Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

North American Championships to Adopt Rotating Venue Begin..

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:10:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Players,

After much discussion, White Wolf has decided to rotate the venue for
the North American Championship.

To make it easy, the 2006 NAC will take place in Atlanta. I would like
to offer October 12, Columbus Day, as the weekend for the event. The
NAC will be the final tournament at the Week of Nightmares 2006.

GenCon's major event will be replaced with a US National Championship.
The constructed portion of the USNC is the GenCon qualifier for the
NAC. There will also be a limited portion. The combined score for these
two tournaments determines the US National Champion.

Strike: Begin Discussion.

--
Oscar J Garza III
Organized Play Coordinator
White Wolf Publishing, Inc.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:14:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

OrgPlay wrote:
> Players,
>
> After much discussion, White Wolf has decided to rotate the venue for
> the North American Championship.
>
> To make it easy, the 2006 NAC will take place in Atlanta. I would like
> to offer October 12, Columbus Day, as the weekend for the event. The
> NAC will be the final tournament at the Week of Nightmares 2006.
>
> GenCon's major event will be replaced with a US National Championship.
> The constructed portion of the USNC is the GenCon qualifier for the
> NAC. There will also be a limited portion. The combined score for these
> two tournaments determines the US National Champion.
>
> Strike: Begin Discussion.

Woo hoo! Woo hoo!

Can't wait to be there!

(okay so there's not much content to my discussion)

-Robert
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:38:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

I'll be the first to sign up at both!

Now, how can I help?


Robyn Tatu
VTES Atlanta
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:05:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote in message
news:1122484454.360583.26610@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> OrgPlay wrote:
>> Strike: Begin Discussion.
>
> Woo hoo! Woo hoo!
>
> Can't wait to be there!
>
> (okay so there's not much content to my discussion)

Well, hey! There's some intelligent and refined discussion.
;-)

Congratulations to those who worked for this. I hope
the improvements in the NAC that you were looking for are
manifested in spades. (And I hope you're right about the
WoN still being viable, Robert.)

Fred
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 4:39:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Well,

Now that we have the rotating venue option to discuss, what about a
re-evaluation of the qualifying process? Will the NAC still be a
multi-day event? My point here is partially derived from a recent post
by the Lasombra (regarding the fact that approximately 74 players are
currently qualified for the 2005 NAC due to the 25% rule), and that
point is why have a qualifying process at all? If you are having a
multiple day championship, why not let everyone who wants to travel and
play V:TES play? Construct the event similar to a golf event. Day One
you have to make a certain "score" to make the cut and advance to Day
Two. I've attended a bunch of qualifiers and a couple of NAC's. In my
opinion, the qualifying process is inefficient in "selecting" the
higher quality players (feel free to go back and look at some numbers,
especially the statistical significance of allowing 25% at an event
with 14 players vs an event with 60-still think qualifiers produce the
"best players"?). So if the NAC goes to a multi-day event, why shoot
ourselves in the foot and exclude players? Give the casual player
(who's on a limited time and money budget) a shot at the NAC title by
only requiring them to attend one major event. If you're worried about
the level of play at these events, why not institute a "non-travel"
qualification. Say something like a "Career Game" requirement, or some
kind of point system. That way as long as players are attending and
participating in V:TES events (local or not), they are earning a spot
in the NAC. Anyways, just some ideas as I see the problem in my area
is most players lack the funds to attend multiple events that require
travel and lodging-especially since there is always the option of
"failure" (ie you miss the 25% cutoff). Let's be realistic and back
off on this whole process and make it more favorable to getting the
casual player (with NAC tournament dreams) out of their house/local
store and out into the moonlight. If we had the numbers like other
card games, I would agree with a more structured system. But let's
take another look at the whole process that leads up to the rotating
NAC and see if we can make it better...

Ben Spaulding
Prince of Portland, Maine
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:07:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"bspaul" <bspaul41@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1122493182.449872.226310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> So if the NAC goes to a multi-day event, why shoot
> ourselves in the foot and exclude players? Give the casual player
> (who's on a limited time and money budget) a shot at the NAC title by
> only requiring them to attend one major event. If you're worried about
> the level of play at these events, why not institute a "non-travel"
> qualification. Say something like a "Career Game" requirement, or some
> kind of point system. That way as long as players are attending and
> participating in V:TES events (local or not), they are earning a spot
> in the NAC.

That would be highly unfair. As I've pointed out, time and again,
paricipation in VtES events hinges on the OPPORTUNITY to participate
in VtES events. So I'm sure this concept sounds all kinky and cool
when you happen to live in an area that offers a large number of VtES
events locally and yet many more within close-by driving distance.
Then the only issue is, "How much time do I want to spend on this?"
It's a whole lot different for people out in the hinterlands who
have to wait eagerly for their two or three VEKN tournaments within
two hours driving distance each year.

You've actually come up with a system that's a whole lot _more_
difficult for many casual gamers. At least the current qualifying
system only requires attendence at one qualifying event, assuming
you do well.

Fred
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:21:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Frederick Scott wrote:
> "bspaul" <bspaul41@excite.com> wrote in message
> > So if the NAC goes to a multi-day event, why shoot
> > ourselves in the foot and exclude players? Give the casual player
> > (who's on a limited time and money budget) a shot at the NAC title by
> > only requiring them to attend one major event. If you're worried about
> > the level of play at these events, why not institute a "non-travel"
> > qualification. Say something like a "Career Game" requirement, or some
> > kind of point system. That way as long as players are attending and
> > participating in V:TES events (local or not), they are earning a spot
> > in the NAC.
>
> That would be highly unfair. As I've pointed out, time and again,
> paricipation in VtES events hinges on the OPPORTUNITY to participate
> in VtES events.
[clip]
> You've actually come up with a system that's a whole lot _more_
> difficult for many casual gamers. At least the current qualifying
> system only requires attendence at one qualifying event, assuming
> you do well.

