DATES:
WELCOME PARTY
Friday, 17th of October, 2003
Location: TBD
SPANISH QUALIFIER
Saturday, 18th of October, 2003
EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP
Sunday, 19th of October, 2003
LOCATION:
CENTRO CULTURAL "LA BÒBILA"
Pl. de la Bòbila, 1
08906 - Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona)
There is a beta version of the official EC 2003 website.
More information will be available within the following
weeks.
http://www.hermetex4.com/ec2003/
PRELUDE
Appointment of the New Sabbat Regent
====================================
The current Sabbat Regent, Melinda Galbraith, has decided to resign after a
long and successful reign. She has decreed a successor must be determined
before her resignation.
For that reason, she has summoned all of the Sabbat Kindred in the world to
attend the Palla Grande to be held on October 17th, 18th and 19th in
Barcelona (Spain).
The Kindred who is victorious after the contest will be crowned as Sabbat
Regent.
In order to make sure the fight for this title is fair, the Sabbat will
send its best Inquisitors to Barcelona, under the command of the Head
Inquisitor, Damnans.
Those Kindred who violate the rules of the contest will be sadistically
punished by the Inquisition.
We hope your stay in the realm of clan Lasombra is pleasant and
profitable. For your comfort and pleasure, the Archbishops of the region
have outfitted secure havens and excellent hunting grounds for all those in
attendance.
Carpe noctem!
---------------
Greetings,
Damnans
PS: If you need more information about these events, e-mail
me at damna...@ono.com
>
> SPANISH QUALIFIER
> Saturday, 18th of October, 2003
>
I'm sorry if this has been asked/defined before, but I'd like to know
if the already qualified players will be able to play at the spanish
qualifier (please, no).
Thanx
[ quoted text not captured ]
Every player is eligable to play at the European Qualifier!
I have asked Steve Wieck that if a country gets an the EC if they may
host a National and a European Qualifier on different dates. He was
possivite.
However I am not certain if the Spanish Organisation will do this!
--
Andreas Nusser
www.vekn.de
a.nu...@vekn.de
[ quoted text not captured ]
Oh! We did not know it was possible.
Does it mean, for instance, that Spain can organize the Spanish Qualifier
a month before the European Championship? And that Spain can also organize
an International Qualifier the day before the EC?
Scott. Could you confirm this?
Greetings,
Damnans
>
>
> Oh! We did not know it was possible.
>
> Does it mean, for instance, that Spain can organize the Spanish Qualifier
> a month before the European Championship? And that Spain can also organize
> an International Qualifier the day before the EC?
>
> Scott. Could you confirm this?
It was already confirmed by Steve Wieck!
> Greetings,
> Damnans[ quoted text not captured ]
Andreas Nusser wrote:
>> Oh! We did not know it was possible.
>>
>> Does it mean, for instance, that Spain can organize the Spanish Qualifier
>> a month before the European Championship? And that Spain can also
>> organize
>> an International Qualifier the day before the EC?
>>
>> Scott. Could you confirm this?>
> It was already confirmed by Steve Wieck!
AFAIK, each region only gets 1 continental qualifier.
If the region wishes to organize it's own national championship and hold
qualifiers for that, the region is free to do so. That activity is unrelated
to the continental qualifiers.
Note, however, that many regions choose to call their regional qualifier
for the continental championships a "national championship". So if the
Spanish princes wish to call the Spanish Continental Qualifier the
"Spanish National", that's fine.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ wrote:
> Andreas Nusser wrote:
>>>> Oh! We did not know it was possible.
>>>
>>> Does it mean, for instance, that Spain can organize the Spanish
>>> Qualifier
>>> a month before the European Championship? And that Spain can also
>>> organize
>>> an International Qualifier the day before the EC?
>>>
>>> Scott. Could you confirm this?>>
>>
>> It was already confirmed by Steve Wieck!>
>
> AFAIK, each region only gets 1 continental qualifier.
>
> If the region wishes to organize it's own national championship and hold
> qualifiers for that, the region is free to do so. That activity is
> unrelated
> to the continental qualifiers.
>
> Note, however, that many regions choose to call their regional qualifier
> for the continental championships a "national championship". So if the
> Spanish princes wish to call the Spanish Continental Qualifier the
> "Spanish National", that's fine.
The last time I spoke to Steve I complained about the size of the
European Championship and the problem of having only one qualifier as
the host of the European Championship and the unfairness of the local
players.
I asked if it would be ok to host a national qualifier as usual but
besides that an European Qualifier on the day before the EC takes place.
He said: Is an excellent idea and we can do that!
I thought I or Steve have made this public but obviously it wasn´t made
public. ( we had this conversation in december. I got all the message
regarding this issue at home)
LSJ, would you please verify this with Steve again?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Andreas Nusser wrote:
> LSJ, would you please verify this with Steve again?
Since the deadline for oragnizing qualifiers was back in January, I'm not sure
what the point would be.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> Andreas Nusser wrote:
>>> LSJ, would you please verify this with Steve again?>
>
> Since the deadline for oragnizing qualifiers was back in January, I'm
> not sure
> what the point would be.
>
>
I organized that the Belgiums could register their qualfier end of
february.
Why not doing the same for a Spanish qualifier? It is just a matter of
seconds!
[ quoted text not captured ]
Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote:
[..]
> Those Kindred who violate the rules of the contest will be sadistically
> punished by the Inquisition.
But ....
NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!! ;-)
I wish you all the best for your event.
-Markus
In message <b5nghn$tp2$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>, Andreas Nusser
<time...@NOSPAMscram.de> writes:
>The last time I spoke to Steve I complained about the size of the
>European Championship and the problem of having only one qualifier as
>the host of the European Championship and the unfairness of the local
>players.
Why's that a problem, or unfair?
Just because you host the European Championships doesn't mean that you
can host multiple qualifiers for it.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
Hi! I'm Nancy Drew! You must be the Hardy Boys! 13D7E668C3695D623D5D
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <b5nghn$tp2$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>, Andreas Nusser
> <time...@NOSPAMscram.de> writes:
>>>The last time I spoke to Steve I complained about the size of the
>>European Championship and the problem of having only one qualifier as
>>the host of the European Championship and the unfairness of the local
>>players.>
>
> Why's that a problem, or unfair?
Because the final qualifier will be the only qualifying chance for many
local players, and they will be forced to compete with those international
players who are not qualified yet (and usually have already had a chance to
qualify at their local qualifier).
On most qualifiers the number of visiting players is small, at the qualifier
the day before the Championship it is much larger.
> Just because you host the European Championships doesn't mean that you
> can host multiple qualifiers for it.
Of course, giving local players 2 chances to qualify will probably be just
as unfair, but maybe they can have a qualifier where fewer (half?) players
qualify, and that will be enough to balance things.
Flux
In message <b5o3r9$27joi9$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de>, Flux
<fl...@netc.pt> writes:
>Because the final qualifier will be the only qualifying chance for many
>local players,
The same as all the people in another region will only have one
qualifying chance.
>and they will be forced to compete with those international players who
>are not qualified yet (and usually have already had a chance to qualify
>at their local qualifier).
