The LCQ - Why, Nintendo?

[PokePop]

you are endorsing PokePop for berating the allegedly insulting tone of JandPDS's post. ...
Additionally, why do you and so many others seem to have a penchant for berating players who attempt to provide feedback to TPCi?

JandPDS is very welcome to post feedback about how he felt about the LCQ and how it affected him.
But when he posts a fairly pointed piece filling in as fact how many other groups felt about the event, or adding opinions as fact, he is very open to pointed rebuttal. Fair is fair. If you felt my post was very strong, maybe it was just that I was making valid points, no? Oddly enough, not a single one of my points has been challenged. Just an ad hominum that I'm "berating".

Additionally, the most important factor by far when choosing a format for a tournament is obviously, 'how will this best serve the players?' Not the staff, not TPCi - these tournaments are put on for players, and the first priority ought always to lie with them, not with the guys in charge.

In virtually all tournaments that Pokemon puts on as a featured event, you are correct. Featured events are there as set pieces for players.
One exception. The LCQ. That tournament is not an event in and of itself. It serves one purpose and one purpose only: To fill some last spots in the World Championship.
Period.
It is not a feature event.
It has no runner up prizes.
No random prizes.
It's not for fun.
It is nicknamed "the Grinder" for a reason.
It is NOT for the players to have a fun time.
It is there for one and only one reason. To get a handful of players their last chance to get into Worlds.
If I sound like I'm repeating myself, I am.
This fact has been stated many times. Treating the tournament as if it is a Regionals or some other featured event is the source of the error in thinking of those complaining about the lack of fun and "why can't people keep playing for fun?" complaints.
It is a fundamental misunderstanding of what this tournament is and what it is not.

Does best of three with a 45-minute time limit ALWAYS favor the better player? Can you even say it does with a straight face? How often do you think a full three games are played under this format? How many MORE games came down to time than in a bo1 30 + 3 format? For you to make such a sweeping statement without considering the circumstances is absurd.

Now your confusing "favors" with "guarantees the success of".
Sometimes luck will still be a factor. Allow me to introduce you do the Pokemon TCG.
But yes, it does favor the better player as luck is reduced.
Not eliminated. But reduced.

 

[Pablo]

I'm not sure I care for the haughty, arrogant, condescending, and downright nasty tone of this comment. It's completely unconstructive and serves no purpose but to insult JandPDS, which is ironic as you are endorsing PokePop for berating the allegedly insulting tone of JandPDS's post. Is it okay to post vicious comments like this just because they are in support of TPCi? I sure hope not.

Additionally, why do you and so many others seem to have a penchant for berating players who attempt to provide feedback to TPCi?

Before you or a certain organizer from San Diego say that in that case he ought to take the matter to TPCi privately, that simply isn't valid. Publicizing his disapproval invites other dissatisfied players and possibly even staff members to voice their opinions. The risk of appearing unreasonable to a large audience on a public forum also encourages TPCi to act more efficiently. It's never bad to open this sort of matter to the public for discussion, especially seeing as others may also wish to voice their disapproval.

JandPDS wasn't talking about what is better for TPCi, as none of the player base cares about that. He was talking about individual staff members, on whom a system can be harder while still being better for TPCi as a collective unit.

While we care about the individual staff members, we could care less about the collective unit. The operation may have been easier overall on TPCi as a group, but was it easier on the individual staff member? I don't hold an opinion here as I simply don't know but for you to claim that TPCi knows how each of its staff felt about SE grinder is ludicrous.

Additionally, the most important factor by far when choosing a format for a tournament is obviously, 'how will this best serve the players?' Not the staff, not TPCi - these tournaments are put on for players, and the first priority ought always to lie with them, not with the guys in charge.



Does best of three with a 45-minute time limit ALWAYS favor the better player? Can you even say it does with a straight face? How often do you think a full three games are played under this format? How many MORE games came down to time than in a bo1 30 + 3 format? For you to make such a sweeping statement without considering the circumstances is absurd.

Your first 6 paragraphs just show you don't really know what the grinder really stands for, as it's not an actual event to be catered for the players. In fact P!P has stated several times if it were up to them they wouldn't even hold it anymore (and there's a rumor it won't be happening but that's just a rumor).

Your last paragraph is what I will reply with a single word: YES.

Best of 3 does not guarantee success for the better player. There is always luck involved, that's just how the game is designed. But by reducing such luck by being able to play 3 games instead of just 1, then yes, I will say that with a straight face, along with EVERY SINGLE other top player in this game and I would put my hands in a fire behind both of those statements.

A sweeping statement without considering the circumstances? PLEASE. I've been playing this game for 8+ years now. I know how it feels to win and lose based on bad set ups by me and my opponent, and I know how you can come back in best of 3's after a bad opening hand game 1 or 2, same for my opponent when he has had a superior deck choice. There is no perfect method aside from best of 5 untimed games every round to truly determine a best player in a tournament, but since that is logistically not going to happen ever. Playing best of 3's every round is a good way to try and compensate a little bit for that luck.

Besides look at who is really complaining? Top players who played the grinder this year are complaining about lack of information when it comes to knowing how much each round would last. The people who are complaining about the format are the ones who do not have a realistic chance to qualify for worlds by doing well all season or at nationals and thus treat the grinder as their holy grail.

 

[Box of Fail]

JandPDS is very welcome to post feedback about how he felt about the LCQ and how it affected him.
But when he posts a fairly pointed piece filling in as fact how many other groups felt about the event, or adding opinions as fact, he is very open to pointed rebuttal. Fair is fair. If you felt my post was very strong, maybe it was just that I was making valid points, no? Oddly enough, not a single one of my points has been challenged. Just an ad hominum that I'm "berating".

While your post was obviously not phrased in the kindest manner it could have been, I didn't find it unjustified as Pablo's was because you offered a cohesive argument. Pablo's merely echoed yours without adding anything constructive, leaving the bulk of his post a true ad hominem attack on JandPDS.

I don't think that accusing you of beratement qualifies as an ad hominem as your post accused JandPDS of being rude, so I think the tone with which you convey your argument is anything but irrelevant here. As I have said above, I didn't particularly mind your post; while it was a bit aggressive for my tastes (hence the 'berating') it had substance - Pablo's was empty and at its core simply an ad hominem with no other purpose.

In virtually all tournaments that Pokemon puts on as a featured event, you are correct. Featured events are there as set pieces for players.
One exception. The LCQ. That tournament is not an event in and of itself. It serves one purpose and one purpose only: To fill some last spots in the World Championship.
Period.
It is not a feature event.
It has no runner up prizes.
No random prizes.
It's not for fun.
It is nicknamed "the Grinder" for a reason.
It is NOT for the players to have a fun time.
It is there for one and only one reason. To get a handful of players their last chance to get into Worlds.
If I sound like I'm repeating myself, I am.
This fact has been stated many times. Treating the tournament as if it is a Regionals or some other featured event is the source of the error in thinking of those complaining about the lack of fun and "why can't people keep playing for fun?" complaints.
It is a fundamental misunderstanding of what this tournament is and what it is not.

It's called the grinder because the elite players who wind up participating in it will be satisfied by nothing short of a worlds invite.

As I'm sure you're well aware, there's another demographic of players, such as myself, who would like to get an invite but are at worlds to see friends and have a good time. These players would love to play more than one round of an official tournament (since many of them have tested their decks for quite some time leading up to the event) even if it's clear we can't be in the top X amount of slots. I went to the grinder in Hawaii last year. Did I go thinking 'GOTTA GET AN INVITE'? That would be silly. Was I happy that I got to play all 7 rounds out? Definitely! There are many players who only play as long as they have a chance at top cut. What people fail to realize is that there are also many players who will play until they're told to stop. I'd rather be told to stop after 7 rounds than 1, and I'm definitely not alone on that.

