magicpockets Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 For those of you who have been following the main thread on Rankings (which seems to have gone quiet, at least on this forum), I've been vocally opposed to a ranking system - to the point that other than helping/chatting on the forum I do very little by way of Malifaux now. However, I've been giving this some thought over the past few weeks and would like to air a slightly alternative approach to the rankings system which I think will achieve the goals of the people who want one, whilst avoiding the concerns of those who don't. I'd really appreciate some views on this (even if it's just to shoot it down in flames) before I/we spend any time/thinking on fleshing it out further. I've set it out below in sections - 1. Background 2. Idea 3. Implementation 4. Issues ========== The Background ========== First though, a quick recap of the main concerns - 1. A tournament system will lead to power-gaming and super competitive lists. 2. Events will either become ranked and non-ranked events (creating a two tier system), or will become hyper-competitive events with the pro-ranking players chasing points and the non-ranking players being steam-rolled and put off. 3. There will be pressure on players to field their "A" game crews all the time to try and increase their points, which means they won't be able to play "fun" crews or take their foot of the gas at certain events. And potential benefits - 1. Wyrd get data about crew composition, preferences and trends which helps them commercially. 2. The system could encourage diversity as people go for "best Marcus crew" or "best all round player" 3. It adds a cool dynamic for higher level gamers. So, then idea here is to avoid the concerns whilst still facilitating the benefits, and that's what I've been thinking about. ====== The Idea ====== In short, the idea is to build the ranking system not on ranked tournaments but on ranked games. This means the score doesn't come from positioning in an event (i.e. 200pts for 1st place, 150pts for second), but that your ranking is adjusted based on the outcome of each game between two ranked players. For example, lets say a player called "ABCman" is at the UKGT and his first game is against someone enrolled in the ranking system (a "ranked player") - they agree it's a ranked game and the outcome is used in calculation of rankings. They both bring their A game. ABCman's second game is against someone who doesn't want to be in the ranking system (a "non ranked player") so the game won't count in the ranking system. This means ABCman doesn't need (or there's no pressure) to bring his A game just for rankings (if he's going for a tourny win that's separate) so the non-ranking player won't get steamrolled for ranking points. Lastly, ABCman's third game is against a ranking player, but ABCman wants to try a "fun" list before he heads home. ABCman veto's the game's ranking eligibility so he can play the game with a "non A game" list without risk of it affecting his ranking. This idea of "mutual consent" has a huge impact on the issues at hand, and by basing rankings on games rather than "events" you avoid a lot of the concerns that people have about the impact on tournaments etc. Crucially, it also gives the same benefits that the pro-rankings players have put forward. ========== Implementation ========== Okay, so right of the bat - my main concern is how do we stop this turning into a huge admin burden for tourny organisers? I feel the answer is to not have them involved in the process and to leave it to the players - TOs would just have a "dispute resolution" role in the system. For example, ABCman plays XYZman in a ranking game. They both know the score (win/loss/draw) and one of them enters it into the system (bear with me on the "system" point) along with the other players name/nickname/ID. The system then sends a confirmation request to the other player who agrees or disagrees with the recorded score (and crew lists, scenarios, strategies, scemes etc if we want the system to be super sexy). If he agrees it is recorded and rankings updated, if not it goes into debate between the two and, if no agreement reached (in reality this is very unlikely to happen) it goes to the TO for confirmation of the outcome. There we have a system with "mutually assured security" that's down to the players themselves to run without burdening TOs. And, incidentally, a system like this allows for ranked games between players outside of events, say at a club level or if certain ranked players want to travel to play a game against each other. As far as the ranking calculation, I'd suggest starting with the Elo rating system used in chess to get it off the ground, with changes to different distribution models etc down the line if we need to. At this stage, I feel we just need something that works 95% how it should - we can polish the bells later This system would allow for "overall" rankings to be calculated and "best faction", "best master" or "best anything" to be individually tracked and ranked. Lastly in this section, in respect of a system (if there is nothing that does this already?), as far as a beta goes I'm open to discussing building something to do all of the above. Also, we can look at an iPhone/Android app which captures all of this at point of game rather than afterwards. However, if people are cool with us putting something together for the community, before incurring the time/cost I'd like to see support for the idea (in it's final iteration, not this one) and a nod from the powers that be. ==== Issues ==== There are a couple of issues with the above idea which I'd like to air now along with some initial thoughts. However, if you're reading this and you spot any others or have any thoughts on one's raised, please take the time to air them too - my post is a starting point of ideas, it needs you to tear it apart and (hopefully!) rebuild it. 1. A lack of activity can skew the rankings. Let's say I play one game and win big against a high ranking player - all I need to do is avoid playing ranked games and I get a high ranking. >> This is a problem in any ranking system so whilst it needs considering, it's not something to say this approach should be dropped in favour of event led rankings. 