TWD: 2010 Australian National Championship report
SteveHarris
Prince of Wales Hotel, Nundah, Brisbane, Australia
June 13, 2010
16 players
3R + Finals
Winner: Jason Ryan
Despite a poor turnout of only 16 players, those 16 players all
brought strong decks and strong play to the event. Each round had 4
tables of 4, and we had not a single time out all day. I also don't
think I saw a single dummy spit all day, even when players were
effectively back ousted.
Jason Ryan had a tough decision positioning himself on the finals
table and spent over 10 mins deciding. Eventually the seating was
completed. Nick Miller (Stani/gangrel bleed/vote) -> Tim Smith (Lutz
s/b) -> Jason Ryan (AAA Ashur Tablets) -> Justin Evans (Daughters
Choir/Harmony) -> Simon Reed (Ravnos chimestry/dementation s/b).
On the finals we saw the Coven played and contested 4 times. I think
the seating decisions were extremely hard as no one really wanted to
be the prey of the Choir deck. In one of the preliminary rounds it
had managed to do 15 pool damage in one turn, and could easily do 6
damage every turn. I don't think anyone had any decent form of
defence against it.
The game moved forwards and I soon noticed that both Jason's predator
and prey were down to 6 and 8 pool respectively. At this point I was
convinced Jason would win, however it was probably too early to call
that.
Simon saw an opportunity when Nick got down below 10 pool briefly.
With Nick's prey sitting on 6 pool, Simon could effectively get 2 vps
over 2 turns, and considering he wasn't far from being ousted by the
singing from behind, he went for the lunge. Unfortunately it failed.
Not long after, Simon was ousted and the Daughters earned the first
VP. However Jason kept hitting him with votes and the occasional
small bleed.
It didn't take too much longer for both Tim and Justin to be ousted,
and the end game began. Both Nick and Jason were sitting on 15+ pool
and had a Coven jumping between them. Nick had Monastery of Shadows
and a Heart of Cheating, so his untap phase could take a little
while. Jason forget to use the Coven at least twice, which extended
the game a little bit as Nick's minions were running low on blood and
the extra use of Coven helped greatly, but in the end it was of little
consequence. Jason was able to block a lot of Nick's actions, and had
vote lock. He slowly wore Nick down with a couple of damaging actions
a turn.
I think Nick cycled into a bunch of Obedience and was preparing to
hold off Jason's assault. He had been unfortunate with his crypt
draw, not getting Stanislava this game, but Ingrid Rossler was happy
to sit as a 10 cap (capacity increased by a Dominate master card) and
block 2 of Jason's minions. Then Jason Pentexed Ingrid and the game
was his.
Congratulations to Jason on his victory!
All in all it was a good day. Unfortunately a lot of players were
unable to travel for the Nats this year due to either exams or family
commitments. There were also quite a few who had not qualified and
were not prepared to travel and risk the LCQ. That said, all the
locals in Brisbane who had not qualified managed to do so at the LCQ.
The winning deck:
Deck Name : The Beautiful People 2.0
Author : Jason Ryan
Description :
Last minute Protected Resources were gold all day. Ashurs/Anthelios
3MPA recursion shenanigans are close to indomitable in most end game
showdowns. Anneke was MVP, although Delilah Easton got me the oust on
the finals table.
Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 2 max: 11 average: 7.58333
------------------------------------------------------------
4x Anson 8 CEL PRE aus dom prince
Toreador:1
2x Alexandra 11 ANI AUS CEL PRE dom inner circle
Toreador:2
2x Anneke 10 AUS CEL PRE dom justicar
Toreador:1
2x Delilah Easton 2 pre
Toreador:1
1x Francois Villon 10 AUS CEL PRE chi obf pot prince
Toreador:2
1x Isabel de Leon 3 AUS
Toreador:2
Library [90 cards]
------------------------------------------------------------
Action [2]
1x Aranthebes, The Immortal
1x Entrancement
Action Modifier [10]
1x Aire of Elation
2x Approximation of Loyalty
2x Awe
5x Voter Captivation
Equipment [3]
1x Bowl of Convergence
2x Sniper Rifle
Event [2]
2x Anthelios, The Red Star
Master [39]
1x Art Museum
6x Ashur Tablets
2x Direct Intervention
2x Dominate
2x Dreams of the Sphinx
1x Elysium: The Palace of Versailles
1x From a Sinking Ship
1x Giant's Blood
1x Golconda: Inner Peace
1x Information Highway
1x Parthenon, The
1x Pentex(TM) Subversion
1x Protected Resources
1x Secure Haven
1x Temptation of Greater Power
7x Toreador Grand Ball
7x Villein
2x Zillah's Valley
Political Action [16]
1x Ancient Influence
1x Ancilla Empowerment
2x Banishment
2x Conservative Agitation
1x First Tradition: The Masquerade
4x Kine Resources Contested
4x Parity Shift
1x Reins of Power
Reaction [18]
5x Deflection
7x Obedience
6x Second Tradition: Domain
Shade
> Australian 2010 National Championships
> Prince of Wales Hotel, Nundah, Brisbane, Australia
> June 13, 2010
> 16 players
> 3R + Finals
> Winner: Jason Ryan
>
>
Grats Jas - well played mate :-)
Simon
extrala
> Australian 2010 National Championships
> Prince of Wales Hotel, Nundah, Brisbane, Australia
> June 13, 2010
> 16 players
> 3R + Finals
> Winner: Jason Ryan
>
> Despite a poor turnout of only 16 players, those 16 players all
> brought strong decks and strong play to the event. Each round had 4
> tables of 4, and we had not a single time out all day. I also don't
> think I saw a single dummy spit all day, even when players were
> effectively back ousted.
