PojosamaWannabe
New Member
You're right, that is the argument. X-1 should never miss a cut in a tournament of 30+ people.
Why would they ever make it Top 4 at Cities?
- Thread starter PojosamaWannabe
- Start date
- Status
You're right, that is the argument. X-1 should never miss a cut in a tournament of 30+ people.
JandPDS
New Member
Sunday in Auburn CC, X-1 and missing the cut happened to one of the best players in the our State. This player got donked in his 1st game. Then he won all the other 4 games he played. Finished 4-1 and missed the Top cut due to finishing 5th.
If this is just about prize support. Have a top 8 and only prizes for the top 4. That should solve the problem. If the issue here is that it is not fair that areas where OP is not strong only get 20 people to the entire event, and only get 3 rounds and a top 2, while large areas get 5 rounds and a top 8. Then if the hope is to make the rounds players more equal between the two areas, then I do not agree with doing that. If ranking invites are the cause for all of this, I would prefer that ranking go back to being just for fun and not have worlds participation tied to them.
If this is just about prize support. Have a top 8 and only prizes for the top 4. That should solve the problem. If the issue here is that it is not fair that areas where OP is not strong only get 20 people to the entire event, and only get 3 rounds and a top 2, while large areas get 5 rounds and a top 8. Then if the hope is to make the rounds players more equal between the two areas, then I do not agree with doing that. If ranking invites are the cause for all of this, I would prefer that ranking go back to being just for fun and not have worlds participation tied to them.
JandPDS
New Member
OK but what are they..... the problem is that we have no clue as to why TO's and PTO's are being held to a top 4 for Citys when top 8 (or top 16) was used in the past. Why was top 16 allowed in States in 2006, but now only Top 8 in 2007 and 2008. In the past it was the size of participation in an event that determined the top cut. Why is that no longer the case? I agree that this decision was not just done on a whim, that there is a very logical reason for this limitation to be superimposed on Tournament top cuts. The problem that I see is that for two years now we have not been informed of the reason why change in tournement top cut structure was made to the game. It is this not knowing the reason why, I belive, that most people are having an issue with.
Last edited:
why do people think that they have a right to have every decision POP makes justified to them? do people really think the OP staff is going to come here and explain decisions they make regarding sensitive info like budgets for example?
the more info they give, the more 'reasons' people find to argue their decisions. not everything can be discussed in public, no matter how much you want them to be.
jmho.
'mom
the more info they give, the more 'reasons' people find to argue their decisions. not everything can be discussed in public, no matter how much you want them to be.
jmho.
'mom
Otaku
Active Member
Actually, most people don't know/care about the issue.
Think about it: most people don't play Pokemon. Okay, okay, now to be serious, even amongst Pokemon Players, newer players probably don't care much, and of experienced players, ask yourself this: if you rarely Top 8, and there are a lot of players like that out there, or you aren't in an area with large turnouts, then this doesn't really affect you, does it? If you regularly Top 4, then really it doesn't affect you much either. It is only the "almost" crowd that fills the 5th-8th place slots that really has a "reason" to be worried.
Oh, and this isn't about the best player. Again, taken to its extreme, everyone would have to play Pokemon to figure out the best player, have the same time and card resources, etc. Stepping back from this extreme, realistically if you want "fair" tournaments where luck is utterly, utterly minimized, you want Round Robin play with best two of three. Think about that: you gotta face everyone else, and twice. So two bad hands, and no one can complain that "I only lost because I had the bad luck of facing my auto-loss".
Top 20%? So what. At the BR I went to, I almost ran Infernape because at the time it was the only "real" deck I could assemble (it was a last minute kind of thing). A nice friend with a lucky pack pull gave me just what I was missing to run my true deck choice. It went five rounds before Top Cut, and I faced Empoleon based decks four of the five rounds. How much of the metagame itself is luck about what people play? Years ago, when the game was dominated by few decks, I'd point out that if everyone played an Archetype, that Archetype was going to win. If one person runs a counter deck, that person has a huge likelihood of winning. But if there is a better player who builds a better deck but everyone happens to play his worst match-up, his odds of winning are low. Even in a Round Robin, best two of three event, he probably won't win the tournament even though he deserved to, and it'd be because people chose to run the same thing. I don't think its fair to call the whims of a few a "skill factor". Yes, there is adjusting to the metagame, but we've repeatedly seen people play decks just because said deck was popular, even if it was expensive to build. Doesn't matter if it was the best deck or not.
What this rambling is about is this: Top 20% doesn't guarantee the best player wins. It is real life, so there are going to be things that mess it all up. Even taking that into account, Top 20% cut just gives people in a larger venue the ability to win with a poorer deck.
What?
Think about it this way: maybe some of the losses really are a player's own fault? If another deck beats your deck hands down no questions asked, maybe you haven't made a good deck? Maybe you aren't taking your Weakness or some other aspect serious enough? Maybe your deck doesn't set up well enough, so your "well everyone loses sometimes" loss is really because you aren't running enough Basic Pokemon to avoid an easy first/second turn KO.
There are just so many reasons that I think its pretty silly whining about maximum top cuts of 4 for City Championships. Be glad you have a shot at all: I remember when YGO was single elimination, and when Pokemon didn't even have Cities. After hearing all the excuses for losses I am beginning to wonder if TPC shouldn't just give it to whomever goes X-0 even if that makes the tournaments single elimination. After all, how much different is X-1 and X-2?Using top 20%, a single player difference can keep both out of top cut.
After reading this, I almost hope they decide to have nothing for the 2008/09 season. I mean, a lot of people don't have the time or energy to stay for ginourmous tournaments. Some have lives, or at least jobs, they have to do.
Agreed. I think people are just wondering why they are limiting it to Top 4. Honestly, I am quite curious myself, I live in FL where you can count on around 20 people minimum for each age division, so... yeah... only Top 4 is a bit of an annoyance.
Mew
New Member
The only problem I have with this T4 structure, even when attendance justifies more is, that there is some poor guy out there in a Metagame with Ness, Chuck, Jimmey, Moss, and the Ennocettis.
Who top cuts other than them... no one even has a shot.
And then we go to the FL metagame... ugh.
Who top cuts other than them... no one even has a shot.
And then we go to the FL metagame... ugh.
Vegeta ss4
Iron Chef Leader
Well, Considering the fact that if there were no players than there would be no POP. Yes I do dare to say that because it is a fact, Lets say(this will never happen) that there was a strike of all the pokemon players(not the collector card freaks) from going to any tournament or playing in any organized event. What would happen?
Pokemon sales will obviously take such a big hit that the game may end. I am almost at the point of realizing that this game will die pretty soon if they keep up with the dumb tournament guidelines and such. This game is just Yu-Gi-Oh waiting to happen.
SlimeyGrimey
New Member
Then they don't deserve to make the cut in that tournament if they can't play with those players. You don't enlarge the cut so you can add a couple more players who otherwise wouldn't be capable of doing well enough to make it. All this is doing is allowing these players to say: "well, I made top 8... then I lost to _____ of course". What's the point?
Otaku
Active Member
Wanna bet?
In the WotC days, it was pointed out to demanding players that the bulk of Pokemon TCG sales comes from... wait for it... random little kids! RLKs as I call them are those kids (and kids' parents) who buy them booster packs here and there. You know, at the Gas Station, at the Grocery Store, at Wal-Mart, etc. Think about it: a kid who averages a pack a week that way gets well over a booster box per year worth of cards! A kid who averages 2 packs a week this way gets nearly three boxes of cards a year! Even the ones that just pick it up now and then matter because they probably outnumber us by at least 10 to 1. Most of these kids will eventually stop buying, but they tend to get replaced by the next age group quick enough, and most importantly they need little input to keep buying: the cartoon, a major retailer, and maybe a commercial.
Second, what is the state of YGO? I mean, if UDE/Konami is hemorrhaging money, okay. And I mean honestly losing money, not just failing to meet quarterly projections. Last I checked though, YGO is that paradox: a game that should be dead but isn't. Oh, and believe me, tournaments can get a lot more stupid than just a top4 cut. For the longest time, YGO tournaments were single elimination! Maybe they had a top cut for the big ones, I wasn't able to attend those, but at the so-called friendlier local level it was brutal: one loss and you were out!
Now, I know I've been pretty harsh sounding, but think about what I keep hearing: whining. Some of you have been good and presented your points well, but the overall tone of this thread is whining about what was taken from "us". May I suggest a different approach? Ask what we can do to get it back to a top 20%. I read most of this thread earlier and to be honest I am spacing on exact details, but I think a few people were leaning in this direction. Then I just saw post after post of "Woe is me!".
Quite frankly, seeing this thread makes me understand half of why WotC was so keen to cut 15+. Plenty of companies make money just dumping a TCG onto the market, waiting for it to die, then after a short break dumping it (or an updated version) on the market again. Digimon, anyone?
Mew
New Member
I agree, they don't deserve to make the cut. But the thing is, depending on how new they are to this game, makeing the top cut and losing can only be a good thing for them.
I know if I didn't make top cut at the first couple of my tournaments, I would have been slightly driven away from this game.
So by enlarging the cut, it'll give the newer players something to strive and work for, by giving them a taste of what playing against the best in the Top cut is all about.
If you know who's "supposed" to win, why have the tournament? :wink:
SlimeyGrimey
New Member
I never said that at all. I was just addressing the point that Mew brought up. If some players think they can't beat players x, y, and z, why should the top cut be enlarged so that these self-proclaimed less skilled players have a better chance of making the cut. If they just expect to lose to these players anyway, we're not really doing anything but humouring them by letting them into the top cut.
Mew: I see your point, but they do get to play these players in swiss as well if they're doing well enough. I suppose making the top cut might be encouraging though.
Either way, I support POP's decision to limit the cut to 4.
It wasn't really directed at you. I was mostly trying to lighten the mood.
PojosamaWannabe
New Member
Because this is a message board. This is the discussion forum and we are discussing. We are the consumers and want to be satisfied with the product. We have the right to discuss this just as you have the right to say your opinion is humble when it is really anything but.
Yes, losses are a player's fault, but why is POP promoting the need to be perfect in order to make a cut/win? Prize support is fine, no one is complaining about that. This has already been addressed. Losing one game and not top cutting is just ridiculous. I've always read how POP tries to downplay competitiveness, but not this time, not in this situation. This will breed bad blood, angst, jealously, and anger for the players that feel cheated when they X-1 and miss out. Grudges will start to occur, not friendly compeititve ones, but rather grudges based on "you got lucky in round 1 and now I missed out." There have been no justifiable reasons for T4 instead of T8. And before anyone tries to disprove that, don't waste your time. Only POP can do this.
Otaku
Active Member
Again, you say this when realistically, it would totally be within their rights and even make sense to up the challenge and require a perfect record to even get into "top cut". Just as it is nearly impossible to go undefeated even for a good player, it is nearly impossible for a bad player to make top cut undefeated. Well, unless its a two round tournament or something. 
You are starting with an assumption that 20% of the players are more or less equally skilled and deserving of playing it out in a top cut. In reality, four or even less are probably the best at most tournaments, and the real best are probably going to be undefeated. Yes, there is "luck", but I think players have forgotten that a stable set up is part of skill as well. I know many players assert their losses are "bad luck", but realistically how often can you say your deck is good and have "total luck" loss? Does the fact that most of us also have "total luck wins" matter as much? How many X-1 players shouldn't be X-2 except they had good luck and/or an opponent had bad?
I just mean there are so many things to consider for what really amounts to a trivial matter for so much of the community.
Oh, has anyone pointed out this might be an attempt to get players behind attending more spread out City Championships? I mean CCs aren't really CCs anyway, its more like "Tournament Level 1" or something like that (if they were really Cities, we'd have to prove we were attending the nearest one). If more City Championships were available to play in in the "crowded" areas, making odds of Top 4 being a 20% cut, would that make this whole thing easier to swallow?
You are starting with an assumption that 20% of the players are more or less equally skilled and deserving of playing it out in a top cut. In reality, four or even less are probably the best at most tournaments, and the real best are probably going to be undefeated. Yes, there is "luck", but I think players have forgotten that a stable set up is part of skill as well. I know many players assert their losses are "bad luck", but realistically how often can you say your deck is good and have "total luck" loss? Does the fact that most of us also have "total luck wins" matter as much? How many X-1 players shouldn't be X-2 except they had good luck and/or an opponent had bad?I just mean there are so many things to consider for what really amounts to a trivial matter for so much of the community.
