3 Regionals? Seriously?

[psychup2034]

But telling us are making tournament play too available for the general playing population...thats ridiculous.

We're not telling you that you're making tournaments too available. We're telling you that you're making major tournaments too inaccessible. Big difference. More tournaments available is good, but you are not giving us more Regionals. You're giving us the same amount of Regionals, just less accessible.

 

[bullados]

To all those that don't like this. What would you think if there were an additional 3-6 Regionals (i.e. another 1-2 tournaments per cycle)?

I think that the base problem here, as I've stated before, is that you guys think the tourneys are spread too thin over the 3 dates. There are nearly a dozen high volume areas that have the potential for another Regional Championship location that I've listed earlier.

Personally, I kinda agree. The tournaments are a bit thin. 15 Regionals over 3 dates basically ensures that, in each cycle, a major Pokemon playing area will have to fly to their closest tournament. And I don't like that. I feel especially bad for those in Oregon/Washington, Arizona/NM, and the Mountain West, who now have to fly for TWO Regionals, plus Nationals. The NE and SE have it relatively easy, as do some parts of the Midwest (though not at the edges, where I live right now) if the TOs schedule them correctly. So far, with the exception of Indy/Philly, they appear to be spread out quite nicely across the 3 dates, as long as Midwest is in the Spring, Georgia is in the Fall, New England is in the Winter, and Ontario is either in the FAll or Winter. Mountain West can basically hold at any time, but I think they'll try not to run across from either of the Californias, so Winter. But them's bad driving conditions that time...

 

[ShuckleLVX]

We're not telling you that you're making tournaments too available. We're telling you that you're making major tournaments too inaccessible. Big difference. More tournaments available is good, but you are not giving us more Regionals. You're giving us the same amount of Regionals, just less accessible.

Before you could "access" one Regional per year, and the nearest one was X hours from your home.

Now you can "access" 3 Regionals per year, and the nearest one is X hours from your home.

That regional that is X hours from your house is just as accessible as last year, unless the DOT messed with the traffic patterns between your home and the venue.

In the past, if you were busy on the day of the Regional that is x hours from your home, you got no Regional. Now, if you are busy that day, you have two other options.

They are giving us the same number of Regionals, one of which is exactly as accessible as before, the others being more accessible than before.

If this is a good thing or not is a totally different discussion. But accessibility wise? This is better.

 

[psychup2034]

Before you could "access" one Regional per year, and the nearest one was X hours from your home.

Now you can "access" 3 Regionals per year, and the nearest one is X hours from your home.

You've made a logical fallacy!

Before, you only needed to travel to one Regional per year to stay competitive for the Worlds invite, and the nearest one was X hours from your home.

Now, you need to access all 3 Regionals per year to stay competitive for the Worlds invite. (The reason why this is true has been described by Raen, Pidgeotto_Trainer, and myself in earlier posts. If you need clarification, please re-read portions of this thread.) The nearest one is X hours from your home. The second nearest one is Y hours from your home, where Y > X. The third one is Z hours from your home, where Z >>> Y > X.

If you think that accessibility is increased with more Regional weekends without increasing the number of Regionals, then you really need to sit down and think about the logic of your argument.

In the past, if you were busy on the day of the Regional that is x hours from your home, you got no Regional. Now, if you are busy that day, you have two other options.

Now, if you're busy on any of the three Regionals weekends, you are at a huge disadvantage in terms of getting your invite.

Under an ELO system, a good Nationals run can cover missing Regionals. Under the current Championship Point system, a good Nationals run will definitely not make up for the fact that you missed any one of the three Regionals.

 

[kirbyking]

Guess what? There's nothing you can do about it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I am sorry to those who may be offended by this post. I can't help not being a troll:biggrin::biggrin:

 

[Cyrus]

Hopefully we get to the point where Regionals are worth $1,500 first prize scholarships again, coupled with $1,000 second place prizes and $500 third/fourth. I'd gladly only be able to play in one Regional a year over two, three, or even four if we had those back.

 

[ShuckleLVX]

You've made a logical fallacy!

Before, you only needed to travel to one Regional per year to stay competitive for the Worlds invite, and the nearest one was X hours from your home.

