Why would they ever make it Top 4 at Cities?

[JandPDS]

For most tournaments the majority of players at X-1 will make the cut. This is true even with this season's reduction to T4 for Cities.

Auburn CC on Sunday one of last years World Championship particpants in Masters went 4-1 and missed the cut, out of a field of 21.
Belive me he felt he that played good enough to deserve to be in the finals.

 

[HurricaneWarty]

That's assuming most cities attendance will be under 30. I did the rough numbers earlier in this thread, any division with over ~30 players will have atleast one X-1 miss the cut.

Yeah, about 30 guarantees a X-1 missing the cut, but we had 19 in one division last Saturday and had a 4-1 miss the cut, so it can happen with even less. In fact, I haven't run all the numbers to guarantee this, but I think with any odd number of players, you can have an X-1 miss the cut no matter how many rounds are played.

I think a player who is 4-1/X-1 has proven they can compete with anyone. That 1 loss is probably to another top player in that tournament. I feel playoffs are designed to take all those who have proven their ability to consistently win and have them play for the championship. .800 is a win percentage that fits that criteria. Also, 4-1 IS a winning record, anything with a win pct. above .500 is defined as winning.

 

[SPARTA]

A player going X-1 and missing cut in ANYTHING COMPETATIVE is beyond retarded. You can say "if they were good they would have gone undefeated" bla bla bla, shut up. Goin X-1 means you have a minumum of a 75% win rate, more than likely an 80- 86%. Seriously NoPoke if you reply to this saying "try harder next time", I will lose every ounce of respect for you that I gained from meeting you at worlds, because that is stupid. Top cut should be limited for Battle Roads to top 4, not cities. This is entire decision is asenine.

 

[master of puppets]

HAHA!
sparta AND hurricane warty both won this thread!

and no one can say that tthe person who went 4-1 and missed the cut is worse than the other 4-1's who made it because of this dumb thing called being pared down! it happened to me last week, i was in first but got pared down to playing a 2-1 insteed of a 3-0 and that effected my ranking and put me in like 2nd or 3rd.

 

[bulbasnore]

Seriously NoPoke if you reply to this saying "try harder next time", I will lose every ounce of respect for you that I gained from meeting you at worlds, because that is stupid.

Sorry in advance if I missed some other stuff like this, and happened to single your post out.

I think the Gym is better off, if people don't say, "You better not say this, or ...". Instead, its better if they make their point and move on. Have something new to add, great, do it.

Also, I think we're better off if people treat each other decently, as they would if they were talking to someone in person. I mean, meeting someone in person and interacting >>> typing with people on a message board. No respect for NoPoke? One might as well say you have no respect for Cyrus or PokePop or Prof Dav. Please, that's hyperbole at its worst to say one has no respect for a person who treats others decently, is solid contributor of substance on the Gym and a person who has achieved something in real life. Just because of a difference or possible difference in viewpoints on organizing?

OK, now some of you are thinking I'm beating up on old SPARTA here, but not really. I'm just worn out by all the bile and vitriol on this board & have to speak up.

So, please let people give their views. When people don't come around to my viewpoint, its frustrating, but we can still be friends or at least civil while discussing an jolting/interesting development like this change in tourney structure.

 

[JandPDS]

I've heard that this has been done before in the US, though - for States last season and more. This is just new to Norway - we have always just set the size of the top cut to whatever standard DCI tournament rules / POP tournaments rules tell us, or whatever DCI Reporter / TOM says is the right thing to do. Going away from the standard in a special pre-set top cut size that doesn't take high attendance into account is something new for me.

This is exactly the frustration here, the fact that there has been absolutely no reason or explanation of any kind as to why all of the sudden POP has made the decison to not follow the guidelines (i.e. per the Tournament Software that they have TO's use) to determine who many people should be in a Top cut based upon the number of people participating in the event.

It is sort of like what do you think would happen if all the sudden in the middle of a baseball season Major League baseball told the players that starting with next weeks games, a batter will be called out after the 2nd strike against him. The players would be all upset, and say "Hey why are you doing this, baseball has always had 3 strikes before you are out!" Would the players accept it if they were not given any explanation or reason for the change but instead informed that once the playoffs start, players will once again be given 3 strikes before they are out, and when the World Series is ready to begin they will then inform the players what the Strike out rule will be used for The Championship games.

