Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gen Con?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 10:06:05 PM

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

So hey--for those of us too lazy to read the blogs:

Anyone win yet?


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
easily spilled liquids to naked people."
-Brittni Meil

More about : gen con

Anonymous
August 21, 2005 10:39:06 PM

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

Pat wrote:
> "Peter D Bakija" <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote in message
> news:BF2E730D.215D5%pdb6@lightlink.com...
> > So hey--for those of us too lazy to read the blogs:
> >
> > Anyone win yet?
> >
>
> Peter from Michigan was the winner, with 1.5 VP in the final table. (I
> didn't play a game with him myself, so I don't know his last name.) He
> played Arika & friends.

Congrats to Peter from Michigan.

> Jared Strait was #2, with 1.5 VP as well, playing Nos Princes.

Damn! 3rd time at the final table....or is it a fourth? I recall Jared
qualifying for the finals once but considering ditching it to go play
another event. Jared Strait is my hero!

> Ben Swainbank was #3 with 1 VP, playing G2-3 Gio with Le Dinh Tho, Gio
> allies, & media locations.

Wow. A Swainbank / Strait rematch.

> 4 & 5 were Josh Duffin (classic law firm) and Stefan Ferenci (cel/CEL guns).
> I believe Josh was 4, but I don't know for certain, as I didn't see the
> initial seating of the final table.

Way to go Josh and Stefan. Congrats to both!

Nice "all-star" line-up for the finals. Hope Jeff has this one on DVD.

-Robert
August 21, 2005 11:13:21 PM

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

"Peter D Bakija" <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:BF2E730D.215D5%pdb6@lightlink.com...
> So hey--for those of us too lazy to read the blogs:
>
> Anyone win yet?
>
>
>

Peter from Michigan was the winner, with 1.5 VP in the final table. (I
didn't play a game with him myself, so I don't know his last name.) He
played Arika & friends.

Jared Strait was #2, with 1.5 VP as well, playing Nos Princes.

Ben Swainbank was #3 with 1 VP, playing G2-3 Gio with Le Dinh Tho, Gio
allies, & media locations.

4 & 5 were Josh Duffin (classic law firm) and Stefan Ferenci (cel/CEL guns).
I believe Josh was 4, but I don't know for certain, as I didn't see the
initial seating of the final table.

There were 63 people at the first round of the NAC; it took 0 GW, 2 VP, and
some (unknown to me) number of TP to qualify for the top 40 on day 2.

- Pat
Related resources
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 11:53:32 PM

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

Pat wrote:

> Peter from Michigan was the winner, with 1.5 VP in the final table. (I
> didn't play a game with him myself, so I don't know his last name.) He
> played Arika & friends.

Man. Did the national championship end with a time out?


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
easily spilled liquids to naked people."
-Brittni Meil
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 11:59:42 PM

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

Pat wrote:
> "Peter D Bakija" <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote in message
> news:BF2E730D.215D5%pdb6@lightlink.com...
> > So hey--for those of us too lazy to read the blogs:
> >
> > Anyone win yet?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Peter from Michigan was the winner, with 1.5 VP in the final table. (I
> didn't play a game with him myself, so I don't know his last name.) He
> played Arika & friends.
>
> Jared Strait was #2, with 1.5 VP as well, playing Nos Princes.
>
> Ben Swainbank was #3 with 1 VP, playing G2-3 Gio with Le Dinh Tho, Gio
> allies, & media locations.
>
> 4 & 5 were Josh Duffin (classic law firm) and Stefan Ferenci (cel/CEL guns).
> I believe Josh was 4, but I don't know for certain, as I didn't see the
> initial seating of the final table.
>
> There were 63 people at the first round of the NAC; it took 0 GW, 2 VP, and
> some (unknown to me) number of TP to qualify for the top 40 on day 2.

So, was the two-day format worth it? How many people had qualified for
the NAC overall? Did people play the same decks both days?

Jeff
August 22, 2005 12:00:30 AM

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

"Peter D Bakija" <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:BF2E8C3B.215DD%pdb6@lightlink.com...
> Pat wrote:
>
>> Peter from Michigan was the winner, with 1.5 VP in the final table. (I
>> didn't play a game with him myself, so I don't know his last name.) He
>> played Arika & friends.
>
> Man. Did the national championship end with a time out?
>

It did... but not from lack of trying. Jared & Peter were going after each
other up until the very last minute.

I believe that Peter had the votes in hand to finish Jared off. He was in
the process of calling something when time was called (KRC, maybe?), and had
something else pretty nasty (Anarchist Uprising, maybe?) in hand, IIRC.

I didn't see Jared's final hand, so I don't know if he had any 2nd Trad to
stop a potentially ousting vote.

- Pat
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 1:30:44 AM

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

Pat wrote:

> It did... but not from lack of trying. Jared & Peter were going after each
> other up until the very last minute.

That is good to hear. Like, full well realizing that having no time limit is
a recipe for madness, but I'd really like, at the very least, the National
Championship not end in a time out. But ya know, it is still a total pipe
dream :-)


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
easily spilled liquids to naked people."
-Brittni Meil
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 3:03:21 AM

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

Pat wrote:
> "Peter D Bakija" <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote in message
> news:BF2E730D.215D5%pdb6@lightlink.com...
> > So hey--for those of us too lazy to read the blogs:
> >
> > Anyone win yet?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Peter from Michigan was the winner, with 1.5 VP in the final table. (I
> didn't play a game with him myself, so I don't know his last name.) He
> played Arika & friends.

BAN ARIKA! ;) 

Gratz to all finalists.