There is no need to hold it on the day before, if this is considered to
be a problem.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <b5o3r9$27joi9$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de>, Flux
> <fl...@netc.pt> writes:
>>>Because the final qualifier will be the only qualifying chance for many
>>local players,>
>
> The same as all the people in another region will only have one
> qualifying chance.
Players from other regions who show up for the championship weekend will
have two qualification opportunities.
If they stay in their region they only get one qualification opportunity,
but then they don't go to the championship anyway.
>>and they will be forced to compete with those international players who
>>are not qualified yet (and usually have already had a chance to qualify
>>at their local qualifier).>
>
> There is no need to hold it on the day before, if this is considered to
> be a problem.
This was decided long ago, as a way of luring more players to the event.
Fewer players will be willing to make long journeys if they are to
participate in a single event.
There are some good reasons to hold a qualifier the day before the
campionship. If we can find a way around the disadvantages for the local
players, it would be preferable to keep running it this way.
Flux
Flux wrote:
> There are some good reasons to hold a qualifier the day before the
> campionship. If we can find a way around the disadvantages for the
> local players, it would be preferable to keep running it this way.
but why not travel to qualify in other places before your try in own
qualifier ?
In message <b5ob4s$2bama8$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de>, Flux
<fl...@netc.pt> writes:
>Players from other regions who show up for the championship weekend
>will have two qualification opportunities.
There is nothing stopping players from the host region travelling to
another qualifier, just like every other player who travels to yours.
>> There is no need to hold it on the day before, if this is
>>considered to
>> be a problem.>
>This was decided long ago, as a way of luring more players to the
>event.
Gun. Foot. Aim. Bang.
So what you're saying is that you want to lure more players to the event
but you also don't want more players at the event, as it'll stop the
locals qualifying.
This should be filed under "Having your cake and eating it."
>Fewer players will be willing to make long journeys if they are to
>participate in a single event.
Then regard the championship weekend as being for people who have
already qualified, and move on. A longer, two-day oriented format is
not impossible. See previous championships, where the championship
itself has been a separate style of tournament, combining sealed and
constructed play, over more than one day.
Alternatively, just hold another tournament the day before. Maybe a
sealed deck one, or a storyline one, or something, as appropriate. (You
can't hold a storyline one without White Wolf having a useful storyline
card out at the time for you, obviously.)
There is no reason why the qualifiers that happen to be held for the
local region should attract more players.
>There are some good reasons to hold a qualifier the day before the
>campionship. If we can find a way around the disadvantages for the
>local players, it would be preferable to keep running it this way.
The suggestion of having two qualifiers for the same region is not a way
around that. Will you then allow every other region to have two
qualifiers, so the locals get the chance to qualify twice somewhere
local?
Two tournaments - even if one of them attracts a chunk of players it
wouldn't normally - gives more chances for the same group of players to
qualify locally.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <b5ob4s$2bama8$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de>, Flux
> <fl...@netc.pt> writes:
>>>Players from other regions who show up for the championship weekend
>>will have two qualification opportunities.>
>
> There is nothing stopping players from the host region travelling to
> another qualifier, just like every other player who travels to yours.
Local players have a lesser incentive to travel to other qualifiers, since
usually those won't be 2-day events with side-events in case they fail to
qualify.
>>> There is no need to hold it on the day before, if this is
>>>considered to
>>>be a problem.>>
>>This was decided long ago, as a way of luring more players to the
>>event.>
>
> Gun. Foot. Aim. Bang.
>
> So what you're saying is that you want to lure more players to the event
> but you also don't want more players at the event, as it'll stop the
> locals qualifying.
I didn't make that decision (for the record, I don't have anything to do
with the organization of the EC 2003 or the Spanish Qualifier). IIRC the EC
has always been made that way, and I believe that is the standard for the
NAC too.
When this was decided, I guess nobody noticed it would pose a problem for
the local players.
>>Fewer players will be willing to make long journeys if they are to
>>participate in a single event.>
>
> Then regard the championship weekend as being for people who have
> already qualified, and move on. A longer, two-day oriented format is
> not impossible. See previous championships, where the championship
> itself has been a separate style of tournament, combining sealed and
> constructed play, over more than one day.
I don't have a problem with that, personally.
But apparently some people at the VEKN prefer the current format.
> Alternatively, just hold another tournament the day before. Maybe a
> sealed deck one, or a storyline one, or something, as appropriate. (You
> can't hold a storyline one without White Wolf having a useful storyline
> card out at the time for you, obviously.)
>
>
> There is no reason why the qualifiers that happen to be held for the
> local region should attract more players.
If they don't happen the day before the championship.
>>There are some good reasons to hold a qualifier the day before the
>>campionship. If we can find a way around the disadvantages for the
>>local players, it would be preferable to keep running it this way.>
>
> The suggestion of having two qualifiers for the same region is not a way
> around that. Will you then allow every other region to have two
> qualifiers, so the locals get the chance to qualify twice somewhere
> local?
>
> Two tournaments - even if one of them attracts a chunk of players it
> wouldn't normally - gives more chances for the same group of players to
> qualify locally.
Please reread my previous post. I wrote:
'Of course, giving local players 2 chances to qualify will probably be just
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <b5odmu$2ad2bd$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de>, Flux
<fl...@netc.pt> writes:
>Because travelling takes time and costs money
>
>:)
Just like it does for everyone else?
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <b5og4e$2b180q$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de>, Flux
<fl...@netc.pt> writes:
>Local players have a lesser incentive to travel to other qualifiers,
>since usually those won't be 2-day events with side-events in case they
>fail to qualify.
Pick somewhere you want to visit anyway? Culture and touristy things
one day, playing the other.
>'Of course, giving local players 2 chances to qualify will probably be
>just as unfair, but maybe they can have a qualifier where fewer (half?)
>players qualify, and that will be enough to balance things.'
Which is similarly unfair.
Since you are still entitled to play in qualifiers, and lots of people
like to anyway, the top 5 from the first tournament are quite likely to
have a good stab at being the top 5 locals at the second tournament. If
the additional non-local players leads to locals being squeezed out,
this means that the locals never get an even footing with non-local
players. The Top 10 qualify everywhere else.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> >Local players have a lesser incentive to travel to other qualifiers,
> >since usually those won't be 2-day events with side-events in case they
> >fail to qualify.
>
> Pick somewhere you want to visit anyway? Culture and touristy things
> one day, playing the other.
>
> >'Of course, giving local players 2 chances to qualify will probably be
> >just as unfair, but maybe they can have a qualifier where fewer (half?)
> >players qualify, and that will be enough to balance things.'
>
> Which is similarly unfair.
Why is it unfair?
Each non spanish player will have had, by the time the Championship
will be held, 2 chances to qualify:
1st one his own national qualifier
2nd the spanish one.
So why don't let the spanish players have 2 chances as well?
>
> Since you are still entitled to play in qualifiers, and lots of people
> like to anyway, the top 5 from the first tournament are quite likely to
> have a good stab at being the top 5 locals at the second tournament. If
> the additional non-local players leads to locals being squeezed out,
> this means that the locals never get an even footing with non-local
> players. The Top 10 qualify everywhere else.
The problem I noticed at the last year qualifier in Vienna with
already qualified players, is that they often (from my perception)
played unfair decks and in an unfair way.
I have a couple of friends too, with whom I had a really "heavy"
discussion, who played just to create confusion on the table, to
hinder possible competitive players/decks. They played with awful
decks that didn't have the minimum chance to qualify (but why bother).
I'm not saying that this is illigal,after all to qualify you have to
be ready to face any kind of deck, but at least annoying, yes.
I don't think would be a great problem not letting already qualified
players play in the pre-championship qualifier, and leaving the chance
to the orthers: just organize side interesting event.
> Just because you host the European Championships doesn't mean that you
> can host multiple qualifiers for it.
At the last EC in Vienna there was a lot of discussion about this subject
and in the end almost everybody agreed to have an "international" qualifier
the day before the event and a national qualifier way before the EC. There
are several reasons to do it like this way (more players coming to the
event, more players in the EC event) and almost none against, despite from
the fact that it might be somehow "unfair".
Anyway it has been discussed and decided (by Steve Wieck) so there is no
need for more discussion. The majority of the players wants it to be this
way and this is the best pro-reason of all.
--
johannes walch
Cartman wrote:
> Each non spanish player will have had, by the time the Championship
> will be held, 2 chances to qualify:
> 1st one his own national qualifier
> 2nd the spanish one.
>
> So why don't let the spanish players have 2 chances as well?
The Spanish players are allowed to travel as well.
Fair:
A French player can play in his local qualifier and pay to travel
to the Spanish qualifier.
A Spanish player can play in his local qualifier an pay to travel
to the French qualifier.
Contrast:
The French player cannot play in two qualifiers without paying to
travel while the Spanish player gets two qualifiers on his doorstep
and, if he chooses to pay to travel to a qualifier, will get three
qualifiers for the price everyone else pays for two.
[Moving off-thread: ]
> The problem I noticed at the last year qualifier in Vienna with
> already qualified players, is that they often (from my perception)
> played unfair decks and in an unfair way.
How did the judge respond when you pointed out the activity?
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <c5c9a514.03032...@posting.google.com>, Cartman
<federi...@libero.it> writes:
>hy is it unfair?
>Each non spanish player will have had, by the time the Championship
>will be held, 2 chances to qualify:
>1st one his own national qualifier
>2nd the spanish one.
I see that the people of Spain are entirely unable to travel at all. I
had forgotten that they were BANNED from leaving their country, whereas
there will be a huge influx of non-locals who will CROWD their
qualifier.
It is sad but true that Spanish people have been prohibited from leaving
their country and ever visiting others. It's probably something to do
with the EU. :(
[ quoted text not captured ]
> It is sad but true that Spanish people have been prohibited from leaving
> their country and ever visiting others. It's probably something to do
> with the EU. :(
Interesting to hear from a UK player. I guess the UK was the most
under-represented country at the EC 2002. John Keech was the only one
showing up. Even from far away countries like Sweden there were far more
people.
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <b5og4e$2b180q$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de>, Flux
> <fl...@netc.pt> writes:
>>>'Of course, giving local players 2 chances to qualify will probably be
>>just as unfair, but maybe they can have a qualifier where fewer (half?)
>>players qualify, and that will be enough to balance things.'>
>
> Which is similarly unfair.
>
> Since you are still entitled to play in qualifiers, and lots of people
> like to anyway, the top 5 from the first tournament are quite likely to
> have a good stab at being the top 5 locals at the second tournament. If
> the additional non-local players leads to locals being squeezed out,
> this means that the locals never get an even footing with non-local
> players. The Top 10 qualify everywhere else.
I don't think we can discuss this much further without actual stats from
qualifiers.
The idea is to find a balance, where local players can get around 8-10
qualification spots for themselves, to match the ones available to visiting
players in their local qualifiers.
For example, if there is a 50-50 split of local and visiting players in the
final qualifier, we might suppose the final table follows a distribution
that is somewhat equivalent to:
1 - Local
2 - Visiting
3 - Local
4 - Visiting
5 - Local
6 - Visiting
7 - Local
8 - Visiting
9 - Local
10 - Visiting
11 - Local
12 - Visiting
13 - Local
...
With 10 qualifications available, there will be 5 local players and 5
visiting players qualifying. If the top 5 local players have already
qualified, then you get 3 new qualifications for the local players, for a
total of 8. Note that in this case the visiting players also get a couple
extra qualifications. This seems rather reasonable. When considering that
some visiting players have already qualified too, there would be a small
adjustment resulting in a few more qualifications for local players.
Looking at the actual results from the 2002 Austrian Qualifier, I find that
the visiting players actually outnumber the locals by nearly 4:1.
In this case your analysis is nearly correct: if the Austrians had had a
previous qualifier with 5 spots available, and those who qualified there
were the 5 top best Austrian players at the EC Qualifier, they would've had
5 total qualifications, only one more than they actually had (4). That is
probably an improvement on the actual situation though.
This also means that if they had had a previous qualifier, with 10
qualification spots available, then they wouldn't qualify any extra players
at the final qualifier. So much for the 'unfairness' of having two
qualifiers in that case.
Note that at the 2003 EC only those 4 Austrians qualified. Many other
countries actually had more than 4 players participating, despite the
additional travel expenses.
Flux
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <c5c9a514.03032...@posting.google.com>, Cartman
> <federi...@libero.it> writes:
>>>hy is it unfair?
>>Each non spanish player will have had, by the time the Championship
>>will be held, 2 chances to qualify:
>>1st one his own national qualifier
>>2nd the spanish one.>
>
> I see that the people of Spain are entirely unable to travel at all. I
> had forgotten that they were BANNED from leaving their country, whereas
> there will be a huge influx of non-locals who will CROWD their
> qualifier.
See the EC 2002 Qualifier stats. Visiting players outnumbered local players
by nearly 4:1.
If you hold the national qualifier some time before the EC this is not a
problem. But we've been over that already.
Flux
Flux wrote:
> James Coupe wrote:
> See the EC 2002 Qualifier stats. Visiting players outnumbered local
> players by nearly 4:1.
Since pre-qualified players don't occupy slots, the interesting ratio
would be visiting non-qualified players to local non-qualified players.
Interesting statistically, that is.
It doesn't change the argument, of course.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> don't you know that UK, especially english players, are BANNED from...
> okay, it's not worth going on ;)
hehehe. my point was not entirely serious anyway ..... just a little mocking
about the islanders ;-)
LSJ wrote:
> Flux wrote:
>>> James Coupe wrote:
>> See the EC 2002 Qualifier stats. Visiting players outnumbered local
>> players by nearly 4:1.>
>
> Since pre-qualified players don't occupy slots, the interesting ratio
> would be visiting non-qualified players to local non-qualified players.
Right.
Since there were ~110 players at the qualifier, and assuming most of the
championship players (~70, IIRC) played in the qualifier too, this ratio
would be around 1:1.
IME other qualifiers often have a ratio around 1:10, so it's still a major
difference.
Flux
[ quoted text not captured ]
Faraway? :)
Vienna isn't too far from where we reached last time we travelled
into mainland Europe in force *grin*
Sten During
> Since pre-qualified players don't occupy slots, the interesting ratio
> would be visiting non-qualified players to local non-qualified players.
