2008 Continental Qualifier System Change

The 2008 qualifier system works the same as the 2007 system except for one point: All qualifier tournaments are handled equally regardless of order. Players who qualify in one qualifier are not handled any differently in other qualifiers. They can continue to qualify in each qualifier in which they play. So the business of figuring out who has already qualified (even if the earlier qualifier's results haven't been reported) is eliminated. The 5 finalists of each Continental Championship automatically qualify for the next years Continental Championship for that region, as usual. Also note that, as in years past, if multiple players tie for a qualifier spot, then all the tied players qualify. This is true for the new 2008 rule for finals (tie for 2nd). So if a qualifier has 12 players (3 qualifying spots), then all finalists qualify (everyone who finishes in 1st or 2nd place). An example: Adam - 1st place => qualify. Bruce - 2nd place (tie) => qualify Bonnie - 2nd place (tie) => qualify Bob - 2nd place (tie) => qualify Brian - 2nd place (tie) => qualify Fred - 6th place => doesn't qualify Robyn Tatu vtesr...@white-wolf.com

> So the business of figuring out who has already qualified (even if the > earlier qualifier's results haven't been reported) is eliminated. Wait, wait.. So if someone knows they have already qualified in a previous qualifier for the year, they still "take up" a potential qualifier's spot? They can't "not be playing to qualify" anymore? Related, can you still "choose not to be playing to qualify" if, for example, you know you're not going to be able to make it to a Continental Championship this year because you're having a baby?

On Jan 30, 1:40 pm, roby...@mindspring.com wrote: > The 2008 qualifier system works the same as the 2007 system except for > one point: > > All qualifier tournaments are handled equally regardless of order. > Players who qualify in one qualifier are not handled any differently > in other qualifiers. Interesting. So, previously qualified players now both count towards the total player count and can "take" a spot if they finish in the top 25%. Correct? Is there still an option for players at at qualifier to indicate they are not playing for one of the qualifying spots? Would that option be available to a previously qualified player? Or has all of that been done away with. Do the top 25% qualify now regardless of whether they need it (or want it). I can see how this simplifies things. And, in some ways, it makes it easier to qualify. But, as someone who enjoys the competative environment of qualifiers, and tries to take in a few every year -- I don't really want worry about "stealing" spots from other players... -Ben Swainbank

rob...@mindspring.com wrote: > > An example: > > Adam - 1st place => qualify. > Bruce - 2nd place (tie) => qualify > Bonnie - 2nd place (tie) => qualify > Bob - 2nd place (tie) => qualify > Brian - 2nd place (tie) => qualify > Fred - 6th place => doesn't qualify I'm sure this was an inadvertent slip Fred. No really, she just needed a relatively generic name that started with the 6th letter of the alphabet. And there are so man Freds that play VTES, that she wasn't picking you out specifically Fred (Scott, Genest, "Frede", erm, running out here...) Note that Chris didn't even make the final. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

Jozxyqk wrote: >> So the business of figuring out who has already qualified (even if the >> earlier qualifier's results haven't been reported) is eliminated. > > Wait, wait.. > So if someone knows they have already qualified in a previous qualifier for > the year, they still "take up" a potential qualifier's spot? They can't "not > be playing to qualify" anymore? Right. > Related, can you still "choose not to be playing to qualify" if, for example, > you know you're not going to be able to make it to a Continental Championship > this year because you're having a baby? Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots.

Ben Swainbank wrote: > On Jan 30, 1:40 pm, roby...@mindspring.com wrote: >> The 2008 qualifier system works the same as the 2007 system except for >> one point: >> >> All qualifier tournaments are handled equally regardless of order. >> Players who qualify in one qualifier are not handled any differently >> in other qualifiers. > > Interesting. So, previously qualified players now both count towards > the total player count and can "take" a spot if they finish in the top > 25%. Correct? Yes. (Or equivalently, the player who will subsequently qualify at a later tournament still "takes" a spot away from the earlier tournament if xe finishes in the top 25%). > Is there still an option for players at at qualifier to indicate they > are not playing for one of the qualifying spots? Would that option be > available to a previously qualified player? Or has all of that been > done away with. Do the top 25% qualify now regardless of whether they > need it (or want it). Everyone who plays counts, both for deciding how many spots there are and for deciding who wins those spots. > I can see how this simplifies things. And, in some ways, it makes it > easier to qualify. But, as someone who enjoys the competative > environment of qualifiers, and tries to take in a few every year -- I > don't really want worry about "stealing" spots from other players... Would you worry about stealing spots when you haven't qualified? Then don't worry. Let them worry for themselves.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying > spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots. I don't like this rule. It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later in the year, for no reason other than scheduling. The LCQ ("meat grinder") is likely to produce zero new qualifying spots, which sucks for the people who paid to go there assuming they'd have a chance. And I will feel really bad if I make it to the top 25% at this weekend's Qualifier and someone else who really wants to go to the NAC misses out by one slot... I apologize in advance.

Jozxyqk wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying >> spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots. > > I don't like this rule. > It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later > in the year, for no reason other than scheduling. If you mean "not easier and easier", sure. The difficult remains the same under this system, rather than getting easier as more and more people have previously qualified.

On Jan 30, 6:00 pm, Jozxyqk wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying > > spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots. > > I don't like this rule. > It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later > in the year, for no reason other than scheduling. > The LCQ ("meat grinder") is likely to produce zero new qualifying spots, > which sucks for the people who paid to go there assuming they'd have a > chance. It's not whether it's harder to qualify that worries me, exactly. In Brazil, we struggle to get over 20 players to the SAC and to our National Championship. The reasons are the huge distances and significant costs associated with traveling. The fact that a player who knows he or she won't make the trip might decline the opportunity to qualify means that we increase our chances to have the next player attend the main championship. We are working hard to promote larger events and traveling to play VTES, and this is a (possibly mild) setback. Anyway, I think the reasoning behind the change is sound, and the rules are more elegant now. I guess we'll see how it goes. Abraço, Luiz Mello Brazil VTES NC

Ben Swainbank <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:9d39f926-ad88-4199- b5a4-845...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > I can see how this simplifies things. And, in some ways, it makes it > easier to qualify. But, as someone who enjoys the competative > environment of qualifiers, and tries to take in a few every year -- I > don't really want worry about "stealing" spots from other players... > > -Ben Swainbank I was thinking the same thing... If I manage to get to TempleCon this weekend, it'll be with a fun deck, not something truly competitive, as I already know I have no chance of making the NAC this year, and wouldn't want to make it harder for someone else to qualify, who might be able to go. (Me and TempleCon this weekend? Magic 8ball says "outlook not promising" :-( DaveZ

LSJ schrieb: >> I can see how this simplifies things. And, in some ways, it makes it >> easier to qualify. But, as someone who enjoys the competative >> environment of qualifiers, and tries to take in a few every year -- I >> don't really want worry about "stealing" spots from other players... > > Would you worry about stealing spots when you haven't qualified? > > Then don't worry. Let them worry for themselves. Also keep in mind that you provide 1/4 qualifying slot to each event where you go. So now it all depends if you kick ass or not :) -- Johannes Walch

[ quoted text not captured ] No. I mean "lots of skilled players have a tendency to visit multiple qualifier events just for the fun of playing". And the more of those people who travel to multiple qualifiers, the more chance they have of "bullying out" legitimately-trying-to-qualify lower-skilled players. Intentionally or not. I'm simply lobbying for there to be the ability to *choose* to give up your potential qualifying spot, before the tournament begins, just like the 2007-and- earlier rules. Either that, or ban already-qualified players from playing in the Last Chance Qualifier, and allow them to play in a parallel event instead.

On Jan 30, 10:40 am, roby...@mindspring.com wrote: [clip] > So if a qualifier has 12 players (3 qualifying spots), then all > finalists qualify (everyone who finishes in 1st or 2nd place). > > An example: > > Adam - 1st place => qualify. > Bruce - 2nd place (tie) => qualify > Bonnie - 2nd place (tie) => qualify > Bob - 2nd place (tie) => qualify Pfftt. It figures. I came in second again. -Robert

<rob...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:21c1ab72-3ab9-416e...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > An example: > > Adam - 1st place => qualify. > Bruce - 2nd place (tie) => qualify > Bonnie - 2nd place (tie) => qualify > Bob - 2nd place (tie) => qualify > Brian - 2nd place (tie) => qualify > Fred - 6th place => doesn't qualify Gawd, has THAT been the story of my whole experience with qualifying.... (VERY realistic example, Robyn! :-P )

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:pe2dnYWysJbeSj3a...@comcast.com... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying >> spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots. > > I don't like this rule. > It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later > in the year, for no reason other than scheduling. Actually, I'm not sure that's true. Same population of players, same difficulty in finishing in the top 25%. In fact, it used to get easier to qualify as the year went on, if anything. The very good reason not to like the rule is that it turns already-qualified players into "dogs in the manger" - people who can't improve their positions by playing in a qualifier but can only prevent others from qualifying. In my book, that's reason enough. This is a bad change. Fred

"Clément" <lcmello...@terra.com.br> wrote in message news:bd0583c8-190b-48e8...@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > Anyway, I think the reasoning behind the change is sound, and the > rules are more elegant now. I guess we'll see how it goes. Er, what reasoning? No one actually offered any reasoning about why the rules had to be changed. Perhaps simplicity is the only goal, but it seemed to work well enough before. And, both of us have pointed out, there are definite drawbacks. Fred

"Ben Swainbank" <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9d39f926-ad88-4199...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > I can see how this simplifies things. And, in some ways, it makes it > easier to qualify. Huh?!? How would it make it "easier to qualify"?!?

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:6h4oj.1206$R84...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > Ben Swainbank wrote: >> But, as someone who enjoys the competative >> environment of qualifiers, and tries to take in a few every year -- I >> don't really want worry about "stealing" spots from other players... > > Would you worry about stealing spots when you haven't qualified? No. You wouldn't have to because you wouldn't be. You'd be taking an existing spot for yourself - as opposed to what Ben is talking about where you take a qualifying spot make it go *poof*, into thin air - usable by no one. Fred

Must be a policy to deal with the overcrowding that occured like at the 07 NAC.

[ quoted text not captured ] In a 12 player tournament, only 3 people in theory should qualify. But actually 5 players will qualify. And that I guess goes up to 17 person qualifiers. Here in the states, most Q's I remember from last year were in the teens up to 30s level. Which in most cases won't matter. Robyn and Scott of course have the exact numbers, and my bet is they might have crunched the numbers to come to a fair approximation of how many would qualify this year with these new rules, based on last year's data. And perhaps if the old rules where already-qualified participants are taken out, would have made the Championships "too easy" to get into. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ninale wrote: > Must be a policy to deal with the overcrowding that occured like at > the 07 NAC. > I think that overcrowding was only at the bar during the Manager's Reception... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ninale" <vent...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:16a0e750-d0f9-4a18...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > Must be a policy to deal with the overcrowding that occured like at > the 07 NAC. You mean like, the first day needing two additional players to fill out the forty seats to qualify for the second day? Yea, that aspect of it doesn't make much sense to me, either. Fred

"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message news:7_5oj.17518$4H1....@newsfe07.phx... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Ben Swainbank" <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:9d39f926-ad88-4199...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>> I can see how this simplifies things. And, in some ways, it makes it >>> easier to qualify. >> >> Huh?!? How would it make it "easier to qualify"?!? > > In a 12 player tournament, only 3 people in theory should qualify. But actually 5 players will qualify. Well, OK - but that has nothing to do with the rule change being announced. That's an artifact of the four-finals-losers-tie-for-second change to the tournament rules. This change here can only make things tougher. > Robyn and Scott of course have the exact numbers, and my bet is they might have crunched the numbers to come to a fair > approximation of how many would qualify this year with these new rules, based on last year's data. And perhaps if the old rules > where already-qualified participants are taken out, would have made the Championships "too easy" to get into. You mean the two things approximately cancel out? I would find it surprising if anyone cared. No one's cared exactly how 'hard' it is to qualify since the inception of the system; I'd be shocked if they started right now. My guess - until otherwise told - is that it's just about simplifying things. But I think this little piece of complexity was actually kind of important. Fred

Jozxyqk wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Jozxyqk wrote: >>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying >>>> spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots. >>> I don't like this rule. >>> It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later >>> in the year, for no reason other than scheduling. > >> If you mean "not easier and easier", sure. > >> The difficult remains the same under this system, rather than getting easier as >> more and more people have previously qualified. > > No. I mean "lots of skilled players have a tendency to visit multiple qualifier > events just for the fun of playing". That has no bearing on any progressive difficulty like you posit. How would having lots of skilled players at each qualifier make the qualifiers harder and harder as the year goes by? > And the more of those people who travel to multiple qualifiers, the more chance > they have of "bullying out" legitimately-trying-to-qualify lower-skilled > players. > Intentionally or not. OK. > I'm simply lobbying for there to be the ability to *choose* to give up your > potential qualifying spot, before the tournament begins, just like the 2007-and- > earlier rules. Attending a qualifier is not mandatory. > Either that, or ban already-qualified players from playing in the Last Chance > Qualifier, and allow them to play in a parallel event instead. They are allowed at the open parallel events in any case. And qualifiers are open.

On Jan 30, 3:03 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Jozxyqk" <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message > > news:pe2dnYWysJbeSj3a...@comcast.com... > > > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying > >> spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots. > > > I don't like this rule. > > It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later > > in the year, for no reason other than scheduling. > > Actually, I'm not sure that's true. Same population of players, same difficulty > in finishing in the top 25%. In fact, it used to get easier to qualify as the > year went on, if anything. > > The very good reason not to like the rule is that it turns already-qualified > players into "dogs in the manger" - people who can't improve their positions > by playing in a qualifier but can only prevent others from qualifying. In > my book, that's reason enough. This is a bad change. > > Fred I sympathize with this argument, really. But for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate, I'll point out this easy counter-argument: If you can't do reasonably well in a qualifier tournament where some of the players have already qualified (or do so even once in several tries), why should you be expected to do well in a tournament where ALL the players have already qualified? Including the same people you just failed to do well against at least once before (if not several times?) And by extension, if you thus can't be expected to do well in a tournament where all the players have already qualified, why should you be given an easier road to a qualification? (or heck, why should you qualify to participate at all?) Not saying I agree with the above, but I do see some validity to both schools of thought... -John Flournoy

On Jan 30, 3:03 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Jozxyqk" <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message > > news:pe2dnYWysJbeSj3a...@comcast.com... > > > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying > >> spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots. > > > I don't like this rule. > > It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later > > in the year, for no reason other than scheduling. > > Actually, I'm not sure that's true. Same population of players, same difficulty > in finishing in the top 25%. In fact, it used to get easier to qualify as the > year went on, if anything. > > The very good reason not to like the rule is that it turns already-qualified > players into "dogs in the manger" - people who can't improve their positions > by playing in a qualifier but can only prevent others from qualifying. In > my book, that's reason enough. This is a bad change. I suppose it's also worth noting that this encourages already- qualified players who do participate in subsequent qualifiers to take that tournament seriously, instead of bringing wacky, oddball, stupid, disruptive or otherwise 'for fun' decks that don't necessarily reflect a serious tournament environment. I don't know that this is better or worse, though. > Fred -John Flournoy

If you want to play you have to qualify and that now means finishing in the top 25% of a qualifier tournament (or making a final). Seems very reasonable to me.

