Rankings Round 2

[OldManMyke]

Now that the rankings have bedded in and we have put precedents in place for how things like team events are scored I wanted to revisit the one outstanding item on the list and thats having the number of rounds affect the points available.

 

Currently there is no round limit, a 1 round 28 person event could score the same as a 5 round 28 person event.  This is probably not the right thing to do

 

The WFB rankings assume that a 5 round event is the norm and as you go down the scale its worth less points.  4 Rounds is worth max of 80, 3 rounds 60 etc. 

 

I think this is a bit drastic for us but would still like to reward larger events.

 

So we have I think 3 choices

 

1) No change, number of rounds makes no difference

 

2) Set a round threshold and work down.  This is the WFB Model.  I would suggest if we did this then the threshold is set at 4 with a 3 rounder being worth 90 - don't want to kill off 1 day events.

 

3) Increase the number of points available as the rounds increase.  So a 4 rounder would be worth say 120, 5 140, 6 160 etc.

 

The normal deductions for entrant numbers would of course apply.

 

Thoughts and comments please.

 

[Euclid (#ScottishMeta)]

I would go with number 2.

I wouldn't drop a 3 rounder so far, if at all. Maybe 95.

The other modification would be more rounds and fewer players also being worth more - I.e. 24 players in 6 rounds should also be 100 for 1st.

[Joel]

I have mixed feelings on this.

 

firstly I have my logical side that says that more games = more challenge = more reward is right.

 

however, if we work upwards, we have (theoretically) no cap on the maximum number of points that can be scored.  8 25ss rounds would be 200 points for example.  Would we see a move to lower SS events to boost ranking points available to attract in more players?

 

If we did, this would skew the game perhaps?

 

On the other hand, if we don't allow 3-round events to score 100 points, even if they attract 28 players, then do we hurt one day events too much.  Many venues have opening/closing times out of the hands of the TO, and 4 rounds might not be feasible even if desired.

 

I don't want to have the one day event suffer as a result of a change - so I guess my question is: would the lack of a possible 100 point ranking score be a problem?

 

to sum up:

 

I like the clarity of the 100 point cap

 

I don't like the idea that most 1 day events will take a rankings hit - there are very few WHFB 1-day events, and I cant help but see this as a reason.

 

I like the idea that more rounds means more reward - but I'd want a limit on that!

 

I don't know if any of that rambling helped anyone at all...

[Tapdancer]

Just to clarify what is the agenda / issue driving the perceived need to change?

Not withstanding the outlier example given the real issue seems to be that is thought that the larger 20+ 3 round events represent "easy" ranking points. Large 3 round events have too large an element of luck with the first and second round draws having too large an impact final places.

The other apparent subtext seems to be as follows

Increasing round number will make tournaments better improving the overall scene.

Making really big events 5 and 6 rounds more rewarding is fairer and will encourage growth at the larger end of the scene.

Personally I agree the 3 round format is too luck based and squeezing a fourth round in makes sense where numbers warrent it. Adding a fourth game increases the enjoyment by increasing your chance to play by 33% so will improve the scene. The downside is travel. The 3 round format does allow long distance travel for one day events. At four rounds an overnight stay becomes part of the equation (fire & ice is a personnel example of this) unless the event is local.

Regards the 5+ events be more valuable, don't see the benefit to the scene of doing that. Two day events will stand or fall based on other factors (location event organiser strength of local scene, Norfolk / Manchester be obvious illustration) RP value isn't going help one way or the other. All that will happen is that any large event bonus would reward a subset of the scene who are particularly time rich.

Sticking in a hard cap for three round events equivellent to the 12 or 16 player tournament RP reduction would be a simple solution. This should drive up round numbers to at least 4 for the bigger one day event without creating a complex formular for RP calculation.

Hopefully Heartfaux and The Good the Bad & the Fated should indicate the viability of four round one day events.

[Joel]

that makes good sense

[rancor709]

I think at the 28 and 4 mark you have the sweet spot. Does it mean tighter schedules and greater ownish on speed of play.

[PeregrineFalcon]

Great discussion guys.

 

Here is my perspective, and it is based on two factors (desires):

 

1) In the US we are new to rankings, so don't want to start changing stuff too quickly for us

2) All (most) of our events are 1-day events. I don't see rankings taking off like we want them to if we require 4 rounds

 

So what do I suggest? Use the Gaining Grounds document as a gauge! For example 2014 Gaining Grounds has the following # of rounds recommendation:

4-15 Attendees: 3 Round Event

16-32 Attendees: 4 Round Event

33+ Attendees: 5 Round Event

 

Therefore, what I suggest is you run a 16 player event and only have 3 rounds then make the event worth 95 points. But if you have a 15 player event and its only 3 rounds you have it worth 100 points. Now I understand that events this small already have a HUGE deduction on standings (87 points for a 15 player event and 88 points for 16 players).

 

So basically for each round you have less than the recommended you deduct 5 points.

 

33 player event with 3 rounds = 90 points (-5 x 2 =                 -10; for 2 less rounds than recommended in GG2014)

16 player event with 4 rounds = 88 points (28-16 =                 -12; for 12 less players than required 28)

16 player event with 3 rounds = 83 points (28-16 =  -12 - 5  = -17; for less than 28 players and less than recommended GG2014)

 

Make sense? What do you think? This assumes I totally understand how rankings work (which I may not since we are so new to them here).

 

Right now the US meta suffers from only having 1-day events (mostly), them being smaller (16 players is a BIG event). This is a good balance I think.

[Wake of Godzilla]

Like most I think I have mixed feelings about this - I agree that the more rounds = more challenge. Therefore it does come across as a little strange that winning a 3 round event has the sames impact as winning a 5 round event.

 

On the other hand at the moment the 1 day event is my best way of playing Malifaux. Like many other players I have commitments which make 2 day events more difficult to get to. If 1 day events started to drop off I think it would damage the momentum that the UK community has going for it currently - becoming more of a game for the hardcore.

 

Ultimately I guess we need to look at what are the purpose of the tournaments. For me it is to get together with the great community that exists in the UK and get some more games in. I don't mind if we make the changes but I wouldn't like to see those changes have a negative impact on the number of 1 day torments. 

[ninjahamster]

I would suggest leaving it as it currently stands, revisiting next rankings 'season' and seeing how many 1-2 day tournaments are out there. ATM the number of two day tournaments a year is very low, and I agree that making them 'high value' encourages attendance, but you also don't want to reduce attendance at one dayers.

 

If we get more 2 day tournaments, or someone comes up with a valid 4 round day tournament schedule I think we should increase it, but atm I'd say leave it.

 

Also 4 round tournaments with two smaller games I think bring their own problems - the game is much more swingy at lower soulstone values, but that's for another post.

[PeregrineFalcon]

Another thing I'd like to mention is that even if there is a multi-day con (for example CaptainCon) it does not mean it is a multi-day event. We're running 2-3 different events over a three day span. I'd like to have each count in order to accommodate the fact that people has schedules that may conflict with 1 event versus another. 

[Clousseau]

Interesting discussion, so a few thoughts.

100 points to be the maximum for any tournament (if for no other reason than keeping the magic 400).

I can see the argument for a small reduction in points for not keeping within GO 2014, such as 30 player 3 rounds.

Weekend events of the 5/6/7 round variety are rare and have their own unique merits and don't really need any ranking point hike incentive.

Weekend events comprising independent events score separately anyway and can allow that extra round to be fitted in.

Overall I don't see that much needs or should be changed at present.

[PanzerHarris]

I've been vocally supporting the notion that longer events should be recognised as being harder to win. To use an example of two good friends of mine, Graham Bursnell won the 7-round PubFaux event, yet will receive fewer points for that event than Joel Henry did for winning the 3-round Haul of Eggs 2.

The potential option exists of lowering the number of players required for a maximum score, where the number of rounds equals or exceeds 5. This gives a slight boost to 2-dayers that won't have the same numbers but are more difficult to win, whilst leaving the 1-dayer as the staple of the rankings.

[Tapdancer]

I don't accept 4+ rounds is intrinsically harder. Depends on opponents and the interaction of strats/schemes and board layout a three round event can be very challenging. Extra rounds reduce the luck of the draw element. With more rounds there is less chance of avoiding the big beasts or easy first round draws providing undeserved VP difference advantage.

Jimmy is right about this being something that doesn't need to be rushed in to. May/June appears to be clear of large 3 round events and we have two good single day 4 round events to test alternative formats.

[mythicFOX]

I think there's an issue on the horizon around low round count events being worth less than higher ones.  How this dynamic mixes with other factors like; number of players and type of event is an interesting point.  One I could debate at great length.

 

I'm starting to think the time is approaching where we should consider putting a little more governance around the rankings.  Right now they're drifting along on a consensus basis, which is fine. As the community grows I think it would be worthwhile working towards a position where we have a simple system for defining and changing the rankings.

 

Right now we don't really have clear definitions about what kind of events can be ranked, or even a document we can point players at to explain how rankings are calculated. Maybe it's time to look at changing that.

 

All IMHO.

[Tapdancer]

Looks like Mythicfox is volunteering to chair a committee..

Seconded with, as my daughter would put it , no take backs..

[Clousseau]

I made a thread a while ago that proposed a set of guidelines for ranked events. Responses were positive so that would be a good solid starting point and is probably 95% there already.

Then formalising it into a simple document is easy and it can be pinned here on the forum and added to malifauxrankings

[OldManMyke]

All sounds good to me

[PeregrineFalcon]

I made a thread a while ago that proposed a set of guidelines for ranked events. Responses were positive so that would be a good solid starting point and is probably 95% there already.

Then formalising it into a simple document is easy and it can be pinned here on the forum and added to malifauxrankings

 

I'd like to see it pinned in the general "Events" area if possible.

[Pierowmaniac]

Personally I think option 4

 

To qualify as a ranked event, must include 3 rounds. Scoring based on number of round otherwise unaltered.

Gives TOs more freedom to experiment with size of games and keeps the scene fresh instead of tournaments becoming clones of one popular format further down the line (looking at the evil Fantasy south coast GT pack)

[Soul Puppet]

Not sure how valid my opinion is at the moment, given my lack of tournament attendance, however my thoughts...

 

A scoring tournament should have a minimum of 3 rounds and 10 players (and I would also propose games be played with at least 40 soulstone crews).

 

If we take the above as a base (with the winner scoring 100 Ranking Points) then I strongly feel that a tournament should score more Ranking points if it has any/all of the following:

 

More rounds

More players

Increased Soulstone Cost of the Crews

 

The question is how much more do we attribute for each of these?

 

I am sure that there are some mathematical geniuses out there that can come up with formulae to determine the exact answers but my gut instinct would be to go with this:

 

Each additonal round is worth 15 points

Each additional player is worth 1 point up to a maximum of +30 (so more than 40 players still only gets +30)

Soulstone boundaries go up in 5 stone increments, each worth 5 points up to a maximum of 20 points (i.e. 45SS is worth +5, 50SS is worth +10, 55SS is worth +15 and 60+ SS is worth +20)

 

A couple of examples:

 

A 3 round 50SS tournament with 30 players would be worth 130 points to the winner

A 4 round 40SS tournament with 20 players would be worth 125 points to the winner

A 5 round 60SS tournament with 40 players would be worth 180 points to the winner

 

I think this gives TOs a little leeway to up the value of their tournament within the time limitations they have.

 

Martin

[Adran]

I'm not sure what I think the right answer is, and I'm not sure I really attend enough Ranked events that I have a good enough knowledge, but I disagree with Martins view that the size of the game should make a difference to the ranking points possible.

I would worry that it woudl lead to people playing the same size crews in every single tournement, which gets us nearer and nearer to net listing.

 

I also don't think that winning a 40 ss tournement is less impressive than winning a 60ss tournement when everything else was equal.

 

Plus my current plan to reach masters is just to win the GT.

[leebat]

personally i think the rankings should be capped at 100 , but i like martins idea.

 

i think there should be some type of comity who hash out the basic ideas the put forward a couple of ideas for a public vote of the people in the rankings.

 

lee

[M_Ruckuss]

More round could equal more reward, but lets say 5 rounds= 100prs, the cap limit. What happens is someone, in theory, wants to run a 2 day 6 game event...? In theory the system is broken....

However, most tournaments are or 3 games- I believe the points hits are quite significant and will have a Negative impact. So either say a wins a win or have smaller points decreases- 10 points. This will separate guys who finish in the same place at different round limit tourneys by the finest of margins, which, IMO is all it should be...

[Barnaberible]

I wouldn't like to see anything that sees a 2 day event score more than a 1 day event, all this does is penalise people who can't get to 2 day events.

So we are saying that 4 rounds is harder to win than 3 rounds. Maybe so as you will end up (theoretically) playing 2 top players, but I think a 4 round is also easier to place higher in than a 3 round if you are an above average player as if you lose to a top player round 3 you get to pull it back round 4.

One of the problems I see is that the 3 round event if usually decided on VP diff so if 2 top players draw each other round 1 it's putting them both at a disadvantage as the game is likely to be tight.

So with this in mind has anyone considered seeding with the top ranked player playing the lowest ranked R1 etc, this would:

1. Ensure that top ranked players aren't drawn together round 1

2. Give low ranked players the opportunity to play the top guys and hopefully pick up some tips (I know I benefit from playing people better than me)

Another option would be to tighten round times but with many schemes suffering from not scoring early rounds could it be guaranteed to get a sufficient number of turns in? Probably not which would punish people who play against slow players and also put pressure on newer players which would be a shame as the community is very welcoming to new players.

If its a must that 3 round events should be penalised because they are so easy to win then I would suggest its a nominal reduction in points, say 5. I also wouldnt agree with messing around too much with the SS value of games, the game deffinately become skewed at lower levels.

[PeregrineFalcon]

Again why not use the Gaining Grounds as a gauge? If you don't have the listed amount of rounds for the number of players at your event than you should be penalized only at that time. See my post again.

 

http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/100719-rankings-round-2/?p=723923