|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 6:51AM
#111
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2008
|
Whether the program is deemed successful or not will depend on the tournaments being mostly if not completely full. Once people see that it's a success, they can expand on it. Opening it up so that every time zone across North America, Europe and Asia has a convenient evening tournament time isn't going to help, it's just going to dilute the uncertain player base for a fledgling program.
What were the numbers on the three events last week? I don't think any of them got close to "full" and if I recall they fired around 30 people. It seemed from the response that there were many more people on the east coast who would have liked to play but could not due to the poor timing. It's not like a weekend event where you can shift your schedule around a bit and a 2 or 3 hour difference isn't going to kill you. When you can't play one event because you're in work, you can't make it home from work before the next one starts and the last is too late to enter, those people aren't shoehorned into limited events, they just don't play. So you're not really gauging interest in the format by holding only 3 events spread throughout the day, you're just gauging the success of having events at those time slots. If they had 8+ events throughout the day as you said (although I don't think it would take that many to give a decent option to the major play areas of the world), you might not expect as high numbers per tournament as you would if with fewer events, but you could expect more unique players to enter at least one event. Really the problem with scheduling an event like this for the purpose of gauging interest is as simple as spreading them 3+ hours apart so that there is no overlap in the events and if someone wanted to play in successive events they wouldn't be limited by choosing to play in an earlier one. That would prevent your diultion problem unless you think 2 tickets is so restrictive that everyone would only be able to choose one event to play.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 7:20AM
#112
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2003
|
Holding a small set of events in a small window of opportunity means you risk ending up with only few players who can actually play in that slot. More events means more opportunity, and you could find out a 'hidden peak' you never considered (eg. many ppl in the middle east who want to play but normally can't due to timing)
Holding a large amount of events in numerous time slots means you run the risk of spreading players out too much over the various slots, if the total playerbase is like 3 in usa, 2 in europe, 1 in india, etc. You also could have players playing around the clock in as many events as possible. Since we are talking casual-minded events I doubt this.
The answer seems to lie somewhere in the middle... Like... a small number of events timed to fall in three slots: the "evening" for central USA, central europe and central asia.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 8:33AM
#113
|
Date Joined:
Apr 30, 2004
|
The first event fired with 55 people. If I remember right the second fired with 70 something and the third with 90 something. I know the second two fired with more than the first, though I may have the numbers reversed for those.
Not terrible for bad times and being constructed. We'll see how sealed does this week.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 8:53AM
#114
|
|
|
The first event fired with 55 people. If I remember right the second fired with 70 something and the third with 90 something. I know the second two fired with more than the first, though I may have the numbers reversed for those.
Not terrible for bad times and being constructed. We'll see how sealed does this week.
The sealed seems like a pretty good deal too, compared to the constructed.
Open a new set's product, make a deck with it, and get a booster if you win a match, or even more if you win more than one match. Seems fine to me.
Interested in how the 4 pack and 30 card decks will be though...even more bomb dependent than regular sealed.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 9:24AM
#115
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2008
|
30 card?
too bad, I was hoping it would be 4 pack 40 card decks, that would be fun, reminding me of old days (nineties) where you sometimes had to struggle to get enough playables.
It would suit me very well, as one of my stronge points is to make the most out of mediocre cards
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 5:14PM
#116
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2003
|
If they had 8+ events throughout the day as you said (although I don't think it would take that many to give a decent option to the major play areas of the world), you might not expect as high numbers per tournament as you would if with fewer events, but you could expect more unique players to enter at least one event. Really the problem with scheduling an event like this for the purpose of gauging interest is as simple as spreading them 3+ hours apart so that there is no overlap in the events and if someone wanted to play in successive events they wouldn't be limited by choosing to play in an earlier one. That would prevent your diultion problem unless you think 2 tickets is so restrictive that everyone would only be able to choose one event to play.
Wizards isn't really concerned with "unique players" though. If someone plays in three ThNMO events, there's not much difference to them from three different people playing. Part of marketing Magic is understanding the different kinds of Magic players. One of those kinds is the kind of person willing to play three tournaments per day. Not surprisingly, Wizards does like to keep those people happy because those people put a lot of money into the game.