It is by far not a perfect example but it is sort of similar. Players for years in Pokemon have been conditioned to expect that all X-1's at an event will make the top cut, and sometimes one or two less deserving X-2's will luck into the finals. And to have this expected structure to the game all of the sudden ripped away for them without any explanation as to why has cause some of us to take a step back and say "Whoa.. wait a second, this is not right.. this not the way it has been done in the past ... why is this happening" And to be have stone silence be the response as to why the change has been made to the "Tradition" of Pokemon is very frustrating and disappointing for some of us.

What if the NFL decided that starting on Sunday a team would no longer get a 1st down every 10 yards, but now needed 15 for a 1st down. What if a Coach complained "Hey that is not fair to change this now, our playbook was designed for 10 yard 1st downs in mind. Why are you doing this?" And then what if some of the other Coaches laughed at him and said "It's you own fault Coach for not coming up with better plays that got more yards before now! Deal with it." That is how I feel when I see people who say "You X-1's and you missed the top cut.. its your own fault for not being perfect in your record. Deal with it" are saying.

Now I have never myself gone x-1 and missed a cut, every time so far, in the few that occasions that I have been fortunant enough to have such a lofty record, I have made the Top Cut. But I have seen it happen to other people go x-1 or x-2 in larger events and not make the playoffs, and it bothers me whenever that happens. I top cut at Washington States last year in the 8th spot. The 9th place person had the same record as me (4-2) and the same exact 1st tiebreaker. I beat him out by 4 out of 100 percentage points on the 2nd tiebreaker.
Was it fair for me to move on and for his day to be over, no of course it was not. IF it was the previous year in 2006 and he had that very same record he would have been in the finals, and he very well could have won the event. But in 2007 he was excluded form the top cut. I just want to know why players like him who do extremely in an event are now being excluded form their deserved chance at winning the Championship?
Any explanation, even one in which I may not agree with would be better then not knowing at all why the change has been made. At least then we would have some closure on this issue.

 

[HurricaneWarty]

I agree a simple explanation would be great for the reasons JandPDS stated. In fact, if the reason is that they want to try and keep the # of rated matches people receive closer to the same, I can understand that. While I might not agree with it, I can definitely understand it. After all, I think growth for this game would increase more if you told every person who started this game "You have a legit chance to make the World Championships!" instead of having to say to some "Well because we don't have a huge population and our tournaments are smaller, you really don't have that great of a chance making it to the big stage." Option #1 sounds great to new players who are just starting.

 

[JandPDS]

Or even if it is simpler then that. Say the reason was "We have determined that City Championships are taking to long to complete in some of the larger Pokemon areas, and it is unfair to make the Volunteers who run the events work so hard for so long in a single day to determine the winners of a City Championship. So we are solving this problem by not having them run any more then two rounds of Playoffs" I would infact agree wholeheartedly with that one.

 

[meganium45]

Sorry JandPds, this is not a change that was made in the middle of a season, but rather an change that was made at the beginning of the season.

The rules are clear.

The logic makes sense.

Prizes for the T4, go T4,

Prizes for the T8, go T8

Prizes for the T16, go T16....

It separates the events.

I always felt "obligated" as a TO to give SOMETHING to those that got to the cut, and then lost, but didn't get anything on a prize support basis.

In essence, I thought it was worth something to have played that extra round, under that extra pressure.

I love bigger cuts. I love "new" faces coming in who have never sat at the finals table and hearing all of the instructions (a good 2-3 minutes worth) and their anticipation of what is to come. Seeing a Junior Top 32 Cut at a Regionals, was, in a word, TOO COOL! At least 20 of the little piglets had never sat in a top cut before, and they were STOKED! Especially when a newer player went on a run and took 2nd,and his dad got to realize he just won a cash scholarship! It was a WOW moment!

I am appreciative of the new rule, and will abide by it.

Sometimes we just have to deal with the cards we are dealt (unless you have Pidgeot, and then you can get any darned card you want!)

Vince

 

[JandPDS]

I am not saying that anyone should not abide by it, of course everyone needs to follow the established rules. But when was this idea formed that everyone who top cuts needs to get a prize? I am sorry but that is a bit of a silly notion and nor is it the way it has always been in the past.


2006 Oregon State Championship, it was known prior to the start of the event that there would only be prizes for the top 8. That was a known fact and nobody was shocked that only the top 8 received prizes when the evnet was done.
I went 5-1 in Swiss and was the 2nd ranked player. In T16 I was matched up against the #15 ranked player who went 4-2 in swiss. She beat me 2-1 in the T16. She lost in the T8. She got prizes because she made Top 8 and I did not because I did not make the top 8. Was I upset or sad that she got packs and I did not even though I had a better swiss record then her. Of course not, I knww that prizes were not for the top 8 Swiss players, but were for the players who finished in the top 8 in the playoffs, I was not one of those players so I did not get or deserve a prize.

So I ask you when did this notion come into Pokemon that all players who top cut must get a prize? It is as silly as the old notion that every invite to the World Championships had to have a paid trip attached to it. I see absolutely no reason why Top Cut participation has to be tied to the Prize support available to the event.

 

[NoPoke]

Sparta and others: I hope that none of you think that there are any TOs out there that are happy when a 4-1 misses the cut. The 4-1 that misses may have played their heart out. We all want players to be rewarded for their efforts, but the reality is that it just isn't going to be the case at every tournament.


regarding 'try harder next time' well having been baited slightly the devil in me sooo wants to make that post, but whereas in a face to face conversation I can probably express it just as a piece of playfull mischief I have no way of ensuring that such a statement would be interpreted correctly on a bulletin board. FWIW I think vague advice like 'try harder' is usually useless. At least 'Win more games' focuses the attention on what it is that kept the player out - the number of losses. 'What change would be necessary to turn that loss into a win' is possibly the best advice. Though in the case of a donk even it has no good answer. 'Better luck next time' is a little hollow but that may be all that kept a particular 4-1 out.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

1)So I ask you when did this notion come into Pokemon that all players who top cut must get a prize? 2) It is a silly idea.........
3) I see absolutely no reason why Top Cut participation has to be tied to the Prize support available to the event.

1) No idea. Was it this season?

2) Ah is it silly?

3) So time to see if there may be reasons why prizes and the cut size should be linked....

Swiss and single elim are very different tournament types. We already know that the single elim does not respect the seedings produced by the swiss rounds. So do you really want to tell the undefeated junior that goes out in the first round of the single elim that their effort gets no reward. I can completely understand why TOs would extend the prize support to all the top cut and why POP would adopt this as standard practice.

So it isn't 'silly' even if as individuals we don't like it. It isn't 'silly' even if as adults we are more able to accept that going out in the first round of the single elim happens to even the best players.

I have to repeat that I have no special knowledge as to why the change was made. But I absolutely refuse to dismiss the change as 'silly' or 'ill-concieved' or any other primarily dismissive term. POP doesnt make decisions with the goal of making OP worse!

 

[PojosamaWannabe]

3) So time to see if there may be reasons why prizes and the cut size should be linked....

Swiss and single elim are very different tournament types. We already know that the single elim does not respect the seedings produced by the swiss rounds. So do you really want to tell the undefeated junior that goes out in the first round of the single elim that their effort gets no reward. I can completely understand why TOs would extend the prize support to all the top cut and why POP would adopt this as standard practice.

So it isn't 'silly' even if as individuals we don't like it. It isn't 'silly' even if as adults we are more able to accept that going out in the first round of the single elim happens to even the best players.

I have to repeat that I have no special knowledge as to why the change was made. But I absolutely refuse to dismiss the change as 'silly' or 'ill-concieved' or any other primarily dismissive term. POP doesnt make decisions with the goal of making OP worse!

I agree with this, but if this is the main conern for limiting the Top Cut, give a "Victory Medal" Card to the winner of Swiss. Would these 3 cards per tournament really increase the cost? Cut back 2 packs from each prize if you want to pinch pennies, atleast the undefeated gets some recognition. My point is, keeping prizes = to cuts for the sake of rewarding the top swiss player is ridiculous. The championship (and in turn, prizes) are awarded to the winner of the tournament through Swiss performance and a perfect playoff run.