Isn't his main proposal that we drop the qualifying requirement
altogether making participation in the NAC much easier and more fair
for people who can't easily attend qualifying events? The part you're
objecting to is an additional idea that doesn't seem to be the core of
the proposal (stuff about ensuring the quality is high at the events).

Actually, I think the main idea about no qualifiers sounds interesting
(I could do without the other stuff).

-Robert
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:24:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

OrgPlay wrote:
> Players,
>
> After much discussion, White Wolf has decided to rotate the venue for
> the North American Championship.
>
> To make it easy, the 2006 NAC will take place in Atlanta. I would like
> to offer October 12, Columbus Day, as the weekend for the event. The
> NAC will be the final tournament at the Week of Nightmares 2006.
>
> GenCon's major event will be replaced with a US National Championship.
> The constructed portion of the USNC is the GenCon qualifier for the
> NAC. There will also be a limited portion. The combined score for these
> two tournaments determines the US National Champion.
>
> Strike: Begin Discussion.



I am certainly pleased that White Wolf has settled the issue promptly.
This way, everyone can begin to make the necessary preparations ASAP.

I think the rotating qualifier brings distinct advantages as well as
disadvantages.

Atlanta is assuredly a very fine city and I would love to visit it
again. And I also think it is wise to avoid DragonCon for the NAC
(choosing that venue would negate many of the arguments made against
GenCon concerning big conventions as venue).

I do have some concerns about the date however. It is my perception
that when choosing a date outside of summer, you run the risk of
scheduling conflicts. School, work, and/or family life may not be as
amenable to taking several days off (or an entire week for the Week of
Nightmares) when it is *not* during the summer.

November/December are poor choices because they may overlap with the
holiday rush. I do concede that the Columbus Day weekend would be the
best choice for the month of October. I would like to point out that
Columbus Day is not as widely celebrated as it once was. It is still a
Federal Holiday (so it's convenient for government employees) and
primary/secondary schools have the day off. However, AFAIK most
universities and companies do *not* grant time off for the holiday.
Thus any NAC plans should *not* be under the assumption that players
will have the upcoming Monday off (as college students and
non-government employees may not).

In addition, according to my calendar, Columbus Day falls on Monday,
October 9th in 2006 (not the 12th).

Assuming that the Limited and Constructed portions fall on different
days, I'm curious as to whether people feel that Fri/Sat or Sat/Sun
would be the best arrangement. My initial feeling is that Sat/Sun would
be useful in allowing people to fly in just for the weekend. However,
flying back Sunday night may not necessarily be feasible, especially if
the Sunday tourney is delayed.

What sort of format will the Limited event be? From my experience,
booster draft tends to be more challenging than starter draft but YMMV.
How will card sets and drafting pods be determined?

Finally, I'm curious how the combined score will be used for the two
different events. Are the two events weighted equally? 40/60? 70/30?
Will you simply add together the Rating Points (after factoring in
weights) or do you have a different method in mind?



With regards,
Eric Chiang
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:27:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote in message
news:1122495661.173911.244920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> "bspaul" <bspaul41@excite.com> wrote in message
>> > If you're worried about
>> > the level of play at these events, why not institute a "non-travel"
>> > qualification. Say something like a "Career Game" requirement, or some
>> > kind of point system. That way as long as players are attending and
>> > participating in V:TES events (local or not), they are earning a spot
>> > in the NAC.
>>
>> That would be highly unfair. As I've pointed out, time and again,
>> paricipation in VtES events hinges on the OPPORTUNITY to participate
>> in VtES events.
>
> Isn't his main proposal that we drop the qualifying requirement
> altogether making participation in the NAC much easier and more fair
> for people who can't easily attend qualifying events? The part you're
> objecting to is an additional idea that doesn't seem to be the core of
> the proposal (stuff about ensuring the quality is high at the events).

Yep. I posted to say I don't care for the additional idea.

> Actually, I think the main idea about no qualifiers sounds interesting
> (I could do without the other stuff).

Agreed, the main idea is worth talking about - without the additional
Career Game requirement part.

Fred
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 7:16:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

echiang777@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am certainly pleased that White Wolf has settled the issue promptly.
> This way, everyone can begin to make the necessary preparations ASAP.

I would think that for most people, "ASAP" is more 'As Soon as
Necessary', given the almost-15-months notice. :)  I personally feel
zero urgency to prepare anything about this before _this_ year's NAC
wraps up, for instance, and likely won't care much before at least the
New Year.

> I do have some concerns about the date however. It is my perception
> that when choosing a date outside of summer, you run the risk of
> scheduling conflicts. School, work, and/or family life may not be as
> amenable to taking several days off (or an entire week for the Week of
> Nightmares) when it is *not* during the summer.

On the other hand, the summer has numerous conflicts already, such as
people's desire to take vacations (often with their family/loved ones)
during the summer that do NOT involve VTES (I know, heresy!)

Also, Origins, Gen*Con, and DragonCon are already within a nine-week
span of summer, and will presumably all continue to have VTES events,
making squeezing a 4th major VTES event in there a bit much for WW
people, no doubt.

> November/December are poor choices because they may overlap with the
> holiday rush. I do concede that the Columbus Day weekend would be the
> best choice for the month of October. I would like to point out that
> Columbus Day is not as widely celebrated as it once was. It is still a
> Federal Holiday (so it's convenient for government employees) and
> primary/secondary schools have the day off. However, AFAIK most
> universities and companies do *not* grant time off for the holiday.
> Thus any NAC plans should *not* be under the assumption that players
> will have the upcoming Monday off (as college students and
> non-government employees may not).

