Suggestion for subsequent Continental Championships

I think that the number of qualified players per National/Regional Qualifier should not be always 10, but it should depend on the number of participants in each Qualifier. The more participants, the more qualifying slots. Therefore, a chart should be establised with the number of participants and their respective qualifying slots for players. What do you think about it? I think this would help promote the game, since more players would be attending the Continental Championships. Greetings, Damnans

"Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3F9D5196...@ono.com... > I think that the number of qualified players per National/Regional > Qualifier should not be always 10, but it should depend on the number > of participants in each Qualifier. Agreed. > The more participants, the more qualifying slots. Naturally. > Therefore, a chart should be establised with the number of > participants and their respective qualifying slots for players. The difficult part. > What do you think about it? I think this would help promote > the game, since more players would be attending the Continental > Championships. Yes and no :-). I think it would be good to balance the number of qualifier slots with the number of participants in some way but on the other hand the tournament size of the Continental Championship should remain at about 100 participants. As you might have realized a 150+ player tournament like the spanish qualifier and 3 prelim rounds do not mix well. There is just too much luck involved because one needs 3 GW to go into the final. And the difference between 2GW and 3GW is normally just pure luck. If we consider the more central location (only in terms of geography, of course) of Germany compared to Spain in Europe I assume that we might have at least 90 qualified people even with the 10 per country rule next year. There are 13 countries that come to my mind immediately: Spain, Italy, France, England, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Hungary, Poland, Austria, Germany, Greece. This accounts to (with current rules) 130 players along with the oversea travellers (Frankfurt is a big airport and Heidelberg is well known in the US) so we are talking about at least 150 possible attendants. Long explanation short summary : Changes to the momentary system should be made with great care and only marginally, let愀 say 12 or 13 qualified people for countries in which the qualifier has 50+ people. cheers ... johannes walch v:ekn germany - http://www.vekn.de/

so why not make the next ec a two day event with 5-6 round+finals. since you are expecting 100+ people (which is resonable due to the central location, although some americans might be turned off by the fact that heidelberg has no airport). let the germans have their own qualifier weeks prior to the ec maybe even at a different city. with that many players 3 rounds come down to pure luck and we should make sure that the next ec is not again won by a lucky bastard. stefan >

oh and i forgot, you should use the swiss format. stefan

> oh and i forgot, you should use the swiss format. my magic days have been gone too long. what exactly is swiss format ? -- [ quoted text not captured ]

> so why not make the next ec a two day event with 5-6 round+finals. since you > are expecting 100+ people We have mixed feelings about loosing the last chance qualifier the day before the E.C and Friday is just not possible I guess. Another problem probably would be that quite some people with 0 GW on the first day will just not show up on the second day .... > (which is resonable due to the central location, > although some americans might be turned off by the fact that heidelberg has > no airport). > let the germans have their own qualifier weeks prior to the ec > maybe even at a different city. That is planned anyway. > with that many players 3 rounds come down to > pure luck and we should make sure that the next ec is not again won by a > lucky bastard. With 80 players like this year it´s not entirely pure luck when you win. Look at the top 10, these are almost all regular top 10 finishers. But some regular top 10 people are way down the list, that´s the difference. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:10:46 +0100, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> scrawled: >I think that the number of qualified players per National/Regional >Qualifier should not be always 10, but it should depend on the number >of participants in each Qualifier. It already does. It's half the field, up to a maximum of 10. >The more participants, the more qualifying slots. already there, it just maxes out lower than you want, i guess. >Therefore, a chart should be establised with the number of >participants and their respective qualifying slots for players. > >What do you think about it? I think this would help promote >the game, since more players would be attending the Continental >Championships. I think more players attending continental championships would be bad. you want only the really good people there. if you made more qualifying spots, then the level of competition at the championships would be decreased, thus giving an advantage to someone who got lucky and faced some 'lesser players' in their prelim rounds. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

salem expounded: > On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:10:46 +0100, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> > scrawled: > > >I think that the number of qualified players per National/Regional > >Qualifier should not be always 10, but it should depend on the number > >of participants in each Qualifier. > > It already does. It's half the field, up to a maximum of 10. How about: At least 5 slots 1/3 of competitors up to a maximum of 12? 13? 15? The two day tournament certainly sounds worthwhile once a year to me. Do you really need to be able to qualify the day before? If people dropping out is liable to be a problem there is a very simple solution: Semi-finals. EG: Saturday: 3 or 4 normal rounds. Top X (~40%?) qualify for Sunday: 3 Rounds + Final. Side event on Sunday for those who fall on Saturday.

salem wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:10:46 +0100, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> > scrawled: > > >I think that the number of qualified players per National/Regional > >Qualifier should not be always 10, but it should depend on the number > >of participants in each Qualifier. > > It already does. It's half the field, up to a maximum of 10. So it's the 50% :-) [...] > >Therefore, a chart should be establised with the number of > >participants and their respective qualifying slots for players. > > > >What do you think about it? I think this would help promote > >the game, since more players would be attending the Continental > >Championships. > > I think more players attending continental championships would be bad. > you want only the really good people there. if you made more > qualifying spots, then the level of competition at the championships > would be decreased, thus giving an advantage to someone who got lucky > and faced some 'lesser players' in their prelim rounds. Do you think that, in 3-round 100-200 player tournaments, the top 10 players are the best, or just the luckiest? ;-) The fact that, in a 20 player tournament, the top 10 players qualify for the Continental Championships means they are the best players? Do you think the level of competition of such a tournament is the same as that of a 50+, 60+, 100+ player tournament? Greetings, Damnans

>The fact that, in a 20 player tournament, the top 10 players qualify for >the Continental Championships means they are the best players? Do you think >the level of competition of such a tournament is the same as that of a >50+, 60+, 100+ player tournament? On the other hand, are you simply saying that a tournament with more people yields better players? If anything, I think the correlation is more bell-shaped (or inverted parabola). At larger and larger tournaments, luck (not skill) becomes a much more significant factor. So who you sit next to and what decks are on the table make all the difference. I think a 20-person tournament is definitely of higher playing quality than a 5-person, but I'd hesitate to say a 100-person is better than say a 50-person... Halcyan 2

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:32:27 +0100, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> scrawled: > > >salem wrote: >> I think more players attending continental championships would be bad. >> you want only the really good people there. if you made more >> qualifying spots, then the level of competition at the championships >> would be decreased, thus giving an advantage to someone who got lucky >> and faced some 'lesser players' in their prelim rounds. > >Do you think that, in 3-round 100-200 player tournaments, the top 10 players >are the best, or just the luckiest? ;-) what other criteria can we use to decide who's best? i think that we only want the best players at a championship. the closest we can come to being able to judge whether someone is good or not is where they place in a tournament. >The fact that, in a 20 player tournament, the top 10 players qualify for >the Continental Championships means they are the best players? Do you think i say they are better than the other 10 who didn't qualify, at least as far as we can objectively acertain. >the level of competition of such a tournament is the same as that of a >50+, 60+, 100+ player tournament? i'd say it's harder to place in the top 10 in bigger tournaments, sure. however, are you saying those that come 11th to 20th in your big tournament are going to all be better players than those that came 11th-20th in the 20 player tournament? there is no reasonable way you can know that. there has to be a cutoff somewhere. 10 is what we've been using. it seems to work. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:10:04 -0000, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled: >salem expounded: >> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:10:46 +0100, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> >> scrawled: >> >> >I think that the number of qualified players per National/Regional >> >Qualifier should not be always 10, but it should depend on the number >> >of participants in each Qualifier. >> >> It already does. It's half the field, up to a maximum of 10. > >How about: >At least 5 slots If you instigated 'at least 5 slots', i would also like to see 'if your qualifier gets less than 15 players it loses it's qualifier status', or something similar. >1/3 of competitors up to a maximum of 12? 13? 15? 1/2 up to a max of 10? i mean, really, all you're doing is tweaking parameters of the rule we already have. do we need to tweak them? what are the benefits of having more people in a championship? i just see it as lessening the overall quality of competition. with the curent rule of already qualified players not taking up slots, if you upped the number of slots per tournament you could conceivably get tournaments where it is impossible to not qualify. >The two day tournament certainly sounds worthwhile once a year to me. i ran one just for fun a few years back. it was great fun, and attracted people from all over the place that i never even knew existed. >Do you really need to be able to qualify the day before? >If people dropping out is liable to be a problem there is a very simple >solution: Semi-finals. > >EG: >Saturday: 3 or 4 normal rounds. Top X (~40%?) qualify for >Sunday: 3 Rounds + Final. looks nice. i'd been wondering myself whether or not the tournament system we have at the moment would work better as just flat 4 rounds, no final. i think i'd definately lean towards flat 3 round over 2+F tournaments. >Side event on Sunday for those who fall on Saturday. does it get called the Loser Championship? :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<3F9D5196...@ono.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Proposition :(it's a summary of the ideas i like of this thread) One qualifier per country (the same country than in 2003). 1/3 of the players attending the tournament are qualified, to a limit of 15. The local qualifier is put some months before the ec. The ec is planned on two days, with 5 rounds (3 the first day, and 2 the second). Or : registration plus 2 rounds the first day, and 3 the second day (it lowers the drops). (and a draft event the friday, before the welcome party!). Stefan Feranci cannot be the winner : he have too much luck to choose the right deck, draw the good cards, and succeeds three tw (dont' take it too hard, stefan, it's only irony... you have won by your skills, not any luck). Ah, deck lists... On two days, you have to check a lot of decklist, and be extremely severe on variations (not 6 blur/7 pursuit... but on the add of archon investigation, clan hosers, delayings tactics, bounce, bloat and so on...).

Johannes Walch wrote: >>oh and i forgot, you should use the swiss format. > > > my magic days have been gone too long. what exactly is swiss format ? Swiss should level the playing field and at the same time find the best players. Round 1 seating is assigned randomly. Round 2: players who have 1 GW are seated together, and players who have no GW are seated together as much as possible. Round 3: players who have 2 GW are seated together, players with 1 GW and players with 0 GW. Round 4: and so on, you get it. :) What does it serve? It levels out the field. Players who have low skill and got lucky in round one will meet better players in round 2. If they really were just lucky and have less skill, they will most likely not get another GW in round 2. Vice versa the other way round. If you were unlucky and got no GW, you will have a greater chance of a GW if you are a really good player. (There is stil luck involved, but that way, you get to recover from bad luck a little bit). Players are less likely to win 3 rounds in a row, as opposition gets stronger in each round (theoretically). That way, it would be a lot more likely to go to a final with less than 3 GW, and it would still be possible to get a good result (even if not enough for the final) even if you lost all rounds and are starting the last one. This removes in part the "joker"-effect some players add to a game when they have absolutely no chances to reach the final and act as king-makers. With Swiss, things would be a bit more open until the end. I'm also of the opinion that a continental Championship needs to have more than 3 rounds, and I think that a true Champion needs to be good in both limited and constructed format. My proposal would be to have 3 rounds of limited (sealed or draft) on day 1 and 3 rounds of constructed plus the final on day 2. All 6 rounds would count together for determining who is going to the final. That way things are still open after day 1 and players would show up again on day 2. To make things *still* more intersting, I'd propose the following: the top *4* players are qualified for the final round. Players 5 to 9 will have the opportunity to fight it out in one semi-final round before the actual final round. Onle GW counts, no other tiebreakers - the player with the GW goes as 5th into the final round. If no GW is achieved, player *10* from the ranking goes to the final instead! :) This would make it more interesting to achieve 10th rank. And it is an additional incentive for the semi-finalists to play for a GW or lose everything. The Semi-final round could have a shorter Time-limit (1hour) or players start with 20 pool or players lose a pool at the start of each of their turns as special rule to make things faster. Next, I'd propose to have the ranking system a bit revised. First GWs counts Then VPs won with a GW Then VPs not won with GW Then TPs. Makes VPs even more important, and makes players less inclined to give VPs away in table-split deals. So to summarize: 1. 3 rounds of limited *and* 3 rounds of constructed 2. Swiss system used 3. "semi-final" for ranked players 5-9 for last seat in final round 4. player ranked 10th gets last final round seat if no GW in semi-final 5. improve importance of VPs won in games where the player achieved a GW Now that was a long post! :) I hope some things will see use in the next series of continentals, or at least at the EC. Gogo for 200+ players in Germany next year! :) Carl

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:<bnju59$35m$00$1...@news.t-online.com>... > > so why not make the next ec a two day event with 5-6 round+finals. since > you > > are expecting 100+ people > > We have mixed feelings about loosing the last chance qualifier the day > before the E.C and Friday is just not possible I guess. > Another problem probably would be that quite some people with 0 GW on the > first day will just not show up on the second day .... Well, is it not possible to have a cut of point at the end of the first day, to trim the field, say with 130 players on the first day (if modify the number of places available in the bigger qualifiers) and after 4 rounds the top 50 players go through to the second day. reset VP's and GW's and play a 2 or 3 rounds + final second day... the players that get cut can pay in side events on the Sunday with any traveling unqualified players. > > with that many players 3 rounds come down to > > pure luck and we should make sure that the next ec is not again won by a > > lucky bastard. > > With 80 players like this year it愀 not entirely pure luck when you win. > Look at the top 10, these are almost all regular top 10 finishers. But some > regular top 10 people are way down the list, that愀 the difference. Of course, when you have 30-40 top ten regulars in a tournament how else could it be? But there really should be a change to the way the number of places given to different countries qualifiers merit, the comparison between the UK and the Spanish tournamnets should be enough to prove that Spain: 170+ players 10 spaces UK: 20 players 10 spaces.. something is not right there surely. And as Johannes points out, the current format for a tournament cannot cope with many more players before the results are next to arbitrary so it seems to me that a change in the EC final format should be considered as well.

> I hope some things will see use in the next series of continentals, or > at least at the EC. Thank you for your long and well thought out proposals. We will take them all into consideration and try to match them to the organizational possiblities. > Gogo for 200+ players in Germany next year! :) We sure do :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Proposition :(it's a summary of the ideas i like of this thread) Quite a good summary. :-) > One qualifier per country (the same country than in 2003). > 1/3 of the players attending the tournament are qualified, to a limit > of 15. Agreed. > The local qualifier is put some months before the ec. > The ec is planned on two days, with 5 rounds (3 the first day, and 2 > the second). > Or : registration plus 2 rounds the first day, and 3 the second day > (it lowers the drops). Actually I think it depends more on organization (what times the location can be accessed ...) than on player drops. I guess the player drops can be handled well in any other way (e.g prizes for place 6-20). Do you like the idea of the swiss format proposed by Carl ? > (and a draft event the friday, before the welcome party!). Why not. If it can be arranged and there are enough interested people. > Stefan Feranci cannot be the winner : he have too much luck to choose > the right deck, draw the good cards, and succeeds three tw (dont' take > it too hard, stefan, it's only irony... you have won by your skills, > not any luck). Isn´t it a rule that winners from the past cannot win again :-)))) ? > Ah, deck lists... On two days, you have to check a lot of decklist, > and be extremely severe on variations (not 6 blur/7 pursuit... but on > the add of archon investigation, clan hosers, delayings tactics, > bounce, bloat and so on...). Good remark ! There is definitely a need for this. May the "Archon Inquisition" fall upon those trying to cheat ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

> I think more players attending continental championships would be bad. > you want only the really good people there. if you made more > qualifying spots, then the level of competition at the championships > would be decreased, thus giving an advantage to someone who got lucky > and faced some 'lesser players' in their prelim rounds. I have no clue where you´re from but I assume U.S or Australia (shame on me if I am wrong) and therefore your view is probably a bit biased on your current situation. I understand your point but I think in Europe we have a different situation. The player base is huge and growing day by day and there are a log of countries which have more than 10 top-notch players. There haven been qualifiers with around 70 people and qualifiers with 20 people. It´s just too unfair to give 10 slots to all these events. Esp. Belgium and Germany have quite a disadvantage because of the central location. Anyway the adjustement is not too big (max. 15 instead of 10) and it will be better for the game, I am sure. P.S : This is not an attempt to start the 38th US vs. Europe war, it is just an attempt to explain our different situation P.P.S : I do consider all of this only for Europe. Other Continental Championship Organizers are of course free to do whatever they want. [ quoted text not captured ]

I'll just comment on the stuff i have opinions on.... On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:09:00 GMT, Carl Pilhatsch <car.pi...@chello.at> scrawled: > >I'm also of the opinion that a continental Championship needs to have >more than 3 rounds, agreed. > and I think that a true Champion needs to be good in >both limited and constructed format. that would be some sort of other thing...i always pictured the phrase of 'champion' to be implicitly a 'constructed champion'. You don't need to do well at a limited event to qualify, so ....unless.....to qualify you need to do both top (whatever gets decided) in constructed and limited...hmmm....further thoughts.... >My proposal would be to have 3 rounds of limited (sealed or draft) on >day 1 and 3 rounds of constructed plus the final on day 2. >All 6 rounds would count together for determining who is going to the >final. That way things are still open after day 1 and players would show >up again on day 2. i'd prefer 2 days of constructed, with perhaps players being allowed to play a different deck each day if they so choose....saves issues with cheat tweaks between days. >To make things *still* more intersting, I'd propose the following: the >top *4* players are qualified for the final round. Players 5 to 9 will >have the opportunity to fight it out in one semi-final round before the >actual final round. Onle GW counts, no other tiebreakers - the player >with the GW goes as 5th into the final round. If no GW is achieved, >player *10* from the ranking goes to the final instead! :) This would >make it more interesting to achieve 10th rank. and, possibly, have people _aiming_ for 10th instead of 9th-5th? that's not rhetorical. do other people think this might happen? > And it is an additional >incentive for the semi-finalists to play for a GW or lose everything. >The Semi-final round could have a shorter Time-limit (1hour) or players >start with 20 pool or players lose a pool at the start of each of their >turns as special rule to make things faster. that's...not good. so you're suggesting that to see whether they are good enough at 2hr+/30pool vtes to get into the championship final, they need to prove they are good at 1hr or 20pool/permanent anarch revolt vtes? you need to keep the measures of performace (ie: winning vtes games) as consistant as possible. >Next, I'd propose to have the ranking system a bit revised. >First GWs counts >Then VPs won with a GW >Then VPs not won with GW >Then TPs. > >Makes VPs even more important, and makes players less inclined to give >VPs away in table-split deals. this i saw suggested on this group a while back, and i can't see any problems. although, once again i'll just throw in my oft-ignored suggestion of a tie breaker after TPs, being Ousting Points (eg: ousted first: 12 points, ousted 2nd: 24 points...last man in (unousted): 60 points) >I hope some things will see use in the next series of continentals, or >at least at the EC. >Gogo for 200+ players in Germany next year! :) Go Germany! If i have a career by then i'll endeavor to make the journey. [ quoted text not captured ]

if you really are thinking about making it a two day event i would propose this: Don't make it 6 rounds, but make the first day a 3-round tournament with the top-30 (?) going into the final day. This will eliminate the problem of 0-GW-players not showing up for the second day and will also eliminate the large luck-factor of the difference between 2 and 3 GW. Wouter

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:bnlk0t$luo$03$1...@news.t-online.com... > > Proposition :(it's a summary of the ideas i like of this thread) > > Quite a good summary. :-) > > > One qualifier per country (the same country than in 2003). > > 1/3 of the players attending the tournament are qualified, to a limit > > of 15. > > Agreed. > sounds good > > The local qualifier is put some months before the ec. > > The ec is planned on two days, with 5 rounds (3 the first day, and 2 > > the second). > > Or : registration plus 2 rounds the first day, and 3 the second day > > (it lowers the drops). > > Actually I think it depends more on organization (what times the location > can be accessed ...) than on player drops. I guess the player drops can be > handled well in any other way (e.g prizes for place 6-20). > Do you like the idea of the swiss format proposed by Carl ? actually i proposed the swiss format never mind. about player drops. splitting it into one day draft on day constructed. and offering finals for all 3 events will cut the number of drops. (1 final top five overall, 1 final top 5 constructed not in the ec final, i final top 5 draft not in the ec final). i also like carl proposal with the semifinal. > > > (and a draft event the friday, before the welcome party!). > > Why not. If it can be arranged and there are enough interested people. > > > Stefan Feranci cannot be the winner : he have too much luck to choose > > the right deck it was only the right deck for thhe finals, draw the good cards, and succeeds three tw agree on all counts > > Isn´t it a rule that winners from the past cannot win again :-)))) ? > úh not? :-)))) stefan

