Alex Frezza and 2010 National Champion Con Le Banned!!!

[FSULugia]

Am I saying if a player whose only event attended is Nationals is good enough to make T8 at Nationals out of 1000 players they don't deserve a Worlds Invite?

Depends on what type of player we are trying to reward. For the players going to Worlds, do we want competitors who have performed consistently across numerous events, or do we want players whose only credential for being at Worlds is one event?

Do you not realize that almost every other TCG works that way? Most TCGs you just top Nationals and go to worlds. They dont care that you didnt enter a billion other tournaments, the fact that you survived a national tournament and played the best to get that far is good enough. Your obviously a competent player if your in the Nationals top 8.

Im not sure if your even being serious since your acting like top 8'ing at Nationals is such a simple task.

 

[Politoed666]

Why should seniority grant special privileges? Especially if they aren't active in the recent format? Last time I checked Nats is the largest event in America, and is aimed at active and experienced players, who compete for a spot in Worlds. The 15 play point requirement is a fair compromise to make sure that the players are active and experienced, and no seniority doesn't replace that.

I don't think you've ever posted something I haven't vehemently disagreed with.

 

[Jaeger]

Am I saying if a player whose only event attended is Nationals is good enough to make T8 at Nationals out of 1000 players they don't deserve a Worlds Invite?

Depends on what type of player we are trying to reward. For the players going to Worlds, do we want competitors who have performed consistently across numerous events, or do we want players whose only credential for being at Worlds is one event?

At the expense of sounding cocky...as a guy that qualified by both CPs and a Nationals Top 4. My Nationals run was extremely harder than performing at tournaments all year where a bad one wasn't a huge deal because I had a million others to make up for it.

---------- Post added 05/20/2013 at 12:36 AM ----------

Somewhere TPCi is reading this and laughing over the fact that people are trying to think that there was a logical reason for these guys getting banned and over thinking their tournament structure makes any sense.

When you have all that money and power, people can just do things because they can. There doesnt have to be an explanation to everything they do.

TPCi cares more than some other TCG corporations, but at the end of the day, they are still a corporation that is focused on a paycheck and nothing really more. I feel bad for anyone who really spent time thinking that its really any different.

TCPI is a really good company and I really do think there employees care a lot about the player base and the game.

The point of this was not to attack TCPI rather draw attention to and discuss to areas of the game I would like to be considered. "The shoot first..ask questions later" in regards to bans (granted I do not know all of the investigation they did, I just know Alex and Con weren't talked to first) and the severity of the punishment for a prerelease level event. I never said Alex and Con didn't do anything wrong, I said I didn't think the punishment fit the crime and I would have liked to see more due process.

Just because I disagree with a company on an issue doesn't mean I have a problem with the company. The point of the post was not a "down with TCPI" rather a "I feel this should be looked at".

 

[losjackal]

First of all, thank you for answering my question. I do want to ask you a specific, because I dislike fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) used as arguments against something....

artificially limiting how many players can play to save costs is terrible for the health of the game.

You're suggesting we fear the health of the game getting worse by "artificially limiting" attendance at the largest event of the year.

So let's use a specific example. Next year, a regularly competitive player is busy with a new job. They don't have time to play throughout the year, and under the current program there is no chair for them at Nationals. But if the Play! Point requirement is eliminated, they can borrow a deck from a friend and sit in and play that day.

Why are they playing:

1) Because they had nothing better to do that weekend
2) Because this is where all of their friends are that weekend
3) Because they really like playing the Pokémon TCG
4) Because they want to play at Worlds
5) Because they want to try to win a trip to Worlds

Right? I mean, that covers all the possible motivations to play at Nationals, correct?

So by denying the chance for any one of those....how is that "terrible for the health of the game"?

 

[Swordfish1989]

When it comes to the debate of getting an invite via Nats vs getting an invite for playing all season, I think the Nats one is MUCH tougher.

I compare it to my college days... it was much easier and less pressure to get an A in a class that has 10 tests and no final, versus the class that had only a final. So if I theoretically had a class that gave you the option (10 tests vs 1 final), and I got an A by taking the tests all semester while a fellow student got an A by taking the Final, then good for him. Some people prefer a sprint over a marathon.

 

[losjackal]

I like your example, but let me ask this: how much time did you spend studying for those 10 tests, versus the guy that crammed for his final?

Because the time required to have a 8 in 1000 chance to win an invitation at Nationals is probably 10x - 20x less than earning an invitation by gathering 400 CPs.


In the end, I still agree with you. Some people prefer one way, some people another. But there is a time and commitment difference.

 

[Professor Dav]

The thing to being in the military isn't JUST deployments. There is "duty" days which happen all the time during weekend's. There are unscheduled underways, grueling test cycles and unit training which is frequent. To say show Proof of a deployment as the only excuse seems flawed. I will also let you know the sharing of deployment orders is against UCMJ(military law). They are confidential above a need to know. I think the correct route to go is to verify whether someone IS in the military. Being in the military you really have no idea what events you can go to due to scheduling and surprise schedules. I really want to know your thought process of allowing military personel into US nationals without a worry about player points.

