LCQ Issues
- Thread starter JandPDS
- Start date
Sir Bidoof
New Member
My personal opinion is that double elimination makes the grinders too luck reliant in an already overly luck reliant format. There didn't seem to be any problems in previous years, why change it?
Haunter_FanBoy
New Member
I don't get you man, the grinder is a gift from P!P. Enjoy or just shut up an get out. if you want a nice event for all play nationals. Pokemon is also the only TCG to my knowledge that even gives you the chance to grind in for an invite the day before worlds.
Quit whining people.
NoPoke
Active Member
I think these are the two primary reasons...
- because P!P are expecting a lot of players. (more than in previous years)
- because it was exhausting on the staff that P!P want fresh for the main event.
FWIW a single elimination grinder is still better than no grinder.
I remember one year we had to 5-0 the grinder to make it into worlds, I think it was in SD or Anaheim. This is very similar to that, except we get best 2/3 matches instead of single game. It's really not a big deal, getting in through the grinder is always a longshot (unless it's in Hawaii) and that's the way it's supposed to be I guess.
Pete De Shaw
Master Trainer
I won’t be joining the arguments about what should be done or what the LCQ is supposed to be. I do see a lot of bad information being tossed around as fact so I wanted to give you some better data to play with. The attendance in 2009 was: JR 125; SR 161; MA 455. The almost 800 number for MAs that has been thrown around is really the total of the whole event.
Our working assumption is that neither the JRs nor SRs will exceed 256, and that the MAs will exceed 512 but won’t exceed 1024. The first round of a single elimination tournament consists of a bunch of byes and enough matches to get the field down to a perfect power of two. This means that the biggest round is round two, and if our assumptions are correct the most seats we will need for the LCQ is 768.
We therefore don’t need a cap. Even if the MAs surprise us and exceed 1024 we can either use open gaming or run the first 2 MAs rounds before starting the other age groups. The JRs and SRs are only going to need 5 rounds to get from >128 but <256 down to 8 and MAs will most likely need 7 rounds to get from >512 but < 1024 to 8.
The other bit of bad information that I want to dispel is that lining up early is a good idea. It isn’t. Getting there about 9:00 when registration starts is plenty early enough. If you tend toward paranoia, get there around 8:30 but please don’t get there before staff arrives at 8:00. Camping out at five in the morning serves no purpose other than to make you tired.
The large group that was already cramming the hall at 7:45 when I showed up in 2009 just got in the way and slowed things down. Every single one of those people would have been able to register if they had waited until 9:00 to arrive, and dealing with them delayed the start of registration. That being said, showing up at 5 am is still better than leaving it to the very last minute and risking having a busy elevator cause you to miss the event.
I also want to point out that no matter how we break up the line by division we will let parents register with their children. The signs probably won't say that because there isn't room, but we are always going to make allowances for parents to help their kids sign up without then having to get in the back of the Masters line.
We won’t issue new Player ID numbers for the LCQ as we do not believe this should be a player’s first event. Exceptions will be made for the Japanese and Korean players who don’t use our ID numbers in their events. We expect that all players at this level to know their correct ID numbers. Players who don’t know their number or give us the wrong number cause us extra work and contribute to late starts.
Edit: I was reviewing the staff schedule and I noticed another bit of information that I want everyone to share as widely as possible. The JR/SR Video Game LCQ registration will take place on Friday from 8:00 to 8:30 in the same hall as the Card Game LCQ registration that starts at 9;00. That means that TCG Players who arrive too early are not only wasting time, they are going to get in the way of VGC registration. Find somewhere else to hang out until 8:30.
Our working assumption is that neither the JRs nor SRs will exceed 256, and that the MAs will exceed 512 but won’t exceed 1024. The first round of a single elimination tournament consists of a bunch of byes and enough matches to get the field down to a perfect power of two. This means that the biggest round is round two, and if our assumptions are correct the most seats we will need for the LCQ is 768.
We therefore don’t need a cap. Even if the MAs surprise us and exceed 1024 we can either use open gaming or run the first 2 MAs rounds before starting the other age groups. The JRs and SRs are only going to need 5 rounds to get from >128 but <256 down to 8 and MAs will most likely need 7 rounds to get from >512 but < 1024 to 8.
