Dear TPCi: Scrap the disaster that is 50+3!

[NJ_Bob]

Just casting my input too

I just saw this thread and want to cast my input to make changes too.

1. Pokemon, stop burning down the system every year, except you have to do it this year to fix the major overhaul of last year. Smaller tweaks would be better preferred.

2. I finished a 3rd game for the very first time all season at Nationals, at the bottom tables, when neither of us cared who won, when I scooped a horrible start in game 2, when he had a horrible start in game 3 and I rolled a few minor basics. There you go for how well this format works.

3. I have many matches where game 2 was not finished when my opponent won game 1 and slowed played.

4. Juniors, except for the oldest one, absolutely hate the 50 minute matches. My youngest wants to play but refuses to play best of 3.

5. Ties are evil, easily manipulated. They should be dropped. No question whatsoever.

6. If this format was to stay with ties, then it should be 2 games at 50 minutes and must declare 2nd game winner on prize cards +3. 3rd game is absolutely pointless (see above).

7. The 50/3 did nothing to fix the biggest problem, which was relying on resistance too much for final top cut placings which in turn was thought to be too decided by T1 flips in terms of not being able to take any losses. Now it is even worse re not being able to take losses and relying on luck of the draw based resistance.

8. 75 minute for 3 will cause my family to quit. No way in the world are we doing that! Juniors numbers will plummet.

Here is my suggestion:

1. Adjust T1 and maybe even T2 rules to whatever they need to be to mitigate T1 advantage (no supporter, no attack, no whatever - just come up with something that works). I would suggest looking at T2 more closely too so that it is not so wide open with the coming cards re T2 Lucario, stadium, strong energy is pretty darn broken.

2. Go back to single game, no tie, but add more swiss rounds to average out T1 advantages and the common occurrence of lucky path to victory (dodging certain decks).

3. Why not just build into the computer program an alternating go first in single game swiss? It would be so easy to do. Players alternate between go first and go second with a bold, underline or italics, etc. That would be orders of magnitude better than the current format.

I would like to see the regular swiss be at least a theoretical +1 round beyond the last X-0 standing. e.g., 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 players are 6, 7, 8, 9 rounds, respectively. +2 or +3 would be even better, but could be worked into extended swiss. To do this, the single game 30 minute format is much better.

Then go into extended swiss (maybe that could be a 2 game format, no ties, somewhat of a baby top cut).

Bof3 needs to stay in top cut of course.

- - - Updated - - -

TPC just needs to stop changing rules every year and leave them the same. Format for pokemon should be best of 3 with side decks, 75 minute rounds and rotation after worlds. Make solid first turn rules, including a damage immunity rule so attacks on turn 1 cant deal or place damage counters and setup attacks can be use. Player who goes first cant draw but can do everything else.

This would be nice because we wont have odd card/rule interactions and weird formats where cards are use based on 2 different rule sets.

Horrible, horrible suggestions all the way around.

 

[NJ_Bob]

We certainly do not disregard feedback we see online, nor do we disregard feedback we receive in person. I spoke to many, many players and parents at events this year. The team has spoken directly with many players and parents this year. I personally heard as much, if not more, praise of the new format as I did disdain for it. I had more than one parent tell me that they sought out State events running best of 3, and avoided those using single game.

I've heard the other side as well. I understand the concerns, but ultimately, we feel very strongly that best of three is the right way to go, and it sounds like you agree. We have to create tournaments that can end in a reasonable time, and extending round times by 25 minutes does not work towards that goal.

Thank you,
Prof_Dav

I believe what you are saying falls within the opinions of most that I know, best of 3 is good in theory, but the practice is horrible. When you hear feedback on the goodness of best of 3, what is really be told to you is that players and parents want less luck in the go first flip and most importantly want to be able to take a loss or two to bad match up or a series of bad draws. Don't confuse the ends with the means in that message. There are better options, including that all of these solutions are provided by simply adding more swiss rounds for 2 or more rounds beyond the last X-0 standing.

What everyone else also wants is (and in agreement with Bof3) is the ability to take a loss, but the current format for less than 256 players made that worse.

I would also offer a word of advice to not place the input of the hyper competitive above those of the simply competitive regarding the health of your game.

