3 Regionals? Seriously?

Discussion in 'Regional Championships' started by Glaceon, Jul 10, 2012.

8 league13 468 60
  1. bullados

    bullados <a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?

    Still da champ, tho, amirite? :thumb::tongue:

    And people will complain just about anything and everything. Even if they really don't have anything to complain about (basically anything East of the Mississippi and not in the Deep South for this purpose).

    As far as those guys in the Deep South and the West, they can complain all they want. They've been pretty well shafted for a long time compared to other American areas. It would be GREAT if those guys got events spaced out in a reasonable manner (i.e. California needs two State Championships). I don't want to give up what's in the East, just want something for those guys that simply don't have it right now.
  2. Gym Leader Blaine

    Gym Leader Blaine <a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/member.php?u=15

    Yep, same place as this past year. We will now be in Grand Hall 7, which has an additional 1500 SQ compaire to what we had this year.

    Still trying to work everything out with the Holiday Inn like last time. Once I do I will post all the information.
  3. NJ_Bob

    NJ_Bob New Member

    I absolutely must chime in here for the parents and the players that have limited means. A number of us have been discussing the issue of CP, BFLs and growing demands of the game for some time. It was our number topic in face to face conversation before, during and after nationals. LET ME TELL POP, P!P, TCPI or whomever, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME RELIEF IN THIS AREA. The majority of us are completely in agreement with the logic above and of Raen. No parent is thinking that the they need more opportunities to play!!! That has never been mentioned by anyone that I have spoken with all season!!! This past season amounted to play of approaching every other weekend for the competitive player trying to stay in world's contention.



    If the powers that be do not reduce the BFL to 50% of events, the practical implication is that there is no BFL in terms of how many events a player in the running for worlds invite must attend. If they reduce the STP/Reg to 3 of 6 great; otherwise, all this has done is create a 3rd COMPULSORY travel, hotel, money that I do not have to spend, time away from other family activities, to attend an event that is too far away and that we would not normally attend.


    Here are some suggestions:

    1. If you can't bring yourself to do it for master's, reduce BFLs across the board for juniors and probably seniors. Under the last season, there is no question that the the CP system was an exercise in who could travel the most and who could pad their scores the most with easy BRs. For us, it is not a matter of college age kids ride sharing with buddies and packing friends into a room for a raucous time on the cheap. We are shipping siblings who may not want to be there, spouses who might have work and who have other commitments, buying extra plane tickets in some cases for them, paying for the family to eat out on these travel weekends, etc., and our professional demands and costs are different.

    2. Reduce the BFLs for cities and BRs especially. These are adding significant numbers in terms of compulsory attendance due to best finish limits. 8 BR limits is just plain thoughtless.

    I speak for a number of parents. This isn't myth or hyperbole. We love the game and want it to be healthy. We are willing to spend and to support it, but you are rapidly approaching the point of breaking our backs. We need relief in the BFLs. It is our number 1 priority! Do we really need to start organizing a petition before someone listens?
  4. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    @NJ_Bob, you could always raise this directly with POP using the customer service site. Or ask your local PTO to copy it to the hidden official forum where issues like this get discussed. Not that I know what is said as that PTO forum is hidden from me too.

    You aren't the first person to raise this concern.

    Dave Schwimmer posted that last season would have flaws, I expect that where there are announcements that make OP worse for parents and younger players then there will be other as yet undisclosed changes to redress the balance. As you point out the Best Finish Limits look like an obvious place to take some pressure off of parents.
  5. Jaeger

    Jaeger New Member

    No Poke the issue with that is than players still have way to many tournaments to attend. Sure drop Cities from 6 down to 4 but watch all of sudden how you have to win 4 Cities to stay in line. The bottom line is the games getting to the point where getting a Worlds invite is more about how much you can travel rather than how good you are. Yea I'll admit I'm bitter I had one of the lowest PP in the top 40. It just feels like every season I'm bring a Knife to a Gun fight.
  6. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    Jaeger I do know how you feel. It felt the same way in this household last season.
  7. Amt

    Amt New Member

    If they separated the States/Regs point payout and then made the Regs BFL 1, I'd be happy with the idea of 3 Regionals. Right now, it's basically whoever gets to more has a significant advantage. I miss ELO :(
  8. dragonfire

    dragonfire New Member

    @AMT - ELO was the best, I would at least be Top 100 (#100 infact) in the Country lol
  9. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    ELO wasn't the best. I say that as one of the more vocal defenders of ELO.
  10. King Piplup

    King Piplup Active Member

    Comparing ELO vs CP via this year's standings is an invalid comparison, since it's unknown how standings would've been if people played for only rating.
  11. Scizor

    Scizor New Member

    Doing something like 30 Championship Point and 10 ELO Worlds invites in North America, for example, would be a good idea. Or even 25/15. ELO isn't perfect but I don't feel that it should just be used as a tiebreaker for CP invites.