Now, you need to access all 3 Regionals per year to stay competitive for the Worlds invite. (The reason why this is true has been described by Raen, Pidgeotto_Trainer, and myself in earlier posts. If you need clarification, please re-read portions of this thread.) The nearest one is X hours from your home. The second nearest one is Y hours from your home, where Y > X. The third one is Z hours from your home, where Z >>> Y > X.

If you think that accessibility is increased with more Regional weekends without increasing the number of Regionals, then you really need to sit down and think about the logic of your argument.




Now, if you're busy on any of the three Regionals weekends, you are at a huge disadvantage in terms of getting your invite.

Under an ELO system, a good Nationals run can cover missing Regionals. Under the current Championship Point system, a good Nationals run will definitely not make up for the fact that you missed any one of the three Regionals.

You didn't say WORLDS was less accessible. You said REGIONALS was. REGIONALS are more accessible. I'd appreciate if you took the time to understand what I (and you) wrote before accusing me of fallacy *patpat*

(Not to mention that Worlds isn't meant to be easily accessible)

 

[NoPoke]

Now, if you're busy on any of the three Regionals weekends, you are at a huge disadvantage in terms of getting your invite.

Not so very different from before when if you were busy on either of the two weekends you were at a potentially larger disadvantage.

The tournaments can't be less accessible when there is more choice. What you should really be complaining about is the player/parent belief that the CP system forces you to *have* to attend all three. That message is getting lost in the discussion on choice and accessibility.

Under an ELO system, a good Nationals run can cover missing Regionals. Under the current Championship Point system, a good Nationals run will definitely not make up for the fact that you missed any one of the three Regionals.

Players used to complain about that as being a BAD feature of ELO!

ALL systems disadvantage someone. ANY change always makes it worse for someone and better for someone else.
With any system that has to be easy to understand there are going to be a lot of someones affected.

 

[psychup2034]

You didn't say WORLDS was less accessible. You said REGIONALS was. REGIONALS are more accessible. I'd appreciate if you took the time to understand what I (and you) wrote before accusing me of fallacy *patpat*

(Not to mention that Worlds isn't meant to be easily accessible)

Dude, we've been having discussions throughout this whole thread in the context of the implications of having 3 Regionals on Championship Points. That's why it's important to read the thread before posting, or else you might not understand the context in which the discussion is happening.

Of course I didn't say it explicitly. I was responding to Prof_Clay's post in context. Is it to much to ask for you to read the 10 posts in the thread before posting?

To save you some time, I’ve quoted some of the highlights of this thread for your convenience to get you up to speed on what we’re talking about. Note that the quotes I’ve selected aren’t necessarily those that coincide with my own opinion. I just want to demonstrate to you that we’ve been having this discussion in the context of Championship Points and Worlds invites. Your attempt to separate the discussion of Regionals from the context of getting a Worlds invite seems extremely silly, given the context of this thread.

Requiring players to spend significantly more time and money to stay competitive is a very reasonable issue to discuss. Worlds invites should not only be up for grabs to those who live in a great location, or can afford all those vacations and time off from work/school. There is such thing as too much travel to events.

Additionally, it will depend on how many Regionals places they consider for CP. If it's all three, i think this again sways my opinion to it being a good move to bolster players who do well consistantly in the major formats of the decks (a regionals for 3 different formats = awesome). I know myself i played in the HS-NVI regionals and did quite well, because i was comfortable with the format. When the second regs rolled along, same format as States, I skipped it ecause the Eel heavy meta didn't suit me and my two states trips ended in x-3s on weird luck. I really enjoyed the ability to play in a Regionals i felt comfortable in though, its the biggest tournament I ever get to go to, its the one i do best at and its my favorite. If i get three slots of Regionals to outway that i cant make Nats, i may actually have a shot at an invite.

You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that, the more tournaments you play in, the better your chances are in doing well at at least one of them.

The simple fact is, the more tournaments you go to, the more likely you are to hit the Best Finish limit. Think about City Championships. The limit was 5 (I think? I could be wrong here, it was around there, but I'm lazy and don't want to look it up). If I attended 5 Cities, I could in theory reach the best finish limit. But the odds, looking at pure luck, are pretty slim for that. If I attended 10 cities, my chances of making the limit are far higher. 15 cities? Way, WAY higher.

