New Rules for Final ?

Amenophobis wrote:

In their respective pod, player can try to improve their ranking by gaining a GW and VPs. Tiebreaker as normal would be TPs.
So pod 3 (players 11-15) can try to rearrange their final ranking (player 15 might get the GW and then be ranked 11th, e.g.)

Except that it seems no one want to bring VP ranking back to the final. If someone gets a GW, he jumps in front of his table, but everyone else keeps his preliminary ranking.

Amenophobis wrote:

Tournament win: in case the first table times out with no GW, the next table is elegible to determine the tournament winner if there is a GW, and so on.

Again, with this solution, there will be awkward TWD.
Can you imagine, on a local 15 players tournament, the first and second eligible tables going for a timelimit, and then a random aggro bleed deck with double/triple 0 in rounds sweeping the third table in 50 mins?

Where's the logic ?
A guy that completely failed in rounds happens to win the tournament because he is playing against less experienced players with casual decks ?

Come on. I don't want to see this happen. Really, I don't.

Let's face it: finals time-out because players in the finals are usually the best, well at least part of the 25% best players of the tournament. They play good decks. They are hard to kill. They don't want to die and seek help from their allies to survive.

As a rule the faster is a game, the lower is the overall gameplay level.

Very fast games (1h~ like) happens where nobody cares about the table, but only plays his/her prey. Nobody help each other, and then people just die in the right order to the player who has the better technical skills/deck at the table. That's not why we love V:TES. If we wanted just to throw out our cards in the most effective way to make damage we would play only M:TG - don't get me wrong, I like M:TG. We love V:TES because there are interactions with other players, because weaker players/decks can work with each other to kill an opponent that is too strong.

That's why finals are longer - better players, resilient players, better decks.

What about an optional rule ? (Called the Vlad Final Option )

Just like you can play ECQ with multiple decks, you know ?



Something like that :

Final Round : Instead of only the first 5 players of the tournaments, we make pods of 5 according to the tournament rankings.
1-5, 6-10, 11-15, etc.

Every Table is playing according to the normal Final Procedure, but only the first one will affect the Tournament's results...

At the organizer's discretion, there can be an incentive for every table, of course...

Not everypeople will be able to play the final round, and some people after bad result with a deck after the three rounds they want to play casual VTES but with other deck.

In some big tournaments in Spain there is a second final, it's like a final but for players 6-10, and the winner of that table will get some prize. Like that the disappointing of not being on the final is not that big. Of course the result of this Second final is not taking into account for tournament results.

It could be good to hace this Second final for big tournaments like LCQ, Day 1 and FCQ though

acbishop wrote:

Not everypeople will be able to play the final round, and some people after bad result with a deck after the three rounds they want to play casual VTES but with other deck.

In some big tournaments in Spain there is a second final, it's like a final but for players 6-10, and the winner of that table will get some prize. Like that the disappointing of not being on the final is not that big. Of course the result of this Second final is not taking into account for tournament results.

It could be good to hace this Second final for big tournaments like LCQ, Day 1 and FCQ though

That's why it is an option...
Just like we discussed with Johannes...

The finalists are "sometime" made by other players (e.g king making) "I'll try to make my vp if you rescue me and if i don't make it i transfer out"... Seen at last round at French National... I don't want to argue, on that point precisely. But it's something that happens pretty often.

Someone said : I don't want to see someone being 0-0-0 able to win a tournament.
Doing 0-0-0 does not mean this player is casual nor has no VTES skills...

So i do think VLad OPTion (which we should call VLOPT ) is pretty nice and needs to be tested before being accepted/dismissed.