Suggestion for change to qualifier rules/status

Jeff wrote:

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.

No kidding right? There is no denying the decline both on the tournament scene and in the player base. Some areas have held up better while others have withered away.

I haven't witnessed decline in either.
Perhaps Fennoscandia/EC scene is totally different.

Lönkka wrote:

I haven't witnessed decline in either.
Perhaps Fennoscandia/EC scene is totally different.

EC and decent chunks of Europe are doing a lot better than the normal tournaments and regional tournaments State side. Collectively and overall though things have dropped, just much more drastically in the US.

RoddimusPrime wrote:

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.

This is incorrect, unless you are defining "normal tournament" as a 10 player.

RoddimusPrime wrote:

Also, how hard would it be to program into Excel {...}

See, now you're talking about doing programming. That's far more complex than just copy+pasting the finalist's names.

RoddimusPrime wrote:

The GW system seems easier to track than confirming two final tables.

Not under the current system that is being used by the VEKN, it's not.

RoddimusPrime wrote:

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.

This has nothing to do with my suggestion so perhaps you want to make this into a new topic?

KevinM wrote:

RoddimusPrime wrote:

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.

This is incorrect, unless you are defining "normal tournament" as a 10 player.

I would define a normal tournament as fetching 10-15 players.

RoddimusPrime wrote:

Also, how hard would it be to program into Excel {...}

KevinM wrote:

See, now you're talking about doing programming. That's far more complex than just copy+pasting the finalist's names.

Then maybe I don't know how they have it setup, but if you add a little programming into excel to generate a list of names on a table who have a GW then it is copy and past at that point. Plus, the tournament organizer should be able to easily accomodate that. It should be just as easy to list the finalists mind you, but the part that I would imagine being harry is seeing how many times someone made the final.

Further, the programming portion it would take in Excel is not that hard. If someone says it will take days or weeks to do then they aren't that talented or don't have the time. I'm in the industry so I should know.

RoddimusPrime wrote:

The GW system seems easier to track than confirming two final tables.

KevinM wrote:

Not under the current system that is being used by the VEKN, it's not.

RoddimusPrime wrote:

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.

KevinM wrote:

This has nothing to do with my suggestion so perhaps you want to make this into a new topic?

It has everything to do with your post. You suggest having people eligible who make finals in two tournaments. As stated by me and others plenty of people make finals in the average sized tournament who don't get a GW to make finals. If you cannot achieve a GW in the final table or a previous round you shouldn't deserve to be qualified for CHAMPIONSHIP events. Again, it is your suggestion in THIS thread to make such qualifications. So THIS thread is appropriate in dealing with such matters. I full heartedly disagree with the idea of making finals twice should qualify you. If the normal average sized tournament were larger then yes, I would be inclined to agree. If the data suggested 9/10 times those who make finals get a GW to get there then I would agree. So if someone does the legwork to suggest this is the case then I might be willing to go with your idea as it would then be a welcomed change.

I would define a normal tournament as fetching 10-15 players.

See and here is a problem. I consider a 10-14 player tournament a failure and if I travelled any significant amount of time to get there, a bit of a waste of my time.