Worlds 2011 LCQ info up!

[Rainbowgym]

and as I just pointed out to rainbowgym....anyone who is making the trip JUST FOR GRINDERS is looking at it from a completly wrong perspective.

Excuse me, but do you perhaps understand that my perspective can be different than yours?
$50 on gas to play the LCQ, I would be the first one in line.
Same as I only had to pay around $300 a ticket.

 

[Zaniken]

I don't know what to think of this change personally. I feel that its a step in the right direction, in the sense that POP is trying new stuff out, at least. Without double elimination however, I really don't think this switch reduces the luck factor of going into a tournament. Sure, best of three means you don't lose to bad starts or donks as much, but the single elim means one unfavorable matchup means you're out for good.

All in all I don't see this changing much about the grinder besides making it shorter. All it does is make the process more definitive for the players who lose a round. If you lose, you're out. Period.

Double Elim would be soooooo much better, but I don't see all that much to complain about otherwise.

 

[Mystery Thing]

Excuse me, but do you perhaps understand that my perspective can be different than yours?
$50 on gas to play the LCQ, I would be the first one in line.
Same as I only had to pay around $300 a ticket.

The cheapest flight from Edmonton to San Diego on Travelocity right now is $583. The vast majority of them are between $625 and $800. Yeah, it's no $1500, but it's a lot more than $300.

Why would there be a need for a time limit for rounds. ... You have a bracket set up.

Like 'pop said, untimed games is madness. We ran the final at the last Gym Challenge with no time limit (I was playing in it), and the final took just over 2 hours, and that's with game 3 only lasting 30 seconds. Untimed matches NEVER work.

As for the bracket, obviously I have no influence on it and clearly yield the experience to GLB, but even if it is bracketed and not random, I would hope (and assume, quite frankly) that the bracket won't be posted. Knowing who you'd be playing next leads to deck scouting, and that's never a good thing.




Obviously you play in the grinder to win an invite. But that said, if failing to do so would shatter your entire weekend and leave you sulking in your hotel room, you're going for the wrong reason. It's not like there'll be a shortage of international players to get to play against outside of the LCQ/Worlds structure. Too expensive for your blood to get to Worlds and take a risk like that? Then win your Nationals or get yourself a rankings invite and it won't be a problem now, will it?

 

[Cyrus]

Hmm. I specifically remember instances where only the top 8 were given invites and out of 100+ people, you had to go undefeated to get in. I'm sure that has happened at least in some age groups, within 6 years. Perhaps the instance of Lawman's youngest who lost a single game, but came in 9th place, just under the limit, is a good example.

Also, you don't have to go undefeated. The rounds are best 2-out-of-3. You (and many others) are completely discounting the free loss you're allowed every single round, as long as you win the other two games.

I'm "discounting" it? Re-read my post, please, with special attention to

"(not counting losses in b2of3)."

I know full well that you're given a "free loss"; however, P!P has never considered the separate top cut games to be worth something in and of themselves, so by their own standard, you have to go undefeated to get in. Besides, the "free loss" isn't going to help much if you get paired to an auto-loss. For event legitimacy, there is a huge loss (single elim v. double elim) in exchange for a moderate gain (b2of3).

P.S. I'm curious about that LCQ stat. I do know though that my statement is accurate for the Masters, which has been:

2005: X-0
2006-2010: X-1 guaranteed, with X-2's slipping in occasionally

And AFAIK, every single year the Juniors/Seniors have had both fewer participants/more invites to give out, so it'd reasonably follow that as good records or worse would be needed.

The amount of complaining in this thread is utterly disgraceful.

Don't like the rules? No one's asking you to come to the LCQ.

The amount of complaining means nothing - as long as the complaints are logical, then they ought to be embraced, and not met with a "EITHER YOU LIKE IT OR YOU GET OUT" response like this one. Posts like these make me sick.

I despise it when people refuse to listen to others' opinions as to how things ought to be. If we all followed the "like it or don't come" doctrine, we'd still be thinking that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the world was flat.

 

[Yoshi-]

Excuse me, but do you perhaps understand that my perspective can be different than yours?
$50 on gas to play the LCQ, I would be the first one in line.
Same as I only had to pay around $300 a ticket.

Lia I usually agree with everything you say but I dont see the point here.

The grinder has always been 1 loss and youre out unless you lost very late to someone who goes x-o, right?
So what changes? They get to play b03 insteaf of b01 period.

