Sentiments after Nationals

[Big Daddy Snorlax]

We have a saying at work - Keep your BEST employees happy.

At my workplace we strive to keep all the employees happy in hopes that they can all become "the best employees". We get better productivity that way. IMO

Who keeps Pokemon going? Is it Belgium? Is it Denmark? Do they have more players in OP?

Why we all are working together to keep Pokemon going. I'd frame the question in terms of where do you think there is a bigger potential to grow the game?

And do you REALLY think the World Championship is the mechanism by which OP grows?

Not the only mechanism, but if you look at successful companies and where they spend their marketing dollars, it is not generally on something that gives no return on investment. Do you know where the biggest single share of the OP budget goes - Worlds.

BDS

 

[NoPoke]

blast you squirtle.. now I have to remember the title of that song, or another brain cell has bitten the dust.

got it I think. Foreigner Dont Stop Believing?

Drat : half a brain cell has died: it was Journey. I can almost see the album cover. Almost isn't quite good enough

 

[Scizor]

I really believe if more events that are closer to a National level in the U.S. are added you wouldn't see as much sour grapes about Worlds. While it is infinitely harder to obtain an invite in the U.S., it wouldn't be nearly as bad if more competitive events were added. Right now, the U.S. has one major event per year for all of its good players to compete in and that is Nationals. The U.S. has so many good players and never do all of them get invited to Worlds every year. Give us a few major events, make them invite only and offer qualifiers and a LCQ for them, too. Make their prizes decent. Put them in different locations every year. Give everyone a chance to qualify for them. Right now U.S. invites are somewhat dependent on location (PTOs and amount of events ran), attendance and a 1200 person Nationals.

 

[The Gorn]

At my workplace we strive to keep all the employees happy in hopes that they can all become "the best employees". We get better productivity that way. IMO

My industry is very competitive. And it you don't reward those people making the biggest impact on your business (getting new business, high contributors, etc.) then some other company is going to reward them.

Why we all are working together to keep Pokemon going. I'd frame the question in terms of where do you think there is a bigger potential to grow the game?

Not the only mechanism, but if you look at successful companies and where they spend their marketing dollars, it is not generally on something that gives no return on investment. Do you know where the biggest single share of the OP budget goes - Worlds.

BDS

It's an interesting decision that PUI has to make.

Does PUI reward those countries that have built the game to where it is and has had the most participation over the year(s)?

Or does PUI make an effort to include other countries that can grow at the risk of alienating the established countries?

If the honest answer is the 2nd, then it seems like a real effort would be made to engage India, as an example.

And if the honest answer is the 2nd, then I would say that the 30% increase that we've seen in the United States would necessitate more seats at Worlds. Doing the math, a 50% increase in Finland (sorry my Finlandish friends) doesn't really come close to matching a 30% increase in the United States.

As always, we trust PUI to make the right choices. And they've done a good job of that so far and when they (rarely) have not, they've corrected it next time around.

But it really does make for an interesting decision.

 

[NoPoke]

Portugal 2007-2008 ZERO
Portugal 2008-2009 One hundred and sixty eight.

Your logic would have no investment in Portugal: as how do you justify any expenditure on zero players?

A ratio arguement would have far too much resource pushed to Portugal in the 2009-2010 season.

Incremental gain heavily favours the established markets with the largest natural population.

No matter which way you try it the numbers mislead. Starting with the numbers just doesn't work.

 

[Professor Elm]

Ok logic time
When a card game gets popular more problems arise. Pokemon is finally beginning to reclaim it's spot as top tcg due to yugiohs recent slump.

Ultimately as more people join more problems arise between gameplay and strategic aspects to prize support and tournament structure.

Think about that for a sec imma go eat and will edit my post later when I'm not so lazy.

 

[The Gorn]

Portugal 2007-2008 ZERO
Portugal 2008-2009 One hundred and sixty eight.

Your logic would have no investment in Portugal: as how do you justify any expenditure on zero players?

A ratio arguement would have far too much resource pushed to Portugal in the 2009-2010 season.

Incremental gain heavily favours the established markets with the largest natural population.

No matter which way you try it the numbers mislead.

USA -9700
Portugal - 168 (I'll take your word on this. I saw 122)

However many Worlds invites it takes to get Portugal up to the US numbers, I'm for it!

Lisbon Worlds 2010!

 

[NoPoke]

Portugal can never match USA numbers, we both know this. So that means Portugal isn't worth TPCi's interest and support? I'm sure you aren't saying that yet how can you not say just that if you use a numerical arguement to determine what is fair?

