Changes to Masters for NEXT season - UK

[Joel]

Hi all,

OK, hands up, I'm a numpty.  I should NOT have announced such a huge change to the masters format for qualification when I was handed a microphone - I was knackered and made a bad judgement call. I'm not perfect and cocked up. 

Here's what will happen:

1) disregard everything I said at the GT

2) we open a full community discussion here to get views, and we sort out a change, if any, BEFORE January 30th 2016 so that the new season starts fresh with everyone knowing the score.

3) everyone can have their say.

 

for those that missed it, my proposed change is as follows:

instead of masters being the top 16 ranked players, we spread it wider to include all event winners (size of event, notice given, etc conditions to be confirmed).

my arguments for:

1. bigger event, hopefully more inclusive 

2. More types of event might be run in the community, and those events get better attendance, not just ranked GG style events

3. Once you have won an event, pressure is off - hopefully reducing any rankings-based stress and making the rankings themselves purely a banter tool, the main reason for its existence in the eyes of almost all the community

 

Arguments against:

1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it

 

id hereby like to invite all opinion on the matter, I any side of the argument as do this as a community.  However this turns out, know that I will be happy to host and run it.

once again, sorry if anyone felt I'd overstepped - I did, and I'm sorry - I'm a numpty.

have your say

joel 

 

 

[Insidiously Mad]

I actually thought the changes were brilliant at first, but as we talked about it on the way home one potential worry came up. Right now if you qualify for Masters you are guaranteed a full day of games and either a full day Sunday (if you get knocked out Saturday or do well) or at least one game (if you qualify and lose round 1). Whereas if the entire thing is single-game elimination event then you could be spending quite a lot on transport and accommodation to be eliminated after the first game on Saturday. 

It is also kind of cool having it such an elite field of 16 as it does reward continued performance throughout the year rather than just performing at one event. 

That being said I think it's a brilliant way to open people up for going to more different events. So I think there is something to it even if some of the details need to be ironed out. 

Things can always be improved and it's always worth discussing changes. Interested to hear what others think as well.

[ProximoCoal]

Thanks for doing this Joel. I admire you for 'standing up' and saying you are wrong. I think it's only fair that everyone can have their say.

I'm not really sure where I stand personally at the moment, but I'd like to throw some more pros and cons into the mix.

Pro:

1. I'm not saying this is a thing currently, but perhaps making the rankings more inclusive will prevent a 'thus and them' mentality

2. People will be more likely to try new things and feel less pressured to be at the top of their game all of the time

3. Not needing to attend all the events all the time to qualify makes it less likely that people will burn out

 

Cons:

1. Could lead to people going to some events with the wrong attitude. Deliberately attempting to subvert story encounters so they can secure a place in the masters. It might encourage more people to attend different events, but I'd be seriously concerned that it would be for the wrong reasons. 

2. You could argue that making the scramble for position at the end of the year as positive rather than negative. I have found the most gripping and enjoyable games those ones which are constantly on knife edge. It would be a shame if that the change actually lead to general apathy.

3. I personally think it would be a real shame if we lost the group stages of the Masters. I thought it lead to a really cool atmosphere and banter. I think that straight knock out would add obscene levels of pressure, exactly what was trying to be avoided through the year.

 

As an alternative can I put forward the option of simply increasing the Masters size? Not my idea, but Greg's, but at 24 you could have 4 groups of 6. 36 6 groups of 6. This way it would be more inclusive, hopefully do some of the pros without the cons. I am sure other people have some great ideas and opinions on my suggestions and I would love to see them. 

[ProximoCoal]

Good point Conor. Being knocked out after your first game would be really sad

[MalifauxMartin]

Ok, I'll jump in here. Thanks for opening the conversation for the community.

I am firmly in the leave it alone camp. Reasons:

• The people who are at the top of the rankings are the people who tend to win events, so not sure how much it will change things.
• People can qualify for masters at the moment without winning an event - the current system rewards consistent good results at events not just one lucky opponent draw.
• Some people (granted not everyone) enjoy the challenge of working towards the reward (prestige?) of qualifying
• Its possible that turnout to events might suffer if there is less incentive, i.e once qualified
• I understand what you mean about boosting attendance at other style events, but do we really want story encounters where people are turning up for what may be perceived as an easy win?

My solution would be leave the masters alone, but if you feel there is an appetite for it run a 'champion of champions' event at another time for event winners. It would be really interesting to see if the lineup is much different.