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:60dfc7b1-8651-4fd4...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 30, 3:03 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> The very good reason not to like the rule is that it turns already-qualified >> players into "dogs in the manger" - people who can't improve their positions >> by playing in a qualifier but can only prevent others from qualifying. In >> my book, that's reason enough. This is a bad change. > > I sympathize with this argument, really. > > But for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate, I'll point out this easy > counter-argument: > > If you can't do reasonably well in a qualifier tournament where some > of the players have already qualified (or do so even once in several > tries), why should you be expected to do well in a tournament where > ALL the players have already qualified? ...and here's my answer: I don't care. I've jumped around to different areas of the country (well, at least in the West and to GenCons) and in truth, I'm not really all that impressed with the qualifier system's ability to test real Jyhad skills and actually test whether a given player "can be expected to do well". I never have been. You'd need a lot more games to really do that anyway. Actually, to be quite blunt, the qualifier system isn't put there to test skill to that degree so let's not pretend it is. It's real raison d'etra is to provide the VEKN tournament system with a series of more-important- than-average tournaments which are thus regarded by players as being more exciting then average. They bring extra color to a tournament season which includes low key 'mundane' constructed tournaments, more exotic but less formal Storylines and pre-releases, and the WoN/Continental Championships at the other end of the pressure spectrum. Who, frankly, gives a shit if someone only had to place 7th in a tournament they'd normally have place 4th in to qualify? If I cared about which players were skilled enough, I'd eliminate qualifying altogether and just invite everybody and their pet guppies into the Continental Championships. That way, we could be sure everybody had passed the same test of skill: none whatsoever. And the Continental Championships would be a lot more fun. What I want out of the qualifier system (in *this* context, anyway) is to avoid any controversy around the question of whether pre-qualified players should be playing in future qualifiers or how they should behave if they do. Every time that subject comes up, it causes anger and annoyance among players. The rule we had was the right one. We should keep it. Fred

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c63cf35c-65b2-4000...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 30, 3:03 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> The very good reason not to like the rule is that it turns already-qualified >> players into "dogs in the manger" - people who can't improve their positions >> by playing in a qualifier but can only prevent others from qualifying. In >> my book, that's reason enough. This is a bad change. > > I suppose it's also worth noting that this encourages already- > qualified players who do participate in subsequent qualifiers to take > that tournament seriously, ... The above isn't clear whether you thought the original rule did that or the new rule did. Either way, I'm confused how. Once a player's qualified, he has less incentive to worry about doing as well as he can no matter how you slice it. Of course, he still has a tournament to win and that strikes me as pretty good incentive none the less. Fred

I'm actualy pretty pissed by these changes. I've been a huge number of qualifiers in my past years of "VTES touring" in France, and in each of these qualifiers, there was at least one or two guys, in the final, already qualified previously in a former qualifier. It gave hope to the average young player who did his best to get qualified with his average deck that he played well, but had a poor result due to bad seating. I know, losing is part of the game, but losing a qualifier slot, because some hardcore player, who reaches the final in each tourney he's playing, and who has already played already in 5 qualifiers... I know it's makes life far easier for the organisers (who just had to keep a list of players updated and bring it to the tourney) but I think it's extremly unfair to the noobs who are putting a lot of effort and money to progress in VTES.

Don't much like this change. Typically, in every qualifier so far there have been quite a few people (sometimes even half!) who have already qualified. They are there and playing because playing in tournaments is fun, and they feel like attending. Previously, they could do so without harming anyone else's chances of qualifying. Now, the people who are already qualified are very likely to "eat up" qualifier slots should they attend, because they tend to be the better players anyway so they have a higher-than normal chance of winning this tournament, too. I'm tempted to disallow already-qualified players from attending qualifier tournaments, myself. Which will suck for them, of course, but seems to be a better option than the other one. All I see this change doing is creating some ill-will between players, to be honest. //Petri

> I'm tempted to disallow already-qualified players from attending > qualifier tournaments, myself. Which will suck for them, of course, > but seems to be a better option than the other one. > > //Petri THIS is something that shouldn't happen, Just like already qualified players should not feel like not coming to a tournament not to harm anyone. This is just wrong.

On Jan 30, 11:32 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Would you worry about stealing spots when you haven't qualified? If I don't intend to go, then yes. > Then don't worry. Let them worry for themselves. One of the great things about VTES is the community. While we may play methuselah's in the game, the actual players are great people who care about their friends and fellow players. LSJ (or whoever is responsible for this change), I believe you have implemented something that will reduce the total number of qualifiers. IMO, that is exactly the opposite direction this game should be heading. Alternately, keep your elegant rule, but change 25% to 50%. Heck, let's go crazy - change 25% to 100%. What might happen? Hopefully more than 36 people would show up for the NAC. I place high value on having a big NAC tournament, and I believe the barriers to entry are primarily travel and lodging costs. It's a shame to make qualifying a significant barrier. That said, there is something sweet about qualifying, but I think the previous situation of it becoming easier and easier (especially so at the LCQ when you've already traveled there) was a Good Thing. I don't really think 100% qualifying is a good idea because it will devalue the pleasure of qualifying, but I think 50% would be an improvement over the current rule. Ira

On Jan 31, 1:23 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "John Flournoy" <carne...@gmail.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] Prior to this new change, a player who had already qualified had no incentive to do well in a subsequent qualifier tournament above 'it's another tournament'. His incentives were basically prize support (which some good players don't need when it consists of more cards) or ratings points (which do nothing aside from bragging rights. Not that bragging rights are bad.) So some players have in the past gone to later qualifiers playing 'fun' decks because 'hey, why not, I don't care if I do well today!' With this new change, as you note those players now have an extra reason that did not exist before to try to play their best deck at a subsequent qualifier - to prevent other people from qualifying. > Fred -John Flournoy

On Jan 30, 7:06 pm, "Frederick Scott" wrote: > "Clément" wrote in message > > > Anyway, I think the reasoning behind the change is sound, and the > > rules are more elegant now. I guess we'll see how it goes. > > Er, what reasoning? No one actually offered any reasoning about why > the rules had to be changed. Perhaps simplicity is the only goal, but > it seemed to work well enough before. I meant the simplicity, yes, but also eliminating the possible difficulty of handling previously qualified players when you don't have previous results readily available, and making all qualifier events have the same requirement to qualify (i.e. finishing top 25% overall, regardless of anything else). As far as rules go, I have no problem with the new criteria. My concerns are related to promoting the game, and have more players participate in our major events. We have a hard time figuring out ways to encourage people to travel and increase attendance. Anything that might make it more likely that people willing to travel will not qualify is not very good news. Maybe it won't have any negative effect at all, hopefully not. Another thing that concerns me is something that you and others have pointed out in other messages. If I'm already qualified because I'm the South American champion or something, I'm a 100% sure not to attend other qualifier events. My desire to play in such an event is not big enough to risk stealing a spot from another player (maybe that's the prince/NC in me speaking, but still). Since I won't attend a tournament and not try my best, then I guess it's just better if I don't play. That's not good, IMHO. And I don't want even go into the subject of already qualified players being accused not trying their best to help their buddies qualify... > And, both of us have pointed > out, there are definite drawbacks. Sure. I just meant that the new rule makes sense in itself, and that I believe there is a possibility it will work out just fine. My concerns remain the same. Abraço, Luiz Mello Brazil VTES NC

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a339a696-ee7b-47fb...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 31, 1:23 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "John Flournoy" <carne...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:c63cf35c-65b2-4000...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 30, 3:03 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> >> The very good reason not to like the rule is that it turns already-qualified >> >> players into "dogs in the manger" - people who can't improve their positions >> >> by playing in a qualifier but can only prevent others from qualifying. In >> >> my book, that's reason enough. This is a bad change. >> >> > I suppose it's also worth noting that this encourages already- >> > qualified players who do participate in subsequent qualifiers to take >> > that tournament seriously, >> >> ...I'm confused how. Once a player's qualified, he has less incentive >> to worry about doing as well as he can no matter how you slice it. ... > With this new change, as you note those players now have an extra > reason that did not exist before to try to play their best deck at a > subsequent qualifier - to prevent other people from qualifying. Um, I wasn't citing that as an actual motive. Like, Ben Peal's realistically going to want to roam the corridors of East Coast qualifying tournaments bopping other potential comers out of the Continental Championship so the first day of the NAC can come up, say, 10 or 15 players short of the 40 it was originally intended to whittle the field down to instead of only two players short like it was this year. My point was that it would have that effect even though the pre-qualified - as Ben Swainback noted elsewhere in the thread - didn't really want it to. In fact, competetitive though we are, I don't think many of us would really deliberately want to keep someone else from qualifying, were it all the same to our own qualification status. Thus the change actually serves as a DISincentive for the qualified to do well at other qualifiers. Whether a strong, weak, or unnoticeable disincentive depends on the person but it's a bad thing in any event. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] IMHO. wacky, oddball, stupid and disruptive decks make it much much harder for someone trying to qualify. when you upset the table balance because you "dont' care about qualifying" you hurt the integrity of the tournament. If you play VTES, you play to win. otherwise, you're playing a different game. Oscar Garza Organized Play Coordinator CCP|WhiteWolf

Oscar wrote: > IMHO. wacky, oddball, stupid and disruptive decks make it much much > harder for someone trying to qualify. when you upset the table balance > because you "dont' care about qualifying" you hurt the integrity of > the tournament. If you play VTES, you play to win. otherwise, you're > playing a different game. I agree quite heartily, having had my fair share of frustrating experiences with cross table players whose decks don't do anything. People really should go to every tournament with the intent play their best. That said, don't I remember you playing some sort of mono-QUI deck at NERQ last year? Jesse

<jcrossn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:717cad9d-bb57-4a7b...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] To play devil's advocate here (and getting off the subject a bit), the trouble with this view is that choice in how to pursue victory is the whole charm of CCGs over board games. It's unfortunate when a Slaughterhouse deck or something throws table balance to the winds and screws someone out of their chance to win through no fault of their own. But if you print Slaughterhouses and you allow them in the tournament then you can't be upset when someone chooses to try the option. I agree, the results can be highly frustrating but a lot of dumb luck issues in tournaments can be likewise frustrating. And it will never be possible to separate out someone's lack of desire to qualify from their positive desire to play the oddball deck they want to play. And - to get back to the issue at hand - it really doesn't matter. The rule change doesn't provide qualifiers any more incentive to qualify. As I pointed out in my previous post, if anything it's the opposite. Fred

Fred wrote: > To play devil's advocate here (and getting off the subject a bit), the > trouble with this view is that choice in how to pursue victory is the > whole charm of CCGs over board games. It's unfortunate when a Slaughterhouse > deck or something throws table balance to the winds and screws someone out > of their chance to win through no fault of their own. But if you print > Slaughterhouses and you allow them in the tournament then you can't be > upset when someone chooses to try the option. I agree, the results can > be highly frustrating but a lot of dumb luck issues in tournaments can > be likewise frustrating. And it will never be possible to separate out > someone's lack of desire to qualify from their positive desire to play > the oddball deck they want to play. I certainly agree. I could have clarified what I was saying a bit more, but I didn't want to make the thread longer than needed, since, as you note, it's beside the point. If you think that a Slaughterhouse deck is a good way to win, and you pursue that goal seriously, then I'm all for it. I'm referring more to decks that really just aren't built with winning as a serious goal, but more for the purpose of showing off some wacky stunt or pursuing an inside joke. Those decks can be fun for the right occasions, or for testing weird ideas that might actually be good, but tournaments (qualifier or not) are not the right place for them. Jesse

I'm adding this point here simply because its an active thread connected to the topic I've been pondering. Do qualifiers still serve a purpose in the North American tournament scene? If for a moment we ignore North Americans travelling to Europe or Australia, and ignore the effect of qualifiers on rating points. I'm assuming the following: 1) The game is best served by increased participation and attendance at the NAC and the week of Nightmares 2) Ignoring the European/Australian scene as I know very little about it. Consider my comments confined to North America. 3) Ignoring for now the effects of North Americans travelling to other continental championships. Why, with the advent of the two day championship event do we still have qualifiers at all? Currently before every major event including the NAC that requires qualification there is a last-chance qualifier. The organizers of such events must therefore plan to run an event that could include every player that shows up. So space allowances are not the driving force. With the two day championship there is a culling down to a manageable size so that the top players are more likely to play against opponents that have not got there by a "fluke". In a 40 person cut like the NAC uses each player is likely to play against 12 other decks, or about 1/3rd of the field. So why not use the two day format to its fullest effect? No qualifiers, just a large field on Day 1. It should increase, or at least not hurt NAC. And the side event on day 2 would be really large (which is good). Can someone point out the drawback for me? And would this work outside North America? Personal Disclosure: I've gone to NACs qualified and unqualified. I just enjoy playing in large events. John P. Winnipeg

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm not specifically targeting you, Fred.... I think this is a good place to insert this. I have always been sensitive about the qualifier system because I don't want anyone left out - it's not like we don't have enough challenges finding people to play Vtes with.......it's a very demanding game. But, I commit to it regardless of the qualifier system. The organizers of the Championships have gone out of their way to make sure that if I attend there will be plenty of Vtes activities to keep me busy so I have always committed to going whether I was qualified or not. 415 people qualified last year. 26% of them ended up at the most well attended of the Championships in Sweden in 2007. 30% of the folks who attended the NAC in Los Angeles last year were also in Sweden at the EC. 31% of the folks who attended the NAC, were NOT qualified before they came. Don't feel bad about being so good that you might 'steal' a qualifying spot from someone. Even IF they qualify, the odds are, they won't show up at the Championship anyway. Robyn Tatu

[ quoted text not captured ] Hey! I do play to win! Don't think it goes any other way. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

> Can someone point out the drawback for me? > > And would this work outside North America? > > As long as the organizers could handle an attendance varying between 150 - 350 players without knowing at the time they book the venue where they will land in numbers. Of course, after a few years, the numbers would stabilize. Yes, it would work, but we'd most likely be forced to turn players away at the door in a worst case scenario or simply forbid anyone to enter who wasn't prepaid well in advance. There are drawbacks to any system, including the one being used, but I personally prefer some kind of qualifying limits to a free for all championship. Now, the 2008 rules, should make a lot less impact on the North American scene than on the European. Any standard qualifier with 16 or less attendants will yield at least five qualifying spots. How a tie for last final place is handled I don't know, but I guess a 10 player qualifier with two players tied for fifth place will result in 6 players qualifying as a coin toss should not be used for determining who qualifies. Robin, could you give us an official on this? The Central European arena sees a LOT of cross breeding, so if anyone should scream bloody murder it should be us over here as we basically never run a qualifier with less than 20 attendants. Still I see no reason why an autumn qualifier should be easier to qualify from than a spring one, which is the situation with the 2007 system. Anyway, there are other paths for a qualification spot, namely the mini qualifier, being a finalist at a continental Championship one year earlier or running a qualifier. Now, I would personally like to see at least yet another path to qualification. Rating, if it would be possible and reasonably hassle free. Sten -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Sten During wrote: > Now, the 2008 rules, should make a lot less impact on the > North American scene than on the European. Any standard > qualifier with 16 or less attendants will yield at least > five qualifying spots. Indeed, every standard qualifier with 5 or more attendees generates at least 5 qualifying spots, given the 2008 rules. 4p = 1 qual = Winner qualifies, no one else does. 5+ = 2 or more qual = Winner and 4 tied-for-2nd players qualify. > How a tie for last final place is > handled I don't know, but I guess a 10 player qualifier > with two players tied for fifth place will result in 6 > players qualifying as a coin toss should not be used for > determining who qualifies. > > Robin, could you give us an official on this? See the posted example in which Fred comes in 6th. 10 p = 10/4 round up = 3 qualifying spots. So anyone finishing in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place qualifies. Given the current VEKN rules on finals, that means that all the finalists qualify (since they come in 1st or tied for 2nd) and no one else does (since they come in 6th or worse). > The Central European arena sees a LOT of cross breeding, so > if anyone should scream bloody murder it should be us over > here as we basically never run a qualifier with less than 20 > attendants. In reality, no qualifier *should* be run with fewer than 20p. That old criterion is still worth adhering to today. That holds as much for the New World as it does for the Old. > Still I see no reason why an autumn qualifier should be easier > to qualify from than a spring one, which is the situation with > the 2007 system. Agreed. [ quoted text not captured ]

Huruem wrote: > I'm actualy pretty pissed by these changes. > I've been a huge number of qualifiers in my past years of "VTES > touring" in France, and in each of these qualifiers, there was at > least one or two guys, in the final, already qualified previously in a > former qualifier. It gave hope to the average young player who did his > best to get qualified with his average deck that he played well, but > had a poor result due to bad seating. I know, losing is part of the > game, but losing a qualifier slot, because some hardcore player, who > reaches the final in each tourney he's playing, and who has already > played already in 5 qualifiers... unless your qualifier tournament only has 4 players in total, there will be at least 2 qualifying spots. if you're in the final, the worst you can possibly do is tie for 2nd. ergo, every finalist will qualify. which, to me, seems like a good thing! or am i missing the thrust of your post? -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

On Jan 30, 1:40 pm, roby...@mindspring.com wrote: > All qualifier tournaments are handled equally regardless of order. > Players who qualify in one qualifier are not handled any differently > in other qualifiers. > They can continue to qualify in each qualifier in which they play. Personally, I'm kind of disheartened by this. With the NAC so geographically close to the US Northeast this year, I hate to see some of my players possibly denied qualification due to this last-minute change. I'm running the Northeast US qualifier tomorrow and I am expecting a few 2007 NAC finalists as attendees. I don't think that those players are looking to "steal" qualifier seats. Quite possibly, the players whose seats would be poached would also be the same people that would share NAC transportation and lodging costs. The issue of fairness has been brought up, but is it really an issue in this case? I don't think that there's been many complaints from early-qualified players about how much easier it is for late-qualified players. So, I ask - Please make championship finalists exempt from qualifiers. (as per the "pre-qualified players don't count" rule from before) As they are exempt for the entire season, it doesn't affect the fairness of early vs. late qualifier events. Please allow players to exempt themselves from qualifiers if they know they cannot attend the NAC. (as long as they exempt themselves for the entire season) Again, this doesn't affect fairness of early vs. late, but it would increase the pool of qualified players. Thank you, Matt Hirsch VEKN Prince of Boston

