Opinions of the Championship Points System

[Son_of_Apollo]

Just wondering what people think about this system.

In California most people dislike it. It gives a huge advantage to players in non-competitive areas.

[Prodigiosus]

I personally think it's definitely a move in the right step but there's a lot that can be changed about it.

First off, I don't really agree with how the points are given out. To start off, I personally feel like States and Regionals should not have the same amount of points given. Regionals are always larger events, with bigger prizes on the line and a lot more players. I think that there should be more points given out at Regionals than States. Second, I strongly dislike how winning 2 cities is more then winning 1 states/Regionals. I really do not understand why the points given out at Regionals are rather low and the large number of points available at cities.

While we're on Cities, this system rewards players who can go to several events. My brother and I can barely go to two, maybe three, cities and Battle Roads per season because our parents have to work and driving more than a hour for a small event seems pretty ridiculous not just to me, but my parents as well. Because of this, we most likely won't be able to attend any marathons either because taking off 4-5 days of work isn't justifiable to my parents.

However, there are a lot of players who travel several hours a weekend to go to 1, maybe even 2 cities. Obviously there's no guarantee on how they'll do, but especially in the Juniors and Seniors division where there are hardly more than 16 people in a non-marathon tournament, it's not that hard to gain points. Going to as many cities as possible can make or break a player's season, especially at marathon.

Taking a look at the points right now, there's already a Junior at 50 points. The most even possible right now is 56 points. To me, that seems a bit crazy... My brother has only been to five, and he has 23 currently. (2 BR wins, 1 Regional win, 1 2nd place Cities, 1 3rd place Cities) He's around the low 30's, but if his rating puts him around the high 20s. As a player who can't go to several events, but consistently does well at every event he does go to, the old rating system would be more beneficial for us.

On another note, does anyone want to estimate around how many CP one would need for a World invite this year, should it be Top 40 with no pass downs?

[Assassin_Thief]

I would like to add that not all the regionals are as big as you say. I know here in California States is actually a bigger turn out then regionals. It wasnt till this year that the numbers were actually closer to the same amount.

[Prodigiosus]

Oh, my bad, I guess that makes some sense then. Jrs/Srs/Masters numbers have always been larger at Regionals than States here in the North East, enough to extend cut from Top 2 to 8 for Juniors, Top 4 to 8 for Seniors, Top 16 to 32 for Masters. I do expect States attendance to increase this year though to maximize on Championship Points.

[Shino Bug Master]

I love the idea of the system. It rewards people who win events at no to little effect on them playing in any further events (unless you have an insane tie breaker), it makes you want to go to as many events as possible, and they've made it so you can attend multiple events. I think these are very positive aspects, though i whole-heartidly feel that the numbers themselves are flawed right now. But that balance will come with time.

[z-man]

The CP system is far from perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. Before CP, people were dropping from events. P!P wants players to actually play more, and CP accomplishes that quite a bit. CP does favor players who are in areas that get lots of tournaments, but it also favors players in low-population areas as they tend to win more often. I disagree with how they did the points values over the many events (like how winning two cities rewards more points than getting 2nd at nats), but the system is a work in progress. This year is merely a test run. I hope that they'll perfect it in the future with statistics taken from this year and some fan-criticisms. The system will grow as time goes on.

[BrightRush]

Imo, the simple solution is for cities and higher give events with larger people a +1 kicker point to all positions.
It's not fair if you win a 6X master event and get the same amount of points as a 16 or 17 master event that does not have any competitive players.

[Glaceon]

I don't really like it. I live in a very competitive area, but if your in Montana or something, (I'd imagine) not many people go to the events.

[ShadowGuard]

The system is made for the US (where still are differences, but they aren't that big as here), but here in Europe is doesn't work at all. Random Regionals in Austria (10 masters) counts same as ECC and Prague Cup (~150 masters)? Seriously... it was a good idea to try something else than straight ELO, but the Championship Points system as it is right now is completely unfair for Europe.

In lower age divisions it's even worse. In my area there a a lot of really good seniors players who have to battle for the Championship points. In almost any other area of Germany there's only one good seniors player per region who gets everything for free. =/

[BrightRush]

One thing i hate is how tournaments arent limited per state. Why are some states getting the same amount of cities as popular states like Cali/Florida. Needs to be balanced based on attendance.

[Vegeta ss4]

I'm iffy on it, I still want players true statistical K-Value stats to be some sort of incentive.