One quick question: Was that the Australian *Continental*
Championship, or the Australian *National* Championship? You always
seem to name it "National" while the WW event calendar and Lasombra's
website claim it was the "Continental".
Or in other words, if it was the National Championship, when can we
expect the Continental Championship later this year?
Best regards, Ralf
====================
http://extrala.blogspot.com
Juggernaut1981
Well, since we are a Nation Continent... they are equivalent...
Ishvalan
extrala
> On Jun 15, 9:23 pm, extrala <ralf.lamm...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 8:11 am, SteveHarris <steveharris1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Australian 2010 National Championships
> > > Prince of Wales Hotel, Nundah, Brisbane, Australia
> > > June 13, 2010
> > > 16 players
> > > 3R + Finals
> > > Winner: Jason Ryan
>
> > > Despite a poor turnout of only 16 players, those 16 players all
> > > brought strong decks and strong play to the event. Each round had 4
> > > tables of 4, and we had not a single time out all day. I also don't
> > > think I saw a single dummy spit all day, even when players were
> > > effectively back ousted.
>
> > One quick question: Was that the Australian *Continental*
> > Championship, or the Australian *National* Championship? You always
> > seem to name it "National" while the WW event calendar and Lasombra's
> > website claim it was the "Continental".
>
> > Or in other words, if it was the National Championship, when can we
> > expect the Continental Championship later this year?
>>
that Australian Nation's Continental Championship in 2009. :)
Ralf
Shade
> Well, since we are a Nation Continent... they are equivalent...
Australia is the country and Australasia is the continent so there is
a difference... an important one if you're from New Zealand :-)
Simon
Shade
> Hmm, poor Kiwis... I remember Simon Reed (from New Zealand) winning
> that Australian Nation's Continental Championship in 2009. :)
2008 actually - although if you check the trophy my name is oddly
missing... Australians what can I say ;-)
The Lasombra
>Australian 2010 National Championships
>Prince of Wales Hotel, Nundah, Brisbane, Australia
>June 13, 2010
>16 players
>3R + Finals
>Winner: Jason Ryan
Congratulations to Jason on his second Continental Championship win!
It seems that with 16 players that a qualification system is working
against you. If you cannot guarantee 25 players minimum, there is no
point in requiring pre-qualification. You should let all who can
attend, play.
Salem
Australiasia isn't a continent, as far as I am aware. It's just a
geographical region. :P
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
Salem
But then it's not a championship. It's just a regular tournament with a
fancy title.
Championships shouldn't be about the biggest turnouts, they should be
about the best of the best.
PS: Congrats to Jason. It's been years since I've played against him,
and he was a damn good player back then, so I can only imagine how much
more devious he's gotten...
The Lasombra
>But then it's not a championship. It's just a regular tournament with a
>fancy title.
If you aren't playing on 5 player tables with no repeat opponents, are
you sure you've actually got the best player?
>Championships shouldn't be about the biggest turnouts, they should be
>about the best of the best.
They should have a minimum turnout, which I'd put at 25.
J
> against you. If you cannot guarantee 25 players minimum, there is no
> point in requiring pre-qualification. You should let all who can
> attend, play.
16 players was more than disappointing. And I felt sorry for Steve
who ran an excellent event. Saying that, there are a couple issues
with this, and it's not really the qualification. We moved the date
of the Nats from October to June (this was the 2nd year of it in
June), and since that move the numbers have dropped dramatically. It
appears that this movement of the date was not as logical as we
thought when it was moved... it went from a public holiday in NSW only
to a nation wide public holiday. However, it appears that the June
holiday is in the middle of, or near to exams for uni students. It
also appears that those with families are also drawn away by family
things on the long weekend.
Saying that, there is also the multi-qualification which is a problem
in Australia. In years past we could easily attract 30+ attendees to
our Nats. But multi-qualification limits those who will travel. It
would be great if qualified players could choose to not count for
qualification purposes like they used to. This would also see our
numbers rise again.
As Salem said, the National Championships (or Continental
Championships) should be about the best players rather than the most.
But if we can get more good players along it would be great. 16 was
not great, it isn't even close.
With our large landmass and sparse population, the qualifiers or
something of their equivalent are really the only thing that keep the
competitive game alive in Australia IMO. Players just don't travel
for a constructed tournament, but they will for something that has
more meaning, even if they personally aren't going to attend the Nats
themselves.
-- J
Jason
> > Hmm, poor Kiwis... I remember Simon Reed (from New Zealand) winning
> > that Australian Nation's Continental Championship in 2009. :)
>
> 2008 actually - although if you check the trophy my name is oddly
> missing... Australians what can I say ;-)
Bloody Kiwis, coming over stealing stealing our jobs, our women, and
our national titles :P
jase
Jason
> With our large landmass and sparse population, the qualifiers or
> something of their equivalent are really the only thing that keep the
> competitive game alive in Australia IMO. Players just don't travel
> for a constructed tournament, but they will for something that has
> more meaning, even if they personally aren't going to attend the Nats
> themselves.
I agree with Jules. The prestige of winning a state qualifier attracts
people to travel and play. A quarter of the attendees in most state
champs here are interstaters. Multi-qualification does seem to be
working against us, however. I know a couple of the Melbourne crew
would have travelled to Brissie but for lack of qualification.