>> How a tie for last final place is >> handled I don't know, but I guess a 10 player qualifier >> with two players tied for fifth place will result in 6 >> players qualifying as a coin toss should not be used for >> determining who qualifies. >> >> Robin, could you give us an official on this? > > See the posted example in which Fred comes in 6th. > > 10 p = 10/4 round up = 3 qualifying spots. > > So anyone finishing in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place qualifies. > > Given the current VEKN rules on finals, that means that all the > finalists qualify (since they come in 1st or tied for 2nd) and no one > else does (since they come in 6th or worse). > Hmm, that would be a deviation from the 2007 system. Example 1) Assume a 20 player qualifier during 2007. Place 5 is a tie (1GW 4VP 90TP) between two (or more players). Even though 2007 tournament rules state that a randomizer be used for a tiebreaker and that we thus get exactly ONE fifth placed player we would still have six (or more) players qualifying for the championship. (Ie, the player(s) not randomized into the final round still qualify) Example 2) As above, but this year. Did player(s) placed in sixth place just lose their qualification spot due to a coin toss? Example 3) As 2) above but with 10 players. (Example 3 added only to tie in with my quoted question.) Qualifiers start soon, so we kind of need to know. Now, I WILL state that I personally would be VERY much in disagreement with a change in the direction implied, for the reason that the examples I present above make it absolutely clear that all qualifying performance for getting a place in the championship is, from 2008, explicitly determined during the preliminary rounds (unless we have a peculiar qualifier with 4 players), and the final round no longer have an even theoretical impact on who qualifies. Having to roll dice prior to the final round in order to determine, once and for all, who qualifies, and who does not, seems harsh in extreme. Prior to 2008 (in a 16, or smaller, player qualifier) the lucky player (got to the finals by means of coin toss) would at least have to avoid fifth position during the final round. Even though I AM aware that luck DOES play a role in any given game this still feels more like a matter of personal performance. Sten During [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During wrote: > Hmm, that would be a deviation from the 2007 system. If so, then OK. > Example 1) Assume a 20 player qualifier during 2007. Place 5 is > a tie (1GW 4VP 90TP) between two (or more players). Even though > 2007 tournament rules state that a randomizer be used for a > tiebreaker and that we thus get exactly ONE fifth placed player > we would still have six (or more) players qualifying for the > championship. (Ie, the player(s) not randomized into the final > round still qualify) That matches. No deviation. > Example 2) As above, but this year. Did player(s) placed in sixth > place just lose their qualification spot due to a coin toss? No. The players tied for 5th qualify. > Example 3) As 2) above but with 10 players. (Example 3 added > only to tie in with my quoted question.) Last year and this year: 10 p = 3 q. That's less than 5, so the finals must be played to determine qualifiers. So qualifiers aren't set by pre-final standing, but rather by post-final standing. This year, that's just a formality, of course, because the finalists will end up in 1st or tied-for-2nd positions.

On Jan 31, 5:26 pm, Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote: > As long as the organizers could handle an attendance varying > between 150 - 350 players without knowing at the time they > book the venue where they will land in numbers. > > Of course, after a few years, the numbers would stabilize. > > Yes, it would work, but we'd most likely be forced to turn > players away at the door in a worst case scenario or simply > forbid anyone to enter who wasn't prepaid well in advance. Is there turn-away right now for the last chance qualifier? Theoretically the first day would only be slightly larger than the current LCQ - adding only those players who decide not to play as they are already qualified. At the NAC that seems a pretty small addition. -John P Winnipeg

John P. wrote: >> >> Yes, it would work, but we'd most likely be forced to turn >> players away at the door in a worst case scenario or simply >> forbid anyone to enter who wasn't prepaid well in advance. > > Is there turn-away right now for the last chance qualifier? > Theoretically the first day would only be slightly larger > than the current LCQ - adding only those players > who decide not to play as they are already qualified. At the > NAC that seems a pretty small addition. > That's not really the same thing. Even though I personally belong to a group of players who happily travel (if economy allows) to the EC (being European as I am) without having qualified prior to the event, I know of several players who decided NOT to make the journey because they didn't want to take the chances with the LCQ. The LCQ thus acts as a deterrent to some degree. Now, one could argue that the pleasure of going to the EC really is to meet all the people. This is an opinion I share, but I fully respect those who do not think so. Now, assume we live in a VTES-world where everyone is automatically qualified, and the current year's EC is somewhere in Central Europe. I can see how two groups of over twenty players each decide to participate a day or two before the event. That would, potentially, NOT be fun for the organizers. Sten During [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Last year and this year: > > 10 p = 3 q. That's less than 5, so the finals must be played to > determine qualifiers. So qualifiers aren't set by pre-final standing, > but rather by post-final standing. > > This year, that's just a formality, of course, because the finalists > will end up in 1st or tied-for-2nd positions. Sorry, but how many DID qualify this year? 5 or 6+? (Given the example above) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jan 30, 5:41 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Jozxyqk wrote: > > And the more of those people who travel to multiple qualifiers, the more chance > > they have of "bullying out" legitimately-trying-to-qualify lower-skilled > > players. > > Intentionally or not. > > OK. I understand how this might be a good idea in practice to make the playing field more level (I am not sure I agree that it will, but the intentions are good), but I think this is a misguided policy to introduce given the current state of the game. Last year, there were less than 40 players participating in the NAC. This made the "40 players qualify for the first day" kind of weird and, in my opinion, is definitely a symptom of the game being less and less popular... I know that WW officially issued an apology letter to the community a while back. Then, we see a policy introduced that, while maybe making qualifiers "more balanced", also mean that less players will probably qualify for the championship (either that, or people will be forced to skip qualifiers to avoid "stealing" spots - great idea to encourage people to play the game). Did we really need a rule to make things balanced now? Does it really mattered all that much that some people who chose to drive to multiple qualifiers made them just a wee bit easier, while also making them more popular and thus promoting the game as being more alive and kicking? I sincerely hope that attendance will be great at the 2008 NAC here in Montréal and I may be wrong that this policy change will affect the outcome, but with all due respect, I still find it sad to see a WW representative simply say "OK" when replying to somebody that points out that this change could lead to a drop in attendance.

On Feb 1, 8:05 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Sten During wrote: > > Hmm, that would be a deviation from the 2007 system. > > If so, then OK. > > > Example 1) Assume a 20 player qualifier during 2007. Place 5 is > > a tie (1GW 4VP 90TP) between two (or more players). Even though > > 2007 tournament rules state that a randomizer be used for a > > tiebreaker and that we thus get exactly ONE fifth placed player > > we would still have six (or more) players qualifying for the > > championship. (Ie, the player(s) not randomized into the final > > round still qualify) > > That matches. No deviation. > > > Example 2) As above, but this year. Did player(s) placed in sixth > > place just lose their qualification spot due to a coin toss? > > No. The players tied for 5th qualify. How does that happen? There are no players in 5th place under 2008 VEKN rules, as the winner is 1st, the other finalists tie for 2nd, and all non-finalists start counting off at 6th place. At least as far as I've understood it so far. - D.J.

Sten During wrote: >> Last year and this year: >> >> 10 p = 3 q. That's less than 5, so the finals must be played to >> determine qualifiers. So qualifiers aren't set by pre-final standing, >> but rather by post-final standing. >> >> This year, that's just a formality, of course, because the finalists >> will end up in 1st or tied-for-2nd positions. > > Sorry, but how many DID qualify this year? 5 or 6+? (Given the example > above) With 10p in the tournament? Everyone in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place. This year: 5 Last year: 3 (assuming 10 == # of non-previously-qualified players)

[ quoted text not captured ] As in previous years, if the # of qualifying spots is 5 or more, the you can identify the finalists before the finals.

On Feb 1, 9:33 am, "Mongrel (MDH)" wrote: > So, I ask - > Please make championship finalists exempt from qualifiers. (as per > the "pre-qualified players don't count" rule from before) As they are > exempt for the entire season, it doesn't affect the fairness of early > vs. late qualifier events. > > Please allow players to exempt themselves from qualifiers if they know > they cannot attend the NAC. (as long as they exempt themselves for the > entire season) Again, this doesn't affect fairness of early vs. late, > but it would increase the pool of qualified players. Both sound like sensible proposals to me, and a fine compromise between the simplicity/fairness of the new rules and our concerns about not making it harder for people to travel and play VTES. [ quoted text not captured ]

clechasseur...@catnip-software.com wrote in news:7ebb2d88-c677-457e...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com: > On Jan 30, 5:41 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Jozxyqk wrote: >> > And the more of those people who travel to multiple qualifiers, the >> > more > chance >> > they have of "bullying out" legitimately-trying-to-qualify >> > lower-skilled > >> > players. >> > Intentionally or not. >> >> OK. > > I understand how this might be a good idea in practice to make the > playing field more level (I am not sure I agree that it will, but the > intentions are good), but I think this is a misguided policy to > introduce given the current state of the game. > > Last year, there were less than 40 players participating in the NAC. > This made the "40 players qualify for the first day" kind of weird > and, in my opinion, is definitely a symptom of the game being less and > less popular... You'd need a trend for that to be true. IIRC, prior to '07, the trend in attendance was upwards for the NAC. I think its just as easy to make hte case that traveling to LA is inherently expensive. The LA crew found an astoundingly good deal on hotel prices (for LA), but there is little that they can do about the minimum $600 to $800 cross-continent air fare. As the larger share of qualifiers are in the East and midwest (true for both US and Canada), it stands to reason that a further distance (and therefore a pricier trip) would keep a few more people away. > I know that WW officially issued an apology letter to > the community a while back. Then, we see a policy introduced that, > while maybe making qualifiers "more balanced", also mean that less > players will probably qualify for the championship (either that, or > people will be forced to skip qualifiers to avoid "stealing" spots - > great idea to encourage people to play the game). Did we really need a > rule to make things balanced now? Does it really mattered all that > much that some people who chose to drive to multiple qualifiers made > them just a wee bit easier, while also making them more popular and > thus promoting the game as being more alive and kicking? > I think you underestimate the character of our better players, here. I'm not so concerned about this new rule's effect on numbers which qualify. I think that the number of talented players willing to travel, who would also seek to 'snipe' extra qualifying spots away from others are few and far between, if not totally non-existent. This rule facilitates just as much those same already-qualified people showing up with decks just-off prime tech, and play challenging (but maybe not "A" game level) to be certain not to take a qualifying spot, and deliver their 1/4 qulaifying spot to others. > I sincerely hope that attendance will be great at the 2008 NAC here in > Montréal and I may be wrong that this policy change will affect the > outcome, but with all due respect, I still find it sad to see a WW > representative simply say "OK" when replying to somebody that points > out that this change could lead to a drop in attendance. > Mmm. One thing I might have preferred, would have been an open dialogue with the players _before_ the decision was made. Wasn't improving communication with the players part of that apology letter? This wouldn't have come as a mild suprise, were that route chosen. DaveZ

In article <DoHoj.8991$Ej5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Sorry, but how many DID qualify this year? 5 or 6+? (Given the example > > above) > > With 10p in the tournament? > > Everyone in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place. > > This year: 5 > Last year: 3 (assuming 10 == # of non-previously-qualified players) As I'm only half way paying attention to this discussion, and just so I fully understand, the current plan is: -A given qualifier will qualify 5 or 25% of the attendees, whichever is greater. -So an 8 person Qualifier will qualify 5 people. -A 14 person Qualifier will qualify 5 people. -A 30 person Qualifier will qualify 8 people. -etc. Sounds good to me. So a few extra people will qualify over last year. As 18 people is the break even point (.25 of 18 is 4.5, round up to 5), is this really gonna produce that many extra qualified folks? How many Qualifier tournaments around the world had fewer than 18 players? I know there were "mini qualifiers", but doesn't only the winner of the mini qualifier get qualified? Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

Mongrel (MDH) wrote: > > So, I ask - > Please make championship finalists exempt from qualifiers. (as per > the "pre-qualified players don't count" rule from before) As they are > exempt for the entire season, it doesn't affect the fairness of early > vs. late qualifier events. > > Please allow players to exempt themselves from qualifiers if they know > they cannot attend the NAC. (as long as they exempt themselves for the > entire season) Again, this doesn't affect fairness of early vs. late, > but it would increase the pool of qualified players. Both of these are good fixes. I also think they should be instituted. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

"Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:47a2...@dnews.tpgi.com.au... [ quoted text not captured ] I think you're assuming his qualifier tournaments have less than 20 players. If they have more than 20 players, the everyone-ties-for-2nd-place change doesn't matter anymore. Keep in mind, there's two separate changes here and only one that's actually bothersome. If the other one - the ETF2P change - covers for some of the difference, that's fine but it doesn't fix the problem and it doesn't even help at all for tournaments over 20 players. In fact, it actually doesn't help if you've got fewer players but the pre-qualified finalists outnumber the number of extra qualifier spots gained by the ETF2P change, so it might not cover the difference if you have as few as 8 or 12 in your qualifier. Fred

atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > You'd need a trend for that to be true. IIRC, prior to '07, the trend in > attendance was upwards for the NAC. I think its just as easy to make hte > case that traveling to LA is inherently expensive. ...and the fact that they scheduled the NAC on Yom Kippur...

"Mongrel (MDH)" <mon...@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:0bd307b3-57e8-4eca...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > Please allow players to exempt themselves from qualifiers if they know > they cannot attend the NAC. (as long as they exempt themselves for the > entire season) Again, this doesn't affect fairness of early vs. late, > but it would increase the pool of qualified players. In a pinch, I think this would definitely be better than the new system announced. It has the weird sort-of drawback of putting pressure on the pre-qualified to make a decision: "Do I allow myself to 'count', adding 1/4th of a qualifier position to the total but giving me the potential of making a qualifier spot go *poof* if I do well (net less -3/4ths of a qualifier position)? Or do I steer clear and not allow myself to count against the total?" Of course, if the tournament has less than 20, the genteel choice would be to choose the latter since you wouldn't be adding to the number of possible qualifier spots. Will the pre- qualified be genteel? One would hope so - but your proposal leaves it for them to choose. The issue would be rife with potential for unnecessary interpersonal annoyance. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] That's not what I'm proposing. 1) Pre-qualified finalists would be all exempt. This should cover all finalists. Not an issue of player choice. 2) Self-exempt players would exempt themselves from qualification for the entire season. That means they state their exemption at the first qualifier, and they are committed to that decision for any other qualifiers they attend. -Matt

"Mongrel (MDH)" <mon...@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:f1e6c2e0-4e2a-49fd...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] This last sentence is a new constraint you hadn't mentioned before. I would suggest that it's problematic. I also still think the point of the announced rule change was for simplification sake (not an attempt to even out the difficulty of qualifying from the beginning of the year to the end; in fact, LSJ mentioned it would have that effect but he didn't state that was goal). This new constraint actually causes as much or more complexity as there was before in terms of tracking player intent. If a player disqualifies himself in one CQ, how would they know that in another CQ? Would organizers have to start sending lists of self-exempt players to VEKN? And what if they changed their mind, later? What if their life situation changed? You're going to hold them to their prior declaration? As a one-time statement of how to handle a player in a given qualifier, your proposal is pretty reasonable. But trying to track such a thing over a tournament year is not something VEKN should get involved in. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] It just seemed like he was saying a guy with an average deck who gets into the finals due to good playing could be screwed out of qualifying if there is a great player or two who've already qualified who crushes him there. I couldn't see how that scenario would arise unless the tournament had less than 5 people. In which case making the finals isn't necessarily because of good play. It's a numerical inevitability. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:47a3...@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:47a2...@dnews.tpgi.com.au... >>> Huruem wrote: >>>> I'm actualy pretty pissed by these changes. >>>> I've been a huge number of qualifiers in my past years of "VTES >>>> touring" in France, and in each of these qualifiers, there was at >>>> least one or two guys, in the final, already qualified previously in a >>>> former qualifier. It gave hope to the average young player who did his >>>> best to get qualified with his average deck that he played well, but >>>> had a poor result due to bad seating. I know, losing is part of the >>>> game, but losing a qualifier slot, because some hardcore player, who >>>> reaches the final in each tourney he's playing, and who has already >>>> played already in 5 qualifiers... >>> >>> unless your qualifier tournament only has 4 players in total, there will >>> be at least 2 qualifying spots. >>> >>> if you're in the final, the worst you can possibly do is tie for 2nd. >>> >>> ergo, every finalist will qualify. which, to me, seems like a good thing! >>> >>> or am i missing the thrust of your post? >> >> I think you're assuming his qualifier tournaments have less than 20 players. ... > It just seemed like he was saying a guy with an average deck who gets > into the finals due to good playing could be screwed out of qualifying > if there is a great player or two who've already qualified who crushes > him there. > > I couldn't see how that scenario would arise unless the tournament had less than 5 people. He actually didn't say the 'average young guy' had made the finals. That guy could have placed, like 7th or something in a 24 player tournament and his example still works fine. Fred

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:GqHoj.8992$Ej5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Is all of this (new qualifier system) valid for the last chanche qualifier ? If yes, i think it would be very bad (in respect of luring non-qualified players to the CC event) letting the LCQ open to already-qualified players, under the new system. Because at LCQ there are, usually, plenty of already qualified players willing to play and, therefore, under the new system there will be lot of qualification slots (at LCQ) drained away by them. So i hope that the new system will be not valid for LCQ. just my 2 cents Emiliano, NC Itay www.italybynight.org

"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:C7Yoj.10916$Xg7....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:GqHoj.8992$Ej5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >> Meej wrote: >>> On Feb 1, 8:05 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> Sten During wrote: >>>>> Hmm, that would be a deviation from the 2007 system. >>>> If so, then OK. >>>> >>>>> Example 1) Assume a 20 player qualifier during 2007. Place 5 is >>>>> a tie (1GW 4VP 90TP) between two (or more players). Even though >>>>> 2007 tournament rules state that a randomizer be used for a >>>>> tiebreaker and that we thus get exactly ONE fifth placed player >>>>> we would still have six (or more) players qualifying for the >>>>> championship. (Ie, the player(s) not randomized into the final >>>>> round still qualify) >>>> That matches. No deviation. >>>> >>>>> Example 2) As above, but this year. Did player(s) placed in sixth >>>>> place just lose their qualification spot due to a coin toss? >>>> No. The players tied for 5th qualify. >>> >>> How does that happen? There are no players in 5th place under 2008 >>> VEKN rules, as the winner is 1st, the other finalists tie for 2nd, and >>> all non-finalists start counting off at 6th place. At least as far as >>> I've understood it so far. >> >> As in previous years, if the # of qualifying spots is 5 or more, the you >> can identify the finalists before the finals. > > Because at LCQ there are, usually, plenty of already qualified players > willing to play and, therefore, under the new system there will be lot of > qualification slots (at LCQ) drained away by them. > So i hope that the new system will be not valid for LCQ. > Better - i hope that the LCQ will be made open to non-qualified players only, at this point. Emiliano

Just one more random question about this new rule: Let's say I qualify at the NERQ. I get a T-shirt. Then I go to the DC Qualifier, and qualify. Do I get another shirt? Under the new rules, you can have an entire new wardrobe made of a single year's qualifier shirt!

Jozxyqk schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Dude, I allready have a wardrobe made of V:TES T-Shirts. Unfortunately most of them are too ugly or way too big so I don´t wear them (actually, for most of them both criterias apply). * -- Johannes Walch * I very much like and wear the EC T-Shirts, though, as well as the old school qualifier shirts where only the year changed.

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't have such a wardrobe, because I keep giving mine away. Like you say, they're too big or too ugly. or both. I mean, there's heaps of cool art each set, yet the tshirt designers seem to go for whatever is the least appealing... WW, can we have something we'd be comfortable wearing _outside_ a gaming hall? (not that i would even be comfortable wearing the previous ones _inside_ a gaming hall...). Some cool, non-ugly picture that people who don't play vtes might see and think 'hey, that's kinda cool!', and occasional sizes other than XXL? Please? How about M. Plenty of people should fit an M. That's the whole point of it being M, right? I mean, if we have people now not wearing them cause they're too big, then surely it'd be no worse if there were some people not wearing them cause they're too small. but I think if we got a range of sizes per qualifier bundle, then you'd get a higher wear-to-abandon ratio. Perhaps. [ quoted text not captured ]

Salem schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] AFAIK this is planned for this year (different sizes). We´ll have to see about the artwork. Actually I am not very fond of (card) artwork on a t-shirt since it is difficult to reproduce in sufficient quality without having a hefty price tag. It needs to be more plain-colored to look good, like the judge t-shirt for example. -- Johannes Walch

On Jan 31, 5:24 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Sten During wrote: > > Still I see no reason why an autumn qualifier should be easier > > to qualify from than a spring one, which is the situation with > > the 2007 system. > > Agreed. The reason is that we want more players to attend the NAC, and therefore it's good that qualifying becomes easier. Under the new system, the same good players will qualify over and over, and the overall pool of qualified players will be smaller. The old system is elegant and ideal design - it was easiest to qualify at the last possible moment, at the LCQ, once you've already paid to go there. LSJ, who do I need to convince to get this rule changed, either putting it back the way it was, or increasing the 25%? I'm basing my suggestions on two assuptions: 1) More people at the NAC would be a Good Thing 2) An increase in total number of qualified players will lead to higher attendance Do you agree with #1 and #2? If fewer people qualify this year, and if we have lower or the same attendance at the NAC, would you consider changing the qualification rules? Ira

On Jan 30, 11:40 am, roby...@mindspring.com wrote: > The 2008 qualifier system works the same as the 2007 system except for > one point: > > All qualifier tournaments are handled equally regardless of order. There seems to be a lot of angst about this....... which quite frankly has me a bit confused. People say fewer people will qualify, and that it will be harder to qualify. Seems counter-intuitive to me. Last year: As the qualifier season progressed, a SMALLER number of slots were available in each tournament. This year: The number of slots will be higher (and consistent) Even without that, the ranking rule assures you 2nd place if you reach a final. This means that EVERY qualifier will have AT LEAST 5 qualifying slots. IMO, more slots = easier to get a slot? In other words, make a final table, you're in. Are people worried that Ben, Jay, Mark and other top echelon players will go on tour and end up in every final? Hmmmm. Must be nice to create that type of intimidation factor. Personally I like that fact that people will be fighting to get to the finals instead of just qualify midfield. And the new finals rule will then ensure that they're playing in the finals to WIN, not just float a VP or two for qualification (which I know I have done in the past). I can't fathom how this is bad. Then again, even if I don't qualify, I'll go to the Week of Nightmares/NAC and have fun. I guess I'm silly that way.

Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote: > Jozxyqk schrieb: > > Just one more random question about this new rule: > > > > Let's say I qualify at the NERQ. I get a T-shirt. > > Then I go to the DC Qualifier, and qualify. Do I get another shirt? > > > > Under the new rules, you can have an entire new wardrobe made > > of a single year's qualifier shirt! > > > Dude, I allready have a wardrobe made of V:TES T-Shirts. Unfortunately > most of them are too ugly or way too big so I don´t wear them (actually, > for most of them both criterias apply). * Right, but I mean multiples of the *same* shirt. You qualify 4 times in 2008, you get 4 2008 shirts. Josh who succeeded in not "stealing" a Qualifying spot, and still did alright with 0GW+2VP with a combat deck at a particularly fighty tournament.

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 09:39:20 -0800 (PST), Darby Keeney <darby....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 11:40 am, roby...@mindspring.com wrote: >> The 2008 qualifier system works the same as the 2007 system except for >> one point: >> >> All qualifier tournaments are handled equally regardless of order. > > There seems to be a lot of angst about this....... > which quite frankly has me a bit confused. > > People say fewer people will qualify, and that > it will be harder to qualify. Seems counter-intuitive > to me. > > Last year: > As the qualifier season progressed, a SMALLER > number of slots were available in each tournament. > > This year: > The number of slots will be higher (and consistent) > Even without that, the ranking rule assures you > 2nd place if you reach a final. > > This means that EVERY qualifier will have AT > LEAST 5 qualifying slots. > > IMO, more slots = easier to get a slot? Whether the new system allows more or less qualifier spots depends on what results the already qualified players achieve. If re-qualification is frequent, the qualifier spots will be fewer; if it is uncommon, the number of spots will actually increase. Assuming a number of qualifier events where x people attended, with y being the average number of events played by a single player, in the old system you more or less got x/4 qualified people (not counting for rounding, etc.). In the new system you can get between x*y/4 (if nobody re-qualifies) and x*(1-y) (if everybody re-qualifies, minimum is the number of people qualifying on the first event) spots. If you assume that the more skilled people usually take fewer attempts to qualify, then you are likely to at least slightly reduce the number of spots. -- Regards, Daneel

On Feb 3, 3:36 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 09:39:20 -0800 (PST), Darby Keeney > Whether the new system allows more or less qualifier > spots depends on what results the already qualified > players achieve. If re-qualification is frequent, > the qualifier spots will be fewer; if it is uncommon, > the number of spots will actually increase. Data: Only 9 people were in last year's Hall of Champions (indicating 2 or finishes that would have qualified them). Doesn't seem to be an overwhelming number to me given the number of available spots. > Assuming a number of qualifier events where x people > attended, with y being the average number of events > played by a single player, in the old system you > more or less got x/4 qualified people (not counting > for rounding, etc.). Umm. No. In the old system, only UNQUALIFIED people counted for the "x/4" slots. In most of the late stage qualifiers I played, a significant number (25% and more) had already qualified. So in those late-season tournaments, you might already be down to 3/4*x/4 slots (18% instead of 25% of entrants total). In the new system, you're still at 25%. Though I still understand the "How well will the already-qualified do?" factor. Data above...... 9 slots taken in this way last year. Possibly more the 25% of people will qualify in smaller touraments (where there are 5 slots, instead of X/4 - because all non-winning finalists tie for 2nd). In a 10 player qualifier, half of the field is certain to qualify. I guess I'm in the minority in thinking that it is inevitable that more people will qualify. NAC attendance is, of course, a separate matter.

"Darby Keeney" <darby....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d4ddf90b-939d-40c7...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > People say fewer people will qualify, and that > it will be harder to qualify. Seems counter-intuitive > to me. > > Last year: > As the qualifier season progressed, a SMALLER > number of slots were available in each tournament. > > This year: > The number of slots will be higher (and consistent) Huh? That statement is confusing. As far as I know, the number of slots used to equal 25% of the unqualified, from beginning to end. That was consistent. If you mean, "the number of slots will be higher" because you're assuming the exact same population in the qualifier, beginning to end, and thus there will be more qualified people in the end because of the additional slots, that comparison has a distinct fallacy - you'd have to assume that players who'd qualified before had no better than average of a chance of finishing in the top 25% a second time. I think most would find that an unreasonable assumption. But even so: 1) Your chances of qualifying at any given tournament this year are _at best_ equal to last year - since in theory, being in the top 25% of all participants would be no harder than being in the top 25% of the unqualified participants. 2) There will ultimately be no more slots this year than last year - given the same questionable assumption as in #1 - since the number of slots that go *poof* when someone qualifies two or more times (or 'requalifies', to coin a useful term) will be approximately equal to the additional qualifier slots. > Even without that, the ranking rule assures you > 2nd place if you reach a final. > > This means that EVERY qualifier will have AT > LEAST 5 qualifying slots. > > IMO, more slots = easier to get a slot? Only given the assumption that those previously qualified have no greater than average chance of finishing in the top 25% of a subsequent qualifier. I think the problem is, a lot of people have real problem with that assumption. Anyway, the whole issue of total number of qualifier slots or overall chance of qualifying was never my main objection to the concept. It's that it puts the pre-qualified in a weird and not necessarily very satisfying place of knowing that if they do well in a subsequent qualifier, they do a 'bad' thing: make a slot disappear. Given that I didn't see a good, productive reason for the rule change in the first place and no one's bothered to offer one (at least, not the 'official' one), my attitude is fuck it. There should be a good reason to change things, especially if there's some good reasons not to. > And the new finals rule will then ensure that > they're playing in the finals to WIN, not just > float a VP or two for qualification (which I > know I have done in the past). Sure. But you can have your new finals rule without a change to the rule about calculating qualifier slots and who receives them. AFAIK, the two are not tied to one another. > I can't fathom how this is bad. You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why is it good? Fred

"Darby Keeney" <darby....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8768a105-65c0-47eb...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > Data: > Only 9 people were in last year's Hall of Champions > (indicating 2 or finishes that would have qualified them). I don't believe that data, though. I'm pretty sure there were people at the NAC's mini-qualifiers and LCQ who would have requalified, for instance. I have huge doubts whether that list was tracked rigourously. People probably landed on it when their status specifically came to the attention of whoever keeps that page, and not as the result of any determined effort to produce a full and accurate list. Fred

On Feb 3, 6:12 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why is it good? I think in the end, it is neither good nor bad--it is even. The current system will result in a few more spots (due to the "everyone in the final qualifies, as a minimum, but top 25% otherwise in a 22+ player tournament") here and there, but then a few spots will vanish due to people qualifying 2+ times. Likely a wash. But where the advantage comes in, in an absolute sense, is that it works with the new placing rules for the finals ("you either win or come in 2nd"). And as that rule is beneficial across the board, it is advantageous the the new qualifying system enables it. That, and now we get to avoid the horror that theoretically was the final in a 16 person qualifier, where 4 of the 5 people in the final get to qualify, and so folks wheel and deal to come in 4th... -Peter

On Feb 3, 6:21 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > But where the advantage comes in, in an absolute sense, is that it > works with the new placing rules for the finals ("you either win or > come in 2nd"). And as that rule is beneficial across the board, it is > advantageous the the new qualifying system enables it. The advantage also comes in for Robyn Tatu, who won't have as much work to do. Given how much work she already does, as an unpaid volunteer, I'm okay with this change for that benefit alone. Thanks for all your work, Robyn! John Eno

> You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why is it good? > > Fred > > During 2007 EC LCQ we were VERY close to calculate the incorrect number of qualifying slots due to sloppy reporting from at least one prior qualifying tournament. The old system could (theoretically) propagate an early error throughout the remainder of qualifiers (one player ought to have qualified but is not recorded as such, that player participates in a later event, etc in absurdum.) The main reason the new system is good is because it removes the possibility of propagating clerical errors. The secondary reason the new system is good is because (again theoretically) the performance results of later qualifiers is not inflated. (You would expect to need in the order of 1GW 5VP to qualify, but a late qualifier is more likely to qualify all players with 1GW 4VP) So, don't bother about the secondary reason. In reality it only plays havoc with the LCQ, for which reason I personally would prefer to see all LCQs as an invitational for non-qualified players only. Those already qualified could play in another standard constructed, or we could even posit that all pre-LCQ-qualified players automatically qualify for the Continental Limited Format Championship running at the same time as the LCQ. However, this last paragraph was an addition being slightly off topic concerning your question. Sten During -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Feb 3, 6:12 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why is it good? > > I think in the end, it is neither good nor bad--it is even. > I think, on the other side, that the current system will be very bad for Last Chanche Qualifier, where, usually, there are many players willing to play but being already qualified, against a pretty number of non-qualified people, that will see their qualification slots drained away so much by already qualified players, at that point. IMHO, under the current system, at least the LCQ should be a close event, allowing only to non-qualified playes to attend. my two cents Emiliano, NC Italy www.italybynight.org

On Feb 3, 4:12 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Darby Keeney" <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote in message > Huh? That statement is confusing. As far as I know, the number of slots used to > equal 25% of the unqualified, from beginning to end. That was consistent. We're using different demonimators. Is that so difficult to comprehend? Now, it is 25% of the total participants, every time. Before, it was 25% of the unqualified participants. Or less than 25% of the total participants, diminishing further as more people qualified, but continued to play. 25% of total > 25% of unqualified - with diminished possibility of clerical error. > 1) Your chances of qualifying at any given tournament this year are _at best_ equal > to last year - since in theory, being in the top 25% of all participants would be > no harder than being in the top 25% of the unqualified participants. No. There are more slots. Period. 25% of total > 25% of unqualified. Plus, for each tournament of less than 20 people, more than 25% will qualify (5 will, in fact, regardless of the size). 5 > 0.25 * X where X < 20. > 2) There will ultimately be no more slots this year than last year - given the > same questionable assumption as in #1 - since the number of slots that go *poof* > when someone qualifies two or more times (or 'requalifies', to coin a useful > term) will be approximately equal to the additional qualifier slots. No. In tournaments of less than 20 people, more than 25% will qualify. Therefore, the total percentage of qualifying spots MUST be greater than 25% of the total number of players, across all tournaments. Granted, it is possible that several people (N > 9 likely) will qualify in multiple spots. I find it hard to believe that this "eating" will digest more slots than are created. > Anyway, the whole issue of total number of qualifier slots or overall chance > of qualifying was never my main objection to the concept. It's that it puts > the pre-qualified in a weird and not necessarily very satisfying place of knowing > that if they do well in a subsequent qualifier, they do a 'bad' thing: make a > slot disappear. Call me predatory. I don't see this as a problem. > You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why is it good? Not, I'm not. I don't seek to pick and scratch at things to find issue for complaint. It's not bad, therefore, I have no problem with it. Perhaps you have a differing mindset.

