2008 Continental Qualifier System Change
rob...@mindspring.com
one point:
All qualifier tournaments are handled equally regardless of order.
Players who qualify in one qualifier are not handled any differently
in other qualifiers.
They can continue to qualify in each qualifier in which they play.
So the business of figuring out who has already qualified (even if the
earlier qualifier's results haven't been reported) is eliminated.
The 5 finalists of each Continental Championship automatically qualify
for the next years Continental Championship for that region, as
usual.
Also note that, as in years past, if multiple players tie for a
qualifier spot, then all the tied players qualify. This is true for
the new 2008 rule for finals (tie for 2nd).
So if a qualifier has 12 players (3 qualifying spots), then all
finalists qualify (everyone who finishes in 1st or 2nd place).
An example:
Adam - 1st place => qualify.
Bruce - 2nd place (tie) => qualify
Bonnie - 2nd place (tie) => qualify
Bob - 2nd place (tie) => qualify
Brian - 2nd place (tie) => qualify
Fred - 6th place => doesn't qualify
Robyn Tatu
vtesr...@white-wolf.com
Jozxyqk
> So the business of figuring out who has already qualified (even if the
> earlier qualifier's results haven't been reported) is eliminated.
Wait, wait..
So if someone knows they have already qualified in a previous qualifier for
the year, they still "take up" a potential qualifier's spot? They can't "not
be playing to qualify" anymore?
Related, can you still "choose not to be playing to qualify" if, for example,
you know you're not going to be able to make it to a Continental Championship
this year because you're having a baby?
Ben Swainbank
> The 2008 qualifier system works the same as the 2007 system except for
> one point:
>
> All qualifier tournaments are handled equally regardless of order.
> Players who qualify in one qualifier are not handled any differently
> in other qualifiers.
Interesting. So, previously qualified players now both count towards
the total player count and can "take" a spot if they finish in the top
25%. Correct?
Is there still an option for players at at qualifier to indicate they
are not playing for one of the qualifying spots? Would that option be
available to a previously qualified player? Or has all of that been
done away with. Do the top 25% qualify now regardless of whether they
need it (or want it).
I can see how this simplifies things. And, in some ways, it makes it
easier to qualify. But, as someone who enjoys the competative
environment of qualifiers, and tries to take in a few every year -- I
don't really want worry about "stealing" spots from other players...
-Ben Swainbank
librarian
>
> An example:
>
> Adam - 1st place => qualify.
> Bruce - 2nd place (tie) => qualify
> Bonnie - 2nd place (tie) => qualify
> Bob - 2nd place (tie) => qualify
> Brian - 2nd place (tie) => qualify
> Fred - 6th place => doesn't qualify
I'm sure this was an inadvertent slip Fred. No really, she just needed
a relatively generic name that started with the 6th letter of the
alphabet. And there are so man Freds that play VTES, that she wasn't
picking you out specifically Fred (Scott, Genest, "Frede", erm, running
out here...)
Note that Chris didn't even make the final.
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com
LSJ
>> So the business of figuring out who has already qualified (even if the
>> earlier qualifier's results haven't been reported) is eliminated.
>
> Wait, wait..
> So if someone knows they have already qualified in a previous qualifier for
> the year, they still "take up" a potential qualifier's spot? They can't "not
> be playing to qualify" anymore?
Right.
> Related, can you still "choose not to be playing to qualify" if, for example,
> you know you're not going to be able to make it to a Continental Championship
> this year because you're having a baby?
Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying
spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots.
LSJ
> On Jan 30, 1:40 pm, roby...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> The 2008 qualifier system works the same as the 2007 system except for
>> one point:
>>
>> All qualifier tournaments are handled equally regardless of order.
>> Players who qualify in one qualifier are not handled any differently
>> in other qualifiers.
>
> Interesting. So, previously qualified players now both count towards
> the total player count and can "take" a spot if they finish in the top
> 25%. Correct?
Yes. (Or equivalently, the player who will subsequently qualify at a later
tournament still "takes" a spot away from the earlier tournament if xe finishes
in the top 25%).
> Is there still an option for players at at qualifier to indicate they
> are not playing for one of the qualifying spots? Would that option be
> available to a previously qualified player? Or has all of that been
> done away with. Do the top 25% qualify now regardless of whether they
> need it (or want it).
Everyone who plays counts, both for deciding how many spots there are and for
deciding who wins those spots.
> I can see how this simplifies things. And, in some ways, it makes it
> easier to qualify. But, as someone who enjoys the competative
> environment of qualifiers, and tries to take in a few every year -- I
> don't really want worry about "stealing" spots from other players...
Would you worry about stealing spots when you haven't qualified?
Then don't worry. Let them worry for themselves.
Jozxyqk
> Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying
> spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots.
I don't like this rule.
It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later
in the year, for no reason other than scheduling.
The LCQ ("meat grinder") is likely to produce zero new qualifying spots,
which sucks for the people who paid to go there assuming they'd have a
chance.
And I will feel really bad if I make it to the top 25% at this weekend's
Qualifier and someone else who really wants to go to the NAC misses out
by one slot... I apologize in advance.
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying
>> spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots.
>
> I don't like this rule.
> It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later
> in the year, for no reason other than scheduling.
If you mean "not easier and easier", sure.
The difficult remains the same under this system, rather than getting easier as
more and more people have previously qualified.
Clément
> LSJ wrote:
> > Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying
> > spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots.
>
> I don't like this rule.
> It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later
> in the year, for no reason other than scheduling.
> The LCQ ("meat grinder") is likely to produce zero new qualifying spots,
> which sucks for the people who paid to go there assuming they'd have a
> chance.
It's not whether it's harder to qualify that worries me, exactly.
In Brazil, we struggle to get over 20 players to the SAC and to our
National Championship. The reasons are the huge distances and
significant costs associated with traveling. The fact that a player
who knows he or she won't make the trip might decline the opportunity
to qualify means that we increase our chances to have the next player
attend the main championship.
We are working hard to promote larger events and traveling to play
VTES, and this is a (possibly mild) setback.
Anyway, I think the reasoning behind the change is sound, and the
rules are more elegant now. I guess we'll see how it goes.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Brazil VTES NC
atomweaver
b5a4-845...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> I can see how this simplifies things. And, in some ways, it makes it
> easier to qualify. But, as someone who enjoys the competative
> environment of qualifiers, and tries to take in a few every year -- I
> don't really want worry about "stealing" spots from other players...
>
> -Ben Swainbank
I was thinking the same thing... If I manage to get to TempleCon this
weekend, it'll be with a fun deck, not something truly competitive, as I
already know I have no chance of making the NAC this year, and wouldn't
want to make it harder for someone else to qualify, who might be able to
go.
(Me and TempleCon this weekend? Magic 8ball says "outlook not
promising" :-(
DaveZ
Johannes Walch
>> I can see how this simplifies things. And, in some ways, it makes it
>> easier to qualify. But, as someone who enjoys the competative
>> environment of qualifiers, and tries to take in a few every year -- I
>> don't really want worry about "stealing" spots from other players...
>
> Would you worry about stealing spots when you haven't qualified?
>
> Then don't worry. Let them worry for themselves.
Also keep in mind that you provide 1/4 qualifying slot to each event
where you go. So now it all depends if you kick ass or not :)
--
Johannes Walch
Jozxyqk
No. I mean "lots of skilled players have a tendency to visit multiple qualifier
events just for the fun of playing".
And the more of those people who travel to multiple qualifiers, the more chance
they have of "bullying out" legitimately-trying-to-qualify lower-skilled
players.
Intentionally or not.
I'm simply lobbying for there to be the ability to *choose* to give up your
potential qualifying spot, before the tournament begins, just like the 2007-and-
earlier rules.
Either that, or ban already-qualified players from playing in the Last Chance
Qualifier, and allow them to play in a parallel event instead.
Robert Goudie
[clip]
> So if a qualifier has 12 players (3 qualifying spots), then all
> finalists qualify (everyone who finishes in 1st or 2nd place).
>
> An example:
>
> Adam - 1st place => qualify.
> Bruce - 2nd place (tie) => qualify
> Bonnie - 2nd place (tie) => qualify
> Bob - 2nd place (tie) => qualify
Pfftt. It figures. I came in second again.
-Robert
Frederick Scott
news:21c1ab72-3ab9-416e...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> An example:
>
> Adam - 1st place => qualify.
> Bruce - 2nd place (tie) => qualify
> Bonnie - 2nd place (tie) => qualify
> Bob - 2nd place (tie) => qualify
> Brian - 2nd place (tie) => qualify
> Fred - 6th place => doesn't qualify
Gawd, has THAT been the story of my whole experience with qualifying....
(VERY realistic example, Robyn! :-P )
Frederick Scott
news:pe2dnYWysJbeSj3a...@comcast.com...
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying
>> spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots.
>
> I don't like this rule.
> It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later
> in the year, for no reason other than scheduling.
Actually, I'm not sure that's true. Same population of players, same difficulty
in finishing in the top 25%. In fact, it used to get easier to qualify as the
year went on, if anything.
The very good reason not to like the rule is that it turns already-qualified
players into "dogs in the manger" - people who can't improve their positions
by playing in a qualifier but can only prevent others from qualifying. In
my book, that's reason enough. This is a bad change.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:bd0583c8-190b-48e8...@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Anyway, I think the reasoning behind the change is sound, and the
> rules are more elegant now. I guess we'll see how it goes.
Er, what reasoning? No one actually offered any reasoning about why
the rules had to be changed. Perhaps simplicity is the only goal, but
it seemed to work well enough before. And, both of us have pointed
out, there are definite drawbacks.
Fred
Frederick Scott
"Ben Swainbank" <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d39f926-ad88-4199...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> I can see how this simplifies things. And, in some ways, it makes it
> easier to qualify.
Huh?!? How would it make it "easier to qualify"?!?
Frederick Scott
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:6h4oj.1206$R84...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> Ben Swainbank wrote:
>> But, as someone who enjoys the competative
>> environment of qualifiers, and tries to take in a few every year -- I
>> don't really want worry about "stealing" spots from other players...
>
> Would you worry about stealing spots when you haven't qualified?
