PDA

View Full Version : Ranking System



JohnHag
06-30-2010, 01:38 PM
Hey everyone,

We were bouncing around the idea of a ranking system, and was wondering what you all thought of one. It would be nice to have one if it could give a realistic showing of the skill level of the player base, but that is not often the case.

What are some suggestions that you all might have, and are there any ranking systems that you all have seen that have had success.

Please participate in the poll as well so we can get a better idea over some of the concerns that we also have as well.

RockStar
06-30-2010, 01:47 PM
First off, i voted that i am indifferent, because i plan on playing this game with or without one.

In truth, i LIKE a ranking system. That said, IF we were to implement a ranking system then it would need to take into consideration that there are A LOT of really good players who just can't make it to the larger tournaments, for financial reasons or otherwise.

Eithinis
06-30-2010, 01:54 PM
It was used, at a time. Never in my area, though; It seems like most scouts i saw simply ignored the ranking system used, and just hosted tournaments instead of posting the results.

It's a neat idea, i'm indifferent, but I'm not sure how it can be implemented successfully, unless we're only talking about major events.

Target X
06-30-2010, 01:54 PM
A ranking system is a pretty sweet idea to know where a player stands in therms of winning, its not however a clear indicator of skill. The poll is somewhat biaised in that aspect.

JohnHag
06-30-2010, 02:04 PM
Well, the idea is that we do not want this to be an indicator of simply how many games you can play in a week. Most ranking systems are largely based on quantity over quality and we would like to not have our ranking system be like that. Most ranking systems punish players who do not have a dedicated play group, or who might be in a more competitive environment.

Also, do you all want it to cover local events, or just regional and major events?

Zues9105
06-30-2010, 02:07 PM
well imo i love a ranking system! I come from magic where competitive players make a game much more interesting on the fact of you cant risk your ranking. It give competitive players something minute to show for their trials and tribulations that is ufs and to the casual players i generally see it matters not to them either way. I do like The dci ratings because the size of the event changes the value of points won and lost which is good because you usually see more serious players at bigger events like nats and worlds atleast thats how i see it

B-Rad
06-30-2010, 02:13 PM
In theory it CAN work, and I think it would be really cool if it's implemented.

The problems I can foresee, much like everyone has already stated is that a lot of skilled players can't make it out to major tournaments. Also you have to take into account human error/laziness if you allowed it to encompass local events. Sometimes the scout is either too busy or forgets or just can't be bothered to e-mail tourney results or however they did it back in the day.

ShadowDragon
06-30-2010, 02:14 PM
I think it kind of conflicts with the participation prizes at large events... Most people who start losing at big events in MTG will drop to salvage their rating, but in UFS (like last year at worlds), you got participation prizes, like extra promos and art prints, for sticking through the whole thing. I'm not sold on the whole ranking idea =/

Link
06-30-2010, 03:03 PM
im kind of indifferent but leaning more towards no. It wouldnt be too bad as long as not having a good rank doesnt prevent you fom playing in certain events and such. I know personally I play very very sporadically 1 week ill win 1st the next dead last. Its the same at major events.

LBS
06-30-2010, 03:04 PM
I will pipe in on behalf of a rating system. My main game was VS and I always enjoyed being able to see my progress as a player via my ranking. The mantis system let you send in your results through the magic of the interwebs. Even the lazy could click a mouse button. I don't see how come we couldn't get something similar incorporated into the tournament software.

I do think that it should be weighted for local vs larger events, but I definitely feel that your weekly group games should count. Not everyone can make it to Gencon every year. If that was the only time that ratings were affected, it would be pointless to keep track.

failed2k
06-30-2010, 03:35 PM
Ranking systems that rely on local results just never work, if you base them on the more competitive tournaments (like the Fop's/AoP's/City championships) and then the LARGE tournaments it could be cool but nothing needed per se

LBS
06-30-2010, 06:13 PM
Ok, so why does everything think that local results cause the rating systems to breakdown? What happened to sour everyone? (Real questions, not being an ass)

TripsEX
06-30-2010, 06:57 PM
Local Ranking System FTW.

