Shiloh Phoenix
New Member
PokePop said:
ooohhhh buurrnnnn! j/k moss.
Last edited:
Bigger accomplishment?
- Thread starter Moss Factor
- Start date
ooohhhh buurrnnnn! j/k moss.
WEll, I must agree with moss here (and thanks for the props, but remember our match was a blowout).
I'm pretty sure Moss stated this but with a field like the WCSTS or ECSTS there was a much smaller variety in the metagame? How in the world do you separate the decks that will win in that kind of enviroment? To me the only way is that either you get really lucky or be among the best to play that day, and with 8 rounds and a 3 round single elimination Luck would be pretty hard to ride all the way to the finals.
i'll probably post more later but I agree with Moss on this one.
I'm pretty sure Moss stated this but with a field like the WCSTS or ECSTS there was a much smaller variety in the metagame? How in the world do you separate the decks that will win in that kind of enviroment? To me the only way is that either you get really lucky or be among the best to play that day, and with 8 rounds and a 3 round single elimination Luck would be pretty hard to ride all the way to the finals.
i'll probably post more later but I agree with Moss on this one.
Flaming_Spinach
Feature Editor
Alright, after thinking about it some more, I've come to my final conclusion.
Worlds and the STSs are incomparable. There are so many differences in the game and how it is played that have come up in the past 5 years that saying, "winning an STS is like winning Worlds" is completely wrong.
Let's look at what has changed in the past 5 years...
There are more prizes for winning Worlds than an STS. This makes the whole environment more competitive. Although I still don't know what the winners of STSs got, the winner of Worlds gets about $20,000 in prizes. One point for Worlds.
A single-elimination playoffs is not the best way to run a tournament, it makes the tournament more luck-based and dificult. Even the best player can suffer from a terrible start. Heck, some guy named Matt Moss even won in THE FINALS of an STS because his opponent started with a lone Unown and couldn't draw another basic. I wonder what would have happened if the format was 2/3. One point for the STS.
A top8 cut for ~400 people is rediculous. 1 in 50 people will make the cut. In worlds last year, about 1 in 5 players made the cut. I would have been ****** if I went 8-1 and got 9th place. Another point for the STS.
The deck that won Worlds '05 was the deck that had the best match-ups against the most opponents. Although I have a few qualms with the Queendom list that won/got third at Worlds, You have to admit that the reason it did so good was because it had good matchups against Rock-Lock, Ludicargo, and Medicham, the three most popular decks at Worlds. Let's face it, THE BIGGEST factor in the game today is matchups. You wouldn't play Medicham in a metagame full of Queendom, would you? Figuring out matchups and metagaming is extremely difficult. The STS metagame was (apparently) such that nothing had an auto-loss to anything else. Another point for Worlds.
Yeah, there's more I could consider, but it's late.
I'll remain convinced that the two are truely uncomparable. There are too many differences that have taken place in the past 5 years to compare themdirectly and say for certain that one is hader to win than another.
Worlds and the STSs are incomparable. There are so many differences in the game and how it is played that have come up in the past 5 years that saying, "winning an STS is like winning Worlds" is completely wrong.
Let's look at what has changed in the past 5 years...
There are more prizes for winning Worlds than an STS. This makes the whole environment more competitive. Although I still don't know what the winners of STSs got, the winner of Worlds gets about $20,000 in prizes. One point for Worlds.
A single-elimination playoffs is not the best way to run a tournament, it makes the tournament more luck-based and dificult. Even the best player can suffer from a terrible start. Heck, some guy named Matt Moss even won in THE FINALS of an STS because his opponent started with a lone Unown and couldn't draw another basic. I wonder what would have happened if the format was 2/3. One point for the STS.
A top8 cut for ~400 people is rediculous. 1 in 50 people will make the cut. In worlds last year, about 1 in 5 players made the cut. I would have been ****** if I went 8-1 and got 9th place. Another point for the STS.
The deck that won Worlds '05 was the deck that had the best match-ups against the most opponents. Although I have a few qualms with the Queendom list that won/got third at Worlds, You have to admit that the reason it did so good was because it had good matchups against Rock-Lock, Ludicargo, and Medicham, the three most popular decks at Worlds. Let's face it, THE BIGGEST factor in the game today is matchups. You wouldn't play Medicham in a metagame full of Queendom, would you? Figuring out matchups and metagaming is extremely difficult. The STS metagame was (apparently) such that nothing had an auto-loss to anything else. Another point for Worlds.
Yeah, there's more I could consider, but it's late.
I'll remain convinced that the two are truely uncomparable. There are too many differences that have taken place in the past 5 years to compare themdirectly and say for certain that one is hader to win than another.
The only thing I must disagree with you about are the prizes reasoning. During the time of the STS, the prizes handed out then were widely considered the best available players at the time and in no way really had an effect on the competition. What was established at the STS's were that you could face the best players and hopefully earn a medal.
The whole concept about Scholarships and other more lucrative prizes was mainly meant to keep more players coming in at a time where pokemon was struggling to sell, not neccessarily raising the competition. The idea of becoming champion was already reason enough for players to bring their A game to the field.
The whole concept about Scholarships and other more lucrative prizes was mainly meant to keep more players coming in at a time where pokemon was struggling to sell, not neccessarily raising the competition. The idea of becoming champion was already reason enough for players to bring their A game to the field.
Moss Factor
New Member
As I've already stated, I've qualified for ONE worlds and finished 20th. It took me 4 tries to win the STS (12th, DNF, T8, 1st).
Are they really that uncomparable? Take the 2002 World Championships, for example. They were under WotC control and therefore didn't have a 15+ or scholarships (and I'm pretty sure it wasn't invite only, either). They did a T8 as well. The only similarities was that the final cut had best 2/3 games. Could you compare the WotC world champion to the Nintendo World Champion? I'd say "yes" for sure. Conceding that, how could you say that a WotC Worlds is that different from an STS?Flaming_Spinach said:
Again, Dallas commented on this: everyone was just as competitive now as they were before. We didn't know what it was like to win prizes, so we didn't really know what we were missing. There were no free trips for the 15+. There were no scholarships or massive product you could sell like cards that only were printed 6 times. If you went to the STS, it was money out of your own pocket and you went because you wanted to win. Plain and simple.
I agree. A best 2/3 playoffs is by far the correct system. For the record though he deserved his loss in the finals for even PLAYING the Unown M. That card was a horrible misplay and it obviously came back to bite him (like misplays should) in the finals. No qualms from me about winning like that, but you're right: 2/3 is superior.
This is where I seriously disagree. I think Nintendo has gone over-the-line with how liberal of cuts they allow. You think that allowing 1/5 players to make the cut is a GOOD thing? That's insanity. Why even DO the last few rounds of swiss? There were a ton of 5/3s that made it, and even more that missed on breakers. It was basically a lottery for how many of the 5/3s made it and the ones that did make it didn't deserve it based on their records. Magic pro tours work this way: 3 day events. Friday day is 8 swiss rounds, everyone who makes the cut gets to play Saturday. Saturday the players battle out another 8 rounds and its cut to a T8 that plays Sunday. I think it makes sense to add extra rounds to the swiss and keep the cut tight. Why? More rounds creates seperation in the ranks which means there will be people making and missing the cut far less often on tiebreakers. It gives more significance to the swiss, which rewards consistant performance against the field. It adds skill to the event in that you must have one of the best records in the swiss to make the cut, then win out. The winner will have truely dominated the tournament (so far this hasn't been a problem, but if a 5-3 ever wins worlds than its a problem IMHO).
How does matchups increase player skill? It helps in giving you a bonus for metagaming right, but you can metagame perfectly and still get bad matchups. If TO plays grass decks in the first 3-4 rounds over and over they go home depressed. Having lots of landslide edge matchups is always a bad thing.
I'm not saying the STS was HARDER to win or that worlds was EASIER to win. All I'm saying is there is enough debate and its close enough in the two to call them fairly congruent in the size of the accomplishment. Obviously people who played and did well at the STSs are going to say the STSs were harder. Obviously people who have either done well at worlds or simply never played in an STS and only know worlds are going to think Worlds was tougher. From someone who has played and done well in both (14th, DNF, T8, 1st at STSs; 7-2 overall 20th at Worlds) I can truely say that they are both extremely difficult tournaments to win and I don't think that anyone who has played in both can possibly call one significantly easier than another.
2002 Worlds under WotC (with NO 15+) WAS in fact invite only; there was a grinder late Friday afternoon.
'mom
'mom
Moss Factor
New Member
Yeah I wasn't sure about that, but thanks for clearing it up.
TheDarkTwins
Active Member
Famous Friends said:
I am pretty sure for about the first 4-6 Months after Neo Genesis Came Out Sneasel Was Legal (Whether This Included the STS i cannot remember)... But It Was Not Banned Exactly the same time as it was released... It was Banned I think a Few Months Later since it was so dominating... But It was legal for a Time...
Derw
Flaming_Spinach
Feature Editor
Moss Factor said:
I think that a 1/5th cut is fine. A lot of REALLY good players went 5-3. If PUI took a 1/50th cut at Worlds '05, that would result in a top4 cut. So the playoffs would look like this:
1st Go Miyamoto
2nd Martin Moreno
3rd Matt Yuen
4th Tsuguyoshi Yamoto
Hmmm....Two rounds of playoffs. If you'll allow me to continue in my analasis for a minute...
Top4:
Go Miyamoto (ZRE) vs. Tsuguyoshi Yamoto (Ludicargo) ZRE easily wins this match. Go Miyamoto moves on to the finals.
Martin Moreno (Medicham) vs. Matt Yuen (ZRE) ZRE most likely wins this match. Matt Yuen moves on to the finals.
Top2:
Go Miyamoto (ZRE) vs. Matt Yuen (ZRE) Mirror match, so it's impossible to tell who wins. Either way, ZRE wins worlds.
Well, that's alot more boring than a top32 cut. And with prizes given out to 32nd-5th place are determined mostly on resistance. That doesn't seem like too good of an idea to me.
Moss said:
I'll definatelly agree with you there. Each one was the highest level of its day. So I think calling them "even" is fair.
[QUOTE='Pop]Oh, people complained loudly (and with justification) on the fan sites about the lack of prize support from these big tourneys.[/QUOTE]
I've been trying to track this down but can't find it anywhere, could you please tell me what the prizes were at the STSs.
Moss Factor
New Member
See there would be a problem with that because all the way down to about 8th or 9th place was people at 7-1. I think adding two or three more rounds to the tournament and then cutting to T8 would be very adequate. The extra rounds would break up the big clumps of players at 6-2 and 5-3 and get cleaner cuts where very few, if anyone, is cut out on breakers. Plus it gives more significance to the swiss. I had a better or equal overall win % than 15 players who placed higher than myself. And coming in 20th that really says something when only 4 of the players who placed higher than myself had a better win % than I did. It shows that there is a lack of emphasis on the swiss rounds which I believe is a mistake. The swiss shouldn't be a formality where you can get away with BARELY winning records and still be in the hunt. The swiss should be a gauntlet where the few great players move on to play for the title.
Water Pokemon Master
<a href="http://pokegym.net/gallery/browseimages.p
Comparing both events in the present to each other, hmm. STS's definately had a larger player field, but then again, that means you could be playing a total newbie in your rounds, who could get lucky. Also, as you said before Moss, Pokemon was more popular at the time, which meant more inexperienced players at the events - what's leftover today are the true/harcore fans who do well at the TCG. Worlds has invites, where the best people from around the World come together. In terms of the competition, Worlds is definately harder to win compared to an STS. Plus, STS's were biased towards wherever they were held - CA or FL, so they weren't actually representative of the best players from around the world.
Then again, STS's were the best Pokemon events ever (PLEASE DO THEM FOR US PUI/NINTENDO!!!). Free boosters, King RaRa, they were ca-razy. My only regret is dropping out the first day of the last WCSTS, having only one or two rounds left, and being in first place for my age division with Feraligatr.
All because I wanted stupid Neo Revelation packs from King Rara. XD I did the same thing on Sunday too, although it was after I lost a round - but then later, I got on stage at the end of the whole event and named all Pokemon up to Furret and got half a box of Neo R and a Mewtwo Returns DVD.
Competition - Worlds > STS's
Fun Factor - STS's > Worlds
Then again, STS's were the best Pokemon events ever (PLEASE DO THEM FOR US PUI/NINTENDO!!!). Free boosters, King RaRa, they were ca-razy. My only regret is dropping out the first day of the last WCSTS, having only one or two rounds left, and being in first place for my age division with Feraligatr.
All because I wanted stupid Neo Revelation packs from King Rara. XD I did the same thing on Sunday too, although it was after I lost a round - but then later, I got on stage at the end of the whole event and named all Pokemon up to Furret and got half a box of Neo R and a Mewtwo Returns DVD. Competition - Worlds > STS's
Fun Factor - STS's > Worlds
lukerc10t4
New Member
moza said:
no you don't need to be semi-good Matt chin got a trip to worlds by going 5-7 at a gym
SlimeyGrimey
New Member
I thought it was 5-6?
Flaming_Spinach
Feature Editor
SlimeyGrimey said:
IIRC, He went 4-2 in Swiss, got a concession in top8, got a concession in top4, and lost to someone that already had an invite in the finals. Not the best record, but he got the invite anyway.
I'm glad that Gyms are now one-and-done. It means less concessions and more "true" competition.
BTW - As for the topic of this thread, I'd say that the two are so closely related that they are equal. The only reason that STS champions are not viewed with the same light as World Champions has to do with the number of people playing right now that even know what an STS was.