BRs - No top cut - how do we feel now?

[TheRolesWePlay]

Be honest, Before the announcement came about this seasons Battle roads did you ever imagine for a second that they would remove top cuts from a Premiere Event?

To be honest I simply didn't even give it any thought. I was a tad shocked since Pokemon doesn't normally change events like that, but that was it. Cutting TC from BRs makes a fair amount of sense especially with the prizes allotted to them.

 

[LionheartEX]

AU/NZ still have top cut. I'm indifferent to it, but would be happy to leave early.

 

[chrataxe]

The move wasn't about making events less competitive, it was about loosening time constraints.



You'd have to get lucky to win a battle roads regardless.

Playing 2 extra hour long matches for a couple points / packs isn't worth it.

So, "tournaments" are now for the casual player, not league?


Not trolling, I'm honestly curious, why do you play the game? Nothing in you post supports that you enjoy this game or that you compete in this game. Personally, I don't have time constraints on fun. While in the real world, time constraints are a real issue, I'm curious as to who we (the Pokemon community as a whole) are trying to save time.

Its not about being lucky and winning, its about minimizing the luck to have a game of skill.

If you have no desire to "play 2 extra hours for a couple of points," you can always drop, you know that, right?

Re Matt/Apollo: As a competitive player, I feel for you, and agree completely. But if I were looking at it from the perspective of OP, variance at what's supposed to be an "entry-level" tournament is a very good thing. By making it harder for the top players to win an event, you effectively fulfill the purpose of giving newer/less skilled or established players an easier chance to win, boosting both their confidence levels and their desire to keep participating.

So long as everybody's play is legit, OP doesn't care who wins or loses its tournaments - they just want us to keep playing and keep spending money on product. New winners = more chances to create loyal, lifelong customers, so I"m convinced that this will remain in effect for good.

Again, I ask, isn't that what league is for? Can't there just be weekly tournaments at league?

Dang, 90+ in Tomball, Texas which is the largest attendance ever for Tomball. Honestly, I don't think the CP had anything to do with this. I'd say 80% of the players had no idea how the point system worked. They were there for fun. Thank god we didn't have top cut.

Wouldn't MORE POKEMON be MORE FUN?

Why not drop the top cut from cities? They're about the same size, and held at most of the same locations - so the time constraints are the same. If it's good enough for BRs, why not Cities?

This brings up a very interesting point...that I'll address below...

To my memory, CCs are generally quite a bit larger than BRs (though we have had very large BRs so far this season). Some are at different venues as well.

The deeper CP cut and greater competitive significance is all the evidence I really need though.

But, the issue isn't competitive level....or even attendance, its all about time constraints, remember? Diaz points out that, if its all about time constraints (if that truly is the purpose), why not actually take time constraints into consideration? Diaz is right, they have roughly the same attendance and are held at the same (more or less) venues, thus suffer from the same time constraint problems.

For what its worth, I agree, cities are greater significance, but its not an issue of significance, its an issue of time. One could easily argue that with the new system to qualify for worlds, BR's become equally significant, if not more so, especially since ONE loss at each BR's could easily cost you an invite....which is food for thought, how many times have you (or anyone) X-0'ed swiss at BR's? Of course it happens every tournament, but the point I'm getting is, most people are probably not X-0 in 99% of the tournaments they attend. One loss at each tournament could potentially cost you 24 points over the season....I will go on record right now and say that there will be people that miss qualifying for worlds by 24 or less points this year.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the second part, but wouldn't the increased attendance put even more of a time constraint on venues?

Logic isn't part of this equation...

We had 35 masters for Edmonton's first Battle Road.

Ended up with five players sitting with a 5-1 record.

Well, at least they can't complain about bubbling cut, right?

Considering that cities are worth more points than BRs then if one of them were to drop top cuts then I'd rather them drop them from BRs than cities. More points means that there is more on the line, so I'm sure a lot more players would appreciate top cuts at city championships, myself included.

