Joel Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Hello All, There has been some talk in the tournament-going UK Malifaux Community about making some changes to the way in which the rankings work. The current system is that any events that have 20+ entrants can score the maximum 100 rankings points. Events that are smaller score less points. The top 3 of a players scores are totalled, and that becomes their score. The system is a rolling 12 month setup, so old events drop off and newer scores used as time goes by. This worked fine, but Malifaux is growing now - events with 20+ players are becoming more common. Event sthemselves are becoming more frequent, and the player base is growing. Is it time for the Rankings to grow with them? some proposals have been: increase the number of scoring events to 4 (so rankings scores are measured out of 400) - this would bring us into line with other game systems. increase the number of players required at an event to score the maximum 100 points. - but what to? 25? 30? more? increase both! do neither. or something else? this thread is here to get your views on the matter heard - no one is going to railroad this matter, nor is it going to be settled by some secret little cabal. This is in the hands of the interested, ánd in a position where the mods can see it all happen. what do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leebat Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 I say yes to both raise the events needed to 4 and raise the players to 28+ for the 100 points Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldManMyke Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 I've talked to a lot of folks about this and think 4 events and 28 for max points is about right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psientologist Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Increase to 4 for sure and I trust the maths for 28 from everyone else who has thrown that about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemonconstruct Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Agree with increasing no. of players required for max points (seems to be 28, guess others have worked out why). I not fully against 4 tournaments being needed, but just going to present the idea that some people may struggle with going to this many, may seem stupid but i'm thinking of our friends who live up north, the guys in wales etc who just can't justify the travelling, also the people who simply haven't got time. Should they suffer a "negative". i don't actually know how much it would effect them but just thought it deserved a mention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M_Ruckuss Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 +1- 400 points allows for Greater differentiation. 28 also seems Like a good number. 25 or 30 could work, but 14 games of Malifaux has Been around about the number at the events I've been too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted January 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Agree with increasing no. of players required for max points (seems to be 28, guess others have worked out why). I not fully against 4 tournaments being needed, but just going to present the idea that some people may struggle with going to this many, may seem stupid but i'm thinking of our friends who live up north, the guys in wales etc who just can't justify the travelling, also the people who simply haven't got time. Should they suffer a "negative". i don't actually know how much it would effect them but just thought it deserved a mention. And it's a worthy point - I've sent this thread out through the twitters too and I'm hoping the scots and welsh and northern Irish get in on it too. Looking at the tournament calander, we've gone from 1 small event every couple of months to 2-3 events every month, most of them looking at being on the large side. Getting to 4 in a year shouldn't be as difficult as it was 12-18 months ago, IMO. But yes, I want more viewpoints! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grez90 Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Going off what I've seen in my few months on the malifaux tournament scene, I feel that the number of results included should definately increase to 4. I see the point of some people on the scene not being able to attend atleast 4 events however as Joel has stated, the amount of events that are being hosted is on an upward curve. Regarding the number of people needed for 100 point events, this needs to be increased for definite, and 28 seems about right. As an example I nearly got in to the masters from only 3 tournaments, and I feel for the tournament scene to get a true result the 400 point system should be used, and using 28+ for 100 point tournaments seems right. The one thing I would like to raise though, is the scoring for tournaments below 28. As I think that getting only 50 points to win these tournaments is too small when you compare this to warhammer, where its 50 points for tournaments below 60 (IIRC). If 75 points was the top points on offer to tournaments below 28 (but above say 16) then this may help out those in the community that can't attend all the big tournaments, but still get a fair crack at the rankings if they want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sssk Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Could someone summarise the current scoring system for both under 20 and 20+ tournaments please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted January 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Assuming 20 players at an event (exactly) under current rules, the 1st place player would recieve 100 rankings points, 2nd 95 points, 3rd 90 points and so on all the was down the list. If more players, then the winner still gets 100, but the rest get a little higher score each. If less players, then winner gets a little less points, and the rest decrease by a similar margin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattspooner Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 I vote for any system change that helps me get into the top 50. #nomorespoonsforspoons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike3838 Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 I don't think it drops straight down to 50 points for winning a small tournament Grez, although someone might correct me on that. I think it's a gradually decreasing scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clousseau Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Firstly I definitely agree with the tournament size to get max score increasing to 28 or 32, though I'm not totally convinced on the 4 tournaments to count idea, but wouldn't object to it. Aim has to make the 100 point score rarer. Secondly, tournaments with less players then the min for 100 score a reduced max on a proportional basis. Pop over the RankingsHQ for more info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted January 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Yep, participating in even an 8-person event can earn you a healthy chunk as winner (about 75 points IIRC) Of course, if we up the 100 point threshold from 20, this will decrease proportionally too. ---------- Post added at 07:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 AM ---------- I vote for any system change that helps me get into the top 50. #nomorespoonsforspoons No system change will do that - control! Control! You must learn control! /yodavoice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariFaux Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 I agree with both suggestions, especially if small local store / beginner tournaments will be ranked regularly. They'll have less of an impact, but still count, and it's easy to get 4+ results in during a year. Saying that, how many tournaments across the UK and year are 32+ players (roughly)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnaberible Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 I think what has been suggested sounds fine, I'm sure people have put a lot of thought into the changes but here's my initial thoughts. Is 28 too high? I had a quick flick through Davids event calender last week and during last year I think there were only 4 events last year that topped 28 players, only 3 of these were ranked and 3 were 'Southern' events (this is off the top of my head, I left the actual figures at work so can double check this next week) So yes, if you are expecting the scene to grow then that's fine, not sure how many 28+ events are already booked in for this year (maybe Vappa & Smogcon?), but if it dosent grow then the coveted 400 points wont be available. This isn't a problem for me at all just something to consider. Will upping the numbers too high have an effect on smaller events? So lets say I'm chasing ranking points and there is event X planned for a week in June and event Y planned for a week after. Event X has 28 players booked in and event Y has 20. I can only go to one, you see where I'm going? How about 4+ round events (GT etc)? IMHO these are much much tougher to win than 3 round events so should max points be available for these even if there are fewer numbers? Can this be done without killing the one day event which is easier for people to attend and more popular? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sssk Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Is it necessarily a bad thing having very few tournaments which qualify for the full 100? Surely in an ideal world, the 1st place player would have more points the second place, who has more points than 3rd place etc. If there's lots of 100 point tournaments, that just makes it more likely that multiple people might end up on "full points" (ok, very unlikely, but bear with me). Having few "100 point" tournaments just means there's a bit more variation. The best players are still getting high points, but things are more spread out (theoretically). ....hmmmm, mind seems to have wandered, not quite sure if that made sense, but I've written it now, so I guess I'll post it and see what happens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Puppet Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Yep, participating in even an 8-person event can earn you a healthy chunk as winner (about 75 points IIRC) The winner scores 100 - 1 point per person less than 20 that took part in the tournament. So 8 is 12 less than 20 and 100 - 12 = 88. A 10 person event would score the winner 90 A 12 person event 92 etc. I agree that the scoring system should change to accomodate the increasing size of the Mailfaux scene. I think 4 events is fine (although truth be told I may struggle to make that many). I also think the threshold for the max points should be increased (I haven't done the math but my initial thoughts would be around the 30 player mark). I also think there is some merit in exploring the number of points available based on the number of games played. An initial, off the top of my head, idea would be to allocate a maximum of 20 points per round played in a tournament. So a 3 round tournament would mean a maximum of 60 points to the winner, a 4 round would be 80 and 5 or more rounds would be 100. Just my initial thoughts. Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted January 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 the problem with that is that it effectively kills one-day events. holding even 4 round events in a single day isn't do-able at many venues - and holding 2-day events can suffer with number problems and costs everyone involved more money (hotels/food/etc.) I love both one and two day events and would like to see both retained. off the top of my head (so numbers might be slightly off), since GenCon time: GT: 24 players M2E release event: 8 players Malifolk M2E: 22 players Halifaux: 24 players Back to the Breach: 18 players Scottish GT: 18 players Fistful 'O Fate: 38 players Isle of Faux: 29 players League of extraordinary henchmen: 23 players Vappa: 30 players Smogcon singles: 30 players Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacms Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 I agree that bringing at least 4 tournaments it is probably necessary at the moment. With the rapid increase of events per month and most of them being ranked I think that needs to be a natural evolution. Most people struggle to do one a month, so if we get months with 2/3 and they are all ranked eventually one of them is gonna be a lot less competitive that the others making earning points from that one easier. As for the 28+ only scoring 100pts, looking at the past couple of months and the couple of months ahead, every ranked tournament on the calendar seems to be hitting 30 players quickly so it is feasible I guess. I would probably keep the limit at a slight smaller number like 25 as some venues may have space restrictions and there always people dropping out on the day which can affect smaller venues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 My feeling is that the max player number that should only be met/exceeded but about 20-30% of tournaments. There should still be some 100 point winners. I'm not sure you should also be raising the number of tournaments that affect your score, it does feel like that punishes people who cant make that many tournaments. Also, I agree with Joel that I dont really want anything to adversely affect single day tournaments. These are on the whole a lot more accessible to players, especially newer players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariFaux Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 How about 4+ round events (GT etc)? IMHO these are much much tougher to win than 3 round events so should max points be available for these even if there are fewer numbers? Can this be done without killing the one day event which is easier for people to attend and more popular? Well, theoretically for Swiss system to work without tie-breaker, you'd need 3 rounds for up to 8 players, 4 rounds for up to 16 players, 5 rounds for up to 32 players, and 6 rounds for up to 64 players. But logistics and venue opening hours kinda clash with those requirements, and weekend-long tournaments are more expensive (if you don't happen to live where it happens). I would not differentiate max points by round number. I don't see why it's necessarily tougher to win a 4 round tournament. It's maybe a bit more random, because all games a win is not always enough to win the tournament and the first random pairing has a bigger impact. But in the end the top players will place well, and scoring full (-1) points for 2nd place in a 3 round tournament where I would have ended up 1st after a 4th round is still not bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondbreky Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) And it's a worthy point - I've sent this thread out through the twitters too and I'm hoping the scots and welsh and northern Irish get in on it too. Looking at the tournament calander, we've gone from 1 small event every couple of months to 2-3 events every month, most of them looking at being on the large side. Getting to 4 in a year shouldn't be as difficult as it was 12-18 months ago, IMO. But yes, I want more viewpoints! Whilst the frequency of events has certainly grown it can't be assumed that an individual's ability to attend events will grow as well. Speaking personally my work/life/hobby balance means that I have to pick my events carefully, not all of which will necessarily be ranked (4M and I would assume MCC for example). Perhaps increasing player numbers initially to give large events more weight might be the way to go. Then consider the 4 scoring tournament format at a later date once it can be seen if more changes are required. Obviously I'm on the fringes of the tourney scene so I might be a unique case. Fortunately with such a great community I'm sure the decision will reflect the greatest benefit for the most people. Can't wait to see the outcome of this! Edited January 24, 2014 by secondbreky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Very much what Sam said. He's a good man. And thorough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondbreky Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Very much what Sam said. He's a good man. And thorough. The dude abides. 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.