IF you just want to play for fun against other people, just play the league, whats the difference between loosign round 1 and playing on for the fun and loosing round 1 and going to league? The best can make it through the rest can play for fun, nothing changes except that we get to play b03 and that the whole thing is over earlier which is great for players and staff alike

 

[ugly psyducky]

I guess for the record, I'm disappointed in this turn of event.

Two reasons; firstly is pretty much my selfishness. With my comittments to judging there are two large competitive tournaments to play in (a SPT not in my region) and the LCQ. A single elimination format tournament will really diminish the experience of the latter. Clearly there is more to World's then the LCQ, but for me it is likely the tipping point on whether to make the trip or not.

It is suggested that somehow League Play or Side Events somehow can take the place of Rounds in an actual tournament.

I believe it is a good thing. I would much rather know right away and play in a less stressful side event or league for fun.

As for the players who enjoy playing others from around the world in the later rds (and with marginal records), you can do that ALL WEEKEND....it is called SIDE EVENTS and LEAGUE. Shoot, you can play pick up games all the time in the free play area.

Sorry, but there is a huge difference in the amount of satisfaction one gets out of a win (or a great game resulting in a loss) in a tournament and one that happens in a non-competitive environment.

... and that the whole thing is over earlier which is great for players ...

What part of being over earlier is better for the LCQ player. I realize the event itself is free, but pretty much the economics is minutes played per dollar spent and this format greatly reduces the numerator in this equation for the majority of the players. Not sure how this is great for players in general (arguably good for the players going forward to World's the next day who are the vast minority).


But beyond my selfish rant something I find even worse is the seemingly new mantra for the LCQ

As already posted, the grinder isn't supposed to be fun. It's supposed to be brutal and harsh and straight to the point.

Ouch ... is this describing a Pokemon event ... for real.

For three years now I have run a tournament known as the Ugly Cup which top prize provides funding for an individual and companion to make the trip to World's to play in the LCQ. It's a considerable cost to me, but PUI/P!P provided an event at Worlds that in my mind made it an experience worth the investment in the game. Not sure I have the same feelings about sending someone to a tournament that isn't suppose to be fun and is suppose to be "brutal and harsh".

I have always told the parents of the new kids in our league (and I help run the largest Pokémon League in Washington State) that one of the "Good" things about playing Pokémon is that the tournaments are all about fun, and playing Pokémon and so even if their children are new to the game and still learning the ropes, they can go to tournaments and have fun playing and after a few rounds they will find some more competitive games as they reach the players of similar skill.
===
For many people the Grinder was their worlds. It was their one chance a year to play against players from all over the world.

^ This is on point.

Perhaps the LCQ is a "different" tournament, but it's still Pokemon and IMO it's a bit of a slippery slope to run 1 "brutal" tournament a year.

 

[Prodigiosus]

The amount of complaining means nothing - as long as the complaints are logical, then they ought to be embraced, and not met with a "EITHER YOU LIKE IT OR YOU GET OUT" response like this one. Posts like these make me sick.

I despise it when people refuse to listen to others' opinions as to how things ought to be. If we all followed the "like it or don't come" doctrine, we'd still be thinking that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the world was flat.

OK - I admit, I didn't mean to come off harshly and take it that far. You have to understand that I am reading all the posts here, and of course, you come off with a very logical argument. I'm just annoyed by the constant "OMG THIS IS KILLING THE GAME, THIS IS RIDICULOUS, NO ONE'S GOING TO COME NOW, WORST DECISION EVER" posts that make no sense whatsoever. Yes, the amount of complaining means nothing if the complaints are logical, but some of them just aren't logical. I didn't meant to offend anyone, but some people are really coming off as ungrateful.

 

[Box of Fail]

OK - I admit, I didn't mean to come off harshly and take it that far. You have to understand that I am reading all the posts here, and of course, you come off with a very logical argument. I'm just annoyed by the constant "OMG THIS IS KILLING THE GAME, THIS IS RIDICULOUS, NO ONE'S GOING TO COME NOW, WORST DECISION EVER" posts that make no sense whatsoever. Yes, the amount of complaining means nothing if the complaints are logical, but some of them just aren't logical. I didn't meant to offend anyone, but some people are really coming off as ungrateful.