As far as I remember it was more about 2:1.
At the german qualifier for comparison it was about 1:2 and we are one of
the "most visited" countries (qualifier-wise).
Flux wrote:
> LSJ wrote:>> Since pre-qualified players don't occupy slots, the interesting ratio
>> would be visiting non-qualified players to local non-qualified players.>> Since there were ~110 players at the qualifier, and assuming most of the
> championship players (~70, IIRC) played in the qualifier too, this ratio
> would be around 1:1.
Not following your numbers here.
How many players in the EC 2002 final qualifier were not previously qualified?
How many of those were "visiting"?
What radius/travel time constitutes "visiting"?
> IME other qualifiers often have a ratio around 1:10, so it's still a
> major difference.
Noted, but on the other side of the scales: the locals don't have to travel
to the championships.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> Flux wrote:
>>> LSJ wrote:
>>>>> Since pre-qualified players don't occupy slots, the interesting ratio
>>> would be visiting non-qualified players to local non-qualified players.>>
>>
>> Since there were ~110 players at the qualifier, and assuming most of
>> the championship players (~70, IIRC) played in the qualifier too, this
>> ratio would be around 1:1.>
>
> Not following your numbers here.
Sorry for not being clear, I was just 'thinking aloud' :)
> How many players in the EC 2002 final qualifier were not previously
> qualified?
Qualifier players: ~110
Championship players: ~70
Qualifier players already qualified: 70 - 10 = 60
Qualifier players not yet qualified: 110 - 60 = 50
> How many of those were "visiting"?
There were 24 Austrian players, so the number of visiting players would be
~50 - 24 = ~26
> What radius/travel time constitutes "visiting"?
I only considered Austrian players as 'locals', since I don't have enough
info to do any other classification. A more accurate distinction would
depend on the average distance between qualifiers or something like that.
>> IME other qualifiers often have a ratio around 1:10, so it's still a
>> major difference.>
>
> Noted, but on the other side of the scales: the locals don't have to travel
> to the championships.
Right. I was composing another post where I adressed this point, but I'll
just post my suggestion here:
Maybe the fairest solution involves having a previous National Qualifier at
a location distinct from that of the final Championship/Qualifier, possibly
with a reduced number of qualification spots.
That way nobody gets two qualifiers at their doorstep.
Flux
Flux wrote:
> Maybe the fairest solution involves having a previous National Qualifier
> at a location distinct from that of the final Championship/Qualifier,
> possibly with a reduced number of qualification spots.
> That way nobody gets two qualifiers at their doorstep.
I suppose that the fairest solution, to a championship organizer who
considered it a problem at all, would be to hold the qualifier at a time
well before the championship rather than the day before.
Then it would attract only those who were travelling to the qualifier
in the first place, just like all the other qualifiers do.
Leaving only the imbalance in travel to the championship, which still
rests in the locals' favor.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3E8053A4...@white-wolf.com...
> Cartman wrote:
> > Each non spanish player will have had, by the time the Championship
> > will be held, 2 chances to qualify:
> > 1st one his own national qualifier
> > 2nd the spanish one.
> >
> > So why don't let the spanish players have 2 chances as well?
>
> The Spanish players are allowed to travel as well.
While this is true, the North American events don't seem to be
using quite the same principle. Indianapolis and Columbus are
in the same region, wouldn't you say? (3 hours apart by car.)
Yet there will be a qualifier at GenCon Indy the day before
the NAC, as well as one at Origins about a month before that.
It seems to me like it would be reasonable for a Spanish
qualifier to be held (probably in a different city) some time
before the "final EC qualifier" event.
Josh
the view from far away, granted...
>
> I suppose that the fairest solution, to a championship organizer who
> considered it a problem at all, would be to hold the qualifier at a time
> well before the championship rather than the day before.
Which I proposed in the first place. Refering to the Nation who hosts
the EC this means that they would have a National Qualifier 3-5 months
before and a Championship Qualifier the day before the actual championship!
(Does this sentence make sense?)
--
Andreas Nusser
www.vekn.de
a.nu...@vekn.de
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> While this is true, the North American events don't seem to be
> using quite the same principle. Indianapolis and Columbus are
> in the same region, wouldn't you say? (3 hours apart by car.)
No. 271km seems sufficient to call it a different region.
It's 343km from London to Paris, for reference.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3E808806...@white-wolf.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > While this is true, the North American events don't seem to be
> > using quite the same principle. Indianapolis and Columbus are
> > in the same region, wouldn't you say? (3 hours apart by car.)
>
> No. 271km seems sufficient to call it a different region.
> It's 343km from London to Paris, for reference.
Sure. But the US and Europe are different, of course.
If 271 km is enough to be a different region, there could be US
qualifiers in Washington, Oregon, California x2 (or more!),
Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming,
etc etc etc.
Then, too, Barcelona to Madrid (and that's only halfway across
Spain) is 616 km.
Presumably player density is another factor in deciding what's
reasonable. But there too, I'd think Spain could pretty easily
justify a couple qualifiers, compared to say the eastern US's
density of VTES players. (110 players listed on a quick VEKN
registry search for Barcelona, 123 for Madrid, for example, as
compared to 33 for Boston, 27 for Atlanta.)
Josh
regionally challenged
In message <b5q0ki$22j$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>, Andreas Nusser
<time...@NOSPAMscram.de> writes:
>Which I proposed in the first place. Refering to the Nation who hosts
>the EC this means that they would have a National Qualifier 3-5 months
>before and a Championship Qualifier the day before the actual
>championship!
This has already been noted as unfair, meaning that the locals get two
chances to qualify.
Why the pressing, urgent need to have an additional qualifier the day
before?
If there is a pressing, urgent need to get more people into the
championship, get White Wolf to allow more qualifiers. These do not
need to be local.
If there is a pressing, urgent desire to have a weekend of V:TES, you
could extend the tournament over two days. Even if you don't go for a
split format (e.g. sealed one day, constructed the next), it would not
be impossible to organise something like a 5 round qualifier. With 60
players (say), you should be able to organise enough distinct tables.
You would, of course, want to register decks for such an event, in the
event of organised cheating or accidental changes overnight. (The "Oh
shit, my card box fell open in my bag" accidents that happen to all of
us.)
If an extended tournament format like that is a problem, and we already
have enough people qualified, but we still want a weekend of V:TES so
that people don't just turn up for a day (which might be difficult from,
say, eastern Europe to Spain or Portugal, or similar items), there is no
need for the tournament the day before to be a qualifier. It's not
going to attract those who have *already* qualified to turn up, except
for it being an additional tournament to play in. They've already
qualified. They don't need to win.
If it's to attract people who *haven't* already qualified to turn up,
this doesn't have to be addressed on the day before, at the local
location. Making sure there are sufficient qualifiers planned would do
that. Or fiddling the number who come from each. We need 10 more
players? Well, make it the top 11 from each other qualifier. So that
might let 15-20 extra people in.
Indeed, if the idea is to provide people with other things to do, having
it as a qualifier may well exacerbate that problem. Extra, unqualified
people turn up on the Saturday. They play, they don't get through.