Jeff
August 22, 2005 10:17:56 AM

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

"Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote in message
news:1124674746.090678.11910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pat wrote:
>> Jared Strait was #2, with 1.5 VP as well, playing Nos Princes.
>
> Damn! 3rd time at the final table....or is it a fourth? I recall Jared
> qualifying for the finals once but considering ditching it to go play
> another event. Jared Strait is my hero!
>

I asked Jared for a rundown of his final appearances during my day 1 game
with him... I believe this was his 6th final table!

> Way to go Josh and Stefan. Congrats to both!
>
> Nice "all-star" line-up for the finals. Hope Jeff has this one on DVD.
>

It was taped by Oscar & Jeff. (AFAIK, using the same camera; I think they
just shared videographer duty.)

- Pat
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:21:30 AM

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

Peter D Bakija wrote:

> That is good to hear. Like, full well realizing that having no time limit is
> a recipe for madness, but I'd really like, at the very least, the National
> Championship not end in a time out. But ya know, it is still a total pipe
> dream :-)

There's no practical reason why the final can't be raised to 2.5 hours.
The game will not just expand like a gas to consume whatever time you
throw at it. People just believe that because they'll argue against
any change at whatever cost, generally speaking. The status quo is god.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 1:01:45 PM

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

Pat wrote:
> "Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote in message
> news:1124674746.090678.11910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Pat wrote:
> >> Jared Strait was #2, with 1.5 VP as well, playing Nos Princes.
> >
> > Damn! 3rd time at the final table....or is it a fourth? I recall Jared
> > qualifying for the finals once but considering ditching it to go play
> > another event. Jared Strait is my hero!
> >
>
> I asked Jared for a rundown of his final appearances during my day 1 game
> with him... I believe this was his 6th final table!

Yikes. I think my first year there was 1999 so Jared must have grabbed
a couple more in the five years prior.

Jared is my hero! There are only a few people who've even appeared in
2 finals there. Sure, Jared's been going longer than most but that's
still a fine record!

-Robert
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 1:02:29 PM

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

We've already moved to 2.25 or 2.5 hour final limits here. We'd do the
same with prelim rounds if we could get some of the lazy bones players
here before noon. Most timed out games would finish with just 15 mins
more, or at least break open and hand out some vps.

G
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 2:13:42 PM

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

talonz wrote:
> We've already moved to 2.25 or 2.5 hour final limits here. We'd do the
> same with prelim rounds if we could get some of the lazy bones players
> here before noon. Most timed out games would finish with just 15 mins
> more, or at least break open and hand out some vps.

And, hence, the "dueling assertions" dilemma. Have you noticed a
decrease in the number of timeouts for your group of players, since you
are actually trying the change out instead of just speculating on it?
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 3:10:21 PM

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

david.cherryholmes@gmail.com wrote:

> There's no practical reason why the final can't be raised to 2.5 hours.
> The game will not just expand like a gas to consume whatever time you
> throw at it. People just believe that because they'll argue against
> any change at whatever cost, generally speaking. The status quo is god.

I'd certainly be in favor of upping, at the very least, the length of finals
for, like, national championships or whatever to 3 hours. But then, there
are those that would argue that, in fact, games will expand like gas, and
that 3 hour finals would time out just as often as 2 hour finals. It would
just take longer to time out. I'm not necessarily one of those people--I
rarely see games time out in competetive play, but then as I have pointed
out elsewhere, I'm what I like to call a "load bearing" player, in that I
either win or die trying, which speeds the whole game up for everyone, but
when I do see games time out, they rarely are games that are almost over but
just run out of time, they are usually games that have hit a stasis wall,
and an extra hour would generally result in the game timing out in an extra
hour.

In any case--congrats to Peter X of Michigan. And special props to
ex-Ithaca-home-team-member Joshy boy!


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
easily spilled liquids to naked people."
-Brittni Meil
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 4:03:14 PM

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

<david.cherryholmes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124716890.310112.136860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>
>> That is good to hear. Like, full well realizing that having no time limit is
>> a recipe for madness, but I'd really like, at the very least, the National
>> Championship not end in a time out. But ya know, it is still a total pipe
>> dream :-)
>
> There's no practical reason why the final can't be raised to 2.5 hours.
> The game will not just expand like a gas to consume whatever time you
> throw at it. People just believe that because they'll argue against
> any change at whatever cost, generally speaking. The status quo is god.

I have nothing against the Continental Finals expanding to 2.5 hours.
With the amount of time those guys spent on getting to that point, I don't
see the harm of making them work an extra half hour to get a result. But
I still disagree that the "the game will not just expand..." to fill the
extra half hour. From all descriptions, I get the distinct impression that
at least of couple of the past ones would have and other big tournament
finals I've seen also have looked like that they got would have gotten
nowhere with more time. Often games seem like they're stalled out in
some kind of equalibrium situataion until the last 10 minutes, when guys
have to start making decisions or the preliminary result tiebreakers will
make all the decisions for them.

Fred
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 6:18:25 PM

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

Frederick Scott wrote:

> > The winner was Peter Charnley from Ann Arbor, who was also at last year's
> > final table.
>
> ...and, at this moment, ranked 115th worldwide by our fabulous "ranking"
> system.

....which will no doubt completely change in a week or so, as that
ranking reflects nothing about this NAC yet.

The ranking points for the weekend were definitely _not_ entered before
we all flew home, as Robyn wasn't given the Archon files from the
weekend at the con (and I was sitting beside her when arrangements were
being made to email them to her this week.)

But without knowing exactly how Peter scored on the qualifier or on Day
1, he's getting at least something on the order of 267 ranking points
this weekend (and that assumes he minimally qualified on Day 1) - and
that alone is enough to catapult him up the rankings (at least) about
70 places.

The bigger (yet still small) concern people had about the rankings is
this: both Day 1 and Day 2 count as seperate championship events
(because you have to qualify to play in them), and so Andreas gets a
few more points for winning Day 1 then Peter does for Day 2 because the
field size contracts.