>There haven been qualifiers with around 70 people and qualifiers with 20 >people. It愀 just too unfair to give 10 slots to all these events. Esp. >Belgium and Germany have quite a disadvantage because of the central >location. If Belgium and Germany have a disadvantage because they are central and easy to get to, then they also have an advantage because they are central and it is easier to get to other countries' qualifiers in return. Halcyan 2

>that would be some sort of other thing...i always pictured the phrase >of 'champion' to be implicitly a 'constructed champion'. You don't >need to do well at a limited event to qualify, so ....unless.....to >qualify you need to do both top (whatever gets decided) in constructed >and limited...hmmm....further >thoughts.... While I would personally love to see limited events get some more time in the spotlight, I still see them as separate from constructed (and for a good reason). They test different skills. Also, much more than constructed, practice and experience in limited play is much more limited by location and $$$. >and, possibly, have people _aiming_ for 10th instead of 9th-5th? >that's not rhetorical. do other people think this might happen? Agreed. Seems problematic IMO. >> And it is an additional >>incentive for the semi-finalists to play for a GW or lose everything. >>The Semi-final round could have a shorter Time-limit (1hour) or players >>start with 20 pool or players lose a pool at the start of each of their >>turns as special rule to make things faster. > >that's...not good. so you're suggesting that to see whether they are >good enough at 2hr+/30pool vtes to get into the championship final, >they need to prove they are good at 1hr or 20pool/permanent anarch >revolt vtes? you need to keep the measures of performace (ie: >winning >vtes games) as consistant as possible. Ugh. Sounds like just a variation of Rapid Thought (which I personally find tremendously boring and repetitive). >this i saw suggested on this group a while back, and i can't see any >problems. although, once again i'll just throw in my oft-ignored >suggestion of a tie breaker after TPs, being Ousting Points (eg: >ousted first: 12 points, ousted 2nd: 24 points...last man in >(unousted): 60 points) Still, this isn't necessary a good representation. You'll have people walling up so that they're killed last. And maybe go cross-table to kill someone to improve their pitiful standing. Halcyan 2

>Swiss should level the playing field and at the same time find the best >players. >Round 1 seating is assigned randomly. >Round 2: players who have 1 GW are seated together, and players who have >no GW are seated together as much as possible. >Round 3: players who have 2 GW are seated together, players with 1 GW >and players with 0 GW. >Round 4: and so on, you get it. :) Actually, I really like this idea. In fact, I think it has merit in larger tournaments that aren't championships (like Qualifiers). One of the things that rather pisses me off in larger tournaments like Qualifiers is how significant of a swing factor newbie players are. No offense of course, but I've seen plenty a tournament where a newbie player was more disruptive to the table than the worst Anarch Revolt deck. I'd be rather annoyed to drive or fly a long way to a tournament and then lose only because some clueless player was easily manipulated into teaming up against me. >This removes in part the "joker"-effect some players add to a game when >they have absolutely no chances to reach the final and act as >king-makers. With Swiss, things would be a bit more open until the end. Agreed. Halcyan 2

>>How about: >>At least 5 slots > >If you instigated 'at least 5 slots', i would also like to see 'if >your qualifier gets less than 15 players it loses it's qualifier >status', or something similar. So someone who only has the time or money to make say, one Qualifier a year, takes an entire weekend off and purchases a plane ticket. Arrives at the "Qualifier" only to learn that there aren't enough people so he won't be able to qualify? Sounds like a bum deal to me... >>1/3 of competitors up to a maximum of 12? 13? 15? > >1/2 up to a max of 10? i mean, really, all you're doing is tweaking >parameters of the rule we already have. do we need to tweak them? what >are the benefits of having more people in a championship? i just see >it as lessening the overall quality of competition. >with the curent rule of already qualified players not taking up slots, >if you upped the number of slots per tournament you could conceivably >get tournaments where it is >impossible to not qualify. > I agree that the status quo is fine. I suppose Salem and I might be a bit "biased" since he's Australian and I'm American but at the same time, the Europeans are a little "biased" on their side as well (just different biases). I think the current system (up to 10) is fine. And this is coming from someone who was in a three-way tie for 9th at one Qualifier and didn't qualify due to a three-way coin toss challenge. Also, just to note, it can't be a "you guys do your championship your way and we'll do ours our way" since there is spillover from the two continents and qualifying at any Qualifier allows you to play in any Championship. (And I am strongly against segregation between continents since it's divisive for the community). >i'd been wondering myself whether or not the tournament system we have >at the moment would work better as just flat 4 rounds, no final. i >think i'd definately lean towards flat 3 round over 2+F tournaments. > Actually, I've always liked the final round. It gives other decks and players a chance. Always nice to see come-from-behind victories when 5th place who came with no Game Wins manages to win! Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] It the local players are willing to go to 4 or 5 qualifiers (like me) the chance is levelled out, yes. But for people who only attend 1 or max 2 qualifiers because of time and money the chances are still bad. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:<bnlk0t$luo$03$1...@news.t-online.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Swiss format : raise the number of round and use the swiss format deserves the same goal : reduce luck in seating. if used in conjuction, i'm not sure taht the effect will be better. Perhaps just use the swiss format during the first days, not the entire tournament. Points acquired during gw first: advantage : reduce the number of split table. Flaws: easier to take profit of kingmaker. Why not, but a lot of test are neccessary. Draft : there is a lot of luck in draft format, far more than in constructed one. Why not a continental championship in two days, in draft format, at a different moment from the ec ? Uh, i forget something : Magic draft tournament works well because the referee are extremely severe, and disqualification very easy. It is not the case during the international tournament i have seen (no check list during the tournament and not only prior the final for example...). Why add complexity ? Same remark for the mini final round to enter place 5: why add a so complex rule ? Definitly fun, yes (and i will suggest to use it in fun tournament in Paris).. Horribly complex too. Kamel senni.

> Swiss format : raise the number of round and use the swiss format > deserves the same goal : reduce luck in seating. if used in > conjuction, i'm not sure taht the effect will be better. Perhaps just > use the swiss format during the first days, not the entire tournament. > Points acquired during gw first: advantage : reduce the number of > split table. Flaws: easier to take profit of kingmaker. Why not, but a > lot of test are neccessary. I will schedule tests for Swiss format as soon as possible (probaby allready on constructed tournament in December). After we have some results we will decide. Anybody who can contribute field testing results with Swiss and V:TES is very welcome :-) LSJ : Would Swiss be legal according to V:EKN rules ? > Draft : there is a lot of luck in draft format, far more than in > constructed one. Why not a continental championship in two days, in > draft format, at a different moment from the ec ? You are right that mixing of two formats does no good. That option is allready discarded. I do not agree that in draft there is more luck, it´s just different skills needed. A second EC ? Probably too much for some players but we will certainly do something to put the draft more in the center of attention ... (before/after the EC of course). > Uh, i forget something : Magic draft tournament works well because the > referee are extremely severe, and disqualification very easy. It is > not the case during the international tournament i have seen (no check > list during the tournament and not only prior the final for > example...). Why add complexity ? No need to add complexity. There will be no draft, but anyway with a 2 days tournament we will do stricter checking of deck-lists as you have proposed. There will be one or two people solely assigned to that task. One difficulty will be when to schedule this checks ... probably on the lunch break and Saturday evening and of course before the final. > Same remark for the mini final round to enter place 5: why add a so > complex rule ? Definitly fun, yes (and i will suggest to use it in fun > tournament in Paris).. Horribly complex too. It´s quite fun but will be also not considered for the EC. It´s just too complex time consuming etc.. I think after 5 rounds there is a very little chance of having people with same GW/VP/TP contesting for 5th place and if there will be people contesting ... let the dices decide. [ quoted text not captured ]

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > >The fact that, in a 20 player tournament, the top 10 players qualify for > >the Continental Championships means they are the best players? Do you think > >the level of competition of such a tournament is the same as that of a > >50+, 60+, 100+ player tournament? > > On the other hand, are you simply saying that a tournament with more people > yields better players? No, I say it's more competitive, since you need more GWs and VPs to qualify among the top 10. > > If anything, I think the correlation is more bell-shaped (or inverted > parabola). At larger and larger tournaments, luck (not skill) becomes a much > more significant factor. Agreed. That's one reason by which larger tournaments should have more qualifying slots and more rounds available. The fact is that in 20 or less players tournaments, the 50% of participants will qualify for the Continental Championships, which means their chances to do so are much higher than those of players participating in larger tournaments, which, in my opinion, is unfair. Shouldn't everyone have the same chances to qualify? [...] Greetings, Damnans

salem wrote: > >> I think more players attending continental championships would be bad. > >> you want only the really good people there. if you made more > >> qualifying spots, then the level of competition at the championships > >> would be decreased, thus giving an advantage to someone who got lucky > >> and faced some 'lesser players' in their prelim rounds. > > > >Do you think that, in 3-round 100-200 player tournaments, the top 10 players > >are the best, or just the luckiest? ;-) > > what other criteria can we use to decide who's best? Proportion. > i think that we > only want the best players at a championship. the closest we can come > to being able to judge whether someone is good or not is where they > place in a tournament. Probably, but, as I have mentioned eariler, I think each player should have the same chances to qualify for a Continental Championship. Why should it be easier for countries or regions with 20 or less participants? [...] > >the level of competition of such a tournament is the same as that of a > >50+, 60+, 100+ player tournament? > > i'd say it's harder to place in the top 10 in bigger tournaments, > sure. however, are you saying those that come 11th to 20th in your big > tournament are going to all be better players than those that came > 11th-20th in the 20 player tournament? there is no reasonable way you > can know that. Agreed. But the current qualifying system is not fair, since it's not proportional. > there has to be a cutoff somewhere. Yes. And that cutoff should depend on the number of participants. > 10 is what we've been using. it > seems to work. Of course it works. But, can this system be improved? Greetings, Damnans

> > 10 is what we've been using. it > > seems to work. > > Of course it works. But, can this system be improved? Of course it can be improved. Perfection = Golconda which none of us has reached :-)))) I like the idea of having 1/3 of the players with a max. of 15 from Kamel. Advantages : - Even 5 people can do a qualifier (there is no need for a minimum number). Monaco, anyone ? :-) - It愀 more fair for a) central location countries (Belgium, Germany ...) b) countries with a HUGE number of player (Spain, ...) - Countries which have run 20 people qualifiers are motivated to get 30 to have 10 qualifier slots again Disadvantages : - Countries who ran 20 people qualifiers in the past might be pissed off, because they only get 6 slots now. Remark : Whenever I say country hear it should translate to region or whatever term you use for U.S/Australia. [ quoted text not captured ]

Johannes Walch wrote: > LSJ : Would Swiss be legal according to V:EKN rules ? Swiss: Arranging table assignments according to performance in prior rounds. No. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Damnans expounded: > > i think that we > > only want the best players at a championship. the closest we can come > > to being able to judge whether someone is good or not is where they > > place in a tournament. > > Probably, but, as I have mentioned eariler, I think each player should > have the same chances to qualify for a Continental Championship. > > Why should it be easier for countries or regions with 20 or less participants? To encourage people in those countries? To achieve a greater mix at the EC event for increased international socialising? One reason a lot of people (well at least some) didn't turn up to the UK qualifier was that they didn't plan to go to the EC and didn't want to take up qualified slots. Would it be better to have more tournaments with fewer qualifiers from each?