Their numbers may be relatively small, meaning that it's quite possibly
difficult to get a useful side-game going for them. Perhaps if only
half a dozen unqualified people turn up and stick around (locals have an
easier time going home, being less reliant on ferries, planes etc.), for
instance. Whereas with a *fun* tournament on the Saturday, everyone who
turns up on the Saturday internationally is already qualified, so they
won't be sat around twiddling their thumbs, and the unqualified locals
who turn up can treat it as a normal tournament - because it *is* a
normal tournament, that happens to attract a fair number of
international players also. And they get exactly the same chance to
qualify as everyone else, having a qualifier in their region.
I fail to see any pressing, overwhelming, soul-consuming need to have an
additional *qualifier* the day before.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Andreas Nusser wrote:
>> I suppose that the fairest solution, to a championship organizer who
>> considered it a problem at all, would be to hold the qualifier at a time
>> well before the championship rather than the day before.>
> Which I proposed in the first place. Refering to the Nation who hosts
> the EC this means that they would have a National Qualifier 3-5 months
> before and a Championship Qualifier the day before the actual championship!
No. That's holding two qualifiers. Different than what I said above.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Cartman wrote:
> > Each non spanish player will have had, by the time the Championship
> > will be held, 2 chances to qualify:
> > 1st one his own national qualifier
> > 2nd the spanish one.
> >
> > So why don't let the spanish players have 2 chances as well?
>
> The Spanish players are allowed to travel as well.
>
> Fair:
>
> A French player can play in his local qualifier and pay to travel
> to the Spanish qualifier.
>
> A Spanish player can play in his local qualifier an pay to travel
> to the French qualifier.
>
> Contrast:
>
> The French player cannot play in two qualifiers without paying to
> travel while the Spanish player gets two qualifiers on his doorstep
> and, if he chooses to pay to travel to a qualifier, will get three
> qualifiers for the price everyone else pays for two.
>
Maybe, but I'd like to see this from another point of view:
each country will have his own national qualifier, and there is
another chance for everybody to qualify at the international qualifier
the day before the championship.
This year the spanish players will be able to compete in 2 qualifiers
in their own country, next year the germans will gety their chance and
so on.
Do you think that it will be really unfair?
> [Moving off-thread: ]
>
> > The problem I noticed at the last year qualifier in Vienna with
> > already qualified players, is that they often (from my perception)
> > played unfair decks and in an unfair way.
>
> How did the judge respond when you pointed out the activity?
Do you mean that I sould have reported that my already qualified
predator played an horrible weenies potence deck spreading chaos on
the table (at the end of the 3 rounds, he totalized 0vp :-)?
In my opinion is perfectly legal, just annoying for me who had to
qualify.
Would organizing alternative events for the already qualified players
be terribly disappointing?
[ quoted text not captured ]
No it doesn't. Because if I interpret it correctly, LSJ is stating that you'd
be having a National (Spanish) Qualifier 3-5 months ahead *instead* of having a
Qualifier right before the actual championship. Therefore there would be *no*
qualifier before the Championship.
The way you suggested is, as James Coupe and LSJ have pointed out, slightly
unfair because it still gives an unfair advantage to "locals" who have their
own "official National" Qualifier and also another "Championship" Qualifier
that is right in their backyard.
As James(?) pointed out, the locals would be able to attend two Qualifiers
without having to pay travel costs compared to others who would only be able to
attend one Qualifier without paying travel costs.
And as LSJ noted, there still is the additional benefit that the locals don't
need to pay travel costs for the Championship.
IMO, it really does like the locals are trying to have their cake and eat it
too (as James alluded to). Having the Championship in your country (or region)
is an enormous benefit and convenience. I think a minor drawback (referring to
the Qualifier situation) wouldn't be too hard to deal with instead of whining
about it.
Finally, you still have the problem of defining what a "local" vs. "visiting"
player means. Are you drawing these lines based off of country or distance?
Because it could very well be that someone from another country could actually
live closer than someone who lives on the other side of the same "local"
country, which would furthermore shoot up some of your arguments for the
situation.
Halcyan 2
>Maybe, but I'd like to see this from another point of view:
>each country will have his own national qualifier, and there is
>another chance for everybody to qualify at the international qualifier
>the day before the championship.
>This year the spanish players will be able to compete in 2 qualifiers
>in their own country, next year the germans will gety their chance and
>so on.
>Do you think that it will be really unfair?
Possibly yes. It might be more advantageous to the Spanish players who would
get their 2 qualifiers this year compared to the, say, Swedish players who
won't get to hold the Championships until 2014 (for instance), assuming the
game was still around by then. It's always easy to come up with a "fair"
scenario where one gets immediate benefits now and everyone else has to wait
for the possibility of getting their turn later.
Halcyan 2
>> [Moving off-thread: ]
>>
>> > The problem I noticed at the last year qualifier in Vienna with
>> > already qualified players, is that they often (from my perception)
>> > played unfair decks and in an unfair way.
>>
>> How did the judge respond when you pointed out the activity?>
>Do you mean that I sould have reported that my already qualified
>predator played an horrible weenies potence deck spreading chaos on
>the table (at the end of the 3 rounds, he totalized 0vp :-)?
>In my opinion is perfectly legal, just annoying for me who had to
>qualify.
It isn't perfectly legal. Furthermore, it's virtually impossible to prove
someone is trying to manipulate who else qualifies if they bother to be subtle
about it at all.
The simplest way to fix the problem of already qualified players manipulating
results is to prevent them from playing in future qualifiers. Obviously, if
the event is something more than a qualifier, such as a national championship,
this won't go over well.
>Would organizing alternative events for the already qualified players
>be terribly disappointing?
For some reason, people keep saying they'd rather play against "stiffer
competition", play in "larger events", or whatever. Uh huh, so that's worth
making it easy for people to attempt to collude? That's worth enabling already
qualified players a possible scouting advantage?
As for terribly disappointing, I myself can't see how it would be.
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> [Moving off-thread: ]
>
> > The problem I noticed at the last year qualifier in Vienna with
> > already qualified players, is that they often (from my perception)
> > played unfair decks and in an unfair way.
>
> How did the judge respond when you pointed out the activity?
I do not think this point is OT. It's the same argument as the
"fair-unfair"-discussion. As experienced by many players (incl.
myself) many of the already qualified players in Vienna did not play
in a competitive style. I saw many Decks that were intended to have
some fun with, but (to my mind) would never make it to the finals.
This is no point that you can call a judge for. When someone tells you
after a game, that he did not care if he wins or not, because he is
already qualified, you start thinking of the money and time you
invested in the trip (see above arguments). It is the attitude towards
the game that is different. It's not a question of rulings.
I can only support the argument of Andreas and Johannes, who already
described the need for a separated national qualifier with an
additional prechampionship qualifier for the hosting country.
-Markus "the outcast" Schlein
>The simplest way to fix the problem of already qualified players manipulating
>results is to prevent them from playing in future qualifiers. Obviously, if
>the event is something more than a qualifier, such as a national
>championship,
>this won't go over well.
