Neverata Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 This is a wyrd event and I take my orders (as it were) from Wyrd. If they want it ranked, it will have to be ranked. Regardless of whether it is, to snub a GT is to snub the games company, and whatever you have against rankings shouldn't be took out on Wyrd. But that's just my opinion I suppose! I'm all about Wyrd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieFromHell Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 :bigthumb: awesome answer and the correct one at that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenrir Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Seemed like an aggressive, rather than awesome, answer to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverata Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 No aggression in me. I'm just all about the Wyrd! Im not getting called out into a fight over rankings, I do as I'm told Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chucklemonkey Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I had noted interest in attending this year and will also await the actual yes or no answer to this question prior to confirming. Have no problem with wyrd but the manner this has been sprung Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talishko Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) Unfortunately I couldn't join the banter any sooner. I still didn't get past page 3 of this thread (there is much to digest) but I would like to highlight a few things. Like many people arguing against rankings I am not a competitive player either. But we have to admit that there are players who enjoy competing, winning and trying to get on top of that list; and that is what gives the 'fun' factor for them. These players could now enjoy the game as they would like, and that does not take my fun away at all. If I want to have some friendly, narrative games, I'm sure I will not struggle finding opponents. Some people were mentioning 'filth' 'autowin lists' and whatnot. I don't think Malifaux is a game where you can win any game with one 'overpowered' list, mainly because there are none. There are some lists that have more chance to win certain strategies against certain crews, but since tournament match-ups are usually randomly generated and/or swiss, you will most likely never know what you're up against until the tournament starts. And probably most important in this matter: Malifaux (opposed to GW products) is a constantly developed, evolving game. New minions, new masters every year (so far, and I don't think wyrd will quit selling us stuff). There is no such as ultimate winning list or combo because someone soon will find something to counter it. What does this remind me of again? Ah yes, PP. People were bringing them up as the good example for rankings, right..? Don't forget you're speaking as one of the best Malifaux players in the UK, would you see it that way if you weren't particularly any good but played just because you loved the game? It isn't nice to be constantly reminded you're not as good as someone else. The problem is, tournaments are over once the rankings have been finalised at the end of the day/weekend - you can go, have fun, get ribbed for coming last and then forget about it. Rankings stay there for much longer and that will affect people who aren't in the top percentile (I notice how the people supporting this are VERY good players btw...) On a side, it will affect the top tier of players too (I'm going to include myself in this to illustrate a point, but keep the emphasis on the point I'm making, not in how awesome I think I am ) For example, in the GT and a couple of bigger events with people I haven't played against before I'm going to rock Hamelin, Pandora or Zoraida and go for the win. But in some of the smaller events I'm going to try Guild crews, or Rasputina, or Gremlins - just for fun and for some variety (as I said in another post, no-one wants to deploy against Pandora and JackDaw everytime they play me) If there's a ranking system, chances are I'm not going to do this and I'll be sticking with my "power" crews, which makes the game a lot less fun for me and the people I'm playing (plus it means a lot of the match-ups will be repetitive - will I drive 2 hours to play in a tourny against MythicFox knowing I'm putting down the same Pandora list and he's putting down the same LCB list? Probably not) I'm sorry to say (given I think very highly of the specific Henchmen behind this) that personally I believe all of this to be bad for the game in general. And re the above, whilst people may say that it's my issue rather than the rankings issue if I decide to take power crews all the time - isn't the point of rankings to place as high as you can? The very nature of "rankings" makes things hyper-competitive, and I'd worry that it will kill the middle and lower end of the gaming spectrum. I am a fairly bad player (mediocre at best) and still I support this. I have been to 2 tournaments and placed very close to last both times and did not think it was off putting at all. I had some of my best games against better players and it was good to see how I got outsmarted or to realise where I went wrong. As I said I don't believe in power crews in Malifaux. Even with a good crew you have to be a good player to win a game, you can't 'autowin'. And if you happen to come up against a good player who knows what your 'power list' is capable of, they will probably set you up to do your thing when they want it, and beat you in VPs. Also, if you think everyone will take power lists, what do you think will happen when they meet? The better player will win, and that is what the tournament is about. In the fantasy scene, it was noticeable that people dropped out of the smaller tournaments in order to attend an event, any event, with ranking points. I happened to be there when discussions about national rankings began and this was actually one