file Qualifying in Continental Championship Qualifying tournaments

24 Jan 2014 09:18 #58813 by Decebalus
I am a liitle bit late and i am not sure, if this is been discussed before. But i noticed the new rule about qualifying, that has replaced the old 25%/33% rule.

"Players with 1 GW or more in a Continental Championship Qualifier event in 2014 are qualified."

- The rule makes it harder to qualify. Before you had to be in the top 25% of players. Now you have to be in the 20% (or less if a player has more than one GW) that make a game win.
- The rule rewards not playing to win the tournament, but to win one game. For example: It is now better to play a deck, that takes one in three GW, than to play a deck, that is more stable and has a bigger chance of winning the tournament. So we will see different decks.

Can someone enlighten me, why the rule change?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Jan 2014 09:53 - 24 Jan 2014 09:54 #58814 by Ankha

- The rule makes it harder to qualify. Before you had to be in the top 25% of players. Now you have to be in the 20% (or less if a player has more than one GW) that make a game win.

Measures on all the events entered in the database with 15+ players show that it's easier than before to qualify, since 35,5% of players score a GW (more precisely, 12368 / 34811, measured in june 2013)

- The rule rewards not playing to win the tournament, but to win one game. For example: It is now better to play a deck, that takes one in three GW, than to play a deck, that is more stable and has a bigger chance of winning the tournament. So we will see different decks.

Maybe, but Malkavian decks have been around since the beginning, and they usually score 1 GW in a tournament.

Can someone enlighten me, why the rule change?

The idea behind that was to make players know immediately if they're qualified or not.

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 24 Jan 2014 09:54 by Ankha.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Jan 2014 13:06 #58818 by Haze
I'm not sure if a deck exists that is built to reliably get only 1 in 3 game wins

on the other hand, with how unpredictable table seating can be, maybe every deck is like that. it sometimes feels like a 1 in 3 chance that you aren't sitting between 2 nightmare decks designed exclusively to counter you

vtes decks have always been specialized, hasn't changed much.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Jan 2014 17:22 #58829 by Pascal Bertrand

I am a liitle bit late and i am not sure, if this is been discussed before. But i noticed the new rule about qualifying, that has replaced the old 25%/33% rule.

"Players with 1 GW or more in a Continental Championship Qualifier event in 2014 are qualified."

- The rule makes it harder to qualify. Before you had to be in the top 25% of players. Now you have to be in the 20% (or less if a player has more than one GW) that make a game win.
- The rule rewards not playing to win the tournament, but to win one game. For example: It is now better to play a deck, that takes one in three GW, than to play a deck, that is more stable and has a bigger chance of winning the tournament. So we will see different decks.

Can someone enlighten me, why the rule change?

I'm not sure how a deck could certainly gain only 1 GW out of N games, and 0 GWs out of N-1 games.

Anyways, after calculations we've run on all the 15+ players archons we have at our disposal (2000 archons iirc), it shows out 1GW would have qualified more players than the 25% rule in those events.

But that's not the motivation for the change.

The motivation was to add some fairness.

Consider this situation: Two players play the same deck. At two different events, but with same number of players. They both have the same results (say they win 3-2 on their first table, get 1 VP from the second table where someone gets 4, and third table times out with no ousted player).

However, due to results from other tables, they don't get the same ranking.
In a 25-player event, a player with 1gw4.5 could end up being from (I would say) 4th (lots of timeouts) to 9th (various players getting vps/gws). Quite a change, especially if you're adding the 25% cut rule.

Now, the question is: why should two players who performed similarly not get the same qualification slot?

Yes, metagame is something to take into account - it's good not to be ousted by Hugh, Isak or Ben, but in the end, the goal of /each/ game being to win /that/ game, I'm happy to reward players who achieve their goals.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Lönkka, Hakuron, Pascek

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Jan 2014 17:39 #58830 by Pascek
Agree with Pascal.

Pretty much clear to me.

:bruj: :DOM::FOR::POT::PRE::PRO:
Roberto Mautone Jr.
Praetor

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Jan 2014 18:09 - 24 Jan 2014 19:49 #58831 by Pascek
A question was raised here in South America about the Qualifiers.

We are doing it this year, so many players came back.

But my question is if we can qualify all 10+ tournament winners in 2013, since we did not have qualifiers for that year.

Is it possible?

Thank you Pascal.

:bruj: :DOM::FOR::POT::PRE::PRO:
Roberto Mautone Jr.
Praetor
Last edit: 24 Jan 2014 19:49 by Pascek.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.091 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum