Who Should be Playing in Worlds, and How Should They Get There?

Zach Droegkamp
Nov 1 · 10 min read

It seems like every year around August, there is discussion over reasonable expectations for VGC World Championship qualifiers. It’s natural to think about this when reflecting on the season, and I think it’s a healthy discussion to have. My aim here is to take a holistic look at that expectation here keeping in mind the progression year to year, the goals of the circuit for all involved, and the positives and negatives that have stood out over the years.

This qualification standard has evolved from different starting points over different lengths of time in other rating zones, but for simplicity’s sake, I am going focus on the rating zone that I am familiar with. I will try and be mindful of writing this in a way that makes it easy to apply the concepts of what I am explaining to your region’s situation, even if the exact variables are often quite different.

History of VGC World Championships Qualification

To help clarify the progression of each season, let’s start with a brief history of the World Championships tournament structure, and then the qualification requirements for a player from the United States.

From 2010 to 2012, qualifying for Worlds came down to finishing top 4 in US Nationals or being one of four remaining in the Worlds last chance qualifier, a single-elimination tournament held the day before Worlds. This qualifier was removed in 2015 in lieu of the new qualification structure.

Championship points were introduced in 2013, and for the next two seasons results were mostly based on an entire season’s play rather than needing to achieve top 4 at one of the two tournaments that handed out invites. The LCQ was still in place for these two. There were issues with the top x championship point requirement, especially with breaking ties and players expressing disappointment in rooting against their friends, but it was widely regarded as an upgrade over the previous invite structure.

2015 was where the permanent shift to a championship point bar happened. The top x requirement was kept during the first year, but there were the same issues as previous circuits in terms of ironing out the qualifications along with players flying to play in tournaments in different rating zones. 2016 saw this problem get mostly erased; players still did fly around to different rating zones, but with a championship point bar it only mattered in terms of qualifying for day two. The changes in 2015 and 2016 were again widely regarded as positive changes. The only major change since then has been the removal of a best finish limit for all events above Midseason Showdowns.

Here are the US Worlds invite requirements over the years. Links to the pages that are still up are attached to the year.

2010: Top 4 US Nationals, top 4 Worlds LCQ
2011: Top 4 US Nationals, top 4 Worlds LCQ
2012: Top 4 US Nationals, top 4 Worlds LCQ
2013: Top 12 in championship points, top 4 Worlds LCQ
2014: Top 16 in championship points, top 4 Worlds LCQ
2015: Top 40 in championship points for day one, top 8 for day two
2016: 350 championship points for day one, top 8 for day two
2017: 500 championship points for day one, top 8 for day two
2018: 400 championship points for day one, top 8 for day two
2019: 400 championship points for day one, top 8 for day two

The Consensus of the Current State

Looking back on what had been in place, the circuit has moved in a generally positive direction in almost every facet in terms of invite structure. The issues that are being discussed during this season all belie that invite structure itself, if only by one layer. The structure can be assumed to work and is something to work with: a championship point bar for day one, and a top x for day two. That part is simple and effective, so the rest of the discussion will take place presuming both of these are staying in place as they’ve worked on their own merit for half of a decade thus far.

There are four major issues underlying the invite structure in 2019:
- Imbalance of quantity vs quality of tournaments
- Poor distribution of funds for tournaments vs prizes
- Excessive travel and time commitments
- Rewarding quantity of tournament results over quality

Each of these seems to feed off of at least one of the other problems, further compounding each of them. Imbalance of quantity vs quality leads to more tournaments with less players at each tournament, and poor distribution of funds leads to higher entry fees which means less players at each tournament, so overall events are getting smaller and smaller despite players being pressed by the system to attend more of them. This ends up rewarding quantity of play over quality as there is a serious FOMO (fear of missing out) ordeal in terms of championship point potential due to no BFL (best finish limit) being in place for Regionals or Internationals. Speaking of those, requiring flying once a month if not more in order to compete for a day two invite isn’t enviable for anyone involved.

Removing the BFL and encouraging top players to attend every International by paying for multiple travel awards per season was where much of this problem began. It does directly enhance stream match quality and player continuity / familiarity for the brand, but the indirect expense of that has now become clear, and it does not appear sustainable, much less desirable. Likewise, players feeling the pressure to attend a Regional about once per month is not going to enhance the quality of the play on streams in the long run. It may put familiar faces there, but it won’t allow many players who don’t have a disposable income a chance due to the financial and time constraints, and taking away those players inevitably will reduce the amount and quality of competition.

The entry fees also do their part in keeping away players without much of a disposable income, as even those with aspirations for a day one invite will not want to pay $250+ USD in entry fees along with the costs and time involved in travel just to achieve that. These players may not be making cut at more than one event a year, but they enjoy playing the game and they’re an integral part of the community, especially the local communities. And when all is said and done, Pokemon has been primarily about the friends we enjoy the game with. Providing more reasonable and affordable opportunities to compete is a move that the VGC circuit would certainly benefit from.

Based on successes of previous years in this department, more reasonable and affordable opportunities are best found in striking a balance. The circuit has been through both extremes, from invites awarded only by achieving top 4 at a single tournament to invites awarded only by playing at dozens of events. Neither of those extremes are sustainable if growth of brand exposure (TPCi), player inclusivity (mutual), and quality of play (competitors) are the goals to be met.

Past Indicators of a Balanced Invite Structure

There have been seasons in the past where certain parts of the VGC season structure has felt like it’s either working effectively or one small step from working. Each of these parts is important to align with the goals of the structure so that there are not compounding problems, as with the ones in 2019 described above.