Spending $500 on a plane ticket for a chance to qualify doesn't appeal
to folks with mortgages and whatnot.
Additionally, with hindsight, the decision to move from October to
June seems to have hindered numbers too. Hopefully with a change back,
we'll see greater numbers next year. Brisbane is also a little out of
the way for some people - the central metropolii like Melbourne and
Sydney tend to get more people who're willing to drive/fly to play.
Which is a shame, because Steve put on a great weekend, and the prize
support was the best I've ever seen.
jase
simcof
I largely agree with this. When you get interstaters the local games
pick up.
The big problem is that people don't want to drop a grand on an event
for travel/accom if they might not be able to even play. a few of our
locals that did not turn up to the continentals are very good players
who just got unlucky in the qualifiers.
its a tricky situation. i was very much against having to qualify
given low numbers until graily pointed this out to me.
Juggernaut1981
>
> - Show quoted text -
I particularly dislike the multi-qualification. Since we're already
flexing it a bit by how many can Qualify, in our situation we should
be able to basically state that those who have previously qualified
are ineligible for future Qualification. That broadens the pool of
qualifiers and it still makes it important for "out of region"
qualifications (if you don't succeed at the Qualifier in Town X, maybe
you can at Town Y... especially if it is a larger event). Plus I
wouldn't consider going to an out-of-state Champs if I was uncertain
about qualifying AND my wife had something else to do over the weekend
(convention, shopping with friends, tourist stuff, etc). It might be
time there was a VTES WAGS Group...
SteveHarris
qualification. IMHO it has really caused us problems here in
Australia for all the reasons my fellow Aussies have listed.
I like to travel for the qualifiers, and being a Prince, I know I will
be auto qualified for running my own event. I don't always do well at
the qualifiers in other states, but I normally get into the top 50%,
which means I theoretically deny a qualifying position to a local. In
the past I was able to state prior to the event starting that I had no
wish to be counted for qualification purposes.
Prior to the our Nats/Continentals I contacted many players in other
cities about their intentions to travel for the weekend. The most
common response I had was "I would love to, but I didn't qualify".
So, for Australia at least, I see 2 ways to resolve this.
1. Remove multi qualification
2. Bring back the option to declare at the beginning of a qualifier
that you have no wish to qualify
Either of these simple solutions would work brilliantly, IMO. There's
no need to consider some complication and convoluted new scheme.
That's my 2 cents worth.
Steve Harris
Prince of Brisbane
simcof
Is the reason that we have multi-qualification because the Princes
want it or because white wolf/whoever runs VEKN won't let us not have
multi-qualification?
simcof
Aaron Connor
This was asked and answered a little while ago when the problem was
becoming apparent for the upcoming Nats.
SteveHarris <steveha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I have heard it said that prior to beginning a continental qualifier,
> >a player can elect to relinquish his right to qualify in said
> >tournament.
Two years ago, this was possible. It was then removed from the rules.
It used to be the case that:
- people who were already qualified were skipped over by later
tournaments
- people could give up a qualifying spot voluntarily.
These both went away in January 2008. In particular, they had been
causing administrative issues when tournaments weren't being reported
promptly, and where it meant that tournament organizers couldn't
authoritatively work out who had definitely qualified.
This means that everyone qualifies, and people can qualify multiple
times. To compensate, the number of qualifying spots was tweaked
slightly - in particular, in smaller qualifiers.
Robyn talks about multiple qualifications:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4aa79be537ece93b
LSJ confirms that *everyone* counts, no withdrawals:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a066b3339125eeb2
Peter D Bakija
> Is the reason that we have multi-qualification because the Princes
> want it or because white wolf/whoever runs VEKN won't let us not have
> multi-qualification?
>
Allowing Multiple Qualification makes administering the qualification
system *infinitely* easier than when you have to keep track of who is
already qualified.
To make up for the loss of slots, qualification was opened up to "Top
25% or all 5 finalists, whichever is more" which allows more
qualification slots in the grand scheme than the old system (the top
25% of non qualified players total--so if you had a 15 player
qualifier with 3 previously qualified players, only 3 players get to
qualify as opposed to the current 5). And removes the need to know who
is qualified before the tournament starts, which is kind of an
administrative nightmare, especially as people aren't always real good
with reporting things on time.
In the particular case of Australia, where everyone is really far
apart and there aren't that many players to begin with, yeah, it kind
of blows, but in the large scheme, I suspect it works better overall.
Could Australia do something like have a Last Chance Qualifier on
Friday and/or a side tournament on Saturday? I don't know if that
would help, but it is certainly a possibility (and is how the NAC
tends to work).
-Peter
J
> apart and there aren't that many players to begin with, yeah, it kind
> of blows, but in the large scheme, I suspect it works better overall.
> Could Australia do something like have a Last Chance Qualifier on
> Friday and/or a side tournament on Saturday? I don't know if that
> would help, but it is certainly a possibility (and is how the NAC
> tends to work).
In the case of Australia, your suspicions would be wrong. We have
allowances for 50% qualification. The problem is that the players who
travel for the tournaments tend to be some of our best. These players
generally finish in the top half of the tournaments that they play,
effectively taking spots from players who haven't yet qualified.
Given the cost and distances involved in travelling this great
country, it becomes really cost prohibitive to travel on the off
chance that you'll qualify at the LCQ - especially since once again,
the best we have will be lining up to play (usually with fun or social-
esque decks, but they're still there).
