Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Making U.S Nationals more legitimate

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Scizor

New Member
In the light of a decrease in Regionals prizes, I'd hope this is leading up to a better Nationals tournament. Here are some things that need to be worked on:

-No more 7-2, 6-2, X-2 missing a large cut like a T32: This really shouldn't happen, under any circumstance. This event has over 400 and probably nearing 500 15+ players and the fact that the cut is less than 10% is already a joke in itself

-Larger cut or pods: Now, 6-3 isn't a GREAT record, and I'm not arguing for them to make the cut, but if we have another increase this year (HIGHLY likely) then maybe we should think about a 10 round, T64 cut. You let some 7-3s in (I don't think all, I'd have to do the math) and 7-3 is 70% win, not exactly BAD to be in the cut. You allow all 8-2, 9-1, and 10-0 in, the way it SHOULD be.

We could use pods, too. It is just hard to work out and needs to be extensively worked on PRIOR to Nationals. We can give a good guestimate of the attendance. And I think a lot of people would like to see a couple less rounds and a bigger cut.....Pods CAN do this.

-Added prizes to the entire T32: Really, I think all of T32 should get some sort of scholarship $$. You're placing in the Top 5-10% in the biggest tournament in the World. AT LEAST pay the T16. How bad is it that the T16 last year out of about 425 15+ players got some cards and a pat on the back, no money, no trip, no invite when they placed T16/425 (Top 4%).

I just think it is unfair how good some players do at U.S. Nationals and are not rewarded like they should be. Most other countrie's Nationals are 1/4 or less the size of the U.S. and I don't think a lot of people realize how difficult of a tournament United States Nationals really is.
 
Think about this though
10 ROUNDS??!?!
r u sure thats fair at all?? I don't think so.. wat about the 10- kids for them 10 rounds is WAY to much..and the Masters have to sleep especially those who made it to the TOP 64.. other than that I think this is a good idea!!
 
well the 10- division is smaller, and I'd guess would only play 7-9 rounds...and didn't nationals this past year end fairly early?
 
I'm starting to wonder what the cap IS. This event is too big, though. I'm not sure about capping it.....You'd have some complaints. I know the staff would be over worked, that's why pods is looking more and more like THE thing to do.
 
I don't really see what's the problem?
It's understood: WIN.

If you go 9-0 you know you're getting in. Get 8-1 and you're still pretty comfortable. Go 7-2 then you might worry because there's no guarantee. So what do you do if you're 7-2 and don't make it? Go 8-1 or 9-0 next year.

You spent all your money to get to Nationals? Oh well, that's on you, it was your choice. I've never been to Nats cuz honestly I don't care that much about Pokemon... but it's pretty clear: WIN. The people with the best records don't have to worry about cuts. You guys are "play to win" all the time but when you don't [and lose/don't have the best record] then you get mad at POP ' and say they're not giving enough chances.

The best of the day at Nats will get somewhere, how is that unfair?
 
Last edited:
Um, wow? So, the fact that some 7-2s miss the cut and others go onto WIN A TRIP TO WORLDS or cash because they had a computer decide whether they get in or not is fair? Yeah, ok.

Your post is exactly as you say - you haven't been to Nationals. You don't know how it is. Nor do you have any idea who I am, so let me fill you in -- first of all I didn't miss at 7-2 and secondly, I won a free trip to Nationals. This isn't a sour grapes post. Get your facts straight before you start attacking people.
 
You might have to go to Nationals and go 7-2 and not make the cut to really know 100% how a player can feel, but you can't relate and understand how they feel without doing that.

It's really up to the player. Many players want to win now, and can't stand to not win at Nats or Worlds. I can understand someone feeling sad that they didn't make the cut, and I can understand the feeling without actually having to have gone 7-2 at Nats. My friend KingGengar made the top cut with 8-1 or something, and made it to the top 16 only to lose in sudden death to the luckiest hand he's ever seen. Do you think he was upset, made a scene, and stormed off? Nope. But I have seen players do that.

I've come really close, many times coming in one place lower than the cut, at tournaments, and I just see it as Purple says. I will try better next time. Maybe lady luck with be with me next time. I can accept a loss, but that's not the same for many players in this game, and in all games.

People just have to win. And win now, not next tournament. They can't accept a loss. Although the system could probably use a re-working, it's obviously the system's fault if they don't make the top cut. /sarcasm

But there are many people that can take a loss, and I appreciate it when I beat them. If it's a donk, I don't like the match anymore than they do, but if they can look positively at things and understand stuff like that happens, then we both have a much better time.
 
Purple, it isn't that easy to win every game you play in, even if you are good. Lets take Bobby Malec for a instsnce: 2 T1 Skill Hacks. He was 33rd too.

So PuRpLe, why dont you become good and X-1/ X-0 every tournament?
 
This is coming from somebody who has missed more top cuts by resistance than almost anybody that I know of.

GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You play bad opponents and you don't beat them, you get shafted. That's how it is. In every sport. Period. I can dreg up probably half a dozen NFL stories about teams getting in at 9-7 over other 9-7 teams simply because of their opponents being weak.

You want to be in the top cut at Nationals?

WIN YOUR GAMES!!!

There is nothing else to it.

Again, I've missed about as many top cuts by resistance as anybody in this game. More than many I know of, in fact. I've gone one loss and missed the top cut before. I don't cry over it. I tell those in the top cut that they played great, and I go off and look for side events to join.

