Making U.S Nationals more legitimate

[meganium45]

Yes, but one of the things that has been stressed for years now is that the swiss rounds have value. That has always been the defense of the small top cut...

If we are looking to reward excellent play in swiss, yet still allow all the x-2 players in, I feel that Prop 48 is the way to go.

Also, you are cutting your deck check in HALF for the round of 33-48, with only 32 decks to check, instead of 64. Not a small consideration there. Esp if you are doing one the night before, and the second, top 32, the morning after.

I feel that Nationals should still have a top cut that is difficult to make. If we go to 64, we are letting a lot of 6-3 players in, as opposed to only a few, and the few with the hardest road to play (highest resistance)

We are sending a message that it is still a tough tourney to make the cut in, but you will not be penalized for going x-2, no matter your competition.

Oh, you are not going to squeeze a 6th round of 2/3 in on day 2 of Nats...not nearly enough time. T32 is pushing it.

I know I am defending my own proposal, but I really like it better than a T64.

Superwooper speaks the truth.

Vince

 

[M_Liesik]

I really don't agree with "Prop-48" as I don't think that it truly addresses the issue.

Making the rather large assumption that you will have exactly 512 players at the event, with absolutely no drops (which is incredibly unlikely), you end up with:

9-0 = 1 player
8-1 = 9 players
7-2 = 36 players
6-3 = 84 players
5-4 = 126 players
4-5 = 126 players
3-6 = 84 players
2-7 = 36 players
1-8 = 9 players
0-9 = 1 player

To get to a t48, you have to let in 2 players with a 6-3 record. Assuming you use standard Single Elim pairings, you would have to pair 17 vs 48, 18 vs 47, 19 vs 46, etc.

How do you determine who 17th place is? The same "flawed" tiebreakers that you would use to determine your t32. The difference between 16th place and 17th place is likely to be a fraction of a percentage point. How is it "fair" for 17th place to have to play against a 6-3 player and get donked out of the top cut?

 

[Diaz]

How do you determine who 17th place is? The same "flawed" tiebreakers that you would use to determine your t32. The difference between 16th place and 17th place is likely to be a fraction of a percentage point. How is it "fair" for 17th place to have to play against a 6-3 player and get donked out of the top cut?

It might not be as fair for that 17th place player, but its probably more fair for more players, and thats why a lot of people like it.
I think top 64 is the way to go though. If the general idea is to get the top 25% of players from swiss, then a top 32 just doesnt cut it any more.
If the idea is to increase the playerbase, putting a cap on nats and having a minimal top cut is not the way to go. If need be, charge 5 dollars for nationals to get more room in the venue and hire some extra help for the day. Have a shift of people there just for the later round and top cut.

 

[Scizor]

Mike - all the 7-2s making the cut is the main point, I think. I think all of us just would like to be assured of that. I'm interested to hear what you have to say. Do you think adding a 10th round is a good idea? Or would you rather have a T64?

 

[M_Liesik]

Mike - all the 7-2s making the cut is the main point, I think. I think all of us just would like to be assured of that. I'm interested to hear what you have to say. Do you think adding a 10th round is a good idea? Or would you rather have a T64?

This is my personal opinion, based on past experiences as a player in various TCGs. Do not take this as an indication of how POP will be running US Nationals, or any other event. With that out of the way...

I can certainly see that all the 7-2s at Nats making the SEF as a good thing. However, I don't think that either an additional round or a t64 is really all that realistic.

I'd be more inclined to take all the 9-0, 8-1, and 7-2 and pair them into SEF (6-3 players do not deserve to be in the finals. They just didn't play well enough.), and play the first round with byes for the top ranked players. The only use for tiebreakers at that point is to determine seeding. Using the numbers I gave above (512 players), this would give you a t46, with the t18 getting a first round bye, and the bottom 28 playing off (likely unrated, to keep the total number of rounds played for rating points more even). There's no chance that a 7-2 will get knocked out by someone that doesn't deserve to be in the cut (6-3).

However, this sort of thing doesn't work with every event. an 80 player tournament with a max t8 is going to end up with, roughly 18 players if you take everyone 5-2 or better. POP would have to completely restructure how max top cuts are defined to compensate for a change like that.

I also don't think that all of the SEF should be best of 3. t46, t32, and t16 should be single game matches with 45 minute time limits. t8, t4 and finals are best of 3 with 75 minute limits. I see absolutely no reason that the whole thing needs to be best of 3.

It's pretty easy to talk yourself into a circle on this issue. Nothing is truly "fair" to everyone, as everyone's perceptions of what's "fair" are vastly different.

Now, back to POP-mode...

We're certainly aware of this topic, and a number of discussions have been had regarding how best to compensate for the ever-growing US National Championships over the last two years. Everything from a 3-day event to a closed event to hard caps on attendance have been discussed. While some ideas look promising at the outset, further discussion shows serious flaws in these alteratives. I'm sure that we'll come up with something that will work, and any changes will be communicated far enough in advance that players will have time to adjust.

 

[TheDarkTwins]

This is my personal opinion, based on past experiences as a player in various TCGs. Do not take this as an indication of how POP will be running US Nationals, or any other event. With that out of the way...

I can certainly see that all the 7-2s at Nats making the SEF as a good thing. However, I don't think that either an additional round or a t64 is really all that realistic.

I'd be more inclined to take all the 9-0, 8-1, and 7-2 and pair them into SEF (6-3 players do not deserve to be in the finals. They just didn't play well enough.), and play the first round with byes for the top ranked players. The only use for tiebreakers at that point is to determine seeding. Using the numbers I gave above (512 players), this would give you a t46, with the t18 getting a first round bye, and the bottom 28 playing off (likely unrated, to keep the total number of rounds played for rating points more even). There's no chance that a 7-2 will get knocked out by someone that doesn't deserve to be in the cut (6-3).

However, this sort of thing doesn't work with every event. an 80 player tournament with a max t8 is going to end up with, roughly 18 players if you take everyone 5-2 or better. POP would have to completely restructure how max top cuts are defined to compensate for a change like that.

I also don't think that all of the SEF should be best of 3. t46, t32, and t16 should be single game matches with 45 minute time limits. t8, t4 and finals are best of 3 with 75 minute limits. I see absolutely no reason that the whole thing needs to be SEF.

It's pretty easy to talk yourself into a circle on this issue. Nothing is truly "fair" to everyone, as everyone's perceptions of what's "fair" are vastly different.

Now, back to POP-mode...

We're certainly aware of this topic, and a number of discussions have been had regarding how best to compensate for the ever-growing US National Championships over the last two years. Everything from a 3-day event to a closed event to hard caps on attendance have been discussed. While some ideas look promising at the outset, further discussion shows serious flaws in these alteratives. I'm sure that we'll come up with something that will work, and any changes will be communicated far enough in advance that players will have time to adjust.

I think the best thing could be a 3-Day Event. While it mabe more tiring, Origins being 5 days now instead of 4 doesnt hurt that fact imo. However, the really fact is how to make things fair. I mean I know no matter what POP does there is gonna be complaints.

JMO,
Drew

 

[Scizor]

I like that proposal, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what POP decides on. This event is just getting so big.

 

[Bobby]

I also don't think that all of the SEF should be best of 3. t46, t32, and t16 should be single game matches with 45 minute time limits. t8, t4 and finals are best of 3 with 75 minute limits. I see absolutely no reason that the whole thing needs to be SEF.

If you don't do best of three, isn't it basically just another Swiss round? I suppose the competition should be tougher, but that makes the luck/bad start factor even worse when you don't even have the cushion in the first round of cut.

I guess the 17th seed having to play a 6-3 on a percentage point wouldn't be "fair," but the likelihood of losing on "donks" decreases a lot when it's best out of three, especially if you're playing something consistent that just got a rough start (it happens to everyone). I think that most players would be happy with the chance to play it out even if they didn't get a bye in the first round.

 

[PokePop]

Whatever direction you go, try not to put a max on attendance.

It is just such good press to be able to say "Pokemon Nationals had X number of players this year". where X is an ever growing number.

 

[Cyrus]

Amen to that, Pop. It IS fair to discuss a limit or a max, but not to actually go through with it. :x

 

[Lawman]

Thx Mike L for that insightful post into your personal opinion and a POP take also. Glad to know you all are looking into the issue. I am a bit surprised about the consideration of a 3 day event though. I know the MAs wouldnt mind....but would the numbers justify it for the JRs. Plus, lots of kids may have "idle" time, if Mom, Dad, Grandpa, etc were playing and the "young'uns" didnt need a 3rd day.

Keith

 

[Absolution]

Now, back to POP-mode...

We're certainly aware of this topic, and a number of discussions have been had regarding how best to compensate for the ever-growing US National Championships over the last two years. Everything from a 3-day event to a closed event to hard caps on attendance have been discussed. While some ideas look promising at the outset, further discussion shows serious flaws in these alteratives. I'm sure that we'll come up with something that will work, and any changes will be communicated far enough in advance that players will have time to adjust.

I think I speak for every player who's posted in this topic: THANK YOU

It really helps to know that our concerns are being heard, and that discussion is happening in both a public forum and behind closed doors. Just knowing that changes will be made to accommodate for the incredible numbers we've had at Nationals lately is proof that this thread accomplished something positive.

-Absolution

 

[Rainbowgym]

However, this sort of thing doesn't work with every event. an 80 player tournament with a max t8 is going to end up with, roughly 18 players if you take everyone 5-2 or better. POP would have to completely restructure how max top cuts are defined to compensate for a change like that.

I assume you were thinking "what to do with Regionals" when I read this.
Because no Nationals should have to max T8 with 80 players.
But I can see it coming in case for Nationals a new structure for defining top cut would be used, people would immediate point at Regionals, wanting the same for that too.

However I like the idea of all X-2 (no matter if it's 4-2/5-2/6-2) going into SER at any Nationals.
It would adress in my opinion that unlucky starts in game happen and you can survive when running into that.

