| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
johnny.quest
Underboss
1386 Posts
    
 | | 06/08/2006 1:38 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by PatEllis15
Of course, as I stew on this, i realize that of course, this runs counter to Brad's point, which is that we need to raise the number of sanctioend events that are getting filed with WotC, so they see the demand... Hrm... Not sure what the answer is. [:(]
Well, our FLGS still runs monthly sanctioned tourneys, and I think that the league is helping to increase numbers at the tourneys. I'd imagine that increased numbers would be indicative of demand as well. | | | |
|
Dagni
Sergeant
870 Posts
| | 06/08/2006 3:43 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by CSchroder
First of all, go Urban go! You just never know and I agree with the others that you have the skills to compete.
Yeah, not so much to echo what has already been said many times, but to add a comment on Vassal specifically. It's a clunky interface, not too amazing for playing the game... but the competition is truly exceptional. Hopefully no offense, Urban Druid, but I almost laugh to read that someone who plays against so many great players on Vassal would be scared off by the thought of a few good players coming to the qualifier.
Most of the people on Vassal, especially about this time of year, are all players that have competitive chances in qualifiers. If you can win even close to half your games on Vassal, then there's no question that you will have a shot in any qualifier you play in. Because almost all the people you might face on Vassal are players that themselves are good enough to have a shot at a qualifier.
quote:
I think we are touching on why people play DDM. I play DDM to have fun and to compete against the best players I can find as only then can I improve my game and hopefully get to the point where I can challenge the top players and occasionally win.
[snip]
I guess my point from all this rambling is that some people find going to Qualifiers, playing against the best players, etc. a challenge while others do not.
If you are wary of competition at a Qualifier, how are you going to compete at the National Championship where the competition has just gone up exponentially?
I do agree that we need something to ensure that we don't lose Qualifier spots due to people qualifying more than once. However, I disagree with making Qualifiers less competitive by preventing the top players from attending.
Yeah, here's where I'm just not so sure that bshugg's suggestion would help any, really.
Although Urban Druid has already spoken up as a counter-example to what I'm about to say, how many people that got scared off from a qualifier were ever really interested in competitive play in the first place? From Vrecknidj's comments about his area, these players don't sound so much like they don't want to go to a qualifier as much as they don't really want to go into a more competitive scene at all.
Will Gil Acosta or Kevin Cleveland, players I actually *have* taken a spot from - will they lose interest in this game after NOT making the Championships, assuming they fail to qualify later this season? I suppose it's possible, but on the other hand, Kevin had already made 9th in Nationals last year... and STILL stopped playing for some months until recently starting to play again.
In a sense, it's the Kevin Clevelands, or the Eric Cleavers of the world that I'm concerned with, more than the locals that perhaps just don't enjoy Organized Play, as it gets too competitive rather than 'fun'. I think that Kevin Cleveland is good enough he easily could've been the one that won a qualifier, rather than coming in fifth. Likewise, Eric Cleaver *did* win a qualifier! These are players that enjoy playing the game, and if I had to guess, really enjoy the stiff competition. These players, in my opinion, ought to be able to go face MORE high level qualifier competition, even if they win, are in the top 25, or have already qualified. With the current system, Eric has said that he didn't even want to play in another qualifier, after already qualifying. However, I don't know, but I would guess that he'd really enjoy doing so IF the rules were changed to allow spots to drop down. Anyway, my point is that players like Eric and Kevin should be just as important as the players in Vrecknidj's area, that might be scared off just from *hearing* of good players going to the qualifier, and that preventing a few such players from going to more qualifiers is bad for them, and bad for the people there that *enjoy* meeting (and sometimes beating!) other good players from other areas.
I think that even had Dwayne and Sven won in CO, the players there would still have enjoyed the fact that they actually flew all that way. As it is, I'm sure the victory for those who made top four was even sweeter given that they had beaten two such high caliber players! It was a win-win that Dwayne played in another qualifier right after already qualifying the prior day. Everyone there enjoyed an even more competitive tournament, and four people qualified right past him.
Qualifiers should be BOTH for long-time, loyal players AND new players alike. The only good way I see to do that is allow everyone to play in any and all qualifiers, and let invites pass down past those who have already qualified.
I don't want Kevin Cleveland to not make GenCon because I took his spot - but I want my spot to pass down! One of the many reasons I played in another qualifier, and didn't drop after the Swiss, is because if no one ever DID qualify twice, then it'd be less likely that WotC would change the current system to allow invites to pass down.
- Dagni | |
Proud member of the GRUUMSH fan club! | |
|
memphisto
Warrior
213 Posts
| | 06/08/2006 4:13 PM |
| I share Dagni's sentiments in his last post, and I'll provide some personal exposition to illustrate why.
When the rest of our regular, local group drove to Utah and I couldn't make it to compete amongst the locals and CA "invaders", I was jealous that I'd miss an opportunity to compete against such a field.