> Fred

-John Flournoy
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 6:23:50 PM

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

"Pat" <patrick.lusk.nospam@comcast.nyetspam.net> wrote
>
> Peter from Michigan was the winner, with 1.5 VP in the final table. (I
> didn't play a game with him myself, so I don't know his last name.) He
> played Arika & friends.

The winner was Peter Charnley from Ann Arbor, who was also at last year's
final table.

Cheers,
WES
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 6:23:51 PM

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

"Andrew 'Wes' Weston" <ghost@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message
news:D edajp0scb@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Pat" <patrick.lusk.nospam@comcast.nyetspam.net> wrote
>>
>> Peter from Michigan was the winner, with 1.5 VP in the final table. (I
>> didn't play a game with him myself, so I don't know his last name.) He
>> played Arika & friends.
>
> The winner was Peter Charnley from Ann Arbor, who was also at last year's
> final table.

....and, at this moment, ranked 115th worldwide by our fabulous "ranking"
system.

Fred
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 8:09:24 PM

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

Frederick Scott wrote:
> "Andrew 'Wes' Weston" <ghost@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message
> news:D edajp0scb@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >
> > "Pat" <patrick.lusk.nospam@comcast.nyetspam.net> wrote
> >>
> >> Peter from Michigan was the winner, with 1.5 VP in the final table. (I
> >> didn't play a game with him myself, so I don't know his last name.) He
> >> played Arika & friends.
> >
> > The winner was Peter Charnley from Ann Arbor, who was also at last year's
> > final table.
>
> ...and, at this moment, ranked 115th worldwide by our fabulous "ranking"
> system.
>
> Fred

He's also ranked 27th in the United States by the same fabulous
"ranking" system. This stat is more applicable for a discussion of the
North American Championship. There are also 8 Canadians ahead of his
505 point rating, so he's roughly 35th in North America. Not too
shabby, and certainly not to be dismissed from pulling off a win in a
big event.

The only weak spot in his tournament record is that he only won a
single 8-player event. The big point payoffs are for winning VTES
events, not merely making the finals. There is also a large gap between
Sept 2004 and March 2005. Presuming he's a student in Ann Arbor (or
perhaps a grad who is no longer nearby), it's no wonder that he doesn't
have time during the year to do as much VTES as he might like.

Whatever. I just wanted to point out that the rankings may not seem as
misleading as otherwise portrayed.

Jeff
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 8:23:52 PM

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

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Frederick Scott wrote:

>> The winner was Peter Charnley from Ann Arbor, who was also at last year's
>> final table.
>
> ...and, at this moment, ranked 115th worldwide by our fabulous "ranking"
> system.

Well, obviously his rating points for winning the NAC aren't in the
system yet. Without those points, he has 505, which is what puts him in
115th place. Assuming about 300 points for winning the NAC this year and
a few more for however he did in the first round tournament to advance to
the NAC (not sure how he placed, but he ousted me), he should make it
right about into the mid-high thirties. That's a fairly respectible
ranking.

If you look at Peter's overall record, he has ten games not counting this
year's NAC and has made final tables in four of them. He's clearly an
accomplished player and as soon as his rating points are entered, his name
will be listed next to many of the finest in the world.

So what's the problem?

Matt Morgan
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 8:25:19 PM

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

"John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124745505.182475.290400@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>
>> > The winner was Peter Charnley from Ann Arbor, who was also at last year's
>> > final table.
>>
>> ...and, at this moment, ranked 115th worldwide by our fabulous "ranking"
>> system.
>
> ...which will no doubt completely change in a week or so, as that
> ranking reflects nothing about this NAC yet.

I wasn't claiming they were. I was just pointing out that 115th is a pretty
low ranking for a future Continental Champion - *especially* for one who
clearly didn't "come out of nowhere" but was a previous Continental Championship
finalist.

Worthless.

Fred
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 8:36:11 PM

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

<jeffkuta@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1124752164.599824.265340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> "Andrew 'Wes' Weston" <ghost@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message
>> news:D edajp0scb@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> ...and, at this moment, ranked 115th worldwide by our fabulous "ranking"
>> system.
>
> He's also ranked 27th in the United States by the same fabulous
> "ranking" system. This stat is more applicable for a discussion of the
> North American Championship.

I don't know. That could be a reasonable partial explanation if the
European players are just better than the Americans. And for various
reasons, that might be possible. But another reasonable explanation
might also be that many more points are available for packing one's top
eight list if there are more and larger and more larger tournaments in
Europe concentrated in smaller areas that are easier for the players
to commute to. In short, it doesn't matter whether they're better
or not - the system will endemically make them *appear* better by its
very nature.

> There is also a large gap between
> Sept 2004 and March 2005. Presuming he's a student in Ann Arbor (or
> perhaps a grad who is no longer nearby), it's no wonder that he doesn't
> have time during the year to do as much VTES as he might like.

Sure. But this is circular to the intent of my post. Obvously, I
don't care about some lame excuse for his lack of participation
when the issue is about why participation is even being taken into
account in the first place.

At least, if the ratings are to be taken as a sign of skill.

Fred
August 22, 2005 9:38:42 PM

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

Hey guys,

as I'm not here often (have to read the group on Google), could anyone
send me the decklist of the Giovanni finalist ?

As a matter of fact, I'm surprised that a Gio Powerbleed and a Law Firm
made it to the finals, seeing as lately I've seen so much weenies and
intercepting allies . Or maybe the metagame isn't the same in the US ?

Was Stéphane Lavrut there, and how did he do ?

Congratulations to all the finalists. Except you Stefan, it's getting
sooo tiresome so see you in every Championship finals !! ;) 

And now I've got the JOL finals to play with Jared and a few other Big
Guys, and the French Championship this week-end and... no ready deck !!
lol. Maybe I should train for a drinking contest instead ?

