Single game tie rule needs to be revisited

[JandPDS]

After playing in a few weeks of LC's I have to say that I find the new tie rule an absolute joke. No way in a single game match that the amount of prizes remaining should not matter in determining a winner or a looser.

Last Saturday I was in the final round of the LC I was 3-1 playing another 3-1. I jumped out to a 3-0 lead until I made a misplay and my opponent stormed back. I only took one more prize the rest of the way and when time +3 was over my opponent ended his turn only 10 damage short of taking his sixth prize. I had two pokemon in play both with no energy on them. He had two in play powered up for the kill. But the judge said it was a tie and we both ended up 3-1-1 but I got 4th and the 10 Championship points and he got zilch.

I think it is ridiculous for the amount of prizes each player has taken to not figure in to deciding who won the match. I was outplayed and most definitely defeated in my match. My opponent deserved the win and the championship points not me. If time +3 ends with both players having the exact same amount of prize cards remaining, then by all means count the game as a tie, but only counting a game as a win if someone has taken all 6 prizes only rewards players for stalling out and slow playing when then no longer think that they can win the game. This tie rule is very bad for the game and needs to be changed soon.

 

[signofzeta]

Wouldn't it be better if they implemented an "overtime" where you have to knock out 2 of your opponent's pokemon in a row without having your opponent knock out yours? In this case, there are no prize cards. You take note of how may pokemon each person knocked out, and whoever decks out first loses.

Can't you call out on the opponent for stalling?

 

[JandPDS]

Wouldn't it be better if they implemented an "overtime" where you have to knock out 2 of your opponent's pokemon in a row without having your opponent knock out yours? In this case, there are no prize cards. You take note of how may pokemon each person knocked out, and whoever decks out first loses.

Can't you call out on the opponent for stalling?

Not if they are t playing not to loose. Say Darkria player is down by 3 prizes and spends the last 5 min of the game sableying for hammers and not doing any damage. they can stall out for the tie without actually trying to take any prizes.

 

[PokePop]

Wouldn't it be better if they implemented an "overtime" where you have to knock out 2 of your opponent's pokemon in a row without having your opponent knock out yours? In this case, there are no prize cards. You take note of how may pokemon each person knocked out, and whoever decks out first loses.

Can't you call out on the opponent for stalling?

The reason they have ties is to eliminate games going over the time limits and keep the event moving.
Any "overtime" would conflict with that goal.

 

[losjackal]

I think it is ridiculous for the amount of prizes each player has taken to not figure in to deciding who won the match. I was outplayed and most definitely defeated in my match. My opponent deserved the win and the championship points not me.

If you felt this strongly about it, did you know you could circle Lost on the match slip and give your opponent the win?

 

[LOLZ]

The reason they have ties is to eliminate games going over the time limits and keep the event moving.
Any "overtime" would conflict with that goal.

In my opinion, the pros/cons having each round going an extra 5 minutes for next prize to be drawn far out weighs the pros/cons of ties. When I say ties, I specifically mean IDs.

 

[ShuckleLVX]

In my opinion, the pros/cons having each round going an extra 5 minutes for next prize to be drawn far out weighs the pros/cons of ties. When I say ties, I specifically mean IDs.

I'm not sure how ID's (choosing to tie instead of playing the match) has any bearing on what happens after 30+3... ID's have nothing to do with the extra ~5 minutes you're talking about.

 

[signofzeta]

well, looks like they'll have to use chess clocks haha.

In the official rules, if the time is up in the single game, the tiebreaker goes like this.

The person who is late, or took a longer break loses.

If that isn't the case, then the person who has the most prize cards loses.

If both players have equal prize cards, then you keep on playing until someone claims one more prize card. The person who doesn't loses.

 

[RichD]

You are working off of old information signofzeta.

8.2. Determining the Outcome of an Unresolved, Single-Game Match
Use the following criteria, in order, to determine the outcome of a game that is unresolved after the final turn has ended. After one of the criteria has been met, none of the others are applied.

(1) If one player was late to the match or was away from the match, without a judge’s permission, for any period of time during the round, that player loses the match. The judge must have been made aware of this absence before the end of the match. If both players meet this criterion, ignore this tiebreaker.

(2) If both players were on time to the match and were not away from the match for any period of time, players receive a tie for this match.

 

[LOLZ]

I'm not sure how ID's (choosing to tie instead of playing the match) has any bearing on what happens after 30+3... ID's have nothing to do with the extra ~5 minutes you're talking about.

This is the reason ties exist.

The reason they have ties is to eliminate games going over the time limits and keep the event moving.
Any "overtime" would conflict with that goal.

