Druss, look at the top 25 ranked players in the World. 23 of them are from the US. Also, 4509 of the 6053 registered players are from the US. If only one player from the US is invited then that will be very unbalanced. Even if they only take the winner from nationals, they should invite at least the top 25 composite ranked players in the world.

Well, winning the MK national here in Portugal got me a free trip to Gen Con 2002, and I will be there, besides not knowing where the hell I'm going to stay...

You discuss rankings as if all MK players around the world are ranked!!
That's totally not true! I'm registered but not ranked due to the fact that nothing is sent to Wizkids, as a matter of fact we don´t even have a Warlord...

So I don't even know if I'm good or not, and as for the rankings do they really show who are the best players int the world!?!...

There's been a lot of discussions about this in previous threads.
Since they revamped the ranking system recently, I believe that it gives a fair idea of how people measure up.
Unless people are padding their results (which would require a Warlord's collusion), I think it's close enough (maybe +/- 1 or 2%) I mean, what's really the difference between #50 and #51? Put them in a room for a few hours, and they'd likely split their games.

And I agree with Keegantir: the top X players should get invites too. And by the way Keeg, I just wanted to point out that there are 17 Canadians in the top 100. We may be underrepresented in the top 25, but we make up for it soon enough. Considering y'all outnumber us 10 to 1, I think those are pretty good stats. ;)

As flaky as the ranking system is I'd hate to see the top X players make it in, its just too early in the system to give it that kind of beef.

Odds are there are some top 25 players in there who only play in local events, but do well against the competition and win on a regular basis. Is that deserving of a chance at the National Championship?

Wizkids gave the top 10 a chance at Nationals, I can't see them expanding that by 15 for the Worlds.

Worlds should be composed of the winners of the various national championships. If the top 25 players from Nationals make it in then why such a huge prize for first place? How do you distinguish 1 - 25? Once you make 25 and guarantee yourself a spot why even bother playing if your already in(well prizes besides).

Right now top ranked players should not get a free pass to Worlds, to get there a player should prove they can win on a large scale, first winning a national qualifieer, then winning their country's nationals.

Joe Shmoe from Idaho, plays in 2 tournies a week and does really well against the locals, does that make him worthy of a shot at the national championships? The spots should be earned through winning, not being the 16th best player at a specific tournament or 25th ranking player out there.

You do have some good points, Druss.

But considering how many US players there are, don't you think there should be another way to get top players into the Worlds?

Look at the Olympics, the same stuff is happening now. Let's say you're from a small nation (pop. 1 million) and you're the best there. You automatically can go to the Olympics, whereas people ranked higher than you on the world stage don't get to go because they're not #1 in the US, for example.

I'm just saying that it's not truly representative. And I don't mean to knock players from smaller countries either: they can be as skilled or better, or course.

But there should be more US players. Like Keegantir said, you guys make up 2/3 of all MK players! Maybe a State system? Or a regional system? I'd be happy with let's say 6 regions (NorthWest, SouthWest, North Central, South Central, Northeast and Southeast?).

Doesn't MtG (and I remember Star Wars CCG too) do it like that?Each set of a few States and Provinces is a region. That way, players could actually travel short distances to play in qualifiers. And those who make it go to Nationals and then Worlds.

The rankings...

They tend to be very "local" even tough we can considered the from all over the world (wich is false, as a fellow portuguese player stated before).

The world rankings should not be consider for inviting people because if I play in my venue 3 times a week in a tournament, with the same all croud, It is easier to me to build a army to counter the typical armys from my buddies.

The ranks should be like tennis...

The tournament should have score points...

Let´s say a national one as bigger importance than a regional or local so if you win 20 local and lose one regional then you are maybe worst than the guy who one 2 locals and 1 regional...

I don't trust ranks as they are...

The tennis idea is a good one.

And you're right about making local army archetypes which do not necessarily translate well to the 'MetaGame". That's why these forums are so great: everyone can learn and stay current with "what's out there", and adapt and improve. I have NEVER found the game to be stale, as most people I play against are always adapting.

As for your claim that ranking tend to be "local", I think that there are probably a reasonable spread of skill levels in MOST venues, and that the top players will be similarly skilled, even if they're separated by thousands of miles. The system is such that if you play with a group that all the players are weak, your ranking will level off quite low, as you are not challenging tougher opponents. The system rewards people for playing like or higher ranked (i.e. skilled) players, and punishes you for playing against weak opponents.

Personally, I'm not worried. I've been lucky to play in over 10 venues in 4 different States/Provinces. I've done well in most of them, so I consider myself an OK player.

The Olymics is definetly a good analogy, its really the same thing. The way I see it is that for a fair worldwide competition you need to have equal parts from all countries involved, and that part has to be the best the country has to offer.

If the Olymics allowed the top 100 players worldwide with no country limitations then some events would be dominated by certain countries. How is that a fair measure of Worldwide skill?

The US has a ton of MK players, but regardless of the quantity the Worlds would represent the quality. The Best player from each country competes, if the US player is the best then so be it, but if they lose then that must be accepted also. By flooding the Worlds with 25 US players ane 15 other international players then its not really a Worlds anymore, more like International vs the US, or the US Open.