Suggestion for change to qualifier rules/status

Given that VTES is stagnant and/or in decline, Given that the "If you win a tournament, then you qualify" rules has been well-received, Given that the bookkeeping required is incredibly minimal and already being done, essentially, I would like to suggest that, for 2012, we change the qualifier rule from: "If you win a tournament, then you qualify (for that calendar year)" to "If you win a tournament or are a finalist in two tournaments, then you qualify (for that calendar year)" I believe that this would continue to have the effect of forcing some level of competence in order to attend a continental championship, as well as (theoretically) increasing tournament attendance. {Note that I do not wish to remove or change the existence or status of qualifier tournaments, as I believe keeping a "premier event" track to be a boon to VTES.} Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

I don't think its a bad idea. I do like that winning any 10+ tournament gets you qualification for the following year and so I've been planning to run at least 4 of my own events which would potentially allow others to qualify. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

"Two times" means you need to check twice. I would be happier with "If you have a GW, you qualify". It's simple, clean, fair. The issue I currently have with it is: does it change round3 ?

Are there a lot of players who are failing to qualify? Is there a problem here that needs solving? If so, making all finalists qualify would probably do the trick. Does that make the bar too low? Maybe some sort of statement of intent is in order. How exclusive should this club be?

> vtesocrates wrote: > Are there a lot of players who are failing to qualify? Is there a problem here that needs solving? > Well said! Those are Words of Wisdom TM. Finnish Politics!

> vtesocrates wrote: > Are there a lot of players who are failing to qualify? Is there a problem here that needs solving? > The "problem" I see and the benefits which I believe would result were outlined in my OP. > Pascal wrote: > "Two times" means you need to check twice. I would be happier with "If you have a GW, you qualify". It's simple, clean, fair. The issue I currently have with it is: does it change round3? > > vtesocrates wrote: > ...making all finalists qualify would probably do the trick. Does that make the bar too low? Maybe some sort of statement of intent is in order. How exclusive should this club be? > "All finalists qualify" is too low a requirement, because of the quantity of small tournament that are now being run, which would essentially make the USA's qualifier system "top 50%". "Get a GW and you qualify" is too low a requirement, because people could play a S+B deck just to guarantee they get 1GW, and then they could play improperly afterwards, since the rest of the tournament "doesn't matter". I don't see this behavior at qualifier tournaments, so while it *may not happen* I don't see a reason to take any chances. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > > > vtesocrates wrote: > > Are there a lot of players who are failing to qualify? Is there a problem here that needs solving? > > > The "problem" I see and the benefits which I believe would result were outlined in my OP. > You seem to define the problem is that vtes is stagnant and/or in decline, sure. Does changing how easy/hard it is to qualify address that problem? Are players losing interest or failing to generate interest in vtes because it's too hard to qualify? I'm genuinely asking.

> KevinM wrote: > "Get a GW and you qualify" is too low a requirement, because people could play a S+B deck just to guarantee they get 1GW, and then they could play improperly afterwards, since the rest of the tournament "doesn't matter". I don't see this behavior at qualifier tournaments, so while it *may not happen* I don't see a reason to take any chances. > Why is it a bad thing that players would try to get a GW ? Of course, if you assumte only S/B can get GWs, your argument is valid. But I'm pretty sure there are other ways. Also, define "improperly", "doesn't matter", and "rest of the tournament" as these notions are quite vague. Would "improperly" include "not respecting PTW" ? Would "doesn't matter" include "not respecting PTW"? Would "rest of the tournament" include the finals?

It isn't a bad thing that players would try to get a GW. I don't know where you got that from. You're extrapolating from what I said to something that I didn't say or mean. I was using S+B as an example, not as a summation. My response to "Get a GW and qualify" is clear: Players could play a deck with which it is fairly easy to obtain a GW and then play improperly afterwards. Definitions: Yes. Yes. Yes. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

players might win one tournament and then play improperly for the rest of the year I sometimes do that.

You mean one has to win a tournament before playing improperly? Doh!

> KevinM wrote: > "Get a GW and you qualify" is too low a requirement, because people could play a S+B deck just to guarantee they get 1GW, and then they could play improperly afterwards, since the rest of the tournament "doesn't matter". I don't see this behavior at qualifier tournaments, so while it *may not happen* I don't see a reason to take any chances. > *rolls grenade* So, back in 2005, the only time I made it to GenCon, there were 50+ people in the NAC(?) and 14 people in the Shadow Twin. I didn't feel bad about not qualifying, since I hadn't planned on being there, and I ended up winning the Shadow Twin, but if these numbers are representative of most of the major tournaments, I wonder what the point is of having qualifiers at all. Non-Camarilla

> etherial wrote: > So, back in 2005, the only time I made it to GenCon, there were 50+ people in the NAC(?) and 14 people in the Shadow Twin. I didn't feel bad about not qualifying, since I hadn't planned on being there, and I ended up winning the Shadow Twin, but if these numbers are representative of most of the major tournaments, I wonder what the point is of having qualifiers at all. > Last year, there were 47 in the NAC (day 1) and 17 in the Shadow Twin. That's close to the most players ever, iirc. The reason the qualifier system was created is three-fold: 1. It forces some level of competence in order to attend a "championship" event. 2. It keeps a "premier event" track visible for the game. 3. That's how that other CCG did it, and VTES copied a lot of what they did. It wouldn't bother me personally if qualifiers were removed altogether and VTES focused on running more "normal" tournaments, but I doubt that the majority of players would agree with me. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > My response to "Get a GW and qualify" is clear: Players could play a deck with which it is fairly easy to obtain a GW and then play improperly afterwards. > You do realize that, in a 10-player tournament, getting the GW in round1 is pretty much the same as making your way to the finals - especially if you learn that the other table has timed out with no GW. That kind of situation probably happens a lot. Now, where's the difference between "You know you're going to make it to the finals, and that -and only that- will be the game where you might get your qualification" and "you know you are qualified", when it comes to one's behaviour in rounds 2 / 3 ? Perhaps, in the first option, you might want to eliminate potential final-threats.

