2008 Continental Qualifier System Change

On Jan 30, 3:03 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos....DeleteThis@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> "Jozxyqk" <jfeue....DeleteThis@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:pe2dnYWysJbeSj3anZ2dnUVZ_vHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> > LSJ <vtes....DeleteThis@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying
> >> spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots.
>
> > I don't like this rule.
> > It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later
> > in the year, for no reason other than scheduling.
>
> Actually, I'm not sure that's true. Same population of players, same difficulty
> in finishing in the top 25%. In fact, it used to get easier to qualify as the
> year went on, if anything.
>
> The very good reason not to like the rule is that it turns already-qualified
> players into "dogs in the manger" - people who can't improve their positions
> by playing in a qualifier but can only prevent others from qualifying. In
> my book, that's reason enough. This is a bad change.
>
> Fred

I sympathize with this argument, really.

But for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate, I'll point out this easy
counter-argument:

If you can't do reasonably well in a qualifier tournament where some
of the players have already qualified (or do so even once in several
tries), why should you be expected to do well in a tournament where
ALL the players have already qualified? Including the same people you
just failed to do well against at least once before (if not several
times?)

And by extension, if you thus can't be expected to do well in a
tournament where all the players have already qualified, why should
you be given an easier road to a qualification? (or heck, why should
you qualify to participate at all?)

Not saying I agree with the above, but I do see some validity to both
schools of thought...

-John Flournoy
 >> Stay informed about: 2008 Continental Qualifier System Change 

Ben Swainbank wrote:
> On Jan 30, 1:40 pm, roby....TakeThisOut@mindspring.com wrote:
>> The 2008 qualifier system works the same as the 2007 system except for
>> one point:
>>
>> All qualifier tournaments are handled equally regardless of order.
>> Players who qualify in one qualifier are not handled any differently
>> in other qualifiers.
>
> Interesting. So, previously qualified players now both count towards
> the total player count and can "take" a spot if they finish in the top
> 25%. Correct?

Yes. (Or equivalently, the player who will subsequently qualify at a later
tournament still "takes" a spot away from the earlier tournament if xe finishes
in the top 25%).

> Is there still an option for players at at qualifier to indicate they
> are not playing for one of the qualifying spots? Would that option be
> available to a previously qualified player? Or has all of that been
> done away with. Do the top 25% qualify now regardless of whether they
> need it (or want it).

Everyone who plays counts, both for deciding how many spots there are and for
deciding who wins those spots.

> I can see how this simplifies things. And, in some ways, it makes it
> easier to qualify. But, as someone who enjoys the competative
> environment of qualifiers, and tries to take in a few every year -- I
> don't really want worry about "stealing" spots from other players...

Would you worry about stealing spots when you haven't qualified?

Then don't worry. Let them worry for themselves.
 >> Stay informed about: 2008 Continental Qualifier System Change 

"LSJ" <vtesrep.DeleteThis@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:6h4oj.1206$R84.830@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> Ben Swainbank wrote:
>> But, as someone who enjoys the competative
>> environment of qualifiers, and tries to take in a few every year -- I
>> don't really want worry about "stealing" spots from other players...
>
> Would you worry about stealing spots when you haven't qualified?

No. You wouldn't have to because you wouldn't be. You'd be taking an
existing spot for yourself - as opposed to what Ben is talking about
where you take a qualifying spot make it go *poof*, into thin air -
usable by no one.

Fred
 >> Stay informed about: 2008 Continental Qualifier System Change 

On Jan 30, 3:03 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos....DeleteThis@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> "Jozxyqk" <jfeue....DeleteThis@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:pe2dnYWysJbeSj3anZ2dnUVZ_vHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> > LSJ <vtes....DeleteThis@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying
> >> spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots.
>
> > I don't like this rule.
> > It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later
> > in the year, for no reason other than scheduling.
>
> Actually, I'm not sure that's true. Same population of players, same difficulty
> in finishing in the top 25%. In fact, it used to get easier to qualify as the
> year went on, if anything.
>
> The very good reason not to like the rule is that it turns already-qualified
> players into "dogs in the manger" - people who can't improve their positions
> by playing in a qualifier but can only prevent others from qualifying. In
> my book, that's reason enough. This is a bad change.

I suppose it's also worth noting that this encourages already-
qualified players who do participate in subsequent qualifiers to take
that tournament seriously, instead of bringing wacky, oddball, stupid,
disruptive or otherwise 'for fun' decks that don't necessarily reflect
a serious tournament environment.

I don't know that this is better or worse, though.

> Fred

-John Flournoy
 >> Stay informed about: 2008 Continental Qualifier System Change 

Jozxyqk wrote:
> LSJ <vtesrep.DeleteThis@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying
>> spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots.
>
> I don't like this rule.
> It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later
> in the year, for no reason other than scheduling.

If you mean "not easier and easier", sure.

The difficult remains the same under this system, rather than getting easier as
more and more people have previously qualified.
 >> Stay informed about: 2008 Continental Qualifier System Change 

LSJ <vtesrep RemoveThis @white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Jozxyqk wrote:
> > LSJ <vtesrep RemoveThis @white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> Everyone who plays counts, both in terms of figuring out how many qualifying
> >> spots there are and in terms of figuring out who gets those spots.
> >
> > I don't like this rule.
> > It means that the qualifiers get harder and harder to qualify at, the later
> > in the year, for no reason other than scheduling.

> If you mean "not easier and easier", sure.

> The difficult remains the same under this system, rather than getting easier as
> more and more people have previously qualified.

No. I mean "lots of skilled players have a tendency to visit multiple qualifier
events just for the fun of playing".
And the more of those people who travel to multiple qualifiers, the more chance
they have of "bullying out" legitimately-trying-to-qualify lower-skilled
players.
Intentionally or not.

I'm simply lobbying for there to be the ability to *choose* to give up your
potential qualifying spot, before the tournament begins, just like the 2007-and-
earlier rules.

Either that, or ban already-qualified players from playing in the Last Chance
Qualifier, and allow them to play in a parallel event instead.
 >> Stay informed about: 2008 Continental Qualifier System Change 

Ben Swainbank <bswainbank.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in news:9d39f926-ad88-4199-
b5a4-8451c69c5d6c.RemoveThis@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:


> I can see how this simplifies things. And, in some ways, it makes it
> easier to qualify. But, as someone who enjoys the competative
> environment of qualifiers, and tries to take in a few every year -- I
> don't really want worry about "stealing" spots from other players...
>
> -Ben Swainbank

I was thinking the same thing... If I manage to get to TempleCon this
weekend, it'll be with a fun deck, not something truly competitive, as I
already know I have no chance of making the NAC this year, and wouldn't
want to make it harder for someone else to qualify, who might be able to
go.

(Me and TempleCon this weekend? Magic 8ball says "outlook not
promising"

DaveZ
 >> Stay informed about: 2008 Continental Qualifier System Change 

LSJ schrieb:
>> I can see how this simplifies things. And, in some ways, it makes it
>> easier to qualify. But, as someone who enjoys the competative
>> environment of qualifiers, and tries to take in a few every year -- I
>> don't really want worry about "stealing" spots from other players...
>
> Would you worry about stealing spots when you haven't qualified?
>
> Then don't worry. Let them worry for themselves.

Also keep in mind that you provide 1/4 qualifying slot to each event
where you go. So now it all depends if you kick ass or not

--
Johannes Walch
 >> Stay informed about: 2008 Continental Qualifier System Change 

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

That has no bearing on any progressive difficulty like you posit.

How would having lots of skilled players at each qualifier make the qualifiers
harder and harder as the year goes by?

> And the more of those people who travel to multiple qualifiers, the more chance
> they have of "bullying out" legitimately-trying-to-qualify lower-skilled
> players.
> Intentionally or not.

OK.

> I'm simply lobbying for there to be the ability to *choose* to give up your
> potential qualifying spot, before the tournament begins, just like the 2007-and-
> earlier rules.

Attending a qualifier is not mandatory.

> Either that, or ban already-qualified players from playing in the Last Chance
> Qualifier, and allow them to play in a parallel event instead.

They are allowed at the open parallel events in any case.
And qualifiers are open.
 >> Stay informed about: 2008 Continental Qualifier System Change 

If you want to play you have to qualify and that now means finishing
in the top 25% of a qualifier tournament (or making a final). Seems
very reasonable to me.
 >> Stay informed about: 2008 Continental Qualifier System Change 

"John Flournoy" <carneggy.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c63cf35c-65b2-4000-ba5c-1cf1c5a9bee7@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 3:03 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos....TakeThisOut@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> The very good reason not to like the rule is that it turns already-qualified
>> players into "dogs in the manger" - people who can't improve their positions
>> by playing in a qualifier but can only prevent others from qualifying. In
>> my book, that's reason enough. This is a bad change.
>
> I suppose it's also worth noting that this encourages already-
> qualified players who do participate in subsequent qualifiers to take
> that tournament seriously,
....

The above isn't clear whether you thought the original rule did that
or the new rule did. Either way, I'm confused how. Once a player's
qualified, he has less incentive to worry about doing as well as he
can no matter how you slice it. Of course, he still has a tournament to
win and that strikes me as pretty good incentive none the less.

Fred
 >> Stay informed about: 2008 Continental Qualifier System Change 

I'm actualy pretty pissed by these changes.
I've been a huge number of qualifiers in my past years of "VTES
touring" in France, and in each of these qualifiers, there was at
least one or two guys, in the final, already qualified previously in a
former qualifier. It gave hope to the average young player who did his
best to get qualified with his average deck that he played well, but
had a poor result due to bad seating. I know, losing is part of the
game, but losing a qualifier slot, because some hardcore player, who
reaches the final in each tourney he's playing, and who has already
played already in 5 qualifiers...

I know it's makes life far easier for the organisers (who just had to
keep a list of players updated and bring it to the tourney) but I
think it's extremly unfair to the noobs who are putting a lot of
effort and money to progress in VTES.
 >> Stay informed about: 2008 Continental Qualifier System Change 

On Jan 30, 11:32 am, LSJ <vtes....RemoveThis@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Would you worry about stealing spots when you haven't qualified?

If I don't intend to go, then yes.

> Then don't worry. Let them worry for themselves.

One of the great things about VTES is the community. While we may
play methuselah's in the game, the actual players are great people who
care about their friends and fellow players.

LSJ (or whoever is responsible for this change), I believe you have
implemented something that will reduce the total number of
qualifiers. IMO, that is exactly the opposite direction this game
should be heading.

Alternately, keep your elegant rule, but change 25% to 50%. Heck,
let's go crazy - change 25% to 100%. What might happen? Hopefully
more than 36 people would show up for the NAC.

I place high value on having a big NAC tournament, and I believe the
barriers to entry are primarily travel and lodging costs. It's a
shame to make qualifying a significant barrier. That said, there is
something sweet about qualifying, but I think the previous situation
of it becoming easier and easier (especially so at the LCQ when you've
already traveled there) was a Good Thing.

I don't really think 100% qualifying is a good idea because it will
devalue the pleasure of qualifying, but I think 50% would be an
improvement over the current rule.

Ira
 >> Stay informed about: 2008 Continental Qualifier System Change