Author Topic: The Playgroup Category (Read 9337 times)

Warrior_Monk · « **on:** September 18, 2011, 12:17:02 AM »

I'm not going to lie, I got this idea from the recent talk about how crazy the California and Rochester (MN) tournament's competition was.

This could only be done at the bigger tournaments, but might be a fun side event at nats.

This would probably start as T1-2P, but we could also do T2-2P.
-Basically, you put together a team of people in your playgroup. I'm not sure if we should do 3 or 5 people. I'd personally like 5, but I'm guessing the majority would want 3.
-If you are a part of multiple playgroups, you can choose which to affiliate with.
-The pairings are made between playgroups, so "Rochester MN" and "Rochester NY" could play, for example, similar to Teams.
-You have each member of the playgroup ranked 1-3/5 (this could be determined by the host, by the players, or by a tournament held before hand [probably the best idea, but if a player decides somebody else should be above them, that's fine]). 1 plays 1, 2 plays 2, etc.
-Which ever playgroup wins the most games that round gets 3 points. If there is a tie, the winning playgroup of the highest (starting from 1 and going down) non-tying table will get 2 points, and the losing playgroup will get 1. If all tables tie, both playgroups will get 1 1/2 points.
-Lost Soul differential gains from each game each round. So if the results are 5-0, 5-0, and 5-0, then the total differential would be +15.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #1 on:** September 18, 2011, 02:04:51 PM »

SomeKittens and I have been talking about doing this between our playgroups. The challenge is in the logistics of either getting together somewhere, or organizing the whole thing online. But despite the obstacles, I'd love to see something like this happen

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #2 on:** September 18, 2011, 10:44:27 PM »

I associate with the playgroup Gabe and Fortress Alstad are in.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #3 on:** September 18, 2011, 10:56:23 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on September 18, 2011, 10:44:27 PM

I associate with the playgroup Gabe and Fortress Alstad are in.

Gabe isn't in the same playgroup as the Alstads..and you forgot to mention The Hobbit, who has been more successful then the Alstads in recent years. Anyway, we'd have to establish a way to determine playgroup. You have to have attended 3 local/district tournaments there in the past year?

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #4 on:** September 18, 2011, 10:59:25 PM »

Oh, So I can be a member of the Rochester MN, Twin Cites, and Austin MN Groups?

Isildur · « **Reply #5 on:** September 18, 2011, 11:15:42 PM »

Id be up for it but really the only three players from the California end of the woods that can play online are Eric Wolfe, Brandon West and myself.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #6 on:** September 18, 2011, 11:28:41 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on September 18, 2011, 10:59:25 PM

Oh, So I can be a member of the Rochester MN, Twin Cities, and Austin MN Groups?

You can choose which one to associate with.

Quote from: Isildur on September 18, 2011, 11:15:42 PM

Id be up for it but really the only three players from the California end of the woods that can play online are Eric Wolfe, Brandon West and myself.

I can't play online. I was hoping on doing this at a national or regional tournament.

lightningninja · « **Reply #7 on:** September 18, 2011, 11:45:01 PM »

Ok. But Bryon can't be made a judge. =P I propose Gabe is a judge.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #8 on:** September 19, 2011, 12:30:59 AM »

If we went with three, Gabe, Shride, and MitchRobStew would be a formidable team. If we went with 5, Mitch's brother and Sam are pretty good too. I'm not sure who we'd have judge...

EDIT: Tim Maly.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #9 on:** September 19, 2011, 09:35:03 AM »

I love this. ProfU and I were trying to work something out, but this works too.

Quote from: Ring Wraith on September 18, 2011, 12:17:02 AM

-The pairings are made between playgroups, so "Rochester MN" and "Rochester NY" could play, for example, similar to Teams.

+1 for noticing the other Rochester. If only there was another pair of cities with the same name (kinda like twins) that we could play TEAMS against.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #10 on:** September 19, 2011, 04:07:55 PM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith on September 18, 2011, 12:17:02 AM

but we could also do T2-2P.

As of reading this line, the MTTPA (TC Chapter), will put this idea to a vote for official endorsement at our next meeting.

Bring it on.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #11 on:** September 19, 2011, 06:04:49 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on September 19, 2011, 04:07:55 PM

As of reading this line, the MTTPA...

Most Think Thad's Pretty Awesome?

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #12 on:** September 20, 2011, 12:20:33 AM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on September 19, 2011, 06:04:49 PM

Quote from: Professoralstad on September 19, 2011, 04:07:55 PM
As of reading this line, the MTTPA...
Most Think Thad's Pretty Awesome?

Minnesota's Totally Terrible Players Association.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #13 on:** September 20, 2011, 01:25:37 AM »

The Minnesota Type Two Player's Association does not appreciate your poor attempts at humor. Expect to hear from our legal team soon about a defamation lawsuit.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #14 on:** September 20, 2011, 01:50:45 AM »

But you're the Territory Class chapter. I'm nowhere near your territory.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #15 on:** July 14, 2012, 10:33:45 PM »

Bump. Would anybody be interested in doing this at nats?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #16 on:** July 15, 2012, 10:06:30 AM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith on July 14, 2012, 10:33:45 PM

Bump. Would anybody be interested in doing this at nats?

I'm interested in this, and KY could have a team of up to 10 people. However, I'm hoping that somewhere besides MN will also get on board. I don't think anyone can beat MN, but I like KY's chances against almost anyone else.

Red · « **Reply #17 on:** July 15, 2012, 10:09:21 AM »

if you mind a team of three i'll see if the GA guys want to team up with me.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #18 on:** July 15, 2012, 10:40:56 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 15, 2012, 10:06:30 AM

Quote from: Ring Wraith on July 14, 2012, 10:33:45 PM
Bump. Would anybody be interested in doing this at nats?
I'm interested in this, and KY could have a team of up to 10 people. However, I'm hoping that somewhere besides MN will also get on board. I don't think anyone can beat MN, but I like KY's chances against almost anyone else.

10 is a bit high, considering most people have to travel a LOT further than you. I'd like to say 3 people for this tournament.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #19 on:** July 15, 2012, 10:59:40 AM »

I love the idea actually. So are we considering KY to be southern Ohio again?

Red Wing · « **Reply #20 on:** July 15, 2012, 11:39:00 AM »

When would this take place at Nats, in the off hours?

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #21 on:** July 15, 2012, 01:00:56 PM »

Quote from: Red Wing on July 15, 2012, 11:39:00 AM

When would this take place at Nats, in the off hours?

Yes. The date and time would be dependent on the interest and when people are arriving.

I think if we had even just 4 playgroups, this would work. Why don't we go with 3 people from each? Talk to your people and PM me.

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on July 15, 2012, 10:59:40 AM

I love the idea actually. So are we considering KY to be southern Ohio again?

I'm fine with that as long as you somewhat regularly attend their tournaments. Honestly, it's not a big deal as long as the region is somewhat isolated. The point of this isn't to put together the most awesome 3 (because Rochester MN would win hands down bro), but to pit playgroups against each other. If you aren't regular, it's not the end of the world, but I'd really like you to have attended at least one District or Local from that area.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 15, 2012, 07:05:43 PM »

Just a suggestion...

It might be cool if the three were a T1-2P, T2-2P and TEAMS. That way a playgroup would get plusses to demonstrate versatility.

Red Wing · « **Reply #23 on:** July 15, 2012, 08:00:14 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 15, 2012, 07:05:43 PM

It might be cool if the three were a T1-2P, T2-2P and TEAMS. That way a playgroup would get plusses to demonstrate versatility.

That wouldn't really be practical to do at Nats though. Also, many groups probably won't have T2 decks.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 15, 2012, 08:51:11 PM »

Quote from: Red Wing on July 15, 2012, 08:00:14 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 15, 2012, 07:05:43 PM
It might be cool if the three were a T1-2P, T2-2P and TEAMS. That way a playgroup would get plusses to demonstrate versatility.
That wouldn't really be practical to do at Nats though. Also, many groups probably won't have T2 decks.

I don't understand your first comment. If you have time to play three T1-2P games, why wouldn't you have time to play one T1-2P game, one T2-2P game, and one TEAMS game?

As to your second comment, any group that *only* plays T1 shouldn't be considered for the grown-up Playgroup category. Those folks could compete in Playgroup Type-A.

P.S. My second comment on your second comment was meant as good natured ribbing.

Drrek · « **Reply #25 on:** July 15, 2012, 08:54:20 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 15, 2012, 08:51:11 PM

Quote from: Red Wing on July 15, 2012, 08:00:14 PM
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 15, 2012, 07:05:43 PM
It might be cool if the three were a T1-2P, T2-2P and TEAMS. That way a playgroup would get plusses to demonstrate versatility.
That wouldn't really be practical to do at Nats though. Also, many groups probably won't have T2 decks.
I don't understand your first comment. If you have time to play three T1-2P games, why wouldn't you have time to play one T1-2P game, one T2-2P game, and one TEAMS game?