That's because we don't owe OP any debt of gratitude. Pokémon cards are hardly free, and consumers have every right to demand more when they are not satisfied. OP is a huge contributor to card sales; Pokémon can hardly be said to run it out of the goodness of their hearts.

Pokémon Organized Play has a good track record of hearing problems that the players have had and I commend them for it. This means that the best way to voice your concerns with relative confidence that they will be addressed is to put it on a forum such as this one.

What some do not understand is that the best way to increase your chances at having OP fix your problem is not contacting customer service. If you have a private issue that is the right thing to do and from experience I know the customer service correspondents are very competent people and good at their job. If you are frustrated with a decision that affects all players, complaining about it in public is the most effective way to generate a response. Yes, we do it on purpose to foster discontent among the player base. Is that bad? Of course not! If a bad decision has been made it is a public service to voice your discontent and is must more likely to fix the problem than simply being thankful they're holding OP at all. Keeping the complaint private between yourself and OP is almost never beneficial.

Telling people to be grateful for a service rendered by a company will not achieve anything.

 

[Mystery Thing]

For three years now I have run a tournament known as the Ugly Cup which top prize provides funding for an individual and companion to make the trip to World's to play in the LCQ. It's a considerable cost to me, but PUI/P!P provided an event at Worlds that in my mind made it an experience worth the investment in the game. Not sure I have the same feelings about sending someone to a tournament that isn't suppose to be fun and is suppose to be "brutal and harsh".

And of course I know of it. It's a noble cause, obviously.

But the grinder isn't supposed to be a happy time fun event. It's supposed to be a last chance to squeeze into the super happy fun time event that happens the next day. That's why it's normally referred to as a "grinder" - not a term that conjures up sweet joyous thoughts.

I still maintain that you just need to view the Worlds experience as a whole, not as compartmentalized tournaments, which a lot of people seem to be doing. Anybody can show up to the Worlds Experience™ and have a great time. From the trades that can be made with Japanese players to the quicky 8-player side events to the prereleases to the sitting on the beach, there's a lot more to the event than just the main tournament. There's been some outside suggestion that they should run a full-sized tournament later on in the grinder day for people that are eliminated early, and I think that's a fabulous idea. You'll still get the massive tournament experience at Worlds, but it'll be a lot more fun and friendly because it's not a win-at-all-costs event like the grinder will be (and always has been). This is why the no IDs being given out makes sense. The grinder is not for people that don't know what they're doing or just want to play and have fun. It's for people that are willing to lay it all on the table to win.

Obviously everybody that shows up is going to play to win. The problem is those who seem to think that if you don't win the grinder, it's a massive waste of time and money. People need to be looking at Worlds as a chance for a vacation where you get to play Pokémon with people from all over the world, not the other way around.

When I went to Nationals in 2007 as a player, I was one of the few people there expecting nothing and just looking to have fun. If I won more than I lost, the day would be a success. I went 5-2 in swiss, won in the T16, lost in the T8. I was one win away from qualifying for Worlds. And I assure you, I was the happiest person to miss a Worlds invite by one win ever. It's all about what you expect from the event going into it. It's like going to a casino. If you go expecting to win, in the likely event that you don't, you'll be upset. If you go expecting to lose whatever you set your limit at and just focus on having a good time, no matter what happens it'll have been worth it.

I'm not saying have a lackadaisical attitude towards the grinder. I'm saying people need to go for the entire Worlds Experience; not for the sole reason, sole expectation, sole this-is-what-needs-to-happen-for-me-to-be-happy of winning the grinder.

 

[Yoshi-]

BEing over early is good because players who make it will need every minute of rest they can get after that

 

[NoPoke]

Yoshi, players who make it will be playing for as long in a single elimination best of three format as they would in a swiss single game format. The single elimination format guarantees saving three rounds but the b-o-3 format adds time to all the previous rounds. If attendance is as large as is being suggested then those two ought to mostly balance out.

The single elimination format does mean that it is possible to accommodate more players than you have seats. It does this by enabling the possibility of running the first round in two waves so that 512 seats can accommodate upto 1024 players. Running the tournament this way extends the time for the tournament. A double elimination format using swiss pairs with forced drops would add an extra round which in the wave based approach adds a further two hours to the tournament. A true double elimination tournament with a winners bracket and a loosers bracket adds several rounds as the players in the winners bracket end up waiting for players from the loosers bracket. I'm not sure off the top of my head how taking the Top 8 from a double elimination would work, no doubt it is possible and some research and work may yield a simple answer or then again it might not be simple at all.