I misspoke. I should have said "active duty".

Thank you,
Professor Dav

 

[Swordfish1989]

Well, I don't have any studies to back up the amount of time it takes to fully study for 1 major test, rather than 10 smaller ones, so all I can give you is anecdotal evidence from my own experience, and I find the amount of time I spent preparing for the 10 smaller tests is less than I would for the major final.

You could make the same comparison to the game. As you play along the season, you get to see many emerging decks and strategies - regardless of whether they end up sticking around or not. You grow and you practice, with no tournament ever being the major ' break it or make it' type.

If you're just waltzing into nationals only having playtested the most recent month's good decks, are you really more prepared than the person who has played all season, seen all beasts, and can probably adapt and figure out surprise decks and strategies faster? I think the person who is wanting to use Nats as their chance at worlds will have a LOT more trouble than the person who was there all season. It's an uphill climb. In other words, if your pre-nats playtesting is not extensive, good luck.

Of course, feel free to cite players in the past who have won nats without playing all season. They exist. Then again, I went to class with many people who didn't do an ounce of work, never put in effort, but naturally brilliant and would pull an A out of any advanced Calculus class without batting an eyelash. That's life.

 

[LibertyFigter]

So, since we don't know TPCi's motivation for the PP requirement, we can't say much. However, we can say that a multi-faceted approach would most likely solve the issue in a more appropriate way.

Those arguing for the PP requirement, what's the harm in being able to play at Nats some other way?

I vote someone can play at Nats if they have 15 PP, 15 CP, or have completed a National Championship tournament in the past (played one without dropping).

This way, experience and activity are both taken into account, and long-time players don't face arbitrary obstacles to entry.

Possible objections (not actual quotes):

"Do you really want someone who T8s Nats and doesn't otherwise play to get a Worlds invite?" Absolutely I do. Great achievements should be rewarded.

"Why should inactive players be allowed to play at Nats?" Because everyone's situation is different, and it is much easier to give players the benefit of the doubt when it comes to inactivity. I am betting most veterans who don't have the PP still love the game and wish they could play, but have jobs or something similar. Even if they are just sitting on their butts, not playing because they don't feel like it? Beat them. If activity matters so much in a player's skill in the current format, then you should have no trouble winning a swiss round against an inactive player. Also, if activity in the current format is all-important, it is wrong to invite a world champion to the next worlds. I think most people think world champions deserve a next-year invite.

"But some people just want SWAG!" Hand it out Day 2.

I really see no legitimate reason to oppose a multi-faceted approach to Nationals entry requirements.

 

[FSULugia]

At the expense of sounding cocky...as a guy that qualified by both CPs and a Nationals Top 4. My Nationals run was extremely harder than performing at tournaments all year where a bad one wasn't a huge deal because I had a million others to make up for it.

---------- Post added 05/20/2013 at 12:36 AM ----------



TCPI is a really good company and I really do think there employees care a lot about the player base and the game.

The point of this was not to attack TCPI rather draw attention to and discuss to areas of the game I would like to be considered. "The shoot first..ask questions later" in regards to bans (granted I do not know all of the investigation they did, I just know Alex and Con weren't talked to first) and the severity of the punishment for a prerelease level event. I never said Alex and Con didn't do anything wrong, I said I didn't think the punishment fit the crime and I would have liked to see more due process.

Just because I disagree with a company on an issue doesn't mean I have a problem with the company. The point of the post was not a "down with TCPI" rather a "I feel this should be looked at".

Yeah they care because they want your money lol. TPCi is better than like Bushiroad or Konami but still similar in that its a Japanese based company thats basically seeking revenge from WW2 by making billions off americans (lol I kind of kid but lets face it, Pokemon was basically the Japanese getting back at us by brainwashing us into taking all of our money. Im semi joking about this since lets face it we pretty much rebuilt the Japanese economy) .

Im just saying if I was the guys who got banned, I wouldnt care. I wouldnt make it such a big deal or expect anyone to fight for me because the actions of the company would just prove to me that they couldnt be trusted anymore. TPCi has these guys money, they are banned, I would not feel an ounce of regret or even feel bad if I was told over some stupid reason why I couldnt come back to a tournament since if I knew I didnt do anything wrong, then I would feel right about whatever I did regardless of the consequences. To even second think that they did it for a specific reason wouldnt even matter since the action itself is all that really mattered. I wouldnt be sitting here trying to over analyze their policies or justify what they did since in my gut I knew what they did wasnt right and just accepted it for what it is. I wouldnt care if they had a "reason" or whatever their idea of how a tournament should be ran or not since to me it just seems like bs.

Now this wont stop me from buying anymore Pokemon cards since I dont really play competitively, Im just saying from the guys being banned point of view that I wouldnt care. And after seeing something like this happened I wouldnt bother with OP either.

 

[ShadowCard]

Do you not realize that almost every other TCG works that way? Most TCGs you just top Nationals and go to worlds.

