BRs - No top cut - how do we feel now?

[P_A]

It's considered as a hostile question by most because of the nature of the event itself, and the policies P!P has in place for them ... including the compensation for running said events. I'm going to be honest with you Diaz, the answer to your question is not really all that straightforward. Why do you really want to know how much judges are compensated? Part of the problems Evil Psyduck and 'Pop mentions make most people hesitate to answer, plus the fact that there is no generic formula or set rate that TO's go by to determine the answer to your question.

It starts by knowing that TO's barely break even with these BR events, and in fact some make less than what they compensate their venues and staff. For a fact, when I was a PTO, I always considered the Battle Roads as advertising more than anything else, since I paid more for gas and food than I received out of the events - if I did them out of my particular area. I can't comment on the exact payment TO's receive but P!P compensates at a very low rate for BR's, and pretty much has done so since they have been invented for the players. So when you have a larger event and you need more judges, it puts a strain on resources. Some do end up judging for little compensation, depending upon what the TO is able to give. Newer judges with less experience may be compensated at a lower rate than more experienced judges, depending upon how the TO or PTO values their abilities as well. Some may even be classed as judges even though they are just volunteering their help at some of the events, without compensation. It all depends upon how generous the PTO or TO feel they can be. So you could possibly see people compensated as low as 4 packs to maybe even as high as a full box depending upon a number of factors.

That being said, it's no wonder that the top cut has been eliminated from the events. They really are only entry level events where no one - from the players all the way up to the PTO's ... is compensated as fully as they would like, or should be. However ... it is an event put on by P!P and the TO's for the players to transition them into the tournament schedule, and keep the interest in going to the events until we wait for the more profitable events later on in the year (profitable for both player and TO). Hopefully people can appreciate the effort put forth for them to put these events on with little to no compensation.

 

[PokePop]

As both a judge and a player, I'm disappointed with many of the judges attitudes in this thread.

All the time people post about how players should stop whining and just enjoy playing the game cause it's fun. But then someone says that judges should judge for the same reason and it's treated as a hostile post. That's ridiculous.


To answer the original question, I think it's disheartening to not have top cuts. Not having top cuts adds a ton of luck to an already increasingly lucky game. It's not fun to go to an event that you know you statistically have little chance of winning. You can't train harder and improve your skills and see a reward for that work and dedication. Adding luck to the game doesn't allow for more players to become loyal players, it makes the game as meaningless as playing rock paper scissors. How many of you spend time and money on playing rock paper scissors? I doubt pokemon wants that level of loyalty.

Sorry Ditto, but "people playing for fun" is not equivalent to "people working".
They may enjoy what they are doing.
They may mainly do it because they enjoy it.
But it is a quantum difference.

I have and will continue to fight to make sure that staff gets treated as staff, not as free labor, and not as something to be taken for granted.
It's a bit of a sore point for me, so sorry if I jumped a bit about it.
But I feel it is an important point.

If you felt my response was hostile, you'd have to see strongly I discuss it internally with Organizers.

 

[P_A]

So I suppose the next question is .... Would you rather have no top cut, ..... or no Battle Roads at all?

 

[Ditto]

Sorry Ditto, but "people playing for fun" is not equivalent to "people working".
They may enjoy what they are doing.
They may mainly do it because they enjoy it.
But it is a quantum difference.

I have and will continue to fight to make sure that staff gets treated as staff, not as free labor, and not as something to be taken for granted.
It's a bit of a sore point for me, so sorry if I jumped a bit about it.
But I feel it is an important point.

If you felt my response was hostile, you'd have to see strongly I discuss it internally with Organizers.

I've never had a problem as a TO or as a judge with the compensation for BR, but even so, if you feel that you're not getting compensated enough for what you do then that should be taken up with Pokemon and they should increase your "pay" if there really is an issue. Cutting the "product" to save on "payroll" is a horrible way to do this.

So I suppose the next question is .... Would you rather have no top cut, ..... or no Battle Roads at all?

In conjunction with the above, if Pokemon is only going to do a half-done job on their tournaments, then yes, I'd rather have no Battle Roads at all.

