Alright, so like a week ago I played in the US National Championship going in with an 1850 rating. Now, I was really confident in my deck choice and in my skill in match play considering I have a 100% win percentage in match play this season going through States and Regionals winning both. I also have won US Nationals before going undefeated. So this time, I'm at 4-0 and it is to my knowledge that the top cut was going to be a single elim round in top 128 and in top 64 to combine into a top 32 bracket. Round 4 going into round 5 is like half way through the day and after I elect to drop to protect my rating it was changed back to 2/3 match play. My complaint is, there was a whole year to plan this event and it was anticipated to have record attendance. Why was the way to execute the top cut not decided before going in? You have a lot of people complain then change it after announcing there was good things and bad things about what was going to happen in top cut? I just want to know if this will happen at Worlds too? Thank you.
18-0 at Nationals has a gripe.
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
- Status
ShadowGuard
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=
They changed the top cut because players found it unfair that you can go 8-0 and then lose because of a single donk. I think it's a very good thing that TPCi listens to the player's opinion. Would you have liked it more if they stuck with b-o-1 in top 128? All I heard the staff did very well in the US to make it a good tournament for all players.
DragonairMaster8
Active Member
I 100% agree and am extremely happy they changed it to best 2/3, Shadowguard. However, I totally see Martin's point. I myself would be upset had I dropped at 4-0 to protect my rating, thinking that even if I continued to do well in swiss, my topcut could be ruined by a single bad hand, and then be told the round after I dropped that It was changed to match play. This seems unfair as the rules of the tournament WERE changed after it began, disallowing all players from knowing which is the best decision to make a crucial times.
Absoltrainer
Active Member
He not mad at the fact they changed it. He is mad because they changed it mid tournament. He dropped based on the original plan and would have continued playing had he known they would've changed it.
ryanvergel
New Member
They know how disgustingly good Martin is at this game. After going X-0 in best of three for states and regionals, and going X-0 at his last Nats, they knew they couldn't allow a repeat. It's also why they banned him the prior year.
Conspiracy
If he never loses, why drop in the 1st place??? At 1850 and a 4-0 record, his spot was looking pretty secure for worlds already. If he went 8-0 or 7-1, then get donked, then he still has positive point gain on the day. So.....what were his sour grapes again??? Looks like he wanted to get worlds invite MORE than he wanted to play for the US Nat'l Championship.
Keith
Keith
MonsterOfTheLake
Member
They're just leveling the playing field, they don't want him humiliating all the other players and crushing their spirit (of the game)
Would there be anything wrong with that?
^None whatsoever 'Pop! If that was goal #1, then goal achieved. (Just dont go stirring the pot here about Nats then.....I'd call that trolling)
Keith
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
I'd also add that a top 128 has never been done before.
Pete, Dave and Mike certainly listened to the players when they groaned that top 128 and 64 would be 1 game matches. And now we hear gripes bc they LISTENED to the PLAYERS and gave them a Bo3 at all stagesof SEF! WoW.
Keith
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
I'd also add that a top 128 has never been done before.
Pete, Dave and Mike certainly listened to the players when they groaned that top 128 and 64 would be 1 game matches. And now we hear gripes bc they LISTENED to the PLAYERS and gave them a Bo3 at all stagesof SEF! WoW.
Last edited:
ryanvergel
New Member
How is he stirring the pot? He is pointing out how his decision to drop was influenced on the announced tournament structure. The structure was then changed mid-tournament, but after he made a permanent decision to drop.
He was 4-0, wasn't confident in his deck's ability to not get donked in single elimination for two rounds, so he dropped. If it was match play, his stage 2 deck with upper energy would have an entirely different matchup vs everything.
I think he poses a good question, and one I had as well- why was this even announced as a single elimination? Why change mid-way? Could it ever go from best of three to elimination?
He is the one guy out of the hundred who this affected negatively, but his grapes are legitimately sour! This was an unfortunate thing to happen to him.
He was 4-0, wasn't confident in his deck's ability to not get donked in single elimination for two rounds, so he dropped. If it was match play, his stage 2 deck with upper energy would have an entirely different matchup vs everything.
I think he poses a good question, and one I had as well- why was this even announced as a single elimination? Why change mid-way? Could it ever go from best of three to elimination?
He is the one guy out of the hundred who this affected negatively, but his grapes are legitimately sour! This was an unfortunate thing to happen to him.
rokman
<a href="http://pokegym.net/gallery/browseimages.p
We can all learn a lesson from this.
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
Till touch down brings me round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home
Oh no, no, no, I'm a rocket man
Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
Till touch down brings me round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home
Oh no, no, no, I'm a rocket man
Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone
I can tell you why it is "stirring the pot". If he was concerned about the one rd donkfest, why play Nats at all? Any round you lose will cost you points. Likewise, if he was concerned w/ the SEF being 1 game matches for 128 & 64, then play all the way thru swiss, run the field like a hot knife thru butter and then DROP.
