Less games per ranking period?

[superaielman]

Idea I was bouncing around chat. We unfreeze things in July, and...


Yeah. There hasn't been much in the way of new, rankable games of late, which is no surprise. But even our 'best' ideas have been fairly weak on the whole, and no console has yet really caught within the DL or outside of it for RPG games. So my idea is to knock the number of ranking spots per period down to one or two- that way we have at least some flow of new games into the DL. Otherwise we'll go through our rankable games in a few periods and be left with nothing for another several months.

Ideas? Comments?

[Dhyerwolf]

I'd be okay with cutting down. We could even cut down to 1 and probably still have a ranking freeze after this session, sadly.

[NotMiki]

I say keep ranking at the normal rate and explore other options after the well has truly run dry (so...just this next period?).  I don't think artificially keeping deserving games waiting is a good idea.  Newly ranked characters draw interest, I'm sure, but only if they're timely, especially considering the reciprocal effect an exciting new rank has in terms of pushing people to play the game.  I think whenever the consensus is that there are truly no good new ranks it should be pulled back to 1 game per (plus 1 game's worth of FWs, perhaps) and possibly longer waits between ranks.

EDIT: or, just a thought, have a ranking period with, say, 2 slots every time a strong rank comes around.  That'd give people the chance to advance their pet projects but keep things well in hand.  It's rather undemocratic, but if good ranks are gonna be erratic, it's essential to get them ranked in a timely manner.

[superaielman]

That would be the problem Miki, I'm not sure there are three rankable games for next time.

[Dhyerwolf]

There may not even be two, at that.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

I'm not sure there's even one, personally. I'd happily shoot down the three best ideas we have this time around, and I'm pretty sure things ain't getting better. I'd just say to bring down to one game for the time being, we just have a ridiculous drought of ideas to rank, and when that kind of thing happens, games that shouldn't be ranked risk getting in. I'd be all for cutting down the number of games we rank for the time being, certainly.

[Ultradude]

RPGs tend to be pretty slow coming when a new console comes out, and traditional turn based RPGs aren't proliferating the way they did on the PS2. We could probably rank just one game for the next period or so, since it seems like there are at least a few decent ranking options out there, like FE9 and XS3.

[Dark Holy Elf]

I wish we actually had the presence of mind as a group to reject things so measures like this wouldn't be necessary.

But since we, as a group (not blaming anyone here, I'm guilty myself), are unable to tell the difference between "We can rank three games this season" and "We MUST rank three games this season", and given the fact that it just doesn't look like there will be three games next ranking period, let alone three games every two seasons consistently, I am all for cutting back. No clue on specifics.

[Meeplelard]

ONe way to look at it?

We do the usual ranking session, and games don't make it past the second stage.  However, naturally, there are some flaws in this:

Most games that reach the second stage do make it to the finals.  Game ideas that didn't were usually FWs, or things like Pokemon which had little to do with playership, but more so general policies and such.  In any event, barring some the occasions that are clearly the exceptions and not the norm, this is likely to lead to "3 games get ranked, and all 3 ideas might not be good."

A follow up is that the ideas up for ranking aren't exactly oozing with interesting duelers.  I mean, yes, I like FE9 a lot, but I have to admit that its not exactly the most interesting game in the DL for usual FE reasons (for all that some duelers like Nephenee do stand out compared to the rest of the series, but she's a rare case.)  And these games aren't exactly looking like stellar ranking ideas either.

Then we have games like MMXCM which while are not quite hopeless yet, and actually have interesting duelers, are far from ready, and clearly need more time, whether to see if it can actually get enough voters, or not.  Think AtL4 approach, except without the "Rank first, evaluate later" idiocy that was done (so it completely avoids all those issues.)

So...yeah, while in theory, the current system *SHOULD* be fine...believe the mindset of the DL and the way things typically go would make it fail in practice, so cutting back doesn't sound like a bad idea.

[DjinnAndTonic]

My $0.02 - cut it back to 2 games under consideration, and hope that the anti-ranking hype train gets going on bad ideas.

There's plenty of games out there that we -could- rank, doesn't mean we should. I mean, I'm all for Growlanser or Atelier Iris, but I know that those are not strong ranks in terms of draw. (Yay for NR!)

And FE9 and WA5 are the biggest in terms of draw (?), but playership is still decidedly low there, too. I suppose We could vote to allow FFTLW forms to be legal, too? Is that something that needs to be voted on?

There's also plenty of FW ideas that could be inoffensive, though not necessarily strong ranks. They might still be good ways to get voters excited about some fresh duelists without overranking otherwise 'undeserving' games.

Is there a topic for 'games you'd like to see ranked' floating around where we've discussed what the viable options are at the moment?

-Djinn

[Dhyerwolf]

FF:TLW just drew 35% against Bloodbane. The game may have some rankable duellers, but it's going to need a lot better numbers than that because Bloodbane is a really good draw in NR.

[Cmdr_King]

War of the Lions really only has... uh... the two Beowulf-related bosses and sketchy alternate forms for Balthier and Luso, who're both primarily from games that don't have a lot of DL support to start with (FFTA2 also isn't out over here yet, but anyways).  Strikes me as a wash before we even start.

Back on topic, the idea certainly merits consideration given the overwhelming tendency for everything making it past the first stage of ranking to get a free pass whether deserved or not, though on the whole I'd rather not commit to the idea until closer to ranking time simply because rankings are already a slow process.  Not that I'd expect much to change between now and, say, the end of May, but still.

[Grefter]

As one of the chief engineers on the anti-hype train I would just like to chip in and say it is a complete and total failure and doomed to never, ever work.  There has been next to nothing that it has got behind that it has worked on.

People at heart want to rank everything, they don't want to unrank anything.  It does not work and the freezes are a good strong system for keeping it in place.  We could cut back the number of games and it probably wouldn't change a damned thing.

Chill.

[superaielman]

I think Disgaea 2 and WA5 are ahead of FE9 as it stands. Otherwise, there's a good reason for wanting to rank games- they do draw new people in and increase interest. This is why I'm strongly in favor of this idea- we can't go upwards of two years without ranking something new. It will make the DL seriously stale(r).

As far as rankable ideas go? WA5, FE9, Disgaea 2 all have some (weak) claim to rankability. There's SMRPG bosses, RS/SotN/KH- all of which won't work because a large part of the DL doesn't want to see those games ranked and they have legit issues against them.  Super Robot OG1 is in the same boat as RS.  Persona 3? haha. PB/La Pucelle? Maybe, but they're probably FW level ideas and need more internal. There's also the problem that most of these games aren't interesting in the DL the way a Dragon Quest 8 or Legaia: Duel Saga is. And to frame the debate, DDS and Legaia 2 were both stronger DL ranks at the time than any of the new games barring maybe Dis2 with a strong internal push.


FE10 is not happening in the forseeable future.  FF12 is less likely than SotN. Pokemon ? Gen 4 has some serious questions in terms of drawing on top of the pokemon issues. FF3's rankable but is all artless generics and artless bosses, doesn't fit the format.

This is all ignoring the currently really weak totals, which I have no idea how to fix short of massive spamming.

[Meeplelard]

The most that FE10 does at the moment, near as I can tell, is cause some minor interp splits for some characters.  By this I mean some people might just vote on the FE10 form despite only FE9 being ranked.  This wouldn't be the first game to be like that.

Xenosagas, Lufia Sinistrals (and possibly Maxim and Co. from Lufia 2, though both games are ranked, so this is more a past issue), Pokemon to some extent are examples of games with those current issues that are not only ranked, but STILL have those claims.