No. You wouldn't have to because you wouldn't be. You'd be taking an
existing spot for yourself - as opposed to what Ben is talking about
where you take a qualifying spot make it go *poof*, into thin air -
usable by no one.
Fred
Ninale
the 07 NAC.
librarian
In a 12 player tournament, only 3 people in theory should qualify. But
actually 5 players will qualify. And that I guess goes up to 17 person
qualifiers. Here in the states, most Q's I remember from last year were
in the teens up to 30s level. Which in most cases won't matter.
Robyn and Scott of course have the exact numbers, and my bet is they
might have crunched the numbers to come to a fair approximation of how
many would qualify this year with these new rules, based on last year's
data. And perhaps if the old rules where already-qualified participants
are taken out, would have made the Championships "too easy" to get into.
librarian
> Must be a policy to deal with the overcrowding that occured like at
> the 07 NAC.
>
I think that overcrowding was only at the bar during the Manager's
Reception...
Frederick Scott
news:16a0e750-d0f9-4a18...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Must be a policy to deal with the overcrowding that occured like at
> the 07 NAC.
You mean like, the first day needing two additional players to fill
out the forty seats to qualify for the second day?
Yea, that aspect of it doesn't make much sense to me, either.
Fred
Frederick Scott
"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message news:7_5oj.17518$4H1....@newsfe07.phx...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> "Ben Swainbank" <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9d39f926-ad88-4199...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> I can see how this simplifies things. And, in some ways, it makes it
>>> easier to qualify.
>>
>> Huh?!? How would it make it "easier to qualify"?!?
>
> In a 12 player tournament, only 3 people in theory should qualify. But actually 5 players will qualify.
Well, OK - but that has nothing to do with the rule change being announced.
That's an artifact of the four-finals-losers-tie-for-second change to the
tournament rules. This change here can only make things tougher.
> Robyn and Scott of course have the exact numbers, and my bet is they might have crunched the numbers to come to a fair
> approximation of how many would qualify this year with these new rules, based on last year's data. And perhaps if the old rules
> where already-qualified participants are taken out, would have made the Championships "too easy" to get into.
You mean the two things approximately cancel out? I would find it
surprising if anyone cared. No one's cared exactly how 'hard' it is to
qualify since the inception of the system; I'd be shocked if they started
right now. My guess - until otherwise told - is that it's just about
simplifying things. But I think this little piece of complexity was
actually kind of important.
Fred
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Jozxyqk wrote:
>>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>> Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying
>>>> spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots.
>>> I don't like this rule.
>>> It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later
>>> in the year, for no reason other than scheduling.
>
>> If you mean "not easier and easier", sure.
>
>> The difficult remains the same under this system, rather than getting easier as
>> more and more people have previously qualified.
>
> No. I mean "lots of skilled players have a tendency to visit multiple qualifier
> events just for the fun of playing".
That has no bearing on any progressive difficulty like you posit.
How would having lots of skilled players at each qualifier make the qualifiers
harder and harder as the year goes by?
> And the more of those people who travel to multiple qualifiers, the more chance
> they have of "bullying out" legitimately-trying-to-qualify lower-skilled
> players.
> Intentionally or not.
OK.
> I'm simply lobbying for there to be the ability to *choose* to give up your
> potential qualifying spot, before the tournament begins, just like the 2007-and-
> earlier rules.
Attending a qualifier is not mandatory.
> Either that, or ban already-qualified players from playing in the Last Chance
> Qualifier, and allow them to play in a parallel event instead.
They are allowed at the open parallel events in any case.
And qualifiers are open.
John Flournoy
> "Jozxyqk" <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:pe2dnYWysJbeSj3a...@comcast.com...
>
> > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying
> >> spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots.
>
> > I don't like this rule.
> > It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later
> > in the year, for no reason other than scheduling.
>
> Actually, I'm not sure that's true. Same population of players, same difficulty
> in finishing in the top 25%. In fact, it used to get easier to qualify as the
> year went on, if anything.
>
> The very good reason not to like the rule is that it turns already-qualified
> players into "dogs in the manger" - people who can't improve their positions
> by playing in a qualifier but can only prevent others from qualifying. In
> my book, that's reason enough. This is a bad change.
>
> Fred
I sympathize with this argument, really.
But for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate, I'll point out this easy
counter-argument:
If you can't do reasonably well in a qualifier tournament where some
of the players have already qualified (or do so even once in several
tries), why should you be expected to do well in a tournament where
ALL the players have already qualified? Including the same people you
just failed to do well against at least once before (if not several
times?)
And by extension, if you thus can't be expected to do well in a
tournament where all the players have already qualified, why should
you be given an easier road to a qualification? (or heck, why should
you qualify to participate at all?)
Not saying I agree with the above, but I do see some validity to both
schools of thought...
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy
>
> news:pe2dnYWysJbeSj3a...@comcast.com...
>
> > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying
> >> spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots.
>
> > I don't like this rule.
> > It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later
> > in the year, for no reason other than scheduling.
>
> Actually, I'm not sure that's true. Same population of players, same difficulty
> in finishing in the top 25%. In fact, it used to get easier to qualify as the
> year went on, if anything.
>
> The very good reason not to like the rule is that it turns already-qualified
> players into "dogs in the manger" - people who can't improve their positions
> by playing in a qualifier but can only prevent others from qualifying. In
> my book, that's reason enough. This is a bad change.
I suppose it's also worth noting that this encourages already-
qualified players who do participate in subsequent qualifiers to take
that tournament seriously, instead of bringing wacky, oddball, stupid,
disruptive or otherwise 'for fun' decks that don't necessarily reflect
a serious tournament environment.
I don't know that this is better or worse, though.
> Fred
-John Flournoy
prophail
in the top 25% of a qualifier tournament (or making a final). Seems
very reasonable to me.
Frederick Scott
> On Jan 30, 3:03 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> The very good reason not to like the rule is that it turns already-qualified
>> players into "dogs in the manger" - people who can't improve their positions
>> by playing in a qualifier but can only prevent others from qualifying. In
>> my book, that's reason enough. This is a bad change.
>
>
> But for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate, I'll point out this easy
> counter-argument:
>
> If you can't do reasonably well in a qualifier tournament where some
> of the players have already qualified (or do so even once in several
> tries), why should you be expected to do well in a tournament where
> ALL the players have already qualified?
...and here's my answer: I don't care. I've jumped around to different
areas of the country (well, at least in the West and to GenCons) and in truth,
I'm not really all that impressed with the qualifier system's ability to
test real Jyhad skills and actually test whether a given player "can be
expected to do well". I never have been. You'd need a lot more games
to really do that anyway.
Actually, to be quite blunt, the qualifier system isn't put there to test
skill to that degree so let's not pretend it is. It's real raison d'etra
is to provide the VEKN tournament system with a series of more-important-
than-average tournaments which are thus regarded by players as being
more exciting then average. They bring extra color to a tournament season
which includes low key 'mundane' constructed tournaments, more exotic but
less formal Storylines and pre-releases, and the WoN/Continental
Championships at the other end of the pressure spectrum. Who, frankly,
gives a shit if someone only had to place 7th in a tournament they'd
normally have place 4th in to qualify? If I cared about which players
were skilled enough, I'd eliminate qualifying altogether and just invite
everybody and their pet guppies into the Continental Championships. That
way, we could be sure everybody had passed the same test of skill: none
whatsoever. And the Continental Championships would be a lot more fun.
What I want out of the qualifier system (in *this* context, anyway) is
to avoid any controversy around the question of whether pre-qualified
players should be playing in future qualifiers or how they should behave
if they do. Every time that subject comes up, it causes anger and
annoyance among players. The rule we had was the right one. We should
keep it.
Fred
Frederick Scott
> On Jan 30, 3:03 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> The very good reason not to like the rule is that it turns already-qualified
>> players into "dogs in the manger" - people who can't improve their positions
>> by playing in a qualifier but can only prevent others from qualifying. In
>> my book, that's reason enough. This is a bad change.
>
> I suppose it's also worth noting that this encourages already-
> qualified players who do participate in subsequent qualifiers to take
> that tournament seriously,
The above isn't clear whether you thought the original rule did that
or the new rule did. Either way, I'm confused how. Once a player's
qualified, he has less incentive to worry about doing as well as he
can no matter how you slice it. Of course, he still has a tournament to
win and that strikes me as pretty good incentive none the less.
Fred
Huruem
I've been a huge number of qualifiers in my past years of "VTES
touring" in France, and in each of these qualifiers, there was at
least one or two guys, in the final, already qualified previously in a
former qualifier. It gave hope to the average young player who did his
best to get qualified with his average deck that he played well, but
had a poor result due to bad seating. I know, losing is part of the
game, but losing a qualifier slot, because some hardcore player, who
reaches the final in each tourney he's playing, and who has already
played already in 5 qualifiers...
I know it's makes life far easier for the organisers (who just had to
keep a list of players updated and bring it to the tourney) but I
think it's extremly unfair to the noobs who are putting a lot of
effort and money to progress in VTES.
Petri Wessman
there have been quite a few people (sometimes even half!) who have
already qualified. They are there and playing because playing in
tournaments is fun, and they feel like attending. Previously, they
could do so without harming anyone else's chances of qualifying. Now,
the people who are already qualified are very likely to "eat up"
qualifier slots should they attend, because they tend to be the better
players anyway so they have a higher-than normal chance of winning
this tournament, too.
I'm tempted to disallow already-qualified players from attending
qualifier tournaments, myself. Which will suck for them, of course,
but seems to be a better option than the other one.
All I see this change doing is creating some ill-will between players,
to be honest.
//Petri
Huruem
> qualifier tournaments, myself. Which will suck for them, of course,
> but seems to be a better option than the other one.
>
THIS is something that shouldn't happen, Just like already qualified
players should not feel like not coming to a tournament not to harm
anyone. This is just wrong.
ira...@gmail.com
> Would you worry about stealing spots when you haven't qualified?
If I don't intend to go, then yes.
> Then don't worry. Let them worry for themselves.
One of the great things about VTES is the community. While we may
play methuselah's in the game, the actual players are great people who
care about their friends and fellow players.
LSJ (or whoever is responsible for this change), I believe you have
implemented something that will reduce the total number of
qualifiers. IMO, that is exactly the opposite direction this game
should be heading.
