| | | | | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10493 Posts
    
United States
 | | 06/06/2006 1:43 PM |
| From what I recall, don't something like 25 of the top DCI-rated players get an invite (bumped down to accommodate those that have already qualified)? Then, if there are 21 qualifiers, and four each can get in, that's a total of 109 players. Add in the Grinder, and we're at 117. Let's round this up to 120 (maybe next year there will be 22 qualifiers).
Would it overload the tournament managers to give invites to the top 8 at these events?
What about a floating invite system based on the number of attendees? The top spots that get an invite is one less than the number of Swiss rounds played at an event? (So, if there are 50 players, invitations are given to the top 6.)
In such cases, if there are more than 4 to be invited, the playoff is among the top 8.
Too much work?
Let's look at it this way. After about four matches at the championship, about half of the people who qualified will statistically be eliminated from going on to the top 8 finals. If we invited a few more people, that percentage either wouldn't change much, or it would be shifted one match later.
People want to play in the championships, even though they know the odds are against them (of 100+ players, only 8 get to play in the finals). Adding a few more invitations brings a few more people to GenCon. It's still elite, but this may be one way to reach more players.
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
| Hero of Skirmish
doubtofbuddha
Commander
3371 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 2:11 PM |
| It also has the potential to dilute the meaningfulness of the event. Also, for smaller qualifiers, it makes winning or losing virtually meaningless. Should the Top 8 at Alberta (where there were 11 total particpants) get an invite?
I wouldn't be oppossed to having the number of invitees for larger qualifiers expanded. Maybe push it up to Top 8 for any qualifier with over 32 people?
| |
I am not gone. | |
|
bshugg
Underboss
1833 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 2:13 PM |
| I'm not a real fan of letting invited people play in qualifiers. Either if they qualified through ranking, or worse qualified through playing in a qualifier. A player that is not invited on ranking who qualifies at multiple events ends up taking away a slot from other players each time. Thats not a fair system. Players that are in on ranking end up passing a slot down, but I bet theres a good chance the person recieving this bonus isn't going to show. Some may not even play minis anymore. Kiddoc has an invite and I doubt he will play at the championships. This is a lost slot for a game a lot of people are working to grow. (no offense to Kiddoc, its not his fault [:)]) The system needs revamping if we want a robust championship and qualifier season.
As for the championships, the difference between 75 and 275 players is little more than a few more volunteers and some more tables. It would definatly make the company notice more if they had 500 players rather than 70. | |
Looking for someone to cosponser a midwest DDM event. let me know if your interested!
Check out my brand new blog:
http://bshugg.blogspot.com | |
|
Teach
Sneak
140 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 3:13 PM |
| I think there have been a couple suggestions that would make the qualifying season better. Not necessarily better for me, because i still won't qualify (just don't have the time to devote to this game to stay at the top), but better for the game.
1. Have the top 25 who get invites set before the qualifiers begin. Then when they win a qualifier or place in the top 4, the spot gets passed down to the next person, because it's already clear that they have a spot. However, they still could win the money for the plane ticket to GenCon.
2. I like the idea of number of slots based on number of people who attend, to insure that those areas that are hotbeds for minis get to send a representational amount of players. it might be a little tough to manage if there were 6 slots or whatever, but maybe 4 slots for less than 32 players, and 8 slots if there are more than 32 players. I think only the top 4 should get to move on to the playoff still though, if only to prevent tournaments from going too long.
Anyways, that's my two cents. I think these two suggestions would help mitigate some of the complaints people are having about this years qualifier season.
See you all at the grinder.
| |
| |
| The Defenestrator
AesophDarkfable
Warlord
5628 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 3:26 PM |
| Just an FYI. (and this will change tonight after DCI update, I will update this list then)
*Means has attempted a qualifier so actually is trying to get in and will show is my guess.
Outside of US/Canada is marked International as they are less likely to make the trip.
If the top 25 were to get set today here is the list.
1. Kiddoc (not going to play)
2. Richard Haines
3. Amelia McLaren
4. Manuel Dennis
5. Tim Marcum
6. Pat Coyle*
7. Jesse Dean(will attempt this weekend)
8. Huberth Hidalogo (International)
9. James Clesi
10. Sven*
11. Juan Bernol (International)
12. John Sefchek
13. Shawnn Usher
14. Carlos Augusto Zapata (International)
15. Warren Wooley (Int)
16. Jason Kean** (and after losses this weekend will probably drop)
17. Justin Gortner
18. Rusty McAlexander
19. Jaun Trujillo (Int)
20. Peter Scott (Int)
21. Karl Thompson
22. Derry
23. Justin Mallett (Int)
24. Simon Belamar
25. Anthony Pitman*
So these go down to 32 currently. Now there will be some shake up here as Derry, Sven, and Jesse all have a good shot coming up in the following weekends and some of these guys listed as LA and TX have the Texas qualifier. Marcum and McLaren both play in the same area in MO and I don't expect to see outside their tournament scene. | |
Im out- find me on Hordelings if you want to chat. | |
|
Drakkengi
Sergeant
890 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 3:26 PM |
| I also think it would be a good idea to base the number of qualifying spots on the number of players at the qualifier.
