Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Worlds Grinder-Top cut or single elimination??

Vince (POP/PUI also)...please dont take the voiced opionion of 1 or 2 ppl here as fact. They do not speak for the majority. If there are only 8 slots availible in the LCQ next year, so be it. It will still be a single elim. tourney whether anyone thinks that or not. Look at this year. Should the numbers change for next year?? I think not. Therefore, in all probability, it will take an unbeaten record to advance to the main event. If you lose early, you can continue to play for the SotG (and the outside chance for a 4-1 to advance) and jusy bc you like to play! If you are winning, you will continue to play those of similar record ergo, a defacto single elim event. Survive and advance at its best.

Keith
 
This post (just like the other one) goes to show that PUI will not be able to please everyone. Isn't it interesting the only age group that wants single elim is 15+. Guaranteed if this is done next year someone will rant about how they got a bad starting hand, lost, and how unfair single elim is... Personally I like how PUI did it (consistent across ALL age groups as far as determining top 8) rather than doing single elim for one age group and swiss for the others. There were still a lot of people that continued playing regardless of what their record was and enjoyed themselves. Personally I would rather play swiss with the outside chance I may still make it in with 1 loss (even if I find out in the last round it wasn't the case) than lose early and have absolutely no chance. Regardless of how it is done you are still taking a chance of not making it in. I'm sure those that decide to travel some distance to this event on their dime are doing so to participate at Worlds (regardless of whether they make it to Day 1 or play in the other events).
 
The Grinder SHOULD be single elimination best 2/3 games. Will it be? No. Every post I see about there being serious proposals by the 15+, SOMEONE ALWAYS posts "oh the 10- would never have that happen" THAT is exactly the reason it will NEVER happen. As long as the game is 'focused' toward kids and families, the 15+ will never be happy. It's simple. This isn't Magic, it isn't VS, it isn't ANY of those highly competitive games. Maybe it's a shame, but we have to deal with it. Excuse me if that was off topic, I really thought it had to be said. Do what you want.
 
Feraligatr I played in the Grinder this year and I was 1-4. It was someof the most fun games I ever played! I almost never drop from a tournament no matter my record because I like to play.

That said, I think that it would improve the game overall if this were not the case.

Before we ever had a league I used to play all double-elimination style tournaments. Lose twice and go home! (Which I did, week after week, until I finally got better and started winning!)

Now that we have a league you can play all day, (or for four hours anyway). But that shouldn't be the same at a tournament. A tournament, while always fun, should be more forcused on competition. League play on the side? Sure! But why waste everyones time with people playing every round with records that give them no possible chance of winning?

In a race, all of the competitors are competing, but only one will win.
 
i think that the grinder should play 5 rounds of swiss, then take all 4-1's and 5-0's into a topcut, with the 5-0's getting a bye, and the 4-1's having the play first round of the top w/e. kind of like the NFL playoffs lol
 
Last edited:
Lawman said:
it will take an unbeaten record to advance to the main event
Click to expand...

the minimum amount of rounds for a swiss event is equal to "n"

the number of participants = 2^n

Now, assuming that we have "n" rounds in a swiss event, yes, it will take an unbeaten record to win. However, if the number of rounds is greater than "n", then one loss will not necessarily prevent a person from winning an event. In the swiss tournaments where I play, very rarely does the winner have an undefeated record (no losses). It's good to have more than "n" rounds, even if it's only "n+1", because it discourages people from dropping out after they receive one loss (though they should continue playing for SotG and because it's fun). The less people that drop out of a tournament, the more "accurate" the "Strength of Schedule" tiebreak method will be.

Adv1sor said:
You shouldn’t have to check the PCs to see who had the best resistance at the end of the rounds
Click to expand...

I think it would be better if they used "Time of Loss" or "Cumulative" as the first tiebreak method and then refer to opponent's records as a second method.
 
Last edited:
Adv1sor single elim would work if it is already known how many slots are available. But as Dave S. posted in a previous thread they did not know this until the tournament had completed several rounds. I think it is great that PUI did everything they could to allow the max possible per age group from the Grinder. Of course, they could make life easier on themselves do single elim and only allow 8 slots no matter how many invites become available (I'm sure a lot less headaches and stress for them). Personally as a player (as I do sometimes do play...LOL) I would rather they do it just like this year and take my chances instead of getting a bad start in 1 game and have no chance.
 
With the population base of Los Angeles, the Grinder is going to be gigantic next year. Probably more people than in San Diego (assuming the new TOM software can handle more). Regardless of what PUI does, only a small percentage of grinders are going to be getting in.
 
ninetales1234 said:
the minimum amount of rounds for a swiss event is equal to "n"

the number of participants = 2^n

Now, assuming that we have "n" rounds in a swiss event, yes, it will take an unbeaten record to win. However, if the number of rounds is greater than "n", then one loss will not necessarily prevent a person from winning an event. In the swiss tournaments where I play, very rarely does the winner have an undefeated record (no losses). It's good to have more than "n" rounds, even if it's only "n+1", because it discourages people from dropping out after they receive one loss (though they should continue playing for SotG and because it's fun). The less people that drop out of a tournament, the more "accurate" the "Strength of Schedule" tiebreak method will be.



I think it would be better if they used "Time of Loss" or "Cumulative" as the first tiebreak method and then refer to opponent's records as a second method.
Click to expand...

Ninetales: Next time, please remember, the LCQ is not a true "swiss" tourney. It is mere;y there to fill the available slots. It is a guaranteed 8 with the possibility of more. This year was just 8. I figure, in the future, it will still be just the 8. Therefore, it will basically take an unbeaten record to make the "main event"

Keith
 
So, if it is really single elimination, why clutter the tournament and slow it down by having people who lost one keep playing?
 
Adv1sor said:
It would change the strategy of deck building somewhat. Maybe we add in a muligan rule with the cost being a prize?
Click to expand...

I can muligan 10 times per match in an event before not getting a sinlge basic ....People could lose the match before even attacking an energy
 
I like the grinder the way it is, 8 possibly more with Swiss rounds depending on the number of entries.
I think they got it right, it's a last chance qualifier, an extra shot at the big event and they can't control who will actually show up! People may have fully planned to attend and something happens at the last minute or on the way and they don't make it there, This gives the organizers a chance to still get the number they need to run the tournaments without giving byes. More importantly they can give one more (or several more) people a shot at the big event :thumb:

The thing I have an issue with is people dropping out and affecting resistance in Swiss tournaments in general :nonono: :nonono:
It's just wrong and can spoil someone elses tournament :mad: But I suppose that's for another thread :rolleyes:
 
Adv1sor said:
That's why I say that this would change the strategy of deck building.
Click to expand...
Again (!), please keep major rules changes to another topic. This is about how the Tournament format of the Grinder should be run, not how game rules could be changed.
 
It doesn't really matter what format is used - you end up with the same result, namely that only a fraction of the 15+ players will make it in, and probably all of the 10- grinders will get in =/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top