| | | | | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
Shivan Darkeyes
Warrior
266 Posts
    
 | | 06/12/2006 3:39 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by greyhaze
quote:
Originally posted by guyf
- They want to have fun playing in a tournament.
- They want to increase their DCI rating.
- They want to get prizes.
- They want to practice playing in a very competitive environment.
- They want to give themselves an easier time at the championships by taking up another qualifier spot, and thus reducing the number of players to account for (ie. study) at the championships.
I disagree. I think that none of these reasons are very sportsman-like, and as a result I do not feel that they are "valid" reasons to go to another qualifier. In the end it comes off as greedy, and that's not an environment that me and many other DDMers want to play in.
I really dislike people always claiming actions that they personally don't like are "unsportsmanlike". Unsportsman-like conduct includes but is not limited to the following:
-Intentionally misleading your opponent
-Cheating
-Complaining to your opponent about how lucky they got or how poorly they played (especially after losing)
-Colluding with other players
-Whining
I think that players that complain about other players' actions in an effort to not get them to show up to intentionally reduce the competition to make it easier to qualify is unsportsman-like. Thus of all of Guy's provided reasons only the last one seems "unsporting". I think it is very unfortunate that people think other's shouldn't be allowed to play a game they love just because it makes it harder for them.
This all said I agree that Wizards should prohibit players from playing in qualifiers they already qualified for, but ONLY if Wizards gives badges to all the players that qualifer thus reducing the prize motivation.
The travel award is a tougher issue, but it is impractical for Wizards to give away 4 travel awards and I think this loss is an acceptable one in light of the benefits gained.
The benefits? More people playing in the Championships- often times deserving players miss on unlucky dice rolls and miss on tiebreaks. I think that seeing as DDM is a game about luck, Wizards should allow for slots not to be used up.
Finally, I think Wizards should fix the fricking tiebreak system. It has been in serious need of repair ever since DDM was created, I am very confused as to why we still only have 1 relevant tiebreaker in DDM. | |
13th Place at the 2005 DDM Championship in GenCon | |
|
CSchroder
Sergeant
407 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 5:54 AM |
| Paul,
I understand your frustration and I only hope you return to the game you love. You have been an asset to our local community since you arrived and have been an asset to the larger community for years. | |
Charles AKA The Beardless One, Proud Member of Team Amish | |
|
Dagni
Sergeant
870 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 7:25 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Fry
quote:
Originally posted by Ghendar
I agree. Once you've qualified, you shouldn't be allowed to play in another qualifier.
Which is how the Magic Pro Tour works. (once you're qualified, you're not allowed to play in any more qualifying tournaments)
Well, on the other hand, in a Magic Grand Prix, which actually has, what, 16 invites to the Pro Tour at stake, compared with only 1 or sometimes 2 at a Pro Tour Qualifier, already qualified Pros can and certainly do compete against everyone else.
quote:
Originally posted by robbdaman
Add the fact that there were going to be so many out of towners at our qualifier due to SoCal not having one and we lost a lot of local players that could have come. The overcompetitive factor of top players coming from out of state ruins the local scene. It's something I think sucks big time as well.
To me, this boils down to a question of what is the point of having all these (local) Qualifiers? Is it so that locals can play in a qualifier? No, I think it's so that everyone - in the US - can play in a qualifier... if they really want to. Or at least to get as effective a map coverage as possible, paying close attention to where DDM gets played the most, as well.
Likewise, it's supposed to be a Qualifier for the Championships! I have no problem if 90% of DDM players decide not to attend a qualifier, even if it's only a 10 min drive. I respect the fact that many players are what is generally referred to as 'casual' players, and aren't as diehard competitive as I am, and as CSchroder, Bshugg, Shivan, doubtofbuddha, and many others are. However, I think the point of having Qualifiers all around North America is so that as many of the players who are just like me and Jesse and even Kithmaker who KNOW they want to play in a qualifier if they but get one close enough that it's worth the drive will surely go. It seems to me that the *goal* should be to have qualifiers that are as over-competitive as possible! I don't think the goal is to get high attendance from all the locals who game in the area by having a Premier tournament there.
A qualifier isn't for a casual player. Period. Personally, I would hope that most people who are given, or who give themselves the label 'casual player' would actually harbor enough competitive drive that they WOULD enjoy at least giving it a shot in a qualifier. But if they don't want to play, for whatever reason, then they don't.
Is this a bad thing, somehow? You can't make someone want to play the game competitively. I understand that quite a few people have expressed concern or bitterness or disfavor towards the possibility that local players have been scared away from some qualifiers by the 'elite' players coming in from out of town. It's not that I think that locals getting scared away is a good thing. But... the healthier the game, the bigger the game, the MORE that qualifiers will consistantly have amazingly good competition! Magic prereleases get 600+ people, PTQs (Pro Tour Qualifiers) maybe a 10th as many. I'm pretty sure there are more prerelease locations, too. The casual players, I assume, don't bother with PTQs. This isn't a cause for concern, nor should it be, in my opinion.