But, as has been mentioned in previous discussion on the topic, this would mean
that Qualifiers get progressively easier since many of the experienced players
have already Qualified. Thus making the finals at the first Qualifier would be
a worthy feat while kmaking the finals at the last Qualifier wouldn't be even
close to as noteworthy since the competition is *much* easier.
Halcyan 2
MarcusVitel wrote:
> I can only support the argument of Andreas and Johannes, who already
> described the need for a separated national qualifier with an
> additional prechampionship qualifier for the hosting country.
Sorry, I must have missed the arguments that showed the "need" to
have an additional prechampionship qualifier.
So, if you don't mind repeating it:
Why is it necessary to have an additional qualifier the day before the
championship?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Halcyan 2 wrote:
> But, as has been mentioned in previous discussion on the topic, this would mean
> that Qualifiers get progressively easier since many of the experienced players
> have already Qualified. Thus making the finals at the first Qualifier would be
> a worthy feat while kmaking the finals at the last Qualifier wouldn't be even
> close to as noteworthy since the competition is *much* easier.
The current system has the same result - by preventing previously qualified
players from placing in the qualifying slots.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>The current system has the same result - by preventing previously qualified
>players from placing in the qualifying slots.
Well, yes, in does make it easier to Qualify but that doesn't mean that the
Tournament Qualifier is easier.
In the situation where you ban already qualified players, the top 10 (for
example) will qualify and will all be non-qualified individuals.
In a hypothethical situation where already qualified players aren't banned, the
top 10 could very well be already qualified players while those who place 11 to
20 are non-qualified individuals who qualify. Nonetheless, those who qualify
aren't necessarily those who do the best and the presence of those who already
qualified adds to the quality of the tournament.
Halcyan 2
[ quoted text not captured ]
?
The presence of the qualified players will not have any systematic effect on
how the rest of the field is ordered.
Is there any evidence that it will?
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <c5c9a514.03032...@posting.google.com>, Cartman
<federi...@libero.it> writes:
>Maybe, but I'd like to see this from another point of view:
>each country will have his own national qualifier, and there is
>another chance for everybody to qualify at the international qualifier
>the day before the championship.
Where "everyone" is *heavily* biased towards the locals, because they
have it on their doorstep.
If an actually "international" qualifier is wanted, this could, perhaps,
form part of the promotion of a CCG Workshop product - if it does happen
- though it would have problems of coaching and so on.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> skrev i melding
news:b5pmpd$djf$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net...
> > It is sad but true that Spanish people have been prohibited from leaving
> > their country and ever visiting others. It's probably something to do
> > with the EU. :(
>
> Interesting to hear from a UK player. I guess the UK was the most
> under-represented country at the EC 2002. John Keech was the only one
> showing up. Even from far away countries like Sweden there were far more
> people.
>
>
Too bad none from Norway visited Vienna (as far as I know, that is). But
don't be too surprised if some of us show up in Barcelona. I know the Prince
of Trondheim is planning a visit, as well as 2-3 others (including myself).
BTW, Barney Baker from London won the Qualifier in Trondheim. Damned
englishman fooled me. I placed second.
Martin Bruset Solberg
robtreasure wrote:
>>> don't you know that UK, especially english players, are
>>> BANNED from...
>>> okay, it's not worth going on ;)>>
>> hehehe. my point was not entirely serious anyway .....
>> just a little mocking
>> about the islanders ;-)>
> We don't want to be in the EU so why should we go to the EC :o)
> <mumble grumble.... damn Eurocurrency>
>
> Anyone for tea ?
*russian* earl grey for me, please ;)
"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:<b5pjp1$7do$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>...
> > Just because you host the European Championships doesn't mean that you
> > can host multiple qualifiers for it.
>
> At the last EC in Vienna there was a lot of discussion about this subject
> and in the end almost everybody agreed to have an "international" qualifier
> the day before the event and a national qualifier way before the EC. There
> are several reasons to do it like this way (more players coming to the
> event, more players in the EC event) and almost none against, despite from
> the fact that it might be somehow "unfair".
>
> Anyway it has been discussed and decided (by Steve Wieck) so there is no
> need for more discussion. The majority of the players wants it to be this
> way and this is the best pro-reason of all.
Why would there be a problem prohibiting already qualified players
from playing in the "International Qualifier" the day prior to the
Championships? Since VTES tournaments of this caliber are typical 3+F,
one could argue that 3 rounds isn't enough to truly find the best
player, especially if there is potential for shenanigans by those with
invitations already. (In "that other game" a 7-round Swiss "Open
Qualifier" yields better results because there are twice as many data
points, as well as the "Swiss" function of the cream rising and
competing between themselves, unlike the VTES Recommended Seating
Chart)
It would seem that most "non-local" players attending the EC would be
making a last gasp attempt at qualifying. If they failed, they
travelled a long way and came up empty (though perhaps with a chance
to play in side events).
It would also give "locals" a chance to compete in an event with
mostly local players. If they succeed, they had a chance to represent
their location. If they fail, they can't gripe about having to compete
against a massive contingent of quality players who are gathered
primarily for another purpose, the Championship itself.
Last but not least, it would minimize any attempts at "collusion" by
those who qualified and those who hadn't since there would be no "out
of game considerations" to influence game decisions.
All these aside, I think a region should hold a separate qualifier
weeks in advance of the championships, as well as an International
Qualifier, strictly for those who have not yet qualified, the day
prior. Lots of professional sporting events do this sort of thing so
it's not such a big deal. As long as the venue for the Championship
rotates around, everyone will eventually get the big "bonus" of having
two "local" chances to qualify. Just make sure there's a major side
event available that is open to anyone and you'll get plenty of turn
out.
In message <621dd332.03032...@posting.google.com>, Jeff Kuta
<jeff...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Why would there be a problem prohibiting already qualified players
>from playing in the "International Qualifier" the day prior to the
>Championships?
It would probably cease to be a legal V:EKN tournament, for a start.
If the idea is that another tournament the previous day is completely
necessary in order to get people to turn up to the Championships (two
for the price of one), banning them from playing in that tournament
would be counter-productive.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>But, as has been mentioned in previous discussion on the topic, this would
>mean
>that Qualifiers get progressively easier since many of the experienced
>players
>have already Qualified. Thus making the finals at the first Qualifier would
>be
>a worthy feat while kmaking the finals at the last Qualifier wouldn't be even
>close to as noteworthy since the competition is *much* easier.
LSJ's point is good, so I'll try something else which would assume a different
system in place.
I'm not convinced that it would be much easier, possibly not easier at all as
logistics can have a significant effect on the quality of competition. But,
anyway, if that's considered to be a problem, qualify less people in the later
tournament.
<lots of snip>
> IMO, it really does like the locals are trying to have their cake and eat it
> too (as James alluded to). Having the Championship in your country (or region)
> is an enormous benefit and convenience. I think a minor drawback (referring to
> the Qualifier situation) wouldn't be too hard to deal with instead of whining
> about it.
>
> Finally, you still have the problem of defining what a "local" vs. "visiting"
> player means. Are you drawing these lines based off of country or distance?
> Because it could very well be that someone from another country could actually
> live closer than someone who lives on the other side of the same "local"
> country, which would furthermore shoot up some of your arguments for the
> situation.
