Drake Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 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 That is a fair point. I guess I dont have an answer for that example, other than that Mythic did mention ranking is based on best 3 tournament results. I know that is reliant on playing more than 3 a year (is that an issue?). Also, as that game is likely to be your first of the tournament (random matchings), I would hope it is not critical to the whole year's effort to place highly. One last point (and I know im a bad example of this!), but how many complete new gamers go to a tournament?...granted they may be facing a certain master the first time, but im guessing most players at a tournament have atleast played the game enough to know the rules and how to use their crews so some extent. Ok, so a bit of an answer, but I know its not a solid response... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hewasneverborn Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I'm not sure how this can still be a purely theoretical discussion where people question how it can happen. It has and does already happen. These same discussions happened before the WHFB rankings and the end result is a preponderance of those lists which are recognised to be superior, and a great many games where you are playing versus a position on a ladder, not an opponent. There is a very real example that has been in play for a number of years now. To assume that people that play malifaux are somehow magically above developing the overly-competative urges as other games systems have suffered from seems to be somewhat naive. I question why rankings is necessary in the first place Everyone that has joined the game has done so for the game, they enjoy the models, the mechanics, the fluff. We can all agree on liking the game. Just the discussion of rankings has shown there to be a deep division in opinion, so rather than making the community more cohesive it adds divisions where there were none. I do not want to have to register my discontent with rankings at each event I go to, sounding like the broken record, so I'd choose not to go to them, and opt for the more relaxed options. The only issue with this that some people seem to be missing is that organisers want the maximum people to attend. They know from current trends that ranked events always draw more attendance. Non ranked events are usually ignored by people in search of their three perfect scores or whatever benchmark has been set. As an objector to the fait accompli, I will have a more limited range to attend. Its easy to say that there will be a plethora of such events now, but who is to run them? The same arguments were used for Warhammer, and now I should think there are few established events that don't hand over results to RHQ. WM/H does not have individual rankings and yet the game is the fastest growing one I have seen for many years. To suggest that having individual rankings would help this game cannot yet be proven, but the evidence is there for all to see for a game that does not have them. WM/H lists events on RHQ, and has a list of the top factions by wins, and casters within those factions. That is interesting data I have no issue with, and would happily see Malifaux receive the same treatment. This is an argument for the middle ground only. The very competative types that already exist will do what they have to whatever happens, as people say. The people who like to paint and muck around, the same. This isn't about them, and to harp on about this point is a bit of a straw man. Its about the middle ground, people who may well be tempted to score those three perfect events as put forward in the first post. The assumption is they will score them quickly and then revert to a more fun list. This assumption in itself implicitly recognises that the three perfect scores are less fun. A worrying belief when mentioned alongside the benefits of such a system. What happens if through lack of familiarity, luck or skill, such a person turns up to events and somehow doesnt get a score they are happy with? Will such people still take those 3 results, or will they persist bringing the powerful list until such time as skill/luck gives them something they are happier with? Thats the real issue, and the thing that kills fantasy as a competative game. The middling sort keep on coming back with the same min-maxed lists, and in ever greater number. Each persobn that gets whacked by the shannigans has a breaking point - how long before they too decide that they don't want to fork out cash to come to these events to get beaten horribly? Or worse, that they will fight fire with fire? I haven't had the opportunity to come to many events yet, but the ones I have attended have had a decent mix of masters. I don't want to see ones skewed towards the Hamelins, Pandoras etc. I fully recognise that people are doing this for good reasons, they want to help the game. I have nothing personal against such efforts, in fact I applaud the hard work and thought that goes into the - I just believe that they will do more harm than good. I have made my thoughts clear enough over two posts, so I doubt I will be chiming in again. If anyone wants to discuss this further with me, you can message me, though I expect you will already know my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Let's not forget this isn't just about "new gamers" but also people who aren't as good as the top percentile but play for fun - which is a much bigger pool. Also, we can say it's only your top three games which count so there's plenty of scope for laid-back, fun tournaments, but you're telling me if you're competitive enough for rankings to matter that you're not going to use every tournament to try and improve on your score? Sure, only the top three scores count - but that isn't the same as saying only three specific tournaments count. Edit : ninja'd in part, but still valid Edited June 21, 2011 by magicpockets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted June 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Ok, I know people feel strongly about this. Some people believe that the Malifaux playing public are a bunch of 'that guy' timebombs waiting for rankings to set them off. I choose to believe our community is better than that. I believe we can have competitive play without everyone having to be 'that-guy'. I think we can build a community that competes with a sense of fair play. It will take strong leadership, it may be painful but we can do it. If someone gets 8-0'd, then that's never going to be pleasant for them. People will be 8-0'd if rankings happen or not. I don't agree that the existence of rankings makes that 8-0 more or less likly to happen, or more or less painful when it does. That's me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warhamsterdave Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I used to attend WHFB/40K/warmaster tournaments and still do but mostly just WHFB. Yes there has always been the competative players who not only want to win the event (this is one of the reasons to attend) but want to completely smash every opponent even if it means that all your opponents do not enjoy the games. what I think has occured over the last few years is that there seems to be more uber competative players at ranked events and less people just there for the fun social. Some of the best painters do not even take their models to ranked events, saving their weekend passes for things like doubles and non ranked events where they feel they will be playing against people who are there for the fun rather than caring who wins at the end. Only in the last 2 years have I had opponents question rules on a regular bases, nit pick over fractions of an inch and generaly make me feel like I never want to play them again. Yes there are still loads of gamers who are there to see mates and have some fun games with new opponents. They will always be there but some may decide that they prefer the less competative events and start to avoid ranked events. It will not stop me attending, I consider myself to be of the less competative end of the gaming spectrum (get enough competition at work) and will go to events based on time/location/mates. dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talos Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 That is a fair point. I guess I dont have an answer for that example, other than that Mythic did mention ranking is based on best 3 tournament results. I know that is reliant on playing more than 3 a year (is that an issue?). Alot of people seem to be mentioning that you can play super competitive in 3 tournaments and then take it easy in the rest. On average how many tournaments do you guys go to each year ? I have resized that rankings dont matter to me because I doubt I would make 3 or more tournaments a year. I would love to go to more and if they are in London I will be there but once you add up travel and extras for ones further away they get much to pricey for what they are. So will many people be going to more than 3 a year where in the extras they could take it easy and use a softer list ? One last point (and I know im a bad example of this!), but how many complete new gamers go to a tournament?...granted they may be facing a certain master the first time, but im guessing most players at a tournament have atleast played the game enough to know the rules and how to use their crews so some extent. Ok, so a bit of an answer, but I know its not a solid response... In my last tournament I faced Hoffman and Ramos who I had never faced before. I also used Lucius who I had only used once before and then a bunch of minions (hounds,Ryle,drill sarge) I had never played with. Was great fun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 If someone gets 8-0'd, then that's never going to be pleasant for them. People will be 8-0'd if rankings happen or not. I don't agree that the existence of rankings makes that 8-0 more or less likly to happen Let's say you're second on rankings and in reach of first place, you've got three high ranking scores in the bag and are at another tourny - are you going to play a "fun, laid back list" as your "three scores" are in, or are you going to go for the win to improve your ranking? Let's say you then don't get the score you need to snag the next highest placement, what are you going to do at the next tournament - fun or win? The next? The one after that? And after that? Answer those questions honestly for yourself, and you'll understand where my concerns are based. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Are we not missing the difference between being competative and playing like a dick? You can have a good fun competative game without being a horrible opponent its about your attitude. Even if rankings made the mid field that bit more competative as you have something else to play for it doesnt have to make you a bad opponent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warhamsterdave Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Fulgrima, I am not saying that rankings should not be done, I quite like the idea to be honest. I just wanted to point out that the "dick" players will still be there and they may be joined by some of the more competative middle ground players who now want to place higher due to their rankings. It's all down to the individual and the choices they make on how they want to play. Personaly I tend to play more easy going at tournies against strangers than I do when playing a mate that I know well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Skies Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 And thus we get to the crux of the arguments. The one thing we have no control over yet need for this to work. The players, the people that play the game. It's going to be their choices at the end of the day that will reflect on how well the rankings work and if there is a split between fun play and competative play (Though I don't see how you cannot have a fun and competative play) To reinforce a point that Mythic made fun tournaments and narrative tournaments will probably end up more attractive than pure competative ones for new players and it would be up to the TO to make sure they are. Infact as a shameless plug I'm thinking of doing one around new years where you can only use bash ala Indiana Jones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Are we not missing the difference between being competative and playing like a dick? You can have a good fun competative game without being a horrible opponent its about your attitude. Even if rankings made the mid field that bit more competative as you have something else to play for it doesnt have to make you a bad opponent. So if you're a lower tier/mid tier player and I steamroll you with a power list just for the points (which you know from deployment you're going to get hammered by) but am nice about it that's okay? You'll be happy you drove x number of hours and paid £x for tickets and accommodation to play me? What I think the issue is is that in the back of the top percentile's minds at any given tourny (especially the smaller ones ironically enough) will be that they could improve their score in the rankings and that will colour their crew selections and play style in EVERY tournament they go to. The impact this will have on fun, attendance, rules lawyering, variety etc will be noticeable. If you look at this in respect of the potential downside to having a ranking system and the potential downside to not having a ranking system I think you'd be hard pressed to build a case for one. But, as I've already said, if it comes into the game I'll support it and the people who chose to partake 100% in any way I can - I'll just opt-out myself. Edited June 21, 2011 by magicpockets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafruk Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I wish I played enough malifaux to make tournaments and rankings a reality for me. At present I'm a rank amateur in the game, I've played a small handful of games, mostly intros to get other people in my area interested and I have a grand total handle on the rules of next to nothing and particularly know zero about how best to play my crew and the tricks and tactics associated with it. My malifaux credentials out the way I've been playing warhammer for the last few years and was sat at a top 5 dwarf player in the UK for a while and now playing woodies and ranked 10th in the UK. So top 10 with 2 races, wow I must be great right... Well look at the overall and I'm about 200th so clearly not. I don't intentinally take weak races but I'm not going to pick up one of the obvious top armies because I'd rather have fun working out how to play well with something a bit more challenging. The same translates to all my gaming, malifaux I picked up guild stuff on the basis of the way it looks, what I'm starting to feel is that it's not the right crew for me at present as they just don't do that much and I want to have a more fun experience. I can see how nino, Austinger and some other stuff can give you a horrendous long range game that nobody can match (but can still counter quite simply) but it's not the experience I want. Bringing that back round to rankings how exactly do they impact me if I attend a tournament, well I have my own special focus. Because tournaments can restrict by master or faction I'd imagine you can't readily track master statistics because in some tournaments it wouldn't be the same across the rounds. Personally I don't fancy trying to become 'the neverborn master' best in faction player, for a couple of reasons 1. I'm not good enough 2. It's far to open to targetting the best build. ie the dreamer alp bomb is often talked about as horrendous, I'd never play it because it doesn't sound like fun but excluding that from my options might limit me from getting certain wins (as a noob I'm taking an internet example, reality is I've no idea how good the combo is for winning games). For that reason I don't really see malifaux rankings working for me, but that doesn't mean there is no value in them. If you can have them as a game tracker it's awesome. I love beign able to look back at the list of who I played, what they used and how I did. It's a great way of giving you a reality check on where you commonly fall down. I love a bit of gentle smack talk based upon me usually proclaiming to be an utter chump and calling out better players to stomp me or live in shame! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 So if you're a lower tier/mid tier player and I steamroll you with a power list just for the points (which you know from deployment you're going to get hammered by) but am nice about it that's okay? You'll be happy you drove x number of hours and paid £x for tickets and accommodation to play me? If your nice to play against then as I have gone to a tournament yes I wouldn't mind playing you as the thing to remember is I am playing against YOU. I do take mid/lower tier lists to events so I have had my share of hammerings and it is definatly the opponent that makes the difference not the crew that they are bringing to the event. I also don't think that not having a ranking system will stop power lists turning up as ive said before and you have tournaments are there for winning so someone will always want to win that tournament. Also from what I have seen in Malifaux tournaments TO's have been doing an amazing job with prizes which will make people more competative so should we stop these as well? At the recent Birmingham Games Expo tournament first prize was fantastic so most came quite understandably with their game faces on rankings wouldn't of changed that at all. Isn't it also possible that rankings may promote more mid tier lists as there will be rankings for each master you wont need to bring the most uber list to feel you can compete for something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I also don't think that not having a ranking system will stop power lists turning up as ive said before and you have tournaments are there for winning so someone will always want to win that tournament. But do you want me to turn up with my "power list" at every tournament? And should I feel obliged to turn up with my power list at every tournament in case I can scrape some more ranking points or to avoid conceding ranking points? At the recent Birmingham Games Expo tournament first prize was fantastic I know, I won it (remind me who you are/who you played, I'm rubbish at putting forum names to people I've met) Isn't it also possible that rankings may promote more mid tier lists as there will be rankings for each master you wont need to bring the most uber list to feel you can compete for something. Mid-tier masters maybe, but not mid-tier lists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talos Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Isn't it also possible that rankings may promote more mid tier lists as there will be rankings for each master you wont need to bring the most uber list to feel you can compete for something. I can see people wanting to be the best at a certain master but how will this be recorded. As malifaux really should be played fixed faction not fixed master. So surely you would only have best in faction not best masters unless you recorded which master each person used for each game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 But do you want me to turn up with my "power list" at every tournament? And should I feel obliged to turn up with my power list at every tournament in case I can scrape some more ranking points or to avoid conceding ranking points? If you wanted to be ranked #1 I wouldn't hold it against you for there to be a competition there needs to be a winner. Ive had fantastic games where I have been decimated by what we would call a "power list" but ive also had terrible games against lower/mid tier lists because of the opponent as well. Wont swiss system events also help with this? As after a round or two those players that are going for it will be pairing off and the people that want to go have a laugh and socialse should also start being paired off. I know, I won it (remind me who you are/who you played, I'm rubbish at putting forum names to people I've met) At the events we have both played at there are usually so many tables between us we may as well be in different countries I was the fool taking Marcus to the GT and used Lady J at the birmingham event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I can see people wanting to be the best at a certain master but how will this be recorded. As malifaux really should be played fixed faction not fixed master. So surely you would only have best in faction not best masters unless you recorded which master each person used for each game. I am assuming that is how it would be done says on first post they will be able to tell Mythic put on the first post (Supports ‘Best in faction’ and ‘Best in Master’ awards.) as one of the pro's. Having not used the software im not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted June 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Just to pick up on the 'Best Faction' and 'Best Master' badges. The vast majority of events in the UK are fixed master, so these are easily supported by the system. Even in events where masters aren't fixed (eg B'ham the other week) quite a few players don't actually change master during an event. Under those circumstances players could be given best master points if they only use one master during the event. I quite fancy a crack at best Ramos myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_hazard Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I've read through all the posts and thought I'd drop my couple of pennies in as well. Personnally I'd opt out of any rankings as I know from experience (with FoW) that if I focus on winning I enjoy myself less and usually play worse. I attend tournaments based solely on when and where they coincide with my trips to the UK so I won't care if its a ranking event or not. I'm also willing to take a crew that I'm not overly familiar with if I feel it's appropriate. e.g. I usually