There are a lot of gamers that dont' like the idea of national rankings, because doing so will force them to admit that they're at best a big fish in a small pond.
Why live in the reality of being the 140th best player in the country when you can enjoy winning every local tourney?
Spyder68 wrote:I knew it was a matter of time before people wanted national Epeen rankings :p
Based on a game in tourneys of who gets the best matchup and playes the newest fotm army!
Not hating.. just amused.
See, this is pure hating. You know nothing about the rankings, the players, or the armies they play, which leaves you making unqualified statements.
Alex Fennel is in #1 right now. He plays Chaos Marines and foot-slogging IG. Totally FoTM.
I'm in #2, until recently #1. I play Orks and Dark Eldar. I won a golden ticket with Dark Eldar. At my last GT, I played against a decent Tyranid list, a good IG list, a face-raping daemon list (Fatecrusher), a very good Blood Angel list, a pretty good Space Wolf list, a face-beating Blood Angel list and...a pretty good space wolf list. Pairings were based on strength of schedule and my poor wins had me ranked against the strongest winners the whole tournament.
Hulksmash is sitting at #3. Mr. "Adepticus Mecha-converted Daemons."
Dave Fay is sitting at #4; he plays very unothodox Chaos Marines. A Chaos Lord on a BIKE?!? No Lash?!? How could he possibly win?
Or maybe its because all it really tells us is who has the ability to travel to the most random tournaments or who attends tournaments that actually submit their rankings.
Until basically all tournaments submit rankings to something like this, it really tells us nothing.
By your own admission people who play crappy armies are near the top. What does that tell you about the validity of this?
(no offense to the players, but you yourself seem to think their lists are not optimized)
I'm sorry, I don't care how good you are, if you bring a bad list to a tournament, you shouldn't be walking away with a high finish in any competitive environment.
Try doing that in MTG or something. Yea, doesn't happen.
CptZach wrote:Or maybe its because all it really tells us is who has the ability to travel to the most random tournaments or who attends tournaments that actually submit their rankings.
Until basically all tournaments submit rankings to something like this, it really tells us nothing.
By your own admission people who play crappy armies are near the top. What does that tell you about the validity of this?
(no offense to the players, but you yourself seem to think their lists are not optimized)
I'm sorry, I don't care how good you are, if you bring a bad list to a tournament, you shouldn't be walking away with a high finish in any competitive environment.
Try doing that in MTG or something. Yea, doesn't happen.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll be egotistical enough to say that I think I'm an exceptional player, and that the lists we play have far less to do with winning than the generals behind them. How about you assemble your fiercest army, and I'll break out the absolute worst codex in 40k. Meet me on Vassal for a game; phasing me out should be a cinch, right?
Kirasu wrote:Rankings that only use select tournament results are serious business
Nope. Just fun. IIRC the way the events are selected is just by the TO sending in results, right? So there's nothing exclusive about it.
Exactly, Rankings HQ is currently not meaningful. It has the potential to be an accurate ranking of players in each country, but it isn't there yet.
Take for example the guy currently in second. He has played in 6 tournaments which add to his "score", 4 of which had less than 30 people in them. A tournament with less than 30 people means precisely nothing when it comes to establishing player skill. Furthermore, lots of the best events don't even bother to submit their results, it isn't worth their time.
In fact, in order to have the rankings mean much of anything, they need to only use a handful of events, the very best and biggest in the nation. Adepticon, Wargames Con, Da Boyz GT, next years Nova Open, etc. There are really only 5-6 events that deserve to have their results counted when it comes to comparing national level players.
Now let me add a disclaimer here that nothing I say above is meant to slur smaller events or the players who are currently on Rankings HQ. Alex, who is currently number 1 on RHQ, is a great player, all the best players in the country know that, but we don't know that from his Rankings HQ position, we know it from observing the meaningful tournaments he has won!
RHQ wrote:
The ranking for each player is calculated by adding their best three (3) scores over the last 12 months. The maximum a player can score out of a single tournament is 100 points, and that is done by winning an event that has 60 players or more.
Tournaments require 5 rounds or more to qualify for the total points allocation, events with 4 rounds score 80% of the total and events with 3 score 60% of the total.
The best army general icons are worked out by adding the best three (3) scores a player gains using that army over the last 12 months
So for example:
#1 - The Everliving: Has only 3 actual tourney scores (with over 60 players) where he placed #7, #19 and #40. He did place first at a 30 person tourney and 5th at a 51.
