[Armus]

So I think we all know how Neil and John feel about the most recent World Championship, but within the other thread there were a few good points raised and questions asked that strike me as legitimate areas for a rational discussion about the future of World Championship play. With Worlds in London next year, we kickoff the third 'cycle' of the Rotating World Championships model. I want to start this thread as a place for honest, thoughtful, open conversation.

Here are a couple of suggested conversation starters, but feel free to use your own as well:

1.) What is the purpose of the World Championship? What goals should organizers of such an event strive for?

2.) What are your thoughts on the Rotating championships model? Any suggested changes?

3.) What criteria do you use when evaluating the quality of high level events in general, and Worlds specifically?

I'm sure not everyone is going to agree on an issue like this, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were some fairly passionate disagreements between the various player communities. And while there's nothing wrong with vigorous, passionate debate, please be respectful of your fellow community members and the Code of Conduct.

Thanks,

-Brian

[Mogor]

1.) What is the purpose of the World Championship? What goals should organizers of such an event strive for?

To encourage the game and develop interlinks between the community over the globe. Also to serve as a participation encourager for local groups to develop and grow their player groups.

2.) What are your thoughts on the Rotating championships model? Any suggested changes?
I think its a great option, the continetals and other events can also be high level play events. The rotation option is great as it spreads the big event around, and hopefully can also be scheduled in locales that have great additional vacation appeal
3.) What criteria do you use when evaluating the quality of high level events in general, and Worlds specifically?
The amount of attendance, the out of town visitors and the atmosphere of the event

[ntimmons]

So I think we all know how Neil and John feel about the most recent World Championship.
-Brian

People do not know how I feel. I made one sarcastic remark. I did not expect the entire moon to fall Seveneves style.

I would like to take this opportunity (as the other thread is locked) to apologize for my comments regarding player rankings. I of all people know that the player ranking system is not actually a good measure of Trek skill level at any given point, and implying that Worlds would only be successful if there were a majority of players that were ranked 1600 (or 1700) or more was uncalled for. To all the players who are at what was once my level, a great player under rated, I want to apologize. To the players who are high ranked but got there with broken decks or shenanigans, I also apologize, just because you got to a high rank with a broken combo does not mean you do not deserve the rank.

My comments, while uncalled for, stemmed from the only way that we rate high level play. We rate the success of high level play by the level of attendance. It appears to me, and I must say that it does not appear to others, that the Worlds tournament in Australia at least has the Optics (key word here folks, don't assume causation) of being rigged to inflate the attendance just to brag about how big the tournament was. 15 players logged a total of 70 missed games with many players missed 7 of 8 rounds and the majority of players missing 5 of 8 rounds. This puts to rest the hypothesis of "well, if you get 6 rounds in, and you know you aren't going to make it, you should do other things!" at Gencon, you are right, where there are tons of <quote> OTHER THINGS </quote> around, However 11 players quit after playing not more then 3 rounds and 15 players appearing to have no interest in making day 2 to actually win the Worlds crown. While this is not concerning to others, it is to me.

However, while this discrepancy is being discussed behind closed doors, and there will be some sort of reckoning, I want to take this opportunity to apologize to anybody who took offense to my comments about player rankings. Players are not either good nor not good based on their rankings. Players are good or not good based on their preparation of a tournament and their skill level during any specific tournament. Low ranked players could be the best in the world, or high ranked players could be out of practice and not good. The tournament ranking system is not good at telling us who is good at this game tournament to tournament, but only who was good at this game tournament to tournament in the past. I meant no offense to anybody who is a low rank but seeks to rise in the rankings and I would apologize to those people. I would also apologize to the high ranked players who do not put in the time to learn what the game has become in Phase 2 and will lose games due to "Lack or Preparation" it's a good card, people should play with it.

I take a bit of issue with some of John's comments. specifically that I have personally funded the CC. I have done a lot of work for the CC, but most of it has just been time and telephone calls. I have used my personal situation to solve problems for the CC, but that is not the same as whatever John said about "giving them a lot of money". I am a bit saddened that the CC did not utilize my services for Gencon this year as we had a minor hiccup with Gencon taking all of our reserves for months and I could very much have <quote> fixed that problem </quote> but I was not asked to deal with that situation this year so I was not involved.

I understand that I made a statement that was taken by some as offensive, and for most of the statement I apologize, the sarcasm was not the best way to go about approaching the situation. I however do not agree with John wielding a ball-peen hammer swinging as if he were a drunken blacksmith. Some of his comments have merit, some do not, most are presented in a way that is not beneficial to the community.

Thank you for reading,
Neil

[chompers]

So I think we all know how Neil and John feel about the most recent World Championship, but within the other thread there were a few good points raised and questions asked that strike me as legitimate areas for a rational discussion about the future of World Championship play. With Worlds in London next year, we kickoff the third 'cycle' of the Rotating World Championships model. I want to start this thread as a place for honest, thoughtful, open conversation.

Here are a couple of suggested conversation starters, but feel free to use your own as well:

1.) What is the purpose of the World Championship? What goals should organizers of such an event strive for?

2.) What are your thoughts on the Rotating championships model? Any suggested changes?

3.) What criteria do you use when evaluating the quality of high level events in general, and Worlds specifically?

I'm sure not everyone is going to agree on an issue like this, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were some fairly passionate disagreements between the various player communities. And while there's nothing wrong with vigorous, passionate debate, please be respectful of your fellow community members and the Code of Conduct.

Thanks,

-Brian

I am really happy that this thread has been created.

I think it is essential we get the best possible feedback moving forward. I have my own personal opinions which I'd like to keep to myself because my role is to serve the CC, the Australian players and not myself.

I would encourage everyone to offer their most honest and sincere feedback because it will be critical moving forward.

[bosskamiura]

I dont have time to fill out the survey, i just know i want Worlds to feel like Worlds. Where high level play happens between highly rated players. How many 1800+ players were at this 2e worlds? 1, maybe 2, maybe 0? Thats a joke.

Does that mean Austrailia needs to be dropped from the Worlds rotation because it cant support high level play? Yes it does. Otherwise, itll just be known as that place people fly to when they want to be world champion that year.

TK

[BCSWowbagger]

^ Very solid apology, that.

My two cents on the questions:

1.) What is the purpose of the World Championship? What goals should organizers of such an event strive for?

I'll take an unusual tack and say that the primary purpose of the World Championship should be recruitment and education. It's the most visible, expensive, highly-focused event of the year, which makes it a prime opportunity to bring in fresh blood. And fresh blood is what Trek (both games) need more than anything else today.

2.) What are your thoughts on the Rotating championships model? Any suggested changes?

I think it's good on the whole -- if Decipher isn't paying for flights, everyone should have a crack at Worlds on their own turf -- BUT I think the Eastern and Western U.S. should be on the rotation separately. The distance between New York City and Los Angeles is not much smaller than the distance between New York City and London. I think Europeans and even Aussies (with their huge hunk of island) sometimes under-appreciate just how vast the distances are between the major inhabited areas of our country. For many people, a world championship held in Indianapolis might as well be hosted in Sydney -- or on Mars. (Not me. Indianapolis is relatively close to me; roughly the same distance as Cardiff to Frankfurt)

That said, the Masters system has done much to relieve the ratings pressure around here, or at least that's my perception of it.

On a related note, I think it's time to move the next American Worlds out of Indianapolis. GenCon is a great place with many things to commend it, but it is also a terrible place with many downsides. We don't need to divorce GenCon, but Worlds shouldn't be tied to it anymore, either.

3.) What criteria do you use when evaluating the quality of high level events in general, and Worlds specifically?

A successful Worlds means more players showing up at more locals, especially in the host country. A failed Worlds is one where the game shrinks right after. Everything else is secondary (though obviously having great players present is a big help to that goal).

These are just my personal opinions. I don't generally pay much attention to OP (no offense, OP!). I spend a lot of time worrying about newbies and our games' relative lack of them, though.

By my standards, Worlds 2015 appears to have been a considerable success (lots of new faces), but I do worry about the high number of missed games in the 2E bracket, as noted by Neil and others; are these players going to return at the next local, or was some of this apparent growth illusory? The 1E Worlds (scheduled on a Thursday -- ouch!) had far fewer MGs, but also only about half as many players. How many of them were new? How many are coming back for the next local? So the real test of Worlds 2015 success, in my eyes, is yet to come... and I wish chompers and his rather marvelous team all the best in converting these newcomers into regulars!

