Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Top cut travesty

B

butlerforhire

New Member
2010: 115 total players. Top 32 cut granted.
2011: 122 total players. Top 32 inexplicably NOT granted.

I want to know why this top cut debacle (yes, debacle) happened. When you have 5-2s whiffing cut at World, you have a serious problem that throws the legitimacy of the whole affair into question.

What I really want to know is why there was a discrepancy between this year and last year. If 2010's tournament can be run with a top 32 and less than 128 players, why in the world (no pun intended) couldn't the same happen this year?
 
Last edited:
most likely because there shouldnt have been top 32 in 2010. a few 4-3's made it in because of the top 32 cut and one of them ended up winning a trip/invite. instead, they went with their tournament policy which is 7 rounds top 16 if theres between 65 and 127 people.
 
ATJdragon said:
most likely because there shouldnt have been top 32 in 2010. a few 4-3's made it in because of the top 32 cut and one of them ended up winning a trip/invite. instead, they went with their tournament policy which is 7 rounds top 16 if theres between 65 and 127 people.
Click to expand...


Not that this makes a huge difference, but with a t32 cut with 128 players there will be 3 players with a 4-3 record that make the cut.
 
ATJdragon said:
most likely because there shouldnt have been top 32 in 2010. a few 4-3's made it in because of the top 32 cut and one of them ended up winning a trip/invite. instead, they went with their tournament policy which is 7 rounds top 16 if theres between 65 and 127 people.
Click to expand...

There should always be a top 32 cut at the World championship. There is no excuse for it not being done this year when it was done last year with even less people. The 4-3s getting in makes no difference, although it is strange how you seem to imply that they don't deserve to be there at all. The main point is that 5-2s should NOT be whiffing. For a few examples of how good 5-2 at World actually is, think about this: Jason K. wouldn't have won World in 2008 if there had only been a top 16 cut, as he lost twice and went into the cut as the 19th seed (mentioned in his World report). Ross "barely" made it in this year with 5-2, and he went on to get 2nd. David Cohen, the winner, was 5-2. TWELVE players whiffed this year with that same record. Who is going to come into this thread and justify leaving 12 players with a stellar record empty-handed (the prizes don't compensate for not getting to play in cut) for no good reason, since apparently last year illustrates that the "magic 128" rule can be sidestepped?

Having the grinder single elimination also was a bad decision that bled over into the top cut problem, it seems, since with everyone's record being the same, there was no way to grant additional invites beyond the undefeated 16. All that had to be done to make this right was let 6 more players in, which would've been possible if the grinder was run like it has been in the past. Single elimination needs to be done away with in the future.
 
Last edited:
Related note: why did they ever change the rules so that you had to have a 8, 16, 32, 64, or 128 to initiate the corresponding top cut? They need to return it to the system where a few under would get you the same cut.

Time and time again the past two seasons, top cuts have been ruined by being just 1 or 2 players short. This is a clear sign we need to go back to how things were.
 
Side note: aside from the whole top cut thing, this was one of the best run tournaments I've ever been to.

However, despite me not even being close to top cut (finishing 3-4), I saw it as a complete disgrace being only t16. TWELVE 5-2 missed it, meaning it was a total crapshoot if you lost two games. A common argument, "win more games", is not acceptable at this level of near-perfect play. 5-2 is an excellent showing at this level of play, and deserves a shot at winning it all. I sincerely hope that how far they cut is never again an issue and will go to t32 ever year.
 
I also want to say that aside from the top cut situation, the whole weekend was run in great fashion. I just do not understand why such a horrible decision was made this year when it was made clear from last year that no such decision HAD to be made.

I think the community deserves some answers, and yet no one is coughing them up.
 
I did not go to worlds, but I would have to agree with most of you. The reason why Pokemon cuts so deep normally is precisely due to the single game Swiss format. Having a deep cut allows players to lose one or two games and still make it into the finals. This allows players to have bad match up and still have a successful tournament. This also eliminates the need for a best two out of three Swiss portion, and eliminates the need for a side board.

This was not a great way to handle the top cut. Heck in Chris Fulop's report he said that he had the game won against Ross. He was about ready to Lost Burn for 100 and a turn two donk. Instead he scooped. Because Chris knew that at 5-2 he was going to whiff and at 4-3 Ross would miss out. However, by scooping he was fairly certain that Ross would make it and he would be at 4-3 and miss. If the top cut had been to 32, Chris (virtually) admitted that he would have taken the win and kept playing. The fact that the top cut was 16 literally changed how the whole event played out because Chris would have likely been in and Ross would have likely been out of even the top 32 at a 4-3 record...

While I know that the 17th place person might be mad reading that post, I do not condemn Chris for what he did. Yes, the 17th person would have gotten in, but Chris has the right to scoop whenever he pleases as long as there was not any pregame collusion (prearranged exchange of prizes) and there was not.
 
I don't get how a random crybaby thread about the World SWAG gets a ton of replies, including multiple from Pokepop and co., and yet this thread about a much more important issue is completely ignored by the people who have some explaining to do.
 
Maybe because there has already a couple threads on the subject, or the subject was brought up in other worlds threads where comments have been made.