2. Picking my games for points. Let's say I setup a fake player to play against who I always beat, or I only play lower ranked players and refuse to play higher ranked players. >> This is something that is fixed by the calculation used to work out rankings. In essence, the change to your rankings is based on the expectation of who will win before the game starts, not just the overall score. So if player #1 plays against player #901, there is an expectation that #1 will win - that means a win by #1 will have very little impact on rankings, whereas a win by #901 will have a huge impact on rankings. Likewise, matches between closely matched players (i.e. #9 vs #10) have a smaller impact on overall ranking placements. 3. Any more? ======= Conclusion ======= In school I was always told to finish with a conclusion, so to close I really think this approach ("games vs events" and "mutual consent") would still give all of the benefits whilst running less risk of damaging/negatively impacting on the community. There may be some software out there to do this, but I don't mind taking the project on myself and getting the team in my business to work on it (at least initially) to see if it works - at least then we can make it exactly what we want for Malifaux rather than crowbarring ourselves into someone else's idea of ranking software. Plus then we get (basic to start!) iphone/android apps which would be cool Let me know what you all think, especially any pitfalls or objections you may spot. MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ispep Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 The problem I see with a system like this is that you can basically turn it off if you are facing a tough match up. It needs to be all or nothing. If I am playing Gremlins, and I get paired up against Hamelin, I'm not going to want it to count as a ranked game. It simply becomes a ranking of your best match ups instead of an indicator of your all around ability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Eh. I've never really cared about rankings. I hold no stock in them and I think they're silly, but if other people around me are going for them it generally doesn't bother me at all. Ultimately Malifaux is a miniatures game, and theme and variation play as big or bigger roles than balance. And that's how it is. That's half the fun sometimes. So the idea of being able to rank someone's skill on them is a bit odd. But if someone else wants to, I don't really care. How did Malifaux get all competitive in the UK all of a sudden? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 1. A tournament system will lead to power-gaming and super competitive lists. I still don't see how rankings make this any worse. A tournament is there to win a view point you have expressed yourself in the past. 3. There will be pressure on players to field their "A" game crews all the time to try and increase their points, which means they won't be able to play "fun" crews or take their foot of the gas at certain events. The only pressure to do that will be from themselves. I certanly will not be going out to buy Haemlin so that I can compete at tournaments. ====== The Idea ====== In short, the idea is to build the ranking system not on ranked tournaments but on ranked games. This means the score doesn't come from positioning in an event (i.e. 200pts for 1st place, 150pts for second), but that your ranking is adjusted based on the outcome of each game between two ranked players. For example, lets say a player called "ABCman" is at the UKGT and his first game is against someone enrolled in the ranking system (a "ranked player") - they agree it's a ranked game and the outcome is used in calculation of rankings. They both bring their A game. ABCman's second game is against someone who doesn't want to be in the ranking system (a "non ranked player") so the game won't count in the ranking system. This means ABCman doesn't need (or there's no pressure) to bring his A game just for rankings (if he's going for a tourny win that's separate) so the non-ranking player won't get steamrolled for ranking points. Lastly, ABCman's third game is against a ranking player, but ABCman wants to try a "fun" list before he heads home. ABCman veto's the game's ranking eligibility so he can play the game with a "non A game" list without risk of it affecting his ranking. This idea of "mutual consent" has a huge impact on the issues at hand, and by basing rankings on games rather than "events" you avoid a lot of the concerns that people have about the impact on tournaments etc. Crucially, it also gives the same benefits that the pro-rankings players have put forward. The main problem I can see with this system is that people will pick and choose what is a ranked game for them. If they come up against an opponent they don't feel they have much chance against they will decide that it wont be ranked and then the rankings have no meaning at all. Also if one of those feared uber competitive players rocks up to their table and the new person decides