Drake Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 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. I cant say I agree.... There is far more to Malifaux than just the tournament scene. The game was founded on its fluff and the models, the community will take it wherever it goes in the end. There will be the tournament scene, the local club scene, friends playing at home, and the special events and scenario events. This Ranking system will not not stop the game being able to do both, as the game is much wider reaching than just the tournament format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 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. I couldn't disagree with u more there, if there are enough people that want to have great story based events then someone will run it. To be honest i'm not that person but with how some people feel about competitive play then they are out there I am sure a successful event can happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&TBoy Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I agree story based events can be a lot of fun but as with all things it comes down to the attitude of the people taking part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverata Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Long time no see Chris....Glad you're still alive in the world of Malifaux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&TBoy Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 If you call not seeing you since Feb living...I was so down when I found out Marcus's number 1 fan got the pleasure of playing against you and I haven't yet!!! Looking forward to November so much after all I have my wooden spoon to defend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) I cant say I agree.... There is far more to Malifaux than just the tournament scene. The game was founded on its fluff and the models, the community will take it wherever it goes in the end. There will be the tournament scene, the local club scene, friends playing at home, and the special events and scenario events. This Ranking system will not not stop the game being able to do both, as the game is much wider reaching than just the tournament format. I couldn't disagree with u more there, if there are enough people that want to have great story based events then someone will run it. To be honest i'm not that person but with how some people feel about competitive play then they are out there I am sure a successful event can happen. I think you've missed my point. Firstly, we're talking about the tourny (event?) scene - no one has suggested rankings will stop people playing in clubs or with friends at home. With 12 or so people turning up at an event at the minute (excluding GT), are there enough people to populate all of the events if they're increased like is being suggested they could be? Sure you could run one event each weekend, but people are only going to go to so many events and numbers will suffer. Also, when "fun" players who get put off by the rankings choose not to go to ranking events (as evidenced in the GT thread), that could reduce existing turnout to say 6-8 people. And then it affects TOs (or event organisers if we're talking story based), are you really going to arrange an event if only 5 people or so are going to turn up? That was was I meant about there not being enough people to go around. Edited June 23, 2011 by magicpockets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&TBoy Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Why can an event only be seen as a success if huge numbers turn out. I ran a little faux league last year at our gaming club, it started with four ended with eight people taking part. If the events are organised people will go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I think you've missed my point. With 12 or so people turning up at an event at the minute (excluding GT), are there enough people to populate all of the events if they're increased like is being suggested they could be? Sure you could run one event each weekend, but people are only going to go to so many events and numbers will suffer. Also, when "fun" players who get put off by the rankings choose not to go to ranking events, that could reduce existing turnout to say 6-8 people. And then it affects TOs (or event organisers if we're talking story based), are you really going to arrange an event if only 5 people or so are going to turn up? That was was I meant about there not being enough people to go around. I agree its a small community and personally I would hope anyone that has decided that they wont play in an event that has rankings will at least give one a try so that they can see if it is as bad as they think. You wont know until you give it a chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mephiston Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Personally I won't be going to a ranked tournament event, and this is mainly as I don't see Malifaux as a balanced tournament game. I will consider going to a campaign/story lead gaming event as for me Malifaux has all the ingredients to make such an event both fun and rewarding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&TBoy Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Just out of interest could the last poster actually name a balanced miniature/war/card game..... I don't actually think one exists. Of course I would like to be proven wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just flip em Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Long time lurker, first time poster because I strongly feel joining the rankings is in all honesty a terrible move for this