SWMGAMERS.com Forums
http://swmgamers.com/forums/

If you could make your own ranking system what would you do?
http://swmgamers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=106&t=342
Page 2 of 2

Author:  Sithdragon13 [ Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:39 am ]
Post subject: 

i have to agree with EMR in that that is a very arrogant statement with no basis in fact. I am not saying you guys don't have a tough venue, but you can't discount the other venues that have a strong voice on the boards like nebraska and allentown and others.

I honestly do not think there is a way to effectively figure out the toughest venues without having several meetings through out the year. I dont even take Gencon as a true example because there were good people up and down the rankings that were good. A key loss of map or squad pairing can give a person an auto loss even though they may be the best player in the building.

Author:  NickName [ Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

Venue strength is an impossibility. It just smacks of subjectivity and elitism to even try.

All ranking systems have their flaws so whatever you come up with won't be significantly less flawed than DCI.

Assuming it's just for fun, then the simpler the better and the more results driven the better.

I would start with a simple ladder. When you join, you start at the bottom of the ladder. You move up if you beat someone above you. You move down if you lose to someone below you, or don't play for a specified number of days (meaning highly ranked players typically have to play people below them fairly regularly to maintain their spot.)

There should be a max number of slots you can rise or drop from a single game. So, for example, if #100 beats #1 they don't swap--they change perhaps 5 ranks.

Author:  emr131 [ Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

The last statement by me is not a swipe at you, it was stating that without outsiders testing players, you can have artificially high ranked players with little skill.

Without outsiders testing venues, you can have artificially high ranked venues.

You will never see official results from our venue because we do not sanction DCI play. However, I can state that we have visited all advertised venues within 2 hours of Allentown, one of us has always placed 1st or 2nd to each event (exception, when I scouted out Jester's for the first time, I went my typical 1-2 and I was alone). Does that mean our venue is tier 1? I dunno, combined we have not played enough events to be statistically significant (1 event every 3 months!?).

What I am saying is this: no matter how highly ranked you want to place a venue, without constant testing by outside strong players, there will NEVER be enough information to go by.

I also refuse to acknowledge Vassal as a significant way to show prowess in the DCI realm. DCI games are timed, Vassal games are... not. This alone throws the game conclusions completely around. Much as I hated the fact that one of my championship games went to time, it is a very important factor in DCI games. Get ahead in points and hope time is called.

Author:  Grambo [ Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

emr131 wrote:
Much as I hated the fact that one of my championship games went to time, it is a very important factor in DCI games. Get ahead in points and hope time is called.


I have a feeling my future with DCI is likely me going to jail... because if someone gets ahead on points vs. me and then starts "thinking" a ton to stall... I will be forced to rip their arms off and beat them with them.

Author:  homer_sapien [ Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

Grambo wrote:
I have a feeling my future with DCI is likely me going to jail... because if someone gets ahead on points vs. me and then starts "thinking" a ton to stall... I will be forced to rip their arms off and beat them with them.


Don't do that. That will give them an excuse to play even slower just because they're playing with no arms.

Author:  NickName [ Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

Grambo wrote:
I have a feeling my future with DCI is likely me going to jail... because if someone gets ahead on points vs. me and then starts "thinking" a ton to stall... I will be forced to rip their arms off and beat them with them.


It's an overstated and overworried about problem IMHO. We had 2-3 complaints (I heard about) over the whole weekend of Gencon with the most competetive SWM games to date and they were all about a single player. A judge game over and watched his games when not making judgments and the player played noticably quicker thus resolving the problem without requiring any warnings or additional action at all.

At the local level it should be almost nonexistant, though calling a judge ASAP is an option whenever you suspect such a thing. Just do it DURING the game, not after its over when it's just your word against someone elses.

It's really ironic that EMR131 and I had a game go to time. We both played fast and are generally among the group of faster aggressive players. It was just a long chase at the end with tons of missing, and lots of checking for LOS and ranges to specific squares. Even then I have no idea where the time went--maybe we had a slow start/setup that round? I'm not really sure. The game moved and somehow still hit time.

Author:  billiv15 [ Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:50 pm ]
Post subject: 

Grambo wrote:
emr131 wrote:
Much as I hated the fact that one of my championship games went to time, it is a very important factor in DCI games. Get ahead in points and hope time is called.


I have a feeling my future with DCI is likely me going to jail... because if someone gets ahead on points vs. me and then starts "thinking" a ton to stall... I will be forced to rip their arms off and beat them with them.


That's the thing, it doesnt even require "stalling" as you are describing it. Its simple, pick a squad that can kill a fig, or gain gambit for free, and sit back and snipe. Force your opponent to engage on your terms or lose. Most smart opponents will also then just turn figs and set up for an end of game assault. Then, when time is close, engage to get the lead in points, but in such a way as to prevent your opponent from killing enough in response. Such as with a hard to kill fig like Boba BH, or Aurra JH, etc.

It had little to do with "stalling". It has more to do with abusing the time limit system. And right now its part of the game at the top level. I'm not saying its good or bad, or that I did not abuse it as well. Its a smart play in a competative game. Now, I would never do this in a lgs game of course.

Author:  Sithborg [ Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

And trust me, as bad as the problem may seem right now, it was 100x worse without Gambit.

Author:  emr131 [ Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:06 am ]
Post subject: 

NickName wrote:
It's really ironic that EMR131 and I had a game go to time. We both played fast and are generally among the group of faster aggressive players. It was just a long chase at the end with tons of missing, and lots of checking for LOS and ranges to specific squares. Even then I have no idea where the time went--maybe we had a slow start/setup that round? I'm not really sure. The game moved and somehow still hit time.


Well, actually, I do not consider that game going to time. Yes it did, but after I lost Vader it was just mop up for you. I did gather a *lot* of gambit, so I still might have squeaked it by if you could not kill my grans fast enough, but I think the end is 99.9% a win for you if there was no time limit.

The game I mention as going to time was truly a strange one. It was a mirror of your squad and he still had Boba, I still had Vader. Just a lot of maneuvering took place... that was the game where I killed Lobot with Mas (cunning) for the win in points.

Author:  Sithdragon13 [ Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:41 am ]
Post subject: 

If the person that was accused of playing slow is who i thought it is, i had no problems with him when i played him. He was thoughtful of his moves, but did not take any excess time. Actually the more annoying thing was how deliberate he was about keeping time, but the game was my second best of the tournament (EMRs has to be #1).

I had no problems at all with time. Then again my squad was a bull rusher so of course it went fast.

Author:  NickName [ Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yeah, I'm not going to get into who it was or who played him and mentioned it because it's the concept, not the person that's more worthy of discussion and I don't think he was a bad dude at all. (Not at all like the situation bill and boris reported with one guy at Gencon 2006.)

Author:  billiv15 [ Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

NickName wrote:
Yeah, I'm not going to get into who it was or who played him and mentioned it because it's the concept, not the person that's more worthy of discussion and I don't think he was a bad dude at all. (Not at all like the situation bill and boris reported with one guy at Gencon 2006.)


Yes, I saw nothing like Gencon 2006 this year. Even the reported offender was present and he clearly played faster this year. I think he got the message :)

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/