#2 - Dash: Has only one over 60 score (Nova) where he placed 4. Other than that he has a 7, 1, 1, 3 and 20 for small events.
#3 - Hulksmash: Has only one over 60 score (Nova) where he placed 19. Then a 5, 4, 8.
It looks like we need more scores submitted by more TOs to get some actual good data out of this.
Without trying to be mean, the people who hit the most tourneys have gotten the most points so far without spectacular placings (except Dash who has top 5 placings in a few events).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dammit. Ninja'd by Spacecurves.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll be egotistical enough to say that I think I'm an exceptional player, and that the lists we play have far less to do with winning than the generals behind them. How about you assemble your fiercest army, and I'll break out the absolute worst codex in 40k. Meet me on Vassal for a game; phasing me out should be a cinch, right?
That's not the point. I am sure you are a fine player.
I am saying the data is not only incomplete but that it is also flawed because it is not coming from truly competitive events.
In MTG (a truly competitive game) you can not get by and expect to win with subpar lists. (which you yourself admitted many of the high end players on this list play). Same with every other game. An amazing general with an amazing list will always beat an amazing general with subpar list.
I honestly doubt you are God's gift to wargaming and that you are just so far beyond everyone else that they can't beat you no matter what.
Which brings me to my second point. The list is massively incomplete. Because probably 70% of tournaments or more don't ever send in data. Meaning if your TO sends in data for an 11 man event (like yours did) you are getting a leg up on someone who's only data is from 70+ men events.
Incomplete and flawed data is pretty meaningless in the world of statistics. So while I am sure you are a great player, I don't think its this list that proves it.
Reecius wrote:reds8n, you should come to Adepticon, it would be cool to buy you lots of stuff
..who knows.. one day maybe.. although, truth be told, if I ever do pop over the pond then.. well... I like to think I might find some better things to do than play toy...
..hmm...
..damn it, no I wouldn't. Time for a long hard look at my life perhaps.
Let's stay civil here please people : everyone is quite aware of the flaws in this, indeed any attempt to rank people on rolling dice, moving plastic and metal soldiers around whilst grappling with a hangover or drinking heavily, normally whilst badly dressed. It's just a bit of fun.
And at the same time, let's give people the benefit of the doubt please, peope don't have to "hatin" to not agree etc etc
There's much more vital things we can snarl and hate each other over, like those poor fools who, delusionally, claim that Marvel is superior to DC.. truly sad the depths of some people's folly.
Dashofpepper wrote:I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll be egotistical enough to say that I think I'm an exceptional player, and that the lists we play have far less to do with winning than the generals behind them. How about you assemble your fiercest army, and I'll break out the absolute worst codex in 40k. Meet me on Vassal for a game; phasing me out should be a cinch, right?
I guess that depends, do you have a real codex now, and do you know the rules?
reds8n wrote:There's much more vital things we can snarl and hate each other over, like those poor fools who, delusionally, claim that Marvel is superior to DC.. truly sad the depths of some people's folly.
How many people attended the 40k tournament for Da Boyz last year? I'm curious as you seem to have a little bit of aggression toward some events. A 30 person 5 game event does have merit if the players there are of a higher caliber. The only way to get accurate results is for everyone to send in all 5 game events and see what happens. As it stands basically as soon as you attend 3+ 5 game events your going to be in the top twenty if your not a bad player. But from what I've seen most of the 5 game events so far have sent in their results. They haven't added in the West Coast conquest events yet or BoLScon (both of which were submitted) so we'll see another shift in the rankings pretty soon.
I like how you assume Adpeticon is better where I have a far better chance of pulling a 2-0 guy that isn't nearly as good as they could be at a smaller event since it's a 3 game event. Next year it'll be better as they'll be running a true GT style (i.e. more than 3 games) event so maybe it'll be worth more.
@CaptZach
You do realize that only 3 of the events you attend a year count right? That's the balancer for people attending a ton of RTT's with 10 people. They also are worth far less points than a 5 game event.
@Petre
How man 5+ game events have had more than 50 people this year? Nova and Wargamescon. Oh and I think that SVDM pulled in just over 50. Broadside Bash had 48. So there were 4 events this year (to my knowledge) that were 5+ game events with over 50 people.
But yes, the rankings don't fill out till everyone hits 3+ 5 Game events. So if your not hitting more than 2 5 game events don't cry if your not ranking. Think of it as the beginnings of a national ranking system that people could use (at certain style of events) as a seeding system.