I wouldn't hold my breath for an answer from anyone who had any decision in the matter, and altho it would be interesting to hear their reasoning behind it I'm not going to go on a fourm and demand an answer.

They certainly don't have to explain themselves to YOU.
 
sdrawkcab said:
Maybe because there has already a couple threads on the subject, or the subject was brought up in other worlds threads where comments have been made.

I wouldn't hold my breath for an answer from anyone who had any decision in the matter, and altho it would be interesting to hear their reasoning behind it I'm not going to go on a fourm and demand an answer.

They certainly don't have to explain themselves to YOU.
Click to expand...

Not to ME-- to the community. Did you see how many 'thanks' my big post got? Did you hear all of the grumbling that I heard at World and after by THE PEOPLE DIRECTLY AFFECTED by this? It was unanimous-- NO ONE was a fan of how top cut was handled. The community was hurt by some bad decisions that make NO SENSE when you look at last year's cut and attendance, and I want to know why, and I also want measures taken to keep it from happening again. This IS a big deal, and it's too bad if you can't see that or see no urgency in getting some answers.

I don't care what you would or wouldn't do in a forum, either, by the way ("I wouldn't hold my breath..."). Why do you think you have some kind of bizarre responsibility to come condescendingly lecture me in this thread? Posts like yours just leave a rotten and alienating stench. THANKS FOR THE BUMP THOUGH!
 
I can't speak for everyone else posting in that swag thread, but the only reason I'm not posting here is because this is a completely cut-and-dry issue for me.

As of posting, I hereby agree 100% with everything Butlerforhire says in its current form (as of 10:58 PM EST, August 22nd 2011). I understand the technical reason why they did this, but come on...This is WORLDS!

*In 2007, they could have added one _extra_ round of swiss, thereby guaranteeing that resistance wouldn't have mattered at all (except for the 1-2 lucky 4-3's who made it)
*Likewise, in 2011 P!P would have been better served to produce a more inclusive top cut. Even if your numbers are a bit off, this is Worlds: you want your best to have the best chance of showing off their skills, and when over half of your 5-2's miss, it's...Troubling.

Despite the general "rule of thumb," Worlds needs inclusive top cuts - this I'm convinced of.
 
Last edited:
butlerforhire said:
I don't get how a random crybaby thread about the World SWAG gets a ton of replies, including multiple from Pokepop and co., and yet this thread about a much more important issue is completely ignored by the people who have some explaining to do.
Click to expand...

Not my decision, and I have no idea what went into the decision, so I can't defend it one way or the other.

I also have no opinion on it, so I don't post.
I don't HAVE to post on every contentious topic. :thumb:
 
ATJdragon said:
most likely because there shouldnt have been top 32 in 2010. a few 4-3's made it in because of the top 32 cut and one of them ended up winning a trip/invite. instead, they went with their tournament policy which is 7 rounds top 16 if theres between 65 and 127 people.
Click to expand...

Well if a 4-3 won a trip/invite then obviously they deserved it. I would much rather a few 4-3 make it into the top cut then a few 5-2 miss out. Worlds should allways be T32. It is too important of a tourney to run a T16. Look at Ross he made it in at 16, if he was 17 he would not have had the chance to win the event and that would have been a shame. Bad starts and donks can happen to anyone. having to go X-1 at worlds to ensure a spot in the top cut is not fair.
 
I was talking to Dave a few years ago about making top cut T32, but instead of having 32 players, just having anyone with a record of 5-2 or higher make cut. That would mean that anyone who was 4-3 would miss cut. They would still get prizes, but the top seeds that would have played them get automatic byes into T16. I thought this was the fairest way to do it. Yes, there is an issue with players getting byes so late in the tournament, but it's a lot less wrong than having 2 or 3 4-3s out of like 20+ making top cut.

Drew
 
I've always thought a t31 or t15 cut would be a good idea in tournaments.

Aside from ranking points (which doesnt even matter at worlds) the X-0 gets no advantage for having gone undefeated, and should deserve a bye.
 
This isn't just a problem at Worlds, it's the to top cut system in general.
Yes, it's ok to have a small cut, but only in a game where you can't lose so easily by bad luck.

In a 31 player tournament, one loss round 1 means you're out. Yes, you can be out of the tournament, with no chance of getting any kind of prizes, before you even got to draw a card. Something has to be wrong here.

In a ~110 players Worlds, two losses can cause you to be out, which makes it still difficult at this skill level. 1% of resistance can decide between not making the cut, and getting to semifinals. At worlds, they heavily increased Top 32 prize support so it was kinda ok, but at other tournaments, the 5-2s who whiff the cut walk away with nothing (like our Nationals 2010 with about 120 masters).

Possible solutions to solve this are:
- re-implement the old top cut numbers
- run more swiss rounds
- run swiss in b-o-3

Yes, all of these would make tournaments go longer. But whoever comes to a tournament is there to play. Some people take a long journey to get there, and want to play as much as possible. Exspecially at important events like Worlds or Nationals the tournament playtime and top cut integrity shouldn't be reduced because of time issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top