Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Worlds invitations from nationals

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Treecko

New Member
Hey,

The reason I post here is because I don’t really like the way the current invites are given out. I know someone from Singapore and they had 52 masters at their nationals, and just 1 invite.. Also juniors and seniors got no invite at all. I mean that’s not as big as US nats and I understand that it’s way harder to get an invite there. But to me it’s kind of sad that they have so few invites, while the amount of players isn’t that bad. And Singapore is not the only country like that, it’s just an example.
For what I know, the amounts of invites are based on the amount of players. Seeing that Singapore had only 1 invite total and more than 80 players total I think it’s kind of wrong. At my own nationals, we got 4 invites in masters (which I am grateful for of course even though I couldn’t play), and 80 players in masters. So, if we compare 80 masters and 4 invites to 52 masters and 1 invite, that’s not totally fair. Also I see there’s 31 players in hong kong nationals, and 2 invites from what I heard.

I’m just throwing this in here to talk/think about it and maybe change the way invites are given.
 
Totally agreed with you.
Once i questioned OP about the invites, according to them its based on each country sales, ok, for some reason makes sense.
But then, is it the right solution? For instance, this season Brazil had no OP due to problems with LD (as usual), but was it the right decision to make? I mean, we had a big leak of players, not saying the ammount we could bring to the game because of that, doesnt it make a negative impact too?! Wouldnt be better for OP to keep prizes, invites, trips, etc as an investment? C'mon, i'm not talking about any small country, i'm talking about one of the most important countries in the world atm, with almost 200 million inhabitants, growing over 5% a year, good currency ratio to the US dollar, and so on.

Some players decided to run a "nationals" by their own this year (it was last weekend). From what i heard we had over 50 players on Masters. Honestly i didnt play for couple of reasons, like: the prize was in cash, which leads to a negative impact imo, some people might cheat for that. Also, the people who organized the tourney were playing also, which i disagree. Prolly this year, with all problems around, we would have over 70 players only on masters if we had real nats, with invites and trips.

Also, keeps me wonder that the no pass down ruling might be good for places such as N.A and Europe. But looking at rankings, its clear IMO that its not the best option for S.A and APAC.

Think its time for some serious reviews, time to give more credit to some countries.

Allan
 
In per capita playerbase, you guys get WAY more invites. The US has 11-12 times that many players and only 8 times the invite. Other countries in Europe are crazier, stuff like top 2 or even top 4 invites for Regionals-sized tournaments, or smaller.

In the end, Singapore is getting an invite for winning 1/2 a Regional. Sounds fair to me.
 
yoyofsho16 said:
In per capita playerbase, you guys get WAY more invites. The US has 11-12 times that many players and only 8 times the invite. Other countries in Europe are crazier, stuff like top 2 or even top 4 invites for Regionals-sized tournaments, or smaller.

In the end, Singapore is getting an invite for winning 1/2 a Regional. Sounds fair to me.
Click to expand...

Europe gets 50 rating invites, but also 45 invites divided at all different Nationals.
If all Nationals topcut players end in top 50 we have only FIVE invites from rankings.
While NA gets 40 rating invites and "only" 16 divided from different Nationals.
Which could lead to 24 ranking invites available.

And you seem to forget that Nationals invites(Even if it's only a 40 player Nationals) are NOT available for anybody outside that country. Big difference.
 
Last edited:
Treecko said:
Hey,

The reason I post here is because I don’t really like the way the current invites are given out. I know someone from Singapore and they had 52 masters at their nationals, and just 1 invite.. Also juniors and seniors got no invite at all. I mean that’s not as big as US nats and I understand that it’s way harder to get an invite there. But to me it’s kind of sad that they have so few invites, while the amount of players isn’t that bad. And Singapore is not the only country like that, it’s just an example.
For what I know, the amounts of invites are based on the amount of players. Seeing that Singapore had only 1 invite total and more than 80 players total I think it’s kind of wrong. At my own nationals, we got 4 invites in masters (which I am grateful for of course even though I couldn’t play), and 80 players in masters. So, if we compare 80 masters and 4 invites to 52 masters and 1 invite, that’s not totally fair. Also I see there’s 31 players in hong kong nationals, and 2 invites from what I heard.

I’m just throwing this in here to talk/think about it and maybe change the way invites are given.
Click to expand...

We get 8 invites (4 paid) and had over 700 Masters last year, that a worse ratio than what you guys have.
 
Austria got 4 invites and 2 trips for 24 masters (and none of them would have a real chance to get top 128 at US Nationals or T16 at other European Nationals). =/

But there is no way to give a completely fair distribution of invites since a) you don't know how many players attend Nationals and b) the number of players per age division is different. Also, there are countries like Denmark who don't have many players at Nationals but a high ratio of them is top class.


If you compare US to Europe, you should think about that in the US is Invite = Worlds and in Europe Invite != Worlds since the trip costs about three times as much from here. For that, US has 24 Invites for 1000 players which seems good for me, compared to 3 trips for 200 players in France or 6 trips for 300 players in Germany. Of course there privileged countries who get like 3 trip for 50 players or 6 trips for 80 players. But it's not like it was way more difficult in the US than in Europe in general.

For example I had access to 4 Nationals invites, shared to 120 Masters, and about 15-20 ratings invites, shared to about 1000 ranked master players in Europe. Plus, even if I earn an invite, I have to pay about $ 1800 just for the trip, give that I can share a hotel room with a friend. That means that because of the location an US invite is worth about 2-3 times more than an EU invite.

That's 4/120 + 15/1000 (= 0,048 invite rate) for Europe and (8/800 + 30/2000)*2 (=0,05 invite rate) for US. Means, the bigger countries in Europe don't have better chances than US players.
 