>
> Halcyan 2
>
Or, and I'm going out on a limb here, we could have something
completely different then a Qualifier the day before the actual
Championship. Maybe even a EC Draft tournament, or the War variant or
one of the other variants of V:TES out there. I have a hard time
thinking that WW would not support such a tournament if it had 80+
players even it isn't a normal tournament (LSJ?).
The point of the Championship is to see who is the "best" in Europe
(even though we have people from outside Europe visiting). Let the
country that hosts the Championship have their Qualifier well before
and find something else intresting for the people who go to the EC
hosting country to do on the day before the actual Championship.
Archibald Zimonyi
Malkavian Prince of Gothenburg
http://www.vekn.nu
I suppose that the fairest solution, to a championship organizer who
> >> considered it a problem at all, would be to hold the qualifier at a time
> >> well before the championship rather than the day before.
> >
>> No it doesn't. Because if I interpret it correctly, LSJ is stating that you'd
> be having a National (Spanish) Qualifier 3-5 months ahead *instead* of having a
> Qualifier right before the actual championship. Therefore there would be *no*
> qualifier before the Championship.
>
This could be a good idea. I have to admit that I was missing the
LSJ/James point.
But, and this is just a question, don't the organizers risk to see the
number of players diminishing?
Don't we run the risk of seeing a EU Championship with only the
qualified players from all the countries?
After all, I personally know many people who just went to Vienna to
visit the city and try the last chance qualifier. I don't know if they
would have travelled without this possibility.
Do you think this could be a drawback, maybe a problem, or not at all?
Personaly, I'm the french player who have traveled the most for VTES
(Austria, belgium, Spain and germany).
I expect travel to germany, spain and belgium again this year.
If i'll have sufficent money, i will perhaps travel to UK and italy.
If the qualifier the day prior the EC would not accept me, only
because i'm not spanish, or, if i'm qualified, only of my precedent
results, i will not travel to spain, for ethical reasons.
It will be unfair, xenophobic (in the sense: "fear of foreigners"...)
and not a very good proof of the spanish hospitality...
If a spanish championship, some months before the ec, would garantee
to the finalists of this tournament some qualifiying slots, i doesn't
matter...
The same debate have occured for the EC in Paris in 2001...
Remember that the rules of
qualified-players-don't-take-slots-to-non-qualified-players was a very
good rule. WW and VEKN can go further.
Perhaps a balanced solution can be find, in a way like i've exposed ?
Oh, french qualifier is the last saturday of september : we have
already host players from spain, portugual, UK, States, belgium,
italian, hungary, slovakia, and six or eight others countries...Come
on and try to get your qualification in Paris !
Spanish people cannot pass the Pyrenees ? ;)))))
In message <c5c9a514.03032...@posting.google.com>, Cartman
<federi...@libero.it> writes:
>But, and this is just a question, don't the organizers risk to see the
>number of players diminishing?
>Don't we run the risk of seeing a EU Championship with only the
>qualified players from all the countries?
>After all, I personally know many people who just went to Vienna to
>visit the city and try the last chance qualifier. I don't know if they
>would have travelled without this possibility.
People travel for the qualifier, and the hope of getting into the final,
right?
So what we're saying is that if people think they might be in the
Championships, they'll travel?
How about you hold sufficient qualifiers before hand to have the number
of people you want qualified? Then those people who travel *know*
they're in the Championships.
Since you only have one Super Qualifier on the day before, you can only
add ten players *anyway*. Why not just have another 20-30 players
qualify around Europe instead?
This could be done by holding more qualifiers, allowing more people from
any given qualifier (top 11 or 12), shrinking some of the regions (as
some have pointed out, having more than one region in large countries
might be appropriate, handled sensibly) and so on.
If you need more people at the championships, have them qualify. If you
want a weekend of V:TES, have that.
Why the need, however, to qualify people on the day before?
Surely the people who travel in the random hope of qualifying would
travel if, uh, they were qualified already?
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:47:02 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>> While this is true, the North American events don't seem to be
>> using quite the same principle. Indianapolis and Columbus are
>> in the same region, wouldn't you say? (3 hours apart by car.)>
>No. 271km seems sufficient to call it a different region.
>It's 343km from London to Paris, for reference.
Indianapolis and Columbus are in the same region, AFAIC - the bland
and boring mid-west. They could hardly be closer in time and space
without being identical. Even Milwaukee had more of a distinct
character than these cities appear to. I'll probably go to them both
this year to see what the new Gencon site is like but, after that,
will only be doing one so that I can visit convention sites which are
genuinely different, e.g. the west coast Gencon.
London and Paris are not only a bit further apart but separated by sea
and language. Even so, it's quite feasible to make a day trip by
train or plane. And I thought that there were just two regions here
now - "Old Europe" and "New Europe" <grin>
Andrew
> Perhaps a balanced solution can be find, in a way like i've exposed ?
> Oh, french qualifier is the last saturday of september : we have
> already host players from spain, portugual, UK, States, belgium,
> italian, hungary, slovakia, and six or eight others countries...Come
> on and try to get your qualification in Paris !
> Spanish people cannot pass the Pyrenees ? ;)))))
Perhaps I'll ride my way from barcelona to paris in september. I have a
newly buyed 2nd hand HD that hasn't proved to me yet if it can travel that
far.
Smiling Tom, The Anarch.
BTW: Most of us, spanish players, already have asumed that we will have less
finalists than other countries. And we doesn't bother. We are going to held
the torunament after all, and our intention is to have a "lessser
inquisitor" (judge) at every table, so, as less good players will qualify,
the more of us could wear that special (TM) judge T-shirt.
Jeff Kuta wrote:
> All these aside, I think a region should hold a separate qualifier
> weeks in advance of the championships, as well as an International
> Qualifier, strictly for those who have not yet qualified, the day
> prior. Lots of professional sporting events do this sort of thing so
> it's not such a big deal. As long as the venue for the Championship
> rotates around, everyone will eventually get the big "bonus" of having
> two "local" chances to qualify. Just make sure there's a major side
> event available that is open to anyone and you'll get plenty of turn
> out.
Perfectly correct. Maybe a compromise for the prechampionship
qualifier would be, that the qualified and the nonqualified always
play at different tables. It would still be one big event and also the
same (non-)motivation at every table. Still almost the same chance for
every player to reach the finals. What do you think?
-Markus
In message <aef72de4.03032...@posting.google.com>,
MarcusVitel <Markus...@yahoo.de> writes:
>Perfectly correct. Maybe a compromise for the prechampionship
>qualifier would be, that the qualified and the nonqualified always
>play at different tables.
That violates 3.1.2:
"The judge will randomly assign players in groups of five."
You've just weighted it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> >But, and this is just a question, don't the organizers risk to see the
> >number of players diminishing?
> >Don't we run the risk of seeing a EU Championship with only the
> >qualified players from all the countries?
> >After all, I personally know many people who just went to Vienna to
> >visit the city and try the last chance qualifier. I don't know if they
> >would have travelled without this possibility.
>
> People travel for the qualifier, and the hope of getting into the final,
> right?
right
> So what we're saying is that if people think they might be in the
> Championships, they'll travel?
it's my opinion, I'm not saying is the absolute truth
> How about you hold sufficient qualifiers before hand to have the number
> of people you want qualified? Then those people who travel *know*
> they're in the Championships.