If they're going to include it in the championship series, then they should treat it like a championship tournament. If they want it to be something else then take it out of the championship series or just don't do it at all. What they're doing now is a slap in the face to all who support this game.

 

[PokePop]

I've never had a problem as a TO or as a judge with the compensation for BR, but even so, if you feel that you're not getting compensated enough for what you do then that should be taken up with Pokemon and they should increase your "pay" if there really is an issue. Cutting the "product" to save on "payroll" is a horrible way to do this.

Ditto: You misunderstand me.
I'm not a judge at any event other than Nationals and Worlds.
I'm a PTO.
I'm speaking for judges in general.

 

[P_A]

I've never had a problem as a TO or as a judge with the compensation for BR, but even so, if you feel that you're not getting compensated enough for what you do then that should be taken up with Pokemon and they should increase your "pay" if there really is an issue. Cutting the "product" to save on "payroll" is a horrible way to do this.



In conjunction with the above, if Pokemon is only going to do a half-done job on their tournaments, then yes, I'd rather have no Battle Roads at all.

If they're going to include it in the championship series, then they should treat it like a championship tournament. If they want it to be something else then take it out of the championship series or just don't do it at all. What they're doing now is a slap in the face to all who support this game.

:nonono: Ditto, Ditto, Ditto. Do you think you're the only person who supports this game? Shame on you. Can I trust you to honestly poll the more than 10,000 players, parents, judges, venue owners, TO's and PTO's worldwide and report back with an honest and true opinion of everyone who supports this game .... and give me the same opinion? I honestly don't think so. Most people are glad that they are supported by P!P at all, and that we have BR's as compared to not having them - regardless of the pros and cons of them. If you personally don't like the consequences of them being run as they are, you are welcome to withdraw your support and attendance at them. Don't ruin it for those who still do, please.

 

[Ditto]

Ditto: You misunderstand me.
I'm not a judge at any event other than Nationals and Worlds.
I'm a PTO.
I'm speaking for judges in general.

I know who you are. I was saying that if the argument of judges needing better support in some way is what this decision is about, then it's a poor decision. Cutting things from the event is the wrong way to try and get the staff to work less.

:nonono: Ditto, Ditto, Ditto. Do you think you're the only person who supports this game? Shame on you. Can I trust you to honestly poll the more than 10,000 players, parents, judges, venue owners, TO's and PTO's worldwide and report back with an honest and true opinion of everyone who supports this game .... and give me the same opinion? I honestly don't think so. Most people are glad that they are supported by P!P at all, and that we have BR's as compared to not having them - regardless of the pros and cons of them. If you personally don't like the consequences of them being run as they are, you are welcome to withdraw your support and attendance at them. Don't ruin it for those who still do, please.

The question of the thread was, has this been a good decision for battle roads. I answered that it has not been.

 

[Trican]

As a judge the the only complaint I've heard of comp is someone new expevying packs to rain. We deal with abuse fro.m players and parents. We judged because it's as much a passion for some of us as playing is for others. Comp is really to me a thank you than comp.

 

[Shino Bug Master]

Whne they first announced that there would be no Top Cut at BRs, I kept no secret that i thought it was a horrible decision. Partially because they released the news completely on its own and partially because the top cut is 9 times out of 10 my favorite part of any tournament. I couldn't even imagine what a tournament would be without it.

But honestly; its not that bad. Battle Roads were set up perfectly to reflect this change with less points than last season, deeper pools in which to get those points and very little difference in points between the points recieved by Top 4. The affect on time reduction has been negligable in my experience, i dislike the awkward point cut between upper and lower top 16, and i think reincluding the top cut wouldn't hurt at all; but overall its not a bad system.

That being said, they had best leave it to BRs. If they try and apply this to Regionals/States or Cities, i'll just bow out and wait til the grinders at Vancouver. And i can say that understanding the Point structure this time.

 

[P_A]

So I suppose the next question is .... Would you rather have no top cut, ..... or no Battle Roads at all?

I guess I should clarify things a bit more. The question quoted above in this post was actually a rhetorical question, but since it sounded like I invited opinions on that question, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at some of the opinions received. Why I said shame on you is that you shouldn't presume with sweeping statements to believe your opinions reflect the wants, needs and desires of

.....all who support this game.

.....Cutting the "product" to save on "payroll" is a horrible way to do this. .....

In conjunction with the above, if Pokemon is only going to do a half-done job on their tournaments, then yes, I'd rather have no Battle Roads at all.

If they're going to include it in the championship series, then they should treat it like a championship tournament. If they want it to be something else then take it out of the championship series or just don't do it at all. What they're doing now is a slap in the face to all who support this game.

They can still have no top cut and still consider it as part of the championship series. I know I've said this before but it bears repeating: You make it sound like taking out the top cut critically injured the legitimacy of the season. It didn't.

The question of the thread was, has this been a good decision for battle roads. I answered that it has not been.

And of course it's good that you mentioned that you're stating your opinion when you say that, right? Apparently not everyone shares your opinion though since attendance looks to be up at most events I've heard of. Just sayin'.

 

[PokePop]

I know who you are. I was saying that if the argument of judges needing better support in some way is what this decision is about, then it's a poor decision. Cutting things from the event is the wrong way to try and get the staff to work less.



The question of the thread was, has this been a good decision for battle roads. I answered that it has not been.

What are you talking about????
Who the heck said that the decision to cut the time of Battle Roads had anything to do with judge comp?

I'm only saying that I'm not going to let pass a statement that judges should work for fun.
That's it.
Don't apply it to anything more than that.
There are lots and lots of reasons why no Top Cut works better for BRs.
Don't hang the whole thing on judge comp.
Or any of it.

Don't take a side discussion and drag it into the main point as if it was meant for the main point.

And, since it is a side discussion, I'm done with it.

 

[Ditto]

I guess I should clarify things a bit more. The question quoted above in this post was actually a rhetorical question, but since it sounded like I invited opinions on that question, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at some of the opinions received. Why I said shame on you is that you shouldn't presume with sweeping statements to believe your opinions reflect the wants, needs and desires of

I said it was a slap in the face to them. An insult is still an insult, even if it doesn't bother you to be insulted.

They can still have no top cut and still consider it as part of the championship series. I know I've said this before but it bears repeating: You make it sound like taking out the top cut critically injured the legitimacy of the season. It didn't.

Cutting the top cut does lessen the legitimacy of the tournaments though. You introduce so much more luck into the game when you eliminate top cut.

And of course it's good that you mentioned that you're stating your opinion when you say that, right? Apparently not everyone shares your opinion though since attendance looks to be up at most events I've heard of. Just sayin'.

I answered the question with what I believe. I didn't speak for anyone else.

What people don't seem to understand is that players love the game and will still come to play it, even if they're being treated badly. So just because numbers are up, doesn't mean that a decision is good.

What are you talking about????
Who the heck said that the decision to cut the time of Battle Roads had anything to do with judge comp?

I'm only saying that I'm not going to let pass a statement that judges should work for fun.
That's it.
Don't apply it to anything more than that.
There are lots and lots of reasons why no Top Cut works better for BRs.
Don't hang the whole thing on judge comp.
Or any of it.

Don't take a side discussion and drag it into the main point as if it was meant for the main point.

And, since it is a side discussion, I'm done with it.

I said that I was disappointed in the way judges were acting. You said that judges can act that way because they're working, not playing. I'm pointing out that they already get compensation for that, so that's a moot point and they should still act better.

You said you wanted to fight for your staff to be treated as staff. I'm saying that they are, but they're not acting like it.

 

[bullados]

Ditto, I have 3 words for you.

Numbers Never Lie.

BR attendance has, in general, been through the roof. We've had MULTIPLE BRs that are larger than about a quarter of STATES last year. Not to mention the vast majority of Cities.

Attendance is the barometer as to whether an idea is successful.

Attendance is proving this successful.

Numbers Never Lie.

 

[Diaz]

Bullados, I think you are confusing correlation with causation. IMO the changes to BRs did not cause the increase in attendance, they happened to occur at the same time. I haven't heard of anyone who has gone to BRs due to this decision who wouldn't have gone anyway.

 

[Ditto]

Ditto, I have 3 words for you.

Numbers Never Lie.

BR attendance has, in general, been through the roof. We've had MULTIPLE BRs that are larger than about a quarter of STATES last year. Not to mention the vast majority of Cities.

Attendance is the barometer as to whether an idea is successful.

Attendance is proving this successful.

Numbers Never Lie.

Sure, numbers never lie, but what are they telling us? Does more attendance mean that people are happier with the game? No.

It could mean that there are more people who are playing the game. This could be from recently hearing about it and wanting to try it out. It could also be for many other reasons. Many of these reasons will have nothing to do with how happy a player is with any changes.

What are people going to do, not go to the tournament and miss out on those CPs? Not go to the tournament which is the only way they have to play a game they like? Of course not, they're still going to go because they have no other option for playing in pokemon tournaments. That doesn't mean that a change that is made is received well though.

So sure, number never lie, but they don't necessarily say what you are claiming they say.


It is of my opinion that making an important event (one that decides whether a player can qualify for worlds or not) more random in how well a player has the chance to do, is doing a disservice to the player base. It's saying that all the player's hard work in figuring out the best decks and being creative doesn't matter, because they won't have the chance to prove themselves other than being insanely lucky.

If a game has anything to do with becoming a world champion, then there should be as much skill as possible put into that game. Taking skill out of that game makes the title of world champion meaningless.

 

[Abudoggie]

Was not happy about the original decision to eliminate BRs. After our 5th event, I think it isn't as bad as I feared (which isn't the same as "I like it"). For those who know me, this opinion has nothing to do with the Junior player in our family. I think Juniors are relatively less affected given their lower participation (ie, they often had no finals or possibly had a Top2 that was a replay of final round while Masters often had Top4).

My concern is primarily for Masters. With the advent of Championship points, BRs are obviously much higher attended and people started traveling distance to attend more events than I noticed in recent years. In fact,some of the BR events I attended last year should have warranted a Top8 absent the Top4 cap.

With the decision to eliminate Top Cut, I thought that Masters would both not attend as many events and not travel as far (there was speculation that BRs would not have CPs or that they would be awarded only to Top2 with 3rd & 4th place kicker like last year).

In our area, I have been mostly wrong on both counts. I think because Masters attendance is still often 32+, the new depth chart of Championship points has been somewhat of an offset to the initial presumption that "I have to go x-0 or why go". We'll see how it plays out over the season.

 

[Slev]

Sure, numbers never lie, but what are they telling us? Does more attendance mean that people are happier with the game? No.

It could mean that there are more people who are playing the game. This could be from recently hearing about it and wanting to try it out. It could also be for many other reasons. Many of these reasons will have nothing to do with how happy a player is with any changes.

What are people going to do, not go to the tournament and miss out on those CPs? Not go to the tournament which is the only way they have to play a game they like? Of course not, they're still going to go because they have no other option for playing in pokemon tournaments. That doesn't mean that a change that is made is received well though.

So sure, number never lie, but they don't necessarily say what you are claiming they say.


It is of my opinion that making an important event (one that decides whether a player can qualify for worlds or not) more random in how well a player has the chance to do, is doing a disservice to the player base. It's saying that all the player's hard work in figuring out the best decks and being creative doesn't matter, because they won't have the chance to prove themselves other than being insanely lucky.

If a game has anything to do with becoming a world champion, then there should be as much skill as possible put into that game. Taking skill out of that game makes the title of world champion meaningless.

I agree with the general sentiment of this post. I, however, do not think the removal of top cut is that big of a factor as far as br's go.

If we run the assumption that br top cut is limited to 4 then the actual only difference top cut provides is the placement of the top 4.

The difference between 1st and 4th is 5 cp. 5cp is 1/80 of a worlds invite. Idk I guess a person would have every right to be upset about no Top Cut at Br's if they missed worlds by 30(5cp X 6 Br's) or less CP's. In general though I do not believe that the lack of top cut is a truly significant thing considering the top 4 of swiss still get the points.

I still agree with the sentiment presented in Ditto's post, creating a more luck based situation for this game is never good. I guess my point is at least its not a really significant thing that is left to luck?

Also this argument is shot if we have a top cut limit > 4, but that is the general size of said events, and I believe it use to be capped at t4 anyways.

