Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Making U.S Nationals more legitimate

Status
Not open for further replies.
regarding revised age ranges. There isn't a problem right now! In relative numbers the masters is bigger but not much bigger than the other two groups combined. In terms of tournament structure the current attendances only leads to a single round difference. If the difference were four rounds then sure it needs examination, but while it is zero, one or even two rounds then the difference is somewhat moot.

If we are to have a fourth group then it ought to be 30+ or Poke-PARENTS. But other than a bit of fun I doubt that any of the competative poke-Parents would be happy with not being allowed to play against the big-guns who are almost all under age 30.
 
M_Liesik said:
Now, back to POP-mode...

We're certainly aware of this topic, and a number of discussions have been had regarding how best to compensate for the ever-growing US National Championships over the last two years. Everything from a 3-day event to a closed event to hard caps on attendance have been discussed. While some ideas look promising at the outset, further discussion shows serious flaws in these alteratives. I'm sure that we'll come up with something that will work, and any changes will be communicated far enough in advance that players will have time to adjust.
Click to expand...


Give this man a pound of Bacon.

Seriously, thanks for the post.
 
NoPoke said:
regarding revised age ranges. There isn't a problem right now! In relative numbers the masters is bigger but not much bigger than the other two groups combined. In terms of tournament structure the current attendances only leads to a single round difference. If the difference were four rounds then sure it needs examination, but while it is zero, one or even two rounds then the difference is somewhat moot.

If we are to have a fourth group then it ought to be 30+ or Poke-PARENTS. But other than a bit of fun I doubt that any of the competative poke-Parents would be happy with not being allowed to play against the big-guns who are almost all under age 30.
Click to expand...

That would be cool if they had a Poke-Parents group, for the people that just play for fun and don't care about prizes. The parents that wanted to play with the "big-guns" could still play in the other group. I dunno, just talking here.
 
So let's make this simple,
- Day One - Each match is a best 2 out of 3 to help eliminate lucky starts or bad draws to play into the final 32. No more than 7 rounds, each game in a match is limited to 20 minutes, and tiebreakers on most individual games won.
- Day Two - Each match in the 32 is best 3 out of 5 with each game in a match limited to 20 minutes.

I've seen this done with other competitions in sports and games and has been effective for the most part. Time management is the key.
 
I am Entei said:
So let's make this simple,
- Day One - Each match is a best 2 out of 3 to help eliminate lucky starts or bad draws to play into the final 32. No more than 7 rounds, each game in a match is limited to 20 minutes, and tiebreakers on most individual games won.
- Day Two - Each match in the 32 is best 3 out of 5 with each game in a match limited to 20 minutes.

I've seen this done with other competitions in sports and games and has been effective for the most part. Time management is the key.
Click to expand...

Yikes...20 minutes? It takes me that long to set up :eek::redface:
 
JandPDS said:
With the 21+ group not having any scholarship prizes at all.
Click to expand...

Hey, don't forget that just because we're over 21 doesn't mean we have no need for scholarship prizes. The $750 I picked up for placing 4th at a Regional Championship came in darned handy to pay for my son's tuition.

S.
 
Mike, I love that your solution is basically a modified prop 48, but instead of sealing it at a number (48) you are sealing it at a record (x-2)

the issue I see there is, what if there are 33 players who are x-2 and better? Would there only be one playoff match (33v32) to determine the final seating?

Still, cool that you all are considering options as well.

Vince
 
here are rounds info and such..for guidence

256 1-0
256 0-1

128 2-0
256 1-1
128 0-2

64 3-0
192 2-1
192 1-2
64 0-3

32 4-0
128 3-1
192 2-2
128 1-3
32 0-4

16 5-0
80 4-1
160 3-2
160 2-3
80 1-4
16 0-5

8 6-0
48 5-1
120 4-2
160 3-3
120 2-4
48 5-1
8 6-0

4 7-0
28 6-1
84 5-2
140 4-3
140 3-4
84 2-5
28 1-6
4 0-7

2 8-0
16 7-1
56 6-2
112 5-3
140 4-4
112 3-5
56 2-6
16 1-7
2 0-8

1 9-0
9 8-1
36 7-2
84 6-3
126 5-4
126 4-5
84 3-6
36 2-7
9 1-8
1 0-9




===========

1__
- \_Z
32\_/ \
33/ \_
16__ / \
- \_Z/ \
17__/ X
- \
/
8__ X
- \_Z /
25\_/ \ /
40/ \/
9__ /
- \_Z/
24\_/
41/
^this is one quater of the SEF...
where Z is T32 and X is Top16
 
taurik said:
One of the things that bothered me about Nationals, was the discrepancy between the number of participants in each age bracket. There were 149 Juniors, 168 Seniors, and 418 Masters. Has POP looked into splitting the Masters bracket into 2 age groups, like 25 and under, and over 25, or something?
Click to expand...

I dont think that is possible, but not because of what it would cost, but more for cities and battle roads, which are way over 50% of the events, usually have smaller turnouts. It would make it a bit harder to sanction/earn rating points if you didnt get 8 people for all 4 age groups. It just wouldnt work well.