I am curious to know whether it has ever occurred that someone earned 2 GWs in a large-ish 3 round event and has not qualified for a continental championship as a result. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > I am curious to know whether it has ever occurred that someone earned 2 GWs in a large-ish 3 round event and has not qualified for a continental championship as a result. > I'm quite sure this never happened. Let's consider "20" players a large event. 20 players is a maximum of 12 GWs. In order to have a player with 2 GWs not qualified, we need that player to be after the 25% place. That is, 6th or worse. To have a player with 2 GWs 6th with 12 GWs means the 10 GWs go to the finalists. I haven't checked the Archon (which would be required if you wanted an absolute answer), but I'm pretty sure the fact that - all the GWs were taken - noone had exactly 1GW is something that never happened in a "large" tournament. With 40 players (24 GWs), you want that player to be 11th or worse, wich means you need 20 GWs for the 10 first players, and you get 2 GWs loose (you could have 2 players with 2 GWs not qualified !) However, if you take into consideration that ~20% - tends to be closer to30% these days - of the games don't get a GW, only 20 GWs are awarded, and your guy is qualified). 80 players - 60 GWs. (-20% => 48) rank: 21st. Total GWs needed "above": 40. Total GWs loose: 16. ( => 6) It gets more and more possible. Anyways: this never happens. The 1GW limit is *around* 35%, in my experience (but of course, ymmv).

> etherial wrote: > *rolls grenade* > > So, back in 2005, the only time I made it to GenCon, there were 50+ people in the NAC(?) and 14 people in the Shadow Twin. I didn't feel bad about not qualifying, since I hadn't planned on being there, and I ended up winning the Shadow Twin, but if these numbers are representative of most of the major tournaments, I wonder what the point is of having qualifiers at all. > You have a selection bias here: you have only counted the people who attended the event. There might be some players who would have liked to play the NAC, but failed to qualify beforehand and didn't want to travel without being sure.

I don't feel any changes that would make it easier to qualify to EC are needed. This is Championship Event after all and it should keep high level of competence it currently has. Winning tournament/ finishing in good place on ECQ/NC/ LCQ is, IMO very good requirement to take part in Championships. Otherwise it will become just an ordinary tournament

Time for me to chime in. Please hold your applause. Given this is a few posts in now lets summarize. VTES is stagnate and in slow decline. I would say this is accurate. If you don't believe that statement then simply look at the average attendance for a normal tournament versus a year ago. Perhaps VTES will roughly maintain the numbers of followers it currently has for a while, but I really don't see the number of newcomers matching those that drop. With that out of the way we can confirm the necessity to keep attendance numbers up, if not growing. Kevin's post on the matter is a kickstarter to what many people have been talking and/or thinking about. And given the majority of the responses so far to this thread and/or local conversation I do believe our community would be up for the idea of qualifying more people for championship events so long as it doesn't effect the average skill in the player pool at said events. First of all an adverse effect to qualifying more people might fetch higher attendance levels at normal tournaments, let along championship events. Secondly, when VTES had official support the number one thing that veteran players wish they had was a larger player pool. That was when the game was officially support and alive. Now the game is no longer being published and I would think that sentiment would be an even larger magnitude. Granted, no one wants scrubs to ruin their games, the idea is that we can add needed fuel and attendance numbers to the game if we act sooner rather than later and hopefully at least combat the decline in numbers if not keep it even keel for at least a short time. There have been many suggested methods as to how we do this and Kevin suggested making two final tables. Pascal and others simply suggest a game win. While we have a small few suggesting just qualify the final table or don't change anything. Let me first start by saying the previous change to qualifying for championships was a good change and proved to help. Next let me address some of the above ideas. 1.) Changing nothing would be a bad idea. The game has been in decline and stagnant. There is no reason to believe this slow trend will not continue. Thus some change to the system needs done and no small print and play set is really going to effect that. 2.) Making the entire final table qualified is also a bad idea. Many tournaments are 10-12 players. And many of those tournaments have people who did not get a game win or may have simply taken someone else's spot who could not stay for the final. If you want to keep the championship tournaments at a higher caliber this route should be avoided. If the average tournament were 20 players perhaps this would not be a bad idea. But, given the fact of many tournaments being 10-12 players prove this idea simply doesn't hold water to keep championships to the more elite and skilled players. 3.) If we simply let those who have a GW qualify then I do believe people who need to qualify may indeed play a Stealth Bleed deck to simply qualify and then play other decks they may normally play. Fact is there are plenty of decks that excel at getting VP's, but don't win tournaments as often. With all that being said this is a better idea than the the first two. Given the modern size of a normal tournament this would probably qualify 3 people at a normal 10-12 player tournament which eliminates those who limped in without any GW. The best idea so far I believe. 4.) If someone makes final table twice they qualify. As stated this would be harder to track as you have to look back an entire year and unless we have an easy to search database where we can set a date range and look strictly at those who made final tables then this is probably a bad idea. Plus it isn't like you can just set that task to the local Princes to keep track of. There may be people who attend tournaments out of area. Lastly, someone could make the final table twice and still have no GW. In Ohio, it is typical to see familiar faces at the final table and familiar people will have the GW's. I don't believe someone who had 2.5VP's at their best during the year is justified to attend a championship event. In conclusion my current belief is that those who get a GW in a tournament qualify for championship events is the best current idea there is. I wish we had three times as many tournaments going on and a player base 5 times the size we currently have, but that isn't the case. If it were this conversation would not be going on. Kevin, I do like your idea, but I also feel that if my local area had 10 tournaments a year we would have far more people qualified for championship events than if we just qualified those with a GW. And as far as the qualifiers go I believe they are worth having if the average qualifier nets 20 or more players. If not then I don't think they are worth having. However, at this point they are serving as a vehicle (at least in the US) to qualify people who aren't necessarily in the top 25%, but at the final table. If we don't change the qualifications for championships to a GW on a normal tournament level then maybe we need to have access to more than one regional in a year. For instance, each Prince could simply be allowed to run one qualifier a year where the top 25% get qualified. That might also solve issues of where to run a regional when we are already having trouble with attendance.

