and boost yer ranking points score. Getting a new player is great as it's easy points.

If it's a ranked event, you have to be on your top game or face losing places on the rankings chart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. Lovely, eh? You get the ranking points based on final placement at the event, so theres no point in playing softly - crush them for the most amount of VP's possible and boost yer ranking points score. Getting a new player is great as it's easy points.

If it's a ranked event, you have to be on your top game or face losing places on the rankings chart.

The way this is to be handled is still to be decided. If in this scenario I was playing the new player, I would explain to them what I am doing and why, advise them if they are about to do something grossly bad and say why its bad, and generally use the game as a teaching opportunity in a friendly environment. Yeah id still play to win, as that is the point of playing, to have a winner and a loser, but id try and make sure we both had fun in the process and help them to learn the game and what the crews can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way this is to be handled is still to be decided. If in this scenario I was playing the new player, I would explain to them what I am doing and why, advise them if they are about to do something grossly bad and say why its bad, and generally use the game as a teaching opportunity in a friendly environment. Yeah id still play to win, as that is the point of playing, to have a winner and a loser, but id try and make sure we both had fun in the process and help them to learn the game and what the crews can do.

Seems like a reasonable way to go about it. Others will just want to move up the rankings charts with an easy victory and try to hit the top ten.

Horses for courses and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like a reasonable way to go about it. Others will just want to move up the rankings charts with an easy victory and try to hit the top ten.

Horses for courses and all that.

I agree with you. There will be those that just hit hard for the win, but those will probably do so anyway.

It's probably a personal thing for me, but I very much enjoy helping others and bringing them up to speed. Winning is great, yeah, but isnt playing a great fun game, with an opponent who looks forward to playing you again, much better? And if I can help make them a better player, next time we play I might have more of a fun challenge :tea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats an admirable stance Drake.

From experience I think you would be in the minority. As Ranked events become more competative, as they will. A lot of the players will be attending purely to boost their place on rankings HQ.

I have lost count on the number of times it has been obvious from turn 3 (WHFB) that my opponent would be winning, only to spend the next 3 turns having my army systematicaly wiped off the table (not much fun) because my opponent needed the extra points in case of a tie at the end of the weekend and it came down to victory points scored rather than win/loss.

This can be eleviated if there is a set points score for a win/draw/loss (3/1/0) and in game points are not used for any tie break.

I know malifaux does not work quite like this but everyone will be going to score their max points while preventing their opponent from scoring any just in case of tie breakers.

I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winning is great, yeah, but isnt playing a great fun game, with an opponent who looks forward to playing you again, much better?

Without a doubt! (aside from the winning is great bit, I find close fought draws to to be the best games)

Its also the reason I avoid ranking events, as it promotes and rewards the WAAC style of play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats an admirable stance Drake.

From experience I think you would be in the minority. As Ranked events become more competative, as they will. A lot of the players will be attending purely to boost their place on rankings HQ.

I have lost count on the number of times it has been obvious from turn 3 (WHFB) that my opponent would be winning, only to spend the next 3 turns having my army systematicaly wiped off the table (not much fun) because my opponent needed the extra points in case of a tie at the end of the weekend and it came down to victory points scored rather than win/loss.

This can be eleviated if there is a set points score for a win/draw/loss (3/1/0) and in game points are not used for any tie break.

I know malifaux does not work quite like this but everyone will be going to score their max points while preventing their opponent from scoring any just in case of tie breakers.

I am not saying there should not be any rankings, just that players should be prepared that some will take things very seriously, as is human nature.

Remember, if my little toys smash your little toys it proves to all the lady's that I am better breeding matterial than you and to all the men that I am obviously the alpha male around here.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't see the difference between a tournament before rankings were established and a tournament after rankings have been established. The same people will be trying to win the tournament or place as highly as possibly and the same people wil be attending purely as a social experience. They are both tournaments, if an event is being run as say a story driven experience (i.e campaign weekend) it shouldn't have ranking points attached to it anyhow I would think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drake, obviously I know you quite well and I know you play the way you say (i.e. helping first, winning second) but in an 85 minutes tourny where time is massively tight already do you think it's practical to be that laid back if you're going for points? Something about best intentions and roads to hell and all that :P

Also, implementation question, what happens if two people each win three ranking tournaments so are theoretically on max points each?

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