Letting the numbers make the decisions could have some very unfortunate consequences for the support within the mainland USA as the player base is not going to be evenly split amongst the 48 mainland states.

 

[Rainbowgym]

I meant, we could add +8 invites to Nats, making it t16 invites/4 paid trips, and the lack of travel vouchers for the other 12 wouldn't be as bad as other countries- so the people would still usually go, especially after getting t16 at nats and likely getting nice stuff.

There was a reason to award full paid trips, perhaps you don't remember but I do. The lack of USA JR/SR players showing up at Worlds was one of those.

I never said Slovenia should have less. I simply asked why they have 2. I can't think of a really good reason for it.

Invites were NOT related to players base, they were awarded based on sales. A country without players could get 4 invites due to having good sales, were others with hundreds of players could have 1 invite due to bad sales, does that make it more clear?

The trips are from the LD, so you can't keep including them. Same likely goes for the scholarship money. We are discussing INVITES- the only thing that we can actually discuss. Money for trips/scholarships, which you for some reason keep bringing up, is a non-factor as a different party is responsible for that.

You cannot discuss the INVITES without looking to the travel fare, there is a huge difference in PAID INVITES and INVITE ONLY.

Unless something changed in the past year. Last year it was the LD (or whatever country entity) who had control over trips and scholarships and prizes pretty much.

Yes things did changed 2 years ago

You also keep suggesting that the US getting more invites necessitates another country getting less. There is no line of reasoning to think this.

Yes there is because total amount of invites are limited to 128 per age group, giving 1 out in area 1 means take away 1 from area 2.

I don't care if you give Slovenia fifty invites, but we should also consider ourselves too. I have not ONCE suggested taking ANYTHING away from any country. I have only argued to change the US system. You keep insisting and arguing that I am trying to take away from other countries when that is not the case.

It is, 128 seats available, if you want one more it has to be taken somewere else, logic?

What would be wrong with giving all regional winners an tripless invite? Would that not really help the US and make it more fair to get into worlds for our players? It doesn't take anything away, it just adds a bit more swag and a few more cards to be printed up by Pokemon. What would be wrong with making the NA zone have 40 rating invites?
Is the only reason the NA zone is being neglected so that NA/USA has fewer participants at worlds so it isn't as American-heavy? Really? I've been playing for quite a few years now, and I really want to know why we have less invites, and so much less in terms of invites. Whyyyyyy?

Still that SEAT has to come out of that 128 pool and taken away from ??? However I have for years said Regionals should award a tripless Invite for Worlds.
In a way the USA had more invites, all those NOT used from other Area's might be added to the Grinder, and who has the best option to attend the Grinder?? Not the Europeans, Asians, South Americans.

NA zone has how many invites for Worlds in each agegroup available for USA citizen?
8 USA Nationals
25 Rating
4 Grinder.

So 37 options for an USA citizen you to get one.

For Europeans
20 Rating
2-4 Nationals.
Depending on the country you live in, the max is 24 options.
The Grinder is not an option for Europeans, the costs are to high.
And most Nationals don't have a trip for that 2,3,4th place invite so those might be added to the Grinder.
Which is MORE invites basicly for those who live nearby that location.
(and with nearby I mean those who don't have to pay $2000 trip only to get there).


Does it still looks so unfair?

 

[Prime]

Rainbowgym, people are expecting 10x the invites if there is 10x the population.

I don't agree with it, but that is what they are expecting.

 

[Rainbowgym]

Rainbowgym, people are expecting 10x the invites if there is 10x the population.

I don't agree with it, but that is what they are expecting.

I woud say they have a wrong expectation, and should be aware on HOW invites (which conditions) are awarded.
Population doesn't matter, sales does.
More sales, more events, more invites.

I am not in favor of this model, but that's how it worked.

 

[hueglin]

It would be like Wyoming having the same number of U.S. Representatives as New York or California.

Doesn't Wyoming have the same number of Senators as New York or California? I think maybe that it a closer comparison to the allocation of invites. Its not the size of the population but the number of separate political/cultural entities.

 

[Mew]

To conclude my points on what everyone has been saying: I totally, totally agree that Invites should be based on percentages. And why can we not break this silly 128 per Age group cap at Worlds?

I'm wagering that is what Ryan was trying to say RainbowGym. It's not like the cap is an actual object preventing the enterance of more players. It is only a number that TPCi picked out of the air. And don't bring up something like Maximum Capacity, or silly things like Fire Hazards.

Now, break the Cap. Okay say we get to have 250 per age group. Now you do this:
NA: 50%
Japan: 20%
Europe: 20%
APAC: 10%


Those are just percents that are really pretty fair (based on Population), although even then North Americans are still looking at a tougher time of getting into Worlds than many other countries This breaks down into:
USA: 125 players
Japan: 50
Europe: 50
APAC: 25

Not so bad IMHO. You may think this is my American bias saying this, but honestly, I cannot see any reason why this won't work. If other countries had as much amnesty towards immigrants as the USA does, and I was rich , I'd move to Slovenia, win their Nat's and then use HM05 Fly with my Pidgeot to get to Worlds.

In the Video Games, the whole point is to be a Master. If you've mastered this game, then you should be able to show it on Worlds (our IRL Indigo Plateau). When 10% of the players in the USA happen to be Masters of this game on equal par with each other, then that 10% should all be garunteed a spot in the highest/ most prestigious event in the world. Problem is, that's not happening simply because of the shear numbers that the USA is churning out. The best players don't get to play when there are so few spots available. I, and as Vergel and other have said, feel that Worlds is to determine who is the best at this game, individually. If this is not the case, please prove me wrong.



And then the other thing I wanted to talk about was Scizor's suggestion. Give US players another invite only event. Nat's is such a crapshoot, it's not fun to have that as the only mega event many of the best players get to participate in each season. I don't really know what else to say on this. Go back a page or so and read Scizor's post. It's a really good idea.

Ok, done.

EDIT: well not really.

Can someone please post some reason why Stadium Challenges can't be brought back. Vince made a heck of a good post earlier.

And yeah Prime, JAA is Journey Across America. Now that I see some comments No Poke and RainbowGym have made about their player base being small and stuff. And how they need more invites and BR's to grow the game, why not give them Journey Across Europe (JAE)? It worked super well over here. If we must keep this silly player cap, seize their invites, yet grow their player base with the JAE. All problems solved

 

[SlimeyGrimey]

Remember back in 04-05 when attendance was waaay less than it is now? Us Nationals had like 6 rounds and a top 16 cut in 2004. How do you think the US player base got from there to where is is now? Here's how: POP gave a huge number of invites to US players to stimulate interest and growth in the game. Maybe Europe is in this stage now? When the US was in those "glory years" of 04-06, practically every decent player got an invite. Europe was pretty neglected during this period, but now that the US player base is well-established and showing constant growth, POP has shifted its focus to expanding the player base in Europe. They get more invites now than thay have ever got in the past. So it's easier to get an invite in Europe now, but the idea is to use that perceived easiness to attract more players to the game so that Europe will one day also have a large, stable, growing player base like NA does.

If POP doesn't increase US invites and continues to "neglect their best customer" (to take what some of you are saying) do you actually think the player base is going to stop growing? Just because a bunch of players don't get to play in Worlds? It won't.

 

[ryanvergel]

Remember back in 04-05 when attendance was waaay less than it is now? Us Nationals had like 6 rounds and a top 16 cut in 2004. How do you think the US player base got from there to where is is now? Here's how: POP gave a huge number of invites to US players to stimulate interest and growth in the game. Maybe Europe is in this stage now? When the US was in those "glory years" of 04-06, practically every decent player got an invite. Europe was pretty neglected during this period, but now that the US player base is well-established and showing constant growth, POP has shifted its focus to expanding the player base in Europe. They get more invites now than thay have ever got in the past. So it's easier to get an invite in Europe now, but the idea is to use that perceived easiness to attract more players to the game so that Europe will one day also have a large, stable, growing player base like NA does.

If POP doesn't increase US invites and continues to "neglect their best customer" (to take what some of you are saying) do you actually think the player base is going to stop growing? Just because a bunch of players don't get to play in Worlds? It won't.

But that still doesn't really answer the question of why the US isn't receiving more invites? They don't even have to be trips- just invites. The US gaining more invites won't make it any more or less difficult to get an invite in Europe. But the way it is now, the US is just really hurt with how few invites we are getting.

I know why Europe has a lot of invites- that is pretty obvious. If it's easy to get an invite, it is attractive to players. But that has nothing to do with why the US isn't receiving more invites. I don't want to reduce the number of international invites. Honestly, I'd love to see more, but I think we NEED to see more invites going to the NA zone, the the US specifically, and to have a new tournament structure. Especially for the NA zone where Canada isn't really even in the running, and in the US where Nationals is just stupidly difficult to do well at.