Jaeger said:
We get 8 invites (4 paid) and had over 700 Masters last year, that a worse ratio than what you guys have.
Click to expand...

Really?
You can end 4th place (x-2 record) and get a trip, we can end second place (with a 10-1 record) and have only an invite.

You tell me what's worse?
 
They could . . .

1. Give more invites to US players
2. Hold Worlds outside of the US some years

That seems fair.
 
Rainbowgym said:
Really?
You can end 4th place (x-2 record) and get a trip, we can end second place (with a 10-1 record) and have only an invite.

You tell me what's worse?
Click to expand...

Well Pooka went 14-1 to win it last year, I believe 11-2 is the worse record you could have for a top 4. which mean 10-2 for top 8 and an invite. I don't think your going to get any US players to think its hard for you guys to get invites through Nationals than it is for the US. how large was your nats?
 
Didn't quite a few two losses make T128 last year? I think there'll be more 2-loss top cutters this year if they play it the way I hope they play it (i.e. maximums on everything, no divisions, etc)
 
Jaeger said:
Well Pooka went 14-1 to win it last year, I believe 11-2 is the worse record you could have for a top 4. which mean 10-2 for top 8 and an invite. I don't think your going to get any US players to think its hard for you guys to get invites through Nationals than it is for the US. how large was your nats?
Click to expand...

Does it really matter how large any Nationals is? I think we had 80+ masters, which is good if you realize we have only 17 mil. people in our country.
Do you really want to compare that way?

You simply cannot afford to loose more than 1 game in Swiss, loosing 2 can place you outside topcut.
Loosing your top 4 will not bring you to Worlds, Loosing top 2 also doesn't overhere.
While you might have more topcut rounds, in the end the last 2 rounds will gain you a trip, win or loose.

And winning an invite is nice, but Hawai (whatever USA city) isn't really in our backyard.
So while those 2nd/3rd/4th place invites look "easy" for you, reality is, most people cannot afford to use them.
 
Nothings ever clear cut, but there are positives and negatives for playing in different parts of the world. Europe may get easier invites, but less people turn up - try paying $3000+ to go to Worlds. Booster Packs are nearly double the price, all tournaments have an entry fee etc. You could give out invites over here to people who win a BR and mostly all of them would go into the Grinder. This system may not benefit the Americans who would happily pay more for an easier way into Worlds, but it does to all the casual players who far outnumber them.
 
Rainbowgym said:
Does it really matter how large any Nationals is? I think we had 80+ masters, which is good if you realize we have only 17 mil. people in our country.
Click to expand...

Yes, in a way it does matter how big it is. It sounds like your Nats was the same size as my Regionals.
The difference is that US masters will be facing a full day and a half of swiss before we even begin think about top cut...

The reason I say that is because we all know that a LOT of how your deck performs at a tournament is who you get matched up against.

We may safely assume:
more people = more rounds/more decks = better chance of matching your auto-loss/worst match up = harder to get to top cut = more difficult tournament

BUT I don't really have an opinion on the invites thing, I'm just reading along :)
 
charcharchar said:
.....
We may safely assume:
more people = more rounds/more decks = better chance of matching your auto-loss/worst match up = harder to get to top cut = more difficult tournament
Click to expand...

That kind of assumption would be wrong though. The hardest tournaments to make the cut in are those where you have to finish X-1 . Where few X-2s make it.

In any given population doubling the size of the population does not change the statistics associated with that population So you have just as much chance of meeting a bad match up in a large tournaments' early rounds as a small one. Doubling the size of a tournament only adds one extra round so your overall chance of getting a bad match up in a large tournament isn't that different to what it would be in a much smaller one. There are other effects too, as the tournament progresses the deck population shifts and fewer of those bad match up decks should be in the population. That is assuming you made the correct deck choice . Overall it just doesn't make a lot of sense to say bigger = harder to cut.

===

Its worlds.
That means multiple countries
You can't send half a player.
 
Last edited:
Lia is keeping track in a specific topic the situation of EU/Africa players.
It's funny to see how a lot of players will refuse the invite-only due the high costs to go in Kona.
It's funny too, see how players without invite will go in Kona to play the grinder.
Refused invites go to grinder and I think that this is a big gain for US and Japanese players....
 
NoPoke said:
That kind of assumption would be wrong though. The hardest tournaments to make the cut in are those where you have to finish X-1 . Where few X-2s make it.

In any given population doubling the size of the population does not change the statistics associated with that population So you have just as much chance of meeting a bad match up in a large tournaments' early rounds as a small one. Doubling the size of a tournament only adds one extra round so your overall chance of getting a bad match up in a large tournament isn't that different to what it would be in a much smaller one. There are other effects too, as the tournament progresses the deck population shifts and fewer of those bad match up decks should be in the population. That is assuming you made the correct deck choice . Overall it just doesn't make a lot of sense to say bigger = harder to cut.

===

Its worlds.
That means multiple countries
You can't send half a player.
Click to expand...

I'll semi agree with this, tournament where many x-2 miss are nerve racking simply from how little room for error there is. However the hardest tournament to win are imo are the largest.
 
Jaeger said:
I'll semi agree with this, tournament where many x-2 miss are nerve racking simply from how little room for error there is. However the hardest tournament to win are imo are the largest.
Click to expand...
Actually it just depends on the player number. A 120 player (in masters) tournament like German Nationals is really hard, since only half of the 5-2 players make the top cut and there's nothing you can do about your OppWin. A 129 player tournament would be rather easy to top cut, since there's an additional round and top 32, which means even 5-3 has a good chance to make the cut.

That's why I liked the old top cut numbers a lot more - they were better balanced and didn't create situations where a 4-1 player can miss the top cut at a CC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top