Suggestion for change to qualifier rules/status
18 May 2012 21:07 #30724
by Squidalot
Replied by Squidalot on topic Re: Suggestion for change to qualifier rules/status
In short, I'm personally not opposed to changes in qualification (it's a separate matter what the actual changes would be). And to limit the scope, we could have the changes only apply to the NAC (so it wouldn't have to affect the EC).
It seems odd to have different groups of people qualified for different Continental Qualifiers (you could for instance end up with a situation where the winner of the NAC wasn't qualified for the EC that year e.g. won NAC in June, EC in October but only made top 50% in NAC LCQ rather than 25% in NAC required under EC rules).
It'd be better to just have alternative rules for qualification in different regions to fir the need as in Asia/Oz
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 May 2012 21:23 #30727
by echiang
If having alternate qualification systems is too complicated and it's more important to streamline things (even if that does not serve the interests of particular groups/regions), then the Australian system should be made consistent with the NAC/EC system.
But if allowing alternate qualifications to fit the needs of particular regions is a valuable goal, then not only should the Aussie system continue to persist but different regions (such as the NAC in this case) should also be allowed to make reasonable accommodations to fit their specific needs.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
Replied by echiang on topic Re: Suggestion for change to qualifier rules/status
That's a valid point, but that situation already exists in the case of the Australian Championships (hypothetically the winner of the Aussie Champs might not be qualified for the NAC/EC).It seems odd to have different groups of people qualified for different Continental Qualifiers (you could for instance end up with a situation where the winner of the NAC wasn't qualified for the EC that year e.g. won NAC in June, EC in October but only made top 50% in NAC LCQ rather than 25% in NAC required under EC rules).
It'd be better to just have alternative rules for qualification in different regions to fir the need as in Asia/Oz
If having alternate qualification systems is too complicated and it's more important to streamline things (even if that does not serve the interests of particular groups/regions), then the Australian system should be made consistent with the NAC/EC system.
But if allowing alternate qualifications to fit the needs of particular regions is a valuable goal, then not only should the Aussie system continue to persist but different regions (such as the NAC in this case) should also be allowed to make reasonable accommodations to fit their specific needs.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
28 May 2012 12:25 - 28 May 2012 12:27 #31280
by johannes
Replied by johannes on topic Re: Suggestion for change to qualifier rules/status
The generally accepted practice from the past is that every continent can do the qualification system it wants. So if you think removing the qualification system (or make it easier) for the US helps, go Kevin and talk to Ben who will be in attendance and find out if there is a broad consensus in the player base about this. Personally I think the 25-player cut to Day2 is as much of a qualification as you need with 50ish attendance.
I think in Europe we are doing fine with the current system, actually I have seen many times the adverse effect that qualifying (and qualifying being not easy) made someone go to the championship. Also we don´t want to have Day1 getting out of hand with player numbers. Current numbers (from Poland) are really the maximum you can manage without going insane. Additionally we have seen a rise in small local tournaments "to get people qualified", which is a good thing and the national qualifier events are still premium events which draw multinational crowds, also a good thing.
I think in Europe we are doing fine with the current system, actually I have seen many times the adverse effect that qualifying (and qualifying being not easy) made someone go to the championship. Also we don´t want to have Day1 getting out of hand with player numbers. Current numbers (from Poland) are really the maximum you can manage without going insane. Additionally we have seen a rise in small local tournaments "to get people qualified", which is a good thing and the national qualifier events are still premium events which draw multinational crowds, also a good thing.
Last edit: 28 May 2012 12:27 by johannes.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Lönkka
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.124 seconds
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Forum
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Organizational Questions
- Suggestion for change to qualifier rules/status