To many points for cities
- Thread starter Jaeger
- Start date
- Status
Victory Bell
Member
It's the marathons. Getting to go to nearly double the maximum allowed number of cities PLUS the ones when you return home is ridiculous for those on the west coast/can't travel.
And to think they increased the regs points so all people have more fair shot at a worlds invite... :nonono:
And to think they increased the regs points so all people have more fair shot at a worlds invite... :nonono:
I don't think there's too many points. People hitting that high of points are usually playing against skilled players, have dedication, and are clearly great players. Every time I see a player with 1850 rating after cities, I know that he has not just done extremely well at many different tournaments, but all of those tournaments had to be of at least decent size.
Regionals has a trip to Nats.
Nats has a trip to Worlds.
Cities has points for invites (Not trips).
If you're going to that many cities you're definitely putting in the time, and dedication, not to mention showing that you are a consistently good player. IMO they deserve to go to worlds more than someone who doesn't play all season, and then shows up at Nats and makes T4.
Regionals has a trip to Nats.
Nats has a trip to Worlds.
Cities has points for invites (Not trips).
If you're going to that many cities you're definitely putting in the time, and dedication, not to mention showing that you are a consistently good player. IMO they deserve to go to worlds more than someone who doesn't play all season, and then shows up at Nats and makes T4.
supertyranitar
New Member
Some don't get to go to a lot of Cities before the marathons, so the marathons pose as a way to be able to hit up a lot of cities at once to make up for the lack of hitting cities. Plus, when I was at the GA marathon this year, people from CALIFORNIA were THERE. Not to mention people from Oklahoma/Texas.
There's more than a fair shot. I've known people that got invites from getting top 2 at States, top 4 at Regionals, and top 32 at Worlds.
If people have the power to go to Cities, they will. Stopping marathons though, imo, would be ridiculous. What reason is there to stop them? Those that can't hit any other Cities have a chance to plan for a string of them as a result.
SomethingElse
Active Member
With or without marathons, it doesn't matter as much. Whoever has the money to travel to places to play as many tournaments as possible has the better chance, marathons or not.
Victory Bell
Member
So in order for the Cal players to do well (have a better chance) they are expected to fly across the country THREE times in one year for their worlds invites? However for a great Florida player in collage it is almost given for him to have an invite due to the marathon being on his door step? Remember that the K of cities is 16 now...
Yes. And last year it was not a problem . This year however the point value doubled. Some people are already hitting 1800. The old "sit out nats" mark of about 1875 is gone in favor of a much more difficult to obtain mark of 1930 (roughly based on someone else's quickly done math). Cities are now MUCH more important.
How do you figure? If all cities were on the weekend where would these people be going to participate in more tourneys than any other person could?
The one thing marathons do help with, however, is the possibility that a "lesser" player can win a states or a regionals.
Quite a few of the top tier players in the NJ/NY/PA region either played in a few rounds or sat out regionals entirely because their invites were basically guaranteed.
What's wrong with that? If you're really better than them, then get your rank higher by playing in more tournies. The competition will be easier when they aren't around right? If you couldn't beat them in cities, why do you think regionals would suddenly change that? If someone worked hard, and earned an invite I don't understand why it's bad for them to refuse to bet all their hard work on one tournament.
Yes and know. I think its crazy for a player to get a Worlds Invite while sitting out the major tournaments of the year. Getting invites based only on cities means a player does well in one format but does not show consistancy through several (remember cities, States and Regionals, and Nationals are all played with different legal sets and a majority of the time this means a different meta. I never liked players sitting out major events to secerue and invite but don't get me wrong I don't blame them I certainly would. Cities are smaller tournaments that I see should more or less cushion a players rankings so one bad performance at States, Regionals or Nationals doesn't kill them. Should a person be able to get a degree from a universtiy by only doing well in his elective classes rather than his core classes or better yet be able to get a degree without even taking Core Classes.
---------- Post added 01/07/2011 at 02:53 PM ----------
I hardly call winning a 20-30 or even 40 person cities "hard work" compared to winning States or above.
