Making U.S Nationals more legitimate

[desert eagle]

It is a legitimate comparison because the NFL has one thing that Pokemon does not.

Parity.

GREAT parity.

The difference b/w a top team in the league and a cellar dweller is usually a couple of plays in a couple of close games. The talent level across the board is roughly equal. There is no "haves" and "have nots" over an extended period of time. Eventually, all of the dynasties fall due to a combination of factors. Age, experience, coaching, ownership, all are variables that determine a team's outcome. You can assume that, if you're playing in the NFL, you are at the very least a good player. It's just a comparison between players at that point.

Good drafting, and good management of a team is what makes a team good. Teams like the Pats and the Colts have much better management, and can build better teams. That's where there isn't parity. Sure every player in the league is an NFL-caliber player, but good trading and drafting is why the pats are 9-0 and the dolphins are 0-8. Drafting/Trading is similar to deckbuilding in pokemon, and does play a huge part.

In Pokemon, however, there is very little parity. There is a very clear distinction between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots", and the latter group is usually a LOT bigger than the former. Because of this, you have to adjust how you determine a borderline player when there is much less parity. The difference in skill (playing, trading, deckbuilding) between your average 7-2 and your average 2-7 in Pokemon is MUCH greater than the difference between your average 12-4 and your average 2-14 in the NFL. Why? The bulk of the 2-7 players simply do not have the same resources as the 7-2 players. Same with the 3-6, the 4-5, and the 5-4. Remember, there is nothing resembling a Salary Cap in this game. The people that are 7-2 have generally simply spent more money on the game than those with lesser records. They're not necessarily better than them. They just have more access to good cards and are able to netdeck well. Those that are 8-1 and 9-0 are certifiably great players because they are able to create great decks from a large card pool, can play them well, and can overcome their difficulties with relative ease.

This is not true at all. 7-2 could mean you started with 2 completely unplayable hands, which isn't unlikely at a big event. Two people can have the exact same deck, and one can go 9-0 and another like 5-4 simply because of hand variance. If Pokemon had no luck at all, then this would be true, but it does so you can't blame someone for going 7-2. Some of the best players in the world went 6-3, 7-2 (Pooka, Seena, Jason, Moss), and there's no way you can call them "netdeckers wwho have resources".

I appreciate that the guys at PUI recognize this. X-2 in an open tournament really is NOT good enough. You should be sweating it out on X-2 in an open tournament. Again, I've missed the cut in a 5 round tournament with one loss. No sour grape wine and cheese coming out of this player, either.

7-2 should be good enough. There's no way they can run the biggest tournament in the world and say "you have to be good AND pretty lucky to make top cut today". 7-2 is when just good is usually enough (although a case can be made for 6-3 can be made). 8-1 needs some degree of luck. Has there ever been a deck built that can not have a bad start in 8/9 games?

When Pokemon Nationals has similar parity to any other good comparison, then I will support increasing the cut at Nationals to include ALL X-2s. However, it's because of the complete and utter lack of parity in this game that the X-2s need to sweat it out.

Above all, this needs to be said. Win your games, and then you have nothing to worry about. Plain and simple.

I think the BEST possible solution is running it like Magic: a 3 day tournament.

Day 1: 9 rounds - all 6-3 and above move onto day 2
Day 2: 6-7 round - top 32 cut
Day 3: Top cut.

That would, for the most part, get the most legit top 32

 

[Scizor]

We'll never have 3 days, unfortunately. Top 64 prolly just isn't happening. I'd go for the 10 rounds, unless we want to see 2/3 of the 7-2s miss with 9 rounds this coming year.....

For those saying 7-2 isn't good enough: Then why is 4-2 and 5-3 at WORLDS good enough? Yes it's full of good players, but it is NOWHERE CLOSE to the size of U.S. Nationals. Just think about that for a second.

 

[DarthPika]

^ Wins thread.

 

[dogma]

I think the BEST possible solution is running it like Magic: a 3 day tournament.

Day 1: 9 rounds - all 6-3 and above move onto day 2
Day 2: 6-7 round - top 32 cut
Day 3: Top cut.

That would, for the most part, get the most legit top 32

I'm glad someone mentioned this, but as Scizor immediately pointed out, it's not really feasible in Pokémon.

And to those who keep on saying that the OP has sour grapes... what? This is how I see understand it:

Scizor: There's a genuine problem with the way Nationals cuts players after 9 rounds. Since regional prizes have been cut, shouldn't that mean a better system this year?

Response: ZOMG DEAL WITH IT SOUR GRAPES :nonono:

That makes sense how? Reading what was posted might actually be helpful.

The one thing I would agree with is the pod solution would actually make the situation worse. I would hope for a T64 cut though, even if only for Masters (I say that because it probably is unfair to expect to the little 'uns to have to stay up so late).

 

[DragonairMaster8]

Why should someone who played lower quality players be let into a top cut?

Because you can't choose who you get paired with =/
if you go 7-2, but the two losses you took were to people who got lucky against you, yet were bad, and its a t32 cut, ur screwed =/
regardless of skill, luck will ALWAYS play a huge factor
as will the computer

 

[yoshi1001]

You can play rounds until you're blue in the face, there'll always be some level of "inadequacy".

The best thing to do is give up on the idea that a single tournament can truly determine whis is the best in a nation.

But I guess some people will just have to learn not to take things too seriously.

Watch the world argue...

 

[dogma]

You can play rounds until you're blue in the face, there'll always be some level of "inadequacy".

You indirectly reminded me of someone else's suggestion of restricting Nationals to those who did well in other tournaments. No. Seriously, I appreciate why some would think this is a good idea, but this would hurt the game,

Nationals is more than just the 'hardcore' community trying to find out who is the best of the best. Casual players could have a look and say 'oh hey, why not have a go'. It could be someone who looks at the excitement and go 'I want to be a part of that'. We need more ways to make OP more inclusive, not less.

 

[Articjedi]

You can play rounds until you're blue in the face, there'll always be some level of "inadequacy".

But I guess some people will just have to learn not to take things too seriously.

Watch the world argue...

So we can't try to reduce the inadequacy? Isn't that at least an improvement?

 

[Cyrus]

You can play rounds until you're blue in the face, there'll always be some level of "inadequacy".

The best thing to do is give up on the idea that a single tournament can truly determine whis is the best in a nation.

But I guess some people will just have to learn not to take things too seriously.

Watch the world argue...

I'll respond the same way Jedi did, but yes, it's always preferable to reduce inadequacy (with practicality considered). If all it takes is one measly round to GREATLY reduce illegitimacy, then why not do it if it's not a huge pain? Worlds 2007's swiss ended at _four o' freaking clock in the afternoon_. FOUR O' FREAKING CLOCK!!! If just one more swiss round was ran, then resistance would have made virtually no difference.

It doesn't take much to increase a top cut or to add an extra round, etcetc.

 

[The Gorn]

There is no "problem" to fix. US Nationals is totally legitimate as it is. No changes necessary.

 

[yoshi1001]

So we can't try to reduce the inadequacy? Isn't that at least an improvement?

Perhaps, but since it is not physically possible to eliminate the problem, one must decide upon a level of inadequacy with which they are comfortable.

It's kinda like that math problem where you keep traveling half the remaining distance. You'll never get there, so you have to stop somewhere.

I'll respond the same way Jedi did, but yes, it's always preferable to reduce inadequacy (with practicality considered). If all it takes is one measly round to GREATLY reduce illegitimacy, then why not do it if it's not a huge pain? Worlds 2007's swiss ended at _four o' freaking clock in the afternoon_. FOUR O' FREAKING CLOCK!!! If just one more swiss round was ran, then resistance would have made virtually no difference.

I have no doubt that PUI is attempting to maintain a perception of legitamacy. However, at some point they have to consider the multitude of other factors influencing how events are run. Yes, PUI could run nationals as a 20-round event (or, more realistically, with one more round), but at some point they have to decide that the value of running another round is outweighed by the cost of running that round. Hindsight is 20/40 (not 20/20, believe me), and PUI has to make the best decision they can at the time. Worlds 2007 swiss may have ended at 4PM, but PUI had to weigh that against everything else they had scheduled and what kind of event they wanted to run.

 

[Magnechu]

We'll never have 3 days, unfortunately. Top 64 prolly just isn't happening. I'd go for the 10 rounds, unless we want to see 2/3 of the 7-2s miss with 9 rounds this coming year.....

For those saying 7-2 isn't good enough: Then why is 4-2 and 5-3 at WORLDS good enough? Yes it's full of good players, but it is NOWHERE CLOSE to the size of U.S. Nationals. Just think about that for a second.

I think that's probably the best point I've read in this thread. If 7-2 isn't good enough to make it in a National Championship, and people should "deal with it and win more games," why is 4-2 good enough in the supposed "World Championship" aka 'hardest tournament of the year.'