Why is having a proportional distribution, or at least MORE proportional system than what is in place, a BAD thing?

Why is it a BAD thing to see a field of 50 Americans, let's say 1/3 the field, if they make up more than half the players in the world? We are obviously putting in a lot of money to put everything on, and the US is likely responsible for a lot of sales, and we are seeing continued strong growth, but it is BAD to have us represented better, even when it isn't at the expense of any other country?

Sorry for wanting my path to Worlds to be as hard as anyone else's. Sorry that I think we should we more invites so that I am not penalized for having a lot of fellow players.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

NA zone has how many invites for Worlds in each agegroup available for USA citizen?
8 USA Nationals
25 Rating
4 Grinder.

So 37 options for an USA citizen you to get one.

For Europeans
20 Rating
2-4 Nationals.
Depending on the country you live in, the max is 24 options.
The Grinder is not an option for Europeans, the costs are to high.
And most Nationals don't have a trip for that 2,3,4th place invite so those might be added to the Grinder.
Which is MORE invites basicly for those who live nearby that location.
(and with nearby I mean those who don't have to pay $2000 trip only to get there).


Does it still looks so unfair?

What is WRONG about having MORE invites for the US? I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO HAVE LESS. INCREASING ONE DOES NOT MEAN DECREASING ANOTHER.

Do I need to just make a huge wall of text with those words? A lot of you refuse to understand this concept, that you can ADD INVITES to the US to make it MORE FAIR for us- but NOT HAVE TO take invites AWAY.

Does that make sense to you guys yet?
Hey, I know it's rough. Every area has some tough challenges. You don't think it's tough for some Americans? There are many places in America HUNDREDS OF MILES from any, ANY tournament. I am FIVE HOURS DRIVING away from any tournament. You don't think it costs me a lot to go to tournaments? It makes a rating invite virtually impossible (especially last year when I went to 2 tournaments total before Worlds) as I cannot afford to compete in many tournaments. Traveling to the Grinder is also way too expensive for me. There are thousands and thousands of Americans who won't be able to afford to grind, just like all those Europeans.

You want a real estimate for an average American?

You get 0 invites from nationals- because about 1% of players get an invite, it's SO MUCH harder to win here that it is very very unlikely
You get 0 rating invites- you are competing with 6000 other people, and you can't afford to go to more than 1 state, regionals, and maybe nationals. Unless you finish in the top 10% of of the first two, or the top 10% of the last one, you won't really get a rating invite.
You get 0 grinder invites- you ain't rich! You think you can afford to fly/pay for Nats AND worlds!? (Most people have to fly and pay for a nats vacation, as we are not like countries such as say, Belgium, that can finish a Nats in one day, have more than 5% of the participants walk away with trips, and spend about 2 days worth and little travel costs. Compare that to trying to fly out a group to an entirely far city for a few days, and spend at least 3-4 days usually, only to have about 3% of you benefit (those who get points bonuses, and the top 8).

Yeah, your numbers still look pretty unfair to me. Even if I don't estimate them as lower because of how IMPROBABLE it is to get one, just on a statistical level, there is still a huge and unnecessary negative bias against the US in terms of invite distribution.

Why NOT give the US 13 more invites via regionals and add 10 more to the NA zone?

This would actually let some Canadians have a shot at ratings too. The good placers at their Nats, and some more at Mexico's Nats, will have a real shot. Make it 15 invites for NA zone =D

That would be adding about 30 invites to worlds. Meaning we'd still see a MAXIMUM of 13 (regs) + 8 (nats) + 40 ratings + 4 grinder= 65, or still under the proportion of the field we represent.

None of these even need to be paid. What would it cost PUI? The cost to print the extra promo cards, the cost of the backpack, the binder, a few packs, a shirt. Like, very little honestly.

You may think I am asking for a lot (I think it's too little :wink, but we could downgrade it.

Like I suggested to NoPoke- why not have top 16 at US nats get an invite, top 4 paid trips.

That is a total of 8 x3 divisions of invites, or 24 a year. That isn't a really high cost, and with the growth, I think it is warranted.

It would actually allow for Nationals to not just be RIDICULOUSLY difficult to get an invite at. Come on, guys. There are countries that have over 10% of its participants getting an invite to Worlds. Even countries with paid trips often have a MUCH bigger percent getting invites.

Why are you guys so against giving the US something like 5% of its participants invites? If we gave 5%, we would have given 34 invites, or roughly top 32. That would be absolutely amazing, and our tournament would actually better resemble every other Nationals, in terms of difficulty for size.

 

[SD PokeMom]

this same argument comes up EVERY YEAR: 'why doesn't the US get MOAR?!!11!'

it's supposed to be difficult to get into worlds. OP has stated time and time again that worlds is not going to be an event with infinite attendance. i personally don't see the numbers changing drastically upwards anytime soon.

as long as that is so, giving any one country 'more' means everyone else gets LESS. they have also stated that they don't intend worlds to be a 'majority US vs everyone else' event.

the US already gets more than any other country: more invites, and the opportunity to play in the grinder. 'proportional' invites IMHO will NEVER happen, and expecting that is unrealistic when looking at the 'big picture' of growing OP worldwide.

jmho.
'mom

 

[hueglin]

There are other World Championships that allocate invites based on a nation as a single entity, not based on population. The Olympics for example: the maximum number of entries permitted for individual events is three per country.

Some might argue that it is unfair to US, Chinese and Russian athletes that they have a much more competitive environment to compete in and that many very good athletes from these countries do not get a chance to go to the Olympics.

One might also argue, as I would, that a World Championship should allow for equal representation from as many countries as possible, in as equal a manner as possible.

If it is just about who is the best worldwide, then there should be a worldwide rating system that does not identify individuals by their country of origin. But I think it is about being able to represent your country as well as yourself. That's why I think the invites should be based on country, not on population.

 

[Mew]

If it is just about who is the best worldwide, then there should be a worldwide rating system that does not identify individuals by their country of origin. But I think it is about being able to represent your country as well as yourself. That's why I think the invites should be based on country, not on population.

this same argument comes up EVERY YEAR: 'why doesn't the US get MOAR?!!11!'

it's supposed to be difficult to get into worlds. OP has stated time and time again that worlds is not going to be an event with infinite attendance. i personally don't see the numbers changing drastically upwards anytime soon.

as long as that is so, giving any one country 'more' means everyone else gets LESS. they have also stated that they don't intend worlds to be a 'majority US vs everyone else' event.

the US already gets more than any other country: more invites, and the opportunity to play in the grinder. 'proportional' invites IMHO will NEVER happen, and expecting that is unrealistic when looking at the 'big picture' of growing OP worldwide.

jmho.
'mom

Ryan has already pointed it out that Worlds is an individual event, players just happen to be from different countries. With the exception of how Lafonte acted last year when Ness won worlds (along with Micheal Phelps's amazing wins) using the term "AMERICAN DOMINANCE", most American players don't care one bit where anyone is from. It simply doesn't matter. If someone is better than you, you will likely lose to them, whether they are from Estonia, Latvia, or Tailand. Who is the best in the World? That needs to be determined in as fair a manner as possible (perhaps if we treated all the countries as Pangea again), and yet at the same time it doesn't.

1) It NEEDS to be determined in as fair a manner as possible. Look, let's be honest here. Flame me if you want, but you are just ignoring the truth then. Ok, here it goes: The best players in North America are just as good, if not better than the best players in the other zones. I said it. And I'll back it up.

The reason being, not because those players are from America, but because they seriously have the toughest competition in the world for play testing partners. The skill levels and sheer amounts of competition over here forces you to be better. Every city championship you go to is like a mini- nationals. I don't win tournaments very often. Maybe one a year. Why? Because there are so many other amazing players in my area. The same is true throughout the entire country.

You wanna do well at Nats? Well you better spend 50 hours play testing to even have a shot at T32.
With the luck factor that this game adds to the mix, you could be playing the same deck and list as Pooka, have his IQ or higher, spend more time play testing the deck than he did, and yet not win a single game at Nat's because of the massive number of players and the varying matchups. It's just rediculous.

This kind of thing is what makes American players really good and dedicated to the game. Why people like Ryan are willing to come on this board and argue for hours about why we need more invites. It's just stupid how hard it is to do well over here. You can't even begin to fathom it until you've lived it.

'Mom, and all other american judges and PTO's arguing against this point (foreign buddies excluded, as you haven't witnessed our Nationals first hand). Can you honestly tell me that not every single one of the players at the T32 tables at Nat's don't deserve an invitation to Worlds? They drew a bad hand? They don't deserve an invitation. Honestly? All of those players were of the highest quality in the USA, thereby, going along my previous reasoning are of the highest quality in the World. They deserve to play at Worlds.

We have the numbers to more than justify this.

