Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

To many points for cities

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jaeger said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not really confusing them at all. I don't have allot of money, but I'm still willing to fork over the money to make a 3-4 hour drive for a city championship. It's not just for the points, but it's also to just play some Pokemon. I mean even if you do have the money to travel to the Georgia marathon, those are the people whose dedication is what makes this game possible.

Chances are they invest a good amount of time and money in the game, and that's what makes events like Nationals the ability to be the size that they are. I don't understand why players should be discouraged from investing time, and money into something they like. Especially since going to marathons like Georgia's is anything, but an easy way to get points. It's not like they are buying rating points, they still have to perform.

I mean you could argue it's not fair because competitive players have the ability to buy better cards, and hence build better decks. I just don't see how you can argue that because someone can afford to go somewhere means that they don't deserve anything for it. I mean look at the grinder. Just because most people can't afford to go to Hawaii doesn't meant that they shouldn't have one. The argument of money making a difference is a pretty moot point. Someone who has more money is always going to have a advantage. It's unfortunate, but it's part of the game, and if you're a really dedicated player, there's always way to work around a limited budget.
 
Jaeger said:
Is it just me or does anybody else think its crazy that some people almost have worlds invites by playing in nothing larger than cities?
Click to expand...

You need many players at a CC and many x-0 or x-1 records to even get enough points.
Fair enough if anybody can manage enough point to secure an invite by "only" winning several CC's.
 
For the players who can just show up to 1-2 things all season and wipe the competition...We call that SPT/Regionals/Nats/Grinder. Tom Dolezal, one of the most underrated (yet one of the sharpest) players ever, went to only TWO tournaments during the entire 2007-2008 season: Nats and Worlds, where he got T8 and T16 at. If that's not insane-crazy-awesome, I don't know what is.

However, the ratings/rankings invites are there for pretty much the type of people Caleb is mentioning: players who perform consistently and over time for a season's entirety. There's at least one place for insanely good players who don't show up to the rest of the

I don't know if a K value reduction is the right move, though. Because Battle Roads got nerfed so hard, they lost virtually all value for competitive players relative to Cities (smaller events with less prize support, less points on the line, and scheduled at a potentially inconvenient time during the year, versus tournaments that are the opposite).

But...This is a problem that could be made completely moot if we actually knew what our rankings were.
 
Caleb said:
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.
Click to expand...

Never said there was a problem with it (forgive me if I insinuated that). I agree that if players don't want to risk losing their invite they should sit out. I was just stating facts, and like I said, giving a reason why marathons can be helpful for the lesser players.

I also like the idea behind marathons (maybe not 8 in a row but..), I just think either more marathons need to happen across the US or K values should be dropped, right now, it does purely benefit people who either have the money to go to the events, or those who live near them.

Any system is going to have its flaws though, at the end of the day. It could be much worse.
 
Interjecting a few facts and logistics to the discussion:

1. Pokemon won't limit how many of an event a player can go to. It's a logistical nightmare. Each TO can't have access to every roster of every other City Championship, and forget about those that are on Saturday and haven't been reported for Sunday, when another city is held. The closest thing that Pokemon does for an event to limit attendance is to only hold them on limited dates, like they do with States now, and also Regionals. But that wouldn't work as well as Cities.

2. If someone got a lot of points at "marathon" Cities, they weren't 40 player events. GA averaged 70-110 players per event for their 8 City Marathon and I averaged 70 players per event at my "mini-marathon", and that was with the first two days hurt by the Christmas snowstorm the NE got hit with. So players are not facing dinky opponents. They earn their points!

3. Yes, access to a marathon can be an issue to players that can't travel. That's pretty much why I started a marathon in my area this year, to help the NE/Mid Atlantic area players. I think other TOs in other areas are considering doing some similar events in following years. Speak with them and let them know that your local players would appreciate and support such events.

That's all I wanted to add at this point.
Carry on.
 
I think this is a good discussion and one thats worth having. I don't really have the time to discuss it at length at the moment, but I will step in and say that the Marathon issue isn't as big as some are making it out to be. People talking about being at such a disadvantage because they didn't have access to a marathon are just being bitter bellosoms. As far as I know, David Cohen is the #1 ranked player in NA and he hasn't had the chance to attend a marathon either. He just Q's for worlds the old fashioned way: Winning tournaments.
 
Like oregon, we have the second most players, but we don't access to what these people are talking about.
 
One thing TPCI could do is require that a player participate in a certain number of higher-than-cities events in order to qualify for a ratings invite. This would take some work to iron some things out (I can see this being difficult to implement), but I just wanted to throw that out as an idea.

I do see a slightly different issue with marathons-TPCI's OP budget remains pretty much constant from year to year. As a result, the number of cities is largely fixed. If people keep trying to create marathons it could end up taking away from other areas. Even aside from the ratings issue, this could pose problems to emerging TCG OP markets.
 
First of all no one has ever or will ever qualify for Worlds after cities. If you do not play any tournaments after this wekeend, you will not quailify for worlds.


Second if someone was to happen to quailfy for worlds only by doing will in the City Championsips, I would perfer that to someone who did not plsy all year, and then goes to Nationals and top cuts and makes it to worlds that way. That has happend in the past.
 
