Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Opinions of the Championship Points System

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO there is no way to fix the problem that needs to be fixed. People that live in areas with more events get more points. There is just no way around that, other than a cap on the amount of events in an area, but then people with more money get the advantage again, because they can just travel more and get a leg up. I don't think that more money= or should = more CP. I liked ELO more TBH, because right now it's just so messed up. This is kind of like the mid season rotation. People mostly wanted it, but then when we got it we wanted SP back, because they rotation just screwed everything up. I suppose I'm just another doomsday ranter, but I'm just dissatisfied and can't see a solution.
 
Last edited:
I like it, but there is one awful thing about it: Bubbling. Picture being at a City Championship with a Top 4. You take 5th on resistance. The player above you gets a minimum of 4 Championship Points, and you get 0. This can be pretty lame. Overall, we have to accept no system is perfect, and this was definitely an improvement to the old system, imo.
 
I love the CP System.

All y'all are just complaining about stupid things IMO.

People complained when Invites were handing out via Tournaments, then people Complained when they were handed out via straight ELO, then people complained about K-Value, now people complain about this.

Please quit complaining about EVERYTHING. I swear Pokemon players are the most ungrateful people ever.
 
Your looking at it wrong. There was no point in time when anyone was unanimous in support or denial of invite structure, or most things in pokemon. Lets say that there is 1/3 in denial of invites via tournaments, 1/3 in denial of ELO, and 1/3 of now. When one changes the other 1/3 speaks up. They all have good points. Us being 'the most ungrateful people ever' is A. an exaggeration, and B. a good thing. Why is there such thing as elections? because people get dissatisfied with the current system and speak up for their opinions. And that we are 'the most ungrateful' is either a coincidence or simply untrue.

What you view as ungratefulness is people sharing their opinions.
 
Yeah, I hate how uncompetetive regions get an advantage. Kicker points don't compensate for how much arder it is to win a larger event than a small one. Then again, ELO was bad almost for the opposite reason - you got punished for having smaller tournaments. I'm not sure how to make a good system.
 
gallade said:
Your looking at it wrong. There was no point in time when anyone was unanimous in support or denial of invite structure, or most things in pokemon. Lets say that there is 1/3 in denial of invites via tournaments, 1/3 in denial of ELO, and 1/3 of now. When one changes the other 1/3 speaks up. They all have good points. Us being 'the most ungrateful people ever' is A. an exaggeration, and B. a good thing. Why is there such thing as elections? because people get dissatisfied with the current system and speak up for their opinions. And that we are 'the most ungrateful' is either a coincidence or simply untrue.

What you view as ungratefulness is people sharing their opinions.
Click to expand...



Ungrateful a good thing? This isn't people being okay with something for a while, then wanting change. This is people hating every change that happens, and won't be happy till its done however each individual wants it done. Ungrateful is never a good thing. Apparently, Pokemon players can't be pleased. Which means eventually, the higher-ups with give up. Of course, I don't see something like that happening for a good amount of time, but it will happen if people b*tch about every little change. Complain and try to change the real problems, not the things that P!P rewards people for playing their game. It's not like they HAVE to do any of this. They could base the cards only to collectors, and I promise there would still be a market for them.
 
HornetsBasketballFan said:
It's not like they HAVE to do any of this. They could base the cards only to collectors, and I promise there would still be a market for them.
Click to expand...
Ever tried out how much you get for a booster pack that's rotated out of modified format? Good luck on finding someone willing to pay more than two bucks. That's what the 'market' would be without P!P.

There is a reason Pokémon is one of the big TCGs. We have organized play, and we have players who share their opinions openly, giving P!P the opportunity to improve the game every year. Many other games that didn't have players - or platforms - like this became unpopular very soon.

So please don't whine about our feedback, as it is necessary, especially now when they're trying a new system.
 
I could go on and on about how terrible championship points are. When you're in Florida, arguably the toughest area of OP in the world, it's difficult to top cut. It's easier to 4-2 whiff (in which, you still get points majority of the time). Also, I hate wasting gas to not top cut and then basically waste money. Sure that can be argued, but in a format where DURANT over-runs everything, it seems like luck is at its all time highest with NV in the format. Sure that is great for newer players, but for people who are used to top cutting[/b[ and actually spending a lot of time to test, it just leaves a bad taste.

If they were to do a simple system such as;

3 points per win
0 points per loss

The tournament scene would be much better. You don't get punished for playing and you get rewarded for every win that you recieve. You could een penalize drops if you wanted, maybe like -5 points per drop?

This system could have been executed so much better. Makes me not want to play anymore tbh.
 
ShadowGuard said:
Ever tried out how much you get for a booster pack that's rotated out of modified format? Good luck on finding someone willing to pay more than two bucks. That's what the 'market' would be without P!P.

There is a reason Pokémon is one of the big TCGs. We have organized play, and we have players who share their opinions openly, giving P!P the opportunity to improve the game every year. Many other games that didn't have players - or platforms - like this became unpopular very soon.

So please don't whine about our feedback, as it is necessary, especially now when they're trying a new system.
Click to expand...

Every looked at the prices of Singles from said packs? Yea, exactly, they can get pretty pricey.

Also, I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as you are. And If my opinion is that everyone needs to stop complaining about everything, all the time, then I'm going to state it. Thanks! :)

---------- Post added 12/29/2011 at 03:57 AM ----------
jeffrey123 said:
I could go on and on about how terrible championship points are. When you're in Florida, arguably the toughest area of OP in the world, it's difficult to top cut. It's easier to 4-2 whiff (in which, you still get points majority of the time). Also, I hate wasting gas to not top cut and then basically waste money. Sure that can be argued, but in a format where DURANT over-runs everything, it seems like luck is at its all time highest with NV in the format. Sure that is great for newer players, but for people who are used to top cutting[/b[ and actually spending a lot of time to test, it just leaves a bad taste.

If they were to do a simple system such as;

3 points per win
0 points per loss

The tournament scene would be much better. You don't get punished for playing and you get rewarded for every win that you recieve. You could een penalize drops if you wanted, maybe like -5 points per drop?

This system could have been executed so much better. Makes me not want to play anymore tbh.
Click to expand...


This sounds just like ELO.

If you penalize for a drop, what do you say to the person who misses Worlds by 5 points because of a Family Emergency that happens before top cut? Tough Luck? Because you can't waive the -5 points, because then that wouldn't be fair to everyone else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just found out a peculiar weakness of CPs that ELO didn't have...

I just lucksacked my way into a 6-1 record and a 4th place Swiss finish. I had to leave for a doctor's appointment before the top cut started. So, rather than Dropping, which would have gotten me zero CPs and which would have been necessary under ELO, I just straight out left. Before deck checks. Before anything.

Anybody else see the potential problem with that?
 
bullados said:
I just found out a peculiar weakness of CPs that ELO didn't have...

I just lucksacked my way into a 6-1 record and a 4th place Swiss finish. I had to leave for a doctor's appointment before the top cut started. So, rather than Dropping, which would have gotten me zero CPs and which would have been necessary under ELO, I just straight out left. Before deck checks. Before anything.

Anybody else see the potential problem with that?
Click to expand...


It depends, were you sick and possibly contagious (Hope you're feeling better!), or just going to the doctor for a check-up?
 
It doesn't even matter, dropping is irrelevant. I don't care, how about you don't subtract points for dropping and just do this simple system:

Win: 3 points
Lose: 0 points

Obviously everyone would be in favor of this? It's so simple yet so sufficient, and also top cut is rewarded due to number of games played. The argument that one area may have 1 more round is kind of irrelevant, and just put a cap on the max amount of tournaments you can travel to.

So BR's as well as nats can be the same amount of points, the difference being the awards you recieve for top cut and such, or even then! There's so many great ways to implement this system. You can do various point schemes, as long as losing still stays at 0 points, it's good in my book.

discuss.
 
jeffrey123 said:
It doesn't even matter, dropping is irrelevant. I don't care, how about you don't subtract points for dropping and just do this simple system:

Win: 3 points
Lose: 0 points
Click to expand...
Isn't that exactly what the new Planeswalker Points system in magic says?
As long as there still is a 'best-of'-cap for the number of tournaments to count in, I'd personally say it would work better than Championship Points. It rewards you for playing, for every single match you win, and it doesn't reward you for attending tournaments with low player numbers.

The problem on the other side is, that going 2-3 at three tournaments nets you the same number of points as winning a tournament 6-0. This is why 'best-of' caps are necessary.
 
Best method they have TCG wise for a pt system is something I think yugioh use to use, some online games like WOW and Age of Empires I and II used.

It was start everyone at 1500 pts, you win you go up, you lose you go down, but like normal common sense of course, pts you gain or lose was dependent on how weak or strong your opponent is.

The downside to this system, which in Pokemon its might not even happen much at all, is if people start stat padding it, it will just completely mess up the entire system to where you got some nub with 1900 pts.

But its been about the only method of fair play you can really put into any game over the years if you needing a point system and its player vs player, card game or video game.
 
Crinus said:
Best method they have TCG wise for a pt system is something I think yugioh use to use, some online games like WOW and Age of Empires I and II used.

It was start everyone at 1500 pts, you win you go up, you lose you go down, but like normal common sense of course, pts you gain or lose was dependent on how weak or strong your opponent is.

The downside to this system, which in Pokemon its might not even happen much at all, is if people start stat padding it, it will just completely mess up the entire system to where you got some nub with 1900 pts.

But its been about the only method of fair play you can really put into any game over the years if you needing a point system and its player vs player, card game or video game.
Click to expand...

This was the system they changed from....
 
Crinus said:
Then they went in reverse.
Click to expand...


Because everyone was complaining about people going X-0 then dropping before top cut to just get the points.

So they switched to this, to promote playing a full tournament

Now people are complaining because they can't top cut as much as they did last year, because last year everyone was dropping and this year they aren't.

Like I said, everyone complains no matter what.
 
HornetsBasketballFan said:
Because everyone was complaining about people going X-0 then dropping before top cut to just get the points.

So they switched to this, to promote playing a full tournament

Now people are complaining because they can't top cut as much as they did last year, because last year everyone was dropping and this year they aren't.

Like I said, everyone complains no matter what.
Click to expand...


They had CP in the older rating system?

why couldnt they just make it simple and do everything based off a pure rating? Also requiring players to play, if they drop out, they lose rating pts to whoever they were suppose to face in top cut.

That is really the purpose of the rating system like that to begin with.
 
I liked it better before ranking point invites

I think it worked best when Worlds invites where given out thougout the year. We had the top finsihers at States, Regionals, Gym Challenges and Nationals get invites. We had ranking points, but nothing was on the kine for them. If you did well at a Large tourney you got into worlds and it did not matter how you did the rest of the season.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top