Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Making U.S Nationals more legitimate

Status
Not open for further replies.
9 Rounds, Top 48 cut. Top 16 going into the cut get byes the first round.

So..

Top 48 (but only 32 actually are playing)
Top 32
Top 16
etc etc

Also to address whoever says "get over it" or "just win" I'd like to suggest you <editing myself> open your mind. There's no reason to get over it - if you see the system being wrong you should do your best to improve it. Because this game is wonderful, you should be willing to fight to make it better. There IS a problem when a 7-2 can miss the cut, especially when you keep in mind that many games ARE decided on luck. T1 Riolu with a PlusPower and a Charm, heads, will knock out almost all the popular starters so far this season. That has NOTHING to do with your playing ability. That should NOT affect your result in the tournament. But it does, so we should try to accomodate for it. So what if other sports like the NFL have the same issue - THAT JUST MEANS THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. That doesn't mean it's OK. Humans are producing way too much CO2 for the atmosphere, causing global warming. Just because we haven't been able to come up with a solution right now doesn't mean we should all just tell the earth to "get over it."
 
I can support the notion of a bigger top cut @ Nats. (I was also on Staff @ Nats). The numbers are huge, especially in the Masters to take only a T32 from 400+ players. (less than 10%) I can support Prop 48 (or can we rename it to POP 48 for Pokemon Organized Play .....Vince??) or even a T64. I agree that once we get to T64, you cannot go higher. If you have that many players...pods would be the call there.

There will still be "sour grapes" that the tiebreakers gave 16th a "bye" and 17 has to play.....only to be "donked" by #48! To make it really interesting.....reseed the new top 32 after the 17-48 play. In that case....1 vs lowest ranked oppo remaining, 2 vs next lowest and so on. Normally, 16 would play 17 and 1 vs 32. BUT , if an "upset" occurs, shouldn't the top seed get the lowest seeded player moving on vs. a potentially "tougher" oppo. than the 16th seeded player? (I know this happens in T8, T16, T32 also....but everyone there plays the same # of rds.....here we wouldnt have that w/ T48)

Just something to chew on.

Keith
 
Lawman said:
There will still be "sour grapes" that the tiebreakers gave 16th a "bye" and 17 has to play.....only to be "donked" by #48! To make it really interesting.....reseed the new top 32 after the 17-48 play. In that case....1 vs lowest ranked oppo remaining, 2 vs next lowest and so on. Normally, 16 would play 17 and 1 vs 32. BUT , if an "upset" occurs, shouldn't the top seed get the lowest seeded player moving on vs. a potentially "tougher" oppo. than the 16th seeded player? (I know this happens in T8, T16, T32 also....but everyone there plays the same # of rds.....here we wouldnt have that w/ T48)

Just something to chew on.

Keith
Click to expand...

There will always be sour grapes and problems with any system. That is not the question to ask. The question to ask is "will this solution be better than what we have currently?"
 
ShawofMordor said:
There will always be sour grapes and problems with any system. That is not the question to ask. The question to ask is "will this solution be better than what we have currently?"
Click to expand...

How can you ask such a question?!?!?! The current situation is broken, defective, and bad. So any improvement to it would be better then what we have now. IF there are 400-500 players and you go 7-2, you have proved yourself worthy of continuing on in the event. It is wrong for a player to do so well and be excluded due to situations entirely beyond that persons ability to control. If some 7-2 get in then all should, or none should if you want to be extreme. If a Top 64 allows one or two 6-3 in so be it. Everyone agrees that 6-3 while a good score, is not considered to be good enough to move on, so whatever 6-3 finished 65th will not have a legitimate reason to complain. But the 7-2 who finished 33rd out of 400+ (and inside the top 10% of all participants) dose have a legitimate reason to complain about missing the top Cut.

That 7-2 in 33rd place and the others like him are the wrong that we are attempting to right with this thread on improving the Top Cut for Nationals.

The way I see it is we are not asking for anything more then Pokemon to go back to the way Top Cuts at all events used to be run. We are not seeking anything new, just for things to go back to the way they used to be in the past.
 
The problem with pods, are that they will never be even, unless they are handcrafted... what if you have 3 of the top ranked players in the us in the same pod. that means that depending on the size of the pod, one of them may not make it in, just because....Everyone can't win. IMHO if they do make pods, it should be designed around you current pop ranking points. That way you dont overcrowd a one pod with great players, and then fill another with a bunch of parents who just came along....

It would be the best way to ensure that the pod system produced the best results.

I mean if they are going to start rating and ranking players, make it mean something. Theres no reason if you have the number 1 and 2 player in the state playing each other that they should face off in the first round of cities or states

or the number 1 and 2 player facing off in the first round of regionals or nats

Thats just My opinion
 
6-3 is still a good record, just not AS good. I'd rather let in a couple "good" records in than cut out a couple "great" records.
 