the best way to make sure more good players get in is to do what kevin originally suggested, but i have no idea how to track that. as it stands now, unless someone types a report of how a final table played out, we have no idea who was at the final table other than whoever wins. Rodd is from the same area i am, so our cheif problem with having a huge playgroup, many competent players, and not all of those qualifying is this: anyone can beat anyone at this game, but players who win tournaments almost monthly are obviously slightly better at it than most. we have scrubs that play stealthbleed and make final table with at least one gw, and have scrubs who never get a vp. we also have vets who are solid and competent players that constantly get multiple vps and gws, make it to finals, and lose to other vets (the running joke is john bell has to let someone else win eventually...). we've had scrubs qualify maybe once, but we've had vets not qualify tons of times. i've met people from other playgroups nationally who are solid players who just haven't won a tournament in a given year. the real problem for many players qualifying is that they have to survive the final table, which is the end all be all, as opposed to the previous rounds and their results mattering for much other than making finals. if all organizers started keeping track of the finalists (and i have no idea if any other continent has similar feelings, just going off a basis of US/North american players) then a consensus could be drawn of who is good enough to make finals consistently but hasn't for whatever reasons won any tournaments.

I am all in favor of expanding access to the first round of championship events by relaxing the qualifying rules. But, there is still a need to balance increased access against maintaining a decent standard of quality. Perhaps a hybrid approach is best. Suppose... At a regular V:EKN sanctioned tournament, you qualify for the continental championships if: 1) You make the final table AND EITHER 2a) You win the final table OR 2b) You earned 1+ GW in the preliminary rounds. * There is increased access to qualify. * Those who consistently do well enough to make finals get some reward. * Those who luck into the finals with 0 GWs in small events have to win it all to qualify. I don't think it is possible to completely eliminate the small incentive for shenanigans if someone earns a GW in Round 1 of a small event and then tries to collude to get someone else a GW in Round 2 (or to eliminate a rival). However, judges are there to ensure Play To Win so hopefully any change to the qualifying rules will be communicated to them with this situation as a point of emphasis. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Edit: After my post the guy above me essentially states my sentiments and I full heartedly agree. Original Post: It can vary by region, but another issue is that there are many places which maybe hold a handful of tournaments a year. And many of those places, as is the norm now, have 10-12 players in the tournaments. Thus having to qualify twice isn't horrible in thought, but bad in execution because again, you will have plenty of people without GW's now qualified to play in the championships. To me it doesn't seem like they earned their due. At least a GW gives them more credit. It isn't like we can do some hybrid idea where normal tournaments with 20 or better players will qualify the final table and those under that mandate a GW. Even so, we don't have enough tournaments with 20 or better players and if we did you would probably need a GW to get into the final. I still think the GW idea is better so more people aren't playing bad decks or scrub moves in a championship environment. Yet, a GW during a normal tournament means you are competent enough to get to the final table and have some credentials. I don't want people who limp in with 2 VP's during two different tournaments potentially creating an issue at a championship.

Another possibility is to award an invitation to anyone who earns a game win in each preliminary round of any event. This is a significantly higher standard to achieve, however... It encourages PTW for every round. It also helps mitigate the not-so-subtle impact of the incentive for everyone else to gang up against the #1 seed at a final table (since victory would be theirs if the table timed out). When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Yet again I agree.

> RoddimusPrime wrote: > Kevin, I do like your idea, but I also feel that if my local area had 10 tournaments a year we would have far more people qualified for championship events than if we just qualified those with a GW. > Rodd, you say some good things, but here's the problem with "1GW = qualified": ***MASSIVE*** paperwork VTES already has no ratings system and there are no signs that there will be a ratings system anytime soon. Do you really think that someone, somewhere is going to collect every Archon from every tournament everywhere in the entire world and pull out the necessary data? What if Peter Bakija does as he has done previously and runs a tournament on index cards? Aside from the fact that it is consistent with the current qualifier logic, the reason I suggested "finals twice = qualify" is that there are no new requirements from organizers needed to facilitate such a system. They just keep doing what they are doing and Brum (or whomever -- I'd do it) just copies+pastes 5 names instead of 1. (Yes, some organizers don't give us all the finalists, but many (most?) do, and it's trivial for them to give us that information.) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > VTES already has no ratings system and there are no signs that there will be a ratings system anytime soon. > Johannes mentioned, on Cause and Effect, that volunteers are working hard to get the ratings system up and running. He expects it to be ready by the time the EC comes around. If I recall correctly, that is.

> KevinM wrote: > > > RoddimusPrime wrote: > > Kevin, I do like your idea, but I also feel that if my local area had 10 tournaments a year we would have far more people qualified for championship events than if we just qualified those with a GW. > > > Rodd, you say some good things, but here's the problem with "1GW = qualified": ***MASSIVE*** paperwork > > VTES already has no ratings system and there are no signs that there will be a ratings system anytime soon. Do you really think that someone, somewhere is going to collect every Archon from every tournament everywhere in the entire world and pull out the necessary data? What if Peter Bakija does as he has done previously and runs a tournament on index cards? > > Aside from the fact that it is consistent with the current qualifier logic, the reason I suggested "finals twice = qualify" is that there are no new requirements from organizers needed to facilitate such a system. They just keep doing what they are doing and Brum (or whomever -- I'd do it) just copies+pastes 5 names instead of 1. > > (Yes, some organizers don't give us all the finalists, but many (most?) do, and it's trivial for them to give us that information.) > I fail to see how making sure someone was in two tournament finals is any easier of a data tracking job versus those who have 1 GW in modern VTES where 99% of normal tournaments a GW gets you into the final table. How many tournaments have we had since last Origins beyond Championships and Regionals that a GW didn't get you into the final table anyway? Thus the majority of the time someone is copying and pasting those who had a GW either at the final table or previous to the final table (As they are most likely in the final table anyway). Also, how hard would it be to program into excel that anyone with a GW is added to a separate page/column named "Qualified Players." Just curious as I am sure we have Excel gurus on here and if not I probably know someone who could do just that if push comes to shove. The GW system seems easier to track than confirming two final tables. Yes, you copy and paste with either system, but the Archon can be modified to do what I speak of, where as someone has to manually check if someone else is in the current pool of players who made a final table previously. Plus, with the GW system we don't need a centralized data sheet or center to keep track of everything. Not if we do as I suggest with the Archon. And any confirmed/posted Tournament Wins can simply report those with a GW as well so we have a transparent system which I also view as critical. Again, the other bit I have a problem with is letting people who haven't even earned a GW receive qualification for a championship tournament. And in the environment that we currently have there will be many who qualify who don't have a GW. To me that dilutes the pool of higher quality players and I don't want to see those without the ability to pull off a GW at a championship level event. I don't believe we are at that point where we need to expand qualification to those referenced players. At least not yet.

> RoddimusPrime wrote: > 1.) Changing nothing would be a bad idea. The game has been in decline and stagnant. There is no reason to believe this slow trend will not continue. > I don't think there is evidence of stagnation or decline. Would you happen to have any evidence to support this? Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > I don't think there is evidence of stagnation or decline. > > Would you happen to have any evidence to support this? > The first line of the OP. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Lönkka wrote: > > > RoddimusPrime wrote: > > 1.) Changing nothing would be a bad idea. The game has been in decline and stagnant. There is no reason to believe this slow trend will not continue. > > > I don't think there is evidence of stagnation or decline. > > Would you happen to have any evidence to support this? > The evidence you seek is before you in the TWDA from thelasombra.com Check it if you like, but fact is fact. And perhaps there are many players who don't play in tournaments who obviously won't be reflected in that list, but I don't believe there has been some rapid switch to casual play. Secondly, this debate is only in regards to tournament play. Although the player base as a whole has declined over the past 2 years. If you want evidence take some collective data like availability of cards on ebay, active auctions on ebay, or more importantly how people have been selling off collections left and right either in our own trade post or other areas including ebay. And beyond references to cards and their online second markets, there have been a decline in playgroups and their numbers. I can vouch for Ohio to say the least as it has definitely weakened within the last two years. Further, I can vouch for other people in the States as well as friends in Europe who have confirmed player base drops (and yes they are VTES players). Not to mention the game is dead and no cards being produced not only makes some people play less, and some drop out completely, but it makes it hard to gain fresh recruits. Back to the largest statistic I can point you do is the TWDA. Take a look at the number of tournaments in the last 2 years and compare so far this year to last year. A quick look will tell you a decent percentage from Jan. 2011 through April and comparing the same time period to 2012, has indeed dropped. Maybe nothing over the top, but quite enough for a steady decline. Next, look at average tournament attendance. Case in point. As far as the game being stagnant it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know after a long enough break without new cards will stagnate things to a degree. And I don't see things being innovative and fresh with the current cards as most angles have been explored. Sure, minor changes can be made to decks to get a bit of a different effect or maybe some people have yet to truly take advantage of some of the stuff that came out of HttB, but all in all I don't see things changing that much. So in conclusion the game is stagnant to a degree (although in my mind there are enough cards even now to keep the variety quite complex even without new cards), and statistically on a tournament level the game is in a decline.

> Jeff wrote: > > > Lönkka wrote: > > I don't think there is evidence of stagnation or decline. > > > > Would you happen to have any evidence to support this? > > > The first line of the OP. > No kidding right? There is no denying the decline both on the tournament scene and in the player base. Some areas have held up better while others have withered away.

I haven't witnessed decline in either. Perhaps Fennoscandia/EC scene is totally different. Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > I haven't witnessed decline in either. > Perhaps Fennoscandia/EC scene is totally different. > EC and decent chunks of Europe are doing a lot better than the normal tournaments and regional tournaments State side. Collectively and overall though things have dropped, just much more drastically in the US.

