Pidgeotto Trainer
New Member
While there has been some recent news and discussion about Battle Roads (BRs), I want to tie BRs to some the discussion found here about how the season continues to get longer for the competitive player: http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=166260
From the 2010-2011 season to this past year and next year, Pokemon has arguably more than DOUBLED the amount of tournaments a competitive player needs to attend to give themselves the best chance at worlds. This is a huge issue in the game IMO. From adults with jobs including parents, to the many college age players, to school age kids who also attend sports or clubs, there are many reasons to not make playing pokemon competitively so demanding time and travel wise.
Of course there will always be a balance. Yes, you need some amount of dedication to this game to be competitive, and that will always be true. We all love the game and love to play anyways. But given the considerations in the previous paragraph, the correct answer is not always 'Make players go to more events! Show dedication to the game!'. It's always going to be a balance, and the question just is where to draw the line. The line has shifted by an enormous amount in the past year and I don't think that many people are happy about it.
In 2008-2011 the competitive player had to go to say:
~6 weekends of cities
2 weekends of states
1 weekend of regionals
nats
worlds
With current information for 2012-2013 the competitive player needs to go to:
~10 weekends of battle roads
~6 weekends of cities
3 weekends of states
3 weekends of regionals
nats
worlds
That's roughly an increase of 13 weekends, and 3 larger travels (3rd state, 2nd and 3rd regionals). Looking at the 2008-2011 schedule, this more than doubles the number of events a player must go to to be competitive.
A player really needs to go to just about all of these events to be competitive, even with the BFL (Best Finish Limits). Everyone knows there is luck in this game, and even the greatest players will not top cut every event. Donks, bad matchups, bad hands. The BFL is great to balance this, but it no doubt still greatly favors the players who can attend every event they see. This post was also a good summary of why BFL does not really lower the number of tournaments a competitive player needs to attend: http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2284205&postcount=49
Anyways, if you look at the 2 lists above, my gosh, the season has gotten so much longer in just a year! Why?
I want to be clear that I really like the Championship Point (CP) system as a concept. Removing the 'gamble' of playing events or top cuts, especially nationals is very very good for the game in my opinion.
There can be many debates about how exactly the CPs should be divided between cities, states etc. That's a complicated problem I have not thought about much or weighed the numbers in. But it is simple too see that BRs are necessary now, where they weren't before.
In 2008-2011, once BRs were made k value 4, they practically had almost 0% effect on the competitive player. I qualified thru ratings all 3 of those years, including being #1 most of 08-09 without playing a single BR. This was a side-effect of the ELO system. In the final ELO standings your most recent events matter most, so the fall BRs were meaningless both in k value 4 and in being the beginning of the season. Spring BRs became nearly useless because they were too high a risk to play in for the top players, as ELO offered those high rated players high risk and low reward. So while BRs had a k value of 4, their actual contribution to players trying to go for a worlds invite was actually even less than that.
How important are BRs now? I took some statistics from players in this thread: http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=166046 and also looked closely at the final standings for 2011-2012. 17 of the masters top 40 and 9 of the seniors top 40 from North America responded to my survey (and one junior). 13/17 of the masters and 6/9 of the seniors needed their BR points to make the top 40. Moreover, 9/17 of the masters and 5/9 of the seniors needed half or more of the points they earned from BRs. The average number of Battle Roads attended in each age division for these top 40 players was 9, with multiple players playing up to 14. The average number of CPs gained by surveyed masters was 7, and for seniors 8. Take away 7 points and only the top 13 masters keep their invite. Take away 8 points from seniors, and only top 15 keep their invite.
I think the most telling stat is from a simple look at the standings though. Masters North America 24th place has 52 CPs. 41st place has 49 CPs. Almost half the players who gained an invite were 3 CPs away from losing it. 3 CPs are the difference between nearly half the players who got their invite, and them not getting their invite. That means one could view any gain of 3 CPs (such as potentially one weekend of BRs) as a chance to DOUBLE their chances at an invite. When 3 more CPs doubles a players chance at an invite, how can anyone trying to be competitive comfortably not do whatever they can to attend every single BR they can? They have to.