 

[MamaLugia]

All the time people post about how players should stop whining and just enjoy playing the game cause it's fun. But then someone says that judges should judge for the same reason and it's treated as a hostile post. That's ridiculous.

This idea that judges should judge for fun like the players do makes little sense to me... Players get to have fun for no entry fee, come and go as they choose, bear no responsiblity other than to come, be a good sport and have fun... oh, and get rewarded if they do well.

Judges give up a day (longer hours than the tournament goes) to WORK the tournament so that others can have fun. They have to study more, carry a heavy responsibility since a bad call can adversely affect the players they are there to safeguard. Sometimes they would like to play too. When the format is really fun and they have a great deck, that's a lot to give up.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that the Player's motivation to play isn't even on the same planet as the Judge's motivation to judge. Many may start thinking about compensation or it being "easier" than always being out there competing in an undesirable format but the judges that keep on doing it do it for the challenge of having to maintain/increase knowledge, because it is hard, honest work and for the personal satisfaction of being important to the success of the day. yup, they get "appreciated" a little for that but not nearly as "appreciated" as they deserve. :wink:

As for the BR question (from my perspective as a small, local PTO anyway), attendance is comparitively exploding, the day IS far shorter. But my events are small anyway so I have never really had to worry about making them shorter. What is harder to deal with is not being able to magically expand the space on demand. Capping is no fun. I would rather be just opening the door to allow as many the opportunity to play as who want to play. It apparently doesn't work that way without Hermione Granger's "Expansion Charm". Gotta get me one of those...

I see more people apparently relaxed and having fun. While there are still CPs to be had, people don't seems to be so SERIOUS about getting them. That makes the day even more fun I think. I am seeing many brand new players attending their first event. AND coming back to the next one. That means they had fun. I kinda think that is the point to a BR.

The missing Top Cut doesn't appear to be as big an issue as I thought it would be. Perhaps having the CPs go deeper took the sting out of that?

BR's, no top cut :thumb:

 

[JohnnyBlaze]

That being said, it's no wonder that the top cut has been eliminated from the events. They really are only entry level events where no one - from the players all the way up to the PTO's ... is compensated as fully as they would like, or should be. However ... it is an event put on by P!P and the TO's for the players to transition them into the tournament schedule, and keep the interest in going to the events until we wait for the more profitable events later on in the year (profitable for both player and TO). Hopefully people can appreciate the effort put forth for them to put these events on with little to no compensation.

You should then support the idea that BR should also have no CPs associated with them. Then we would see the true players come out and play for fun!!

 

[dubzcheckem]

That's almost completely a myth. You are better off if an opponent drops than if they keep playing and losing. I think sometimes people use it as an excuse - most often their resistance is bad because they lost an early game and were playing people with negative or even records for a couple of rounds after that.

The bad thing about dropping now would be if it affected numbers for the kicker.

I disagree with you saying "It's almost completely a myth". Players who drop often DO affect a lot of the tiebreakers in a negative way. You can't just assume that someone drops because they're bad, so you can't just assume that someone dropping is actually a good thing. Plenty of players these days are dropping at BR's because they've lost a match and can't take 1st place anymore.

Take my 2nd BR's for instance: there was a five way tie for first place with five Masters at 4-1. I was one of the five. I ended up getting third because one of my opponents dropped before the final round (He was 2-2). He dropped because he knew he couldn't place anymore, but also because he wanted to go home and get ready for work since he couldn't win Championship Points.

My opponents ended up 15-9 for the tournament giving me a 62.5% Opp's Win rate.
The winner of the tournament had his Opp's Win rate at 16-9 because none of his opponents dropped.

If my opponent plays that final round and wins the game, I actually would have finished in 1st place. My opponent's would have finished 16-9, and the 2nd tiebreaker is Opponent's opponent's win %, which was in my favor.

It's not "almost completely a myth", and while I understand that I'm only giving one example, it is my belief that others could give firsthand accounts of it happening as well this season alone. The problem is rooted in the fact that players who lose a single game feel that they can't win the tournament anymore. All the sudden, that guy who you played when you were both 3-0, drops after your round at 3-1 instead of strengthening your tiebreakers and winning his final match. Winning players are dropping more frequently these days and you can't pretend it's a myth and not deciding important outcomes.