Discussion about WC2015 qualifier spots

**Gondorian** · 10-05-2015, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Pandevmonium

I think you should order regionals by decimal part. In an hypotetic scenario where we have:
Region A - 10.03
Region B - 9.97
Region C - 8

Region A and B have pretty much the same number of participants, but the current system would award the first one with 11 spots and the second one with only 9. And I don't honestly know why.

Your numbers seem to be based on there being 28 spots, by the way.

**Pandevmonium** · 10-05-2015, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by Gondorian

Your numbers seem to be based on there being 28 spots, by the way.

Yeah, they were random numbers; by the way and the reasoning still apply for 28 spots.

Last one I posted are taken from the current real scenario, and they show one of the possible outcomes that creates imbalance between 3 zones.
I ask you again: why certain regions do have to pay the same amount of SC in order to have less spots per entrants than other ones? Why you gotta choose the wrong path when you can follow the right one?

**Caitlyn0** · 10-05-2015, 11:24 AM

i have a simple question... why is it 29 from the regionals and 2 from the wild card? why isnt it 27 from the regionals and 4 from the wild card?

ok, thats 2 questions. but it would seem, the math would be much simpler if you had 27 spots available in the regionals instead of 29.

**Gondorian** · 10-05-2015, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Pandevmonium

Yeah, they were random numbers; by the way and the reasoning still apply for 28 spots.

Last one I posted are taken from the current real scenario, and they show one of the possible outcomes that creates imbalance between 3 zones.
I ask you again: why certain regions do have to pay the same amount of SC in order to have less spots per entrants than other ones? Why you gotta choose the wrong path when you can follow the right one?

Wrong path? I said it would be proportional to entrants. Are you advocating just 9 spots per event, regardless of number of entrants, to make it fair for their 500SC? I could have done that and had 4 spots for the wildcard, but the idea is to make it fairer on people who are in a very popular event. I don't want to encourage people to go in a smaller one because they think they have a better chance, at the expense of causing scheduling problems due to their timezone.

**Pandevmonium** · 10-05-2015, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Gondorian

Wrong path? I said it would be proportional to entrants. Are you advocating just 9 spots per event, regardless of number of entrants, to make it fair for their 500SC? I could have done that and had 4 spots for the wildcard, but the idea is to make it fairer on people who are in a very popular event. I don't want to encourage people to go in a smaller one because they think they have a better chance, at the expense of causing scheduling problems due to their timezone.

I am advocating a number of spots proportional to entrants. Whereas you're encouraging people to go in a bigger regional because they think they have a better chance, at the expense of causing scheduling problems due to their timezone.
The difference will not big huge, more or less one spot. But I still can't understand why you gotta fake the proportional system giving an extra spot to Americas, or whichever has the biggest number of entrants. While you can be right only 1/3 times this way.

PS I think Physical Cards is not the right subforum for this topic.

**Gondorian** · 10-05-2015, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Pandevmonium

PS I think Physical Cards is not the right subforum for this topic.

Whoops. Wrong Organised Play section.

**Gondorian** · 10-05-2015, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Pandevmonium

I am advocating a number of spots proportional to entrants. Whereas you're encouraging people to go in a bigger regional because they think they have a better chance, at the expense of causing scheduling problems due to their timezone.
The difference will not big huge, more or less one spot. But I still can't understand why you gotta fake the proportional system giving an extra spot to Americas, or whichever has the biggest number of entrants. While you can be right only 1/3 times this way.

Considering the whole discussion might be moot (hopefully) when the final numbers are in, I can't justify devoting any more of my time to discussing this pros and cons of my approach versus others.

**bobrossw** · 10-05-2015, 02:37 PM

Seems irrelevant to me...my goal is to do well and/or win, not to barely qualify. I'll take barely qualifying if it comes to that, but really not worth arguing about now. In the end, it won't be the people who barely made the cut-off who win the WC anyway. It's like future olympians arguing that the bronze medal isn't shiny enough.