Haven't we figured by now that Pokemon does not do things like "almost every other TCG," from age divisions to prizes to tournament operations to rules and guidelines...

Im not sure if your even being serious since your acting like top 8'ing at Nationals is such a simple task.

I said nothing about the difficulty of making top 8. I asked what kind of player the program would like to reward with an invitation to Worlds. Should you be rewarded for making top 8, yes. You get the prizes that are listed for that finish.

 

[FSULugia]

Haven't we figured by now that Pokemon does not do things like "almost every other TCG," from age divisions to prizes to tournament operations to rules and guidelines...


I said nothing about the difficulty of making top 8. I asked what kind of player the program would like to reward with an invitation to Worlds. Should you be rewarded for making top 8, yes. You get the prizes that are listed for that finish.

I dont see whats there to seriously think about. You top at nationals and you go to worlds, thats part of the tournament and thats how it works in any card game on the planet. I dont see why this would change or ever be any different.

To make it through one of the hardest tournaments and say "hey congrats you get some boxes but even though you just beat some of the hardest players in the game, your not going to the worlds." is obviously a joke.

 

[ShadowCard]

Why is play points making such a big topic now? People waiting until the only events left provide 1 play point. Was anyone saying this back in September?

To make it through one of the hardest tournaments and say "hey congrats you get some boxes but even though you just beat some of the hardest players in the game, your not going to the worlds." is obviously a joke.

Isn't that what T9-T32 are told?

 

[FSULugia]

Why is play points making such a big topic now? People waiting until the only events left provide 1 play point. Was anyone saying this back in September?


Isn't that what T9-T32 are told?

Its a big deal now since 2 people got banned over it creating discussion.

Most card games its top 2,4,8, whatever guidelines they make it. Its different per games but the criteria is usually similar.

 

[Otaku]

When it comes to the debate of getting an invite via Nats vs getting an invite for playing all season, I think the Nats one is MUCH tougher.

I compare it to my college days... it was much easier and less pressure to get an A in a class that has 10 tests and no final, versus the class that had only a final. So if I theoretically had a class that gave you the option (10 tests vs 1 final), and I got an A by taking the tests all semester while a fellow student got an A by taking the Final, then good for him. Some people prefer a sprint over a marathon.

I must take issue with your comparison, Swordfish1989.

First and foremost, the debate isn't that it is easier to win an invite through placing well in Nationals versus getting an invite for playing all season long. Those who don't want a completely open Nationals like myself are pointing out that

• Pokémon makes its profits from massive sales to places like Wal-Mart, Target, etc. who in turn make their profits from the massive amount of small sales to people who don't even play the game or truly collect the cards; where the booster pack is an impulse buy or to be the reward for a kid behaving while shopping. Players aren't "entitled" to Organized Play; at best it should be viewed as a feature that some players are buying into the game for, but which can be dropped if players demand more than is cost effective.
• The cost and logistics of running a major tournament must be considered; the good will generated through Organized Play can easily be squandered by an abnormal tournament turn out where all those new "customers" are turned off because they are turned away or because the overloaded tournament is just no fun. We can have a nearly limitless capacity but that means less money for other aspects of the game (PTCGO) or more expensive product.
• Should anyone be able to sit down at play at Nationals? If not, what criteria are to be used to determine it? Who is it really for?

I've been careless in some of my posting, but I think that by Nationals level, the goal is to reward both participation and skill: participation gets you through the door because it all but guarantees a minimum level of competence (at tournaments and the game). Skill wins you the game, adjusting for the usual amount of luck involved in these events.


There is a measure of luck that cannot be avoided, and that is where we come to the analogy presented by you, Swordfish1989. While it is hypothetically possible that a total newbie could win Nationals, it is of course so improbable as to not be a concern. What is realistically possible is that a good player, but one that is not really "Nationals" caliber, makes it to the top cut, or even wins the event.


So getting back to the exam analogy, for some of us it really is more likely even when being graded "against the curve" to perform well on one exam than consistently perform well all year long. We then weigh in that letting "anyone" get into Nationals means they could go onto Worlds, and we start to lose the "...for the dedicated players" angle.


This is separate from the "Perks for long time players" discussion. I actually do think adding incentives for longtime players is a good idea, but so are incentives for new players: they should just be different and something that doesn't feel unfair to award one and not the other. I am a long time player, but it doesn't qualify me to get an automatic "in" for Nationals. Someone who played for years but hasn't touch the game in the last three... why should they crowd a player who has worked hard this season from getting into Nationals?


Because there is a finite amount of room at the tournament, as well as a finite amount of "comfortable" room.

 

[ShadowCard]

Its a big deal now since 2 people got banned over it creating discussion.

Has anyone actually seen the letter or know the specific reason?

Were they suspended because of reasons connected to play points? Or were they suspended because of actions that would have drawn TPCi's concern no matter the reason?

 

[The Gorn]

If we just forget the individuals involved, isn't this entirely about a player getting Play Points from a tournament where he didn't participate?

 

[evil psyduck]

Per instructions this thread is now locked for the fact that people who have been told not to delete their posts keep deleting them. CLICK!!!