The Top 32 limit for Regionals NEEDS to be gotten rid of.

[Shen]

With long travel times, particularly in the Western part of the United States a short Sunday is a bonus. You have a good chance to get home at a reasonable hour on Sunday so you can go to work or school on Monday. Extending the top cut by another hour or two or three means another day off work.

Also not all X-2's should make the cut. In a 8 person, three round tournament none of the 1-2 players should make the cut. Even in a 16 player 4 round tournament, the 2-2 players shouldn't make the cut. Certainly the X-3 player in both these scenarios shouldn't make it either.

We mean in a 200+ person event, where 5-2's, 6-2's etc miss cut. But I agree, X-3 not making cut is not too bad.

@LOLZ

It was a suggestion. I've heard it before, there was a similar thread like this last year and people had suggested adding additional Swiss rounds. In my point of view, if it were a real possibility (I understand it currently isn't) to add more Swiss rounds, why couldn't we just have at least one more round of top cut? That would double the cut size. I could see it being a staffing issue, though.

 

[Otaku]

Please don't tell me to get more staff. That type of response is less than helpful.

Would it be helpful if more people volunteered? That is, when someone brings up this issue (especially those old enough to be Professors), would having more volunteers allow for a larger Top Cut, or do some of the other factors you mention completely prohibit it.

Obviously, the space issue is not solved no matter how many volunteers you receive.

 

[Mystery Thing]

Time and venue can still also be a factor regardless of amount of staff, though.

At the Western Canada Regionals last year, the TCG Masters top cut (on day two) took longer than the ENTIRE VGC tournament did, from beginning to completion. And it's not like there were any unforseen holdups, or anything of the like.

 

[bullados]

Would it be helpful if more people volunteered? That is, when someone brings up this issue (especially those old enough to be Professors), would having more volunteers allow for a larger Top Cut, or do some of the other factors you mention completely prohibit it.

If you'd check out Vince's Regionals topic, you'd know that he's already pretty well overstaffed, and has people volunteering that he can't really use.

I really don't know that much about the timing aspect. I'd guess that running a T64 all on Sunday is completely out of the question. That's 6 rounds of 90 minutes each (including the overtime), plus an hour for lunch. You start at 9am, and you're out at 5pm, generally about an hour past what most convention center type spaces will allow you to stay. It's the reason that US Nationals and Worlds pretty much always finish by about 4:30pm local time. And 9 rounds on Saturday is no picnic either (starting at 10:30, with an hour for lunch, you don't finish the 9th round until 9:30pm, if you're lucky). I don't see where the extra round can come in under standard timing and venue restrictions.

While I want it, while I'd guess most of the organizers want it, I don't see where the extra time can be made up. At least, not while maintaining a coherent staff and a high level of play from the players.

 

[Otaku]

Obviously, the space issue is not solved no matter how many volunteers you receive.

Time and venue can still also be a factor regardless of amount of staff, though.

...so you're agreeing with me?

If you'd check out Vince's Regionals topic, you'd know that he's already pretty well overstaffed, and has people volunteering that he can't really use.

If I, someone who has never run a sanctioned Pokémon tournament (and has run maybe two, tiny, unsanctioned ones) and has been unable to even attend one in over three years, had thought that I could find such informat in that thread, then yes I might have considered checking it. Given my lack of knowledge in this area, I simply asked, and have now been answered. Well, if it is safe to assume meganium45 will correct any faulty information, but generally I trust bullados to know.

 

[Shen]

We have 390 Masters here in St. Louis.

T32 means 8% get in.

That's ridiculous.

 

[NoPoke]

We have 390 Masters here in St. Louis.

T32 means 8% get in.

That's ridiculous.

8% isn't ridiculous for a large tournament. The lack of swiss rounds to make everyone think that they had a shot at getting to that 8% could be called ridiculous. Though I don't think 390 players with 9 swiss rounds is bad enough to make a T32 look stupid.

Nearly all the X-2s make it so "ridiculous" is probably too much, thoughfor for the few 7-2s that do miss it is going to sting. I'd prefer to see more swiss rounds than T64 cuts. More swiss rounds reduces the variance in that phase of the tournament. I don't know if anyone is actually listening but I believe that 9 swiss rounds with 390 players is one swiss round too few. The break points for number of rounds should follow the binomial distribution and not the power of 2 approach that is currently used. I hold this view because I don't believe that T32s are a reasonable way to end a tournament, where a T64 would seem like a whole new tournament or worse feel like it lets in lower tier decks that really have no business being in the cut.

 

[Shen]

Enough people dropped, exactly all 7-2's made it. No 6-3's.

I take it all back >.>

 

[SonicAD]

Enough people dropped, exactly all 7-2's made it. No 6-3's.

I take it all back >.>

It was actually that we only had 351 Masters (as shown by the roster posted before round 1). I would guess the 390 number may have included pre-regs that then didn't show. In any case it was jussssst enough for all the 7-2s to make it. And if the downpaired 6-2 in the last round lost, 1 6-3 would've made it.

 

[ajhawk]

8% isn't ridiculous for a large tournament. The lack of swiss rounds to make everyone think that they had a shot at getting to that 8% could be called ridiculous. Though I don't think 390 players with 9 swiss rounds is bad enough to make a T32 look stupid.

Nearly all the X-2s make it so "ridiculous" is probably too much, thoughfor for the few 7-2s that do miss it is going to sting. I'd prefer to see more swiss rounds than T64 cuts. More swiss rounds reduces the variance in that phase of the tournament. I don't know if anyone is actually listening but I believe that 9 swiss rounds with 390 players is one swiss round too few. The break points for number of rounds should follow the binomial distribution and not the power of 2 approach that is currently used. I hold this view because I don't believe that T32s are a reasonable way to end a tournament, where a T64 would seem like a whole new tournament or worse feel like it lets in lower tier decks that really have no business being in the cut.

Larger top cuts with Bo3 do a lot more to ensure less variance in results than more Swiss rounds in Pokemon. You cannot simply port the MtG methodology of more Swiss and a smaller cut, because the games work differently. X-2 should always make the cut. To be honest, X-3 should make the cut 90% of the time.

Because of the way this game is structured mechanically, it is completely possible to take one or two losses that are completely out of your control and then a third loss that is a great game against a great player. 6-3 is a great record and should make cut at larger tournaments more often than not.

And it is ridiculous that less than 10% of the players at the Mississippi River Valley tourney made the cut. I understand the idea that it is hard to get staffed for larger cuts, etc. But, if this game wants to continue growing, larger cuts simply must become a reality. There aren't any questions about it. We have a great game, but a mediocre competitive structure will hold this back.

 

[Otaku]

I've got to confess, I am a bit confused why in a tournament, someone managing to loose three times before top cut not making it is bad?

I am not trying to be insensitive, but rather I am curious. Is it a result of something I am missing? I mean, losing once due to luck? Pretty much assumed. Twice? It happens frequently, even to the best. Losing three times? Tournaments are about filtering and shaking things down until only one player brings home first place.

The nature of tournament play means that some people are going to lose. The game isn't designed to award points for performance and then assign placement based on your score; I wish it could be so that all of us who are crowded out of the top cut ...okay, okay: "all of your who are crowded out of the top cut", as I am unlikely to find myself there even if allowed all records of X-3. XD So for all of you affected, is it because you really think you're being unfairly denied a shot at first place? T4, T8, or T16? Or is it because you want to be able to say "At least I made the top cut!" as something of a consolation prize?

Yes, I still have one other point; if many players who are clearly skilled are missing top cut because they are getting three "unlucky losses", that would be a sign of an issue with the game's health, of card pool, game balance and mechanics, "luck" balance, etc. Not something I want to discuss here, but if it really is happening a lot, then perhaps we need to start a new topic for that?

In summary, I have a lot of questions because I don't understand. Please explain, so that I might; if what I have presented seems ludicrous, it is because of my lack of understanding.

 

[Glumanda]

I also think that 6-3´s should per se not be part of the Tops. Only winning 2/3´s of your games should not be enough in general. Some lucky losers, okay...

I want to look at it from another angle. Someone who goes 9-0 or 8-1 has still to win 5 more matches to bring the title down. Adding one more match to bring people with a mediocre performance into Top Cut devalues their accomplishment, IMO.

 

[ajhawk]

Pokemon has more variance Swiss round by Swiss round than Magic. That means there are more chances to lose a game or two purely by circumstances out of your control. Winning 66%+ of your games should net you a spot in the top cut (playoffs). Just look at most competitive environments (Baseball, Football, Basketball, etc.), a .666 win rate is exceedingly good in almost every competitive adventure.

Also, most players admit that Top Cut should be about 20-25% of the field. And, if the Top Cuts weren't capped, the guidelines would have demanded a top 64 at these 300+ people regionals. And that top cut percentage is in line with the smaller event's top cuts.

Also, adding another round of Bo3 doesn't cheapen any accomplishment. It makes it harder to win. That makes it a bigger accomplishment.

 

[Raen]

Pokemon has more variance Swiss round by Swiss round than Magic. That means there are more chances to lose a game or two purely by circumstances out of your control. Winning 66%+ of your games should net you a spot in the top cut (playoffs). Just look at most competitive environments (Baseball, Football, Basketball, etc.), a .666 win rate is exceedingly good in almost every competitive adventure.

Also, most players admit that Top Cut should be about 20-25% of the field. And, if the Top Cuts weren't capped, the guidelines would have demanded a top 64 at these 300+ people regionals. And that top cut percentage is in line with the smaller event's top cuts.

Also, adding another round of Bo3 doesn't cheapen any accomplishment. It makes it harder to win. That makes it a bigger accomplishment.

This really articulates my thought very well. Thanks!

 

[redwater]

8% isn't ridiculous for a large tournament. The lack of swiss rounds to make everyone think that they had a shot at getting to that 8% could be called ridiculous. Though I don't think 390 players with 9 swiss rounds is bad enough to make a T32 look stupid.

Nearly all the X-2s make it so "ridiculous" is probably too much, thoughfor for the few 7-2s that do miss it is going to sting. I'd prefer to see more swiss rounds than T64 cuts. More swiss rounds reduces the variance in that phase of the tournament. I don't know if anyone is actually listening but I believe that 9 swiss rounds with 390 players is one swiss round too few. The break points for number of rounds should follow the binomial distribution and not the power of 2 approach that is currently used. I hold this view because I don't believe that T32s are a reasonable way to end a tournament, where a T64 would seem like a whole new tournament or worse feel like it lets in lower tier decks that really have no business being in the cut.

inside of more round you can have top 64 and played till top 32 on the first day.

 

[CrystalEyeMonster]

If they had top 32 with seniors -___-

 

[espy87]

We should definitely get top 64 so I could make it in top cut next time after getting 33rd

 

[Politoed666]

If a football, basketball, baseball, etc. team wins twice as many games as it loses, that is exceptional!

Somebody should explain to me what's different about Masters Pokémon.

 

[NoPoke]

Pokemon has more variance Swiss round by Swiss round than Magic. That means there are more chances to lose a game or two purely by circumstances out of your control. Winning 66%+ of your games should net you a spot in the top cut (playoffs). Just look at most competitive environments (Baseball, Football, Basketball, etc.), a .666 win rate is exceedingly good in almost every competitive adventure.

Also, most players admit that Top Cut should be about 20-25% of the field. And, if the Top Cuts weren't capped, the guidelines would have demanded a top 64 at these 300+ people regionals. And that top cut percentage is in line with the smaller event's top cuts.

Also, adding another round of Bo3 doesn't cheapen any accomplishment. It makes it harder to win. That makes it a bigger accomplishment.

That variance in the swiss is just one of the reasons why I advocate more swiss rounds and not bigger top cuts. Increasing the top cut is the wrong way to address variance.

 

[Politoed666]

That variance in the swiss is just one of the reasons why I advocate more swiss rounds and not bigger top cuts. Increasing the top cut is the wrong way to address variance.

Why?

In my opinion, larger top cut is always the way to go in a two-day event. You avoid the typical complaints of "the staff is tired, hungry, and has to go to the bathroom," because you're only adding 75-90 minutes to an already two-day event, which isn't unreasonable. Top-cut, by virtue of the fact that it is best 2/3, is already more skill-based and less luck-reliant than swiss. As has already been discussed, more games decrease random variance.