Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Does States need a bigger cap when it comes to Top Cut?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It would probably require some re-coding but how about ignoring the first round when calculating resistance for tournaments with 5 rounds and the first 2 rounds for 6+ rounds (or only count the last 4-5 rounds)? That way it reduces the randomness of pairings of the first few rounds and it emphasizes the results of the 3rd round on where the better players have started bubbling to the top. Resistance would then be a more accurate reflection of the quality of your opponent (though it would reduce the amount of variability). I'm not sure if it would cause people to drop early since the first few rounds would create almost a mini tournament seating situation.
 
tl;dr but I just wanted to show my support for this thread after whiffing T16 going 6-2. I know two of my opponents dropped ._. Not my fault!

I'm sure this has all been discussed to death, but seeing that States can go on until 2AM anyways, I'm not sure how T32 or even an extra round of Swiss could remedy this situation before we get people complaining that States should go two-days like Regionals lol. I'm all for either, or maybe even enforcing a player cap. Of course, being punctual helps a lot too... there was a lot of sitting around today for me when there shouldn't have been...

---------- Post added 03/18/2012 at 01:03 AM ----------
SmeargleMe said:
It would probably require some re-coding but how about ignoring the first round when calculating resistance for tournaments with 5 rounds and the first 2 rounds for 6+ rounds (or only count the last 4-5 rounds)? That way it reduces the randomness of pairings of the first few rounds and it emphasizes the results of the 3rd round on where the better players have started bubbling to the top. Resistance would then be a more accurate reflection of the quality of your opponent (though it would reduce the amount of variability). I'm not sure if it would cause people to drop early since the first few rounds would create almost a mini tournament seating situation.
Click to expand...

What if I play a legit player first round who ends up winning out going X-1 or something? I just think resistance should not play a part in top cutting when dealing with good records like 5-2, 6-2, etc. I don't think they should play a part at all but hey at least it lets some 5-3's to make it in an 8 round tourney sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Pokemon is and has always been a game with random factors in it. Like all of the "flip a coin" attacks and even if you'll be pared-up with a person with a deck that's strong or weak against yours. Just like those random factors, you also have the random chance to play someone who will lose every other round and ruin your resistance. Going 5-2 and not making the top cut (in my opinion) is just like losing a game-changing coin flip in a game, you lost because of randomness and not skill.

I went 6-1 at a Battle Roads last year and didn't make top cut because the person I beat round 1 didn't win any games that day except a bye. And I didn't care because I still had fun playing the games that I did. I know that some people need their points to get into Worlds and don't want to miss top cut because of someone they played doing bad. But who you're pared up with is random just like alot of other things in this game, sometimes you get good luck and sometimes you don't.
 
Went 7-2 at CA sates. I along with 6 other people missed top 16 cut.

It sucks honestly to have stuff come down to tie breakers that a player has no control over.
I think more rounds of swiss are the best option. Although there are obvious issues with time contraints
 
Last edited:
bullados said:
You had 256 Masters at Cali? Holy McWOW!!!
Click to expand...

CA was huge! Tourney lasted til well after 1am and even started close to on time.
Woulda loved a shot at the title, especially when I heard some states have only 7 rounds and had people making cut at 5-2.

I dont really see a solution honestly though...
 
Why not have to Pods for large events that hit the 128 mark...similar to what we have done at Nats the past few years? Not sure what it takes to manage the computers for two pods but that would save some time maybe and allow for a bigger cut time.
 
jrwaxman said:
Why not have to Pods for large events that hit the 128 mark...similar to what we have done at Nats the past few years? Not sure what it takes to manage the computers for two pods but that would save some time maybe and allow for a bigger cut time.
Click to expand...
Two flights, each taking T16 and having T32 from there. I like that idea.

Still doesn't solve the issue of Opponents Win % (LAME tiebreaker), but that's for another day..
 
This idea was raised on Saturday as a possible solution.
What about a elimination based style type tournament depending on attendance?
IE for CA once you lose 3 games you are eliminated.

IDK if pokemon would ever go for this because it hates on the casual pokemon player that wants to play a whole tournament rather then be eliminated after 3-4 games.
 
gdubley said:
This idea was raised on Saturday as a possible solution.
What about a elimination based style type tournament depending on attendance?
IE for CA once you lose 3 games you are eliminated.

IDK if pokemon would ever go for this because it hates on the casual pokemon player that wants to play a whole tournament rather then be eliminated after 3-4 games.
Click to expand...

You can't do that. The tiebreaker for invites is rating. If you force players to drop, it makes it possible for them to have a lower rating. I mean I could start 3-3, but if I win my next 3 games, my rating would be higher, and I'd most likely get CP points. You can't do that, no matter how much you'd want to do so.

Drew
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top