Agreed. Choosing Columbus Day means some people will have the Monday
off, but don't schedule events as if everyone will.

> Assuming that the Limited and Constructed portions fall on different
> days, I'm curious as to whether people feel that Fri/Sat or Sat/Sun
> would be the best arrangement. My initial feeling is that Sat/Sun would
> be useful in allowing people to fly in just for the weekend. However,
> flying back Sunday night may not necessarily be feasible, especially if
> the Sunday tourney is delayed.

The Sunday tournament would be nigh-impossible to delay, given that
Gen*Con ends the convention at an earlier hour on Sunday. If held on
Sunday, the event would need to start early so as to end before the
convention kicks people out in the late afternoon. Which might be
convienent for weekend fliers.

> What sort of format will the Limited event be? From my experience,
> booster draft tends to be more challenging than starter draft but YMMV.
> How will card sets and drafting pods be determined?

Thankfully, we have over a year to discuss and determine this, since
Oscar's effectively asked us to do so.

> Finally, I'm curious how the combined score will be used for the two
> different events. Are the two events weighted equally? 40/60? 70/30?
> Will you simply add together the Rating Points (after factoring in
> weights) or do you have a different method in mind?

Again, we have a lot of time to discuss this, and Oscar's invited us to
do so in this thread (as opposed to dictating how it'll be.)

> With regards,
> Eric Chiang

-John Flournoy
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 7:19:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

echiang777@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am certainly pleased that White Wolf has settled the issue promptly.
> This way, everyone can begin to make the necessary preparations ASAP.
>
> snip

> November/December are poor choices because they may overlap with the
> holiday rush. I do concede that the Columbus Day weekend would be the
> best choice for the month of October. I would like to point out that
> Columbus Day is not as widely celebrated as it once was. It is still a
> Federal Holiday (so it's convenient for government employees) and
> primary/secondary schools have the day off. However, AFAIK most
> universities and companies do *not* grant time off for the holiday.
> Thus any NAC plans should *not* be under the assumption that players
> will have the upcoming Monday off (as college students and
> non-government employees may not).
>
> In addition, according to my calendar, Columbus Day falls on Monday,
> October 9th in 2006 (not the 12th).
>
Columbus Day is observed on the second Monday of October, while the
actual holiday itself is 12 October (the date Columbus first laid foot
in Haiti).

> Assuming that the Limited and Constructed portions fall on different
> days, I'm curious as to whether people feel that Fri/Sat or Sat/Sun
> would be the best arrangement. My initial feeling is that Sat/Sun would
> be useful in allowing people to fly in just for the weekend. However,
> flying back Sunday night may not necessarily be feasible, especially if
> the Sunday tourney is delayed.
>
Uhh, I think you're mixing events here. Oscar mentioned a limited and
constructed portion to the US Championship, to be held at GenCon in
2006. I think the NAC won't have such a component to determining the
winner(ie. it'll still be constructed, only).

DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 8:44:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Atom Weaver wrote:
> Uhh, I think you're mixing events here. Oscar mentioned a limited and
> constructed portion to the US Championship, to be held at GenCon in
> 2006. I think the NAC won't have such a component to determining the
> winner(ie. it'll still be constructed, only).
>

However, Im sure the days of the WoN could pick some limited tournys up
nicely.

***JediMike***
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 11:13:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"OrgPlay" <orgplay@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1122484228.937810.90600@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Players,
>
> After much discussion, White Wolf has decided to rotate the venue for
> the North American Championship.
>
> To make it easy, the 2006 NAC will take place in Atlanta. I would like
> to offer October 12, Columbus Day, as the weekend for the event. The
> NAC will be the final tournament at the Week of Nightmares 2006.
>
Yay! My first opportunity to be at both the NAC and WoN is on the horizon!
Sign me up (after Robyn, of course)... Uh oh. Now I'll have to treat those
qualifiers with an actual degree of seriousness about the results...

> GenCon's major event will be replaced with a US National Championship.
> The constructed portion of the USNC is the GenCon qualifier for the
> NAC. There will also be a limited portion. The combined score for these
> two tournaments determines the US National Champion.
>
Sounds like fun, too. I wonder if there will be any differential in
weighting the two components? I'm a rabid fan of limited play, but I could
see how others wouldn't consider results within it to be quite as
significant as standard constructed in naming a national champ...

DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 3:48:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Wes wrote:
> <echiang777@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > I would like to point out that
> > Columbus Day is not as widely celebrated as it once was.
>
> Canada does not celebrate Columbus Day. We do however celebrate our
> Thanksgiving on the same date. Given the traditional activities of
> Thanksgiving, it is not likely that many Canadians will be in attendance at
> a tournament held on that weekend.

That's a bummer. Oscar, I'd say this is a pretty big issue. Think we
may need a different weekend.

The Monday holiday for some folks is nice but probably not a
deal-breaker. We could easily go with a weekend where Monday's not a
holiday.

Thanks for the info Wes.

-Robert
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 4:44:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

<echiang777@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122495889.366324.320530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> I do have some concerns about the date however. It is my perception
> that when choosing a date outside of summer, you run the risk of
> scheduling conflicts. School, work, and/or family life may not be as
> amenable to taking several days off (or an entire week for the Week of
> Nightmares) when it is *not* during the summer.

