Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.rankingshq.com/rankings/default.aspx?GameSystemId=3&RegionId=13

they updated!

lol, I'm 69th

Where is Vin Diesel on this list?

yay im 13th and only played in 2 tournaments!

I just got Best General at the SoCal Smackdown GT, so I should be up from 6th place. I may even jump up past Dash and Hulk.

@Yermon, Nice! That is saying something.

@Chumbalaya 69 is good considering how big the field is.

COOL! they updated!

http://www.rankingshq.com/rankings/default.aspx?GameSystemId=3&RegionId=13

Alex Fennel moves to #1!

Yay for meaninglessness!

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...

Rankings that only use select tournament results are serious business

Yay for people going out of their way to piss on other people's fun!

But congratz to the top dogs! Dave was up there for a long time. Still, two San Diego boys hanging in the top ten.

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?

Cheh, Brian is ahead of me. I need to up my game. Too much futzing about with silly lists and WM and Fantasy.

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...

Lazy asses in charge probably never submitted the data. Can't trust anyone these days. I'd suggest sending the TO a stern letter, and a case of beer.

Mmmmm... beer. Maybe I should.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Haha, mods have struck again!

frgsinwntr wrote:COOL! they updated!

http://www.rankingshq.com/rankings/default.aspx?GameSystemId=3&RegionId=13

Alex Fennel moves to #1!

Good for him.

..I can feel extra smug about the times I've beaten him now whilst at the same time exonerating all my defeats !

Good for him.

..I can feel extra smug about the times I've beaten him now whilst at the same time exonerating all my defeats !

If I can brighten your day by making you smug, my work here is done

You need to get yourself over here for an event like Adepticon so we can get a rematch in!

Those lottery numbers are being very stubborn in their refusal to arrive.

..the situation, perhaps, not being helped by my continual lack of ticket buying. Possibly.

But ..as and when...

Until then we've always got our "Bloodiest battle award".

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.

reds8n, you should come to Adepticon, it would be cool to meet you in person.

And for crying out loud, hahaha, why trash the rankings? They are just for fun. The guys taking them the most seriously are the guys talking yang.

So don't hate the game, son!

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?

So yeah - haters gonna hate.

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?

I think Joseph Ducreux said it best.

Mannahnin wrote:Mmmmm... beer. Maybe I should.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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!

Back on topic and away from the 'peen swinging.

The rankings are a bit raw still:

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.

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?

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.

pretre wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dammit. Ninja'd by Spacecurves.

lol sorry man, you broke it down in much greater detail than me as well. So I shall say I agree with pretre, rather than vica versa .