Suggestion for change to qualifier rules/status

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.

KevinM wrote:

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.

If someone wins a tournament then of course they are already qualified. How would your idea or mine change that? I never said to abandon the old system. Rather to add to it.

Secondly, if you read my more recent posts you would realize that I already admit the results would probably yield a similar pool of those who end up qualifying. If the results are similar I don't see how either way of qualifying people would provide vastly different results. Again, it is nice to have data to pull from and I don't think anyone should make a decision without further examples and of course a good majority of the player base agrees with it. If we don't have that then this is all a moot point.

Lastly, as I have already stated it is sad we have to be even having this debate or discussions on how to qualify more people without diluting the skill pool. Nearly every legit sport/game should have a professional system in which to be able to rank or distinguish higher skill levels. And in the case of VTES that is even more evident as we all know a bad player can really throw off a table. So whatever is devised or agreed upon has to sustain that and it is entirely appropriate to assess that and how that would be done.

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.

Had no idea you were looking to disprove or demolish anything. That's childish if so. They are small tournaments and the odds of somebody appearing at a final table twice is a decent shot when half the people will appear at the final table anyway. And as I will point out the winner always qualifies.

Also, this PROVES nothing. However, it suggests that either system would have qualified the same people in this example. And if you smart at statistics you will know already that a larger field of samples is need to draw trends and provide a stable base of evidence.

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.

By the way I have to address this as apparently someone isn't getting the point.

My point is not to argue that one system is bad or that another is entirely better. I just don't see the point in making a large discredit in either idea until there is more proper evidence and an agreement from the player base. There could be a better idea than either of ours. Who knows?

Also your examples are bad. There, I said it.

Adding a potential other way to qualify should only add to the system, not take away. Thus qualifiers/regionals/etc. stay the same. So pointing to a qualifier is a bad example as the top 25% already qualify and no less than all the members at the final table will be qualified. You cannot point to a regional, qualifier, or any other non standard tournament for support to your argument. Those tournaments and their methods of qualifying people should stay the same.

What is in question are standard normal tournaments. Unless you are suggesting changing the aforementioned tournament types as well. Which if you are I missed that. And sorry normal tournament sizes won't give someone in 9th or 15th a qualifying seat as those size tournaments simply don't happen outside of special events like the ones mentioned above which have a different qualification system. So if you are going to use examples, be realistic about it, okay?

Going down this road is veering off topic for this thread. Thus I am done with it as it seems anyone with another idea simply isn't correct or must beat their head against a wall. I am willing and open to different ideas to take the best one people can champion and take it to the player base. And if they want it then great and if they don't then great. We can hold off for the time being if they say no and present the idea again in the future when the concern crops up with even more fervor among the player base.

I say let more people chime in with their ideas. Then take a poll with 4 options (one which must be no change, and then something like the idea you mentioned, the GW system, and some other appropriate idea), and let the player base choose on here and through facebook and do a tally. And if you are suggesting the only viable method thus far is your idea due to how the system currently works then don't throw out the idea of modifying the system. For example I know people who can modify the Archon (as does Johannes I am sure). Claiming it requires some coding changes in the Archon for who ever happens to have another idea is not something that should deter a better system or something that can enhance the VTES community. That is why we feel the way we do isn't it? In order to identify and help the VTES community where it seems to need the help?

Anyway, I am done with this thread and hope you get what you were looking for.

RoddimusPrime wrote:

I just don't see the point in making a large discredit in either idea until there is more proper evidence and an agreement from the player base. There could be a better idea than either of ours. Who knows?

I'm not of the "Who knows?" camp. I'm of the "I think I have an idea which is better than the current idea and here is why, so let's try this new idea." If you aren't pushing for your alternative-to-my-idea, so much the better, let's try mine.

RoddimusPrime wrote:

Adding a potential other way to qualify should only add to the system, not take away.

That is assuming the current system works and is healthy. My contention is that it is not.

RoddimusPrime wrote:

You cannot point to a regional, qualifier, or any other non standard tournament for support to your argument.

Of course I can; it's some of the basis of my argument.

RoddimusPrime wrote:

Going down this road is veering off topic for this thread. Thus I am done with it as it seems anyone with another idea simply isn't correct or must beat their head against a wall.

I don't feel like I'm beating my head against a wall. Do you? I simply feel that my idea has merit, is trivial to implement, and will result in a better system for all involved, and am willing to explain and defend why I believe it. I'm sorry that resulted in a headache for you.

KevinM wrote:

I would like to suggest that, for 2012, we change the qualifier rule from:

"If you win a tournament, then you qualify (for that calendar year)"

to

"If you win a tournament or are a finalist in two tournaments, then you qualify (for that calendar year)"

Given that Kevin has been running the NAC at Origins for a couple of years now, I don't see why we can't try changing the qualification rules for the NAC, if only to experiment with it.

Using the precedent of Australia (which has had a separate qualification system, 50% qualification, for a number of years now), we could just have a special qualification rule for the NAC (which wouldn't have to affect how things are done in Europe or the other continents).

If the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican players are okay with slightly different qualification standards then I don't see the problem with it. (Similarly, it's not as if the European and U.S. players got much of a say to the special Australian qualification system).

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).

A quick clarification:

I said "for 2012". I meant "for the 2012-2013 season".