 

[NJ_Bob]

With the new rules I think more single game swiss rounds and/or extending top cut size would better alleviate bad draws in the future. More single swiss games means that a single bad draw isn't going to completely wreck your tournament. You can still make top cut if you do well the rest of the way. Truthfully, if your deck is failing you multiple times throughout a tournament you don't deserve to make top cut anyway. Time wise, for every 2 rounds of best of 3 you can fit in 3 rounds of single game swiss.

This is the best summary that I have read. Bof3 should not, and cannot, mitigate having a less consistent deck. Statistically the bad draws will be propagated throughout the number of games whether they are played within the Bof3 or as additional single game swiss. 20 games is 20 games.

If Pokemon's goal was to give better chance against bad draws, I am really discouraged by the whole thing now. I thought, and it should have been, only to create fairness around T1 flip. Tournament structure should never be driven by an unattainable goal to manage consistency. That is a game design problem.

Bof3 creates far more problems than it solves.

 

[vaporeon]

Horrible, horrible suggestions all the way around.

How is it horrible? Best of 3 should be done right if its going to be done. 75 minutes should fix that so 3 full games can be played. Based on your number 8, you have bias towards more time. If you're going to play in a tournament, set aside more time for it or dont play. No need to inconvenience every other player because you dont want 25 more minutes per round.

First turn rules also need to be looked at. They should drop the no attack rule and use a damage immunity rule so setup attack can be used. It also does not completely rule out evolution decks since they can go first and use call for family. It also helps because we wont have odd card interactions and rulings. I really don't see whats to argue here other than you not wanting more time for rounds, which most players want.

 

[NJ_Bob]

I am already putting in plenty of time at tournaments, too much. Just because you don't mind spending all day and night at tournaments, don't assume that it is everyone else's idea of a good thing.

 

[vaporeon]

I am already putting in plenty of time at tournaments, too much. Just because you don't mind spending all day and night at tournaments, don't assume that it is everyone else's idea of a good thing.

Thats not a problem of what could be a healthy tournament. I dont want to spend all day at tournaments either but its better for the health of the tournament. You dont want to and thats fine. You have 2 options; either play or don't. The current rules favor 1 good first game player while putting the losing player in a bind.

 

[NJ_Bob]

The point is tournaments should be fun, and they are not. 12-14 hour days should not exist. Example, at nationals and regionals, we never go out to dinner or have time for touristy stuff now. It's just pokemon all the time all the day. It's a grind. 75 minutes is the worst idea in this thread!!!

 

[vaporeon]

The point is tournaments should be fun, and they are not. 12-14 hour days should not exist. Example, at nationals and regionals, we never go out to dinner or have time for touristy stuff now. It's just pokemon all the time all the day. It's a grind. 75 minutes is the worst idea in this thread!!!

In some areas before best of 3, cities and states did run all day, and that just with 1 game each. You are right that tournaments should be fun for most but other things contribute to fun factor not existing.

 

[King Piplup]

It's definitely possible to play within the time limit and complete three games. You have to play quickly (and ensure your opponent is playing at a lively pace) and perhaps not all decks are capable of it, but that simply is a factor that needs to be taken into consideration when choosing a deck. Of the total 12 Best of 3 Matches I played this weekend, zero were ties, and seven completed a third game. I'd be very interested in seeing the tie rates from TPCI from both US Nationals and both Championship Point Challenges, as I suspect they will be lower than the figures Professor_Dav provided a few months ago. I believe one factor was the presence of a visible timer, which I believe helped people realize that they needed to keep their games moving.

One of my biggest issues with Best of 3 events was the overall length of them. Some Regional events were run very well, and some were run...less quickly. The technological advancements (Registration/Check-in System, barcode system for match slips) developed by Carlos Pero and employed at Nationals this weekend allowed things to run relatively quickly, considering the logistics inherent in running a dual-flight 889 player TCG Masters division. I clocked the average round at about 1:15. 25 minutes to turn a round involving almost 900 people? Pretty hard to argue with. The two younger divisions also ran very efficiently, especially considering running a Masters division the size of the Nationals Seniors division took some Regional events close to 16 hours. Hopefully the increased efficiency will also be present at Regionals this fall, and ideally they will result in much more livable tournament durations.

All of that being said...I still maintain this weekend's Nationals was the least enjoyable I've attended. Spending every waking hour on Friday playing Pokemon, and the side event on Saturday lasting well past the conclusion of the main event's festivities of the day made for a less enjoyable experience than in years past. It definitely, however, was a much better event than I had feared it would be (after seeing some of the Regionals this year, it was a fair concern), and the progress made in expediting Bo3 events was evident.