- Dagni | |
Proud member of the GRUUMSH fan club! | |
|
aron1
Sergeant
415 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 8:38 AM |
| Kith:
My suggestion is that we play Epic at local tournaments for the next few months. After all, we've recently got these new epic cards that we haven't used yet, and we'll have a new epic set to draw from in a few weeks. Plus, you can't really claim that there are only 2-3 viable builds in epic...mostly because enough people haven't played enough of it to figure that out yet. | |
Champion of the Thoqqua | |
|
Kithmaker
Commander
3926 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 9:59 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by LCS
I also don't like the idea of slots passing down at later qualifiers for the same reason. I do like the idea of those unused slots being given to players who participate in the grinder at GenCon.
How are those two things any different? The grinder is a later qualifier -- in fact, the latest.
Anyway, I do appreciate everyone who has chimed in here. It's interesting to see all the different perspectives. And Aron, maybe 500-point would be a refreshing change of pace -- practice up for that pre-release. | |
My H/W list is not current...
Trade Reference List
OLD Trade references (191) | |
|
PatEllis15
Commander
4462 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 10:25 AM |
| Kith: It's always a good idea to take a deep breath... The meta feeds itself, and I do believe that there are Tier 1 alternatives, otherwise Marut/Quoatl would be winning, and takin top 4 at every qualifier.
I know the Archmage is good enough to qualify with, I too and pissed and disappointed that I didn't get in. Things are VERY crazy for me at home right now, so I'm unable to travel to NJ or Syracuse to try again.
I had the same reaction last year... I failed to qualify and had told myself that that was my one try, then I talked myself into the Grinder).
People can debate back and forth, all the various changes that I've heard referenced back and forth, but I want to talk to YOUR desire to play the game. IT'S A GAME! Take a break, play some limited, or Epic, give competitive 200 pt a break till GenCon or some such... as frustrating as it is to loose out on opportunities at a Qualifier, you'll regret it in the long run if you give the game up. There is a reason (that only you know) that led you to try and qualify at more than one location. You'll not want to shove that reason away and never think about it again.
Flights seem to be a bit tougher to play around with, but I too will recommend that you see what you can do to tweak your flight plan and get in an hour earlier, go give the grinder a chance, after having played some limited first!
Pat E | |
"Games evolve. Otherwise we'd still be pushing rocks around the dirt. What do you think the cavemen said when some dude showed up with sticks?" - Chairman7w | |
|
Jerry_Damage01
Sneak
145 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 12:36 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by guyf
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry_Damage01
KY I missed the cut coming in 5th and have figured out why due to a local player dropping and not playing one round at all.
I mean what I'm about to say in a constructive, enlightening way, but I can see how it might come across harshly. That's why I'm putting a big disclaimer on this, and I'm also going to try to be careful about the wording.
If you blame your final position on some random factor that happened to contribute to your tiebreaker, you may cloud your own ability to find things that you could have improved in your own play. And that only hurts your own play skill.
You make some good points and I would say my frustration is more because it was out of my control after all was said and done than anything else. The situation with the player dropping though is one that I think helped to put the 4th place player above me. What happened was that after the first round, someone looked at his dice and saw it was a cluster dice. That person asked him to use another dice or he'd let the judge know. Well, the local player got very upset at this and left after pairings were made. He was set to play the 4th place finisher that round. The 4th place finisher was running Triple Death Slaads and the local who dropped was running Dual HGBs. Why this leaves a bitter taste in my mouth is that it helped out the 4th place finisher by putting the local at 1-1 and also he avoided one of his worst matchups by not having to play the game at all. Now the 4th place finisher had nothing to do with this at all and it's completely on the local player.
But you are right Guy. I have looked at both of my losses that day to try to figure out what I did wrong. In 1 game, I lost to a CE Quad and simply couldn't keep up with his damage output. That game I don't think I could have done much different. When they kill you in 3 or 4 swings and you need 8 or so to kill them, if they hit their 3 or 4 swings first then that's kinda that. In my 2nd loss though I did use a wrong strategy and have since replayed that game and relize the new strategy I used was what I should have done and could have won the game on.
I point the blame at the local player, but really it's a frustration about DCI and tie-breakers in general that alot of things outside of your direct control can influence how well you do in the tournament. | |
Champion of the Aspect of Damage
| |
|
Zoons
Underboss
1054 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 12:47 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by greyhaze
quote:
Originally posted by guyf
- They want to have fun playing in a tournament.
- They want to increase their DCI rating.
- They want to get prizes.
- They want to practice playing in a very competitive environment.
- They want to give themselves an easier time at the championships by taking up another qualifier spot, and thus reducing the number of players to account for (ie. study) at the championships.
I disagree. I think that none of these reasons are very sportsman-like, and as a result I do not feel that they are "valid" reasons to go to another qualifier. In the end it comes off as greedy, and that's not an environment that me and many other DDMers want to play in.