of the things that gave us the idea to do so. This spring / summer we see a lot of small events going on all over the country, and many people are torn trying to decide between them. If some of these events will be highly competitive ranking events and others friendly / narrative events, people will have something to go by. I wouldn't mind losing a few competitive players to a bigger ranking event when running a story encounter day. It will probably be better for all players (both friendly and competitive). Do not misinterpret this, nobody is trying to separate groups of players at all, but as the arguement in this thread proves very well, different players have different expectations. And it would be in everyone's interest to satisfy both sides. So when you next want to run an event but find that somoeone else is organising one around the same time, you have a choice. You can contact that person and do a different kind of event (competitive / narrative). This way your (and the other TO's) players too will have a choice. Or; if you both have the same idea; you could team up and make it a big event, with more attendees, more games, maybe even stretch it to 2 days, etc. What's not to like about this? Edited June 23, 2011 by Talishko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talishko Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) I am slowly catching up... And there you have it - different tournaments / events for the "naysayers". Prior to this talk of rankings there were just tournaments, now there need to be different events for those not interested, thereby increasing the likelihood that any ranked event is likely to bring out the filthiest lists people can devise and frighten off everyone else. I'm still none the wiser as to why the idea was even raised, let alone apparently pre-decided by (many of) the Henchmen I know ukrocky's started a thread on the Warhammer Forum; the few on topic responses have generally been "yeah, it's alright, doesn't really matter that much". If that's the general opinion, why are we being told we need it for Malifaux? No offence mate but pretty much all your posts in this thread are negative. If you think that tournaments are 'likely to bring out the filthiest lists people can devise and frighten off everyone else' then you must have had some very bad experiences. I am truly sorry that you see things this way. Tournaments were tournaments even before discussions on this began and I don't think all players were natural born killer type guys. Don't see how this will change. I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, I just don't see what rankings would offer to the community as a whole. Really, what's the point of them? I can't see any advantages to it. For the tournament players that usually do well, they already know who the good players are and have a good idea of where they stand in comparison. For the ones who go along for the fun, what does it matter to them? The only effect is likely to be "Oh god, I'm facing the number X ranked player in the country, I'm so going to lose." Far from attracting players to tournaments, I suspect that many people will be put off, thinking that, like so many other ranked tournaments, Malifaux tournaments are the exclusive province of WAAC types whose only goal is to utterly destroy their opponent, and not to have fun. Last year's GT at Maelstrom was an excellent example of a non-ranked tournament that was great fun to attend, and pretty much everyone remembers the fun they had first, and the results second. Put rankings into the mix and fun becomes secondary, winning becomes the main aim (I'm not saying people went to the GT not trying to win, they did, but the emphasis was on a number of like-minded people getting together to play a few games of a system we love). Like Magicpockets, I feel we're being railroaded here; I don't say this is necessarily how it is, but the way this comes across is that the important people (ie the Henchmen) have decided something that has then been presented as a fait accompli to a community that has never to my knowledge publicly asked for a ranking system. Why did this even come up? Who decided it was even a possibility? I'll still go to the tournaments that I can get to, and I'll still play the way I always do, but it's inevitable that I'm going to be much more dubious about playing ranked players. In short, I really don't like the idea, and if it means that even one person leaves the hobby / community as a result, then it's absolutely the wrong decision. Cheers Rob If you see a challenge as a bother, or inconvenience, then competitive play is simply not for you. If anything, rankings will do you good, by giving way to less competitive, more fun and narrative based events as well. Just to drop in my tuppence: if I go to an event and happen to come up againgst the UK number one, I will bloody well try and beat him just for the hell of it. I will probably lose anyway, but at least I get to see what makes someone a good player, what was it they thought of that I didn't and so on. Am I the only one who finds excitement in such thing? No aggression in me. I'm just all about the Wyrd! Im not getting called out into a fight over rankings, I do as I'm told I think you got the wrong idea. You are not told to do anything, you simply have a choice. Nothing is forced here, we are simply trying to give way to those people who want to play competitively. Was this not clear? Edited June 23, 2011 by Talishko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I want to drop back in for a moment and raise a couple of things I've noticed and following a long chat with Zee yesterday over this - 1. I truly believe that everyone pushing for this ranking system is acting out of what they think is in the best interests of the community, however I do think there's a risk these same people are seeing the "community" through their own eyes. 2. I get the impression that "public opinion" about this (between this thread and the other one that got started yesterday) is that overall rankings are unneeded. There's a lot of people who've stated reasons and opinions why they're a bad idea, but as far as I can tell no-one has given reasons why they ARE a good idea and what the actual benefits are. ANd if they have, I certainly don't think they outweigh the negative opinion which has been raised. 