game of ours. I won't repeat all the reasons that have already been mentioned. Coming from playing game systems before and after rankings implementation I can say first hand it changes the way people play and the way events are managed. I won;t be attending any ranked events, this game is better off without them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mephiston Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Epic Armageddon is pretty good. Warmachine/Hordes isn't bad either. Does a perfect game exist? Yes, chess. But that's a bit to bland for my taste! All of the above is just my opinion of course and, as ever, your milage may vary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&TBoy Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 Interesting list and as you state player mileage will vary. However I personally don't think those games are that balanced, not that I really think its a problem as its the player that always is the biggest factor in gaming. Some will take whatever they enjoy using whatever the perceived power level is while others will always use the most powerful list they can with or without rankings. I guess in the end does it really matter, rankings wont change the way I play the game and I doubt it will effect how most do either. As I stated in an earlier post those that were winning the events prior to a ranking system will continue to do so whatever happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calmdown Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 So, let's forget for a second that RankingsHQ is not very good. Its a bad system, it's badly run, and badly governed. So is the Wyrd competitive system; Gaining Ground reads like a laundry list of flawed tournament rules. So I've established I have no love for either of these two things. With that said.... Why are so many of you getting so hurt over the fact that the henchmen are pushing a ranking system? I don't really understand your issues. A tournament is a contest, it has winners and losers. If you want to play to completely to win, you're going to play from a subset of 5-6 masters. If you don't want to win, you're going to play from a set of other masters and make the purposeful choice that you are going to play against competitive masters that will likely beat you. When you go to a tournament, you make that choice yourself. You already do it now, regardless of whether RHQ are involved or not. Do you enjoy playing Malifaux even though you have to make that choice? Yes, you do, because you play tournaments and are posting in this thread. How, then, does RHQ alter the equation? Competitive players are still going to run (Pandora/Zoraida/Book 2 Masters) as they would have done before RHQ, because winning is winning, RHQ or not. 'For fun' players are still going to play their favourite master or get kicks out of trying to win with a non-top tier master. So - it really doesn't alter the equation at all. What it does alter, is the experience of the people who claim that they "only play for fun" but really, actually do care about winning. I put it to these people, that the problem is not the system, the problem is you. Wargames are not balanced, wargames are not fair. Your skill will affect outcomes and great players will take bad lists and win, but for most people, this isn't the case. If you TRULY want to be competitive, then take a real list. If you TRULY want to just play for fun, then accept you will have some losses that are beyond your control and enjoy the games you play for what they are - social events where you occasionally pull through, but mostly die screaming to OP masters. Don't shoot the guys trying to improve the competitive community. They may be misguided, but this change does not ruin you or anyone elses fun. All you're doing is berating the guys that put in time and effort to further your hobby in the name of some ridiculous internet crusade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clousseau Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 Interesting post Calmdown. If you have any concerns about RHQ can I suggest you pm MythicFox - no experience with them myself. Personally I've found the GG rules OK for the 2 tournaments I've run. The main body of the post makes good points Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braindead Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 Rankings HQ official list: 1 - Braindead 2 - others Forgive me for being a little naive, but I honestly don't understand how a ranking system changes anything. The people who were d***s at tournaments will still be so. The people who 8-0'd you but were fun to play still are. The fool with the gimped list who was a t**t still is. It all comes down to personal opinion I guess, so the issue is destined to be divisive. I've not really said anything constructive, but I am happy to play tournaments ranked or not. Likewise, I'm happy to show someone the rules when I'm tired and happy to take on a 'power gamer'. If someone takes a net/broken list against me I will personally have great fun showing them how much of a PITA I can be by knowing my crew. I will buy them a drink win or lose and I'll chat to them after. I am sadly saying goodbye to my local gaming club, but the two events we have hosted have been fantastic. Both of them were straight tournaments and well organised. There is a campaign in the works and we'll be having our reciprocated event at a nearby club soon enough. The amount of friends I've built through this game is amazing and seeing the interaction of people on these boards, I'm not the only one in that boat. This is the only thread that has made me worry. I'm going to try and get to one of