Email:
Hey Stelek,
The recent discussion on your blog about a true competitive scene for 40k and other GW products has been very intriguing. It got me to thinking, 'What would a ratings system for 40k look like?' and I'd like to hear your take on it. The way I see it, the Elo rating system would make the most sense given that it provides a clear and tested model. However, you would have to take into account, as Chad said, "missions, terrain, eligible armies and units, point sizes, scoring systems." So let's look at each of these individually.
First, missions would have to be (in my opinion) the ones that GW includes in the main rulebook. While your five killpoint/objective system certainly has its merits, we would have to keep the system as non-arbitrary as possible. That means no "narrative" missions, none of the modified stuff simply because there's no way a system like that wouldn't be arbitrary. I mean, if we took your system, which favors mech and (what you think of as) 5th edition fundamentals, what would be the clear line between that and say a system that uniquely favors my personal army just because I want it to? Although we have the incentive to push players to mech up and be better, the ratings system itself shouldn't force people to do that.
Next, terrain is set up more or less fairly if (and this is a big if) people set up the terrain themselves, together, as GW recommends. Now we all know that this is almost never the case, as many FLGS don't let you move terrain around. But there's an alternative to playing a game on a skewed battlefield: either don't play or play a non-ranked game. Therefore, I don't think terrain should matter in outcomes of games.
Eligible armies and units would, again have to be as non-arbitrary as possible. Obviously all the codices would have to be allowed (No! I'm not allowing orks under my rating system because I don't like them :P). The question would therefore be mini-codices that appear in WDs and Forgeworld rulesets. I'm inclined to disallow Forgeworld simply because, as you've pointed out, it's not GW product. In essence I think all the armies allowed in 'Ard Boyz would have to be allowed.
Point sizes is where 40k differs dramatically from the other games that use the Elo rating system, chess and go. I'm inclined to allow any and all points values to be used for play, relying on the fact that if you're not comfortable with a 1000 point game, for example, you wouldn't play rated games at that level.
Scoring systems we've covered already.
So how would this all work in practice? I think a simple website where players could create accounts and input rounds and results would be relatively easy to set up. I'm hoping the honor system would be enough to get players to input correct information. Obviously, it would be difficult to get people to post stuff in the beginning, but the more people use it, the more legitimate the system becomes.
Obviously, this is just the product of half an hour's musings with the 40k rulebook and my old statistics textbook so any thoughts/opinions on this would be greatly appreciated.
-David
Reply:
I have ideas, but I'd like to hear what others have to say.
Please, comment away.
-David
Reply:
I have ideas, but I'd like to hear what others have to say.
Please, comment away.
3 comments:
I don't think that at least at first you would be able to have it open to anyone to enter. Meaning I think it would need to start with a "sanctioned" tournament circuit.
I think standardized scenarios would be imperative. We have all been screwed over by a scenario that was way out in left field.
Ultimately, I think you would need to have more than just the missions in the rulebook as those aren't really balanced. HELLO DAWN OF WAR.
Froggage, what scenarios would you think would be fair?
The online idea actually has quite a lot of merit for a simple system to get you started.
You need a site set up and the security side of it could be a bit of a pain.
Simple ELO system of unlimited players, I'd see it as a 'double-confirmation' system. So if say player 'elephant' takes on a guy whos ID is 'Johnson' and elephant wins, then elephant logs in and submits a result of win against Johnson. The system then sends a confirmation to Johnson and when he confirms, it does the ELO or similar calculation to work out the player rating changes. If he doesnt confirm then you'd expect elephant to get pissed, but not much you can do about that.
If you get one system up (difficult to do) and can persuade tourney organisers to get players to list their '40K RANKING ID', then the TO would simply log in as a TO and log the results, the system sending confirmation to all the players involved. Once again if players refused (which I'd see as more likely in a tourney setting since they'll go with the 'the rules/scenario/terrain was bullshit) then the TO black-marks them on the system, which would mean nothing to new players, but it would be enough to keep the higher ranking players honest I suspect. Depends on if you can get players into it or not.
I'm not sure how you'd prevent rigging or people jacking the system (making many many baseline accounts and filing hundreds of wins against them with their 'primary' account) but there are several ways, and in an ELO system you cant get very high doing that anyway, eventually you have to win games against people with higher ratings to progress.
Advantages:
Simple, cheap and gets the community started down that road. Gives everyone something to talk about and stands a chance of becoming something better.
Disadvantages:
With such a spread out 'community' lots of people would struggle to find anyone from the system to play against and ELO doesnt work so good if you've only got four people lol.
Relies a lot on honesty that may or may not exist.
You need some sucker to do all the work to set up the site and system, then that same poor person gets all the hate mail when it fucks up.
We all have to hear from everyone about how the latest results were bullshit due to some idiot TO who made a shit tourney etc etc.
Still overall, this would imo be awesome. Even if I cant find anyone to play against in Perth, it would be cool to know I had an international ranking...even if its 1000 (or whatever the baseline is set as)
Post a Comment