 

[JandPDS]

This notion that all players who top cut have to win something is new, it did not always work that way. Three years ago in the final City Championship of the year I played in one where masters actually had enough players for a T16. Even though it was known that pries would only go to the top 4. I won my T16 match and lost in T8. I did not receive a prize. Was I disappointed? That I lost of course, but not because I did not receive a prize. As I knew going into the event that prizes were for the Top 4 not for making it out of the swiss rounds into the playoffs. And I feel that most junior players are mature enough to comprehend this notion without getting upset. I mean I have not seen the X-0 players in Juniors get upset if they loose in T4 or T2 and do not get the medal. They are able to realize that finishing #1 in swiss and winning the Championship are two completely different achievements. I also do not see this as being much of a problem anyway as I have never in 4 years of City Championship participation seen an event with enough players in Juniors or Seniors to warrant a Top 8 cut. This issue of the Top 4 ceiling only effects the masters division, and I am without a doubt positive that players 15 and over fully comprehend the significant difference between wining the swiss part of the event and winning the City Championship itself, those players for sure can handle loosing in T8 and not getting a prize.

The packs are insignificant to me. It is nice when we get them, but that is not why I try to make top cut. I try to top cut to get the extra games. I love the competition of a Pokemon tournament. I like the satisfaction of playing so successfully that I have earned the right to continue on into the extra rounds of the event when playing is over for the majority of the participants. If the event is scheduled for 5 games, When I make the finals I get 2 bonus games to play minimum, and if I win I get more games to play.( It is like playing pinball and scoring enough points for an extra game. There is a sense of Satisfaction.)
And as an added bonus all the games will be against high level competition, nothing against new players, we welcome you to Pokemon, but playing against a player who is new to the game in a City Championship it can be a bit of a downer as it is not usually a test of you or your decks ability. You know when you make into the finals though, that you can always expect good competition in the top cut.

Playing you see is the number one reward for top cutting, not the prizes. I am proud of the City Championship medal that I won last year, but I could not tell you at this moment where in my house it is located. I have not seen it from the time that I put it away after showing it off at league the week after I won it. Now what I value the most was going to the event and making the top cut, then, going 4-0 in the playoffs including 2-0 finals vs one of the best players ever from Washington State. That memory was the best reward I received for participating that day.

It is these possible memories that are being denied to the X-1's who are now missing the Top cut, that is the issue. I firmly believe that for most competitive players, they would much rather get the chance to play in the Top cut and not be guaranteed a prize, then only be allowed in when they are guaranteed to win something. Most people play not for prizes but for this silly notion of love for the game of Pokemon. For them playing is the #1 reward, and for that reason then, X-1 players should not regularly be left out of the top cut.

 

[bullados]

The packs are insignificant to me. It is nice when we get them, but that is not why I try to make top cut. I try to top cut to get the extra games. I love the competition of a Pokemon tournament. I like the satisfaction of playing so successfully that I have earned the right to continue on into the extra rounds of the event when playing is over for the majority of the participants. If the event is scheduled for 5 games, When I make the finals I get 2 bonus games to play minimum, and if I win I get more games to play.( It is like playing pinball and scoring enough points for an extra game. There is a sense of Satisfaction.)
And as an added bonus all the games will be against high level competition, nothing against new players, we welcome you to Pokemon, but playing against a player who is new to the game in a City Championship it can be a bit of a downer as it is not usually a test of you or your decks ability. You know when you make into the finals though, that you can always expect good competition in the top cut.

Playing you see is the number one reward for top cutting, not the prizes. I am proud of the City Championship medal that I won last year, but I could not tell you at this moment where in my house it is located. I have not seen it from the time that I put it away after showing it off a league the week after I won it. Now what I value the most was going to the event and making the top cut. then, going 4-0 in the playoffs including 2-0 finals vs one of the best players ever from Washington State. That memory was the best reward I received for participating that day.

It is these possible memories that are being denied to the X-1's who are now missing the Top cut, that is the issue. I firmly believe that for most competitive players, they would much rather get the chance to play in the Top cut and not be guaranteed a prize, then only be allowed in when they are guaranteed to win something. Most people play not for prizes but for this silly notion of love for the game of Pokemon. For them playing is the #1 reward, and for that reason then, X-1 players should not regularly be left out of the top cut.