A great example of this was when players wanted Swiss rounds at Regionals after single-elimination rounds in 2011. This was implemented in 2012, but without a top cut, so in essence it was still glorified single-elimination. Adding a top cut in 2013 was a way to increase tournament result quality, make tournaments more competitive, and also make tournaments more reasonably forgiving to the rigors of the elements of luck involved in Pokemon without being too forgiving. We were essentially discussing how forgiving the tournaments should be of that luck afterward, which pales in comparison to the issue of not having a cut at all.

But let’s reverse engineer that for a second to better understand the problems in 2019. If the top cut is taken away and Swiss rounds are now deciding tournament placings, simply making the somewhat-unreliable Swiss standings hold more weight is not a plausible solution; the issue compounds itself in other areas as well. Players will then want to play in more tournaments, as the results of one tournament will not matter as much as their structure is not as averse to the thralls of luck. What this points to is not only that top cut greatly increases tournament result reliability, but that tournament result reliability is something so important that it should be a priority to balance it with opportunity.

When compared to 2019, there are more reasons for a player to want to play in less tournaments than more. Sure, you can use 20 different teams at major events over the course of the season, but it’s generally a more valuable experience to build a very good team and play it through a deep and competitive tournament. This allows for building more advanced teams and having a larger sample size at a live event. After all, if you’re paying a decent amount for an experience and you’re willing to prepare for that experience, it should provide you with a good return. You may not do well and your investment of time and effort may get thrown to the wind, but on the contrary, in a longer tournament with effective structure and sub-structures, the odds of luck influencing your tournament run are much slimmer. And if the tournament is set up like the ones today are, you can try your hand again in a less complex tournament at the large MSS the next day.

On top of all of this, players are receiving larger payouts for doing very well at tournaments than ever before, especially in terms of travel rewards. This is enticing to competitors, but the travel rewards are only further rewarding the players who do well early in the season or late in the previous season. Incentivizing individual tournaments would create more competition and enhance the experience more for everyone that isn’t competing for a day two invite, in turn creating more of a challenge for the players who are competing for that day two invite. It creates a more balanced playing field and helps players who perform well at a single event recoup costs of attending the event — something that helps the player without much financial wiggle-room a chance at a piece of the pie at any tournament they attend.

However, when the players who are doing well are given even more funds that can only be used for travel, it inherently takes away from the incentive of doing well at a single tournament. The average Pokemon player (in terms of life disposition, not in terms of skill) probably doesn’t have the time to compete for day two and therefore will end up being shuttled out of the race before they had a chance. Taking more than 7–10 vacation days in a year to play Pokemon isn’t realistic for the average player, nor is paying four figures in USD to do so. There’s still a decent amount of incentive for that average player to do well at a single event, but their standing in the circuit as a whole is not based on their skill at that point, and that’s where the problem lies.

What a Simple Yet Balanced System Would Look Like

Although there are likely topics here that I am not aware of, I am accounting for what I can reasonably assume TPCi / P!P’s goals for the circuit are, and being mindful of clashes with those and players’ goals. Based on what was discussed, here is what I would see as an ideally balanced VGC circuit:

Invite Structure: CP bar for day one Worlds, top x for day two
No reason to change this from what it is now. It does a good job of inducing competition at the highest levels while keeping the average competitive player as reasonably involved as possible. This is a boon for any other changes as it’s easily the most important structural piece of the puzzle. Continuity is valuable here as well, and when it’s sustainable with what’s in place, everything is made easier.

Circuit Tournament Tiers: Premier Challenge / Online Competition < Regional / Special Event < International
Getting rid of the tired “Midseason Showdown” would lead local scenes to aim for more quality over quantity of tournaments. Renaming the “Premier Challenge” to better explain local events would help, too. Regionals and Special Events should be a convergence of competition from local scenes, and Internationals should be a convergence of competition from regional scenes.

Best Finish Limits: Assuming three Series per season, as with 2019 —
Premier Challenge: Two per Series
Online Competition: One per Series
Regionals: One per Series
Internationals: One per Season
The primary motivating factor for this setup is the reasonable expectation for your average seasoned player in the “real life department”. I used ten vacation days as a measurement for the BFL maximum and dispersed them based on the assumption that Worlds takes up four of those days, Internationals take three, and Regionals take one (three total). This scales according to how the structure indicates as well; 6–9 locally / at home -> 3 at a regional level -> 2 at an international level -> 1 at a global level. Traveling longer distances once per two months is still quite frequent, but it is much more reasonable for an average player time and cost-wise. Three competition days required to hit this BFL + compete in Worlds would fall on a weekday, and those tournaments would require only one or two intercontinental flights compared to the current three or four.

Travel Awards / Event Rewards: Only for Worlds
And at that, a more generous and deep compensation pool for any competitors traveling outside of their continent to play, as has generally been in the past. Removing the stipends to attend Internationals would reduce the “snowball” and promote healthier play, as discussed above. Pouring the funds saved from this into lowering entry fees and/or increasing individual tournament prizes would be much more beneficial to the circuit.

It’s pretty easy to nitpick things in the circuit, and as mentioned, I do think that is normal — we want to see something that we invest a lot of time playing in continue to improve. However, I do think the discussion can be more direct and work toward composing ideas for solutions that are tangible and that use the positives of VGC circuits of the past as a boon. If you have ideas that you’d like to discuss, send me a Tweet @braverius, quote tweet the article link, or reply here! I’m always all ears for feedback.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade