Making U.S Nationals more legitimate

[PokeDaddy]

But then you are excluding the parents of those kids that arrive for the Saturday start from playing.
Plus, even if the parents get there a day earlier for their start, what do their kids do for that whole day?
My teenage is happy to wander around on his own, but some other parent's 8 year old can't be left to fend for themselves for an entire day.

No, three days is a non-starter, IMO.

Good Point. Non-starter? Don't know......

Also, Profs work hard all year, giving up the chance to play in tournaments week after week. There is no way that it would be right to take away the one event that is made just for them, the Prof Cup. That's what would have to happen to make Nats a three day event.

Better reason for 2 days!!!!! lol

I'm happy doing however many rounds for the Masters with whatever size cut. I'm there for Pokémon (although I do like to have one whole hour during the entire weekend to look at other things at Origins! ), so that's fine for me, speaking for myself.
But POP has to figure out the timing of the tournament and how it will fit into everything else that they host that weekend. I'm sure they are taking players needs into consideration, and I hope they can come up with something to make the cut more "fair", but they have a lot of other things that have to be considered as well, that most players are totally unaware of.

Agree but "fair" is a tough word. There is never going to be a "fair" top cut. It is mathematically undoable (is that a word?).

And yes, POP has a lot of other things that are not on the radar screen for most folks.

 

[NoPoke]

Just a FYI,

USA Magic the Gathering nationals is invite-only and had approx 340 invites and 211 entrants in 2007.

USA MtG nats had a prize fund of $20,000.

 

[Cyrus]

Add the extra round. It's more practical at this point, and we can change it to top 48 once the other age groups catch up and have an extra round so the time spread is more equal. Otherwise we have unoccupied juniors and a lot of playing adults, or a LOT of dropping parents RUINING resistance.

Thank god you guys stopped trying to attack the motivation (sour grapes) and proposing absurd solutions (deal with it, do better, etc.). I was talking to Chad about this the other day, and we both noted that good players post so seldomly is because of how we get attacked for our opinions. Whenever a good player argues it's with facts and logic, but we get treated with absurdities and personal attacks. How can you expect good players to post and help more if when they do they get treated unfairly. They get treated like they have bad intentions, or are trying to tip the scales in their favor. This is wrong. The community needs to be... well, nicer if they want us to post more.

Chad makes a very good thread about an IMPORTANT topic and only gets flamed and spammed. Bobby and Kant post an article defending their stance about an opinion they hold and get flamed. Good players try to LEGITIMIZE things. Bobby and Kant wanted to legitimize a deck discussion and stance, and they got flamed. Chad wants to legitimize Nationals more, and gets treated poorly. I remember when I first became a mod and got treated VERY poorly. I have never seen complaints about someone becoming a moderator like people complained over me. I ignored it and still tried to give back to the community by forming the Cardiologists with a few other players. I help and contribute my time by moderating the forums. I've helped publishing with articles, with suggestions to the improvement of the 'gym, with posting the FIRST archetype thread, and helping/authoring a significant number.

This system can never be perfect, but that does not mean the desire to improve the system the most we can is ill-founded. There is nothing wrong with improving Nationals. There IS something wrong with trying to hinder progress.

Keep it up Chad. Brush off dem hatas.

While Chad has taken an extreme amount of insulting in this topic, attitude has heavily blinded the message. In one of Chad's recent posts, he calls out Pokegym, saying that "you don't deserve our help and our deck ideas," so I'm sure a few people are already skeptical of his message, despite his composure being pretty solid in this topic. As for Bobby/Kant's article, they slipped up big time at the end by saying that Mario is "not a good deck," revealing that their article was simply about Mario being bad as opposed to being the least superior deck choice. It's fine to say that something is wrong, but more people acted harsh to that article because of inconsistency than anything else.

I think your advice sums it up nicely, though: brushing off the haters is all you can (and should) do. Chad is literally one of the ONLY people willing to talk about fair OP nationwide, and that's pretty sad. Us outspoken types will naturally take a lot of criticism: at least half a dozen people in the regionals/states post have indirectly stated that I'm greedy for thinking that the U.S. deserves somewhat proportionate representation in the realm of prizes. But hey...I'll keep on trying to find newer and better ways to logically explain myself, while at least trying to not seem insulting or greater-than-thou. I'll take a slap to the face, and turn the other cheek.

But as far as the topic goes right now, Prop 48 is beautiful. Anything above 32 but below 65 is fine by me =).

 

[meganium45]

I don't like the extra round addition idea, for the exact reason you stated. We will have Juniors and Seniors walking around, and their parents deciding either to continue to play, or to drop, ruining resistances.

