Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Making U.S Nationals more legitimate

Status
Not open for further replies.
What I meant by going back to the ways thing were before I am not saying Top 64 cuts at all events, but
before last year States always had a top 16 when they had enough players to justify it. Now they have a ceiling of top 8 no matter how many players show up to play. That change was made last year.

Now this year they cut are now half of what they were for last year. Last year Cities had a Top 8 cut, now just like Battle Road they are Top 4 only, even though we had City Championships last year that were larger then some countries National Championships. Why are they making harder to top cut now then it was in the past? Two years ago I top cut at a City Championship were it was. Now if I finish 5th I am going to miss it, Why? If this is being done to save time, then why not just get rid of the playoffs completely and let swiss play decide the winner of each event, just like a Prerelease Tournament does.


If Citys are more important for K value, over Battle Road then the top cut should reflect that. IF the K-value is increased then the Top cut should be as well. So Battle Road T4, City Top 8, State and Regionals Top 16 Nationals Top 64. I would love Top 32 at regionals but I do not think that you would ever get the numbers at one to justify it now that they are all on the same day. Of course all maximum top cuts would be per proper attendance levels being met.

In 2006 Last year that a Top 16 was allowed in States, I finsihed 5-1 in Swiss was #2 and lost in the top 16 to the #15 ranked player. That player deserved to be in the playoffs, now they would be excluded and that is a shame.


I feel that the size of the event should determine who makes the top cut, not the kind of event that it is?
 
Last edited:
"Prop 48" sounds reasonable to me. Players and staff alike must agree to compromise on a solution that satisfies both ends; Nationals has been quite a crapshoot the past couple years and luck always plays a huge factor.
 
JandPDS said:
What I meant by going back to the ways thing were before I am not saying Top 64 cuts at all events, but
before last year States always had a top 16 when they had enough players to justify it. Now they have a ceiling of top 8 no matter how many players show up to play. That change was made last year.

Now this year they cut are now half of what they were for last year. Last year Cities had a Top 8 cut, now just like Battle Road they are Top 4 only, even though we had City Championships last year that were larger then some countries National Championships. Why are they making harder to top cut now then it was in the past? Two years ago I top cut at a City Championship were it was. Now if I finish 5th I am going to miss it, Why? If this is being done to save time, then why not just get rid of the playoffs completely and let swiss play decide the winner of each event, just like a Prerelease Tournament does.


If Citys are more important for K value, over Battle Road then the top cut should reflect that. IF the K-value is increased then the Top cut should be as well. So Battle Road T4, City Top 8, State and Regionals Top 16 Nationals Top 64. I would love Top 32 at regionals but I do nothing you would ever get the numbers at one to justify it now that they are all on the same day. Of course all maximum top cuts would be per proper attendance levels being met.In 2006 Last year that a Top 16 was allowed in States, I finsihed 5-1 in Swiss was #2 and lost in the top 16 to the #15 ranked player. That player deserved to be in the playoffs, now they would be excluded and that is a shame.


I feel that the size of the event should determine who makes the top cut, not the kind of event that it is?
Click to expand...


That sounds good to me. Maby a t48 cut for nats though. Other than that it sound like a great idea. *sigh* Now only if POP would actually listen to the players. :nonono:
 
So any improvement to it would be better then what we have now.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the definition of "improvement" (sorry, couldn't help myself :wink:)?

The main problem with pretty much everything that's been suggested is that it would add time to an already long event. If I were facing three hours of jetlag in both directions, I know I'd be leery of that. If it hasn't become painfully clear, the totality must be taken into account. You can't have the tournament take up so much time that there's none left for the event. I know that the most important part of any tournament I've been to has always been the people I've met besides the people I've played.
 
ive read every idea and the best so far (but very inprobable) is the 3 day magic like tournament. i think that would work really well.
making the top cut bigger would help a lot too.
 
