Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: hi123 on January 27, 2010, 10:59:41 AM
-
Have Green Brigade Prophets Ever Won at Nationals!
-
nope they ain't. still good though.
-
They do well in T2. At 2009 Nats there were several green prophets offenses that won many 2-player and multi-player games. :)
-
nope they ain't still good though.
Have you ever played against a green priest offense?
Have Green Brigade Prophets Ever Won at Nationals!
No they have not but they have come CLOSE! They are really strong!
-
nope they ain't still good though.
I think it is because of everyone yousing TGT!
-
uh i forgot a period the are super strong.
-
nope they ain't still good though.
I think it is because of everyone yousing TGT!
well, considering TGT has only been around for 2 years, and "ever" is kind of a lot more then two years, and Nationals only comes once a year... it's not for that reason.
-
Also Nats was in California so 90% of Redemption players couldn't go
-
Also Nats was in California so 90% of Redemption players couldn't go
Bogus data makes me giggle. What percentage of total Redemption players have not been able to attend any one of the Nats in any one of the states? Do you keep record? How many current Redemption players are there in the world? I need an exact count so I can make a more accurate precentage. Otherwise I can just throw out whatever numbers I like:
"87.8% of Redemption players were not able to attend the last Nats in Minnesota."
-
So 10% showed up in CA. I heard it was about 100 (plus or minus a few). Let's just use 100 for calculation sake. That means there are 1000 Redemption players. MN had the highest turnout in 2005 at about 260+. So...
74% of Redemption players couldn't go to the most attended Nats.
Yeah, YMT is right. We need exact counts.
:P
-
So 10% showed up in CA. I heard it was about 100 (plus or minus a few). Let's just use 100 for calculation sake. That means there are 1000 Redemption players. MN had the highest turnout in 2005 at about 260+.
ahh, my first nats. I want to relive the moment. MN for Nats!
-
So 10% showed up in CA. I heard it was about 100 (plus or minus a few). Let's just use 100 for calculation sake.
Or you could look at the listing on the Covenant Games site and see the official attendance number was 85. (The 2005 Nats count was 252 for comparison.)
I need an exact count so I can make a more accurate precentage. Otherwise I can just throw out whatever numbers I like:
YMT, although no one can provide exact counts for everything, I am surprised that a math teacher would be so dismissive of the power of statistical sampling.
In 2009 there were 220 +- 10 players (+- for counting error) with T1-2P RNRS points according to Cactus .
There were 58 players total in T1-2P and T1-A in Nationals 2009 according to Covenant games.
This works out to a ratio of 3.8 : 1 (i.e., for every 3.8 players who earned RNRS points in 2009, 1 player attended Nationals that year).
In 2005 there were 275 +- 10 players (+- for counting error) with T1-2P RNRS points according to Cactus.
There were 168 players total in T1-2P and T1-A at Nationals 2009 according to Covenant games.
This works out to a ratio of 1.6 : 1 (i.e., for every 1.6 players who earned RNRS points in 2005, 1 player attended Nationals that year).
So there is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that these results seem to be highly supportive of some possible point. The bad news is that I am not sure what that point would be. :) Que cera, cera.
-
YMT, although no one can provide exact counts for everything, I am surprised that a math teacher would be so dismissive of the power of statistical sampling.
If he had provided any then I may have listened. ;)
However, your data (as you stated) does not defend the negative generalization he attempted. There is no way to accurately determine the number of people who play Redemption, so such a claim is worth dismissing.
-
I think those stats are amazing. Sure, CA didn't have the worst turnout of all time, but isn't that just because (according to those statistics) about two thirds of the players were local RLK's?
I'm not saying Redemption is only for srsbsns, but when looking at Nationals attendance, you have to think about how many actually had a chance at placing in anything, not just how many there were. If Nats 2010 had 500 attendees, but only about ten people with a real chance at winning anything, I'd call it a huge flop.
-
No but they got second at the last nationals. =)
-
However, your data (as you stated) does not defend the negative generalization he attempted.
I'm not sure this is quite correct, or it could be entirely correct depending on your point of view. ;)
Unless you are going to argue that there were sizable changes in the ratio of RNRS point winners to the general universe of Redemption players, it seems clear that a significantly higher percentage of 2005 players attended Nats than attended Nats in 2009. It also seems clear that the difference was a factor that probably lies somewhere between two and three and nowhere close to a factor of ten.
I think those stats are amazing. Sure, CA didn't have the worst turnout of all time, but isn't that just because (according to those statistics) about two thirds of the players were local RLK's?