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:b9a1820e-7c1c-4cd2...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... On Feb 3, 6:12 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why is it good? > > I think in the end, it is neither good nor bad--it is even. I don't agree but even if I did, my question would be, "Why change it?" > But where the advantage comes in, in an absolute sense, is that it > works with the new placing rules for the finals ("you either win or > come in 2nd"). Oh? Why? > And as that rule is beneficial across the board, it is > advantageous the the new qualifying system enables it. Huh? Why would you need the new qualifying system to enable it? > That, and now we get to avoid the horror that theoretically was the > final in a 16 person qualifier, where 4 of the 5 people in the final > get to qualify, and so folks wheel and deal to come in 4th... Sure, that's fine. But I just don't see any reason you need the 'requalifier' rule change to have the everybody-ties-for-2nd rule change. Fred

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:47a645df$0$18851$8826...@free.teranews.com... > >> You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why is it good? > > During 2007 EC LCQ we were VERY close to calculate the incorrect number > of qualifying slots due to sloppy reporting from at least one prior > qualifying tournament. Sure. I don't think that's a good enough reason, though. > The secondary reason the new system is good is because (again > theoretically) the performance results of later qualifiers is not > inflated. (You would expect to need in the order of 1GW 5VP to qualify, > but a late qualifier is more likely to qualify all players with > 1GW 4VP) And that's not really a reason at all, because the difference in difficulty is negligible. And, to the extent it is, it would disprove Darby's original contention: that the prequalified don't have an appreciably better chance of coming in top 25% than non-prequalified. You can't have both arguments. > So, don't bother about the secondary reason. In reality it only plays > havoc with the LCQ, for which reason I personally would prefer to see > all LCQs as an invitational for non-qualified players only. That might be at least a nice gesture to people who travel to the CC unqualified, I agree. But besides the LCQ, I think you'd also want to do this with the pre-LCQ mini-qualifiers they hold during the Week of Nightmares (or at least, the did in the NAC WoN). Should we have two separate tournaments on each of these occasions during the WoN? Fred

"Darby Keeney" <darby....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a0d912ef-f224-4599...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... On Feb 3, 4:12 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Darby Keeney" <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > Huh? That statement is confusing. As far as I know, the number of slots used to > > equal 25% of the unqualified, from beginning to end. That was consistent. > > We're using different demonimators. Is that so difficult to > comprehend? No, I comprehend perfectly. I just don't think it's the appropriate thing to do. > > 1) Your chances of qualifying at any given tournament this year are _at best_ equal > > to last year - since in theory, being in the top 25% of all participants would be > > no harder than being in the top 25% of the unqualified participants. > > No. There are more slots. Period. > > 25% of total > 25% of unqualified. Sigh. If you insist on not subtracting the slots that the requalified make go away. But that's bullshit. Those slots go away and thus have to be counted in the end. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges. > Plus, for each tournament of less than 20 people, more than > 25% will qualify (5 will, in fact, regardless of the size). ...unless all the finalists have already qualified. In which case 0% will qualify. Fred

On Feb 3, 3:07 pm, Darby Keeney <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote: > I guess I'm in the minority in thinking that it > is inevitable that more people will qualify. > > NAC attendance is, of course, a separate matter. I don't think NAC attendance is a separate matter at all! I think that if there's a larger pool of players who qualify, then attendance at the NAC will go up. There are certainly other contributing factors, but total number of qualified players is one. Personally, I think we should consider vastly increasing the total number of qualified players. As Peter would say: Like, everyone. The cost and time barriers to entry are already significant enough that relatively few people will be able to attend, qualification aside. Just imagine the awesomeness of a 100 player NAC tournament, where the top 40 cut day 1 really matters. I say throw qualification out the window! Ira

On Feb 3, 11:00 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Darby Keeney" <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:a0d912ef-f224-4599...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > On Feb 3, 4:12 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > > "Darby Keeney" <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > Huh? That statement is confusing. As far as I know, the number of slots used to > > > equal 25% of the unqualified, from beginning to end. That was consistent. > > > We're using different demonimators. Is that so difficult to > > comprehend? > > No, I comprehend perfectly. I just don't think it's the appropriate thing to do. > > > > 1) Your chances of qualifying at any given tournament this year are _at best_ equal > > > to last year - since in theory, being in the top 25% of all participants would be > > > no harder than being in the top 25% of the unqualified participants. > > > No. There are more slots. Period. > > > 25% of total > 25% of unqualified. > > Sigh. If you insist on not subtracting the slots that the requalified make go > away. But that's bullshit. Those slots go away and thus have to be counted > in the end. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges. How many players have ever lost a qualifying spot to a "requalifier"? The answer is none. So it is not a problem > > Plus, for each tournament of less than 20 people, more than > > 25% will qualify (5 will, in fact, regardless of the size). > > ...unless all the finalists have already qualified. In which case 0% will qualify. "Then those players should be reminded to "Try harder. Because: You're not good enough. " This is a Qualification System not a Soup Kitchen. You gotta Earn It. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Sten During wrote: >> You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why is it good? > In reality it only plays > havoc with the LCQ, for which reason I personally would prefer to see > all LCQs as an invitational for non-qualified players only. Those > already qualified could play in another standard constructed, or we > could even posit that all pre-LCQ-qualified players automatically > qualify for the Continental Limited Format Championship running at the > same time as the LCQ. I agree on this - let the LCQ to be an invitational event, open to non-qualified players only, a this point (another tournament can be run at the same time for already qualified players) best Emiliano

On Feb 3, 9:50 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > This is a Qualification System not a Soup Kitchen. You gotta Earn It. Is that what's best for the game? Why not let anyone play at the NAC? There's still a top 40 cut after day 1... Well, there is if we actually get more than 40 people. :) Ira

> That might be at least a nice gesture to people who travel to the CC > unqualified, I agree. But besides the LCQ, I think you'd also want to > do this with the pre-LCQ mini-qualifiers they hold during the Week of > Nightmares (or at least, the did in the NAC WoN). Should we have two > separate tournaments on each of these occasions during the WoN? > Pre-LCQ mini-qualifiers are optional :) The WoN is as much a part of the NAC as the VTES in the Sun was part of the EC, ie not. It's nice padding to attract people to stay longer. As far as I'm concerned they should be handled as any other qualifier if they should be qualifiers at all in the first place. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I am not too fond of "high-level" tournaments like continental or national championships, still open to all. At German championship this year, my grand-predator started by saying it was his first game of V:Tes, then starting KRC'ing and shifting me cross-table because his prey had the vote lock... well, there is nothing personal here, but preventing this kind of thing is important, while in the same time not being too selective in order not to be a too low amount of players at the tournament. As far as I am concerned, I am also very pissed off by this measure. I like to travel, I have a lot of friends met through V:Tes in France and for those two reasons, I generally move a lot through France. Last year, I would have qualified 7 times for french championship and 4 times to European championship... well I really don't know what to do this year...

On Feb 3, 11:47 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Oh? Why? ??? The new tournament finals system ("either you win or you come in 2nd") means that you can't differentiate between 2nd and 5th place. So in a situation where only 4 people get to qualify (or only 3), the lack of differentiation becomes a problem, in the "We have 4 people tied for 2nd, but only two of them get to qualify. What do we do?" sense. By saying that everyone in the finals, minimum, qualifies, the new finals system works with the qualification system and everyone comes out ok. No need to then invent a tie breaker for determining 2-5th place just when they got rid of the need for a tie breaker determining 2-5th place. > Huh? Why would you need the new qualifying system to enable it? That probably wasn't the best way to articulate what I was trying to say. The new qualification system and the new "win or come in 2nd" system fit together nicely. The new qualification system makes the new finals system workable in qualifying tournaments. > Sure, that's fine. But I just don't see any reason you need the 'requalifier' > rule change to have the everybody-ties-for-2nd rule change. Well, that is a different issue. But the "I can qualify 8 times!" rule, again, is probably mostly a wash--more qualifying spots will open up (due to above) and some will be lost (due to this). The big gain for the "I can qualify 8 times!" rule, however, is that it makes everything much, much simpler to administrate. -Peter

On Feb 4, 2:03 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 3, 9:50 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > This is a Qualification System not a Soup Kitchen. You gotta Earn It. > > Is that what's best for the game? Yes, it is best for the game. > Why not let anyone play at the > NAC? ...because there are some players who are so bad that they shouldn't ruin the game for the players who are so good that they have a chance to win the Champioinship. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 4, 10:17 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Feb 4, 2:03 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 3, 9:50 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > This is a Qualification System not a Soup Kitchen. You gotta Earn It. > > > Is that what's best for the game? > > Yes, it is best for the game. > > > Why not let anyone play at the > > NAC? I've never been to the NAC, but I decided to go this year regardless of whether I qualified or not. I want to play a lot of games, and there are a hojillion tournaments during the Week of Nightmares, including a parallel tournament during the NAC for non qualifiers. I don't have really strong feelings about the new system, due to my own inexperience, but 1) The book keeping on the old system sounds like a total pain 2) If you want to play vtes during the Week of Nightmares, there is plenty to be had 3) If you can't qualify, it is unlikely that you would have had a shot at winning the NAC 4) If you want to play in a "competitive" tournament, it sounds like the Last Chance Qualifier is pretty damn competitive. I'm not seeing the cause for alarm. -Dave Clooney Come to the NAC anyway, I promise there will be whiskey!

On 2008-02-04, coincoi...@hotmail.com <coincoi...@hotmail.com> wrote: > As far as I am concerned, I am also very pissed off by this measure. I > like to travel, I have a lot of friends met through V:Tes in France > and for those two reasons, I generally move a lot through France. Last > year, I would have qualified 7 times for french championship and 4 > times to European championship... well I really don't know what to do > this year... Wow, that's a lot. How many games did you play?

On Feb 3, 10:48 pm, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think NAC attendance is a separate matter at all! I think > that if there's a larger pool of players who qualify, then attendance > at the NAC will go up. There are certainly other contributing > factors, but total number of qualified players is one. > Personally, I think we should consider vastly increasing the total > number of qualified players. As Peter would say: Like, everyone. Sorry Ira. I should have been a bit more exacting in my wording As Robyn pointed out earlier, there is a large body of people who qualify, but choose to not attend. That's what I meant be a separate matter. Of course, having a deeper qualfication pool and hoping the same percentage of qualified players attend is one strategy to increase attendance. Increasing the fraction of qualifiers that attend is a second. I believe that the current system will offer a somewhat deeper pool (Fred does not). Your approach certainly offers a deeper pool. Having an open tournament at GenCon is probably the deepest. I shudder to think about that last one. And, you are likely correct in thinking that the NAC is somewhat self-selecting - as long as the NAC remains a standalone event (e.g., not conducted at GenCon). Only the more dedicated players will travel bear the financial burden of WoN and NAC (except for a few locals). In the end, I guess it all boils down to how you define "awesomeness of a 100 player NAC". For me, watching 100 very good players vie for the title would be FANTASTIC. Seeing 20 great players get whacked by weird crosstable antics from 80 less experienced players would be a step backwards in time.

On Jan 30, 1:40 pm, roby...@mindspring.com wrote: > The 2008 qualifier system works the same as the 2007 system except for > one point: > > All qualifier tournaments are handled equally regardless of order. > Players who qualify in one qualifier are not handled any differently > in other qualifiers. > They can continue to qualify in each qualifier in which they play. > A data point from the NEQ that took place this weekend: 1 previously qualified player did come in in the top 25% (that would be me) "taking" a qualifying spot. But we almost certainly had 4 players who were either already qualified or wouldn't have been competing for slots (given the option). So, the new rules made no difference in who actually ended up qualifiying -- in this case. -Ben Swainbank

On 4 fév, 18:12, Jonathan Beverley <jmbev...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > On 2008-02-04, coincoinmas...@hotmail.com <coincoinmas...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > As far as I am concerned, I am also very pissed off by this measure. I > > like to travel, I have a lot of friends met through V:Tes in France > > and for those two reasons, I generally move a lot through France. Last > > year, I would have qualified 7 times for french championship and 4 > > times to European championship... well I really don't know what to do > > this year... > > Wow, that's a lot. How many games did you play? 7 French qualifiers Last chance qualifier of French championship 2 European qualifiers Last chance qualifier of European championship and I was already qualified from final at EC 2006 but that was not the point :-p

XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > This is a Qualification System not a Soup Kitchen. > You gotta Earn It. This should be on a T-shirt. =) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

In article <8141ee86-e253-4ad7...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > Personally, I think we should consider vastly increasing the total > number of qualified players. As Peter would say: Like, everyone. Indeed! > I say throw qualification out the window! That being said, I do think there is something to having *some*level of barrier to entry for national championships and the like--while I am a big fan of getting as many people playing in as many tournaments as possible, I kind of agree that at a tournament that is supposed to be super "serious" (i.e. the people involved are meant to consider it that way), you probably *don't* want folks who have never played VTES before, or have very little experience, or just play to screw with people. I mean, granted, it is unlikely that many folks showing up to play in a championship event will fit under this description, but really, you don't want to sit down at a game in the NAC and discover that the guy across the table just like playing VTES for the roleplaying aspects and he decides to cross table oust you 'cause he is a krazy malkavian, and you are wearing a blue hat. As such, I think that some level of "qualification" for big championship events is a good idea. But I'm also totally ok with the bar being pretty low. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

On Feb 3, 6:42 pm, Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote: > > You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why is it good? > > > Fred > > The old system could (theoretically) propagate an early error throughout > the remainder of qualifiers (one player ought to have qualified but is > not recorded as such, that player participates in a later event, etc > in absurdum.) > (snip) > So, don't bother about the secondary reason. In reality it only plays > havoc with the LCQ, for which reason I personally would prefer to see > all LCQs as an invitational for non-qualified players only. Those > already qualified could play in another standard constructed, or we > could even posit that all pre-LCQ-qualified players automatically > qualify for the Continental Limited Format Championship running at the > same time as the LCQ. > However, this last paragraph was an addition being slightly off topic > concerning your question. > > Sten During > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com I don't think I can express the full emotion I feel when I write here that administration of the old system was a nightmare from which I thought I would never awaken. "In absurdum", indeed. I did not campain for the change, nor will I complain if it's all scrapped and we go back to the 2007 rules. Some numbers from last year: 9 Events of 122 went missing entirely. 8 of those were mini Qualifiers that were likely not reported as there were too few players to make it legal. The qualifier list on White-Wolf was last updated in July of 2007. I have been assured that they will make every effort to post what I submit this year. The actual number of "Hall of Champions" (Those who placed high enough to have qualified twice) is 76. There is a goodly number of folks who played in 4 to 10 qualifying events. The Mini Qualifiers will see an impact with the new change as half of Mini's in 2007 were won by someone who had already qualified. As for the LCQ:Sweden 6 people who qualified under the old system, would NOT have qualified under the new. As for the LCQ:USA - no difference. The same 3 people would've qualified regardless of system. Robyn Tatu vtesratings

In article <da5c8af9-5469-4fe9...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, rob...@mindspring.com wrote: > I don't think I can express the full emotion I feel when I write here > that administration of the old system was a nightmare from which I > thought I would never awaken. "In absurdum", indeed. You. Are. Awesome. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 4, 6:37 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > [Robyn,] You. Are. Awesome. > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html Agree. In. Spades. If I could only get you to JFD when you're sitting to my left, I would try to steal you away from that no-good Tatu fella.