On the bright side I suppose I'll be saving a significant amount of money
over the course of a few years when it's not in the summer, and specifically
not in late summer. I personally do not like the change since as a grad
student in the program I'm in I cannot get time off except over Christmas
and late in August because of certain yearly obligations in mid-August.
Depending upon my yearly progress a vacation earlier in the year may be
possible but very unlikely, however, if WW thinks it's for the best then
I'll assume they've done the proper research, or at least the proper
consideration, and won't argue. As for taking a weekend off, weekends for a
grad student, at least for me and the people I work with, tend to be rather
unpredictable regarding whether or not I can take work off, and while I have
planned around it before, for instance to attend this year's South Central
Qualifier, I just happened to get somewhat lucky that weekend, and in all
honesty, probably shouldn't have taken that weekend off. I'm not just
saying that, the weekend was a great time but there are certainly concrete
reasons I say that. In any case, I'm sure my situation isn't universal,
isn't experienced by the majority, nor even experienced by a non-trivial
minority, but I just wanted to vent since I'm really not excited about this
change at all, and Eric's post happened to provide a convenient segue into
what appears to be a relatively long rant I'm writing after not really
sleeping for about a week.
July 28, 2005 5:33:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

<echiang777@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> I would like to point out that
> Columbus Day is not as widely celebrated as it once was.

Canada does not celebrate Columbus Day. We do however celebrate our
Thanksgiving on the same date. Given the traditional activities of
Thanksgiving, it is not likely that many Canadians will be in attendance at
a tournament held on that weekend.

I'm not really sure if Mexico celebrates Columbus Day or not. Wikipedia
mentions something called Dia de La Raza, which may or may not be on the
same date.

So, Columbus Day weekend might be more appropriate for the *US* championship
rather than the North American championship.

Just a thought.

Cheers,
WES
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 5:39:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote in message
news:1122495661.173911.244920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

"bspaul" <bspaul41@excite.com> wrote in message
>> > So if the NAC goes to a multi-day event, why shoot
>> > ourselves in the foot and exclude players? Give the casual player
>> > (who's on a limited time and money budget) a shot at the NAC title by
>> > only requiring them to attend one major event. If you're worried about
>> > the level of play at these events, why not institute a "non-travel"
>> > qualification. Say something like a "Career Game" requirement, or some
>> > kind of point system. That way as long as players are attending and
>> > participating in V:TES events (local or not), they are earning a spot
>> > in the NAC.

.......

> Isn't his main proposal that we drop the qualifying requirement
> altogether making participation in the NAC much easier and more fair
> for people who can't easily attend qualifying events? The part you're
> objecting to is an additional idea that doesn't seem to be the core of
> the proposal (stuff about ensuring the quality is high at the events).
>
> Actually, I think the main idea about no qualifiers sounds interesting
> (I could do without the other stuff).

Scapping the qualifiers is an interesting idea, but to do it only for North
American events kinda penalizes those North Americans who qualify
here and then go to play in other-continent championships.

We have a system where a reward of qualifying is that you qualify
anywhere. How would North Americans intending to travel, qualify
if there are no North American qualifiers?

-John P.
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 10:37:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Andreas Nusser wrote:
>
> Btw: As a European player I will support any nominations for the NAC
> 2007 in California (GenConSoCal). That way I could combine a fine beach
> holiday with VTES and a maybe trip to Las Vegas.

We've been working on our proposal since even before we knew of the
official announcement! :)  I think we've got a great shot at getting
approval from WW for NAC 2007.

http://www.vtesinla.org/nac2007.htm

-Robert
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 11:21:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Robert Goudie wrote:
> Wes wrote:
> > <echiang777@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >
> > > I would like to point out that
> > > Columbus Day is not as widely celebrated as it once was.
> >
> > Canada does not celebrate Columbus Day. We do however celebrate our
> > Thanksgiving on the same date. Given the traditional activities of
> > Thanksgiving, it is not likely that many Canadians will be in attendance at
> > a tournament held on that weekend.
>
> That's a bummer. Oscar, I'd say this is a pretty big issue. Think we
> may need a different weekend.
>
> The Monday holiday for some folks is nice but probably not a
> deal-breaker. We could easily go with a weekend where Monday's not a
> holiday.
>
> Thanks for the info Wes.


I open to suggestions for a better weekend.

oscar
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 12:02:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

XZealot wrote:
> > I open to suggestions for a better weekend.
>
> Labor Day, but just not at Dragon Con.

I don't think you'd want to do battle with DragonCon or with anybody's
3-day weekend plans. Isn't that one of the big travel weekends?

Anyway, maybe just not worry about seeking out the Monday day off and
pick the weekend before or after. I'm personally fine with anything
through early or even mid-November.

-Robert
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 1:01:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

OrgPlay wrote:
>
> I open to suggestions for a better weekend.
>
> oscar

Just throwing.......

Presidents weekend in February Wed. 15th thru Monday 20th. (Downside:
Weather)
Memorial Day Wed. 24th thru Mon.29th. (Downside: BIG vacation weekend)
Labor Day weekend Wed. Aug. 30th thru Mon Sept. 4th (Downside: Dragon
Con Weekend)

Dun'no, this IS the tough part.

***JediMike***
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 1:19:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

While I appreciate the sentiment that it'd be nice to have the
NAC be more inclusive, doing away with the qualifier system
would seem to me to hurt more than help. Without the qualifiers,
what major events can we offer players? I don't think that just
having storyline events and pre-releases is enough. CCGs are
very much event driven, and cutting out a whole category of major
events seems to me to be a mistake.

Also consider that starting in 2001, attendance at the NAC has
gone up every year.


- Ben Peal, US National Coordinator
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 1:35:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> I open to suggestions for a better weekend.

Labor Day, but just not at Dragon Con.