You do know that T1-2P games tend to be much shorter than T2-anything or Teams, right?

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #26 on:** July 15, 2012, 08:55:32 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 15, 2012, 08:51:11 PM

Quote from: Red Wing on July 15, 2012, 08:00:14 PM
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 15, 2012, 07:05:43 PM
It might be cool if the three were a T1-2P, T2-2P and TEAMS. That way a playgroup would get plusses to demonstrate versatility.
That wouldn't really be practical to do at Nats though. Also, many groups probably won't have T2 decks.
I don't understand your first comment. If you have time to play three T1-2P games, why wouldn't you have time to play one T1-2P game, one T2-2P game, and one TEAMS game?

Because three Simultaneous T1-2P games will be done faster than one T2 game, as a general rule. I like the idea (thinking of you guys in the cities--uncontested best T2 group around), but for the first time it might be best to limit it to T1.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #27 on:** July 15, 2012, 09:54:10 PM »

Our playgroup does NOT have anyone to compete in T2, so if we did go that route, we'd have to be limited to Playgroup Type-A

As for the number of players if all the games between 2 playgroups are simultaneous, then the number of players representing each playgroup wouldn't affect the time per round. I would like 4 or 5 players rather than just 3 if possible. It would make the event more of a "playgroup" event rather than just a few pals who play together sometime. And I'm guessing there will be at least 8 "playgroups" that will have at least 5 players at Nats. (TN, KY, OH, MN1, MN2, John M.'s, Roy's, and probably somewhere else).

As for KY being "southern OH", I think for this event it would actually work better to split, since we'll probably both be well represented, and it would help the event to have more "playgroups". But thanks for the invite

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #28 on:** July 15, 2012, 09:56:43 PM »

I'm pretty excited for this

I get to pick which MN playgroup I'm a part of right? I've attended just as many Twin Cities tourneys as I have Rochester ones.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #29 on:** July 15, 2012, 10:07:07 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on July 15, 2012, 09:56:43 PM

I'm pretty excited for this

I get to pick which MN playgroup I'm a part of right? I've attended just as many Twin Cities tourneys as I have Rochester ones.

Technically, yes...

I'm trying to think of an appropriate prize.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #30 on:** July 15, 2012, 10:14:34 PM »

Can we have multiple entrants for a single playgroup? Even if we ignore nominal possibilities such as RDT, Wild Bill's playgroup had like six or seven different players who placed at Nationals last year.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #31 on:** July 15, 2012, 10:19:44 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 15, 2012, 10:14:34 PM

Can we have multiple entrants for a single playgroup? Even if we ignore nominal possibilities such as RDT, Wild Bill's playgroup had like six or seven different players who placed at Nationals last year.

I'm definitely okay with this, and it could be an alternative for Prof U's playgroup as well. You will have to choose how to divide yourselves though.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #32 on:** July 15, 2012, 10:32:45 PM »

Yeah - Go with 3 man groups.

That way GA group can roll.

We can have MNTC A, and MNTC B.

Red · « **Reply #33 on:** July 16, 2012, 12:01:36 AM »

GA may be slightly weak if I can't convince tyler to compete lol.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #34 on:** July 16, 2012, 02:37:32 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 15, 2012, 10:14:34 PM

Wild Bill's playgroup had like six or seven different players who placed at Nationals last year.

All the more reason for them to be in a single group. Make some room for other playgroups to place too. The event really won't end up being very interesting if the top 3 spots end up being MN1, MN2, and MN3.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #35 on:** July 16, 2012, 07:25:57 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 16, 2012, 02:37:32 AM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 15, 2012, 10:14:34 PM
Wild Bill's playgroup had like six or seven different players who placed at Nationals last year.
All the more reason for them to be in a single group. Make some room for other playgroups to place too. The event really won't end up being very interesting if the top 3 spots end up being MN1, MN2, and MN3.

I can understand that. Maybe all y'all could allow injury substitutions between rounds and the Captain of the playgroup could vary the team membership as rounds progress?

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #36 on:** July 16, 2012, 06:04:57 PM »

You could also do it as in elimination format and let RDT all kill every other playgroup.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #37 on:** July 16, 2012, 10:15:29 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 15, 2012, 09:54:10 PM

As for KY being "southern OH", I think for this event it would actually work better to split, since we'll probably both be well represented, and it would help the event to have more "playgroups". But thanks for the invite

You're welcome sir, and I completely agree with you. Our playgroup is upwards of 12-15 at this point when they all show up.

News:

Author Topic: The Playgroup Category (Read 9337 times)

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Rawrlolsauce!