I do however think it helps the PTO's, it makes for better attendence for a simple reason. It makes EVERY tournament crucial, even BR's have a purpose aside from just typical playtesting.
Posted with Mobile style...

[JandPDS]

Although I initlly did like the idea of Championship points, it has made the mood (espechally among juniors) much more cut-throat and negative. I have never seen more problems during tournaments in the past, it might just be a coincidence, but I think the pursuite of Championship points has someting to do with it.

[K2theAblaM]

Win 2 cities with 20 people per.... 12 points

Win 1 Regionals with 250 Masters..... 10 points


ehhhh..... something's not right.

It's been touched on in this thread already but I feel the point spread isn't balanced, heavily favoring regions with smaller populations of competitive players.

[dialga master]

Basically-If you live in a region thats not hyper competitive, and has a decent number of tournaments, and if you are a decent player, book your flight to worlds. NOW.

Also, because of the larger scale and more overall difficultly of masters, they do not accumulate points as easily as juniors or seniors (juniors have like several players around 40< CP).
You have to top cut consistently and attend a lot of tournaments to get a lot of points. Like the above said, just going to one regionals and winning isn't enough- you have to get a lot of points from states and cities, and in the more competitive reaches of the world that will be difficult for all but a few players. Also because of the importance of cities, like I said earlier, there will only be like one or two if any players from any one meta in the top 40-20 ish.

[ShadowCard]

When the Premier Rating was started, some of its k-values were rather suspect. They were re-evaluated and changed. The Championship points awarded in each series will also likely be re-evaluated at the end of this tournament year and adjusted just like the k-value was.

[ShadowGuard]

Originally Posted by ShadowCard

When the Premier Rating was started, some of its k-values were rather suspect. They were re-evaluated and changed. The Championship points awarded in each series will also likely be re-evaluated at the end of this tournament year and adjusted just like the k-value was.

The problem is, that there can be tournaments of the same series which vary in attendance numbers by factors 10-20 (!).

Re-evaluation some numbers doesn't work here. A proper solution would be to determine Championship Points by attendance - not only the kicker points, but also the total points.

For example, you could use this for Regionals:
Winner gets 1 CP per 5 players in his age group, rounded up.
2nd gets 80 % of winner's CPs, rounded down.
3rd and 4th get 60 % of winner's CPs, rounded down - and so on.

[bullados]

Maybe different starting points for different levels of events, with Kickers adding to every point level, not just the lower ones. Something like this...

BRs:
1st: 1CP

Cities:
1st: 4CP
2nd: 2CP
3/4th: 1CP

States:
1st: 8CP
2nd: 4CP
3/4th: 2CP
5-8th: 1CP

Regionals:
1st: 12CP
2nd: 6CP
3/4th: 3CP
5-8th: 1CP

Nationals:
1st: 16CP
2nd: 8CP
3rd/4th: 4CP
5-8th: 2CP
9-16th: 1CP

Kickers (per age group):
At 8: +1 to 1st and 2nd
At 16: +1 to 1-4th
At 32: +1 to 1-8th
At 64: +1 to 1-16th
At 128: +1 to 1-32nd
At 256: +1 to 1-64th
At 512: +1 to 1-128th

So, if there are 512 players at a Nationals, 1st place would get 16+7=23CP, 16th would get 1+4=5CP, etc. Maybe that's not exactly the *best* way to do this, but IMO it's better than what we've currently got. I chose those numbers specifically b/c those are the numbers where the Top Cut increases, and I want all players in a Top Cut to get CP, no matter what. I also dislike the current division at non-power-of-2 placements, so I got rid of that. IMO, all players KO'd in T32 should get the same number of CP, regardless of Swiss placement.

Mebbe this gets modified somewhat? Idk. But it's a solid idea to work on.

[Jaeger]

Bullados I acutally like your point values better. As for living in "non competive areas" don't act like these people instantly have an invite to worlds people in California, Washington and Flordia have far easier access to tournaments. Iowa has had 2 local tournaments I've driven 4 hours (4 back) to attend 2 BR and total of 10 hours of driving for 2 Cities for much more competive tournaments. I had amazing friends to stay with and had a good weekend but I still don't see how you can say this is better than living in a more competive area.

[Box of Fail]

The problem with CP imo is it demands not simply performance but also commitment. To get to worlds you have to go to a whole bunch of events, whereas last year 3-4 events could win an invite with a good enough performance. You shouldn't have to play all year round to get to worlds.