--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 1:56:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

OrgPlay schrieb:
> Players,
>
> After much discussion, White Wolf has decided to rotate the venue for
> the North American Championship.
>
> To make it easy, the 2006 NAC will take place in Atlanta. I would like
> to offer October 12, Columbus Day, as the weekend for the event. The
> NAC will be the final tournament at the Week of Nightmares 2006.
>
> GenCon's major event will be replaced with a US National Championship.
> The constructed portion of the USNC is the GenCon qualifier for the
> NAC. There will also be a limited portion. The combined score for these
> two tournaments determines the US National Champion.
>
> Strike: Begin Discussion.
>
> --
> Oscar J Garza III
> Organized Play Coordinator
> White Wolf Publishing, Inc.
>

Despite any disbelieves, I SWEAR, these changes were not so much the
Europeans fault this time ;) 

Andreas
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 2:02:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Andreas Nusser schrieb:
> OrgPlay schrieb:
>
>> Players,
>>
>> After much discussion, White Wolf has decided to rotate the venue for
>> the North American Championship.
>>
>> To make it easy, the 2006 NAC will take place in Atlanta. I would like
>> to offer October 12, Columbus Day, as the weekend for the event. The
>> NAC will be the final tournament at the Week of Nightmares 2006.
>>
>> GenCon's major event will be replaced with a US National Championship.
>> The constructed portion of the USNC is the GenCon qualifier for the
>> NAC. There will also be a limited portion. The combined score for these
>> two tournaments determines the US National Champion.
>>
>> Strike: Begin Discussion.
>>
>> --
>> Oscar J Garza III
>> Organized Play Coordinator
>> White Wolf Publishing, Inc.
>>
>
> Despite any disbelieves, I SWEAR, these changes were not so much the
> Europeans fault this time ;) 
>
> Andreas

Btw: As a European player I will support any nominations for the NAC
2007 in California (GenConSoCal). That way I could combine a fine beach
holiday with VTES and a maybe trip to Las Vegas.

Andreas
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 2:05:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Robert Goudie wrote:
> Wes wrote:
>
>><echiang777@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>> I would like to point out that
>>>Columbus Day is not as widely celebrated as it once was.
>>
>>Canada does not celebrate Columbus Day. We do however celebrate our
>>Thanksgiving on the same date. Given the traditional activities of
>>Thanksgiving, it is not likely that many Canadians will be in attendance at
>>a tournament held on that weekend.
>
>
> That's a bummer. Oscar, I'd say this is a pretty big issue. Think we
> may need a different weekend.
>
> The Monday holiday for some folks is nice but probably not a
> deal-breaker. We could easily go with a weekend where Monday's not a
> holiday.

October will be also dangerously close to the European Championship :-/

--
johannes walch
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 2:12:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

fudjo wrote:
> While I appreciate the sentiment that it'd be nice to have the
> NAC be more inclusive, doing away with the qualifier system
> would seem to me to hurt more than help. Without the qualifiers,
> what major events can we offer players?

I'm not suggesting that WW do away with the actual events. I'm
suggesting that WW do away with the "play to earn a spot in the NAC"
aspect. I'm still all for having larger, regional V:TES events each
year. I'm just putting forth the notion that it's possible, if the
format is switched to a mutiple day event, that it might not be
necessary to have players "qualify". Thus opening up the gates for
more casual players to attend and play in a NAC.

> Also consider that starting in 2001, attendance at the NAC has
> gone up every year.

This statement means nothing to me. Of course attendance would
increase as the game emerged from torpor. How much did it increase?
(ie by what percent each year) How many "new" players attended each
year? How many players are "returns"? Let's see what happens this
year. Finally, it's going to be a hard sell to estimate how much the
attendance in the NAC would increase without the qualifier requirement
without actually doing it that way for a year. Plus since other
factors are changing, it would be especially hard to measure the effect
of just changing that one variable.

Ben Spaulding
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 2:28:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

bspaul wrote:
> Well,
> If you are having a
> multiple day championship, why not let everyone who wants to travel and
> play V:TES play? Construct the event similar to a golf event. Day One
> you have to make a certain "score" to make the cut and advance to Day
> Two.

In a sense, this is what we currently have.

Anybody can show up at the NAC this year, and play on Day One. If you
score in the top 25%, you 'make the cut' and advance to Day Two (and
possibly Day Three)

....because Day One is the Last Chance qualifier.

If you view it in terms of 'Day One is the Last Chance, and there are
12-15 other ways to earn Day Two entry ahead of time', it's not a
particularly exclusive format. Anybody attending Gen Con has a chance
to win the NAC, even if that's the only event they attend all year, and
everyone has a chance to play at least one day's worth of it.

For example, TheLasombra/Jeff showed up to GenCon unqualified at last
year's NAC, and finished 18th. Radd Kulseth qualified at Gen Con and
hadn't played in any other events (much less qualifiers) all year.

(It's also noting that in golf, you generally have to pass through
qualifying events and restrictions before you can even play in Day One
of an event - even the 'Open' golf tournaments require players to
qualify in advance.)

> I've attended a bunch of qualifiers and a couple of NAC's. In my
> opinion, the qualifying process is inefficient in "selecting" the
> higher quality players (feel free to go back and look at some numbers,
> especially the statistical significance of allowing 25% at an event
> with 14 players vs an event with 60-still think qualifiers produce the
> "best players"?). So if the NAC goes to a multi-day event, why shoot
> ourselves in the foot and exclude players?

Got a better method of arranging it so that the people playing in the
NAC have demonstrated a certain level of skill? I'm not saying that the
25% system is the best idea, by far, but there hasn't really been a lot
of reasonable alternatives offered.

> Give the casual player
> (who's on a limited time and money budget) a shot at the NAC title by
> only requiring them to attend one major event.

Again, this is a moot point, since any player can show up at one and
only one major event (Gen Con) and have a shot at the NAC title. Many,
many players considered highly-skilled will be showing up to Gen Con
without having qualified in advance.

> If you're worried about
> the level of play at these events, why not institute a "non-travel"
> qualification. Say something like a "Career Game" requirement, or some
> kind of point system. That way as long as players are attending and
> participating in V:TES events (local or not), they are earning a spot
> in the NAC.