    As for 3 Regionals, many players have been asking for more large events for years. I consider more events generally a good thing, but I also see the side that you must travel a lot to obtain a Worlds invite unless you run ridiculously hot at everything.
  12. dragonfire

    dragonfire New Member

    ELO demonstrates consistency, and the fact that you can only attend a few events and do still earn a worlds invite. Consistency demonstrates a good player. Many people can get lucky with one deck and win a couple tournaments and then bomb and have 40+ CP with a 1690 ELO. For Example Robbie Ector, Really high ELO, but not a lot of CP because he didnt really go to many tournaments Pre-States Events. IMO he deserved the Invite...
  13. psychup2034

    psychup2034 New Member


    Good job, you just gave an example of the opposite of "consistency."

    Look up "consistent" in a dictionary. Oh look, I've done it for you!

    (of a person, behavior, or process) Unchanging in achievement or effect over a period of time.

    Key words: "over a period of time."
  14. Cyrus

    Cyrus Iron Chef - Master Emeritus

    As someone with one of the highest ELO ratings this season, I can tell you that it does "not" demonstrate consistency in general - just that you can do hot at a certain level of event.

    In the latter portion of this season, I did really well: a state win, a 9-0 swiss @ Reg with a loss in the top 32, and a deep Nationals run. What you don't see, however, is my rather lackluster first half of the season, marred with a a couple whiffed Battle Road cuts, 4-4 Regionals, and a "decent" Cities run, although much worse than I would've hoped.

    What ELO does represent is success against strong opponents; "stepping up to the plate" so to speak. In past seasons, we'd both have invites for our ability to step up to the plate, but this season rewarded consistency - something I at the very least lacked.
  15. Box of Fail

    Box of Fail New Member

    I think this is not entirely accurate; if you attend only States/ Regs/ Nats every season and go deep into cut 3 times (of the 4 K-32 events offered under ELO) each year, that demonstrates consistent play as well. The "period of time" could be several years, over which a given player consistently did well at big events.

    I think it's a stretch to claim ELO is the best-designed system to gauge consistency, but earning an invite in 4 events, if done year after year, is equally indicative of consistent performance, just over a longer span of time.
  16. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    ELO as implemented by POP had a very strong reward element not as strong as CPs in general but it was still there. Going undefeated at a big K32 event either got you the invite or got you very close.

    It is a somewhat perverse consequence of a pure reward system like CPs that replaced POP's elo that CPs actually give out a poorer reward than ELO would have done in the case where you do X-0 a big K32 event.
  17. dragonfire

    dragonfire New Member

    As with what Box of Fail said, if you go into cut 3 times at States events or higher that is consistency. Also wouldn't a year be a period of time?

    @Cyrus, ok maybe at the beginning of the year consistency wasn't your strong suit. However as you stated from States - on you had consistency, which would lead towards your high ELO.
  18. wiem0014

    wiem0014 New Member

    This is the part that kills me every time. Nobody is FORCING you to be competitive for worlds. That is YOUR choice and yours alone. If you don't have time time/money to travel and you can't play unless you are going to be competitive then you need to reexamine your participation in the game. I know I did, and now I play MUCH more casually and I actually enjoy it!

    If your ego needs to be fed with a worlds invite each year then you need to look for another ego boost. If you are playing for profit, as Pooka pointed out, you should probably find a different game.
  19. FirestormXVI

    FirestormXVI New Member

    Unknown how standings would've been if people gamed the system?
  20. psychup2034

    psychup2034 New Member

    I think it is entirely accurate, and here is why. If you only attended States/Regionals/Nationals every season and go deep into cut 3 times out of 4, then that demonstrates that you were consistent from March onward. An important part you’re forgetting is that the majority of the tournaments over the year are Battle Roads and Cities. I’m going to estimate that competitive players attend about 10 Battle Roads and 10 Cities on average. This year, there were 3 States, 2 Regionals, and 1 Nationals. Performing well at States/Regionals/Nationals means that you were “consistent” for about 25% of the season (6 divided by 26). That’s not what consistency means—not at all.

    Here’s an example. An NFL football team is “consistent” for 25% of its regular season. Let’s say it goes 4-0 during that stretch. Someone could make the argument that the team has been “consistent,” but that argument would be completely irrelevant because the determining factor of whether a team makes the postseason is performance over the course of the entire season—not over a portion of the season.

    Now you can argue that the couple weeks before the postseason are the most important (just like States/Regionals/Nationals are most important), but if a team doesn’t perform well in the first 13 games, it doesn’t matter how lucky/streaky/“consistent” that team is come last quarter of the season. They’re not making the playoffs.

    When you’re making an argument about consistency, you have to define consistency in the relevant time period. Defining the time period of consistency to be only States/Regionals/Nationals is arbitrary and ridiculous.

    Worlds invites have never been handed out based on performances at States/Regionals over the course of more than one season. I think you’re definitely stretching your argument a bit far here.

    While performing well over the course of States/Regionals/Nationals over the course of many years is consistent, it’s not consistent in the relevant time period. The relevant time period is one season. Up to this year, Worlds invites have been handed out based on performance in the current season.

    I think it’s rather convenient for you to leave out the two longest tournament cycles within a season—Battle Roads and Cities—to make your argument.

    ---------- Post added 07/22/2012 at 03:34 AM ----------

    The latter half of what you said is exactly right. A year would be the relevant period of time. Logically, it is injudicious to just ignore Battle Roads and Cities, which comprise the majority of the season, when making your determination of what consistency is defined as.

    ---------- Post added 07/22/2012 at 04:11 AM ----------

    At the end of the 2005 season, I had to quit Pokemon because my family was on food stamps, my parents could no longer support my hobbies financially, I was going to college, and I basically had no car and no money.

    There’s nothing about me or my ego that needs to stroked by getting a Worlds invite. I play Pokemon because I love the game, I love the community, and I’ve made a lot of wonderful friends over the years of playing. That’s why I returned to the game. When I was living around the poverty line, I reexamined my priorities (as you said), and realized that I could no longer afford Pokemon. That’s why I retired for 6 years.

    Now that I’ve graduated from college, found a decent job, paid off my debts, and have a little more financial stability, I’m coming back to the game that I love. That’s why I play. That’s MY choice.

    I want to preface the rest of my post with the following information about myself. I have enough resources to fly to whatever tournament I need, book whatever hotel I need, and buy whatever cards I need to be competitive. My job also gives me flexibility in my work schedule, so if I need to take a vacation day to attend a Pokemon tournament, I can easily do it. For me currently, neither time nor money is an issue in my participation in Pokemon. As I said before, my opinions in this thread are based on what I think is best for the game, not out of selfish motives. Personally, I couldn’t care less if there were 2 or 3 Regionals. I wouldn’t even care if there were 5 or 6 Regionals, since I would be able to go to all of them. Clearly, not everyone is in my position, so I’m expressing my opinions about splitting Regionals into 3 weekends because I feel like it’s the wrong choice for the majority of competitive players.

    Here’s why I vehemently disagree with what you have said. Completely and utterly disagree.
    • Competitive Pokemon is what many players strive for. Little kids don’t dream about being the best player at their local League. They dream about becoming a Regional Champion, becoming a National Champion, or even becoming a World Champion. That’s the nature of games, whether it is Pokemon, video games, sports, chess, or whatever else. Yes, being competitive at Pokemon is something that is an individual choice. No-one forces anyone else to play Pokemon. (At least I hope not!) However, it is also a critical part of the Pokemon experience. I can’t count how many times that someone else has asked me about what it’s like to compete at an STS or at Worlds. The choice to split Regionals into 3 weekends makes it more difficult for the competitive players to stay competitive.
    • You say that if someone doesn’t have the time or money to play, then they need to examine their priorities. To some extent, that is true. However, TPCi may also need to reexamine their tournament schedule and Worlds invite structure if the new structure impacts so many competitive players. While 3 Regionals may be excellent marketing for the game, it hurts some of the game’s most dedicated and devoted players. That’s why I’m speaking up.
    • Consider this quote from a Poke-parent earlier in this thread: “I AM TRYING TO SCREAM THIS AT YOU BECAUSE THE LOGIC SUPPORTING THIS IS JUST WRONG, US PARENTS ARE AT THE POINT OF BREAKING. SURE YOU HAVE OBSESSED ONES THAT ARE GOING TO ATTEND 25-30 EVENTS, AND TO THEM THE MORE THE BETTER. THE REST OF US ARE AT THE BREAKING POINT. MANY OF OUR KIDS ARE AT THE BREAKING POINT.” From talking to a few parents myself, I strongly believe that this is the majority opinion. People don’t want more tournaments. Pokemon already takes up 1/4 to 1/3 of the weekends in a year for the competitive players. The additional cost required to attend the “far” Regionals is compounded for the younger players, because a parent also needs to buy an airplane ticket to accompany their child.
    I’m sincerely happy that you found a balance between Pokemon and life that makes the game enjoyable for yourself. However, that does not give you an excuse for implicitly generalizing that competitive players who think the 3 Regional structure hurts them are egotistical and selfish. While you’re happy being a casual player, you need to understand that there are competitive players out there who are being financially burdened by the 3 Regional structure. These people have every right to speak up, and it's really a shame that there are members on this board who would label them as egotists.
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2012

Share This Page