Another thing that I think would boost the number of deserving players at the championships would be to send out an e-mail to the top 25 ranked players and ask them to respond with conformation of their attendance at the championship by a certain date or their slot will be passed down. There's a decent amount of top 25 players that live outside North America and while I don't think it would be right to automatically assume they aren't coming, it sucks that some of those slots will be wasted beacause they can't make it to Gen Con. Not to mention all the top players who have either retired from competitive play or have quit the game entirely. I think Kiddoc has the right solution to that specific problem and there should be some sort of decay system after so many months of not playing. | |
| |
|
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 3:28 PM |
| I agree that the current system is not what it could be. If 50 some really show up in Niles, and less than 20 showed at other locations (if I'm remembering correctly), there is a disparity in fairness.
However, the more people for the number who play can be gamed. In MN, we had 32 players exactly. Under the proposed system, a smart person would have brought 1-2 friends along to start the tourney (just to make sure we had more than 32), have them drop after 2 rounds, and we would have had 6 or 8 invitees under your proposed system instead of the 4 we got.
I don't have an answer, but I'll think of a suggestion when I'm not at work and post my scintillating thoughts then. | |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
|
kgradert13
Sergeant
909 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 3:34 PM |
| I definitely agree we need a robust championship.
I also agree that larger qualifiers (hotbeds) should be rewarded by more representation. I like the idea of Top 4 gettng invites and Gencon passes at all qualifiers and at events with more then X participants, 4 more getting invites (no passes).
I think the top 25 should also be set before the qualifier season, and indididuals have to accept the invite, or it gets passed down. If youknow you can't make it (perhaps you live in another country, or are just uninterested), you decline the invite and the next person gets an invite. If you don't RSVP, it passes down as well. This way there can be a good idea of the number of top RANKED players that will be at the championship. | |
| |
|
Bluedevyl
Warrior
262 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 4:04 PM |
| What I think we need is a more dynamically-updated DCI ranking system... In an ideal world, at the end of the qualifier, check the top 4 against the CURRENT DCI rankings, and anyone appearing in the top 25 at that time can either get airfare or some other award, and pass the invite to the next highest qualifier. This brings up the problem that someone in the top 25's DCI rank drops to 27 and they lose their invite, but this is why they play in the qualifier, to keep their scores up, but as they won't need the invite, someone else to whom recieving an invite might make up their mind about attending GenCon and let them experience it.
Just my thoughts. | |
Champion of Tanis Half-Elven | |
|
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10493 Posts
United States
| | 06/06/2006 4:06 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Zaukrie
I agree that the current system is not what it could be. If 50 some really show up in Niles, and less than 20 showed at other locations (if I'm remembering correctly), there is a disparity in fairness.
That was the crux of my point, thanks for putting it in a simple way.[:)]quote:
However, the more people for the number who play can be gamed. In MN, we had 32 players exactly. Under the proposed system, a smart person would have brought 1-2 friends along to start the tourney (just to make sure we had more than 32), have them drop after 2 rounds, and we would have had 6 or 8 invitees under your proposed system instead of the 4 we got.
Yes, but this would take some crazy luck. I mean, if the smart person brings two friends who drop, and the number of players was either 25 or 35 already, that would have no effect.quote:
I don't have an answer, but I'll think of a suggestion when I'm not at work and post my scintillating thoughts then.
Looking forward to some scintillation. (I had a bard with that robe once....)
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
| D&D Miniatures
Guru
guyf
Sergeant
545 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 4:09 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Vrecknidj
Would it overload the tournament managers to give invites to the top 8 at these events?
Overload, probably not, but it would probably require some amount of additional staff (probably a judge or two and possibly someone to help enter results) to handle the increased player load.
Relevant anecdote:
When I'm judging, I'm *far* busier in the first swiss round than any other round. There are two main reasons: 1) I'm busy checking warband legality, and 2) there are more rules questions asked during the first swiss round than in later rounds. (I'm not sure exactly why #2 is true, but it's been true in my experience.) The second round is also pretty busy for me, mainly because of rules questions. Then it starts to tail off in rounds three and later.
If inviting the top 8 players resulted in a significantly larger tournament (meaning: twice as many players), doing all of our mandatory first-swiss-round tasks would be potentially challenging with our usual championship staffing levels.
quote:
So Many Deserving Players, So Few Qualifying Spots ... People want to play in the championships ...
This is easy for me to say because I don't try to qualify, so take it with a big grain of salt:
I *like* the fact that it's so much harder to qualify this year. I *like* the fact that many of the top players are finding it increasingly difficult to make top-4 at a qualifier. I *like* the fact that top players can no longer count on attending just their local qualifier. I *like* the fact that qualifying at a qualifier is so much more special this year. I *like* the fact that many players are traveling to distant qualifiers to increase their odds.
Yes, this probably means the championship will have fewer players than the previous two years, but I'm also okay with that. Making it to the championships this year is a very special privilege. And that's cool, IMO.
If anything, this promotes trying to be in the top 25 highest DCI ranked players. That's probably the best way (from a determinism standpoint) for a player to try to qualify. And that's cool too; it will help grow the sanctioned tournament scene throughout the year. | |
-
Guy Fullerton
Official D&D Miniatures Net Rep | |
|
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 4:11 PM |
| Personally, I hope we play each other in Niles - you seem pretty cool.
At least 6 from MN will be going, as far as I know.
Scintilating robe - I remember that item.
Well, you bring your friends, if you need them to get the number over a cut off, they play, otherwise they leave. Either way, you've upped your odds of qualifying. | |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
|
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10493 Posts
United States
| | 06/06/2006 4:14 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by kgradert13
I definitely agree we need a robust championship.