>
Probably yes, but what I'm saying is that beyond the already qualified
players, whatever their number, the possibility of a last
qualification could attract more people.
> Since you only have one Super Qualifier on the day before, you can only
> add ten players *anyway*. Why not just have another 20-30 players
> qualify around Europe instead?
>
Sure, but possibly those 10 would come from a larger base of players
> This could be done by holding more qualifiers, allowing more people from
> any given qualifier (top 11 or 12), shrinking some of the regions (as
> some have pointed out, having more than one region in large countries
> might be appropriate, handled sensibly) and so on.
>
>
>
> If you need more people at the championships, have them qualify. If you
> want a weekend of V:TES, have that.
>
> Why the need, however, to qualify people on the day before?
Maybe my fault is considering the Championship as the weekend event,
not only the sunday tournament, so the more player we have during both
days, the better it is.
In message <c5c9a514.03032...@posting.google.com>, Cartman
<federi...@libero.it> writes:
>> How about you hold sufficient qualifiers before hand to have the number
>> of people you want qualified? Then those people who travel *know*
>> they're in the Championships.
>>>Probably yes, but what I'm saying is that beyond the already qualified
>players, whatever their number, the possibility of a last
>qualification could attract more people.
It's only going to get 10 more people into the Championship.
The Championship will only be played by the people who are qualified who
turn up.
Those people who travel in the hope of qualifying will travel if they
are already qualified.
So you're not really going to attract more people to the Championship.
>> Since you only have one Super Qualifier on the day before, you can only
>> add ten players *anyway*. Why not just have another 20-30 players
>> qualify around Europe instead?
>>>Sure, but possibly those 10 would come from a larger base of players
*blink*
The extra 10 are coming from those who are local and those who pay to
travel without already being qualified.
As opposed to having an extra lot of people qualified who've been
selected from qualifiers all over Europe.
>> Why the need, however, to qualify people on the day before?>
>Maybe my fault is considering the Championship as the weekend event,
>not only the sunday tournament,
The Championship is the Championship. Qualifiers are qualifiers. The
two are not the same thing. The latter feed into the former.
>so the more player we have during both
>days, the better it is.
Then have other things to do to attract those who are qualified, and let
more people qualify.
Since a qualifier will only attract locals (biasing towards them) and
people who would travel were they qualified anyway, having a qualifier
on the day before adds nothing that cannot be served by means that don't
involve bias and unfairness.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> >> Why the need, however, to qualify people on the day before?
> >
> >Maybe my fault is considering the Championship as the weekend event,
> >not only the sunday tournament,
>
> The Championship is the Championship. Qualifiers are qualifiers. The
> two are not the same thing. The latter feed into the former.
>
> >so the more player we have during both
> >days, the better it is.
>
> Then have other things to do to attract those who are qualified, and let
> more people qualify.
>
>
> Since a qualifier will only attract locals (biasing towards them) and
> people who would travel were they qualified anyway, having a qualifier
> on the day before adds nothing that cannot be served by means that don't
> involve bias and unfairness.
Probably you're right.
However I want to point out that I'm not complainig because I
absolutely feel the need of pre-champ qualifier.
I was just thinking to the best way to attract the most players it's
possible.
Do you think that maybe a 2 days Championship like the 2000 one
(sealed 1st day, constructed 2nd, final with the best 5 of both
competitions) would attract more people (even if this would imply to
drop the national qualifiers)?
Cartman wrote:
>
> Probably you're right.
> However I want to point out that I'm not complainig because I
> absolutely feel the need of pre-champ qualifier.
> I was just thinking to the best way to attract the most players it's
> possible.
> Do you think that maybe a 2 days Championship like the 2000 one
> (sealed 1st day, constructed 2nd, final with the best 5 of both
> competitions) would attract more people (even if this would imply to
> drop the national qualifiers)?
Why not have a 'wild card' qualifier saturday?
With 13 national qualifiers (as it happens to be this year) we can
assume that at least 120 players will qualify. Let's say that 60
of those actually preregister. You could have a last qualifier making
place for X% (for example 50) of the number of already qualified players
that haven't registered for the EC.
All players qualified at a national qualifier could be said to be
prequalified to the EC limited format held during saturday, which would
make it less likely that they would participate in the wildcard
tournament as they miss one EC tournament doing so.
I'm well aware that this "unjust" system will make more local players
participate in the end, but the last two decades to television watching
has proved to me that local troups tend to be overrepresentated at any
major, open, sportsevent anyway.
The main advantage with a system like this is that it helps raising the
opinion of the limited format.
Sten During
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<+hhK0Pfh...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>...
> In message <aef72de4.03032...@posting.google.com>,
> MarcusVitel <Markus...@yahoo.de> writes:
> >Perfectly correct. Maybe a compromise for the prechampionship
> >qualifier would be, that the qualified and the nonqualified always
> >play at different tables.
>
The moment I wrote the message above, I was absolutely sure, that
someone would turn up with the old 'this will violate rule X.Y....'; I
always thought that rules are devel-oped by human beings and that
those humans are able to change things (even the strictest VEKN
rules). Maybe I was wrong and it is not possible to invent a section
X.Y.a:, that only applies to prechampionship qualifiers to help the
event to become more attractive.
Anyway, next year we will see some changes. ... ;-)
Regards,
-Markus (formerly known as 'the outcast')
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:br7jWtlI...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <b5q0ki$22j$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>, Andreas Nusser
> <time...@NOSPAMscram.de> writes:
> >Which I proposed in the first place. Refering to the Nation who hosts
> >the EC this means that they would have a National Qualifier 3-5 months
> >before and a Championship Qualifier the day before the actual
> >championship!
>
> This has already been noted as unfair, meaning that the locals get two
> chances to qualify.
Actually what it means is that everyone who attends the EC gets two chances
to qualify. It is the same way here in North America, where by the way, the
Championship never moves locations unless Gen Con moves locations.
So you should count your blessings that the EC moves venues and that you
have the chance to one day host it in your back yard.
FYI driving from Lafayette, LA to Indianapolis, IN where the US Championship
is being held every year is like driving to Rome, Italy from London, UK.
--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
XZealot wrote:
> Actually what it means is that everyone who attends the EC gets two chances
> to qualify. It is the same way here in North America, where by the way, the
> Championship never moves locations unless Gen Con moves locations.
Indiana doesn't have its own qualifier prior to Gen*Con, IIRC.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3E8463EE...@white-wolf.com...
> XZealot wrote:
> > Actually what it means is that everyone who attends the EC gets two
chances
> > to qualify. It is the same way here in North America, where by the way,
the
> > Championship never moves locations unless Gen Con moves locations.
>
> Indiana doesn't have its own qualifier prior to Gen*Con, IIRC.
Which wasn't really my point. I was stating that the EC moves around where
as the NAC doesn't.
Since you raised the point, there are two qualifiers prior to Gen Con within
150-200 miles and within 150-200 miles of each other. So anyone living in
that area gets three qualifiers to attend.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it. ;)
[ quoted text not captured ]