Suggestion for change to qualifier rules/status
KevinM wrote:
The "problem" I see and the benefits which I believe would result were outlined in my OP.vtesocrates wrote: Are there a lot of players who are failing to qualify? Is there a problem here that needs solving?
You seem to define the problem is that vtes is stagnant and/or in decline, sure. Does changing how easy/hard it is to qualify address that problem? Are players losing interest or failing to generate interest in vtes because it's too hard to qualify? I'm genuinely asking.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- vtesocrates
-
- Offline
- Ancilla
-
- Posts: 55
- Thank you received: 40
Why is it a bad thing that players would try to get a GW ?KevinM wrote: "Get a GW and you qualify" is too low a requirement, because people could play a S+B deck just to guarantee they get 1GW, and then they could play improperly afterwards, since the rest of the tournament "doesn't matter". I don't see this behavior at qualifier tournaments, so while it *may not happen* I don't see a reason to take any chances.
Of course, if you assumte only S/B can get GWs, your argument is valid. But I'm pretty sure there are other ways.
Also, define "improperly", "doesn't matter", and "rest of the tournament" as these notions are quite vague. Would "improperly" include "not respecting PTW" ? Would "doesn't matter" include "not respecting PTW"? Would "rest of the tournament" include the finals?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Pascal Bertrand
-
- Offline
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 4268
- Thank you received: 1182
I was using S+B as an example, not as a summation.
My response to "Get a GW and qualify" is clear: Players could play a deck with which it is fairly easy to obtain a GW and then play improperly afterwards.
Definitions: Yes. Yes. Yes.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook:...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
I sometimes do that.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Boris The Blade
-
- Offline
- Antediluvian
-
- Posts: 1170
- Thank you received: 246
KevinM wrote: "Get a GW and you qualify" is too low a requirement, because people could play a S+B deck just to guarantee they get 1GW, and then they could play improperly afterwards, since the rest of the tournament "doesn't matter". I don't see this behavior at qualifier tournaments, so while it *may not happen* I don't see a reason to take any chances.
*rolls grenade*
So, back in 2005, the only time I made it to GenCon, there were 50+ people in the NAC(?) and 14 people in the Shadow Twin. I didn't feel bad about not qualifying, since I hadn't planned on being there, and I ended up winning the Shadow Twin, but if these numbers are representative of most of the major tournaments, I wonder what the point is of having qualifiers at all.
Non-Camarilla
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Forum
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Organizational Questions
- Suggestion for change to qualifier rules/status
Portions of the materials are the copyrights and trademarks of White Wolf Publishing AB, and are used with permission. All rights reserved. For more information please visit