meganium45
Active Member
Or, we will have an option for a Top 64, and all will be happy!!
Vince
Vince
The Top 32 limit for Regionals NEEDS to be gotten rid of.
- Thread starter Raen
- Start date
- Status
JandPDS
New Member
Top cuts should never have artificial cielings. IE BR have 0 Cities have 8 States 16 and Reg 32.
It should be set by the TO and by the numbers at the event. IF the TO is willing to have a larger top cut and the attendance is large enough to allow it then why not have a larger top cut at any event.
It should be set by the TO and by the numbers at the event. IF the TO is willing to have a larger top cut and the attendance is large enough to allow it then why not have a larger top cut at any event.
Obviously, the system isn't perfect. But, I honestly feel that most feelings on this subject come out of ignorance. They complain about the system because the system is broken, but "that's the way its always been," then propose to fix the system by using standards that "have always been." It's a poor circular argument that stems from not understanding tournaments as a whole and this horrible "everyone is a winner" attitude we teach in our schools nowadays and no clue about what "other" games do and why.
I'll address a few things first:
Variance: I find this argument a bit funny, actually. No, it is not true that Pokemon has "more variance," but the heart of the argument is true. The heart of the argument is that between donks and random weakness, you can have more "bad" losses that you "shouldn't" have. This is true, but as far as "variance" goes, everyone in the field is subject to the same variance. 9 times out of 10, when you get donked, it is by a rather aggro type deck. Aggro decks in all games give them cheap wins, which is why decks like RDW, G/W Agro, and Zombies are so good in MtG, and Grand Crusader decks are so good in WoW, and the same reason Darkrai, Gyarados, Uxie Donk, and SP have all been so good over the last few years. Even if you don't donk, you apply early pressure and force your opponent to make great moves to stick around. Its a strategy in all games and all games have the same variance. I assure you, a turn 2 Smiter followed by Rancor + Silverblade on turn 3 is just as equally frustrating in MtG. People that don't play MtG assume the games go on forever and everyone has good matchups. With only 20 life, taking 12 damage T3 and having fatal on board already is VERY hard to deal with in magic. But, if "variance" is really, really a big concern, adding more swiss rounds does cut back on "variance." The funny part I find is that this idea has caught on so well in this thread but the idea of sideboards was laughed at by most people when it came up. One thing that would really, really help with "variance," best of 3 and sideboards. We aren't getting that, nor do I advocate that.
Best of 3: While I wish we would, I just don't find it practical. honestly, with Ex's right now, I think its doable, but the game as a whole can't handle it. Continuing with the "variance" arguments, why is it that ONE Pokemon game, takes about as long as TWO MtG/WoW games?
Additional Swiss: I'm actually a big advocate of this. The arguments against this is really, really poor: "If we can play another round, why can't we just play extra top cut?" The simple, simple answer to this is: what's the difference? If the advocation is that x-2's should get in, they will, all of them. If the advocation is that x-3's should have a shot, they will. Lets use some common sense here: the top 64 people at the end of round x will play against each other whether its in top cut or one more round of swiss. BUT, the big difference is, the number one and two seeds will battle in another round of swiss, meaning the 64th seed has a better chance of cutting.
Explaining what REALLY happens in other games:
I attended a MtG event lately that had 520+ people. We had 10 rounds (X-0 +1) and cut to a top 8. The argument can be made all day that the games are different and I agree. The point is, Pokemon players have this entitlement attitude that they "deserve" top cut without winning, strange, I know. The funny part is, we all payed $40 to play and no one was mad that it only cut to top 8...why is that? Because MtG players don't feel entitled. MtG also has tournaments that have a cutoff, to say, as an example, all X-3 (they actually use a point system) go to day 2. That doesn't mean top cut, it means the get to come play more for an opportunity to cut.
WoW usually has more weird tournament structures that involve two different formats. You play modified one day, all X-3's (as an example, and again, they use a point system) move to draft day 2. Then, after three rounds of draft, they tally points then cut to top 8.
Suggested solutions:
Well, they've all been pretty much stated already. Believe it or not, ONE EXTRA ROUND OF SWISS IS THE SAME AS BUMPING TOP CUT. Personally, I wish they would give a minimum "all X-2's/3's advance to day 2," then play a few more rounds of swiss. I think 3 more rounds of swiss with only day two players, then cut to top 8. That's 3 rounds of best of one and 3 rounds of best of 3 for a total of 6 rounds day 2, meaning all players on the bubble move on and top cut is definitely cutting the best players in the tournament AND day two is actually shorter since you aren't playing 5-6 rounds of best of 3.
I'll address a few things first:
Variance: I find this argument a bit funny, actually. No, it is not true that Pokemon has "more variance," but the heart of the argument is true. The heart of the argument is that between donks and random weakness, you can have more "bad" losses that you "shouldn't" have. This is true, but as far as "variance" goes, everyone in the field is subject to the same variance. 9 times out of 10, when you get donked, it is by a rather aggro type deck. Aggro decks in all games give them cheap wins, which is why decks like RDW, G/W Agro, and Zombies are so good in MtG, and Grand Crusader decks are so good in WoW, and the same reason Darkrai, Gyarados, Uxie Donk, and SP have all been so good over the last few years. Even if you don't donk, you apply early pressure and force your opponent to make great moves to stick around. Its a strategy in all games and all games have the same variance. I assure you, a turn 2 Smiter followed by Rancor + Silverblade on turn 3 is just as equally frustrating in MtG. People that don't play MtG assume the games go on forever and everyone has good matchups. With only 20 life, taking 12 damage T3 and having fatal on board already is VERY hard to deal with in magic. But, if "variance" is really, really a big concern, adding more swiss rounds does cut back on "variance." The funny part I find is that this idea has caught on so well in this thread but the idea of sideboards was laughed at by most people when it came up. One thing that would really, really help with "variance," best of 3 and sideboards. We aren't getting that, nor do I advocate that.
Best of 3: While I wish we would, I just don't find it practical. honestly, with Ex's right now, I think its doable, but the game as a whole can't handle it. Continuing with the "variance" arguments, why is it that ONE Pokemon game, takes about as long as TWO MtG/WoW games?
Additional Swiss: I'm actually a big advocate of this. The arguments against this is really, really poor: "If we can play another round, why can't we just play extra top cut?" The simple, simple answer to this is: what's the difference? If the advocation is that x-2's should get in, they will, all of them. If the advocation is that x-3's should have a shot, they will. Lets use some common sense here: the top 64 people at the end of round x will play against each other whether its in top cut or one more round of swiss. BUT, the big difference is, the number one and two seeds will battle in another round of swiss, meaning the 64th seed has a better chance of cutting.
Explaining what REALLY happens in other games:
I attended a MtG event lately that had 520+ people. We had 10 rounds (X-0 +1) and cut to a top 8. The argument can be made all day that the games are different and I agree. The point is, Pokemon players have this entitlement attitude that they "deserve" top cut without winning, strange, I know. The funny part is, we all payed $40 to play and no one was mad that it only cut to top 8...why is that? Because MtG players don't feel entitled. MtG also has tournaments that have a cutoff, to say, as an example, all X-3 (they actually use a point system) go to day 2. That doesn't mean top cut, it means the get to come play more for an opportunity to cut.
WoW usually has more weird tournament structures that involve two different formats. You play modified one day, all X-3's (as an example, and again, they use a point system) move to draft day 2. Then, after three rounds of draft, they tally points then cut to top 8.
Suggested solutions:
Well, they've all been pretty much stated already. Believe it or not, ONE EXTRA ROUND OF SWISS IS THE SAME AS BUMPING TOP CUT. Personally, I wish they would give a minimum "all X-2's/3's advance to day 2," then play a few more rounds of swiss. I think 3 more rounds of swiss with only day two players, then cut to top 8. That's 3 rounds of best of one and 3 rounds of best of 3 for a total of 6 rounds day 2, meaning all players on the bubble move on and top cut is definitely cutting the best players in the tournament AND day two is actually shorter since you aren't playing 5-6 rounds of best of 3.
psychup2034
New Member
I couldn't agree more with this.