Volume of play does not always equal level of play, unfortunately.

> Anyways, just some ideas as I see the problem in my area
> is most players lack the funds to attend multiple events that require
> travel and lodging-especially since there is always the option of
> "failure" (ie you miss the 25% cutoff). Let's be realistic and back
> off on this whole process and make it more favorable to getting the
> casual player (with NAC tournament dreams) out of their house/local
> store and out into the moonlight. If we had the numbers like other
> card games, I would agree with a more structured system. But let's
> take another look at the whole process that leads up to the rotating
> NAC and see if we can make it better...

While I agree with some of your points, the whole point of a
"Championship" tournament is to separate the best player(s) from the
'casual' ones and reward players for exceeding a casual skill level.

> Ben Spaulding
> Prince of Portland, Maine

-John Flournoy
Underling of Chicago
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 2:44:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

bspaul wrote:
> [snip] a lot of good arguments

I am all for it. I am totally sick of going to one or two faraway
tournaments each year with a totally stupid S&B deck just to make sure
that I qualify.

--
johannes walch
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 2:47:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote in message
news:1122562929.543231.325530@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> XZealot wrote:
>> > I open to suggestions for a better weekend.
>>
>> Labor Day, but just not at Dragon Con.
>
> I don't think you'd want to do battle with DragonCon or with anybody's
> 3-day weekend plans. Isn't that one of the big travel weekends?
>
> Anyway, maybe just not worry about seeking out the Monday day off and
> pick the weekend before or after. I'm personally fine with anything
> through early or even mid-November.

I can tell you that for me personally, anything that is not on one of the
big travel weekends then I won't be able to attend after Aug 1st due to the
agricultural cycle.


--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 3:25:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Johannes Walch" <johannes.walch@vekn.de> wrote in message
news:D ca3k3$r5f$1@news01.versatel.de...
> Robert Goudie wrote:
>> Wes wrote:
>>
>>><echiang777@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> I would like to point out that
>>>>Columbus Day is not as widely celebrated as it once was.
>>>
>>>Canada does not celebrate Columbus Day. We do however celebrate our
>>>Thanksgiving on the same date. Given the traditional activities of
>>>Thanksgiving, it is not likely that many Canadians will be in
>>>attendance at
>>>a tournament held on that weekend.
>>
>> That's a bummer. Oscar, I'd say this is a pretty big issue. Think we
>> may need a different weekend.
>>
>> The Monday holiday for some folks is nice but probably not a
>> deal-breaker. We could easily go with a weekend where Monday's not a
>> holiday.
>
> October will be also dangerously close to the European Championship
> :-/

And perhaps the Australian Championship, for that matter. But as long
as they're not right up against each other, I'd think we probably
shouldn't worry too much about that. I mean, every continent's
championship has to follow a bunch of qualifiers, right? So they tend
to all have to fall into the same few months of the year, and trying to
give each one an entire month (or more) to itself might not really be
feasible.

From my own perspective, probably anything from late September through
the end of October would be fine - at least a few weeks away from
DragonCon and a few weeks away from the European Championship (I don't
know if the date for the 2006 EC is already set?).


Josh

thanksgiving on a monday? who ever heard of such a thing? :-)
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 4:28:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"***JediMike***" <Jedimike@rebelscum.net> wrote in message
news:1122507852.471798.114230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Atom Weaver wrote:
>> Uhh, I think you're mixing events here. Oscar mentioned a limited and
>> constructed portion to the US Championship, to be held at GenCon in
>> 2006. I think the NAC won't have such a component to determining the
>> winner(ie. it'll still be constructed, only).
>>
>
> However, Im sure the days of the WoN could pick some limited tournys up
> nicely.
>

Ab-so-lutely!!!

DaveZ
AW
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 4:42:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Wes" <ghost@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message
news:D c9qo8022oi@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> <echiang777@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> I would like to point out that
>> Columbus Day is not as widely celebrated as it once was.
>
> Canada does not celebrate Columbus Day. We do however celebrate our
> Thanksgiving on the same date. Given the traditional activities of
> Thanksgiving, it is not likely that many Canadians will be in attendance
> at a tournament held on that weekend.
>
Right. Everyone seems a little confused here. I thought that Oscar was
suggesting that the Week of Nightmares would _start_ with the long weekend,
and culminate with the NAC (beginning with the LCQ) events on Thursday
October 12th through Sunday October 15th... Meaning a person with any
obligation on Monday October 9th would only miss the front-end start up
festivities of the WoN, and would certainly be able to make it down in time
for the actual NAC competition...

> I'm not really sure if Mexico celebrates Columbus Day or not. Wikipedia
> mentions something called Dia de La Raza, which may or may not be on the
> same date.
>
Dia de La Raza (Day of the Race) celebrates the establishment of the
Latino-american race in the New World, although I don't know how Central
Americans observe the holiday (which would affect their liklihood to attend
the most)... Anyone know? It falls on the the day of 12 October every
year.

DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 5:22:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

bspaul wrote:
> fudjo wrote:
>
> I'm not suggesting that WW do away with the actual events. I'm
> suggesting that WW do away with the "play to earn a spot in the NAC"
> aspect. I'm still all for having larger, regional V:TES events each
> year. I'm just putting forth the notion that it's possible, if the
> format is switched to a mutiple day event, that it might not be
> necessary to have players "qualify". Thus opening up the gates for
> more casual players to attend and play in a NAC.

If the NAC is supposed to be a 'best of the best, champion-determining
event', how does opening it up further to casual, low-skill players
improve this? Especially considering that no player is excluded from
trying for it in the first place?

Why would I want (to use your previous golf analogy) to see if Tiger
Woods can beat a 50-handicap player in a heads-up golf match? Why would
Tiger want to do this? Answer: Tiger doesn't, the audience doesn't, and
the tournament organizers don't.