Some games from the past use to have those issues.  While it was short lasting, Valkyrie Profile comes to mind, and it even CAME UP since I know some people voted on Hrist's VP2 form when she was still in Light before VP2 got ranked (though, the argument there was "She got a legit form in a later game, and that form is clearly a plot one, so its a really weird case" and not the norm but...yeah)...only example I can think of offhand, but the point stands.

Its true that FE10 has some changes for dueling forms (Elincia gets much better, Ike's got a more tank build instead of balanced, etc.), but...again, we have games ranked like that already, and those games get along fine, and FE10's changes are less drastic than, say, what Lufia 3 does to Erim, or what Xenosaga 3 does to Jin.
As shown by the FE9 ranking topic, most people are willing to not even consider people who have ranking worth based solely on FE10 (Sothe is a perfect example; useless filler PC in FE9, one of the main characters in FE10), and just wait til that game gets ranked, and rank based off that.

When/if FE10 gets ranked is a totally different story altogether, and as super said, the game's nowhere near ready. Probably won't be ready anytime in the near future either; if it ever gets ranked (keyword: if), by the time it does, we'll probably have had at least one more freeze and a few ranking sessions before that, and...yeah, point is, not a game that's going to get much pushing.

Proof?
Pokemon Diamond/Pearl.  Game that is much stronger than FE10 at the moment, and is also a follow up from other games that are ranked...but no one has pushed for this idea.  Granted, maybe cause they want to avoid Pokemon arguments, but the fact remains, the idea hasn't been pushed.  What's to say FE10 is going to get pushed as soon as FE9 gets ranked, if a game that's got a much stronger case (in terms of playership, etc.) is getting next to none?

[Grefter]

Meep, relax it was a joke.  (For serious, I even considered editting in a note to say so right after I posted, but I guessed wrong)  I thought the mentions of OK and generic whipping over X-Com would have been enough.

The part of the post that is still there (which is cool, the joke got taken wrong so it is just flame bait if you don't see the joke) still stands though.  There has been no movements at all that have fought against ranking a game that was getting its own hype train going that have actually worked.  There has been stop slow down and make sure you do good rankings that have worked, but full blown no way this should be ranked has ever worked to keep a game out.

[SnowFire]

Personally, I'm in favor of reviving the FW idea, especially for games of lesser playership.  I know I mentioned this on the FE9 ranking thread ages ago, but doing a ranking of 1-4 characters for some "lesser" recent games strikes me as a decent compromise to introduce some new blood, but also realize that these games can't be allowed to flood.  If a FW does well, there's always coming back later and ranking the whole cast.  So...  go ahead and allow three games to be ranked, but be willing to do very small ranks on two of them, and only really rank one as a compromise?

Since this thread also seems to be getting into a discussion of what games might be ranked...  allow me to once again remind people of the existence of the much-reviled (here, at least) Xenosaga III?  Haven't seen much mention of that as a possible rank here, but I'd say it's among the strongest options available.  It sold decently (if not as well as XS1), and it strikes me as the type of series that the target audience of hardcore gamers would likely have finished, at least.  Even if you think the plot is horrible, hell, plenty of ranked games have odiferous plots as well (Grandia III and Final Fantasy 5 to name a random two).

Mind, a small rank would be fine.  Voyager would be my recommendation, what with the comments the last ranking season about how the "DL is extremely receptive to ranking more godlikes" (a la Ull and Velna).  Voyager actually has some plot (unlike the above).  Kevin and T-elos's 2nd form are....  easy godlikes to me, but apparently scaling headaches depending on if the broken ultimate skills are taken into account and how often they can use their ultimate abilities, so I'd be less keen on them (since the alternative interpretations apparently stick 'em in Middle or something).  Yuriev would also be an acceptable rank, but he was kind of meh and I believe also stuck in Heavy in NR?  And Allen is an okay joke rank, though it might be best to keep him prowling around NR.

So, regardless of how many games come up, holding your nose and doing a small rank of XS3 even if you hate it might still be a good idea.  Worst comes to worst, you can insult the game in the writeups.