Hi Robyn, good to see you active :) > As for the LCQ:Sweden 6 people who qualified under the old system, > would NOT have qualified under the new. That would be six out of fifteen, if I recall correctly. Around half of the total playing field were previously qualified. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 4, 9:38 am, Ben Swainbank <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 1:40 pm, roby...@mindspring.com wrote: > > > The 2008qualifiersystem works the same as the 2007 system except for > > one point: > > > Allqualifiertournaments are handled equally regardless of order. > > Players who qualify in onequalifierare not handled any differently > > in other qualifiers. > > They can continue to qualify in eachqualifierin which they play. > > A data point from the NEQ that took place this weekend: > > 1 previously qualified player did come in in the top 25% (that would > be me) "taking" a qualifying spot. > > But we almost certainly had 4 players who were either already > qualified or wouldn't have been competing for slots (given the > option). > > So, the new rules made no difference in who actually ended up > qualifiying -- in this case. > > -Ben Swainbank More info please: How many Methuselahs participated? Thanks. Jeff

On Feb 4, 1:55 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I say throw qualification out the window! > > That being said, I do think there is something to having *some*level of > barrier to entry for national championships and the like Such as, I don't know, about $400 in travel, hotel, and entry costs? You and Darby and others have written about the possibility of newbies playing in the championship screwing things up crosstable. That doesn't seem realistic to me, when you consider a NAC event that is not at a convention, and is simply the NAC + WoN. Also, there's a top 40 cut, so they'll be culled at that point, too. If no qualification is unpleasant because it takes the fun out of regional qualifiers and you're worried that you'll get inexperienced players at the NAC, then let's change it to 50% qualify instead of 25%. Ira

On Feb 7, 5:24 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > Such as, I don't know, about $400 in travel, hotel, and entry costs? Sure. In the US. Sometimes. I don't think that the NAC is mandated to be not at a convention (wasn't it at conventions in the past?). And I don't know that in Europe (or South America or wherever), the same issues apply (they might, the might not). Like, again, I don't think there needs to be a huge barrier to entrance. But some level of "qualification" doesn't seem out of the realm of reason. > If no qualification is unpleasant because it takes the fun out of > regional qualifiers and you're worried that you'll get inexperienced > players at the NAC, then let's change it to 50% qualify instead of > 25%. Ok. But then, a lot of times, being in the top 50% of a given tournament often means "You got zero VPs, just like the rest of the tournament..." -Peter

On Feb 7, 4:24 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 4, 1:55 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I say throw qualification out the window! > > > That being said, I do think there is something to having *some*level of > > barrier to entry for national championships and the like > > Such as, I don't know, about $400 in travel, hotel, and entry costs? > > You and Darby and others have written about the possibility of newbies > playing in the championship screwing things up crosstable. That > doesn't seem realistic to me, when you consider a NAC event that is > not at a convention, and is simply the NAC + WoN. Also, there's a top > 40 cut, so they'll be culled at that point, too. Yes but if they screw you up in the first day of the NAC and you don't make the second day then you have no recourse. If they screw you up at a qualifier, then you can just go to another qualifier. > If no qualification is unpleasant because it takes the fun out of > regional qualifiers and you're worried that you'll get inexperienced > players at the NAC, then let's change it to 50% qualify instead of > 25%. Why not make it 22.5% or 29.87376% or any other arbitrary number? If you are committed to getting to the NAC then you have ample opportunities to do so. If you are not, then why should we change the numbers just to include you. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

[ quoted text not captured ] To me this seems like the discussion we always have when trying to help new players learn the game. There are lots of casual VTES players out there who enjoy the game and play every now and again when you manage to get a large enough group together. And in any group, there is always the Meth who takes too long, doesn't know their cards, or just takes too long to futz with their Imbued. Now, nothing is wrong with having this type of player in a casual playgroup, but too often, this person is not motivated enough to play the game competitively. Sometimes, they'll luck out and make a final table, but generally speaking, this is the person you want as your predator or prey when you sit down at the first table However, this is not the type of person that will, all else equal, make the cut for a continental championship. It may seem harsh to draw a hard line in the sand, but I think that in itself will be a motivating factor. Motivated players are good for the game, and will lead to a higher caliber tournament when all is said and done. I'm sure there will be some people who feel they were unjustly denied a qualifier slot, but I think the new standard for qualification will solve more problems than it will create. Jeff

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Ok. But then, a lot of times, being in the top 50% of a given > tournament often means "You got zero VPs, just like the rest > of the tournament..." I assume you meant to say "You got zero *GW*,..." since the top 50% will surely have some VPs. But I agree with your sentiment. I have always thought that the cutoff should be "Everyone with a GW." I bet if I looked at my Origins data, it would end up being ~25-35%. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <FWKqj.24237$ov5....@newsfe15.phx>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I assume you meant to say "You got zero *GW*,..." since the top 50% will > surely have some VPs. But I agree with your sentiment. Yeah, I probably did. But in, like, a smaller tournament, it isn't at all out of the realm of possibility to have people in the top 50% with zero VPs. But yeah, what you said. > I have always thought that the cutoff should be "Everyone with a GW." I > bet if I looked at my Origins data, it would end up being ~25-35%. I think that would work well too. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > You and Darby and others have written about the possibility of newbies > playing in the championship screwing things up crosstable. That > doesn't seem realistic to me, when you consider a NAC event that is > not at a convention, and is simply the NAC + WoN. Also, there's a top > 40 cut, so they'll be culled at that point, too. You write about this "not seeming realistic." Shall I call you Pollyanna now, or simply fortunate for not experiencing this yet? I've had it happen. Twice. 3 years ago, !Malk deck playing rock-paper-scissors with Masters, bled me repeatedly from my grandpredator position while I was trying to fend off Gio powerbleed. She said "I'm a crazy Malkavian, and you look too powerful." I had only Lucinde in play at the time, and had just Parity Shifted her prey (my predator) to control his growth. She bled me out and handed her prey a 5VP sweep. Even my predator shrugged while watching this. Just last NAC, I was rushed crosstable (by my grandpredator again) which set his prey up for 2 easy VP. He handed his prey a heads-up game with his predator. Even 1 VP at that table would have put me in the finals. I'M NOT WHINING ABOUT THIS - it happens, it's part of the game and I understand that hostile crosstable play is often correct. Even great players can make a mistake handling crosstable developments. But, it is naive to believe that unwise, poorly concieved crosstable play cannot, or does not exist in the "qualified" NAC environment. Or that less experiences players are more likely to make these mistakes in confusing situations, where the table dynamics may shift quickly and radically. As to "is qualification important, or necessary" - in all honesty, I don't care that much. I'm going to the NAC to see my V:tES-playing friends, regardless of who else is there, and whether I have qualified.

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:d527bc6c-f65b-48e2...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 3, 11:00 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> Sigh. If you insist on not subtracting the slots that the requalified make go >> away. But that's bullshit. Those slots go away and thus have to be counted >> in the end. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges. > > How many players have ever lost a qualifying spot to a > "requalifier"? > > The answer is none. So it is not a problem Huh? The answer is none because the rules were different. I'm not sure where you were going with this. The rules are different, now it will happen, so it's a problem. Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:c5836999-e110-4f24...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... On Feb 3, 11:47 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Oh? Why? > > ??? > > The new tournament finals system ("either you win or you come in 2nd") > means that you can't differentiate between 2nd and 5th place. So in a > situation where only 4 people get to qualify (or only 3), the lack of > differentiation becomes a problem, in the "We have 4 people tied for > 2nd, but only two of them get to qualify. What do we do?" sense. By > saying that everyone in the finals, minimum, qualifies, the new finals > system works with the qualification system and everyone comes out ok. That 'problem' was always there - in the new system and the old. The everyone-ties-for-2nd-place 'fixes' it - if you thought it needed a few - either way. This has nothing to do with making qualifier spots go 'poof' when someone requalifies. > No need to then invent a tie breaker for determining 2-5th place just > when they got rid of the need for a tie breaker determining 2-5th > place. > > > Huh? Why would you need the new qualifying system to enable it? > > That probably wasn't the best way to articulate what I was trying to > say. The new qualification system and the new "win or come in 2nd" > system fit together nicely. The new qualification system makes the new > finals system workable in qualifying tournaments. I still see nothing about it that makes any difference. I understand the thing Robyn is saying. I suppose if it was such a nightmare and this fixes it then that may overrule the thing I dislike about the new system. But I just don't get the connection between the two things. AFAICS, there is none. > > Sure, that's fine. But I just don't see any reason you need the 'requalifier' > > rule change to have the everybody-ties-for-2nd rule change. > > Well, that is a different issue. But the "I can qualify 8 times!" > rule, again, is probably mostly a wash--more qualifying spots will > open up (due to above) and some will be lost (due to this). If so, it would be coincidence. And if it works this year, it might not work next year and so forth. Hell, the sum of the two may actually cause more spots to be created in some years on some continents. Who knows? But the number of spots overall wasn't really my bone of contention anyway. It's more the real issue it's going to create at times for players who are qualified competing in a subsequent qualifier and making decisions about how they're going to play against their friends (or even against any ol' schmuck) who aren't qualified. You can say, "Don't worry about it." until you're blue in the face; the bottom line is that it's a philosophical issue for players and it will come up in the future, the way they're doing it now. Oh, well... > The big > gain for the "I can qualify 8 times!" rule, however, is that it makes > everything much, much simpler to administrate. Yep. Got it. I'm glad Robyn spoke up about that and cleared up the confusion. That reason is a good one. Fred

On Feb 17, 3:31 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] "There's no sense in being precise when you don't know what you are talking about." -John von Neumann You have no evidence to show that this is a problem because none exists. [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:4dd2ccc2-2195-42ad...@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 17, 3:31 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message >> news:d527bc6c-f65b-48e2...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> > On Feb 3, 11:00 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> >> Sigh. If you insist on not subtracting the slots that the requalified make go >> >> away. But that's bullshit. Those slots go away and thus have to be counted >> >> in the end. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges. >> >> > How many players have ever lost a qualifying spot to a >> > "requalifier"? >> >> > The answer is none. So it is not a problem >> >> Huh? The answer is none because the rules were different. I'm not >> sure where you were going with this. The rules are different, now >> it will happen, so it's a problem. > > "There's no sense in being precise when you don't know what you are > talking about." -John von Neumann I know they just changed the rules this year so I know that's the reason no players had ever lost a qualifying spot to a requalifier before. Is THAT enough knowledge to talk or do I have to pass some kind of a test?!? > You have no evidence to show that this is a problem because none > exists. Hey, Norm! 10 million rabid tigers just got loose in New Orleans!!! ...but wait - we know that's not a problem. There is no evidence that 10 million rabid tigers could ever cause a problem since there's never been 10 million rabid tigers in one place at one time before. So, nothing to worry about, I guess. Lack of prior evidence of a problem - whatever the reason such evidence fails to exist - demonstrates with absolute certainy that a problem does not exist. Are you a New Orleans politician? I'll bet that's the kind of thinking that poo-pooed the notion crumbling dikes are worth worrying about. Fred

On Feb 18, 2:53 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:4dd2ccc2-2195-42ad...@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Tigers taste good.. I can eat Tiger Gumbo, Tiger Jambalaya, Tiger Etouffee, Tiger Fricassee, Bon Temp Tiger, BBQ Tiger, Tigre de Le, Tiger Sauce Piquant, Tiger Hamburgers, Tiger Pot Roast..... The list goes on and on... You don't know Jack about Louisiana. There isn't a bird in the sky, a fish in the sea or a beast of the jungle that a Cajun can't make taste good. Nope, no problem here. The problem is going to be all the Animal Lovers who are going to be upset with all the various recipes that Cajun cooks can make out of a full grown tiger. Perhaps you can hold their hand. [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:b86e5e07-8323-4b29...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > You don't know Jack about Louisiana. > > There isn't a bird in the sky, a fish in the sea or a beast of the > jungle that a Cajun can't make taste good. > > Nope, no problem here. > > The problem is going to be all the Animal Lovers who are going to be > upset with all the various recipes that Cajun cooks can make out of a > full grown tiger. > > Perhaps you can hold their hand. I'll be you could get the tiger to hold it. I'll bet that would be no problem at all. Fred

On Feb 18, 4:20 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:b86e5e07-8323-4b29...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I have eaten tiger have you? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] What else are you going to do with an old Tiger? [ quoted text not captured ]

Ben Swainbank schrieb: > On Jan 30, 1:40 pm, roby...@mindspring.com wrote: >> The 2008 qualifier system works the same as the 2007 system except for >> one point: >> >> All qualifier tournaments are handled equally regardless of order. >> Players who qualify in one qualifier are not handled any differently >> in other qualifiers. >> They can continue to qualify in each qualifier in which they play. >> > > A data point from the NEQ that took place this weekend: > > 1 previously qualified player did come in in the top 25% (that would > be me) "taking" a qualifying spot. > > But we almost certainly had 4 players who were either already > qualified or wouldn't have been competing for slots (given the > option). > > So, the new rules made no difference in who actually ended up > qualifiying -- in this case. > > -Ben Swainbank Some more data. We had an ECQ and a Mini-ECQ during the Festival des Jeux weekend in Cannes. 7 people qualified in the ECQ, there were no pre-qualified players. The winner of the ECQ also managed to win the Mini-ECQ and took away that qualifcation spot. 3 out of 5 finalists in the Mini-ECQ were also qualified from the day before. -- Johannes Walch

[ quoted text not captured ] > Johannes Walch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - How many possible qualifiers were there at the Mini-ECQ? If I am reading you right, you lost 4 (the winner and 3 finalists) qualifier spots to pre-qualified people?

Rhavas wrote: > How many possible qualifiers were there at the Mini-ECQ? If I am > reading you right, you lost 4 (the winner and 3 finalists) qualifier > spots to pre-qualified people? A miniqualifier has exactly one spot: the winner qualifies.

LSJ schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] And if the winner is allready qualified, nobody qualifies. That is what happened.

[ quoted text not captured ] There's only one spot, right. It could be that a previously qualified player wins that spot. In which case the one qualifier is that person. He still qualifies.

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah, good to know. Thanks.

[ quoted text not captured ] doesn't seem like a problem in this instance. I thought the whole point of mini-qualifiers was to help out those who might not otherwise be able to make it to a regular qualifier? and, um, there was already a regular qualifier right there. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

Salem schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] I did not say it was a problem. Just wanted to state the fact. There were people unable to attend the qualifier though because they were organizing or doing demos on that day. None of them wound up in the finals though so it did not really matter.

"Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:47bc9bd5$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au... >> The winner of the ECQ also managed to win the Mini-ECQ and took away >> that qualifcation spot. 3 out of 5 finalists in the Mini-ECQ were also >> qualified from the day before. > > doesn't seem like a problem in this instance. I thought the whole point > of mini-qualifiers was to help out those who might not otherwise be able > to make it to a regular qualifier? and, um, there was already a regular > qualifier right there. I don't know if that was whole point of mini-qualifiers. (I mean I really don't know - if there was a post or a web page that explained the reason mini-qualifiers exist, I haven't seen it.) But it seems to me that mini- qualifiers are good fun whatever their reason. Even if you're right, I think it's one of those instances where it's hard to codify rules which strictly limit the thing to its original intent. I don't think they tried and I don't blame them for not trying since anything I can think of would be pretty convoluted and probably be bad. So they wrote simple rules by which princes whose domain isn't near a qualifier can hold a mini-qualifier if they want and those rules will be also be used by princes living right next door to a qualifier. Which I imagine is what happened here. Doesn't hurt a thing. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, taking away that qualification slot (instead of two, you get just the same person qualified) - was that the intent for mini-qualifiers events, too ? Imho, it's just bad to see (at MQ) that single qualification spot to be drained away by an already-qualified player. It should be better to keep the qualification slot at MQ events for the first non-qualified-player, imho best Emiliano, NC Italy www.italybynight.org

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Yes, taking away that qualification slot (instead of two, you get just > the same person qualified) - was that the intent for mini-qualifiers > events, too ? It didn't take away that spot any more than it took away the spot that the player had previous qualified with. And yes, the intention was to make the qualifiers all be treated equally. > Imho, it's just bad to see (at MQ) that single qualification spot to be > drained > away by an already-qualified player. > It should be better to keep the qualification slot at MQ events for the > first non-qualified-player, imho Besides the logistics of ensuring that results get entered sequentially, some might argue that it is both better to treat all qualifiers the same rather than needing to know which was run first to decide which runner-ups will get a bye to qualification and better to restrict the qualification awards to those who perform well against the whole field.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:ci4vj.6872$xq2....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net... > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> Yes, taking away that qualification slot (instead of two, you get just >> the same person qualified) - was that the intent for mini-qualifiers >> events, too ? > > It didn't take away that spot any more than it took away the spot that the player had previous qualified with. I don't understand the necessity to dispute this. The point the previous poster is trying to make is that a different number of people are qualified if a qualified person qualifies again than if a person who has not previously qualified does so. You may use any languaging you like to express it and you are certainly free to take whatever attitutde you like about it but this fact still remains. So what is the dispute, here? Why do have to go back and forth about it? Everyone understands the new rules and everyone understands the implications of requalifying under them. >> It should be better to keep the qualification slot at MQ events for the >> first non-qualified-player, imho > > Besides the logistics of ensuring that results get entered sequentially, some might argue that it is both better to treat all > qualifiers the same rather than needing to know which was run first to decide which runner-ups will get a bye to qualification and > better to restrict the qualification awards to those who perform well against the whole field. Sure. It has its good points and its bad points. I really have trouble with the idea that 'treating-all-qualifiers-the-same(tm)' will make much dent in rather significant fairness problems which are already inherent in the qualifier system but if you believe it's important, then you do I suppose. In the end, I don't think we're going to get much past that little 'imho' with which the previous poster concluded. And were it just a matter of fairness, I'll bet you could take an online poll and get a sense of how the community feels about whether the previous or new system fulfills their personal priorities and values better. But I doubt that would ever happen because the real issue causing the rule change is ultimately practical, not philosophical. Fred

LSJ wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> Yes, taking away that qualification slot (instead of two, you get >> just the same person qualified) - was that the intent for >> mini-qualifiers events, too ? > > It didn't take away that spot any more than it took away the spot > that the player had previous qualified with. > > And yes, the intention was to make the qualifiers all be treated > equally. >> Imho, it's just bad to see (at MQ) that single qualification spot >> to be drained >> away by an already-qualified player. >> It should be better to keep the qualification slot at MQ events for >> the first non-qualified-player, imho > > Besides the logistics of ensuring that results get entered > sequentially I think that could be solved easily, just after a qualifier tournament is held, notifying to qualified players they are qualified for EC, giving them a "qualified card" (both in person and via mail) , or something like that. Then, when registering player at mini qualifiers, it would be easy to ask each player, when registering, if they're qualified or not (putting a flag to tell which non-already-qualified-player have it when tournament ends). just my 2 cents Emiliano

In message <yy9vj.39570$Xg7....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes: >I think that could be solved easily, just after a qualifier tournament is >held, notifying to qualified players they are qualified for EC, giving them >a "qualified card" (both in person and via mail) , or something like that. >Then, when registering player at mini qualifiers, it would be easy to ask >each player, when registering, if they're qualified or not (putting a flag >to tell which non-already-qualified-player have it when tournament >ends). Because this works so well with getting players to cough up V:EKN numbers. No player has ever failed to hand over a V:EKN number when they've been registered and given it by mail and on a piece of card! Ever! No... wait a sec... -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe schrieb: > In message <yy9vj.39570$Xg7....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton > <no...@usa.com> writes: >> I think that could be solved easily, just after a qualifier tournament is >> held, notifying to qualified players they are qualified for EC, giving them >> a "qualified card" (both in person and via mail) , or something like that. >> Then, when registering player at mini qualifiers, it would be easy to ask >> each player, when registering, if they're qualified or not (putting a flag >> to tell which non-already-qualified-player have it when tournament >> ends). > > Because this works so well with getting players to cough up V:EKN > numbers. No player has ever failed to hand over a V:EKN number when > they've been registered and given it by mail and on a piece of card! > Ever! > > No... wait a sec... > Even without the card it has worked before. And usually people *do* remember if they are qualified or not, thats easier than rememebering your VEKN number.