Please tell me this is sarcasm. Any reason, as long as it's honest, is VALID. That's as silly as trying to force Kith to keep playing because his reason for quitting isn't "valid" enough.
You CAN assert that it isn't sportsmanlike (I would disagree with many of the reasons on GUY's list). But, if nothing else, how are the better players supposed to tune up for the big tournaments other than vassal and beating down those of us not good enough to qualify. And, how are those of us not good enough yet going to get better except by being schooled by better players.
And Kith,
I ran a "rogue" band at the NE qualifier and it turns out that a similar variant is now considered a "Net band" (Pure coincidence I assure you). I still didn't qualify because I made errors against an opponent I needed to beat to control my destiny.
You and I weren't good enough this year to qualify. You've got to find some way to rationalize that. It doesn't mean you suck. Or that you shouldn't try to compete again next year. There really isn't that big a gap between 4th and 12th at most qualifiers. Next year could be your year. Sounds like people would be happy to see it, and that they'll enjoy the journey with you regardless of whether you qualify. THAT's why you should be playing.
BTW, if you're uptight playing solid players at the qualifier, what would you do at the big dance anyway? They're ALL solid players there. | |
Never teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.
Champion of the Blink Dog. | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 1:10 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by SneakyJoeKDB
At the Idaho qualifier we had a lot of great players and good sportsmanship. However, the issue of people already qualifying came up and one person in particular, having taken 2nd place in one qualifier did the same at the Idaho qualifier. I like this individual dont get me wrong, I am complaining abut how this issue played out. A good DDM friend who is very competitve, Drakengi, playing at his 3rd qualifier unable to make top 4 at this point, placed 5th. He was bumped out of top 4 because an aready qualified player decided to qualify again.
I know this is legal by the rules, but there seems to be some ethics questions at stake.
That was me.
There is one main reason why I'm going to other qualifiers, and that is to win airfare to Indiana. I'm sorry for you friend, and would pass the invite onto him if I could. Heck If I'd known you would have beaten me in the finals I'd have dropped before the cut.
There are other reasons why I played, ratings, and the fun of playing in a competitive environment. But if it were not for the airfare, I would not have gone.
I don't think anyone was any problems with people playing in more than 1 tournament, but they have problems with the fact that GENCON invites don't pass down. Make then pass down, and the problem is solved. | |
My online store http://store.hoardsters.com
Use quick search to see scans of every stat card! | |
| Duke of Spoils
greyhaze
Warlord
5758 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 1:32 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Zoons
Please tell me this is sarcasm. Any reason, as long as it's honest, is VALID. That's as silly as trying to force Kith to keep playing because his reason for quitting isn't "valid" enough.
Nope, no sarcasm at all. It's also why I put in "I feel it's not "valid"" rather than stating it like it's some kind of fact.
Why does MTG not allow the qualified to play in qualifiers? Well, it's probably because it screws up the pool of people that arrive to the final showdown. WotC wants more people to show up, they want a crowd, this is about promoting their game.
I'd rather people got the chance to lose at the "big dance" and have a shot at that, than not get out of the gate because someone who already qualifies knocks someone else out of the running because they "need the practice". I'm not even thinking in terms of myself, I'm thinking of all of those players that would've made it to the top 4, but get knocked out because of this. | |
Greyhaze's DDM Spoilers
Champion of a Medium Dog & then a Darkenbeast , Raistlin Majere, Nightmare WDQ25/60, Warduke WD60/60,
Anti-Champion of Guns, "Knight of Bugbears", and Joke Champion of Venger.
Called Shots: Frost Giant in Demon Web, Darkenbeast in Feywild. | |
|
Kithmaker
Commander
3926 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 1:53 PM |
| Zoons -- I do realize that things just didn't go well enough for me to qualify this year. And the issue isn't playing against top players. That I can do. It's more of a philosophical thing, rather than a personal one (the issue of an already-qualified player hurting the chances of those still trying to qualify).
I very much like the idea of the qualifying slots passing down if someone qualifies again, but it still doesn't deal with the hypotheticals involved when an already-qualified player affects the results negatively for someone still trying to qualify. | |
My H/W list is not current...
Trade Reference List
OLD Trade references (191) | |
| Hero of Skirmish
doubtofbuddha
Commander
3371 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 2:00 PM |
| | Why exactly did you claim Neil was a ringer? He was trying to qualify just like everyone else. | |
I am not gone. | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
636 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 2:06 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by greyhaze
quote:
Originally posted by Zoons
Please tell me this is sarcasm. Any reason, as long as it's honest, is VALID. That's as silly as trying to force Kith to keep playing because his reason for quitting isn't "valid" enough.
Nope, no sarcasm at all. It's also why I put in "I feel it's not "valid"" rather than stating it like it's some kind of fact.