I also agree that larger qualifiers (hotbeds) should be rewarded by more representation. I like the idea of Top 4 gettng invites and Gencon passes at all qualifiers and at events with more then X participants, 4 more getting invites (no passes).
I think the top 25 should also be set before the qualifier season, and indididuals have to accept the invite, or it gets passed down. If you know you can't make it (perhaps you live in another country, or are just uninterested), you decline the invite and the next person gets an invite. If you don't RSVP, it passes down as well. This way there can be a good idea of the number of top RANKED players that will be at the championship.
Perhaps those who accept the invitation then cannot also be allowed to take the invitations at the qualifiers. They can play, but, when the event is over, if they place in the top 4 (or top X, if an alternate system is introduced), the invite passes down to the next person. Of course, this opens up the can of worms about ties at 5th place and lower.
This can be solved by having tiered playoffs. I've done this at local events. Once the Swiss rounds are over, I cut to a top 4, but I also run another playoff for people ranked 5th to 8th. I usually have players who want to keep playing, and are willing to battle it out for bragging rights after Swiss. And, I usually throw in a booster for 5th place, so they still have something to fight for besides just bagging rights.
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
|
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10493 Posts
United States
| | 06/06/2006 4:21 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by guyf
I *like* the fact that it's so much harder to qualify this year. I *like* the fact that many of the top players are finding it increasingly difficult to make top-4 at a qualifier. I *like* the fact that top players can no longer count on attending just their local qualifier. I *like* the fact that qualifying at a qualifier is so much more special this year. I *like* the fact that many players are traveling to distant qualifiers to increase their odds.
I admit that it's kinda cool that the number of good players is high enough that qualifying is no longer even close to a sure thing for many players. And that's okay, it really is. I get where you're going--I mean, I used to love the good old days of the NFL when there was one wildcard team and the playoff season didn't last forever. But...quote:
Yes, this probably means the championship will have fewer players than the previous two years, but I'm also okay with that. Making it to the championships this year is a very special privilege. And that's cool, IMO.
If anything, this promotes trying to be in the top 25 highest DCI ranked players. That's probably the best way (from a determinism standpoint) for a player to try to qualify. And that's cool too; it will help grow the sanctioned tournament scene throughout the year.
I'm not so sure. And that's part of what I'm worried about (worried may be too strong a term--don't know yet). It is a special privilege to even get an invite, let alone make it to the top 8 for the finals. True. I don't want to change that at all.
But, I'd really like to see the interest grow, and I'm not sure making it harder to qualify for the championships is the best way to do this. Then again, I have no official experience in organizing enormous events for popular games, so I'm kinda shooting from the hip here.
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
| The Defenestrator
AesophDarkfable
Warlord
5628 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 4:25 PM |
| In general I think the system is pretty good. I agree with alot of Guys points, but I do feel there needs to be some tweaks. I am just not sure what they are.
To me alot of the issues stem from the weaknesses in the DCI system and the ability to qualify more than once. The second is an easy fix (change it to once you qualify you can't again and the spot slides down).
The first is more difficult. I think this year we need to track how many of those that qualify by top 25 actually show up at nationals. | |
Im out- find me on Hordelings if you want to chat. | |
|
forkedmoon
Underboss
1305 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 4:27 PM |
| Just because a qualifier has more participants doesn't necessarily mean a disparity in fairness. Should the ratings of the players involved in a qualifier be considered? If a qualifier has a bunch of the top rated players involved versus another that has many more participants but lacks top players do that second qualifier deserve more players just based on more participants?
Before qualifier season started they were many who were trying to speculate on which were going to be the "easy" qualifiers. The system should regulate itself if in the future qualifiers are awarded to locations based on past performance. If a qualifier draws poorly then next season that slot should be awarded to an area that either didn't have a qualifier but had numerous players trekking to other locations to play or give a second qualifier to one of the overloaded areas.
IMO the Rating based invites should only go to players who are currently playing. If you haven't participated in a sanctioned event since the last Championship then you should be dropped from the invite list. However I think past champions should always have an invite regardless of their playing history. Great storyline when a retired champ comes out for one more shot at glory.
One question I wonder about - Does everyone who plays in a qualifier do so to be able to attend the championships or could for some this just be another chance to play the game they love at a local event? And if so are they a bad person for playing in an event where they might keep someone else from getting a shot? | |
Champion of Cyclops
| |
| D&D Miniatures
Guru
guyf
Sergeant
545 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 4:30 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Vrecknidj
But, I'd really like to see the interest grow, and I'm not sure making it harder to qualify for the championships is the best way to do this.
I agree, but if the goal is to grow interest in the game, I can think of *lots* of things that can be done (and are being done) to do that which work *better* than simply making it easier to qualify for the championships.
Some examples:
Posting relevant, interest-building articles to the WotC web site.
Hosting well-publicized and well-organized Opens, as many regions have done.
Promoting local play through league kits and local tournaments.
Making the rules (and clarifications sources) easier to access & use.
Producing competitive creatures in every set so new players have access to strong warbands. | |
-
Guy Fullerton
Official D&D Miniatures Net Rep | |
|
Helzapoppn
Warrior
258 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 4:37 PM |
| I'm planning on playing in Niles on Sunday. Mainly because I need more experience in big tournaments against top-ranked players.
Since I live in Michigan, I have no need for airfare to Indianapolis...and I've already budgeted a four-day GenCon pass into my travel plans. In the unlikely event that I end up top four after the Swiss rounds, I'm pretty sure I'll drop at that point, and let #5 get into the semis.
Am I wrong?
| |
Champion of Iconics & the Apparatus of Kwalish (Constructs with Drivers? Brilliant!)
Dungeons of Dread Called Shot: Yeah, right | |
|
kgradert13
Sergeant
909 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 4:43 PM |
| If I were already guaranteed an invite, I'd drop if I were to finish top 4 again.
It isn't worth it to me to limit the field by sucking up multiple slots if I really want to play against the best for the Championship | |
| |
|
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 4:49 PM |
| quote:
The system should regulate itself if in the future qualifiers are awarded to locations based on past performance. If a qualifier draws poorly then next season that slot should be awarded to an area that either didn't have a qualifier but had numerous players trekking to other locations to play or give a second qualifier to one of the overloaded areas.
This doesn't happen. Stores that got events practically need to kill someone to lose major events later. It doesn't matter if they run other events, it doesn't matter how many show, nothing seems to really matter that seems to make sense to those of us that have contacted OP about this. Ian has been very polite in his replies, but people all across the nation (inlcuding the Chicago area from what I've read) can testify to the fact that stores/locations aren't selected based upon attendance or a store's willingness to work during the year to grow the game, or even their willingness to supply adequate space during an event. | |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
|
kgradert13
Sergeant
909 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 4:55 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Zaukrie
quote:
The system should regulate itself if in the future qualifiers are awarded to locations based on past performance. If a qualifier draws poorly then next season that slot should be awarded to an area that either didn't have a qualifier but had numerous players trekking to other locations to play or give a second qualifier to one of the overloaded areas.
This doesn't happen. Stores that got events practically need to kill someone to lose major events later. It doesn't matter if they run other events, it doesn't matter how many show, nothing seems to really matter that seems to make sense to those of us that have contacted OP about this. Ian has been very polite in his replies, but people all across the nation (inlcuding the Chicago area from what I've read) can testify to the fact that stores/locations aren't selected based upon attendance or a store's willingness to work during the year to grow the game, or even their willingness to supply adequate space during an event.
Quite F'n True. The only reason I will go to the Niles one, is that the person I was going to go to the MN qualifier with had to drop out. I dislike that location intensely, as they have 0 interest it appears in anything that isn't played with cards exclusivly. | |
| |
|
doranur
Warrior
180 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 6:05 PM |
| heres my suggestions for improving the qualifiers/championship season without degrading what i consider the already high level of quality.
1) bump up the number of invitations slightly to a significant number, 128. this number is attainable with a fairly high quality of play factor, and works out nicely for a championship tournament.
2) start the qualifiers slightly earlier, so that they finish at the begining of june rather than the end. this allows more time for the "rank invitees" to make travel plans. do not allow previously qualified players to re-qualify at future tournaments.
3) after the qualifiers are done, and you have your pool of 88 (there was 22 right, including europe?) allow those players to register for the main tournament only if they plan to attend. the remaining "spots" are filled from the top of the DCI lists but only if the player confirms they will be there. basically send a form email saying "if you will be here, reply to this email within one week and your name will be put on the list for invites, you may get an invite depending on how many people confirm they will attend". this allows you to fill up to 120 players.
4) for the grinder, the top 8 qualify, and the rest of the players become "altnernates" based on rank in the grinder for anyone who has confirmed but doesn't show up on friday for the tourney due to whatever reason.
this system would basically give you full attendance gaurunteed at the championships, keep a high level of play, and provide good chances for folks to qualify. it wouldn't take an enormous amount more work than the current system, and would limit the resentment felt over people taking slots they will not use.
this system still isn't completely fair, specifically it weights DCI higher than the current system. areas such as the one i live (norcal) which have fairly high skill levels and low dci scores are penalized since the local community would have a fairly low representation through DCI (specifically, i'm 2nd ranked by DCI in my area, and I would not make it in my proposed system without going through a qualifier).
to address the topic of "wanting to play in the championship" if there were 500 attendees i would not travel several hundred miles to attempt to qualify. theres no exclusivity. i wouldn't feel like i had achieved anything by qualifying and attending. to use a rather gross analogy, i don't want to be one of the 50 men a girl has slept with, i want to be one of the 3.
i disagree with a floating invite system for two reasons, #1 quantity of folks doesn't correspond to quality. CO and AZ both had very small attendances, anyone want to try and qualify against those fields? and #2 i feel that a specific number of invites is essential for planning and running a good championship tournament. if 130 people show up it's very very different than if 127 show.
i do think qualifiers should be awarded based on average tournament turnout compared with number of tournaments run. if dear mr. fantazy runs 50 tournaments a year, with 8 players showing up per tournament, then i think it should get a 400 "score". perhaps to even things out for metro areas that have a distributed tournament enviroment (such as norcal where we split the tournaments between 2 stores evenly) the scores could be combined. then just give out the qualifiers to the top 22 "scores" with slight weight going to even out geographical concerns. this would place more importance on local tourneys which is the biggest way to grow the hobby imo.