 

[vaporeon]

^ What do you think should be done? Its clear we should be taking advantage tor the technology we do have access to. A barcode system sounds really unique though. As of now, far too much at higher level events are being placed on judges. While I feel the human element is needed to help reduce computer errors that may accrue, how do you feel about automated systems for things like match resolution, paring and other things.

 

[King Piplup]

^ What do you think should be done? Its clear we should be taking advantage tor the technology we do have access to. A barcode system sounds really unique though.

It was simply 3 barcodes being put on the match slip, and depending on the result, the applicable code would be scanned and tell the tournament software who won at a given table.

As of now, far too much at higher level events are being placed on judges.

What exactly does this mean?

While I feel the human element is needed to help reduce computer errors that may accrue, how do you feel about automated systems for things like match resolution,

What do you mean by match resolution? The resolution of matches as far as +3/etc. goes is already laid out clearly.

paring

A computer already does that, not sure what you mean.

and other things.

The barcode system for the input of match results is a great step forward for large events. The use of computerized systems for registration input is great too, as it reduces the potential for error.

 

[yoshi1001]

I think there are a few conclusions that are safe to draw:

-50+3 has reduced the social aspect of the game, taking free time away, and in some cases (particularly "fatigue drops"), reduced the number of distinct people one faces in the tournament.
-Increased the time disparity between the younger age divisions and the masters division, making it more difficult for families with playing parents or kids of varying ages.

It may be worth noting that the TCG Senior champion stated that part of the reason for his deck choice (Empoleon/Dusknoir/Miltank) was to avoid mirror matches, which he described as "50-50" in an interview I did with him after the tournament. Avoiding draws wasn't necessarily the reason for doing that, but it begs a question-do people feel that there is less skill differentiation in mirror matches than in previous formats? Why?

 

[FunnyBear]

It may be worth noting that the TCG Senior champion stated that part of the reason for his deck choice (Empoleon/Dusknoir/Miltank) was to avoid mirror matches, which he described as "50-50" in an interview I did with him after the tournament. Avoiding draws wasn't necessarily the reason for doing that, but it begs a question-do people feel that there is less skill differentiation in mirror matches than in previous formats? Why?

Not sure as compared to previous, but yes. I do not like mirror matches as both decks have the same resources so it comes down to flips and random setup factors. I'd rather have differences that can allow me to outplay my opponent than to play against the same list as I play all day long. You cannot consistently do well if you play a whole bunch of 50-50 matches in a long tournament.

 

[greptiki]

I'm going to give my feedback on this from a slightly different perspective. Hopefully it's taken the right way. This seems to be a very "passionate" topic. I've only been in Pokemon for 1 full competitive season + 1/2 year learning the ropes. I mainly am involved so my son (a 9yo Junior) can play. He's worked hard and we've travelled quite a bit and he's earned his World invite. I'm only mentioning this for background. I am not an "uber-competitive" player but I think that I do "ok". I generally finish mid-pack...occasionally finishing higher (i.e a couple of 2nd places at no higher than ciities)

Ok..so onto the topic....I personally like the 2 of 3 matches and the reasonably competitive juniors I've worked with/tested with also seem to like it because it mitigates the once in a while bad start and still lets the better skilled players typically win more. However...that being said..I don't like (and those that I play with) don't like ties. I don't get why we can't just go to a prize-based system. In almost any "sport", if more than 1/2 the game has been played or in NASCAR if 1/2 the race has been completed, then it's considered a game. So, play the 50+3 system, but just get rid of ties. Oh and get rid of Intentional Draws. Ban 'em. If someone plays the person who ends up being #1 early and loses but wins every other match....but then someone else wins up to the point of the last match and just due to timing of matches ID's the last one then they end up higher. Why? because of when...resistance doesn't come into play at that point. If they play that match and the #1 player wins...then the two players who both lost only to the #1 player can be fairly evaluated. By allowing ID's they can't. Ban 'em I say. Besides...what type of message does that send to a kid..."Don't try...it's better for you". (Sorry..I'll get off my soap box on ID's)

Maybe have different timing/tourney setups for the different levels. I wouldn't mind going to 60+3 if we needed to but 75 is too much. For juniors, tourneys go too long anyway. Which brings me to my next point...

We were at Nationals this weekend....and here's our experience. Friday, we find out that Juniors I think were going 8 rounds, Masters 9 rounds (can't remember seniors as I didn't have anyone in my family personally involved). Then they announced NO LUNCH BREAK. Seriously? You want Juniors to go 8 rounds with no lunch? Oh..and even Masters having to go 9 rounds with no lunch break is just silly. If you need to start an hour earlier...but there needs to be time to eat/refresh. By the way, this type of thing happens all the time.

Ok....then we find out that Juniors were only doing 5 rounds on Friday (again no break) and then coming back Saturday to do the last 3 rounds. This in theory sounded ok...but a lot of kids have parents (like myself) who play in the Masters because 1) it's fun, 2) it's better than sitting around, and 3) it's fun. Anyway...that puts us in very awkward position....I think the kids were done with their 5 rounds and we had 5 or 6 more to go. Yikes...so do we stay and then they have nothing to do or do we as the parents drop. 8 out of 10 times I'll end up playing 1 more round or so...or going to a set time and then dropping...unless I happen to be doing well...even then dropping sometimes especially if my son is doing well. His rest is more important....I know it's hard when enrollment #'s are so different but I think something better could be done.

I guess if I had to sum it up:
1) Get rid of ties
2) Get rid of ID's
3) Keep the kids in mind (i.e. Lunch breaks, timing of rounds, etc.)

Ok...let the thrashing begin.

 

[LOLZ]

We certainly do not disregard feedback we see online, nor do we disregard feedback we receive in person. I spoke to many, many players and parents at events this year. The team has spoken directly with many players and parents this year. I personally heard as much, if not more, praise of the new format as I did disdain for it. I had more than one parent tell me that they sought out State events running best of 3, and avoided those using single game.

I've heard the other side as well. I understand the concerns, but ultimately, we feel very strongly that best of three is the right way to go, and it sounds like you agree. We have to create tournaments that can end in a reasonable time, and extending round times by 25 minutes does not work towards that goal.

Thank you,
Prof_Dav

Dave- I know TPCI doesn't read Facebook... but alot of feedback on facebook suggests going back to Best of 1, 30 Minute time limit.

Best of 1 with MORE 30 Minute Swiss Rounds also is an idea floating around.

Today, a new motion is being tossed around... +5 turns instead of +3.

I like the idea of +5 but only if time limit is reduced. Players want to see +5 if 50 minutes for best of 3 is still a thing, but do not want to see time limit reduced.

 

[CeNturist]

We certainly do not disregard feedback we see online, nor do we disregard feedback we receive in person. I spoke to many, many players and parents at events this year. The team has spoken directly with many players and parents this year. I personally heard as much, if not more, praise of the new format as I did disdain for it. I had more than one parent tell me that they sought out State events running best of 3, and avoided those using single game.

I've heard the other side as well. I understand the concerns, but ultimately, we feel very strongly that best of three is the right way to go, and it sounds like you agree. We have to create tournaments that can end in a reasonable time, and extending round times by 25 minutes does not work towards that goal.

Thank you,
Prof_Dav

I have no idea why the opinions of parents on best of three matters when they are not the ones playing the game.

It's shocking to me that this thread can exist and P!P can continue to feel that the status quo is acceptable, but after being let down time and time again by organized play when it comes to things like this I don't know why I expect them to actually fix problems.

 

[Mystery Thing]

I have no idea why the opinions of parents on best of three matters when they are not the ones playing the game.

Because they're the ones taking people who can't drive to events and having to take them home at potentially unholy hours. If mommy doesn't want little Billy out till whatever hour playing best of 3, then Billy won't be there, no matter if Billy likes best of 1 or best of 3. Likewise, if mommy thinks little Sally will have a better chance / more bang for the buck (food, gas gosts) by doing best of 3 rather than best of 1, what little Sally thinks doesn't really matter.

I'm not saying that what players think is irrelevant - the entirety of Masters will obviously disagree with that - but what parents think absolutely is important.

 

[CeNturist]

Whether or not the tournament is best of three should have a minimal impact on whether a parent takes their kid to a tournament;it does not effect the parent whatsoever. If Billy is indifferent towards bo3, it makes no sense for the parent to favor bo3. In fact, bo1 means swiss is shorter, which should actually make parents happy.

