Cunning Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Fair comments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clousseau Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Some good points being made on what constitutes a ranked tournament. Doesn't need to be here so I'll start another thread as I have a few thoughts of my own... http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/98529-ranked-or-not-ranked/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike3838 Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 If playrs can't make two consecutive days do we really think making the days non-consecutive will help? Dunno about others, but for me, definitely yes. Personally, the limiting factor on the 2-day events is often the "oh, you're going to be away for the *whole* weekend then?" factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clousseau Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Personally I can't see how a 2 day event over 2 different weekends would work. HOWEVER, what could work is 2 (or 3) events over a year at the same venue having an overall result calculated from those separate events. Another possibility would be that the draw for tournie 2 was based directly on the results for tournie 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacms Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Also not seeing 2 days spread over working. What if people can't make the second one? Or don't show up after a disappointing performance on the first day. At the end of the day it would have to work the same as having two separate scoring events. Like the idea of Clousseau of having the draw based on the results of previous events though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnaberible Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Personally I can't see how a 2 day event over 2 different weekends would work. HOWEVER, what could work is 2 (or 3) events over a year at the same venue having an overall result calculated from those separate events. Another possibility would be that the draw for tournie 2 was based directly on the results for tournie 1. In theory this is a good idea. However if one of the problems is the fact that some people can't get 4 ranking events per year would people travel to one event spread over 3 days just to get one set of ranking points? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacms Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 In theory this is a good idea. However if one of the problems is the fact that some people can't get 4 ranking events per year would people travel to one event spread over 3 days just to get one set of ranking points? Clousseau idea is that they would still independently so if you attend 3 events you have three scores. But rather than have a random draw for the first game you are place on the list with the points from the previous tournament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnaberible Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Ah I see, but this still dosent address the 3 round tournament with vp diff separating a large amount of players on 2 wins (if that's still what we are talking about, I lose track ) it is basically just seeding the tournament based on the previous results, so why not seed tournaments from the rankings (not sure what that would achieve) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacms Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Seeding players by the rankings it is a good idea in theory but means it is a lot harder for people at the top to win three games and hence the tournament that say someone at middleground that would go two and just face one of the top players at the end. Can run some quick simulations but think it wouldn't add that much to solve the problem. Cutting the lunch break maybe the solution to 4 round tournaments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clousseau Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 My only concern with dropping lunch (apart from the hunger aspect) is that everyone will miss out on the social aspect, an important of the Malifaux scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierowmaniac Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 Assuming most of you also received an email this morning from RankingsHQ? They need more funding to continue anyway. Personaly I think it would be a shame to lose the site, but im also not that concerned that I would dontate anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldManMyke Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 Are we calling an end on the poll? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Station Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Reading through this thread the situation got me thinking... As events get larger more rounds will be required to clearly and fairly differentiate players scores for 16+ player events. The major problem is, of course, the time required to play 4 or more rounds. Is it really unfeasible to run 4 round tournaments in 1 day? I for one would rather have an earlier start/finish later and do a full, 4 round day to have a clearer winner/points spread. As mentioned above count backs on TP and VP can often be brutal in bigger tourneys. The alternative, as I see it, which allows for some future proofing of events growing and requiring 2 days, is to have a split system. 1 day or 2 day categories and scaling based on the number of rounds AND players. For most cases at present will be a typical 1 day, 3 round tournament will have it's points capped by the number of players as suggested already throughout the thread i.e. 26/28/30. However (and this is the simplest system I can think of off the bat) is that if the tournament runs for 4 rounds (in 1 day) then there is a scale multiplier applied to all scores e.g. 1.2 times the relevant 3 round tourney score for that number of players. And an equivalent multiplier used for 2 day or higher round event. This allows for big events to run for one day with the 3 rounds (or eventually the required 2 days to separate player scores more fairly) while smaller events that can fit in an extra round (concentrating longer) aren't penalised. This accommodates more (smaller) events to be run keeping the choice for people to attend when fits in with outside life. To make this system work the max player numbers cap for full points would need to be quite high and discounting for number under max to be harsh or the extra round multiplier not very generous. As I said, this is me just thinking about this on the hoof so would need to sit down with some numbers to figure out where the 'fair' scale lies. I've not been involved in the twitter discussions so don't know if any of this has been said and dismissed but would be interested to know what others think. Is it too complicated? Would it be better left for another year (or two) down the line when it is actually required. Until then make the gradual increase that this current proposal is to the old system? IMO an increased scoring scale is obviously required, if not immediately then in the near future. I agree that this is often better done ahead of awkward scenarios arising rather than once someone has had a negative experience on the bad side of one. There are two questions in the poll: how many events and how may player for max points, I'm going for 4 events and proposing the above alternative if RankingHQ can accommodate (max numbers would then have to be calculated for optimums. As an aside, MTG events have base 2 numbers of rounds ( 8 players = 3 rounds, 16/4, 32/5 etc ) and points for match wins and event multipliers, big events are harder to do well in so have bigger multipliers. But the rounds are only typically 1 hour or so... Wow, that ended up longer than I expected, sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnaberible Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Are we calling an end on the poll? It all seems to have gone a bit quiet (apart from Station's suggestions which I haven't quite digested yet) so I guess so, I think there was talk of implementing any changes before end of Feb? How are you counting it, mode for number of events and mean for numbers at events, or mode for both? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldManMyke Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 So far I have just calculated mean for both Have now done the mode. So Means would put us on 4 and 28 Mode will put us on 4 and 30 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clousseau Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Mode? Forgive me - I have A-level maths competing with man flu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacms Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Mode? Forgive me - I have A-level maths competing with man flu Basically the most common value on a sample. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnaberible Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Cripes, good job he didn't use the Median. Personally I'm not fussed, but we could have another vote, or maybe some form of proportional representation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacms Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Cripes, good job he didn't use the Median. Personally I'm not fussed, but we could have another vote, or maybe some form of proportional representation? I was actually going to suggest the median as it is probably a best estimator in these case, but the differences will always be small anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Station Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 Is this going to be affected by the announced closure of RankingsHQ or is there another suitable product? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenrir Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 Is this going to be affected by the announced closure of RankingsHQ or is there another suitable product? Well, rankings is just a fad for the few that care about it. The closure of the website won't affect much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 Is this going to be affected by the announced closure of RankingsHQ or is there another suitable product? Well as the current site is being taken down by RHQ tomorrow this wont be an immediate thing. There has been talk on twitter, and discussions are under way in the UK community around setting up a replacement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenrir Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 Well as the current site is being taken down by RHQ tomorrow this wont be an immediate thing. There has been talk on twitter, and discussions are under way in the UK community around setting up a replacement. A permanent one or another one that will die off in a few years because of lack of interest outside of the few? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicFOX Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 My experience of having UK Malifaux on RHQ for the last few years is it's been positive for the UK community as a whole. IMO Rankings have encouraged; more participation, more events, and more players. Even if only a handful of people cared about their own actual rankings. If people are interested enough to want to keep that going then I think that can only be a positive thing. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierowmaniac Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 I suppose one of the main questions that needs to be asked is would a replacement still be free or not? And what people feel about that. I'll be completely honest and up front and say I wouldn't pay for that service. I can appreciate the effort and cost that goes into running these kind of things, but its just not a service i feel strongly enough to actually want to pay for. Hopefully whoever is taking on this project is considering that issue and its only fair they don't don't do too much work up front, with the expectation that everyone would want to contribute. 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.