my final way to include more people without degrading quality is to place more emphasis on the other two championships, epic and limited. Limited already has a good location at gencon socal, find another time of year that we can place the epic tournament at a big con, and hold the championship there. easy ways to increase the importance of these events would be to put notices about tournament wins in these formats (and constructed as well) on the dndminis page of the wizards site. if the limited championship was emphasized as much as the constructed, it would make another significant tournament people can hope to qualify for. this would also increase the hobby in general, as people have issues with one format or another, and would satisfy more folks.
one final suggestion that people have come up with is invites passing down. I feel this is the worst suggestion of all, because it encourages "team" play. i'll use one of my favorite non-local players as an example, gilius thunderhead. Gil regularly finishes just out of the running in these tournaments, because he is a very good player who seems to just never get the right combination of matchups and luck to make it to the top 4. I fully expect Gil to qualify, and am never "happy" from a competitve stance to see him at a tournament (i like winning too much to be glad to see him in that perspective), but am always glad he is there from a people i enjoy playing and people i enjoy hanging out with perspective. he's just an easy example for this situation.
If invites were to be passed down, once his regular opponents have qualified (say dagni, tried, fenris, and smyrin) they can go to the same tournaments as he does and a)throw games to him if they happen to get matched up, and b) do as well as possible otherwise so that the invitations drop down just in case he doesn't quite make it. thats bullspit. i don't think they'd actually do this mind you, but they could and the rules to prevent it are significant. if you don't think people would do this, look at the number of people in this thread who said they would drop a tourney so that a local player could qualify (no offense to any of you, if i could play at my local qualifier i would, and would drop in the 2nd to last round).
I don't want this post to be taken as a criticism of WoTC, I really think the folks at WoTC have done an excellent job with the tournament scene in this game. These are just my suggestions on how i think the championships could be improved.
p.s. Gil i'll be cheering for ya at santa clara, although that'll be hard since it'll be against the local guys. go qualify somewhere else first slacker!
| |
-Doranur
join the revolution! down with round/turn fascism! viva la resistance! | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 6:21 PM |
| My feeling is that we'd benefit more from a couple other changes than from passing the top 8 at qualifiers:
- Once you place in the top 4 somewhere, no more qualifiers for you. This is a point that has been debated back and forth, and one I've flip-flopped on myself, but I think in the end having people qualify from the tournaments is better than relying on the pass down invites from the top 25 instead, simply because you're more likely to get a GenCon attendee at a qualifer.
- Add more qualifiers rather than invite more people from existing qualifiers. People are spending crazy amounts of money and time to fly around everywhere trying to qualify, and with better coverage you wouldn't need to do that as much. It is just nuts that the SoCal guys don't have their own qualifier, I think. CA can easily sustain two (and remember, we're 6-7 hours apart between the Bay Area and Orange County, there are *plenty* of venues closer than that in other parts of the country) and there are other areas that seem neglected as well. Why not up the total qualifiers to 28 or 30? | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
Dral
Skirmisher
29 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 6:24 PM |
| | Another thing I think Wizards could do, is compensate those who are in the top 10 by having them judge an event, and instead of giving them mini's, give them cash towards the plane ticket to GENCON. This would also alleviate the issue of unqualified judges at major events. | |
| |
| 
Lead Moderator
LCS
Underboss
1928 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 6:26 PM |
|
I don't like the thought of having qualifier slots "passed down" if the top four have already qualified for two reasons:
a) it adds to the "small qualifier" problem; what if 3 of the people playing at the Alberta qualifier had already qualified?
b) it penalizes players at locations which have qualifiers earlier in the season.
As far as the original idea to increase the number of spots available at qualifiers with a higher attendance, I would rather see an equivalent increase in the number of qualifiers.
The skill level of players is completely independent of the quantity of players in any particular location, so taking a higher number of players in those locations won't necessarily mean that the players who qualify are good players who "deserve" to qualify.
For every person who is disappointed by coming in 5th or 6th at a larger qualifier, there are hundreds of other people who didn't even get the chance to try.
| | | |
|
Tried
Sergeant
501 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 6:43 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Dral
Another thing I think Wizards could do, is compensate those who are in the top 10 by having them judge an event, and instead of giving them mini's, give them cash towards the plane ticket to GENCON. This would also alleviate the issue of unqualified judges at major events.
Who do you think judges at Gencon? [:)]
Also, with respect to the title of this thread, I gotta quote Eastwood here (from Unforgiven):
"..what's deserve got to do with it?"
| |
Let it be. | |
|
Teach
Sneak
140 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 6:51 PM |
| The reason I support an increase in number of qualifier spots is that it's more fluid and reacts to changing player demographics better than WotC deciding in January or February where the qualifiers will be that year. No, more players at a qualifier does not mean necessarily better players, but it would alliviate in the short term issues like only 1 qualifier in california or Niles having so many people planning on being there. Also, it would hopefully help prevent so much travel by players to make it to a qualifier where they might be able to qualify.
I agree that more qualifiers is also necessary, and that there shouldn't be that many people in the championship (128 sounds like a good cap). | |
| |
|
Tried
Sergeant
501 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 7:21 PM |
| I'm personally hoping for 63 this year, with me getting the first round bye.
Is that so wrong? [)] | |
Let it be. | |
|
Dagni
Sergeant
870 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 9:22 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by bshugg
I'm not a real fan of letting invited people play in qualifiers. Either if they qualified through ranking, or worse qualified through playing in a qualifier. A player that is not invited on ranking who qualifies at multiple events ends up taking away a slot from other players each time. Thats not a fair system.