3. However, as newbiefromhell (a henchman) has pointed out, this is likely going to happen now matter what people say as it was a fait accompli from the start. So personally I feel it would be helpful if people moved from being pro/anti rankings to trying to work out the best way to implement them (unless that's also already been pre-decided on the secret henchman forum too) 4. This was stuck in my head all yesterday and last night, especially given my decision to move on from Malifaux now, and what may help is if crew selections for each ranked match were recorded and made public. Sure someone can steamroller their way to the top (and whoever siad there's no such thing as a steamroller list has never played me ) but the fact everyone can see they're being a douche with list selection may help rein it in a bit. 5. Also, if the system was set up for recording sportsmanship scoring (they don't have to count, just be publicly available) that could also encourage "fairer" play - and if the system can allocate IDs to each game (that's not hard, but the system being used may not have been coded to do that) you give people chance to comment on the game afterwards (on here for example) - again this will reduce douchbagness. By giving people the chance to say "yeah, well you're only at the top because you play like a d*ck" you reduce the likelihood of it happening. Careful thought in this area may make the ranking system very fair and prevent a lot of the problems it could cause unchecked - but obviously there's no guarantees. (If the system doesn't do the above, the answer may be to build one for Malifaux that does. But that's a whole other conversation) Thought it would be worth sharing the above to try and move this towards a resolution... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 we are simply trying to give way to those people who want to play competitively. Says it all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianMills Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Like the ideas magic espcially with the sportsman. As I know now I will not be in the top section of the rankings. The other thing we need is more on the story driven events as we have heard the competative side of things Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 2. I get the impression that "public opinion" about this (between this thread and the other one that got started yesterday) is that overall rankings are unneeded. There's a lot of people who've stated reasons and opinions why they're a bad idea, but as far as I can tell no-one has given reasons why they ARE a good idea and what the actual benefits are. ANd if they have, I certainly don't think they outweigh the negative opinion which has been raised. I feel that those against the rankings system have just been scare mongering about players all of a sudden becoming bad sports after a rankings system has been introduced. However there is no way that we can know that and if that is the opinion they hold of the Malifaux community then they hold a very bad opinion of it. There has also been the argument that there will be an amount of power creep at events but has this not already happened? I have only been to a couple of events but the crews seem to be more and more tilted towards what we would consider a power crew and there are no rankings at the moment so we cannot blame it on a rankings system. For good points as someone that doesn't want to take a so called power list to an event I see an upside in that all the people in the UK that say play Marcus can see which of us is doing the best. Will it make us all into dicks no it wont but it will give us something to play for and we can attend a tournement with something that we like to use and not just consider ourselves as fodder for those that want to win (who will be there with or without rankings). They will also allow for friendly banter between club mates and friends as to where they are currently placed. The rankings WONT turn someone into a dick, if they play like one then I would think they already are a dick and just using the rankings as an excuse for there behaviour. 3. However, as newbiefromhell (a henchman) has pointed out, this is likely going to happen now matter what people say as it was a fait accompli from the start. So personally I feel it would be helpful if people moved from being pro/anti rankings to trying to work out the best way to implement them (unless that's also already been pre-decided on the secret henchman forum too) I do agree that this should of been discussed in an open forum from the start and I do not really like the hidden Henchman forum making community decisions. With the community growing this will only lead to more problems, and on a side note is it possible to be stripped of being a henchman? i.e. if someone has that status now and they do nothing with it is anyone looking and then removing it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 5. Also, if the system was set up for recording sportsmanship scoring (they don't have to count, just be publicly available) that could also encourage "fairer" play - and if the system can allocate IDs to each game (that's not hard, but the system being used may not have been coded to do that) you give people chance to comment on the game afterwards (on here for example) - again this will reduce douchbagness. I like the sports idea the problem is its all subjective when I used to play in the 40k GT that had sports everyone at the top always had max sports. As they all wanted the points to win the event they all gave max to