Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Suggestion for Next Year

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

ShawofMordor

New Member
So like, I understand the East coast has an advantage over the West in that we are a smaller area with more people, so that tournaments here are easier to get to and can still have high numbers blah blah etc etc.

Keeping that in mind I see why States were restricted to two days and Regionals to one. This prevents us lucky East coasters from going to a ton of tournaments when the West coast people can't. I have like 8 States at least within driving distance of me, and probably 3-4 Regionals. That's not at all fair for others who have to drive longer to get to one than I do to get to the farthest of my 8. So I agree with that.

But still, I'm bummed cuz I love Pokemon and I enjoy going to big tournaments and seeing my friends and trading etc etc.

I was thinking, the reason they are restricting dates for States is not to keep people from playing, but to keep people from having an unfair rating advantage, yeh??

OK so my suggestion is that for next year have the first two States a person attends and the first Regional they attend count for rating. Any others after that do not count for rating. Pretty much pretend any matches played by a person who has been to two States already would be as if the opponents were in different age groups.

This way people can go to as many tournaments as they can afford and not have a massive advantage over those who are geographically restricted. Trophies, scholarships, travel allowances, I am not sure what to do with those. I think Trophies should be given out regardless of how many you've played in, but maybe have the scholarships and trips pass down if the person has already played but makes it that far.

The only issue I see with this is that some people would get ****** off if they only go to the later States and it turns out like half the people they play have already hit their max so the wins against them don't count. Thus the winner of the tournament would not get as many points as they should. At the same time you don't lose points to those who have hit their max so there is also minimized risk.

Opinions?
 
Not going to happen IMO. How can we as judges and event organizers guarantee that a set of players, that are "maxed out" (using your language), will not concede to their friends in the field and try to beat the competition? Likewise, as you point out, the winners of the later events may not get as many points due to the "cap" imposed.

Keith
 
ShawofMordor said:
So like, I understand the East coast has an advantage over the West in that we are a smaller area with more people, so that tournaments here are easier to get to and can still have high numbers blah blah etc etc.

Keeping that in mind I see why States were restricted to two days and Regionals to one. This prevents us lucky East coasters from going to a ton of tournaments when the West coast people can't. I have like 8 States at least within driving distance of me, and probably 3-4 Regionals. That's not at all fair for others who have to drive longer to get to one than I do to get to the farthest of my 8. So I agree with that.

But still, I'm bummed cuz I love Pokemon and I enjoy going to big tournaments and seeing my friends and trading etc etc.

I was thinking, the reason they are restricting dates for States is not to keep people from playing, but to keep people from having an unfair rating advantage, yeh??

OK so my suggestion is that for next year have the first two States a person attends and the first Regional they attend count for rating. Any others after that do not count for rating. Pretty much pretend any matches played by a person who has been to two States already would be as if the opponents were in different age groups.

This way people can go to as many tournaments as they can afford and not have a massive advantage over those who are geographically restricted. Trophies, scholarships, travel allowances, I am not sure what to do with those. I think Trophies should be given out regardless of how many you've played in, but maybe have the scholarships and trips pass down if the person has already played but makes it that far.

The only issue I see with this is that some people would get ****** off if they only go to the later States and it turns out like half the people they play have already hit their max so the wins against them don't count. Thus the winner of the tournament would not get as many points as they should. At the same time you don't lose points to those who have hit their max so there is also minimized risk.

Opinions?
Click to expand...


I've suggested something like this last year, but I thought about it a bit more after. On the surface, it seems like the greatest idea yet, but it's really flawed in reality. It pretty much means a consistent winning player is forced to hit up the 2 earliest states in any area to have any shot at a decent point gain from States. If it's good players going to multiple states, then at the top of the swiss rounds (X-0, X-1s late in swiss, where you should be getting most of your point gains playing top quality players) in the later tournaments will all be meaningless matches pointswise, meaning if you miss the first 2 states and go and win the 3rd and 4th, your point gain will not compare to those who won even one of the first 2.

Another possible way to make this somewhat fair would be to make a match cap, and players who have played to the cap stop gaining points but have their opponents (if they havent reached it yet) lose/gain points as if nothing happened. Idk if that would work either because it would have implications on the rating system.
 
I'm still kind of new to POP, so forgive my ignornce. But my questions is, why allow anyone to compete in more than one City/State/Regional championship anyway? Shouldn't those tournaments be for people who actually live in those Cities/States/Regions? Granted, if your city/state doesn't have one, I can understand competing in one that's the closest to you, but I don't understand why for example a person who lives in, say Tennessee, should be able to compete in Michigan's state championships (unless for some reason Tennessee doesn't have one or some reason they couldn't participate in the Tennessee one)
 
I don't like the idea of concessions. If you stop the player who has played in more than 2 states from gaining/losing points, concessions are very likely to happen. If you take away their chance of winning points and give them the chance to lose points, they won't play.

One idea might be, take the best 2 states and apply them to the rating, but then that allows players to do horribly twice and not get penalized for it.

No matter how I look at it, I cannot find a way to fix this problem without being unfair to the player or to the other players.

The best answer might just be what we have now.

taurik said:
I'm still kind of new to POP, so forgive my ignornce. But my questions is, why allow anyone to compete in more than one City/State/Regional championship anyway? Shouldn't those tournaments be for people who actually live in those Cities/States/Regions?
Click to expand...

All city/states/regionals are open to all players. So in the past years, you would see players from 4-5 states at a single state championship. For a regional championship, you would probably see even more people from different areas.
 
