Oathius Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 I think at the stage we are at right now we shouldn't increase the number for max points by too much as I think this could impact negatively on areas that can only run small events. I'd say a slight change for now, let 2nd edition run for year first and see how the scene grows in that year and then make further adjustments to the rankings system. I also would like to say 4 events, this may start to make people not want to travel to non-ranked events though as not everyone can go to loads of tournaments each year and they may be a very good player but never stand a chance to get to the top of the rankings due to the restrictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jondoe297 Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 I'm concerned the scene hasn't grown quite enough for this change, especially in the South, I also reckon it may take its toll on no ranked events. I think a change maybe required though in the near future for sure, was having a look at warmachine, and noticed they get more than 100 points for some events how does that work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 I'm not close to that system but I believe certain special / official events are worth more than 100 points. Different systems use different criteria for awarding points. For example I believe some systems only allow maximum points for events with five rounds etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierowmaniac Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Have any of the Scottish contingent come forward with their thoughts yet? I to am still not convinced a change now is required. What you don't want to happen is all those smaller events losing out on players attending and then not growing. Also, there is still a good 41 point spread for the top 1o players and 85 points for the top 20, so I can't see a need for a change on that front either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euclid (#ScottishMeta) Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Yep. I expressed my opinions on the previous page. I would definitely like both player count and max score to rise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike3838 Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 My thoughts on the discussion: http://malifauxnoob.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/087-uk-rankings-proposals.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jondoe297 Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Very good blog Mike! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Just wanted to pick up on the maximum level discussion currently happening on twitter. There are no so many of us on there I can't fit cogent thoughts into the 90 odd characters left. The reason the number of points awarded vary dependant on event size is to protect the integrity of the system. The maximum points level should be set at a level which to a certain extent guarantees a high enough standard of competition. The bigger the event the tougher it should be to win. Without this fail safe I could play a tournament a month against seven random tramps. I'd win each week and earn maximum points. This is why the number of entrants should be set high enough that the event will need to be drawing players from beyond the immediate area and be in effect a national / regional event to qualify. It's in effect a test to make sure that the event is quorate. The significant majority of events should not attract the maximum score. Maybe four a year is about the right level IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 I dont disagree but i think a jump of 50%, which is what most people seem to be talking about, is a big leap 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike3838 Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Fully agree that a threshold for max points should exist for the reasons you outline. But under the current cap of 20, it's already not realistically possible to game the system using your network of tramps. Incidentally, are you Sherlock Holmes? . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 It does feel a bit like we're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnaberible Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Without this fail safe I could play a tournament a month against seven random tramps. Hang on, the Tractor Massive dont go to EVERY event Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 I dont disagree but i think a jump of 50%, which is what most people seem to be talking about, is a big leap I'd argue the level has been too low for a while before M2e. Either way 5/8* M2e events held to date have been over twenty players. The max point threshold should be more like 20%, a cut off around 28 would probably still see us exceeding that level. *I'm excluding the Hardcore side event at the Scottish GT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 It does feel a bit like we're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. I seem to remember hearing a lot of "the scene isn't ready yet" arguments when we implemented rankings the first time. There's never going to be a perfect time to implement this. I think now is the right time to be optimistic about the scene and make some changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldManMyke Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Just a question on how long we want to keep the vote open. I have been keeping a spreadsheet of results so have the mean counts as an ongoing thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 I think we should give it two full weeks. So close it this weekend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnaberible Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 OK, I completely understand the reasoning in increasing the number of players at events for them to score max points, can someone outline the case for increasing the number of scoring events to 4? And just to annoy everyone, should a minimum ss size be introduced to qualify an event to be ranked? Just thinking what's stopping me organising a 10 player, 15 ss event running from 7-10pm one evening that nobody in their right mind would attend from outside the local area just to get a 4th scoring event (which would gain 80pts if I won, I think) and jump me above anyone who only has 3 scoring events on the table Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 And just to annoy everyone, should a minimum ss size be introduced to qualify an event to be ranked? Just thinking what's stopping me organising a 10 player, 15 ss event running from 7-10pm one evening that nobody in their right mind would attend from outside the local area just to get a 4th scoring event (which would gain 80pts if I won, I think) and jump me above anyone who only has 3 scoring events on the table Just to address this part. Other systems apply these sorts of restrictions. The difficulty becomes rigedly enforcing what an 'event' is. The more rules you create the more likely you are someones well meaning event will fall foul of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierowmaniac Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 My thoughts on the discussion: http://malifauxnoob.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/087-uk-rankings-proposals.html Good post Mike. Agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted February 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Good post Mike. Agreed Love the post, but think it's not looking at the future-proofing of the scene. Going to 4 events may mean that those players interested in rankings positions may well make the decision to attend more events. This will grow events as more players attend, leading to further congestion. right now, the problem isn't huge - but I'm thinking about the problems coming down the path. Right now seems a good opportunity, as wave 2 comes in and basically M2E goes "fully operational", to sort this out before things come to a head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Puppet Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Some interesting analysis. The main reason why I think 4 or 5 game events are different to 3 game ones is nothing to do with who wins. It's the next few positions that themselves still offer a decent amount of points for those seeking to advance up the rankings. If you lose game 3 to the overall winner in a 3 game tournament, chances are that you will drop significantly down the table. In a 4 or 5 game tournament, you still have a decent chance to climb back up near the top. I went to a 3 game tournament last year and was on table 1 in the last game. It was a draw and I dropped to 6th place. With another game, I felt I would have had a good chance to get back into the podium places. As someone who usually only attends a limited number of events a year, I feel this is significant. For the time being, I am withdrawing from the tournament scene for personal reasons. I still think the Rankings should change to make them more future proof. When and if I return though, I will adapt to whatever has been decided. Martin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted February 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Sorry to hear that we'll not be seeing you for a while - hope everything goes OK and that you won't be gone too long! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Would people consider a 2 day tournament that had a gap between day 1 and day 2? Maybe even a month or so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted February 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 sounds interesting, and possibly a good solution - but it would mean venue, travel and food costs double for the amount of ranking points on offer, and what would happen if someone couldn't make day 2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Sorry to hear that we'll not be seeing you for a while - hope everything goes OK and that you won't be gone too long! This. You'll be missed mate. Would people consider a 2 day tournament that had a gap between day 1 and day 2? Maybe even a month or so? If playrs can't make two consecutive days do we really think making the days non-consecutive will help? I suspect you'll find less take up than for a number two day, plus a level of drop outs at the bottom of the table. 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.