[Iron Mike]

The 1E Worlds (scheduled on a Thursday -- ouch!) had far fewer MGs, but also only about half as many players. How many of them were new? How many are coming back for the next local?

The 1E players were all people who had been playing for a while, the newest being Shane and Jay who have played before but not a lot. We tend not to have a lot of local 1E events for varied reasons.

I think it's good on the whole -- if Decipher isn't paying for flights, everyone should have a crack at Worlds on their own turf -- BUT I think the Eastern and Western U.S. should be on the rotation separately. The distance between New York City and Los Angeles is not much smaller than the distance between New York City and London. I think Europeans and even Aussies (with their huge hunk of island) sometimes under-appreciate just how vast the distances are between the major inhabited areas of our country. For many people, a world championship held in Indianapolis might as well be hosted in Sydney -- or on Mars. (Not me. Indianapolis is relatively close to me; roughly the same distance as Cardiff to Frankfurt)

I get the point about the geographical distances across the US. But a key difference is that there is a somewhat central point to the US with a playgroup nearby,* whereby other groups would only need to travel half a continent to play, negating the issue of a continent's size. Australia does not have that. A halfway between the Perth/east coast groups would wind up being in South Australia which to my knowledge has no active Trek play scene.

*Rugby, ND is some 800km from the where LORE held his latest event.

[Wedge772]

However 11 players quit after playing not more then 3 rounds and 15 players appearing to have no interest in making day 2 to actually win the Worlds crown. While this is not concerning to others, it is to me.

Not everyone is playing at Worlds with the goal of winning the crown. My personal goal for 2E was to have a great day of playing Trek, which is what I got. I actually qualified for day 2, but decided to drop instead. Maybe this is just a cultural thing, since I get the impression that everyone is generally more competitive in America.

Now put yourselves in the shoes of a new player. They certainly have no intention of winning Worlds. They had to come out of their way to come play, since Worlds was not happening at a game store or a con. That's already a great sign. Would you hang around an entire day to play a grueling 8 round competitive event of a game you've just learned how to play?

[Danny]

Not everyone is playing at Worlds with the goal of winning the crown. My personal goal for 2E was to have a great day of playing Trek, which is what I got. I actually qualified for day 2, but decided to drop instead. Maybe this is just a cultural thing, since I get the impression that everyone is generally more competitive in America.

Now put yourselves in the shoes of a new player. They certainly have no intention of winning Worlds. They had to come out of their way to come play, since Worlds was not happening at a game store or a con. That's already a great sign. Would you hang around an entire day to play a grueling 8 round competitive event of a game you've just learned how to play?

You talk about "hav[ing] a great day of playing Trek", then make out that people bailing (from having a great day of playing Trek) is justified. These two statements seem a little incongruous.

Personally, yeah, if I'd just learned a game, and had the opportunity to spend a day playing and practicing (especially if I'd parted with any money to do so), I'd definitely take it (but, like I said, that's just me).

[Mogor]

Not everyone is playing at Worlds with the goal of winning the crown. My personal goal for 2E was to have a great day of playing Trek, which is what I got. I actually qualified for day 2, but decided to drop instead. Maybe this is just a cultural thing, since I get the impression that everyone is generally more competitive in America.

Now put yourselves in the shoes of a new player. They certainly have no intention of winning Worlds. They had to come out of their way to come play, since Worlds was not happening at a game store or a con. That's already a great sign. Would you hang around an entire day to play a grueling 8 round competitive event of a game you've just learned how to play?

You talk about "hav[ing] a great day of playing Trek", then make out that people bailing (from having a great day of playing Trek) is justified. These two statements seem a little incongruous.

Personally, yeah, if I'd just learned a game, and had the opportunity to spend a day playing and practicing (especially if I'd parted with any money to do so), I'd definitely take it (but, like I said, that's just me).

Part of its culture deal, what should be an undeniable fact is that the aussie play groups are growing their groups quite nicely and put on a great event. If you consider it a world's grade event or not it separate from the fact that they put on a very nice event.

