Suggestion for change to qualifier rules/status

RoddimusPrime wrote:

Kevin, I do like your idea, but I also feel that if my local area had 10 tournaments a year we would have far more people qualified for championship events than if we just qualified those with a GW.

Rodd, you say some good things, but here's the problem with "1GW = qualified": ***MASSIVE*** paperwork

VTES already has no ratings system and there are no signs that there will be a ratings system anytime soon. Do you really think that someone, somewhere is going to collect every Archon from every tournament everywhere in the entire world and pull out the necessary data? What if Peter Bakija does as he has done previously and runs a tournament on index cards?

Aside from the fact that it is consistent with the current qualifier logic, the reason I suggested "finals twice = qualify" is that there are no new requirements from organizers needed to facilitate such a system. They just keep doing what they are doing and Brum (or whomever -- I'd do it) just copies+pastes 5 names instead of 1.

(Yes, some organizers don't give us all the finalists, but many (most?) do, and it's trivial for them to give us that information.)

KevinM wrote:

VTES already has no ratings system and there are no signs that there will be a ratings system anytime soon.

Johannes mentioned, on Cause and Effect, that volunteers are working hard to get the ratings system up and running. He expects it to be ready by the time the EC comes around. If I recall correctly, that is.

KevinM wrote:

RoddimusPrime wrote:

Kevin, I do like your idea, but I also feel that if my local area had 10 tournaments a year we would have far more people qualified for championship events than if we just qualified those with a GW.

Rodd, you say some good things, but here's the problem with "1GW = qualified": ***MASSIVE*** paperwork

VTES already has no ratings system and there are no signs that there will be a ratings system anytime soon. Do you really think that someone, somewhere is going to collect every Archon from every tournament everywhere in the entire world and pull out the necessary data? What if Peter Bakija does as he has done previously and runs a tournament on index cards?

Aside from the fact that it is consistent with the current qualifier logic, the reason I suggested "finals twice = qualify" is that there are no new requirements from organizers needed to facilitate such a system. They just keep doing what they are doing and Brum (or whomever -- I'd do it) just copies+pastes 5 names instead of 1.

(Yes, some organizers don't give us all the finalists, but many (most?) do, and it's trivial for them to give us that information.)

I fail to see how making sure someone was in two tournament finals is any easier of a data tracking job versus those who have 1 GW in modern VTES where 99% of normal tournaments a GW gets you into the final table. How many tournaments have we had since last Origins beyond Championships and Regionals that a GW didn't get you into the final table anyway? Thus the majority of the time someone is copying and pasting those who had a GW either at the final table or previous to the final table (As they are most likely in the final table anyway).

Also, how hard would it be to program into excel that anyone with a GW is added to a separate page/column named "Qualified Players." Just curious as I am sure we have Excel gurus on here and if not I probably know someone who could do just that if push comes to shove. The GW system seems easier to track than confirming two final tables. Yes, you copy and paste with either system, but the Archon can be modified to do what I speak of, where as someone has to manually check if someone else is in the current pool of players who made a final table previously. Plus, with the GW system we don't need a centralized data sheet or center to keep track of everything. Not if we do as I suggest with the Archon. And any confirmed/posted Tournament Wins can simply report those with a GW as well so we have a transparent system which I also view as critical.

Again, the other bit I have a problem with is letting people who haven't even earned a GW receive qualification for a championship tournament. And in the environment that we currently have there will be many who qualify who don't have a GW. To me that dilutes the pool of higher quality players and I don't want to see those without the ability to pull off a GW at a championship level event. I don't believe we are at that point where we need to expand qualification to those referenced players. At least not yet.

RoddimusPrime wrote:

1.) Changing nothing would be a bad idea. The game has been in decline and stagnant. There is no reason to believe this slow trend will not continue.

I don't think there is evidence of stagnation or decline.

Would you happen to have any evidence to support this?

Lönkka wrote:

I don't think there is evidence of stagnation or decline.

Would you happen to have any evidence to support this?

The first line of the OP.

Lönkka wrote:

RoddimusPrime wrote:

1.) Changing nothing would be a bad idea. The game has been in decline and stagnant. There is no reason to believe this slow trend will not continue.

I don't think there is evidence of stagnation or decline.

Would you happen to have any evidence to support this?

The evidence you seek is before you in the TWDA from thelasombra.com

Check it if you like, but fact is fact. And perhaps there are many players who don't play in tournaments who obviously won't be reflected in that list, but I don't believe there has been some rapid switch to casual play. Secondly, this debate is only in regards to tournament play. Although the player base as a whole has declined over the past 2 years. If you want evidence take some collective data like availability of cards on ebay, active auctions on ebay, or more importantly how people have been selling off collections left and right either in our own trade post or other areas including ebay. And beyond references to cards and their online second markets, there have been a decline in playgroups and their numbers. I can vouch for Ohio to say the least as it has definitely weakened within the last two years. Further, I can vouch for other people in the States as well as friends in Europe who have confirmed player base drops (and yes they are VTES players). Not to mention the game is dead and no cards being produced not only makes some people play less, and some drop out completely, but it makes it hard to gain fresh recruits.

Back to the largest statistic I can point you do is the TWDA. Take a look at the number of tournaments in the last 2 years and compare so far this year to last year. A quick look will tell you a decent percentage from Jan. 2011 through April and comparing the same time period to 2012, has indeed dropped. Maybe nothing over the top, but quite enough for a steady decline. Next, look at average tournament attendance. Case in point.

As far as the game being stagnant it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know after a long enough break without new cards will stagnate things to a degree. And I don't see things being innovative and fresh with the current cards as most angles have been explored. Sure, minor changes can be made to decks to get a bit of a different effect or maybe some people have yet to truly take advantage of some of the stuff that came out of HttB, but all in all I don't see things changing that much.

So in conclusion the game is stagnant to a degree (although in my mind there are enough cards even now to keep the variety quite complex even without new cards), and statistically on a tournament level the game is in a decline.