Using TOM to run swiss with forced drops on second loss could result in a tournament that cannot end with the desired 8 remaining players in the tournament. ending with a given number of players not being a goal of swiss pairing system.

I can see how trying to resolve the constraint of accommodating more players than you have seats would force a decision to switch to single elimination.

I am making an assumption that the b-o-3 format wont be so riddled with donks that matches are over within 30 minutes. Stupid as it may sound, that is a real fear right now for many players and organisers so it is worth stating
------

Lia's point is that for many players outside the USA the grinder is THE highlight of their playing year. That a switch to single elimination for the grinder does diminish the grinder for those players. Now it may well be true that the LCQ was never supposed to provide that year highlight tournament but then I don't expect it was ever supposed to grow to the size that is expected either.

Her point is valid even if it is not a perspective that many in the USA will have as you do have your year highlight tournament in nationals.

 

[PokeDad]

That's because we don't owe OP any debt of gratitude. Pokémon cards are hardly free, and consumers have every right to demand more when they are not satisfied. OP is a huge contributor to card sales; Pokémon can hardly be said to run it out of the goodness of their hearts.

Pokémon Organized Play has a good track record of hearing problems that the players have had and I commend them for it. This means that the best way to voice your concerns with relative confidence that they will be addressed is to put it on a forum such as this one.

What some do not understand is that the best way to increase your chances at having OP fix your problem is not contacting customer service. If you have a private issue that is the right thing to do and from experience I know the customer service correspondents are very competent people and good at their job. If you are frustrated with a decision that affects all players, complaining about it in public is the most effective way to generate a response. Yes, we do it on purpose to foster discontent among the player base. Is that bad? Of course not! If a bad decision has been made it is a public service to voice your discontent and is must more likely to fix the problem than simply being thankful they're holding OP at all. Keeping the complaint private between yourself and OP is almost never beneficial.

Telling people to be grateful for a service rendered by a company will not achieve anything.

Box,

There are posts of yours that I am in complete agreement with, but we could not be farther apart on this one.

You may not owe the card creator, or packager, or seller any gratitude, but if you really feel no gratitude to OP for the terrific job they do organizing and running the program, if you believe that thanks aren't due when a caring job is done well, if you weren't taught simple politeness - that a thank you, like a please, cost nothing, but are the mark of a well raised, civil, person worth listening too - well, that is a sadness.

I would suggest that publicly complaining about situations often outside of our OP's ability to correct - they are sometimes forced to play the cards they are dealt from overseas as well - might lead to an environment where OP shrinks instead of grows, or grows at a slower pace than it would if it weren't for veteran players sowing dissatisfaction, causing our newer players to turn away from the game.

You paint causing discontent, chaos, discord, as a public service. As a businessperson, I would describe it quite differently. Rather than expressing yourself responsibly, you choose to do so in a manner that may cause economic harm to the program you purportedly claim to want to help. You advocate this, what I see as unhelpful method of voicing unhappiness, as the way others should communicate to OP.

I am not saying you should hold your discontent in, I'm not even saying taking to the forums is bad in and of itself; but there seems, to me, a general note of selfish expectation and self entitlement, that you are due OP from a card manufacturer, that public outcry is helpful if the OP isn't run how you want, that economic blackmail is ever appropriate, and that thanks is never due.

A well reasoned, respectful, post offering solutions for perceived problems, or a more circumspect communication where reason, respect, or solutions are lacking, might be better received and do less potential harm to the game you aim to help.

Expressing gratitude for a service rendered is common decency, the way parents hope their children act when they become adults.

I may disagree with your what, but I definitely disagree with your how...on this one anyway.

 

[Pokemon No Baka]

RIP LCQ as we knew it. Now an unwelcoming "brutal and harsh" affair it may no longer be the fun, exhausting, exhilarating Pokemon gathering it once was.

HOWEVER

Let's all bear in mind that although we have lost the Spirit of the Game for this one tournament, it is hardly the end of our love affair with Pokemon. We still have our leagues, our local tournaments and most importantly, our Pokemon Families. This one tournament is such a small percentage of our overall Pokemon experience that it would be a shame to throw out the Togepi with the bathwater.

We purchased our flights and hotel for San Diego well before the LCQ format announcement, and to be honest if we had waited we may not have booked at all. But that ultimately would have been a shame as we wouldn't have then been able to support our some of our favorite Pokemon family members in person, whether they are playing in the LCQ, Worlds, or on Staff. And I for one would have regretted it.

 

[The_Lurb]

I'd like to start off by saying that I'm in support of this decision and unlikely to get an invite this year.

I feel like I have a better chance of going undefeated for X amount of rounds of top cut then going undefeated in swiss. As previously mentioned, unless you lose in the last or second to last round you are pretty much out anyway. Hitting a bad matchup and losing is what happens in card games. Missing your invite chance completely to a donk or one bad start is what really sucks. Double elimination would probably be better but honestly I'm excited to see how this works.

I'm not personally concerned with what time the tournament ends as I'm sure won't be getting much sleep either way. But if it can end earlier then that is great for those that do need or want the sleep, the staff, etc.

I also don't expect to make it through the grinder at all. If I lose the first round then cool, I'm in San Diego with people I see once, maybe twice a year. The league at worlds is also killer if I feel like playing more Pokemon. I think if you are willing to spend the money to go to Worlds, even if you don't have an invite you should do it. People are acting like there is nothing to do if they get eliminated from the grinder which is incredibly far from the truth. The grinder is one tournament a year where you might be knocked out your first round and not be in the tournament anymore (you can still play Pokemon, at Worlds!). You know what is just a month after the grinder? More tournaments.

 

[sdrawkcab]

Excuse me, but do you perhaps understand that my perspective can be different than yours?
$50 on gas to play the LCQ, I would be the first one in line.
Same as I only had to pay around $300 a ticket.

Lia you've completely misread my point, which was: Regardless of the cost associated with traveling, the players who are going to the grinders for worlds are missing out compared to those who are going to worlds for worlds (and the grinder.)

By that I mean if you are spending $X going to the Grinders JUST to win a invite into the main event, after you don't win your invite you'll likey have a bitter overtone looming over you for the entirity of the weekend.

Compared to someone who spends $X going to Worlds, enjoying the beautiful weather, great company, friendly atmostphere, fun activites, AND playing in the grinder (almost as a bonus), you'll notice they'll have had a better experience overall (better value for their dollar)


And yes, as Geoff pointed out, It's not cheap for me either.....pushing $1000 after food expenses without hotel.

 

[MudkipPrime]

I guess I will stay in the leaque now

 

[Rainbowgym]

My goal is not only winning the LCQ (how much I would love to do it).
It's ONE of the reasons to go there, and one of the "more important" reasons.

Spending money to go to the USA and play ANY event should have a balance between costs/expectations.
Don't know how to explain it.

I know there is league and prerelease, have been there every single year.
But being part of a real large tournament and able to play XX rounds simply was one of the reasons I found it was "allowed" to spend so much money on it.

And I don't like to hear people saying "make it a family vacation" because it simple isn't most times.
Even those players with an invite+trip most times are not there with their complete family, due to the costs.

I am just pointing at some things what might be an issue for those people having to pay a lot of money to even get there.
I do like Best of 3 (in a normal metagame not this one), I can understand Single Elimination, but I also want to "defend" the position of those who are put in a disadvantage for years already do to the distance/costs to even go there.

 

[Templarion]

Ok... if I would go to the US and I would go to the "Single Elimination Grinder", I MUST do a deck with 4 sableyes, 4 expert belt and 4 snowpoint temple and 48 darkness energy jajajaja xD... and I go the worlds... easy! don't you? xD

 

[GodBlessAmerica]

The only reason I could think of not supporting this idea is the fact that one bad matchup keeps you from grinding in. However some decks just have the natural ability to conquer so many decks that bad matchups are few and far between. Some decks can have bad matchups but because of their ability to trainer lock or power lock can beat them through locking their opponent down. Who knows, if their are enough seats in worlds, they may let top 16 in as well. we will have to wait and see. Although I am not a volunteer/PTO/Judge at worlds because I'm going to be 16 in May, I'm going to list the pros and cons as if I were. BTW I am also in support of not giving pop IDs at the event.

Pros
1. As previously stated, I would figure it is a pain in the behind for judges to have to collect match slips from people who are just playing for fun. And although I feel they make a lot of poor decisions because of the judges, I think this one is fair.

2. In past years, although 4 invites was the minimum, they have always upped the amount if there were enough seats in worlds. Last year at the grinder in Hawaii, soo many parents and children were devastated in juniors/seniors when they found out that only 8 invites were being given, even though there were 30+ seats left in seniors and probably more in juniors. With Bo3 single elimination, they know whether or not they are making it if they get knocked out early. By upping the invites to 8, parents and their children know full well what they have to do to make it into worlds, and it is their choice to take the risk of going there.

3. Although some people don't see it, setting up worlds is a huge job and a big responsibility. The grinder is an incredibly hard job to run. By eliminating players early, judges can further prepare to judge worlds. It is a lot more stressful to collect 50-100+ match slips in masters round 5 when it could easily be over by then. (assuming it is 400 players like last year.

4. If a junior gets knocked out in the first round, he might be disappointed sure, but being able to play in side events/league to win prizes will leave them much less disappointed than playing a whole day of pokemon to win nothing.

5. Bo3 rewards better players. It does. period. Donks suck (please pardon the language mods, we all know they do). And can be the difference of whether or not a great player grinds in. Last year great players like Frankie Diaz, Ness, Martin Moreno, and Yamato had to grind in.(as well as other greats) Although 3 of the 4 made it in, donks could have kept them out. And a guy playing machamp donking one of these great players is just sickening. Or a bad hand drawn by one these players is just as sickening. I truly believe that luck plays too much of a role in this game atm for Bo3 to not be a bad choice for the grinder.

Cons
1. Although donks keeping a great player out of worlds is sickening, it really hurts to see one whiff on the invite to to one bad match-up. As Kettler said, this grinder is pretty much expecting you to go undefeated. And bad matchups are just a part of the game, they always have been.

2. Although a lot of people are complaining right now, saying this format contradicts the TCG's whole policy of letting players have the most fun and being able to play out the whole tournament, I think most of them will get over it. It is just a big shocking announcement. However some players may take this as a huge insult and may fear that future tournaments will adopt this kind of format. With that said, the player base may drop, and that wouldn't be good at all.

I may have missed some cons, but I truly think that the pros out way the cons. There are a lot of decisions the TPCi or whoever makes the decisions for the game that I detest and really disagree with, I agree with this one. I am not going to go off topic and list all the terrible decisions they have made in the past, but I hope to see more good decisions in the future.

And remember, keep in mind the people who run worlds. They put a lot of work into putting on a huge event with a lot of energy. They hire annoying hype people to please the juniors. They put a lot of work into setting up tables, running the tournament, and making most of the players happy.

 

[Box of Fail]

Box,

There are posts of yours that I am in complete agreement with, but we could not be farther apart on this one.

You may not owe the card creator, or packager, or seller any gratitude, but if you really feel no gratitude to OP for the terrific job they do organizing and running the program, if you believe that thanks aren't due when a caring job is done well, if you weren't taught simple politeness - that a thank you, like a please, cost nothing, but are the mark of a well raised, civil, person worth listening too - well, that is a sadness.

I have nothing but the highest regard and gratitude for the judges and organizers who make Pokémon Organized Play a reality. They receive very little for their work and could probably earn far more than a few boxes of Pokémon cards over the long amount of time they sacrifice for the game.

This does not extend to Pokémon Organized Play as a whole. When a decision like this is made, it is the decision of Pokémon Organized Play as a business. I don’t begrudge OP’s employees their need to make a living, but certainly holding back criticism of OP on account of gratitude is off the table. Once the people making these decisions include more than judges and volunteers, it becomes a matter of business, and not one of someone doing you a favor for which you should be appreciative. In this consumer-provider situation (which is markedly distinct from a player-judge situation), it is perfectly reasonable for the consumer to make unreserved complaints and demands, and to make a show of it at that. I agree that players should respect judges and take that respect into account when speaking of them. I do not think that we owe it to OP to refrain from openly criticizing them, however; while I am generally pleased with the fine job OP does listening to our complaints, that is in a professional capacity; OP owes it to us to hear our complaints and attempt to resolve them. Doing so shouldn’t be perceived as a kindhearted gift to the players, but rather simply fulfilling their end of the bargain for purchasing otherwise worthless trading cards. What gives the cards their value? OP.

