Lameness
- Thread starter Moss Factor
- Start date
- Status
meganium45
Active Member
Hey, as the person who is ran the May 28th Regional, and the June 18th and 26th Gyms, I appreciate that remark.
I am glad someone has seen the wisdom of my scheduling
M45
I am glad someone has seen the wisdom of my scheduling
M45
LIFE isn't fair...first of the four noble truths, in fact.
So what's the solution? Not let previous winners play? Same result: whining about how those wins aren't as 'good' as early ones, since the competition is 'less'
Run all the events on one day? Look at the complaints when adjacent areas have events on the same day: "why do that, we won't be able to travel wahwahwah..."
Not to mention that requiring that every event be run nationwide on the same day is going to result in LESS events, unless a lot more TOs/judges suddenly materialize; how many profs are going to give up their ONLY chance to play in order to judge/staff? Are any of those complaining the loudest about how 'unfair' it is that someone THEY think is 'unworthy' of a passed-down trip got one going to?
'mom
So what's the solution? Not let previous winners play? Same result: whining about how those wins aren't as 'good' as early ones, since the competition is 'less'
Run all the events on one day? Look at the complaints when adjacent areas have events on the same day: "why do that, we won't be able to travel wahwahwah..."
Not to mention that requiring that every event be run nationwide on the same day is going to result in LESS events, unless a lot more TOs/judges suddenly materialize; how many profs are going to give up their ONLY chance to play in order to judge/staff? Are any of those complaining the loudest about how 'unfair' it is that someone THEY think is 'unworthy' of a passed-down trip got one going to?
'mom
Last edited:
NoPoke
Active Member
Having the trips trickle down seems more fair than having them wasted. So 3rd/4th winning trips is the inevitable outcome of allowing previous winners to enter.
Under either system it seems certain that SOME of the later regionals will have a weaker field than some of the early torunaments. Of course I could have written that the other way around too: ie it seems probable that some of the earlier regionals will have a weaker field than some of the later tournaments just due to location.
Under either system it seems certain that SOME of the later regionals will have a weaker field than some of the early torunaments. Of course I could have written that the other way around too: ie it seems probable that some of the earlier regionals will have a weaker field than some of the later tournaments just due to location.
Last edited:
GymLeaderPhil
New Member
Its not feasible to make all of the Regionals on the same weekend. Attendance would take a dive at most locations since it would be mostly those who reside in the region. PTOs would have a very hard time locating a venue that meets their needs and budget. This also means that PTOs would not be able to hold multiple Regionals. I'm sure that some PTOs had staffing issues with this year's Regionals and, if they were all on the same weekend, there would be many more staff problems. There would be significantly less competition.
If previous winners were restricted from entering another World Qualifier event (Regionals, Stadiums, Gyms, Nationals, Grinder), it could possibly affect attendance signifcantly if the winner transports players from their area. PTOs would have a window of time to schedule their event and locate adequate staff. If they did show up at the event they would have nothing to do. There would be a drop in competitive players, but in a very little amount depending upon what weekend the event is on.
Right now, trips/invites trickle down. Attendance is not changed or altered. Locals attend their event and some sharks travel to locations that have appear to have less competition. PTOs have a window of time to schedule their event and locate adequate staff. Competition can be higher if sharks do attend.
If previous winners were restricted from entering another World Qualifier event (Regionals, Stadiums, Gyms, Nationals, Grinder), it could possibly affect attendance signifcantly if the winner transports players from their area. PTOs would have a window of time to schedule their event and locate adequate staff. If they did show up at the event they would have nothing to do. There would be a drop in competitive players, but in a very little amount depending upon what weekend the event is on.
Right now, trips/invites trickle down. Attendance is not changed or altered. Locals attend their event and some sharks travel to locations that have appear to have less competition. PTOs have a window of time to schedule their event and locate adequate staff. Competition can be higher if sharks do attend.