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<k54rpvsbsa213uupc...@4ax.com>... > On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:10:46 +0100, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> > scrawled: > >Therefore, a chart should be establised with the number of > >participants and their respective qualifying slots for players. > > > >What do you think about it? I think this would help promote > >the game, since more players would be attending the Continental > >Championships. > > I think more players attending continental championships would be bad. > you want only the really good people there. if you made more > qualifying spots, then the level of competition at the championships > would be decreased, thus giving an advantage to someone who got lucky > and faced some 'lesser players' in their prelim rounds. Honestly, my understanding is that this already happens to some extent in the NAC because of the number of people who play in the final qualifier (at GenCon) who have already qualified. They end up taking the top slots in that tournament anyway and pushing the qualifying criteria down way too far. What was it this year? Something like 1.5 vps to qualify? I think that disrupts the actual Championship play a bit. Now, unfortunately this means that Johannes's idea might end up helping the EC but would hurt the NAC even more, since that last GenCon qualifier would certainly have enough participants to reach the higher maximum. Perhaps some adjustment should be made based on the number of preliminary qualifying tournaments there are for the continent. (i.e. - low number of tourneys = higher limit of qualifiers per tourney) I'm not sure this is a great solution since it raises other population-based issues, but something along those lines might be better than a worldwide increase. Eric Simon Prince of Chicago

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:<bnlk0t$luo$03$1...@news.t-online.com>... <snip> > Do you like the idea of the swiss format proposed by Carl ? > In one word: no. Swiss is IMO and IME not the right way to organise a V:TES tournement. I have played in one, and the results were horrible. For example: the final had the same 5 players as those in the Turn 2 first 5 tables. Problems with the Swiss format: 1. Talking a 2-2-1 deal in the first round can become better than taking a TW. In the second round you won't face the top decks/players. 2. Theoretically, you're levelling the playing field. This also means that: a/ For good players it will become more difficult to reach the finals. And to get there they will be forced to keep other good players out of the finals. b/ for average players it becomes easier to get to the finals, because the good ones are killing each other. 3. You really don't reduce the impact of luck. There is luck involved in the seating of every table. With the same amount of TW and VPs you can be the last player on a good table, or the first one on a mediocre table. Plus of course the luck on the first table seating. AND the rock-paper-sissor- nature of this game. Not to mention: handjamming, getting crypt screwed, contesting every vampire,... But I do support the idea of a 2-day EC, with 3- 4 rounds on saturday and 3+F on Sunday. Save all support (something for everybody) and promo's for sunday, to reduce dropping out. Maybe even allow people to change decks between the 2 days, to reduce the deck checking and suchlike. It just adds an interesting Metagame guessing dynamic to the EC :-) Jeroen

> > LSJ : Would Swiss be legal according to V:EKN rules ? > > Swiss: Arranging table assignments according to performance in prior rounds. > > No. And with a big final cry the idea is gone :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Maybe even allow people > to change decks between the 2 days, to reduce the deck checking and > suchlike. It just adds an interesting Metagame guessing dynamic to > the EC :-) Sorry to bother you again, LSJ, but I guess that is not allowed under V:KEN rules ? Correct ? [ quoted text not captured ]

Timlagor wrote: > > Damnans expounded: > > > i think that we > > > only want the best players at a championship. the closest we can come > > > to being able to judge whether someone is good or not is where they > > > place in a tournament. > > > > Probably, but, as I have mentioned eariler, I think each player should > > have the same chances to qualify for a Continental Championship. > > > > Why should it be easier for countries or regions with 20 or less participants? > > To encourage people in those countries? Perhaps you think that having just 10 qualifying slots in a 170 player tournament is very encouraging? ;-) > To achieve a greater mix at the EC event for increased international > socialising? But this mix can be achieved if smaller tournaments don't use the proportional system I suggest for larger tournaments. There could be a minimum of slots for them, so that the attendance of players from every country is guaranteed. > One reason a lot of people (well at least some) didn't turn up to the UK > qualifier was that they didn't plan to go to the EC and didn't want to > take up qualified slots. I think their attitude was fair. Qualifier tournaments are qualifier tournaments :-) [...] Greetings, Damnans

>Swiss should level the playing field and at the same time find the best >players. If two player tables become standard, I'd understand the interest. I don't think the concept can be applied to multiplayer play. I'd expect the sorts of problems Jeroen has brought up. As it's illegal for sanctioned events, testing for problems is a problem itself. Then, there's the mess it makes of seating. Speaking of which, BTW, one of the elements of Swiss is that you don't play opponents you've played before (I believe there are situations where there is no choice, but they are unlikely). >This removes in part the "joker"-effect some players add to a game when >they have absolutely no chances to reach the final and act as >king-makers. With Swiss, things would be a bit more open until the end. I could see it encouraging players to play not to win at the top table as they can improve on their main competition by keeping them down. >I'm also of the opinion that a continental Championship needs to have >more than 3 rounds, and I think that a true Champion needs to be good in >both limited and constructed format. >My proposal would be to have 3 rounds of limited (sealed or draft) on >day 1 and 3 rounds of constructed plus the final on day 2. >All 6 rounds would count together for determining who is going to the >final. That way things are still open after day 1 and players would show >up again on day 2. Assuming there's enough time, it seems like people are behind the idea of playing more rounds. Should have a "cut" to the second day rather than require people to play every round of a two day tournament. Could also clear first day's results for the second day, otherwise going to run into problems of people who don't think they can advance because they barely made the cut. As for limited play, while I think people underestimate the skill required, might want to try to push people to play limited more often first since it's obvious that any limited format is not a major one given how few players are ranked.

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:<bnlkqs$qr8$06$1...@news.t-online.com>... > There haven been qualifiers with around 70 people and qualifiers with 20 > people. It愀 just too unfair to give 10 slots to all these events. Esp. > Belgium and Germany have quite a disadvantage because of the central > location. > > Anyway the adjustment is not too big (max. 15 instead of 10) and it will be > better for the game, I am sure. Why not allow anyone to run a qualifier and charge for slots? I believe this is how the folks playing MTG do it. For example, the tournament organizer pays a fee to the DC to "purchase" slots. Perhaps it would cost $5/slot, min 5/max 20. After the fee is paid, then the event is held and then bids to the continental championship are awarded. If a tournament organizer had the resources and wherewithal, they could opt to hold yet another qualifier and pay the fee to WW/VEKN to purchase additional slots. If a system like this were used, WW/VEKN would first have to determine whether they wanted to cap the number of bids or not, mainly so the final event would be manageable to that event's staff. Or, they could just let it be wide open and then perhaps there would be 200 people participating in the next Continental Championship, which might not be a bad thing either. :) Jeff

> Why not allow anyone to run a qualifier and charge for slots? Because V:EKN tournaments are not WotC tournaments. They are about having fun and meetings friends not about increasing the loot of the OneEvilOrganisation [tm]. :-) Seriously : I think the money/payment involved in V:TES tournaments has always been reduced to a minimum (normally just to pay for prizes / location) and that has been to the benefit of the community. You would NEVER, EVER come to a widely accepted agreement on the exact prize, anyway. There is quite some noticeable gap inside of Europe considering the money people have available. Based on what would you charge the price for a qualifier ? Scale it with the average income per country ? Endless problems .... Another problem could and would be that the V:KEN is no registered association in any way, and therefore it is difficult to handle any issues involving money. This is certainly one of the baddest ideas I heard in a long time. Endless problems and no obvious advantage. [ quoted text not captured ]

Johannes Walch wrote: >> Maybe even allow people >>to change decks between the 2 days, to reduce the deck checking and >>suchlike. It just adds an interesting Metagame guessing dynamic to >>the EC :-) > > Sorry to bother you again, LSJ, but I guess that is not allowed under V:KEN > rules ? Correct ? Correct. [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans expounded: > > > Timlagor wrote: > > > > Damnans expounded: > > > > i think that we > > > > only want the best players at a championship. the closest we can come > > > > to being able to judge whether someone is good or not is where they > > > > place in a tournament. > > > > > > Probably, but, as I have mentioned eariler, I think each player should > > > have the same chances to qualify for a Continental Championship. > > > > > > Why should it be easier for countries or regions with 20 or less participants? > > > > To encourage people in those countries? > > Perhaps you think that having just 10 qualifying slots in a 170 player > tournament is very encouraging? ;-) Not at all. Just trying to answer the question ;-) .. not saying I think it's right how it is. > > To achieve a greater mix at the EC event for increased international > > socialising? > > But this mix can be achieved if smaller tournaments don't use the proportional > system I suggest for larger tournaments. There could be a minimum of slots > for them, so that the attendance of players from every country is guaranteed. Quite true. > > One reason a lot of people (well at least some) didn't turn up to the UK > > qualifier was that they didn't plan to go to the EC and didn't want to > > take up qualified slots. > > I think their attitude was fair. Qualifier tournaments are qualifier > tournaments :-) Yeah but it was a shame. Didn't help that it was the Sunday after the UK Championship. You could do something about letting people opt not to qualify but still play in the tournament (so others get the slots). This could have all the problems with qualifier quality expounded elsewhere of course. A two section EC (with blank slate on the second day for those who get through) would take care of this nicely imo.