I don't know, but we could possibly find out. We have available both yearly RNRS point winners and the tournament tracking files. I suppose there could be some method to correlate the RNRS point winners for the past few years to their attendance at Nationals. You would probably want to eliminate the RNRS points awarded at Nationals to help eliminate self-selection bias.
As a starting point on the RLK factor, the ratio of T1-2P:T1-A was about 3:1 in 2005 and about 14:1 in 2009. This is thrown out merely as an interesting data point--I have no idea what it means if anything.
I'm not saying Redemption is only for srsbsns, but when looking at Nationals attendance, you have to think about how many actually had a chance at placing in anything, not just how many there were.
Another completely meaningless, but possibly diverting math project would be to find the RNRS-weighted geographic center of the Redemption playing universe. The "fairest" city of all. My guess--and I mean a complete wild-eyed guess--is that this point would end up somewhere near Chicago
Can I point out that both the RLK- and the "fairest"-city projects could make very nice science fair or statistical analysis topics?
-
In 2009 there were 220 ... players ... with T1-2P RNRS points
In 2005 there were 275 ... players ... with T1-2P RNRS points
This is somewhat disturbing. 4 years later, and instead of the game growing, there are 50 less people winning tournaments. That means that either less people are playing, or the winners are winning more consistently.
Another ... math project would be to find the RNRS-weighted geographic center of the Redemption playing universe.
I think this sounds like a GREAT project. I'd be interested in hearing the results.
-
In 2009 there were 220 ... players ... with T1-2P RNRS points
In 2005 there were 275 ... players ... with T1-2P RNRS points
This is somewhat disturbing. 4 years later, and instead of the game growing, there are 50 less people winning tournaments. That means that either less people are playing, or the winners are winning more consistently.
Another ... math project would be to find the RNRS-weighted geographic center of the Redemption playing universe.
I think this sounds like a GREAT project. I'd be interested in hearing the results.
I would say that Redemption has been on a slow decline for awhile...
-
In 2009 there were 220 ... players ... with T1-2P RNRS points
In 2005 there were 275 ... players ... with T1-2P RNRS points
This is somewhat disturbing. 4 years later, and instead of the game growing, there are 50 less people winning tournaments. That means that either less people are playing, or the winners are winning more consistently.
I'm going with the latter. Everytime I can remember going down south (besides Natz), there's always one of the Wolfes kids in the top spots (or sometimes two of them). I think that the top players are more consistant in their winnings. I know that my playgroup has grown yet when I host a tournament, one of the players usually wins T1-2P all the time. I also find it disheartening that people are still complaining about Natz being in Cali last year. :(
-
+1 to that last sentence.
I believe it is the latter of the choices. Though sometimes there can be upsets (My little brother tying me for first.../soproud). I personally have seen growth down here thanks to the valiant efforts of YMT.
-
I agree that winners are winning more consistently.
Once one reaches the point where they can win consistently, everytime a new set is released they instantly realize what is going to win and then perfects their playing with it. Here in Texas as an example, the person who gets 1st in Type-1 2 player is generally the same person each time, same with Type-2.
Say what you will about Sealed Deck and Booster Draft, but those will continue to be my two favorite categories simply because it doesn't usually come down to who has the better cards, but more of who plays strategically superb. To be consistent in winning a category that is based on randomness is great playing in my book. I would play them more if I had more money to spend. :P
-
but then there are whole playgroups who have seemingly dropped off the map.
-
but then there are whole playgroups who have seemingly dropped off the map.
...and whole regions. :-\
-
but then there are whole playgroups who have seemingly dropped off the map.
...and whole regions. :-\
...and whole nations. Japan?
-
kansas city used to be huge (twice), but we've since dropped off the map since the last nationals.
-
kansas city used to be huge (twice), but we've since dropped off the map since the last nationals.
nats has a knack for doing that. look at NO.
-
kansas city used to be huge (twice), but we've since dropped off the map since the last nationals.
nats has a knack for doing that. look at NO.
and the west coast. I thought that having Nats out there might really lead to growth in that region, but it seems like the opposite has happened.
-
So what we need to do is have it in TN, because the play group here can't get any smaller! That way we can turn things around! ;D :P
-
kansas city used to be huge (twice), but we've since dropped off the map since the last nationals.
nats has a knack for doing that. look at NO.
and the west coast. I thought that having Nats out there might really lead to growth in that region, but it seems like the opposite has happened.