Why does MTG not allow the qualified to play in qualifiers? Well, it's probably because it screws up the pool of people that arrive to the final showdown. WotC wants more people to show up, they want a crowd, this is about promoting their game.
I'd rather people got the chance to lose at the "big dance" and have a shot at that, than not get out of the gate because someone who already qualifies knocks someone else out of the running because they "need the practice". I'm not even thinking in terms of myself, I'm thinking of all of those players that would've made it to the top 4, but get knocked out because of this.
From what I remember about Magic Qualification is you typically get the airfare/accomadations with the qualification (somebody correct me if I am mistaken).
In DDM, there is only one shot at the airfare per qualifier, and it seems equally unfair to those who placed 2-4 to tell them they no longer can try to get the airfare just because they did better than most, but not quite good enough to win.
I've been waffling on having spots passed down when a previously qualified player requalifies, and I think I saw the first argument to compel me to side on it. What's to say the 5th place person in the second tournament is more deserving than the 5th place person in the first? That would make playing in later qualifiers better than playing in earlier ones. | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
Kithmaker
Commander
3926 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 2:07 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by doubtofbuddha
Why exactly did you claim Neil was a ringer? He was trying to qualify just like everyone else.
Two responses to this:
1) That comment did not refer to the qualifier; it was about last month's local tourney in which he participated because he was in the area; and
2) I put quotes around the word "ringer" to indicate that it was to be taken lightly, since the local (MD/VA) players hadn't been able to beat me and gave me a hard time when I lost to Neil. | |
My H/W list is not current...
Trade Reference List
OLD Trade references (191) | |
|
Helzapoppn
Warrior
258 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 2:17 PM |
| I qualified at Pittsburgh (but it was not entirely satisfactory, as I had a bye, made the final four on tiebreaks and was 3-3 against live opponents).
That said, I went to Niles anyway. Following Guy's list:
- They want to have fun playing in a tournament. ABSOLUTELY TRUE
- They want to increase their DCI rating. Perhaps, but in four Qualifiers my total record was 12-14, and my 1-5 finish in Kentucky HAMMERED my DCI rating. Competitive Qualifiers are no place for a ratings 'ho... [:D]
- They want to get prizes. I got three whole boosters from Pittsburgh, one "charity" booster from Ypsilanti (as the only person to beat the overall winner), and an old repaint from Kentucky. Not exactly worth the gas and time expended.
- They want to practice playing in a very competitive environment. ABSOLUTELY TRUE
- They want to give themselves an easier time at the championships by taking up another qualifier spot, and thus reducing the number of players to account for (ie. study) at the championships. Nope. In the unlikely event that I was in the top four after Swiss, I would have dropped. Meaning that someone who had done equally well (5-2 most likely), would get in.
I would add a sixth reason...to spend quality time doing something fun with a longtime friend I haven't seen in over a year, and introduce a new gamer to DDM. Mission accomplished. | |
Champion of Iconics & the Apparatus of Kwalish (Constructs with Drivers? Brilliant!)
Dungeons of Dread Called Shot: Yeah, right | |
|
Zoons
Underboss
1054 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 3:42 PM |
| I think if a player wants to compete at q's until he/she wins one of the free passes, that's hard to deny. I will say that I epmathize with you, but I can't see a reasonable way to change things.
Seperately, the only issue I have with qualifier slots being passed down, or based on ratings in general, is that it doesn't account for inactivity. In my opinion there should be a minimum number of games played per championship season to qualify for this reward. I'm not suggesting the number be huge (Say minimum 9 DCI games [roughly 3 medium sized tourneys]). That way players who've chosen to move-on from the game (in terms of competition anyway) don't take opportunities from those eager to compete.
I'd much rather see an invite passed down to Pat Ellis for example than given to Kiddoc (I believe he has said he will not compete anymore). No disrespect to Kiddoc, if he's still active, he deserves the invite. | |
Never teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.
Champion of the Blink Dog. | |
|
Tried
Sergeant
496 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 6:22 PM |
| I've booked my tickets.
I have my hotel for GenCon.
And friends, I'll be competing at Santa Clara on June 24th.
I can't stop it at this point.
I have often debated whether this is a true compulsion, or whether I am simply inherently evil. (forget about unsportsmanlike).
Maybe I am going up there to try to regain some of the many points i have lost to Michael Derry.
Maybe its simply a dominance display, like male deer engaging in a bit of tustling.
Maybe this is a father/son thing, and I want something to do all day while my boy competes.
Maybe I like visiting the Norcal crowd. Maybe I am just honing my skills.
Maybe I want to prove that one can qualify with dragonnes, and gloat for a year.
I don't know. The psyche can be a complicated thing.
Irritating issue #1
I do have one thought on one point that was raised: ie., a qualifier is yours because it is local?
Ridiculous.
The fact that socal doesn't get one means we can't go out of state to find one? Nice. Maybe next year, we just have a lottery to see who qualifies, and no tournament structure at all.
