But in previous years it was a GOOD thing. Bigger tournaments=more rounds=more points. Now it doesn't so it is a bad thing.
Top 4 Cut
- Thread starter Diaz
- Start date
- Status
But in previous years it was a GOOD thing. Bigger tournaments=more rounds=more points. Now it doesn't so it is a bad thing.
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
Just because it's standard in California doesn't make it the right way to do things, and just because people are late in complaining doesn't make their complaints any less valid (I'm surprised more people past you and Scizor wouldn't bring up this issue).
The point is, cuts that make 5-1's miss simply defeat the purpose of what a top cut is supposed to be: an attempt to correct the luck of swiss.
butlerforhire
New Member
P!P needs to remove top cut caps immediately-- and they should have done so years ago. The change in the point system has just made this issue more severe and widespread, so now it is getting the attention it should've gotten at the beginning.
The proper way to determine the size of a top cut should always be directly linked to attendance, and nothing else-- X players = top cut of X. The level of the event should have nothing to do with the size of a top cut. I don't care about factors such as time at a venue or store compensation. Top cut can be moved to a local restaurant, for example, if the venue's hours or the TO's compensation budget doesn't allow further play there. How hard is that to do? I see it all the time. TOs could also select better venues to begin with, start earlier, etc., and P!P could help the TOs out by increasing their compensation allowance, which would make it easier to find those better venues. Yes, that would mean budget changes, but so what? P!P is responsible for giving the playerbase the best tournament experiences possible, and it is ridiculous to hear year after year that money issues are causing tournaments to be grossly compromised and illegitimate. I get so tired of always hearing about how factors unrelated to the actual GAME are responsible for so many of the problems we are forced to deal with.
Missing cut solely due to a cap is ridiculous, and it really does make traveling to events seem like an unworthy gamble, especially since Japan keeps making decisions that seem designed to plunge the game back into the stone age (horrible first turn rule change, printing of cards like Tyrogue and Pokemon Catcher, allowing cards like Zekrom, Pachirisu and Shaymin to be in the same format together), which results in so many stupid losses. How is it good for the game when you can get donked round 1 by Zekrom at a tournament with 60+ people, go undefeated the rest of the day, and STILL miss cut? At least under the old system you could get solid ELO points that MEANT something if you bubbled. Now you get ELO points that largely DON'T matter, and absolutely none of the points that do matter.
The proper way to determine the size of a top cut should always be directly linked to attendance, and nothing else-- X players = top cut of X. The level of the event should have nothing to do with the size of a top cut. I don't care about factors such as time at a venue or store compensation. Top cut can be moved to a local restaurant, for example, if the venue's hours or the TO's compensation budget doesn't allow further play there. How hard is that to do? I see it all the time. TOs could also select better venues to begin with, start earlier, etc., and P!P could help the TOs out by increasing their compensation allowance, which would make it easier to find those better venues. Yes, that would mean budget changes, but so what? P!P is responsible for giving the playerbase the best tournament experiences possible, and it is ridiculous to hear year after year that money issues are causing tournaments to be grossly compromised and illegitimate. I get so tired of always hearing about how factors unrelated to the actual GAME are responsible for so many of the problems we are forced to deal with.
Missing cut solely due to a cap is ridiculous, and it really does make traveling to events seem like an unworthy gamble, especially since Japan keeps making decisions that seem designed to plunge the game back into the stone age (horrible first turn rule change, printing of cards like Tyrogue and Pokemon Catcher, allowing cards like Zekrom, Pachirisu and Shaymin to be in the same format together), which results in so many stupid losses. How is it good for the game when you can get donked round 1 by Zekrom at a tournament with 60+ people, go undefeated the rest of the day, and STILL miss cut? At least under the old system you could get solid ELO points that MEANT something if you bubbled. Now you get ELO points that largely DON'T matter, and absolutely none of the points that do matter.
Ring-of-Magma
New Member
Just so you know, it was never intended for Zekrom, Pachirisu and Shaymin to be in the same format, and it certainly isn't Japan's fault. They are playing in a BW~ on format, which eliminates tyrogue, pachirisu and shaymin, hence completely balancing out zekrom and the format.
It is TPCi's fault that we are in the current format, where new cards can interact with older cards in somewhat overpowered ways. If they adopted a release structure like yugioh, where english sets were kept the same as the japanese ones, and were released 1 set apart, the game would be better.
On topic: the simplest solution is just to remove the top cut restriction for BR's, and just have it like other tournements.
butlerforhire
New Member
Japan had HGSS-on last year, so they did play with ZPS.
TPCI is at fault more than Japan for bad formats, of course, since they chop up Japan's sets and distribute cards as they see fit, while also creating formats that were absolutely never meant to be (MD-BW, for example). Japan makes the cards though, and thus they can be "blamed" for Catcher, Tyrogue, Machamp SF, SP, [insert unhealthy card here], etc..
TPCI is at fault more than Japan for bad formats, of course, since they chop up Japan's sets and distribute cards as they see fit, while also creating formats that were absolutely never meant to be (MD-BW, for example). Japan makes the cards though, and thus they can be "blamed" for Catcher, Tyrogue, Machamp SF, SP, [insert unhealthy card here], etc..
King Piplup
Active Member
No, ZPS were all in the same format in Japan. It is Japan who made these cards, and put then in the same format. A bigger top cut is a good idea, but does hurt venue time dramatically.
Ring-of-Magma
New Member
Yes they were last year, but now they aren't. However, we still have ZPS in our format, and probably still will next format, unless Shaymin gets rotated out, which may or may not happen.
I'm just saying that TPCi splitting up our sets and adding filler and whatnot isn't good for the game.
Prof Clay
New Member
I know this may be contrary to player expectation...and believe me, I am all for bigger attendence at ALL tournaments, but...
Battleroads are intentionally set up the way they are to actually discourage large attendence. Limit of top 4 and low prize support is supposed to make it not worth traveling across the state to play in events.
The low top cut and limited championship points are completely intended.
Right now we are like piranha's in the water trying to gobble up all the championship points we can, but Battleroads are not set up for large attendence. Some venues probably cannot even hold all the players who show up...
So...there is a problem with the system yes...its a good problem...we PTO's love more players, but looking at the overall scheme of the tournament season, battle roads are doing as they are supposed to do...
We want Battleroads to be something they were never going to be....city championships
So...do battleroads need to change to become something else? Probably...but where do you draw the line
Battleroads are intentionally set up the way they are to actually discourage large attendence. Limit of top 4 and low prize support is supposed to make it not worth traveling across the state to play in events.
The low top cut and limited championship points are completely intended.
Right now we are like piranha's in the water trying to gobble up all the championship points we can, but Battleroads are not set up for large attendence. Some venues probably cannot even hold all the players who show up...
So...there is a problem with the system yes...its a good problem...we PTO's love more players, but looking at the overall scheme of the tournament season, battle roads are doing as they are supposed to do...
We want Battleroads to be something they were never going to be....city championships
So...do battleroads need to change to become something else? Probably...but where do you draw the line
Prof Clay hits the nail on the head.
I have locations that I rent tables and chairs in order to seat all the players that come there for a City Championship.
I just can't afford to do that with a Battle Road. I'd be spending more money than what I get compensated.
And, while I see a number of TOs saying they don't care if they lose money running tournaments, I'm sorry, but that is just not a sustainable model. Plus I'd have a hard time explaining it to my wife where are mortgage money went!
I have locations that I rent tables and chairs in order to seat all the players that come there for a City Championship.
I just can't afford to do that with a Battle Road. I'd be spending more money than what I get compensated.
And, while I see a number of TOs saying they don't care if they lose money running tournaments, I'm sorry, but that is just not a sustainable model. Plus I'd have a hard time explaining it to my wife where are mortgage money went!
