I suggested in my agenda email that we should discuss giving the winner of the gccg finals each year a pre-qualified slot at worlds. This is in accordance with our policy on international events (like Benelux open a few years ago), except in two aspects: judging & cardboard vs. virtual.
Both differences are reasons for concern: currently there is no judging for GCCG tourneys. As such, there will be a temptation to cheat, as well as proneness towards simple error. Moreover, we have as yet no policy towards online play. I think that it's become clear over the last few years that GCCG is around to stay. As such, it would be nice if we could recognize that entity in some way. A pre-qualified slot would be one such way. However, as Sergio (I think!) pointed out earlier, the winner of the GCCG tourney will most likely receive a pre-qualified slot from his own home country!
As such, do we have a strong motivating cause for providing such a pre-qualified slot?
GCCG Pre-qualified slot at Worlds?
-
zarathustra
- Ex Council Chairman
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm
http://www.alfanos.org
I think this is a good idea (supposed the qualifying tournament has 10+ players, normal swiss CoL rule format, etc...)
The GCCG qualified is already national champion issue:
a) this can be quite rare
b) the national council can qualify whoever it likes, so a runner-up from nationals or something (which is good, the winner helped his country to get more world slots)...
I would strongly argue for not basing the decision on this argument.
So if you ever vote on this, I would say: go for it
Kuba
The GCCG qualified is already national champion issue:
a) this can be quite rare
b) the national council can qualify whoever it likes, so a runner-up from nationals or something (which is good, the winner helped his country to get more world slots)...
I would strongly argue for not basing the decision on this argument.
So if you ever vote on this, I would say: go for it
Kuba
1) As many already told in CoE mailing list, official judging is not yet so present in tournaments (hope it will be soon, with this very good JCPzarathustra wrote: Both differences are reasons for concern: currently there is no judging for GCCG tourneys. As such, there will be a temptation to cheat, as well as proneness towards simple error. Moreover, we have as yet no policy towards online play. I think that it's become clear over the last few years that GCCG is around to stay. As such, it would be nice if we could recognize that entity in some way. A pre-qualified slot would be one such way. However, as Sergio (I think!) pointed out earlier, the winner of the GCCG tourney will most likely receive a pre-qualified slot from his own home country!
), so cheating is probably more easy in some national tournaments than in GCCG, where someone, say Zara i.e., can always enter your room and have a look to your match.2) Virtual cards are not a problem for me. I also allowed the use of proxy in italian events (only Nats need the proper cards) because of the lack of cards that a lot of new players experiment.
So, if the player can bring a deck with all the proper cards at Worlds, it will not be a problem.
3) I still think that it will not be rare that some already prequalified player will get this slot, but of course when I told this I was not considering this a problem, only a note about why I never thought at this possibility.
I think yes.As such, do we have a strong motivating cause for providing such a pre-qualified slot?
It could be both a reward for the people who most keep MECCG alive (even if it is only "virtual" play) and a possibility for some very good player that do not have a national tournament or can not go at it.
"...And he said that if I had the cheek to make verses about Earendil in the house of Elrond, it was my affair. I suppose he was right"
-
thorondor
- Ex Council Chairman
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
- Location: salzburg, austria
- Contact:
i think you are right: sheating isn?t such a big issue. actually it would be quite easy for players to cheat at national championships, if they really want.
i am not that naive to think, that there is no cheating among MECCG, still as far as i assess our community even on a high tourney level, cheating doesn?t win you any titles.
since this was my only objection, i d like to see this realized.
i am not that naive to think, that there is no cheating among MECCG, still as far as i assess our community even on a high tourney level, cheating doesn?t win you any titles.
since this was my only objection, i d like to see this realized.
In theory, a GCCG Champion would be great.
They should be determined by official GCCG tourneys, of course. Also, I'm more concerned with "format" of online play rather than cheating. For instance, to what extent should an opponent be asked to allow a player to "put back" cards that are accidentally drawn, apologize for looking at his/her play deck, and all the other little mistakes that computer play faciliates, before the player should receive an official designation of "cheating" or at least "not competent" for that particular game? The easiest thing would be to leave it up to the player, I suppose.
One more thing: there is *no WAY* that GCCG games should be allowed to go on indefinitely. GCCG should aim to duplicate the way Meccg was meant to be played in real life tourament settings: with an hour and twenty minute time limit. Since imposing a time limit in and of itself would not be a good subsitute in online games, I would strongly advocate a "turn maximum" in GCCG tournament play, of no less than SIX TURNS and more more than SEVEN TURNS. Only one of these numbers should be chosen, 6 or 7. Thoughts?
Frodo
They should be determined by official GCCG tourneys, of course. Also, I'm more concerned with "format" of online play rather than cheating. For instance, to what extent should an opponent be asked to allow a player to "put back" cards that are accidentally drawn, apologize for looking at his/her play deck, and all the other little mistakes that computer play faciliates, before the player should receive an official designation of "cheating" or at least "not competent" for that particular game? The easiest thing would be to leave it up to the player, I suppose.