I'm a huge proponent of having top 4 invites pass down. I'm a huge opponent of not allowing players to play in as many qualifiers as they wish.
quote:
Originally posted by AesophDarkfable
To me alot of the issues stem from the weaknesses in the DCI system and the ability to qualify more than once. The second is an easy fix (change it to once you qualify you can't again and the spot slides down).
Well, I would think it's an easy fix too. On the other hand, when I emailed Ian Richards about letting the qualifier slots pass down, one of the things he said in response was that last year there were 2 qualifiers that never even properly reported the results of the qualifier. They had to bring GenCon passes to GenCon to give out to these people if/when they showed up. In other words, I think he was trying to say, how can we pass down qualifier slots, if we don't even know who has already qualified?
Me, I would think there are ways around that problem, and that it's a problem that needs to be fixed whether qualifier slots pass down or not. Still, it's worth realizing that even the simplest ideas can be harder to implement than they sound.
quote:
Originally posted by doranur
3) after the qualifiers are done, and you have your pool of 88 (there was 22 right, including europe?) allow those players to register for the main tournament only if they plan to attend. the remaining "spots" are filled from the top of the DCI lists but only if the player confirms they will be there. basically send a form email saying "if you will be here, reply to this email within one week and your name will be put on the list for invites, you may get an invite depending on how many people confirm they will attend". this allows you to fill up to 120 players.
Email? That assumes that WotC has the email of everyone who's in the top 25/50/whatever DCI ratings. I'm guessing that's an incorrect assumption. Again, a simple idea, but I don't really know whether or not it's logistically possible for WotC.
quote:
Originally posted by IanB
- Once you place in the top 4 somewhere, no more qualifiers for you. This is a point that has been debated back and forth, and one I've flip-flopped on myself, but I think in the end having people qualify from the tournaments is better than relying on the pass down invites from the top 25 instead, simply because you're more likely to get a GenCon attendee at a qualifer.
I guess I'll pick this particular quote to base my general response to this idea. I'm strongly opposed to it, as I've already said.
If a player wants to spend his money and time to go to several big qualifier events, it's supposed to be an improvement to the game to NOT let him?
Play DDM everyone! Unless you already love the game, then don't! We don't like fanatics.
DDM qualifiers aren't consistantly able to get more than 20 people. Were people not much more willing to travel this year than in the past, I'm not sure that qualifiers would be getting that much better numbers than 2 years ago! No one (almost no one?) thinks that the players that have already qualified should take away a spot from anyone else, but this does not have to be the solution to that problem. Having the invites pass down should solve that issue just as well as barring the players from playing.
Should a player get only one chance to win the big first place prize? Sorry, you came close last time but failed. As soon as you saw that you were likely to get first, but paired against a bad matchup vs fourth place after the swiss, you should've dropped before you made top four. Because of course if you get fifth you can try again to win airfare to GenCon, but not third!
Prior to this year, the Qualifiers had bigger first place prizes, in terms of direct pocketbook effect, than winning the Championships! Jason Lioi didn't get $250 for winning last year, and the 3 cases of product and a Balor repaint sure don't amount to as much as hotel and airfare for 2 to GenCon Indy, as was the prize 2 years ago!
Even this year, though the qualifier prize is less, it's still worth far, far more than 5th at the Championships. Brad's suggestion seemed to be that even players who're already in on Ratings Invite shouldn't be allowed to play in even one qualifier. That sounds like a penalty for being highly ranked, not a benefit.
But more than the prizes, it's about having fun. I only wish that more ultra-competitive tournaments would happen within 6 hours drive of me! Yes, I want to play in all of them! Even under the current rules, I don't get to have the fun of playing against the NorCal players this year. Under the proposed changes by several here, I wouldn't even have gotten to play in AZ, either. That would've sucked.
Had the invites just passed down at AZ instead, I don't think it would've caused any problems.
Heck, I would like to see it a step further. What's the point of not allowing the first place winner to go to other qualifiers? Obviously so he doesn't win the first place prize twice. Fine, that's good... if such a person gets first, just pass down that prize to second place.
quote:
Originally posted by doranur
one final suggestion that people have come up with is invites passing down. I feel this is the worst suggestion of all, because it encourages "team" play. i'll use one of my favorite non-local players as an example, gilius thunderhead. Gil regularly finishes just out of the running in these tournaments, because he is a very good player who seems to just never get the right combination of matchups and luck to make it to the top 4. I fully expect Gil to qualify, and am never "happy" from a competitve stance to see him at a tournament (i like winning too much to be glad to see him in that perspective), but am always glad he is there from a people i enjoy playing and people i enjoy hanging out with perspective. he's just an easy example for this situation.
If invites were to be passed down, once his regular opponents have qualified (say dagni, tried, fenris, and smyrin) they can go to the same tournaments as he does and a)throw games to him if they happen to get matched up, and b) do as well as possible otherwise so that the invitations drop down just in case he doesn't quite make it. thats bullspit. i don't think they'd actually do this mind you, but they could and the rules to prevent it are significant. if you don't think people would do this, look at the number of people in this thread who said they would drop a tourney so that a local player could qualify (no offense to any of you, if i could play at my local qualifier i would, and would drop in the 2nd to last round).