Cheers from the Grave,

Orpheus
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:44:24 PM

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

Frederick Scott wrote:

> ...and, at this moment, ranked 115th worldwide by our fabulous "ranking"
> system.

And I bet his rank will jump considerably as a result.

Like, if you walk into the World Series of Poker having never played in the
event before, and win, you look like a not that good player either. Until
you win.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
easily spilled liquids to naked people."
-Brittni Meil
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:44:25 PM

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

"Peter D Bakija" <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BF2FCD88.2161B%pdb6@lightlink.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>
>> ...and, at this moment, ranked 115th worldwide by our fabulous "ranking"
>> system.
>
> And I bet his rank will jump considerably as a result.
>
> Like, if you walk into the World Series of Poker having never played in the
> event before,

bzzzzzztt! You didn't read what Wes said (and confirmed by his profile): he
was a finalist the year before. This guy is not a flash in the pan.

Fred
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:47:29 AM

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

"Orpheus" <orpheus.13@free.fr> wrote in message
news:1124757522.211532.112670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...


Was Stéphane Lavrut there, and how did he do ?

Orpheus


He was there but he didnt played. He just played in one draft tournement i
think (in which he did quite well if i remember corectly).

You should had see him with his "fairy" disguise that he had because he lost
a bet... That was soooo funny.

Martin
August 23, 2005 4:03:34 AM

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

>>>
"Orpheus" <orpheus.13@free.fr> wrote in message
news:1124757522.211532.112670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Hey guys,

as I'm not here often (have to read the group on Google), could anyone
send me the decklist of the Giovanni finalist ?

As a matter of fact, I'm surprised that a Gio Powerbleed and a Law Firm
made it to the finals, seeing as lately I've seen so much weenies and
intercepting allies . Or maybe the metagame isn't the same in the US ?
<<<

I don't think Ben's was a pure traditional power bleed. He had a lot of the
same vamps, but with many more allies (Hordes, Ambrosius) and some other
tech (WMRH & Channel 10, for example).

I believe Ben's NAC deck was very similar to the one of his that's published
in the new Player's Guide.

Pat
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 12:09:42 PM

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

jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:
> So, was the two-day format worth it?

> How many people had qualified for the NAC overall?

> Did people play the same decks both days?

Just bumping my questions...with one more...

How many people played Assamites? (Props to Tobin so far...:) )

Jeff
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 12:54:51 PM

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

Frederick Scott wrote:

> bzzzzzztt! You didn't read what Wes said (and confirmed by his profile): he
> was a finalist the year before. This guy is not a flash in the pan.

Nope. But he was inconsistient in his play--certainly a reasonably player,
but not a total ringer. He had won 1 of his previous 12 events on record.
Should someone who has won 1 event in the previous 18+ months be any higher
that 27th in the US? Unlikely. He has done pretty well, but not won much.
27th in the US/115th in the world sounds perfectly reasonable.

He then goes to the national championships with a reasonable, "pretty good"
kind of record (as that reflects his status when the event starts) with a
good deck, plays well and/or gets lucky. He beats a lot of "better" players
and, against the odds, wins. It happens all the time. In all sorts of games.

His rating will go up considerably as the result of winning (how many points
do you get for winning a 60+ player NAC? 500 or so?) His rating before the
NAC reflected a pretty good, if inconsistient player who got into the finals
a lot but didn't win much. His rating after the NAC will reflect a pretty
good, if inconsistient player who won the NAC through a combination of
skill, luck, and that plucky spark that underdogs ride to victory.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
easily spilled liquids to naked people."
-Brittni Meil
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 1:04:21 PM

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter D Bakija wrote:
>
> Derek,
>
> Will you marry me?

I'm sorry, Peter. I'm saving myself for Wes.

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDCx7VtQZlu3o7QpERAtrRAJ9otl8yTNACxI+QtR1SxyQ37kYjsACeJsPH
RrA+bYtsEzHTVWM0YWotSU4=
=KOzQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 1:26:23 PM

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

Joshua Duffin wrote:
> <jeffkuta@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:1124809782.328870.108330@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:
> >> So, was the two-day format worth it?

Matt also answered this. I guess I mean did those who participated
*enjoy* having two play two days worth of VTES for the finals? Was it a
"good thing" that it only took 1 GW and many VPs to make the final
table after Day 2? Was it successful enough that future continental
championships will continue to be modeled after this format?

> >> How many people had qualified for the NAC overall?
>
> Matt answered that one pretty accurately - I heard that there were like
> 63 people in the Friday "day one" of the NAC, of which 40 made the cut
> to "day two"; it turned out that you needed 0 GW, 2 VP, and good
> tiebreakers (or any GW at all) to make that cut, since with only 63
> there for day 1, almost two-thirds of the participants were continuing
> to day 2.

I actually meant how many people actually qualified, not how many
participated at GenCon. I guess it's probably an unknown to players,
but perhaps someone from WW knows how many people made the cut prior to
the Last Chance Qualifier.

> >> Did people play the same decks both days?
>
> Mostly not, in my experience - let me think - of the people I played
> with both days (uh, that may have been solely Dave Tatu), none played
> the same deck (including me); of the ones whose decks I saw both days
> but didn't play twice with, I can't think of any who played the same
> deck both days. I did hear of at least two people who did play the same
> deck (except for some tweaking, possibly) both days, but that's not
> terribly many out of 40.

I guess this is a good thing isn't it? I enjoy playing the same deck
3-4 times in a day, but I doubt I'd want to do it 3-4 times for two
days running. I'm gonna really have to plan ahead and do GenCon next
year. :) 

Jeff
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 1:57:12 PM

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

Derek Ray wrote:

> I'm sorry, Peter. I'm saving myself for Wes.