Oh, has anyone pointed out this might be an attempt to get players behind attending more spread out City Championships? I mean CCs aren't really CCs anyway, its more like "Tournament Level 1" or something like that (if they were really Cities, we'd have to prove we were attending the nearest one). If more City Championships were available to play in in the "crowded" areas, making odds of Top 4 being a 20% cut, would that make this whole thing easier to swallow?
meganium45
Active Member
Tourneys are a huge TURN OFF for newer players. Players with no real shot who enjoy playing the game for the experience of the game.
Sure, they may enjoy going, and checking it out, and get to 1. By the time they have gone 1-5 in three straight events, they have had enough.
If PUI was using OP to grow the game, they would do more evenly prized events like preReleases and Leagues, and less "Championship" events that only reward about 5% of the player base.
Too much sense of entitlement here.
How am I coming to this conclusion? We had a player in St. Louis STOP PLAYING in Battle Roads last year in the Junior Division.
What happened? The BRs were suddenly open and everyone had a chance to win, a lot of different people won, and Junior attendance at the events started going up!
Believe it or not, a lot of people do not like to play when they know they are behind the 8-ball from stage 1.
As far as top cuts go, I can see the restriction of top cuts in Cities to be consistant with the restriction of top cuts at States and Regionals.
If you are going to restrict 1, restrict 'em all!
Top 4 Cities, Top 8 States, Top 16 Regionals, Top 32 Nationals. Very consistant.
We all have envios that are "terror domes" where you have 5 people showing up who can win the event, and one of them will not even get to the top cut. Heck, in Seniors, we now have 6 Worlds players who show up at every event. 2 of them will miss the cut. Just the way it goes.
See you all on the far side!
Vince
Sure, they may enjoy going, and checking it out, and get to 1. By the time they have gone 1-5 in three straight events, they have had enough.
If PUI was using OP to grow the game, they would do more evenly prized events like preReleases and Leagues, and less "Championship" events that only reward about 5% of the player base.
Too much sense of entitlement here.
How am I coming to this conclusion? We had a player in St. Louis STOP PLAYING in Battle Roads last year in the Junior Division.
What happened? The BRs were suddenly open and everyone had a chance to win, a lot of different people won, and Junior attendance at the events started going up!
Believe it or not, a lot of people do not like to play when they know they are behind the 8-ball from stage 1.
As far as top cuts go, I can see the restriction of top cuts in Cities to be consistant with the restriction of top cuts at States and Regionals.
If you are going to restrict 1, restrict 'em all!
Top 4 Cities, Top 8 States, Top 16 Regionals, Top 32 Nationals. Very consistant.
We all have envios that are "terror domes" where you have 5 people showing up who can win the event, and one of them will not even get to the top cut. Heck, in Seniors, we now have 6 Worlds players who show up at every event. 2 of them will miss the cut. Just the way it goes.
See you all on the far side!
Vince
actually, my opinion is 'honest', not 'humble'
vince, i'm a little unclear on the point you're making about the junior player who stopped: did they stop because they were a rookie player who was discouraged, or a player who didn't like the fact that there now were more players and more competition in the division?
'mom
vince, i'm a little unclear on the point you're making about the junior player who stopped: did they stop because they were a rookie player who was discouraged, or a player who didn't like the fact that there now were more players and more competition in the division?
'mom
Mew
New Member
actually, my opinion is 'honest', not 'humble'
vince, i'm a little unclear on the point you're making about the junior player who stopped: did they stop because they were a rookie player who was discouraged, or a player who didn't like the fact that there now were more players and more competition in the division?
'mom
I'm not Vince, but I'm positive he means to say that this Junior player was so good, he was winning all the tournaments. Then when he stopped playing, the other juniors decided they had a chance.
I assume this is one of those World class juniors like Vince's own kids. So, he probably had his trip already secure, so he just took a break.
- Status