Someone here is probably going to tell me 'no one is making you go to events.' From a competitive standpoint, they are. If you think we shouldn't be concerned with how events affect players trying to be competitive, then why should you care about CPs? CPs (unlike existence vs non-existence of 3rd regionals) is a purely 'competitive player' issue.
(and FWIW, I think it's clear a large amount of the player considers being a 'competitive player' as an important part of their Pokemon experience. No doubt removing this element will turn away players.)
With the stats above, it is clear that BRs now matter A LOT. They went from being completely unnecessary for a competitive player to being absolutely mandatory. As many people noticed, this was an enormous change for players, and the atmosphere of BRs. Many people liked that BRs were the 'less competitive' tournaments before. Even though I would not often play BRs (I was in college) I know I enjoyed looking up the winners from my area on poke gym, and seeing 'rogue dad' kinds of players win. Players who are good but like to play their own unique decks get their shot and not have to compete with the worlds chasers who had to come in with the tier 1 deck to fuel their chase. I'm sure there could be similar dynamics in the younger age divisions.
Many of the other benefits of having BRs be a less competitive atmosphere were nicely listed out a few days ago on this post: http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=166536
There have been many discussions about what should be done to the CP/tournament system lately. Unlike the 3rd regionals issue, cutting BR CPs does not take away any events for people who want to go to as many events as possible. But it WOULD lessen the strain of the long season on the competitive player by a lot I feel. BRs might not require the travel in one weekend of a regionals, but those 10 weekends build up. The cities season is always an intense and fun part of the season, but effectively making there be 3 cities seasons a year is just stressful and difficult to maintain for many people.
My first vote would be to cut BR CPs completely. Until the 'no BR top cut' news, I didn't think this was a possibility, as BRs always had a k value, even though it was EFFECTIVELY 0 from 2008-2011. Effectively, zero CPs for BR would be the most similar to 2008-2011. But even in comparing 2012-2013 to those years, there is still 1 more state, 2 more regionals, and players can now play BRs and Nationals WITHOUT RISK. If you were a player in 2008-2011 who wanted to play in more competitive events during the year, you should still be VERY VERY happy with a 2012-2013 that had zero CPs attached to BRs.
If Pokemon wants to keep CPs in BRs because it is part of the 'championship series' or whatever, the maximum amount of points you can get really needs to not be higher than 2-4. The current maximum is 16, with multiple top 40 players gaining more than 10. Here are some sample layouts I would like to see:
A:
0 CPs for all places
B:
1 CP for 1st
Best finish Limit (BFL): 2
C:
1 CP for 1st
1/2 CP for x-1 (or 2nd, or 2nd-4th with kickers)
BFL: 2-4
D:
2 CP for 1st
1 CP for x-1 (or 2nd, or 2nd-4th with kickers)
BFL: 2
(Why a larger limit for say C over B? If you make option B BFL: 4, there will be a larger discrepancy between the player who goes to 10 events and the player who goes to 3 events, 3 x-1s can at least shorten the gap with the player who went to 10 and won 4.)
Honestly, I even feel like 4 CPs is a lot for BRs. That's still such a larger influence than 2008-2011! BRs determined very very few invites in those years, and 4 CPs would still be incredibly significant (a difference that determined roughly half the invites). Again, my first vote would be A.
But anyways, the current max 16 CPs is just ENORMOUS compared to the ~0 influence of 2008-2011 BRs.
I'm hoping Pokemon never intended to make BRs so important. I don't recall people clamoring to make BRs more important, and there were people saying that BRs were too much even when the CP numbers were released a year ago. Now we have data to show that yes, BRs matter now, A LOT. I'm hoping Pokemon just made a big mistake in how they setup the CP values for BRs, with their primary focus being a non risk system (CP over ELO) rather than a dramatic lengthening the season. CPs were a GREAT idea, but let's just fix the (unintended?) longer season side effect.
More big events (like the contentious 3rd regional) will have some proponents, but more important small events has many fewer I think. The exact breakdown of the perfect CP system, or ELO system or whatever would be difficult to calculate. More regionals spread out over the 3 weeks would be really great (and I hope to see that in the future), but I see it would cost more for Pokemon and the PTOs. But fixing just the BRs and making the season much more manageable again is EASY, from both a calculations and tournament logistics perspective, and cuts zero tournaments from those who want to play every weekend. Let's see this happen.
Thanks for reading.
From the 2010-2011 season to this past year and next year, Pokemon has arguably more than DOUBLED the amount of tournaments a competitive player needs to attend to give themselves the best chance at worlds. This is a huge issue in the game IMO. From adults with jobs including parents, to the many college age players, to school age kids who also attend sports or clubs, there are many reasons to not make playing pokemon competitively so demanding time and travel wise.
Of course there will always be a balance. Yes, you need some amount of dedication to this game to be competitive, and that will always be true. We all love the game and love to play anyways. But given the considerations in the previous paragraph, the correct answer is not always 'Make players go to more events! Show dedication to the game!'. It's always going to be a balance, and the question just is where to draw the line. The line has shifted by an enormous amount in the past year and I don't think that many people are happy about it.
In 2008-2011 the competitive player had to go to say:
~6 weekends of cities
2 weekends of states
1 weekend of regionals
nats
worlds
With current information for 2012-2013 the competitive player needs to go to:
~10 weekends of battle roads
~6 weekends of cities
3 weekends of states
3 weekends of regionals
nats
worlds
That's roughly an increase of 13 weekends, and 3 larger travels (3rd state, 2nd and 3rd regionals). Looking at the 2008-2011 schedule, this more than doubles the number of events a player must go to to be competitive.
A player really needs to go to just about all of these events to be competitive, even with the BFL (Best Finish Limits). Everyone knows there is luck in this game, and even the greatest players will not top cut every event. Donks, bad matchups, bad hands. The BFL is great to balance this, but it no doubt still greatly favors the players who can attend every event they see. This post was also a good summary of why BFL does not really lower the number of tournaments a competitive player needs to attend: http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2284205&postcount=49
Anyways, if you look at the 2 lists above, my gosh, the season has gotten so much longer in just a year! Why?
I want to be clear that I really like the Championship Point (CP) system as a concept. Removing the 'gamble' of playing events or top cuts, especially nationals is very very good for the game in my opinion.
There can be many debates about how exactly the CPs should be divided between cities, states etc. That's a complicated problem I have not thought about much or weighed the numbers in. But it is simple too see that BRs are necessary now, where they weren't before.
In 2008-2011, once BRs were made k value 4, they practically had almost 0% effect on the competitive player. I qualified thru ratings all 3 of those years, including being #1 most of 08-09 without playing a single BR. This was a side-effect of the ELO system. In the final ELO standings your most recent events matter most, so the fall BRs were meaningless both in k value 4 and in being the beginning of the season. Spring BRs became nearly useless because they were too high a risk to play in for the top players, as ELO offered those high rated players high risk and low reward. So while BRs had a k value of 4, their actual contribution to players trying to go for a worlds invite was actually even less than that.
How important are BRs now? I took some statistics from players in this thread: http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=166046 and also looked closely at the final standings for 2011-2012. 17 of the masters top 40 and 9 of the seniors top 40 from North America responded to my survey (and one junior). 13/17 of the masters and 6/9 of the seniors needed their BR points to make the top 40. Moreover, 9/17 of the masters and 5/9 of the seniors needed half or more of the points they earned from BRs. The average number of Battle Roads attended in each age division for these top 40 players was 9, with multiple players playing up to 14. The average number of CPs gained by surveyed masters was 7, and for seniors 8. Take away 7 points and only the top 13 masters keep their invite. Take away 8 points from seniors, and only top 15 keep their invite.
I think the most telling stat is from a simple look at the standings though. Masters North America 24th place has 52 CPs. 41st place has 49 CPs. Almost half the players who gained an invite were 3 CPs away from losing it. 3 CPs are the difference between nearly half the players who got their invite, and them not getting their invite. That means one could view any gain of 3 CPs (such as potentially one weekend of BRs) as a chance to DOUBLE their chances at an invite. When 3 more CPs doubles a players chance at an invite, how can anyone trying to be competitive comfortably not do whatever they can to attend every single BR they can? They have to.
Someone here is probably going to tell me 'no one is making you go to events.' From a competitive standpoint, they are. If you think we shouldn't be concerned with how events affect players trying to be competitive, then why should you care about CPs? CPs (unlike existence vs non-existence of 3rd regionals) is a purely 'competitive player' issue.
