Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

My take on the cut at nats

Jonathan Anderson went X-2 and didn't make top cut!!!:mad::mad::mad:

He has bin consitantly the best player in Maryland and deserved to make T32, it's not fair that a player that is more worhty of top cut dosn't make it due to some bad luck, when some guy that dosn't realy care what happens makes it because of luck.:nonono::nonono::nonono:
 
They should just make Nationals a 3 day event, kind of like Magic does. Everyone who goes X-3 let's say, makes day 2. You then run more rounds on day 2 and then finally, a single elim. cut on day 3. Of course, the argument is that people want to keep playing even if they are doing poorly, but that's why there's side events.
 
Scizor said:
They should just make Nationals a 3 day event, kind of like Magic does. Everyone who goes X-3 let's say, makes day 2. You then run more rounds on day 2 and then finally, a single elim. cut on day 3. Of course, the argument is that people want to keep playing even if they are doing poorly, but that's why there's side events.
Click to expand...

FTW?
 
First of all I think Masters needs to be run as a whole seperated tournament from the JR's and SR's.

JR's SR's format is pretty darn good right now 8 rounds but still some 5-3's not making it.

Okay so give US Masters ~500 players

Day 1 Friday- Play 7-9 rounds of Swiss- Only this division should play on Friday

Cut up 75% of the field so ~150 are left to go play on Saturday.

Bonus on starting MA on Friday- Less registration time for both Friday and Saturday.
You get your larger cut for such a large field! It's 25% of the field that makes it and the others don't.

Now Days 2-3 we divide up this 128 so it is not so much of a crapshoot playoff......

Day 2:

Records from yesterday carry over

Swiss it for 5-7 rounds

Cut field to top 8-16

Day 3:

do the 3-4 SE rounds and GTHOOO

This will reward CONSITENT players who have had to play 15+ rounds so no RANDIES or LUCSACS can possibly get this far. If someone gets this far then they should be worthy enough to contend for the US National Championship.
 
5:00 pm Sunday close

TrainerJL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now we see the problem with having Nationals at Origons, we are at Origons Mercy on when we need to clear out of by Sunday, If Nationals was held at a Convention space it would cost more to run the event but Sunday would not be so limited on time that a top 64 could not be run. It is sad that due to time constraints 5 deserving masters players did not make the top cut despite going 7-2 in a 400+ player event.

Also how fair is it that JR and Sr get top 32 despite having less then 200 players each while masters at 400+ gets the same top cut.

One way to solve the masters problem is to deal with the fact that it is just way too big of an age group.
It would help to break it down into two separate age groups say 15-20 and 21+ with no monetary prizes (Scholarships) going to players in the 21+ age group.

That would help from a logistics standpoint of creating 4 Nationals age groups that would have been roughly the same this year instead of 2 age groups under 200 and one over 400.

From a competitiveness factor there is absolutely nothing wrong with the current Masters age group.
 
Does this guy complain about everything?
JandPDS said:
Now we see the problem with having Nationals at Origons, we are at Origons Mercy on when we need to clear out of by Sunday, If Nationals was held at a Convention space it would cost more to run the event
Click to expand...
Yes, so they'd need a really good reason to spend more money.
Having Nationals at a gaming convention allows people outside of the Pokemon TCG world, to witness this event, it is a chance to get the attention of outsiders.


It is sad that due to time constraints 5 deserving masters players did not make the top cut despite going 7-2 in a 400+ player event.
Click to expand...
So, are you saying it should have been top 64? If so, all the 6-3s who were not in the top 64 would be asking for a top 128.

The only way to get in for sure was to be 8-1. Any one who was 7-2 was gambling. By losing two of their matches, they left it up to chance as to whether they could get in.

As for those 5 players being deserving: they weren't as deserving as all the 7-2s above them, as those 7-2s faced opponents who performed better.

One way to solve the masters problem is to deal with the fact that it is just way too big of an age group.
It would help to break it down into two separate age groups say 15-20 and 21+ with no monetary prizes (Scholarships) going to players in the 21+ age group.
Click to expand...
What are you saying???:eek:
I'm 21 and I still have at least two years of school left. I am not the only one in this boat.
Anybody can find a use for a scholarship. BTW, I don't think they're going to go back to doing the groups by age, instead of year of birth.

I am not at all against having more than 3 age groups for Nationals, but the prizes should be equal.
 
Wow.

Some of the things you guys are posting are completely rediculous. You obvioulsy have no idea what you're saying.



Briefly:

4 age groups will never happen. Giving 1 age group thousands LESS in prizes is stupid.

T64-cut might happen. It is the simplest response to everything.

Flighting Nats results in more X-2s missing the cut. With too many flights, even X-1s will miss.

A 3-day event will only happen if Pokemon Nationals moves away from Origins. Until then, this isn't even possible.
 
Well, this one hasn't thrown out:

But how about you take a T 64 cut, then do single-game eliminations until you get to the T8, where the prizes really matter, then go 2/3.

That'll cut the time needed and be more fair to the players.

Just another suggestion.

-James
 
I wasn't mad that a T64 wasn't implemented (coming from the person who placed 35th). I played my matches fairly, I lost fairly, came 7-2 in the end. By coming 7-2, there's a good chance of making it into the top 32. However, the factor that can change that chance is your resistance, after hearing that a couple of 7-2's wouldn't make it. I saw the list, saw my name as 35th, had a couple of seconds (literally) to accept that fact. I accepted it, decided to relax a little during the last two days of Origins, and just enjoyed whatever time I had left for my vacation. Was I playing this whole season to try to win a trip to Worlds? Yes. I won't lie. I was trying my best to win a trip, just like the majority of the players. However, another reason why I went to all the tournaments during the season was to have FUN.
 
I was 44th and would have benefited from a top 64 cut, but that's too many players making the "playoffs" (after all, this isn't the NHL). If anything, there should have been one more round.
 
Pods may actually be a good idea, if done correctly. Take the masters division at Nationals this year. It had 418 people, which is about enough to do seven pods of sixty-four. Out of each pod would emerge a 6-0, six 5-1's, and several 4-2's. Doing a top sixty-four cut, this would allow all 6-0's and 5-1's a gauranteed spot, along with fifteen spots for the 4-2's. This significantly reduces the amount of time swiss rounds take on day one of Nationals and admits all players that have done decently into the top cut.

This method would gaurantee any 5-1 a spot until the masters age division reaches 586 people. In this case, it's only six round swiss, so that's a pretty fair cutoff line.
 
POP can not do 7 pods. Only 2, 4, 8 or 16.



And if they do ANY number of pods, people would only complain about how they got stuck in the "hard" one.



Pods are a bad idea in any 2-day event.
 
Flaming_Spinach said:
POP can not do 7 pods. Only 2, 4, 8 or 16.



And if they do ANY number of pods, people would only complain about how they got stuck in the "hard" one.



Pods are a bad idea in any 2-day event.
Click to expand...

If it makes the tournament easier to run, I'm sure that POP can come up with a way to run any number of pods.

People can't really complain about being stuck in a hard pod. The legitimacy of that complaint is comprable to complaining that you were paired up against tuff players in a non-podded, swiss tournament.

Pods are a terrific way to run a two day event, provided that the top cut allows more people.
 
ixidor89 said:
People can't really complain about being stuck in a hard pod. The legitimacy of that complaint is comprable to complaining that you were paired up against tuff players in a non-podded, swiss tournament.
Click to expand...
Yes. This concern about flights doesn't make sense. Flights or no flights- you are just as likely to play a bunch of "hard" players either way.
 
I thought that I should re-explain what I said before, since my idea of a pod was kind of different.

My idea is to make pods with each pod having a number of people that is about a power of two. That is how I got seven pods.
 
Nats as a three day event would be nice, considering the convention runs from wednsday to sunday. We already run side events in the space before the main tournament anyway, so it's not like POP isn't paying for it.

Pods stink, they degrade the tournament from swiss rounds to a double elimination, forget that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top