3 Regionals? Seriously?

[NoPoke]

Jaeger I do know how you feel. It felt the same way in this household last season.

[Amt]

If they separated the States/Regs point payout and then made the Regs BFL 1, I'd be happy with the idea of 3 Regionals. Right now, it's basically whoever gets to more has a significant advantage. I miss ELO :(

[dragonfire]

@AMT - ELO was the best, I would at least be Top 100 (#100 infact) in the Country lol

[NoPoke]

ELO wasn't the best. I say that as one of the more vocal defenders of ELO.

[King Piplup]

Comparing ELO vs CP via this year's standings is an invalid comparison, since it's unknown how standings would've been if people played for only rating.

[Scizor]

Doing something like 30 Championship Point and 10 ELO Worlds invites in North America, for example, would be a good idea. Or even 25/15. ELO isn't perfect but I don't feel that it should just be used as a tiebreaker for CP invites.

As for 3 Regionals, many players have been asking for more large events for years. I consider more events generally a good thing, but I also see the side that you must travel a lot to obtain a Worlds invite unless you run ridiculously hot at everything.

[dragonfire]

ELO demonstrates consistency, and the fact that you can only attend a few events and do still earn a worlds invite. Consistency demonstrates a good player. Many people can get lucky with one deck and win a couple tournaments and then bomb and have 40+ CP with a 1690 ELO. For Example Robbie Ector, Really high ELO, but not a lot of CP because he didnt really go to many tournaments Pre-States Events. IMO he deserved the Invite...

[psychup2034]

Originally Posted by dragonfire

ELO demonstrates consistency, and the fact that you can only attend a few events and do still earn a worlds invite.

.....

Good job, you just gave an example of the opposite of "consistency."

Look up "consistent" in a dictionary. Oh look, I've done it for you!

(of a person, behavior, or process) Unchanging in achievement or effect over a period of time.

Key words: "over a period of time."

[Cyrus]

Originally Posted by dragonfire

ELO demonstrates consistency, and the fact that you can only attend a few events and do still earn a worlds invite. Consistency demonstrates a good player. Many people can get lucky with one deck and win a couple tournaments and then bomb and have 40+ CP with a 1690 ELO. For Example Robbie Ector, Really high ELO, but not a lot of CP because he didnt really go to many tournaments Pre-States Events. IMO he deserved the Invite...

As someone with one of the highest ELO ratings this season, I can tell you that it does "not" demonstrate consistency in general - just that you can do hot at a certain level of event.

In the latter portion of this season, I did really well: a state win, a 9-0 swiss @ Reg with a loss in the top 32, and a deep Nationals run. What you don't see, however, is my rather lackluster first half of the season, marred with a a couple whiffed Battle Road cuts, 4-4 Regionals, and a "decent" Cities run, although much worse than I would've hoped.

What ELO does represent is success against strong opponents; "stepping up to the plate" so to speak. In past seasons, we'd both have invites for our ability to step up to the plate, but this season rewarded consistency - something I at the very least lacked.

[Box of Fail]

Originally Posted by psychup2034

.....

Good job, you just gave an example of the opposite of "consistency."

Look up "consistent" in a dictionary. Oh look, I've done it for you!

(of a person, behavior, or process) Unchanging in achievement or effect over a period of time.

Key words: "over a period of time."

I think this is not entirely accurate; if you attend only States/ Regs/ Nats every season and go deep into cut 3 times (of the 4 K-32 events offered under ELO) each year, that demonstrates consistent play as well. The "period of time" could be several years, over which a given player consistently did well at big events.

I think it's a stretch to claim ELO is the best-designed system to gauge consistency, but earning an invite in 4 events, if done year after year, is equally indicative of consistent performance, just over a longer span of time.

[NoPoke]

ELO as implemented by POP had a very strong reward element not as strong as CPs in general but it was still there. Going undefeated at a big K32 event either got you the invite or got you very close.

It is a somewhat perverse consequence of a pure reward system like CPs that replaced POP's elo that CPs actually give out a poorer reward than ELO would have done in the case where you do X-0 a big K32 event.

[dragonfire]

Originally Posted by psychup2034

.....

Good job, you just gave an example of the opposite of "consistency."

Look up "consistent" in a dictionary. Oh look, I've done it for you!

(of a person, behavior, or process) Unchanging in achievement or effect over a period of time.

Key words: "over a period of time."

As with what Box of Fail said, if you go into cut 3 times at States events or higher that is consistency. Also wouldn't a year be a period of time?