Last edited:
First of all no one has ever or will ever quilify for Worlds after cities. If you do not play any turements after this wekeend, you will not quailify for worlds.
Click to expand...

That can't be 100% correct, right? I mean, if David were at 1800 right now (which he's not, he's higher), and were to go 18-0 over the weekend, earning 3 points per win, he'd be at 1854. Plus, there's been a few times that he's gotten 2nd or dropped before top cut. Not saying it's very likely or that it's ever going to happen, but it's not impossible.
 
JandPDS said:
First of all no one has ever or will ever quilify for Worlds after cities. If you do not play any turements after this wekeend, you will not quailify for worlds.


Second if someone was to happen to quailfy for worlds only by doing will in the City Championsips, I would perfer that to someone who did not plsy all year, and then goes to Nationals and top cuts and makes it to worlds that way. That has happend in the past.
Click to expand...

you need about 1830 to secure an invite.
Some people have that much and more right now.
 
PokePop said:
Interjecting a few facts and logistics to the discussion:

1. Pokemon won't limit how many of an event a player can go to. It's a logistical nightmare. Each TO can't have access to every roster of every other City Championship, and forget about those that are on Saturday and haven't been reported for Sunday, when another city is held. The closest thing that Pokemon does for an event to limit attendance is to only hold them on limited dates, like they do with States now, and also Regionals. But that wouldn't work as well as Cities.

2. If someone got a lot of points at "marathon" Cities, they weren't 40 player events. GA averaged 70-110 players per event for their 8 City Marathon and I averaged 70 players per event at my "mini-marathon", and that was with the first two days hurt by the Christmas snowstorm the NE got hit with. So players are not facing dinky opponents. They earn their points!

3. Yes, access to a marathon can be an issue to players that can't travel. That's pretty much why I started a marathon in my area this year, to help the NE/Mid Atlantic area players. I think other TOs in other areas are considering doing some similar events in following years. Speak with them and let them know that your local players would appreciate and support such events.

That's all I wanted to add at this point.
Carry on.
Click to expand...

^

This, especially the event-limiting thing. I'm sure more than one player was perturbed by the way players were limited from winning more than one State Championship in 2006.

As for Yoshi, i think your idea would have to be fine-tuned some in order for it to work. You could technically "play" in the event, but hardly play through all of it. If someone 1-0 drops, then that would qualify according to the way you have things worded.
 
Cyrus said:
As for Yoshi, i think your idea would have to be fine-tuned some in order for it to work. You could technically "play" in the event, but hardly play through all of it. If someone 1-0 drops, then that would qualify according to the way you have things worded.
Click to expand...

That occured to me as well. Like I said, it would take some tinkering.
 
kwisdumb said:
I think this is a good discussion and one thats worth having. I don't really have the time to discuss it at length at the moment, but I will step in and say that the Marathon issue isn't as big as some are making it out to be. People talking about being at such a disadvantage because they didn't have access to a marathon are just being bitter bellosoms. As far as I know, David Cohen is the #1 ranked player in NA and he hasn't had the chance to attend a marathon either. He just Q's for worlds the old fashioned way: Winning tournaments.
Click to expand...

I think most people would consider Washington to be a Marathon state as we have had 17 City Championships in 6 weeks. I bet the cut of for worlds this year will be a lot closer to 1900 then 1800. I do not see anyone being able to sit on thier points after cityies and then nbeing able to particpate in worlds, way too many points our thier with 2 states, and Nationals to come. You miss all of thoes you will not qualify for worlds.

Back in 2009 I got on a real hot streak and between the last Cityies of that year and the first states I won 15 games in a row. I was at 1800 points and that was not enough to qualify for wrolds, You can not just do well at one level of tourament play if you want to play in worlds you have to do well all year long.
 
Last edited:
JandPDS said:
I think most people would consider Washington to be a Marathon state as we have had 17 City Championships in 6 weeks. I bet the cut of for worlds this year will be a lot closer to 1900 then 1800. I do not see anyone being able to sit on thier points after cityies and then nbeing able to particpate in worlds, way too many points our thier with 2 states, and Nationals to come. You miss all of thoes you will not qualify for worlds.

Back in 2009 I got on a real hot streak and between the last Cityies of that year and the first states I won 15 games in a row. I was at 1800 points and that was not enough to qualify for wrolds, You can not just do well at one level of tourament play if you want to play in worlds you have to do well all year long.
Click to expand...

I hardly call playing in 1 states "all year long" which a handful of players did last year.
 
Though a cities limit would be somewhat strange, it would solve the problem. It wouldnt cost PUSA much if any profit, and rating would no longer be based on the amount of gas money someone has. I'm all for it, though it will never happen.
 
Son_of_Apollo said:
Though a cities limit would be somewhat strange, it would solve the problem. It wouldnt cost PUSA much if any profit, and rating would no longer be based on the amount of gas money someone has. I'm all for it, though it will never happen.
Click to expand...

But it might just lose them money.
And not just PUSA, the card-stores.
A lot of money is spent at a large tournament, so, while this would solve a lot of problems, it would cause too many.
 
In my opinion, limiting the amounts of tournaments you can enter would be one of the worst decisions that could be made.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top