Actually I'm not surprised. The impression that most west coast tournament players received was that this was probably the only Nats that would be held on the West coast. When you don't have something to look forward to, the incentive to stay in the game and stay on top of your game lessens. There will always be west coast players as long as Bryon and Mike W. continue to be involved in the game, just not a whole lot. A lot of players left because they reached the pinnacle - 2009 Nats in SoCal. If rumors start in the future that there might be another West coast Nats, you'll probably see tournament attendance start to rise again.
-
Actually I'm not surprised. The impression that most west coast tournament players received was that this was probably the only Nats that would be held on the West coast.
That's because of all the whiners.
-
Actually I'm not surprised. The impression that most west coast tournament players received was that this was probably the only Nats that would be held on the West coast.
That's because of all the whiners.
Now I unerstand why they always want to start a "cheese" thread. ;)
-
Actually I'm not surprised. The impression that most west coast tournament players received was that this was probably the only Nats that would be held on the West coast.
That's because of all the whiners.
Now I unerstand why they always want to start a "cheese" thread. ;)
Cheese?!?!~?
-
Cheese in a can?!?!?! :D
-
Actually I'm not surprised. The impression that most west coast tournament players received was that this was probably the only Nats that would be held on the West coast.
That's because of all the whiners.
Now I unerstand why they always want to start a "cheese" thread. ;)
LOL!! Long live the cheese... I still keep the cheese wedge in my signature to remember that tragic day.
-
Actually I'm not surprised. The impression that most west coast tournament players received was that this was probably the only Nats that would be held on the West coast.
That's because of all the whiners.
Now I unerstand why they always want to start a "cheese" thread. ;)
LONG LIVE WISCONSIN!!1
LOL!! Long live the cheese... I still keep the cheese wedge in my signature to remember that tragic day.
-
Actually I'm not surprised. The impression that most west coast tournament players received was that this was probably the only Nats that would be held on the West coast.
That's because of all the whiners.
Now I unerstand why they always want to start a "cheese" thread. ;)
Did anyone else realize that this is basically the best pun ever!? ;D
-
Actually I'm not surprised. The impression that most west coast tournament players received was that this was probably the only Nats that would be held on the West coast.
That's because of all the whiners.
Now I unerstand why they always want to start a "cheese" thread. ;)
Did anyone else realize that this is basically the best pun ever!? ;D
Indeed. In fact, STAMP is the pun post master.
-
i have seen some groth here as well we have 6 people here that play.and i'm waiting to see if the new starters come out this year so we can get even bigger.btw people need to quit whining about nats in CA sheesh guys quit acting like babys about it.(only to those who still whine about CA nats)
-
i have seen some groth here as well we have 6 people here that play.and i'm waiting to see if the new starters come out this year so we can get even bigger.btw people need to quit whining about nats in CA sheesh guys quit acting like babys about it.(only to those who still whine about CA nats)
6 people is growth? what'd you have before? a playgroup as small as the Cali nats? because that would definitely be growth. ;)
-
we had 3 before we doulbed man we doubled(still insanly small)
-
we had 3 before we doulbed man we doubled(still insanly small)
Numbers are the only thing that matter. Your group has shown a 100% increase. What other playgroups can say that?
-
Mine, before it was me. Now its me and the lil miscreant (My lil bro, WHO TIES ME!)
-
lol. hes that good?
-
Actually I'm not surprised. The impression that most west coast tournament players received was that this was probably the only Nats that would be held on the West coast.
That's because of all the whiners.
Now I unerstand why they always want to start a "cheese" thread. ;)
Did anyone else realize that this is basically the best pun ever!? ;D
Indeed. In fact, STAMP is the pun post master.
Thank you for the compliment, but I shouldn't get too much credit for this one as I lived in Napa, CA, for 8 years. ;D
-
I may be off my rocker here, but the recession may have had a little to do with Redemption slowing down over the last couple years. California was entering a recession approximately 1 year ( +- a few months) before the Nation followed along. It hit very hard right about Jan. or Feb. of 2009, leaving many scrambling to make ends meet and having to make the hard household budget cuts. I was one of those that missed Natz in So. Cal. and I live in Northern Cal. We were quite upset to miss the awesome opportunity of attending a Natz and a historic one to boot. One day we will get to a Natz, but I'm not gonna sit around and whine that they are still being held and I can't attend. I am grateful that we can be involved in such an awesome family that can have an annual Family Reunion even if all the family isn't able to attend every one no matter where it is held. Some of my family is already at the Heavenly Family Reunion and I'm not there. I'm not gonna complain because I"ll get there eventually. I guess what I'm saying is be grateful for what we do have.
Godspeed,
Mike