I really like the idea of a 3-day tournament but it just isn't realistic at this time.

the Top-48 is a really good idea though. I like that the top players in swiss get rewarded for doing well in swiss with this system. Make doing well in swiss actually mean something. It also deals with the 6-3 beating a 9-0 problem you could have with a top 64. Although that could still happen, the 6-3 has to at least prove himself/herself with a win in the top 48 match first.

I wouldn't complain about the 16th/17th issue for byes. I think most players would be satisfied regardless because they are in the top cut, besides, by the time you get down to 16th they likely are 7-2 anyway, and so the bye is just a bonus. I also think its ok that you would be letting some 6-3's into the top 48, because they wouldn't immediately be on equal footing with someone who went 9-0 or 8-1; they would have to overcome someone else first.
 
Last edited:
One thing to take note of regarding the T48: It has to cap at 480 or there's going to be 7-2s missing. I don't know if it would actually happen, but could we cap 15+ at 480? This is really a great idea. You can run the 17-32 right after 9 rounds of swiss, too.
 
Scizor: I think your player cap is incorrect for a T48.

Absolution: Staff and POP gain nothing from the 'compromise'. So where is the compromise?

DarthPika: POP DO LISTEN to the players. If POP acted upon all the demands then there would be no OP.

SuperWooper: I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought that when a 6-3 knocks out the 9-0 it does not prove that the 6-3 is more deserving.

============================

If you want to make a strong case in favour of change then you have to examine all the potential pitfalls. Time and staff are the obvious two, but I'd bet that there are more. Here's the first one I thought of..

A case against T48:-

Nationals is the last rated tournament of the year? The players who are in the lower 2/3 of the T48 play an extra round. That extra round means lots of rating points are gained by the players in the bottom of the eventual T32 compared to those in the top third of the T48 cut who get a bye. No points for a bye. Last year invites to worlds were determined by the final placings at Nationals. With the lower K values this year this effect will be emphasised. Every round at USA nationals counts more this year than last in the race for a ratings invite to worlds.

That single extra round for the #17-48 counts as much as going undefeated at a couple of battle roads for the 16 winning players who make it to the final day to join the #1-16.

... I can smell the aroma of the wine right now...
 
Last edited:
It's about 480. At 480 I have a perfect cut (did the math and everything) with all 7-2 and above making it, with no 6-3. It might be within a few with variance, but it's close. 48 of 480 is also 10% which is a very fair cut.

And on other your point about ratings -- I'm suprisied nobody brought that up yet, but honestly, I think we all here in the U.S. would trade the possiblity of less rating points to get a better chance at a fair tournament where we can win scholarship $$ and all the extras at Nats.
 
Scizor, with 512 entrants after 9 rounds and no drops you have.

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

1+9+36 = 46 which is less than 48. All the 7-2s make it to a T48.

=========

An observation upon human nature.. We say one thing is more important right up to the point where that one thing is no longer available. Then all of a sudden the number two choice which was previously rejected becomes elevated to preeminence: our opinions change. For those that don't get the scholarship that ratings invite will be the most important thing. Right now it may be the scholarship and travel award but that will change.

=========

The players in the T48 are not all treated the same, that asymetry along with the already well established phenomena in pokemon that the final result often goes against the seeding is a problem for the T48 proposal. It can't be dismissed. Venue time is a problem too and can't be ignored. Staff hours and numbers is a problem as well. It too cannot be ignored.

The swiss tournament provides standings from which the players in the topcut are selected. I don't particularly like using tiebreakers but other than running non-power of two cuts the tie-breakers are going to decide who makes the cut. Tiebreakers matter. This is true with an extra swiss round or a T48. Both the T48 and swiss+1 proposals accept all the X-2s into the cut which has the benefit of reducing the reliance upon tie-breakers. But tiebreakers will still matter.

Maybe I'm a bit of an old cynic but even if tiebreakers were eliminated I'd bet there would be complaints that player x got a bye, or players s t u and v had easy matchups. Heaven help the judges if there are any 'engineered' gameloss penalties during the swiss rounds.
 