This applies to 3 Regionals. Attending 3 States and 3 Regionals give you 6 shots to earn points in 4 events. Attending 3 State and 2 Regionals gives you 5 shots to earn points in 4 events. Attending 2 States and 2 Regionals gives you only 4 chances to earn points in 4 events, meaning you CANT have a bad luck streak at ANY of these events, or your rating is in jeopardy. Now imagine going to 2 States and 1 Regionals like we use to have in the past; You had better do incredibly well at Cities if you want an invite going to that many Regs and States.

So, honestly, you really DO HAVE TO go to all 3 Regionals to have the best shot at a Worlds invite. You can get an invite without it, but you rely much, much more on luck if you don't go to all 3. And truth is, most people can't go to all 3. Many people couldn't even get to 2 this year.

If you had taken the time to read the thread as I had suggested, you would better understand the context of the conversation that we were having. Moreover, you’d know that we were talking about the effect of 3 Regionals on Worlds invites.

• InnoceNt: My comment wasn't geared at everyone who disagrees with me- you clearly state that, yes in fact, there are negative aspects to having three regionals. I said the people who think that there is nothing but good coming from this. It's going to be hard on some players, and the true top 40 will not be accurately represented. People who won't acknowledge that obviously aren't looking at both sides of the issue.
  
• TLesky: My point behind all of that was its not just younger(lets say college age people) that have had or will have tough times getting to all or most of these. Families like mine have to cut whatever they can to make ends meet too. But if you love the game like I think you do, and you want to have a legitimate chance at getting an invite, you find a way. Second jobs, tutoring, whatever it takes, if you want it bad enough. I work 3 jobs currently to ensure that we have enough to go around for all things, including Pokemon.
  
• Pidgeotto_Trainer: Your dedication to the game is commendable, and indeed we all make sacrifices to play. But there certainly is a point where those sacrifices become too much to be possible, or the amount of sacrifice needed just upsets the players and turns them away. Pokemon is certainly pushing this envelope IMO when they've added 2 further away regionals, 1 further away state, and 2 full seasons of Battle Roads to the competitive player's schedule all within the last year. It will likely always be possible to be competitive, but if the means to do so becomes more and more of a burden to player's overall lives, that won't make them happy, and that's not good for the game. (And yes, I know there are positives to this decision too, but the negatives are also undeniable)
  
• Prof_Clay: The point where Pokemon becomes a burden on a persons life is the day they need to probably re-examine whats going on overall...just sayin
  
• Raen: A truly competitive player will do everything possible to attain a World Championships invite. That is the pinnacle of the competitive scene; the best of the best, the very top of the food chain. NOT reaching for that goal means you are not truly being competitive. If, in order to accomplish that, Pokemon HAS to become a burden on someone's personal life, then we have a problem. We are approaching that point. And many people will re-examine what is going on and will QUIT PLAYING POKEMON.
  
• Prof_Clay: This will happen...I agree...and we will still continue to grow...I have been in this since 2003...lots of people coming in and out and back in over the years. But telling us are making tournament play too available for the general playing population...thats ridiculous.
  
• psychup2034: We're not telling you that you're making tournaments too available. We're telling you that you're making major tournaments too inaccessible. Big difference. More tournaments available is good, but you are not giving us more Regionals. You're giving us the same amount of Regionals, just less accessible.

Reading comprehension and context can be very important in a discussion.

 

[ShuckleLVX]

Your post about accessibility was out of that context.

You're giving us the same amount of Regionals, just less accessible.

That's a very concise, contained thought having nothing to do with Worlds. It's all about Regionals, your whole post was all about Regionals accessibility, the post you responded to was about availability (which you translated, fairly appropriately, into accessibility) of events to the general public, and so my response was all about accessibility (read: availability) of Regionals. The set of posts pulled this thread down a different path, but trust me, I read the thread. That's why I wrote the last sentence of my post (you did read my post, right?) about it being a good thing or not being a different topic. If you want to be on that topic, stay on that topic, don't jump at people following the topic you wanted to talk about.

 

[Raen]

To all those that don't like this. What would you think if there were an additional 3-6 Regionals (i.e. another 1-2 tournaments per cycle)?

I think that the base problem here, as I've stated before, is that you guys think the tourneys are spread too thin over the 3 dates. There are nearly a dozen high volume areas that have the potential for another Regional Championship location that I've listed earlier.

