Wasn't the plan also to rank players on tcgplayer? How can you do that when not all events were run the same say and not every event is reporting results?

To expand on what I'm saying, MTG has different formats, they rank players by format. They wouldn't rank a player in standard against a player in legacy. How can you do so accurately and effectively?

Seems fine to me. Each format has a "season," and if there are enough events in different regions throughout the year everyone should get a shot at a format they like, and during a "season," the finals for all the events run will be comparable.

The only thing that seems odd is calling this "a format." It's really more a "schedule of formats."

Very interesting. I'm certainly intrigued to see what this brings out of competitive people.

My one note would be that you consider re-naming your "Silver" to "Bronze" because Silver, while there is no official version, has a connotation that stretches through many a venue that it means all figues and no tactics. With your Silver being distinctly not that, why not give it another original nomenclature like Bronze (EDIT: Or Platinum! Make it sound exclusive and fancy!) which avoids all the likely confusion.

I could certainly be wrong about that, and maybe everyone will just adopt this version as the new "Silver", but I just think picking Silver comes with a lot of baggage that you avoid with a currently little-used name.

I'm excited for ROC and to see what else develops in the comings months and the year ahead as a whole!

I hear you and I guess that is what we started trying to get. The more we discussed it the more everything it kept pointing at 300 Modern. Finally a 300point rotation was suggested. This was appealing because it allowed us to introduce different formats to be used that did not deviate too far away from the 300 Modern. The schedule is set so that we start farthest away from 300 Modern and work slowly back to it. The fact that this would also keep things fresh so to speak also is appealing. It was also pointed out that other games like Magic use a successful rotation. I don't play Magic so I do not know how they work.

This is also going to a preliminary tease of what you see at dragon*Con.

Heat 1 - ROC Age 300
Heat 2 - No tactics 300
Semi Finals - Silver Age 300
Finals - 300 Modern

I agree that in some way a complete standard would have been good but by doing what we have done I think we separate ourselves and create a exciting bunch of tournaments.

Oh yeah, forgot about this. I would definitely come up with a new name. "Silver Age" is used at so many venues with so many different meanings that it's bound to cause confusion. ("Card Age?")

Events not making reports I have no control over but it is a sure fire way to never host a SQ again. As far as ranking goes I am sure we will have some flaws and we will make adjustments as we go along. Just remember this, this is new. Be patient and enjoy the ride. This is going to be fun.

The easiest way would be to say, "here are the "X" formats that ROC will support. Choose one." That's what magic does. They have different formats and championship events for each (standard and modern being the biggest 2). I've never heard of this "rotation". If you did that, you'd have to have a finals for each type, though (which i can understand the logistic nightmare it would cause).

Honestly, it doesn't sound as fun to me as it might to others. Now, we have to basically decide what time of the year we want to play competitively or play in a format that we don't like. I think Vlad and Troma kind of are on point.

Please don't take this as negativity. I think that the fact that so many people are concerned or have questions/suggestions is a sign that you are onto something that the people want.

You definitely have a point here. While "Silver Age" may not have a strict official definition, it means the same thing to a large number of players. I've stopped using it at my venue to reduce confusion and refer to it as Golden Age (No Tactics) now. Coming up with something like a "Bronze" Age makes sense.

OK, I see your point here. You started out with the intent of creating a standardized format and decided to go for a differentiation strategy instead.

The ROC Age does include tactics correct? If so, I really do prefer the format above all the others.

This is a Primary concern for me. With the formats being determined by the time of year, it almost forces an organizer/host to determine what format best suits the local player base or which one they feel would draw the largest number of players.

So lets pretend only one format was chosen and you didn't like it. Would you then never host one?

I think you are more likely to have players show up to a format that they may not prefer if it's the only one than if there are multiple available that they can just wait on one to roll around that they like. You are also more likely to have people travel to a standardized event format than to different formats all over the place.

What happened to one format to qualify for the top 16 and a seperate format for the top 16?

I also think that people are more likely to show up to a standard prize pool than one where each venue can give out whatever they want. For example, if Majestix and my local venue both had an event on the same day, but Majestix was giving away WAY more prizing (let's face it, they bury every other event so far except worlds/ROC finals), I'd probably travel out of town for it. If 50% of my local venue felt the same way, they'd bomb and lose a ton of money, indirectly hurting the ROC.

That's not what I'm saying at all. A standardized format would be the last thing that would stop me from running an event. I organize and run events for a venue with almost 40 players and I have a pretty good idea what types of formats the majority of those players prefer. My concern (while admittedly minor) is based upon the fact that I now need to consider the timeframe in which I host a Superqualifier to best suit my own player base, but also the one I think would appeal to the largest number of players to maximize my attendance.

If there were only 1 format (good, bad or indifferent) for the ROC, say ROC Age, then the timeframe in which I host an event is essentially rendered meaningless as it doesn't necessarily effect attendance. With multiple format seasons and other venues within my state scheduled to host Superqualifiers in addition to mine, the choice seems to be a bit more consequential.

I don't think it's about him as a person as much as it is about a player base and how best to serve them.

Basically if you said these four are the formats we endorse, pick what works for you, then you could see what people are running and whether they veer from Modern 300 regularly, whether they embrace ROC Age or whatever else. As it stands, this seems like you won't get much in the way of data unless you see a dearth of events during one of the seasons... and that could be for other reasons. I feel like you've added a variable to the experiment that could have been removed by giving venues just that inch of extra freedom.

And just to state it one more time... please consider renaming "ROC Silver" to Platinum or something else.

Also, I want to state apart from the current tangent of things that this is exciting and I plan to reach out to other local venues to try and get another SQ together that serves our region. I hope the feedback you get in this thread is seen as coming from people who do want this to succeed. It's why we're so passionate and willing to expound on our (hopefully) constructive criticisms.