Alternately, keep your elegant rule, but change 25% to 50%. Heck,
let's go crazy - change 25% to 100%. What might happen? Hopefully
more than 36 people would show up for the NAC.
I place high value on having a big NAC tournament, and I believe the
barriers to entry are primarily travel and lodging costs. It's a
shame to make qualifying a significant barrier. That said, there is
something sweet about qualifying, but I think the previous situation
of it becoming easier and easier (especially so at the LCQ when you've
already traveled there) was a Good Thing.
I don't really think 100% qualifying is a good idea because it will
devalue the pleasure of qualifying, but I think 50% would be an
improvement over the current rule.
Ira
John Flournoy
> "John Flournoy" <carne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Prior to this new change, a player who had already qualified had no
incentive to do well in a subsequent qualifier tournament above 'it's
another tournament'.
His incentives were basically prize support (which some good players
don't need when it consists of more cards) or ratings points (which do
nothing aside from bragging rights. Not that bragging rights are bad.)
So some players have in the past gone to later qualifiers playing
'fun' decks because 'hey, why not, I don't care if I do well today!'
With this new change, as you note those players now have an extra
reason that did not exist before to try to play their best deck at a
subsequent qualifier - to prevent other people from qualifying.
> Fred
-John Flournoy
Clément
> "Clément" wrote in message
>
> > Anyway, I think the reasoning behind the change is sound, and the
> > rules are more elegant now. I guess we'll see how it goes.
>
> Er, what reasoning? No one actually offered any reasoning about why
> the rules had to be changed. Perhaps simplicity is the only goal, but
> it seemed to work well enough before.
I meant the simplicity, yes, but also eliminating the possible
difficulty of handling previously qualified players when you don't
have previous results readily available, and making all qualifier
events have the same requirement to qualify (i.e. finishing top 25%
overall, regardless of anything else).
As far as rules go, I have no problem with the new criteria.
My concerns are related to promoting the game, and have more players
participate in our major events. We have a hard time figuring out ways
to encourage people to travel and increase attendance. Anything that
might make it more likely that people willing to travel will not
qualify is not very good news.
Maybe it won't have any negative effect at all, hopefully not.
Another thing that concerns me is something that you and others have
pointed out in other messages.
If I'm already qualified because I'm the South American champion or
something, I'm a 100% sure not to attend other qualifier events. My
desire to play in such an event is not big enough to risk stealing a
spot from another player (maybe that's the prince/NC in me speaking,
but still). Since I won't attend a tournament and not try my best,
then I guess it's just better if I don't play. That's not good, IMHO.
And I don't want even go into the subject of already qualified players
being accused not trying their best to help their buddies qualify...
> And, both of us have pointed
> out, there are definite drawbacks.
Sure. I just meant that the new rule makes sense in itself, and that I
believe there is a possibility it will work out just fine.
My concerns remain the same.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Brazil VTES NC
Frederick Scott
> On Jan 31, 1:23 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> "John Flournoy" <carne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:c63cf35c-65b2-4000...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 3:03 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> >> The very good reason not to like the rule is that it turns already-qualified
>> >> players into "dogs in the manger" - people who can't improve their positions
>> >> by playing in a qualifier but can only prevent others from qualifying. In
>> >> my book, that's reason enough. This is a bad change.
>>
>> > I suppose it's also worth noting that this encourages already-
>> > qualified players who do participate in subsequent qualifiers to take
>> > that tournament seriously,
>>
>> to worry about doing as well as he can no matter how you slice it.
> With this new change, as you note those players now have an extra
> reason that did not exist before to try to play their best deck at a
> subsequent qualifier - to prevent other people from qualifying.
Um, I wasn't citing that as an actual motive. Like, Ben Peal's realistically
going to want to roam the corridors of East Coast qualifying tournaments bopping
other potential comers out of the Continental Championship so the first day
of the NAC can come up, say, 10 or 15 players short of the 40 it was originally
intended to whittle the field down to instead of only two players short like
it was this year. My point was that it would have that effect even though
the pre-qualified - as Ben Swainback noted elsewhere in the thread - didn't
really want it to. In fact, competetitive though we are, I don't think many
of us would really deliberately want to keep someone else from qualifying,
were it all the same to our own qualification status. Thus the change actually
serves as a DISincentive for the qualified to do well at other qualifiers.
Whether a strong, weak, or unnoticeable disincentive depends on the person but
it's a bad thing in any event.
Fred
OrgPlay
IMHO. wacky, oddball, stupid and disruptive decks make it much much
harder for someone trying to qualify. when you upset the table balance
because you "dont' care about qualifying" you hurt the integrity of
the tournament. If you play VTES, you play to win. otherwise, you're
playing a different game.
Oscar Garza
Organized Play Coordinator
CCP|WhiteWolf
jcrossn...@gmail.com
> IMHO. wacky, oddball, stupid and disruptive decks make it much much
> harder for someone trying to qualify. when you upset the table balance
> because you "dont' care about qualifying" you hurt the integrity of
> the tournament. If you play VTES, you play to win. otherwise, you're
> playing a different game.
I agree quite heartily, having had my fair share of frustrating
experiences with cross table players whose decks don't do anything.
People really should go to every tournament with the intent play their
best. That said, don't I remember you playing some sort of mono-QUI
deck at NERQ last year?
Jesse
Frederick Scott
<jcrossn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:717cad9d-bb57-4a7b...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
To play devil's advocate here (and getting off the subject a bit), the
trouble with this view is that choice in how to pursue victory is the
whole charm of CCGs over board games. It's unfortunate when a Slaughterhouse
deck or something throws table balance to the winds and screws someone out
of their chance to win through no fault of their own. But if you print
Slaughterhouses and you allow them in the tournament then you can't be
upset when someone chooses to try the option. I agree, the results can
be highly frustrating but a lot of dumb luck issues in tournaments can
be likewise frustrating. And it will never be possible to separate out
someone's lack of desire to qualify from their positive desire to play
the oddball deck they want to play.
And - to get back to the issue at hand - it really doesn't matter. The
rule change doesn't provide qualifiers any more incentive to qualify. As
I pointed out in my previous post, if anything it's the opposite.
Fred
jcrossn...@gmail.com
> To play devil's advocate here (and getting off the subject a bit),
the
> trouble with this view is that choice in how to pursue victory is the
> whole charm of CCGs over board games. It's unfortunate when a Slaughterhouse
> deck or something throws table balance to the winds and screws someone out
> of their chance to win through no fault of their own. But if you print
> Slaughterhouses and you allow them in the tournament then you can't be
> upset when someone chooses to try the option. I agree, the results can
> be highly frustrating but a lot of dumb luck issues in tournaments can
> be likewise frustrating. And it will never be possible to separate out
> someone's lack of desire to qualify from their positive desire to play
> the oddball deck they want to play.
I certainly agree. I could have clarified what I was saying a bit
more, but I didn't want to make the thread longer than needed, since,
as you note, it's beside the point. If you think that a Slaughterhouse
deck is a good way to win, and you pursue that goal seriously, then
I'm all for it. I'm referring more to decks that really just aren't
built with winning as a serious goal, but more for the purpose of
showing off some wacky stunt or pursuing an inside joke. Those decks
can be fun for the right occasions, or for testing weird ideas that
might actually be good, but tournaments (qualifier or not) are not the
right place for them.
Jesse
John P.
connected to the topic I've been pondering.
Do qualifiers still serve a purpose in the North American tournament
scene?
If for a moment we ignore North Americans travelling to Europe or
Australia,
and ignore the effect of qualifiers on rating points.
I'm assuming the following:
1) The game is best served by increased participation and attendance
at the NAC and the week of Nightmares
2) Ignoring the European/Australian scene as I know very little about
it. Consider
my comments confined to North America.
3) Ignoring for now the effects of North Americans travelling
to other continental championships.
Why, with the advent of the two day championship event do
we still have qualifiers at all?
Currently before every major event including the NAC that requires
qualification there is a last-chance qualifier. The organizers of such
events must therefore plan to run an event that could include every
player that shows up. So space allowances are not the
driving force.
With the two day championship there is a culling down to a manageable
size so that the top players are more likely to play against opponents
that have not got there by a "fluke". In a 40 person cut like the NAC
uses
each player is likely to play against 12 other decks, or about 1/3rd
of the field.
So why not use the two day format to its fullest effect? No
qualifiers,
just a large field on Day 1. It should increase, or at least not hurt
NAC. And the side event on day 2 would be really large (which is
good).
Can someone point out the drawback for me?
And would this work outside North America?
Personal Disclosure: I've gone to NACs qualified and unqualified.
I just enjoy playing in large events.
John P.
Winnipeg
rob...@mindspring.com
I'm not specifically targeting you, Fred.... I think this is a good
place to insert this.
I have always been sensitive about the qualifier system because I
don't want anyone left out - it's not like we don't have enough
challenges finding people to play Vtes with.......it's a very demanding
game. But, I commit to it regardless of the qualifier system.
The organizers of the Championships have gone out of their way to make
sure that if I attend there will be plenty of Vtes activities to keep
me busy so I have always committed to going whether I was qualified or
not.
415 people qualified last year.
26% of them ended up at the most well attended of the Championships in
Sweden in 2007.
30% of the folks who attended the NAC in Los Angeles last year were
also in Sweden at the EC.
31% of the folks who attended the NAC, were NOT qualified before they
came.
Don't feel bad about being so good that you might 'steal' a qualifying
spot from someone.
Even IF they qualify, the odds are, they won't show up at the
Championship anyway.
Robyn Tatu
XZealot
Hey! I do play to win! Don't think it goes any other way.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Sten During
> Can someone point out the drawback for me?
>
> And would this work outside North America?
>
>
As long as the organizers could handle an attendance varying
between 150 - 350 players without knowing at the time they
book the venue where they will land in numbers.
Of course, after a few years, the numbers would stabilize.
Yes, it would work, but we'd most likely be forced to turn
players away at the door in a worst case scenario or simply
forbid anyone to enter who wasn't prepaid well in advance.
There are drawbacks to any system, including the one being
used, but I personally prefer some kind of qualifying limits
to a free for all championship.