Man. Wes gets all the breaks.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
easily spilled liquids to naked people."
-Brittni Meil
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:19:38 PM

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:

> jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:
>> So, was the two-day format worth it?

In what sense? I think it's always worthwhile to have a large tournament
to play in.

The main reason I heard for the two-day format is that in a 40 player
tournament, it's possible to make it to the finals with a single game win,
but when that number is doubled, two game wins are required. This forces
players to go with high-risk, high-yield decks. Four out of the five
finalists had only a single game win so I guess in that sense it was
"worthwhile" in that it achieved that goal (assuming that was an actual
goal).

There was also some talk about keeping the riff-raff out and how this
would be the most competative tournament our little continent has ever
seen. I saw great players at every table, but the dealing and wheeling
and dealing some more was out of hand.

>> How many people had qualified for the NAC overall?

Dunno, but I think the first round tournament had somewhere between 60 and
70 players. 40 of those advanced to the second tournament.

>> Did people play the same decks both days?

This year's winner, Peter Charnley, did. Not sure if he tweaked it at all
between tournaments. As far as I could tell, most people played different
decks both days, but there were a few other exceptions.

> Just bumping my questions...with one more...
>
> How many people played Assamites? (Props to Tobin so far...:) )

Just Tobin as far as I know.

Matt Morgan
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:21:39 PM

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Pat wrote:

> I believe Ben's NAC deck was very similar to the one of his that's published
> in the new Player's Guide.

Actually, it's a very different deck. I'm sure the decklist will be
published soon. Ben's NAC finalist deck is mainly a powerbleed that uses
Hordes for blocking and combat defense and Le Dinh Tho for annoyance.

Matt Morgan
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:30:51 PM

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

Joshua Duffin wrote:
> is suddenly inspired to wonder about a format where no good decks are
> allowed (something with an extensive banned list, perhaps?) - might turn
> out to be more boring than when good decks are allowed, though

We could just give everyone one of my decks. ;) 


Xian
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:28:41 PM

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

jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:

> How many people played Assamites? (Props to Tobin so far...:) )

While I have no idea who played what and when at Gen Con, I've seen quite a
few Assamites with dominate bleedzookaing while unblockable decks flying
around the tournament scene that have been doing quite well overall.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
easily spilled liquids to naked people."
-Brittni Meil
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:50:10 PM

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:

> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> <jeffkuta@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:1124809782.328870.108330@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:
>>>> So, was the two-day format worth it?
>
> Matt also answered this. I guess I mean did those who participated
> *enjoy* having two play two days worth of VTES for the finals? Was it a
> "good thing" that it only took 1 GW and many VPs to make the final
> table after Day 2? Was it successful enough that future continental
> championships will continue to be modeled after this format?

Two years ago (my first NAC), I scored 1 GW and 6 VP, which wasn't good
enough for that final, but would've put me in tiebreakers for this year.
Last year I managed 1 GW and 4 VP, which left me at a distant 20th place.
Unfortunately, this year I only got 2.5 VPs with no wins. Guess I'm
getting worse. :) 

Two ways to read that:

#1 - I play solid decks that perform above average and can often make the
finals, except when the tournament is so huge that I need 2 GW to make the
finals. Since I don't go the high-risk, high-yield route, I don't really
have much of a shot at a final table when 70-80 players show up. The new
40 player tournament format gives me (and other players like me) a much
better chance of making the final.

#2 - The competition was much higher this year given the culling process.
Had we used this format in previous years, I would not have done as well
and still would not have made the final.

Probably both of those are true to some degree. At the very least, it
gives me some hope of making a final table at some continental
championship some time. Anybody want to buy me a ticket to Australia?

Matt Morgan
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:55:37 PM

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

"Peter D Bakija" <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:BF30A377.2164F%pdb6@lightlink.com...
> Derek Ray wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, Peter. I'm saving myself for Wes.
>
> Man. Wes gets all the breaks.

In life, perhaps, but in VTES that turns out not to be the case. :-)
Wes was sadly bubbled out of qualifying in the GenCon last-chance
qualifier (he was 6 tournament points behind the last qualifying spot, I
think), and if I remember right, also on the bubble just outside of
being in the finals of the Shadow Twin draft tournament on Saturday. In
this case, consistency is probably not quite what you'd like to have for
yourself. ;-)


Josh

misery loves company - missed the sunday-morning Swainbank-draft finals
by 6 TPs myself
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:55:58 PM

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

"Peter D Bakija" <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:BF3094DA.21646%pdb6@lightlink.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>
>> bzzzzzztt! You didn't read what Wes said (and confirmed by his profile): he
>> was a finalist the year before. This guy is not a flash in the pan.
>
> Nope. But he was inconsistient in his play--certainly a reasonably player,
> but not a total ringer. He had won 1 of his previous 12 events on record.
> Should someone who has won 1 event in the previous 18+ months be any higher
> that 27th in the US? Unlikely. He has done pretty well, but not won much.
> 27th in the US/115th in the world sounds perfectly reasonable.
>
> He then goes to the national championships with a reasonable, "pretty good"
> kind of record (as that reflects his status when the event starts) with a
> good deck, plays well and/or gets lucky. He beats a lot of "better" players
> and, against the odds, wins. It happens all the time. In all sorts of games.

You know, I'd agree with you if it was just winning _this_ year's Continental
Championship. I'm sure some things are flukes, even two-day 7-round
championship events, at least to the extent of allowing someone who isn't
quite top of the line caliber to win. But the fact that he was a finalist
last year makes it really hard to sell that notion.

As I pointed out to Derek, David Tatu is even less consistent in his results
yet he's ranked fourth in the U.S. That should tell you that the issue isn't
consistency or inconsistency but prolificacy, pure and simple. David plays
in lots of tournaments and is ranked much higher than Charnley, who doesn't
play nearly as often. That ought to seem silly to people in my book.

Fred
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 4:16:46 PM

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

<jeffkuta@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1124809782.328870.108330@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:
>> So, was the two-day format worth it?
>
>> How many people had qualified for the NAC overall?

Matt answered that one pretty accurately - I heard that there were like
63 people in the Friday "day one" of the NAC, of which 40 made the cut
to "day two"; it turned out that you needed 0 GW, 2 VP, and good
tiebreakers (or any GW at all) to make that cut, since with only 63
there for day 1, almost two-thirds of the participants were continuing
to day 2.

>> Did people play the same decks both days?

Mostly not, in my experience - let me think - of the people I played
with both days (uh, that may have been solely Dave Tatu), none played
the same deck (including me); of the ones whose decks I saw both days
but didn't play twice with, I can't think of any who played the same
deck both days. I did hear of at least two people who did play the same
deck (except for some tweaking, possibly) both days, but that's not
terribly many out of 40.

> Just bumping my questions...with one more...
>
> How many people played Assamites? (Props to Tobin so far...:) )

Yeah, uh, the only one I played against was Tobin, let me think... I
can't think of any others off the top of my head from either day of the
NAC. They were quite popular in the many (sadly, mostly unsanctioned)
drafts though - Black Sunrise and Web of Knives Recruit are totally hot
when you're drafting with KMW packs, and the vamps aren't bad either.


Josh

sorting through piles of email
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 4:48:17 PM

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

<jeffkuta@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1124814383.257020.197510@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> <jeffkuta@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:1124809782.328870.108330@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:
>> >> So, was the two-day format worth it?
>
> Matt also answered this. I guess I mean did those who participated
> *enjoy* having two play two days worth of VTES for the finals? Was it
> a
> "good thing" that it only took 1 GW and many VPs to make the final
> table after Day 2? Was it successful enough that future continental
> championships will continue to be modeled after this format?

Oh right, I missed seeing that one on the first line. :-)

Hmm... I enjoyed playing two days of championship VTES, but would have
also enjoyed (more? hard to say) being able to play a sanctioned draft
on the other day (as there ended up being no sanctioned draft on the
official GenCon schedule other than the Shadow Twin tournament on
Saturday).

I do like the "double qualification" idea in concept, in that a
100-player tournament is very different from a 40-player tournament, and
you really have to get more lucky to make the finals in the 100-player
tournament than the 40 (IMO, keeping in mind that you normally have to
get at least somewhat lucky to make the finals even in a 40). But as it
actually happened, with 63 players there for day 1? The qualifying
requirement for day 2 was (again IMO) relatively minimal, and it seems
to me more like you had to get UNlucky to NOT advance in this case, and
that a one-day tournament wouldn't have had a hugely different character
from the second day in this situation. (Though people probably *would*
have chosen different decks, or at least, I might have played my day-2
deck on day 1, though then again, maybe not.)

There definitely *should* be less randomness in a two-day format, since
in a way you're using six preliminary games to determine the eventual
five finalists. But then again, you lose some of the "six game reduced
randomness" since the first day is treated as an entirely separate
tournament, ie, standings from day 1 are lost, all that matters is
whether you made the top-40 cut or not.

>> >> How many people had qualified for the NAC overall?
>>
>> Matt answered that one pretty accurately - I heard that there were
>> like
>> 63 people in the Friday "day one" of the NAC, of which 40 made the
>> cut
>> to "day two"; it turned out that you needed 0 GW, 2 VP, and good
>> tiebreakers (or any GW at all) to make that cut, since with only 63
>> there for day 1, almost two-thirds of the participants were
>> continuing
>> to day 2.
>
> I actually meant how many people actually qualified, not how many
> participated at GenCon. I guess it's probably an unknown to players,
> but perhaps someone from WW knows how many people made the cut prior
> to
> the Last Chance Qualifier.

Ah, gotcha. By my count there are 78 "qualified before the LCQ" North
American-qualified players on White Wolf's list:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Champions.... Not quite
all of those are people who *live* in North America (eg Stéphane
Lavrut), and some NAC players didn't qualify in North America (eg
Andreas Nusser), but it should be reasonably close. I seem to vaguely
remember that either 9 or 13 people qualified in the LCQ this year,
making no more than about 90 possible entrants in NAC Day 1, for about a
two-thirds yield of possible vs actual participation. Is that what you
meant to wonder?

>> >> Did people play the same decks both days?
>>
>> Mostly not, in my experience - let me think - of the people I played
>> with both days (uh, that may have been solely Dave Tatu), none played
>> the same deck (including me); of the ones whose decks I saw both days
>> but didn't play twice with, I can't think of any who played the same
>> deck both days. I did hear of at least two people who did play the
>> same
>> deck (except for some tweaking, possibly) both days, but that's not
>> terribly many out of 40.
>
> I guess this is a good thing isn't it? I enjoy playing the same deck
> 3-4 times in a day, but I doubt I'd want to do it 3-4 times for two
> days running. I'm gonna really have to plan ahead and do GenCon next
> year. :) 

Yeah, I did like not having to play the same deck 6 times in a row,
although then again, it would be kind of a unique experience, and
therefore might be interesting at least once. But we do like to think
it's the players we're testing, not just the decks, right? So playing
different decks on two days of tournaments makes sense to me in a lot of
ways.


Josh

is suddenly inspired to wonder about a format where no good decks are
allowed (something with an extensive banned list, perhaps?) - might turn
out to be more boring than when good decks are allowed, though
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:18:38 PM

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

"Peter D Bakija" <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:BF30F568.21687%pdb6@lightlink.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> You know, I'd agree with you if it was just winning _this_ year's Continental
>> Championship. I'm sure some things are flukes, even two-day 7-round
>> championship events, at least to the extent of allowing someone who isn't
>> quite top of the line caliber to win. But the fact that he was a finalist
>> last year makes it really hard to sell that notion.
>
> I'm not saying it was a fluke--he is clearly a "pretty good" player. He got
> into the finals last year, he won a small local event, and he got some
> points in qualifiers. That strikes me, in terms of overall performance, as
> "pretty good".