play Neverborn because I like the fluff. At B'ham I had planned to take, and use, each of the four Neverborn masters but after viewing several posts on the forum where people were saying they were taking Neverborn I switched to the Viks and Von Schill. I did this to give more variety to the tournament even though I had never played them before. Now all of that is my choice however... What about the ranking players who aren't at that tournament? Is it fair that a ranking player at the tournament had an 'easy' match against me because I was unfamiliar with my crew or should I take the crew I know well even though it would diminish the variety of crews in the tournament? Similarly what if, during a game, I happen across one of those 'this is really unlikely to work but damn what a rush giving it a go' moments - is it fair to the other ranking players that I try a long shot and probably hand big points to my ranking opponent? If I do either of these things now then they just impact on the people who are actually at the tournament and the better ones will end up playing each other anyway but if I do these actions when there are rankings then the players who aren't there are impacted by my decisions and aren't around to respond. So the summary of all that is if there are rankings my choices will be impacted so that, in my mind at least, I have made decisions that are 'fair' to all of the other players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratty Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 If I do either of these things now then they just impact on the people who are actually at the tournament and the better ones will end up playing each other anyway but if I do these actions when there are rankings then the players who aren't there are impacted by my decisions and aren't around to respond. Ranking is only done on final placing in tournament. Individual Game scores don't particularly matter due to the Swiss format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_hazard Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Ranking is only done on final placing in tournament. Individual Game scores don't particularly matter due to the Swiss format. I realise that but is it fair that the person currently on 295 points is bettered by someone with 300 points if a large part (B'ham was 4 games so it would be 25%) of their final tournament victory was down to me making 'fun' choices? And that's just if I'm the only one making the 'fun' vs 'min max' choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratty Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I realise that but is it fair that the person currently on 295 points is bettered by someone with 300 points if a large part (B'ham was 4 games so it would be 25%) of their final tournament victory was down to me making 'fun' choices? And that's just if I'm the only one making the 'fun' vs 'min max' choices. The thing is after the first couple of rounds the final winners are unlikely to meet a mediocre or fun list. They will be playing up on top table vs strong players. They are far more likely to win due to a bad matchup or strategy, than beating you by a lot in round 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Can I just add, and I know I have made a few comments so far so will keep it brief.. A) rankings are prestige only right? No financial reward?If so, if someone gets more ranking points because someone played a fun list, is it the end of the world? I wouldnt have thought so Also, in small to medium sized tournaments (under 20 as Mythic described), the max you Ranking Points you can attain is 50 for coming first. Only in tournaments with 20 or more players are the full 100 points going to be available....Well I for one wouldnt be worried about trying my hardest to win if I cant achieve all 100 pts, as overall that win I scored at a 50pt max tournament actually brings down my total. So this means if you are going to see and power gaming at all, it is only likely to be at larger tournaments, I would have thought. C) no one list is great at everthing, they all have strengths and weaknesses, so the only issue is player attitude to the game rather than crushing lists.... I feel that is what this boils down to, the effect this 'may' have on player attitudes. Unfortunately we wont know until we try. Yes other systems have run similar, but we are a completely different community here. I will finish now :sleepy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverata Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I don't think this point can be stressed enough....OPT IN OR OPT OUT! We can all be kept happy, but its damn good to see everyone wants to see Malifaux kept going for the foreseeable future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chucklemonkey Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 The thing is after the first couple of rounds the final winners are unlikely to meet a mediocre or fun list. They will be playing up on top table vs strong players. They are far more likely to win due to a bad matchup or strategy, than beating you by a lot in round 2. I have to disagree with this point. It assumes that the opted out players or those players who play for fun are bad players. A player could easily win the first couple of rounds without being ultra competitive and only really come up with that cinematic moment of will I or won't I in the final round. It seems already apparent that it is a divisive issue that is likely to result in a two teir system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.