In the past, we would have a shadow tournament (usually a draft)
running parallel to the Nats, but usually this was poorly attended,
those who failed to qualify were usually small in number and didn't
want to play "dreg" games. If we had a larger playgroup, then the
shadow event could possibly be bigger. But once again, people don't
want to travel to play a generic constructed tournament, which is
essentially what this would be. There is prestige (and better prize
support) for the Nats. There is no prestige in winning a constructed
event.
The best thing for the game in Australia would be to eliminate the
multiple qualification system. With it in place, the competitive game
is dying a painful death.
For those of you who don't really understand the Australian dynamics.
Please consider this. We have a landmass that makes us the 6th
largest country on the planet, but we have a total population of just
under 20million at the last census. This is roughly the same
population as the US state of New York.
-- J
Juggernaut1981
have already qualified or those highly likely to qualify at the out-of-
region event. The Sydney event usually sees players travel from
Newcastle and Canberra. Those places both have their own Qualifiers
and don't get many travelling from Sydney out to those. I can't
remember there being less than 2 players from each group that have not
already qualified (already increasing their chance of being in the top
half). Plus there are often Princes travelling from Interstate (Steve
has been making a number of trips lately and I remember seeing some
Melbourne players before, probably the Prince as well). So for one of
the 2 Sydney Quals for the Aus Nats 2009 there were something like
5-10 from a field of 25-30 who were already Qualified. That's not an
insignificant percentage of potential multi-qualifying players.
I understand that with many players travelling across US to do it,
wouldn't it just be simpler to combine:
a) an honesty system (i.e. speak up if you have Qualified)
b) a final-qualified list (i.e. publicly list the players who are
Qualifiers)
c) both?
Peter D Bakija
> In the case of Australia, your suspicions would be wrong.
Heh--nah, I meant "in the large scheme (of the world)", not, "in the
large scheme (of Australia)". I already posited that the current
system probably sucks for the likely unique situation that is
Australia (huge country so everyone is really far apart with not
probably a huge concentraion of players in the first place due to the
relatively small population).
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> a) an honesty system (i.e. speak up if you have Qualified)
> b) a final-qualified list (i.e. publicly list the players who are
> Qualifiers)
> c) both?
That is what the old system used. The problem is that not everyone
remembers/cares to point out that they are qualified (not due to
dishonesty, but due to people generally being slacktackular) and the
publicly listed qualification roster (which already exists) is
notoriously not up to date, again, due to people often being too busy
to, ya know, send a 5 line e-mail to Robyn on time.
-Peter
J
> large scheme (of Australia)". I already posited that the current
> system probably sucks for the likely unique situation that is
> Australia (huge country so everyone is really far apart with not
> probably a huge concentraion of players in the first place due to the
> relatively small population).
It kind of sucks. We need qualifiers, but we need to have fairly lax
qualification rules. I know it sounds an oxymoron, but that's the way
it is.
-- J
Rehlow
Offer side events at the same time as the Qualifier, including the
Last Chance. Then already qualified players can play in those and not
"steal" spots.
If a regular constructed tournament is not drawing enough players,
change your qualifiers to some sort of regional championship (so there
are still bragging rights to be won), but drop requiring
qualifications for the National event.
Later,
~Rehlow
librarian
>
> For those of you who don't really understand the Australian dynamics.
> Please consider this. We have a landmass that makes us the 6th
> largest country on the planet, but we have a total population of just
> under 20million at the last census. This is roughly the same
> population as the US state of New York.
Yeah, 232nd out of 239th in population density. US is 11 times more
densely populated than Australia. And what, 90% of that is on the east
coast of the country?
On the topic of multi-qualfying, maybe you could have someone in-nation
handle the administration of the qualifying. You could have a deadline for
qualifying events (except for LCQ's), and another deadline for reporting of
said events. Of course policing those deadlines for volunteers will suck,
but that's why this new system was instituted.
best -
chris
Salem
If you've let a kiwi steal your woman, you shouldn't have been dating a
sheep in the first place.
Salem
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:10:41 +1000, Salem wrote:
>
>>But then it's not a championship. It's just a regular tournament with a
>>fancy title.
>
> If you aren't playing on 5 player tables with no repeat opponents, are
> you sure you've actually got the best player?
I'd rather be at a table that repeats a qualified player, than at table
with some random entrant who might be playing some sort of disruptive
deck and/or playing a normal deck in a disruptive way (not through any
malice, but through lack of experience in how to win games).
>>Championships shouldn't be about the biggest turnouts, they should be
>>about the best of the best.
>
> They should have a minimum turnout, which I'd put at 25.
That's a fine and noble goal, but if the vtes population of your area
doesn't support it, then it shouldn't be arbitrarily imposed.
For what it's worth, Brisbane is also fairly far afield as far as people
_getting_ to the championship is concerned. This may also have impacted
attendance. In fact, seeing as it was stated that all local players
qualified at the LCQ, I'd say the geographic location, more than the
qualification system, would be the reason for a smallish attendance.
Juggernaut1981
Rehlow,
Few people in Australia are going to shell out $400/person airfares +
$100+/night accomodation to go to another state to try for the LCQ
(and no doubt fail because of all of the pre-qualified players joining
in and multi-qualifying in a field of ~30) and then stick around to
play a mediocre constructed with the other 'also-rans'. If we had
enough people and enough interest we could easily do a Week of
Nightmares-type event, but costs get in the way and then venues to
hold the people. But we don't have a big convention in Sydney that is
friendly to CCGs that isn't basically the MtG Nationals.
Seriously at the Sydney-held Nationals in 2009 I think there were
something like 10 non-qualified Sydney locals who turned up for the
LCQ. If I remember 1 of those gained qualification and the other
qualifiers were all multi-qualified, some of them twice before the
LCQ. I don't remember seeing anyone from another city who wasn't
qualified at the event.
The Lasombra
wrote:
>>>Championships shouldn't be about the biggest turnouts, they should be
>>>about the best of the best.
>> They should have a minimum turnout, which I'd put at 25.
>That's a fine and noble goal, but if the vtes population of your area
>doesn't support it, then it shouldn't be arbitrarily imposed.
Then perhaps you shouldn't have chosen that area to host the event?
Newcastle had 30+ the year I was there, if I remember correctly.
Either travel to/from must be easy/cheap or local population must
participate to meet the needs.
If an area has a 5 player qualifier tournament where 100% qualify
because they are all in the finals, that area shouldn't be where the
Championship is held.
(The 5 player qualifier did happen this year and that wasn't where the
CC was held.)
J
> Newcastle had 30+ the year I was there, if I remember correctly.
>
> Either travel to/from must be easy/cheap or local population must
> participate to meet the needs.
>
> If an area has a 5 player qualifier tournament where 100% qualify
> because they are all in the finals, that area shouldn't be where the
> Championship is held.
>
> (The 5 player qualifier did happen this year and that wasn't where the
> CC was held.)
It was NOT the locale of the Nats that was the problem. It was the
qualification system. When the Nats were held up in Brisbane in 2006
we had an excellent turn out then. The issue this year was twofold
(date of the event, like last year it caused problems, and now it is
being changed back to October), and the Qualification system. Last
year the Nats were in Sydney. It is the location of our largest
player base and we still only had around 24 players attend.
As to Rehlow's suggestion to offer side events.... Firstly, didn't you
read that people will only travel to play at the Qualifiers? I
wouldn't travel just to play a side event. And Secondly, we need all
the players who will travel to play in the Qualifiers to make them
decent sized events.
Please, for those of you outside of Australia and with little
comprehension of the problems we face, do not think for a second that
we haven't/aren't considering every option possible. I feel that
everytime I jump on here to post a reply that I'm running around
chasing my tail (which if I were a dog would be mildly amusing).
1. Travel in Australia is costly.
2. A good percentage of players in Australia will travel if they have
qualified.
3. Our good players are the ones that tend to travel to qualifier
events.
4. The multi-qualification system means that players will double or
triple qualify more often than not and given our player base this
reduces the numbers. .
Since the double qualifiers have come into place, our numbers have
been way down.
Coincidence? Perhaps, but I doubt it.
-- J
The Lasombra
>Please, for those of you outside of Australia and with little
>comprehension of the problems we face, do not think for a second that
>we haven't/aren't considering every option possible. I feel that
>everytime I jump on here to post a reply that I'm running around
>chasing my tail (which if I were a dog would be mildly amusing).
This is brought up to demonstrate to the Sout East Asian championship
organization team that their plan for qualifiers and last chance
qualifiers is also inappropriate.
For their first year, they should see that 'costs lots to travel to'
plus fewer than 25 local players is not equal to a good championship
event.
>1. Travel in Australia is costly.
Travel everywhere is costly. This is not unique to Australia.
>2. A good percentage of players in Australia will travel if they have
>qualified.
This is not true in the US. The vast majority of players will not
travel to play. Some few will.
>3. Our good players are the ones that tend to travel to qualifier
>events.
Similarly here, those that enjoy the game and are good at it have more
incentive to travel to play than those that typically aren't winning
locally.
>4. The multi-qualification system means that players will double or
>triple qualify more often than not and given our player base this
>reduces the numbers.
Perhaps. The reduction in player numbers at normal events is just as
much a danger as multi-qualification.
>Since the double qualifiers have come into place, our numbers have
>been way down.
Then you should definitely adjust your method. What works to keep
Europe manageable isn't appropriate for smaller player bases.
>Coincidence? Perhaps, but I doubt it.
In my part of the world, I'd say yes. In the last few years we have
lost a significant percentage of those who play locally and those
groups near us that used to host tournaments and travel have
disappeared completely. Qualification doesn't have anything to do
with that part, just finances, changing priorities, etc.
This is not in any way a jab at the event, or how it was run, or who
won or what with.
This thread was started to get people thinking about all of the
solutions to these concerns.
Carpe noctem.
The Lasombra
Your best source of V:TES information.
J
>
> Travel everywhere is costly. This is not unique to Australia.
Yes it is. However our airlines don't have flights leaving every 30
minutes that are full. Thus our prices tend to be a bit more
inflated, but that's not the real argument here.
> >2. A good percentage of players in Australia will travel if they have
> >qualified.
>
> This is not true in the US. The vast majority of players will not
> travel to play. Some few will.
You'll note that I didn't say "majority" I said a good percentage. I
would equate that to being about 30-40% of qualified players
travelling.
> >4. The multi-qualification system means that players will double or
> >triple qualify more often than not and given our player base this
> >reduces the numbers.
>
> Perhaps. The reduction in player numbers at normal events is just as
> much a danger as multi-qualification.
Not so.
Even assuming for 50% of qualified players attending, any multiple
qualification immediately eats into that. I travelled to 2 events
this year and qualified at both of them. I know of many other players
who qualified at multiple events also. All these multiple
qualifications are now reducing the players who will attend the Nats.
For eg (and these numbers are just hypothetical).
We have the following qualifiers
Brisbane - 16 players, 8 qualification spots + Organizer
Newcastle - 10 players, 5 qualification spots + Organzier
Sydney - 20 players, 10 qualification spots + Organizer
Penrith - 10 players, 5 qualification spots + Organizer
Canberra - 10 players, 5 qualification spots + Organizer
Melbourne - 20 players, 5 qualification spots + Organizer
Adelaide - 16 players, 8 qualification spots + Organizer
Hobart - 10 players, 5 qualification spots + Organizer
That gives us 59 qualification spots + the 5 who auto qualified the
previous year for a total of 64 spots, and that is assuming that the
Organizers don't qualify elsewhere. If 50% of those attend, we would
have an event of 31 players (one would have to assume that one of the
Organizers who qualified is also running the event). Now, that's not
too bad an attendance.
However, when there are multiple qualifications, those numbers
suddenly dwindle. All it takes is 2 spots to be taken from each event
by previously qualified players (other than the first event of
course), and you begin to see the problem. And saying that 2 people
will double qualify is being conservative at best. Say Brisbane is
our first qualifier, but all the rest are -2 spots. We are down to 50
spots for a tournament of 24 players given the Organizer of one is
running the Nats. And this is assuming a 50% attendance rate of
qualified players.
> Then you should definitely adjust your method. What works to keep
> Europe manageable isn't appropriate for smaller player bases.
We are.
> In my part of the world, I'd say yes. In the last few years we have
> lost a significant percentage of those who play locally and those
> groups near us that used to host tournaments and travel have
> disappeared completely. Qualification doesn't have anything to do
> with that part, just finances, changing priorities, etc.
I agree with this that social play numbers are down, but the dramatic
downturn in tournaments hasn't occured til double qualifications.
-- J
Nick M
I agree that the Date of the event, and people not wanting to travel
without already being qualified are the main reasons for the low
turnout. But you can't totally disregard the location and the number
of local players.
It looks like you have started to address these problems with your
suggestions to:
Move the event back to the old date. Change the qualifications rules
back to the old rules(no people qualifying multiple times).
I would also suggest more qualifiers. And make the Nationals more than
a weekend event. If someone cannot play the day of the nationals, they
may still travel if there are 3 other days of events they could play.
Nick
Kevin M.
> The best thing for the game in Australia would be to eliminate the
> multiple qualification system. With it in place, the competitive
> game is dying a painful death.
I think the best thing for Australia to do would be to make their
Continental Championship an open event, or perhaps do something like
"play 2 rounds, cut to 25, then 3R+F", but it sounds like you don't
want to do that.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
J
> without already being qualified are the main reasons for the low
> turnout. But you can't totally disregard the location and the number
> of local players.
Definitely not totally disregarding the location. Our numbers were
down significantly last year as well, and that was in Sydney.
> It looks like you have started to address these problems with your
> suggestions to:
> Move the event back to the old date. Change the qualifications rules
> back to the old rules(no people qualifying multiple times).
> I would also suggest more qualifiers.
More qualifiers is good, but we need dedicated Princes to run them. I
am trying to get the Princes active again, but it is a struggle.
And make the Nationals more than
> a weekend event. If someone cannot play the day of the nationals, they
> may still travel if there are 3 other days of events they could play.
This I'm not so sure about. In theory it would be great, but I don't
think we have the player base to do something similar to what happens
at the EC or NAC with a week of VTES.
-- J
The Lasombra
>Coincidence? Perhaps, but I doubt it.
Timmy
It would take the gloss off the whole having to qualify thing, but I
don't feel as though there is the player base in Australia or a
concentration of players to support that system really. Plus you would
get a ton more participants at the nationals.
-Tim
J
>
> It would take the gloss off the whole having to qualify thing, but I
> don't feel as though there is the player base in Australia or a
> concentration of players to support that system really. Plus you would
> get a ton more participants at the nationals.
As stated before, doing this, there'd be only 1 event a year that
pretty much anyone traveled for. This would IMO spell the doom of the
game competitively here. The groups would become even more insular
and that would be that.
In years past we got decent numbers, so therefore we can have a
qualification system. We just need to get more people to qualify,
hence dropping multi-qualification is the best start in that
direction.
-- J
Timmy
I was just talking to Mr. Miller, and he suggested going the opposite
direction with more tourneys, which is a better idea.
Shade
> Bloody Kiwis, coming over stealing stealing our jobs, our women, and
> our national titles :P
I only borrowed it for a year - you got it back! Build a bridge :-)
Simon
J
> > our national titles :P
>
> I only borrowed it for a year - you got it back! Build a bridge :-)
He has built a bridge, but instead of crossing it, he now lives
underneath it like a troll.
-- J
Shade
> > a weekend event. If someone cannot play the day of the nationals, they
> > may still travel if there are 3 other days of events they could play.
>
> This I'm not so sure about. In theory it would be great, but I don't
> think we have the player base to do something similar to what happens
> at the EC or NAC with a week of VTES.
Kind of with Julian here Nick - in theory sounds totally awesome but
there is a limit to how often and for how long one can be away from
the other half before bad things happen ;-)
If the problem with not allowing people to opt out of qualification is
additional administration for Robyn (or whoever does the
administration for any given tournament) why not allow the organiser
to submit a list of qualified players with the tournament report?
That way no extra work for most people but if a prince does allow it
then they're required to be the one to do all the mucking around.
I think moving the date though will is likely to make an improvement.
The summer months tend to involve a lot of travel for weddings and
family things so June is a bit soon for some people to travel again.
After winter and away from the only holiday weekend in winter is
probably a good thing.