With the Prop 48 format, you are going to have 32 players continuing on after the last swiss round, and the kids of those parents...well, Pokemon is a large enough community that I am comfortable with that, and odds are, unless you last name is Ballard, Downs, Langenstein or Craig, you most likely are not going to be playing on in the top 48 (no offense to other parents out there, but we have not historically done that well compared to the older teens and young 20s)

Also, after a certain number of swiss rounds, only a certain number of players should be allowed to play on. Make the cut and move on. If the X-2s are protected, then so be it. I like the idea of being able to get 2 losses, and still have a prayer in an event.

Vince

 

[NoPoke]

Vince the whole point of the extra round is to have fewer cases decided by resistance. resistance will always be a factor unless non-power of two cuts are fully embraced and I don't see that happening anytime soon. Add a round and its the X-3s who are decided by resistance. Leave it as it is and its the X-2s who are split by resistance.

Actually using the binomial theorem to determine the number of rounds for a given attendance doesn't always add an extra round. Its just that right now the Masters attendance at USA Nats is in the range where the binomial approach would add an extra round, Get to 513 players and the two calculations agree upon 10 rounds once more.

[I need to go away and work up a case against the extra swiss round. There is always a flaw if you look hard enough.]

[its been several versions of TOM since we had the big issue with dropping hitting resistance. Since then no player is allowed to have a resistance of below 33% no matter how badly they perform on the day or how bad thier luck]

 

[Scizor]

Nopoke: So I was off by some variance, it happens. Saying that I should "be polite or get my facts straight" is pretty much what the majority of the first posts on this topic WEREN'T doing. At least you're making suggestions for an event you can't even attend, I appreciate that.

I think POP should seriously take Vince's proposal into consideration. For the many reasons stated, it is a great option.

 

[GinoLombardi21]

Top 48 for nationals sounds cool. I mean think about it. For example in football playoffs the top 2 teams from the AFC + NFC get a bye. While the remainder playoff participants battle that very week. Then the teams with the bye jump in the mix. They were rewarded with a bye for their excellence in the season.

Now for pokemon have TOP 48. Have the best 16 players with the highest resistance get a bye and have a top 32 of the remainding players duke it out. After the top 32 players are done put the remainder 16 players that got a bye back in the mix with the top32 players and you got a new and improved top 32.

I like top 64 because its an extra 6 rounds instead of top 32's 5 rounds for Day 2. It also gets all the good players records in and not miss cut due to resistance. The rest of the players that are in can consider themselves lucky. So its rly no complaining.

 

[rhodesia123]

just wondering are you trying to put prop 48 into place for nats 08 or 09

 

[PokeDad]

If the concern is that fewer than 10% of the players make the cut at nationals, and resistance coming into play to decide who among otherwise tied makes a cut; then consider the even more greatly inherent unfairness facing the players in the California State Championship: only 8 players will make a cut from a field of about 150 players. This is a proportionally greater inequity. Add in the unsanctioning of tournaments because a California PTO wouldn't transmit info needed for Battle Road results, and it is even harder for California players to get to Nationals and face the legitamacy of National cuts. Just sayin'.

 

[ryanvergel]

'09 probably. POP plans pretty far in advance, and doing something like this in the same season doesn't seem plausible.

 

[DarthPika]

If the concern is that fewer than 10% of the players make the cut at nationals, and resistance coming into play to decide who among otherwise tied makes a cut; then consider the even more greatly inherent unfairness facing the players in the California State Championship: only 8 players will make a cut from a field of about 150 players. This is a proportionally greater inequity. Add in the unsanctioning of tournaments because a California PTO wouldn't transmit info needed for Battle Road results, and it is even harder for California players to get to Nationals and face the legitamacy of National cuts. Just sayin'.

Same problem at MD states though not quite as bad. I also think that if there are enough players, states SHOULD have a t16 cut.

Now this is getting off topic, but t4 Regionals really desearvs an invite for worlds. They don't even need to pay for the trip or anything, just give an invite.

 

[Rambo1000]

t4 regionals? maybe the winner or POSSIBLY 1st and 2nd.

 

[Prime]

Top 4 invites to worlds? How many regionals are there? 12, 13? 12 players at each regional. So that's 144 players from the US given invites just from Regionals? Yeah, I don't see that happening one bit.

 

[ToysRUsKid]

If the concern is that fewer than 10% of the players make the cut at nationals, and resistance coming into play to decide who among otherwise tied makes a cut; then consider the even more greatly inherent unfairness facing the players in the California State Championship: only 8 players will make a cut from a field of about 150 players. This is a proportionally greater inequity. Add in the unsanctioning of tournaments because a California PTO wouldn't transmit info needed for Battle Road results, and it is even harder for California players to get to Nationals and face the legitamacy of National cuts. Just sayin'.

Theres nothing we can do about the T8 here in California. But, it has to stay even with all the other states so people don't get extra points. But still happened last year -_-.

Anyway, great post by Ryan. Totally agree with it.

 

[Cyrus]

Top 4 invites to worlds? How many regionals are there? 12, 13? 12 players at each regional. So that's 144 players from the US given invites just from Regionals? Yeah, I don't see that happening one bit.

Does this look like the States/Regionals topic, Zach and Prime? :biggrin:

I'm joshin', but even though States/Regionals and Nationals top cut are sister topics, they shouldn't get mixed up so quickly

 

[Flaming_Spinach]

We could always turn the friday before Nats into 'grinder day', like Worlds.



And btw, I still favor a 64-cut over a 48-cut. Using the numbers from last year, 48 is about 12% of the starting field, half of the 25% that has been the standard for most of POP's history.

Either one, though, would be an improvement.

 

[PuRpLe]

I don't understand why whoever it was deleted my post. It isn't fighting... just disagreement that some people label "an attack" or "flaming".
We don't share the same opinion but hey, I guess that isn't allowed. My last reply on Saturday wasn't disrespectful in any way yet was deleted lolz. Disagreement shouldn't be censored, only disrespect. None of my posts, or anybody's I've seen thus far, were disrespectful [but hey maybe those where deleted since I haven't visited PokeGym since my last post on Saturday].

The community needs to be... well, nicer if they want us to post more.

For who to post more? You're a Pokemon player, I'm a Pokemon player [inactive]. Everyone on this site is a Pokemon player/fan. Certain PokeGymers posting on this site is a blessing that the other Pokemon players should feel priveledged to be able read? By people's posts I'm assuming Scizor and you are "good" Pokemon players but you should stop thinking that everyone is jealous or something and attacking any of your / any good Pokemon player with ideas posts because:
a) I seriously don't know anybody on these boards. I couldn't distinguish any Pokemon player here by face, name, anything. [No matter how good you are/how many events you've placed first at.]

b) I would have the same opinion and would've posted the same exact reply to a newbie who's never won a game in their life.

So don't make it seem like these great players are losing to circumstances they have no control over because they often time DO have control over those circumstances, even if they don't like to admit it.

Awesome post man. Props.

People like to talk about luck but, hello, this is Pokemon. The game with flips and dice-rolling. The game where you can shuffle 50 times and get 6 energy and a 40HP Pokemon that's weak against your opponents basic 100HP Pokemon ex in your opening hand. Players know this can happen yet still moan about luck as if they didn't already know that PTCG has the luck factor in it.

Lastly, like 99% of you guys are posting in favor of larger top cut and a larger more time consuming Nats. I SERIOUSLY doubt POP will listen to the minority [me and maybe like 1 or 2 others] that say to get on with life because Nats is fine how it is and luck happens [IN A GAME, HOW CRAZY IS THAT? What is the world coming to??] I've even made it clear I'm not very invested in Pokemon regardless so those posts saying "ZOMG POP reads these topics but u peoplezzz that're flaming are ruining it for the rest of us ZOMG" are pretty irrelevant.

 

[PokePop]

I don't understand why whoever it was deleted my post. It isn't fighting... just disagreement that some people label "an attack" or "flaming".
We don't share the same opinion but hey, I guess that isn't allowed. My last reply on Saturday wasn't disrespectful in any way yet was deleted lolz. Disagreement shouldn't be censored, only disrespect. None of my posts, or anybody's I've seen thus far, were disrespectful [but hey maybe those where deleted since I haven't visited PokeGym since my last post on Saturday].

I see no record of any post of your's being deleted on this thread.
I suspect that it just didn't get posted properly.
It happens occasionally.

 

[Articjedi]

It isn't jealousy, it's because there are elements on this board who think that because chad thinks he's good, he only posts when it benefits him and the other "good" players. They don't trust anything he or any of the "elite" players post because they are skeptical of their motives. I've seen them getting picked on back and forth on these types of topics. They want a change somewhere in the tournament structure, and instantly there are other players who bounce on them, saying "you're only saying that because you're good." They really need better PR, maybe Prime should post some of these topics for them to avoid the flames.

 

[Cyrus]

It isn't jealousy, it's because there are elements on this board who think that because chad thinks he's good, he only posts when it benefits him and the other "good" players. They don't trust anything he or any of the "elite" players post because they are skeptical of their motives. I've seen them getting picked on back and forth on these types of topics. They want a change somewhere in the tournament structure, and instantly there are other players who bounce on them, saying "you're only saying that because you're good." They really need better PR, maybe Prime should post some of these topics for them to avoid the flames.

*Wins thread*

That's seriously how it is. Many respected, quality players are instantly scrutinized just because they "have" won something. Free speech is fine and all, but it'd be nice if these people at least politely analyzed the topic, as opposed to "frolick you."