Masters division too crowded?

[Jaeger]

Dont critizise the tournament structure, otherwise you'll be a mean and greedy person who just thinks of himself

~~~

Prices should depend on attendance, we often just have 1 Junior here, ok he gets the medal, but does he really need to get teh boosters as well when he did nothing for them :/ ? And at the same time weh have 20/30 Masters fighting for 4 Boosters.

Does a Master with no skill who wins a small BR with no competion really deserves the prizes any more than that junior?

 

[Yoshi-]

No definitly not, if he has no competition but the junior player has it, then the junior should get the pie and the master should be happy about the free medal

 

[Austino]

I never quite thought that it's fair for a 15 yr old to have to play college kids. The maturity gap between 15 and 18-20 alone is vast. I think Masters should be 18+.

 

[meganium45]

Let's toss that one down the toilet right now.

We had a first year Master win a 34+ person division this weekend, against some pretty good competition, by any estimation.

Last year, we had a first year master in the top 10 in Ratings almost all year long out of TN.

This year, in TN, we had like 3 of the 4 top cut at a big battle road...1st year Masters.

Sink that argument like a STONE.

Vince

 

[Austino]

Let's toss that one down the toilet right now.

We had a first year Master win a 34+ person division this weekend, against some pretty good competition, by any estimation.

Last year, we had a first year master in the top 10 in Ratings almost all year long out of TN.

This year, in TN, we had like 3 of the 4 top cut at a big battle road...1st year Masters.

Sink that argument like a STONE.

Vince

You should know that there are always exceptions. That's not the general rule though. Most 15-17 aren't hitting top cut here. We have one 17 year old who top cuts, but he's the exception. There's typically one or two seniors way above the rest that could play with "the big boys", but I see a majority of the crossovers from Sr to Ma not do well.

 

[ShadowGuard]

As far as I know, in Japan there are different age groups, 18+ or somthing like that.

We adapt in Japan by disallowing foreign cards in future seasons.
We adapt in Japan by holding Worlds in Hawaii, where all other Nations have problems with.
Why don't we adapt in Japan for age groups?

It almost seems like all the problematic things that have been different in Japan are taken to the whole world now, but none of the good things is.

With 18+ for Masters and about 13-17 for seniors, I think the age groups would be well balanced in player numbers.

 

[baby mario]

As far as I know, in Japan there are different age groups, 18+ or somthing like that.

We adapt in Japan by disallowing foreign cards in future seasons.
We adapt in Japan by holding Worlds in Hawaii, where all other Nations have problems with.
Why don't we adapt in Japan for age groups?

It almost seems like all the problematic things that have been different in Japan are taken to the whole world now, but none of the good things is.

With 18+ for Masters and about 13-17 for seniors, I think the age groups would be well balanced in player numbers.

I don't think the ban on foreign card was made just to make us more like Japan

Having Worlds in Hawaii every 3 years isn't much to make things better for Japanese players. If they wanted just to benefit them, they would have it IN Japan every other year or something.

AFAIK the tourneys in Japan are completely different to how they are in other countries. Tego wrote an article about it.

http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=63498

Plus, they have to play some tourneys with 30 card decks.

Is that what we want, just so we can have their age divisions?

 

[nnaann]

That’s all part of growing up boss. In little league everyone gets a chance to play but not all of those kids are going to make it to the major leagues will they? That’s life. :wink:

It doesn't make sense that Juniors get a far better deal, when they are only in that division for one year according to your product suitability recommendations. They are not your main customers, the number of Juniors playing in tournaments is very small, and they are more likely to buy less Pokemon TCG products than the older players in the long run. This is especially as you say ‘not all those kids are going to make it to the major leagues’

Seriously? Have you ever tried that one out at a theatre as you try to get a youth rate on your ticket? Is it unfair that kids eat free at some buffets? C'mon now I explained to you why things are set up the way they are. Does it really grieve you that a 10 year old gets things easier than you do? :nonono:

Of course I would expect a ten year old to have it easier to some extent, that’s life. But I think the way the prizes are divided over the age ranges is not a fair system.