@Topic
Don't get me wrong. I recognize that this thing is still in it's infancy. I recognize that by basically attending 3 5 game events your gonna rank pretty decent as long as you don't totally suck. I also think it's a fun and neat tool. If I truly believed it was a be all end all for rankings I wouldn't have been taking my Counts-As Daemons to every event since I won my Golden Ticket. I'd have been running wolves all year and would probably have quite a few higher placings. Oh and the Nova results were input wrong so there will probably be a slight change on the standing based on that.
How man 5+ game events have had more than 50 people this year? Nova and Wargamescon. Oh and I think that SVDM pulled in just over 50. Broadside Bash had 48. So there were 4 events this year (to my knowledge) that were 5+ game events with over 50 people.
But yes, the rankings don't fill out till everyone hits 3+ 5 Game events. So if your not hitting more than 2 5 game events don't cry if your not ranking. Think of it as the beginnings of a national ranking system that people could use (at certain style of events) as a seeding system.
Strangely enough, it's looking like Da Grand Waaagh is going to have 60-70 people for their 40k event. I wouldn't have guessed; I hope most of them show up.
Awesome, then this year they'll be event #4 that did this year
I hope most show up as well. Anything that helps grow the hobby and get people out playing each other is good for the hobby. And let's face it. Playing on an Aircraft Carrier is pretty bad a**. If it wasn't such a haul and I had the cash I'd be there this year for it
It looks like unless people cancel, there will not be much (any?) room for more folks to play 40k. A friend said he signed up a bit late and was told they were full.
Not sure about it, but it does look like a boatload of people. One way or another.
Ooops, on topic: It think it's great, and congratulations to those listed. I am glad it is starting somewhere. Maybe one of these days I will be on (the bottom of) that list--I am trying to attend as many tourneys as I can now. They are some of the most fun and friendly learning experiences around.
CptZach wrote:Or maybe its because all it really tells us is who has the ability to travel to the most random tournaments or who attends tournaments that actually submit their rankings.
Until basically all tournaments submit rankings to something like this, it really tells us nothing.
By your own admission people who play crappy armies are near the top. What does that tell you about the validity of this?
(no offense to the players, but you yourself seem to think their lists are not optimized)
I'm sorry, I don't care how good you are, if you bring a bad list to a tournament, you shouldn't be walking away with a high finish in any competitive environment.
Try doing that in MTG or something. Yea, doesn't happen.
No offense to MTG or the game itself, but people that plays MTG either copies the best deck and then goes to a PTQ, where is the orinigal in that?.
How man 5+ game events have had more than 50 people this year? Nova and Wargamescon. Oh and I think that SVDM pulled in just over 50. Broadside Bash had 48. So there were 4 events this year (to my knowledge) that were 5+ game events with over 50 people.
But yes, the rankings don't fill out till everyone hits 3+ 5 Game events. So if your not hitting more than 2 5 game events don't cry if your not ranking. Think of it as the beginnings of a national ranking system that people could use (at certain style of events) as a seeding system.
Absolutely. Just going off of what RHQ uses as the determinant. Not faulting 'the scene' or anything. I agree with you whole-heartedly. It is the beginning.
Most of my objections were that it was the be all and end all. Right now, just as you said, it is the folks who hit 3+ 5 game events, regardless of standing.
But I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the top 20 that actually think it's the be all-end all. It's just funny that a lot of people respond like we think it's the greatest thing when we mostly just think it's a fun and neat tool that we hope can grow into a true rating system.
I've never been able to wrap my head around the venom that people have for projects that attempt to unify the hobby. You look the INATFAQ, and these rankings, and you see people just raging against them. It's useful for what it does, and everybody acknowledges the flaws and is working to improve it. I don't get the hate.
How come you guys can all jump in the thread and joke about how great you are, but if others come into the thread and joke about how stupidly bias the thing is, we are raging and hating?
Also, offtopic, INAT does not bring this hobby together, it divides it.
Rankings HQ at least doesn't really do anything negative to the hobby, its just not very accurate at truly showing the best 40k players.
Kirasu wrote:Rankings that only use select tournament results are serious business
Nope. Just fun. IIRC the way the events are selected is just by the TO sending in results, right? So there's nothing exclusive about it.
Exactly, Rankings HQ is currently not meaningful. It has the potential to be an accurate ranking of players in each country, but it isn't there yet.
Take for example the guy currently in second. He has played in 6 tournaments which add to his "score", 4 of which had less than 30 people in them. A tournament with less than 30 people means precisely nothing when it comes to establishing player skill. Furthermore, lots of the best events don't even bother to submit their results, it isn't worth their time.
