Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I want to propose a minor change in Cactus' tournament policies in regards to RNRS points. As we're all well aware, the most points a person can get in District tournaments is 20 (or 2 wins). What I'd like to propose is that if a person has all the district points they're allowed to win, any subsequent district wins should count towards their local total (provided that hasn't also been filled up). It would only be for those two levels, and for those who are in areas with more districts than locals, it would be a big help.

Good intentions, but no. So you're saying you win win three districts, and those points would go under as local tournament points? So you're getting points for something you didn't even attend, or lost, but did better at the next tournament? Not gonna work.

Wait, what? I'm saying that if I live in an area where a bunch of districts are hosted but not many locals, that I shouldn't be penalized for that. If I win three districts, I'm saying I should get points for two districts and a local, since all a district is is a glorified local anyway. I'd love to hear a solid reason against this idea.

I think that this is a really good idea, actually.  Like he said, if you live in an area with a lot of Districts, it is much harder to get points for locals (especially with the advent of impromptu locals that are not advertised enough in advance to make plans to attend).  In the area I'm in, for instance, the same players attend District and Local tournaments for the most part.  But, if only a couple are designated as Locals, then the attendees are actually penalized (hurting the arguments that it discourages attendance to switch to this idea).

In addition, if Districts are so much harder, than why should someone not receive something for winning if they've met their max on Districts?  The difference in points is considerable, as well.

I think this is actually well-thought out and would do some good for the RNRS

You're motivation to go to the locals is that they almost always have lighter, easier competition than District tournaments specifically because people don't really want to travel that far for one. I'm pretty much not going to travel to a local if it's more than 2 hours away. District I'll do four, state i'll do wherever it is in my state,  and than Regionals and Nats I'll go to no matter where they are, assuming i can afford it and don't have a conflicted schedule.

I like the idea. You would only get the local points (2 max), instead of the District points (10 max). If we limited it to 4 total points that would alleviate some concerns.

I agree that a District is just an upgraded Local. I would run a District sometimes just to get different promos. If anything it would be harder to win the District based on participation. The only concern I have is with the fact that District gives points for third. I do not think that a third-place finisher should get equivalent points to a first-place Local winner.

I would propose that a District winner could opt for 2 Local points after they have reached their District maximum, and a District second-place finisher could opt for 1 Local point. In either case, the max would be 4 Local points earned through a District, and only after the District max has been reached.

Are you sad because you win a bunch of district tournaments and don't get credit after 2 wins? Does your tournament host only host district tournaments? Well, there is an old remedy for that! Host a local tournament! Yessir, anybody can apply to be a tournament host, and if you can't convince your tournament host do one, it's a quick and easy solution!

Local tournaments would disappear if this was put into practice.

I live on a college campus that is, quite simply, not going to let me use any space for a religious event. I do plan on eventually hosting a couple locals at my home church, but that's a two hour drive for me, and thus I'm rarely home. "If there aren't any locals around you host a local of your own" isn't a good argument, because frankly, some of us can't. A rule like this wouldn't force Locals to die off, because if a playgroup doesn't have a lot of people, or if they're new hosts that don't want to deal with more than a couple categories, running a District might be more of a hassle than it's worth. Locals do have uses, and this suggestion wouldn't suddenly make those uses go away, especially when you consider the fact that most people couldn't care less about RNRS points. If your logic was at all correct, the better prizes offered by District tournaments would have killed off Locals long ago. Even if I'm wrong, more Districts means more money for Cactus, right? Is that a bad thing?

Where do you attend tournaments? If they let somebody host a district, why wouldn't they let you host a local?

I'm from southern PA, and all the tournaments in my area are hosted in churches, where Marti, Brad [TechnoEthicist], or Shawn [Korunks] generally host). Marti is 15 minutes away from my college.

I forget that Districts require four events, but honestly, it's not that hard to find people who want to play a TEAMS, and Sealed is there for new players, while Booster is great for anybody who want more cards for less than retail (depending on how the hosts do it...). In any case, most playgroups would not have a reason to host locals.
Hardcore players don't care about prizes, they care about points. Generally, it's the hardcore players that guide a host's decisions (since they generally will do what their core players want). Besides, the prizes are, what, a whole pack difference?

That's just it though, if hardcore players are the only ones who are going to be affected by this, then I don't think it's so bad. The people who attend the tournaments in my area are, for the most part, all on the forums, but I'm the only one I'd consider "hardcore" in my competitiveness, and I'm pretty sure I'm the only person actively going for RNRS points this year. I think you're greatly overstating how much the vast majority of Redemption players care about RNRS points, and I don't think nearly enough players care enough that this rule would actually impact the game, beyond encouraging more Districts among more experienced playgroups.

On a random note, I'm more likely to go to locals (drove an hour and a half for the last one) than districts because I max districts so quickly.

So am I, however, I'm much less likely to go to Districts.

Huh.  I thought this thread was all about letting the 2nd place person get more points if the 1st place person was maxed out.

On topic, I think this would create extra work for Rob, so it's not happening.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Rob already adds any extra District points to the RNRS page on Cactus' site, he just does it in a red font to note that it's invalid.