The other bit of bad information that I want to dispel is that lining up early is a good idea. It isn’t. Getting there about 9:00 when registration starts is plenty early enough. If you tend toward paranoia, get there around 8:30 but please don’t get there before staff arrives at 8:00. Camping out at five in the morning serves no purpose other than to make you tired.
The large group that was already cramming the hall at 7:45 when I showed up in 2009 just got in the way and slowed things down. Every single one of those people would have been able to register if they had waited until 9:00 to arrive, and dealing with them delayed the start of registration. That being said, showing up at 5 am is still better than leaving it to the very last minute and risking having a busy elevator cause you to miss the event.
I also want to point out that no matter how we break up the line by division we will let parents register with their children. The signs probably won't say that because there isn't room, but we are always going to make allowances for parents to help their kids sign up without then having to get in the back of the Masters line.
We won’t issue new Player ID numbers for the LCQ as we do not believe this should be a player’s first event. Exceptions will be made for the Japanese and Korean players who don’t use our ID numbers in their events. We expect that all players at this level to know their correct ID numbers. Players who don’t know their number or give us the wrong number cause us extra work and contribute to late starts.
Edit: I was reviewing the staff schedule and I noticed another bit of information that I want everyone to share as widely as possible. The JR/SR Video Game LCQ registration will take place on Friday from 8:00 to 8:30 in the same hall as the Card Game LCQ registration that starts at 9;00. That means that TCG Players who arrive too early are not only wasting time, they are going to get in the way of VGC registration. Find somewhere else to hang out until 8:30.
Last edited:
Thanks for taking your time to post, Pete. I have a few things, I'd like to touch on. I guess I am under the impression that the method of powers of two being used to make the LCQ work is in the program or is in the process of being installed into it. My reason for believing this is because I don't believe the powers of two is the best way from a numbers standpoint to deliver anything other than 32, 16 or 8 invites.
What I am saying, is that say we have 600 Masters enter the LCQ. We now have to give out 424 byes, as opposed to not going for a power of two and just going like this:
R1: 600 players play
R2: 300 players play
R3: 150 players play
R4: 75 players play
R5: 37 players play (one bye)
After R5, only 19 players remain. My point is unless the LCQ is guarenteed to have 8, 16 or 32 invites, then how can the power of two method be optimal? I am mentioning this only because I believe it is unlikely to be just 8 invites. With the invitational structure similar to 2009, when there were 24 invites given out in Masters in the same location as this year, why wouldn't I and others think otherwise? I am not saying we are absolutely going to get over 8 invites, but I guess what I am saying is does POP have a planned amount to let in? If not, what are we going to do when there are 16 players left and there's 12 invites, for example?
Thanks for responding, again!
Last edited:
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
I doubt they'll be switching away from a power of two, but this very last concern is something I'd also love to hear about.
Entering speculation mode here, but it seems best in this sort of structure to give out a power of two invite count (e.g., 8, 16, 32, 64, and so on - nothing in between).
JandPDS
New Member
No you are wrong the LCQ the past few years had been a gift from Nintendo. Otherwise the final LCQ would have taken place in Anehim in 2006.
---------- Post added 07/21/2011 at 09:32 PM ----------
It must have been San Diego, but about 40 players were 5-0 and Grinded in. In Anheim there were 9 rounds and the took like T20 so I believe that a few 7-2's made it in.
---------- Post added 07/21/2011 at 09:34 PM ----------
There were enought players in the Masters grnder for 8 rounds that is only one fewer round then Anheim the previous year. Hawaii was not that small of an LCQ.
Box of Fail
New Member
Sorry, but as an American I can't really relate. The grinder is a unique event and not comparable to every Nationals, because the top judges are (presumably) already onsite for Worlds. OP doesn't have to buy them all tickets. If the best judges are at least supposed to be there anyways, I don't see the sense in not using them for an event of the grinder's size.
nnaann said:
I would argue that in the case of the grinder, the contestants have already invested in a trip to worlds which lends the grinder more weight than simply a chance to boost one's rating locally. Also, generally speaking, players can afford to bomb one states or regionals and still get the invite. As one might expect of a tournament called the Last Chance Qualifier, there is nowhere to go if one loses. Thus, every round IS someone's shot at worlds, instead of merely contributing to someone's shot at worlds.
I don't know about you, but I plan to shoot for a positive record at Worlds. I don't expect to win or even top cut. Just the opportunity to participate in Worlds guarantees that I will have an excellent time at the tournament, even if I go 0-7. I'm not gonna drop, no matter how many losses I accumulate. I WOULDN'T like to show up at the grinder and lose right away this year, because that would be IT. That would suck. I think the determination of who gets to participate in worlds is more important than the selection of a world champion among those people.
nnaann said:
'Scientifically proven' reeks to me of grad student psychology studies, which are kind of irrelevant to my life. Considering that to function to the highest level is a subjective judgment, it really doesn't matter to me. My concern is, 'will the judge be able to make the correct call, and if not, will he know that he needs to consult a colleague?' I do believe a good judge should at least know to consult an index or colleague even when not sufficiently rested; however, assuming the grinder gets out by 2 am at the latest, judges will still get 4-5 hours of sleep, and that's a pretty extreme example where we're only dealing with masters judges and most people who have missed the invite will have dropped. I can't see it as conceivable that a judge could get fewer than 4 hours of sleep unless he were dawdling, and most judges will probably get closer to 6 hours. With worlds' being a relatively small event, I would also imagine that the grinder would be more heavily staffed than worlds itself, meaning they could alternate judges. For example, judges who finish judging juniors at 10 get a good 8-9 hours, and kick off the day at 8 (possibly being there by 7 for planning). Then, judges who were up till 2 dealing with the last few masters join the scene at 9. There are so many ways OP could have dealt with judges' not getting as much rest as they would have liked, without sabotaging the most important group - the players.
NoPoke
Active Member
A tired judge is just not as sharp as a rested judge. It isn't that a tired judge will make a bad ruling it is more that a tired judge will be slower to spot errors.
=======
Nasty things can happen with byes cascading in later rounds when a non-power-of-two single elimination tournament is run: the same player gets the bye in multiple rounds. This may be restricted to the pre-determined pairing that is inherent when a paper knock out sheet is used. I don't know how TOM runs its knockouts I expect it uses the pre-determined pairing just like the paper knock out diagrams.
To have a number of players qualify via knock out that isn't a power of two notice that with pre-determined pairing qualifying 8 players is identical to podding the players into 8 groups and just accepting the final undefeated player from each of the eight pods. Also note that because the last rounds are not run when you want to accept more than one player from the pod that pod sizes need not be identical ( they must use the same ratios as the number of players you wish to qualify from that pod to ensure the byes are distributed fairly). A bit of thought will lead you to the minimum number of pods as corresponding to the number of bits that are set in the binary representation of the players you wish to qualify.
...but is that complexity worth the effort? The extra effort to use TOM to deliver a result it would not naturally produce. A much simpler approach is to use a manual paper matrix once the number of players remaining is the next power of two above places you wish to take from the LCQ. For example to qualify 12 players then once 16 players remain run the next round by hand with the 8 winners qualifying and the 8 losers playing one extra round to make up the final four. The eagle eyed will have spotted that this costs an extra round.
Qualifying powers of two is the simplest approach that saves the most time either in terms of rounds or tournament setup time.
=======
Nasty things can happen with byes cascading in later rounds when a non-power-of-two single elimination tournament is run: the same player gets the bye in multiple rounds. This may be restricted to the pre-determined pairing that is inherent when a paper knock out sheet is used. I don't know how TOM runs its knockouts I expect it uses the pre-determined pairing just like the paper knock out diagrams.
To have a number of players qualify via knock out that isn't a power of two notice that with pre-determined pairing qualifying 8 players is identical to podding the players into 8 groups and just accepting the final undefeated player from each of the eight pods. Also note that because the last rounds are not run when you want to accept more than one player from the pod that pod sizes need not be identical ( they must use the same ratios as the number of players you wish to qualify from that pod to ensure the byes are distributed fairly). A bit of thought will lead you to the minimum number of pods as corresponding to the number of bits that are set in the binary representation of the players you wish to qualify.
...but is that complexity worth the effort? The extra effort to use TOM to deliver a result it would not naturally produce. A much simpler approach is to use a manual paper matrix once the number of players remaining is the next power of two above places you wish to take from the LCQ. For example to qualify 12 players then once 16 players remain run the next round by hand with the 8 winners qualifying and the 8 losers playing one extra round to make up the final four. The eagle eyed will have spotted that this costs an extra round.
Qualifying powers of two is the simplest approach that saves the most time either in terms of rounds or tournament setup time.
Last edited:
nnaann
New Member
Well, the LCQ attracts international players so that does raise an important point, even if you can't relate to that. It doesn't matter if the Judges are already within Worlds, the Grinder still benefits from some of the best judging considering the invites and prizes on offer. The problem with using them for a 'typical' Grinder and Worlds is that they simply cannot perform at their best for the actual event. If POP wanted to keep the Grinder the same, as well as have Judges at their best for Worlds the next day, then their only option would be to fly in further Judges.
The amount of people who invest in a trip to play in Worlds, and assume they will get an invite from the LCQ (and usually do) are a very small minority. The Grinder is probably going to attract around 1000 players, and most of them would consider it a small possibility that they do get invited. People go to Worlds for the experience, to see friends, usually experience a holiday destination and possibly play if they do make it through the Grinder.
Getting an invite through rankings is really tough, have a look at the players who missed out an invite this year to see how important every match is. If someone does bomb a high K Value tournament, that means they need to perform to a high level in every other event that year, and everyone is capable of having a bad game/tournament. Why should bad Judging calls put someone in a situation when they don't have a chance to mess up at any point?
Sounds familar right?
I missed an invite by about 10 spots, so I'm not playing this year, but I wouldn't class myself as a someone with a great shot of winning and would just be happy playing in the tournament. I like your attitude, and would happily go 0-7 as well, but most people who play in Worlds don't share that feeling. Look at the drop list this year, and most people go down that route once they realise that they can't Top Cut.
The World Championships are being held this summer, not the Grinder. The people who have spent thousands of dollars travelling to San Diego because they have an invite, the people who have spent the year travelling up and down the country to get the invite - those are the people that the World Championships are for.
What's the point of the Grinder? To give out some last invites. They don't give out Booster Packs, or Medals, or Scholarships. Calling it 'The Grinder' or 'The Last Chance Qualifier' doesn't make it sound particularly fun either because it's not supposed to be! POP have said themselves that they don't want new players playing in the Grinder for the first time, because it's not a suitable tournament for them. If you lose, then yes that's it, because the Grinder's aim is just to find suitable people to take the last invites. If you want a tournament where you can play out several rounds, have a chance to win invites as well as other great prizes with hundreds of other people, that's what Nationals is for.
Lol, I have never studied Psychology in any form. It's just common sense that if someone has a lack of sleep, they're unable to perform at their best. Judging isn't always straight forward rulings, and there's a lot of difficult decisions to make which require a high level of concentration. Even if a Judge is tired and consults another Judge, won't they be tired and have the same problem as well?
The average adult needs 7-8 hours of sleep a night, so anything less than that means that Judges will perform at a worse level. You keep using words like 'imagine' or 'can't see it as conceivable' when you guess how the event will be run. POP and the Judges are there, and have experienced what happens every year. You can't really tell POP how to do their job without even knowing how much sleep the Judges get, any problems there, or without having any experience of running the event yourself.
Prof Clay
New Member
IF the grinder format is not to your liking, there is no requirement that you play in the event.
Judging Worlds is my main job at Worlds. It is tougher than anyother tourney due to the language barriers so we have to be very sharp in what we do. Having the judge staff stay up til 2-3 in morning is completely unreasonalble and unnecesary if we can fill those last few spots quickly and in a fair fashion.
This format allows players to actually lose more than 2 games to make it in. Want in worlds...win 2 of 3 and move on...not so complicated
Judging Worlds is my main job at Worlds. It is tougher than anyother tourney due to the language barriers so we have to be very sharp in what we do. Having the judge staff stay up til 2-3 in morning is completely unreasonalble and unnecesary if we can fill those last few spots quickly and in a fair fashion.
This format allows players to actually lose more than 2 games to make it in. Want in worlds...win 2 of 3 and move on...not so complicated
JandPDS
New Member
Last edited:
NoPoke
Active Member
It takes fewer staff to run an event when at the end of every round the number of players halves. The final three rounds could be run with a staff of three.