The 3 day event would be the best solution, IMO, too bad the Prof Cup has to be on Friday. =//

T64 gogogo

 

[Flaming_Spinach]

I think that the absolute best way to run US Nationals in the future would be to run a 3-day tournament. Say:

Day 1: Swiss
Day 2: Top 128 from day one, swiss pairings
Day 3: Top 32 from day 2, s.e. pairings

Of course, this would require a huge change made to PUI policy (and probably scheduling and funding as well), so I don't see it happening any time soon.

Maybe in a few years...



In place of that, I do believe that a Top64 cut is the next best option. It would fix most of the problems brought up here, while making the smallest change to current policy.

 

[JandPDS]

Tiebreaker used is unfair, just unfair.

If the tiebreaker was fair then there would not be a problem, but the tiebreaker is a joke. Ok the 1st tiebreaker is based on your opponents that you played. What control do you have over who you play. Absolutely zero. You play who the computer tells you to, and after you play them you have zero control on how well they do the rest of the day. If you are 5-1, and you get paired down and play and defeat a 4-2, your resistance takes a hit. You win but you loose ground vs the other 6-1's who won last round.

And do not get me started about the 2nd tiebreaker. Which the average score of players that you did not play against. So your resistance is not effected by the players you played against, but the outcome of players that you did not face. How ridiculous is that. You can go 7-2 at Nationals, and miss out on the top cut because of the fact that the players that you did not play against, performed worse then the players that some other player did not play against.

I made top cut at Washington State championship because I finished in 8th place with a record of
4-2. 9th place was also 4-2. so it went to tiebreakers
1st tiebreaker Opponents win %
8th place 4-2 58.33%
9th place 4-2 58.33%

Still tied so now we got to 2nd tiebreaker Opponents Opponents win%
so now it will depend on how players we did not play fared

8th place 4-2 58.33% 55.56%
9th place 4-2 58.33% 53.52%

Is it fair that I made it and the other player did not. Of course not. Was I so much a better player that day that I deserved to move on and he did not because the players that I did not play were better then the players that he did not play that day. Isn't it totally clear that this is an unfair system, because the top cuts are too small.

Top 8 cut was too small to be fair. At this Sate championship in 2007 there were 10 players who went 4-2 only 3 made the top cut. In 2006 at the state championships there was a top 16 cut that was more fair. If the top 16 was used again in 2007 like it was the previous year then all of the 4-2 players would have made the finals.

One of the 4-2 last year who did not make the top cut was Ross (Pidgeotto Trainer) Do you not think he deserved to be in the finals?

Artificially small top cuts are being used now and it hurts the game not helps it. Many good players are getting unfairly frozen out of the finals, not because they did not perform well, but because the computer tiebreaker was not on their side. It should be the number of players in an event that determines the top cut not some predetermined, preset figure. The more people that participate in an event the larger the top cut needs to be. That is they way Pokemon used to work, and it need to go back to being that way. At a Nationals Tournament with 500+ people needs to have a top 64 to be considered to be in any way legitimate.

 

[Scizor]

Yeah, 3 days would be great, I just don't see it happening in the near future, as pointed out. If the issue is getting people out of there on Sunday, then the T64 isn't the best option, but rather trying to start earlier on Saturday and running +1 swiss....

EDIT: JandPDS: That's pretty much summing this up. If there is some illegitimacy for a STATES tournament, then what does that say about Nationals? Yup, 7-2 is "not good enough", all those players should win more games.

I see that a lot of people have shut up after the initial uncalled for bashes, I guess you learned your lesson.

 

[Bolt]

I was just looking at the list of the five 7-2 players who didn't make it...I'm not sure who Joe H. is (sorry if you're reading this), but those players are all REALLY good.

I'd opt for just the top 64 cut, it seems more time efficient to me.

 

[NoPoke]

I know of several X-2s who have missed the cut at other countries Nationals last year was the first year in the USA where a few X-2s could have missed the cut.???


----------

With any cut there are always players above and below the boundary. It seems pointless to argue about how fair or unfair such a system is. Add a single extra round and some of the players above the cut will be spat out and replaced by some from below the cut. Is that fair? There is no level playing field there is no absolute level of fairness that can be attained. Instead you have a system where all entrants know what is expected before they start. Where the rules are fixed and available before the tournament starts. No individual is singled out, though some will be unlucky. It is as fair to all entrants as POP can make it. It is a legitimate tournament. But could it be better? An easy question to ask but a better question is 'Can you identify a flaw'?

If it was the case that every year X-2s were not making it into the cut then I can see a lot more support for changing the size of the cut or adding an extra round. So the question now is 'are we there yet'? instead of placing the round breakpoints at power of two boundaries for a pure swiss tournament where do they have to be for swiss +cut to avoid the X-2s missing out?

T32

8 rounds - 128 to 221 players
9 rounds - 222 to 356 players
10 rounds - 357 to 585 players
11 rounds - 586 to 978 players.


So last years USA Master attendance at 418 would be within the 10 round bracket if the rounds are structured to allow all the X-2s through.

I'll need to check the other cut sizes to see if the X-2 issue occurs with T16 and T8 tournaments. FWIW The original topic did read a bit like another sour grapes thread, I've gone back and read both it and some of the in favour posts and they still read like sour grapes. The original post being borderline sour grapes. I guess I lumped it into the sour grapes camp because of other posts by scizor.

 

[bullados]

We'll never have 3 days, unfortunately. Top 64 prolly just isn't happening. I'd go for the 10 rounds, unless we want to see 2/3 of the 7-2s miss with 9 rounds this coming year.....

For those saying 7-2 isn't good enough: Then why is 4-2 and 5-3 at WORLDS good enough? Yes it's full of good players, but it is NOWHERE CLOSE to the size of U.S. Nationals. Just think about that for a second.

Simple. The quality of the players at Worlds is FAR greater than the quality of the players at Nationals. Greater parity means that there are more variables involved as far as your record reflecting your skill. Nationals has a great deal of younger, newer players, even in the Masters division, to whom this is one of their first events, if not the first. Worlds, however, being Invite only, guarantees that the players there are top class, and thus the records can be lower to reflect the closer degrees of skill between the players.

It's like comparing College Football to the NFL. Generally in College Football 1A, if you lose one time, you are done for National Championship consideration. End of story. This year is something of an anomaly. However, you can be assured that no 2-loss team will win the National Championship, no matter what the year. This is because there is a greater degree of separation between the top teams and the bottom teams in the league than in the NFL. In the NFL, it's possible for a team to go 9-7 and win the Super Bowl. Again, there is less of a difference between the skill of the various teams, so there are more variables involved in deciding who is the best and who is the worst.

The Miami Dolphins will beat about 90% of the 2 loss or worse NCAA teams. They will probably win 2 games at most this year in the NFL. Does that mean they're bad? Not at all. They're just bad compared to the league they're playing in. Look at Rob D (SLOW DECK), 4th place US Nationals. 0-X for Worlds. Is he a bad player? Nope, he's one of the best players that I've ever played against. He just had either an off day or the competition was simply that good at Worlds this year. That's how 4-2 or 5-3 at Worlds is a better record than 7-2 at Nationals. Parity. A greater degree of separation between the Haves and the Have Nots exists in Nationals compared to Worlds.

 

[Prime]

Maybe 4-2 at Worlds is better than 7-2 is at Nationals because the difference in skill. You aren't going to run into any random players at Worlds. Every round is going to be against one of the best players in the World. Now, you could easily run into the best players in the country at Nationals every round, but you can also run into randoms that have had some luck but just aren't that skilled overall that would provide an easier game.

edit: Oops, looks like Bullados got it before I did.

 

[JandPDS]

Comparing Nationals to Worlds is like apples to oranges

Nationals is an open event and worlds is closed. You can not compare the two, in terms of the quality level of play of all the particpants. In any tournament all people with a certain score deserve to move on. Part of the problem is that Pokemon got rid of ties.
Sudden death was a bad move I believe as not only has it added an extra 10-20 min to each round in large events. It also causes more people to finish the swiss rounds with the same record and helping contribute to this whole entire mess of some X-2 making the cut and others not. IF two players play 30 min to a 4-4 tie, why should one player get a win and the other a loss. Especially on games where the loss because it happened to be the winners turn when time was called?

I feel that all X-2's should make he cut or no X-2 should to be fair. IF tie games in Swiss were brought back then you could eliminate all X-2's from making it, then only 9-0-0, 8-0-1, 8-1-0, 7-1-1, 7-0-2, would more then likely fill up the top 32. At least then you could say that 7-2 was not good enough to make the top cut, and with all the extra time you would save during swiss by cutting out Sudden death overtime, you would easily have enough time for a 10th swiss round to make things even more legitimate.