[Shino Bug Master]

Originally Posted by Box of Fail

The problem with CP imo is it demands not simply performance but also commitment. To get to worlds you have to go to a whole bunch of events, whereas last year 3-4 events could win an invite with a good enough performance. You shouldn't have to play all year round to get to worlds.

What? I find that statement rediculous! That is exactly what you should have to do, and the old system didn't cateer to that, which is one thing i like about the new system. What other type of event series would you justify "we shouldn't have to play all year round to get to the big show" for? Certainly not any sport i'm familiar with, or other tcg series. But even with the system as it is, we don't know (or maybe we do and I don't xD) how/if the grinder will be up and running this year, which would make it so you do not in fact have to play all year to get in, though honestly, i think you should have to.

[Crinus]

as an ex yugioh player, if California hates it, then it has to be right.

Thats my opinion after seeing California seemingly dominate everything, not because its competitive, but it would see over half the total tournaments held in the U.S. it seemed, it simply gives them too much or too many chances and in the end it hurt the game big time.

But I can also tell you the championship point rankings in Pokemon I take like a grain of salt to, to me it just doesnt matter who is on top or near the top. But you also get a good idea that those are decent players to, you could never say that in other TCGs with their systems.

Box of Fail is right about what he says, Shino you saying thats what you should have to do.......well..........

The problem I would have with it is if they every set up a CP requirement for Regionals, Nationals, and Worlds. Because if you set a requirement, the best player in the nation or world may just not qualify to compete there either.

That was one of the problems in the early years of the TCG prior to 2005.

[Redados1]

I have made top cut once. Ever. And Im in top 40. And THATS how you know the system is messed up.
Posted with Mobile style...

[Pidgeotto Trainer]

Originally Posted by Box of Fail

The problem with CP imo is it demands not simply performance but also commitment. To get to worlds you have to go to a whole bunch of events, whereas last year 3-4 events could win an invite with a good enough performance. You shouldn't have to play all year round to get to worlds.

I completely agree with this. While I am fortunate this season, I am already thinking about how difficult it will be for me (and I'm sure many many other players) to play what looks like the required amount of tournaments for the current points system.

To give yourself the best odds, you need to go to several events in the fall, several events in the winter, and several events in the spring. That is just too much commitment for people with jobs, school and families. This isn't anyone's profession. I really want to be able to play enough that I can contend every year, but having Battle Roads matter pushes things too far. It is too much to tell players you need to give up most of your weekends in the fall, most of your weekends in the winter and most of your weekends in the spring to have a chance of making worlds. There's very few locations in the US where this doesn't entail many long drives as well.

I am fine with a Fall regionals, I think that is a good compromise. One weekend in the fall, and 3-4 weekends in the spring (for states and regionals) is reasonable. One part of the year, cities, where you play every weekend is doable. But having battle roads be a significant amount of points more than doubles the number of tournaments you need to drive to and attend for the year, if you want the best chance. And I know for me, and probably many others, if I simply cannot attend enough events to at least compete for a worlds invite, my interest in any events will go down dramatically. Requiring too much commitment can definitely be bad for the game.

A regionals in the fall (or even they could add another event if they wanted) preserves some sense of 'year round' play if people want that. But the 1-2 tournaments every weekend format really needs to be just once a year, not three times imo.


That said, the accumulate points system vs. elo rating was a great idea. No more sitting on ratings. It's really nice that a 2-3 day does not wipe out a tournament win or 2. Years ago I went 1-3 in a tournament and fell from 3rd to 60th! But I think my concerns above are very important.

[Crinus]

Originally Posted by Redados1

I have made top cut once. Ever. And Im in top 40. And THATS how you know the system is messed up.
Posted with Mobile style...

Yeah I am curious to know where winners of states and regionals rank, give you an idea how the system is.

But I also dont want to see a system where the big states like Texas or California are all over the top of the board because of having more opportunities at tournaments than other states.

[SD PokeMom]

Originally Posted by Crinus

The problem I would have with it is if they every set up a CP requirement for Regionals, Nationals, and Worlds. Because if you set a requirement, the best player in the nation or world may just not qualify to compete there either.

That was one of the problems in the early years of the TCG prior to 2005.

when has there EVER been any kind of 'requirement' to get into regionals and nationals, other than the obvious one of being able to travel there?

'mom