So, yeah, the OP is simply stirring the pot. He didnt drop bc of the announced change in top cuts, he dropped bc he wanted to protect his invite. 'Nuff said!
Keith
PS Flame Rocketman too, if you dont like my post. He basically said the same thing, w/o the pot stirring comment.
rokman
<a href="http://pokegym.net/gallery/browseimages.p
It's pokegym, pots need to be stirred.
I most certainly see Martin's point. However, I will opt to defend PUI on this one.
It is my understanding that PUI didn't even plan on doing 8 rounds with a shortened top cut until the night before the tournament went 600+ masters signed up for the event.
Pete, Mike and Dave did what they thought to be best and announced it during decklist pickup (they even said "Please hold your 'boos' until the end of the announcement). They got players opinions on the matter and made the best possible decision,and that was to add 5 minutes to the round and do a potential best of 3.
How did this affect me? Not at all, I would never even entertain the idea of dropping out of the US NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP to secure an invite to worlds. After round 7 when I was 6-1 I could have easily dropped and secured my invite, by continuing to play I was risking it.
The whole point though, yes they did change it. Was it necessarily right? Not at all. But the real question - Did it benefit the tournament? Of course (At least, my opinion, I dropped the first game of t128 and t64 but won the match).
Martin, I love ya to death champ, but coming on a public forum and complaining is just lame.
I was actually not going to reply to this and give you the benefit of the doubt, but this last sentence just shows everyone that you're just trying to slap them in the face.
[email protected]
use it next time
-Steve
It is my understanding that PUI didn't even plan on doing 8 rounds with a shortened top cut until the night before the tournament went 600+ masters signed up for the event.
Pete, Mike and Dave did what they thought to be best and announced it during decklist pickup (they even said "Please hold your 'boos' until the end of the announcement). They got players opinions on the matter and made the best possible decision,and that was to add 5 minutes to the round and do a potential best of 3.
How did this affect me? Not at all, I would never even entertain the idea of dropping out of the US NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP to secure an invite to worlds. After round 7 when I was 6-1 I could have easily dropped and secured my invite, by continuing to play I was risking it.
The whole point though, yes they did change it. Was it necessarily right? Not at all. But the real question - Did it benefit the tournament? Of course (At least, my opinion, I dropped the first game of t128 and t64 but won the match).
Martin, I love ya to death champ, but coming on a public forum and complaining is just lame.
Martin said:
I was actually not going to reply to this and give you the benefit of the doubt, but this last sentence just shows everyone that you're just trying to slap them in the face.
[email protected]
use it next time
-Steve
yoyofsho16
New Member
In the end you got a ratings invite, which most people will never even come close to. You should be pleased that you are blessed with the ability to do so well at this game.
Would you have had it rather been that they kept it 1-of-1 games so everyone else could suffer?
They had never dealt with top 128 ever. This was the first time it ever took place, they left a lot of extra time as a precaution just in case there was any confusion whatsoever.
They realized they had lots of time, so they went ahead and did it.
Would you have had it rather been that they kept it 1-of-1 games so everyone else could suffer?
They had never dealt with top 128 ever. This was the first time it ever took place, they left a lot of extra time as a precaution just in case there was any confusion whatsoever.
They realized they had lots of time, so they went ahead and did it.
One of the few posts that actually got the point. You have to understand Lawman etc, that if I suffer a loss at game 5 I am then obligated to play out the entire event. You act as if earning a rating invite is a sign of cowardice! I have trophys, believe me. The whole point of the rating system is to reward solid play through an entire season. Being literally the only player affected by this, I was put to a decision to possibly throw away a seasons worth of work in a double single elimination situation. If you are halfway through a tournament thinking it is going to be ran a certain way it is fair to assume it will play out that way. If you listened to the announcement if you were at Nationals the person on the mic said "LISTEN TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT IN ENTIRETY BEFORE REACTING" which was a hint something bizzare was about to take place.
Silvestro, I didn't say it did not benefit the tournament, I just find it unfortunate that the decision was made halfway through the day nearly at the completion of swiss! Me asking if it's going to happen at worlds is me wanting to know if the top cut structure will stay consistent with what is announced pre tournament.
NoPoke
Active Member
I want to go to worlds. At 1850 I think I'm on the bubble. => Got to play nats.
So what strategy makes sense given the wide open format with lots of potential for donks? So I make a plan...
Whoever wins has to be good but they have to be lucky too. I want to eliminate as much luck as possible.
1-0 and drop? what is the point as +6 points isn't a big boost
2-0 and drop? [see 1-0!]
3-0 and drop? might be enough will see what the field feels like on the day.
4-0 and drop? +24 points that should be a safe Worlds invite.
4-1 is a wash on points, I probablly have to go 8-1 to recover the same position as I would have if I drop at 4-0.
The big day arrives.
Tournament structure is announced: flights with deep SEF, day one single game for each round including first two rounds of SEF. day one starts with 8 swiss rounds.
So what does that mean? If I 7-1 swiss I'm up a bit but I've already decided that I need a bit more than that. Once in the SEF the only way out is with another loss. First pair of SEF is single game. Hmmm. I could flip heads and I'm out
At 7-1 there is no way I can go 8-1. The only way to 8-1 this is to go 8-0 in the swiss
So at 4-0 I drop and lock in the worlds invite. 8-0 in the swiss is a big ask.
Later a detail on the SEF is changed. It is an important detail as I rate my chances in match play much more than single game. 7-1 swiss followed by b-o-3 SEF >> 7-1 swiss followed by single game SEF. *grrr* If I'd known I might have stayed in. I like b-o-3 *grr* and double-*grrr*
--------------
I'm sure that Lawman sees why you might be unhappy and have a gripe. I think you could have phrased your gripe a bit better and not made it seem like you were having a go at POP for making the right decision for the day when a better alternative to what they had planned was pointed out to them.
Details on the grinder are vague right now. I personally think it is best that way as that gives the most room for manoeuvre and probably allows the most players in. Given that Worlds main event attendance isn't subject to the vagaries of attendance that afflict an open event it is a bit off to suggest that POP will surprise the players with an unanticipated format for Worlds that needs revision at the end of the swiss.
I understand the gripe, maybe you could have explained it better. I know I can be rubbish at making a point at times too. I don't understand the worlds comment, especially as it makes the whole post seem like a pop and POP. The worlds comment pretty much guaranteed a negative response on the Pokegym.
Good Luck at Worlds.
So what strategy makes sense given the wide open format with lots of potential for donks? So I make a plan...
Whoever wins has to be good but they have to be lucky too. I want to eliminate as much luck as possible.
1-0 and drop? what is the point as +6 points isn't a big boost
2-0 and drop? [see 1-0!]
3-0 and drop? might be enough will see what the field feels like on the day.
4-0 and drop? +24 points that should be a safe Worlds invite.
4-1 is a wash on points, I probablly have to go 8-1 to recover the same position as I would have if I drop at 4-0.
The big day arrives.
Tournament structure is announced: flights with deep SEF, day one single game for each round including first two rounds of SEF. day one starts with 8 swiss rounds.
So what does that mean? If I 7-1 swiss I'm up a bit but I've already decided that I need a bit more than that. Once in the SEF the only way out is with another loss. First pair of SEF is single game. Hmmm. I could flip heads and I'm out
At 7-1 there is no way I can go 8-1. The only way to 8-1 this is to go 8-0 in the swissSo at 4-0 I drop and lock in the worlds invite. 8-0 in the swiss is a big ask.
Later a detail on the SEF is changed. It is an important detail as I rate my chances in match play much more than single game. 7-1 swiss followed by b-o-3 SEF >> 7-1 swiss followed by single game SEF. *grrr* If I'd known I might have stayed in. I like b-o-3 *grr* and double-*grrr*
--------------
I'm sure that Lawman sees why you might be unhappy and have a gripe. I think you could have phrased your gripe a bit better and not made it seem like you were having a go at POP for making the right decision for the day when a better alternative to what they had planned was pointed out to them.
Details on the grinder are vague right now. I personally think it is best that way as that gives the most room for manoeuvre and probably allows the most players in. Given that Worlds main event attendance isn't subject to the vagaries of attendance that afflict an open event it is a bit off to suggest that POP will surprise the players with an unanticipated format for Worlds that needs revision at the end of the swiss.
I understand the gripe, maybe you could have explained it better. I know I can be rubbish at making a point at times too. I don't understand the worlds comment, especially as it makes the whole post seem like a pop and POP. The worlds comment pretty much guaranteed a negative response on the Pokegym.
Good Luck at Worlds.
Last edited:
It's funny how the insta-defense of PUI comes on when Martin asks a question or Ryan chimes in.
Martin had a legitimate question about why things were changed after they had already been announced, especially after PUI had so long to plan this event.
Not sour grapes. Not trolling. Not stirring the pot.
Calling it that is just being snide and snippy. And looks to be just an effort to squelch discussion.
Legitimate question.
Martin had a legitimate question about why things were changed after they had already been announced, especially after PUI had so long to plan this event.
Not sour grapes. Not trolling. Not stirring the pot.
Calling it that is just being snide and snippy. And looks to be just an effort to squelch discussion.
Legitimate question.
Last edited:
- Status