Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

3 Regionals? Seriously?

Honestly... Hate to say it.. but there are good and bad things about this.
Also the timing for October Regionals is kinda unfair trying to get off ect.

Here's my reasons.

Many people are used to the April Regionals. Like Last year it kinda also threw me off there were 2 regionals time. But SPR the regionals I went to was still in April. This year it seems rushed I guess.
 
psychup2034 said:
I think it is entirely accurate, and here is why. If you only attended States/Regionals/Nationals every season and go deep into cut 3 times out of 4, then that demonstrates that you were consistent from March onward. An important part you’re forgetting is that the majority of the tournaments over the year are Battle Roads and Cities. I’m going to estimate that competitive players attend about 10 Battle Roads and 10 Cities on average. This year, there were 3 States, 2 Regionals, and 1 Nationals. Performing well at States/Regionals/Nationals means that you were “consistent” for about 25% of the season (6 divided by 26). That’s not what consistency means—not at all.

Here’s an example. An NFL football team is “consistent” for 25% of its regular season. Let’s say it goes 4-0 during that stretch. Someone could make the argument that the team has been “consistent,” but that argument would be completely irrelevant because the determining factor of whether a team makes the postseason is performance over the course of the entire season—not over a portion of the season.

Now you can argue that the couple weeks before the postseason are the most important (just like States/Regionals/Nationals are most important), but if a team doesn’t perform well in the first 13 games, it doesn’t matter how lucky/streaky/“consistent” that team is come last quarter of the season. They’re not making the playoffs.

When you’re making an argument about consistency, you have to define consistency in the relevant time period. Defining the time period of consistency to be only States/Regionals/Nationals is arbitrary and ridiculous.



Worlds invites have never been handed out based on performances at States/Regionals over the course of more than one season. I think you’re definitely stretching your argument a bit far here.



While performing well over the course of States/Regionals/Nationals over the course of many years is consistent, it’s not consistent in the relevant time period. The relevant time period is one season. Up to this year, Worlds invites have been handed out based on performance in the current season.

I think it’s rather convenient for you to leave out the two longest tournament cycles within a season—Battle Roads and Cities—to make your argument.
Click to expand...


The point about the season's being the only logical time period seems off as well to me. I don't think most people have a problem with the notion that a terrible player could manage to obtain an invite on a complete fluke by performing well at exactly 3 events by topdecking and flipping. That does not show a poorly designed invite system; what does is when such an incident repeats itself consistently.

I think, for example, that Play Points were a bad idea, conjured up to prevent people like Tom Dolezal from obtaining a ratings invite in one weekend. The consistency here is he's managed to pull this off multiple years, back-to-back. This consistency demonstrates that there is no flaw in a system which allows him to qualify without committing to the game for the greater part of the year.

Think of it this way: it goes without saying that people who attempt to earn their invite in 3 days are taking a huge risk most don't. For these people to nevertheless show up at worlds year after year shows a great deal of consistent performance. Inconsistent performance would be doing poorly at Nationals. All it takes is one inconsistency in their performance to lose them their streak of invites.

Any invite system is bound to produce some anomalies, and it's no surprise if the top 40 in North America are not actually the 40 best players. I don't personally feel that a one-hit wonder's ability to qualify for worlds overnight shows the failure of the system to reward consistent play. That player won't likely be back next year. Some people will be back next year, and the year after that. Maybe some of them will have only played in 4 tournaments all year round each time. Yet they get to worlds each year. That's consistency.

I agree that the invite structure should reward consistency, but a player who is good at the game should not have to demonstrate commitment to the game to earn his invite. A system that requires you to show your mastery of each successive format that comes about, from Battle Roads to Cities to States and so on, is certainly excessive to me. You shouldn't even have to know what the format was during Fall Battle Roads, let alone have any clue how to play it, to qualify for worlds.
 
Big Announcement.

Invites will no longer be "Top X". There will be a discrete cutoff. Basically, if you earn a certain number of CPs, you get into Worlds.

Details to follow. And, no, don't ask me, I have no idea. ExoByte posted this information, and basically nothing else.
 
bullados said:
Big Announcement.

Invites will no longer be "Top X". There will be a discrete cutoff. Basically, if you earn a certain number of CPs, you get into Worlds.

Details to follow. And, no, don't ask me, I have no idea. ExoByte posted this information, and basically nothing else.
Click to expand...

You got a source or link?

Jimmy
 
Box of Fail said:
I agree that the invite structure should reward consistency, but a player who is good at the game should not have to demonstrate commitment to the game to earn his invite.
Click to expand...

This statement seems to be the foundation of your argument, and taken alone like this, I can only see it as an opinion. One that I respect, but one that I do not necessarily share, nor do I think P!P do (or should) share, either.
 
Kayle said:
This statement seems to be the foundation of your argument, and taken alone like this, I can only see it as an opinion. One that I respect, but one that I do not necessarily share, nor do I think P!P do (or should) share, either.
Click to expand...

Yes that is my opinion, but the greater part of the post is true even if you don't agree with me on that point. ELO rewarded consistency as well, for all the reasons I've stated above.
 
Under ELO, you were at risk of being penalized for playing the game.

That is simply unacceptable.
 
Kayle said:
Under ELO, you were at risk of being penalized for playing the game.

That is simply unacceptable.
Click to expand...

That's also an opinion. I agree that it is generally a bad thing when playing the game draws a penalty, but I don't think it's worth replacing with a system that rewards you for playing often. The bigger the BFLs, the more opportunities to attend high-reward events, and the more points that are given for small events, the more Championship Points become frequent flyer miles. I don't think you should be able to buy an invite with frequent flyer miles.

And yes this is all my opinion. For a more substantive argument about consistency, see my last post.
 
Box of Fail said:
That's also an opinion. I agree that it is generally a bad thing when playing the game draws a penalty, but I don't think it's worth replacing with a system that rewards you for playing often. The bigger the BFLs, the more opportunities to attend high-reward events, and the more points that are given for small events, the more Championship Points become frequent flyer miles. I don't think you should be able to buy an invite with frequent flyer miles.

And yes this is all my opinion. For a more substantive argument about consistency, see my last post.
Click to expand...

You do realize that, even as your opinion, there are some incorrect notions here. In fact, it is all incorrect. The current points system is favoring players to prove themselves at more events. That does not mean you have to play in all that many events. You just have to do well at the ones you go to. It doesn't matter how many events they put out if you win all the key ones in your area, or place high enough in the bigger ones consistantly.

Next off, your "frequent flyer miles" makes literally no sensewhere you put it. The more points awarded to smaller events decreases the effect you are describing. Sure you may have to drive 2 hours away for 3 weekends of Cities or BRs, but you dont have to do it all the time, and there are two segments of BRs for you. If they only made the larger events worthwhile, that'd be one thing. But that hasn't yet been the case. You could almost entirely qualify for Worlds with your BFL of statewide BRs/Cities and your State Championship, alongside the closest Regionals and possibly one additional State/Reg if you werent going to Nats.

Besides that, they already have 2 options designed to tailor to competitve players who dont want to play out the whole season, Nationals and the LCQ. I don't see how so many people can complain about the increase of tournaments they need to attend when the system has long given you not one, but two fail safes to avoiding the "misery" of playing Pokemon to earn an invite to Worlds. I can understand many of these complanitive threads that sprout up on the Gym, of prize support, and card inconsistancies, and how the metagame is haping up, but those who don't want to do well all season to prove they are the best don't have to under the curret system. And even when they decide not to, it's not a one shot gamble on trying to make it! If you think you'd do soooo much better if there were further events, you have a two event series to prove it every year.

I;m not saying last year was the model year for the new system. But it wasn't as broken as everyone was saying it was (at least in Masters. I feel for the Juniors who had rediculous point thresholds to overcome.). Worlds should not be handed to anyone on a silver platter. It should be like a Flash-less, Repel-less blind run of every games Victory Road molded into one. And even then Tom Dozel makes it look easy.
 
There is at least *some* playing that you have to do for Nats and the LCQ with the 10 P!P requirement. But 2 Regionals is enough for that.
 
bullados said:
There is at least *some* playing that you have to do for Nats and the LCQ with the 10 P!P requirement. But 2 Regionals is enough for that.
Click to expand...

Play points can be acuqired from leagues can they not? You can go to a league and like, the closest Cities/Brs to your house. That still doesn't change that you don't need to be competitve You get those points for showing up, and with no top cut at Brs, the events will be offer quicker than ever.

In other words; it's easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top