all there opponents in an effort to get that score given to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I like the sports idea the problem is its all subjective when I used to play in the 40k GT that had sports everyone at the top always had max sports. As they all wanted the points to win the event they all gave max to all there opponents in an effort to get that score given to them. Make sportsmanship based on the starting list, mechanics of play and the attitude of the opponent rather than just generic. And DON'T just leave it to be written on a sheet so people like me can't hustle full points ("hmmm, sportsmanship, what shall I give you? I enjoyed that so of course I'll give you full marks mate. Want me to hand your sheet in for you too?") If we were custom building this thing we could build in some simple algorithms to track sportsmanship points and note people who were giving inflated scores to their mates - but again depends on how customisable the system we're using is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Make sportsmanship based on the starting list As an alternative couldn't we implement comp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 As an alternative couldn't we implement comp? Sorry mate, I don't know what you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Sorry mate, I don't know what you mean? composition like nearly all wfb tournaments certain combinations are not allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratty Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I've seen comp running in America, all you end up with is different power lists. People min-max the comp. And overall you end up less balanced as the comps haven't been playtested as much as the normal lists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talishko Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) I got to page 9 and browsed through the rest but can't read more of this for now... Apologies for having repeated some of what has been said already in my posts, I didn't get to read everything yet. I'm not a huge fan of ranking, especially if it ends up with ranked tournaments and unranked. I think you will find that you end up with an us and them mentality to the game. There will be those that only go to the ranked tournaments or go to them in preference and those that want to avoid them and only play at local level. I would much prefer some kind of award for hitting a certain level of play. EG, placing top 3 with all 5 factions in a year. Thats an admirable stance Drake. From experience I think you would be in the minority. As Ranked events become more competative, as they will. A lot of the players will be attending purely to boost their place on rankings HQ. I have lost count on the number of times it has been obvious from turn 3 (WHFB) that my opponent would be winning, only to spend the next 3 turns having my army systematicaly wiped off the table (not much fun) because my opponent needed the extra points in case of a tie at the end of the weekend and it came down to victory points scored rather than win/loss. This can be eleviated if there is a set points score for a win/draw/loss (3/1/0) and in game points are not used for any tie break. I know malifaux does not work quite like this but everyone will be going to score their max points while preventing their opponent from scoring any just in case of tie breakers. I I hear people complaining that they will be 'crushed' at tournaments for more VP. This is happening already and will always be. That is sort of the point of the game. Get as many as you can and prevent your opponent from getting any. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a VP system in the rulebook. By letting TOs decide whether this is encouraged or secondary, we can filter this for the better. I really don't know how to express my thoughts any better, I think we should all sit down with a pint and chat. 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. Seeing this discussion do you really believe that will be the case with Malifaux? I know I will run more story events then competitve ones. I always tried to keep things on the less serious side and for this exact reason I had people asking for competitve play. Says it all... I really did not get your point. Shed some light please. And regarding public opinion: I counted the people posting here. 26 excluding MythicFox. The vague opinion is: 9 people encourage rankings, 9 people are against it and 8 were just asking questions about it or said they don't mind. This seems pretty even to me. Besides this is probably less then 5% of the UK Malifaux community. This means that the public opinion is 'I dont care'. Most people arguing for it and against it are both competitive players who had different experiences in other game systems. I agree with what Zee said: We're taking it too seriously. The numbers are there at the end of every tournament anyway, this make some people more pushy then others, but overall I don't see this changing in either direction with ranking. Edited June 23, 2011 by Talishko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I've seen comp running in America, all you end up with is different power lists. People min-max the comp. And overall you end up less balanced as the comps haven't been playtested as much as the normal lists. I think the game and combinations are mabye too complicated for list building comp. But if people are worried about list creep mabye as it is done currently in the wfb etc where lower tierd lists/masters would get more ss to use for selection. Just thinking aloud really but as its not about the rankings i may start a new thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talishko Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I think the game and combinations are mabye too complicated for list building comp. But if people are worried about list creep mabye as it is done currently in the wfb etc where lower tierd