Last edited:
SomethingElse
Active Member
I really think this trickle down is pretty bad... I think you shouldn't be allowed to play in another Worlds qualifier after you've won a trip, it's unfair to all who have won one. They should be allowed to judge (if 15+) or just not play
Tyranitar666
New Member
Heres my stance on not letting trip winners compete again. I'd be fine with this IF scholarships weren't also being awarded. I would not be traveling and competing in events if I did not get the chance to win scholarships. I would be playing in local events to weed out opponents for my friends, but I would not be traveling to say, TN anymore or PA
Now I see two ways I can argue this here, and I'm not sure which I want to take. First, I think any excuse for losing is kinda lame ( if the loss is legitimate ) because especially someone at say, Moss's level of play, they should be able to outplay anyone, so you still lost, you can't argue that. BUT than you see that different areas have different levels of competition. For example, at the event you played at Moss, we had myself, you, seena, drew, tom, ajay, aj, foisy, matt t, jared p, eric r, and plenty of other good players, all who are deserving t16 players. Other regions have many less top players, and a player of your level is almost a garunteed trip. It is alot harder in tougher regions to get a trip. MI and OH are very very very hard states, so thats a major problem. I do better at farther away events than I do at local tournaments. Its not just luck either.
or PA Now I see two ways I can argue this here, and I'm not sure which I want to take. First, I think any excuse for losing is kinda lame ( if the loss is legitimate ) because especially someone at say, Moss's level of play, they should be able to outplay anyone, so you still lost, you can't argue that. BUT than you see that different areas have different levels of competition. For example, at the event you played at Moss, we had myself, you, seena, drew, tom, ajay, aj, foisy, matt t, jared p, eric r, and plenty of other good players, all who are deserving t16 players. Other regions have many less top players, and a player of your level is almost a garunteed trip. It is alot harder in tougher regions to get a trip. MI and OH are very very very hard states, so thats a major problem. I do better at farther away events than I do at local tournaments. Its not just luck either.
GymLeaderPhil
New Member
SomethingElse said:
The problem with blocking previous winners from entering is the belief that the PTOs, PUI, and Pokemon USA have to find an alternative for the previous winner. If they show up, they will have nothing to do and that needs to be made very clear. No Tournament Organizer has a responsibility to give someone a position on his or her staff. You could be a Professor who has organized countless tournaments, but by no means does your status or lack of ability to play in the event in turn require the Organizer to put you on their staff.
Shiloh Phoenix
New Member
I like avmozz's plan. As long as you donate the winners trophy to me!
Wizards had a 1-and-done policy - you win one, you don't get to compete in the others. It worked well.
Nintendo will do whatever they feel will attract the most players. If allowing one player to win $5000 worth of scholarship money is in the best interst of the game, that's what they'll do. If Nintendo feels that they would attract more money by limiting the amount of scholarship money that one player can win, they'll do that.
It's all about selling more cards.
Nintendo will do whatever they feel will attract the most players. If allowing one player to win $5000 worth of scholarship money is in the best interst of the game, that's what they'll do. If Nintendo feels that they would attract more money by limiting the amount of scholarship money that one player can win, they'll do that.
It's all about selling more cards.
I like 1-and-out. It prevents judges from having to decide if previous winners are colluding with non-winner friends to help them out. Heck, at our Regionals, I heard a previous winner talking about how he was going to concede in the playoffs if he played one of his buddies. When I reported this to the PUI Rep, his comment was, "You can't stop someone from conceding."
Trickle-down allows, and even encourages, legal behavior like this. Amongst many 15+ players, the scholarship money is meaningless compared to the free trip to Worlds.
Those that argue 1-and-out dilutes the competition, I ask you to refer to Matt's original post. How is 3rd place in one Region any better or worse than another Region?
This is a tough one to solve. Allowing winners to recompete and having trickle down is only one solution. To say this solution is flawless or any better or worse than other solutions is narrow-minded. It's merely one way to handle these things based on PUI's goals for POP. That's all.
Trickle-down allows, and even encourages, legal behavior like this. Amongst many 15+ players, the scholarship money is meaningless compared to the free trip to Worlds.
Those that argue 1-and-out dilutes the competition, I ask you to refer to Matt's original post. How is 3rd place in one Region any better or worse than another Region?
This is a tough one to solve. Allowing winners to recompete and having trickle down is only one solution. To say this solution is flawless or any better or worse than other solutions is narrow-minded. It's merely one way to handle these things based on PUI's goals for POP. That's all.
Last edited:
Lord Broly
New Member
Hey guys, Deal with it.
Last edited:
JohnnyBlaze
New Member
It works very well for Magic's JSS Championship series and it also promotes more kids going to college. More kids that are winning Scholarships = more kids attending college = less ditch diggers. lol
Seriously though it is better for the trips to pass down and I feel even the scholarships to pass down. This would encourage less collusion to play since those "Top" players couldnt win any more scholarship money while keeping their POP ranking higher since they can win and not worry about winning multiple scholarships.
The current system at least has brought up attendance and more players so that is definately a good thing. POP will have to take a look at it for next year. Either way they are heading in the "right" direction.
Pokemaster1110
New Member
Broken Lizard said:
Heh. But in sports the atheletes are PAID, so who really cares about that? In the Pokemon TCG, it is the PLAYERS who pay, so when something unfair happens to a TCG player, they have a right to be upset, at least to an extent. Because they have paid their money. In sports, the athelets make money either way. I'll take all the toughest sceduals in the world for $2 million a year :wink:
Moss Factor
New Member
Steve basically hit the nail on the head. I was just complaining about how at later regionals you have an increased chance of winning a trip when compared to an early regional. Is it fair? Probably not. Is there anything I can suggest to fix the pretty much perfect system? No.SteveP said:
If I could say one thing to fix the system, it would be to have the trips trickle down to ME. :biggrin: Besides that, I'm just *****ing, sorry you had to read this thread, etc.
TheAnswer3
New Member
meganium45 said:
Vince:
Your right travel does make this game great.
But then again, not everyone has parents that play, or parents willing to drive 10+ Hours for a pokemon event, or LET their son/daughter if old enough to drive, drive that far.
So basically what this does is make those players that can travel the great distance to an event have an advantage over the players that cannot.
Me being someone that cannot travel great distances for Pokemon, I know that I will be extremely angry if someone like Fulop or Seena comes to our Gym Challenge and beats me in swiss which costs me a spot in the T8. Now Fulop and Seena are both really good friends of mine, no I wouldnt hate them but why should people with a trip even be playing at an EVENT where the biggest prize of all is the trip.
Regionals and Nationals have completely different stories to them because of the Scholarship money that is awarded to the top players. But the Gym Challenges are all about Product and a single trip to worlds, there is no money, no extra incentive for players with trips to even play again, except MOST of them still will.
If POP does anything about saying players cannot play if they have a trip restrict it to the Gym Challenges. If you already have a trip you have gotten your box of boosters already regardless, what else do you have to play for? give all those that DONT have a trip yet an equal oppertunity, I can only imagine what it would be like losing in T4 at a GC to someone that already had a trip...
Maybe POP can offer an incentive for those players that already have trips at the local Gym Challenges. Something like judging positions for the 15+ players that will net them product. For the 11-14 and 10- groups maybe free Booster Drafts or something along those lines???
My 2 cents
tA
Broken Lizard
New Member
Pokemaster1110 said:
The vast majority of sports matches are played in college or high school. Only players who consistently come out on top have any prayer of turning pro or even getting a scholarship. And, in case you haven't noticed, playing sports is expensive. I know, I have a multisport-playing son in high school. It's more expensive than Pokémon by quite a bit.
Incidently, my son is #1 in the state at one of his events. Even so, his odds of getting any scholarship money would be far better if he still played Pokémon!
Last edited:
SteveP said:
Hmmm... if the distribution of regionals dates were truly random and identically distributed, then yes. :wink:
The alterative situation would be to award the passed-down award retroactively to the person who originally lost the first tournament, or to attempt some eaglatrian method of distributing the trips after all the events have been resolved.
I would prefer not to leave people hanging like that.
bullados
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?
Who just happen to own and manage the most successful and longest lasting TCG in the history of TCGs. If they managed to keep a player base of over a million players while using next to no advertising and even less family friendly atmosphere, imagine what some of their thoughts might do to Pokemon.dld4a said:
- Status