Additionally, compromising the integrity of the game because parents "prefer" bo3 for things that don't effect them whatsoever is silly. For those reasons I'm not buying Prof Dav's post that parents were seeking out bo3 swiss tournaments; and quite frankly, I have no idea why the opinions of people who do not play the game are being deemed representative of the community, especially when Dav only interviewed a few individuals.

Maybe parents favored bo3 because their kids did? That would make more sense as opposed to the notion that people who don't play the game have a preference for how the game is played. But in this case, why are we basing something as complex as tournament structure around the preferences of 7-14 year olds? When those players make up a minority of the playerbase, and not all of them support bo3? Did they even play when swiss was 1 game? And remember, this is theoretical that the kids even prefer bo3, I only brought this up because the notion that parents have a preference for the tournament structure of something they don't partake in is absurd. So either way, there are fallacies here.

Even if you think that bo3 is the way to go, you must concede that Prof Dav's logic has significant flaws.

 

[FincastlePokemon2]

For those reasons I'm not buying Prof Dav's post that parents were seeking out bo3 swiss tournaments; and quite frankly, I have no idea why the opinions of people who do not play the game are being deemed representative of the community, especially when Dav only interviewed a few individuals.

Even if you think that bo3 is the way to go, you must concede that Prof Dav's logic has significant flaws.

1. I don't think that Prof Dav claimed to have a statistically valid sampling, nor did he publish his survey results (including margin of error).
2. I also am pretty sure that people commenting on a post titled "...Scrap the Disaster..." are not pre-disposed to be completely unbiased.
3. How many 7-10 year olds that you know would approach an official from TCPi at a tournament to offer their opinion? Parents are a valid source of information regarding their views (it's sort of our job).

In short - just because your own friends, followers, opponents or peers all agree with you on something does not mean it is the view held by everyone involved in the situation. "Everyone" doesn't hate the format, or TCPi would have gotten zero positive feedback. That is a significant flaw in your logic. I'm happy for everyone to have an opinion, but please don't confuse the discussion of "what I think" with "what everyone thinks". Trust me, it won't end well.

 

[CeNturist]

1. I don't think that Prof Dav claimed to have a statistically valid sampling, nor did he publish his survey results (including margin of error).

Exactly my point, he didn't back up his point with a statistically valid sampling.

2. I also am pretty sure that people commenting on a post titled "...Scrap the Disaster..." are not pre-disposed to be completely unbiased.

I'm not sure why you're masquerading this as an argument; the only "bias" in my and others' posts against the bo3 system has resulted from our negative experiences with the system itself. There's no ulterior motive here and thus no "bias". Players lived the experiment of bo3 themselves; players are interpreting results. Interpretation is not bias.

3. How many 7-10 year olds that you know would approach an official from TCPi at a tournament to offer their opinion? Parents are a valid source of information regarding their views (it's sort of our job).

You seem have to not understood a large portion of my post; this was addressed.

But in this case, why are we basing something as complex as tournament structure around the preferences of 7-14 year olds? When those players make up a minority of the playerbase, and not all of them support bo3? Did they even play when swiss was 1 game? And remember, this is theoretical that the kids even prefer bo3, I only brought this up because the notion that parents have a preference for the tournament structure of something they don't partake in is absurd. So either way, there are fallacies here.

In short - just because your own friends, followers, opponents or peers all agree with you on something does not mean it is the view held by everyone involved in the situation. "Everyone" doesn't hate the format, or TCPi would have gotten zero positive feedback. That is a significant flaw in your logic. I'm happy for everyone to have an opinion, but please don't confuse the discussion of "what I think" with "what everyone thinks". Trust me, it won't end well.

It's quite easy to point out "flaws" in logic when you completely fabricate a line of logic not in one's argument. Nowhere did I suggest that "everyone" hates bo3 (so I'm not sure why you put that in quotes), and no where did I use this as justification for my response to Dav's post. Nowhere did I mention my own "friends, followers, opponents, or peers". I simply addressed Dav's post. In fact, I summarized my post by saying, "Even if you think that bo3 is the way to go, you must concede that Prof Dav's logic has significant flaws" which should be pretty easy for you to understand. I did not assert that everyone supports bo1 or dislikes bo3, I asserted that Dav's justification for keeping bo3 is extremely poor. You quite rudely tried to parody this summation in your response, so I'd expect you to not forget it when crafting your argument. Come on bud, if you're going to make a snarky response, get it right.

171717171717171717171717171717171717