In fact, in order to have the rankings mean much of anything, they need to only use a handful of events, the very best and biggest in the nation. Adepticon, Wargames Con, Da Boyz GT, next years Nova Open, etc. There are really only 5-6 events that deserve to have their results counted when it comes to comparing national level players.
Now let me add a disclaimer here that nothing I say above is meant to slur smaller events or the players who are currently on Rankings HQ. Alex, who is currently number 1 on RHQ, is a great player, all the best players in the country know that, but we don't know that from his Rankings HQ position, we know it from observing the meaningful tournaments he has won!
No those tournaments you mentioned just have the most buzz about them at the moment. There are many tournaments that are at the level of 40 to 60 people and 5 games that draw quite a lot of good players. What RankingHQ does is reward those that have the money to make it to the bigger tournaments and go to many different ones. Certain players and we know many of them will travel across the country to play in multiple large tournaments. They have decided this is how they wish to spend their money. By entering a lot of tournaments a good player has the chance to hit a good score at 1 or more of these events. However there are just as good players in the country that just dont have the $$ to fly around and hit a lot of these tournaments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:Go Alex! Representing for Cold Steel Mercs. As is Matt, rounding out the top 5. Go team go!
Hrm. Looks like the Iron Man event where I won my ticket isn't listed. May need to ask someone about that...
Hope you are going to adepticon this year. I am looking forward to a rematch. Maybe next time you won't steal the initiative on me and than hit me with your lash
Polonius wrote:Why live in the reality of being the 140th 66th best player in the country when you can enjoy winning every local tourney on one's personal blog?
For the way certain people post (or used to post on Dakka), I'd have expected him to be top-10 on the list.
OTOH, I see a bunch of names on the front page, and think that they're just great guys. Gratz to the SoCal crowd on the first page!
None of us besides Dash is saying how good of a player they are.
We go to tournaments because we LIKE to. Or at least that is why I do.
I could care less about my national ranking. If I am at the top of the list, cool! If not, who cares?
It's just for fun. Something to talk about with friends. Bragging rights amongst your buddies, nothing more.
Some of you guys come in to be nothing but negative. Meaningless negativity contributes nothing. You want a better system? Offer constructive criticism to the guys at Rankings HQ. Make your own system. Do SOMETHING beyond trash talking the hard work of a group of people who took time and money to give us Rankings HQ.
@Sabote
Sorry broski, but that argument holds not water. If someone doesn't come to the tournaments, for any reason, then they aren't going to be counted. Tournaments, warts and all, are the only objective system we have to determine who the best player was on a given day within given parameters.
If someone doesn't come to the game but sits on the sidelines saying, well I'm better than the field, that proves nothing. Anyone can talk a big game. You have to come out and prove it for it to be anything more than a lot of big talk.
If someone can't afford to play in tournaments, that stinks. If it is important to you, get your financials in order and make it happen. But saying: your system doesn't count because it doesn't take into consideration the players who don't compete is beyond silly.
And again: RANKINGS HQ IS A FUN SITE, NOTHING MORE!
None of us look at it as anything other than a cool way to gauge our relative performance to other tournament gamers. It's for a laugh.
Word.
Proceed with your hating on the game, yo.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @John
Thanks bro! SoCal has 3 that I know off hand in the top 10. And Brad and Dave are awesome guys to play, they are nice while kicking your butt!
None of us besides Dash is saying how good of a player they are.
We go to tournaments because we LIKE to. Or at least that is why I do.
I don't think anyone is 'hating' on you guys. (at least not me.) They are talking about the rating system that generates the rankings. Amusingly, most of the responses were to Dash, but that's just because he's a magnet for controversy
sabote wrote:What RankingHQ does is reward those that have the money to make it to the bigger tournaments and go to many different ones
Really? How so? There is a reward? Or do you mean that posting makes you famous and that should be counted as one?
That would go a long way to explain some posts I have read. . .
Unless you are fortunate to live near many of the 100 plus tournaments you are flying. You will gain more points in the bigger tournaments than by winning the smaller ones.
As the site continues to grow and you are starting to see it now. More of the players that hit the larger tournaments in multiples are moving up. Its not like Austin, Chicago, Rochester... are close enough for everyone to drive. Add in hotel/food its a bit of money.
CptZach wrote:I'm sorry, I don't care how good you are, if you bring a bad list to a tournament, you shouldn't be walking away with a high finish in any competitive environment.
Try doing that in MTG or something. Yea, doesn't happen.
No offense to MTG or the game itself, but people that plays MTG either copies the best deck and then goes to a PTQ, where is the orinigal in that?
