Feedback thread - Let us know what you think Options

[Spakka]

And it doesn't stop good players who haven't played 40K enough t get a result in the past year getting there anyway.

Yep. A player could have qualified for High Lords in a previous year, but then for whatever reason failed to quailfy for the next years lords, so they'd end up in the open event.

As a matter of fact, there were at least 2 players in the open this year that made it to High Lords in 2009, but didn't qualify for High Lords 2010.

Better lay up on the good paint jobs then... top 10% paint scores get you an invite.

As does being in the top 10 for sports and comp in the 40k rankings, which is how someone like me who has often come close but hasn't actually had a podium finish in an event since before Lords of Terra ever came about ended up playing in the high lords comp this year. Tourney or no, I personally couldn't be stuffed if I win or lose as long as the game was fun.

This post has been edited by Spakka: Aug 6 2010, 06:55 PM

[Poomba]

On the Open/High feedback in the PDF - I noted that a few peeps wanted the guys invited to High to only be allowed to play in High and not open.

My thought is - If that was made a rule - then the Open event would not be eligable to be posted on RHQ, as to be eligable the event has to not have any resrtictions on who can attend (Quoted from RHQ fellas). The only rule on this is in the reverse being that for the High (or an invitation/champiohship classed event) - the open of which is not one?

I will be removing the restriction on players age for the Big Bash in NOV for this reason.

Thoughts?

This post has been edited by Poomba: Aug 6 2010, 06:30 PM

[Reunion-Round]

I think thats a silly ruling on RHQ's behalf... at least for events like this.

[ArchonCryx]

Better lay up on the good paint jobs then... top 10% paint scores get you an invite.

Did not know that. But my gaming results with the help of my dice should keep me out of the top ten %

Lol, the painting rankings are based *solely* off paint scores.

Coming equal 2nd best painted in a 57 person event should assist with that....

Perhaps moving forward, it might be worth stopping for a moment to think before releasing your keyboard warrior skills.

And sigged....

I reckon I can take this advice too. Always worth reminding oneself there's difference between online and face to face!

Poomba - I won't tell if you won't. I also have inside running on submitting events as I know the bloke who does the data work!

I really think you're being a bit too pedantic on the issue. I reckon it's mainly there to put a division away from things like a young bloods, club based events, or a backyard tourny that you have to know the owner.

What was the proposed age restriction for Big Bash? My guess if it was something along the lines of 16+ then that would be fine. In the past a *lot* of large tournaments have had similar restrictions, 18+ is another common one if there's licensing issues.

Certainly when Mark was running it, 16+ was not significant enough restriction to deem an event ineligible. It is a generally inclusive system if you're running tourneys that is open to pretty much anyone, and that people travel for and so forth. Lords is definitely the sort of tournament they'd want to include.

Actually, think about it. How much credance would the rankings have if they didn't include Lords of Terra? That'd be a good way to see their rankings becoming a laughing stock in the community.

When you think about it, my "restriction" (either version) doesn't prevent anyone playing either. I reckon it's still an open. I am leaning towards the "HLoT invites *may* play in LoT but will be ineligible for all trophies and prizes which will default down." type caveat.

I might have a chat with the guy who runs the rankings to be sure, but I reckon it's fine.

I won't bother asking. I reckon banning Lords from the rankings for that would be like saying a tournament isn't an open because it banned a player for bad behaviour after setting fire to a tabletop or something equally obviously bad.

Valkyrie, as abpve I believe the restriction is stated to give them some control, but they aren't looking to catch big open events on a technicality, rather having a way to say no to inappropriate events.

This post has been edited by ArchonCryx: Aug 6 2010, 10:59 PM

[raven0470]

Best of the last year's players at 40k tournaments. Pretty simple, needing to finish in top 10% of a tournament to qualify. Hope to see you out of the kiddie pool next year!

LOL I don't think he's game enough to venture out of it!!!

[MarkC]

On the Open/High feedback in the PDF - I noted that a few peeps wanted the guys invited to High to only be allowed to play in High and not open.

My thought is - If that was made a rule - then the Open event would not be eligable to be posted on RHQ, as to be eligable the event has to not have any resrtictions on who can attend (Quoted from RHQ fellas). The only rule on this is in the reverse being that for the High (or an invitation/champiohship classed event) - the open of which is not one?

I will be removing the restriction on players age for the Big Bash in NOV for this reason.

Thoughts?

Clarifying the situation for events to be eligable for the Rankings.
- If an event has an upper age limit would normally not be elgible (eg youngbloods events restricted to players under 16 or under 18)
- A "reasonable" lower age limit would not restrict an event from the Rankings. For example, if an event required players to be aged 13+ to compete would not disqualify it from the Rankings. If the event was for players aged 50+ it would not qualify for the rankings.
- Events that are restricted to club members do not qualify.

I'll look at updating the FAQs on RankingsHQ over the next few weeks.

Regards

Mark C