JMO,
Drew
 
Absolution said:
Just knowing that changes will be made to accommodate for the incredible numbers we've had at Nationals lately is proof that this thread accomplished something positive.
Click to expand...

You're reading too much into my comments. I didn't mean to imply that changes would definitely be made. I only meant that changes are being considered.

I am Entei said:
So let's make this simple,
Click to expand...

That's hardly "simple." Even cutting out 2 rounds, you're still adding a significant amount of time to the event.

Round 1
5 minutes for set up/mulligans
20 minutes for play
Time is called
5 minutes for set up/mulligans
20 minutes for play
Time is called
5 minutes for set up/mulligans
20 minutes for play
Time is called

15-30 minutes for standings/pairings/reseating

Round 2
5 minutes for set up/mulligans
20 minutes for play
Time is called
5 minutes for set up/mulligans
20 minutes for play
Time is called
5 minutes for set up/mulligans
20 minutes for play
Time is called

15-30 minutes for sudden death/standings/pairings/reseating

...and so on...

You've turned a 60 minute round into a 105 minute round. You've cut 2x 60 minute rounds from the Swiss part of the tournament, saving yourself 120 minutes. However, you've added 315 mintues to the Swiss part of the tournament, resulting in another 3 hours and 15 minutes to the tournament (315 minutes - 120 minutes = 195 minutes).

On top of that, if you're going to put a hard 20-minute timer on each game, you're going to have to either have a timer at every match, or make players wait for time to expire before they can start their next game.

I could continue to punch holes in your suggestion, but I think I've proven my point.

I didn't type this up to be a jerk to you, Entei. I'm just trying to show a glimpse into the thought process of POP when it comes to coming up with ideas on improvements in the way that a tournament is run.

meganium45 said:
Mike, I love that your solution is basically a modified prop 48, but instead of sealing it at a number (48) you are sealing it at a record (x-2)

the issue I see there is, what if there are 33 players who are x-2 and better? Would there only be one playoff match (33v32) to determine the final seating?
Click to expand...

Running SEF with an imperfect number of players is already covered in this document, in Section 2.2. The only modification that would need to be made would be that players would be seeded based on their final Swiss standing, rather than randomly.

In your example, 32nd and 33rd would have to play off for the last spot in the finals.
 
Last edited:
I really don't like the idea of making any of the elimination rounds single elim instead of 2/3. 2/3 gives much more legitimacy. The top 32 out of 400+ are certainly deserving of that legitimacy, not just the top 8. I would love for big events to have 2/3 swiss, but the high number of rounds somewhat offsets that.
 
I would love for big events to have 2/3 swiss, but the high number of rounds somewhat offsets that.
Click to expand...

Same here. But considering that we would be playing all night, it's not going to happen.

I would be fun though. No more donks due to a rare bad start. : D
 
DarthPika said:
Same here. But considering that we would be playing all night, it's not going to happen.

I would be fun though. No more donks due to a rare bad start. : D
Click to expand...

Why not have a Bo3 swiss with a 45 min time limit? IIRC, England, or some European country ran something like this at a Nats.
45 min is time to finish 2 games, and begin a third no problem (these days decks are so quick, it could work).

So, really how much time would that add. Say 9 rounds right? That's 2hrs. and 15min. Not really that bad IMO (but I am not a judge, so I really can't say how bad that is).

Anyway, a T32 with a Best of 3 swiss would be just fine in my book.
 
Mew said:
Why not have a Bo3 swiss with a 45 min time limit? IIRC, England, or some European country ran something like this at a Nats.
45 min is time to finish 2 games, and begin a third no problem (these days decks are so quick, it could work).

So, really how much time would that add. Say 9 rounds right? That's 2hrs. and 15min. Not really that bad IMO (but I am not a judge, so I really can't say how bad that is).

Anyway, a T32 with a Best of 3 swiss would be just fine in my book.
Click to expand...
stallers would rejoice
 
M_Liesik said:
That's hardly "simple." Even cutting out 2 rounds, you're still adding a significant amount of time to the event.

......
On top of that, if you're going to put a hard 20-minute timer on each game, you're going to have to either have a timer at every match, or make players wait for time to expire before they can start their next game.
Click to expand...
Then do put a timer on each match like they have in chess matches where you can have over 200 play. Give them 2 minutes to setup and if you can't, then lose a prize for every 2 minutes after that. Too many players stall (most of my opponents at Nationals once they got one card up on me).

This argument is the same one we had at my local golf club (muny course) where rounds where taking 5 hours plus because people said "It takes so long to play and get between tees." We put a timer on each cart and if you didn't keep pace, you are penalized (loss of prime tee time. After one month, the times went down to just over 4 hours and only one group had their tee time moved.

My point is try something new. Do it at Battle Roads in the spring to see how it works. Try Vince's suggestion. We never learn if we don't try.

BTW, my profession is process improvement both in IT and business systems with many top 25 Fortune 500 companies. I hear your argument a lot. Just substitute one of the words coding, testing, building, soldering for playing Pokemon.
Thanks for your reply. Discussion shows how healthy Pokemon TCG is.
 
Oh, don't start that again here guys. We all know the best solution is a three turn clock after time is up regardless of who's winning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top