Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

My take on the cut at nats

Dark Weedle

New Member
Hi first of all this isnt to bash on pop for the tournament it was really well run with almost no delays in between rounds but there is one thing about it that it bothering me.

Lets just be clear on one thing. X-2 should never miss the cut at a tournament with this much on the line. Ever.

Although i was 6-3 and didnt have a shot at the cut anyway, I'll use my own three losses as examples.

Round 3: Im 2-0 and playing against metanite. This is his turn one going second: Beldum is active. Draw, play mentor discarding electric energy for Beldum, Dratini, and castform. Attack magnamite that he didnt mentor for to castform and retreat for fre to castform. RARE CANDY metagross. RARE CANDY dragonite. There is absolutly nothing i could have done to win this game he dropped his entrie hand turn 1.

Round 5: Im 3-1 and playing against infernape. I wont lie this is the most legit loss i had. My opponent was well....not exactly the best infernape player. He discarded a transciever when he had 7 other cards in his hand to use a holon supporter but anyway.. My opponent does not use energy draw a single time all game, not once. Yet he still manages to get out all his infernapes by using adventurer and scientist to draw 3-4 cards. At the end of the game still not having used energy draw its obvious he needs a fire energy and his last two DRE's or i will win the game. He uses holon lass for 5(five cards) with at least 25 cards left in his deck and guess what he gets, two DREs and a fire. I didnt misplay at all this is pretty depressing.

Round 7: im 4-2 playing against flygon/...metagross...Anyway. My start is not the greatest i have to aggro raichu to t2 his castform with no other basics. So its his turn 3(he went first) and i have raichu with cess crystal and he has a beldum and a trapinch with one energy. Rare candy flygon ex d, rare candy metagross and attach holon castform to flygon ex. Now we both see that he needs a windstorm to win the game and he tells me he doesnt have it but he is able to scientist for 5....does it....gg.

I can honestly say i went 9 rounds without making a misplay. There was nothing i could have done in rounds 3 and 7, im not sure what to say about my opponents mad topdecking in round 5.

It took more than luck to make the 7% (seven) percent top cut. 32 people out of 416 is rediculously small when Pop's own guidelines state a 25% even though it isnt gauranteed. I just feel sorry for the 5 people who went 7-2 at the largest tournament in the world with the largest number of players who make up the top cut at worlds every year. In my opinion the top cut needs to be set to a large enough number in this case 64 so that everyone X-2 makes the cut. Im not saying that X-3 desreves to top cut but there is no way X-2 should miss. It is no longer possible for skill alone to make the cut and i cant see how this is good for the growth of the game.

Congrats to Fulop for winning the most difficult tournament of the world this year.
 
Last edited:
Yea, this isnt Sour Grapes either. He's 100% right. 7-2 is an AMAZING achievement at a 417 player tourny. You cant be expected to got x-1 for a Garenteed shot to make topX. This game is to luck based to EXPECT to X-1.
 
Mathematically, a top 128 cut in Masters would have made more sense than a top 32 cut. Just wanted to throw that out there.
 
I hope POP considers going top 64 next year. 410+ is such a huge number, and even a huge step up from last year. Unless they run a larger top cut...who knows? X-1 will probably not even be good enough...
 
a 64 cut would have been still only 15%, a top 128 would have been the closest to 25% but that really is too big until we hit 600+ players...Pop just needs to rethink the size of the top cut at a tournament this large.
 
I hope POP considers going top 64 next year. 410+ is such a huge number, and even a huge step up from last year. Unless they run a larger top cut...who knows? X-1 will probably not even be good enough...


T-64 would be a joke IMHO. T-32 is plenty - even w/ 400 plus players.
 
I used to run non-power of two cuts. The cost is one extra round. The benefit is that you don't have to worry about tiebreakers. However not all tournaments can admit all X-2s even with non-power of two cuts. The math though not the justification for that statement is here http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=889120&postcount=72 .

USA nats masters could have been 9 rounds and a TOP37 with all the 7-2s in and all the 6-3s excluded. But it would cost an extra round! I don't know how late it was for the staff on the first day, or how late the second day finished. If time was not available then what: swiss-1 and a top 61 ?( 61 estimated GLB would know the actual number of 6-2s at the end of R8) I can already predict the complaints for those that would be left out by that scenario or those that believed that they were left out by using swiss-1
 
One note about logistics: The top cut started at 9:00am Sunday, and by the time the rounds were finished and the prizes handed out, it was almost 5:00pm and the hall was closing. The convention center staff was waiting around to pull down the banners. It would not have been possible to run another round on Sunday. If there was a larger cut, the extra round would have to have been run on Saturday, after already running 9 rounds, plus deck checks, etc. Not that it would have been impossible, but impractical.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, the line must be drawn somewhere and someone is always going to be left out. T32 was better than the T16 mentioned on the Nationals FAQ. I know it's hard but not everyone can make the cut and that is one reason there are other determinants tracked like Opp Win %, etc. I'm sure Junior and Senior had a some people with the same win-loss make it and some not. It's tough but it's part of tournament play.
 
The final round of swiss is, more or less, a de facto T64 cut.
Does it!

BigChuck01 said:
Mathematically, a top 128 cut in Masters would have made more sense than a top 32 cut. Just wanted to throw that out there.
So, some 5-4 person should be able to defeat the 9-0 person in the first SE round, and get a higher standing even though he did not perform as well?

If they give us T16, the 17th guy complains. If they give us T32, the 33rd guy complains. If they give us T64, the 65th guy complains. If they give us T128, the 129th guy complains...
 
Mathematically the T32 cut was quite close to admitting all X-2s. Now if nationals continues to grow then a 10th round will be needed on the Saturday to keep most of the X-2s in the cut for Sunday.
 
Does it!


So, some 5-4 person should be able to defeat the 9-0 person in the first SE round, and get a higher standing even though he did not perform as well?

If they give us T16, the 17th guy complains. If they give us T32, the 33rd guy complains. If they give us T64, the 65th guy complains. If they give us T128, the 129th guy complains...

The people that complain is the ones that have the same record as the others that got in and didn't make it by a few percentage points on resistance.
 
Look, I totally sympathize. When the final list was posted, I thought, uh oh, I'm 7-2 and I'm not gonna make it, but I did, because I was 7-1 going into final round. So my opponent's percentage brought me to #23 on the list. But I saw some very upset 7-2's walk away. I understand totally, cuz if I didn't get in, I would've been so devastated after all that work.

But... someone has to be disappointed. So, even though I feel bad for those players, there has to be a cut off point.

I agree with Sniper. T-32 is plenty.
 
Back
Top