My final thought is that if other style events aren't getting the players through the door then we need to work out why that is, rather than change the reward for GG style events. Ultimately people vote with their feet, and if the majority prefer GG events then thats fine.

Regards,

Martin 

[MariFaux]

Ok, so how about this:

WHY NOT BOTH?

Obviously nobody would expect the same person to run both, but I don't see any reason why they are mutually exclusive. I liked the two masters I attended so far and as Conor said, it rewards consistency (even if it's consistently coming 2nd).

But I also like the new, more inclusive idea. The only problem I see with straight knock out is the possibility of one game after travelling 300 miles. I would (if you'd want me to) offer my services to run a story event parallel, open to everyone that incorporates the knocked out players from the serious part? I have DMd role play games for more than a decade, I'm sure I could come up with something.

And if we HAVE BOTH, we also increase the variety from standard 3 round GG. Win/win.

[Joel]

Both is certainly possible...

[OldManMyke]

I must admit that when Joel announced things I was mentally wincing as whilst he and I had discussed the idea, it was just a discussion, so I'm glad that there will be a wider consultation.

Personally where I stand is that I think that we as a community have built the rankings and thus the masters to be far to big a thing- this is at least partially my fault and for that I apologise.  This does NOT effect the behaviour of the truly top players but has led to incidents of dickish behaviour amongst the 'wannabes' which is unfortunate to say the least - there were several reports of this at the Nationals that I will be following up in due course.

What has also happened is the unfortunate domination of GG type events to the exclusion of everything else.  As a real life example I wanted to turn the Showdown series of events at TTN into a series of story encounter based events to give some variety to the calendar.  The feedback from Dan was that they were loathe to do that as story encounters don't sell tickets.  And this is no doubt true.  Joel had to cancel the second Star Wars themed encounter due to lack of sales, Kings of the North has struggled with them and I actually can't think of anyone else who has tried to do one - apologies if you have.  Folks would rather spend passes on GG events with rankings points - and we all know that if you make an event unranked it draws substantially less people than a ranked one even if it is GG format.

Turning masters into a 'champion of champions format I believe will remove some of that stigma and allow us to have a more inclusive year ending celebration that encompasses all of the gamers who take part.

On the proposed format, I'm not a big fan of single elimination, we all have those games where the deck just hates us rather than skill level, but I could certainly live with double elimination being the format.

Change as we know is difficult, I'm sure there were folks who didn't like the scheme mechanism I used at Nationals (get used to it as it will be staying  ) but that doesn't mean we should just stay with the status quo

[Insidiously Mad]

I'm still not convinced that the relationship between rankings and story encounters is the problem. There is a reason no one plays story encounters locally, even players who have no interest in tournaments. They just aren't that balanced and the main game is a lot of fun. That being said the only way we will find out if people are avoiding story encounters due to not enjoying them vs caring about rankings is by changing the system. 

I'll post about this years GT in that forum post later when I have time, but I LOVED the scheme mechanism there. Put a lot more onus on players thinking on their feet. Also meant I wasn't stressing about crew building during lunch  Though I did accidentally build a crew for Guard the Stash in the final game... I was tired gimme a break  

[MalifauxMartin]

I understand what you're saying Mike, but if a few people are being dicks that's on them and is for TOs to deal with at the time. Those people will still be dicks. I don't see why that behaviour should be a major reason to change format IF the majority of players are happy with it.

On your point about GG dominance, I know that some people feel that this is a bad thing. I just see it as people choosing their preferred format. Speaking only for myself, I like going to an event where i know what is going to happen. I know the strats and schemes well and I can sit down with an opponents and match my wits, skill and luck against them. I'm not really bothered about the extra stuff that comes with story encounters. Even if I had qualified under the proposed method by winning an event, I still would be unlikely to go to a story event. Its not about the points for me, its that I enjoy the format.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2015 by MalifauxMartin
grammar

[ProximoCoal]

What's double elimination?

[Oshova]

Firstly, thanks to Joel for opening this up for discussion. What you are proposing is a big change, that needs this discussion so as not to rock the community. I'm one of the people from before rankings was a thing... =p

I have no problem with a champion of champions event (I went to the one at Sanctuary this year). They give a clear aim of win an event, compete for a larger trophy. 

I do have issues though. 

Firstly, destruction of the rankings. I'm fully aware that there is a contingent of players who are opposed to the rankings, and behaviour attributed to them. However, I'm not sure all behaviour is because of them. Some people are just Dicks ?

