Chucklemonkey Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 With the likely introduction of a ranking system for tournament play in the UK which has been mooted here: http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22065 I would be interested to hear what people deemed to be the pro's and con's of implementing rankings in the tournament scene on the game as a whole. Personally, despite playing and spreading the word about this game for quite some time I had never entered a tournament for geographical reasons until just a few months back, but enjoyed it thoroughly (thanks MythicFox) and had been looking to attend a good few more in the near future. Given the potential introduction of a rankings system I am keen to hear the views of tournament players, not just in relation to Malifaux, but of any other wargames you guys play. Please note, that I am not looking to start an argument in this thread - lets leave that for the last one, or better still, not at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoboStele Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 We had a pretty thorough ranking system under WOTC and DCI for Star Wars Miniatures. It had it's positive and negatives. Overall though, because they used the ELO system, it ultimately sort of became more of a ranking of how often you played, not necessarily how often you won. Now granted, if you lost ALL the time, it would still take a long time to climb the ladder. But when WOTC closed the line, the guy in the #1 ranked spot was WAY above everybody else. A lot of this had to do with the fact that he was the best player in his region (and one of the top international players too). So, not only did he get to play a lot of games, but he hardly ever lost. So, it was near impossible for anyone else to catch him. Not that this is a terrible thing, I suppose. But there are always inherent flaws in the system. A 'big fish' in one area can quickly climb the rankings list, and yet get hammered by other top players at a larger regional event (like GenCon or the like). So, a ranking system is not ALWAYS a good indication of player skill. That isn't to say it doesn't work though, and I would suppose that a ranking would equal higher skill in probably at least 80% of cases still. I don't have a problem with it for Malifaux, but I would recognize that looking at your personal ranking should always be more for simple self-gratification, and not some absolute measuring scale against other players you've never actually faced head-to-head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_hazard Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I play a lot of Flames of War tournaments, mainly in Spain but also some in the UK, and the Spanish scene has a ranking system. The UK probably has as well but I've never checked into it. The system is an opt-in one and I decided not to. I typically take less than optimal lists so that I have fun and hopefully my opponent gets to see something that they don't normally see. Whilst I normally finish mid table I do, on occasion, play against some of the top tier players. They are all really nice people but the games against them seem to be played in a much more focused and serious manner than other matches. This makes them less 'fun' for me and is another reason why I take sub-optimal lists. I haven't played enough Malifaux tournaments yet to really form an opinion on that scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rathnard Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 So at this stage in the game, having won the only tournament I've entered so far and regularly winning almost all of my games against other experienced players, I'd probably place quite highly in a tournament ranking system. Having said that, I'm not keen on the idea of such a system at all. It would only encourage me to play optimised crews with the sole purpose of winning, rather than experimenting with new and interesting (and fun!) crews, to the benefit and enjoyment of both myself and my opponent. To me, tournament rankings are an ego trip for those on top of the pile. I don't want to play Malifaux just to prove I'm the best (eg.) Zoraida player around and I'm not fond of the attitude it encourages amongst good players - not just me (after all, I can always opt out), but also those I'd be playing against in such tournaments. I don't like that it narrows your focus down to one Master or Faction, that it encourages people to forego variety in exchange for a small selection of the most "cost effective" models, and that it encourages players to use only the easiest schemes while never even considering the hard ones. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13th Warrior Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Completely agree, Rathnard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mylastnerv Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 The way the rankings work for Infinity is pretty interesting. They break it down per faction, and it seems to reset each season. You get rewards like extra bonus emblems on the forums or winning painted minis from the game company. Nothing to amazing to really make you "have" to play the most competitive, and keeps thinks fresh each season for new players to start out on equal footing. I can go either way in this argument, as I used to be huge into L5R and actually was up to #8 in the rankings for Ninja clan globally . . . . ultimately what did it earn me? A solid reason to quit that game once they removed the faction I played from the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixelgeek Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Having said that, I'm not keen on the idea of such a system at all. It would only encourage me to play optimised crews with the sole purpose of winning, rather than experimenting with new and interesting (and fun!) crews, to the benefit and enjoyment of both myself and my opponent. What he said. Tournaments can be bad enough in terms of people bringing "win at all costs" lists but if there were rankings at stake as well I would assume that it would just ratchet that competitive nature up even higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huoshini Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 From my 15 years of gaming experince across many types of game types and ranking systems alike, I have grown to dislike them quite a bit. What does a ranking system have that benefits anyone? *See who is top dog in overall/master/faction etc etc *A chance to show off how awesome you are *Provide somewhat accurate information for the parent company as to what is being used highly and why *Possible prize for top dogs How does the ranking system hurt? *Provides sometimes, overly competative gameplay in all areas. *Changes the game from a more relaxed setting to a more competative one. This can influence sales for manufacturer and stores that sell the product as people who dislike overly competative people will be turned away from the mood (what would be assumed) inherent in the game itself (which is not always true). The best way to look at this whole situation is to list, what you think, are the pros and cons of the ranking idea. I will be the first to tell you that I am a ney-sayer of the ranking idea. I hate competative enviorments.....HATE it. It's what turned me away from many other systems INCLUDING most card games. the biggest mistake a company can ever do to a game is to put money on the line. NEVER DO THIS! It ruins the fun in the game because