Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Top Cut Dissapointments NEW SUGGESTION!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I still think there should be a Top 64 at Nationals! It would make it to where all the 7-2's make it, and even some lucky 6-3'ers. It just seems more fair, and, though it would add an hour to the Top Cut's length, it's on the much shorter of the two days!
 
rerisenphoenix said:
I still think there should be a Top 64 at Nationals! It would make it to where all the 7-2's make it, and even some lucky 6-3'ers. It just seems more fair, and, though it would add an hour to the Top Cut's length, it's on the much shorter of the two days!
Click to expand...

Wrong! There is no extra time on sunday.

Keith
 
ryanvergel said:
Your relationship only holds true if the top cut size is adequate. This is not the case when there are restrictions placed on top cut sizes.
Click to expand...


Nah, the swiss-1 < swiss < swiss+1 relationship is always true because with each round there is more information on which to base any decision.

Now how much better is a different question which can be asked in lots of ways such as: "Is the +1 worth the extra venue time"?

By definition a top cut is a restriction. So no conclusion can be drawn or infered from the presence of such restrictions. How big a top cut ought to be may be a simple question but always comes down to trying to find a balance between competing needs.
  • There has to be venue time
  • Staff must not be exhausted
  • Don't forget parents and the yougest players.
  • At small events the cut should be roughly one quarter.
  • At bigger events all the X-1s should make the cut
  • There is no need to let in any X-3s
  • It is still supposed to be Fun.
  • The event is just as much for those that miss the cut as for those that make it.
  • Single elimination should be match play
oh and probably some other stuff I've forgotten.


Prime: said:
....... but the "system" doesn't calculate for lucky hands, or bad matchups, bad days, etc. How can the system calculate for something that isn't constant?
Click to expand...
I have proposed a Bayesian modification to ELO that DOES make allowance for luck being a core part of this game It is on the prof forums. FWIW I'm also looking at maximum liklihood estimation of ratings too. Maximum Liklihood (ML) has the attractive property that losing in the top cut wont automatically result in your rating being reduced relative to someone you beat out in the last round of swiss. The ML approach takes a holistic view of the tournament data but thus far I haven't been able to figure out how to incorporate luck into the maximum liklihood estimations of rating. I'll probably need to enlist the help of other mathematicians to help with that problem as it has me foxed at the moment. Still there are other issues with ML before I need to consider luck - not least is my having to re-learn C++ :( Stupid language C++
 
I think a smaller number of swiss (6 rounds for a 64 person tournament, let's say) and a top cut of 8 is better than 7 rounds with a 100 person tournament and only a top 8.
 
SlimeyGrimey said:
Well it's too bad you live in such a large area. What do you want POP to do about it? =/
Click to expand...

Isn’t that just the problem, if you live in an area where pokemon is popular you get punished for that. Instead, you would think that they would want to encourage areas to grow the player base and not discourage people from participating.
 
punished for having people to play against?

punished for the oportunity to get a ratings invite?

punished for having real competition against which to hone your skilz?

The best steel is made in the hottest fires. I should be so lucky as to have such punishment. I just don't see it as a problem for OP that there are better players that prevent me from winning and getting stuff. This applies regardless of the size of event. It isn't OPs fault that I don't win.

The players who are "punished" are those that have little to no opportunity to play. But that is to do with geography and demography.
 
NoPoke said:
punished for having people to play against?

punished for the oportunity to get a ratings invite?

punished for having real competition against which to hone your skilz?

The best steel is made in the hottest fires. I should be so lucky as to have such punishment. I just don't see it as a problem for OP that there are better players that prevent me from winning and getting stuff. This applies regardless of the size of event. It isn't OPs fault that I don't win.

The players who are "punished" are those that have little to no opportunity to play. But that is to do with geography and demography.
Click to expand...

Yes punished!! When Sate A has 40 players and a top 8 cut, and state B has 100 players and a Top 8 cut state B is not being treated the same as State A is it?

The real focus here is WHY.. Why was this change made to the game?... No one is asking for anything new, we just want things to go back to the way that they were in the past. Large top cuts were a part of the game for years. It was a fact that if your event has a certain number of participants in it you would have a Top 16 cut. That was the way things were originally set up.

What we have is a CHANGE from the way tournaments used to be run in the past. Before this change was made top cuts were more fair to the participants, now they are more unfair.

Does anyone have any idea why top cut limits, not based on attendance were brought into the game?
Really, it is not knowing the reason why that is so frustrating to me, if there was just some communication as to why this change was implemented, even if I did not agree with it, the forced top cut ceilings in tournaments would be a heck of a lot easier to accept.
 