HypeMan!
06-30-2010, 09:48 PM
I'm for a Ranking system if it can have a positive effect on the environment, in the sense that not doing well on it doesn't hurt or tie your hands, but doing well is a nice bonus and encourages more competitive play. Like say, be high on it and you say, get a Mat or Cards or something at the end of a particular time span or season. But, and I can't say this loud enough, DO NOT MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT FOR TOURNAMENTS like GenCon and Worlds. I'm all for an invitational or something or maybe a promised spot in Worlds should capacity ever become a problem, a similar Masters tournament could be cool as well.

Sketch
07-01-2010, 12:49 AM
Last time there was a ranking system that tracked local play, it meant absolutely nothing and was very open to 'padding' by playgroups, not that it mattered. This was back in the STG days.

If you're proposing a ranking system, my suggestion is to only have it take in to effect larger tourneys, like 2k suggested. Worlds, Nats, City Champs, AOP/FOP-style events, that sort of thing. Maybe a once-per-month 'ranked battle' tournament at your local. Have it overseen by the TO of that particular event.

And yeah, don't make it a requirement to do anything, especially GenCon tourneys. We all saw how well that went two years ago with the qualifiers, complete disaster. Still salty about not being able to play teams that season, but this year will be hype enough to make up for it!

Hatman
07-01-2010, 11:34 AM
A ranking system can only work if you manage to classify per venue, area and then world. For example, if you want the rankings for, say, XYZ store, you can pull them up. If you're planning on attending a tournament on, say the West Coast, you should be able to scope things out with the ranking system, and naturally, we all want to be recognized as the best in the world.

It's not an accurate gauge of skill, mind you, but it's interesting and may cause fun bragging.

SirShajir
07-01-2010, 12:26 PM
I like the idea of a ranking system. Although local events should be a worth significantly less then regionals, special events, nationals, world's or ptq's. And that would keep somewhat reasonable and realistic.

Nfxon
07-01-2010, 12:45 PM
I'll all for a ranking system so long as it doesn't become a requirement for an event.
Also local results should have absolutely no bearing on rankings. Some people dont have a local store other people play entirely too much fun decks and most stores dont want their scene devolving into "worlds qualifying" with completely nasty decks every day. Or having a TO give people wins to boost them up in ranking just for the sake. Make it majors only. Quick thought, have a majors rank and a local rank? Split em. If your feeling froggy.

SirShajir
07-01-2010, 12:53 PM
I'll all for a ranking system so long as it doesn't become a requirement for an event.
Also local results should have absolutely no bearing on rankings. Some people dont have a local store other people play entirely too much fun decks and most stores dont want their scene devolving into "worlds qualifying" with completely nasty decks every day. Or having a TO give people wins to boost them up in ranking just for the sake. Make it majors only. Quick thought, have a majors rank and a local rank? Split em. If your feeling froggy.
I definetly Agree with the idea that it should not be a requirement to get into any major event unless this game blows up and has something like 10-15 times the players.

Hatman
07-01-2010, 02:08 PM
I definetly Agree with the idea that it should not be a requirement to get into any major event unless this game blows up and has something like 10-15 times the players.

Try 100 times the players, if we want to get an accurate vision of "When will it be necessary."

TripsEX
07-01-2010, 03:30 PM
I agree with Ben, rankings in the local split from the major wouldn't be a bad idea.

Local Ranking: Applies to your State. Say for instance, you have four stores in your state that hold UFS events. No matter what size the playgroups at the stores are, if something gets fishy on the ranking system (see the old GRT leaders), people wouldn't be too hard pressed to actually go to the other store and see what's going on. In more tightly knit areas, it wouldn't happen at all.

Major Ranking: Scheduled tournaments like Regionals, AoP/FoP-type events, Nationals, Worlds, and events that have to be specifically given the go ahead from Jasco.

Yeah?

Da_ghetto_gamer
07-01-2010, 03:42 PM
It would really depend on how many large tourney we were going to have a year if we had more then say 5 or so then im all for the rankings only being composed of larger tourney but most people wont be able to go to a tourney if its not around where they live so they only play locally

Im all for a ranking system as long as its legit and scouts dont just post results so that they win everyweek and have absurd rankings like back in the STG days you could tell there some kind of shenanigans going on there

Zues9105
07-01-2010, 04:54 PM
Well in all Fairness i dont think the scout should be able to play in their own tournaments unless they are short on players to make it a "sanctioned" that seems like a conflict of interest to me AND ABSOLUTELY RATINGS SHOULD NOT affect ability to participate in events but could help say garauntee you a spot at invitational events

Baranor
07-01-2010, 06:28 PM
What about rankings affecting seeding at a tournament. In the first round, you would have the higher ranked players paired with lower ranked players or players with no rankings at all. This would incentivize playing in tournaments so that you can get the ranking to theoretically have an easier first game, but it wouldn't prevent new players or players who don't see much tournament play from playing.