You can't do that? Sry, you're an idiot, and you don't deserve anything more than what you've got.
 
Well, thanks for contributing absolutely nothing to this topic, everyone! Now here's some more suggestions:

We had about 425 players in 15+ last Nationals, let's assume we get about 480 this season. This is very plausible. With 480 players the following would happen:

-15/38 7-2s would miss a 9 round, Top 32 cut
-4 7-3s would make a 10 rounds, Top 32 cut (including all 8-2, 9-1 and 10-0 players)

Adding one extra round appears to be a good solution. Since a lot of people seem to like less rounds, let's take a look at the pod options:

-With 2 240 man pods, every 7-0 and 6-1 player, along with 1 5-2 would make it into the T32 (T16 from each pod taken)

After looking at the possible numbers and rounds/cuts, without doing a T64, these are the best options.
 
I agree that we either need an extra round of swiss or cut to t64.

Numbers for 10 rounds w/512 people:
1 10-0, 5 9-1, 23 8-2, 58 7-3

So 10 rounds with t64 may be too much, but with the field continually getting bigger, we need one or the other.

Also, I don't agree with pods - in such a big tournament you should be playing against the entire field, not just who is in your pod. More rounds=better to determine a true winner.
 
If pods do happen, I can see people complaining about how much easier it was to make the top cut this year than it was last year. Blah.

Pods do sound like the best idea though. Wouldn't they take more support, as in more judges to judge each pod instead of a few judges judging an entire group?

Honestly, I feel one thing that could be improved at Nationals this year is the number of judges. Even after people donating their time, there seemed to be (in my opinion) a insufficient number of judges. A core number of judges seemed to work all day without any breaks and did anything and everything. IMHO, these people deserve some kind of break, and adding one extra round, and even pods wouldn't really help this. I don't know how to fix that problem though.
 
I think U.S Nationals should be TOP 64. Cuz its a better % of the playing field and the good records will be in. (9-0, 8-1, 7-2) Then the rest of the player base can consider themselves lucky to get in. Forget pods because you can have A: Group of awsome players in one pod & in B: the other pod have a bunch of flunkies. I think that'll cause problems. T64 + 8/10 Rounds should do it.
 
bullados said:
This is coming from somebody who has missed more top cuts by resistance than almost anybody that I know of.

GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You play bad opponents and you don't beat them, you get shafted. That's how it is. In every sport. Period. I can dreg up probably half a dozen NFL stories about teams getting in at 9-7 over other 9-7 teams simply because of their opponents being weak.

You want to be in the top cut at Nationals?

WIN YOUR GAMES!!!

There is nothing else to it.

Again, I've missed about as many top cuts by resistance as anybody in this game. More than many I know of, in fact. I've gone one loss and missed the top cut before. I don't cry over it. I tell those in the top cut that they played great, and I go off and look for side events to join.

You can't do that? Sry, you're an idiot, and you don't deserve anything more than what you've got.
Click to expand...

You can't compare a 7-2 record in Pokemon to a 9-7 record in the NFL... First of all, Pokemon has alot of luck involved, and odds are alot of very good players can get donked twice in 9 rounds, and miss because of that.

9-7 in a game of mostly skill means just that. You have 7 losses and are a mediocre team, and probably deserve to miss the playoffs. You can't say someone who went 7-2 at US nats played a mediocre tournament. If all the 7-2s made cut last year, nobody would be complaining.
 
You can't compare a 7-2 record in Pokemon to a 9-7 record in the NFL... First of all, Pokemon has alot of luck involved, and odds are alot of very good players can get donked twice in 9 rounds, and miss because of that.

9-7 in a game of mostly skill means just that. You have 7 losses and are a mediocre team, and probably deserve to miss the playoffs. You can't say someone who went 7-2 at US nats played a mediocre tournament. If all the 7-2s made cut last year, nobody would be complaining.
Click to expand...

^ Agreed.

Also with ppl droping left and right, your opp. win%age wasn't easy to keep good, even if you did win a lot.

Nats really needs a t64 cut. It only adds 1 more round to the tourny, and that isn't really that bad.
I was there and saw Jonathan A., the N1 player in MD, and one of the top in the country, go 7/2 and not make top cut, because of bad resistance. Was it fair, no. And I'm not trying to sound mean, but there where some less deserving players that did make the top cut because they got lucky and had a good resistance. I'm sorry, but if you go 7/2 at THE HARDEST TOURNAMENT IN THE WORLD, you desearve to be in the top cut.
 
hm...why not let nationals only alows to these who had...
T2'd Autumn BR
T4'd cities
T8'd states
T16'd Regionals
T2'd Spring BR

so we wont get .. any torterribad players that will screw up good players in the masters division...
 
spoinkmaster said:
Win. If they do a T64, that'll get to crowded in a few years and you'll plea for a T128. Then T256, maybe in 2050 you'll want a T1028
Click to expand...

Then they really need to make it more devisions if it ever gets to that. Maby even have 2 Nats.

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

Jason said:
hm...why not let nationals only alows to these who had...
T2'd Autumn BR
T4'd cities
T8'd states
T16'd Regionals
T2'd Spring BR

so we wont get .. any torterribad players that will screw up good players in the masters division...
Click to expand...

I like it, but that is starting to cut to many ppl out. It also dosn't give anyone a chance if they just have had a bad year, or where to busy to attend many tournys.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top