David's Confused Pokedad
New Member
O.k.
Nats Sour Grapes
- Thread starter BigChuck01
- Start date
1st of all, PUI doesn't own the inflatables, they are owned by Nintendo. This means that ZERO dollars went out of the PUI budget for the inflatables at Nats. ERGO.....No way anyone can say more trips could be given IF they didnt buy the blow ups. (Also, the giant Pikachu has been around several yrs as it was the old Macy's Turkey Day parade ballon) Get your facts straight before you throw PUI under the bus folks!
2nd: Everyone played under the same system. The last few years, the "leet" players who missed out on GC invites and thought that too many n00bs donked their way into worlds wanted a Points/ranking system to reward the consistent play all season. Well folks, you got it and you still gripe! :nonono:
Will any thing please all of you??? NOPE! My proposal....all 13 winners at Regionals in the USA get an invite. T4 at US Nats gets a trip. Then, top 8 in rankings gets a trip also. That is 25 trips for each age group in the USA, about half what we had 2 yrs ago. We will never get back to the 50-60 invites per age group in the USA again. When a US Regional is bigger/as big as most/all Nats around the world, the winners deserve an invite IMO. That gives folks a chance at a one day "donk" win. Rewards 8 players for consistent seasonal play and then 4 at the toughest tourney in the World to top cut at....US Nats.
Keith
2nd: Everyone played under the same system. The last few years, the "leet" players who missed out on GC invites and thought that too many n00bs donked their way into worlds wanted a Points/ranking system to reward the consistent play all season. Well folks, you got it and you still gripe! :nonono:
Will any thing please all of you??? NOPE! My proposal....all 13 winners at Regionals in the USA get an invite. T4 at US Nats gets a trip. Then, top 8 in rankings gets a trip also. That is 25 trips for each age group in the USA, about half what we had 2 yrs ago. We will never get back to the 50-60 invites per age group in the USA again. When a US Regional is bigger/as big as most/all Nats around the world, the winners deserve an invite IMO. That gives folks a chance at a one day "donk" win. Rewards 8 players for consistent seasonal play and then 4 at the toughest tourney in the World to top cut at....US Nats.
Keith
David's Confused Pokedad
New Member
Yeah , what he said.
ixidor89
New Member
What I said before was what we asked for. It's what we got, but as Flareon pointed out, not in the way that we wanted it to be. Sure, you can be a consistantly good player, but you have to be the best of the consistently good players to secure an invite. As Moss pointed out, this cutoff line is far too small. So small that guys like somethingelse don't get invites. One way or another, we probably should increase the number of invites to worlds. Another solution would be to eliminate the rating system, and yet another would be to add aditional worlds qualifying events (Regionals providing worlds invites, anyone?).
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
They are owned by Nintendo, the parent of PUI...true! However, we know where PUI gets its money from, so while I'm not criticizing PUI (Moss might be...idk), I _am_ criticizing the financial move: it's a given that the inflatables resulted in less of a profit gain for Nintendo (in the long run) than four free trips.
Keith, your suggested system is perfect...why do I think that? Because it's balanced! It's a shame that Chad Harris and Michael Pramawat aren't playing in worlds this year (bar a grinder showing), and we have our system to thank for that.
I should stop replying to these posts and really just start up my own topic on this.
Kettler: Thx....I did just start a new thread with my thoughts for invites. Didnt really intend to hijack this thread. On the inflatibles, outside of the new D/P pokes, Pikachu is several years old. Not much loss in that, plus, the exposure gets more folks interested in the game = even more profits for Nintendo! How many kids do you think picked the game back up or started when they saw the Big Yellow Rat in the Macy's Parade on Turkey day the last few years??? *Imagaines the conversation between lil Johnny and his folks after seeing Pika on TV...Dad, Pokemon is still around???*
Keith
Keith
ShawofMordor
New Member
John,
Congrats on your invite.
Anyway, I personally feel the argument about things such as inflatables is flawed because the tournament is not ALL about who gets invites. This is a game - for everyone. For serious players, for collectors, for random kids. The kids could care less about the politics behind trips, I saw some 10- who lost invite trips because of poor Nats showing but were running around having a great time with the inflatable Pokeballs.
The point is - they are for a different audience. Just like invites are for a certain audience. POP could just stop giving out stuff at things like Cities, States, Regionals, League, and just turn that extra money into more invites...but guess what. People would be really upset. And by people I don't mean 100 guys from PokeGym, I mean 1,000s of little kids.
I know you all love the game, but don't love it just for yourselves. I live for the big tournaments, but I know that the game doesn't live for me - it lives for everyone.
I forgot what the thread was about because I went away while typing,
Chuck, your thread is ridiculous because you are smarter than this. You chose to sit out Battle Roads because you knew the system and thought your best way to get an invite was to sit them out. Ross looked at the system and made a different decision in order to get into Worlds. They both worked. I don't want to say one is better than the other, but, the "better" choice is not always an option. You are a competitive player, so is Ross. You both want to go to Worlds. You both made the choice you thought was LOGICALLY the best way to get in based on what you knew about the system. Ross is a great player, he has proven himself before. He probably would have done very well at Regionals/States, just like you probably would have done very well if you had attended Battle Roads. You won your invite skipping a large group of tournaments, he won his by skipping the big ones. You did well a few times, he did well consistently. Why single him out when you must know why he did what he did? It has nothing to do with his skills, he didn't want to get Donked at a tournament with a large K value just like you didn't want to get Donked at a tournament with a bunch of low rated players.