The rankings are something that have grown with the community, and become a part of it. They were opposed when they first came in, and in all honesty I haven't directly seen or heard bad behaviour due to them (and I go to a lot of tournaments...) That's not to say there isn't bad behaviour of course, I have heard second hand stories of things people have said or done. 

The Masters as a celebration of those who have performed well over the entire year is a great thing. Doing well at 4 well sized tournaments is a great achievement, and should he celebrated as such. I whole heartedly believe that they should stay as a permanent fixture. Who runs it we will wait and see, but from people I have talked to it already seems to me that there is more than enough support to keep it going. 

Single elimination... As has been mentioned, it sucks for the 50% who get knocked out round 1. Whether by bad luck, or just a bad matchup. You would need a side event or something to make it worthwhile. But also, I don't feel that it is in the spirit of what you are trying to create. It is a wholely competitive format, in an event aimed at people who have won story encounters as well as competitive formats. That just kind of jars me a bit. 

So overall, I say that this kind of event would be a good. But should be an addition to the calendar, instead of destroying things that already exist and have grown over the years. 

[Oshova]

What's double elimination?

I assume it's 2 loses and you're out? 

[OldManMyke]

Just to say that there is a marked difference from a proper story encounter event vs. playing a series of games using the story encounters from the book in terms of balance

 

Its also not that there is GG dominance but there is ranked GG dominance.  A non ranked GG tournament will draw substantially less folks than a ranked one.  This, to me, is not a good situation 

Edited November 24, 2015 by OldManMyke

[ProximoCoal]

I'm still of the opinion that drawing story events into competitive play is not the way forward.

[Joel]

Fair points all.  For the moment, forget about the elimination feature for the proposed new masters - assume everything is up for discussion and that nothing is set.

I know I'd be back in the rankings if it meant less than it seems to at the moment.

 

[Oshova]

I know I'd be back in the rankings if it meant less than it seems to at the moment.

 

I struggle to see a point to them without a celebration at the end of each year. If there's no Master's style event, then rankings will fall apart soon after I'm sure. 

[mythicFOX]

The purpose of all organised play, and by extension rankings/masters, is to encourage people to play more Malifaux. So I would view any changes we make to the system through the lens of 'does this change encourage people to attend more or less events?'

The current system effectively requires players to play a minimum of four events to reach masters, the champion of champions format requires them to play a minimum of one.  I can see the proposed system leading to players who win an event early in the season playing less events than they would do under the current system (look at former Masters winners as an example).

I actually think the proposed qualification system encourages people to play less Malifaux than the current one.

If we wanted to push story encounters in this way it would cleaner to simply rank story encounter events, but have them carry less points, say 80% of the amount you'd score from a normal tournament. I really don't think that's a good idea, but that would be less problematic than the original proposal IMO.

Issues with behaviour should be tackled by the TO and the community as a whole. Encourage reporting of perpetrators and proper handling by TO's.  If we really think this is becoming a problem we could always have players who get game losses / disqualifications from events take a rankings points hit for the offence.  Again not sure we're at that point yet but it's a tool we can deploy if we need to. 

 

 

[Psientologist]

I'm extremely happy to see this thread opened up and am happy to see Joel admit that his announcement wasn't the best way to go around things.

To me, it seemed very egotistical to just announce that change with no wide discussion and I am glad that this has instantly turned around.

Personally I felt the proposed event as a replacement was a horrific idea, the event as another tournament would be great though and I have some suggestions for that, but I will get to that later.

The current masters is a great tradition, I really don't see and "us and them" and I don't think the proposed format change would stop "wannabes" as Mike put it. The proposed event for one was a lot more abusable if you are all about making masters, just hit up small events in your local area every other week and win one.

I understand that Joel is anti-rankings or whatever, however this event felt like an attempt to try and make them irrelevant. I felt bad for Stephen who has taken it over as I am sure he probably had (maybe has) no idea of Sunday's announcement.

I get that the idea was to make ranked events less relevant or help the attendance of non-ranked events but I am not sure this would do it at all. You may get lots more small events, but currently rankings helps attendance whether or not for good reasons.

I have had this discussion (I'm sure publicly on Malifools) about why Story Encounters are less popular than "GG events" and I think rankings is low on the list of reasons.

Mike's original move is the best idea IMO, more people just running them and not doing typical ranked things. People will speak with their wallets.

From a personal perspective, the new idea would give me a much a greater chance of qualifying I believe because I reckon I could win a small local event but I doubt I'm ever getting above 20 in the rankings (if that) but I dislike it. I don't think it would feel as special.

Mostly everything I have said or wanted to say has been said already, Tim for one was spot on with all the points he made. 