If we are looking at fairness to children, well I am 16 and so technically a child. I’m competing against adults in the Masters division, where’s the fairness in that? You can’t have it both ways, make it easy for the Juniors but stick the older children in with the adults? The adults will always have the advantage here, I’m still a student with very little income. I don’t have a full time income like most adults and so rely on my Parents or the Pokemon prizes to get the cards I need. There is also the good point that Austino makes that there’s going to be a big difference in maturity between a 15 year old and a 20 year old.


Each age division gets the same prizes = evenly distributed.
A player will still need to play to win ( in the vast majority of cases) so skill is involved. That said, trying to say that it should take the same amount of effort and skill for a Junior to win as it takes a Masters player to win is just silly. Surely you don't think that Masters should be able to compete against Juniors directly?

Of course not, you are missing my point entirely. We are talking numbers of players in divisions and a more fair way of distributing the prizes.

My replies are in blue.

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

Prizes should stay the way they are NOW, even if only 1 players shows up in an agegroup.

I can remember very well the years 2004 and 2005 in Europe
At that time it happened that prizes were awarded connected to attendance.
And I can still hear 2 little boys saying, "Mom I was undefeated against 2 SR and 3 MA and I only got 4 boosters, why did that Master get a whole box for winning"?
It even went as far as having 3 kids in 3 agegroups all ending first place and getting home with 2-4-24 boosters.

And now nnaann you are going to tell me how to explain them why?
How are you telling little kids their performance was worth less?

With less attendance they will be playing a more difficult agegroup most times.
So tell me how "easy"is it when a SR goes undefeated (winning from MA) and had (according some people) "easier" way to obtain prizes.

I don't want to go back to situations like in 2003-2004-2005 and even 2006.
A first place is a first place and should get awarded exactly as any other first place.

Otherwise I am going to lobby for a first turn win is not a win and should be handled different.


Sorry but I never hope prizes will be awarded connected to attendance ever again.

I also suggested another solution which seems to be the better option - to rearrange age divisions for attendences to be more similar.

 

[prodigal_fanboy]

Originally Posted by Biggie (Smalls)

That’s all part of growing up boss. In little league everyone gets a chance to play but not all of those kids are going to make it to the major leagues will they? That’s life.

Just out of curiosity, sir, do you have access to data based on the retention rates for age-group transitions after 1 season, 2 seasons, and by the time the age up again?

The issue with that data, though, would be familial things; parents or older players keeping children in the game and vice versa, which would skew the tendency of retention upward slightly if I'm thinking straight.

I'd like to state, once again, having starting played last year as a 16-year-old master, I'd rather miss out on top cut playing against the most intellectually advanced than make it to top cut because I beat up on thirteen-fourteen year olds.

 

[Prof Clay]

My replies are in blue.

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



I also suggested another solution which seems to be the better option - to rearrange age divisions for attendences to be more similar.

I was gonna say something but decided not to argue with 16 year old anymore...I have to do that too much for a living.

 

[Absol LVX]

honestly 18+ should be the masters

 

[nnaann]

I was gonna say something but decided not to argue with 16 year old anymore...I have to do that too much for a living.

Very disapointed to read that, are you going to write off all 16 Year olds since our opinions don't matter?

 

[Austino]

I was gonna say something but decided not to argue with 16 year old anymore...I have to do that too much for a living.

Are you hinting at the fact that 16 yr olds are on a different maturity level than adults?

So why are they in the same division?

 

[evil miltank]

The only way to have a prize structure related to attendance is for go-pokemon too do a store type structure, where after registration/reporting etc, the top 1//4 or whatever are awarded dollars to spend at a web site. And that play money is kept in the account holders account at the online store.

I actually like that idea.:tongue:
That way if people don't like the packs (SV) or want something else apart from packs, (like mats or sleeves) they can get it. But i think that would be really cool.

 

[ryanvergel]

I think the tournament season is a bit outdated and kind of poor. I think we should look to other TCGs (MAGIC) and incorporate some philosophies there.