To state it yet again: Since any player can already participate in the
NAC system with a minimal effort, why should it be made even easier for
the bottom end of the player pool to participate in the final,
highest-end part?

If we eliminate the qualifier system, how does a highly-skilled player
get rewarded for having demonstrated this skill previously? How does
the NAC become anything more than another tourney with a spiffier
title, for such a player?

> > Also consider that starting in 2001, attendance at the NAC has
> > gone up every year.
>
> This statement means nothing to me. Of course attendance would
> increase as the game emerged from torpor. How much did it increase?
> (ie by what percent each year) How many "new" players attended each
> year? How many players are "returns"? Let's see what happens this
> year.

Here's some numbers culled off the web:

2001: 37.
2002: 57.
2003: 80.
(Qualifier rules-change applied between 2003-2004, in part to reduce
total number of qualifying players)
2004: 72. (Europe: 113)

Note that not only do the qualifiers exist to reduce the number of
people playing in the finaly NAC tournament, the rules have been
changed to _further_ reduce the field size - and the format rules were
changed AGAIN this year to try to reduce the final NAC event size
(specifically, the 'play 3 rounds, then the top batch play again
tomorrow', reducing the final day's event size .)

> Ben Spaulding

-John Flournoy
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 5:48:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

John Flournoy wrote:
> Here's some numbers culled off the web:
>
> 2001: 37.
> 2002: 57.
> 2003: 80.
> (Qualifier rules-change applied between 2003-2004, in part to reduce
> total number of qualifying players)
> 2004: 72. (Europe: 113)
>
> Note that not only do the qualifiers exist to reduce the number of
> people playing in the finaly NAC tournament, the rules have been
> changed to _further_ reduce the field size - and the format rules were
> changed AGAIN this year to try to reduce the final NAC event size
> (specifically, the 'play 3 rounds, then the top batch play again
> tomorrow', reducing the final day's event size .)
>
> -John Flournoy

As I recall, the point of going to a two-day NAC format was to minimize
the randomness inherent in a large event with only three rounds
determining a final table of five. Both days are part of the NAC. If
you prove your mettle there, then you go into the final day where you
face the real cream of the crop at *every single table.*

Theoretically there won't be any chumps playing in Day 2 because
they've already gone through a pretty serious meat-grinder on Day 1.
The likelihood of a "fluke" game win (or loss!) is very minimal when
determining the final table. If nothing else, I think the quality of
play would be very high on this day and wouldn't mind being an observer
of all the games were that possible.

Jeff
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 6:11:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote in message
news:1122557842.665753.155450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Andreas Nusser wrote:
>>
>> Btw: As a European player I will support any nominations for the NAC
>> 2007 in California (GenConSoCal). That way I could combine a fine beach
>> holiday with VTES and a maybe trip to Las Vegas.
>
> We've been working on our proposal since even before we knew of the
> official announcement! :)  I think we've got a great shot at getting
> approval from WW for NAC 2007.
>
> http://www.vtesinla.org/nac2007.htm
>

....I always figured Theo was the sort to go for those girly tropical drinks
:-)

DZ
AW
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 6:33:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Ben Spaulding wrote (regarding qualifiers):
> I'm not suggesting that WW do away with the actual events. I'm
> suggesting that WW do away with the "play to earn a spot in the NAC"
> aspect. I'm still all for having larger, regional V:TES events each
> year.

So, instead of qualifying spots, what do you propose as the
incentive for people to travel to a regional event?

>> Also consider that starting in 2001, attendance at the NAC has
>> gone up every year.
>
> This statement means nothing to me. Of course attendance would
> increase as the game emerged from torpor. How much did it
> increase? (ie by what percent each year) How many "new" players
> attended each year? How many players are "returns"? Let's see
> what happens this year. Finally, it's going to be a hard sell to
> estimate how much the attendance in the NAC would increase
> without the qualifier requirement without actually doing it that way
> for a year. Plus since other factors are changing, it would be
> especially hard to measure the effect of just changing that one
> variable.

I don't see the need to lower the attendance of more than a
dozen regional events for the sake of increasing attendance
at GenCon, especially when attendance at GenCon has gotten
to the point where the format of the NAC was changed to
reflect it.


- Ben Peal
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 11:03:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Pat wrote:
> "Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote in message
> news:1122557842.665753.155450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Andreas Nusser wrote:
> >>
> >> Btw: As a European player I will support any nominations for the NAC
> >> 2007 in California (GenConSoCal). That way I could combine a fine beach
> >> holiday with VTES and a maybe trip to Las Vegas.
> >
> > We've been working on our proposal since even before we knew of the
> > official announcement! :)  I think we've got a great shot at getting
> > approval from WW for NAC 2007.
> >
> > http://www.vtesinla.org/nac2007.htm
> >
> > -Robert
> >
>
> Every registration comes complete with a bottle of SPF 500? Or did you just
> get Steve Prescott to do the advert? :) 

A Los Angeles NAC in 2007 was so attractive to Theo Bell that even
direct sunlight couldn't deter him from attending! :) 

-Robert
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 11:13:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <3ksbmsF1050ftU1@individual.net>, Joshua Duffin
<jtduffin@yahoo.com> writes:
>And perhaps the Australian Championship, for that matter. But as long
>as they're not right up against each other, I'd think we probably
>shouldn't worry too much about that. I mean, every continent's
>championship has to follow a bunch of qualifiers, right? So they tend
>to all have to fall into the same few months of the year, and trying to
>give each one an entire month (or more) to itself might not really be
>feasible.

Thinking "outside the box", as it were.