You can't directly compare Pokemon and MtG. Yes, they are both TCGs, but they play completely different and, more important, Pokemon is much slower than MtG and first turn wins are much easier to pull of in Pokemon than MtG.
Bo3 is absolutely essential to have a truly fair game of Pokemon. Bo1 is awful, but is sadly necessary due to time constraints. The reason larger top cuts are better in Pokemon is because it allows for more Bo3 matches, thus decreasing the impact of first turn wins.
I think if MtG players lost on the first turn before they got to play, they'd feel "entitled" to Bo3 matches as well if the tournament rules would normally call for them. It's very frustrating to know that, if the tournament rules were perfectly adhered to, you would have gotten your chance at Bo3, but due to artificial limits that chance was taken away from you.
Bo3 is absolutely essential to have a truly fair game of Pokemon. Bo1 is awful, but is sadly necessary due to time constraints. The reason larger top cuts are better in Pokemon is because it allows for more Bo3 matches, thus decreasing the impact of first turn wins.
I think if MtG players lost on the first turn before they got to play, they'd feel "entitled" to Bo3 matches as well if the tournament rules would normally call for them. It's very frustrating to know that, if the tournament rules were perfectly adhered to, you would have gotten your chance at Bo3, but due to artificial limits that chance was taken away from you.
psychup2034
New Member
Best of 1 is just as fair as best of 3. There's just higher variance in games of Pokemon then Magic, which has its advantages as well as its disadvantages. Any average player has a chance to cut in Pokemon on any given day because of the high variance in Swiss results. That's amazing!
Everyone has dealt with being on the receiving end of first turn wins, but over the course of the entire season, the first turn wins even themselves out. Variance is part of the game of Pokemon.
Best of 3 and larger top cuts are not always ideal, because some people have lives and want to go home in reasonable time.
I'm curious, do you play Magic? If you do, you know that losing on turn five to an aggro decks twice in 2 of 3 has a higher probably round in and round out than consistently getting donked round after round. RDW dropping Hellrider followed by Thundermaw is usually gg, as is Zombies dropping Aristocrat turn 4, or G/W pairing Paladin/Silverheart turn 3-5. And, while you can argue that a donk is worse because you "never had a chance," you may never have played magic to understand how hard it is to stop boards like these. My point is, yes, you got more than one turn, but you never had a chance to win the game and you have a higher probability of this happening to you round after round in Magic. You aren't going to get donked every round in Pokemon. Again, its a poor argument brought about a long time ago by people that that play Pokemon but not Magic. More importantly, it doesn't matter if you get donked in Pokemon in ONE game, we are talking about TOURNAMENT STANDINGS. The reason it doesn't matter is because your opponents (read: fellow tournament attendees) have the same probability of getting donked as you do. What is going to seperate the good players from the bad players isn't donks, its taking your lumps when you get donked and not losing your other matches because you are a better player than your opponent. Remember, if you lose 2 matches in a tournament (legitimate loses, not donks), AND get donked twice, you go x-4, while those top cutting went X-2 and their loses (proportionally) were donks.
SuperWooper
New Member
This sounds totally reasonable to me.
CFOURCOLTSFAN
Active Member
But if you were 7-2 you didn't miss cut, i don't see how there is an argument to expand cut, heck you can go back to LAST year's Indy FALL regionals and all the X-2's made cut(8 rounds) with the only person who was x-2 that whiffed was late(so basically their own fault, at least that's reason i heard) as long as all x-2's cut i don't see an issue w/ it @ regionals.
Donks are so uncommon anymore unless you're playing Eels, in which case you should be fully aware of the possibility. Honestly you should care more about the first turn rules. Best of 3 curves the disadvantage of going second a little bit because if you lose you definitely get to make it up game 2 and you give it another shot game 3. The first turn rules right now are just broken.
bullados
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?
Do note that there are points along the spectrum where X-2 does NOT guarantee a Top 32 spot...
According to Ian's graph, it looks like that happens from about 220-255, and from about 370-511. That means that even under normal circumstances (i.e. under 256 players, which I believe is 8 rounds top 32), there's the possibility of an X-2 missing the cut.
According to Ian's graph, it looks like that happens from about 220-255, and from about 370-511. That means that even under normal circumstances (i.e. under 256 players, which I believe is 8 rounds top 32), there's the possibility of an X-2 missing the cut.
Not really. What I've found that best of three does more than anything is gives you chance to go all in game one with little repercussions. If you lose game one, you go first game two, then go second game three, which essentially puts you in the same position as going first game 1. If you win game one, you go first game three automatically and you get to go all in on game 2 (again) with no repercussions.
But yes, first turn rules are dumb. Maybe a second energy attachment T1 if you go second...or no energy attachment if you go first.
psychup2034
New Member
No offense to you personally, but this is a mistake that I see a quite a few relatively less experienced players make in top cut. Sometimes I see unnecessary risks being taken in game 1 because players are not afraid to lose game 1. After all, they get to go first game 2, right?
Well, it's not that simple. In top cut, nothing is guaranteed. You want to make sure you play game 1 as conservatively as you would play any other game. Taking risks is fine if you actually think taking that risk puts you in the best position to win the game or if you're far behind. However, try to avoid going "all in" in Game 1 and squandering what would have been a even/winnable position had you played more conservatively.
There are certain situations where it is advisable to be a little less risk-averse in game 1 of a top cut match, but those generally have to do with the clock and not with the fact that it's game 1. The idea of going "all in game one with little repercussions" is not an advisable way to approach the first game of a best of 3 in most situations.
No offense taken. But, I think you misunderstood what I meant. I phrased it that way because it was easier, but I'll explain a bit more using side boarding as an example. I played in a MtG tournament the other day playing an aggro deck. Obviously, when I CAN go all in, I want to. Going first when playing aggro in this situation is huge. So, as an example, I lost game one, not because I went all in. He went first and had an awesome set up. Going into game 2, I'm about to side in, but then thought: you know, I'm going first and I have the more aggressive deck....its probably better to keep my deck as aggro as possible this game. I did and I won easily. Before game 3 starts, I side in everything I wanted. I actually lost due to poor decisions in the game, but my choices of when to side and when not to where spot on.
All I meant was, purely from a "going second" stand point as far as it "evening out," everything is that if we assume (and correctly) that going first is an advantage, if you win the flip game one, you are guaranteed two games of going first, which negates the "at least I get to go first game two." Essentially, the effect is (purely from the "going second" POV), that going first game one essentially wins you the match since the only time you ever have a disadvantage is game two and you can play that game however you want with little draw back.
sdrawkcab
Forum Moderator
I've always liked the idea of byes for top cut at big events. More so specifically for players who went undefeated during swiss. Making it a top31 cut (or a top 32 cut if there were no undefeated players)
I suppose for events with 9 rounds, something like a top 24 or top 56 would give top8 players a bye in what would have been top 32's and top 64's. This would give 8-1's and possibly a 7-2 who started off 7-0 byes.
Surviving swiss rounds with an undefeated record has been over looked and unrewarded for far too long.
Last edited:
NoPoke
Active Member
Under the current system 255 players is a T32 cut. If a T64 were allowed at bigger events it would still not help this 255 player tournament.
With 255 entrants five X-2s miss a place in a T32 cut.
The problem is caused by being so fixed on running no more than Floor(log2(entries)) rounds. The fix is to base the number of swiss rounds upon a combination of the log2(entries) result and the binomial distribution that can be expected from such. The fix is to allow one extra swiss round at the awkward entry numbers. Not all tournaments need this extra swiss round but for those that do you put an end to the complaints that resitance decided which X-2 made a T32 cut.
Swiss+1 : you know it makes sense.
With 255 entrants five X-2s miss a place in a T32 cut.
The problem is caused by being so fixed on running no more than Floor(log2(entries)) rounds. The fix is to base the number of swiss rounds upon a combination of the log2(entries) result and the binomial distribution that can be expected from such. The fix is to allow one extra swiss round at the awkward entry numbers. Not all tournaments need this extra swiss round but for those that do you put an end to the complaints that resitance decided which X-2 made a T32 cut.
Swiss+1 : you know it makes sense.
- Status