2) It DOES NOT need to be determined in as fair a manner as possible. I think alot of the gripping that I and others have stems from the fact that we feel we are being left out of something that we think we could do pretty well in. Worlds. It's like a Nat's only all the bad players are weeded out (to be honest, I'm a bad player, I went 3-5 at Nat's. Actually upon thinking about it, I'm not bad, luck didn't shine on me given the massive number of players at US Nats. I went 6-3 the year before, and I beat Yamoto in the Marathon in 06, I beat Ness at MO states a few years back, I beat Chuck at MS Valley Regionals going 8-3 for the day).

I think if we left the World's structure as is, yet gave the American players another invite only event (no trips necessary) to say an STS type thing, having 128 players in each division, between nat's and worlds, that it would ease alot of the pain we feel from how hard it is to get into worlds over here. 128 players could feasibly be finished in 1 day. I know this is a heck of alot to ask of POP to actually get together, but it would solve alot of "problems".

This kind of thing I think would really make alot of people state side happy, since they got into an exclusive event. Besides, you can't tell me that there are truely more than 128 elite, World Class players in the US.

 

[Magnechu]

Gotta repost this, got deleted:

Idk, I never found it hard to get into the game/get good at the game. I literally made a deck about a month prior to a CC with no internet help (a Gardevoir deck with Potions and Oran Berry) and came in 2nd in my first tournament (was 11-14 then). I then said, this is fun (not because I did well) and talked to the TOs and found States was a few weeks later. Got on the internet, found some guys to talk to, got them to help me make a Blaziken deck, won States, tweaked Blaziken, won a GC and the rest is history.

I've never been to a league in my life. There are no tournaments within 2 hours of me, so I have attended 1 BR in my life, and only a handful of CCs (this year I attended the most, at 5, because it worked into college visits), but have been to every State and Regional Championship I could possibly attend. If there were more bigger tournaments, I would absolutely attend them.

Right now there are 5 major tournaments, States, States, Regionals, Nationals, Worlds. Why not make it 6 or 7? I would gladly not go to any CCs and add in another big tournament or 2. The big tournaments are what make the game. They add excitement to the game. The atmosphere is just amazing-you see more people, have a better time, the competition is more fierce. Remember how I said I did well in my first few tourneys? I got SOOO much better just by WATCHING the 15+ games after the 11-14 finished. That brings me to another point...

Spectating games should be allowed! So dumb not to be able to. I can understand during swiss if you're in the same age group and stuff, but come on, once top cut hits and you aren't in it, or if you want to watch another age group, gmab! The only thing you can do by watching is learning and gaining knowledge and getting better at the game.

I started to stray a bit, and my post isn't very good, but I felt like ranting.

/end rant

 

[NoPoke]

Worlds is what POP say it is and not what Ryan or myself or any other poster here may claim. The evidence is strong that POP do not view the allocation of invites to Worlds as being any kind of per-player proportional representation.

Ryan claims that there is no negative to having more USA representation, ignoring that unless there is more representation for everyone then there will be a shift in how attendance is made up. So increase everyones allocation and there is no change except that it is now more fair to the USA? Err no because there is a change. The character of Worlds will change. A Go-Large worlds is different.

If the OP budget is tied closely to card sales then instead of demanding more the best approach is to increase local sales. Of course that is the hard road to "more".

There is no entitlement to play at worlds.. You wont get more by just complaining that it isn't fair. It matters not if that is or is not the case. If your definition of "fair" is proportional then "fair" is just not how POP are allocating places at worlds and you will be forever dissapointed.

---
tricycle - stabilisers - single speed bike, three speed bike, racing bike. Sure I could have missed out any one of the intermediate steps or not started with a tricycle but the approach used never put me off cycling as each step was just hard enough.

I learnt to hang glide many years ago.

trainer that flew itself using wing teathers.
Stubby - tended to tip stall a little but still an easy glider. Not that I felt that way at the time.
clubman - my first real glider: floating cross tube - much more sensitive glider. I was finally able to fly properly on this glider. but after a while it wasn't as exciting as I remembered.
2nd hand Magic IV race - competition glider capable of approx 60mph. because it was used it had lost some of its edge and was thus an slightly closer step up from the clubman than a new model.

each step was absolutely necessary and the transition from clubman to race glider was tough, but at least the race could be detuned. Even so I crashed the M-IV race glider a couple of times. I stopped flying when I was no longer mentally sharp and physically fit enough to continue to fly the M-IV race.