I guess I'll try and summarize the debate in an attempt to cut off the
repetitious circles. What it seems to come down to is, "How far down does
a guy have to be on the rating list to raise some eyebrows when he won the
Continental Championship this year and was a finalist last year?" The fact
that he did this in two consecutive years says much better than "pretty
good" to me. This is one of the hardest tournaments in the world to win.
One year, OK, maybe a "pretty good" player managed to get over the top.
Two years in a row? No way.

> What we have is a kinda serious ranking system that
> works pretty well, encourages people to play in tournaments (assuming they
> care), doesn't punish folks for playing experimental decks, and has a
> reasonable correlation between high score and being a good player. Does it
> have scientific accuracy? Not even close. But it is good enough.

Good enough for what? It's leaving great players way down the list not
because they're not great but because they simply don't play enough. The
instant you use the rating system to encourage or reward *anything* except
good play, it loses its value as a rating system. And, so corrupted, it then
loses its value in terms of encouraging the other thing, whatever it is you're
trying to use it to encourage.

You have to look at what a thing is *for*. A rating system is _for_ giving
information, not rewarding behavior you like. If you start bastardizing its
information function then it ceases to inform and ultimately does nothing.

>> As I pointed out to Derek, David Tatu is even less consistent in his results
>> yet he's ranked fourth in the U.S. That should tell you that the issue isn't
>> consistency or inconsistency but prolificacy, pure and simple. David plays
>> in lots of tournaments and is ranked much higher than Charnley, who doesn't
>> play nearly as often. That ought to seem silly to people in my book.
>
> Yet it doesn't. Tatu is certainly a good player--he plays a lot, sure, but
> to get that high, he needs to play well too.

Of course. I don't issue with the notion that David's a good player. But how
good a player? The reason for bringing up his record was mainly just to
counter Derek's suggestion that the reason Peter Charnley is ranked so low
has to do with his inconsistency. Whether deliberately or not, David Tatu is
a good demonstration of how the system can be "gamed" and that inconsistency
truly matters not a bit.

In the last thread in which I debated Derek about this, I gave an example of
three different ratings formulas that all do the same thing as this system does:
reward participation and good results simultaneously. By changing the weightings
of different types of rewarded results, I showed how three different players can
appear significantly better or worse depending on which formula you chose to use.
So how does this tell you anything? If players can slide up and down the ranking
list like water depending on the weighting values chosen, what does this say
about anything except how well a player scores given the arbitrary formula
chosen? Nothing. It doesn't tell you a thing.

Fred
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 6:45:48 PM

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

"Xian" <xian@visi.com> wrote in message
news:1124818251.836726.201550@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> is suddenly inspired to wonder about a format where no good decks are
>> allowed (something with an extensive banned list, perhaps?) - might
>> turn
>> out to be more boring than when good decks are allowed, though
>
> We could just give everyone one of my decks. ;) 

Ooh! Another interesting format (at least as a thought experiment)!

Duplicate VTES: there are 5 different decks at a table; probably each
decklist is known in advance to the participants. Each player plays a
different deck for each of three rounds (or five rounds if you wanted
"total fairness"), probably against different players each round too (if
possible).

You'd still have shuffling randomness, though, unless the deck were
played in the same order each time (and if that order were known, we
would probably have gone too far in removing random elements from the
game of VTES).


Josh

ist verruckt!
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 6:59:10 PM

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

Frederick Scott wrote:

> But I still feel that the current rating system doesn't reflect
> player skill very well.

Sure--it is in no way even close to a perfect reflection of player skill.
But it is much better that you seem to think it is (given that you think it
doesn't at all).


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
easily spilled liquids to naked people."
-Brittni Meil
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:15:57 PM

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

"Joshua Duffin" <jtduffin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3n12aiF18vl7lU1@individual.net...
>
> <jeffkuta@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:1124814383.257020.197510@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>>> <jeffkuta@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1124809782.328870.108330@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> > jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:
>>> >> So, was the two-day format worth it?
>>
>> Matt also answered this. I guess I mean did those who participated
>> *enjoy* having two play two days worth of VTES for the finals? Was it a
>> "good thing" that it only took 1 GW and many VPs to make the final
>> table after Day 2? Was it successful enough that future continental
>> championships will continue to be modeled after this format?
>
> Oh right, I missed seeing that one on the first line. :-)
>
> Hmm... I enjoyed playing two days of championship VTES, but would have
> also enjoyed (more? hard to say) being able to play a sanctioned draft on
> the other day (as there ended up being no sanctioned draft on the official
> GenCon schedule other than the Shadow Twin tournament on Saturday).
>
> I do like the "double qualification" idea in concept, in that a 100-player
> tournament is very different from a 40-player tournament, and you really
> have to get more lucky to make the finals in the 100-player tournament
> than the 40 (IMO, keeping in mind that you normally have to get at least
> somewhat lucky to make the finals even in a 40). But as it actually
> happened, with 63 players there for day 1? The qualifying requirement for
> day 2 was (again IMO) relatively minimal, and it seems to me more like you
> had to get UNlucky to NOT advance in this case, and that a one-day
> tournament wouldn't have had a hugely different character from the second
> day in this situation. (Though people probably *would* have chosen
> different decks, or at least, I might have played my day-2 deck on day 1,
> though then again, maybe not.)
>
> There definitely *should* be less randomness in a two-day format, since in
> a way you're using six preliminary games to determine the eventual five
> finalists. But then again, you lose some of the "six game reduced
> randomness" since the first day is treated as an entirely separate
> tournament, ie, standings from day 1 are lost, all that matters is whether
> you made the top-40 cut or not.