ShadowDragon
07-01-2010, 08:54 PM
From what I remember, scouts weren't allowed to play in their own tournaments. The only way I remember that they -could- play was if they played the person who got the bye, and regardless of the match's outcome, the person who had the bye got a win.

I wouldn't mind having 2 separate rating systems, one for small/weekly events and another for the big/major events though, I think that'd be more fair to the people who can't play in weekly tournaments because they're the ones running them.

Hatman
07-01-2010, 09:06 PM
From what I remember, scouts weren't allowed to play in their own tournaments. The only way I remember that they -could- play was if they played the person who got the bye, and regardless of the match's outcome, the person who had the bye got a win.

I wouldn't mind having 2 separate rating systems, one for small/weekly events and another for the big/major events though, I think that'd be more fair to the people who can't play in weekly tournaments because they're the ones running them.
Alternately, it'd be fair to those who can't play in major tournaments because at best, they're 7 hours away.

Link
07-01-2010, 09:07 PM
From what I remember, scouts weren't allowed to play in their own tournaments. The only way I remember that they -could- play was if they played the person who got the bye, and regardless of the match's outcome, the person who had the bye got a win.

I wouldn't mind having 2 separate rating systems, one for small/weekly events and another for the big/major events though, I think that'd be more fair to the people who can't play in weekly tournaments because they're the ones running them.

The scout was allowed to play in our tournaments (if i recall though they never did when there was an even number) but he just never took any of the prizes regardless of place

Nyobari
07-05-2010, 09:59 PM
If people like it, whether for big tournaments or small tournaments, that's fine. But having it so they get some kind of advantage or special promos for being highly ranked.... not so cool.

You really want to have it so that the major tournaments and mid-major tournaments (FoP, Regionals, etc.) have the special promos and such so to increase attendance and get people to travel. We saw a huge drop-off in this when FFG picked up the game, or the cost of the kit didn't feel like it had enough to draw players in. Believe it or not, extra promo cards go a long way in getting players to travel, it does better than play mats or life counters. Life counters, play mats, etc, end up working better on a small level, which seems odd since they cost more than printing promo cards does.

Zues9105
07-06-2010, 10:05 AM
With these forums i dont understand why people couldnt make big events there is so much networking here you should be able to meet up with someone and hitch rides together ive been playing Magic for ten years and im not loaded on cash but i have never not made an event i wanted we drove to seatle with four total in the car and the trip was like 200 bucks and i live in texas its all a matter of how bad you want to go now for those of you that work like i do i understand if you dont havew the time And on the higher rating getting added help with buys is why Magic huge events are so succesful because it draws mor higher ranked people to thim dont forget we want this game to continue being printed if everybody tries to get out with out spending money what are you playing card games for they are expensive i dont mean any offense to anyone just my opinion

VikTheSlick
07-06-2010, 10:40 AM
With these forums i dont understand why people couldnt make big events there is so much networking here you should be able to meet up with someone and hitch rides together ive been playing Magic for ten years and im not loaded on cash but i have never not made an event i wanted we drove to seatle with four total in the car and the trip was like 200 bucks and i live in texas its all a matter of how bad you want to go now for those of you that work like i do i understand if you dont havew the time And on the higher rating getting added help with buys is why Magic huge events are so succesful because it draws mor higher ranked people to thim dont forget we want this game to continue being printed if everybody tries to get out with out spending money what are you playing card games for they are expensive i dont mean any offense to anyone just my opinion Often it is a question of time, not money. Some of us work and have school (or both, like me) and thus it becomes difficult to go. I would love to go to Gencon everywhere but right now between two jobs and teaching on the side I can't even guarantee a free weekend to make it.

I think a ranking system if implemented logically might be okay, depending on how it was utilized, but really I also think it should be LOW on the list of Jasco Games' priorities. Very low.