You know, everything you say about how to run this is exactly right, more or less.
If.
If the weekend were called the "Last Chance Qualifier Celebration Weekend".
But... it's not.
Your first statement suggests that the Grinder is more important than Worlds.
That, by it's size, it is more important than any other tournament that Pokemon puts on over the year, other than US Nats which was larger.
More important than Worlds.
More important than Regionals.
More important than States.
Sorry. It just... isn't. It is what it is advertised to be. A "last chance".
It is not an end unto itself.
Pokemon does not send out press releases of who won the LCQ.
It is not, not, not a featured event. It is only, nothing more, a means to an end to fill a few seats at Worlds, but to make those players do something to earn those last spots.
Whether or not it's more important than states isn't even worth considering, because there is no conflict there. But, imho, the grinder ought to be better organized than states. More resources and diligence ought to be put into running the grinder than states, because the grinder is one of three events that most of the big names in OP run together in a whole year. Its being run well reflects well on those in charge of OP, and its being run poorly reflects poorly on those in charge of OP.
The sheer number of players involved in this event makes it critical to 'best serving the players.' How many worlds players would say, 'oh man that judge looks tired. And after all that work I put into getting my invite!' They just.. wouldn't. Any worlds-level player ought to know to appeal to the head judge if they disagree with the ruling. If the head judge isn't sure of his ruling, he ought to know to check the compendium or a similar rulings resource. Is a worlds player in masters worth three grinder players in masters? Sure hope not.
PokePop said:
As for your second point, you seem to be arguing for never improving anything. Arguments like "Well, if you have to fix something, you must have been doing a horrible job before" lead to keeping a status quo and defending that status quo to the death. "This is how we have always done it and how we shall always do it" is not a good mindset to have.
People can perform very well under a lot of stress. Should we therefore always make them perform under grueling conditions?
I agree strongly with the idea that if something ain't broke, you don't fix it.
Whenever I believe that OP has made even the slightest mistake, I tend to be very vocal about it. My silence on the former grinders format (even though I played in it and didn't make worlds!) should be proof enough that I thought it was a very effective system. Obviously, it wasn't perfect. Is the logical way to improve an imperfect but very effective system to completely overhaul it? I would hope that my opposition to such a notion is "a good mindset to have."
As I said before, there are better way to improve judge sleep time which don't involve the players' sharing in the sacrifice. Implement a shift system. Start on time. If OP has an issue, they should look to improving their own stake in that issue before taking from the most important party involved.
If judges would perform satisfactorily either way, that isn't really 'endeavoring to best serve the players,' is it?
PokePop said:
Start at 9am? With 900+ players registering?
15 minute turn-arounds? Again, with 900 players playing?
We moved US Nats to a 2-day event when it reached this size and it is now a 3-day event!
And you're asking for 75 minute rounds on top of that?
Where are you heading with this? Will be be able to fit the World Championship into this weekend at some point?
There were reasons the event took a long time to get started.
Those reasons don't all disappear just because you move from single elim to swiss. Some do. Most don't. And as I noted above, a lot of those issues were of the "this is the first time we're doing this" variety and will be fixed if and when it is done again.
How many people does OP have working the computers at such a colossal event as grinders? If it’s just 5 people for all 900 entrants, each person would have to enter a POP ID once every 20 seconds to finish in an hour. That’s hardly unreasonable. Close registration at 8, and begin putting in names as they come in, instead of waiting until registration closes. It’s hardly unreasonable to expect that OP could start at 9.
Now let’s look at between rounds. Instead of typing in a POP ID, you now merely have to click on the winner. Assuming nobody finishes their game until time is called, that’s one click every 10 seconds per person (assuming 450 games for 900 players), and considering a sizeable fraction of the games will finish early in a 75-minute format, it isn’t even that much.
An efficiently run grinder can fit 75-minute rounds, no problem. A 45-minute grinder is sort of a crapshoot when so many games come down to time. What’s the key here? By cutting match time to an absurd 45 minutes, OP is expecting players to share the burden of such a colossal grinder. OP ought to prioritize the players and bear that burden alone, putting their effort into running the grinder more efficiently instead of devising a format which is inconvenient to players. If OP wants the grinder to end earlier, they ought to make it happen by improving. 75-minute rounds are absolutely feasible if adequate preparations are in place for such a massive event. Calling a 45-minute game best of 3 is practically false advertising. How often are 3 games going to be completed?
PokePop said:
And you don't even address the space need for this.
Sure, if this were the LCQ Weekend, Pokemon could arrange for a Nationals size space to hold it, or remove the free play area for a day or two, to allow for set up and tear down. But that's not the focus of the weekend.
OP has done swiss grinders in the past several times. They can do it again. If the grinder has grown substantially enough to demand an extra room, it is perfectly reasonable for the players to expect one. Perhaps move the juniors and seniors to a different room.
To claim that tear down takes an extra day is ludicrous. Having negligently misplaced my binder at US nationals two years ago, I returned to the event hall 4 or 5 hours after the event had concluded. It had been completely torn down and there were tear-down vehicles all over the place. Set up may take a little longer, but I don’t see why a grinder room needs anything other than stands on which to place pairings, and numbered tables.
@Box of Fail: You seem to have missed the point.
First you imply that our efforts to make the Grinder easier on staff is selfish and misguided, and then when I point out how those efforts are actually a part of how we look to best serve our players you decide to make a bunch of assumptions about the root of the delays that occurred this year. (This despite some of the reasons being listed elsewhere in this thread.)
The reason announced at grinders was that they had failed to register a few players. If you would like to explain how that took over two hours I’d be much obliged.
Biggie said:
In my opinion, yes. The players who have qualified for Worlds have earned the right to play in the most prestigious Pokémon TCG event of the entire year. That event is not the LCQ, it is the Pokémon World Championships. I believe PokePop's last post covers this nicely. (Thanks PokePop):thumb:
The following has been recycled from earlier in this post as you two have said essentially the same thing
The sheer number of players involved in this event makes it critical to 'best serving the players.' How many worlds players would say, 'oh man that judge looks tired. And after all that work I put into getting my invite!' They just.. wouldn't. Any worlds-level player ought to know to appeal to the head judge if they disagree with the ruling. If the head judge isn't sure of his ruling, he ought to know to check the compendium or a similar rulings resource. Is a worlds player in masters worth three grinder players in masters? Sure hope not.
Biggie said:
I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. An effort to keep our staff rested does not mean they are incapable of performing, it means that we see a potential issue that can be addressed before it becomes an actual issue. In my opinion, that is a worthy goal to have.
To my understanding, the same swiss grinders format has been used since 2004. Please correct me if I’m wrong. If there have been no problems of this sort, it’s awfully peculiar that one would suddenly think there is potential for a problem. Such a statement would naturally come across as an implication of former inadequacies, unless a sudden and inexplicable wave of paranoia has swept over OP...