I *think*, if one checked the geography, one would find that Mesa, AZ is the closest qualifier to San Diego (where 4 of the out of staters came from). Santa Clara is second. I was also in Utah and Co, for practice and for the bonding experience with other team members.
And as far as the "ringers" coming in from out of state?
Hell, maybe they are just saving you your airfare to gencon. Because if they beat you locally, after they have travelled and are all bleary eyed and not particulary sharp, well, you'd need really hot dice to beat them when they are in top form at the big show.
If you can't kick their but locally, do you want to simply go to gen con and lose there? Or are you hoping that somehow you will have luck there that wasn't available locally?
I know this sounds harsh - but my point boils down to this.
Good players lose to dice and to poor matchups.
Good players very rarely make actual mistakes in game play.
(I mean, maybe 1 or 2 total bad moves in an entire tourney - not in a single game - and typically, no bad moves all day.)
As a caveat, I'd point out that I'm not quite a good player, but I am getting there. I can see what a good player is and I want to be one. Quals are the place to test your mettle, for certain, and I find this valuable, being a "fringer" as I am.
But, to phrase it again - Kithmaker (or whoever) - if you made more than 2 mistakes all day, you probably didn't deserve to qualify. Sure, maybe you could have. It comes down to the DCI crap shoot, and you just have to hope...
But in one sense, it irritates me that you call this thread "lessons learned." It doesn't seem like you learned anything, except that you can't depend on tiebreakers. Hmmmmm. Is that such a revelation?
It also seems that you are putting the blame everyplace but on yourself.
I finished 9th in Utah. Made 2 mistakes all day. (One was a real doozy.) I would have qualled if I had made only one. But I didn't. I learned 2 lessons. (one on time management, the other on playing a careful game right down to the buzzer).
In CO, I made two mistakes again (Countersong SA misinterpreted, and forgot my guys had blindfight.)
Finished 5th.
IN AZ, probably only one mistake, in my first match, and it was allowing my opponent to play WAY too slow. I lost other matches, sure, but I did pretty much all I could in those. Nonetheless, this time the DCI random crap shoot favors me, and I finish 4th and qual.
Quals are for competitive folk. Its true. That means training and perceverence. Life is complicated, and there are always obligations to family (this is very important).
Only you can decide if and when you have the time to invest, but its not sage advice that few things come cheap.
I, for one, hope you stay in the game. Play casual for a while, if that's what it takes, but I think the talent will always be there, waiting. Good luck. [:)]
| |
Let it be. | |
|
Kithmaker
Commander
3926 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 7:14 PM |
| Tried, apparently you didn't read my first post and see the lessons that I believe I learned. And, I never assumed that I would have qualified if my matchups were different. The only assumption I have made in this whole thread is that things could have gone differently if I wasn't defeated in round 2 by a person who had already qualified.
I don't know who said "a qualifier is yours because it's local," but it sure wasn't me.
And again, if you'd read all the posts, the "ringers" comment didn't even refer to qualifiers.
As for mistakes, in all honesty I think I only made a mistake in one match -- against 2 HGBs I split my forces. The other losses came purely from the numbers. And I had to play my ass off to win one match by keeping my 2 Duergar Champs alive long enough to get 80 tile points while my opponent's Marut chased them around. So don't assume I lost because of mistakes. | |
My H/W list is not current...
Trade Reference List
OLD Trade references (191) | |
|
GiliusThunderHead
Sneak
98 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 8:04 PM |
|
I'm going to my 3rd qualifier in Santa Clara. I really would like to qualify after coming close in my first 2 attempts. Close, but no cigar! Anyhow, at this point I'm going for the thrill of competition and love of the game. If I lose early, I can shift into mode #2 and just enjoy. If I have success I can ride the adrenaline train to doomstown, LOL, or victory. Either way, I know what it's like to be frustrated, but ultimately I know I am a decent player. I know that I'm having fun (Im usually happy to just be over .500). I know that I'm an original (never going with "netbands" but relying on my own builds- granted this is NOT a requirement of DDM!!!).
Just have fun, F the rest!
--GiliusThunderhead | |
| |
| 
Lead Moderator
LCS
Underboss
1859 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 8:40 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tried
And friends, I'll be competing at Santa Clara on June 24th.
I'm looking forward to it, and I hope a decent chunk of the Socal crowd comes up with you and Darien (and Gil!). | | | |
|
ruhk69
Warrior
205 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 8:44 PM |
| Kith,
You've been playing minis for years. Why do you play? In prior years you could not even attend the qualifiers from what I read. What kept you playing then? I don't know you, but I can tell from all the people trying to encourage you that you are a big part of this community and you love the game. Put things in perspective and go back to the root of why you're in it. That said, I can understand how you feel from my experience at the NJ qualifier last year:
It was my first qualifier and I was all excited about playing in a competitive environment. So I'm up points in the first round and turtled in the treasure room tile collecting VP. My opponent has no choice but to come and get me. So he strolls in and rolls 5 crits over the next 2 rounds and ends up winning the game. I ran the table the next 4 rounds and was chomping at the bit to play in the finals against my friends Charles or Chad. It turns out that Chad went 5-0 and 5 of us went 4-1. I finished in 6th place over the ridiculous loss in the first round. I was incredibly bitter about the fact that there was no better way to do the tie-breaker. A 6th round or something should have narrowed it down.
(Thinking back on it, had Charles not been there and played in his local qualifier instead, I probably would have qualified [)])
Anyway, after some time off, I realized that I played the game because I loved it. I didn't need to win. I needed the relationships the game helped me build with people like Chad and Charles. I went to NJ this year with a whole new perspective on it. Admittedly, I did want to make a good showing and show everyone I could compete with the big boys (even if it was smoke and mirrors [)]). But most importantly to me was the opportunity to have fun, meet other gamers and get together with friends I play online. That's the biggest part of playing that I think Guy missed. It's a reason to get together in whatever format (qualifiers, local tournys, Vassal) with the people you care about. This year I was 4-2 after the 6 rounds of Swiss and I was glad I had gone. One very dissappointing thing for me was the fact that I didn't get to play Charles and I would be going home again a 2nd straight year without that chance. I hadn't realized that I actually qualified this year on the same tiebreakers that stopped me last time.....
I ended up winning the qualifier with a LE quad band, but that wasn't the best part to me. It was getting to play Charles in the first round of the finals. It was getting to play and meet Dan (XenoZephyr). And I finally met Jared (Harmonizer) who I didn't even know was there until we met in the championship game.
That's why many people play the game, including many posting here wanting you to stay on board. Why do you play? Food for thought... | |
The Waterboy. Proud member of Team Amish. | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 8:46 PM |
| | I just wish I had the time to play in all of these "local" qualifiers. Or that our local qualifier was earlier, so I'd have at least known ahead of time if I was really going to have to pull out the stops and try and schedule a stop at another one. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
Lead Moderator
LCS
Underboss
1859 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 8:48 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Kithmaker
quote:
Originally posted by LCS
I also don't like the idea of slots passing down at later qualifiers for the same reason. I do like the idea of those unused slots being given to players who participate in the grinder at GenCon.
How are those two things any different? The grinder is a later qualifier -- in fact, the latest.
The grinder is:
1) intended to be a way for players who didn't qualify at previous tournaments to get one last chance
2) already taking more than the top 4
3) allows anyone who goes to GenCon the chance to qualify
Maybe I wasn't clear about what I meant, though. I didn't mean that I think qualifier slots should only pass down in the grinder, I mean that any extra slots that weren't filled during the normal qualifiers because of multiple qualifications by the same person would be added to the slots available at the grinder.
| | | |
|
johnny.quest
Underboss
1341 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 9:14 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by LCS
... any extra slots that weren't filled during the normal qualifiers because of multiple qualifications by the same person would be added to the slots available at the grinder.
I like that idea. | | | |
|
BudLeiser
Warrior
218 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 9:49 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Fry
quote:
Originally posted by Ghendar
I agree. Once you've qualified, you shouldn't be allowed to play in another qualifier.
Which is how the Magic Pro Tour works. (once you're qualified, you're not allowed to play in any more qualifying tournaments)
Kith: you also have to set yourself up to where the dice matter. I think you made a few mistakes in the match against my Hill Giants such that even hitting them a few more times wouldn't have made a huge difference.
Also: a Mounted Paladin was in contention for top 4 going into the final round of Swiss. Let me say that again: a Mounted Paladin was in contention to qualify. Don't worry so much about the whole "top tier" warbands thing. And don't quit the game over this stuff, you're an asset to the community.
I couldn't read through this whole 3 page thing before postingt I apologize if my post is invalid.
In magic only the 1st place finish qualifies for the event. They also recieve a plane ticket.
DDM the top 4 qualify but the other 3 don't get a plane ticket. This is the reason I will be attending the Orlando Qualifier despite being Qualified. If someone wants to buy me a plane ticket then I will not go ;)
ALL of this could be moot if the qualification would roll down, so don't blame the players. Start emaililng the powers that be to change this. | |
www.LocalGaming.biz Visit our store only $2 shipping!
www.LocalGaming.net Join our forum!
| |
| Duke of Spoils
greyhaze
Warlord
5758 Posts
| | 06/12/2006 11:42 PM |
| A roll down system would be satisfactory.
It would give qualifiers a chance to get airfare, and not bump someone else of getting a pass to GenCon. | |
Greyhaze's DDM Spoilers
Champion of a Medium Dog & then a Darkenbeast , Raistlin Majere, Nightmare WDQ25/60, Warduke WD60/60,
Anti-Champion of Guns, "Knight of Bugbears", and Joke Champion of Venger.