JandPDS said:
How can you ask such a question?!?!?! The current situation is broken, defective, and bad. So any improvement to it would be better then what we have now. IF there are 400-500 players and you go 7-2, you have proved yourself worthy of continuing on in the event. It is wrong for a player to do so well and be excluded due to situations entirely beyond that persons ability to control. If some 7-2 get in then all should, or none should if you want to be extreme. If a Top 64 allows one or two 6-3 in so be it. Everyone agrees that 6-3 while a good score, is not considered to be good enough to move on, so whatever 6-3 finished 65th will not have a legitimate reason to complain. But the 7-2 who finished 33rd out of 400+ (and inside the top 10% of all participants) dose have a legitimate reason to complain about missing the top Cut.

That 7-2 in 33rd place and the others like him are the wrong that we are attempting to right with this thread on improving the Top Cut for Nationals.

The way I see it is we are not asking for anything more then Pokemon to go back to the way Top Cuts at all events used to be run. We are not seeking anything new, just for things to go back to the way they used to be in the past.
Click to expand...

Whoa dude, relax. That was my suggestion, of course I think it is better than what we have. Further, my statement was a reply to Lawmaker's comment about issues with my suggestion. I was conceding that there would be issues with mine, but that no system will be free of issues, so we should see which is better, not look for perfection.
 
What is all this speak about 7-2's being cut due to circumstances they cannot control. Who is to say those 2 loses were to circumstances the player cannot control? Luck is one thing, but matchups, starting basic, opening hand, and a lot of other things can be controlled by the player. How many people got T2'd by Riolu in the Grinder at Worlds? A lot. Could they have controlled that outcome? Sure! Don't run any basics that could be T2'd by Riolu.

In some cases, players just get extremely lucky and win a game they probably didn't deserve to lose, but in many cases, a player can lose for a reason they CAN control. How a player builds his or her deck can greatly affect their matchups, what their opening hands look like, etc, etc. The only time luck really comes into play is with issues with items that require flips. Almost everything else can be affected by the player. Still effected by luck, but controlled by the player.

So don't make it seem like these great players are losing to circumstances they have no control over because they often time DO have control over those circumstances, even if they don't like to admit it.

EDIT: Players LOVE to mention how their opponent got lucky and knocked them out of the top cut, or the finals, but you never really see them seeing the whole picture. THEY also get lucky and knock people out of the top cut too. To say the person that went 7-2 at nationals deserves to get into the top cut because his two losses were due to luck doesn't mean anything because that person could have gotten 2-3 wins because of luck too.
 
OK, we are NOT talking at any level about having things go back to "the way they were"

Pokemon NEVER had a top 64 cut at any event, WOTC, Nintendo or PUI.

What we are talking about dealing with is the circumstance of having a lot of players at a critical event, and creative ways to increase the top cut while, in my opinion, holding on to 3 main ideals:

1. Superior play in Swiss should count for something. That is why I like the bye, even if the 16/17 were decided by a tiebreaker rather than a win total. It still says being #1 in the swiss COUNTS.

2. More players should be able to make a dash for the ring. 32 too few, 64 too many, 48, could that be the balance? I think so. Those arguing for 64 also have to deal with the increase in staff, and the increase in time for deck checks, fixes and the like that comes with doubling the players. In my scenario, we still have to get 32 ready to play a "play in" round on Saturday, and then get all the decks checked and in for Sunday. Less pressure in dealing with decks 1-16 once the decks are found to be legal.

3. 2 day restriction, with people leaving on Sunday. I doubt this will EVER go to a 3 day event, because people have to work. That leaves us one long day (Saturday) and a short day (Sunday) to get everything accomplished. Adding an hour and a half on Sunday is not really an option. Can't start them any earlier either. We start too early as it is on Sunday.

There, chew on that.

Vince
 
7-2s missing out on top cut aren't entirely random >.>

I would think it goes on opponent's records, then opponent's opponent's- and it spits out a small percentage at the very end. Needless to say any change to ANYONE's results would effectively change a lot of the top cut. The reason why a computer does it is because not all of our brains are super calculators









what? >.> I haven't been here for a while and felt i should post something lol
 
Vince, thanks

I've reproduced the attendance vs round figures I posted earlier which instead of using the swiss power of two to determine the number of rounds are based upon the binomial distribution with the break point set at all X-2 making the T32.

me said:
8 rounds - 128 to 221 players
9 rounds - 222 to 356 players
10 rounds - 357 to 585 players
11 rounds - 586 to 978 players.
Click to expand...

basically for lower attendances the power of two swiss breaks accept all X-2s and a good number of X-3s. Whereas once attendance climbs above 221 players the power of two breaks start to reject some of the X-2s. The revised breakpoints are selected to keep the X-2s in the cut. You can see that this results in an extra round of swiss play for last years nationals attendance.

One extra swiss round seems like a more efficient solution that a T48.
 
Again, 10 rounds will work, but man I love Vince's suggestion. Amazing work. I completely agree with byes (heck we SHOULD give them for Regional winners, but that's another story). Top 48 is a happy medium. DO IT POP!
 
Bottom line a cut of less than 10% isn't right at all. What people are talking about is making the competitors who make the cut at nationals a better representation of the most skilled players. The way the system is now, two players who go 6-2 can have the same record but the system recognizes one as "better," that the other. It is unfortunate that it is what it is but theres no getting around that. We play a game that involves a heavy amount of luck, and traditionally it has shown through that the more rounds you play the less the "luck" factor has on average.
 
I like the 48 suggestion.Shouldn't add too much time to the main event and gives those 7-2's a chance to play on Sunday.

How many 7-2's missed this year btw?
 
We could always have the X-2's play RPS to determine who goes on...

(dodges bricks)
 
Prime said:
What is all this speak about 7-2's being cut due to circumstances they cannot control. Who is to say those 2 loses were to circumstances the player cannot control? Luck is one thing, but matchups, starting basic, opening hand, and a lot of other things can be controlled by the player. How many people got T2'd by Riolu in the Grinder at Worlds? A lot. Could they have controlled that outcome? Sure! Don't run any basics that could be T2'd by Riolu.

In some cases, players just get extremely lucky and win a game they probably didn't deserve to lose, but in many cases, a player can lose for a reason they CAN control. How a player builds his or her deck can greatly affect their matchups, what their opening hands look like, etc, etc. The only time luck really comes into play is with issues with items that require flips. Almost everything else can be affected by the player. Still effected by luck, but controlled by the player.

So don't make it seem like these great players are losing to circumstances they have no control over because they often time DO have control over those circumstances, even if they don't like to admit it.

EDIT: Players LOVE to mention how their opponent got lucky and knocked them out of the top cut, or the finals, but you never really see them seeing the whole picture. THEY also get lucky and knock people out of the top cut too. To say the person that went 7-2 at nationals deserves to get into the top cut because his two losses were due to luck doesn't mean anything because that person could have gotten 2-3 wins because of luck too.
Click to expand...

Rofl? You're right, I should have built my deck with no evolutions so that anyone that donks a T1 Skill Hack on me has nothing to copy. :frown:

Is the fact that a Riolu can get lucky a good reason not to play the deck that gives you the best shot at winning? Riolu wasn't even that popular at nats. It was pretty much the people playing Mario and Luclutions.

No matter HOW consistant you try to make your deck, you WILL have bad starts. That's how this game works. I could play 30 supporters and get hands with none of them.

When Chris Bianchi loses to a 6 energy start (getting close to half the deck's energy) against some random Kingler d, that's beyond his control.

When you lose to T1 Skil Hack twice, that's beyond your control.

In response to the last part, yes, you could get 2 wins from luck. Thus giving two other players losses due to luck. If no one won with luck, there wouldn't be a problem.
 
I think the T-64 would be the best option. Although it would allow in some 6-3's to go on an unbelievable run, winning 3 rounds against Top Seated players and getting an invite to Worlds, the odds of this are incredibly slim-to-none! Basically, this lets in all the 7-2'ers, some 6-3'ers, and extends the SHORTER of the 2 days of competition by a match.
 
Going kinda off Vince's ideas, how about we just make all the X-2s play a 2/3 play match against each other and run an elimination tourny until enough people are out to allow all the rest in? Of course, this would have to math out perfectly to work, but it could be done before Day 2 (or we could push the start time for Day 2 back).
 
PenguinMaster said:
Rofl? You're right, I should have built my deck with no evolutions so that anyone that donks a T1 Skill Hack on me has nothing to copy. :frown:

Is the fact that a Riolu can get lucky a good reason not to play the deck that gives you the best shot at winning? Riolu wasn't even that popular at nats. It was pretty much the people playing Mario and Luclutions.

No matter HOW consistant you try to make your deck, you WILL have bad starts. That's how this game works. I could play 30 supporters and get hands with none of them.

When Chris Bianchi loses to a 6 energy start (getting close to half the deck's energy) against some random Kingler d, that's beyond his control.

When you lose to T1 Skil Hack twice, that's beyond your control.

In response to the last part, yes, you could get 2 wins from luck. Thus giving two other players losses due to luck. If no one won with luck, there wouldn't be a problem.
Click to expand...

My point wasn't that a player can build their deck to have favorable match ups against anything they run into but rather that those outcomes are not left up to lucky or whim, that they can be controlled. So the excuse that the 7-2 player deserves to play in the top cut because the two loses were because of conditions the player could not utterly control doesn't work for me.

Now, I do agree that the 7-2 player should be in the top cut because of the total number of players. I don't disagree with anything in this thread other than what I pointed out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top