I would suggest that publicly complaining about situations often outside of our OP's ability to correct - they are sometimes forced to play the cards they are dealt from overseas as well - might lead to an environment where OP shrinks instead of grows, or grows at a slower pace than it would if it weren't for veteran players sowing dissatisfaction, causing our newer players to turn away from the game.

You paint causing discontent, chaos, discord, as a public service. As a businessperson, I would describe it quite differently. Rather than expressing yourself responsibly, you choose to do so in a manner that may cause economic harm to the program you purportedly claim to want to help. You advocate this, what I see as unhelpful method of voicing unhappiness, as the way others should communicate to OP.

I am not saying you should hold your discontent in, I'm not even saying taking to the forums is bad in and of itself; but there seems, to me, a general note of selfish expectation and self entitlement, that you are due OP from a card manufacturer, that public outcry is helpful if the OP isn't run how you want, that economic blackmail is ever appropriate, and that thanks is never due.

Sure, booster packs aren’t printed with some guarantee of access to Pokémon Organized Play. However, without OP I know many people who would be unwilling to invest a cent in the game. Because the direction OP takes will affect consumer interest, it is hardly bad for consumers to warn fellow consumers, or to show dissatisfaction in public, which could prompt further dissatisfaction and cause damage to the Pokémon brand. I am convinced that participation in Organized Play is a right that we should expect, not a privilege that we should appreciate; though it is a right that may be revocable under some circumstances, the smoothness with which OP is run is undoubtedly the chief motivation for many players to stay involved. To be thankful it’s there when it’s our due is unnecessary, especially when said thankfulness leads to diluted criticism of company decisions and a resulting lack of progress.

What you very wittily referred to as “economic blackmail” is prevalent in every commercial industry of which I can think. I suppose your term for it is not inaccurate, but stirring up the consumer base in an attempt to instigate change within a company is neither uncommon nor unjustified. If a company makes a decision unfavorable to many customers, then they risk losing business; the way to avoid such a situation is simply to submit to the incessant demands and expectations of the consumers. Capitalism is all about submitting to consumer demand, and capitalism justifies public whining which puts the company in a bad light. Simply put, if any complaint a consumer makes is unfounded and absurd, the company should have nothing to worry about. If a complaint has merit (and by that I mean that people will agree with it enough that it will potentially hurt sales), then the making of that complaint publicly is completely justified. Such a complaint is likely to improve the game for the players; the important thing being of course that the consumer win.

I suppose you are right; I do feel that consumers are ought (“entitled” if you will) a large influence over OP’s policies. I do feel that consumers deserve to collectively call a lot of the shots, and there is more to OP’s attention to consumer concerns than simple kindness. If someone buys tons of your product, they should expect you to do your utmost to address their concerns; it shouldn’t simply be your option. Finally, if OP isn’t run according to the ever-shifting whims of the player base, it should be changed according to consumer wishes. Is this expectation and sense of entitlement wrong? Does a customer not deserve to have their provider cater to their wishes?

A well reasoned, respectful, post offering solutions for perceived problems, or a more circumspect communication where reason, respect, or solutions are lacking, might be better received and do less potential harm to the game you aim to help.

Expressing gratitude for a service rendered is common decency, the way parents hope their children act when they become adults.

I may disagree with your what, but I definitely disagree with your how...on this one anyway.

Any complaints that hurt the Pokémon brand can only do so temporarily, unless Pokémon decides not to address them. These complaints may not help Pokémon financially, but they will improve the OP experience for the players. It is also clear that OP’s generally proactive responses to complaints have been instrumental in building the Pokémon OP’s reputation as sympathetic and reactive to customer concern. If that is the case, why should we not take advantage of this opportunity to make clear our discontent?

Expressing gratitude is certainly not bad, but it’s when people stifle their criticism of corporate policies because they are grateful to the companies that ultimately the worst thing happens: the consumer suffers. Should people have been so grateful to Toyota for making such safe cars that they decide not to complain about the brakes’ sticking? Would it be better to complain about the brakes in private than in public, so as not to harm Toyota’s image?

The best way to achieve results from a business is to tarnish its corporate image. While it may be more economically feasible for an unprovoked company to sweep deficiencies under the rug, ultimately the consumer benefits if the business is pressured by consumer complaints into fixing the deficiencies to preserve its image. It’s only natural for the business to strive to please the customer, and we shouldn’t be grateful for it – the fact that we buy cards is the most important expression of satisfaction.