Simon
librarian
> On Jun 17, 12:22 pm, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> a weekend event. If someone cannot play the day of the nationals, they
>>> may still travel if there are 3 other days of events they could play.
>> This I'm not so sure about. In theory it would be great, but I don't
>> think we have the player base to do something similar to what happens
>> at the EC or NAC with a week of VTES.
>
> Kind of with Julian here Nick - in theory sounds totally awesome but
> there is a limit to how often and for how long one can be away from
> the other half before bad things happen ;-)
Yeah, but you can make a case for an extra day or two of VTES. People do
it here in the States. And having a WoN type event prior to the LCQ, even
if it was just Wed and Thu would make it seem more like a "must" attend
event, instead of just a larger tourney. That also means it more likely
for non-Q'ed players to go, because at the very least, they will also get
to play in those other events. Do two tourneys a day, with 2+F formats.
>
> If the problem with not allowing people to opt out of qualification is
> additional administration for Robyn (or whoever does the
> administration for any given tournament) why not allow the organiser
> to submit a list of qualified players with the tournament report?
> That way no extra work for most people but if a prince does allow it
> then they're required to be the one to do all the mucking around.
See, this was the problem. The prince would need to know *all* the
previous qualified players prior to this week. Which would require all the
other princes to report their events in a timely manner. Which doesn't
happen. It just doesn't, everyone is a volunteer.
Just take everyone's report, have a cut off date (like 3 weeks before the
Continental), and then crunch everyone's report then. Then announce who
had qualified.
>
> I think moving the date though will is likely to make an improvement.
> The summer months tend to involve a lot of travel for weddings and
> family things so June is a bit soon for some people to travel again.
> After winter and away from the only holiday weekend in winter is
> probably a good thing.
Don't get me confused - is it mid-winter there or mid-summer right now?
best -
chris
librarian
> Few people in Australia are going to shell out $400/person airfares
I'm confused. I see that Brisbane and Sydney are only about 453mi (730km)
apart. That's almost the exact same distance as San Diego to San Francisco.
That's a pretty doable one-day drive (7-8 hours) in the States. Don't
people in Australia have cars? And freeways? Put 4 card players in a car,
and all of a sudden, the gas isn't too bad either. Gang 4-5 players in a
hotel room and the accomodations get cheaper and cheaper.
Now if you are coming from New Zealand, or Perth (or Christmas Island!),
sure, I can see some problems with travel costs, but I'm not buying the
travel cost issue *if* the event was compelling enough.
For instance, I don't drive to San Francisco for their constructed
tournaments (it's about a 5-6 hour drive for me) usually, unless I'm up
there for something else. But if SF decided to host the NAC and Week of
Nightmares, I would really try to move mountains to be there.
best -
chris
Kevin M.
> Timmy wrote:
>> It would take the gloss off the whole having to qualify thing, but
>> I don't feel as though there is the player base in Australia or
>> a concentration of players to support that system really. Plus you
>> would get a ton more participants at the nationals.
>
> As stated before, doing this, there'd be only 1 event a year that
> pretty much anyone traveled for. This would IMO spell the doom of
> the game competitively here. The groups would become even more
> insular and that would be that.
If the VTES scene in Australia is THAT WEAK, if the player base
is THAT FICKLE, then perhaps it should just die.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
J
> is THAT FICKLE, then perhaps it should just die.
Fuck off you worm.
-- J
Juggernaut1981
Chris,
Sydney to Brisbane is at least 8 hours if you never leave the car.
There is a lot of "up & down hill" sections along the way, you have to
slow down through numerous towns. To drive it moderately safely and
actually have some breaks along the way, you would need at least 10
hours. I'm basing what I'm saying on what I've heard from others in
the past. To get a WoN-type event we would need a viable location...
I tried to organise a room suitable for 30 players to run a storyline
tournament and they were asking for $250 for "daytimes" and $500 for a
"day & night" per day... To run a 3-day series of events would need
(based on 30 players) $50 per player to cover the venue alone. I
don't know of many FLGSs that have the capacity for 30+ players (other
than my own FLGS which could potentially hold 50 without taking all of
the area) and there may not be any in other cities. Australian Nats
move around every year to avoid any "Why do we always have it in
XXXX?" debates.
KJM,
[sound = smart alecky]
Sorry we don't have a whole city of gambling and strippers to
encourage people to spend a week playing VTES as well...
[/sound]
Kevin M.
> KJM,
> [sound = smart alecky]
> Sorry we don't have a whole city of gambling and strippers to
> encourage people to spend a week playing VTES as well...
> [/sound]
Oh, I understand how LUCKY I have been to have the players show up
in Las Vegas as they have been. I've tried to run great events at
various locations, but yea, it's pretty much the Las Vegas "scene"
that people are coming out here for, not anything that I personally
am doing.
Given the logistic issues Australia has wth VTES, perhaps the VEKN
(whomever that is nowadays) can just cede all tournament authority
to an Australia-only VEKN and let them hash it out in ANY way they'd
like. Then do whatever the heck you want, in any way you want, in
order to achieve success, and we worms won't hassle you anymore. ;)
Salem
> More qualifiers is good, but we need dedicated Princes to run them. I
> am trying to get the Princes active again, but it is a struggle.
...an _eternal_ struggle...
Rehlow
> The Lasombra wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:10:41 +1000, Salem wrote:
>
> >>But then it's not a championship. It's just a regular tournament with a
> >>fancy title.
>
> > If you aren't playing on 5 player tables with no repeat opponents, are
> > you sure you've actually got the best player?