That's an illogical argument. If I say apples are green, that doesn't mean there can't be red apples.

A lot of players (myself included) would appreciate top cut in BR's. Its not like P!P was looking at the season going "Well, ya know, we should cut Top Cut from SOMETHING, what should it be?" They didn't have to cut BR's, so its not like one or the other, leaving TC in both tournaments is an option....







BUT, all of these problems could be easily avoided by doing best 2-of-3 (which isn't going to happen since its a time constraint issue) or...

...ADD AN EXTRA ROUND!!!!

I'm fine with having no TC if it were best of three or if we played one X-0 + 1. In fact, I think that is actually better for BR's and it helps appease both sides since its ONLY one extra round of 1, not best of, meaning it fits time constraints AND mitigates the problem of losing points due to early loses. I played in a tournament today (non-pokemon) that had 32 players and 7 rounds (30 minute rounds)...started after 12 and finished around 5. Pokemon would only play 5 rounds with 32, so surely getting 6 isn't that bad. Under 132 players puts it at 8 rounds.

Another option is to drop the bottom tables that can no longer cut.


Let's be realistic, expecting players to X-0 swiss in a tournament just isn't fair with single matches. NO other card game would support that kind of format...

 

[BJJ763]

... I'm curious as to who we (the Pokemon community as a whole) are trying to save time.

Maybe the Battle Roads staff? A 4 hour BR > a 6 hour BR > an 8 hour BR

These are BRs....

 

[MiniWade]

Top cut usually lengthens the time of BR"s. BR"s were always suppose to be small and not too time consuming events. I just spent 12 hours for 2 BR's today and let me tell you i'd be dead tired if there were top cut. So i'm glad there aren't top cut for BR's it just make the event longer. Tbh I like BR's to be short and not wasting my whole day :/

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

So, "tournaments" are now for the casual player, not league?


Not trolling, I'm honestly curious, why do you play the game? Nothing in you post supports that you enjoy this game or that you compete in this game. Personally, I don't have time constraints on fun. While in the real world, time constraints are a real issue, I'm curious as to who we (the Pokemon community as a whole) are trying to save time.

Its not about being lucky and winning, its about minimizing the luck to have a game of skill.

If you have no desire to "play 2 extra hours for a couple of points," you can always drop, you know that, right?



Again, I ask, isn't that what league is for? Can't there just be weekly tournaments at league?



Wouldn't MORE POKEMON be MORE FUN?



This brings up a very interesting point...that I'll address below...



But, the issue isn't competitive level....or even attendance, its all about time constraints, remember? Diaz points out that, if its all about time constraints (if that truly is the purpose), why not actually take time constraints into consideration? Diaz is right, they have roughly the same attendance and are held at the same (more or less) venues, thus suffer from the same time constraint problems.

For what its worth, I agree, cities are greater significance, but its not an issue of significance, its an issue of time. One could easily argue that with the new system to qualify for worlds, BR's become equally significant, if not more so, especially since ONE loss at each BR's could easily cost you an invite....which is food for thought, how many times have you (or anyone) X-0'ed swiss at BR's? Of course it happens every tournament, but the point I'm getting is, most people are probably not X-0 in 99% of the tournaments they attend. One loss at each tournament could potentially cost you 24 points over the season....I will go on record right now and say that there will be people that miss qualifying for worlds by 24 or less points this year.



Logic isn't part of this equation...



Well, at least they can't complain about bubbling cut, right?



That's an illogical argument. If I say apples are green, that doesn't mean there can't be red apples.

A lot of players (myself included) would appreciate top cut in BR's. Its not like P!P was looking at the season going "Well, ya know, we should cut Top Cut from SOMETHING, what should it be?" They didn't have to cut BR's, so its not like one or the other, leaving TC in both tournaments is an option....







BUT, all of these problems could be easily avoided by doing best 2-of-3 (which isn't going to happen since its a time constraint issue) or...

...ADD AN EXTRA ROUND!!!!

I'm fine with having no TC if it were best of three or if we played one X-0 + 1. In fact, I think that is actually better for BR's and it helps appease both sides since its ONLY one extra round of 1, not best of, meaning it fits time constraints AND mitigates the problem of losing points due to early loses. I played in a tournament today (non-pokemon) that had 32 players and 7 rounds (30 minute rounds)...started after 12 and finished around 5. Pokemon would only play 5 rounds with 32, so surely getting 6 isn't that bad. Under 132 players puts it at 8 rounds.

Another option is to drop the bottom tables that can no longer cut.


Let's be realistic, expecting players to X-0 swiss in a tournament just isn't fair with single matches. NO other card game would support that kind of format...

There seems to be somewhat of a disconnect here, so let's start from the beginning.

BRs more than any other tournament are meant to be accessible by any player, hence the smaller rewards and smaller gravitas in comparison to other events, meaning that it is open to the most changes, in this case the removal of TC to the time required. Additionally expecting 'casual' players to limit themselves to leagues isn't really fair. 'Casual' players do enjoy going to official Pokemon tournaments you know.

Why reduce time in the first place? Events are long and people don't want to/can't stay for the whole event sometimes. Sure they can drop, but some people don't want to but have time constraints, or they may be tempted to stop playing if the smallest events take such a long time. Also remember Pokemon is a kid's game first, so Parents have to be factored in as well.

Remember it is BRs we're talking about, the smallest Premier Tournament in the Tournament Hierarchy. There's a small difference between placings with this structure, which total to a maximum of 5 points between 1st and 4th which isn't all that much, especially with the current system.

 

[P_A]

So, "tournaments" are now for the casual player, not league? Nope, you're missing the point. Tournaments are for everyone, but since these are supposed to be 'entry level events' more weight is given to the casual player, and parents of entry level players to have a shorter event - as opposed to the competitive player in later, much longer and more drawn out events.


Not trolling, I'm honestly curious, why do you play the game? Nothing in you post supports that you enjoy this game or that you compete in this game. Personally, I don't have time constraints on fun. While in the real world, time constraints are a real issue, I'm curious as to who we (the Pokemon community as a whole) are trying to save time. Though not everyone ascribes to this idea, some people get less fun out of playing for a larger number of hours to compete for such a small amount of compensation. I realize there are lots who would play if nothing was on the line but bragging rights, but that normally is not the case. There are both pros and cons to the no top cut decision, but overall the outcome seems to be a sound one to ensure a shorter event that people can still find fun.

Its not about being lucky and winning, its about minimizing the luck to have a game of skill. Says you. How do you know that your idea fits into TPCi's view of how they want the event to go?

........ isn't that what league is for? Can't there just be weekly tournaments at league? sure, but why does EVERY event have to be about the competitive players? URGH, now you're making me sound like SDPokeMom. Damn you!

Wouldn't MORE POKEMON be MORE FUN? Yes, and no. Sometimes if it's very convenient, more pokemon is more fun. But sometimes only a little pokemon is more fun.

....... One loss at each tournament could potentially cost you 24 points over the season....I will go on record right now and say that there will be people that miss qualifying for worlds by 24 or less points this year. How would that be any different than any other year? Or for that matter, even if they had kept top cuts, who says that those same players wouldn't have lost out some other way to lose out by 24 points or less? You're making it sound like that decision critically injured the legitimacy of the season. It didn't.

....... A lot of players (myself included) would appreciate top cut in BR's. yeah, I'm sure a lot of players would. Probably about 60-80% of those who X-1 would, but that isn't the demographic that TPCi is obviously targeting here. It's apparent that they are trying to take into consideration the whole gamut of players, judges, PTO's, TO's, venue owners, pokeparents, and both new and experienced players. Overall, it's a good (or at least decent) compromise. I don't completely support it, but I do support it.