[Grefter]

Hmmmm FWs actually probably has some merit to it, we tried to cut back on it because it kind of cluttered up rankings, now there is next to nothing to clutter up.  Although it does lend itself to the whole rank everythign whatever (cause it is just one FW, how bad can it be?!??!?  Well for one it can apparently be Guido from Persona 2 bad).

Sooooo, it comes back to do I trust people to be sensible with rankings?  Fuck no.  But it still has some merit because I am just a cranky bastard.

[superaielman]

XS3 did really, really, really badly in NR this season. 40% aganist a RBY Pokemon? 26% (Or however little, it was bad) against FE9? Pass. It'd have some merit if it didn't do worse than MMXCM and other such wonderful draws this season.

FW's are a decent idea, but there are only so many of those to go around as well. Definitely something we'll have to use more of.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Also, zuh, Voyager in Godlike? Try Heavy, he lacks Overtaker so he's stuck trying to do 4-5HKO damage (whatever he had) for five turns to build up boost for his good attack. Kevin/T-elos have the same problem except they're frail, so yeah, "lol Middle" hype goes here. Ranking XS3 wouldn't give us a single new Godlike (although Virgil's first-turn Overtaker means he's probably an alternate Godlike form of an existing form).

And G3 and FF5 are played for gameplay; XS3 doesn't even have that. Regardless, this isn't a debate over how good those games are (luckilly for you, since if we ranked games entirely on how much we liked them you'd have no chance with pushing XS3). It's about how they draw, and XS3 has seriously not done well here. XS2, much as I love it, chased quite a few people away from the series here; the reports of XS3 scared off many more. The game has done terribly in NR so far.

FW Allen would be cool, granted, but even so I think the game needs to improve a little.

[VySaika]

I'm cool with cutting back to just 1 or 2 things to rank, even if they're just FWs.

[Pyro]

1 game and 1 FW would be the limit I'd suggest. Though I'm not sure how that would work in practice. 1 game/session works too. The only issue is that eventually playership will rise for newer games and we will need to usher them in, possibly at a much faster rate.

[Dhyerwolf]

I doubt any of the games are really going to get too many internal voting floods considering that many of them are 2 years old. But...I like the FW idea assuming there is enough concurrence that if an FW fails, to boot it and move on.

And Voyager is low Godlike to some!

[SnowFire]

Superaielman: Fair enough, but that's why I'm proposing a greater usage of FWs - if only one new character is ranked, the damage can't be that bad if either FE9 or XS3 remains a bad draw in the DL.  Same with MMCX and so on too.

Dark Holy Elf: Uh, I specifically didn't try and argue for a rank of XS3 due to quality; I argued for one in spite of any perceived lack of quality.  As for XS2 scaring people off, I agree, but XS1 sold something like 500K+ copies - even with the base shaved off, XS3 isn't as bad as some options.  And  I don't buy the "bad reports" in general - checking gamerankings, XS3 did fine as far as critical reception with an 83% ( http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/929933.asp ), only a percentage point beneath XS1.

Voyager in Godlike: Even if his damage is bad, his break damage is decent and he can inflict slow, and he's got at least passable HP to survive.  If given good credit for HP (which I'd give him), he can even cheese out physical fighters with bad damage control with Abyss Walker.  He's hardly unbeatable, but I'd say the same of Malik or Zog, other duelers with major flaws but still in Low Godlike.

[Dhyerwolf]

XS 3 does have some of the better internal of the games left, but it's external has been very unimpressive. Great sales don't always translate into voting totals (See FF X-2 and GS 2). And it's internal hasn't moved in quite some time, for all that at 12 or 13 writers, it's still a handful ahead of several others games that we might consider.

And XS 3 Slow is really kind of horrid, but I guess this isn't really the topic for debating Voyager's rank! I'll might run another Proving Grounds sometime though...