Alright, I've already expressed generally what I don't like about the proposal to instead keep already qualified players from playing. So now I'll just cover specifics of why I have no problem with invites passing down.
You say that it promotes team play? The current system does so, only more so! I had so many opportunities to get Kevin Cleveland an invite at AZ! Same as if invites passed down, I could intentionally concede. It's unethical and I'm almost 100% sure it's also specifically against DCI rules, but I'm sure I could've gotten away with it, so long as I didn't advertise why I lost or conceded. Likewise, 6th round against Dwayne, if I concede we're BOTH in! So not only do I guarantee Dwayne makes it, but I still get my own shot at the goal I'm there for, AND I get a 1 hour break!
People actually do this kind of thing, concede to another player if the victory means a lot more to that player than to oneself. Especially if that opponent is a friend. Olivier Ruel, a Pro Magic player, had a column of top 5 lists, and gave the top 5 players he'd concede to, if he was just playing for money (not in running for top 8) and his opponent is playing for top 8. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/corner/28
Me, I don't think that's fair to all the people I've faced in earlier rounds, when conceding wasn't a possibility. So, as a rule, I won't concede unless I see a benefit in it for me. I'll admit, I might make an exception for my brother, I suppose.
Finally, going to top four, it's likely Dwayne, Kevin, and maybe one or two other guys on the bubble. All but one will make it. If I drop, I again ensure that Kevin and Dwayne make top four. How is this different from if the invites pass down? I actually get to CHOOSE whether or not 5th place makes it! If my goal is 'team' play, and I closely track the tournament pairings and results, I will know who's going to get fifth, and if he's on my team, I can let him... but worse, if he's not on my team, I can prevent him from making it.
If the slots pass down, I can't do anything like this. If I'm top 4, fifth will make it regardless.
So no, I don't see invites passing down as anything that allows "team play" at all. Allowing a player to play after he's qualified does, a tiny bit, but that is far outweighed, in my opinion, by the fact that such a player ought to be able to come to these tournaments if he wants to.
quote:
Originally posted by LCS
I don't like the thought of having qualifier slots "passed down" if the top four have already qualified for two reasons:
a) it adds to the "small qualifier" problem; what if 3 of the people playing at the Alberta qualifier had already qualified?
b) it penalizes players at locations which have qualifiers earlier in the season.
There are three possibilities:
1. Qualified players can play again, and slots don't pass down.
2. Qualified players can play again, and slots do pass down.
3. Qualified players can't play again.
First looking only at #2 and #3. They both basically equally add to the "small qualifier" problem. Likewise, either way, earlier in the season is worse, because of players that later on will either not play, or will, but the slot passes down.
However, let's look at #1. Even here, many players that have already qualified do NOT play in a later qualifier, or if they do, they drop after the swiss! So it becomes *exactly* like #2 or #3.
More, a small qualifier is less likely to have players that have already qualified... that's why it's so small. Saying 'what if 3 people at Alberta had already qualified?' isn't much different from 'what if three fewer people had gone to Alberta?'. Yes, there's a very slight chance that it excerbates the small qualifier problem, but not to any great extent. Not to mention the fact that if people knew ahead of time that a qualifier was going to be small - it wouldn't be all THAT small! I bet there are some people who really wish they'd gone to Alberta.
Secondly, yes, even the current system penalizes early qualifiers, though very slightly less than if invites pass down, since there are a few insensitive people like me who won't drop after the swiss. However, I'm not so sure I'd want my local qualifier to be a *late* qualifier! See, on the one hand, people go to qualifiers until they qualify. On the other hand, if there are 1 or 2 that are close, and 1 or 2 that are far, the player might well pass on the far away one... unless he's already failed in the close one(s)!
Something like 6 people from NorCal, and 5 from SoCal went to the UT qualifier. Like 3 of us - Paul, Dwayne, and myself - don't matter if it's a later qualifier and thus we've already qualified, and the slots pass down. However, would another few from NorCal have come, if that qualifier had been *after* a fifth or sixth place finish in NorCal's local qualifier? Would Dwayne have brought his son Darien, if it was Darien's last chance to qualify?
Likewise, will a few people from pretty far away show up at NorCal only because they've failed to get in at the closer qualifiers?
So I doubt there's any significant bias one way or the other.
- Dagni | |
Proud member of the GRUUMSH fan club! | |
|
Kevizoid
Sergeant
373 Posts
Southern California
| | 06/06/2006 10:46 PM |
| | Mongo's head hurt Dagni! | |
SoCal Colluder | |
|
Kithmaker
Commander
3926 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 10:55 PM |
| Dagni, I don't really understand where you're coming from in regards to the hypothetical situation in which the highly-ranked players who are already receiving an invite would feel penalized by not being able to play in a qualifier. The point of participating in a qualifier is to attempt to qualify. In my mind, the first place prize is merely a bonus. Ignoring the first place prize for a moment: if you've already qualified or are guaranteed an invite, why play in a qualifier? It just makes it that much harder for everyone else to qualify.
Please to explain. [:)] | |
My H/W list is not current...
Trade Reference List
OLD Trade references (191) | |
|
CSchroder
Sergeant
416 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 11:07 PM |
| Kith,
For the competition! One might argue that the point of the Qualifiers is for the best players to compete against each other and that a Qualifying spot is just the reward for competing well. How often does one get to play against top notch players at a central location? Besides Qualifiers, it is usually just GenCon and Winter Fantasy, unless you happen to live in a hotbed like SoCal or NorCal.