BUT, all of these problems could be easily avoided by doing best 2-of-3 (which isn't going to happen since its a time constraint issue) or...

...ADD AN EXTRA ROUND!!!!

I'm fine with having no TC if it were best of three or if we played one X-0 + 1. In fact, I think that is actually better for BR's and it helps appease both sides since its ONLY one extra round of 1, not best of, meaning it fits time constraints AND mitigates the problem of losing points due to early loses. I can't be positive of this since I wasn't there, but I'm pretty sure they must have considered this option. I won't say it's not a decent option, but it may not be a viable one for all events. In smaller events the TOM program might find it hard to find viable matches when having to run an extra round. ......

sn't that bad. Under 132 players puts it at 8 rounds.

Another option is to drop the bottom tables that can no longer cut. But then where do you draw the line? at a predetermined number that TPCi has to mandate for every event? at a completely arbitrary number that the TO"s or PTO's choose out of thin air that may or may not be fair? Not cool.


Let's be realistic, expecting players to X-0 swiss in a tournament just isn't fair with single matches. Not fair to whom exactly? Like I said before in another thread, if you feel your win isn't entirely legitimate, by all means do a top cut of your own on your own time and record the results. It's kinda funny that no one has taken up that idea. NO other card game would support that kind of format... However by the looks of it, pokemon doesn't seem to have suffered because of it. Can you prove that statement wrong?

Responses above in red.

 

[JandPDS]

Te issue is not about making sure that the best player at the tourney wins, not is it to have more fun and opportunitys to play for the players. This issue that led to Top Cuts being eliminated was time. they wanted the tournements to be over sooner. So face it Top Cuts are no longer considered neccessary.

I still see Top Cuts being used to determine the winners of the bog tourneys. But face it BR and Cities are considered small fry. And the same issues with venue size and time constrainsts that ledd the top cuts to be eliminated from Battle Roads will eventually force them to go away from Cites as well. Probalby notthis year, but more then likely next year. When you look at it logically. For the TO's perspectve ther really is no differance at all to where a BR is held and where a City is held they are the same venes with the same problems.

So if eliminating top cuts from Battle Roads has fixed all of thees problems that he TO's were haveing why would they be allowed to exist for Cites. Winning a Cities is no bigger deal then a BR, Yes more Champion points but no Travel awards or the like. States and Regionals and Nationals are the only level of tournements that really matter, and unlike BR and Cities the venus that hold them are huge and are in vencues that can handle the extrs time a top cut takes.

That is why the future of pokemon is moving to no top cuts and small level events like BR and of course Cities wihc lets face it are just repeats of Battle Roads with slighly beeter prize support and mor Chamionship points at stake. Not really much a of a differeance.

 

[Jaeger]

Maybe the Battle Roads staff? A 4 hour BR > a 6 hour BR > an 8 hour BR

These are BRs....

Nobody is forcing you to Judge Battle Roads...I am assuming you are involved in this game for the same reason I am. You enjoy the game and you enjoying spending time with your friends.

 

[evil psyduck]

Nobody is forcing you to Judge Battle Roads...I am assuming you are involved in this game for the same reason I am. You enjoy the game and you enjoying spending time with your friends.

And if they get no one to judge then no tournaments.

 

[P_A]

Jaeger, instead of having a confrontational attitude towards BJJ763's comment, you could acknowledge the fact that some judges do make a difference in the tone of events. And that some judge for altruistic reasons. Some don't however and can still remain as a good judge. Even these are still necessary - since having no judge or bad judges are worse than having no events at all. You have to realize that not every good judge will have unlimited energy for dealing with people or the game for unlimited hours. And if the season starts out with substantially long BR events right from the start, many will start to doubt their stamina for the rest of the season, and withdraw from judging. Believe me, it's much better to ramp up to/at the start of the season instead of burning out your judges early.