Called Shots: Frost Giant in Demon Web, Darkenbeast in Feywild. | |
|
Dagni
Sergeant
870 Posts
| | 06/13/2006 6:48 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by sienar
I've been waffling on having spots passed down when a previously qualified player requalifies, and I think I saw the first argument to compel me to side on it. What's to say the 5th place person in the second tournament is more deserving than the 5th place person in the first? That would make playing in later qualifiers better than playing in earlier ones.
Well, I've considered this argument before. I don't think it's all that significant, at all.
If that rule were in place, would you really want your local qualifier to be late in the season? Late in the season, my guess is that more players will travel at least a little farther than they might've otehrwise, only because now they know they did NOT qualify in the earlier, closer qualifiers. IanB was just lamenting the fact his qualifier is so late in the season. If the NorCal one was earlier than the UT one, perhaps Ian would've gone to UT, assuming he doesn't succeed in NorCal.
Further, often a player who's already qualified either doesn't go to later qualifiers or drops after the swiss, and CSchroder did. A few play out one or more additional qualifiers, but it seems like more do not. So it already IS 'better' to have a later qualifier!
Far better to allow the qualifier slots to pass down, so players don't have to make the choice on whether to (be nice and) drop or (selfishly) compete for a plane ticket. Even if the slots pass down, or the player drops after the swiss, a few people - like Kithmaker - will be against the player playing at all. However, at least if the slot passes down, it greatly minimizes the amount of ill-will between players. In the end, I think that far outweighs any concerns about whether or not a qualifier late in the year is better than one early in the year.
I don't want one of the most fun things I've done all year (the AZ qualifier) to get other people irritated or mad, nor do I want to take away a qualification from a friend.
- Dagni | |
Proud member of the GRUUMSH fan club! | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
636 Posts
| | 06/13/2006 9:24 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Dagni
quote:
Originally posted by sienar
I've been waffling on having spots passed down when a previously qualified player requalifies, and I think I saw the first argument to compel me to side on it. What's to say the 5th place person in the second tournament is more deserving than the 5th place person in the first? That would make playing in later qualifiers better than playing in earlier ones.
Well, I've considered this argument before. I don't think it's all that significant, at all.
If that rule were in place, would you really want your local qualifier to be late in the season? Late in the season, my guess is that more players will travel at least a little farther than they might've otehrwise, only because now they know they did NOT qualify in the earlier, closer qualifiers. IanB was just lamenting the fact his qualifier is so late in the season. If the NorCal one was earlier than the UT one, perhaps Ian would've gone to UT, assuming he doesn't succeed in NorCal.
Further, often a player who's already qualified either doesn't go to later qualifiers or drops after the swiss, and CSchroder did. A few play out one or more additional qualifiers, but it seems like more do not. So it already IS 'better' to have a later qualifier!
Far better to allow the qualifier slots to pass down, so players don't have to make the choice on whether to (be nice and) drop or (selfishly) compete for a plane ticket. Even if the slots pass down, or the player drops after the swiss, a few people - like Kithmaker - will be against the player playing at all. However, at least if the slot passes down, it greatly minimizes the amount of ill-will between players. In the end, I think that far outweighs any concerns about whether or not a qualifier late in the year is better than one early in the year.
I don't want one of the most fun things I've done all year (the AZ qualifier) to get other people irritated or mad, nor do I want to take away a qualification from a friend.
- Dagni
What I am not keen on is that there is a presumption that the player 5th in the later tournament is more deserving than the earlier tournament.
I was talking to ktatroe about it a bit last night, and he offered an idea. Instead of an immediate pass-down, each slot 'lost' to a multiple qualification would add to the Top 25 invites, making them Top 25+. That way you don’t have a situation where you have to choose which 5th place attendee is more deserving.
| |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
Kithmaker
Commander
3926 Posts
| | 06/13/2006 11:19 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Dagni
Even if the slots pass down, or the player drops after the swiss, a few people - like Kithmaker - will be against the player playing at all.
If the slots passed down, I would have a lot less of an issue with already-qualified players playing, because then those players can play all out and wouldn't have to drop, and if they did get top 4 there would still be 4 slots available to those who did not yet qualify.
I just don't like the idea of someone who has already qualified knocking people out of contention during the swiss rounds and then dropping themselves.
| |
My H/W list is not current...
Trade Reference List
OLD Trade references (191) | |
|
Kithmaker
Commander
3926 Posts
| | 06/13/2006 11:21 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by sienar
I was talking to ktatroe about it a bit last night, and he offered an idea. Instead of an immediate pass-down, each slot 'lost' to a multiple qualification would add to the Top 25 invites, making them Top 25+. That way you don’t have a situation where you have to choose which 5th place attendee is more deserving.
Easy for the people in the top 30 or so to like that idea. Why not, as suggested by someone else, have the slots added to grinder slots? That way the people are already at GenCon... | |
My H/W list is not current...
