You can earn 1 point every month that you play in a non sanctioned tournament that is submitted.
Edit- Actually, I think they have to be sanctioned, just not a part of the OP tournament structure.
Play! Points.
- Thread starter PokeChump
- Start date
- Status
You can earn 1 point every month that you play in a non sanctioned tournament that is submitted.
Edit- Actually, I think they have to be sanctioned, just not a part of the OP tournament structure.
Swordfish1989
New Member
If I attend 2 pre-releases for a set, do I get 2 PP? $60 is a lot of money though...
Why not just give them a round loss and then drop them after the first round...?
losjackal
Technical Administrator
From the URL I linked above...emphasis mine:
Pokemon said:
EDIT: ninja'd by SMP88. I ought to start reading all replies before posting...yes, sanctioning is different, which is why I said "a good local TO". Not even a PTO.
ShuckleLVX
Active Member
Wasn't my call to make, so I can't really speak to the motivation behind it. But don't you think an extra 50+ 'byes' hurts the integrity of the event? Not to mention the issues associated with a slew of players having their first round opponents all dropping after one round? Repairing was better for the event as a whole.
plaidlesspez
New Member
If that is a ballpark number, then I guess so. I don't really know how to define where the cutoff is to maintain the integrity of an event. That would have been about 10% of the first round matches (assuming it was around 1,000 players).
What is the issue with players having their first round opponent drop? Bad resistance? (I'm genuinely ignorant about this but curious.)
What would happen currently (with the Play Point requirement) if a player doesn't show up for round 1? Are they automatically dropped or is it just a loss? At what point are they dropped (if at all)?
Sorry for all the inquiries, I want to understand the situation better.
ShuckleLVX
Active Member
Based on my experiences at Nats, we will call no-shows up to the stage with the warning that if they don't come talk to us they will be dropped. The number of no-shows last year (the first with the PP requirement) compared to two years ago was significantly lower.
And yes, I was referring to resistance issues.
I don't know the infrastructure around awarding byes, however I do know that once the round is paired you can't go back and make changes - without a repair (I'm sure there's a certain fellow out there that seems to know TOM better than the folks who created it who would disagree with me, but that gets into opening the source files for the program and is frowned upon to begin with.) At that point, why repair to grant byes when you can repair to pair?
On that same note, why would those players deserve the perfect resistance of a round 1 bye? When we got down to tiebreakers going into top cut, having someone say "Well, if my round one opponent just hadn't shown up and the people at the event had arbitrarily given ME the bye instead of that other guy, I would have made it," again, hurts the integrity of the event.
Then everyone that drops R1 just for free stuff can get punched in the face as a reward, IDK, ban them from the next years Nationals, give them 3 round losses so they have to win out to maybe bubble. Lose the requirements, but make it so no one will want to drop R1 just for door prizes... Why not at registration ask them if they plan on dropping R1, some-most might lie but there will be a batch of honest people and just have it so there not paired up. It won't be that hard to do. There is plenty of ways to get around having requirements to making Nationals way more enjoyable in the process for EVERYONE.
Or they could just not allow people to sign up who don't have enough PP.
plaidlesspez
New Member
What if the "swag" was handed out at the end of the end of the first day instead of before the tournament? That would fix the problem of no-shows and encourage people to not drop early on (which would further fix bad resistances and increase the integrity of the event).
And I still think a $5 entry fee could be helpful if it allows for more staff to accomodate the increased attendance.
Before every Nationals starts, the announcer likes to boast (and rightfully so) about how it's the biggest Nationals ever (since it grows a bit each year). Do we want Nationals to be as big as possible? Or just slightly bigger that we can still boast that the game is growing?
To me it seems like the Play Points are in place mainly because there are worries about the event becoming too large to manage and because of the no-show issue. If those two adjustments were made, I believe the Play Point requirement wouldn't be needed and we could really strive to make the event as big as possible, allowing those who have busy lives to participate. Isn't a very big Nationals good press for the game?
And now with Player Rewards, Play Points have better value besides being able to play in Nationals. I think it could possibly have been argued before that PP might help attendance for local events since people are trying to earn them to attend Nationals, but again I think the number of people playing JUST to get 15 PP is small (and those people might be tanking/dropping to get the Points, hurting the integrity of those events). With the rewards alone, local attendance should see a positive rise.
How does this sound? Am I missing something?
And I still think a $5 entry fee could be helpful if it allows for more staff to accomodate the increased attendance.
Before every Nationals starts, the announcer likes to boast (and rightfully so) about how it's the biggest Nationals ever (since it grows a bit each year). Do we want Nationals to be as big as possible? Or just slightly bigger that we can still boast that the game is growing?
To me it seems like the Play Points are in place mainly because there are worries about the event becoming too large to manage and because of the no-show issue. If those two adjustments were made, I believe the Play Point requirement wouldn't be needed and we could really strive to make the event as big as possible, allowing those who have busy lives to participate. Isn't a very big Nationals good press for the game?
And now with Player Rewards, Play Points have better value besides being able to play in Nationals. I think it could possibly have been argued before that PP might help attendance for local events since people are trying to earn them to attend Nationals, but again I think the number of people playing JUST to get 15 PP is small (and those people might be tanking/dropping to get the Points, hurting the integrity of those events). With the rewards alone, local attendance should see a positive rise.