LSJ expounded: > Johannes Walch wrote: > >> Maybe even allow people > >>to change decks between the 2 days, to reduce the deck checking and > >>suchlike. It just adds an interesting Metagame guessing dynamic to > >>the EC :-) > > > > Sorry to bother you again, LSJ, but I guess that is not allowed under V:KEN > > rules ? Correct ? > > Correct. presumably the purpose of the VEKN rules is to make good tournaments which are fun and well-run. I know they have been changed before. Just because something isn't currently legal doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discussed and maybe changed. If something is illegal for a good reason (as many things are) it would be good to get the reason. Personally I am not in favour of allowing a change in decks between days though I can see that people might get tired of their decks over that many games; choose a more interesting deck! ;P

On 28 Oct 2003 13:56:38 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) scrawled: >>this i saw suggested on this group a while back, and i can't see any >>problems. although, once again i'll just throw in my oft-ignored >>suggestion of a tie breaker after TPs, being Ousting Points (eg: >>ousted first: 12 points, ousted 2nd: 24 points...last man in >>(unousted): 60 points) > > >Still, this isn't necessary a good representation. You'll have people walling >up so that they're killed last. Which i personally feel is better than them just 'dying in the manner they choose', which is often a Kingmaker thing to do. although if they are walling up then the king they are making is their prey....hmmm... > And maybe go cross-table to kill someone to >improve their pitiful standing. if they could do that, surely they'd have a hope of ousting their prey intead? VPs are worth SO MUCH more than OPs.... Maybe I am just being naieve, but i don't really actually see people playing to accumulate OPs. I just sort of see them as what you happen to get when you're ousted as a way of breaking ties at the very last, which has to be a lot nicer than rolling a dice/flipping a coin. Although if GW VPs are worth more than non-GW vps then i guess we'd likely see a lot less ties anyway because of the extra 'tier'... salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

On 28 Oct 2003 18:27:41 GMT, cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) scrawled: >>Swiss should level the playing field and at the same time find the best >>players. > >If two player tables become standard, I'd understand the interest. I don't >think the concept can be applied to multiplayer play. > >I'd expect the sorts of problems Jeroen has brought up. As it's illegal for >sanctioned events, testing for problems is a problem itself. Then, there's the >mess it makes of seating. Speaking of which, BTW, one of the elements of Swiss >is that you don't play opponents you've played before (I believe there are >situations where there is no choice, but they are unlikely). well, if we adapt that to the multiplayer environment of vtes, it could merely be you don't play as the same pred/prey relationship with an opponent, like the rule we have now. >>This removes in part the "joker"-effect some players add to a game when >>they have absolutely no chances to reach the final and act as >>king-makers. With Swiss, things would be a bit more open until the end. > >I could see it encouraging players to play not to win at the top table as they >can improve on their main competition by keeping them down. But if the table to play on is based on your overall ranking up to that point, throwing the second game isn't going to put you down on the bottom table if you got vps/gw in the first round, trowing the first game might be vaguely a good idea as it gives you an easy second round, but if you then win that second round, why didn;t you just win the first round (putting you on the same ranking) and then try and win that harder table the next round to maybe put you on a higher ranking? if your table is always based on overall ranking (rather than how well you did in the most recent round), throwing a game is like shooting yourself in the foot. >>I'm also of the opinion that a continental Championship needs to have >>more than 3 rounds, and I think that a true Champion needs to be good in >>both limited and constructed format. >>My proposal would be to have 3 rounds of limited (sealed or draft) on >>day 1 and 3 rounds of constructed plus the final on day 2. >>All 6 rounds would count together for determining who is going to the >>final. That way things are still open after day 1 and players would show >>up again on day 2. > >Assuming there's enough time, it seems like people are behind the idea of >playing more rounds. Should have a "cut" to the second day rather than require >people to play every round of a two day tournament. Could also clear first >day's results for the second day, otherwise going to run into problems of >people who don't think they can advance because they barely made the cut. or you could not clear results between days and not have a cut, and players would cut themselves if they thought they weren't going to make it. that has the additional effect of making sure the champion really really wants to be champion (and doesn't just quit half way through). >As for limited play, while I think people underestimate the skill required, >might want to try to push people to play limited more often first since it's >obvious that any limited format is not a major one given how few players are >ranked. agreed. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 28 Oct 2003 14:09:18 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) scrawled: >>>How about: >>>At least 5 slots >> >>If you instigated 'at least 5 slots', i would also like to see 'if >>your qualifier gets less than 15 players it loses it's qualifier >>status', or something similar. > > >So someone who only has the time or money to make say, one Qualifier a year, >takes an entire weekend off and purchases a plane ticket. Arrives at the >"Qualifier" only to learn that there aren't enough people so he won't be able >to qualify? Sounds like a bum deal to me... yup. sucks, huh? but if some poxy little place manages to convince ww to let them have a qualifier, and only 5 people turn up......under this scheme, it's auto-qualifying time! >I agree that the status quo is fine. I suppose Salem and I might be a bit >"biased" since he's Australian and I'm American but at the same time, the >Europeans are a little "biased" on their side as well (just different biases). > >I think the current system (up to 10) is fine. And this is coming from someone >who was in a three-way tie for 9th at one Qualifier and didn't qualify due to a >three-way coin toss challenge. ow. bet you wished you'd used ousting points, huh? :) 3-way coin toss indeed....Halcyan 2 could have been Champion! >Also, just to note, it can't be a "you guys do your championship your way and >we'll do ours our way" since there is spillover from the two continents and >qualifying at any Qualifier allows you to play in any Championship. (And I am >strongly against segregation between continents since it's divisive for the >community). agreed. there should be as much uniformity between everywhere as possible, so that you know you're all playing the same game, and it encourages people to make an effort to go romping across the globe playing vtes hither and thither. >>i'd been wondering myself whether or not the tournament system we have >>at the moment would work better as just flat 4 rounds, no final. i >>think i'd definately lean towards flat 3 round over 2+F tournaments. >> > > >Actually, I've always liked the final round. It gives other decks and players a >chance. Always nice to see come-from-behind victories when 5th place who came >with no Game Wins manages to win! Indeed. but with 2 round+F tournaments it feels like you make one slip up in one game and suddenly you can't win. maybe i'm just against 2+F. although now that i have had to start holding my tourneys in the local shoppe, it's been hard to squeeze in 3+F. stupid shoppe, closing at 5 on weekends... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:44:27 +0100, "Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> scrawled: >> I think more players attending continental championships would be bad. >> you want only the really good people there. if you made more >> qualifying spots, then the level of competition at the championships >> would be decreased, thus giving an advantage to someone who got lucky >> and faced some 'lesser players' in their prelim rounds. > >I have no clue where you´re from but I assume U.S or Australia (shame on me >if I am wrong) and therefore your view is probably a bit biased on your >current situation. Australia. and of course i am biased. i don't beleive anyone can be perfectly objective. :) >I understand your point but I think in Europe we have a >different situation. The player base is huge and growing day by day and >there are a log of countries which have more than 10 top-notch players. Only 1 person can be champion. if a region has the champion in it, it doesn't matter whether they and 9 other people all go to the championships to play it out or whether it's them and 14 other people. only 1 will win. >There haven been qualifiers with around 70 people and qualifiers with 20 >people. It´s just too unfair to give 10 slots to all these events. Esp. >Belgium and Germany have quite a disadvantage because of the central >location. but if half the belgians go to germany, and half the germans go to belgium, and you are using a pure proportional scheme, then you start moving towards and auto-qualifing position, where it doesn't matter how you do, you'll qualify anyway. >Anyway the adjustement is not too big (max. 15 instead of 10) and it will be >better for the game, I am sure. if the adjustment is so small, why does it need to be made at all? you could rewrite the current qualifying rule to be: only the top 1% of the field will qualify, with a minimum of 10 players qualifying. however, at smaller tournaments (those with less than 20 people), the minimum will instead be 1/2 the field. Damnans wanted a pure proportional system, but with max numbers thrown in, and tweaks for large and small tourneys. we already have such a system. >P.S : This is not an attempt to start the 38th US vs. Europe war, it is just >an attempt to explain our different situation i would love to play in a 170 player tournament. :) but if it had 15 spots instead of 10, how would that be any more encouraging to those that play there? you got 170, who else are you trying to encourage!?!? if you have a smaller region (player-base wise), it the current sytem encourages people to turn up more so than in a large player-base region. but in the large player base region you've already got a lot of encouraged players, so you don't need to tack on that extra incentive. >P.P.S : I do consider all of this only for Europe. Other Continental >Championship Organizers are of course free to do whatever they want. i agree with Halcyan 2 wherein all the qualifiers the world over should be using the same criteria. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 28 Oct 2003 09:08:06 -0800, vol...@yahoo.com (Eric Simon) scrawled: >salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<k54rpvsbsa213uupc...@4ax.com>... >> I think more players attending continental championships would be bad. >> you want only the really good people there. if you made more >> qualifying spots, then the level of competition at the championships >> would be decreased, thus giving an advantage to someone who got lucky >> and faced some 'lesser players' in their prelim rounds. > >Honestly, my understanding is that this already happens to some extent >in the NAC because of the number of people who play in the final >qualifier (at GenCon) who have already qualified. They end up taking >the top slots in that tournament anyway and pushing the qualifying >criteria down way too far. What was it this year? Something like 1.5 >vps to qualify? I think that disrupts the actual Championship play a >bit. Now, unfortunately this means that Johannes's idea might end up >helping the EC but would hurt the NAC even more, since that last >GenCon qualifier would certainly have enough participants to reach the >higher maximum. Perhaps some adjustment should be made based on the >number of preliminary qualifying tournaments there are for the >continent. (i.e. - low number of tourneys = higher limit of >qualifiers per tourney) I'm not sure this is a great solution since >it raises other population-based issues, but something along those >lines might be better than a worldwide increase. If you were to go with a more proportional scheme, then to avoid problems like at the NAC, you could have already qualified players NOT count towards the total number of players at the event for working out how many slots are available. since those qualified don't take up slots anyway, it makes sense to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:52:16 -0000, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled: >> > One reason a lot of people (well at least some) didn't turn up to the UK >> > qualifier was that they didn't plan to go to the EC and didn't want to >> > take up qualified slots. >> >> I think their attitude was fair. Qualifier tournaments are qualifier >> tournaments :-) > >Yeah but it was a shame. Didn't help that it was the Sunday after the UK >Championship. > >You could do something about letting people opt not to qualify but still >play in the tournament (so others get the slots). This could have all >the problems with qualifier quality expounded elsewhere of course. A two >section EC (with blank slate on the second day for those who get >through) would take care of this nicely imo. 'bank slate'? anyway, one of my players was wanting to know if he could play in the qulifier and not take up a slot. LSJ said that as long as a player clearly states his intention to the judge to not take up a slot, _before the tournament_, he could do so. The player in question decided to play to qualify anyway, but it was a useful piece of information to know. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:25:48 +0100, "Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> scrawled: >> > LSJ : Would Swiss be legal according to V:EKN rules ? >> >> Swiss: Arranging table assignments according to performance in prior >rounds. >> >> No. > >And with a big final cry the idea is gone :-) i thought we all already knew it was not currently vekn legal, and we were proposing to try and get it included as either an optional seating rule for tournaments, or as a special dispensation for continental championships. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:38:39 +0100, "Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> scrawled: >No need to add complexity. There will be no draft, but anyway with a 2 days >tournament we will do stricter checking of deck-lists as you have proposed. >There will be one or two people solely assigned to that task. One difficulty >will be when to schedule this checks ... probably on the lunch break and >Saturday evening and of course before the final. if you take everyone's deck off them after the first day (assuming they want to come back to play the next day), you could do random checks that night, and then the player's won't have their decks with them overnight when a few of them might be tempted to 'replace' cards that were 'supposed' to bein their decks all along... you'd of course need somewhere secure to store all these championship decks, and id checks when returning them for the next day's play... >I think after 5 rounds there is a very little chance of having people with >same GW/VP/TP contesting for 5th place and if there will be people >contesting ... let the dices decide. and 5 rounds plus final is legal under current vekn rules, too! I am so going to have to have money by then so i can come over.....make it as late in the year as possible so i can save up! (erm, assuming i qualify...) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Johannes Walch wrote: > >> Maybe even allow people > >>to change decks between the 2 days, to reduce the deck checking and > >>suchlike. It just adds an interesting Metagame guessing dynamic to > >>the EC :-) > > > > Sorry to bother you again, LSJ, but I guess that is not allowed under V:KEN > > rules ? Correct ? > > Correct. However, if each day was considered a distinct tournament, then of course it would be legal. Day 1 - 3 round flat tournament (no final - or technically you can have a final, but don't count it towards who advances). Top 40 (10 tables of 5) advance to Day 2. Day 2 - 3+1. Continental Championships do get special dispensation in terms of being invitiation only, so you could also have a "cut" (a la golf) as well. But I am biased, because the thought ofplaying a potential 7 games in a row over the course of 2 days with the *SAME* deck makes me sick. After the first game, you are pretty sure what the flaws are, and after the third, you really really know, and all you want to do is go tune it up - but you can't! So my vote, if we are keeping track, is to allow folks to switch decks between days. I think weighing VP is a good idea. I think in theory Swiss is good, but in practice, I bet it will be found to be unworkable. I think having a sealed event on Friday evening before the goth party is a great idea too. best - chris -- chris shorb <www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site) prince of torrance, california *** Into the abyss I'll fall - the eye of Horus Into the eyes of the night - watching me go Green is the cat's eye that glows - in this temple Enter the risen Osiris - risen again - Dickinson

Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a092295b...@news.freeserve.com>... > LSJ expounded: > > Johannes Walch wrote: > > >> Maybe even allow people > > >>to change decks between the 2 days, to reduce the deck checking and > > >>suchlike. It just adds an interesting Metagame guessing dynamic to > > >>the EC :-) > > > > > > Sorry to bother you again, LSJ, but I guess that is not allowed under V:KEN > > > rules ? Correct ? > > > > Correct. > > presumably the purpose of the VEKN rules is to make good tournaments > which are fun and well-run. I know they have been changed before. Just > because something isn't currently legal doesn't mean that it shouldn't > be discussed and maybe changed. Agreed partially. Discussion is not sufficient: test on real tournaments (non sanctionned) is necessary. > > If something is illegal for a good reason (as many things are) it would > be good to get the reason. The reason is : there is no better way to handle such things that are sufficently tested (not only imagined, or dreamed, or discussed...). KS.

Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Problems with the Swiss format: > 1. Talking a 2-2-1 deal in the first round can become better than > taking a TW. In the second round you won't face the top > decks/players. Only if the top decks/players are too stupid to be on the "-1" end of the deal you suggest. > 2. Theoretically, you're levelling the playing field. This also means > that: > a/ For good players it will become more difficult to reach the finals. Only if they are *stupid* good players and don't screw the system as you suggest they should in (1). > And to get there they will be forced to keep other good players > out of the finals. Only if they are stupid. > b/ for average players it becomes easier to get to the finals, > because the good ones are killing each other. But since the good players are GOOD PLAYERS, they will manipulate the system better than the average players, and they will KILL all the average players via the system. Oh. Wait. That's how it happens already. I guess Swiss doesn't change anything! =) > Jeroen Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

> > And maybe go cross-table to kill someone to > >improve their pitiful standing. > > if they could do that, surely they'd have a hope of ousting their prey > intead? VPs are worth SO MUCH more than OPs.... Not necessarily. The cross-table player could be the only other weak one -prey may be strong. Also the CT player already has a predator and prey to deal with to whom you would be adding your weight: your prey expects you to be attacking and is prepared for it. Obvioulsy it would be better to be able to persuade others to come cross-table at your prey but that isn't very likely.

salem expounded: > >> > One reason a lot of people (well at least some) didn't turn up to the UK > >> > qualifier was that they didn't plan to go to the EC and didn't want to > >> > take up qualified slots. > >You could do something about letting people opt not to qualify but still > >play in the tournament (so others get the slots). This could have all > >the problems with qualifier quality expounded elsewhere of course. A two > >section EC (with blank slate on the second day for those who get > >through) would take care of this nicely imo. > > 'bank slate'? bLank -ie no scores carry over form the day before -eberyone starts the new day on 0GW 0VP 0TP. > anyway, one of my players was wanting to know if he could play in the > qulifier and not take up a slot. LSJ said that as long as a player > clearly states his intention to the judge to not take up a slot, > _before the tournament_, he could do so. I thought I had read that somewhere. Everyone assured me that you couldn't though <shrug>.

salem expounded: > >No need to add complexity. There will be no draft, but anyway with a 2 days > >tournament we will do stricter checking of deck-lists as you have proposed. > >There will be one or two people solely assigned to that task. One difficulty > >will be when to schedule this checks ... probably on the lunch break and > >Saturday evening and of course before the final. > > if you take everyone's deck off them after the first day (assuming > they want to come back to play the next day), you could do random > checks that night, and then the player's won't have their decks with > them overnight when a few of them might be tempted to 'replace' cards > that were 'supposed' to bein their decks all along... > > you'd of course need somewhere secure to store all these championship > decks, and id checks when returning them for the next day's play... Sounds like an awful lot of hassle. Gieven that we don't check for cheating very much anyway I'd be inclined to have more faith in the players' honesty. You can also check decks during the round -if you have people doing nothing else they can sti down at a table with a decklist and look through someone's library + Ahheap while they are playing. (slightly disruptive but if they do it while the player isn't playing it shouldn't be too bad and it will avoid people showing a different deck i the lunch-break). I'm opposed in principle to letting people switch decks between days but you could allow a 'sideboard' (another 10 or so cards that people might want to put in their decks that they can then swap in between rounds/days if they so choose). I don't think that would actually make things much harder in terms of deck-checking; might make scouting more of an issue though...

Kamel SENNI expounded: > > presumably the purpose of the VEKN rules is to make good tournaments > > which are fun and well-run. I know they have been changed before. Just > > because something isn't currently legal doesn't mean that it shouldn't > > be discussed and maybe changed. > Agreed partially. Discussion is not sufficient: test on real > tournaments (non sanctionned) is necessary. Fair enough. You still have to start by discussing it though.

> if you take everyone's deck off them after the first day (assuming > they want to come back to play the next day), you could do random > checks that night, and then the player's won't have their decks with > them overnight when a few of them might be tempted to 'replace' cards > that were 'supposed' to bein their decks all along... No. 1. I will not spend Saturday night checking decks. 2. I will not store (quick calc : 100 players, each deck is worth at least 50$) 5000+$ worth of decks somewhere. That can and will lead to problems. 3. There will be enough time to check decks and the punishment will be severe enough so I do not think anyone will attempt to cheat. 4. I like to sleep with my deck under the pillow. I assume that other people want to do that as well :-))))) [ quoted text not captured ]

Johannes Walch wrote: >>if you take everyone's deck off them after the first day (assuming >>they want to come back to play the next day), you could do random >>checks that night, and then the player's won't have their decks with >>them overnight when a few of them might be tempted to 'replace' cards >>that were 'supposed' to bein their decks all along... > > > No. > > 1. I will not spend Saturday night checking decks. I know you won't. That's the reason why we have "lesser judges" Probably put Erol into that position. He still owes me ;) > 2. I will not store (quick calc : 100 players, each deck is worth at least > 50$) 5000+$ worth of decks somewhere. That can and will lead to problems. Yep. > 3. There will be enough time to check decks and the punishment will be > severe enough so I do not think anyone will attempt to cheat. Did I ever mention I do 260 pounds bench press and others say I am a little bot agressive *grrr* ;) > 4. I like to sleep with my deck under the pillow. I assume that other people > want to do that as well :-))))) As you are the head judge you are not allowed to play. Sec 1.1 EC 2004 Tournament Rules Head Judge cannot play. -- Andreas Nusser www.vekn.de a.nu...@vekn.de

> > 4. I like to sleep with my deck under the pillow. I assume that other people > > want to do that as well :-))))) > > As you are the head judge you are not allowed to play. > > Sec 1.1 EC 2004 Tournament Rules > > Head Judge cannot play. You didn´t read the Tournament Rules correctly : Sec 1.2 Even people not registered in the tournament (aka players) are allowed to sleep with a deck under their pillow. If they wish to do so they are required to give a deck list to the head judge prior to the night. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:11:19 -0000, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled: >salem expounded: >> >> > One reason a lot of people (well at least some) didn't turn up to the UK >> >> > qualifier was that they didn't plan to go to the EC and didn't want to >> >> > take up qualified slots. >> >You could do something about letting people opt not to qualify but still >> >play in the tournament (so others get the slots). This could have all >> >the problems with qualifier quality expounded elsewhere of course. A two >> >section EC (with blank slate on the second day for those who get >> >through) would take care of this nicely imo. >> >> 'bank slate'? > >bLank -ie no scores carry over form the day before -eberyone starts the >new day on 0GW 0VP 0TP. you know, i know what Blank Slate means. it was in context, too. but my brain, well, it just wanted to read 'bank slate', and then it didn't want to try and work out if that was a typo that meant something else. not that it was. my brain is weird sometimes. >> anyway, one of my players was wanting to know if he could play in the >> qulifier and not take up a slot. LSJ said that as long as a player >> clearly states his intention to the judge to not take up a slot, >> _before the tournament_, he could do so. > >I thought I had read that somewhere. Everyone assured me that you >couldn't though <shrug>. oops. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:47:28 +0100, Andreas Nusser <time...@NOSPAMscram.de> scrawled: >Johannes Walch wrote: >> 3. There will be enough time to check decks and the punishment will be >> severe enough so I do not think anyone will attempt to cheat. > >Did I ever mention I do 260 pounds bench press and others say I am a >little bot agressive *grrr* ;) *zzap* *crush* *beepbeep* little bot agressive. like a small robot. heee....ok, it's late...i should sleep.... [ quoted text not captured ]

salem expounded: Number 1: the tipo. ... > >> >You could do something about letting people opt not to qualify but still > >> >play in the tournament (so others get the slots). This could have all > >> >the problems with qualifier quality expounded elsewhere of course. A two > >> >section EC (with blank slate on the second day for those who get > >> >through) would take care of this nicely imo. > >> > >> 'bank slate'? > > > >bLank -ie no scores carry over form the day before -eberyone starts the > >new day on 0GW 0VP 0TP. > > you know, i know what Blank Slate means. it was in context, too. but > my brain, well, it just wanted to read 'bank slate', and then it > didn't want to try and work out if that was a typo that meant > something else. not that it was. my brain is weird sometimes. I hate to rub it in. I really do. However I must defend my typing aginst such libel! There was no typo ;) (and it's not often i can say that ;D) ... Nimber 1: the typo. :-D

Johannes Walch expounded: [ quoted text not captured ] Hmm. I trust you will be making arrangements to check these decks at random points during the night: we wouldn't want any cheating now would we?

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:<bnmem7$pfo$06$1...@news.t-online.com>... > > Why not allow anyone to run a qualifier and charge for slots? > > I think the money/payment involved in V:TES tournaments has always been > reduced to a minimum (normally just to pay for prizes / location) and that > has been to the benefit of the community. Of course, this is one of the best things about VTES tournaments right now. It's great being able to pay minimal amounts of money for a full day's enjoyment of gaming. > You would NEVER, EVER come to a widely accepted agreement on the exact > prize, anyway. There is quite some noticeable gap inside of Europe > considering the money people have available. Based on what would you charge > the price for a qualifier ? Scale it with the average income per country ? > Endless problems .... There doesn't need to be an agreement. If you are an organizer and expect a turnout of 80 people, you should scale your entry fee based on this expectation and any out of pocket expenses. Advertising that you have 5 or 10 or 20 qualifier slots available may help to attract more or less players as appropriate. > Another problem could and would be that the V:KEN is no registered > association in any way, and therefore it is difficult to handle any issues > involving money. While I am unfamiliar with the internal workings of the VEKN, I sincerely doubt that it would take a massive effort to collect fees from tournament organizers after offering 100-200 bids for the next continental championship. If each qualifier offered 5-20 slots, you'd really only have to deal with 10-20 events total. > This is certainly one of the baddest ideas I heard in a long time. Endless > problems and no obvious advantage. The obvious advantage is that instead of coming to some nebulous consensus where the smaller groups have less of a say in the matter, anyone who is willing to organize an event can and will! If the French or Germans or Italians want to run 2-3 qualifiers and offer 20-50 slots from their country, they would be welcome to. If the Finns only muster interest for one 10-slot event, that's just great for them. And as always, people are free to travel across the continent. I well understand this cost since I live in California and nearly all big VEKN events are at least 5 hours flight away. It just seems logical to me that a player would prefer to have more chances to compete (and have fun!) locally than put all their "eggs in one basket" while at one mega-event. More events is better IMO. You won't dilute the quality of play significantly. It might even be beneficial if say an Italian and French qualifier were held the same weekend. Each event might have less players, but you wouldn't have the "problem" of out-of-country visitors "stealing" slots. I really don't see this as a problem, but a benefit. Jeff

> It might even be beneficial if say an > Italian and French qualifier were held the same weekend. Each event > might have less players, but you wouldn't have the "problem" of > out-of-country visitors "stealing" slots. I really don't see this as a > problem, but a benefit. But I would have one opportunity less to visit my dear friends I made all over Europe while playing V:TES and participating in related drinking activities (aka The European Drinking Tour). That would be a pitty. [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: [...] > you could rewrite the current qualifying rule to be: > only the top 1% of the field will qualify, with a minimum of 10 > players qualifying. however, at smaller tournaments (those with less > than 20 people), the minimum will instead be 1/2 the field. > > Damnans wanted a pure proportional system, but with max numbers thrown > in, and tweaks for large and small tourneys. we already have such a > system. No, we don't ;-) We have an unfair system that makes it easier for people playing small tournaments to qualify for the Continental Championships, since half the participants will qualify. > > >P.S : This is not an attempt to start the 38th US vs. Europe war, it is just > >an attempt to explain our different situation > > i would love to play in a 170 player tournament. :) but if it had 15 > spots instead of 10, how would that be any more encouraging to those > that play there? you got 170, who else are you trying to encourage!?!? 15 slots would not probably be enough for a 170 player tournament. > if you have a smaller region (player-base wise), it the current sytem > encourages people to turn up more so than in a large player-base > region. but in the large player base region you've already got a lot > of encouraged players, so you don't need to tack on that extra > incentive. But they don't have the "same" chances to qualify, which I think it should be the point. Have a look at the following data: Less than 21 players (50% players qualify): NAQ Midwest - April 13th, 2003 - Omaha, Nebraska - 9 players NAQ Northwest - April 13th, 2003 - Seattle, Washington - 20 players NAQ - Western Canada - May 24, 2003 - Edmonton, Alberta - 16 players AQ - Adelaide - June 8, 2003 - Adelaide, Australia - 14 players EQ - Poland - June 28, 2003 - Gliwice, Poland - 18 Players AQ - Newcastle, Australia - July 7, 2003 - 19 Players AQ - Canberra - August 30, 2003 - 18 Players EQ - Copenhagen, Denmark - October 4, 2003 - 18 Players From 21 to 40 Players (47.6% - 25% players qualify): NAQ NorthEast - Boston, Mass - February 22nd, 2003 - 36 Players NAQ SouthCentral - March 21, 2003 - College Station, TX 25 Players NAQ Montreal - March 30, 2003 - Montreal, Canada - 39 Players EQ Trondheim - March 2003 - Trondheim, Norway - 25 Players EQ Gothenburg - Sweden - April 19th, 2003 - Gothenburg, Sweden - 24 players NAQ Toronto - May 3rd, 2003 - Toronto, Canada - 21 players NAQ South East - May 17th, 2003 - Atlanta, Georgia - 35 players NAQ Winnipeg - May 17, 2003 - Winnipeg, Canada - 23 Players EQ Budepest - May 24, 2003 - Budapest, Hungary - 40 Players NAQ South West - May 25th, 2003 - Los Angeles, California - 25 players EQ Linz - May 31, 2003 - Linz, Austria - 23 Players NAQ - Origins - June 28, 2003 - Columbus, Ohio - 35 Players EQ - Kosice - Slovak Republic - August 9, 2003 - 38 Players EQ - Watford - UK - August 24, 2003 - 21 Players EQ - Paris, France - September 20, 2003 - 38 Players EQ - Loures, Portugal - September 20, 2003 - 27 Players From 41 to 60 Players (24.39% - 16.7% players qualify): NAQ Great Lakes - March 22nd, 2003 - Ann Arbor, Michigan - 45 players NAQ East Central - June 7th, 2003 - Rockville, Maryland - 52 players EQ - Belgium - Antwerp - August 10, 2003 - 58 players More than 61 Players (16.39% - 5.8% players qualify): EQ Germany - June 1, 2003 - Ludwigshafen, Germany - 66 Players NAQ - Gen Con Qualifier - July 25, 2003 - Indianapolis - 72 Players EQ - Modena, Italy - September 27, 2003 - 68 Players EQ - Barcelona, Spain - October, 18, 2003 - 171 Players Greetings, Damnans

