i think lucking into a game win with stealthbleed and players not playing intelligently (i've seen people not treat g23 kindered spirits as a threat just because they didn't want to upset the person playing it) is in fact more common than making finals twice by getting enough vp's but not quite a game win twice.

tournament size... thats a sore point for me. in 2008-2009 we had better turn out than this year by leaps and bounds. we had roughly 28 for one mini q in 09, 19 for another, on average for many tournaments we were pulling 20 ish. we were averaging about 15, i believe, but our turnout locally (these numbers are ONLY talking about Newark, OH, not even the whole region of the us, mind you, travel was more frequent at those times as well) has seriously diminished as of late.

i believe qualifying without having to beat 3-4 hall of famers at the final table, and just making it to a position to try your luck against them twice would at least encourage more players into tournaments and vtes in general.

ReverendRevolver wrote:


I am simply saying I believe a GW would add more credibility to someone's resume for a championship event at this point and time. Besides, we have to consider the variety of regions out there and how often or not often they host a tournament. And that you would have a hard time convincing the mainstay of people who currently qualify for a championship to agree to a two time appearance at a final table with the tournament sizes we are currently fetching. If it were the numbers we had as you pointed out in 2008-2009 then it would provide a nice amount of validity.

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

either criteria would help increase qualifiers, but i think a gw+2 final tables would be fair but too hard to track currently.

ReverendRevolver wrote:


Perhaps a GW + 2 final tables would be a good hybrid method, but as you say most of these ideas come down to tracking them and having a transparent system for all of the VEKN to see.

I would say in either case you will have people playing stealth bleed and the like to procure a GW or VP's to a final table. But, that kind of happens anyway. And yes I have seen good players make the final table as well, but due to a timeout or split table they don't have a GW. So I do see the merit to either system. What would comfort me to know is that we don't have people limping in by luck or the skin of their teeth. If they choose to play bad decks during a championship could that throw a table off balance? Know what I mean? It could happen either way I suppose.

The dreaded truth is we wouldn't even be talking about this if we had more people attending tournaments and more qualifiers that would, get this, qualify people. And neither system is going to be full proof. Some comparison stats would be nice to see how each system would effect a series of tournaments in a local area. Also, we have to consider anyone willing to travel to the championship events is probably taking the game a bit more seriously than some anyway. So that will cut down on some people for sure. Not even all of the current qualified players attend.

Obviously many people feel something may need to done, but the situation is currently not so dire in attendance for said championship events.

What would be interesting is if we could allow people who are qualified and choose not to attend a championship to be able to send another player as the representative in their stead. I think so long as people made the choices with good intention it could be viable despite the obvious bribery potential. Although, given the game is dead and not based on prize support I don't see that as a common issue.

Or ya know, do away with the qualification system altogether.

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

Izaak wrote:


What you say is indeed true, but is it the exception or the rule? It's not like we want to encourage more of the same bad behavior. Plus, a lot of people may feel they want some kind of recognition or simply want something to strive for.

RoddimusPrime wrote:
Nope, nothing to do with my post. "Game Win" is a qualifier that you are creating in order to make a goalpost for yourself to achieve or not in your argument.

The reason it has nothing to do with my post is this: If a region can only muster a single, 10-15p tournament as their approved qualifier, and the 4th or 5th player enters the final without a Game Win, then that standing within the tournament is the equivalent of a Game Win in a larger tournament, and should be treated accordingly, because getting into the finals is a more valuable -- and therefore more appropriate -- waypost within the VTES tournament structure.

My waypost is the top 5, no matter the size of the tournament. Yours is 4th, or 6th, or 9th, or 12th or 15th or 17th or some other place.

My waypost is already being reported in the majority of tournament and is trivial to report. Yours requires programming or detailed organization or data.

My waypost is ALWAYS a significant advancement within the tournament -- "I got to the finals and had a chance to win." Yours isn't necessarily a significant advancement -- "I got a Game Win, but I didn't make the finals."

My waypost is almost always a more difficult method of qualification. Getting to the finals twice is strategically and mathematically more difficult than getting a Game Win once.

My waypost is always consistent with Play To Win -- "I've got to get to the finals!" Yours isn't necessarily consistent with PTW -- "I've got my Game Win, and even though I might not make the finals, I'm qualified, so I don't really care about the next round(s)."

I think I've summed up my position enough that there's not much more for me to say. Thanks for the discussion.

KevinM wrote:


Here is an example of one days tournaments from this year.

Final Prelim Prelim Final
Rank Name GWs VPs VPs

1 Matt Wedge 1 4.5 5
2 Fred Scott 0 1 0
2 Robert Scythe 0 1.5 0
2 James Lin 1 4 0
2 Mike Zajac 1 5 0

1 Robert Scythe 0 3 3.5
2 Fred Scott 1 4 0
2 Andrew Fernandez 1 5 0
2 Matt Wedge 1 2.5 0
2 James Lin 0 2 0.5

Since players from California/Arizona rarely show up to the NAC, it doesn't make that much difference, does it?

Seriously, though, does it bother you that Fred, James, Robert, and you would all qualify under my system? Three of the four of you got a GW and the one that didn't just outright won the tournament. If that's what you're pointing out, then GREAT because it anecdotally demolishes Rodd's theory.

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