Personally, I kinda agree. The tournaments are a bit thin. 15 Regionals over 3 dates basically ensures that, in each cycle, a major Pokemon playing area will have to fly to their closest tournament. And I don't like that. I feel especially bad for those in Oregon/Washington, Arizona/NM, and the Mountain West, who now have to fly for TWO Regionals, plus Nationals. The NE and SE have it relatively easy, as do some parts of the Midwest (though not at the edges, where I live right now) if the TOs schedule them correctly. So far, with the exception of Indy/Philly, they appear to be spread out quite nicely across the 3 dates, as long as Midwest is in the Spring, Georgia is in the Fall, New England is in the Winter, and Ontario is either in the FAll or Winter. Mountain West can basically hold at any time, but I think they'll try not to run across from either of the Californias, so Winter. But them's bad driving conditions that time...

Basically you hit the nail on the head. I love 3 Regionals weekends IF, and only if, we have ~3 more Regionals.

Also, your weather observation for Mountain West is correct. Regs in Winter would murder our already poor attendance compared to other Regs. It's also very, very hard to travel anywhere in January if you live in the Mountain West (or anywhere where it snows any significant amount). I could totally see myself missing an essential Regional due to uncontrollable weather.

 

[Glaceon]

Just wondering, whats the average Masters/Seniors/Juniors attendance for Midwest?

Guess what? There's nothing you can do about it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I am sorry to those who may be offended by this post. I can't help not being a troll:biggrin::biggrin:

Not helpful or funny.

 

[bullados]

Just wondering, whats the average Masters/Seniors/Juniors attendance for Midwest?

Historical average doesn't really matter anymore. That was under a different Organizer with different priorities. Jimmy got 53 / 64 / 201. And IMO he'll get more this year, as that was a spectacularly run tournament last year. Best guess? Close to 400 this year, something like 75/75/250 breakdown.

 

[King Piplup]

Historical average doesn't really matter anymore. That was under a different Organizer with different priorities. Jimmy got 53 / 64 / 201. And IMO he'll get more this year, as that was a spectacularly run tournament last year. Best guess? Close to 400 this year, something like 75/75/250 breakdown.

Not that it matters, but I'm pretty sure Jimmy got 53/63/201, since Seniors didn't have the Top 16. (Unless there were late registrants I didn't see)

 

[Vulpix Yolk]

I find it kinda of ridiculous that people are complaining about there being more tournaments per season. More tournaments and being able to play more Pokémon should in theory be a good thing. Everyone has more shots at winning trips to Nats, and everyone has a better chance at being able to attend a Regionals. However; I see where everyone is coming from with being upset about needing to go to all of the Regionals if they want to stay competitive. What this really boils down to is that P!P needs to really re-re-think the way that they hand out Worlds invites. It is ridiculous that the system can make people want less tournaments per year because they feel pressured to attend all of them.

P!P needs to find some sort of invite system based on both Championship Points and Play Points in my opinion. Think of it this way, I live in New Mexico. If I were to attend, and win, every tournament in the entire State, I would only have 30 Championship Points. This season, I attended more tournaments than I ever have. I went to every major tournament in New Mexico, and every traveled out of state (keep in mind large states, not like going out of State in the Northeast, I'm talking like 8 hour drives one way) twice for States and Regionals. With all of this travel and hard work, I was able to collect an amazing 25 Play!Points. What I'm trying to get at here, is that with the current system in place, it is nearly impossible for someone like me to get a Worlds invite because of where I live, and the few tournaments I can actually access. The only way I could ever get an invite would be to win every tournament in the tri-state area, or top 8 at Nationals.

A re-structure in how Worlds invites are handed out would be really really nice. I would like to see a sort of Play!Points to Championship Points ratio be implemented. Something that judges how well you preformed at tournaments, not just see how many tournaments you can attend and do decent at. It would make it so that players in terrible places for competitive play have a chance at getting an invite. It would also make players of lower quality, who can get invites just because of how many tournaments they can attend, miss out on their invite. Of course, there would also be flaws to this system, but once ironed out it could have the potential to make a much more balanced Worlds invite system.

 

[psychup2034]

I find it kinda of ridiculous that people are complaining about there being more tournaments per season.

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 over this.

I completely agree with you that they need to rethink the Worlds invite structure, but I disagree that Play! Points should be a consideration. Attending prereleases and side draft tournaments, or going to Pokemon league, all increase your Play! Points. Using a Play! Point to Championship Point ratio to determine Worlds invites would just discourage contending players to do any side events.

 

[kirbyking]

I see where you are going with this, but it is pokemon's job to make money. This is probably just another way to make pokemon happy.