Re: Both!

Single elimination is bad for masters for the obvious reason others have said, travel all that way to play one game and then stand around all day.

Also, if we are worried about "dickish" behaviour, each round having your "life" on the line will create more especially from the person who got his mate to run a local event to qualify.

However, the championship invitational idea is cool. I think though it would be best done at a convention, somewhere where dropping out will still give you something to do... like Daffcon?

This way there is two exciting events. Another cool draw to Daffcon, another "calendar" for people to consider and simply more buzz. It also means story encounters and the like for one Daff can qualify for the next.

Re: increased size masters

I also considered "why not increase the size?", however, I'm not sure what this actually helps and this is from me, I could probably get 24th and I'm not sure I like that idea.

Thanks again Joel for opening this up, I know I wasn't the only one worried so I'm glad we can all have a discussion.

[McPigish]

To be honest, iv been playing just over a year now and have made friends with people all upband down the rankings scale. I can honestly say I havnt experienced an "us and them" feeling of been told of one before.

I feel the masters are a good thing, for me personally it gives me something to aim for. As some of you are aware im trying to earn a place at the 2018 masters, as im inspired by the level of players and most importantly the attitude and friendliness of the players usually associated with masters.

Alot of the magic of the masters is that its a select group (said as someone who has never been and is on the outside looking in)

Id offer though that as the number of people playing malifaux has increased generally maybe increasing the masters to say the top 24 is a compromise and sensible solution. Even if it does mean ben may get an invite lol

Love you really mr sime 

Mcpigish

 

[Oshova]

Alot of the magic of the masters is that its a select group (said as someone who has never been and is on the outside looking in)

Id offer though that as the number of people playing malifaux has increased generally maybe increasing the masters to say the top 24 is a compromise and sensible solution. Even if it does mean ben may get an invite lol

I had a thought about this, and was thinking that if expanding isn't an option (for whatever reason), then we could run 2 tiers. Top 16 is Masters, next 16 is Henchmen, you could even go as far as Enforcers, and then have Minions as the side event... or whatever. It does sound like over-complicating things... but it was just a thought.

[MariFaux]

I feel like we're having three discussions mixed up in one. Maybe we should separate the story encounter discussion from the masters discussion?

The two topics mixed up are: what format do people want the masters to be in, do we want either or both proposals, and why does nobody go to story encounters?

Everyone has different incentives to attend tournaments, but I feel that is up to the TOs to put out formats and see, not really something the community can change as a whole by changing the rules of one event of the year.

From a personal perspective:

1. I prefer GG, some of the story encounters I played are just horribly unbalanced. I'm still up for going, probably because I'm up for going to pretty much any Malifaux event wherever in this country.

2. I like the rankings, but small or unranked tournaments are no reason not to go (I traveled 500 miles to a 12 player tournament in Kent, and this year's Toy Soldier was probably the most fun and challenging event I had, partially thanks to Age of Sigmar).

[Joel]

Tim, I do like the sound of that henchmen event for the next 16 - what do others think about this?

[McPigish]

Alot of the magic of the masters is that its a select group (said as someone who has never been and is on the outside looking in)

Id offer though that as the number of people playing malifaux has increased generally maybe increasing the masters to say the top 24 is a compromise and sensible solution. Even if it does mean ben may get an invite lol

I had a thought about this, and was thinking that if expanding isn't an option (for whatever reason), then we could run 2 tiers. Top 16 is Masters, next 16 is Henchmen, you could even go as far as Enforcers, and then have Minions as the side event... or whatever. It does sound like over-complicating things... but it was just a thought.

I really like this idea its kind of like the champions league and the UEFA cup 

[Wake of Godzilla]

I wasn't at the GT so thanks to Joel for putting this out to wider discussion.

I agree with Maria, it seams like we are talking about a few things on the thread (all good things but a little confusing).

In short I don't think that the Masters format should change to much, its good fun and provides a nice book end to the year. Maybe it should become larger in the future if required.

Though I appreciate that the Masters event then becomes tied to the rankings but while far from perfect I think that its the only fair way. Otherwise having to judge based on the format of the event would inevitably lead to controversy around what should count and what shouldn't. This isn't to say that the community shouldn't look at some different formats or a few invitational and internationals across the year. 

Joel's aims of promoting a more friendly play environments and a diversity of event formats are really good ones and I would love to discuss them openly either here or on another thread but I don't think messing with the Masters format is the right way to do this. 

Edited November 24, 2015 by Wake of Godzilla