@Cyrus, ok maybe at the beginning of the year consistency wasn't your strong suit. However as you stated from States - on you had consistency, which would lead towards your high ELO.

[wiem0014]

Originally Posted by psychup2034

There aren't more tournaments in a season. There are the same amount of Regionals. Now it's just split over 3 weekends, forcing Worlds contenders to invest more money/time to travel to the third one. As many have said, if there were just more Regionals weekends with a commensurate increase in the number of Regionals, then people wouldn't be so upset.

This is the part that kills me every time. Nobody is FORCING you to be competitive for worlds. That is YOUR choice and yours alone. If you don't have time time/money to travel and you can't play unless you are going to be competitive then you need to reexamine your participation in the game. I know I did, and now I play MUCH more casually and I actually enjoy it!

If your ego needs to be fed with a worlds invite each year then you need to look for another ego boost. If you are playing for profit, as Pooka pointed out, you should probably find a different game.

[FirestormXVI]

Originally Posted by King Piplup

Comparing ELO vs CP via this year's standings is an invalid comparison, since it's unknown how standings would've been if people played for only rating.

Unknown how standings would've been if people gamed the system?

[psychup2034]

Originally Posted by Box of Fail

I think this is not entirely accurate; if you attend only States/ Regs/ Nats every season and go deep into cut 3 times (of the 4 K-32 events offered under ELO) each year, that demonstrates consistent play as well.

I think it is entirely accurate, and here is why. If you only attended States/Regionals/Nationals every season and go deep into cut 3 times out of 4, then that demonstrates that you were consistent from March onward. An important part you’re forgetting is that the majority of the tournaments over the year are Battle Roads and Cities. I’m going to estimate that competitive players attend about 10 Battle Roads and 10 Cities on average. This year, there were 3 States, 2 Regionals, and 1 Nationals. Performing well at States/Regionals/Nationals means that you were “consistent” for about 25% of the season (6 divided by 26). That’s not what consistency means—not at all.

Here’s an example. An NFL football team is “consistent” for 25% of its regular season. Let’s say it goes 4-0 during that stretch. Someone could make the argument that the team has been “consistent,” but that argument would be completely irrelevant because the determining factor of whether a team makes the postseason is performance over the course of the entire season—not over a portion of the season.

Now you can argue that the couple weeks before the postseason are the most important (just like States/Regionals/Nationals are most important), but if a team doesn’t perform well in the first 13 games, it doesn’t matter how lucky/streaky/“consistent” that team is come last quarter of the season. They’re not making the playoffs.

When you’re making an argument about consistency, you have to define consistency in the relevant time period. Defining the time period of consistency to be only States/Regionals/Nationals is arbitrary and ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Box of Fail

The "period of time" could be several years, over which a given player consistently did well at big events.

Worlds invites have never been handed out based on performances at States/Regionals over the course of more than one season. I think you’re definitely stretching your argument a bit far here.

Originally Posted by Box of Fail

I think it's a stretch to claim ELO is the best-designed system to gauge consistency, but earning an invite in 4 events, if done year after year, is equally indicative of consistent performance, just over a longer span of time.

While performing well over the course of States/Regionals/Nationals over the course of many years is consistent, it’s not consistent in the relevant time period. The relevant time period is one season. Up to this year, Worlds invites have been handed out based on performance in the current season.

I think it’s rather convenient for you to leave out the two longest tournament cycles within a season—Battle Roads and Cities—to make your argument.

---------- Post added 07/22/2012 at 03:34 AM ----------

Originally Posted by dragonfire

As with what Box of Fail said, if you go into cut 3 times at States events or higher that is consistency. Also wouldn't a year be a period of time?

The latter half of what you said is exactly right. A year would be the relevant period of time. Logically, it is injudicious to just ignore Battle Roads and Cities, which comprise the majority of the season, when making your determination of what consistency is defined as.

---------- Post added 07/22/2012 at 04:11 AM ----------

Originally Posted by wiem0014

This is the part that kills me every time. Nobody is FORCING you to be competitive for worlds. That is YOUR choice and yours alone. If you don't have time time/money to travel and you can't play unless you are going to be competitive then you need to reexamine your participation in the game. I know I did, and now I play MUCH more casually and I actually enjoy it!

If your ego needs to be fed with a worlds invite each year then you need to look for another ego boost. If you are playing for profit, as Pooka pointed out, you should probably find a different game.

At the end of the 2005 season, I had to quit Pokemon because my family was on food stamps, my parents could no longer support my hobbies financially, I was going to college, and I basically had no car and no money.