 

[eriknance]

Does anyone know if there will be a limit to the amount of CPs one can earn by doing well at Regionals? Like how this year's system put a cap on CPs earned at City Championships?

I'm with Ross on this one for right now though; I'm a busy person with a lot on my plate. I'd love to compete at Worlds, and I'm not opposed to working hard at earning that invite. I also love going to tournaments when I can. But to get an invite to Worlds, it sounds like I'll have to give up a huge amount of weekends during the year. For some this is no problem, but for many it is. Still wish Regional winners would get an invitation to Worlds (I miss those Gym Challenges too).

 

[LOLZ]

Does anyone know if there will be a limit to the amount of CPs one can earn by doing well at Regionals? Like how this year's system put a cap on CPs earned at City Championships?

I'm with Ross on this one for right now though; I'm a busy person with a lot on my plate. I'd love to compete at Worlds, and I'm not opposed to working hard at earning that invite. I also love going to tournaments when I can. But to get an invite to Worlds, it sounds like I'll have to give up a huge amount of weekends during the year. For some this is no problem, but for many it is. Still wish Regional winners would get an invitation to Worlds (I miss those Gym Challenges too).

The 2011/2012 season had a Best Finnish Limit for combined States & Regionals was 4.

It may or may not be the same this season, time will tell.

 

[TLesky]

I would like to play devil's advocate on this for a minute and do a comparisson. Please for give me if I end up beating a dead horse here and also understand that I do agree that there may be some negative effects from the change but I am in favor of it because I think the "Plusles" outweigh the "Minums" here. Also I am going to try and look at it from just the player aspect.

Also consider, and please correct me if I am wrong on this, but when we had 1 regional, you had to do well there in theory to get an invite. Similarly, when we had 2, you had to do well at 1 for sure, and probably 2 to get an invite.

When we had 1 regional date, everyone obviously went at the same time. Now whether you had a 2 hour drive, 5 hour drive, or even had to fly, if you wanted to compete, you went. Now what happened to those that either had to work our real jobs that day, fell ill, had a wedding or some other fiunction that had to be attended, or basically couldnt make it. The opportunity for anyone who missed regionals would in theory not have a shot at an invite. Now I know that the CP vs ELO systems changed this whole thing, and that it really isnt comparable, but for the sake of the arguement, please bear with me and pretend. Imagine being one of the guys that plays every tournament except regionals but doesnt get an invite because he came up short due to working during regionals. If another regionals tournament was held that he could go to...

Now when we moved to 2 regionals, if one of the things mentioned above caused you to miss a regional, you could still get a chance to go to one. Now granted it was likely to be a farther travel and cost more, but if you wanted to go you could. And being as the chances of the same people doing well at both regionals are slim, your chance at an invite was still there, but you had to do well.

So now we have 3. If you get stuck working 1 or 2 of the weekends, you can still have a third option to go if you are willing to travel, pay for it ,etc. Granted the rich that can afford to go to 3, and those high end players that can go to 3 will have a mathamatical advantage, but tell me, is one person really going to be able to hit a 3 regionals, and win/top4 all 3? Its kinda like winning the tripple crown in horse racing. It is possible, but the odds of someone going in to 3 different areas and sweeping is pretty unlikely.

There are a few other points to bring up to about adding more regionals. Bullados said "ok lets add 2 per date." Alright. First off each of these events is very expensive to run, and since we are already getting cuts to prizes, etc, more expense for running regionals will likely cause more. the money has to come from somewhere. Also, where do you put these 2 extra tournaments each time? Again like Bullados said, there are a dozen or so places that you could argue would be fair to put them. But with only 6 total to go around, someone is going to get left out. How do you decide? How do you justify cuts in prizes to those that didnt get one closer to them? And how are those that got a regional before going to feel when their prizes, etc are cut to provide the money for more regionals to those that didnt have one as close before?

The bottom line guys is I really think that TPCI makes changes to try and give more to the majority of players. Now it can be argued that the college age players make up a large chunk of the player base, and you can argue that this move will affect them negatively, and you would have a good point. But I dont think any of you will come out and say that TPCI is making these changes only to "screw over" any certain group, and I am sure you would agree that these guys do the best with what they have to give us as much as they can. Afterall we all have limitations to our resources, and make them go as far as we can.

thanks again for reading:thumb: