katadder Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 hmm every so often only get the top 20, not sure whats that about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoMoreMrNiceKai Posted February 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 When you scroll to the bottom, it should load the next 20. The only complaints with it was when loading the rankings on mobile, 300+ rankings was too much for it to load and looked broken for a second. Is this not working for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katadder Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Will try it. Seems ok on mobile. The craig Johnson you added for lover hurts should have been craig m Johnson not the titan tyrants one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoMoreMrNiceKai Posted February 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Sorted, I guess that's going to happen a lot. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProximoCoal Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katadder Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 same again with scrap at the steelworks just been added, that winner was Craig M Johnson not the titan tyrants craig johnson 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertmac Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 I'm still showing as Jon and John McCarthy. Can you combine my scores and just have me as Jon McCarthy (team scum) please? And I'll make sure to's get it right in future! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoMoreMrNiceKai Posted March 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 Done 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 Wanted to reply more fully to the poll running on twitter about how to calculate team rankings, so thought I'd post here. We mustn't lose sight of the fact that the purpose of rankings is to encourage more players to play more Malifaux. As a result we wouldn't want to give teams any incentive to ditch players that weren't performing. IMO this rules out any form of average in the calculation. That said I don't think we want this to become a race to hoover up as many players as possible, it feels impersonal and leads to a fracturing of the community. So I support the approach where the top X players in the team count. Four or five seems like the right number for that to me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 Sounds reasonable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProximoCoal Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 As always a well reasoned argument Doxey. I just don't like the idea that anyone not in the top of the team just gets ignored. I can accept that pushing out those who are not doing well is something to avoid though. Perhaps there should just be a cap on team size and then groups can have an a team and a b team and so on. Then hoovering is avoided but everyone is involved? Just a suggestion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariFaux Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 In my view the team part is mostly for fun either way, and not that serious a competition. I don't see any team or person of the community ditching players for that reason. And while we Black Joker's tend to hoover up players, it's to include and incorporate new players (Simon Austen is our newest member btw, Kai) and not to increase any standings. Having said that, I do like Connor's idea a lot. But that leaves the question of numbers per team (and what happens if there's more - does one person form a lonely team b, or decide the clubs how to split? Like 3 BJS team A and 4 BJS team B instead of 6 BJS team A and lonely me BJS team B?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukrocky Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 What about a teams top 20 (or any other number...) scores count. This would mean the top player in the team might contribute 5-8 scores, but lower players can still contribute if they get one solid result and might inspire the players less high up to get one big result to help out. In fact I like that idea. Another potential idea is to introduce different results other than just "1st" - think Tour de France: White Jersey - Young Rider - Newest team, or highest team under 4 players? Yellow Jersey - 1st Overall - 1st Overall? PolkaDot Jersey - King of the Mountains - Unsure...? Highest average...? Green Jersey - Points - Most Podiums as a team 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adran Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 Rainbow Jersey- Top score with each faction 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonahmaul Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 One thing that I noted from the team scores is that it's ordered by total points rather than by average. This would naturally benefit those teams with a lot of players (and I say this as a member of Team Scum and there's loads of us!) so would it not be better to do it by average? Going to whinge at Alex to get the Here Be Dragons 2 scores to you again because I successfully defended my title at that one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 See my point above about average, it encourages teams to be smaller and ditch low performing players. That's not something I'd want to encourage. I like ukrocky's idea above. Total the top 16 to 20 results of players from each team. That way everyone can contribute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariFaux Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 The argument against averages is that teams could only take top players. I think we should not make it too complicated in any way, it's just a number and toy soldiers. And top x (the example here is 20) results would not necessarily include all players, in many teams just the top two or three players would contribute, and that's not great either. Maybe cap a single contributor at a certain number? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProximoCoal Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 The number could be larger to make it more infeasible that a couple of people could contribute. Say 50 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukrocky Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 So did a look at how top 20 and 30 scores would affect Harrogate. We currently have 6 members, with 20/30 the following would be contributed: Cy Dudley - 0 (Top score is 44) Paul Hansell - 3/3 (3 for 20, 3 for 30) Ant - 2/4 (2 for 20, 4 for 30) Doxey - 5/7 Paul Butler - 5/8 Me - 5/7 With the 30th coming from one of the above. That means a bit of rivalry between the team, trying to get more, but also encouraging (hopefully) Cy to get a result to contribute. I agree a larger number is better, so 30 is possibly the crutch as our score would then be 76 as a lowest, meaning Cy has to aim at 77pts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariFaux Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, ProximoCoal said: The number could be larger to make it more infeasible that a couple of people could contribute. Say 50 Challenge accepted.. wait, no, wrong answer. Difficult to accommodate for small teams with players that don't go to three tournaments a month and big teams with regular tournament goers. I'm sure there's a sweet spot in the middle, just need to find it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariFaux Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 I looked at the Black Joker's numbers as well, we would only contribute with three people Mark (7/12), me (11/15) and Josh (2/3) for (20/30) counting games out of 7 members. I know we might be an extreme example, but a good system should work for different teams. The question is if we favour quantity or quality. I think quantity is much more inclusive in a team sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertmac Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 I think total points encourages growing a community so total points is fine! It's just a bit of fun anyway but the more players you have in your team the more succesful you will be as a gaming club/community! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProximoCoal Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 18 minutes ago, bertmac said: I think total points encourages growing a community so total points is fine! It's just a bit of fun anyway but the more players you have in your team the more succesful you will be as a gaming club/community! Good point well made. Another solution, and I feel bad for suggesting it as it means more work for kai, but how about all of the above. Just have an option on the rankings to see how each team does in each system. It's just for banter so we don't even need to dub one of them 'official' 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonahmaul Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 2 hours ago, mythicFOX said: See my point above about average, it encourages teams to be smaller and ditch low performing players. That's not something I'd want to encourage. I like ukrocky's idea above. Total the top 16 to 20 results of players from each team. That way everyone can contribute. As Maria says though this may still mean that some members of the team don't contribute. I'm sure I speak for everybody in Team Scum when I say that we'd like all our players to have their results included in some way (except Dominic Westerland maybe, that guy's a douchebag!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psientologist Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 The more I read all the responses and suggestions the more I stand by what I said on Arcane Reservoir. I don't think it should be changed from how it is. I appreciate all the maths based ideas, Craig's idea, top X, all this stuff. However, most of them all seem to either exclude the lowest player(s) in a team or gives a reason for those players to possibly feel bad about their performances. Currently the biggest flaw in the current system is like Jonah and others have said is that the rank can be effected greatly by just having massive groups. Two parts to this though. First off, as I believe Maria was saying, it's all just a bit of fun (as is all the rankings) and is considered even less "serious" than individual positions. We don't really need teams to be another contest between the top players and if we did get to a stage where a lot of the chat is "Well team X is better than Y, Y just has more players" these "fights" (all the quotations) could be had at events. More teams and doubles can only be good surely? Secondly, as the first point does split into multiple, is it a bad thing that it encourages teams to recruit? Is it bad that more people would want to get themselves together, give each other a place they feel that they are a part of etc.? I know this could arguably cause say several teams to join up to become a super-power and monopolise the team rankings but that just isn't something I can actually see happening in reality. Basically the teams bit is great now and it still does list the team average so that is their for the people that want it and most importantly more banter. 2 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.