Trade Reference List
OLD Trade references (191) | |
|
RobWreck
Warrior
295 Posts
| | 06/13/2006 12:00 PM |
| Or, as an alternate idea, only have the top person qualify for the slot and hold a qualifier in each state. It would ultimately have roughly the same number of people qualify for the championship, and it would allow people to play in multiple qualifiers without having to worry about placing in one and then playing in another...
Of course, maybe they wouldn't be able to give out the airfare for everyone... instead, maybe give out a certain amount of money in travel vouchers to each winner to cover a portion of the trip instead.
Rob | |
Champion of Aspect of Pelor
If the Founding Fathers of our country were conservatives, we'd still be colonies of England... | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
636 Posts
| | 06/13/2006 12:10 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Kithmaker
quote:
Originally posted by sienar
I was talking to ktatroe about it a bit last night, and he offered an idea. Instead of an immediate pass-down, each slot 'lost' to a multiple qualification would add to the Top 25 invites, making them Top 25+. That way you don’t have a situation where you have to choose which 5th place attendee is more deserving.
Easy for the people in the top 30 or so to like that idea. Why not, as suggested by someone else, have the slots added to grinder slots? That way the people are already at GenCon...
With 16 already qualifying at Gen Con, going beyond that could have people qualifying with losing records, and at an extreme case all players qualifying (not likely to happen). People who are top 50 or so are ones who have shown over time a desire to play and a capability to win, not just showing up to one tournament (and performing not-exactly spectacularly).
I don't think the current system is all that flawed, really. We have, what, 4 spots so far not being passed down? Given that 50% of invited don't even show, I don't think 4 less total slots is that big of a deal. | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
| Duke of Spoils
greyhaze
Warlord
5758 Posts
| | 06/13/2006 12:12 PM |
| | With the roll down method, you would have to have 5th-6th place players play out a final match for 5th place, so to speak. Depending on the number of "already-qualified-ers" this could go pretty deep up to 8th place... or possibly never ending... unless the scores are final at at the finals except for the finalists. | |
Greyhaze's DDM Spoilers
Champion of a Medium Dog & then a Darkenbeast , Raistlin Majere, Nightmare WDQ25/60, Warduke WD60/60,
Anti-Champion of Guns, "Knight of Bugbears", and Joke Champion of Venger.
Called Shots: Frost Giant in Demon Web, Darkenbeast in Feywild. | |
|
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 06/13/2006 12:14 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by sienar
I don't think the current system is all that flawed, really. We have, what, 4 spots so far not being passed down? Given that 50% of invited don't even show, I don't think 4 less total slots is that big of a deal.
It'd be interesting to see the % of qualifiers who plan on coming to the championships this year. Really, any one who qualifies and doesn't go to Gen Con is stealing a spot from someone else as well. I'm guessing the turnout will be much higher this year. | |
Champion of Gnomes | |
|
Kithmaker
Commander
3926 Posts
| | 06/13/2006 12:16 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by sienar
People who are top 50 or so are ones who have shown over time a desire to play and a capability to win, not just showing up to one tournament (and performing not-exactly spectacularly).
You know, I was looking at the DCI rankings recently. It's very interesting to see that some of the people with the top rankings have played in fewer events than a lot of other people. They just rarely lose. But I think that's a flaw in the DCI system, and probably for another discussion -- it seems really wrong to me that someone who has played in 3 times as many events with a large majority of wins should not be beaten out by someone who has played in only a few events but never lost.
As for the grinder, I was under the impression that it was top 8, and that 70+ people enter that thing. | |
My H/W list is not current...
Trade Reference List
OLD Trade references (191) | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
636 Posts
| | 06/13/2006 12:54 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Kithmaker
quote:
Originally posted by sienar
People who are top 50 or so are ones who have shown over time a desire to play and a capability to win, not just showing up to one tournament (and performing not-exactly spectacularly).
You know, I was looking at the DCI rankings recently. It's very interesting to see that some of the people with the top rankings have played in fewer events than a lot of other people. They just rarely lose. But I think that's a flaw in the DCI system, and probably for another discussion -- it seems really wrong to me that someone who has played in 3 times as many events with a large majority of wins should not be beaten out by someone who has played in only a few events but never lost.
As for the grinder, I was under the impression that it was top 8, and that 70+ people enter that thing.
We have relatively immature rankings right now, so that can certainly happen. To be near the top and only have played a relatively small number of matches would have required good opposition in higher K-value events. To get to 1750 against consistantly equal opposition, it would require about 20 more wins than losses.
Could be. I am pretty sure that two years ago, when I played in the gringer, it was 16 (17 actually, due to a tie for 16th). | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
| The Defenestrator
AesophDarkfable
Warlord
5628 Posts
| | 06/13/2006 1:13 PM |
| | Its 8. | |
Im out- find me on Hordelings if you want to chat. | |
| 2005 D&D Miniatures Champion
Fenris
Sergeant
974 Posts
|
|
|
|
|