 

[taurik]

One of the things that bothered me about Nationals, was the discrepancy between the number of participants in each age bracket. There were 149 Juniors, 168 Seniors, and 418 Masters. Has POP looked into splitting the Masters bracket into 2 age groups, like 25 and under, and over 25, or something?

 

[Articjedi]

Well, at least they're talking. Kudos to POP because it's a start.

 

[Scizor]

One of the things that bothered me about Nationals, was the discrepancy between the number of participants in each age bracket. There were 149 Juniors, 168 Seniors, and 418 Masters. Has POP looked into splitting the Masters bracket into 2 age groups, like 25 and under, and over 25, or something?

This game has ALWAYS been like that and I believe it always will be.

 

[JandPDS]

One of the things that bothered me about Nationals, was the discrepancy between the number of participants in each age bracket. There were 149 Juniors, 168 Seniors, and 418 Masters. Has POP looked into splitting the Masters bracket into 2 age groups, like 25 and under, and over 25, or something?

If you are going to use 4 age groups, I would like to see 4 age groups to more evenly spread out the competition. Say 10 and Under 11-15, 16-20 and 21 and over. With the 21+ group not having any scholarship prizes at all. I think that would make the tournaments more evenly spread out in terms of numbers. I do believe that Japan has 4 age groups but I do not know how they are broken down. Does anyone know that answer?

 

[Flaming_Spinach]

One of the things that bothered me about Nationals, was the discrepancy between the number of participants in each age bracket. There were 149 Juniors, 168 Seniors, and 418 Masters. Has POP looked into splitting the Masters bracket into 2 age groups, like 25 and under, and over 25, or something?

Sure, if you can find the spare cash to pay for a full extra age group's worth of prizes.

Say 10 and Under 11-15, 16-20 and 21 and over. With the 21+ group not having any scholarship prizes at all. I think that would make the tournaments more evenly spread out in terms of numbers. I do believe that Japan has 4 age groups but I do not know how they are broken down. Dose anyone know that answer?

I'm 21 and in college. Those age groups and change to prize structure makes no sense.

And Japan uses 3 age groups last I knew, though they were slightly different from our own.

We're certainly aware of this topic, and a number of discussions have been had regarding how best to compensate for the ever-growing US National Championships over the last two years. Everything from a 3-day event to a closed event to hard caps on attendance have been discussed. While some ideas look promising at the outset, further discussion shows serious flaws in these alteratives. I'm sure that we'll come up with something that will work, and any changes will be communicated far enough in advance that players will have time to adjust.

Mike, I just wanted to say thanks for giving us some insight into PUI's mind. It's always good to know that our issues are yours as well.

 

[NoPoke]

caveat 1): T32 discussed only. The T16 and T8 cuts need to be checked too.
caveat 2): The graph is averaged in that it allows fractional players.

Here is a link to a graph that shows how the number of players at X-2 or better grows with attendance.

http://pokegym.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=32037

1) notice the sawtooth shape.

Both the size of the step in the teeth and the width of each tooth increases as attendance rises. This is because the round boundaries are determined by log_base2(attendance)

2) notice that it is only in a couple of regions where the graph crosses the T32 boundary.

It is only in these two regions that I proposed an extra round. Because it is only in these two regions where some X-2s currently miss. The current procedure isn't broken elsewhere for T32 cuts. It is worth repeating that are many who believe that the present approach isn't even broken in these two regions. Personally I'm of the view that it isn't broken but is looking a bit bent. The present structure is under stress and is in danger of breaking.

I need to add a graph that just shows the number of X-2 players being rejected as attendance grows, along with markers for the 2007 USA nationals actual attendance in ALL age groups. Whilst all the information is in the current graph to draw this line it is much easier to visualise if the current figures indicate that the problem will get worse or improve with time with a graph of just the rejected X-2s..
==================================

At big events you can be reasonably certain that the players at the top of the standings have all played well, at smaller events this just isn't the case. I always believed that this behaviour in our game was the justification for both the cut boundary being set at approx 25% of entrants and for POP stating that they have no intention of ever running a cut greater than 32 players.

You really don't need a cut bigger than a T32 when you have already had 7/8/9 or more rounds of swiss to weed out the weakest entrants. There is no way of avoiding the process rejection a very strong player who has on off day. Luck can strike anyone down in Pokemon.

If non-power of two cuts were introduced as standard then I actually see the cut sizes at events reducing and not increasing. The non-power-of-two cut almost always has a bye round, which costs venue time and since the majority of events have to fit a single day altering the tournament guidelines in ways that makes more tournaments likely to run out of venue time would be a very bad thing to do.

 

[JandPDS]

The idea was to break masters into two separate groups of roughly the same size. Form my experience if the line was put at 21+ They would be around the same size at most events. It would not be good from a competition standard. But it would eliminate Masters always having more rounds then the Juniors and Seniors do.

Personally I perfer big events with lots of rounds, that is why I hate Poding. But someone suggested 4 age groups and I think age 21 would be a more equal cut then age 25 would be.