> RoddimusPrime wrote: > I fail to see how making sure someone was in two tournament finals is any easier of a data tracking job versus those who have 1 GW in modern VTES where 99% of normal tournaments a GW gets you into the final table. > This is incorrect, unless you are defining "normal tournament" as a 10 player. > RoddimusPrime wrote: > Also, how hard would it be to program into Excel {...} > See, now you're talking about doing programming. That's far more complex than just copy+pasting the finalist's names. > RoddimusPrime wrote: > The GW system seems easier to track than confirming two final tables. > Not under the current system that is being used by the VEKN, it's not. > RoddimusPrime wrote: > Again, the other bit I have a problem with is letting people who haven't even earned a GW receive qualification for a championship tournament. And in the environment that we currently have there will be many who qualify who don't have a GW. To me that dilutes the pool of higher quality players and I don't want to see those without the ability to pull off a GW at a championship level event. I don't believe we are at that point where we need to expand qualification to those referenced players. At least not yet. > This has nothing to do with my suggestion so perhaps you want to make this into a new topic? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > > > RoddimusPrime wrote: > > I fail to see how making sure someone was in two tournament finals is any easier of a data tracking job versus those who have 1 GW in modern VTES where 99% of normal tournaments a GW gets you into the final table. > > > This is incorrect, unless you are defining "normal tournament" as a 10 player. > I would define a normal tournament as fetching 10-15 players. > RoddimusPrime wrote: > Also, how hard would it be to program into Excel {...} > > KevinM wrote: > See, now you're talking about doing programming. That's far more complex than just copy+pasting the finalist's names. > Then maybe I don't know how they have it setup, but if you add a little programming into excel to generate a list of names on a table who have a GW then it is copy and past at that point. Plus, the tournament organizer should be able to easily accomodate that. It should be just as easy to list the finalists mind you, but the part that I would imagine being harry is seeing how many times someone made the final. Further, the programming portion it would take in Excel is not that hard. If someone says it will take days or weeks to do then they aren't that talented or don't have the time. I'm in the industry so I should know. > RoddimusPrime wrote: > The GW system seems easier to track than confirming two final tables. > > KevinM wrote: > Not under the current system that is being used by the VEKN, it's not. > > RoddimusPrime wrote: > Again, the other bit I have a problem with is letting people who haven't even earned a GW receive qualification for a championship tournament. And in the environment that we currently have there will be many who qualify who don't have a GW. To me that dilutes the pool of higher quality players and I don't want to see those without the ability to pull off a GW at a championship level event. I don't believe we are at that point where we need to expand qualification to those referenced players. At least not yet. > > KevinM wrote: > This has nothing to do with my suggestion so perhaps you want to make this into a new topic? > It has everything to do with your post. You suggest having people eligible who make finals in two tournaments. As stated by me and others plenty of people make finals in the average sized tournament who don't get a GW to make finals. If you cannot achieve a GW in the final table or a previous round you shouldn't deserve to be qualified for CHAMPIONSHIP events. Again, it is your suggestion in THIS thread to make such qualifications. So THIS thread is appropriate in dealing with such matters. I full heartedly disagree with the idea of making finals twice should qualify you. If the normal average sized tournament were larger then yes, I would be inclined to agree. If the data suggested 9/10 times those who make finals get a GW to get there then I would agree. So if someone does the legwork to suggest this is the case then I might be willing to go with your idea as it would then be a welcomed change.

> I would define a normal tournament as fetching 10-15 players. > See and here is a problem. I consider a 10-14 player tournament a failure and if I travelled any significant amount of time to get there, a bit of a waste of my time.

> Izaak wrote: > > > I would define a normal tournament as fetching 10-15 players. > > > See and here is a problem. I consider a 10-14 player tournament a failure and if I travelled any significant amount of time to get there, a bit of a waste of my time. > That's a luxury the average American play group cannot afford.

> Izaak wrote: > > > I would define a normal tournament as fetching 10-15 players. > > > See and here is a problem. I consider a 10-14 player tournament a failure and if I travelled any significant amount of time to get there, a bit of a waste of my time. > The normal non qualifier or championship events have fetched around these numbers quite consistently even in in Europe. A quick look at the TWDA will give you the following attendance numbers (not including championships, regionals/qualifiers): 12, 10, 10, 16, 10. And most of those are from Europe. Doesn't seem quite high does it? So with just a quick look you can gauge for yourself. Our local regional fetched 14 players! A bit to be desired out of a qualifier.

I'm not saying that "we" get larger tournaments although generally we get around 18-23 players for the vast majority of tournaments around here. I'm just saying that, IMO, anything below 15 stinks for a tournament.

> Izaak wrote: > I'm not saying that "we" get larger tournaments although generally we get around 18-23 players for the vast majority of tournaments around here. I'm just saying that, IMO, anything below 15 stinks for a tournament. > I fully agree. The 14 we had for the regional/qualifier included two people who only played one round during preliminaries and one out of state person. Very sad indeed.

i think lucking into a game win with stealthbleed and players not playing intelligently (i've seen people not treat g23 kindered spirits as a threat just because they didn't want to upset the person playing it) is in fact more common than making finals twice by getting enough vp's but not quite a game win twice. tournament size... thats a sore point for me. in 2008-2009 we had better turn out than this year by leaps and bounds. we had roughly 28 for one mini q in 09, 19 for another, on average for many tournaments we were pulling 20 ish. we were averaging about 15, i believe, but our turnout locally (these numbers are ONLY talking about Newark, OH, not even the whole region of the us, mind you, travel was more frequent at those times as well) has seriously diminished as of late. i believe qualifying without having to beat 3-4 hall of famers at the final table, and just making it to a position to try your luck against them twice would at least encourage more players into tournaments and vtes in general.

