Extending Time between Ranks

[Meeplelard]

It was discussed in chat a bit and well, we're running out of viable ideas to rank.  However, stuff in the future isn't too unlikely to rank...

So why not Freeze again?  Well, Freezes are fine, but after only 2 or 3 ranking sessions, is that really a good idea?  It means we rank a few things, then stop doing anything for a while, then rank a few more things, then...yeah, as you can see, very little actually gets a chance to get in by this pattern.

So here's an alternative idea!

Rather than stopping the ranks, why not extend the period between them?  As in, add another season between each session, so there's 4 seasons between each instead of 3 (I think that's where we're currently at anyway?).  This gives us a little more time to discuss what's a good idea to rank, gives games a bit more time to solidify numbers, more time for NR to work with, what have you.  It also relieves the stress of ranking some since it means they happen less frequently, we won't have to worry about them as often.  Its an alternative to simply freezing, and then getting back to that moment of constantly extending the freeze and not knowing quite when its going to end.

So yeah, that's the idea.  Note that not approving of this idea is NOT indicative of whether we will go into a freeze soon or not.  And from what I was told, this idea would kick in instantly if approved, as in, would effect next ranking session (Super, if you can elaborate what you meant, that'd be appreciated.)

[DjinnAndTonic]

Permanently changing the ranking periods to 4 seasons per ranking isn't something I agree with, personally, as I think the time will come again that a lot of viable ideas will come up in succession, and the smaller names at the time will get pushed aside just long enough that a new game will come out that seems more immediately like a better rank, but may perform less well overall.

I think the DL serves a dual purpose as a kind of 'history' for the RPGs that come out over time. If there's a long stretch of time where few really good games come out, the DL should rank a few of these games to stand as representatives of their time period... only a few though (we even decreased the number of games we nominated during these times, so I imagine we shouldn't have to worry -too- much about flooding the DL with  less-than-awesome ranks).

Arguably, stretching the ranking interval once won't change many things, but to stretch it permanently will see a lot fewer games getting a real chance at getting in.

If we're worried about the ranking size increasing things too much, I would argue that it would be better to start proposing more retirements than decreasing new rankings significantly. Newer games will keep the DL from stagnating.

Especially large-cast games are stagnating... Suiko1/2/4, FE7, VP1, ShF, CC, even SO2 to a point (and I -like- all of that cast). It would be easy to cull a few cast members there and rank some newer games. If the games fail horribly, then cull most of their cast, too.

In some games, especially, ranking just the main 3-5 characters would be sufficient for all the duelling variety you'd get from the cast. You could stretch this to 7-10 to include fan favorites and interesting plot characters, though I'm more in favor of the 3-5 range.

I know this may be harder in practice - after all, I'm proposing LOTS of change as opposed to 'let's resist new stuff' - but my personal feelings are that it is better to have lots of games with fewer cast members than to have lots of the same cast spread out over a bunch of really old games.

That aside, I would be in favor of stretching the ranking interval for one more season THIS time (maybe even the next 2 times), but I wouldn't want it to be a permanent change.

-Djinn

[hinode]

Currently we rank every 2 seasons, so there's basically only one season of dead-time in-between ranks.

Extending it to rank every 3 seasons is something I'd support.

[Taishyr]

If we feel that we need to rank more games, we can reduce the ranking span again.

Frankly, I'm all in support of being flexible, and while we wait and let ideas simmer for now, extending the ranking time's a good idea.

[Talaysen]

Considering the fact we're bringing up the idea to increasing ranking delays by a season, I see absolutely no reason we can't just turn around and decrease it in the future by the same process if needed.

Djinn, the problem isn't that we have too much ranked stuff, it's that the stuff coming out aren't pulling the numbers good enough for ranking (arguably).  I'm really not a fan of booting things.  If there are people that are boring?  DON'T NOM THEM.  Seems pretty simple to me.  And if people are nomming them, obviously they care or are just idiots nomming people because they haven't been nommed.  (Please quit doing this.)

I'm all for extending this.  It's a much better idea than having freezes, since as Meeple said, it still means we keep moving forward rather than stopping for a year or however long.

[Cmdr_King]

We ran every three seasons for a while before the ranking freeze, so frankly I was a little caught off guard by the super-fast turnaround of every other season.  Honestly it's not enough time for people to really play new games, or at least that's how it feels.  So yeah, fully in support of adding another season in between.

[superaielman]

Short version: Yes, for obvious reasons. Long version:

If we're worried about the ranking size increasing things too much, I would argue that it would be better to start proposing more retirements than decreasing new rankings significantly. Newer games will keep the DL from stagnating.

Especially large-cast games are stagnating... Suiko1/2/4, FE7, VP1, ShF, CC, even SO2 to a point (and I -like- all of that cast). It would be easy to cull a few cast members there and rank some newer games. If the games fail horribly, then cull most of their cast, too.

In some games, especially, ranking just the main 3-5 characters would be sufficient for all the duelling variety you'd get from the cast. You could stretch this to 7-10 to include fan favorites and interesting plot characters, though I'm more in favor of the 3-5 range.

I know this may be harder in practice - after all, I'm proposing LOTS of change as opposed to 'let's resist new stuff' - but my personal feelings are that it is better to have lots of games with fewer cast members than to have lots of the same cast spread out over a bunch of really old games.

FE and Suikoden are overranked in theory, but even if you cut a 150 or so 'extras' (A really bad idea, both are hugely popular series outside and in the DL), it doesn't solve the basic problem of needing to finish/know the game to vote on them. It'd make our roster look a little neater, but it wouldn't improve the overall drawing abilities of what we have.  It'd also really dilute people's voting abilities, as you're ranking more games and using less from well drawing games. It also puts far more strain on the staff, as you have to play more games/keep up with more to write for them. And that alone would get me to punt it as an idea.


Ranking and deranking things constantly causes far more trouble than it's worth. Better to present a fairly stable roster as is. We're nearly 50 seasons into the DL. Unless people absolutely want to redo the roster from scratch, there's no point in picking at a few games. There are one or two things (See:BG) I would like to see go, but otherwise, there's not a lot of reason to start hacking away at things.

Aside: I really don't want to deal with rankings stuff over the holidays, which it just so happens to coincide with for next time.

Massive roster overall, etc:

BoF1, 2, 3, 4
CC
CT
DDS
Disgaea
Disgaea 2
DQ8
DW4
EB
FE7
FE8
FE9
FFs minus X-2
G1-3
LoD (I go back and forth on this one, but in s pite of it's eh drawing and success it was still one of the biggest PSX RPG releases)
LoL2
Lufia 2
Pers3
PKMN
PS4
S1-S5
Saga
SD3
SH1-3
SMRPG
SO2
SO3
SoA
SoM
ToP
ToS
TotA
VP1
VP2
WAs
XG
XS

Replacement titles: MMXCM, WA5, MK, XF. There are other newer console games, but none that are even remotely close. Stuff like ES would fit here in theory. If you wanted to rank more new gen games, you would have to change the nom system so you know the seasons more ahead of time/can control the draw, otherwise it'd be near impossible to prepare seasons.

[DjinnAndTonic]

Actually, I hadn't realized that we were ranking at every 2 seasons since the freeze. I'm very much in favor of a 3-season interval, I was just against 4-seasons, which REALLY seems excessive to me.

-DJ

[Talaysen]

I actually wouldn't mind 4-season intervals too much I think?   But yeah, we're talking about 3 here, which is probably a better idea.

[hinode]

We've been using 2 season intervals since... well, way earlier than I actually stopped lurking here, which was three years ago.  It's not a new post-freeze development, guys.  <_<

(To be exact, it used to be 4 slots/rank every 3 seasons, then changed to 3 slots/rank every 2 seasons, then finally the current 2 slots/rank every 2 system we have now. To be more exact 4 slots/rank every 3 seasons was used for exactly one ranking session ever before switching over to 3 slots/2 seasons, which is what the DL has used for the vast majority of its modern history.)

[Sir Donald 3.2]

With Seasons going by every 6 weeks, that means that every 3 years we have 26 seasons (barring the total stoppage last year, plus the extra week every 5-6 years, but we can account for that).   I'm more along the lines of "Rank 4 times a year".  That's 8 games, a healthy number. 

I wouldn't have minded moving the new rankings to Season 49, as the middle of this coming Season comes around New Years.  Not a good thing...

Still, that would mean that the next time we have rankings would be around early February; which would still not be enough time to note the Decemberween gifts...

Just make the ranking freeze tri-annual (every third year), but put it up to a forum vote each time (2/3 to veto the freeze), and be done with it. 

If we go to every 3 Seasons period, however, I would like to go back to a Maximum of 3 Games + Single FWs.  IIRC, there's still a minimum rubric that would allow for the possibility for no games to get ranked.  (Practically averages to 8 as well...)

In fact, from what I recall of early DL history, having rankings every 2 Seasons was a remedy for the problem of HEATED "Debate" when rankings season did come around.  (This was back in the early teens, hinode, and revolved mainly around Pokemon that weren't Pikachu, which was a transfer in from RPGP.)

Also, the Wii at least has an official emulator for many of the ancient systems, and already has PS2 and the Shining Forces for sale via their shop, in addition to many SNES games that don't already have GBA remakes.  Perhaps the PS3 and/or XBox 360 has similar?  The point is that removing games from the roster now is not really feasible and could even hurt sales at those Virtual Shops    (Another DL History note:  I'm not so sure that I would buy Phantasy Star 3 on the VC simply because it was removed from the DL back in Season 18.)

If the concern is "the rosters are already too large," I would be more along the lines of either restructuring the divisions (5 instead of 4) or expanding the non-Godlike divisions somehow to address that issue.  But that's a whole other topic altogether.

[Dark Holy Elf]

I never really liked the "rank every two seasons" idea in the first place, though it did make more sense when rankable games were coming out at a breakneck pace. It's far outlived its welcome though. Back to 3 we go. Obviously we can switch back to 2 if need be.

[superaielman]

Looks like this passed. Thanks to everyone who voted.