The world's aspect of it comes down to a definition issue. What does World's mean in a game that is considered dead by the bulk of the gaming industry/community.

Personally anything we can do to recruit and encourage new players is a good thing.

[Wedge772]

You talk about "hav[ing] a great day of playing Trek", then make out that people bailing (from having a great day of playing Trek) is justified. These two statements seem a little incongruous.

Personally, yeah, if I'd just learned a game, and had the opportunity to spend a day playing and practicing (especially if I'd parted with any money to do so), I'd definitely take it (but, like I said, that's just me).

But I'm not a new player anymore. I'm already one of the converted faithful

I'm sure everyone who dropped had their reasons. Maybe dinner plans, Saturday night plans. Maybe they simply found that Trek wasn't a game for them. Playing Trek for 12 hours is a bloody long day. Whatever the reason, this is just a hobby. I'm amazed that 37 people made the effort to come play a dead game, whether it was for the first time, to win the title, or to have a great day with great people.

[Fritzinger]

You talk about "hav[ing] a great day of playing Trek", then make out that people bailing (from having a great day of playing Trek) is justified. These two statements seem a little incongruous.

Personally, yeah, if I'd just learned a game, and had the opportunity to spend a day playing and practicing (especially if I'd parted with any money to do so), I'd definitely take it (but, like I said, that's just me).

By "a day" I'm sure you don't mean 8 games over 13 hours with no supper break.

[Danny]

But I'm not a new player anymore. I'm already one of the converted faithful

But if I'm putting myself "in the shoes of a new player" (as per your suggestion), then it still stands - I'd want to practice and play all the games I could (doubly so if I've paid anything (travel, accommodation, fees to do so).

I'm sure everyone who dropped had their reasons. Maybe dinner plans, Saturday night plans. Maybe they simply found that Trek wasn't a game for them. Playing Trek for 12 hours is a bloody long day. Whatever the reason, this is just a hobby. I'm amazed that 37 people made the effort to come play a dead game, whether it was for the first time, to win the title, or to have a great day with great people.

Very true.

[Danny]

By "a day" I'm sure you don't mean 8 games over 13 hours with no supper break.

No, but if that's the case, then there's a little problem/room for improvement in the organisation of the event. (One fewer round, one hour for dinner?)

Also, I'm not the one that used "a day" as a term of reference.

[Fritzinger]

How many 1800+ players were at this 2e worlds? 1, maybe 2, maybe 0? Thats a joke.

Worlds had 2 players at 1800 (Ken, MVB) before the tournament. That's more than NACC, which had one. That one dropped after 2 games, while two other players (Nickyank, Jeremy Bendict) BECAME 1800 as a result of playing in NACC. Was NACC a joke?

For interest, here's the 2015 appearances of the top 20 ranked players, conveniently also those over 1800 currently. 7 continentals appearances from 6 players, 2 worlds, 8 masters from 7 players.

1. Clarke 0
2. Ken 25 incl. 3x regionals, worlds (1811 before)
3. Timmons 1
4. Naetor 2x Masters
5. Johannes 3 incl. Euros (1975 before)
6. Vlad 0
7. Kris 12 incl. 1x masters, 1x regional
8. Harrington 4 incl. 1x masters, 1x regional
9. TK 1 = 1x masters
10. Slaby 6 incl. 1x regional, Euros (1886 before)
11. Len 4 incl. 1x regional
12. Jaeger 4 incl. 1x regional
13. NickYank 25 incl. Euros (1623 before), NACC (1666 before), Danish Nationals, 2x regionals
14. Donati 0
15. Tyler 8 incl. 1x Masters, 1x Regional, NACC (1892 before)
16. Jared Hoffman 2 incl. 1x regional
17. Mr Slade 16 incl. 1x regional, Euros (1718 before)
18. Jeremy Benedict 11 incl. 1x regional, 1x trek masters, NACC (1738 before)
19. Andrey Gusev incl. 1x regional
20. Geoffrey Peterson 3 incl. 1x trek masters
* MVB (1793) 40 incl. 3x regionals, Worlds (1811 before)