There’s nothing about me or my ego that needs to stroked by getting a Worlds invite. I play Pokemon because I love the game, I love the community, and I’ve made a lot of wonderful friends over the years of playing. That’s why I returned to the game. When I was living around the poverty line, I reexamined my priorities (as you said), and realized that I could no longer afford Pokemon. That’s why I retired for 6 years.

Now that I’ve graduated from college, found a decent job, paid off my debts, and have a little more financial stability, I’m coming back to the game that I love. That’s why I play. That’s MY choice.

I want to preface the rest of my post with the following information about myself. I have enough resources to fly to whatever tournament I need, book whatever hotel I need, and buy whatever cards I need to be competitive. My job also gives me flexibility in my work schedule, so if I need to take a vacation day to attend a Pokemon tournament, I can easily do it. For me currently, neither time nor money is an issue in my participation in Pokemon. As I said before, my opinions in this thread are based on what I think is best for the game, not out of selfish motives. Personally, I couldn’t care less if there were 2 or 3 Regionals. I wouldn’t even care if there were 5 or 6 Regionals, since I would be able to go to all of them. Clearly, not everyone is in my position, so I’m expressing my opinions about splitting Regionals into 3 weekends because I feel like it’s the wrong choice for the majority of competitive players.

Here’s why I vehemently disagree with what you have said. Completely and utterly disagree.

• Competitive Pokemon is what many players strive for. Little kids don’t dream about being the best player at their local League. They dream about becoming a Regional Champion, becoming a National Champion, or even becoming a World Champion. That’s the nature of games, whether it is Pokemon, video games, sports, chess, or whatever else. Yes, being competitive at Pokemon is something that is an individual choice. No-one forces anyone else to play Pokemon. (At least I hope not!) However, it is also a critical part of the Pokemon experience. I can’t count how many times that someone else has asked me about what it’s like to compete at an STS or at Worlds. The choice to split Regionals into 3 weekends makes it more difficult for the competitive players to stay competitive.
• You say that if someone doesn’t have the time or money to play, then they need to examine their priorities. To some extent, that is true. However, TPCi may also need to reexamine their tournament schedule and Worlds invite structure if the new structure impacts so many competitive players. While 3 Regionals may be excellent marketing for the game, it hurts some of the game’s most dedicated and devoted players. That’s why I’m speaking up.
• Consider this quote from a Poke-parent earlier in this thread: “I AM TRYING TO SCREAM THIS AT YOU BECAUSE THE LOGIC SUPPORTING THIS IS JUST WRONG, US PARENTS ARE AT THE POINT OF BREAKING. SURE YOU HAVE OBSESSED ONES THAT ARE GOING TO ATTEND 25-30 EVENTS, AND TO THEM THE MORE THE BETTER. THE REST OF US ARE AT THE BREAKING POINT. MANY OF OUR KIDS ARE AT THE BREAKING POINT.” From talking to a few parents myself, I strongly believe that this is the majority opinion. People don’t want more tournaments. Pokemon already takes up 1/4 to 1/3 of the weekends in a year for the competitive players. The additional cost required to attend the “far” Regionals is compounded for the younger players, because a parent also needs to buy an airplane ticket to accompany their child.

I’m sincerely happy that you found a balance between Pokemon and life that makes the game enjoyable for yourself. However, that does not give you an excuse for implicitly generalizing that competitive players who think the 3 Regional structure hurts them are egotistical and selfish. While you’re happy being a casual player, you need to understand that there are competitive players out there who are being financially burdened by the 3 Regional structure. These people have every right to speak up, and it's really a shame that there are members on this board who would label them as egotists.

[homeofmew]

Honestly... Hate to say it.. but there are good and bad things about this.
Also the timing for October Regionals is kinda unfair trying to get off ect.

Here's my reasons.

Many people are used to the April Regionals. Like Last year it kinda also threw me off there were 2 regionals time. But SPR the regionals I went to was still in April. This year it seems rushed I guess.

[tinox6]

Do we know when Virginia's regionals will be yet?

[solo59486]

The New England regionals is during the Spring, April 13&14

[LOLZ]

Originally Posted by tinox6

Do we know when Virginia's regionals will be yet?

http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread...02#post2286102

[Box of Fail]

Originally Posted by psychup2034

I think it is entirely accurate, and here is why. If you only attended States/Regionals/Nationals every season and go deep into cut 3 times out of 4, then that demonstrates that you were consistent from March onward. An important part you’re forgetting is that the majority of the tournaments over the year are Battle Roads and Cities. I’m going to estimate that competitive players attend about 10 Battle Roads and 10 Cities on average. This year, there were 3 States, 2 Regionals, and 1 Nationals. Performing well at States/Regionals/Nationals means that you were “consistent” for about 25% of the season (6 divided by 26). That’s not what consistency means—not at all.