The world championships are not run for the sole purpose of crowning a world champion. They are also not run for the sole purpose of figuring out the best players in the world. The bottom tables at nats and worlds matter! There is more to a tournament than those with a shot of placing in the top 25%. I honestly don't understand why the grinder ought to be any different. Can you not meet new friends from all across the world in the grinder? Are you not supposed to enjoy playing Pokémon during the grinder? To say the grinder isn't meant to be fun is a rejection of everything I thought Pokémon stood for. I looked at the Tournament Rules and guess what I found on the first page?

1. The Spirit of the Game

As a game of skill, Pokémon is enjoyed for its complex strategies, entertaining characters, and atmosphere of friendly competition. While the objective of a Pokémon tournament is to determine the skill level of each player involved, our ultimate goal is to ensure that every participant has fun. It is this attitude that Pokémon Organized Play wishes to emphasize during Pokémon tournaments.

Regardless of the size of the prizes on the line, adherence to the Spirit of the Game helps to ensure that all participants, including players, spectators, and event staff at a Pokémon tournament, have an enjoyable experience. This spirit should guide the conduct of players as well as the tournament judges as they interpret and enforce the rules.

The Spirit of the Game is composed of the following tenets:

Fun: Pokémon is a game, and games are meant to be fun for all parties involved. When a game ceases
to be fun, players find other things to do.

I think especially important here is "regardless of the size of the prizes on the line." Does it matter whether those prizes are Victory Medal promos or invites to the world championships? It absolutely does not, at least if the tournament rules have any influence whatsoever. Unless the grinder is exempt from the tournament rules, it is meant to be fun.

Now your confusing "favors" with "guarantees the success of".
Sometimes luck will still be a factor. Allow me to introduce you do the Pokemon TCG.
But yes, it does favor the better player as luck is reduced.
Not eliminated. But reduced.

I could see that in a 60-minute or 75-minute format maybe. When so many games come down to time, there is something wrong with the designated format; am I mistaken? Time is meant to ensure tournaments can follow a schedule and not be held up due to a few really long games; at least, that's how it's appeared to function in the past. I don't have the data so this is unsubstantiated, but from the experiences of people I know, I'd imagine half or more of the games of R2 in the grinder came down to time. If anyone has the actual numbers feel free to correct me.

 

[Prof Clay]

Well Pop,

I guess you and I are just the most misinformed Head Judges ever...

And gosh... I think you have judged every grinder Pokemon has ever held...

I had fun...the MAJORITY of the players I talked to had fun...I guess the format overall was fun for the players...

Sorry to get testy about your posts BoF...but you really are not willing to listen, just troll...

Get us a list of all the players that were dissatisfied with the grinders performance...say 1/4 of the masters field...and maybe your arguments will have some weight.

 

[PokePop]

It's called the grinder because the elite players who wind up participating in it will be satisfied by nothing short of a worlds invite.

I'm sorry, where does the word "grinder" fit in that statement?
Grinder means, "a machine or device for grinding"
Grind means:
1: to reduce to powder or small fragments by friction (as in a mill or with the teeth)
2: to wear down, polish, or sharpen by friction
It describes the process as a rough treatment of the objects going through it to come up with, at the end, a fine and or polished result.
There is no mention of the objects being ground up having fun.

As I'm sure you're well aware, there's another demographic of players, such as myself, who would like to get an invite but are at worlds to see friends and have a good time. These players would love to play more than one round of an official tournament (since many of them have tested their decks for quite some time leading up to the event) even if it's clear we can't be in the top X amount of slots. I went to the grinder in Hawaii last year. Did I go thinking 'GOTTA GET AN INVITE'? That would be silly. Was I happy that I got to play all 7 rounds out? Definitely! There are many players who only play as long as they have a chance at top cut. What people fail to realize is that there are also many players who will play until they're told to stop. I'd rather be told to stop after 7 rounds than 1, and I'm definitely not alone on that.

That's my point. You are NOT a demographic of the grinder! The demographic of the grinder is "giving players a last chance to qualify for Worlds". Period. It's not there for people to have fun playing when they have no chance of making it through.

The world championships are not run for the sole purpose of crowning a world champion. They are also not run for the sole purpose of figuring out the best players in the world. The bottom tables at nats and worlds matter! There is more to a tournament than those with a shot of placing in the top 25%. I honestly don't understand why the grinder ought to be any different.

You are 100% correct. About Worlds and Nationals. And every other featured tournament. But that's not the grinder. You can wish that it is. But it's not.

Can you not meet new friends from all across the world in the grinder? Are you not supposed to enjoy playing Pokémon during the grinder? To say the grinder isn't meant to be fun is a rejection of everything I thought Pokémon stood for. I looked at the Tournament Rules and guess what I found on the first page?

[SOTG quote here]

I think especially important here is "regardless of the size of the prizes on the line." Does it matter whether those prizes are Victory Medal promos or invites to the world championships? It absolutely does not, at least if the tournament rules have any influence whatsoever. Unless the grinder is exempt from the tournament rules, it is meant to be fun.

Your last line has it!
Please note, the LCQ is NOT a sanctioned tournament.
You will not find it on the Tournament Finder on the Pokemon.com website.
So, yes, it IS exempted from those goals you post. Now we're getting somewhere!

I could see that in a 60-minute or 75-minute format maybe. When so many games come down to time, there is something wrong with the designated format; am I mistaken? Time is meant to ensure tournaments can follow a schedule and not be held up due to a few really long games; at least, that's how it's appeared to function in the past. I don't have the data so this is unsubstantiated, but from the experiences of people I know, I'd imagine half or more of the games of R2 in the grinder came down to time. If anyone has the actual numbers feel free to correct me.

Coming down to time has NOTHING to do with whether a Bo3 match is fairer than a 30 minute single game. They play 45 minute Bo3 matches in Europe all the time!
Why? Because it reduces the luck of getting donked.
Period.
All that is desired of a 45 minute Bo3 is that the players have had a chance to complete at least one fair game. It reduces the "bad luck" of getting donked.
That's all.
Hence, it does favor the better player since the better player now has another chance to make their skill count. It doesn't eliminate luck. It just reduces it. Sorry if you can't see how that is. Good players have no problem seeing that. No offense meant there. But Pablo is a good player. He has topped at Worlds. When he speaks, his voice does count for "good players".

 

[PokePop]

Get us a list of all the players that were dissatisfied with the grinders performance...say 1/4 of the masters field...and maybe your arguments will have some weight.

Sorry Clay, but you're being too easy here.

1/4 of the masters could have been playing for fun only, and therefore dissatisfied.
That would be their fault for misunderstanding what the event was about, not the events fault.

 

[Prof Clay]

Sorry Clay, but you're being too easy here.

1/4 of the masters could have been playing for fun only, and therefore dissatisfied.
That would be their fault for misunderstanding what the event was about, not the events fault.

:smile: I was being easy intentionally..and I would not include those who were dissatisfied because they had lost in the list

 

[untitled]

Your first 6 paragraphs just show you don't really know what the grinder really stands for, as it's not an actual event to be catered for the players. In fact P!P has stated several times if it were up to them they wouldn't even hold it anymore (and there's a rumor it won't be happening but that's just a rumor).

Your last paragraph is what I will reply with a single word: YES.

Best of 3 does not guarantee success for the better player. There is always luck involved, that's just how the game is designed. But by reducing such luck by being able to play 3 games instead of just 1, then yes, I will say that with a straight face, along with EVERY SINGLE other top player in this game and I would put my hands in a fire behind both of those statements.

A sweeping statement without considering the circumstances? PLEASE. I've been playing this game for 8+ years now. I know how it feels to win and lose based on bad set ups by me and my opponent, and I know how you can come back in best of 3's after a bad opening hand game 1 or 2, same for my opponent when he has had a superior deck choice. There is no perfect method aside from best of 5 untimed games every round to truly determine a best player in a tournament, but since that is logistically not going to happen ever. Playing best of 3's every round is a good way to try and compensate a little bit for that luck.

Besides look at who is really complaining? Top players who played the grinder this year are complaining about lack of information when it comes to knowing how much each round would last. The people who are complaining about the format are the ones who do not have a realistic chance to qualify for worlds by doing well all season or at nationals and thus treat the grinder as their holy grail.

No, best of 3 doesn't always favor the better player. There's no way. We were playing 45 minute rounds. In an untimed environment? Yeah it generally will. But if you lose an incredibly close first game then you're sitting on 10-15 minutes to take 4 prizes before your opponent does. In the Yanmega mirrors where everything is 2HKOs it can easily take longer than that, especially if you get a bad start. In my last match we had just finished game 1 and there were only 2 or 3 other matches still going. Or say you get donked in game 1. Then you come out and win an incredibly close game 2 that would have gone to 30+3 if it were swiss. Do you really think the 3rd game won't go to sudden death?

And I don't think it's really fair to generalize everybody complaining. I mean I've qualified for worlds every full season I've played and the one I quit during I was sitting on 1750 after the first states. And the one Nats I actually played through if my opponent flipped 1 less Fainting Spell heads I would have gotten the invite that way on top of ranking. I didn't play a game this whole season so I had no choice but to go for the grinder. I had a lot of friends there in worlds already and they were saying they'd rather play swiss. But they're not even playing in it or treating it as their "holy grail".

 

[Box of Fail]

Thanks to my own negligence I lost a near-complete post to a power outage, so I apologize if this post seems rushed, but I'll attempt to briefly sum up my thoughts...

Well Pop,

I guess you and I are just the most misinformed Head Judges ever...

And gosh... I think you have judged every grinder Pokemon has ever held...

I had fun...the MAJORITY of the players I talked to had fun...I guess the format overall was fun for the players...

Sorry to get testy about your posts BoF...but you really are not willing to listen, just troll...

Get us a list of all the players that were dissatisfied with the grinders performance...say 1/4 of the masters field...and maybe your arguments will have some weight.

I think you are misunderstanding my argument.

I am not claiming and have not claimed that 1/4 of the masters field was dissatisfied with the grinder. My arguing that the grinder should be fun was in direct response to the following:

It's not for fun.
It is nicknamed "the Grinder" for a reason.
It is NOT for the players to have a fun time.

The question we have been discussing is 'Is the objective of the grinder to ensure players have fun?'

Not, 'Did players at the grinder have fun?'

It's especially ironic that you're attempting to side with Pop by claiming that players had fun.

His argument is that the grinder isn't meant to be fun. You two are at odds.

I'm sorry, where does the word "grinder" fit in that statement?
Grinder means, "a machine or device for grinding"
Grind means:
1: to reduce to powder or small fragments by friction (as in a mill or with the teeth)
2: to wear down, polish, or sharpen by friction
It describes the process as a rough treatment of the objects going through it to come up with, at the end, a fine and or polished result.
There is no mention of the objects being ground up having fun.

My point was that it was those elite players who have their eyes set on the prize who coined the term 'grinder.'

For them, the event is a long, grueling, hazardous path to a worlds invite. They’re in for the long haul, and if they miss the invite they won’t be able to enjoy themselves. A ‘grind’ indeed.

You said that there’s a reason it’s called the ‘grinder.’ You were right, because it is truly a ‘grind’ for those who care solely about qualifying for worlds. But there are tons of others who don’t fit into that description.

That's my point. You are NOT a demographic of the grinder! The demographic of the grinder is "giving players a last chance to qualify for Worlds". Period. It's not there for people to have fun playing when they have no chance of making it through.

You are 100% correct. About Worlds and Nationals. And every other featured tournament. But that's not the grinder. You can wish that it is. But it's not.

I suppose my main rebuttal to these points is in the Tournament Rules. If as you say those don’t apply then my argument is nothing but idealism. But I think they’re intended by OP to apply to the grinders just as any other event. More on that below.

Your last line has it!
Please note, the LCQ is NOT a sanctioned tournament.
You will not find it on the Tournament Finder on the Pokemon.com website.
So, yes, it IS exempted from those goals you post. Now we're getting somewhere!

Those goals came straight from the Tournament Rules, so by saying that the SotG doesn’t apply to unsanctioned events, even when run directly by OP, you’re in effect saying the Tournament Rules don’t apply to those events; am I wrong?

I could not find the world championships on the Tournament Finder and it has a K-value of zero. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t think worlds is a sanctioned event.

So you’re saying that the Tournament Rules don’t apply to either the grinder or worlds? Because the rationale you used to exempt the grinder from those rules would also exempt worlds.

Even if we just take the example of the grinder, you’re saying that that document on pokemon.com is voided for the grinder, and thus the goals set forth in the SotG section there are not intended for the grinder. Assuming this is true, what is stopping me from flipping a pre-R/S coin at the grinder without my opponent’s consent? What voids a coin flip that goes off the table? Both of those stipulations are in the Tournament Rules but not the plain old rulebook. And if the SotG section is voided as you claimed it is, am I no longer bound to the SotG during the grinders? Can I be dishonest, disrespectful, unfair, and unsportsmanlike since it’s an unsanctioned event? I think it’s quite obvious that the Tournament Rules apply to both grinders and worlds, regardless of their status as unsanctioned events.

Coming down to time has NOTHING to do with whether a Bo3 match is fairer than a 30 minute single game. They play 45 minute Bo3 matches in Europe all the time!
Why? Because it reduces the luck of getting donked.
Period.
All that is desired of a 45 minute Bo3 is that the players have had a chance to complete at least one fair game. It reduces the "bad luck" of getting donked.
That's all.
Hence, it does favor the better player since the better player now has another chance to make their skill count. It doesn't eliminate luck. It just reduces it. Sorry if you can't see how that is. Good players have no problem seeing that. No offense meant there. But Pablo is a good player. He has topped at Worlds. When he speaks, his voice does count for "good players".

Games that come down to time tend to be less fair. They add to the significance of going first because one can take an early prize lead in game three for the win. Yes, best of three allows players to come back from a donk. But there is also the potential for a legitimate win to be mitigated by a donk game two. In bo1, there would be no donk and then a possible SD game three. It’s not as simple as you think; a huge increase in SD games due to a 45-minute time limit does NOT add skill to the game.

An untimed bo3 is usually more skillful than an untimed bo1. The more games go to SD because of time, however, the less skillful the format gets. This is not a black and white issue by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[NoPoke]

Games that come down to time tend to be less fair. They add to the significance of going first because one can take an early prize lead in game three for the win. Yes, best of three allows players to come back from a donk. But there is also the potential for a legitimate win to be mitigated by a donk game two. In bo1, there would be no donk and then a possible SD game three. It’s not as simple as you think; a huge increase in SD games due to a 45-minute time limit does NOT add skill to the game.

An untimed bo3 is usually more skillful than an untimed bo1. The more games go to SD because of time, however, the less skillful the format gets. This is not a black and white issue by any stretch of the imagination.

You almost get it, only almost though. Is an increase in SD games better or worse than the reduction in quick donks determining outcome in single game play? You declare that (SD) outcomes from games that come down to time are inherently less fair without providing the whole comparison: of a game that was over in the first few minutes.

I want outcome to be determined at the tables. That means players playing at the tables. Best of 3 inherently has more table time than single game play. Best of 3 allows a player to concede and still win the match. You really are fooling yourself if you think that best of three is worse than single game. No one here who is defending b-o-3 is claiming it is a panacea, you still get rogue results, however you will have fewer rogue results.

 

[bullados]

I don't know where the hold up was, but it wasn't in the list check. The judges were doing them as they were collected, and all the lists were checked within 15 minutes of when we received the last list.

Thx for the correction! The cause of my confusion was Nick announcing deck "issues" almost an hour after LCQ Registration had officially closed. Maybe those lists weren't coming to the Judges quickly enough? I'm not sure where the disconnect happened. But I didn't play a game in the LCQ until 12:30 (at the earliest, I think it was closer to 1pm), and the registration period ended at 10am, as posted on the LCQ FAQ.

 

[Prof Clay]

Thx for the correction! The cause of my confusion was Nick announcing deck "issues" almost an hour after LCQ Registration had officially closed. Maybe those lists weren't coming to the Judges quickly enough? I'm not sure where the disconnect happened. But I didn't play a game in the LCQ until 12:30 (at the earliest, I think it was closer to 1pm), and the registration period ended at 10am, as posted on the LCQ FAQ.

We were ready to go long before the names had been entered into the system.

That was one of the primary things I wanted to fix from being head judge in 2009 was the list check issue.:thumb:

 

[Biggie]

Additionally, the most important factor by far when choosing a format for a tournament is obviously, 'how will this best serve the players?' Not the staff, not TPCi - these tournaments are put on for players, and the first priority ought always to lie with them, not with the guys in charge.

I believe that working towards having a fresh, sharp, well rested staff for the main event at Worlds is part of how we endeavor to best serve the players.

 

[Box of Fail]

I believe that working towards having a fresh, sharp, well rested staff for the main event at Worlds is part of how we endeavor to best serve the players.

Considering the size of the grinder relative to that of worlds, would I be wrong to say that snubbing the grinder in favor of worlds ultimately does a disservice to more players than it serves?

You also seem to be implying that the worlds staff were not at their peak performance in years previous, which if true is somewhat alarming. Even so, the implementation of a shift system for the judges who had to be awake for the final masters rounds could solve the problem while allowing you to best serve more players.

The best solution, however, is simply to start on time and run a timely event. A grinder starting at 9 AM with nine 30-minute swiss rounds and an hour lunch break would finish before 5 PM, and that's allowing over 15 additional minutes per round for late finishes and pairings time. Even 10 PM is hardly a late bedtime for judges, let alone 7 PM (assuming they take the time to eat dinner of course :thumb

A grinder starting at 9 AM with six 75-minute single elimination rounds and an hour lunch break would finish at around 7 PM, with exactly 15 minutes given between rounds. Giving a two-hour dinner break once again, even the judges who stick by the final masters go to bed at 9 PM.

The key to working towards having a fresh, sharp, well rested staff for the main event at Worlds is running a timely grinder. No 45-minute rounds (or single elimination really, unless you want judges to go to bed before 7 PM) needed :thumb:

 

[PokePop]

Considering the size of the grinder relative to that of worlds, would I be wrong to say that snubbing the grinder in favor of worlds ultimately does a disservice to more players than it serves?

You also seem to be implying that the worlds staff were not at their peak performance in years previous, which if true is somewhat alarming. Even so, the implementation of a shift system for the judges who had to be awake for the final masters rounds could solve the problem while allowing you to best serve more players.

The best solution, however, is simply to start on time and run a timely event. A grinder starting at 9 AM with nine 30-minute swiss rounds and an hour lunch break would finish before 5 PM, and that's allowing over 15 additional minutes per round for late finishes and pairings time. Even 10 PM is hardly a late bedtime for judges, let alone 7 PM (assuming they take the time to eat dinner of course :thumb

A grinder starting at 9 AM with six 75-minute single elimination rounds and an hour lunch break would finish at around 7 PM, with exactly 15 minutes given between rounds. Giving a two-hour dinner break once again, even the judges who stick by the final masters go to bed at 9 PM.

The key to working towards having a fresh, sharp, well rested staff for the main event at Worlds is running a timely grinder. No 45-minute rounds (or single elimination really, unless you want judges to go to bed before 7 PM) needed :thumb:

You know, everything you say about how to run this is exactly right, more or less.
If.

If the weekend were called the "Last Chance Qualifier Celebration Weekend".

But... it's not.