You really cant put a cap on the amount of states and regs a person can attend without the cap bieng on the tournoment itself.
Seriously, why is going to a bunch of states and regs a problem? If I do well in one state and travel to another, I am risking all the points i just gained from that state.
If I am a skilled player, than the gamble can pay off with me getting more states
Not to mention this can help states with lesser skilled players get some competition once in a while

VOTE FOR 4 STATES AND 2 REGS MAX AGAIN!!
 
You could try only counting the two events where a player performed best. Not sure how that would be determined, but it would solve problems with concessions and other chronological loopholes.
 
ixidor89 said:
You could try only counting the two events where a player performed best. Not sure how that would be determined, but it would solve problems with concessions and other chronological loopholes.
Click to expand...

But, in PTCG ratings, there are no mulligans for an entire tournament. You play, you take your chances with your ratings!

Keith
 
ixidor89, I mentioned in my post how that wouldn't work that well. Someone could win two states, and then just bomb at other states and not recieve any point reduction. Or they could win at 2 and still concede because that tournament won't be applied to their ratings.

Like I said, I can't think of a way that would prevent concession and would be fair to all the players.
 
Hey what about counting only their BEST and WORST tournaments??

Also @ the new guy, people are allowed to go to others mainly because of location. For example I'm from NJ but the NJ States is 2.5 hours away from me and the DE States is only 1.5 hours. The problem gets worse in areas with bigger states, change that 2.5 hours to like 12.5.
 
Lawman: The discussion was about changing the tournament structure so that people can go to more tournaments. The first two idea would make concessions on the third tournament a big problem. So, I suggest take the top two. You can't argue that we can't change ratings system to take the top two tournaments because "there a no mulligans for an entire tournament". THAT is begging the question.

Prime: I think that you're exaggerating how broad of a problem it would be at that point. For concessions to be consequential in that system, a person would have to do extremely well at two state championships (Most likely their first two, since any change probably wouldn't allow for more than four) and then do well enough on a third or fourth time for the concession to matter. It's not very likely.
 
something real quck to add....

Shaw, I was working on an article identicle to your sentiments above.

The only way I can see it separated again is if they do away with the rating system as a whole. Since they are not giving paid trips anymore, allow the invites to be the reward at Regionals. The competition is intense there and would bring HUGE attendances.

More to come later....

Jimmy
 
all states and regionals on the same day? logisticly it might be tough but if you start planning a year in advance which you could do with states or regionals it shouldn't be that bad.
 
Although it knocks attendance down significantly, the way to make it fairest for all people is one and dones for all levels of tourneys for a season.

Everyone can enter only 1 Fall Battle Road, 1 City, I State, I Regional, and 1 National. Look at the points then, based on the most even playing field possible.
 
taurik said:
I'm still kind of new to POP, so forgive my ignornce. But my questions is, why allow anyone to compete in more than one City/State/Regional championship anyway? Shouldn't those tournaments be for people who actually live in those Cities/States/Regions? Granted, if your city/state doesn't have one, I can understand competing in one that's the closest to you, but I don't understand why for example a person who lives in, say Tennessee, should be able to compete in Michigan's state championships (unless for some reason Tennessee doesn't have one or some reason they couldn't participate in the Tennessee one)
Click to expand...

While it may seem preferable to have people only playing in their 'home' State Championships, our goal is to make Pokemon events accessible to as many people as we possibly can.

We want people to be able to attend the events that are most convenient for them. We don't want to force someone to make the choice between an 8 hour drive, or no event, when there may be an event an hour away, across a state line.

Thanks,
Prof. Dave
 
ShawofMordor said:
Hey what about counting only their BEST and WORST tournaments??

Also @ the new guy, people are allowed to go to others mainly because of location. For example I'm from NJ but the NJ States is 2.5 hours away from me and the DE States is only 1.5 hours. The problem gets worse in areas with bigger states, change that 2.5 hours to like 12.5.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I don't see any problem with being able to go to the closest one, or the one that bests fits your schedule even, regardless of distance.

PokeDad said:
Although it knocks attendance down significantly, the way to make it fairest for all people is one and dones for all levels of tourneys for a season.

Everyone can enter only 1 Fall Battle Road, 1 City, I State, I Regional, and 1 National. Look at the points then, based on the most even playing field possible.
Click to expand...

i like this idea, it seems more fair for the people that don't live for Pokemon. However, for the smaller ones like Battle Roads (and maybe cities) I would think that not limiting those would be fair, but then again, I don't really understand the significance of winning tournaments at those levels.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Professor Dav said:
While it may seem preferable to have people only playing in their 'home' State Championships, our goal is to make Pokemon events accessible to as many people as we possibly can.

We want people to be able to attend the events that are most convenient for them. We don't want to force someone to make the choice between an 8 hour drive, or no event, when there may be an event an hour away, across a state line.

Thanks,
Prof. Dave
Click to expand...

I have no problem with people going to the event that's most convenient for them. I do have a problem with people travelling across the country to multiple events to try to win, maybe because the competetion in one area isn't as "tough" as in others, especially at the "higher level" championship tournaments like States/Regionals.
 
Last edited:
taurik said:
I'm still kind of new to POP, so forgive my ignornce. But my questions is, why allow anyone to compete in more than one City/State/Regional championship anyway? Shouldn't those tournaments be for people who actually live in those Cities/States/Regions? Granted, if your city/state doesn't have one, I can understand competing in one that's the closest to you, but I don't understand why for example a person who lives in, say Tennessee, should be able to compete in Michigan's state championships (unless for some reason Tennessee doesn't have one or some reason they couldn't participate in the Tennessee one)
Click to expand...

Organized play just won't accomodate that, especially for cities. We'd only have 10 players show up and that would be it. Not fun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top