Now, the 2008 rules, should make a lot less impact on the
North American scene than on the European. Any standard
qualifier with 16 or less attendants will yield at least
five qualifying spots. How a tie for last final place is
handled I don't know, but I guess a 10 player qualifier
with two players tied for fifth place will result in 6
players qualifying as a coin toss should not be used for
determining who qualifies.
Robin, could you give us an official on this?
The Central European arena sees a LOT of cross breeding, so
if anyone should scream bloody murder it should be us over
here as we basically never run a qualifier with less than 20
attendants.
Still I see no reason why an autumn qualifier should be easier
to qualify from than a spring one, which is the situation with
the 2007 system.
Anyway, there are other paths for a qualification spot, namely
the mini qualifier, being a finalist at a continental
Championship one year earlier or running a qualifier.
Now, I would personally like to see at least yet another path
to qualification. Rating, if it would be possible and reasonably
hassle free.
Sten
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
LSJ
> Now, the 2008 rules, should make a lot less impact on the
> North American scene than on the European. Any standard
> qualifier with 16 or less attendants will yield at least
> five qualifying spots.
Indeed, every standard qualifier with 5 or more attendees generates at least 5
qualifying spots, given the 2008 rules.
4p = 1 qual = Winner qualifies, no one else does.
5+ = 2 or more qual = Winner and 4 tied-for-2nd players qualify.
> How a tie for last final place is
> handled I don't know, but I guess a 10 player qualifier
> with two players tied for fifth place will result in 6
> players qualifying as a coin toss should not be used for
> determining who qualifies.
>
> Robin, could you give us an official on this?
See the posted example in which Fred comes in 6th.
10 p = 10/4 round up = 3 qualifying spots.
So anyone finishing in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place qualifies.
Given the current VEKN rules on finals, that means that all the finalists
qualify (since they come in 1st or tied for 2nd) and no one else does (since
they come in 6th or worse).
> The Central European arena sees a LOT of cross breeding, so
> if anyone should scream bloody murder it should be us over
> here as we basically never run a qualifier with less than 20
> attendants.
In reality, no qualifier *should* be run with fewer than 20p.
That old criterion is still worth adhering to today.
That holds as much for the New World as it does for the Old.
> Still I see no reason why an autumn qualifier should be easier
> to qualify from than a spring one, which is the situation with
> the 2007 system.
Agreed.
Salem
> I'm actualy pretty pissed by these changes.
> I've been a huge number of qualifiers in my past years of "VTES
> touring" in France, and in each of these qualifiers, there was at
> least one or two guys, in the final, already qualified previously in a
> former qualifier. It gave hope to the average young player who did his
> best to get qualified with his average deck that he played well, but
> had a poor result due to bad seating. I know, losing is part of the
> game, but losing a qualifier slot, because some hardcore player, who
> reaches the final in each tourney he's playing, and who has already
> played already in 5 qualifiers...
unless your qualifier tournament only has 4 players in total, there will
be at least 2 qualifying spots.
if you're in the final, the worst you can possibly do is tie for 2nd.
ergo, every finalist will qualify. which, to me, seems like a good thing!
or am i missing the thrust of your post?
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
Mongrel (MDH)
> All qualifier tournaments are handled equally regardless of order.
> Players who qualify in one qualifier are not handled any differently
> in other qualifiers.
> They can continue to qualify in each qualifier in which they play.
Personally, I'm kind of disheartened by this. With the NAC so
geographically close to the US Northeast this year, I hate to see some
of my players possibly denied qualification due to this last-minute
change.
I'm running the Northeast US qualifier tomorrow and I am expecting a
few 2007 NAC finalists as attendees. I don't think that those players
are looking to "steal" qualifier seats. Quite possibly, the players
whose seats would be poached would also be the same people that would
share NAC transportation and lodging costs.
The issue of fairness has been brought up, but is it really an issue
in this case? I don't think that there's been many complaints from
early-qualified players about how much easier it is for late-qualified
players.
So, I ask -
Please make championship finalists exempt from qualifiers. (as per
the "pre-qualified players don't count" rule from before) As they are
exempt for the entire season, it doesn't affect the fairness of early
vs. late qualifier events.
Please allow players to exempt themselves from qualifiers if they know
they cannot attend the NAC. (as long as they exempt themselves for the
entire season) Again, this doesn't affect fairness of early vs. late,
but it would increase the pool of qualified players.
Thank you,
Matt Hirsch
VEKN Prince of Boston
Sten During
>> handled I don't know, but I guess a 10 player qualifier
>> with two players tied for fifth place will result in 6
>> players qualifying as a coin toss should not be used for
>> determining who qualifies.
>>
>> Robin, could you give us an official on this?
>
> See the posted example in which Fred comes in 6th.
>
> 10 p = 10/4 round up = 3 qualifying spots.
>
> So anyone finishing in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place qualifies.
>
> Given the current VEKN rules on finals, that means that all the
> finalists qualify (since they come in 1st or tied for 2nd) and no
one
> else does (since they come in 6th or worse).
>
Hmm, that would be a deviation from the 2007 system.
Example 1) Assume a 20 player qualifier during 2007. Place 5 is
a tie (1GW 4VP 90TP) between two (or more players). Even though
2007 tournament rules state that a randomizer be used for a
tiebreaker and that we thus get exactly ONE fifth placed player
we would still have six (or more) players qualifying for the
championship. (Ie, the player(s) not randomized into the final
round still qualify)
Example 2) As above, but this year. Did player(s) placed in sixth
place just lose their qualification spot due to a coin toss?
Example 3) As 2) above but with 10 players. (Example 3 added
only to tie in with my quoted question.)
Qualifiers start soon, so we kind of need to know. Now, I WILL
state that I personally would be VERY much in disagreement with
a change in the direction implied, for the reason that the examples
I present above make it absolutely clear that all qualifying
performance for getting a place in the championship is, from 2008,
explicitly determined during the preliminary rounds (unless we
have a peculiar qualifier with 4 players), and the final round no
longer have an even theoretical impact on who qualifies.
Having to roll dice prior to the final round in order to determine,
once and for all, who qualifies, and who does not, seems harsh in
extreme. Prior to 2008 (in a 16, or smaller, player qualifier) the
lucky player (got to the finals by means of coin toss) would at least
have to avoid fifth position during the final round. Even though
I AM aware that luck DOES play a role in any given game this still
feels more like a matter of personal performance.
Sten During
LSJ
> Hmm, that would be a deviation from the 2007 system.
If so, then OK.
> Example 1) Assume a 20 player qualifier during 2007. Place 5 is
> a tie (1GW 4VP 90TP) between two (or more players). Even though
> 2007 tournament rules state that a randomizer be used for a
> tiebreaker and that we thus get exactly ONE fifth placed player
> we would still have six (or more) players qualifying for the
> championship. (Ie, the player(s) not randomized into the final
> round still qualify)
That matches. No deviation.
> Example 2) As above, but this year. Did player(s) placed in sixth
> place just lose their qualification spot due to a coin toss?
No. The players tied for 5th qualify.
> Example 3) As 2) above but with 10 players. (Example 3 added
> only to tie in with my quoted question.)
Last year and this year:
10 p = 3 q. That's less than 5, so the finals must be played to determine
qualifiers. So qualifiers aren't set by pre-final standing, but rather by
post-final standing.
This year, that's just a formality, of course, because the finalists will end up
in 1st or tied-for-2nd positions.
John P.
> As long as the organizers could handle an attendance varying
> between 150 - 350 players without knowing at the time they
> book the venue where they will land in numbers.
>
> Of course, after a few years, the numbers would stabilize.
>
> Yes, it would work, but we'd most likely be forced to turn
> players away at the door in a worst case scenario or simply
> forbid anyone to enter who wasn't prepaid well in advance.
Is there turn-away right now for the last chance qualifier?
Theoretically the first day would only be slightly larger
than the current LCQ - adding only those players
who decide not to play as they are already qualified. At the
NAC that seems a pretty small addition.
-John P
Winnipeg
Sten During
>>
>> Yes, it would work, but we'd most likely be forced to turn
>> players away at the door in a worst case scenario or simply
>> forbid anyone to enter who wasn't prepaid well in advance.
>
> Is there turn-away right now for the last chance qualifier?
> Theoretically the first day would only be slightly larger
> than the current LCQ - adding only those players
> who decide not to play as they are already qualified. At the
> NAC that seems a pretty small addition.
>
That's not really the same thing. Even though I personally
belong to a group of players who happily travel (if economy
allows) to the EC (being European as I am) without having
qualified prior to the event, I know of several players who
decided NOT to make the journey because they didn't want to
take the chances with the LCQ.
The LCQ thus acts as a deterrent to some degree.
Now, one could argue that the pleasure of going to the EC
really is to meet all the people. This is an opinion I share,
but I fully respect those who do not think so.
Now, assume we live in a VTES-world where everyone is
automatically qualified, and the current year's EC is somewhere
in Central Europe. I can see how two groups of over twenty
players each decide to participate a day or two before the
event. That would, potentially, NOT be fun for the organizers.
Sten During
Sten During
>
> Last year and this year:
>
> 10 p = 3 q. That's less than 5, so the finals must be played to
> determine qualifiers. So qualifiers aren't set by pre-final standing,
> but rather by post-final standing.
>
> This year, that's just a formality, of course, because the finalists
> will end up in 1st or tied-for-2nd positions.
Sorry, but how many DID qualify this year? 5 or 6+? (Given the example
above)
clechasseur...@catnip-software.com
> Jozxyqk wrote:
> > And the more of those people who travel to multiple qualifiers, the more chance
> > they have of "bullying out" legitimately-trying-to-qualify lower-skilled
> > players.
> > Intentionally or not.
>
> OK.
I understand how this might be a good idea in practice to make the
playing field more level (I am not sure I agree that it will, but the
intentions are good), but I think this is a misguided policy to
introduce given the current state of the game.
Last year, there were less than 40 players participating in the NAC.
This made the "40 players qualify for the first day" kind of weird
and, in my opinion, is definitely a symptom of the game being less and
less popular... I know that WW officially issued an apology letter to
the community a while back. Then, we see a policy introduced that,
while maybe making qualifiers "more balanced", also mean that less
players will probably qualify for the championship (either that, or
people will be forced to skip qualifiers to avoid "stealing" spots -
great idea to encourage people to play the game). Did we really need a
rule to make things balanced now? Does it really mattered all that
much that some people who chose to drive to multiple qualifiers made
them just a wee bit easier, while also making them more popular and
thus promoting the game as being more alive and kicking?
I sincerely hope that attendance will be great at the 2008 NAC here in
Montréal and I may be wrong that this policy change will affect the
outcome, but with all due respect, I still find it sad to see a WW
representative simply say "OK" when replying to somebody that points
out that this change could lead to a drop in attendance.
Meej
> Sten During wrote:
> > Hmm, that would be a deviation from the 2007 system.
>
> If so, then OK.
>
> > Example 1) Assume a 20 player qualifier during 2007. Place 5 is
> > a tie (1GW 4VP 90TP) between two (or more players). Even though
> > 2007 tournament rules state that a randomizer be used for a
> > tiebreaker and that we thus get exactly ONE fifth placed player
> > we would still have six (or more) players qualifying for the
> > championship. (Ie, the player(s) not randomized into the final
> > round still qualify)
>
> That matches. No deviation.
>
> > Example 2) As above, but this year. Did player(s) placed in sixth
> > place just lose their qualification spot due to a coin toss?
>
> No. The players tied for 5th qualify.
How does that happen? There are no players in 5th place under 2008
VEKN rules, as the winner is 1st, the other finalists tie for 2nd, and
all non-finalists start counting off at 6th place. At least as far as
I've understood it so far.
- D.J.
LSJ
>> Last year and this year:
>>
>> 10 p = 3 q. That's less than 5, so the finals must be played to
>> determine qualifiers. So qualifiers aren't set by pre-final standing,
>> but rather by post-final standing.
>>
>> This year, that's just a formality, of course, because the finalists
>> will end up in 1st or tied-for-2nd positions.
>
> Sorry, but how many DID qualify this year? 5 or 6+? (Given the example
> above)
With 10p in the tournament?
Everyone in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place.
This year: 5
Last year: 3 (assuming 10 == # of non-previously-qualified players)
LSJ
As in previous years, if the # of qualifying spots is 5 or more, the you can
identify the finalists before the finals.
Clément
> So, I ask -
> Please make championship finalists exempt from qualifiers. (as per
> the "pre-qualified players don't count" rule from before) As they are
> exempt for the entire season, it doesn't affect the fairness of early
> vs. late qualifier events.
>
> Please allow players to exempt themselves from qualifiers if they know
> they cannot attend the NAC. (as long as they exempt themselves for the
> entire season) Again, this doesn't affect fairness of early vs. late,
> but it would increase the pool of qualified players.
Both sound like sensible proposals to me, and a fine compromise
between the simplicity/fairness of the new rules and our concerns
about not making it harder for people to travel and play VTES.
atomweaver
news:7ebb2d88-c677-457e...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 30, 5:41 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Jozxyqk wrote:
>> > And the more of those people who travel to multiple qualifiers, the
>> > more
> chance
>> > they have of "bullying out" legitimately-trying-to-qualify
>> > lower-skilled
>
>> > players.
>> > Intentionally or not.
>>
>> OK.
>
> I understand how this might be a good idea in practice to make the
> playing field more level (I am not sure I agree that it will, but the
> intentions are good), but I think this is a misguided policy to
> introduce given the current state of the game.
>
> Last year, there were less than 40 players participating in the NAC.
> This made the "40 players qualify for the first day" kind of weird
> and, in my opinion, is definitely a symptom of the game being less and
> less popular...
You'd need a trend for that to be true. IIRC, prior to '07, the trend in
attendance was upwards for the NAC. I think its just as easy to make hte
case that traveling to LA is inherently expensive. The LA crew found an
astoundingly good deal on hotel prices (for LA), but there is little that
they can do about the minimum $600 to $800 cross-continent air fare. As
the larger share of qualifiers are in the East and midwest (true for both
US and Canada), it stands to reason that a further distance (and therefore
a pricier trip) would keep a few more people away.
> I know that WW officially issued an apology letter to
> the community a while back. Then, we see a policy introduced that,
> while maybe making qualifiers "more balanced", also mean that less
> players will probably qualify for the championship (either that, or
> people will be forced to skip qualifiers to avoid "stealing" spots -
> great idea to encourage people to play the game). Did we really need a
> rule to make things balanced now? Does it really mattered all that
> much that some people who chose to drive to multiple qualifiers made
> them just a wee bit easier, while also making them more popular and
> thus promoting the game as being more alive and kicking?
>
I think you underestimate the character of our better players, here. I'm
not so concerned about this new rule's effect on numbers which qualify. I
think that the number of talented players willing to travel, who would also
seek to 'snipe' extra qualifying spots away from others are few and far
between, if not totally non-existent.
This rule facilitates just as much those same already-qualified people
showing up with decks just-off prime tech, and play challenging (but maybe
not "A" game level) to be certain not to take a qualifying spot, and
deliver their 1/4 qulaifying spot to others.
> I sincerely hope that attendance will be great at the 2008 NAC here in
> Montréal and I may be wrong that this policy change will affect the
> outcome, but with all due respect, I still find it sad to see a WW
> representative simply say "OK" when replying to somebody that points
> out that this change could lead to a drop in attendance.
>
Mmm. One thing I might have preferred, would have been an open dialogue
with the players _before_ the decision was made. Wasn't improving
communication with the players part of that apology letter? This wouldn't
have come as a mild suprise, were that route chosen.
DaveZ
Peter D Bakija
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, but how many DID qualify this year? 5 or 6+? (Given the example
> > above)
>
> With 10p in the tournament?
>
> Everyone in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place.
>
> This year: 5
> Last year: 3 (assuming 10 == # of non-previously-qualified players)
As I'm only half way paying attention to this discussion, and just so I
fully understand, the current plan is:
-A given qualifier will qualify 5 or 25% of the attendees, whichever is
greater.
-So an 8 person Qualifier will qualify 5 people.
-A 14 person Qualifier will qualify 5 people.
-A 30 person Qualifier will qualify 8 people.
-etc.
Sounds good to me.
So a few extra people will qualify over last year. As 18 people is the
break even point (.25 of 18 is 4.5, round up to 5), is this really gonna
produce that many extra qualified folks? How many Qualifier tournaments
around the world had fewer than 18 players? I know there were "mini
qualifiers", but doesn't only the winner of the mini qualifier get
qualified?
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"Find hungry samurai."
-The Old Man
librarian
>
> So, I ask -
> Please make championship finalists exempt from qualifiers. (as per
> the "pre-qualified players don't count" rule from before) As they are
> exempt for the entire season, it doesn't affect the fairness of early
> vs. late qualifier events.
>
> Please allow players to exempt themselves from qualifiers if they know
> they cannot attend the NAC. (as long as they exempt themselves for the
> entire season) Again, this doesn't affect fairness of early vs. late,
> but it would increase the pool of qualified players.
Both of these are good fixes. I also think they should be instituted.
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com
Frederick Scott
news:47a2...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
I think you're assuming his qualifier tournaments have less than 20 players.
If they have more than 20 players, the everyone-ties-for-2nd-place change doesn't
matter anymore. Keep in mind, there's two separate changes here and only
one that's actually bothersome. If the other one - the ETF2P change - covers
for some of the difference, that's fine but it doesn't fix the problem and it
doesn't even help at all for tournaments over 20 players. In fact, it actually
doesn't help if you've got fewer players but the pre-qualified finalists
outnumber the number of extra qualifier spots gained by the ETF2P change,
so it might not cover the difference if you have as few as 8 or 12 in your
qualifier.
Fred
Jozxyqk
> You'd need a trend for that to be true. IIRC, prior to '07, the trend in
> attendance was upwards for the NAC. I think its just as easy to make hte
> case that traveling to LA is inherently expensive.
...and the fact that they scheduled the NAC on Yom Kippur...
Frederick Scott
news:0bd307b3-57e8-4eca...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Please allow players to exempt themselves from qualifiers if they know
> they cannot attend the NAC. (as long as they exempt themselves for the
> entire season) Again, this doesn't affect fairness of early vs. late,
> but it would increase the pool of qualified players.
In a pinch, I think this would definitely be better than the new system
announced. It has the weird sort-of drawback of putting pressure on the
pre-qualified to make a decision: "Do I allow myself to 'count', adding
1/4th of a qualifier position to the total but giving me the potential
of making a qualifier spot go *poof* if I do well (net less -3/4ths of
a qualifier position)? Or do I steer clear and not allow myself to
count against the total?" Of course, if the tournament has less than
20, the genteel choice would be to choose the latter since you wouldn't
be adding to the number of possible qualifier spots. Will the pre-
qualified be genteel? One would hope so - but your proposal leaves it
for them to choose. The issue would be rife with potential for
unnecessary interpersonal annoyance.
Fred
Mongrel (MDH)
That's not what I'm proposing.
1) Pre-qualified finalists would be all exempt. This should cover all
finalists. Not an issue of player choice.
2) Self-exempt players would exempt themselves from qualification for
the entire season. That means they state their exemption at the first
qualifier, and they are committed to that decision for any other
qualifiers they attend.
-Matt
Frederick Scott
This last sentence is a new constraint you hadn't mentioned before. I
would suggest that it's problematic. I also still think the point of the
announced rule change was for simplification sake (not an attempt to even out
the difficulty of qualifying from the beginning of the year to the end; in
fact, LSJ mentioned it would have that effect but he didn't state that
was goal). This new constraint actually causes as much or more complexity
as there was before in terms of tracking player intent. If a player
disqualifies himself in one CQ, how would they know that in another CQ?
Would organizers have to start sending lists of self-exempt players to
VEKN? And what if they changed their mind, later? What if their life
situation changed? You're going to hold them to their prior declaration?
As a one-time statement of how to handle a player in a given qualifier,
your proposal is pretty reasonable. But trying to track such a thing
over a tournament year is not something VEKN should get involved in.
Fred
Salem
It just seemed like he was saying a guy with an average deck who gets
into the finals due to good playing could be screwed out of qualifying
if there is a great player or two who've already qualified who crushes
him there.
I couldn't see how that scenario would arise unless the tournament had
less than 5 people. In which case making the finals isn't necessarily
because of good play. It's a numerical inevitability.
Frederick Scott
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> "Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:47a2...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>> Huruem wrote:
>>>> I'm actualy pretty pissed by these changes.
>>>> I've been a huge number of qualifiers in my past years of "VTES
>>>> touring" in France, and in each of these qualifiers, there was at
>>>> least one or two guys, in the final, already qualified previously in a
>>>> former qualifier. It gave hope to the average young player who did his
>>>> best to get qualified with his average deck that he played well, but
>>>> had a poor result due to bad seating. I know, losing is part of the
>>>> game, but losing a qualifier slot, because some hardcore player, who
>>>> reaches the final in each tourney he's playing, and who has already
>>>> played already in 5 qualifiers...
>>>
>>> unless your qualifier tournament only has 4 players in total, there will
>>> be at least 2 qualifying spots.
>>>
>>> if you're in the final, the worst you can possibly do is tie for 2nd.
>>>
>>> ergo, every finalist will qualify. which, to me, seems like a good thing!
>>>
>>> or am i missing the thrust of your post?
>>
>> I think you're assuming his qualifier tournaments have less than 20 players.
> It just seemed like he was saying a guy with an average deck who gets
> into the finals due to good playing could be screwed out of qualifying
> if there is a great player or two who've already qualified who crushes
> him there.
>
> I couldn't see how that scenario would arise unless the tournament had less than 5 people.
He actually didn't say the 'average young guy' had made the finals. That
guy could have placed, like 7th or something in a 24 player tournament
and his example still works fine.
Fred
Tetragrammaton
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:GqHoj.8992$Ej5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Is all of this (new qualifier system) valid for the last chanche qualifier ?
If yes, i think it would be very bad (in respect of luring non-qualified
players to the CC event) letting the LCQ open to already-qualified players,
under the
new system.
Because at LCQ there are, usually, plenty of already qualified players
willing to play and, therefore, under the new system there will be lot of
qualification slots (at LCQ) drained away by them.
So i hope that the new system will be not valid for LCQ.
just my 2 cents
Emiliano, NC Itay
www.italybynight.org
Tetragrammaton
"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:C7Yoj.10916$Xg7....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:GqHoj.8992$Ej5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> Meej wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 8:05 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>> Sten During wrote:
>>>>> Hmm, that would be a deviation from the 2007 system.
>>>> If so, then OK.
>>>>
>>>>> Example 1) Assume a 20 player qualifier during 2007. Place 5 is
>>>>> a tie (1GW 4VP 90TP) between two (or more players). Even though
>>>>> 2007 tournament rules state that a randomizer be used for a
>>>>> tiebreaker and that we thus get exactly ONE fifth placed player
>>>>> we would still have six (or more) players qualifying for the
>>>>> championship. (Ie, the player(s) not randomized into the final
>>>>> round still qualify)
>>>> That matches. No deviation.
>>>>
>>>>> Example 2) As above, but this year. Did player(s) placed in sixth
>>>>> place just lose their qualification spot due to a coin toss?
>>>> No. The players tied for 5th qualify.
>>>
>>> How does that happen? There are no players in 5th place under 2008
>>> VEKN rules, as the winner is 1st, the other finalists tie for 2nd, and
>>> all non-finalists start counting off at 6th place. At least as far as
>>> I've understood it so far.
>>
>> As in previous years, if the # of qualifying spots is 5 or more, the you
>> can identify the finalists before the finals.
>
> Because at LCQ there are, usually, plenty of already qualified players
> willing to play and, therefore, under the new system there will be lot of
> qualification slots (at LCQ) drained away by them.
> So i hope that the new system will be not valid for LCQ.
>
Better - i hope that the LCQ will be made open to non-qualified players
only, at this point.
Emiliano
Jozxyqk
Let's say I qualify at the NERQ. I get a T-shirt.
Then I go to the DC Qualifier, and qualify. Do I get another shirt?
Under the new rules, you can have an entire new wardrobe made
of a single year's qualifier shirt!
Johannes Walch
Dude, I allready have a wardrobe made of V:TES T-Shirts. Unfortunately
most of them are too ugly or way too big so I don´t wear them (actually,
for most of them both criterias apply). *
--
Johannes Walch
* I very much like and wear the EC T-Shirts, though, as well as the old
school qualifier shirts where only the year changed.
Salem
I don't have such a wardrobe, because I keep giving mine away. Like you
say, they're too big or too ugly. or both. I mean, there's heaps of cool
art each set, yet the tshirt designers seem to go for whatever is the
least appealing...
WW, can we have something we'd be comfortable wearing _outside_ a gaming
hall? (not that i would even be comfortable wearing the previous ones
_inside_ a gaming hall...).
Some cool, non-ugly picture that people who don't play vtes might see
and think 'hey, that's kinda cool!', and occasional sizes other than
XXL? Please? How about M. Plenty of people should fit an M. That's the
whole point of it being M, right? I mean, if we have people now not
wearing them cause they're too big, then surely it'd be no worse if
there were some people not wearing them cause they're too small. but I
think if we got a range of sizes per qualifier bundle, then you'd get a
higher wear-to-abandon ratio. Perhaps.
Johannes Walch
AFAIK this is planned for this year (different sizes). We´ll have to see
about the artwork. Actually I am not very fond of (card) artwork on a
t-shirt since it is difficult to reproduce in sufficient quality without
having a hefty price tag. It needs to be more plain-colored to look
good, like the judge t-shirt for example.
--
Johannes Walch
ira...@gmail.com
> > to qualify from than a spring one, which is the situation with
> > the 2007 system.
>
> Agreed.
The reason is that we want more players to attend the NAC, and
therefore it's good that qualifying becomes easier. Under the new
system, the same good players will qualify over and over, and the
overall pool of qualified players will be smaller. The old system is
elegant and ideal design - it was easiest to qualify at the last
possible moment, at the LCQ, once you've already paid to go there.
LSJ, who do I need to convince to get this rule changed, either
putting it back the way it was, or increasing the 25%?
I'm basing my suggestions on two assuptions:
1) More people at the NAC would be a Good Thing
2) An increase in total number of qualified players will lead to
higher attendance
Do you agree with #1 and #2?
If fewer people qualify this year, and if we have lower or the same
attendance at the NAC, would you consider changing the qualification
rules?
Ira
Darby Keeney
> The 2008 qualifier system works the same as the 2007 system except for
> one point:
>
> All qualifier tournaments are handled equally regardless of order.
There seems to be a lot of angst about this.......
which quite frankly has me a bit confused.
People say fewer people will qualify, and that
it will be harder to qualify. Seems counter-intuitive
to me.
Last year:
As the qualifier season progressed, a SMALLER
number of slots were available in each tournament.
This year:
The number of slots will be higher (and consistent)
Even without that, the ranking rule assures you
2nd place if you reach a final.
This means that EVERY qualifier will have AT
LEAST 5 qualifying slots.
IMO, more slots = easier to get a slot?
In other words, make a final table, you're in.
Are people worried that Ben, Jay, Mark and other
top echelon players will go on tour and end up in
every final? Hmmmm. Must be nice to create
that type of intimidation factor.
Personally I like that fact that people will be
fighting to get to the finals instead of just
qualify midfield.
And the new finals rule will then ensure that
they're playing in the finals to WIN, not just
float a VP or two for qualification (which I
know I have done in the past).
I can't fathom how this is bad.
Then again, even if I don't qualify, I'll go to
the Week of Nightmares/NAC and have fun.
I guess I'm silly that way.
Jozxyqk
> Jozxyqk schrieb:
> > Just one more random question about this new rule:
> >
> > Let's say I qualify at the NERQ. I get a T-shirt.
> > Then I go to the DC Qualifier, and qualify. Do I get another shirt?
> >
> > Under the new rules, you can have an entire new wardrobe made
> > of a single year's qualifier shirt!
> >
> Dude, I allready have a wardrobe made of V:TES T-Shirts. Unfortunately
> most of them are too ugly or way too big so I don´t wear them (actually,
> for most of them both criterias apply). *
Right, but I mean multiples of the *same* shirt.
You qualify 4 times in 2008, you get 4 2008 shirts.
Josh
who succeeded in not "stealing" a Qualifying spot, and still did
alright with 0GW+2VP with a combat deck at a particularly fighty
tournament.
Daneel
<darby....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 11:40 am, roby...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> The 2008 qualifier system works the same as the 2007 system except for
>> one point:
>>
>> All qualifier tournaments are handled equally regardless of order.
>
> There seems to be a lot of angst about this.......
> which quite frankly has me a bit confused.
>
> People say fewer people will qualify, and that
> it will be harder to qualify. Seems counter-intuitive
> to me.
>
> Last year:
> As the qualifier season progressed, a SMALLER
> number of slots were available in each tournament.
>
> This year:
> The number of slots will be higher (and consistent)
> Even without that, the ranking rule assures you
> 2nd place if you reach a final.
>
> This means that EVERY qualifier will have AT
> LEAST 5 qualifying slots.
>
> IMO, more slots = easier to get a slot?
Whether the new system allows more or less qualifier
spots depends on what results the already qualified
players achieve. If re-qualification is frequent,
the qualifier spots will be fewer; if it is uncommon,
the number of spots will actually increase.
Assuming a number of qualifier events where x people
attended, with y being the average number of events
played by a single player, in the old system you
more or less got x/4 qualified people (not counting
for rounding, etc.). In the new system you can get
between x*y/4 (if nobody re-qualifies) and x*(1-y)
(if everybody re-qualifies, minimum is the number of
people qualifying on the first event) spots. If you
assume that the more skilled people usually take
fewer attempts to qualify, then you are likely to
at least slightly reduce the number of spots.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Darby Keeney
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 09:39:20 -0800 (PST), Darby Keeney
> spots depends on what results the already qualified
> players achieve. If re-qualification is frequent,
> the qualifier spots will be fewer; if it is uncommon,
> the number of spots will actually increase.
Data:
Only 9 people were in last year's Hall of Champions
(indicating 2 or finishes that would have qualified them).
Doesn't seem to be an overwhelming number to me
given the number of available spots.
> Assuming a number of qualifier events where x people
> attended, with y being the average number of events
> played by a single player, in the old system you
> more or less got x/4 qualified people (not counting
> for rounding, etc.).
Umm. No. In the old system, only UNQUALIFIED
people counted for the "x/4" slots. In most of the
late stage qualifiers I played, a significant number
(25% and more) had already qualified.
So in those late-season tournaments, you might
already be down to 3/4*x/4 slots (18% instead of
25% of entrants total). In the new system, you're
still at 25%.
Though I still understand the "How well will the
already-qualified do?" factor. Data above......
9 slots taken in this way last year.
Possibly more the 25% of people will qualify in
smaller touraments (where there are 5 slots,
instead of X/4 - because all non-winning finalists
tie for 2nd). In a 10 player qualifier, half of the
field is certain to qualify.
I guess I'm in the minority in thinking that it
is inevitable that more people will qualify.
NAC attendance is, of course, a separate
matter.
Frederick Scott
news:d4ddf90b-939d-40c7...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> People say fewer people will qualify, and that
> it will be harder to qualify. Seems counter-intuitive
> to me.
>
> Last year:
> As the qualifier season progressed, a SMALLER
> number of slots were available in each tournament.
>
> This year:
> The number of slots will be higher (and consistent)
Huh? That statement is confusing. As far as I know, the number of slots used to
equal 25% of the unqualified, from beginning to end. That was consistent. If you
mean, "the number of slots will be higher" because you're assuming the exact same
population in the qualifier, beginning to end, and thus there will be more qualified
people in the end because of the additional slots, that comparison has a distinct
fallacy - you'd have to assume that players who'd qualified before had no better
than average of a chance of finishing in the top 25% a second time. I think most
would find that an unreasonable assumption. But even so:
1) Your chances of qualifying at any given tournament this year are _at best_ equal
to last year - since in theory, being in the top 25% of all participants would be
no harder than being in the top 25% of the unqualified participants.
2) There will ultimately be no more slots this year than last year - given the
same questionable assumption as in #1 - since the number of slots that go *poof*
when someone qualifies two or more times (or 'requalifies', to coin a useful
term) will be approximately equal to the additional qualifier slots.
> Even without that, the ranking rule assures you
> 2nd place if you reach a final.
>
> This means that EVERY qualifier will have AT
> LEAST 5 qualifying slots.
>
> IMO, more slots = easier to get a slot?
Only given the assumption that those previously qualified have no greater than
average chance of finishing in the top 25% of a subsequent qualifier. I think
the problem is, a lot of people have real problem with that assumption.
Anyway, the whole issue of total number of qualifier slots or overall chance
of qualifying was never my main objection to the concept. It's that it puts
the pre-qualified in a weird and not necessarily very satisfying place of knowing
that if they do well in a subsequent qualifier, they do a 'bad' thing: make a
slot disappear. Given that I didn't see a good, productive reason for the rule
change in the first place and no one's bothered to offer one (at least, not the
'official' one), my attitude is fuck it. There should be a good reason to
change things, especially if there's some good reasons not to.
> And the new finals rule will then ensure that
> they're playing in the finals to WIN, not just
> float a VP or two for qualification (which I
> know I have done in the past).
Sure. But you can have your new finals rule without a change to the rule about
calculating qualifier slots and who receives them. AFAIK, the two are not tied
to one another.
> I can't fathom how this is bad.
You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why is it good?
Fred
Frederick Scott
> Data:
> Only 9 people were in last year's Hall of Champions
> (indicating 2 or finishes that would have qualified them).
I don't believe that data, though. I'm pretty sure there were
people at the NAC's mini-qualifiers and LCQ who would have
requalified, for instance. I have huge doubts whether that list
was tracked rigourously. People probably landed on it when their
status specifically came to the attention of whoever keeps that
page, and not as the result of any determined effort to produce
a full and accurate list.
Fred
Peter D Bakija
> You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why is it good?
I think in the end, it is neither good nor bad--it is even.
The current system will result in a few more spots (due to the
"everyone in the final qualifies, as a minimum, but top 25% otherwise
in a 22+ player tournament") here and there, but then a few spots will
vanish due to people qualifying 2+ times. Likely a wash.
But where the advantage comes in, in an absolute sense, is that it
works with the new placing rules for the finals ("you either win or
come in 2nd"). And as that rule is beneficial across the board, it is
advantageous the the new qualifying system enables it.
That, and now we get to avoid the horror that theoretically was the
final in a 16 person qualifier, where 4 of the 5 people in the final
get to qualify, and so folks wheel and deal to come in 4th...
-Peter
Kushiel
> But where the advantage comes in, in an absolute sense, is that it
> works with the new placing rules for the finals ("you either win or
> come in 2nd"). And as that rule is beneficial across the board, it is
> advantageous the the new qualifying system enables it.
The advantage also comes in for Robyn Tatu, who won't have as much
work to do. Given how much work she already does, as an unpaid
volunteer, I'm okay with this change for that benefit alone.
Thanks for all your work, Robyn!
John Eno
Sten During
> You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why is it good?
>
> Fred
>
>
During 2007 EC LCQ we were VERY close to calculate the incorrect number
of qualifying slots due to sloppy reporting from at least one prior
qualifying tournament.
The old system could (theoretically) propagate an early error throughout
the remainder of qualifiers (one player ought to have qualified but is
not recorded as such, that player participates in a later event, etc
in absurdum.)
The main reason the new system is good is because it removes the
possibility of propagating clerical errors.
The secondary reason the new system is good is because (again
theoretically) the performance results of later qualifiers is not
inflated. (You would expect to need in the order of 1GW 5VP to qualify,
but a late qualifier is more likely to qualify all players with
1GW 4VP)
So, don't bother about the secondary reason. In reality it only plays
havoc with the LCQ, for which reason I personally would prefer to see
all LCQs as an invitational for non-qualified players only. Those
already qualified could play in another standard constructed, or we
could even posit that all pre-LCQ-qualified players automatically
qualify for the Continental Limited Format Championship running at the
same time as the LCQ.
However, this last paragraph was an addition being slightly off topic
concerning your question.
Sten During
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Tetragrammaton
> On Feb 3, 6:12 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why is it good?
>
> I think in the end, it is neither good nor bad--it is even.
>
I think, on the other side, that the current system will be very bad
for Last Chanche Qualifier, where, usually, there are many players willing
to play but being already qualified, against a pretty number of
non-qualified people, that will see their qualification slots drained away
so much by already qualified players, at that point.
IMHO, under the current system, at least the LCQ should be a close event,
allowing only to non-qualified playes to attend.
my two cents
Emiliano, NC Italy
www.italybynight.org
Darby Keeney
> "Darby Keeney" <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Huh? That statement is confusing. As far as I know, the number of slots used to
> equal 25% of the unqualified, from beginning to end. That was consistent.
We're using different demonimators. Is that so difficult to
comprehend?
Now, it is 25% of the total participants, every time.
Before, it was 25% of the unqualified participants.
Or less than 25% of the total participants, diminishing
further as more people qualified, but continued to play.
25% of total > 25% of unqualified - with diminished
possibility of clerical error.
> 1) Your chances of qualifying at any given tournament this year are _at best_ equal
> to last year - since in theory, being in the top 25% of all participants would be
> no harder than being in the top 25% of the unqualified participants.
No. There are more slots. Period.
25% of total > 25% of unqualified.
Plus, for each tournament of less than 20 people, more than
25% will qualify (5 will, in fact, regardless of the size).
5 > 0.25 * X where X < 20.
> 2) There will ultimately be no more slots this year than last year - given the
> same questionable assumption as in #1 - since the number of slots that go *poof*
> when someone qualifies two or more times (or 'requalifies', to coin a useful
> term) will be approximately equal to the additional qualifier slots.
No. In tournaments of less than 20 people, more than 25% will
qualify.
Therefore, the total percentage of qualifying spots MUST be greater
than 25% of the total number of players, across all tournaments.
Granted, it is possible that several people (N > 9 likely) will
qualify in multiple spots. I find it hard to believe that this
"eating" will digest more slots than are created.
> Anyway, the whole issue of total number of qualifier slots or overall chance
> of qualifying was never my main objection to the concept. It's that it puts
> the pre-qualified in a weird and not necessarily very satisfying place of knowing
> that if they do well in a subsequent qualifier, they do a 'bad' thing: make a
> slot disappear.
Call me predatory. I don't see this as a problem.
> You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why is it good?
Not, I'm not. I don't seek to pick and scratch at things to find
issue for complaint.
It's not bad, therefore, I have no problem with it.
Perhaps you have a differing mindset.
Frederick Scott
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:b9a1820e-7c1c-4cd2...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 6:12 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why is it good?
>
> I think in the end, it is neither good nor bad--it is even.
I don't agree but even if I did, my question would be, "Why change it?"
> But where the advantage comes in, in an absolute sense, is that it
> works with the new placing rules for the finals ("you either win or
> come in 2nd").
Oh? Why?
> And as that rule is beneficial across the board, it is
> advantageous the the new qualifying system enables it.
Huh? Why would you need the new qualifying system to enable it?
> That, and now we get to avoid the horror that theoretically was the
> final in a 16 person qualifier, where 4 of the 5 people in the final
> get to qualify, and so folks wheel and deal to come in 4th...
Sure, that's fine. But I just don't see any reason you need the 'requalifier'
rule change to have the everybody-ties-for-2nd rule change.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:47a645df$0$18851$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>
>> You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why is it good?
>
> of qualifying slots due to sloppy reporting from at least one prior
> qualifying tournament.
Sure. I don't think that's a good enough reason, though.
> The secondary reason the new system is good is because (again
> theoretically) the performance results of later qualifiers is not
> inflated. (You would expect to need in the order of 1GW 5VP to qualify,
> but a late qualifier is more likely to qualify all players with
> 1GW 4VP)
And that's not really a reason at all, because the difference in difficulty
is negligible. And, to the extent it is, it would disprove Darby's original
contention: that the prequalified don't have an appreciably better chance of
coming in top 25% than non-prequalified. You can't have both arguments.
> So, don't bother about the secondary reason. In reality it only plays
> havoc with the LCQ, for which reason I personally would prefer to see
> all LCQs as an invitational for non-qualified players only.
That might be at least a nice gesture to people who travel to the CC
unqualified, I agree. But besides the LCQ, I think you'd also want to
do this with the pre-LCQ mini-qualifiers they hold during the Week of
Nightmares (or at least, the did in the NAC WoN). Should we have two
separate tournaments on each of these occasions during the WoN?
Fred
Frederick Scott
"Darby Keeney" <darby....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a0d912ef-f224-4599...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 4:12 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> "Darby Keeney" <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Huh? That statement is confusing. As far as I know, the number of slots used to
> > equal 25% of the unqualified, from beginning to end. That was consistent.
>
> We're using different demonimators. Is that so difficult to
> comprehend?
No, I comprehend perfectly. I just don't think it's the appropriate thing to do.
> > 1) Your chances of qualifying at any given tournament this year are _at best_ equal
> > to last year - since in theory, being in the top 25% of all participants would be
> > no harder than being in the top 25% of the unqualified participants.
>
> No. There are more slots. Period.
>
> 25% of total > 25% of unqualified.
Sigh. If you insist on not subtracting the slots that the requalified make go
away. But that's bullshit. Those slots go away and thus have to be counted
in the end. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges.
> Plus, for each tournament of less than 20 people, more than
> 25% will qualify (5 will, in fact, regardless of the size).
...unless all the finalists have already qualified. In which case 0% will qualify.
Fred
ira...@gmail.com
> I guess I'm in the minority in thinking that it
> is inevitable that more people will qualify.
>
> NAC attendance is, of course, a separate matter.
I don't think NAC attendance is a separate matter at all! I think
that if there's a larger pool of players who qualify, then attendance
at the NAC will go up. There are certainly other contributing
factors, but total number of qualified players is one.
Personally, I think we should consider vastly increasing the total
number of qualified players. As Peter would say: Like, everyone. The
cost and time barriers to entry are already significant enough that
relatively few people will be able to attend, qualification aside.
Just imagine the awesomeness of a 100 player NAC tournament, where the
top 40 cut day 1 really matters.
I say throw qualification out the window!
Ira
XZealot
> "Darby Keeney" <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:a0d912ef-f224-4599...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Feb 3, 4:12 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
> > "Darby Keeney" <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Huh? That statement is confusing. As far as I know, the number of slots used to
> > > equal 25% of the unqualified, from beginning to end. That was consistent.
>
> > We're using different demonimators. Is that so difficult to
> > comprehend?
>
> No, I comprehend perfectly. I just don't think it's the appropriate thing to do.
>
> > > 1) Your chances of qualifying at any given tournament this year are _at best_ equal
> > > to last year - since in theory, being in the top 25% of all participants would be
> > > no harder than being in the top 25% of the unqualified participants.
>
> > No. There are more slots. Period.
>
> > 25% of total > 25% of unqualified.
>
> Sigh. If you insist on not subtracting the slots that the requalified make go
> away. But that's bullshit. Those slots go away and thus have to be counted
> in the end. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges.
How many players have ever lost a qualifying spot to a
"requalifier"?
The answer is none. So it is not a problem
> > Plus, for each tournament of less than 20 people, more than
> > 25% will qualify (5 will, in fact, regardless of the size).
>
> ...unless all the finalists have already qualified. In which case 0% will qualify.
"Then those players should be reminded to "Try harder. Because: You're
not good enough. "
This is a Qualification System not a Soup Kitchen. You gotta Earn It.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Tetragrammaton
>> You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why is it good?
> havoc with the LCQ, for which reason I personally would prefer to see
> all LCQs as an invitational for non-qualified players only. Those
> already qualified could play in another standard constructed, or we
> could even posit that all pre-LCQ-qualified players automatically
> qualify for the Continental Limited Format Championship running at the
> same time as the LCQ.
I agree on this - let the LCQ to be an invitational event, open
to non-qualified players only, a this point (another tournament can be run
at the same time for already qualified players)
best
Emiliano
ira...@gmail.com
> This is a Qualification System not a Soup Kitchen. You gotta Earn It.
Is that what's best for the game? Why not let anyone play at the
NAC? There's still a top 40 cut after day 1... Well, there is if we
actually get more than 40 people. :)
Ira
Sten During
> That might be at least a nice gesture to people who travel to the CC
> unqualified, I agree. But besides the LCQ, I think you'd also want to
> do this with the pre-LCQ mini-qualifiers they hold during the Week of
> Nightmares (or at least, the did in the NAC WoN). Should we have two
> separate tournaments on each of these occasions during the WoN?
>
Pre-LCQ mini-qualifiers are optional :)
The WoN is as much a part of the NAC as the VTES in the Sun was part
of the EC, ie not. It's nice padding to attract people to stay longer.
As far as I'm concerned they should be handled as any other qualifier
if they should be qualifiers at all in the first place.
coincoi...@hotmail.com
I am not too fond of "high-level" tournaments like continental or
national championships, still open to all.
At German championship this year, my grand-predator started by saying
it was his first game of V:Tes, then starting KRC'ing and shifting me
cross-table because his prey had the vote lock... well, there is
nothing personal here, but preventing this kind of thing is important,
while in the same time not being too selective in order not to be a
too low amount of players at the tournament.
As far as I am concerned, I am also very pissed off by this measure. I
like to travel, I have a lot of friends met through V:Tes in France
and for those two reasons, I generally move a lot through France. Last
year, I would have qualified 7 times for french championship and 4
times to European championship... well I really don't know what to do
this year...
Peter D Bakija
> Oh? Why?
???
The new tournament finals system ("either you win or you come in 2nd")
means that you can't differentiate between 2nd and 5th place. So in a
situation where only 4 people get to qualify (or only 3), the lack of
differentiation becomes a problem, in the "We have 4 people tied for
2nd, but only two of them get to qualify. What do we do?" sense. By
saying that everyone in the finals, minimum, qualifies, the new finals
system works with the qualification system and everyone comes out ok.
No need to then invent a tie breaker for determining 2-5th place just
when they got rid of the need for a tie breaker determining 2-5th
place.
> Huh? Why would you need the new qualifying system to enable it?
That probably wasn't the best way to articulate what I was trying to
say. The new qualification system and the new "win or come in 2nd"
system fit together nicely. The new qualification system makes the new
finals system workable in qualifying tournaments.
> Sure, that's fine. But I just don't see any reason you need the 'requalifier'
> rule change to have the everybody-ties-for-2nd rule change.
Well, that is a different issue. But the "I can qualify 8 times!"
rule, again, is probably mostly a wash--more qualifying spots will
open up (due to above) and some will be lost (due to this). The big
gain for the "I can qualify 8 times!" rule, however, is that it makes
everything much, much simpler to administrate.
-Peter
XZealot
> On Feb 3, 9:50 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > This is a Qualification System not a Soup Kitchen. You gotta Earn It.
>
> Is that what's best for the game?
Yes, it is best for the game.
> Why not let anyone play at the
> NAC?
...because there are some players who are so bad that they shouldn't
ruin the game for the players who are so good that they have a chance
to win the Champioinship.
dclo...@gmail.com
> On Feb 4, 2:03 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 9:50 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > This is a Qualification System not a Soup Kitchen. You gotta Earn It.
>
> > Is that what's best for the game?
>
> Yes, it is best for the game.
>
> > Why not let anyone play at the
> > NAC?
I've never been to the NAC, but I decided to go this year regardless
of whether I qualified or not. I want to play a lot of games, and
there are a hojillion tournaments during the Week of Nightmares,
including a parallel tournament during the NAC for non qualifiers. I
don't have really strong feelings about the new system, due to my own
inexperience, but
1) The book keeping on the old system sounds like a total pain
2) If you want to play vtes during the Week of Nightmares, there is
plenty to be had
3) If you can't qualify, it is unlikely that you would have had a shot
at winning the NAC
4) If you want to play in a "competitive" tournament, it sounds like
the Last Chance Qualifier is pretty damn competitive.
I'm not seeing the cause for alarm.
-Dave Clooney
Come to the NAC anyway, I promise there will be whiskey!
Jonathan Beverley
> As far as I am concerned, I am also very pissed off by this measure. I
> like to travel, I have a lot of friends met through V:Tes in France
> and for those two reasons, I generally move a lot through France. Last
> year, I would have qualified 7 times for french championship and 4
> times to European championship... well I really don't know what to do
> this year...
Wow, that's a lot. How many games did you play?
Darby Keeney
> I don't think NAC attendance is a separate matter at all! I think
> that if there's a larger pool of players who qualify, then attendance
> at the NAC will go up. There are certainly other contributing
> factors, but total number of qualified players is one.
> Personally, I think we should consider vastly increasing the total
> number of qualified players. As Peter would say: Like, everyone.
Sorry Ira. I should have been a bit more exacting in my wording
As Robyn pointed out earlier, there is a large body of people
who qualify, but choose to not attend. That's what I meant
be a separate matter.
Of course, having a deeper qualfication pool and hoping the
same percentage of qualified players attend is one strategy
to increase attendance.
Increasing the fraction of qualifiers that attend is a second.
I believe that the current system will offer a somewhat
deeper pool (Fred does not). Your approach certainly
offers a deeper pool. Having an open tournament at
GenCon is probably the deepest. I shudder to think
about that last one.
And, you are likely correct in thinking that the NAC
is somewhat self-selecting - as long as the NAC
remains a standalone event (e.g., not conducted
at GenCon). Only the more dedicated players will
travel bear the financial burden of WoN and NAC
(except for a few locals).
In the end, I guess it all boils down to how you
define "awesomeness of a 100 player NAC".
For me, watching 100 very good players vie for
the title would be FANTASTIC. Seeing 20
great players get whacked by weird crosstable
antics from 80 less experienced players would
be a step backwards in time.
Ben Swainbank
> The 2008 qualifier system works the same as the 2007 system except for
> one point:
>
> All qualifier tournaments are handled equally regardless of order.
> in other qualifiers.
> They can continue to qualify in each qualifier in which they play.
>
A data point from the NEQ that took place this weekend:
1 previously qualified player did come in in the top 25% (that would
be me) "taking" a qualifying spot.
But we almost certainly had 4 players who were either already
qualified or wouldn't have been competing for slots (given the
option).
So, the new rules made no difference in who actually ended up
qualifiying -- in this case.
-Ben Swainbank