QFT. I wish I was this articulate...

 

[NoPoke]

J&PDS I'm sure you are not alone in your viewpoint. I think it is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint.

I reread my post and it might be interpreted as a bit harsh it wasn't supposed to be..... I was just a touch irked by the tag 'silly' being applied without justification of why it was 'silly' and in particular no attempt at a perspective shift to see in what ways it might not be such a 'silly' decision. Two sides to any coin blah blah blah...:lol:

 

[JandPDS]

J&PDS I'm sure you are not alone in your viewpoint. I think it is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint.

I reread my post and it might be interpreted as a bit harsh it wasn't supposed to be..... I was just a touch irked by the tag 'silly' being applied without justification of why it was 'silly' and in particular no attempt at a perspective shift to see in what ways it might not be such a 'silly' decision. Two sides to any coin blah blah blah...:lol:

Well... Thank-you.
And by "silly" I was actually was thinking more along the lines of "unnecessary"
I can see now how you might have taken affront to the way I put forth my idea in that post, and for that I apologize. It was careless, as I did not intend any slight to be directed toward you personally in anyway. No Poke, I do appreciate your debating skills, as you always add something valuable to the conversation on the topic being discussed, even on those rare times when we may happen to be on opposite sides of an issue.

 

[Lawman]

If "all" the top players want to play in top cut, then why do we see many areas in the World (not just a USA problem) where a top performing player on that date DROPS from a tourney, to protect the points earned in swiss?? I think PUI/OP saw some tourneys where players dropped and the "winner" was a player that should not have been in top cut, but for the dropper(s), with records that were mediocre (3-2 swiss). Now, w/ a T4 max., if you have more than 16 players in a group, IF a player drops, the person that moves into the topcut is a X-1. (drop must be done prior to topcut announcements or else there isnt a fill in).

(Just playing devil's advocate here.....I have no idea what the reason is....nor do we HAVE to know either)

Keith

 

[ryanvergel]

I think they've been limiting top cuts to help balance out differently populated areas.

In california you may get a 60 person event and have a top 16 cities with 6 rounds, totaling up to 10 rounds being played. Whereas in Delaware you might get a 9 person city and only 5 rounds being played. You can see that in places that high bigger turnouts you can get a lot more points.

This makes places like Florida, Texas, California, etc. skewed in terms of points. Winning a city with a larger top cut will give you way more points than a smaller city- even though you're winning the same event.

Limiting top cuts limits the number of points that one can gain because of event size. That seems like what they're trying to do.

 

[JandPDS]

If "all" the top players want to play in top cut, then why do we see many areas in the World (not just a USA problem) where a top performing player on that date DROPS from a tourney, to protect the points earned in swiss?? I think PUI/OP saw some tourneys where players dropped and the "winner" was a player that should not have been in top cut, but for the dropper(s), with records that were mediocre (3-2 swiss). Now, w/ a T4 max., if you have more than 16 players in a group, IF a player drops, the person that moves into the topcut is a X-1. (drop must be done prior to topcut announcements or else there isnt a fill in).

(Just playing devil's advocate here.....I have no idea what the reason is....nor do we HAVE to know either)

Keith

If a player chooses to drop rather then risk points in the top cut then they already got out of the tournament what they came to get. Points is what they were after and points is what they got. That player then did not deserve to win, so how can you say that the "winner" should not have been in the top cut.

My wife lost in T2 of a battle road this spring where they 4th player got in only because the #1 Swiss player decided not to participate in the finals and dropped after Swiss. This player who should have been 5th after swiss, then won the Battle Road Championship, defeating her for the title. Did my wife complain that it was not fair, because the winner was not even supposed to be in the top cut? She most certainly did not but congratulated the winner on taking home the Battle Road Championship (and she was pretty pleased with taking 2nd as well she should have been). So I do not agree that any players who win a Championship are undeserving just because someone dropped, as there is no guarantee that they person who dropped would have won if they had completed in the finals instead.

 

[rhodesia123]

what if cities were cut to top 8 or top 16 or whatever's necessary, and the only matches that count towards your rating are top 4 and above? would that work?