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<3FA012A2...@ono.com>... > We have an unfair system that makes it easier for people playing > small tournaments to qualify for the Continental Championships, since > half the participants will qualify. However, most of the 'small' tournaments are at them because it's the only one they can easily get to - many of the larger tournaments are chock full of players who already play several other qualifiers. > > if you have a smaller region (player-base wise), it the current sytem > > encourages people to turn up more so than in a large player-base > > region. but in the large player base region you've already got a lot > > of encouraged players, so you don't need to tack on that extra > > incentive. Some data below on 'region' size with regards to qualifiers: > But they don't have the "same" chances to qualify, which I think it > should be the point. > > Have a look at the following data: > > Less than 21 players (50% players qualify): > > NAQ Midwest - April 13th, 2003 - Omaha, Nebraska - 9 players > NAQ Northwest - April 13th, 2003 - Seattle, Washington - 20 players > NAQ - Western Canada - May 24, 2003 - Edmonton, Alberta - 16 players Note that people attending any of these qualifiers had no other opportunities available to them within roughly 5 to 6 hundred miles of travel. > More than 61 Players (16.39% - 5.8% players qualify): > > EQ Germany - June 1, 2003 - Ludwigshafen, Germany - 66 Players > NAQ - Gen Con Qualifier - July 25, 2003 - Indianapolis - 72 Players > EQ - Modena, Italy - September 27, 2003 - 68 Players > EQ - Barcelona, Spain - October, 18, 2003 - 171 Players Geography does certainly matter, a lot. Let's take for example someone who resides in Paris. Discounting the Barcelona qualifier (since they'd have to go there anyway, for the EC), within that same roughly 550-mile zone where a comparable player in Nebraska gets one qualifier available, a Parisian has the following qualifiers: Paris, Germany, Antwerp, Watford, Linz, and Kosice. (with several others only a little further). (why 550 miles? That's roughly a day's solid driving, and it's also how far someone in the worst-case US scenario has to go to get to more than one tourney.) Yeah, it's 'not fair' that a player in a huge tournament like many of the European ones has very little chance of qualifying percentage-wise compared to say someone who plays in a 20-person tournament. But it's also 'not fair' that someone with a modest travel budget can easily attend a half-dozen qualifiers because they happen to live in a geographically advantageous region than someone who lives in a more remote area. Note: I'm not picking on the Europeans here. Certain parts of the US are equally condusive to this; a player in say Pittsburgh is in that same range of the NAC qualifiers at Origins as well as the East Central, Great Lakes, Toronto, Montreal, and Southeast ones, and the Northeast isn't much farther. And it's 'not fair' that someone who lives in Pittsburgh can get to six qualifiers with the ease that someone in another part of the country can get to one or two. Yes, it'd be nice to give a cookie to someone who does well in a 150+ person qualifier as opposed to a 20-person one. But many of the people who play in smaller qualifiers simply can't *get* to the same number of qualifiers as other players. Shouldn't a person who finishes in the top 25% of the only tourney they can attend be better rewarded than someone who goes to 6 qualifiers and places in the bottom half 5 times? > Greetings, > Damnans your devil's advocate of the day -John Flournoy

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<upaupv441086pkttb...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I'm highly, highly, highly opposed to the idea of Swiss format being used for a continental championship. It's a terrible idea, for reasons that are being discussed in the thread about Swiss format. Short version: 'Swiss format' is designed as an optimizer for large tournaments of games where matches are one-on-one, with no fair way to distinguish between the quality-of-victory in two separate games. V:tes is neither of these, and a Swiss format V:tes tournament can result in a tangible advantage to a player (or several players) that does worse in a given round than competing players. -John Flournoy

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:10:31 -0000, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] that's why i said 'not that it was' right there before i said 'my brain is weird'. :) I was just trying to point out that if 'bank slate' _had_ been written, one would assume my brain would think it a typo. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 29 Oct 2003 15:28:52 -0800, flou...@rcn.com (John Flournoy) scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] when i wrote 'we were proposing to try and get it included" above i meant 'we' in the 'this thread' sense. personally, i am right there with the Swiss System Is Bad camp. I'm also in the More Rounds Is Good camp. [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans expounded: > > i would love to play in a 170 player tournament. :) but if it had 15 > > spots instead of 10, how would that be any more encouraging to those > > that play there? you got 170, who else are you trying to encourage!?!? > > 15 slots would not probably be enough for a 170 player tournament. Maybe not but it would be better to start with a modest increase and see what happens. John also makes a good point with regard to travelling - smaller tournaments are likely to be the less accessible ones -and thus the players at them are likely to be bess able to reach other qualifiers.

> (why 550 miles? That's roughly a day's solid driving, and it's also > how far someone in the worst-case US scenario has to go to get to more > than one tourney.) 550 miles (~880 km) a day愀 solid driving ? NOT in central Europe where you will : (on topic issues) 1. Very likely get stuck in several traffic jams 2. Have often a very hard time finding the right way (language, many highways/streets ...) 3. Have to cross borders (a bit off topic issues) 4. Have to pay fees for using the highway in some countries 5. Fuel is quite expensive 6. Plane is often not an option because it is even more expensive so 550 miles (~880km) is quite a journey for the average european joe, probably not taken as lightly as by the average american joe :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Johannes Walch expounded: > > (why 550 miles? That's roughly a day's solid driving, and it's also > > how far someone in the worst-case US scenario has to go to get to more > > than one tourney.) > > 550 miles (~880 km) a day愀 solid driving ? NOT in central Europe where you > will : <snip> Be able to do 90 mph comfortably on many roads.

John Flournoy wrote: > > Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<3FA012A2...@ono.com>... > > > We have an unfair system that makes it easier for people playing > > small tournaments to qualify for the Continental Championships, since > > half the participants will qualify. > > However, most of the 'small' tournaments are at them because it's the > only one they can easily get to - many of the larger tournaments are > chock full of players who already play several other qualifiers. Agreed. But players playing larger tournaments should not be penalized. [...] > > Less than 21 players (50% players qualify): > > > > NAQ Midwest - April 13th, 2003 - Omaha, Nebraska - 9 players > > NAQ Northwest - April 13th, 2003 - Seattle, Washington - 20 players > > NAQ - Western Canada - May 24, 2003 - Edmonton, Alberta - 16 players > > Note that people attending any of these qualifiers had no other > opportunities available to them within roughly 5 to 6 hundred miles of > travel. Right. > > More than 61 Players (16.39% - 5.8% players qualify): > > > > EQ Germany - June 1, 2003 - Ludwigshafen, Germany - 66 Players > > NAQ - Gen Con Qualifier - July 25, 2003 - Indianapolis - 72 Players > > EQ - Modena, Italy - September 27, 2003 - 68 Players > > EQ - Barcelona, Spain - October, 18, 2003 - 171 Players > > Geography does certainly matter, a lot. Let's take for example someone > who resides in Paris. Discounting the Barcelona qualifier (since > they'd have to go there anyway, for the EC), within that same roughly > 550-mile zone where a comparable player in Nebraska gets one qualifier > available, a Parisian has the following qualifiers: Paris, Germany, > Antwerp, Watford, Linz, and Kosice. (with several others only a little > further). But we must not forget V:TES players are amateurs, not professionals. Travelling costs the players their own money. And most players in Europe, as well as those in other regions (I guess) just play one Qualifier a year. > Yeah, it's 'not fair' that a player in a huge tournament like many of > the European ones has very little chance of qualifying percentage-wise > compared to say someone who plays in a 20-person tournament. True. > But it's > also 'not fair' that someone with a modest travel budget can easily > attend a half-dozen qualifiers because they happen to live in a > geographically advantageous region than someone who lives in a more > remote area. Why isn't it fair? ;-) That player has both enough money and motivation to attend to several qualifiers, so better for him or her. And, as I mentioned above, those players are an exception, since most players just play one qualifier a year. [...] > Shouldn't a person who finishes in the top 25% of the only tourney > they can attend be better rewarded than someone who goes to 6 > qualifiers and places in the bottom half 5 times? There should be a fair system both for small qualifiers and for large ones. > your devil's advocate of the day > -John Flournoy So you are infernal too? >:-) Greetings, Damnans

Timlagor wrote: > > Damnans expounded: > > > i would love to play in a 170 player tournament. :) but if it had 15 > > > spots instead of 10, how would that be any more encouraging to those > > > that play there? you got 170, who else are you trying to encourage!?!? > > > > 15 slots would not probably be enough for a 170 player tournament. > > Maybe not but it would be better to start with a modest increase and see > what happens. Sure ;-) > John also makes a good point with regard to travelling - Travelling is an exception. > smaller tournaments are likely to be the less accessible ones -and thus > the players at them are likely to be bess able to reach other > qualifiers. Agreed. Greetings, Damnans

"Timlagor" <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> escribió en el mensaje news:MPG.1a0b58944...@news.freeserve.com... > Johannes Walch expounded: > > > (why 550 miles? That's roughly a day's solid driving, and it's also > > > how far someone in the worst-case US scenario has to go to get to more > > > than one tourney.) > > > > 550 miles (~880 km) a day´s solid driving ? NOT in central Europe where you > > will : > > <snip> > > Be able to do 90 mph comfortably on many roads. Maximum speed on most european highways:120/130 Km/h Not to say that, for travelling from barcelona (spain) to Modena(Italy) we paid more or less 120 euros per travel, so 240 euros only in highway fees. Also expend, more or less, the same amount on diesel. Yes, in france we eventually push a bit, and travel at 150 km/h. But not in spain/italy Players in europe that use to roam for tournaments aren't common. Tom

"Smiling Tom" <t...@almadrava.net> wrote in message news:bnrq66$l87$1...@nsnmrro2-gest.nuria.telefonica-data.net... > Maximum speed on most european highways:120/130 Km/h > > Not to say that, for travelling from barcelona (spain) to Modena(Italy) we > paid more or less 120 euros per travel, so 240 euros only in highway fees. > Also expend, more or less, the same amount on diesel. Just for clairity.... That 120 euros per travel is what? Highway Tolls? Speeding Ticket fines? ;) Either way... wow. -JTP

"John P" <verg...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje news:z9eob.22417$0M6....@news1.mts.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Tolls. But to be fair, it was a bit less than 110. > Either way... wow. > > -JTP > >

"Smiling Tom" <t...@almadrava.net> wrote in message news:<bnrq66$l87$1...@nsnmrro2-gest.nuria.telefonica-data.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] This mainly goes for southern (Mediterrenean) Europe. In Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK and most of Ireland there are no toll highways that I know of, and in Germany there are effectively no speed limits either. Of course, the British Isles have their own hindrance with regard to travel to and from the Continent, with a choice of ferry or (expensive) Chunnel. By the way: does anyone know whether V:TES is even alive in Ireland (the island, not the political unit)? Of course, I don't live in Europe anymore, so my information might be a little dates, but the gist should hold true. My excuses for not including anything on Scandinavia or central Europe, but I've never been east of Berlin/Vienna/Venice, or north of Kiel, so I just don't know about those countries. Regards, Patrick

> This mainly goes for southern (Mediterrenean) Europe. In Germany, > Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK and most of Ireland there are no toll > highways that I know of, But Netherlands, Belgium, UK and Ireland are no "drive-through" countries, so highway tolls aren´t important here anyway. > and in Germany there are effectively no speed > limits either. Some highways have no speed limit some have one as low as 100 km/h. But even on an highway without speed limit it is quite hard and dangerous to push the average cruise speed above 130 km/h. Another type of speed limit here are the frequent and severe traffic jams encountered on important highway intersections. [ quoted text not captured ]