that they don't want to be ranked there is still no incentive for them not to beat them as its a tournament. I can't suddenly see people reaching under the table and pulling out there fluffy Tina crew to give their opponent a good game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted July 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 The problem I see with a system like this is that you can basically turn it off if you are facing a tough match up. It needs to be all or nothing. If I am playing Gremlins, and I get paired up against Hamelin, I'm not going to want it to count as a ranked game. It simply becomes a ranking of your best match ups instead of an indicator of your all around ability. By not taking on the harder games the way scores are calculated you don;t advance through the rankings as fast. With this system, by beating player #1 you get more ranking points than by beating player #20 - in the "event" led approach you get the same points just for winning no matter who it is against. So sure, you can dodge hard games, but you'll lose a scoring opportunity because of it. Conversely, if you lose a "hard game" (i.e. against a higher ranked player) you won;t see too much of a drop in your own score, so not much to lose by going for it. Long Post Okay, two things - 1. I'm not saying the concerns are going to happen, I'm saying they're concerns that have been raised and could be valid. As such my post takes these into account - please don't derail this thread with arguments which have been played to death in the linked post (feel free to go over them again in that thread though). 2. Re the impact on gaming, and this depends on whether you agree that there are players who are competitive in a competitive scenario and not so in others (hint : I'm one of them). If the player is going to field a douche list nothing will stop them, but there are people (myself included) who only "go for the win" in certain situations and at other times are happy to play other lists. If a game against a non-ranking player can affect the ranking player's score then they will approach it different than if the game doesn't affect their score. That's the difference I'm suggesting with a "game" vs "event" mechanic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 1. I'm not saying the concerns are going to happen, I'm saying they're concerns that have been raised and could be valid. As such my post takes these into account - please don't derail this thread with arguments which have been played to death in the linked post (feel free to go over them again in that thread though). You started a new thread about the essentially the same subject if the original points are not brought up then it will not be a real discussion about this. If you didn't want them brought up again then shouldn't this post be in the original thread. 2. Re the impact on gaming, and this depends on whether you agree that there are players who are competitive in a competitive scenario and not so in others (hint : I'm one of them). If the player is going to field a douche list nothing will stop them, but there are people (myself included) who only "go for the win" in certain situations and at other times are happy to play other lists. If a game against a non-ranking player can affect the ranking player's score then they will approach it different than if the game doesn't affect their score. That's the difference I'm suggesting with a "game" vs "event" mechanic. I'm sorry if you can't self regulate yourself then its not the fault of any rankings system that will or will not be implemented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 I say you in last post but it should be more of a general statement if a player cannot self regulate themselves it doesn't matter what system is implemented there will be the same issues. I also think it should be an all or nothing thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted July 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 You started a new thread about the essentially the same subject if the original points are not brought up then it will not be a real discussion about this. If you didn't want them brought up again then shouldn't this post be in the original thread. The reason this is a distinct thread is to avoid going over old ground about whether or not there should be a rankings system at all. I've posted this to look at the idea of the actual system from a different angle. I'm sorry if you can't self regulate yourself then its not the fault of any rankings system that will or will not be implemented. Yes, I agree with you. The question is how do we stop people who can't regulate themselves from ruining the game for other players - that's where I'm coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChefsDad Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Hey. From whfb tournament experiences i found that the competetive gamers werent necessarily out to steamroll everyone purely for rankings. I played some very good players who did decimate me, but i still enjoyed the gane. There was a mix of competetive and non-competetive players, but i think the majority of the players were there for the social aspect. As has been said, regardless of rankings there will be some douchebags at tournies. I dont think rankings add to that enough to be that big an issue. If youre going to a ranking tournament and want to win, great. If you want to go with a soft list and just have fun, great. Theres likely others in the same mindset. The game should be about fun, regardless of power level. If youre going to a tourney and not expecting some competetive players...well...frankly its a bit