Last edited:
NoPoke said:
A case against T48:-

Nationals is the last rated tournament of the year? The players who are in the lower 2/3 of the T48 play an extra round. That extra round means lots of rating points are gained by the players in the bottom of the eventual T32 compared to those in the top third of the T48 cut who get a bye. No points for a bye. Last year invites to worlds were determined by the final placings at Nationals. With the lower K values this year this effect will be emphasised. Every round at USA nationals counts more this year than last in the race for a ratings invite to worlds.

That single extra round for the #17-48 counts as much as going undefeated at a couple of battle roads for the 16 winning players who make it to the final day to join the #1-16.

... I can smell the aroma of the wine right now...
Click to expand...


Maybe a thought.
Last year I discussed with POP the option of Nationals not being a "rating point giving" event.
The reaction I got was to look at the option nr2 (INT) could get a trip/invite to Worlds because of the points earned during Nationals and ending high.
This year there are no rating trips and Int the nr2 already gets an invite.
In combination with the suggestion of USA nationals having a T48, my impression is: there is no need for rating points during Nationals. TRIP giving events don't have to be rating points giving event.
 
Add the extra round. It's more practical at this point, and we can change it to top 48 once the other age groups catch up and have an extra round so the time spread is more equal. Otherwise we have unoccupied juniors and a lot of playing adults, or a LOT of dropping parents RUINING resistance.

Thank god you guys stopped trying to attack the motivation (sour grapes) and proposing absurd solutions (deal with it, do better, etc.). I was talking to Chad about this the other day, and we both noted that good players post so seldomly is because of how we get attacked for our opinions. Whenever a good player argues it's with facts and logic, but we get treated with absurdities and personal attacks. How can you expect good players to post and help more if when they do they get treated unfairly. They get treated like they have bad intentions, or are trying to tip the scales in their favor. This is wrong. The community needs to be... well, nicer if they want us to post more.

Chad makes a very good thread about an IMPORTANT topic and only gets flamed and spammed. Bobby and Kant post an article defending their stance about an opinion they hold and get flamed. Good players try to LEGITIMIZE things. Bobby and Kant wanted to legitimize a deck discussion and stance, and they got flamed. Chad wants to legitimize Nationals more, and gets treated poorly. I remember when I first became a mod and got treated VERY poorly. I have never seen complaints about someone becoming a moderator like people complained over me. I ignored it and still tried to give back to the community by forming the Cardiologists with a few other players. I help and contribute my time by moderating the forums. I've helped publishing with articles, with suggestions to the improvement of the 'gym, with posting the FIRST archetype thread, and helping/authoring a significant number.

This system can never be perfect, but that does not mean the desire to improve the system the most we can is ill-founded. There is nothing wrong with improving Nationals. There IS something wrong with trying to hinder progress.

Keep it up Chad. Brush off dem hatas.
 
Good players aren't attacked for expressing their opinions. They will however draw fire if their opinion is dismissive of others. Declaring something as a "joke" is not exactly taking the high ground in an argument. Factual errors such as getting the math wrong doesn't help much either.

As much as you may not like it the 'win more of your games' advice is both valid and widely held. Anyone who believes that the current arrangement is legitimate will have seen nothing in the thread so far to pursuade them otherwise.

A proposal to improve OP is fine, it can even be wrong and misguided. But achieving a positive tone using complaints is a tricky if not impossible thing to pull off in print. Even if the proposal is correct that is not sufficient reason for it to be implemented.
 
PokePop said:
We could always have the X-2's play RPS to determine who goes on...

(dodges bricks)
Click to expand...

Pop wins the thread - hands down.

I agree with NoPoke. <had lots of stuff written here but deleted it. lol>
----------------------------------
On topic:

The problem I see with this thread is that it does not propose a solution for a tournament of any size. Today we talk about 512, tomorrow 683, then 800 etc....

This is a fact: a solution does not exist that allows for having X-2's (Y-3; Z-4) always being in the top cut. That's the bottom line. If you really want to see the math, go here. Pascal's Triangle explains it all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_triangle​

A way to MITIGATE the sting of missing the top cut would potentially be to provide rewards to those folks who don't make the top cut.

For instance, MK didn't make top cut (yea Vince, I'm bringing up MK, what you gonna do about it.....lol) with a 7-2 record at last year's Nats. What if he was given the same prize support that the 17-32 folks got?
(Don't go on about how you don't like what the prize support was, just go with what it is.)

In this manner, you are RECOGNIZING those who played stupendously YET, due to the constraints of MATH, did not make top cut. This may sound like a hollow reward, however, you will not solve this problem - it is mathematically impossible.

If I am wrong, NoPoke will tell me.

Before you flame this, think about it.

Regards
 
Before starting Pokemon, I played other TCGs with different tournament structures.

Why not have Nationals follow a similar structure to Worlds? Have a two or three day event, where the first day is open to everyone, and the second day includes the top X of day one, plus the players that won States/Regionals who would get a bye into day 2.
 
ryanvergel said:
I was talking to Chad about this the other day, and we both noted that good players post so seldomly is because of how we get attacked for our opinions. Whenever a good player argues it's with facts and logic, but we get treated with absurdities and personal attacks. How can you expect good players to post and help more if when they do they get treated unfairly. They get treated like they have bad intentions, or are trying to tip the scales in their favor. This is wrong. The community needs to be... well, nicer if they want us to post more.
Click to expand...

At the risk of going off topic I think that the #1 reason the "good" players get attacked is attitude. It’s not so much what is said but how.

The gym is a rough and tumble place. All sorts of folks get attacked here all the time and being “good” doesn’t exempt you from that. When anyone posts with attitude, good or not, they are almost bound to get attacked.

Right there in your post you are separating yourself from other folks here on the gym ... and setting yourself up to get attacked because of that. It's not that the "good" players are attacked for being good or necessarily for what they are saying ... IMHO most of the attacks are generated in response to the way it's said. It’s not envy, or spite, or even the gym acting differently towards "good" players. It’s a natural response to how a post sounds.

There are "good" players that I've never seen attacked. Generally though their posts tend to be more humble and self effacing and are usually positive contributions instead of attacks. Those sorts of posts tend to attract a lot fewer attacks.


In any event, regarding nationals, why is a 3 day event possible for Magic but not Pokemon?
 
v-grad -

Well written.

Magic has predominately older folks who don't rely on parents to travel etc.

Pokemon has lots of kids (yes, they are part of the OP community :smile:) that rely heavily on parental support. This could be tough on that age division.

Now, if the age divisions were changed, 11-17, 18 and up, then for the 18 and up, a three day event is feasible for the 18+ group while maintaining the 2 day even for 17-.

Just a thought.....
 
PokeDaddy said:
v-grad -

Well written.

Magic has predominately older folks who don't rely on parents to travel etc.

Pokemon has lots of kids (yes, they are part of the OP community :smile:) that rely heavily on parental support. This could be tough on that age division.

Now, if the age divisions were changed, 11-17, 18 and up, then for the 18 and up, a three day event is feasible for the 18+ group while maintaining the 2 day even for 17-.

Just a thought.....
Click to expand...

But then you are excluding the parents of those kids that arrive for the saturday start from playing.
Plus, even if the parents get there a day earlier for their start, what do their kids do for that whole day?
My teenage is happy to wander around on his own, but some other parent's 8 year old can't be left to fend for themselves for an entire day.

No, three days is a non-starter, imo.
Also, Profs work hard all year, giving up the chance to play in tournaments week after week. There is no way that it would be right to take away the one event that is made just for them, the Prof Cup. That's what would have to happen to make Nats a three day event.

I'm happy doing however many rounds for the Masters with whatever size cut. I'm there for Pokemon (although I do like to have one whole hour during the entire weekend to look at other things at Origins! :eek:), so that's fine for me, speaking for myself.
But POP has to figure out the timing of the tournament and how it will fit into everything else that they host that weekend. I'm sure they are taking players needs into consideration, and I hope they can come up with something to make the cut more "fair", but they have a lot of other things that have to be considered as well, that most players are totally unaware of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top