money is a serious thing that everyone and there greatgrandmother will fight thier hardest for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ispep Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Why play a game if you aren't going to try and be the best? A ranking system gives you something to chase, a reason to improve your game, and incentive to push the boundaries for those extra 10 points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratty Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Why play a game if you aren't going to try and be the best? A ranking system gives you something to chase, a reason to improve your game, and incentive to push the boundaries for those extra 10 points. The thing is you can push yourself without trying to chase rankings. Eg. So I might want to try and see how well I could do with Marcus. The question is will people chase Rank over pushing themselves in other more interesting and fun ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornelious1424 Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Wasn't gunna chime in here initially but, I agree Ratty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenrir Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Why play a game if you aren't going to try and be the best? How about "to have a good time, to enjoy the background & game itself and to meet other like minded people"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chucklemonkey Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 One aspect that concerns me is that if optimal crews do not get support in future expansions, which is a possibility given the number of masters and Henchmen already in play, it may lead to a very vocal unhappy element of the player base. If there is a balance shift to please those optimal crews it could lead to the type of inbalance seen in the core gw games. Personally, I agree with both rathnard and ratty on this but given this has to all effects and purposes been rubber stamped for use in the UK I would still like to hear what people would see as the benefits of such a system for both the player base and Wyrd itself as that is an area I do not feel was covered in the UK rankings thread itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianMills Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) I generally have 4 play styles. Tournament Play: I will try my hardest to win but If I don't then so what as long as I learn from mistakes. I usually end up middle to bottom of the pack, having national rankings would not change how I play or what lists I take but it would give an indication on how I improve in tournament play. Local League games I also try for the win but to a lesser extent if I am facing somebody new to the game I will give advice to the best of my ability on what is the best to take. If they are struggling then I will tune the game approximately. Then we have the fun games where I will take what ever takes my fancy at the time. The last is the demo game which I usually take Lillith as she is easy to explain to the virgin players. In each of the games I have fun but it is different for each game type. As to whether rankings are good for the game I don't know if from my understanding we are going to have a variety of game styles (Ranked & non Ranked Tournament’s, Story Driven campaigns) then yes it has potential to be a good thing. However we need better coordination on what dates the different events are as I have noticed that some events clash occasionally and if one of these events is ranked and another not then I can see the not ranked event suffering for attendance. Sorry if have rambled a bit long guys & girls Edited June 23, 2011 by AdrianMills Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ispep Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 How about "to have a good time, to enjoy the background & game itself and to meet other like minded people"? There is nothing fun about losing. In the recent league I was ready to quit after week 2. Rankings give you something to play for, a tangible reason to do something and try harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenrir Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 There is nothing fun about losing. We'll have to agree to differ. I don't care if I win or lose as long as it was a good, enjoyable, game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad the Mad Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 After going through the whole thread in the community section, I see that both sides have some valid points. However, in the end I also tend to agree that a ranking system as proposed would not be beneficial. Many reasons have been stated, and I don't feel the need to repeat them. I do feel the need to say that players should always keep in mind that Malifaux is first and foremost a game and not a sport yet. In a sport people persue victory with any means inside a given rule framework. In a game people are not playing to lose, but they are playing for the joy of playing rather than victory. That joy may come from different places - discovery of a new move/combination, finding an emotional connection to your opponent, or some other kind of emotional trigger. Why do people who play it as a sport strive to win, and win at all costs? Usually because their livelihood depends on it. Take basketball or any other major sport out there. There is basketball as a sport, where people get paid and try to win at all costs, and there is basketball as a game, where the same people might just try out some new moves, try to improve their skills, or just have some fun interacting with the opponent. As nobody is making his living by playing Malifaux yet, and Wyrd have defined it as a game where the purpose is to have fun, I feel people are unnecessarily trying to impose a ranking system. If you want to organize more events to broaden the player base and to motivate present players more, how about this suggestion: Have each Henchman organize a league in his region that goes all year long. The league winner and runner-up get some nice prizes and can participate in a national tournament held once a year with some really nice prices for the top three players. Sure, not everyone can play in the league due to lack of time or other real-life problems, but hardcore competitive players would probably join, and it also gives the other players an incentive, both material and prestige (since I will not deny that quite a few players care about it). I think both the people arguing for and against in the original post need to sit down and work out an alternative idea. As was stated in the original post, the purpose is not to have the rankings for the rankings sake, but to increase player interest and motivation and broaden the player basis. I am sure if all the UK henchman sat down together with some of the forums more passionate posters, you should find a better solution. Last but not least, a local TTG club here has a nice moto: "The objective is to win, the point is to have fun." I think it says it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 The one thing i really don't understand is that Tournament events are already competitive. I don't think that can really be disputed in any way as they are designed to rank you by how you perform at that event. So how do rankings make them any more competitive than they are by design? The people that want to win a tournament will still want to win it and by design the rankings, and the people (i consider myself one of these) that go to the tournament for a more social experience with a few games of faux will still see it this way. I just don't see where these other people that will suddenly decide to go for it are going for it and wreck peoples games are going to come from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoboStele Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 The one thing i really don't understand is that Tournament events are already competitive. I don't think that can really be disputed in any way as they are designed to rank you by how you perform at that event. So how do rankings make them any more competitive than they are by design? The people that want to win a tournament will still want to win it and by design the rankings, and the people (i consider myself one of these) that go to the tournament for a more social experience with a few games of faux will still see it this way. I just don't see where these other people that will suddenly decide to go for it are going for it and wreck peoples games are going to come from. Yeah, I think this is how I see it. There's lot so of ways to do a ranking system too. Can have it split between Casual and Competitive as well, where things like League games only fall under the Casual category, and perhaps it only counts the number of games you've played, and what Faction/Master you used. By contrast then, the Competitive rankings do actually track your wins/losses. But as Fulgrima points out, you would only submit things to the Competitive ranking when it's a competitive event. Where people are trying to win for a tournament or some prize or something anyways. I don't think rankings are inherently bad, or that there isn't anything good which can come from them. But I think it's worth doing something that the company can get some data from. It does sound like Wyrd has a plan for Organized Play of some sort coming down the road, we'll just have to see what it includes. I do remember Eric saying there would be incentive to do things like play at least one crew from each faction, and stuff like that. So I have confidence if they ever institute any sort of ranking system or what not, that it won't stray far from the 'fun' approach Wyrd seems generally to lean toward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 The one thing i really don't understand is that Tournament events are already competitive. I don't think that can really be disputed in any way as they are designed to rank you by how you perform at that event. So how do rankings make them any more competitive than they are by design? To answer this from the other thread, the problem is individual tourny scores don't matter beyond that tournament so you can have fun with any list at some, and choose to be super-competitive at others. An ongoing scoring system puts pressure on people to be competitive all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratty Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 As I said earlier decent player decide to push themselves in different ways. Magic Pocket changes crews to see how well he can do with different crews, see if he can overcome weeknesses. Putting in a set ranking system means these players focus on the ranking system rather than personal goals. I know I would rather face Magic Pockets playing with Marcus as he's trying to challenge himself than Magic Pockets playing with the best Pandora list he can make as he's after ranking score. It can also mean people stick to lists they know are viable and then just tweak them constantly rather than innovating and taking risks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoboStele Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 As I said earlier decent player decide to push themselves in different ways. Magic Pocket changes crews to see how well he can do with different crews, see if he can overcome weeknesses. Putting in a set ranking system means these players focus on the ranking system rather than personal goals. I know I would rather face Magic Pockets playing with Marcus as he's trying to challenge himself than Magic Pockets playing with the best Pandora list he can make as he's after ranking score. It can also mean people stick to lists they know are viable and then just tweak them constantly rather than innovating and taking risks. There are still times to do things like challenge yourself in casual or league play. Also, even in tournaments, if I know I'm playing against an opponent who I typically can beat very easily if I use a very nasty crew, there are still times where I will choose something more challenging for myself. This will in turn give my opponent more chance to beat me, but I know that if I play well, I can still come out on top. I think you'll find that the people who will play intentionally nasty things just to keep their ranking high, will probably intentionally play nasty things all the time, because they don't like losing, whether a ranking is on the line or not. Besides, how nasty a list someone plays will also come down to what the rankings actually mean. As I stated earlier in the thread, with WOTC's DCI ranking, it became obvious that the rankings meant nothing, and there were no prizes for being on top. The running joke we had was that it was akin to fighting about who was the tallest midget (no offense meant to any short folks here, but I hope you understand the analogy). In other words, in the long run, if it's only for bragging rights, then it makes little difference. If there are actual prizes attached, then maybe people will be a bit more cut throat. In that case though, you vary things, and also offer incentives to people who play varying factions/masters, or complete other 'objectives'. 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'll find that the people who will play intentionally nasty things just to keep their ranking high, will probably intentionally play nasty things all the time, because they don't like losing, whether a ranking is on the line or not. I agree with this a ranking system will not force someone into taking a nasty crew. If they take a nasty crew then it is their own choice and blaming the rankings is just an excuse. If they don't want to take one then don't take it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixelgeek Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I agree with this a ranking system will not force someone into taking a nasty crew. No-one is saying that it will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixelgeek Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I think you'll find that the people who will play intentionally nasty things just to keep their ranking high, will probably intentionally play nasty things all the time, because they don't like losing, whether a ranking is on the line or not. But this isn't actually the issue that people are bringing up. There are certainly people that are power-gamers and play to win at all costs. That isn't the point. The issues, as far as I see, that people are bringing up is that rankings tend to increase the general level of competitive play in tournaments that are used to determine rankings. Leading to there being more to invest personally in winning a game and making it more likely that more people will focus simply on winning instead of having a good time. You personally may not play like that but I think there is a general concern and experience that this sort of ranking system just leads to more competitive play. 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.