As you know, I just qualified in NJ. So why play in MD this weekend? For the competition! To test myself and to get better! While I love our local competition, the Qualifier will draw all the best players from the surrounding states.
I am concerned about taking another person's spot so that is why I told you of my intentions to drop if I happen to do well again and find myself in the top 4.
I don't care that much about the prizes and I wouldn't want to be in the reverse position where someone else took up 2 Qualifier spots. But that is my decision--I'm sure others feel differently. Some of my friends have said that they wouldn't mind if I wanted to go after the plane tickets--but that's just not me.
So best of luck to you on Saturday! | |
Charles AKA The Beardless One, Proud Member of Team Amish | |
|
Tried
Sergeant
501 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 11:11 PM |
| Qualifiers are the ONLY premier DDM events.(aside from the recent open tournament series). They draw players from far and wide, and they provide an intense gaming experience. More is at risk, with the higher K value. There is more adrenalin.
Qualifiers are excellent practice for the big show. Most of us in socal want to play in as many quals as we possibly can...
The point is not necessarily qualifying, or the prize (which, as you say, is a bonus) - it is the play that attracts people like Dagni.
(well, and the rest of us.) | |
Let it be. | |
|
Teach
Sneak
140 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 11:21 PM |
| I have to second Kith's comment. Qualifiers are for qualifying for GenCon, opens are for playing the best of the best.
EDIT: And Kith, I'm sorry, if that's not what you were saying, then I apologize for putting words in your mouth. | |
| |
|
doranur
Warrior
180 Posts
| | 06/06/2006 11:43 PM |
| i guess i'd be willing to amend my ideas to playing in multiple qualifiers, but would prefer the invites drop down through DCI rather than the location. i wish i could play in more qualifiers, as i truly love the competition, but i can't so thats that (one of the reasons i took the 1st place in utah was to avoid being able to play in more, since financially it wasn't wise for me to do so).
on the email issue, if you don't bother to update your DCI records, you don't deserve an invite. it's not hard if i remember right, and if it is currently hard it would be easy to make it more possible.
finally, i wouldn't want to play in the championship if i didn't think there was an outside chance i could win (i'd guess somewhere in the .5% range). if i can't come in 4th in a qualifier tournament, even one featuring people that have already qualified, i probably don't have even that measely chance. i was willing to travel to 4 qualifiers to maxmimize my odds of qualifying, fortunately i have a lifestyle that i have chosen specifically to be able to do stuff like that.
I feel for those with more responsibilities/less freedom, but i don't feel that the qualifiers specifically needs to address your needs. maybe i'm a jerk, but thats the way i feel. We're playing a competitive sport(close enough), and like everything else, there is folks who have competitive edges not necissarily just in playing the game, those folks will tend to win without other balancing factors.
I personally would love to see 10 regional events run by WoTC every year, one a month excluding the months of the gencons, that have a higher value to reflect the "best of the best" type competitions (a more formalized version of the opens run by WoTC). I understand the resources this would take, and can understand why they don't do it. I think that would draw away some of the competitive energies that surround the qualifiers, and put them more into a competition just for competition sake, that the most competitive players love. | |
-Doranur
join the revolution! down with round/turn fascism! viva la resistance! | |
|
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10493 Posts
United States
| | 06/06/2006 11:59 PM |
| Wow, thanks for all the replies everyone--it's great to hear so many opinions and to see them defended. I think that the overall hashing out of these ideas in an open forum like this can result in positive changes (if they're in fact needed), or better acceptance for the status quo (if that's what's best).
I really like the combination of suggestions to have the big show (nationals tournament at GenCon) be a 128-player event, and having the Grinder serve as the last-ditch way to qualify, with the people not making it to the top-8 auto-entry being given stand-by slots for people who don't show. If 125 of the 128 show, then the people who placed 9th, 10th and 11th in the Grinder get to play. That gives a bit more incentive to stick it out and play to the max all the way through the Grinder--it also means that some of those players with 2 losses have a real chance.
I think Dagni is right about people being allowed to play even if they've qualified. But, I also think it's wrong for someone who has qualified to knock someone else out--I'm in favor of a mandatory passing down of the invite if a previously-qualified person takes one of the four top spots at a qualifier.
As it is now, it's possible that the top 4 players at Niles will be people who've already qualified, and that none of them will voluntarily drop after Swiss, and that no new contestants will be invited from the Niles qualifier. (It's possible that this could happen at any number of locations--I'm picking on Niles because it's convenient.)
Having more qualifiers to boost the total number up to 128 is one way to do things, that's true. I don't know how much it costs (in money and personnel) to run these things, and don't know which is the better payoff for Wizards/DCI. Perhaps having a few more invites at the larger turnouts would be more cost effective, perhaps having the same policy at every event (independent of number of players--which is the gripe I've heard most) would be best.
Would more people come to certain sites if the top 8 qualified instead of the top 4? Hard to tell without doing the empirical test of trying it out. Would some players gripe about it? (I can see it now: "My qualifier had 32 people and only 4 invites, yesterday's qualifier had 40 people and 6 invites--and I took 6th at my qualifer! If only I'd had more players in my area--aaaaarrrrgh!")
Tough, tough decisions.
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
| The Defenestrator
AesophDarkfable
Warlord
5628 Posts
| |
|
|
|
|