Even if the tournament were single game swiss only the undefeated players are guaranteed a place when P!P say enough rounds have occurred.
Even if the tournament were single game swiss only the undefeated players are guaranteed a place when P!P say enough rounds have occurred.
ShuckleLVX
Active Member
There are plenty of positive reasons I can think of -
Less stress on staff - Sure, it may take just as long, but as the rounds wind down it's fewer and fewer players. Staff can be cut loose, and those who remain get to sit on the last few rounds instead of be on their feet the whole day, as Swiss would require.
Less wasted time for players/more fun/more stuff - If you want to play for fun, you're spending quite a lot of time NOT playing in a Swiss Grinder, for no prizes. With Single Elim, you play as far as you can, for fun and no prizes. And then you go play league, with no wait time between rounds, and Prizes! If playing the game for fun is your goal, why do you care if it's still in the Grinder or not? You can play MORE games outside of the Grinder than in! If a bunch of folks desperately want to play other Grinder folks, go find other Grinder folks and play for STUFF! Either you win your way to a worlds invite or you go off and play for fun and stuff - It's a win/win! Either way you get to say you played in the Grinder, and what more do you get for sitting through 8 rounds of swiss at X-2? Because you're probably not going to be getting an invite, that's for sure.
Less reliance on pure luck - Yes, it's a flippy, luck based format to begin with. But with Single Elim, a bad hand won't flat out end your day in the Grinder! The assumption we're going with seems to be 6 rounds, which means YOU CAN LOSE 6 GAMES! I want you to look in a mirror and, with a straight face, tell yourself that in a Swiss Grinder you still have a shot when you're x-6. Do it. And send me a video of you cracking up at that insanity.
:Edit: NoPo ninjad one of my points >.>
Less stress on staff - Sure, it may take just as long, but as the rounds wind down it's fewer and fewer players. Staff can be cut loose, and those who remain get to sit on the last few rounds instead of be on their feet the whole day, as Swiss would require.
Less wasted time for players/more fun/more stuff - If you want to play for fun, you're spending quite a lot of time NOT playing in a Swiss Grinder, for no prizes. With Single Elim, you play as far as you can, for fun and no prizes. And then you go play league, with no wait time between rounds, and Prizes! If playing the game for fun is your goal, why do you care if it's still in the Grinder or not? You can play MORE games outside of the Grinder than in! If a bunch of folks desperately want to play other Grinder folks, go find other Grinder folks and play for STUFF! Either you win your way to a worlds invite or you go off and play for fun and stuff - It's a win/win! Either way you get to say you played in the Grinder, and what more do you get for sitting through 8 rounds of swiss at X-2? Because you're probably not going to be getting an invite, that's for sure.
Less reliance on pure luck - Yes, it's a flippy, luck based format to begin with. But with Single Elim, a bad hand won't flat out end your day in the Grinder! The assumption we're going with seems to be 6 rounds, which means YOU CAN LOSE 6 GAMES! I want you to look in a mirror and, with a straight face, tell yourself that in a Swiss Grinder you still have a shot when you're x-6. Do it. And send me a video of you cracking up at that insanity.
:Edit: NoPo ninjad one of my points >.>
bullados
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?
There's also the whole thing about not needing to run every Single Elim round, where in the past they needed to run EVERY Swiss round to determine the Worlds Qualifiers. If you have between 512 and 1024 players in an age group (a fairly reasonable estimate for the Masters this year), you'd have to run 10 rounds to get to a winner. 3 fewer to get a Top 8, and 4 fewer to get to a top 16.
Plus, as stated above, once you get to round 5 or so, you can let Judges go for the evening, bring in Volunteer Judges (like myself and others) or use other means to staff out the event as there are much, much fewer players.
Plus, as stated above, once you get to round 5 or so, you can let Judges go for the evening, bring in Volunteer Judges (like myself and others) or use other means to staff out the event as there are much, much fewer players.
JandPDS
New Member
Your really expect that a top cut with 3 rounds left and between 32 and 62 particpants will only have a staff of 3 superivising it? With so much on the line in the latter rounds I expet there will be a much larger staff then that working to make sure that everying is on the up and up.