 

[BJJ763]

Nobody is forcing you to Judge Battle Roads...I am assuming you are involved in this game for the same reason I am. You enjoy the game and you enjoying spending time with your friends.

And nobody is forcing anyone to participate in a BR without a top cut.

I like spending time with my friends.

Just not 2+ hours with 2 of them. :biggrin:

 

[Diaz]

Why not do swiss minus 2 and give out prizes to only the undefeated players? Maybe just swiss minus 1.

 

[JandPDS]

Why not do swiss minus 2 and give out prizes to only the undefeated players? Maybe just swiss minus 1.

Or we could make up flights of 16 the first 16 players in the same age group to show up and play 3 rounds and just give prizes and championship points to the winner of the flight. then take the next 16 and set them up in annother flight and so on that way you wont event need to take a lunch break and it will stop problems of Juniors playing 3 rounds when thier parents in masters are playing 6.

If we all put our heads together I am sure we can come up with lots of good time saving ideas to get the smaller level tounaments over sooner.

 

[Pidgeotto Trainer]

Since top cut at BRs just rearranges the top 4, no top cut has been fine. I could see it happening for cities, but there's so many more points at stake there, and with a top 8 no top cut is changing a lot more.

Anyways, no CPs for BRs would still be much much better. BRs are huge, just as competitive as any other event, and have doubled the length of the season. If you need to drive 1-2 hours to an event, the 2 hours shorter for top cut isn't a big dent to the enormous increase in time commitment to competitive pokemon BRs have created in the past year.

 

[PokePop]

Why not drop the top cut from cities? They're about the same size, and held at most of the same locations - so the time constraints are the same. If it's good enough for BRs, why not Cities?

Aren't TOs compensated more for Cities, which makes it worth holding a tournament of this size? BRs were not this large until last year.

This is correct. More compensation means that I can afford to compensate the store better.
It means that, for some of my Cities, I can even afford a larger location that I can't afford for a Battle Road.
I'm practically breaking even on BRs and store owners are getting little or nothing for hosting them.
The larger size that they have grown to on top of that had made BRs a burden on TOs, staff, and host venues.
Cutting the time by 2 hours has worked wonders on making a lot of those issues more manageable!

Maybe the Battle Roads staff? A 4 hour BR > a 6 hour BR > an 8 hour BR

These are BRs....

Exactly right.
I always jump on people who expect staff to work events for free or practically free, whether they are TOs or players.
This is not "Doctors without Borders" or the Red Cross.
This is a business enterprise.
Sure, most of us are doing this mainly for fun because it is our hobby/obsession, but I find it insulting to expect or ask someone to kill themselves and sacrifice the potential to play themselves for little to no compensation. (And then, even worse, bash them on top of that!)
Players who don't appreciate what is being done for them should rethink their attitude.

 

[evil psyduck]

What gets me is the ones that expect judges to judge for nothing or next to nothing. Yet they are some of the ones whining for more more and then more for the players.

 

[Diaz]

How much does the average judge at a brs get?

 

[PokePop]

How much does the average judge at a brs get?

Choose one of the below:

• Sorry, that's not a question I will answer.
• Pieces of shiny cardboard.
• Less than minimum wage.
• Nothing. They are given a gift for helping out.
• Not enough.

 

[Ditto]

As both a judge and a player, I'm disappointed with many of the judges attitudes in this thread.

All the time people post about how players should stop whining and just enjoy playing the game cause it's fun. But then someone says that judges should judge for the same reason and it's treated as a hostile post. That's ridiculous.


To answer the original question, I think it's disheartening to not have top cuts. Not having top cuts adds a ton of luck to an already increasingly lucky game. It's not fun to go to an event that you know you statistically have little chance of winning. You can't train harder and improve your skills and see a reward for that work and dedication. Adding luck to the game doesn't allow for more players to become loyal players, it makes the game as meaningless as playing rock paper scissors. How many of you spend time and money on playing rock paper scissors? I doubt pokemon wants that level of loyalty.