---------- Post added 01/07/2011 at 02:55 PM ----------
I actually really like Marathons and I think they are great for the game, after all a week of non stop Pokemon Tournaments over Christmas Vacation how do you not love that...I have a few ideas on how to not have them break the system like they are now perhaps I'll post them later.
---------- Post added 01/07/2011 at 02:53 PM ----------
I hardly call winning a 20-30 or even 40 person cities "hard work" compared to winning States or above.
---------- Post added 01/07/2011 at 02:55 PM ----------
I actually really like Marathons and I think they are great for the game, after all a week of non stop Pokemon Tournaments over Christmas Vacation how do you not love that...I have a few ideas on how to not have them break the system like they are now perhaps I'll post them later.
Were not talking 3 or even 4 cities here were talking 8..plus there locals some people are playing in 12+ cities.
---------- Post added 01/07/2011 at 03:00 PM ----------
Really? Your telling me a person who Top 4 the years largest tournament...a tournament where every good player in the United States is at...deserves an invite less than a person who does well at a string of smaller tournaments with varying levels of competion...Really?
Qwachansey
Active Member
I completely agree. At my first cities I was really confused as to why people from New Jersey were there when it was a New York City Championships. I would make it either less K value or maximum of 3 cities and 1 States. For those that cannot afford nor have the time to go to 7 cities and do somewhat well at each it's extremely difficult to get a worlds invite. Especially when you have 20 person Cities.
Jaeger I was making the point that most players who do well at cities are good players. I apologize if this steps on your toes, but that's be honest, if you're getting that many points from cities, then most of them will probably have 40+ players, meaning you will probably have a fairly strong level of competition. Meaning that player is proving that he can consistently best other players. Not to mention the player is making the commitment to give up multiple weekends in order to do so. In short my point is that he's showing allot more dedication to the game then someone who just shows up for one tourney, and wins.
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I support the hardworking player who puts in the time, over the extremely talented player who shows no dedication, but can still show up and wipe the competition.
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I support the hardworking player who puts in the time, over the extremely talented player who shows no dedication, but can still show up and wipe the competition.
This year seems to be the tipping point: past years were okay, obviously lopsided to people that could attend 6+ Cities, but not an insurmountable thing for people that could only go to a few. This year I feel like it has become even more ridiculous, though; I know some people that went to 12 CCs! If this continues in future years, there is going to be a problem. Marathons are great and all, but not when someone is going to 10+ CCs and getting a crazy high ranking just because he can go to so many tournaments.
There are a couple solutions, I'm not sure which one is best. Lowering the K-value to 8 is certainly one option. Another is limiting people to a certain number of tournaments (3 is far too low, I was thinking 6 would be an acceptable number). I'm not really sure if either of these is that good though, so I'd be interested to hear some other solutions to this.
There are a couple solutions, I'm not sure which one is best. Lowering the K-value to 8 is certainly one option. Another is limiting people to a certain number of tournaments (3 is far too low, I was thinking 6 would be an acceptable number). I'm not really sure if either of these is that good though, so I'd be interested to hear some other solutions to this.
Box of Fail
New Member
IMO lowering K-value could work, or alternatively raising BR k-values to 8, which would decrease the importance of Cities.
Qwachansey
Active Member
OMG NO. I do NOT want a competitive battle roads :/
Your not stepping on my toes just a discussion/debate don't worry about it. But I really think your confusing dedication with location and money.
---------- Post added 01/07/2011 at 03:34 PM ----------
This would still benefit the people who could travel more than those who can't and just wait till we see Marathons for Battle Roads...we'll be in the same situation only worse.
bullados
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?
Actually, I see this as an argument for raising the K-value for Fall BRs, and offering more tournaments in more areas throughout the year, especially during the Cities and BR runs. There's a very nice statistical analysis by NoPoke floating around these boards (possibly the old PCI boards) that explains very nicely how a greater sample size leads to a more accurate representation of a player's actual ability, while a higher K-value early in the year allows the numbers to more quickly reach their mostly-static values based on a pure-skill analysis.
- Status