Here’s an example. An NFL football team is “consistent” for 25% of its regular season. Let’s say it goes 4-0 during that stretch. Someone could make the argument that the team has been “consistent,” but that argument would be completely irrelevant because the determining factor of whether a team makes the postseason is performance over the course of the entire season—not over a portion of the season.

Now you can argue that the couple weeks before the postseason are the most important (just like States/Regionals/Nationals are most important), but if a team doesn’t perform well in the first 13 games, it doesn’t matter how lucky/streaky/“consistent” that team is come last quarter of the season. They’re not making the playoffs.

When you’re making an argument about consistency, you have to define consistency in the relevant time period. Defining the time period of consistency to be only States/Regionals/Nationals is arbitrary and ridiculous.



Worlds invites have never been handed out based on performances at States/Regionals over the course of more than one season. I think you’re definitely stretching your argument a bit far here.



While performing well over the course of States/Regionals/Nationals over the course of many years is consistent, it’s not consistent in the relevant time period. The relevant time period is one season. Up to this year, Worlds invites have been handed out based on performance in the current season.

I think it’s rather convenient for you to leave out the two longest tournament cycles within a season—Battle Roads and Cities—to make your argument.[COLOR="Purple"]

The point about the season's being the only logical time period seems off as well to me. I don't think most people have a problem with the notion that a terrible player could manage to obtain an invite on a complete fluke by performing well at exactly 3 events by topdecking and flipping. That does not show a poorly designed invite system; what does is when such an incident repeats itself consistently.

I think, for example, that Play Points were a bad idea, conjured up to prevent people like Tom Dolezal from obtaining a ratings invite in one weekend. The consistency here is he's managed to pull this off multiple years, back-to-back. This consistency demonstrates that there is no flaw in a system which allows him to qualify without committing to the game for the greater part of the year.

Think of it this way: it goes without saying that people who attempt to earn their invite in 3 days are taking a huge risk most don't. For these people to nevertheless show up at worlds year after year shows a great deal of consistent performance. Inconsistent performance would be doing poorly at Nationals. All it takes is one inconsistency in their performance to lose them their streak of invites.

Any invite system is bound to produce some anomalies, and it's no surprise if the top 40 in North America are not actually the 40 best players. I don't personally feel that a one-hit wonder's ability to qualify for worlds overnight shows the failure of the system to reward consistent play. That player won't likely be back next year. Some people will be back next year, and the year after that. Maybe some of them will have only played in 4 tournaments all year round each time. Yet they get to worlds each year. That's consistency.

I agree that the invite structure should reward consistency, but a player who is good at the game should not have to demonstrate commitment to the game to earn his invite. A system that requires you to show your mastery of each successive format that comes about, from Battle Roads to Cities to States and so on, is certainly excessive to me. You shouldn't even have to know what the format was during Fall Battle Roads, let alone have any clue how to play it, to qualify for worlds.

[bullados]

Big Announcement.

Invites will no longer be "Top X". There will be a discrete cutoff. Basically, if you earn a certain number of CPs, you get into Worlds.

Details to follow. And, no, don't ask me, I have no idea. ExoByte posted this information, and basically nothing else.

[Top Cut Comics]

Originally Posted by bullados

Big Announcement.

Invites will no longer be "Top X". There will be a discrete cutoff. Basically, if you earn a certain number of CPs, you get into Worlds.

Details to follow. And, no, don't ask me, I have no idea. ExoByte posted this information, and basically nothing else.

You got a source or link?

Jimmy

[ShuckleLVX]

Originally Posted by Top Cut Comics

You got a source or link?

Jimmy

http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.p...2&postcount=80

[Glaceon]

Originally Posted by tinox6

Do we know when Virginia's regionals will be yet?

https://sites.google.com/site/virgin...t/cycle1213/rc

[Kayle]

Originally Posted by Box of Fail

I agree that the invite structure should reward consistency, but a player who is good at the game should not have to demonstrate commitment to the game to earn his invite.

This statement seems to be the foundation of your argument, and taken alone like this, I can only see it as an opinion. One that I respect, but one that I do not necessarily share, nor do I think P!P do (or should) share, either.