JandPDS said:
Does anyone have any idea why top cut limits, not based on attendance were brought into the game?
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but I think it's for the purposes of ratings invites. If a Top 16 is run at one event and a Top 8 at another, the T16 event winner got one extra game, in addition to that extra in swiss that they probably had because of their large attendance. I guess the guys in charge didn't think that was fair? *shrug*
 
SuperWooper said:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but I think it's for the purposes of ratings invites. If a Top 16 is run at one event and a Top 8 at another, the T16 event winner got one extra game, in addition to that extra in swiss that they probably had because of their large attendance. I guess the guys in charge didn't think that was fair? *shrug*
Click to expand...

Yes, but the winner of the top 8 had the advantage of playing in smaller and easier field then the winner of the top 16 did, and should not gain points equal to the winner of the Top 16 event. Many times a 1 or 2 seed will get knocked out of a top 16 match (I know as I have been on both sides of thoes games). And right now those players are being denied their opportunity to win the event.



If rating points and ranking invites are causing all of this turmoil I sincerely hope that they (ranking invites) are done away with, and we can go back to having rating points just being for fun and not actually mean anything. I would prefer that all Worlds invites just be handed out at Nationals. so that our
top cuts could go back to where they should be, based on attendance at the event.

Make rating points be for fun only and, say give invites to Worlds to the the Top 32 at Nats, that should solve all the problems.
 
Smeagol said:
lol one could imagine how the 33rd place finisher would react, if you're plan were to be implemented.
Click to expand...

5th through 8th Place

An invitation to the 2008 Pokémon TCG World Championships
A scholarship award worth $750. Click here for scholarship details and restrictions
A combination of 36 booster packs from current Pokémon TCG expansions

9th through 16th Place

A combination of 18 booster packs from current Pokémon TCG expansions


They will feel the same way as the 9th place finsiher will this year thats how.


Well Idealy there would be a top 64 cut, so you would have to win one Top cut match to qualify for worlds (in masters) in the USA.
 
Last edited:
On any given day the best player at the tournament may not win. Or come second or third or even place in the top half. It is the nature of the game we play. You can be a reasonable player in a 200 player tournament and with a bit of luck win, or be the best player in a 32 player event and fail miserably. It just does not follow that bigger tournaments are harder or more correctly determine who is most worthy.

FWIW I don't think the rating system was behind the decision to limit cut sizes at premiere events. Much more likely it was driven by anticipated growth in attendance and POP believing that the tough decisions and the flack should be with them and not their PTOs. The rating system get blamed for all sorts of behaviour that is really down to individual choice.
 
NoPoke said:
On any given day the best player at the tournament may not win. Or come second or third or even place in the top half. It is the nature of the game we play. You can be a reasonable player in a 200 player tournament and with a bit of luck win, or be the best player in a 32 player event and fail miserably. It just does not follow that bigger tournaments are harder or more correctly determine who is most worthy.

FWIW I don't think the rating system was behind the decision to limit cut sizes at premiere events. Much more likely it was driven by anticipated growth in attendance and POP believing that the tough decisions and the flack should be with them and not their PTOs. The rating system get blamed for all sorts of behaviour that is really down to individual choice.
Click to expand...

But that is the crux of the problem. A major change was made to the game without any explanation given.
That has led to wild speculation and rumor as to the reason(s) why. If we were just told why this was done, then most people regardless of if they agreed with the reasons or not would accept the decision.

If your Top 32 in an invitation only event of the TOP 32 ranked players in N America, then yes you could argue that the smaller event would be harder to top cut then a 100 person event with your average turnout. But otherwise larger events are going to have on average more tougher players then smaller events. Otherwise why would some players choose to not play in a state championship in their home town where there would be 100 participants, and instead on that very same day drive to a state championship over 6 hours away to play in an event with only 30 people in it? This does infact happen. And not without reason. As it is easier to do better in the Smaller State championship rather then the larger, and this easiness factor is the reason that makes it worth to some people driving 300 miles away for a state championship when there is there is one 15 miles from their home on the same day.
 
Last edited:
:eek: Wow the things Mike and the crew do for this game are INSANE!!!! I wish there was a bowing smiley on here because i thing we all need to bow to liesick and the crew for all the problems they go through to give us a great event

I give a :ppowr: to them for everything they go through. I know it was hard but that is something you need nerves of steel and a love for this game to tackle.
 
I still don't get how 32/~400, 8% getting top cut is equal to a 25% top cut like there is supposed to be...it is not following guidelines soo..:confused:
 
LOL It isn't but consider what happens if POP follow your implied suggestion: If POP do implement a T25% then they will be forced to implement a cap on attendance. Just how happy would you be with all premiere events having a maximum player cap at 128? Many single day events would be capped at 64 entrants.

As to POP justifying their decisions to us.. ??confused?? Not even the government justify their decisions so why expect a public company too? POP tell us a great deal about their plans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top