One more thing: there is *no WAY* that GCCG games should be allowed to go on indefinitely. GCCG should aim to duplicate the way Meccg was meant to be played in real life tourament settings: with an hour and twenty minute time limit. Since imposing a time limit in and of itself would not be a good subsitute in online games, I would strongly advocate a "turn maximum" in GCCG tournament play, of no less than SIX TURNS and more more than SEVEN TURNS. Only one of these numbers should be chosen, 6 or 7. Thoughts?
Frodo
Good stuff... I think the tournament where the pre-Q slot is up for grabs, should be an invitational. We could have maybe 3 normal 2-deck tournaments per year, and the top 2 or 3 of those tournaments would receive an invitation to the pre-Q tournament.
The only real problem I see is judging. It's impossible when the games are played at random times. Maybe the invitational should be held at a certain time, like the GCCG tournament last year? Then a timelimit could be in use as well.
The only real problem I see is judging. It's impossible when the games are played at random times. Maybe the invitational should be held at a certain time, like the GCCG tournament last year? Then a timelimit could be in use as well.
-
zarathustra
- Ex Council Chairman
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm
You think the invitational should be a 4-player round robin, like at Worlds? (Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean.)
http://www.alfanos.org
Well the number of invitations given in a tournament would be dependant on the number of participants in the tournament. So for example if in the first tournament there are 18 players, top 3 would get invitation. In the second tournament there are only 10 players, so only top 2 would get invitation.
Maybe something like this would be good:
If <7 players, 1 invitation. 7-12 players, 2 invitations. >12 players, 3 invitations.
If a player already has invitation it would be passed down to the next player. So for the pre-Q tournament, there would be 3-9 players invited. I'd say 6-8 participants in the pre-Q tournament is likely with this model.
Maybe something like this would be good:
If <7 players, 1 invitation. 7-12 players, 2 invitations. >12 players, 3 invitations.
If a player already has invitation it would be passed down to the next player. So for the pre-Q tournament, there would be 3-9 players invited. I'd say 6-8 participants in the pre-Q tournament is likely with this model.
i think it should be definitely an open event
not everybody has the time to play 3 qualifiers or something
qualified players might not show up (and having a world qualifier with 5 people seems weird)
one important event could also attract plenty of people
it shoudl be more difficult (skill testing) to win a big event , then top3 smaller one and win a small one
K.
not everybody has the time to play 3 qualifiers or something
qualified players might not show up (and having a world qualifier with 5 people seems weird)
one important event could also attract plenty of people
it shoudl be more difficult (skill testing) to win a big event , then top3 smaller one and win a small one
K.
The qualifiers are big events. So instead of one, we could have three major tournaments and the finals. I don't understand why you think people would need to play in all three qualifiers. One is plenty if you play well enough. You might have bad luck, so you can try again in the next tournament if you want. If a qualified player doesn't want to play in the finals, the invitation could be passed down in the tournament he received it from.
I disagree about the big events (more people) requiring more skill. Some will actually get to play against weaker players (maybe even twice), so luck will be a greater factor than in a tournament with only the best players.
And most importantly, I do not want to see a pre-Q slot handed out without a judge present at the games. The only possibility I see is to have all the final games played at a certain time, with a judge present. GCCG has only so many tables available, so too many players in that tournament could be a problem.
I disagree about the big events (more people) requiring more skill. Some will actually get to play against weaker players (maybe even twice), so luck will be a greater factor than in a tournament with only the best players.
And most importantly, I do not want to see a pre-Q slot handed out without a judge present at the games. The only possibility I see is to have all the final games played at a certain time, with a judge present. GCCG has only so many tables available, so too many players in that tournament could be a problem.
-
charles jenkins
- Ex Council Member
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:58 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
I haven't been on gccg in ages, and I only observed parts of the "first" gccg tournament, so perhaps some of my info is dated. Here are some thoughts on gccg "qualifying" events:
-an available judge(s) is essential;
-per Joe, a reasonable time/turn limit is needed;
-other reasonable tournament guidelines to try to mimic, insofar as possible, a real tournmant with real cards;
-ettiquette needs to be established, i.e. no IM's such as "phone, brb", etc.
-an available judge(s) is essential;
-per Joe, a reasonable time/turn limit is needed;
-other reasonable tournament guidelines to try to mimic, insofar as possible, a real tournmant with real cards;
-ettiquette needs to be established, i.e. no IM's such as "phone, brb", etc.
"I say to you againe, doe not call up Any you cannot put downe"
-
zarathustra
- Ex Council Chairman
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm
It looks like the GCCG tournaments are drying up, largely because the organizers don't kick ass when people take too long to play their game. Until that changes, this issue is unimportant.
... though if we decided to make the GCCG slot conditional (e.g., you can be prequalified through gccg, but only if there's enough people in enough tournaments), that might motivate more tournaments....
... though if we decided to make the GCCG slot conditional (e.g., you can be prequalified through gccg, but only if there's enough people in enough tournaments), that might motivate more tournaments....
http://www.alfanos.org