(and FWIW, I think it's clear a large amount of the player considers being a 'competitive player' as an important part of their Pokemon experience. No doubt removing this element will turn away players.)
With the stats above, it is clear that BRs now matter A LOT. They went from being completely unnecessary for a competitive player to being absolutely mandatory. As many people noticed, this was an enormous change for players, and the atmosphere of BRs. Many people liked that BRs were the 'less competitive' tournaments before. Even though I would not often play BRs (I was in college) I know I enjoyed looking up the winners from my area on poke gym, and seeing 'rogue dad' kinds of players win. Players who are good but like to play their own unique decks get their shot and not have to compete with the worlds chasers who had to come in with the tier 1 deck to fuel their chase. I'm sure there could be similar dynamics in the younger age divisions.
Many of the other benefits of having BRs be a less competitive atmosphere were nicely listed out a few days ago on this post: http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=166536
There have been many discussions about what should be done to the CP/tournament system lately. Unlike the 3rd regionals issue, cutting BR CPs does not take away any events for people who want to go to as many events as possible. But it WOULD lessen the strain of the long season on the competitive player by a lot I feel. BRs might not require the travel in one weekend of a regionals, but those 10 weekends build up. The cities season is always an intense and fun part of the season, but effectively making there be 3 cities seasons a year is just stressful and difficult to maintain for many people.
My first vote would be to cut BR CPs completely. Until the 'no BR top cut' news, I didn't think this was a possibility, as BRs always had a k value, even though it was EFFECTIVELY 0 from 2008-2011. Effectively, zero CPs for BR would be the most similar to 2008-2011. But even in comparing 2012-2013 to those years, there is still 1 more state, 2 more regionals, and players can now play BRs and Nationals WITHOUT RISK. If you were a player in 2008-2011 who wanted to play in more competitive events during the year, you should still be VERY VERY happy with a 2012-2013 that had zero CPs attached to BRs.
If Pokemon wants to keep CPs in BRs because it is part of the 'championship series' or whatever, the maximum amount of points you can get really needs to not be higher than 2-4. The current maximum is 16, with multiple top 40 players gaining more than 10. Here are some sample layouts I would like to see:
A:
0 CPs for all places
B:
1 CP for 1st
Best finish Limit (BFL): 2
C:
1 CP for 1st
1/2 CP for x-1 (or 2nd, or 2nd-4th with kickers)
BFL: 2-4
D:
2 CP for 1st
1 CP for x-1 (or 2nd, or 2nd-4th with kickers)
BFL: 2
(Why a larger limit for say C over B? If you make option B BFL: 4, there will be a larger discrepancy between the player who goes to 10 events and the player who goes to 3 events, 3 x-1s can at least shorten the gap with the player who went to 10 and won 4.)
Honestly, I even feel like 4 CPs is a lot for BRs. That's still such a larger influence than 2008-2011! BRs determined very very few invites in those years, and 4 CPs would still be incredibly significant (a difference that determined roughly half the invites). Again, my first vote would be A.
But anyways, the current max 16 CPs is just ENORMOUS compared to the ~0 influence of 2008-2011 BRs.
I'm hoping Pokemon never intended to make BRs so important. I don't recall people clamoring to make BRs more important, and there were people saying that BRs were too much even when the CP numbers were released a year ago. Now we have data to show that yes, BRs matter now, A LOT. I'm hoping Pokemon just made a big mistake in how they setup the CP values for BRs, with their primary focus being a non risk system (CP over ELO) rather than a dramatic lengthening the season. CPs were a GREAT idea, but let's just fix the (unintended?) longer season side effect.
More big events (like the contentious 3rd regional) will have some proponents, but more important small events has many fewer I think. The exact breakdown of the perfect CP system, or ELO system or whatever would be difficult to calculate. More regionals spread out over the 3 weeks would be really great (and I hope to see that in the future), but I see it would cost more for Pokemon and the PTOs. But fixing just the BRs and making the season much more manageable again is EASY, from both a calculations and tournament logistics perspective, and cuts zero tournaments from those who want to play every weekend. Let's see this happen.
Thanks for reading.