Last edited:
chriscobi634
New Member
don't know if there is another thread discussing this, but Nats should have been top 64. That way there would have been less players who dropped. I was 62 so at first I obviously wanted it to be top 64. But now I think of those who dropped who lowered the rating of others players who possibly would have passed me up since the people they beat didn't lower their resistance by dropping. Even then it would have been best to have top 64. With so much at stake they should have given more players a chance to win those trips.
I know why they made it top 32. Since last year's Nats ended at around 11 PM from what I heard. They thought that this Nats would be the same. There was an easy solution to this. Announce before the tournament that it is undefined what the top cut will be. But the possibilities are 16, 32, and 64 depending on how the tournament was run. This year it ended at the very latest 9:30, it was more like 9:10. A top 64 could have been done that very night, so top 32 could be ran the next day, IMHO.
I know why they made it top 32. Since last year's Nats ended at around 11 PM from what I heard. They thought that this Nats would be the same. There was an easy solution to this. Announce before the tournament that it is undefined what the top cut will be. But the possibilities are 16, 32, and 64 depending on how the tournament was run. This year it ended at the very latest 9:30, it was more like 9:10. A top 64 could have been done that very night, so top 32 could be ran the next day, IMHO.
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
I disagree, Shaw. I looked at it from a utilitarian viewpoint when I said that, and I automatically got the impression that it does more for the players-and the game in general-to have less inflatables (read: LESS, not none at all), and just one or two more invites.
SlimeyGrimey
New Member
I love that system. I really don't want ranking invites to go away; they really add a lot to the early season where otherwise tournaments mean next to nothing.
Y'all gotta love the Poke Ball Beachballs!
When they first came out at Worlds 05 I was dieing to get one. Now nearly 2 years later the're sitting at the demo desk for free!
I still firmly believe that more INVITES should be given out and not neccesarily more trips. So there is no need to have a grinder. You just issue invites like Top 8 Regionals with winner getting trips, Top32 at Nationals with Top 4 getting trips.
When they first came out at Worlds 05 I was dieing to get one. Now nearly 2 years later the're sitting at the demo desk for free!
I still firmly believe that more INVITES should be given out and not neccesarily more trips. So there is no need to have a grinder. You just issue invites like Top 8 Regionals with winner getting trips, Top32 at Nationals with Top 4 getting trips.
Pidgeotto Trainer
New Member
Just to be clear, I didn't sit out States and Regs. It wasn't some yearlong strategy of winning smaller tournaments and skipping bigger ones. I missed the 1st round of my only states for baseball practice and went 4-1 so 4-2 overall missing the cut, and I got 2nd at regs losing in sudden death.
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
Isn't it nice though for at least some portion of the season to "mean next to nothing"? Allows for far more comfortable, enjoyable gameplay. I HATED the CC atmosphere this year because of it.
NoPoke
Active Member
You are not alone in that viewpoint. I think POP already got that message, though it is not universally held by the playing community. We will have to wait and see how POP have been able to square the particular circle of the ratings system needing lots of matches with mine and others requests for constructed tournaments like those of last year.
FWIW I'm in the camp that believes that the inflatables more than cover their costs in terms of visibility, exposure, fun, and reward. I look on with envy at the pictures from many of the USA events with their banners, blow-ups, and balls.
Michael C is the (master) player at nats who I feel for. 10-1 wasn't enough and a big part of me believes that it ought to be but for exceptional circumstances. I trust POP to check that such a record missing out in future is down to unavoidable circumstance.
Last edited:
You may not have won your National Championships. But big deal, at least you had the guts to play and not drop. You Top 8'd at Nationals correct? you won several cities and a state championship. Those are all some pretty big feats. You should be congratulating yourself. Hey, you didn't get an invite, oh well, always next year right?
Be happy about what you have achieved. If you are satisfied with your performance and your victories, then, and only then, can you be a TRUE champion.
Woah...I kinda sound like Ghandi there
SLOW DECK
New Member
A pokemon player sitting out any event is wrong.
The system that could potentially motivate you to sit out an event is wrong.
:thumb:I respect the top players who played regardless of the risk of their ranking. They played for the LOVE OF THE GAME, not the singular interest of "GOT TO GET TO WORLDS". :thumb:
I played in some great games in Nationals, and wouldn't have traded it for the "Worlds".
- Rob
The system that could potentially motivate you to sit out an event is wrong.
:thumb:I respect the top players who played regardless of the risk of their ranking. They played for the LOVE OF THE GAME, not the singular interest of "GOT TO GET TO WORLDS". :thumb:
I played in some great games in Nationals, and wouldn't have traded it for the "Worlds".
- Rob
NoPoke
Active Member
Some food for thought: Adding more invites to USA nationals is likely to make sitting out even more effective next year.
I don't know if a small increase in K value would have much impact on the final ratings at the end of nationals. One way of making sitting out nationals a poorer strategy would be to drop the zero sum property during the top cut at nationals. This could be the extreme of not having any loss of points in the top cut to applying a scaling factor to all losses in the cut. (This also addresses the 4th place double loss issue that is inherent in the cut for tournaments that don't have T4 invites)
I don't know if a small increase in K value would have much impact on the final ratings at the end of nationals. One way of making sitting out nationals a poorer strategy would be to drop the zero sum property during the top cut at nationals. This could be the extreme of not having any loss of points in the top cut to applying a scaling factor to all losses in the cut. (This also addresses the 4th place double loss issue that is inherent in the cut for tournaments that don't have T4 invites)
Last edited: