Theoretically one could win 3 Regionals and a States and still miss Worlds. Yes, they will have not "played the entire season" to "earn" their invite, but they still traveled for at least half those major events. It is also possible to win 3 Regionals and Top 16 U.S. Nationals and not even get an invite! I don't know any other game where placing that high at such a high level does not qualify you for the largest tournament. Winning a Cities is equivalent to 9th at U.S. Nationals? Change this!
Points Required to Qualify for the World Championships: 500 CP for Masters? WHAT!
- Thread starter Glaceon
- Start date
- Status
ryanvergel
New Member
I want to say thank you for the thoughtful response addressing numerous concerns, while providing rationale and logic behind decision making. We, the playerbase, appreciate this tremendously.
I have a question as to obtaining the numbers. If your goal is 128 every year- why not divvy out exactly 128 invites? 60 for NA, 40 for EU, etc etc. and then the LCQ would fill the remaining slots. The top 60 in CP in NA would get the invite, and go from there. With the data of invite vs attendance, you can relatively accurately gauge how many will show up. You could even do 65 invites for NA because you expect only 60 to show up, or whatever it is.
In this manner, you would at least have a consistent basis. What we have now is a sharp decrease, from 208? to (what you have described as the goal of 128)- 80 less, which is a 40% reduction. So compared to last year, it will be substantially more difficult.
In light of this, would a more gradual transition not be better? 450 points? 475 points?
I have a question as to obtaining the numbers. If your goal is 128 every year- why not divvy out exactly 128 invites? 60 for NA, 40 for EU, etc etc. and then the LCQ would fill the remaining slots. The top 60 in CP in NA would get the invite, and go from there. With the data of invite vs attendance, you can relatively accurately gauge how many will show up. You could even do 65 invites for NA because you expect only 60 to show up, or whatever it is.
In this manner, you would at least have a consistent basis. What we have now is a sharp decrease, from 208? to (what you have described as the goal of 128)- 80 less, which is a 40% reduction. So compared to last year, it will be substantially more difficult.
In light of this, would a more gradual transition not be better? 450 points? 475 points?
King Piplup
Active Member
[del]Gotta say that number is in error.
4 from Masters Worlds.
4 from US' Nats.
4 from Canada's Nats.
4 from Mexico's Nats.
And I know for a fact that not all 4 Seniors from the previous year aged up.
...but regardless of how correct this number is, it's correct enough to know that 16+[/del] (erm nevermind me) of those invites were auto invites. And given that I know a few of those names were in T16/32/64 at Worlds last year, there's help from those placings as well.
It's definitely difficult to go for an invite with no prior points.
Also, that reminds me, Worlds points being MIA from the breakdown page is highly concerning. Since they won't be applied until after Spring Regionals, if the amounts aren't announced+they change, that's a messy scenario.
4 from Masters Worlds.
4 from US' Nats.
4 from Canada's Nats.
4 from Mexico's Nats.
And I know for a fact that not all 4 Seniors from the previous year aged up.
...but regardless of how correct this number is, it's correct enough to know that 16+[/del] (erm nevermind me) of those invites were auto invites. And given that I know a few of those names were in T16/32/64 at Worlds last year, there's help from those placings as well.
It's definitely difficult to go for an invite with no prior points.
Also, that reminds me, Worlds points being MIA from the breakdown page is highly concerning. Since they won't be applied until after Spring Regionals, if the amounts aren't announced+they change, that's a messy scenario.
Last edited:
Ness
Member
Mr. Schwimmer, Thanks for the peek into TPCi's mindset. One question I can't help but ask, though, is why are the amount of invitations given out dependent on the venue? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't TPCi determine the "right" amount of invitations (based on budget and player demand) and then choose the venue accordingly?
This idea that TPCi should book a venue and then notice "Oh, this venue is too big, throw some more points out at Nationals!" or "This venue is too small! Jack the point requirement up to 500!" will only leave the myriad of players who enjoy the competitive side of the game feeling slighted.
This idea that TPCi should book a venue and then notice "Oh, this venue is too big, throw some more points out at Nationals!" or "This venue is too small! Jack the point requirement up to 500!" will only leave the myriad of players who enjoy the competitive side of the game feeling slighted.
As a player in Washington State, I don't know how to feel about this change. I think that the biggest concern that players (at least myself) have is that things are changing far too quickly without decent data/results. Moving to the Championship Point system was an interesting change of pace the last few years. Setting the bar at 400 CP seemed daunting, but it seemed to work. This year, however, I feel like Pokemon is trying to change itself too quickly, and I feel that the backlash will not go in their favor. Entry fees are something that as a whole I am a fan of, but I fear that with League Challenges, entry fees, new prizing structures, more independant work from TO's and PTO's AND an increase in CP requirement is a bit too much to try and do in one season. I hope that either A) TPCi slows down, saves a change in CP for another year when they have more data, and can use the season to collect information about the success of entry fees, or B) TPCi monitors the season very carefully and provides the community with constant updates about their decisions throughout the season. Doing a mid-season update with TPCi's thoughts on how the changes are working and asking the community what is/isn't working would greatly alleviate my problems with things as they stand.
8 from US Nats, 4 from Masters Worlds, 4 from Mexico and CA, 3 from Seniors Worlds, thats 23.
Of course he cares about the players, no need for this^
jmilone5826
New Member
basically with top 8 maximum cuts restricts how someone can get points even further. Now someone that finishes 32nd after swiss cant end up winning it all. And oh, rumor is youre not adding anymore swiss rounds? Besides the fact if youre adding more swiss rounds or not, the combination of this makes it pretty much impossible for anyone. Read up on Pooka's article, he makes sense.
- - - Updated - - -
Most players best bet is playing in NOTHING this year and just doing the LCQ
- - - Updated - - -
Most players best bet is playing in NOTHING this year and just doing the LCQ
King Piplup
Active Member
Oh, worse yet. I'm an idiot AND 76% of last year's +500's were auto invites.
People said Japan's system would be horrible. In 76% of cases, we may've reached that plateau where performance in just that one tournament is what matters. It's not an exact parallel nor is it as drastic as theirs but it is frightening.
People said Japan's system would be horrible. In 76% of cases, we may've reached that plateau where performance in just that one tournament is what matters. It's not an exact parallel nor is it as drastic as theirs but it is frightening.
What I'd like to know is how the hell does Canada and Mexico have to earn the same amount of points as America. I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say Americans have 10x more opportunities to attend tournaments then someone anywhere else in NA. The response as I read it did not even seem to acknowledge that in this thread alone MULTIPLE PEOPLE HAVE STATED THEY WILL NOT PLAY THIS YEAR. Including me. I was very excited to try my best all year but living in Canada I knew I had an extremely slim chance of making it. Now? Almost 0% chance. What is the incentive for me to play competitively and continue buying cards, Pokemon? I know I won't be buying a single pack of the reprint set.
I guess since the only thing that matters is getting an arbitrary 128 people to worlds though right? Who cares if we lose 50% of the player base "THATS A GOOD THING!"
Oh, I also have another flawless solution, rent out a big hall again so you can fit more people... I'm a genius!
I guess since the only thing that matters is getting an arbitrary 128 people to worlds though right? Who cares if we lose 50% of the player base "THATS A GOOD THING!"
Oh, I also have another flawless solution, rent out a big hall again so you can fit more people... I'm a genius!
losjackal
Technical Administrator
Can I offer an answer? I thought it was a good move to set a bar to cross for an invitation, rather than always trying to keep up with the Joneses. The first year of CP's was still Top 40 in NA, wasn't it? There was a collective relief when they set level that said if you cross this, you're safe. You can stop. No need to keep competing to keep your invitation. That's actually why the analysis is flawed at looking at people who fell short of 500 last year....they didn't NEED to get to 500, so at some point they may have stopped trying.
Pidgeotto Trainer
New Member
Prof. Dav, thanks very much for responding and letting us know some of the reasons behind the decision.
As others have said, 10 players in North America qualified without the automatic invite of nationals or worlds. This is a far cry from the '40' it used to be with rating invites, very often in addition to the worlds and nationals automatic qualifiers.
Dav, while there is clearly reasoning behind you (and your team's) decision, I respectfully think you are making an important mistake. I think you are worrying too much about worlds itself and not the full year leading up to it. It's the full year leading up to it that the players experience. Very very very few are going to care if the room feels empty or not empty. Honestly, I don't think changing the number of invites would drastically change the number of people milling around worlds. You would still have an enormous grinder either way.
I think many people would agree that more important than making sure worlds has the exact X amount that fits the venue, or the arbitrary X amount you target (128), is that we have a system that is accessible to players. Worlds is one weekend of the year, but the chase for worlds lasts all year. I really think your team should be primarily focused that the 'chase for worlds' is reasonable.
The player base as a whole has grown tremendously in the past 4 years. Harder to quantify, but plainly evident to any player is the competitive player base has grown by at least a factor of 10. You guys finally did the right thing in making worlds bigger. Don't try to keep worlds the same number of players each year, keep the reasonableness of getting to worlds each year the same (or marginally close to that). Going from 40 in North America from a few years ago, ~60 last year, to 10 is not doing that. Even keeping it at 40 is not doing that.
While having 100 players at worlds may fit your notion of an ideal size for worlds, the players will feel the reduces chances all year. Reduced chances, reduced hopes, reduced interest. For those who choose to go for it, greatly reduced finances, which will eventually lead to reduced interest. Changing to 500 while also making regionals on different days is daring players to spend big on travel. No one likes this. The people who do it won't be happy spending so much money (that goes to the airlines, not to Pokemon anyways), and the people who refuse to spend will quit, or lose enough interest to play competitively, reducing sales, reducing attendance. Players who are just starting to be competitive will be discouraged. New players will be discouraged. Veterans will take a look at their wallet after a while and be discouraged. You see tons of players already talking about leaving the game from this news. I don't think anyone is leaving the game because 100 vs. 200 players made a venue one weekend of the year feel too small or too large.
If you want worlds to stay small, you need to come up with a system that still feels accessible to players. Some sort of tiered system with a build in level (that you have to qualify for) between the smallest tournaments and worlds. Make it prestigious, interesting prizes etc. Something players can feel accomplished in reaching but isn't impossible to reach. You could have a circuit in North America and Europe at the very least. You need to give players something to shoot for if you're going to make worlds this small, make spending money on airfare that much more important etc. We don't have any of that though. There is only one goal in this game for most players, and that's the world championships, which you are making very inaccessible now. A few hundred dollars to attend nationals after spending money all year isn't going to make anyone excited about their 300 CPs. I'm guessing the above isn't likely in the near future though, so until then worlds itself is the goal of all players and it needs to stay accessible.
(Yes states, regionals and nationals are prestigious events, but they are not something players work toward all year and as such won't keep players around most of the year. Plus a single event has enormous variance in Pokemon, we all know that.)
(For clarity, I had not listed nationals before SD_pokemon's post, but the same point remains)
tl;dr: Focus less on making worlds X size and focus more on making worlds (or another prestigious goal) accessible to the player base. The latter is what affects everyone all year.
As others have said, 10 players in North America qualified without the automatic invite of nationals or worlds. This is a far cry from the '40' it used to be with rating invites, very often in addition to the worlds and nationals automatic qualifiers.
Dav, while there is clearly reasoning behind you (and your team's) decision, I respectfully think you are making an important mistake. I think you are worrying too much about worlds itself and not the full year leading up to it. It's the full year leading up to it that the players experience. Very very very few are going to care if the room feels empty or not empty. Honestly, I don't think changing the number of invites would drastically change the number of people milling around worlds. You would still have an enormous grinder either way.
I think many people would agree that more important than making sure worlds has the exact X amount that fits the venue, or the arbitrary X amount you target (128), is that we have a system that is accessible to players. Worlds is one weekend of the year, but the chase for worlds lasts all year. I really think your team should be primarily focused that the 'chase for worlds' is reasonable.
The player base as a whole has grown tremendously in the past 4 years. Harder to quantify, but plainly evident to any player is the competitive player base has grown by at least a factor of 10. You guys finally did the right thing in making worlds bigger. Don't try to keep worlds the same number of players each year, keep the reasonableness of getting to worlds each year the same (or marginally close to that). Going from 40 in North America from a few years ago, ~60 last year, to 10 is not doing that. Even keeping it at 40 is not doing that.
While having 100 players at worlds may fit your notion of an ideal size for worlds, the players will feel the reduces chances all year. Reduced chances, reduced hopes, reduced interest. For those who choose to go for it, greatly reduced finances, which will eventually lead to reduced interest. Changing to 500 while also making regionals on different days is daring players to spend big on travel. No one likes this. The people who do it won't be happy spending so much money (that goes to the airlines, not to Pokemon anyways), and the people who refuse to spend will quit, or lose enough interest to play competitively, reducing sales, reducing attendance. Players who are just starting to be competitive will be discouraged. New players will be discouraged. Veterans will take a look at their wallet after a while and be discouraged. You see tons of players already talking about leaving the game from this news. I don't think anyone is leaving the game because 100 vs. 200 players made a venue one weekend of the year feel too small or too large.
If you want worlds to stay small, you need to come up with a system that still feels accessible to players. Some sort of tiered system with a build in level (that you have to qualify for) between the smallest tournaments and worlds. Make it prestigious, interesting prizes etc. Something players can feel accomplished in reaching but isn't impossible to reach. You could have a circuit in North America and Europe at the very least. You need to give players something to shoot for if you're going to make worlds this small, make spending money on airfare that much more important etc. We don't have any of that though. There is only one goal in this game for most players, and that's the world championships, which you are making very inaccessible now. A few hundred dollars to attend nationals after spending money all year isn't going to make anyone excited about their 300 CPs. I'm guessing the above isn't likely in the near future though, so until then worlds itself is the goal of all players and it needs to stay accessible.
(Yes states, regionals and nationals are prestigious events, but they are not something players work toward all year and as such won't keep players around most of the year. Plus a single event has enormous variance in Pokemon, we all know that.)
(For clarity, I had not listed nationals before SD_pokemon's post, but the same point remains)
tl;dr: Focus less on making worlds X size and focus more on making worlds (or another prestigious goal) accessible to the player base. The latter is what affects everyone all year.
Last edited:
isn't US nationals a 'prestigious goal' that's 'accessible to the player base'?
Pidgeotto Trainer
New Member
Reaching US nationals isn't a goal. Anyone can play in that. US nationals has over 900 players, it's a crapshoot. I don't think anyone would be happy if a 900 player US nationals was all there was to play for.
Though with this system, I'm sure you'll have players check out for most of the year and only do enough to get the points for nationals. I don't think this is good for the game though.
The point is you need a season-long build up goal to keep players interested in a game with so much variance. TPCi does recognize this (no more gym challenges), but we shouldn't forget the importance of such a system as it continues to become more inaccessible.
If there was a challenger's nationals (60-100 invited players) with some amount of the pomp, prizes and prestige of worlds that people had to work to qualify for, that could help. It's all about accessible goals that will make people happy.
Though with this system, I'm sure you'll have players check out for most of the year and only do enough to get the points for nationals. I don't think this is good for the game though.
The point is you need a season-long build up goal to keep players interested in a game with so much variance. TPCi does recognize this (no more gym challenges), but we shouldn't forget the importance of such a system as it continues to become more inaccessible.
If there was a challenger's nationals (60-100 invited players) with some amount of the pomp, prizes and prestige of worlds that people had to work to qualify for, that could help. It's all about accessible goals that will make people happy.
Last edited:
King Piplup
Active Member
How exactly is an open tournament even comparable to Worlds?
Simply playing in Nats is not prestigious.
Simply playing in Worlds is.
No.
Also, Professor Dav (bolding name in hope of you seeing this), while letting extra people in if not enough people make it is great, but by that time they could have already made plans or it could be too late for them to set up arrangements for an event a month after the announcement.
Vegeta ss4
Iron Chef Leader
I am sure most did stop trying once they got the invite. But, the tournaments at which most stop trying was BR's. I am pretty sure everyone gave it their all at Nats.
I am glad we had a response to this...it's the typical "political" response, but a response nonetheless. I do wonder what there response would be if NO ONE played the game this season. Obviously that happening is like TPCi getting it right.
The facts here are you can win 3 regionals and STILL not get an invite. That is completely atrocious and unacceptable. In my opinion, if you win 2 Regionals you should be considered a soon to be World's competitor. The system we had was NOT broken, you elected to create chaos with up to 9 Regionals someone could attend and based the CP structure on that. I just don't get why we can't have more players in a worlds championship. I mean, afterall...we are paying your company to even play in a tournament, the least we should get is a say in the matter.
SD MOM - Really, because every player base that loves this game would rather go to nats and NOT worlds, is that a legitimate question?
Last edited:
FirestormXVI
Member
That wasn't a typical political response. He said exactly why the decision was made.
Ross hit every point I would want to. It's okay to keep Worlds a smaller event and there are even merits to doing so, but that needs to be done in conjunction with other goals that feel more achievable to other players. If that is the plan in the future, I think it's best to hold off on shrinking Worlds until those other events and goals are available as well.
Right now, players in my area have very little to play for or build towards over the course of the season. The stress, costs, and risks of playing a full season are not worth it compared to just playing in the five events that are in my province (3 Cities, 1 Provincial, 1 Regional) and making a go of it at Nationals or LCQ.
Ross hit every point I would want to. It's okay to keep Worlds a smaller event and there are even merits to doing so, but that needs to be done in conjunction with other goals that feel more achievable to other players. If that is the plan in the future, I think it's best to hold off on shrinking Worlds until those other events and goals are available as well.
Right now, players in my area have very little to play for or build towards over the course of the season. The stress, costs, and risks of playing a full season are not worth it compared to just playing in the five events that are in my province (3 Cities, 1 Provincial, 1 Regional) and making a go of it at Nationals or LCQ.
would US nationals be considered a more prestigious event if the PP requirement (which people complained bitterly about last year, as i recall) was raised? or if there was a CP requirement for entry?
You can't use that argument, most people did not stop trying, why stop if you have 400, you can win free trips if still keep playing in regs and get money from states. The first person to get to 400 hundred, got it after cities, and still played in states and regs. No one just stops, they might scoop to friends but when money is on the line to win, why stop trying?
- Status