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > i think lucking into a game win with stealthbleed and players not playing intelligently (i've seen people not treat g23 kindered spirits as a threat just because they didn't want to upset the person playing it) is in fact more common than making finals twice by getting enough vp's but not quite a game win twice. > > tournament size... thats a sore point for me. in 2008-2009 we had better turn out than this year by leaps and bounds. we had roughly 28 for one mini q in 09, 19 for another, on average for many tournaments we were pulling 20 ish. we were averaging about 15, i believe, but our turnout locally (these numbers are ONLY talking about Newark, OH, not even the whole region of the us, mind you, travel was more frequent at those times as well) has seriously diminished as of late. > > i believe qualifying without having to beat 3-4 hall of famers at the final table, and just making it to a position to try your luck against them twice would at least encourage more players into tournaments and vtes in general. > I am simply saying I believe a GW would add more credibility to someone's resume for a championship event at this point and time. Besides, we have to consider the variety of regions out there and how often or not often they host a tournament. And that you would have a hard time convincing the mainstay of people who currently qualify for a championship to agree to a two time appearance at a final table with the tournament sizes we are currently fetching. If it were the numbers we had as you pointed out in 2008-2009 then it would provide a nice amount of validity.

game wins can happen on the dumb luck of getting an easy first table. the sort of people who aren't the players we want at premier events like continental championships can still be the reason for someone else getting a game win, but to make finals at a tournament, you normally need a stack of vps, normally 1-2w/gw plus 1-2 without. if you get 3 vps and the table time out because your predator is a roach, you've still accomplished something more than if you get one vp and then time the table out. my first tournament i made finals with a gw because my first table were from an isolated playgroup and weren't very strong tournament players. we have numerous players who don't have gw's nescisarily but make finals in nearly every tournament. if they were unlucky enough to get gw's but have ousted enough preys and grand preys to keep going to finals, they are still good players. either criteria would help increase qualifiers, but i think a gw+2 final tables would be fair but too hard to track currently.

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > game wins can happen on the dumb luck of getting an easy first table. the sort of people who aren't the players we want at premier events like continental championships can still be the reason for someone else getting a game win, but to make finals at a tournament, you normally need a stack of vps, normally 1-2w/gw plus 1-2 without. if you get 3 vps and the table time out because your predator is a roach, you've still accomplished something more than if you get one vp and then time the table out. my first tournament i made finals with a gw because my first table were from an isolated playgroup and weren't very strong tournament players. > we have numerous players who don't have gw's nescisarily but make finals in nearly every tournament. if they were unlucky enough to get gw's but have ousted enough preys and grand preys to keep going to finals, they are still good players. > > either criteria would help increase qualifiers, but i think a gw+2 final tables would be fair but too hard to track currently. > Perhaps a GW + 2 final tables would be a good hybrid method, but as you say most of these ideas come down to tracking them and having a transparent system for all of the VEKN to see. I would say in either case you will have people playing stealth bleed and the like to procure a GW or VP's to a final table. But, that kind of happens anyway. And yes I have seen good players make the final table as well, but due to a timeout or split table they don't have a GW. So I do see the merit to either system. What would comfort me to know is that we don't have people limping in by luck or the skin of their teeth. If they choose to play bad decks during a championship could that throw a table off balance? Know what I mean? It could happen either way I suppose. The dreaded truth is we wouldn't even be talking about this if we had more people attending tournaments and more qualifiers that would, get this, qualify people. And neither system is going to be full proof. Some comparison stats would be nice to see how each system would effect a series of tournaments in a local area. Also, we have to consider anyone willing to travel to the championship events is probably taking the game a bit more seriously than some anyway. So that will cut down on some people for sure. Not even all of the current qualified players attend. Obviously many people feel something may need to done, but the situation is currently not so dire in attendance for said championship events. What would be interesting is if we could allow people who are qualified and choose not to attend a championship to be able to send another player as the representative in their stead. I think so long as people made the choices with good intention it could be viable despite the obvious bribery potential. Although, given the game is dead and not based on prize support I don't see that as a common issue.

Or ya know, do away with the qualification system altogether. It's an illusion to think bad players are not qualifying at the moment. People run stupid 2R+F casual tournaments all the time, where someone wit 0GW 2 VP wins because they made the finals time at 1,5 VP. Totally bad decks make it into the TWDA on a regular basis, and certainly not in all cases because the player was good.

> Izaak wrote: > Or ya know, do away with the qualification system altogether. > > It's an illusion to think bad players are not qualifying at the moment. People run stupid 2R+F casual tournaments all the time, where someone wit 0GW 2 VP wins because they made the finals time at 1,5 VP. Totally bad decks make it into the TWDA on a regular basis, and certainly not in all cases because the player was good. > What you say is indeed true, but is it the exception or the rule? It's not like we want to encourage more of the same bad behavior. Plus, a lot of people may feel they want some kind of recognition or simply want something to strive for.

> RoddimusPrime wrote: > > > RoddimusPrime wrote: > > Again, the other bit I have a problem with is letting people who haven't even earned a GW receive qualification for a championship tournament. And in the environment that we currently have there will be many who qualify who don't have a GW. To me that dilutes the pool of higher quality players and I don't want to see those without the ability to pull off a GW at a championship level event. I don't believe we are at that point where we need to expand qualification to those referenced players. At least not yet. > > > > KevinM wrote: > > This has nothing to do with my suggestion so perhaps you want to make this into a new topic? > > > It has everything to do with your post. You suggest having people eligible who make finals in two tournaments. As stated by me and others plenty of people make finals in the average sized tournament who don't get a GW to make finals. If you cannot achieve a GW in the final table or a previous round you shouldn't deserve to be qualified for CHAMPIONSHIP events. > Nope, nothing to do with my post. "Game Win" is a qualifier that you are creating in order to make a goalpost for yourself to achieve or not in your argument. The reason it has nothing to do with my post is this: If a region can only muster a single, 10-15p tournament as their approved qualifier, and the 4th or 5th player enters the final without a Game Win, then that standing within the tournament is the equivalent of a Game Win in a larger tournament, and should be treated accordingly, because getting into the finals is a more valuable -- and therefore more appropriate -- waypost within the VTES tournament structure. My waypost is the top 5, no matter the size of the tournament. Yours is 4th, or 6th, or 9th, or 12th or 15th or 17th or some other place. My waypost is already being reported in the majority of tournament and is trivial to report. Yours requires programming or detailed organization or data. My waypost is ALWAYS a significant advancement within the tournament -- "I got to the finals and had a chance to win." Yours isn't necessarily a significant advancement -- "I got a Game Win, but I didn't make the finals." My waypost is almost always a more difficult method of qualification. Getting to the finals twice is strategically and mathematically more difficult than getting a Game Win once. My waypost is always consistent with Play To Win -- "I've got to get to the finals!" Yours isn't necessarily consistent with PTW -- "I've got my Game Win, and even though I might not make the finals, I'm qualified, so I don't really care about the next round(s)." I think I've summed up my position enough that there's not much more for me to say. Thanks for the discussion. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > "If you win a tournament or are a finalist in two tournaments, then you qualify (for that calendar year)" > Here is an example of one days tournaments from this year. Final Prelim Prelim Final Rank Name GWs VPs VPs 1 Matt Wedge 1 4.5 5 2 Fred Scott 0 1 0 2 Robert Scythe 0 1.5 0 2 James Lin 1 4 0 2 Mike Zajac 1 5 0 1 Robert Scythe 0 3 3.5 2 Fred Scott 1 4 0 2 Andrew Fernandez 1 5 0 2 Matt Wedge 1 2.5 0 2 James Lin 0 2 0.5

Since players from California/Arizona rarely show up to the NAC, it doesn't make that much difference, does it? Seriously, though, does it bother you that Fred, James, Robert, and you would all qualify under my system? Three of the four of you got a GW and the one that didn't just outright won the tournament. If that's what you're pointing out, then GREAT because it anecdotally demolishes Rodd's theory. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

I have no opinion, one way or another, just giving an example.

> KevinM wrote: > Since players from California/Arizona rarely show up to the NAC, it doesn't make that much difference, does it? > > Seriously, though, does it bother you that Fred, James, Robert, and you would all qualify under my system? Three of the four of you got a GW and the one that didn't just outright won the tournament. If that's what you're pointing out, then GREAT because it anecdotally demolishes Rodd's theory. > If someone wins a tournament then of course they are already qualified. How would your idea or mine change that? I never said to abandon the old system. Rather to add to it. Secondly, if you read my more recent posts you would realize that I already admit the results would probably yield a similar pool of those who end up qualifying. If the results are similar I don't see how either way of qualifying people would provide vastly different results. Again, it is nice to have data to pull from and I don't think anyone should make a decision without further examples and of course a good majority of the player base agrees with it. If we don't have that then this is all a moot point. Lastly, as I have already stated it is sad we have to be even having this debate or discussions on how to qualify more people without diluting the skill pool. Nearly every legit sport/game should have a professional system in which to be able to rank or distinguish higher skill levels. And in the case of VTES that is even more evident as we all know a bad player can really throw off a table. So whatever is devised or agreed upon has to sustain that and it is entirely appropriate to assess that and how that would be done. > Since players from California/Arizona rarely show up to the NAC, it doesn't make that much difference, does it? > > Seriously, though, does it bother you that Fred, James, Robert, and you would all qualify under my system? Three of the four of you got a GW and the one that didn't just outright won the tournament. If that's what you're pointing out, then GREAT because it anecdotally demolishes Rodd's theory. > Had no idea you were looking to disprove or demolish anything. That's childish if so. They are small tournaments and the odds of somebody appearing at a final table twice is a decent shot when half the people will appear at the final table anyway. And as I will point out the winner always qualifies. Also, this PROVES nothing. However, it suggests that either system would have qualified the same people in this example. And if you smart at statistics you will know already that a larger field of samples is need to draw trends and provide a stable base of evidence. > The reason it has nothing to do with my post is this: If a region can only muster a single, 10-15p tournament as their approved qualifier, and the 4th or 5th player enters the final without a Game Win, then that standing within the tournament is the equivalent of a Game Win in a larger tournament, and should be treated accordingly, because getting into the finals is a more valuable -- and therefore more appropriate -- waypost within the VTES tournament structure. > > My waypost is the top 5, no matter the size of the tournament. Yours is 4th, or 6th, or 9th, or 12th or 15th or 17th or some other place. > By the way I have to address this as apparently someone isn't getting the point. My point is not to argue that one system is bad or that another is entirely better. I just don't see the point in making a large discredit in either idea until there is more proper evidence and an agreement from the player base. There could be a better idea than either of ours. Who knows? Also your examples are bad. There, I said it. Adding a potential other way to qualify should only add to the system, not take away. Thus qualifiers/regionals/etc. stay the same. So pointing to a qualifier is a bad example as the top 25% already qualify and no less than all the members at the final table will be qualified. You cannot point to a regional, qualifier, or any other non standard tournament for support to your argument. Those tournaments and their methods of qualifying people should stay the same. What is in question are standard normal tournaments. Unless you are suggesting changing the aforementioned tournament types as well. Which if you are I missed that. And sorry normal tournament sizes won't give someone in 9th or 15th a qualifying seat as those size tournaments simply don't happen outside of special events like the ones mentioned above which have a different qualification system. So if you are going to use examples, be realistic about it, okay? Going down this road is veering off topic for this thread. Thus I am done with it as it seems anyone with another idea simply isn't correct or must beat their head against a wall. I am willing and open to different ideas to take the best one people can champion and take it to the player base. And if they want it then great and if they don't then great. We can hold off for the time being if they say no and present the idea again in the future when the concern crops up with even more fervor among the player base. I say let more people chime in with their ideas. Then take a poll with 4 options (one which must be no change, and then something like the idea you mentioned, the GW system, and some other appropriate idea), and let the player base choose on here and through facebook and do a tally. And if you are suggesting the only viable method thus far is your idea due to how the system currently works then don't throw out the idea of modifying the system. For example I know people who can modify the Archon (as does Johannes I am sure). Claiming it requires some coding changes in the Archon for who ever happens to have another idea is not something that should deter a better system or something that can enhance the VTES community. That is why we feel the way we do isn't it? In order to identify and help the VTES community where it seems to need the help? Anyway, I am done with this thread and hope you get what you were looking for.

> RoddimusPrime wrote: > I just don't see the point in making a large discredit in either idea until there is more proper evidence and an agreement from the player base. There could be a better idea than either of ours. Who knows? > I'm not of the "Who knows?" camp. I'm of the "I think I have an idea which is better than the current idea and here is why, so let's try this new idea." If you aren't pushing for your alternative-to-my-idea, so much the better, let's try mine. > RoddimusPrime wrote: > Adding a potential other way to qualify should only add to the system, not take away. > That is assuming the current system works and is healthy. My contention is that it is not. > RoddimusPrime wrote: > You cannot point to a regional, qualifier, or any other non standard tournament for support to your argument. > Of course I can; it's some of the basis of my argument. > RoddimusPrime wrote: > Going down this road is veering off topic for this thread. Thus I am done with it as it seems anyone with another idea simply isn't correct or must beat their head against a wall. > I don't feel like I'm beating my head against a wall. Do you? I simply feel that my idea has merit, is trivial to implement, and will result in a better system for all involved, and am willing to explain and defend why I believe it. I'm sorry that resulted in a headache for you. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > I would like to suggest that, for 2012, we change the qualifier rule from: > > "If you win a tournament, then you qualify (for that calendar year)" > > to > > "If you win a tournament or are a finalist in two tournaments, then you qualify (for that calendar year)" > Given that Kevin has been running the NAC at Origins for a couple of years now, I don't see why we can't try changing the qualification rules for the NAC, if only to experiment with it. Using the precedent of Australia (which has had a separate qualification system, 50% qualification, for a number of years now), we could just have a special qualification rule for the NAC (which wouldn't have to affect how things are done in Europe or the other continents). If the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican players are okay with slightly different qualification standards then I don't see the problem with it. (Similarly, it's not as if the European and U.S. players got much of a say to the special Australian qualification system). In short, I'm personally not opposed to changes in qualification (it's a separate matter what the actual changes would be). And to limit the scope, we could have the changes only apply to the NAC (so it wouldn't have to affect the EC). pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

A quick clarification: I said "for 2012". I meant "for the 2012-2013 season". Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Squidalot wrote: > It seems odd to have different groups of people qualified for different Continental Qualifiers (you could for instance end up with a situation where the winner of the NAC wasn't qualified for the EC that year e.g. won NAC in June, EC in October but only made top 50% in NAC LCQ rather than 25% in NAC required under EC rules). > > It'd be better to just have alternative rules for qualification in different regions to fir the need as in Asia/Oz > That's a valid point, but that situation already exists in the case of the Australian Championships (hypothetically the winner of the Aussie Champs might not be qualified for the NAC/EC). If having alternate qualification systems is too complicated and it's more important to streamline things (even if that does not serve the interests of particular groups/regions), then the Australian system should be made consistent with the NAC/EC system. But if allowing alternate qualifications to fit the needs of particular regions is a valuable goal, then not only should the Aussie system continue to persist but different regions (such as the NAC in this case) should also be allowed to make reasonable accommodations to fit their specific needs. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

The generally accepted practice from the past is that every continent can do the qualification system it wants. So if you think removing the qualification system (or make it easier) for the US helps, go Kevin and talk to Ben who will be in attendance and find out if there is a broad consensus in the player base about this. Personally I think the 25-player cut to Day2 is as much of a qualification as you need with 50ish attendance. I think in Europe we are doing fine with the current system, actually I have seen many times the adverse effect that qualifying (and qualifying being not easy) made someone go to the championship. Also we don´t want to have Day1 getting out of hand with player numbers. Current numbers (from Poland) are really the maximum you can manage without going insane. Additionally we have seen a rise in small local tournaments "to get people qualified", which is a good thing and the national qualifier events are still premium events which draw multinational crowds, also a good thing.