And people don't netlist 40k armies? "Leafblower Guard" sprang out of nothingness?
Either way, decks and armies don't play themselves - there's still pilot skill.
Or, by related analogy, I can put you in a Lamborghini capable of well over 200 mph, against me in a Subaru WRX STi that tops out at 150 mph. If your skill isn't as good as your mouth, there's a damn good chance I get to watch you pass, spin and crash. And, depending on conditions (cold, snow, sleet, rain), my "slower" car is an auto-win.
CptZach wrote:How come you guys can all jump in the thread and joke about how great you are, but if others come into the thread and joke about how stupidly bias the thing is, we are raging and hating?
Whose said anything about being great? I mean, really? I think Reecius pointed out that he might be moving up, but that's about it.
Also, offtopic, INAT does not bring this hobby together, it divides it.
And that's my point. Why? there are aren't black shirted thugs forcing players to adopt it. The reaction to it, however, veers from nerd rage to genuine apoplexy. It's a tool. Use it, don't use it, but trust me - the first time you play at a new store and they spin some rules interpretation at you (mine recently was that drop pods cant' scatter off a table edge) you start to see the value in knowing what's going on ahead of time.
No human being agrees with more than 70% of the rulings in the INAT, but the point isn't that some rulings are off: it's that this hobby is filled with sad little man children that feel the need to knock down any attempt to build the hobby bigger than rolling the same three noobs in Bubba's Gamin' Shack.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pretre wrote: Amusingly, most of the responses were to Dash, but that's just because he's a magnet for controversy
Hey, it's all our fault. We don't understand that he's hilarious, and instead we've all agree to be mean to him on the internet.
You go to tournaments to have fun. I go to tournaments looking for people who can teach me more about 40k. The best way that I can think of to find out who's better than me is to announce that I'm the best, and sift through the people who try proving me wrong looking for the diamonds in the rough.
Why do you think I'm always trying to game against you and Hulksmash? You two are among the best two gamers I've ever met that I have access to.
None of us besides Dash is saying how good of a player they are.
We go to tournaments because we LIKE to. Or at least that is why I do.
I could care less about my national ranking. If I am at the top of the list, cool! If not, who cares?
It's just for fun. Something to talk about with friends. Bragging rights amongst your buddies, nothing more.
Some of you guys come in to be nothing but negative. Meaningless negativity contributes nothing. You want a better system? Offer constructive criticism to the guys at Rankings HQ. Make your own system. Do SOMETHING beyond trash talking the hard work of a group of people who took time and money to give us Rankings HQ.
@Sabote
Sorry broski, but that argument holds not water. If someone doesn't come to the tournaments, for any reason, then they aren't going to be counted. Tournaments, warts and all, are the only objective system we have to determine who the best player was on a given day within given parameters.
If someone doesn't come to the game but sits on the sidelines saying, well I'm better than the field, that proves nothing. Anyone can talk a big game. You have to come out and prove it for it to be anything more than a lot of big talk.
If someone can't afford to play in tournaments, that stinks. If it is important to you, get your financials in order and make it happen. But saying: your system doesn't count because it doesn't take into consideration the players who don't compete is beyond silly.
And again: RANKINGS HQ IS A FUN SITE, NOTHING MORE!
None of us look at it as anything other than a cool way to gauge our relative performance to other tournament gamers. It's for a laugh.
Word.
Proceed with your hating on the game, yo.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @John
Thanks bro! SoCal has 3 that I know off hand in the top 10. And Brad and Dave are awesome guys to play, they are nice while kicking your butt!
Really have you looked at the some of the top players? With a few exceptions they are going all across the country to include Europe.
Though how the number 1 person got a 2009 tournament in the list i have no idea.
Actually I like the site fine so no I am not hating I just understand its limitations.
CptZach wrote:How come you guys can all jump in the thread and joke about how great you are, but if others come into the thread and joke about how stupidly bias the thing is, we are raging and hating?
Because you're obviously not joking. Either that or doing a terrible job communicating that what you're saying is a joke.
pretre wrote: Amusingly, most of the responses were to Dash, but that's just because he's a magnet for controversy
Hey, it's all our fault. We don't understand that he's hilarious, and instead we've all agree to be mean to him on the internet.
You know, there are exactly three people on Dakka (used to be four) - that when I see their name in a thread, I could assume that they were posting negative stuff, and usually about me. You're one of them. I'll buy you a little hat that says "TROLL." You've earned it well over the last few months.
Polonius wrote:this hobby is filled with sad little man children that feel the need to knock down any attempt to build the hobby bigger than rolling the same three noobs in Bubba's Gamin' Shack.
Hahahahaha! Ah man, that is too funny!
@Petre
I am just joking around man. I don't actually talk like a gansta gangsta. I am just teasing those who put down systems they don't like while offering nothing in return to improve the system.
I just don't see a point in gong out of your way to be negative (not saying this applies to you). It just seems utterly pointless to me.
So let us playas play, and if you want in the game, you gotta roll with the big dogs, son!
pretre wrote: Amusingly, most of the responses were to Dash, but that's just because he's a magnet for controversy
Hey, it's all our fault. We don't understand that he's hilarious, and instead we've all agree to be mean to him on the internet.
You know, there are exactly three people on Dakka (used to be four) - that when I see their name in a thread, I could assume that they were posting negative stuff, and usually about me. You're one of them. I'll buy you a little hat that says "TROLL." You've earned it well over the last few months.
Hey, I'm just agreeing with you. I mean, you've explained yourself, and I've come to realize that you're just being funny, that I'm lame, and that when drama and controversy surround a person, it's simply far more likely to be a string of coincidences than anything that person could possibly be doing.
I mean, that's your point, right? I'm not missing any of it, am I?
Understandable man, but you can't say a system is broken because it rewards the people who put the most effort into the game which causes them to rank well.
That is a groundless argument.
I'm not attacking you, just saying that it is pointless to criticize people for flying around to go to tournaments. If someone wants to do that, and is willing to commit the resources, and play well, then it should be no surprise that they rank better. That is simple logic.
If someone only plays at their local, or unfortunately, is unwilling or unable to travel to events, then why should they rank as well? That is illogical.
If we are running a marathon and one guy decides to only do a half, should his time be compared to the others who ran the distance? Of course not. Obviously that is a metaphor, but you get the point. Play better in more, and bigger tournaments, then yes, that counts for more than playing well in less, smaller tournaments.
How many people attended the 40k tournament for Da Boyz last year? I'm curious as you seem to have a little bit of aggression toward some events. A 30 person 5 game event does have merit if the players there are of a higher caliber. The only way to get accurate results is for everyone to send in all 5 game events and see what happens. As it stands basically as soon as you attend 3+ 5 game events your going to be in the top twenty if your not a bad player. But from what I've seen most of the 5 game events so far have sent in their results. They haven't added in the West Coast conquest events yet or BoLScon (both of which were submitted) so we'll see another shift in the rankings pretty soon.
To answer your question we have 70 paid players and 66 people showed. Here is info:http://daboyzgt.wordpress.com/category/da-boyz-gt/2009/
This year we have 62 paid 40k players to date with over two months to go. We going to cap it at 80.
Well, you're ranked at the top now, so you may also share some of your wise tips and daily routines with the masses to help further them on the path to awesomeness.
pretre wrote: Amusingly, most of the responses were to Dash, but that's just because he's a magnet for controversy
Hey, it's all our fault. We don't understand that he's hilarious, and instead we've all agree to be mean to him on the internet.
You know, there are exactly three people on Dakka (used to be four) - that when I see their name in a thread, I could assume that they were posting negative stuff, and usually about me. You're one of them. I'll buy you a little hat that says "TROLL." You've earned it well over the last few months.
Overly-sensitive, much?
That wasn't a dig at you. It was a dig at your haters.
CptZach wrote:Also, offtopic, INAT does not bring this hobby together, it divides it.
That is until you objectively apply math and not a subjective personal opinion.
For example - 50 states with an estimated average of 20 gaming groups (give or take depending on state size and population density). Majority of gaming groups have their "own style" of 40K and are therefore remain divided even amongst the most trivial issue. So you have 1,000 different group styles and even more sub styles within each group. However, if even at worst case two groups adopt the INAT as a standard or any other FAQ for the matter, then the respective FAQ has brought part of the community together. So unless the INAT creates more divides than groups it brought under a common system, it has brought the hobby together.
So while you may personally not like the INAT, there are many people that prefer to have that document as a reference. I at least know this based on the number of emails I have received from players throughout the entire world. And that's a fact Zach.
Awesome! You'll be the 5th this year to clear 50 people for a 5+ game 40k event. That is awesome and shows you are giving the community in your area what it wants. You'll actually manage to be one of the top player attending 40kGT's if you hit 80 this year which is awesome. Thank you for filling me in on it.
Seeing how many tournaments you guys have in the Northeast almost makes me jealous, till I realize it's 75 degrees and sunny in February out here and my jealousy melts away
@Dash
Stop taking everything as a personal attack. It isn't. You (with a little help) have already gotten the SoCal Smackdown thread closed. Don't get this one closed too please
@IM
I don't like some of the rulings in the INAT but I'm not going to not attend an event that's using it just for using it. I applaud the effort I just think you could condense it quite a bit
Hulksmash wrote:I don't like some of the rulings in the INAT but I'm not going to attend an event that's using it just for using it. I applaud the effort I just think you could condense it quite a bit
There are always going to be improvements that can be made. For me, I will attend any event whether they use it or not. If the events use the INAT or another FAQ, then great. If not, I know that I will most likely have some issues that are not easily resolved because of differences in interpretation. The funny thing is - you should talk to the people who don't think the INAT is comprehensive enough.
lol, I had to update. I left out a not. Basically yeah, I won't not attend an event if they are using the INAT as long as I know. Bah, horrible proof reading on my part
Hulksmash wrote:lol, I had to update. I left out a not. Basically yeah, I won't not attend an event if they are using the INAT as long as I know. Bah, horrible proof reading on my part
They haven't posted the results for that one yet. I expect him to move to the number 2-3 spot when they do. That's without adding in WargamesCon too which will shake it all up
I look forward to reviewing at the end of the year (december-ish) and seeing where people stand. It'll be kinda fun.
To each their own in terms of fun. Some people want to see some sort of bookkeeping or recording of how people performed in tournaments. I give RHQ props for offering some sort of archiving especially since GW seemed to have canned their previous tournament winners. While the system is not perfect in any way, its nice to see who went to what tournament and how they performed.
Congrats to those who took the time and effort and to see your names on the board. To goto the big tournaments is a drain on financial resources and I personally envy everyone who does since I am able to play but cant afford to go out but maybe once or twice a year anywhere outside the state.
Arguing over this is like arguing over a game of monopoly. Its all pointless and just pisses people off.
CptZach wrote:Also, offtopic, INAT does not bring this hobby together, it divides it.
That is until you objectively apply math and not a subjective personal opinion.
For example - 50 states with an estimated average of 20 gaming groups (give or take depending on state size and population density). Majority of gaming groups have their "own style" of 40K and are therefore remain divided even amongst the most trivial issue. So you have 1,000 different group styles and even more sub styles within each group. However, if even at worst case two groups adopt the INAT as a standard or any other FAQ for the matter, then the respective FAQ has brought part of the community together. So unless the INAT creates more divides than groups it brought under a common system, it has brought the hobby together.
So while you may personally not like the INAT, there are many people that prefer to have that document as a reference. I at least know this based on the number of emails I have received from players throughout the entire world. And that's a fact Zach.
First of all, you realize the majority of players aren't even on the internet.
So now we have 2 different groups of players, one that knows INAT and one that doesn't. Rules discussion comes up: Player 1: Rules say this Player 2: This random FAQ on the internet says this Hilarity ensues.
I don't know what gaming group you belong to, but entire gaming groups don't get together and suddenly say "lets use the inatfaq for all our rules discussions".
What more likely happens is, "I'm the TO and I agree with this FAQ, I will now enforce this random FAQ from the internet at all of my tournaments." What? I just forced some non 40k rules on all of my area gamers?
Also, so what I am reading from the Rankings HQ, is that it poor finishes don't even hurt you?
CptZach wrote:I don't know what gaming group you belong to, but entire gaming groups don't get together and suddenly say "lets use the inatfaq for all our rules discussions".
Mainly because it's not a case of the rules saying one thing, and the INAT saying another. Anybody that says that is being willfully ignorant to the possibility of interpreting rules different ways. I kid you not, I played at a tournament that wouldn't allow drop pods to scatter off the board. Nearly everybody online here agrees that the rules don't prevent it, but they see the edge of the board as impassable terrain.
Believe it or not, the rules aren't always crystal clear. In fact, they often aren't. So yeah, there are groups that instead of flipping a coin or asking a random TO to answer a murky question each time, use a fixed source.
Mainly because it's not a case of the rules saying one thing, and the INAT saying another. Anybody that says that is being willfully ignorant to the possibility of interpreting rules different ways.
Except that the INAT council says that and it even says it in the document when something is listed under rules change...
Mainly because it's not a case of the rules saying one thing, and the INAT saying another. Anybody that says that is being willfully ignorant to the possibility of interpreting rules different ways.
Except that the INAT council says that and it even says it in the document when something is listed under rules change...