It seems to me that thte three choices for event times were not chosen primarily to gauge popularity of tournaments at those times. They were chosen, first and foremost, because they hopefully present the greatest opportunity for long term money making. If you overlap them so that people can't play in multiple events, you're cutting out a number of consumers (and therefore money) for no reason other than market research. Imagine if you went to a fast food restaurant and went to get a drink and discovered that the range of available sodas had been reduced to only Coca-Cola. No Sprite, no Diet Coke, etc. When asked about this change, the owners tell you that they're testing to see which soda is most popular by limiting access to them to only one at a time, and then compiling the data. Sounds pretty insane, right?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 5:46PM
#117
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2008
|
If they had 8+ events throughout the day as you said (although I don't think it would take that many to give a decent option to the major play areas of the world), you might not expect as high numbers per tournament as you would if with fewer events, but you could expect more unique players to enter at least one event. Really the problem with scheduling an event like this for the purpose of gauging interest is as simple as spreading them 3+ hours apart so that there is no overlap in the events and if someone wanted to play in successive events they wouldn't be limited by choosing to play in an earlier one. That would prevent your diultion problem unless you think 2 tickets is so restrictive that everyone would only be able to choose one event to play.
Wizards isn't really concerned with "unique players" though. If someone plays in three ThNMO events, there's not much difference to them from three different people playing. Part of marketing Magic is understanding the different kinds of Magic players. One of those kinds is the kind of person willing to play three tournaments per day. Not surprisingly, Wizards does like to keep those people happy because those people put a lot of money into the game.
It seems to me that thte three choices for event times were not chosen primarily to gauge popularity of tournaments at those times. They were chosen, first and foremost, because they hopefully present the greatest opportunity for long term money making. If you overlap them so that people can't play in multiple events, you're cutting out a number of consumers (and therefore money) for no reason other than market research. Imagine if you went to a fast food restaurant and went to get a drink and discovered that the range of available sodas had been reduced to only Coca-Cola. No Sprite, no Diet Coke, etc. When asked about this change, the owners tell you that they're testing to see which soda is most popular by limiting access to them to only one at a time, and then compiling the data. Sounds pretty insane, right?
I'm convinced you didn't read my post. It has nothing to do with unique players, it's the fact that some people cannot play and so you are shortchanging the "success" of your events. That is a result of the poorly chosen times. No one said you should overlap them so people can't play in multiple events. In fact I said that you should space them 3+ hours apart. The three events that were scheduled were more than 3 hours apart so if anything my suggestion provides the greater potential for money making over the decided schedule in addition to allowing more people to play. Your whole point was that too many events would spread each event thin and that somehow lower attendence per tournament is an indicator of lack of interest or the failure of Thursday Night Magic. On the contrary I am saying that by spreading the times of the events too far, you end up with a lower amount of entries for the day due to the number of people who would have played in at least one event but could play in none due to the schedule.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 7:23PM
#118
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2003
|
I'm convinced you didn't read my post. It has nothing to do with unique players
Really? Then why did you say the following
you might not expect as high numbers per tournament as you would if with fewer events, but you could expect more unique players to enter at least one event.
If your post has nothing to do with unique players counts, why specifically mention them?
it's the fact that some people cannot play and so you are shortchanging the "success" of your events. That is a result of the poorly chosen times. No one said you should overlap them so people can't play in multiple events. In fact I said that you should space them 3+ hours apart. The three events that were scheduled were more than 3 hours apart so if anything my suggestion provides the greater potential for money making over the decided schedule in addition to allowing more people to play. Your whole point was that too many events would spread each event thin and that somehow lower attendence per tournament is an indicator of lack of interest or the failure of Thursday Night Magic. On the contrary I am saying that by spreading the times of the events too far, you end up with a lower amount of entries for the day due to the number of people who would have played in at least one event but could play in none due to the schedule.
I really don't think you understand this issue. You say "too far", but have no definition of what that means or analysis of whether or not it's actually the case. Did you actually want to participate in this discussion or are you just trying to make sure you're present in every thread which remotely concerns WotC policies? You have no "suggestion" of merit. The simple truth is that Magic Online is played worldwide, and any three times you choose to hold tournaments will inevitably not work for certain people. The choice of which times to choose is founded on two things - North American time zones and not overlapping. That's it. You cannot choose three times which will make everyone happy and able to play. It's impossible and no such times exist. Wizards picked times that would allow many people convenient times. That's exactly what they should have done. Their only real option was to chooes how many tournaments to create, and that's the real issue here (and the whole point of my argument - so why you responded to me with a "suggestion" about choosing mythical times when everyone in the world is not eating dinner, not working and not sleeping is plainly less about the issue at hand and more about.. other things).
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 8:19PM
#119
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2008
|
I'm convinced you didn't read my post. It has nothing to do with unique players
Really? Then why did you say the following
you might not expect as high numbers per tournament as you would if with fewer events, but you could expect more unique players to enter at least one event.
If your post has nothing to do with unique players counts, why specifically mention them?
I said unique players so that you wouldn't look at it and just say "low tournament attendence equals fail." I'm pointing out that more people would get to play in them and hence your idea of adding tournaments meaning that they won't all fire or would fire at bare minimum is probably not true.
I really don't think you understand this issue. You say "too far", but have no definition of what that means or analysis of whether or not it's actually the case. Did you actually want to participate in this discussion or are you just trying to make sure you're present in every thread which remotely concerns WotC policies? You have no "suggestion" of merit. The simple truth is that Magic Online is played worldwide, and any three times you choose to hold tournaments will inevitably not work for certain people. The choice of which times to choose is founded on two things - North American time zones and not overlapping. That's it. You cannot choose three times which will make everyone happy and able to play. It's impossible and no such times exist. Wizards picked times that would allow many people convenient times. That's exactly what they should have done. Their only real option was to chooes how many tournaments to create, and that's the real issue here (and the whole point of my argument - so why you responded to me with a "suggestion" about choosing mythical times when everyone in the world is not eating dinner, not working and not sleeping is plainly less about the issue at hand and more about.. other things).
Spreading times too far means that when people plan their day and are able to come up with a 3-hour block of time to play, but events are spread too far (more than 3 hours apart which is the minimum to prevent overlap) then they do not get to participate. I'll give you an example since you cannot think of one yourself. Let's say I work a part time job from x-12:00pm. I drive 30 minutes to get home and can be at my comp to play at 1:00. I have to leave my house at 7:30pm to get to class at 8:00pm. For a three-hour standard event I can play if it starts at 1:00, 2:00, 3:00 or 4:00.
Unfortunately there is an event at 12:00pm (30 minutes before I get home) and another 5 hours later at 5pm which I can expect to run til 8pm for three rounds of swiss (but I have to leave at 6:30). Even if I could catch the one that started at 10pm after my hour class and ride home, I would have to be up until 1:00am and tired for work the next day. Therefore I do not get to play.
In the same scenario, someone with no job and an interest in TNM can play in all three events if they wanted to, but to do so they would have to be at the computer from 12pm until 1am with two 2 hour breaks in between. All together in the span of 13 hours they get to play three events for two tickets.
Alternatively, let's say they started events every three hours. During that same time period, a person can play 4 events at two tickets each. That's a 20% gain per person for WotC. In addition more people including myself might get to play because there will in fact be an event starting at 3:00pm which I listed as a time I could play. Seems better to me as more people being able to play and players getting in more pay-to-play tournaments in the same time period is something I would consider a "success" for TNM.
Now would everyone get to play everywhere under my schedule? No. Would more get to play than the arbitrary three event, five hour apart schedule that took place? Most assuredly. I agree with you that certain time zones are given preference, and I don't see anything wrong with that. If you have to make a decision where certain areas get excluded, it makes sense to exclude the areas with few numbers of players and try to include the ones with many players. I live on the east coast of the US. Do you really think that is an area that should be excluded based on MTGO population? This is where most of the time related complaints popped up in the thread following the announcement.
Their only real option was to chooes how many tournaments to create, and that's the real issue here (and the whole point of my argument - so why you responded to me with a "suggestion" about choosing mythical times when everyone in the world is not eating dinner, not working and not sleeping is plainly less about the issue at hand and more about.. other things).
You've yet to convince me why that is. You are assuming that the magic number of three tournaments throughout the day is some marketing sweet spot that will launch TNM into inevitable success. What does the number three accomplish? You've said that it prevents spreading the tournaments too thin and increasing the attendance of each individual tournament. My argument says that you have a higher number of tournament entries by offering more tournaments. How you fail to see the relation there is beyond me. The question is whether or not the number of people able to play with additional offerings is enough to keep or exceed the person per tournament ratio that you feel is so important to prove success. I do not know whether thay would have happened and neither do you. You can believe your point of view is correct if you pretend that WotC did hours of research and spent tons of money to find out what the best number of tournaments was. I assume they did what they seem to do with everything else - make a guess and adjust their numbers after. I am saying they guessed wrong in this case.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 8:45PM
#120
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2003
|
Making any decisions based upon attendance last week is ludicrous. It was a constructed format during release week* and you would probably want some of the new cards to play Std with anyway. We'll see what happens after M11 release over and/or limited events happen. Both factors will guarantee much larger participation. The 5 hour window is most likely there to make sure each one finishes before the next begins.
* Completely forgot about M11 release during earlier posts in thread.
4. Don't speak dumb, or you'll be struck dumb.
Remember, the name of the game is heads I win, tails you lose.
|
|
|