HypnosProjectHQ
New Member
Agreed, as I have played in two Battle Roads so far and taken 4th in both of them.:nonono:
TheDancingPeanut
New Member
I don't know how this works out in practicality, but I have always thought it's bad for a game that players can go X-1 and not make top cut. Nothing is more frustrating than knowing you have to be perfect.
Pidgeotto Trainer
New Member
If BRs are meant to be a small event, they need to have less potential reward for playing in them. There's much more potential for a great BR run helping someone get to worlds than in past years. BRs in the new system seems to be making things harder on players and organizers alike.
Ness
Member
There's a time & place for everything. These are Battle Roads. We don't need to make tournaments that are designed to attract new players go until midnight. Save that for the big City Championships and States. We can't just have every tournament from the beginning of the year running real late. You need a mix of practicality & fairness.
Prof Clay
New Member
All leagues should do this anyway. Not every tournament has to be a premier event run by a PTO or a TO.
Get 8 players or more and a little prize support..hold a tourney:thumb:
TheDarkTwins
Active Member
Discuss whether a BR should give out points is a silly argument. They do, and I don't see that changing.
I think we are getting off topic, the bigger issue is why does a 70 player BR give the same amount of points for getting 1st than one that only has 8 players, that to me just doesn't seem fair or even to the player who won over 70 players.
Drew
I think we are getting off topic, the bigger issue is why does a 70 player BR give the same amount of points for getting 1st than one that only has 8 players, that to me just doesn't seem fair or even to the player who won over 70 players.
Drew
NoPoke
Active Member
because in a points based system you are rewarding the win and not how hard it was to get there. It is important not to dilute that concept or bad things happen.
In their purest unadulterated form:
ELO looks at difficulty (skill)
Points looks at the finish.
Adding lots of extras to points based systems means inflation in the points based system. Inflation is tolerable in small amounts but very bad in large amounts: with a lot of inflation everyone who is not taking part is losing out rather than just the losing player as with ELO. Points looks at the finish.
Where points win out over ELO is that as long as POP stick to rewarding the winners and don't add lots of inflation into the system then players are encouraged to grow the smaller events by seeking those out. A points system also drives a desire for more events but whether that happens or not will, I suspect, be largely dependent upon how the junior and senior figures change.
Last edited:
yoyofsho16
New Member
The prizes are WAY too small.
I don't even WANT to play through top 8 if I'm just getting 2 propoints and 4 packs. really really not worth it in the interest of time.
---------- Post added 10/06/2011 at 01:21 PM ----------
Some areas just have more players... there's no reason we should reward them more just because they live in a more populous area.
ELO rewarded larger tournaments, propoints doesnt. Those of you in big areas had the benefit for years. Give us a chance.
I don't even WANT to play through top 8 if I'm just getting 2 propoints and 4 packs. really really not worth it in the interest of time.
---------- Post added 10/06/2011 at 01:21 PM ----------
Some areas just have more players... there's no reason we should reward them more just because they live in a more populous area.
ELO rewarded larger tournaments, propoints doesnt. Those of you in big areas had the benefit for years. Give us a chance.
.....Because it's so much easier to win a 230 player States than a 50 person one. What?! Yeah, it's a real "reward" to go 5-2 whiff at States with no chance to win than 4-2 make Top 4. While ELO may reward larger tournaments, you still have to beat a number of good players to actually get points. You could live in some area where there are only a few good players and just repeatedly dominate the tournament scene. That's still the same with this new system.
NoPoke brought up the point that by awarding the same amount of points to small areas as large areas, the attendance has a chance to grow because people could seek out smaller tournaments. While that is a good point, my point still remains that a large area has no benefits in this new system. I'm sure places will grow, but that doesn't change the fact that there will be States that are 5 times larger than others with the same prizes as all the others.
- Status