How does this sound? Am I missing something?
Last edited:
losjackal
Technical Administrator
Good points, but we could rewind it to ask the question: despite who has been able to play in past years, since Masters attendance is getting to be over 1000, who should deserve to play in Nationals going forward?
Clearly with a 15 PP requirement, they are stating people who have participated in some things through the year. Leagues, pre-releases, other tournament Premier or not. Some mix of things and you should be able to get to 15. (Yes, harder than 10.) Because it is those people who ought to be competing against each other to win the big prizes at the end of Top Cut.
Let's presume the size of Nationals isn't unlimited. Because TPC has to pay for space, tables, etc. And of course deal with the number of registered players, which is already separated into two flights. Pretend they want to keep it at around 1000. It just doesn't make sense to allow Nationals to continue to be all-inclusive for just anyone who shows up. For what purpose? They're still going to get press coverage. By limiting attendance, they're letting real players compete against other real players. Not just anyone who wants to pass the time and get some free swag. When attendance is being limited, a line has to be drawn somewhere.
P.S. As part of last year, they did delay handing out of swag until a couple of rounds in, as everyone was breaking for lunch. That was also well-received in conjunction with the PP requirement.
Clearly with a 15 PP requirement, they are stating people who have participated in some things through the year. Leagues, pre-releases, other tournament Premier or not. Some mix of things and you should be able to get to 15. (Yes, harder than 10.) Because it is those people who ought to be competing against each other to win the big prizes at the end of Top Cut.
Let's presume the size of Nationals isn't unlimited. Because TPC has to pay for space, tables, etc. And of course deal with the number of registered players, which is already separated into two flights. Pretend they want to keep it at around 1000. It just doesn't make sense to allow Nationals to continue to be all-inclusive for just anyone who shows up. For what purpose? They're still going to get press coverage. By limiting attendance, they're letting real players compete against other real players. Not just anyone who wants to pass the time and get some free swag. When attendance is being limited, a line has to be drawn somewhere.
P.S. As part of last year, they did delay handing out of swag until a couple of rounds in, as everyone was breaking for lunch. That was also well-received in conjunction with the PP requirement.
Bolt
New Member
Additionally, I think it makes sense from a business standpoint to have MORE players travel and play in MORE events. They've upped the incentive to play for both casual and competitive players - with player rewards and the Nationals point requirement, respectively.
I'm not a huge fan of it, personally...but I get it.
plaidlesspez
New Member
That's a fair question and I don't have an answer to it. I just know for years Nationals was open to anyone, and to me it seems like the Play Point requirement came as a knee-jerk reaction to all the first round drops 2 years ago. Maybe that incident was coincidental and an entrance requirement was something that was being planned, but that's how it came across to me as someone who has been involved with the game for a while.
Do the people that have played more during the year deserve to enter if it's an issue about space/logistics? Sure. That makes sense.
But I think they should find a way to scale the event if that is the problem. This might just be me, but I feel Nationals has historically been the "big event" of the year. Everyone from all over would come out for the weekend and have an amazing time. You'd get to see friends you only got to see that one time each year, meet new people, and it was a really cool thing.
We're going to start losing that if things continue the way they are (with increased entrance requirements), and I think it's going to hurt the game. Five years from now, if they are still trying to keep Masters attendance around 1,000 because of space/time, it's going to be a lot more obvious.
I want to state that I think the game is headed in a positive direction, but whatever the real reason is for the entrance requirement (whether it be "swag" or spacing/time issues) needs to be addressed.
Last edited:
Has anyone else in WA had a problem with the Play Points for the WA State championship? My Junior son only received 1 point instead of 3 and it says "Grassroots tournament", but when i click the link for tournament 13-03-000290 it goes to the correct results.
I opened a ticket on the pokemon.com site on Monday but it still just shows "Open" status.
I also tried emailing the tourney organizer listed on the pokemon.com page and haven't heard back.
Anyone have any ideas?
Thanks!
I opened a ticket on the pokemon.com site on Monday but it still just shows "Open" status.
I also tried emailing the tourney organizer listed on the pokemon.com page and haven't heard back.
Anyone have any ideas?
Thanks!
Bilbo Baggins
New Member
It's going to be close to me. They made it harder since two organizers made their pre-releases the same day/time.
I'll be at 13-14 after Battle Roads, so hopefully if I'm at 14, and there is a last minute qualifier or tourny left I can just make it.
JandPDS
New Member
If you play in a Booster draft after the Prerelease that will count as a 2nd play point that day,
Bilbo Baggins
New Member
They don't hold these in Michigan..... :frown:
MrMeches
New Member
Yes and no. I think the 15pts is nice based on how you earn points for League. I can see from a business perspective that whereas League is nice for promotions, Tournaments is what pushes the game. By 'forcing' 15 it makes the Players have to attend events. By the players going to events, they are introduced to the Tournament Structure thus resulting in a Naitonals where people are somewhat prepared.
It is great Pokemon attendance for Nats has been so large. However, with the drops and overwhelming atmosphere, the casual player now has to become more involved and really learn the game structure. A better Player promotes a healthier environment and ultimately what Schwimmer has always reminded the Staff the number 1 goal is... FUN!!
Nationals, in my opinion, has always been a Reward to players, this just makes it even more so in requirements being set.
Fish
- Status