Making U.S Nationals more legitimate

[Cyrus]

From the perspective of a player who's played in all four Nintendo Worlds, I'll give this opinion about nationals and worlds:

-Nationals is a technically difficult tournament. That is, it's "technically" harder to make the top cut due to the # of rounds, and the sheer size of the event. For that reason many call it the hardest tournament in the word, and _that_ is often justification for a proposed increase of prizes for this already massive event.

-Worlds is based much more on individual player quality and skill, so as everyone else has said, that justifies lower records making top cut.

The issue we're having with nationals is that because it's so technically difficult, we need to make DANG sure that the tournament is as legitimate as possible. It's ridiculous that an X-2 at Nationals could miss, yet it has happened every year except 2006.

 

[Scizor]

Yeah, 6-2 missed in 2005.....And Prime, there is still a MONSTROUS difference between going 5-3 or 4-2 and 7-2, it's not even CLOSE. The difference in skill is not nearly as much as one would think, either. U.S. Nationals is ridiculously difficult. If anything, the fact that the majority of players who top cut Nationals that end up missing the cut at Worlds only FURTHER shows that the event is much more luckbased than that of Worlds.

 

[Pidgeotto Trainer]

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

This is the best solution.
As Kettler said, Nationals is ridiculous simply because of the numbers. The best player/deck has a much higher chance to win worlds than to win nationals as it is setup. If you have a 25% cut, all/most of the deserving players get in, and then the best comes out in match play. FS' idea is two 25% cuts, so there's room for error. Nationals right now is like a 7% cut.

 

[Dark Weedle]

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.

You are wrong in saying the parity between players in the united and and the players at worlds is big. Look back at last year, there were probably 64 players in the united states including those in worlds, that had the ability to topcut at any event on a different day. Could you say the same about the field of 64 playing in worlds? Did all 64 have a legitimate chance at making the cut? The answer is of course no. While not all of say the top 5-10 players in the world are from the US, if you took the field to the top100 US would have the majority.


And no matter how bad the dolphins are this year, they wouldnt have much trouble with any college team, the dolphins have 40 nfl players and you would be hard pressed to find a college team with more than maybe 5-7.

 

[NoPoke]

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.

Nationals is supposed to be the big event open to all players. Your three day proposal just rejected most of the masters and gave then nothing to do on day 2. You make no mention of what to do with the other two age groups either. I agree with you that I don't see a three day event happening anytime soon.

T64?!? So how rough is that going to be on the 9-0 top seed who goes out to the 64th placed player who squeaked in on a 6-3 record. I suspect a T64 would cause POP as much grief if not more than it solved. On the other hand an additional swiss round doesn't come with so much potential for sour grapes.

 

[JandPDS]

Nationals is supposed to be the big event open to all players. Your three day proposal just rejected most of the masters and gave then nothing to do on day 2. You make no mention of what to do with the other two age groups either. I agree with you that I don't see a three day event happening anytime soon.

T64?!? So how rough is that going to be on the 9-0 top seed who goes out to the 64th placed player who squeaked in on a 6-3 record. I suspect a T64 would cause POP as much grief if not more than it solved. On the other hand an additional swiss round doesn't come with so much potential for sour grapes.

IF a 9-0 goes out to a 6-3 in best two out of 3 then obviously that 9-0 did not deserve to be in the top cut as much as the 6-3 player did, The 9-0 could have faced a large number of decks in swiss that he had a weakness advantage over, or faced Oppponents who had horrible starts. While the 6-3 could have got T2donked two games and lost another close game in sudden death. IF you loose two out of 3 games in the playoffs, then we know for sure who the better player was. If you win T2 due to a supper lucky start that dose not mean that you are superior to the person you beat, just that you were more lucky. Success in Pokemon should be based on skill much more then Luck.

In Oregon States in 2006 I went 5-1 is Swiss I was the #2 ranked player. I lost 2 out of 3 to the #15 ranked player. Was I wronged because I went 5-1 and lost to a 4-2. No that person belonged in the top cut and deserved to be there. This year that person would not make the top cut because there will only be 8 allowed in states playoffs unfairly denying players that peformed well access to the top cut that they deserve.

 

[Dark Weedle]

2/3 is not necessarily skill based just as a swiss round arent A 2/3 can be two donks or a bad matchup to weakness and not have a single good match. A swiss round can be a game that takes 40 minutes and comes down to 1/1 prizes with the game hinging on every move. If someone makes nationals top cut at 64 place, then procedes to beat the undefeated and win the tournament then they obviously deseved to be there.

 

[Mew]

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.

I think I agree. Resistance is the only problem!

Here's one of my examples:
At a Gym Challenge, I go 4-2. One of my wins is against DarkJake.
Ok so, Jake goes 4-2, Moltres423 goes 4-2, and this other dude goes 4-2, and someone else goes 5-1.
Right so TieBreaker Check:
The Moltres and the other dude have the best resistance, so naturally they make it in.
Then I should be next in line right, I mean I acctually won a game against Jake.
Wrong:
Jake gets in on the THIRD tiebraker...
What the heck is the third one; flip a coin?

So, my solution?
Make a cut based on record. Ex: All 7-3s and above make it.

 

[DarkJake]

Third one is head-to-head

 

[Prime]

All 7-3's make it? What happens if there is an odd number? A free bye in the top _____? A little unfair, don't you think?

 

[Pidgeotto Trainer]

I actually like the idea of giving byes to even things out. If you went 9-0 or a hard 8-1, it doesn't seem terribly wrong to give them a little extra.

 

[dld4a]

Top 64 is a less desirable "solution" (if there's a problem) than 10 rounds, because it not only adds a round on to day 2, but it doubles the amount of work that the judges have to do at the end of day 1 and the beginning of day 2. There is actually quite a bit of organization that needs to be done during those times. Ninety + percent of the players don't see it because they're long gone by then. Even most of the top cut players don't even get how much work is actually done during those periods. And it all has to be done flawlessly or OMG WATCH OUT you guys will go nuts if the slightest little mistake is made (and I'm not saying you shouldn't).

Pods (both types) would do nothing except cause confusion and make it less fair. Easily the least desirable "solution".

 

[PokeDaddy]

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

Mikey -

If there is a T64, next year folks will complain there is no T128. lol

MK went 7-2 at Nats and didn't make Top Cut. That stunk. It was what it was though.

PUI is not the insensitive Corporate Machine that folks tend to think they are. They read the boards and consider viable, logical, and reasonable ideas from folks.

Keep the positive dialog going!

Steve

 

[Rambo1000]

Bullados is sooooo right! Pooka, Bianchi, Rulemaster, etc. all netdecked their Lucario/Eevees list, Jimmy netdecked Ambush, Chad, Pram, Luke, Ryan Vergel, Alex, and Omar all netdecked MMS, and Ness/Moss netdecked Banette. I SAW THEM.

oh, and i netdecked ape while josef netdecked banette. i wish we were good.

 

[meganium45]

I personally would like to see a top 48 instituted, which would be a compromise between the two extremes. Even those proposing it realize a top 128 will never happen.

At the end of day 1, the Top 16 players would get their decks checked, and get to leave the arena.

The other 32 competitors would play with 17 versus 48 (much like 1 vs 32) with the top 32 then playing off the next day.

This would be instituted, and each of the top 48 should get some ... ooh, so close, prize, but it would also legitimize the work of the top 16, which is so difficult to do in a large event like this, essentially giving them a first round bye.

This would also not unduly tax the staff. One extra top round on the final night is doable, so long as nothing unexpected happens.

I think they would just have to publicize that for 275 players, we have a top 32 cut, for 276 players or more in a division, we have a top 48 cut. That would clarify the issue walking in, and also make it clear to the Seniors and Junior why they are, or are not getting this treatment.

See, not all the staff and TOs are against expanding the top cut as a necessary evil.

Vince

Oh, and will everyone please stop bringing up MK Choi,,,I feel bad enough that it was my tiebreakers that knocked him out!

 

[PokePop]

Geez Vince, don't claim the "pro better cut" all to yourself! :tongue:

I know that it killed me a few years ago to see a prior-year World's Champion miss the top cut due to third level tie breakers!
I'm all for adjusting the system to make things as fair as possible.

A three day event is just unworkable, though. That would mandate that players get there an extra day earlier. The fairness that that would add to the actual event would be overshadowed by the unfairness of keeping a large number of players from even having a chance to play in the event.

Anything that could be done to manipulate the cut would be welcome.

 

[NoPoke]

Vince, I'm curious as to how you determined the 275/276 break point in your proposal.

 

[SuperWooper]

IF a 9-0 goes out to a 6-3 in best two out of 3 then obviously that 9-0 did not deserve to be in the top cut as much as the 6-3 player did

No way. You have to allow for the fact that this is a TCG, and you play the hand you're dealt, here. I know it's 2/3, and that's supposed to balance it out and all, but two bad hands in three games isn't unheard of. You can't possibly believe that a 9-0 didn't deserve to make the cut if he's beaten by a 6-3. That would make it 9-1 to 7-3. Who has the better record there?

 

[meganium45]

Ian, I wish I could say there was some magical formula I used to prove that those were the perfect numbers, but there was not.

I simply took a number I thought was really high, 275, and added 1 to it.

I wanted to stress that I never want to be in a situation where 1 in 4 make the cut at such a large event, which I felt would happen at 200.

The number to me was not as important as the proposal itself.

'pop, I was just trying to buck the trend where the "TOs" who also happen to be adults were arguing rationally that it was not feasible, and the players, who are not adults, were arguing for more spots.

I was not claiming the position as only my own. MINE MINE MINE.

Vince

Can I call it PROP 48 thoough?

 

[JandPDS]

TRhry did not play the same opponents

No way. You have to allow for the fact that this is a TCG, and you play the hand you're dealt, here. I know it's 2/3, and that's supposed to balance it out and all, but two bad hands in three games isn't unheard of. You can't possibly believe that a 9-0 didn't deserve to make the cut if he's beaten by a 6-3. That would make it 9-1 to 7-3. Who has the better record there?

IF it was a small tournament that was a round robin and the 9-0 played and defeated the same 9 people that the 6-3 player did (including eachother), then yes you would be correct the 6-3 player did not deserve to be in the top cut.

But in a 500+ player event. It is very likely that the 9-0 player and the 6-3 player could have each played against 9 completely different people. With the possibly that if the 9-0 player had played the opponents of the 6-3 player he would have gone 5-4 against them. And if the 6-3 player had played the same players that he 9-0 did he could have gone 8-1 in swiss. You just have no way of knowing.

I mean just because you went undefeated in Swiss, that dose not necessarily mean that you are the best player there, if it did there would not be any playoffs needed and they would just award the National Championship to the winner of Swiss and do away with the playoffs completely. Yes, in 2006 the swiss winner went on to win the entire thing, but last year the undefeated player got knocked out in the top 16.

The Top 64 could be played after the final round of Swiss, or if you wanted only a top 32, you could have a 10th round of swiss that is only played by the players in the top 64 of that age group. So the rest of the field would be dropped after 9 rounds, and the final round of swiss would then be played by the remaining players, and the top 32 would move on from that.