Some days later going into the CO qual, my intent was to have fun and qualify, but deep down, I really wanted to win it all, so I could compete in Indy because I couldn't justify the trip financially without the tickets. When Dwayne, Sven and Darrien popped in that morning, my inital reaction was "holy shit they're here, NOW what am I going to play?" Then Drakkengi and his brother showed from Utah to boot! Suddenly qualifying was going to be very hard, let alone getting those plane tix. But then my adrenaline got going because now the qualifier meant that much more, and I would get a chance to play in a bigger, more competitive and, yes, fun field. I only lost to Dwayne that day, and wining this qual meant much more to me than winning it the year before. I won't forget that tourney, and it was made more special in good measure by other members "invading".
People playing and competeing as they desire is separate from invites passing down though, and I haven't read anyone who's opposed to the idea that invites should pass down. I think it's a mistake to tie these issues together and shift the burden from OP to those who are already qualified, by asking them to not compete repeatedly (or at all) in multiple qualifiers. If OP reads this thread, they can see that having slots pass down and allowing people to compete to their heart's content are not mutual exclusive things. We can have our cake and eat it too. Just not this year.
Good thread. Good discussion. | |
Completed trades: arbados
Completed 23 trades on Hordelings www.hordelings.com - http://www.hordelings.com/directory/profile.php?user_id=429 | |
| D&D Miniatures
Guru
guyf
Sergeant
545 Posts
| | 06/09/2006 1:47 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by PatEllis15
Of course, as I stew on this, i realize that of course, [running non-sanctioned events] runs counter to Brad's point, which is that we need to raise the number of sanctioend events that are getting filed with WotC, so they see the demand... Hrm... Not sure what the answer is. [:(]
Run both. If your player base is mostly interested in more casual games, run a higher percentage of non-sanctioned tournaments. (But still run *some* sanctioned tournaments.)
Run plenty of limited events right after a set is released. Stores love 'em for obvious reasons, and – in my experience – fewer players get intimidated by the prospect of limited events. I've also noticed that limited events tend to bring in more brand new players than constructed events; new players don't have to worry about the size of their collection at a limited event.
Perhaps most importantly, run leagues and make sure they're reported back to WotC organized play. The Retailer/League Kits come with paperwork the store is supposed to fill out regarding number of attendeed and a couple other easy-to-estimate stats. I'm *sure* this paperwork has an impact on WotC's view of organized play even though it's not DCI sanctioned play. | |
-
Guy Fullerton
Official D&D Miniatures Net Rep | |
|
PatEllis15
Commander
4463 Posts
| | 06/09/2006 7:27 AM |
| quote:
Perhaps most importantly, run leagues and make sure they're reported back to WotC organized play. The Retailer/League Kits come with paperwork the store is supposed to fill out regarding number of attendeed and a couple other easy-to-estimate stats. I'm *sure* this paperwork has an impact on WotC's view of organized play even though it's not DCI sanctioned play.
Ah... having not had my hands on an official league kit in whole, I wasn't aware of this. So even league games that get reported go to show WotC what is going on at the local level. Good to know!
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 | |
| 
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10493 Posts
United States
| | 06/09/2006 9:41 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by guyf
Run both. If your player base is mostly interested in more casual games, run a higher percentage of non-sanctioned tournaments. (But still run *some* sanctioned tournaments.)
This is good advice. Thanks.quote:
Run plenty of limited events right after a set is released. Stores love 'em for obvious reasons, and – in my experience – fewer players get intimidated by the prospect of limited events. I've also noticed that limited events tend to bring in more brand new players than constructed events; new players don't have to worry about the size of their collection at a limited event.
This is true. I've talked more newbies into playing for limited events than anything else.quote:
Perhaps most importantly, run leagues and make sure they're reported back to WotC organized play. The Retailer/League Kits come with paperwork the store is supposed to fill out regarding number of attendeed and a couple other easy-to-estimate stats. I'm *sure* this paperwork has an impact on WotC's view of organized play even though it's not DCI sanctioned play.
Duh. Thanks for reminding me about this. This brings up an important question for me. I have enough players that can get together once in a while, but it's kinda crazy that we all live within 10 miles of each other (or thereabouts) but our closest retailer is 60 miles away. We generally get together in somebody's spacious basement. Would there be any problem with having a basement be our official tournament location? If I get a retailer to hook me up with cases, and then I distribute them at a non-retailer site, is this going to muck anything up for reporting?
I've run quite a few non-sanctioned events and no sanctioned ones, primarily because there's no store, so there's no retailer-based TO. I'm happy to call myself the TO and judge, and run things at a non-retailer location, and to try to talk a retailer out of some support material to do it, but I don't know if it'll fly with Wizards.
I've talked to the one local bookstore owner, but he has no room and no inclination (we all get our minis from either the 60-mile-away store--at 20% off, or from an online seller; the local bookstore owner sells at full retail price and offers no promos or events, so it's no surprise he doesn't have the sales of this product he'd like, so it's no surprise he's not interested in supporting me).
I can probably routinely get 8+ player events, and fairly consistently put together 16+ player events. I know I can get at least four, because I do this in my back room at least three times a month, just because we like to play the game.
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! | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 | You must be signed in to participate in the
games. |