In message <fpjfn5$5e3$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >James Coupe schrieb: >> Because this works so well with getting players to cough up V:EKN >> numbers. No player has ever failed to hand over a V:EKN number when >> they've been registered and given it by mail and on a piece of card! >> Ever! >> No... wait a sec... > >Even without the card it has worked before. >And usually people *do* remember if they are qualified or not, thats >easier than rememebering your VEKN number. Would you care to explain why Robyn had such a hard time, when the old system worked so well? It didn't work fine, no matter how much people would like to claim it should in theory. Robyn has provided details of the problems she had! Claiming that people will use the old system just fine when we have evidence that they don't is... perplexing. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:fpjfn5$5e3$1...@news01.versatel.de... [ quoted text not captured ] No doubt one flaw that crops up is that some people may not even know if they've qualified before. People leave tournaments without finding out or else the organizer calculates it wrong and makes a mistake (which could go either way - telling someone he was qualified when he was not or the reverse). And you're trusting the player to tell the truth; players could conceivably lie about whether they're qualified or not. Granted, I can't think of any reason why they would choose to lie but no doubt someone, somewhere will find one. I've always kind of imagined this aspect of the system was chaotic and Robyn's report seems to confirm that. The key to the system is undoubtedly the reception of timely, accurate results from qualifier tournament organizers and everything I've heard makes it sounds like that doesn't happen a fair amount of the time. Until you can somehow flawlessly automate that aspect of the qualifier system, I doubt you're going to fix Robyn's problem. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] In addition, it compounds. If 2 people from tourney A can't remember/are mistaken about their qualified status, then in tournament B the judge can't accurately determine who is newly qualified (or makes a mistake based on flawed information), which means the new qualifierees are incorrect. then if those players go to tourney C, the problem is even worse, etc... [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <yy9vj.39570$Xg7....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes: >> I think that could be solved easily, just after a qualifier >> tournament is held, notifying to qualified players they are >> qualified for EC, giving them a "qualified card" (both in person >> and via mail) , or something like that. Then, when registering >> player at mini qualifiers, it would be easy to ask each player, when >> registering, if they're qualified or not (putting a flag to tell >> which non-already-qualified-player have it when tournament >> ends). > > Because this works so well with getting players to cough up V:EKN > numbers. No player has ever failed to hand over a V:EKN number when > they've been registered and given it by mail and on a piece of card! > Ever! Player can be trusted even without the card at hand, i think - And while remembering a vekn number can be harder sometimes, remembering a "yes or no" qualified thing should be easier, i think, because such system would worth just as a reminder for them. As a side note, and following the same logic, with little modification the submit result on the WW page (and archon tracking) can be made to register such "qualified for CC X " flag. Otherwise, basically, it seems me that we're getting just the modification of a qualification system for registering/tracking issues, other than a real improvement for the qualification process in itself. Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Otherwise, basically, it seems me that we're getting just the modification > of a qualification system for registering/tracking issues, other than a real > improvement for the qualification process in itself. A section of mine you snipped from an earlier response: [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Er - i don't get how qualifiers were not treated all the same before (apart the obvious trouble in tracking in advance qualified players, with the absence of a structured and functional qualification tracking system). Again, tracking the qualification thing with a little archon modification and on the submit result side on the WW page, at the same time notifying it to players (both at tournament and via mail thereafter) would suffice in handling the whole qualification things. Again, imho actual solution seems one that comes by the inability of handling the tracking for such qualifications, other than a real improvement for the qualification process as a whole. best Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>> Otherwise, basically, it seems me that we're getting just the >>> modification of a qualification system for registering/tracking >>> issues, other than a real improvement for the qualification process >>> in itself. >> A section of mine you snipped from an earlier response: >> >> some might argue that it is both better to treat all qualifiers the >> same rather than needing to know which was run first to decide which >> runner-ups will get a bye to qualification and better to restrict the >> qualification awards to those who perform well against the whole >> field. > > Er - i don't get how qualifiers were not treated all the same before (apart > the obvious trouble in tracking in advance qualified players, with the > absence of a structured and functional qualification tracking system). You have two qualifiers: One at East Balfor, one at West Balfor. Each attracts 40 players. So, in each, 10 players qualify. In E.B., the players, in order of finishing placement are E1, E2, ..., E40. In W.B., the players, in order of finishing, are W1, W2, ..., W40. As it happens, W7 and E8 are the same person. Who qualifies? E11 or W11? If they're treated equally, then why does E11 qualify and not W11 (or vice versa, as the case may be)? > Again, imho actual solution seems one that comes by the inability of > handling > the tracking for such qualifications, other than a real improvement for the > qualification process as a whole. Again, that is not the case.

[ quoted text not captured ] With a decent tracking qualification system (again, it would suffice a flag on archon and on the WW page submit result, plus notifying to players that they're qualified) organizers would know in advance that w7 or e8 is already qualified, so they make the first non-qualified players thereafter to be qualified when: compiling the archon, notifying to players, submitting the results on the WW page. Sounds easy enough to me. Emiliano

James Coupe wrote: > In message <fpjfn5$5e3$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch > <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >> James Coupe schrieb: >>> Because this works so well with getting players to cough up V:EKN >>> numbers. No player has ever failed to hand over a V:EKN number when >>> they've been registered and given it by mail and on a piece of card! >>> Ever! >>> No... wait a sec... >> >> Even without the card it has worked before. >> And usually people *do* remember if they are qualified or not, thats >> easier than rememebering your VEKN number. > > Would you care to explain why Robyn had such a hard time, when the old > system worked so well? It didn't work fine, no matter how much people > would like to claim it should in theory. Robyn has provided details > of the problems she had! Because the whole system was not database-based. As organizers submits result with a centralized procedure trough a webpage, it becomes easy enough to tracks qualifications things (once the procedure includes a field to track such qualification). Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] Emiliano, you're again missing the point LSJ has been trying to make for some time. It's not a technical issue, it's a "fairness" issue. In his example above, there is NO reason why W11 should qualify instead of E11. They performed the same. Why should the person who, by chance, played in the latter qualifier qualify instead of the identically performing player of the earlier qualifier? There are issues in the new system that don't convince me as well, but I must say that this "fairness" issue is objectively addressed by the new rules. Ciao ciao, the other Emiliano [wandering player, Brussels]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>> Er - i don't get how qualifiers were not treated all the same before >>> (apart the obvious trouble in tracking in advance qualified players, >>> with the absence of a structured and functional qualification >>> tracking system). >> You have two qualifiers: One at East Balfor, one at West Balfor. >> Each attracts 40 players. So, in each, 10 players qualify. >> >> In E.B., the players, in order of finishing placement are E1, E2, >> ..., E40. >> In W.B., the players, in order of finishing, are W1, W2, ..., W40. >> >> As it happens, W7 and E8 are the same person. >> >> Who qualifies? E11 or W11? > > With a decent tracking qualification system [...] > Sounds easy enough to me. Yes. It's completely trivial in this example. This example assumes no trouble at all in logistics. The question is: does E11 qualify or does W11 qualify? Without resorting to tangential discussions about logistics, what is your answer to that question? Once that answer is given, please explain how it is fair both to E11 and to W11.

LSJ schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] You assume that the qualifiers have the same number of qualification slots, but when we use the old system with pre-qualified players (so perhaps E11 or W11 could qualify) the allready qualified players do not count toward the number of newly-qualified people. So without knowing if the other E/W1-10 persons are qualified or not the example is incomplete. If *only* W7=E8 is qualified we have constructed a case where actually the number of to-be-qualified players is the same (39/4=9,75 rounded up to ten) and only the 11th position from the later qualifier would qualify. Constructing such a case where we actually have a slight "unfairness" does not really indicate how "good" the old/new systems are . You can construct strange situations with most systems, the question is if they are relevant. Also both placing 11th in a 40 player tournament is not the same performance. It depends on the decks, table seating, participating players and so on. So we can't really compare results anyway (on the grounds of trying to be fair) so why care for a slight unfairness in numbers. -- Johannes Walch

[ quoted text not captured ] Incorrect. Stated above: "So, in each, 10 players qualify". This indicates that the number of relevant players to the respective system is such that the number of qualification spots is 10. > If *only* W7=E8 is qualified we have constructed a case where actually > the number of to-be-qualified players is the same (39/4=9,75 rounded up > to ten) and only the 11th position from the later qualifier would > qualify. Constructing such a case where we actually have a slight > "unfairness" does not really indicate how "good" the old/new systems are > .. You can construct strange situations with most systems, the question > is if they are relevant. > > Also both placing 11th in a 40 player tournament is not the same > performance. It depends on the decks, table seating, participating > players and so on. So we can't really compare results anyway (on the > grounds of trying to be fair) so why care for a slight unfairness in > numbers. So, again, should E11 qualify or should W11? That is, empirically, which one of the players who placed 11th did better? That is, your objection is spurious.

On Feb 22, 5:30 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Yes. It's completely trivial in this example. This example assumes no trouble at > all in logistics. The question is: does E11 qualify or does W11 qualify? > > Without resorting to tangential discussions about logistics, what is your answer > to that question? Once that answer is given, please explain how it is fair both > to E11 and to W11. Hate to play Devil's Advocate here (Or is it Fred Scott's advocate? ;) Sorry Fred... ), but... assuming that the East qualifier is first, then W11 qualifies. Why? Because once E happens, E11 still has another chance to qualify, because there is at least one more qualifier, at W. If he can't make it for whatever reason, then tough nuts to him. I haven't been able to make it to *any* qualifiers in years (married life... it's a blessing, and a curse), so guess what, I don't qualify. Not that I could make it to the championships anyway. W11 qualifies because W happens later, and E11 still has the chance to play against W11 in that tournament. E11 not showing up to the W tournament is the same as finishing behind W in that tournament. (You could say that W11 not showing up to E is the same as finishing behind E11 in that tournament, which is fine - W11 doesn't qualify in E. But he does qualify in W, on the basis of it being later.) It is fair to E11, because he knows he can still play in W after losing at E. That said, I agree with the new system... I never did get all *that* worked up over tournament placing. If you don't wanna be on the outside of the bubble, then just do your best to not be on the bubble at all. If you win (or get one of 4 second places), then there won't be any question of qualifying. If you're 11th (or whatever place) and don't make it, then consider that maybe you didn't deserve to make it anyway.

Chris Berger wrote: > On Feb 22, 5:30 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Yes. It's completely trivial in this example. This example assumes no trouble at >> all in logistics. The question is: does E11 qualify or does W11 qualify? >> >> Without resorting to tangential discussions about logistics, what is your answer >> to that question? Once that answer is given, please explain how it is fair both >> to E11 and to W11. > > [...] assuming that the East > qualifier is first, then W11 qualifies. [...] > It is fair to E11, because he knows he can still play > in W after losing at E. Let's assume that both E11 and W11 played in both as well. E11 is the same player as W40 and W11 is the same player as E40. That is, they performed exactly as well as each other. Make whatever other assumptions you like to secure yourself in the knowledge that the playing fields in E.B. an W.B. were equal. Then, with exactly the same performance, why would one of E11 and W11 be qualified and not the other? > That said, I agree with the new system... I never did get all *that* > worked up over tournament placing. If you don't wanna be on the > outside of the bubble, then just do your best to not be on the bubble > at all. If you win (or get one of 4 second places), then there won't > be any question of qualifying. If you're 11th (or whatever place) and > don't make it, then consider that maybe you didn't deserve to make it > anyway. That's the other item on the two-point list given earlier, yeah.

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:c5e3a8b7-4fb8-4218...@28g2000hsw.googlegroups.com... > That said, I agree with the new system... I never did get all *that* > worked up over tournament placing. If you don't wanna be on the > outside of the bubble, then just do your best to not be on the bubble > at all. If you win (or get one of 4 second places), then there won't > be any question of qualifying. If you're 11th (or whatever place) and > don't make it, then consider that maybe you didn't deserve to make it > anyway. Hmmm. This paragraph confuses me a bit. LSJ's nit is certainly correct, albeit it's even less significant than one might be led to believe from worrying about the E11-vs.-W11 thing as described since which one qualifies doesn't bring his 1/4 slot into the second tournament and could have also finished in the lower 30 as well as the upper 10, so it's a near wash. It only qualifies as a fairness improvement because you can theorize the earlier tournaments tend to cull out the better players from the competition pool for qualifier slots. With the better players culled out, finishing in the top 25% of the unqualified pool in the later tournaments ought be marginally easier in later tournaments - one would think. However, if you compare all of this to shit like, "Who has how many qualifiers run within 300 miles of where they live vs. who does not?", such nuances are a drop in the kettle as far as I can see. Fairness is NOT-NOT-NOT A REASON (LARGE WITH THE WORD "REASON" AND A CIRCLE WITH A RED CROSS RUNNING THROUGH IT) a reason to 'agree' or 'disagree' with this system. If anyone thought to make this change out of sense of sense of fairness, they've got WAY too much time on their hands for intellectual masturbation. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Granted the fact that in the previous example the same person seemed me pictuted as qualifed before boths event, Ok - this is clearer. > There are issues in the new system that don't convince me as > well, but I must say that this "fairness" issue is objectively > addressed by the new rules. > About fairness - old system counted non-qualified player only to tell the exact number of qualified players after a given qualifier - IMHO that was fair enough (counting only the number of non-qualified players attending in regard of the %), regarding the fairness behind the system. ciao ;-) EMiliano

"Emiliano Imeroni" <emiliano...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b91f7cf0-5b2c-4325...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > In his example above, there is NO reason why W11 should qualify > instead of E11. They performed the same. Imagine a pool of 20 players who play two rounds. Say it takes 1 GW and 3.5 VPs to qualify, the 5th place player having obtained that. Now add another pool of 20 players to the first 20. Due to random differences in results, 6 players in the new pool obtain 1 GW, 4 VPs. If the two pools qualify separately, the 5th place player in the first pool qualifies. If they happened to be part of the same qualifier tournament, he doesn't. Why? He performed the same either way. If you jigger with the circumstances, you can easily create apparent examples of 'unfairness', as defined by the performed-the-same standard. In and of itself, performed-the-same has never been considered an important standard, as demonstrated by the fact that a certain finishing time might win one race and finish fourth in a similar race at a different event yet track and field organizations only consider the matter in their rules in fairly limited circumstances (such as when running multiple heats in the same event and qualifying participants for a final). Normally, part of the challenge of competition is to surpass the necessary standard which arises that day, at that place and time. As I mentioned in my response to Chris Berger, LSJ has a point - but only because earlier CQs (in theory) ought to cull the better players out of the competition pools for later CQs. LSJ's example involves a player who finishes in the top 10 in both pools. And to the extent that's more a reasonable expectation (better players remain better no matter the event) than a random result, he's got a (minor) point. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Emiliano Imeroni" <emiliano...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:b91f7cf0-5b2c-4325...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> In his example above, there is NO reason why W11 should qualify >> instead of E11. They performed the same. > > Imagine a pool of 20 players who play two rounds. Say it takes 1 GW > and 3.5 VPs to qualify, the 5th place player having obtained that. Now > add another pool of 20 players to the first 20. Due to random differences > in results, 6 players in the new pool obtain 1 GW, 4 VPs. If the > two pools qualify separately, the 5th place player in the first pool > qualifies. If they happened to be part of the same qualifier tournament, > he doesn't. Why? He performed the same either way. No. Now you've changed the measure of performance. If you'd like to switch qualification systems to one based on VPs or GWs or whatever, then go ahead on formulate such a system so we can talk about it intelligently. Right now, the qualification system is based on finishing placement.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:U0Evj.3202$tW....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I don't think I changed the measure of performance. In the first example, the player with 1 GW/3.5 VP places 5th out of 20. Add the other pool of 20 finishers, and he finishes 11th of 40. The measure is finishing in the top 25% either way. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] "It takes 1 GW and 3.5 VPs to qualify" And "the 5th player qualifies in the first pool ... he doesn't". And moving the player from 5th to 11th all indicate that you're using some metric other other finishing placement. If you're saying that a player who finishes in the top 25% has a measure of performance that is sufficient to allow him to qualify, then OK. That's indeed the rule.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:xLEvj.3208$tW....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:U0Evj.3202$tW....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com... >>> Frederick Scott wrote: >>>> "Emiliano Imeroni" <emiliano...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:b91f7cf0-5b2c-4325...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >>>>> In his example above, there is NO reason why W11 should qualify >>>>> instead of E11. They performed the same. >>>> Imagine a pool of 20 players who play two rounds. Say it takes 1 GW >>>> and 3.5 VPs to qualify, the 5th place player having obtained that. Now >>>> add another pool of 20 players to the first 20. Due to random differences >>>> in results, 6 players in the new pool obtain 1 GW, 4 VPs. If the >>>> two pools qualify separately, the 5th place player in the first pool >>>> qualifies. If they happened to be part of the same qualifier tournament, >>>> he doesn't. Why? He performed the same either way. >>> No. Now you've changed the measure of performance. >>> >>> If you'd like to switch qualification systems to one based on VPs or GWs >>> or whatever, then go ahead on formulate such a system so we can talk about >> it intelligently. >>> >>> Right now, the qualification system is based on finishing placement. >> >> I don't think I changed the measure of performance. In the first example, thE >> player with 1 GW/3.5 VP places 5th out of 20. Add the other pool of 20 >> finishers, and he finishes 11th of 40. The measure is finishing in the top 25% >> either way. > > "It takes 1 GW and 3.5 VPs to qualify" > > And > > "the 5th player qualifies in the first pool ... he doesn't". > > And moving the player from 5th to 11th > > all indicate that you're using some metric other other finishing placement. Now you're totally confusing me. I was and am using top 25% as the metric of qualification. I was conjecturing an example in which it took 1 GW and 3.5 VP to finish in the top 25% of the first pool of 20. Add the second pool of 20 and the same 1 GW and 3.5 VP finishes 11th out of 40 - again, top 25% placement is the standard, succeding in the first circumstance but failing in the second. So how does any of this indicate I'm using any other metric? > If you're saying that a player who finishes in the top 25% has a measure of > performance that is sufficient to allow him to qualify, then OK. That's indeed > the rule. It is indeed the rule. By the way, to be more accurate, the rule before Jan 1 involved finishing in the top 25% of the UNQUALIFIED players. So the essence of your example involved comparing the East and West Balfor tournaments in which you were alternately jiggering with the population of each tournament's competitors yet insisting on trotting out standards which didn't matter (placement of all players as opposed to unqualified players). Sane comparison of the two situations demand we use the relevant criteria, not an irrelevant one. What both of our examples actually demonstrated was that the exact same performance can result in qualification or non-qualification hinging on some sort of seemingly unrelated circumstance. The bottom line is, "So what?" Random changes in external circumstances varying the standard on a given day are not and never have been consider valid reasons for unfairness. To demonstrate unfairness, you have to go further than this. You have to demonstrate a reason why it might be expected to be more difficult to rise to the standard from one contest to the next - such as the quality of the competition increasing or decreasing. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Just the combination of the above selected quotes and the appearance of disagreement. The case for "equal performance = equal qualification" being so clear that disagreement with it tends to suggest the use of an alternate definition of performance. >> If you're saying that a player who finishes in the top 25% has a measure of >> performance that is sufficient to allow him to qualify, then OK. That's indeed >> the rule. > > It is indeed the rule. By the way, to be more accurate, the rule before Jan 1 > involved finishing in the top 25% of the UNQUALIFIED players. So the essence of > your example involved comparing the East and West Balfor tournaments in which you > were alternately jiggering with the population of each tournament's competitors > yet insisting on trotting out standards which didn't matter (placement of all > players as opposed to unqualified players). Sane comparison of the two situations > demand we use the relevant criteria, not an irrelevant one. It isn't a matter of jiggering or trotting. The "jiggering" you refer to is, I assume, my response to the call that "it is fair to treat the equal performances differently, since the one who gets the short end of the stick can try again. It isn't actually jiggering, of course, since it changed nothing, but merely added more detail. Trotting, well, that's left to the eye of the beholder I guess. But again, that just falls to the second point of the two-point original post. > What both of our examples actually demonstrated was that the exact same > performance can result in qualification or non-qualification hinging on some > sort of seemingly unrelated circumstance. The bottom line is, "So what?" > Random changes in external circumstances varying the standard on a given day > are not and never have been consider valid reasons for unfairness. To > demonstrate unfairness, you have to go further than this. You have to > demonstrate a reason why it might be expected to be more difficult to rise to > the standard from one contest to the next - such as the quality of the > competition increasing or decreasing. Random external changes? I have no idea what you're saying, so I have no response other than: see the original set-up (identical performance by E11 and W11) and tell me: which one should qualify?

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:FcIvj.5673$Mw....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> So how does any of this indicate I'm using any other metric? > > Just the combination of the above selected quotes and the appearance of > disagreement. > > The case for "equal performance = equal qualification" being so clear that > disagreement with it tends to suggest the use of an alternate definition of > performance. It isn't clear. In fact, it appears to me that it's clearly wrong. Reference my example about adding 20 players to a pool in a way which would change the standard of qualification, yet not alter the performance of any of the first 20 players. Reference my example of running a race in a track meet, where the same performance can yield first, second, fourth, last, or whatever depending on the performances of the other competitors over which one has no control. Any number of examples along those lines can be concocted. The same performance yielding different results depending on circumstances outside of the performer's control is a fact of life in competition. The only issue on which fairness is judged has got to do with whether there's some specific reason gaining the higher result has become more difficult or less difficult in one set of circumstances or the other. The fact that you can concoct a scenario in which the results turn out different demonstrates nothing by itself. >>> If you're saying that a player who finishes in the top 25% has a measure of >>> performance that is sufficient to allow him to qualify, then OK. That's indeed >>> the rule. >> >> It is indeed the rule. By the way, to be more accurate, the rule before Jan 1 >> involved finishing in the top 25% of the UNQUALIFIED players. So the essence of >> your example involved comparing the East and West Balfor tournaments in which you >> were alternately jiggering with the population of each tournament's competitors >> yet insisting on trotting out standards which didn't matter (placement of all >> players as opposed to unqualified players). Sane comparison of the two situations >> demand we use the relevant criteria, not an irrelevant one. > > It isn't a matter of jiggering or trotting. > > The "jiggering" you refer to is, I assume, my response to the call that "it is > fair to treat the equal performances differently, since the one who gets the > short end of the stick can try again. It isn't actually jiggering, of course, > since it changed nothing, but merely added more detail. The jiggering I refer to is adding or removing the W7/E8 player depending on the order in which the tournaments are conjectured to be held. The trotting involves use of an irrelevent numbering system. If East Balfor is held first, by the only criteria that matter, W7 doesn't exist and W8 becomes the "real" W7, etc. And the real W10 qualifies. If West Balfor is held first, E8 doesn't exist, E9 becomes E8, and E11 becomes E10. Either way, E10 and W10 both qualify, it's just a question of who they are. That the same performances can yield different results is true - but not relevent to fairness. The same performances can often yield different results. Here's another example. I've played both preliminary rounds of a tournament. I've got 1 GW and 3 VP. I'm in 5th place but a table of players I've never played against has yet to finish. It's down to two players, X and Y. Neither had any game wins or victory points to start with; now X has 2 VPs from his ousts and Y has none. One of them will oust the other before time runs out. I will either make the final or not depending on the outcome of a game over which I have no control. My performance was exactly the same either way. Explain to me how *that's* fair, if the same performance is always supposed to yield the same result?!? > I have no response other than: see the original set-up (identical performance by E11 and W11) and tell me: which one should > qualify? Sure - when you tell me whether I should make the final (in the example above) or not based on my performance. I believe the two situations are conceptually identical with respect your criteria of 'fairness'. (In fact, my answer is, neither E11 nor W11 - using a relevant identifications of the players and not an irrelevant one.) Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:FcIvj.5673$Mw....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com... >> Frederick Scott wrote: >>> So how does any of this indicate I'm using any other metric? >> Just the combination of the above selected quotes and the appearance of >> disagreement. >> >> The case for "equal performance = equal qualification" being so clear that >> disagreement with it tends to suggest the use of an alternate definition of >> performance. > > It isn't clear. It isn't clear that two players (E11 and W11) who perform at exactly the same level should qualify (or not) exactly the same? OK. Then we're done. You in your world, me in mine. > In fact, it appears to me that it's clearly wrong. Reference > my example about adding 20 players to a pool in a way which would change the > standard of qualification, yet not alter the performance of any of the first > 20 players. Reference my example of running a race in a track meet, where the > same performance can yield first, second, fourth, last, or whatever depending > on the performances of the other competitors over which one has no control. Um, that would be changing the measure of performance. The current measure of performance is: tournament measure. (i.e., placement). As before, if you wish to formalize a qualification system based on some other measure (like GWs or VPs or whatever), then do so. > Any number of examples along those lines can be concocted. The same performance > yielding different results depending on circumstances outside of the performer's > control is a fact of life in competition. Yes. Which is why that fact is accepted as fact. But just noting that "life isn't fair" isn't a valid reason to give up striving to make things as fair as possible. > Here's another example. I've played both preliminary rounds of a tournament. I've > got 1 GW and 3 VP. I'm in 5th place but a table of players I've never played > against has yet to finish. It's down to two players, X and Y. Neither had any > game wins or victory points to start with; now X has 2 VPs from his ousts and Y > has none. One of them will oust the other before time runs out. I will either > make the final or not depending on the outcome of a game over which I have no > control. My performance was exactly the same either way. Explain to me how > *that's* fair, if the same performance is always supposed to yield the same > result?!? Because your performance, in the tournament measure of performance, is not the same in both cases. In one, your performance (in the preliminary rounds) is 5th place. In another, it is 6th. A performance of 5th-or-higher placement is needed to make the final. >> I have no response other than: see the original set-up (identical performance by E11 and W11) and tell me: which one should >> qualify? > > Sure - when you tell me whether I should make the final (in the example above) > or not based on my performance. Done. > I believe the two situations are conceptually > identical with respect your criteria of 'fairness'. Conceptually, perhaps, but with the wrong measure of performance. If you wish to draw up a tournament mechanic whereby finalists are determined by GW accumulation or GW+VP accumulation alone (rather than by placement among other competitors), do so, and then we can discuss that. As it is, tournaments measure performance (for getting into the final) based on placement. > (In fact, my answer is, neither E11 nor W11 - using a relevant identifications > of the players and not an irrelevant one.) Correct answer, indeed, since they both had the exact same tournament performance and that performance doesn't meet the qualification criterion. The caveat seems meaningless, but if it gets you here, then OK.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:RRLvj.58474$Pv2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >> news:FcIvj.5673$Mw....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com... >>> Frederick Scott wrote: >>>> So how does any of this indicate I'm using any other metric? >>> Just the combination of the above selected quotes and the appearance of >>> disagreement. >>> >>> The case for "equal performance = equal qualification" being so clear that >>> disagreement with it tends to suggest the use of an alternate definition of >>> performance. >> >> It isn't clear. > > It isn't clear that two players (E11 and W11) who perform at exactly the same > level should qualify (or not) exactly the same? > > OK. Then we're done. You in your world, me in mine. Heh! If we were done, I would have expected to find no further text... :-) > > In fact, it appears to me that it's cleary wrong. Reference > > my example about adding 20 players to a pool in a way which would change the > > standard of qualification, yet not alter the performance of any of the first > > 20 players. Reference my example of running a race in a track meet, where the > > same performance can yield first, second, fourth, last, or whatever depending > > on the performances of the other competitors over which one has no control. > > Um, that would be changing the measure of performance. > > The current measure of performance is: tournament measure. > > (i.e., placement). And to me, it appears that the reason your example appeared to contain unfairness was likewise due to the failure to use the correct measure of performance: tournament placement of non-qualified participants. Use the correct measure, and the same performance (finishing in the top 25% of non-qualified participants) yields the same result (qualification). The fact that switching the order of tournaments seemed to yield different results stemmed from the use of a bogus measure of performance on the second tournament: whichever one that happened to be. It's possible we need to nail down the exact nature of your complaint about unfairness in the prior system before I can respond to it. The fact that your example calculated results based on a different measure of performance (placement of all participants) made me think your fairness issue was about comparing two different measures. So I adopted a counter-example which likewise demonstrated the use of a different measure to demonstrate unfairness in the original criteria. But if you're so attached to throwing out any measure of performance which is not the one in use, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Your example MUST concern itself only placement amongst non-qualified participants and ignore the other, just as you would demand of mine. >> Any number of examples along those lines can be concocted. The same performance >> yielding different results depending on circumstances outside of the performer's >> control is a fact of life in competition. > > Yes. Which is why that fact is accepted as fact. > > But just noting that "life isn't fair" isn't a valid reason to give up striving > to make things as fair as possible. Perhaps not. But you're constructing a standard of fairness that isn't currently in use, isn't commonly expected, and is problematic given that tournament placement will hinge on the performance of other players in other games no matter the question of whether opponents previously qualified will count. The example involving making the finals of a tournament below can just as well be applied to finishing in the top 25% of any tournament. >> Here's another example. I've played both preliminary rounds of a tournament. I've >> got 1 GW and 3 VP. I'm in 5th place but a table of players I've never played >> against has yet to finish. It's down to two players, X and Y. Neither had any >> game wins or victory points to start with; now X has 2 VPs from his ousts and Y >> has none. One of them will oust the other before time runs out. I will either >> make the final or not depending on the outcome of a game over which I have no >> control. My performance was exactly the same either way. Explain to me how >> *that's* fair, if the same performance is always supposed to yield the same >> result?!? > > Because your performance, in the tournament measure of performance, is not the > same in both cases. In one, your performance (in the preliminary rounds) is 5th > place. In another, it is 6th. > > A performance of 5th-or-higher placement is needed to make the final. Sure - and by the same measure, in your East/West Balfor tournaments, the measure of performance is not the same based on which order the tournaments are played. If East Balfor is played first, E11 finished 11th against 39 other players. If it's played second, E11 finished 10th against 38 other players and 1 not counting. That the same set of games is played matters no more in your example than mine. >> I believe the two situations are conceptually >> identical with respect your criteria of 'fairness'. > > Conceptually, perhaps, but with the wrong measure of performance. ...as you did with your example. > If you wish to draw up a tournament mechanic whereby finalists are determined by > GW accumulation or GW+VP accumulation alone (rather than by placement among > other competitors), do so, and then we can discuss that. I'm not interested in that, no. I'm demonstrating that the appearance of unfairness in both examples are based on the same semantic trick of the eye: use of an incorrect measure. In your case, use of the measure of all tournament participants instead of non-qualified participants. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > I'm demonstrating that the appearance of > unfairness in both examples are based on the same semantic trick of the eye: > use of an incorrect measure. In your case, use of the measure of all tournament > participants instead of non-qualified participants. OK, then, try this for a test of fairness: which measure is fairer? Using a fixed tournament-based measure, or using a sliding measure whereby one is compared against an ever-easier subset of players depending on the date (or even the hour) at which one plays? (That is, again, the second point of the two-point original response.)

On Feb 23, 5:30 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > OK, then, try this for a test of fairness: which measure is fairer? Using a > fixed tournament-based measure, or using a sliding measure whereby one is > compared against an ever-easier subset of players depending on the date (or even > the hour) at which one plays? > > (That is, again, the second point of the two-point original response.) In my opinion, fairness isn't the main issue, because both the old and the new systems meet my definition of "reasonably fair." The main issue is: what is better for the game? In my opinion, one thing that would be better for the game is a high turnout at the NAC. I believe that if the total number of qualified players increases, then the turnout at the NAC will increase. Therefore, we should adopt a qualifying system that increases the total number of qualified players. I wholeheartedly support the recent change that the LCQ will qualify 33% of the players (which especially makes sense because presumably the field will be much more challenging competition), and I personally think we could change every qualifier to top 33%, and the LCQ to 50%. If we continue to have low turnout at the NAC, I hope this proposal will be considered more seriously. Or perhaps the powers that be think 32 people at the NAC is a perfectly fine number, and have no desire to increase it. Ira