Proposed Changes to the 2015 UK Rankings

[mythicFOX]

 

This would avoid the 'top' players being paired against each other in the first round, and effectively ending one of the pairs chances of winning the tournament in the first round (particularly in a 3 round tournament) and also eliminate the random possibility of someone being able to gain a massive VP diff in the first round.

 

I think what this does in round one is cause all the top players to 'stomp a noob' and get a free win. Giving the best players a big VPD, and the middle players a more average VPD. This makes it easier for 'top players' to win events. Which is not something I'm comfortable with.

 

Seeding works where you have enough rounds to mitigate the advantage or provide byes. In a three round event I'm not sure you're gaining anything.

[Barnaberible]

Maybe, but that's fairer than allowing one top player to stomp a noob and 2 other top players slogging it out for a narrow VP diff.

 

you are right about the mid players though, although a low VP win for one would likely not see them meet a top player until the last round where if they beat them they would be above them on TP.

 

I would just like to see it tested and see what the outcome actually is

[ProximoCoal]

I am with Doxey again. Surely if you randomly happened to have matched two top players one of them will get a minor win and thus will end up in the middle of the table (theoretically with an easier game), but the top player who noob-stomped will face another top player because of the swiss system. Basically, in order to win you'll have to play the top players anyway

[OTP]

I think what this does in round one is cause all the top players to 'stomp a noob' and get a free win. Giving the best players a big VPD, and the middle players a more average VPD. This makes it easier for 'top players' to win events. Which is not something I'm comfortable with.

 

Seeding works where you have enough rounds to mitigate the advantage or provide byes. In a three round event I'm not sure you're gaining anything.

 

This is what i was trying to say Scott but couldn't 100% agree with mythicFox here

 

Maybe, but that's fairer than allowing one top player to stomp a noob and 2 other top players slogging it out for a narrow VP diff.

 

you are right about the mid players though, although a low VP win for one would likely not see them meet a top player until the last round where if they beat them they would be above them on TP.

 

I would just like to see it tested and see what the outcome actually is

 

its fairer for the top players, not the middling ones, for the reasons above. (but i know you like it and i don't - i don't even like it in tennis when there is at least a strong "entertainment at the end argument")

 

As for henchmen, my issues isn't so much with them per se - its with mixing them in. Say I have Mei and a few other constructs and declare aracanist - whoops I don't have a henchman unless i have a larger collection and have joss or cassandra etc. or a very themed collodi crew, vasilisa cant hire half of it, or even Marcus, Myranda cant hire half of it. Is it a puzzle to solve - maybe for those of us with lots of stuff, for others its just a barrier to entry.

[OldManMyke]

The seeding thing is really outside the scope of this discussion as its up to a TO to run an event using that mechanism and to be honest, unless Scott does one himself i dont see that happening, sorry Scott.

I am working on a new tourny spreadsheet that will do normal events and capture all the details for Elo as well so hopefully no extra data entry will be required, I'll need to do some work on the backend to capture some extra info but not to much

[Wessex]

I'd let events with less than twelve players score, but just score less. It's not that difficult to implement. Encourages participation in larger events for the good players without excluding anyone.

[Tapdancer]

Strongly disagree with exclusion of small stone henchman lead rounds from ranked tournament events. Yes it is more random and unbalanced (though master lead 40ss is equally unbalanced) but just because it pushed established players outside their comfort zone it shouldn't be pushed out of competitive play.

Had two great henchman games at Joelfaux. Issues around terrain (chess board) were far more of a problem than crew composition.

[Oshova]

@Mike

 

I know Clousseau has a very comprehensive spreadsheet that already gives every metric I can think you would need in one for Elo. Except for a column for their current Elo score of course.

 

And in terms of the changes to the back end, don't hesitate to ask if you need some help. Elo has been bouncing around my head for a while now, and I would like to think I understand it... lol

 

@Tapdancer

 

My problem with unbalanced games in terms of rankings, is that it leads to a very boring meta. I have been greatly impressed with the changes M2e has brought to the tournament scene. It's not very often you will see a limited field of masters or factions. And I feel that Henchman lead games would bring that back. There are some Henchmen that are clearly better than others when it comes to leading a crew. So, going to ranked events with Henchman lead games would bring back limited fields in my eyes.

 

By all means, have them in Story campaigns. They really add to that kind of event, and I can see there being a lot more of that next year. I am really looking forward to seeing what the community comes up with in terms of Story Campaigns next year. It will be a new chapter in the social Malifaux scene in the UK =]

[Soul Puppet]

Okay, M2E has been going for over a year now, so you would think that there is a great deal of information available in respect of tournament results and how they correlate with the SS size of games, factions, Master or Henchman led etc. BUT I'm not sure that's true.

 

The UK Masters last January will be unique historically. Why? Because it is the ONLY one that will have exclusively used Wave 1 models. How long has it been since Wave 2 began to be used at tournaments? Not a massive amount of time really, so is there enough data to make informed decisions?

 

Summoners being ahead of the curve at 40SS games has been mentioned a few times. If that's true, there should be the evidence there to back up the anecdotes. Is there a disproportionate number of Resser players (or Ramos) at the top end of the results in the smaller tournaments?

 

Everyone has their opinions but I think it needs some actual in depth data analysis if we're trying to prove something.

 

Right, I'm off to plot winning the GT! 

[floso]

a suggestion.

We know the game is balanced at 50ss. But there seems to be some evidence and suggestions that the game is less balanced at 40ss and at henchmen led. So perhaps those games / tournaments should rank less for instance 50-75%. We would still get bragging rights and competitive play but those tournaments would become less important in terms of overall rankings and qualifying for masters.

[Clousseau]

A bit late to the discussion, but its been a fascinating read. As a very average player I'll not comment on Henchman led vs 40SS Master & 50SS games, but will come at this from a TO's viewpoint.

 

Min entry level should stay at 8 players, as evidenced by the stats Mike showed, and to encourage new events in new areas.

 

Singles events only to count for Rankings is a very good idea (==> doubles, teams & story encounters are for fun).

 

Bottom player gets a minimum score is also a really good idea.

 

As the only TO to have tried seeding in tournaments (where the top players play each other in the first round - certainly not top plays bottom) I think it has achieved what I wanted (avoid noob stomp/negative player experience in round 1) in particular situations, but I agree that it is out of scope here (but will discuss with anyone who wants elsewhere).

 

A minimum number of rounds related to number of players should be a requirement of a ranked tournament, and a bonus for 2 day events seems a good idea. I don't agree with a split event being ranked, though I can understand the reasons for it. I realise that this may cause difficulties including putting a cap on tournament sizes not related to venue restrictions, and I'm not sure just now what the solution is, but there it is.

 

Back in February I posted about ranked tournaments and made some suggestions, which were basically agreed. http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/98529-ranked-or-not-ranked/ We're not moving too far away from those, but I would still retain that only events open to all are eligible, which is why I have a problem with limited entrant events (e.g. Masters side event) being Ranked, and any that restrict themselves to an exclusive group (though I'm not aware of any actually like that).

 

The discussion on ELO is interesting. Back in my Confrontation days this system was used, but TBH I can't remember whether it was good or not! The current scoring spreadsheet I use already contains the relevant info as its used to try and avoid same player match ups - I'm sure many other TOs are in a similar situation.

 

The only bad thing about this discussion was that it happened mostly whilst I was work and not on the internet.

[OldManMyke]

Agree with the open to all but would argue that the Masters side events are open to all, a qualifier doesn't need to play in the masters after all.   To me its no different than if someone else was running a tournie the same day as the masters.   They just happen to be in the same location.

 

If folks think I am off base here then please let me know

[jondoe297]

For me, everything sounds pretty good,

Not sure if min number needs to go up, if it does no higher than 10, due to smaller/more 'remote' areas would potentially be excluded, plus there's quite a high penalty for those tournies already.

 

for me, the highest change i would like to see is rounds, i dont think 3 is enough esp at the 16+ mark of entrants.

I dont know how feasible it would be but i think rounds should be a factor in tournie worth

 

interested to se how the Elo system works as well

[Psientologist]

I would definitely love to see the Elo system...

It's not ELO

...alongside the normal rankings to see how it plays out.

 

The country division if that exists simply gets evened out by it and only maybe the "second tier" players could possibly get hurt by it (but I don't think so), Elo really solves the one issue you do hear complaints about of people spiking tournaments with easy draws or the possibility of abusing the system by running 8 man events with mates when you are the big fish.

 

Minimum should go up a little, maybe 10 is the way forward but I'd like to see how many events during 2014 did not make a dozen but were 8+.

 

The shuffle off working from the bottom up is a must have, the fact you can get more points placing low in a smaller event is pretty silly.

 

I actually think it's a shame to completely right off doubles and teams (not just because I plan to play with Joel next year) but I do not feel they should be worth as much as a singles event.

My mind as always goes to competitive magic, teams still earns pro points as does singles, just less.

Doubles is kind of a bigger issue because arguably it can be one player with a mindless zombie and it still work.

 

Suggested 2 day tournament bonuses are good too.

 

Yeah, stuff and things.

It's Elo not ELO :-P

[Barnaberible]

The main problem I have with how the team event was ranked this year it that it was scored from 24 players rather than 8 teams.

 

saying that I'm still not sure doubles should be ranked in terms of masters qualification, mainly because I am not sure of any balance issues that will come to light with dubious master pairings, there are probably some horrible ones out there, especially cross faction.

 

Henchman led games I cant really comment on (haven't played any)

 

I would also endorse the capture of more statistics and ideally if we could get master specific stats, most popular scheme stats and even PvP stats that would be great, but it sounds like alot of work to me.

 

I don't think the rankings had many major issues this year and there seems to be alot of fun and banter going on and the masters qualification is still wide open with only a month or so to go so all in all I would say if its not (too) broke then dont fix it (too much)

 

I would also like to see the light orchestra running parallel to the rankings if its not adopted as a system for this year just to see how it would affect the results

[mythicFOX]

I agree I think Elo is worth testing through 2015 with an eye on implementing in 2016 if it goes well.

 

I've played a lot under Elo and similar variant systems and like it despite it's drawbacks.

 

I think we really need to test how well we can collect the necessary data. Not all events are run by a dedicated TO, eg Outpost, where event admin is handled by the venue not the 'TO', which may make the necessary penetration difficult to achive.

 

For people who want some more info on Elo the wikipedia article is fairly good.

[Joel]

Does anyone else get all shivery when James talks about penetration? (shivers)

[Soul Puppet]

Here's another random idea on tournament scoring... do it like Formula 1! 

[Barnaberible]

What, you mean run round the room 56 times and whoever gets round the quickest gets the ranking points?

[Soul Puppet]

Exactly that... I need to get fitter anyway! 

[Clousseau]

Would be useful to have some tips during the game from the pits!

[Psientologist]

Gamers and pits makes my mind go a totally different direction.

[mephiston]

Does anyone else get all shivery when James talks about penetration? (shivers)

 

OldManMyke as Bernie Ecclestone...

 

The (very small) EpicUK championship is run on a Formula one style scoring system. This works for a tournament scene with 8-10 events a year and a small following. Really not suitable for the malifaux rankings.

 

That said something like this could run alongside the main rankings for a fixed set of events, resulting in a different tin pot to master's quali.

[Barnaberible]

Can someone explain the formula 1 system?

[Argentbadger]

I would not welcome an increase in the number of players needed to count for rankings at all.  The Scotland tournament scene is small enough as it is, and focussed around only a couple of venues.  If we're to get events running in Glasgow, Dundee or other cities, this would form an unnecessary barrier to making them a success.

 

I also would not favour any form of first round seedings being added.  If the first games are seeded with 'best' versus 'worst' then a round one stomping is likely for a few of the players; if they are seeded with the 'best' pairs playing each other then the second round will see the same problem of mis-matches.  I feel that in these events with relatively few players and relatively wide skill gaps there will inevitably be a few games in which highly different skill levels are paired up; at least in the current semi-random system these can be acknowledged as 'the luck of the draw'.

 

Otherwise, my vote would be for whatever makes the TOs job easiest.