Your first statement suggests that the Grinder is more important than Worlds.
That, by it's size, it is more important than any other tournament that Pokemon puts on over the year, other than US Nats which was larger.
More important than Worlds.
More important than Regionals.
More important than States.

Sorry. It just... isn't. It is what it is advertised to be. A "last chance".
It is not an end unto itself.
Pokemon does not send out press releases of who won the LCQ.
It is not, not, not a featured event. It is only, nothing more, a means to an end to fill a few seats at Worlds, but to make those players do something to earn those last spots.

As for your second point, you seem to be arguing for never improving anything. Arguments like "Well, if you have to fix something, you must have been doing a horrible job before" lead to keeping a status quo and defending that status quo to the death. "This is how we have always done it and how we shall always do it" is not a good mindset to have.
People can perform very well under a lot of stress. Should we therefore always make them perform under grueling conditions?

Start at 9am? With 900+ players registering?
15 minute turn-arounds? Again, with 900 players playing?
We moved US Nats to a 2-day event when it reached this size and it is now a 3-day event!
And you're asking for 75 minute rounds on top of that?
Where are you heading with this? Will be be able to fit the World Championship into this weekend at some point?
There were reasons the event took a long time to get started.
Those reasons don't all disappear just because you move from single elim to swiss. Some do. Most don't. And as I noted above, a lot of those issues were of the "this is the first time we're doing this" variety and will be fixed if and when it is done again.

And you don't even address the space need for this.
Sure, if this were the LCQ Weekend, Pokemon could arrange for a Nationals size space to hold it, or remove the free play area for a day or two, to allow for set up and tear down. But that's not the focus of the weekend.

 

[pokeMATHter]

A grinder starting at 9 AM ...

Typically means that the staff need to be in the hall at 7 AM to learn the registration process, help with registration and any other last minute set-up issues that arise. Don't forget that aspect of the event. Also add an hour or so of work after the last round ends as the staff resets the room for the next day.

And yes, you want your staff to be at the top of their game for Worlds. Worlds is the showcase event for the company. Sure it may not be as large as the Grinder or even many National Championships, but it is the ultimate goal for most trainers around the world.

 

[Biggie]

@Box of Fail: You seem to have missed the point.
First you imply that our efforts to make the Grinder easier on staff is selfish and misguided, and then when I point out how those efforts are actually a part of how we look to best serve our players you decide to make a bunch of assumptions about the root of the delays that occurred this year. (This despite some of the reasons being listed elsewhere in this thread.)

Yes running the Grinder in a timely fashion is better than running the Grinder in a less than timely fashion. I’m afraid that this is not a ground breaking revelation on anyone’s part. As noted previously, we learned a lot this year as we do every year.

Considering the size of the grinder relative to that of worlds, would I be wrong to say that snubbing the grinder in favor of worlds ultimately does a disservice to more players than it serves?

In my opinion, yes. The players who have qualified for Worlds have earned the right to play in the most prestigious Pokémon TCG event of the entire year. That event is not the LCQ, it is the Pokémon World Championships. I believe PokePop's last post covers this nicely. (Thanks PokePop):thumb:

You also seem to be implying that the worlds staff were not at their peak performance in years previous, which if true is somewhat alarming.

I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. An effort to keep our staff rested does not mean they are incapable of performing, it means that we see a potential issue that can be addressed before it becomes an actual issue. In my opinion, that is a worthy goal to have.

 

[Pokemon No Baka]

So it's my understanding based on this and other threads that because we enjoyed playing in the LCQ we misunderstood the purpose of it and were wrong to enjoy it?

 

[PokePop]

So it's my understanding based on this and other threads that because we enjoyed playing in the LCQ we misunderstood the purpose of it and were wrong to enjoy it?

Enjoying it was and is a side benefit.

 

[Prof Clay]

So it's my understanding based on this and other threads that because we enjoyed playing in the LCQ we misunderstood the purpose of it and were wrong to enjoy it?

yes...yes...now you have the right idea!...it was not to be enjoyed especially if you had fun