Max Top Cuts

[Caleb]

It's mandated by TPCi, Birch has no control over that. Each tournament has a set max top cut.

BRs - top 4
Cities - top 8
States - top 16
Regionals - top 32

Too bad, I'd love to see a top 32 for Masters, if attendance warrant it of course.

See y'all in Dallas.

Okay, I read this, and I've known about max top cuts for awhile, but for some reason or another I felt that it would be a good idea to start a discussion over top cut limits. I came across the thought that these limits should probably be raised a little bit. All across the year I've gone to tournaments where if TPCi had allowed, we could have gone up to a Top 8 at a BR's, or a top 16 at a cities.

Now I understand that P!P puts some of these limits in for various reason, most importantly so small events don't drag on forever, but it seems to me that if a PTO, or TO felt that the tournament would drag on too long that he could just make the decision on rather to make it a Top 8, or a Top 4 to save time. If the player base can support a larger cut, then why limit them? It just seems to me like you're hurting the players as once you get into top cut your chances of losing to one bad game go down.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I felt like this was a issue that was worth discussing.

 

[AyameHikaru]

In my opinion top cuts reflect the relative 'seriousness' of an event. The higher the event is, the longer you can expect to spend there if you do well. Can you imagine if a Battle Roads suddenly got huge attendance, and they cut to top 32 in every division? Some places chosen to hold BRs close relatively early. (One of our spots closed at 6, and we barely made it on time.)

For every round of Top Cuts, it's over an hour extra that players need to stay. Cutting to top 32 instead of top 4 means an extra 4+ hours of players staying there, meaning TOs would need to consider more breaks, increasing the time even further, meaning you could be there until 11pm for a Battle Road. Most players can't/won't stay that long for an event with so little on the line.

 

[kwisdumb]

I'm actually in favor of more swiss rounds and a smaller top cut. This would put less players in the top cut, but by maximizing the number of swiss rounds, your top cut is guaranteed to be filled with the most skilled players at the event.

 

[Happiny13]

I was spazzing out over this post until I read the word max. At first I thought this was a set amount starting now. Silly me. Everything has been fine for me as of yet. I think the discussion will happen after big states or regional events.

 

[Barkjon]

I believe the max top cut is decided by how many players are there...

 

[Team Cook]

I believe the max top cut is decided by how many players are there...

This is not correct. Top cut IS decided on the amount of players in attendance BUT TPCi mandates how many we can have in top cut.

 

[Barkjon]

^
Alright. I read the rules on the Pokemon.com site for tournaments and stuff, and I saw something like that.

Cool.

 

[Team Cook]

Can you imagine if a Battle Roads suddenly got huge attendance, and they cut to top 32 in every division?

This would NEVER happen, not even for one division. You would need 128 + for a top 32. I doubt we'll ever see that kinda number in ANY division for a City or Battle Road.

 

[Scizor]

I prefer more swiss rounds to a bigger cut. However, you can make an argument that some States and Regionals could use a T32. Last year, CA States had 230 Masters , 7 rounds and a T16 cut. To put things in perspective, the same tournament was 7 rounds T8 in 2004 with 111 Masters (yeah.....).

 

[bullados]

This would NEVER happen, not even for one division. You would need 128 + for a top 32. I doubt we'll ever see that kinda number in ANY division for a City or Battle Road.

Never say never, it just might happen...

 

[Hamster]

Due to the sheer number of battle roads and cities happening on the same day, it's highly unlikely that an event of that level would get 128 people in one age division. Even the Georgia Marathon didn't come close. The top cut limits should be eliminated altogether. This game is growing at a rapid pace and if these limits continue, it will get progressively harder to top cut for the average player. This is especially true in the masters division because you can't age out of it and every year there is a flood of kids that used to be seniors becoming masters. Look at the growth between the 2009 and 2010 regionals, the event P!P uses to measure their player base. Southern California almost approached the 256 mark in masters that would qualify for a top 64 and this year it could very well surpass that.

Let attendance dictate how many top cut rounds there should be. In most cases, there won't be a deviation of more than one extra round anyway. It's pretty frustrating to go 4-2 in a battle road and miss top cut because of resistance, which happened to me before. Battle roads are already highly looked down upon by many players, on account of their pathetic K value. At least adding an extra round (with high enough attendance) would provide an opportunity to gain more points. Then we have the high ranked events. The big 3 (states, regionals, and nationals) make or break a player's season and with only 4 tournaments to attend, we should get the most rounds possible to have a chance at earning an invite. I don't think this discussion is too different from the 2 day regional. At some point in the game, it will inevitabely happen, and I believe that time is quickly approaching.

 

[Caleb]

For every round of Top Cuts, it's over an hour extra that players need to stay. Cutting to top 32 instead of top 4 means an extra 4+ hours of players staying there, meaning TOs would need to consider more breaks, increasing the time even further, meaning you could be there until 11pm for a Battle Road. Most players can't/won't stay that long for an event with so little on the line.

Keep in mind that a TO wouldn't be required to increase the size of top cut (as I mentioned in my original post), but if the TO felt they had the time to increase the cut they could. Basically putting the person at the event in control of the event. I just think if the player base can support a larger top cut, and the time constraints of the venue allow for it, along with the players being aware of it, there's no reason why a larger top cut shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Team Cook]

And here's something else, I've been thinking about this for a while but have never posted my thoughts on it.

NO top cut for BRs or Cities. Here me out for a second, lol.

Keep the same prize support, MAX # of Swiss rounds ONLY.

This would REALLY free up time for players and PTOs / TOs and would probably allow for newer locations for tournaments due to less time per event.

Again, this for BRs and Cities ONLY.

Save Top cut for States and higher, ALLOWING for unlimited top cut due to attendance instead of having a set max top cut allowed. This basically would mean the possibility of a top 32 for States and top 64 for Regionals.

 

[ShadowGuard]

NO top cut for BRs or Cities. Here me out for a second, lol.

Well, that would mean, if you lose one game, you're out. Depending on the player number it already works that way (I missed top cut at 4 of 7 CCs with an X-1 score), but with no top cut it's for all tournaments and all players. With b-o-3 in swiss rounds it could work, but they we wouldn't save time.

T2 cuts are indeed somewhat pointless, because it means the 4-0 players randomly (yes, TieBreakers are random, you can't do anything about them) faces one of the five 3-1 players. I liked the old cut number a lot more, with top 4 on 12 or more players, there were about 4-5 players with 3-1 and it was a clean cut.

 

[NoPoke]

Top 64 really means you haven't run enough swiss rounds.
Top 2s are quite pointless right now as they frequently repeat the last round. Much better to use match play for all 3 or 4 swiss rounds and just forget the T2

If a cut is important, and most of us think it is, then the number of swiss rounds should be designed to let the X-1s in. this means using the binomial distribution rather than log base 2 to decide the number of rounds.

Right now..
16 players : 4 rounds and one 3-1 misses the cut.
30 players: 5 rounds and two 4-1s miss the cut

But it doesn't end there it is really easy to end up X-2 in pokemon and all too often X-2s are excluded in T8 cuts. so even those aren't working very well even though they will let the X-1s in.

T16 and T32 typically do allow some X-2s in so at least there is hope at the bigger events for players to survive an early unlucky loss.

Swiss+1 has a lot to commend it.

 

[Ice'Cold]

I think with the sheer time commitment major events require now, without switching to a multi-day event format we should probably take a look at solutions to cut down on the time an event requires. I'm curious to know (anyone knowledgeable who wants to take a stab) if running additional swiss rounds would allow us to cut down on the number of top cut rounds we would be forced to have.

 

[chrataxe]

I think with the sheer time commitment major events require now, without switching to a multi-day event format we should probably take a look at solutions to cut down on the time an event requires. I'm curious to know (anyone knowledgeable who wants to take a stab) if running additional swiss rounds would allow us to cut down on the number of top cut rounds we would be forced to have.

I think the point of adding more rounds of swiss is to make it more defined as to who SHOULD top cut by eliminating the "weaker" records by having more definitive swiss results. Although, it does seem to bring up the point of what to do with the X-0...

 

[yoyofsho16]

What was the purpose of them changing top cut numbers last season?

It is just really unfair to have 31 players and not have top 8.

 

[ShuckleLVX]

I think the point of adding more rounds of swiss is to make it more defined as to who SHOULD top cut by eliminating the "weaker" records by having more definitive swiss results. Although, it does seem to bring up the point of what to do with the X-0...

X-0 would be paired down, but his record would be solid enough that unless it's Top 2 and something goes horribly screwy, that player would be a shoe in win or lose.

 

[nnaann]

Top 2s are quite pointless right now as they frequently repeat the last round. Much better to use match play for all 3 or 4 swiss rounds and just forget the T2

This is a problem I have with the system right now. It's pretty common to go 3-1 then play your loss again in Top Cut, and considering they were able to win the first time, it makes sense to think there's a good chance for them to win the Top Cut as well. Getting second at a tournament shouldn't be represented by a 3-2 record which with elo is usually a minimal point increase, or even decrease for people with a higher ranking. I'd like to see perhaps no Top Cut but a 5th swiss round for everyone, although I'm not sure how that would turn out.