I too think that this format was a success, since the actual championship is
going to have overall better games and as a result end up being a better
test of skill (I would think and so I was told, I didn't actually make it
past the first day.) There are some minor issues I have with the system,
although I'm sure those can be worked through (none of the issues playing a
factor in why I didn't make it past the first day; these are things I saw
that had me wondering.)

By the way, someone please remind me not to participate in every draft over
the week of nightmares. I generally enjoy draft but five drafts in a week
is a tad much for some of us.

Albert
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:17:31 PM

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

Frederick Scott wrote:

> > I'm not saying it was a fluke--he is clearly a "pretty good" player. He got
> > into the finals last year, he won a small local event, and he got some
> > points in qualifiers. That strikes me, in terms of overall performance, as
> > "pretty good".
>
> I guess I'll try and summarize the debate in an attempt to cut off the
> repetitious circles. What it seems to come down to is, "How far down does
> a guy have to be on the rating list to raise some eyebrows when he won the
> Continental Championship this year and was a finalist last year?" The fact
> that he did this in two consecutive years says much better than "pretty
> good" to me. This is one of the hardest tournaments in the world to win.
> One year, OK, maybe a "pretty good" player managed to get over the top.
> Two years in a row? No way.

I'll be repetitive, kinda.

How far down does a guy have to be to raise eyebrows?

Well, since the ratings are based on _past_ performance, not current,
the issue of 'he won this year' is a flawed argument from the get go.
"Two years in a row" simply isn't reflected in the rankings yet, so why
be surprised when someone's lower ranked?

Either you are taking his 2005 win into account, in which case Peter's
ranked around at least 40th in the world and roughly 4th in the US.
That would not raise the least bit of eyebrows, in my opinion; I'd
expect a US player who made two NAC final tables to be in the top 5.

Or, you discount it, in which case being in the top 100 or so players
worldwide - for having made a Continental finals once and only winning
one single tourney in 18 months - isn't out of line either.

And keep in mind that the rankings only cover the last 18 months.
Apparently, had Jared Strait won, you'd have been even more outraged at
his 285th ranking - which reflects neither his being a finalist this
year nor having won the NAC in years past.

The rankings don't reflect who the 'good players' are, because 'good
player' is a nebulous imaginary value. You might as well ask a bunch of
magical pixies who the 'good players' are, if you aren't basing it on
tangible results. Rankings have to at least partly show who has been
doing well (sometimes over a limited period of time) based on tangible
results to have any semblance of rationality, and by that definition,
Peter was absolutely deserving of his appearing-low-to-you ranking
prior to this year's NAC. And his ranking will be appropriately high
once this weekend's results are factored in.

> Fred

-John
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:17:59 PM

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

Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, James Coupe wrote:
>
> > With only 12 tournament performances, several of which show him bombing
> > out, a good showing in the previous nationals, one tournament which he
> > won, what would you rate him as, prior to his win? And how would you
> > derive that from the performance data?
>
> We could use an ELO system. Peter would've beaten a number of
> better-ranked players by getting the NAC final last year and his rating
> would've soared! Whoa, it really works well, right?

Using the old rating system, yes. If the constants had been adjusted
properly, one NAC finals appearance would have increased his rating but
not made it skyrocket.

> Then he'd go back to Ann Arbor and do poorly against all the players who
> didn't make an NAC final and his rating would completely bomb. He'd have
> shown up this year with a rock-bottom rating to go on to win and his
> rating would jump up to the top again.

Again, yes, the old system would have done this. However, an ELO system
with properly adjusted constants probably would have dropped his rating
but probably not enough to make it "rock-bottom".

> That would be such a great system. Why don't we use that?

While our old ELO system was too volatile it would be unfair to assume
that all ELO ratings are necessarily too volatile. Nobody is proposing
that we use the old rating system again.

-Robert
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:21:22 PM

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

Stefan Ferenci wrote:

> So Oscar, Steve W., Stewart W. , LSJ, Gabor et al, dont you think it
> would be better to use the (modified probably for a 50 player day 2
> event) Lavrut/ Walch system in Budapest, the by far larger attendance at
> the ec will turn this event into a lottery which will a) create an
> atmosphere with a lot of bleed decks and degenerate play b) and leave a
> lot of players dissappointed about the amount of luck needed to get to
> the finals.
>
> i really encourange all of you to think about it. it is never to late to
> change it.

IIRC, there were logistical concerns that made it especially difficult
to use this format at the EC this year. I wouldn't be surprised if it
were adopted at future ECs, however.

-Robert
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 8:20:04 PM

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, James Coupe wrote:

> With only 12 tournament performances, several of which show him bombing
> out, a good showing in the previous nationals, one tournament which he
> won, what would you rate him as, prior to his win? And how would you
> derive that from the performance data?

We could use an ELO system. Peter would've beaten a number of
better-ranked players by getting the NAC final last year and his rating
would've soared! Whoa, it really works well, right?

Then he'd go back to Ann Arbor and do poorly against all the players who
didn't make an NAC final and his rating would completely bomb. He'd have
shown up this year with a rock-bottom rating to go on to win and his
rating would jump up to the top again.

That would be such a great system. Why don't we use that?

Matt Morgan
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 8:52:16 PM

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

Albert Chang wrote:

> By the way, someone please remind me not to participate in every draft over
> the week of nightmares. I generally enjoy draft but five drafts in a week
> is a tad much for some of us.

Albert! Come back to Ithaca! Why are you still in, where, uh, Texas?


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
easily spilled liquids to naked people."
-Brittni Meil
!