Cut BR CPs: A Comprehensive look at how BRs changed 2011-2012

[JandPDS]

I think there should be zero championship points in Battle Roads. They really are no longer Premiere events. I mean how can an event be called Premiere if there is not a top cut. They have now been moved to become basically glorified league turements and as such no championship points should be awarded at them.

 

[Kayle]

^ Sour grapes, but I see what you mean, and I hope they are lower priority (an idea perhaps hinted at by the loss of top cut).

But, as others have mentioned... now that I think of it, the CCs are going to be just as much a problem as BRs.

 

[FunnyBear]

I would be for cutting CPs for BRs if only because to me, it sounds like they're pushing for it to be casual and not important with the lack of top cuts or anything anyways. As someone mentioned in the other thread, BRs were originally conceived to just be local casual sort of tournaments anyways, and cutting out CPs would promote that original concept. Otherwise, again especially at larger BRs and such, you'll get a lot of negative feelings going solely by what is effectively single elimination.

This. I favor option D or some such in the OP. I think we need to bring BRs back to being entry level events, which we lost this year. However, something like D would bring in some element of the Championship series into it. Personally, I am exhausted from bringing my Junior to over a dozen battleroads, as well lots of cities, 3 states, 2 regionals, and this season its going to be 3.

 

[dancingaway]

This is my beef with CPs.
I would not be bitter about this, but fact is, a lot of the people rated above me really don't deserve to be there. I'm not trying to insult them, that's just the facts.

This is not a "fact". This is an opinion.

Also, If they got more Championship Points, in a format whereby the measure of success is how many CPs a person has then they DO deserve to be there. I think what you say about the other seniors is incredibly disrespectful to people who have played incredibly hard all season.

As for the ELO; it was said that you could X-0 a cities and have a good states run and you'd get an invite. I know people who did this last year. Pokemon have been very clear that they do not want people to do well in a couple tournaments and get into Worlds. Your argument on ELO is therefore irrelevant.

Have you compared the top 40 in NA in terms of play points and CPs and seen a positive correlation? If you have not then you're not in a position to say that going to more tournaments ALWAYS gives you a better chance. (Obviously you have to go to a fair few but if you're not good enough you won't get the invite regardless).

---------- Post added 07/30/2012 at 12:34 AM ----------

Ok, gone and done some research (using the Rankings on the official website).

Anyone wanna guess how many of the top 40 on Play Points also made the top 40 on CPs? (Masters)

Anyone?

9! That's 9 out of 40 or 22.5%


Bearing in mind that people with a lot of Play Points are (generally) people who are willing to travel a lot and therefore are likely to be people who think of themselves as better players who take it more seriously I think we can therefore discount the “if you have more play points you’re far more likely to get an invite” fallacy.

Obviously you need to play a certain number of events to gain enough points for an invite but when only 22.5% of the top 40 on PPs also fall into the top 40 on CPs you cannot presume a clear trend towards more PPs = more CPs.

---------- Post added 07/30/2012 at 12:45 AM ----------

Also interesting to note that none of the top 10 Masters in NA on PPs got an invite based on CPs.

So much for "keep playing and you'll get the invite occasionally"....

 

[Jaeger]

Nationals horribly skews your logic... I also don't see why I have to win almost every tournament I play in just because somebody else can go to twice as many tournaments. There needs to be a balance...but guess from your statement your one of the ones that traveled alot and got the invite...all I'm saying is look at it from the other side of the coin.

 

[psychup2034]

Bearing in mind that people with a lot of Play Points are (generally) people who are willing to travel a lot and therefore are likely to be people who think of themselves as better players who take it more seriously I think we can therefore discount the “if you have more play points you’re far more likely to get an invite” fallacy.

No, no, no, no!

We're not claiming that "if you have more play points you're far more likely to get an invite." We're claiming that "if you play in more tournaments where championship points are at stake you're more likely to get an invite."

You get play points for going to league. That's 8 PPs for a season. Do you go to prereleases? 4 more PP. Do you do post-prerelease drafts? 4 more PPs. Do you play in sanctioned tournaments that don't have CP as prizes? That's more PP right there. Most competitive players don't regularly go to league and don't regularly play in non-CP sanctioned tournaments.

 

[dancingaway]

I have shown, using actual facts taken from an official source that there is NO strong correlation (at the top end) between Play Points and CPs. Only 9 of the top 40 PPs got an invite from CPs. None of the top 10 did.

This can't be disputed with vague facts about how many tournaments people can attend.

People get invites for doing well at tournaments, not attending. THIS is why the correlation does not exist.

 

[psychup2034]

People get invites for doing well at tournaments, not attending. THIS is why the correlation does not exist.

I'm not disputing the fact that there's low correlation (at the top end) between Play! Points and Championship Points. In fact, among the top 40, the correlation between PPs and CPs is actually -0.0125. I am disputing the interpretation of the statistic you have thrown out there. You seem to be completely ignoring the fact among the competitive players, the more tournaments you play in, the more chances you have of improving the number of Championship Points you have.

People get Play! Points for attending almost any Pokemon event, not just events where Championship Points are at stake. THIS is why the correlation does not exist.

 

[psychup2034]

-You get Play Points for League and Prereleases. YOUR argument is irrelevant, because Play Points aren't an indicator of ANYTHING.

^ This.

The total number of Play! Points you see displayed on the rankings site is not necessarily indicative of the number of tournaments with Championship Points at stake a player has played in. For example, Jason K. played in all 3 Cities marathons, yet (as you said) he doesn't break the top 10 in Play! Points.

A substantial amount of Play! Points are accumulated from tournaments and events where there are no Championship Points at stake.

 

[DonphanAtoZ]

This is not a "fact". This is an opinion.

Also, If they got more Championship Points, in a format whereby the measure of success is how many CPs a person has then they DO deserve to be there. I think what you say about the other seniors is incredibly disrespectful to people who have played incredibly hard all season.

As for the ELO; it was said that you could X-0 a cities and have a good states run and you'd get an invite. I know people who did this last year. Pokemon have been very clear that they do not want people to do well in a couple tournaments and get into Worlds. Your argument on ELO is therefore irrelevant.

You just don't get it, do you?

-Good for you for knowing the difference between a fact and a opinion. Now go read my post again so you can get back on topic.

-My argument on ELO is irrelevant because of what P!P said? That's the stupidest thing I've seen in this thread. We're discussing this so P!P will maybe make some changes.

-You get Play Points for League and Prereleases. YOUR argument is irrelevant, because Play Points aren't an indicator of ANYTHING.

Have you compared the top 40 in NA in terms of play points and CPs and seen a positive correlation? If you have not then you're not in a position to say that going to more tournaments ALWAYS gives you a better chance. (Obviously you have to go to a fair few but if you're not good enough you won't get the invite regardless).

LOL, yes it does?. It's clear as day. I thought you knew the difference between facts and opinions?
If you want to come on here just to be rude and say my argument is worthless, be my guest. You won't win. Your post showed you literally don't understand the argument at hand.

Also, it's incredibly ironic that you play in Europe, where basically anyone who wants an invite can get one.

I tried to do my best to keep my cool, but when you're going to come on here and start saying things like, "Your argument is irrelevant," you're going to do nothing but offend people.

 

[NJ_Bob]

Both 41st places in Juniors/Seniors were decided on ELO and in Masters IIRC, it was 3-4 people all affected by ELO.

My son was the 41st junior, and he only had 3 BR points. We just could not attend many of them. There are juniors that maxed out in BR points, and double digits in BR points was very common in juniors.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[King Piplup]

My son was the 41st junior, and he only had 3 BR points. We just could not attend many of them. There are juniors that maxed out in BR points, and double digits in BR points was very common in juniors.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Yeah, I figured that was likely him. In terms of maxing, I would feel safe in saying that 1/2 of the Top 40 Juniors maxed out. That is data I collected, but clearly there is no certainty in it.

 

[NJ_Bob]

I am strongly in favor of dropping BR from the CP, but not because of that result. I argued for it being dropped earlier in the season:

1. It is just simply unnecessary in the qualifying scheme. Four levels (nationals, regionals, states, cities) is more than sufficient to sort out qualifying. Now with 6 regionals and states, this is even more so.

2. It drastically inflated the compulsory attendance, and at times I least wanted to see it happen (beginning of school and onset of spring weather).

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[psychup2034]

This season, I played in 11 Battle Roads, for a total of 7 championship points.
This season, I played in 9 Cities/States/Regionals, for a total of 45 championship points.

I attended more Battle Roads than Cities, States, and Regionals combined, and only got halfway to the best finish limit. (I only got 4 best finishes.) That's pretty ridiculous.

 

[Ignatious]

You just don't get it, do you?

-Good for you for knowing the difference between a fact and a opinion. Now go read my post again so you can get back on topic.

-My argument on ELO is irrelevant because of what P!P said? That's the stupidest thing I've seen in this thread. We're discussing this so P!P will maybe make some changes.

-You get Play Points for League and Prereleases. YOUR argument is irrelevant, because Play Points aren't an indicator of ANYTHING.



LOL, yes it does?. It's clear as day. I thought you knew the difference between facts and opinions?
If you want to come on here just to be rude and say my argument is worthless, be my guest. You won't win. Your post showed you literally don't understand the argument at hand.

Also, it's incredibly ironic that you play in Europe, where basically anyone who wants an invite can get one.

I tried to do my best to keep my cool, but when you're going to come on here and start saying things like, "Your argument is irrelevant," you're going to do nothing but offend people.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

 

[Jaeger]

This season, I played in 11 Battle Roads, for a total of 7 championship points.
This season, I played in 9 Cities/States/Regionals, for a total of 45 championship points.

I attended more Battle Roads than Cities, States, and Regionals combined, and only got halfway to the best finish limit. (I only got 4 best finishes.) That's pretty ridiculous.

You are the exception...not the rule

 

[psychup2034]

You are the exception...not the rule

I was trying to make two points there. The second point that you can go to 11 Battle Roads and only get halfway to the best finish limit. I'm not sure how many North American masters actually hit the best finish limit of 8 for Battle Roads. I only personally know of 1, and I'd suspect that total is no more than 3 or 4.

If I extrapolate, then it would take me 22 Battle Roads to hit the best finish limit of 8. That's at least 11 weekends of travel to hit the BFL, assuming 2 Battle Roads per weekend. In my opinion, the best finish limit needs to be attainable by ~20% of the player base. Any lower than that, and it's a little ridiculous.

 

[P_A]

I was trying to make two points there. The second point that you can go to 11 Battle Roads and only get halfway to the best finish limit. I'm not sure how many North American masters actually hit the best finish limit of 8 for Battle Roads. I only personally know of 1, and I'd suspect that total is no more than 3 or 4.

If I extrapolate, then it would take me 22 Battle Roads to hit the best finish limit of 8. That's at least 11 weekends of travel to hit the BFL, assuming 2 Battle Roads per weekend. In my opinion, the best finish limit needs to be attainable by ~20% of the player base. Any lower than that, and it's a little ridiculous.

:lol:Are you serious? With all the thousands of players, do you really think that ~20% should be able to reach that Best Finish Limit? With some (though not all) good players out to compete just to make sure that others specifically don't reach their BFL, you'd have to have almost as many BR's and CC's as there are players! Marathons for everyone! Ok, maybe that's your point - that the BFL is too high, but then if it isn't, then what's the point of the accomplishment? I doubt TPCi meant for that to happen.