daft. I think its where soft scores like painting, sportmanship, best in crew etc come in to play. Ultimately, you go to a tourney, you should expect competition. If you really have an issue with that, then dont go to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Yes, I agree with you. The question is how do we stop people who can't regulate themselves from ruining the game for other players - that's where I'm coming from. I don't think there is anyway to stop someone being a douche they will be regardless of what's going on unfortunately. My main idea for levelling the power level of the game is composition but that will derail this thread further and with book 3 imminent we don't know what the general power level of the game will be like in a month. But that's off topic I never got around to it before but will start a thread with my ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenrir Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Not really fussed about alternate methods of ranking and whatnot. The Henchmen decided rankings were going in, and in they went. Those people who decided that rankings are not the way to go, are choosing to not attend the various Malifaux events. Those people who want to compare ranking sizes are free to do so without us "casual weekend away having a couple of nice games" sorts getting in the way. As stated above: Ultimately, you go to a tourney, you should expect competition. If you really have an issue with that, then dont go to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Those people who want to compare ranking sizes are free to do so without us "casual weekend away having a couple of nice games" sorts getting in the way. I am one of those nice weekend away people and instead of throwing my toys out of the pram I will still be attending events to have a good time. I hope you do to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Back on topic I do like the principle of the system that you present Magic but I think it will be a little too complicated to implement. My other concern would be for the new person that attends the event whether they may feel awkward in telling someone that they do not wish to play in a ranked match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenrir Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) I am one of those nice weekend away people and instead of throwing my toys out of the pram I will still be attending events to have a good time. I hope you do to. No toys no pram. I just choose to stick to casual enjoyable play. People want to hardcore win, fair enough. Apparently I go to a tournament, I should expect competition. Edited July 17, 2011 by Fenrir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 People want to hardcore win, fair enough. Apparently I go to a tournament, I should expect competition. To a certain extent you should as the basis of a tournament is that its a competition there will be a winner and a looser at the end of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted July 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Back on topic I do like the principle of the system that you present Magic but I think it will be a little too complicated to implement. Not sure I agree, I've sketched it out on paper and all the complicated stuff is behind the scenes. But if this gets any sort of traction I'll spend more time fleshing it out and explaining it - on the other hand you understand if there's no uptake then there's no point me spending time on it My other concern would be for the new person that attends the event whether they may feel awkward in telling someone that they do not wish to play in a ranked match. If they're non-ranking then it would auto be unranked. On the other hand if they're ranked, well - welcome to the jungle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenrir Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 To a certain extent you should as the basis of a tournament is that its a competition there will be a winner and a looser at the end of it. Absolutely, that's why I feel that ranked events are no place for the casual "for fun" player. All of this has been thrashed out elsewhere anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted July 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Absolutely, that's why I feel that ranked events are no place for the casual "for fun" player. All of this has been thrashed out elsewhere anyway. But there's a difference between a "ranked event" and a "tournament" - a lot of tournament attendees are there for the fun/social side. WIth the proposed "ranked event" system you'd lose this, with a "ranked game" system you'd preserve this as for the non-ranked players it would be no different to as if the rankings didn't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolomyte Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 But there's a difference between a "ranked event" and a "tournament" - a lot of tournament attendees are there for the fun/social side. WIth the proposed "ranked event" system you'd lose this, with a "ranked game" system you'd preserve this as for the non-ranked players it would be no different to as if the rankings didn't exist. There is no difference between a ranked tournament and an unranked tournament, If people are paying money to enter a tournament, and that money is pooled by the gaming store or TO to create prize support, competetive players will enter and attempt to win the event. Edit - If you run tournaments with no entry fee, and no prize support, I would admit that I could see a ranking system might be enough to cause someone to play more competetively. However only in that scenario. As stated in the other thread, if you personally do not want to be in the rankings, then you should simply opt out. If you honestly and truly believe that in a game in an event where there is a reward a competetive player is more likely to play a "fun" list then a "go for the throat" list just because he wont get ranking points, you're being purposefully obtuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) But there's a difference between a "ranked event" and a "tournament" - a lot of tournament attendees are there for the fun/social side. WIth the proposed "ranked event" system you'd lose this, with a "ranked game" system you'd preserve this as for the non-ranked players it would be no different to as if the rankings didn't exist. I'm sorry but that is just nonsense, you honestly think that if lets say the GT this year has rankings involved it will have a completely different feel to the GT last year? Personally I have more faith in this community. Edited July 17, 2011 by Fulgrima Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted July 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) If you honestly and truly believe that in a game in an event where there is a reward a competetive player is more likely to play a "fun" list then a "go for the throat" list just because he wont get ranking points, you're being purposefully obtuse. Thanks for the constructive input there. As it stands, there are a lot of very good Malifuax players in the UK who enter tournaments with "fun" lists. Sure the GT is a huge event and people will play their best, but you're telling me everyone "goes for the throat" in little tournaments which costs £5 to enter with 8 or so players in them? I'm sorry but that is just nonsense, you honestly think that if lets say the GT this year has rankings involved it will have a completely different feel to the GT last year? Personally I have more faith in this community. I love the way certain people argue in such broad brush strokes. This isn't about the GT which is a competitive event by its very nature, and I think it's clear it never has been. Edited July 17, 2011 by magicpockets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 I love the way certain people argue in such broad brush strokes. This isn't about the GT which is a competitive event by its very nature, and I think it's clear it never has been. Even taking the GT out of it we are still talking about tournaments are they not all competitive by nature? They are a tournament. I think you are trying to invent some sort of imaginary event to prove a point to be honest. We are just going around in circles there is however I feel one clear point rankings will not make someone into a douche they already are with rankings or without. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicpockets Posted July 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Okay, I'll keep an eye on this thread for any feedback, constructive conversation etc... If there's anything I/we can do to help with this then I'm happy to help, but I'm not going to spend any time on it if the general consensus is to stick fingers in ears and go "la la la" despite the concerns which have been raised by different people. Between "talking nonsense", being "deliberately obtuse" and "inventing imaginary things to prove a point" I quite honestly can't be arsed to spend time on something which I thought was me trying to help resolve a big issue and benefit the community with no actual benefit to myself. Is my post the right answer? Maybe not. Is it right in any way at all? Maybe not. Does the problem exist at all? Maybe not. Did I deserve the courtesy of discussion without people resorting to name calling and insults? I'd have hoped so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrima Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Is my post the right answer? Maybe not. Is it right in any way at all? Maybe not. Does the problem exist at all? Maybe not. Did I deserve the courtesy of discussion without people resorting to name calling and insults? I'd have hoped so. Honestly I think you have been a bit precious their, opinions have been expressed that are not the same as yours and I don't feel that there has been any name calling. A ranking systems discussion goes hand in hand with wether we should have rankings at all that is why I feel the discussion went in this direction. As for constructive criticism on your system I say again I like it as a system but I feel it a bit over complicated. I do not see however how it would stop ABCMan destroying the hobby gamer anyhow as I would think that the people going in to win tournaments and those most concerned with the rankings would be the same people. Anyone that just looks at rankings as a curiosity will not be bothered anyhow really and just play their games. I also think that some of those at the top will try and game the system by claiming that their game was for fun when they meet another top player and make the ranking ineligible. How would you solve this problem? Could one person petition that it had to be counted after the game has occurred? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenrir Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 But there's a difference between a "ranked event" and a "tournament" - a lot of tournament attendees are there for the fun/social side. WIth the proposed "ranked event" system you'd lose this, with a "ranked game" system you'd preserve this as for the non-ranked players it would be no different to as if the rankings didn't exist. I see. Sounds interesting when put that way. 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.