lists/masters would get more ss to use for selection. Just thinking aloud really but as its not about the rankings i may start a new thread Sorry it's off topic here... Don't you think that meddling with the SS cache of masters to balance power levels has already been done by Wyrd? That's why certain masters start with 2, others 6, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Sorry it's off topic here... Don't you think that meddling with the SS cache of masters to balance power levels has already been done by Wyrd? That's why certain masters start with 2, others 6, etc... It wasn't so much cache but the amount you can spend when hiring a crew in a game, and yes I do however as with most games when the game is out there things will be played with much more than ever could be done during testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talishko Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Fair enough... Let me know how that goes, might come handy for future events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mangustheix Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I want to drop back in for a moment and raise a couple of things I've noticed and following a long chat with Zee yesterday over this - 1. I truly believe that everyone pushing for this ranking system is acting out of what they think is in the best interests of the community, however I do think there's a risk these same people are seeing the "community" through their own eyes. 2. I get the impression that "public opinion" about this (between this thread and the other one that got started yesterday) is that overall rankings are unneeded. There's a lot of people who've stated reasons and opinions why they're a bad idea, but as far as I can tell no-one has given reasons why they ARE a good idea and what the actual benefits are. ANd if they have, I certainly don't think they outweigh the negative opinion which has been raised. 3. However, as newbiefromhell (a henchman) has pointed out, this is likely going to happen now matter what people say as it was a fait accompli from the start. So personally I feel it would be helpful if people moved from being pro/anti rankings to trying to work out the best way to implement them (unless that's also already been pre-decided on the secret henchman forum too) 4. This was stuck in my head all yesterday and last night, especially given my decision to move on from Malifaux now, and what may help is if crew selections for each ranked match were recorded and made public. Sure someone can steamroller their way to the top (and whoever siad there's no such thing as a steamroller list has never played me ) but the fact everyone can see they're being a douche with list selection may help rein it in a bit. 5. Also, if the system was set up for recording sportsmanship scoring (they don't have to count, just be publicly available) that could also encourage "fairer" play - and if the system can allocate IDs to each game (that's not hard, but the system being used may not have been coded to do that) you give people chance to comment on the game afterwards (on here for example) - again this will reduce douchbagness. By giving people the chance to say "yeah, well you're only at the top because you play like a d*ck" you reduce the likelihood of it happening. Careful thought in this area may make the ranking system very fair and prevent a lot of the problems it could cause unchecked - but obviously there's no guarantees. (If the system doesn't do the above, the answer may be to build one for Malifaux that does. But that's a whole other conversation) Thought it would be worth sharing the above to try and move this towards a resolution... You have pointed out that peer pressure and judgement of your list should be a restraining factor in people taking these. What I would be scared about in starting the rankings system is going to change the mentality of the game. I see Malifaux as the ultimate storytelling game due to the stratergies and schemes system. With an emphasis on coming top (by having a ranking system) it might start to influence general opinion over what the game is about. At the moment I love it for the fact that it is not competitive, win-at-all-costs system like privateer press games (which I also play for exactly that reason). I guess I do not want to see another system which is centred around the tournie scene though. I dont want to see copy/paste lists which will dominate, and stop variety. I just think Malifaux has the potential to be so much more than a game with tournaments. It's system is capable of creating such a good narrative that I think it is wasted on a standard competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 You have pointed out that peer pressure and judgement of your list should be a restraining factor in people taking these. What I would be scared about in starting the rankings system is going to change the mentality of the game. I see Malifaux as the ultimate storytelling game due to the stratergies and schemes system. With an emphasis on coming top (by having a ranking system) it might start to influence general opinion over what the game is about. At the moment I love it for the fact that it is not competitive, win-at-all-costs system like privateer press games (which I also play for exactly that reason). I guess I do not want to see another system which is centred around the tournie scene though. I dont want to see copy/paste lists which will dominate, and stop variety. I just think Malifaux has the potential to be so much more than a game with tournaments. It's system is capable of creating such a good narrative that I think it is wasted on a standard competition. Can it not be both? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Can it not be both? How many players do you think there are and how many events are we all going to? In answer to your question - no, I don't think it can be. 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.