North American Qualifiers throughout 2006, final in January 2007.
Anyone having won a qualifier in 2006 (on any continent) would be
eligible for the January final. Qualifiers throughout the rest of 2007,
final in January 2008.


This would also mean that qualifiers could be a bit more spread out, as
they've got pretty much all of a year to play with rather than missing
out on a few months because the final was in August or something.

You could, for instance, use the Columbus Day weekend for a qualifier
somewhere, and someone who missed out on the couple of local-ish
regional qualifiers in March and June (say) could start making plans for
an October qualifier etc.

It also means it's pretty unlikely to clash with any other continental
championship, for anyone who wants to travel to them.


Downsides:

- not that long after Christmas (so people's wallets may be looking a
little battered)
- not in the same year as the qualifiers
- anything in January that this would clash with?
- January might be a bit cold/drab/wet to drag people to far-flung
cities. (But what better way to spend a cold January than
burning vampires?)

--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
July 29, 2005 12:45:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote in message
news:1122557842.665753.155450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Andreas Nusser wrote:
>>
>> Btw: As a European player I will support any nominations for the NAC
>> 2007 in California (GenConSoCal). That way I could combine a fine beach
>> holiday with VTES and a maybe trip to Las Vegas.
>
> We've been working on our proposal since even before we knew of the
> official announcement! :)  I think we've got a great shot at getting
> approval from WW for NAC 2007.
>
> http://www.vtesinla.org/nac2007.htm
>
> -Robert
>

Every registration comes complete with a bottle of SPF 500? Or did you just
get Steve Prescott to do the advert? :) 

El Lay in 2007!

Pat
July 29, 2005 12:57:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:V9uG5YGlBS6CFwii@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <3ksbmsF1050ftU1@individual.net>, Joshua Duffin
> <jtduffin@yahoo.com> writes:
>>And perhaps the Australian Championship, for that matter. But as long
>>as they're not right up against each other, I'd think we probably
>>shouldn't worry too much about that. I mean, every continent's
>>championship has to follow a bunch of qualifiers, right? So they tend
>>to all have to fall into the same few months of the year, and trying to
>>give each one an entire month (or more) to itself might not really be
>>feasible.
>
> Thinking "outside the box", as it were.
>
> North American Qualifiers throughout 2006, final in January 2007.
> Anyone having won a qualifier in 2006 (on any continent) would be
> eligible for the January final. Qualifiers throughout the rest of 2007,
> final in January 2008.
>

Based on the turnout at the January qualifer in NJ this year, January &
February are pretty bad ideas, IMO. There's a significant chance that NE &
midwestern players could be hosed by weather.

Pat
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 12:07:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
> Isn't it possible to do, say, a regional/state championship or
> something like that to replace the qualifiers?

The qualifiers *are* Regional Championships. I think that was
basically forgotten by most of the coordinators and not pushed by
person at WW who coordinated the events the last few years.

There even used to be a template for the coordinators to use:

For example, IIRC,

Southwest Region Championship (North American Qualifier)

Over time the qualifier overshadowed the regional championship and
people just dropped it. Though, on the West Coast, we continue to use
it in this way.

-Robert
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 2:53:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Fabio Sooner wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2005 08:07:10 -0700, "Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org>
> wrote:
> So people used to be "crowned", say, Southwest Regional Champion or
> so?

The "used to be" part is only because *in most areas* qualifying is
more important to people than the regional champion portion. We *still*
crown a Southwest Regional Champion.

> There was some benefit associated with the title? Say, a plaque, a
> special award or something like that?

Whatever the organizers decide just the same as any tournament. Even
the NAC doesn't have any special awards of the kind you are listing.

Though, we do run a "Baron of Los Angeles" event in December each year
where the newly crowned Baron get's his or her name on a plaque, a free
GenCon Indy badge, free admission to all vtesinla.org events for 1
year, and their choice of soda in the fridge at the glendale playgroup
for 1 year. :) 

-Robert
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 5:09:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"***JediMike***" <Jedimike@rebelscum.net> wrote in message
news:1122566465.612033.273840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Just throwing.......
>
> Presidents weekend in February Wed. 15th thru Monday 20th. (Downside:
> Weather)

Downside weather? It's gotta be warmer in Atlanta then it is in Winnipeg
in February. For Canadians thats an Incentive! Two day weekend for
non-Americans though.

> Memorial Day Wed. 24th thru Mon.29th. (Downside: BIG vacation weekend)

Corresponds to Victoria day in Canada. Coolness for me but YMMV.

> Labor Day weekend Wed. Aug. 30th thru Mon Sept. 4th (Downside: Dragon
> Con Weekend)

And tight on heels of Gencon for those trying to do both. Gamer fatigue. :) 

>
> Dun'no, this IS the tough part.
>
> ***JediMike***

I think no matter what weekened we find there will be problems for
some. Personally I prefer summer.
Perhaps the date is something that would not be fixed and could
fluxuate each year.

-John P.
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 12:20:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <949ke1pqu6u9edrvripcrvt46e6pbdqh7b@4ax.com>, "Fabio
\"Sooner\"" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> writes:
<removing the need to qualify for the NAC>
>Isn't it possible to do, say, a regional/state championship or
>something like that to replace the qualifiers?

One difficulty is that if I, living in place A, miss out on a qualifying
spot then I might travel to place B to try for one there. So I travel,
play, qualify (maybe!) and place B gets a bigger turn-out.

Whereas turning up for just a regional championship doesn't have the
same draw. For me it wouldn't, anyway.

--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 11:36:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Pat wrote:

> Based on the turnout at the January qualifer in NJ this year, January &
> February are pretty bad ideas, IMO. There's a significant chance that NE &
> midwestern players could be hosed by weather.

Yeah. FWIW, I've missed two Jersey qualifiers due to last minute
inclement weather.

--

David Cherryholmes
!