>
> I'd rather be at a table that repeats a qualified player, than at table
> with some random entrant who might be playing some sort of disruptive
> deck and/or playing a normal deck in a disruptive way (not through any
> malice, but through lack of experience in how to win games).
>
So you don't want to play against scubs at the Championships, but you
want more players to qualify during the qualifiers? If you let 75%
(just a made up number of who would qualify if you got rid of already
qualified players stealing spots) of entrants qualify you are going to
qualify some scrubs for your Championship events.
Make day 1 no qualification required, day 2 top 25. Turn Qualifiers
into Regional Championships with winning the honor of being Regional
Champion instead of the prestige of qualifying.
Later,
~Rehlow
Salem
> On Jun 16, 5:14 pm, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The Lasombra wrote:
>> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:10:41 +1000, Salem wrote:
>>
>> >>But then it's not a championship. It's just a regular tournament with a
>> >>fancy title.
>>
>> > If you aren't playing on 5 player tables with no repeat opponents, are
>> > you sure you've actually got the best player?
>>
>> I'd rather be at a table that repeats a qualified player, than at table
>> with some random entrant who might be playing some sort of disruptive
>> deck and/or playing a normal deck in a disruptive way (not through any
>> malice, but through lack of experience in how to win games).
>>
>
> So you don't want to play against scubs at the Championships, but you
> want more players to qualify during the qualifiers?
I never said the latter. I am fine with a 16 player championship. I am
fine with the number of people qualifying. Of course, it would be great
if more people came. What I'd like to know is what proportion of the
qualified people actually turned up, if someone has that info? If 50
Aussies qualified, but only 16 turned up, you'd look at factors other
than the qualifying system to explain the turnout. If only 20 people
qualified, and 16 turned up, well then yeah, we might want to look at
the qualifying system.
> If you let 75%
> (just a made up number of who would qualify if you got rid of already
> qualified players stealing spots) of entrants qualify you are going to
> qualify some scrubs for your Championship events.
Agreed. And I find this undesirable.
> Make day 1 no qualification required, day 2 top 25.
That's more than likely just going to be everyone from day one,
depending on location and timing of the event. Which doesn't really do
anything.
> Turn Qualifiers
> into Regional Championships with winning the honor of being Regional
> Champion instead of the prestige of qualifying.
This also sounds good, but I'd combine it. ie something like:
Come play the Canberra Championship to gain the title of Cardinal of
Canberra!*
* - this event is also a qualifier for the Australian Championships
My main concerns are with location and timing, though. Brisbane puts on
great events, from what I have heard. But I and many other southerners
are put off by the distance to get there. This of course works in
reverse if you have it somewhere else, as the Brisbane people will then
have the large amount of travel. It all depends on where the bulk of the
players are located to get an 'optimal' location for the championship.
The middle of the year is also an awkward time, as we're discovering.
Appolonius
>
> I never said the latter. I am fine with a 16 player championship. I am
> fine with the number of people qualifying. Of course, it would be great
> if more people came. What I'd like to know is what proportion of the
> qualified people actually turned up, if someone has that info? If 50
> Aussies qualified, but only 16 turned up, you'd look at factors other
> than the qualifying system to explain the turnout. If only 20 people
> qualified, and 16 turned up, well then yeah, we might want to look at
> the qualifying system.
I too was interested in this in the context of the current discussion.
Based solely on TheLasombra's earlier summary of qualified players plus
Aaron's Adelaide Qualifier summary (I suspect these don't tell the whole
story, but any embellishment would be pseudo-guesswork on my part), here
are the relevant figures:
Number of non-Brisbane players qualified: 21
Number of non-Brisbane players attending: 7
Tony.
Juggernaut1981
Yep that sounds about what I would have expected.
SteveHarris
> Number of non-Brisbane players qualified: 21
> Number of non-Brisbane players attending: 7
According to my records:
Number of non-Brisbane players qualified: 28
Number of non-Brisbane players attending: 9
Steve Harris
Prince of Brisbane
Jason
> If the VTES scene in Australia is THAT WEAK, if the player base
> is THAT FICKLE, then perhaps it should just die.
You really are just a sad little twat, aren't you?
jase
Jason
> According to my records:
>
> Number of non-Brisbane players qualified: 28
> Number of non-Brisbane players attending: 9
Do we have qualification vs attendance figures from pre-multi qual
years? (That might be a stretch, but would probably be a worthwhile
comparison)
jase
Chris Arthur
From my year as NC in 2007:
Qualifier Turnout Players qualified Organiser
Brisbane 12 6 1
Sydney 17 7 1
Rockhampton 9 3 1
Hobart 12 5 1
Wellington 7 4 1
Melbourne 19 6 1
Canberra 16 5 1
LCQ 38 10 -
Total num players qualified before LCQ = 43
Total num players qualified after LCQ = 53
Num players at Championship = 35
I'm not sure how many of the 10 players who qualified at the LCQ
actually played the next day but assuming they all did that means 25
of the Championship attendees came from the 43 previously qualified
players which is almost 60%. Not bad. I don't know why that year was
particularly well attended. I think it might have partly been because
it was in Sydney but it's not the whole explanation.
Are we getting as many people to qualifiers these days? I.e. Are Vtes
tourneys attracting the amount of players they used to?
Chris.
Chris Arthur
Yep but even if the same percentage of players here did that as the US
there would be far fewer actually doing it considering the different
population density.
Plus San Francisco is more interesting than Brisbane. :)
Chris.