Worldwide Rankings for Dropzone/Dropfleet Commander

We are currently assembling a database which will handle the worldwide rankings of players for both our games.

At a later stage we will go through a new organised play format when it has been formalised but for now we are looking to acquire all of your tournaments results to add in to the database. This is still a prototype at the moment so we just need to make sure it is working perfectly before we roll it out onto the website for all players to see.

The completed results should include:
-Player names
-Victory Points
-Kill Points
-Tournament Points
-Faction they played

If they do not have all of the above criteria please do not submit the results. We will need all the information to process peoples rankings fairly.

For submitting the final documents (Excel spreadsheet preferred) please email to talons@hawkwargames.com

I gotta admit I'm interested in seeing how this turns out.

Very interesting. I look forward to see how it turns out.

I would like to comment that we have something like this in Sweden and the following mistakes were made initially:

1. To closed format. When we started we had a "The tournament need to be like this" type of feeling. It is restricted and only hurts the game. No matter the format it should be allowed to be included. Of course some odd tournaments might be included but the vast majority will fit and take over the database anyway. Also, if a person want to hold a torunament and someone goes "then you can't be in the database" then there is a risk that the person goes "screw it then. I can hold a 40k tournament instead".

So the list should be inclusive. Not excluding.

2. Make the reporting simple. As stated is good. But many times people called for a "but If I face much tougher opponents...?" which is much more awkward to work with and requires more data. Final position data is the important part.

3. Set a limit that the tournament need to have at least 8 players and least 3 games. We used a calculation that the bigger the tournament is the more points each position gave according to as below:

Participants / (final position +1 ) * 1000 poäng. Each participants over 50 counts as 0,25 participants so that larger tournaments doesn't give to strange results.

I would say that the high limit should be at 30 players. Then we use the 6 most point awarding positions from the latest 18 months but for these games I think that 3 tournaments should be the limit.

A very interesting development indeed. In sweden such a ranking gave 40k a huge boost in players. With everybody playing 1 or 2 tournaments a year people jumped up in ranking a lot by playing another tournament and as such they started to encourage more players by holding more tournament and so on.

[...]
1. To closed format. When we started we had a "The tournament need to be like this" type of feeling. It is restricted and only hurts the game. No matter the format it should be allowed to be included. Of course some odd tournaments might be included but the vast majority will fit and take over the database anyway. Also, if a person want to hold a torunament and someone goes "then you can't be in the database" then there is a risk that the person goes "screw it then. I can hold a 40k tournament instead".

So the list should be inclusive. Not excluding.

[...]

3. Set a limit that the tournament need to have at least 8 players and least 3 games. We used a calculation that the bigger the tournament is the more points each position gave according to as below:

[...]

Good points, but your third point contradicts your first point somewhat; in my gaming community, there aren't a lot of DzC players yet. Talons here work more or less regionally, and players live very far apart, so it is difficult for them to drum up an 8 player tournament. I think the next tournament is planned for next year, actually, and it is uncertain whether it will actually happen.

I hope there'll be more players here locally sometime in the future, and just doing 4-player-tournaments now and then would be a good way to help that along. If they can't be included in the ranking, however, that will often be a turndown for both organizers and players, as you yourself stated above.

We have plans to include all tournaments with various Tiers with different points assigned depending on the level of the tournament. For example, we want Invasion to the be a Grand Tournament, so winning that obviously benefits you more than winning a local 8 man tournament.

Like I said, we will reveal the full format at a later time but just wanted to give you a heads up that we do want to be inclusive of everyone whether local or our famous Invasions

I have all data for the Critical Engagement tournaments that have been run.
I will send it over after the 2017 event (so I have 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017)

Will ranking points only be valid for a certain amount of time? otherwise it would be difficult for new players to rise.

Also, I'm all for a fully inclusive system, where all tournaments are counted. But there still needs to be rules/guidelines for ranking events.
Infinity, Guild Ball etc all have set types of events that contribute to rankings.

I'm intrigued to know how it will work. Will it be set by region, global or both?

Can you send me the 2016 Critical Engagement results Mike?

At this stage we are thinking of only Tournaments from the past year counting. So even veterans from 3 years ago with amazing scores but gave up in the hobby a year ago aren't included. This would be a rolling system with previous events expiring after a certain time period.

Good points, but your third point contradicts your first point somewhat; in my gaming community, there aren't a lot of DzC players yet. Talons here work more or less regionally, and players live very far apart, so it is difficult for them to drum up an 8 player tournament. I think the next tournament is planned for next year, actually, and it is uncertain whether it will actually happen.

I hope there'll be more players here locally sometime in the future, and just doing 4-player-tournaments now and then would be a good way to help that along. If they can't be included in the ranking, however, that will often be a turndown for both organizers and players, as you yourself stated above.

Also good points. If one limit the results so that the ranking only counts the 3 or 4 best results within 18 months and there is a increase in points with the tournament size there should not be a problem to include 4 man tournaments as well.

I disagree with discounting old tournament scores, especially if you are going to be counting them from within the last year. What is the difference between having them count only for the last year or for the last three?

I agree on having a rolling table, but only if there is a separate list which includes all historical tournaments also.

Couldn't you do two rankings, like "2017 ranking" and "all-time ranking"? That way, new players get a shot at being up in this year's ranking immediately, and long time players can still see their overall spot.