the tournaments in the UK later in the year to put names to faces. Like I said, noobness might be my downfall and I might not understand the fallout of having a ranking system. Ah well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverata Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 Come to the Grand tournament in November....we will all be there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serigala Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 I realise that this thread had perhaps run its course, but I felt it might be worth directing the discussion in an alternative direction. I didn't want to start a new thread, so here are my thoughts. There seems to have been lots of discussion in favour of, or against rankings, and ultimately a decision will be made one way or the other. What we haven’t done is consider how the Rankings system could be implemented in a way which might address some of the issues that concern those not in favour. First; I know I am not the only person who has experience in project management. If we were to apply some basic principles of project management we would make sure we had answers to some of the following questions; What are we hoping to get out of rankings? How will we know if we have succeeded? How will this be measured? How will we know if rankings has had a negative impact? What would this look like? When will we check and under what criterion will we make a decision to ‘dismantle’ the system? Secondly; I think a large amount of the heat could be removed from the discussion if it was pitched a little differently. If Rankings were made something that people must opt into, rather than opt out of, then instantly, no one is being forced or coerced into doing anything they don’t want to do. But for those who do want a ranking system they can add that into their own enjoyment of the tournaments they attend. I am also a fell runner. Many running clubs (my own included) have a club competition for members. This handicap competition is based on the performance in a selection of different races…none of which are actually organised by our club. In fact the organisers of these races are completely unaware that their race has been chosen for inclusion in our club competition. We choose ten races that we make an additional effort to attend taking our best 5 results. If the Malifaux Ranking system was run in a similar way, then the Rankings could become an extra meta-competition which a sub-group of the community choose to add on to their own participation in the tournament scene. Tournaments would be neither ranked nor unranked, but those who are involved decide in advance which events they will collect data from for inclusion in their additional calculations. Whatever your feelings about rankings, I doubt any of us would deny a group of players from formulating their own ranking system for their own additional enjoyment. To go back to the first point (on project management). Even if this wasn’t the ideal ranking system, it would represent a way to test the concept out on a smaller scale, controlled pilot project, without the risks to the community as a whole that some contributors to the discussion are afraid of. Once this had been running successfully for a year you might find considerable less resistance or resentment at a wider implementation. Now, I don’t know how this would work with the Rankings HQ, and I’m sure there will be other issues that I have not considered, or am completely unaware of, but creatively addressing some of these questions would surely be a more fruitful discussion than the reasons why we personally are either pro or against a Ranking system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) Any news on this? Edited July 17, 2011 by magicpockets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Just started a thread here - http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?p=272654#post272654 Could you guys take a look and let me know your thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MunkeyKungFu Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 It's bad enough with ranking on Warhammer 40k with the power gamers who win at all cost and the core deciding factor of attending a tournament is "is it rankings" so that as a collective they can slap their e-penis' on the table and go look at me mine is bigger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolomyte Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Not in the UK, so my opinion could be worthless, but I have been a competetive player across many gaming systems. 1. To discuss the actual rankings themselves, It punishes areas that have a smaller gaming group. Let's say France has a gaming group with 7 solid players, and any tournements they run draws the crowd up to 10. The best those players can hope for is 50pts on a win, irrelevant of skill level of them and their opponents. Let's say Germany has a gaming group of 30 really bad players, the winner of that tournament is getting 100 despite not playing nearly as competetive of a game. That might be irrelevant to what your hoping to accomplish with rankings, I just had not seen that mentioned in the thread so far. 2. A tournament is a tournament. I intend on winning when I enter a tournament, some people might not care about winning, and just want to have good games, some people may play a list that is less competetive because they prefer the looks of certain models, some people may a list because that is all they can afford, but every one of those people wants to have fun (I hope), and everyone of those people would bring the same (Faction, list, models) with ranking or without rankings. 