How about more, large, legitimate tournaments so that ratings are better indicators of skill! That's what I'd like to see. That and larger INVITE allotments for the NA zone, especially the US.

 

[Ghetto Overlord]

if we do rearange the age groups we would have to do it all over the world (which is going to be a lil trickey by it self) because at worlds if a 16 year old is used to playing seniors (11-17) then get thrown into a tournoment with worlds class masters, not to sure how that one would work out ( yes there are seniors (11-14) players that can beat masters (15+) but i am talking about the average). If you could do that then i fully support the age group change =)

 

[homeofmew]

I would totally support
a 13-/ 14-17/ 18+ or how they do it in japan, 10- 11-17 and 18+

 

[ryanvergel]

Very disapointed to read that, are you going to write off all 16 Year olds since our opinions don't matter?

I think Prof Clay actually teaches for a living, and has to deal with a kind of relentlessness of youth that can be quite frustrating, especially when the youth wants to be treated as an adult, at least in terms of argumentation, but the youth does not bring mature points, views, or argumentative styles.

Whether I, or we, like it or not, TPCi has stated numerous times that they have a DEFINITE target audience- the younger age divisions. Is this right? Wrong? Unfair? It doesn't matter. That is a TPCi philosophy and belief, which will likely not be changed. They may have data to show that this helps them as a business, or maybe this is just what kind of audience they want to attract. Maybe they don't like so many 18+ at events as players tongue. Either way, it really doesn't matter.

Better age group distribution is one thing, but it seems like at first you argue for better DISTRIBUTION of kids in divisions so that we don't have such large gaps in attendance, and ultimately prizes. Your argument later shifts to the idea that the younger divisions, as they stand now with far fewer numbers, are less deserving (because MAs are more deserving due to higher numbers).

It's hard to carry a discussion/debate/argument with someone who will merely revise their argument and change stances over and over, which is very typical of 16 year olds (no offense, I was in your position a lot, as many people here know :biggrin. I think that's as far as we need to take Prof Clay's comment. He teaches youth- I really doubt he lacks respect for them or their opinions.

 

[Qwachansey]

Well, I will be in the Masters Division next year, and I am very scared to face these older people. I have very little experience, and I don't think it is fair for me to play a person twice my age when I could be playing teenagers. The age gaps annoy me, as my brother who is a Junior will be guarenteed a Prize at his next event. It's not the prizes that annoy me, but the fact that my brother will have 1 - 3 other Juniors to play against.

I think this would be good:

Group 1: 11 and under (perhaps 10?)
Group 2: 12 to 15
Group 3: 16 to 21
Group 4: 22+

There is a very big difference between a 15 year old playing a 40 year old and a 21 year old playing a 4 year old.

 

[Biggie]

Very disapointed to read that, are you going to write off all 16 Year olds since our opinions don't matter?

Are you hinting at the fact that 16 yr olds are on a different maturity level than adults?

So why are they in the same division?

No one said that someone’s opinions do not matter, nor did he say anything about maturity. Asking what he meant is one thing; inserting words in his mouth is another.

It doesn't make sense that Juniors get a far better deal, when they are only in that division for one year according to your product suitability recommendations. They are not your main customers, the number of Juniors playing in tournaments is very small, and they are more likely to buy less Pokemon TCG products than the older players in the long run.

Actually, do you realize that you have actually made my point for me?

You say that a Jr. player will not buy as much as a Masters player. Even if that technically were true, it would also be an incredibly short sighted way to look at it. Of course Jr.'s players are the smallest group: they grow up. Our job is to make sure that they have a chance to win the same support as all other players get so that they are encouraged to stick around long enough to become a Sr.'s players, and eventually Masters players. Now, compare their total purchases instead of those just made as a Jr. Like I said: it's about growth.

You can continue to be upset because those Jr.'s have it so easy, or you can take a step back and realize how unfair it would be for a younger player to see others getting a level of support they do not get. All because they are only a Jr. for a short time and a Masters player is a Masters player forever.

Of course I would expect a ten year old to have it easier to some extent, that’s life.

Exactly. And that’s why if our program is not "fair" to older players, it will stay that way. Because sometimes a younger player really should have it a bit easier.