Ok, yeah, they do go against RAW sometimes when nobody plays the RAW. Not even Gwar advocates playing stricly RAW 100% of the time. You can't! Maybe you've got a specific beef, but I haven't seen a "rules change" that seems less reasonable than trying to play the RAW.
CptZach wrote:I don't know what gaming group you belong to, but entire gaming groups don't get together and suddenly say "lets use the inatfaq for all our rules discussions".
Hulksmash wrote:So did the guys in Santa Monica out here...Just sayin
Seems to be partlially true in NJ also, its in some stores, but not all.
In response to the "bad scores don't hurt you" thing... Our Hobby does not have enough events during the year to allow players to make up for one or two bad events in a year... Unlike MTG that has a rating system which can have 3-4 maybe more events in a SINGLE day at an event that players can enter into and have it affect their rating... (at nationals when it was in Baltimore... I played in 6 single elimination type two "pods" in a single day...)
taking the 3 best games seems like a good way to get a ball park understanding of ability...
Hulksmash wrote:So did the guys in Santa Monica out here...Just sayin
Seems to be partlially true in NJ also, its in some stores, but not all.
In response to the "bad scores don't hurt you" thing... Our Hobby does not have enough events during the year to allow players to make up for one or two bad events in a year... Unlike MTG that has a rating system which can have 3-4 maybe more events in a SINGLE day at an event that players can enter into and have it affect their rating... (at nationals when it was in Baltimore... I played in 6 single elimination type two "pods" in a single day...)
taking the 3 best games seems like a good way to get a ball park understanding of ability...
Understood, but that is initially why I said that it benefits people who can attend multiple events. Because there is no negatives to it. Only positives. It just strikes me as... oh wait, can't say that cause my post will get deleted.
Since there are two contenders for the name "Spartacus" you will both need to submit $25 to the Dakka Naming Convention, along with convincing pictures demonstrating that you are indeed Spartacus.
Dashofpepper wrote:Since there are two contenders for the name "Spartacus" you will both need to submit $25 to the Dakka Naming Convention, along with convincing pictures demonstrating that you are indeed Spartacus.
And Dave Fay, being the sneaky guy he is, goes by Dave_Fay on the internets.
And yes, I so cleverly disguised my true identity by going by Reecius! Muahaha! No one will know who I am so I can be a huge doucher on the internet!
I would list who the other people are but I don't know if they want us to give away their secret identities. It might get them in trouble in the Super Hero community.
Haha, yes, there are plenty of douche lords on the internet. We don't need any more.
And yeah man, jump into the tournament scene, it is fun! There is a reason why the same guys keep going back. They are fun, and make for a great weekend away from work, family, etc. I love them. The more players and tougher the competition we have the better.
I think it is awesome that a website like rankings HQ has come about, it will help unify the gaming community.
I say props should go to those fellas that spend the money and take the time to attend as many tournaments that they can around the US. That is just supporting the hobby. I am sure there are some really grateful TOs out there that are glad they sold a few more tickets to their event and had a few more spots filled. Especially when they were tallying up the costs for the event.
At the local gamestores here the TOs are always disappointed when they take the time to organize an event and three people show up. What would adepticon be like if only "local" fans came to it? Exactly it would be called bolscon... j/k.
@Pael
Well said! I agree that a system like this will help to improve the community. Just don't mind the cry babies who like to trash talk Rankings HQ for some weird reason.
@Yermon
I dropped down to 13! Haha, they need to add in the SoCal Smackdown so I can jump back up to the top 5!
Grats Nick! I'm figuring I should stay around the top 10 even after the last few adds from this year. If they add the Smackdown Reece you should move to 5th on the nose
I'm going hammer force to all the big events! Once I get three good finished under my belt, I'm switching to some more obscure armies. It would be sweet to be best general in like three army classes, too!
Next year is the Bash, Slaughter, Smackdown, Nova, Wargamescon, and hopefully the Grand Waaagghh so it should be a pretty full year for me too. Plus it'll be the only chance to play you next year since you moved you bastard
I don't think 3 long distance travel tournies will end well for me with the wife I can work out 2 and I can almost do WargamesCon and Nova for the same price as Adepticon so it made the decision kinda easy. I'll probably hit up one more at some point but yeah, you've got me beat out by one to start
Thanks guys! And yeah next year you guys should both be up there. I still have 2 more events I'm signed up for this year so hopefully after those I'll take first for the year
Time for a long hard look at my life perhaps.
.
) that list--I am trying to attend as many tourneys as I can now.