3. Everyone is talking about powergaming and net decking. I have been in about 6 Malifaux tournaments so far, and I've won every one. A single army list might be ok in some scenarios, it might be great in others, but it can also be terrible at some. I have yet to find a list that is good at every scenario against every master. I build my list for the scenario of the round, I imagine other players who want to win will do the same with or without rankings. people who like the look of their army are going to play their army regardless. people who want to have fun will do whatever their heart desires, and should have fun doing it. 4. If your worried about a decline in sportsmanship, I agree you should add a little checkbox at the end of the round scorecard that says Great Player: Good Player: Jerk: Douche: And then just apply that persons average title next to their rank. I believe that the people I play against (except my roomates, where trash talk reigns supreme) always have a fun time, I might destroy their army in a grandoise faction, but im a nice player, I dont gloat, and after the game I always am willing to talk through the game with the person to explain what I did and how I did it. Because in the end? I want to play against people who give me a tough game. its not fun destroying people, I want my playerbase to be on level ground at the top of the mountain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chanst Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Another one piping in from the other side of the pond, so feel free to disregard everything I say. Just my 2 pennies. I wrote a REALLY long post, but I think I ramble too much, so I parsed it down (it was about 3 times this long). Let's assume that what those in favor of ranking system are saying; that having a ranking system doesn't affect the level of play at tournaments (which is debateable, IMHO). If making this change is purely a numbers game to see who is the best of the best even more so than tournaments already do, then what is the point of doing it to begin with? The "yeas" telling the "nays" 'this isn't going to change anything at tournaments' isn't a valid arguement for implementing the change. We could also say that increasing the temp of the game rooms by 20 degrees won't affect how competative players are, but does that mean we should do it then? Is it just a pride thing, or are folks looking to do more work for a superficial reason? I think ranking really just boils down to someone being able to say, "I am better than you are!" Are prizes and already allowable bragging rights not enough? Some folks don't want that extra level of measurement around for them to be found lacking. Or for them to HAVE to say they don't want to be ranked. It goes back to pride again. If I want to go to a tournament to try and win the prizes and the title of winner, I shouldn't have to worry about my possible failures being on display for everyone else to look at indefinately. I also shouldn't have to say that I want to be excluded. Having to just say that makes some folks feel uncomfortable enough to just not go to begin with. That is like the kid in gym class who says he can't climb the rope because he is afraid of heights, but everyone assumes it is because he isn't strong enough to do it. Why create that kind of atmosphere for that attitude to arise when it isn't needed? I understand that everyone isn't like that, but some are, and this change will make that more pronounced. If you create a ranking system, it will create even more segregation between the tourney scene and casual gamers. That is proven fact in all kinds of games out there. If this becomes permanent, I hope Wyrd will be able to figure out a way to cater to both types even more so than they do now (which I think they do very well). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themurphyfella Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) I'm Irish and have been considering attending an event in England if I can find one that isn't going to break the bank. I love the idea of rankings. To be fair my background probably puts me in the competitive player list. I played 40K for 15 and more years attending Irish and English tournaments and grand tournaments and placing quiet highly in a few. I have been on RHQ as a 40K player for a few years. I attended the 40K ETC last year as part of team Ireland I've even got a ranking in OZ from an event I attended down there at the start of the year called Arcanacon. The last year has seen a fall off in my tournament attendance, more through pressure of life than interest. Having RHQ there has helped keep in touch with a few of the players I've met internationally. It also gives me a record of events I've been to and where I came to aid my failing memory. BTW- Arc listing - That's me in 2nd http://www.rankingshq.com/public/tournamentprofile.aspx?TournamentId=1692 This is my current RHQ profile http://www.rankingshq.com/public/playerprofile.aspx?PlayerId=4111 Be sure to click my game diary - I have reports of each game at Arc. That is the kind of functionality that makes RHQ fun for casual and competitive players Edited July 21, 2011 by themurphyfella Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oshova Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 I'm Irish and have been considering attending an event in England if I can find one that isn't going to break the bank. If you only want to attend one tournament, you might as well make it the GT on 5th/6th November. It should be crazy good fun, and at only £15 (I think . . . it's late forgive me . . . ) for a ticket, and good transport options, you should be alright. Oshova 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.