So keeping the event moving is important, I get that.

However if Ties exist, IDs have to exist. Because IDs exist, players will use this to their advantage in order to make top cut. What this means is that some players will choose not to PLAY the game, and be rewarded with a spot in top cut. Meanwhile someone who lost 2 games early on, has NO CHANCE of going X-2 to have a CHANCE to bubble into cut provided they win the last match.

Breon, when Cities start in Oregon take a look at the top 5 tables in the last two rounds, watch what happens, then view the standings.

I saw a picture of standings after Swiss of one tournament, 5 players were 3-0-2 (11 Points) 4 players were 3-1-1 (10 Points). These were not all natural ties, they were IDs.

My point and my opinion being, games being PLAYED OUT is more important then the tournament moving. The INTEGRITY of the GAME is more important then the tournament moving.

 

[ShadowCard]

In single-game swiss, how does a tie move the event along faster than "least prizes remaining" does?

After +3, you have 4 prizes remaining and I have 1 prize remaining. Winner is declared or a tie is declared takes the same amount of time. Why encourage ties?

It is only in the event that prizes are tied after +3 that the extra length is added. In that case, call that what it is: a tie.

 

[ShuckleLVX]

This is the reason ties exist.



So keeping the event moving is important, I get that.

However if Ties exist, IDs have to exist. Because IDs exist, players will use this to their advantage in order to make top cut. What this means is that some players will choose not to PLAY the game, and be rewarded with a spot in top cut. Meanwhile someone who lost 2 games early on, has NO CHANCE of going X-2 to have a CHANCE to bubble into cut provided they win the last match.

Breon, when Cities start in Oregon take a look at the top 5 tables in the last two rounds, watch what happens, then view the standings.

I saw a picture of standings after Swiss of one tournament, 5 players were 3-0-2 (11 Points) 4 players were 3-1-1 (10 Points). These were not all natural ties, they were IDs.

My point and my opinion being, games being PLAYED OUT is more important then the tournament moving. The INTEGRITY of the GAME is more important then the tournament moving.

I fully understand the issue with ID's, but I was confused where you were going with your comment. The first half seemed to talk about how a played match (NOT an ID) is resolved after 30+3, and then at the end you sneak ID's in seemingly out of nowhere. I get what you were trying to say now though ^_^

 

[FunnyBear]

Why give the game to the person ahead on prizes? If I took my 4th prize with a Keldeo with 7 energies and you have one prize left and no Pokemon with any energies, you would lose in 2 turns. How is that fair? So maybe we need to adjudicate the entire board position instead to make it fair? Who could do that? You'd need to know the entire contents of the decks as well as be a very strong player. Judges are not required to have that kind of skill. Do you see the slippery slope we are on?

 

[signofzeta]

You are working off of old information signofzeta.

8.2. Determining the Outcome of an Unresolved, Single-Game Match
Use the following criteria, in order, to determine the outcome of a game that is unresolved after the final turn has ended. After one of the criteria has been met, none of the others are applied.

(1) If one player was late to the match or was away from the match, without a judge’s permission, for any period of time during the round, that player loses the match. The judge must have been made aware of this absence before the end of the match. If both players meet this criterion, ignore this tiebreaker.

(2) If both players were on time to the match and were not away from the match for any period of time, players receive a tie for this match.

Well it looks like Pokemon.com didn't update their site.

 

[ExoByte]

Well it looks like Pokemon.com didn't update their site.

You're quoting how to resolve a single game match.

Everyone else is talking about how to resolve a 3 game match were time is called during the first game.

 

[Bilbo Baggins]

Why give the game to the person ahead on prizes? If I took my 4th prize with a Keldeo with 7 energies and you have one prize left and no Pokemon with any energies, you would lose in 2 turns. How is that fair? So maybe we need to adjudicate the entire board position instead to make it fair? Who could do that? You'd need to know the entire contents of the decks as well as be a very strong player. Judges are not required to have that kind of skill. Do you see the slippery slope we are on?

I know that this would be the unfair point, but I personally think it still should be whoever is ahead on prizes. That will be the penalty of trying to play slow playing decks. Slow play resulting from playing deliberately slow should be called when its occurring to a judge however.

 

[JandPDS]

The reason they have ties is to eliminate games going over the time limits and keep the event moving.
Any "overtime" would conflict with that goal.

I am in no way advocating getting rid of ties. I have been playing this game long enough to remember when we had ties before and I was against getting rid of them in the first place. But a tie in single game matches should only occur when both players have the exact same number of prizes remaining when time +3 is over. I never liked sudden death, I feel that if two players play an equal game it should end in a tie.

If player A has taken 4 prizes while player B has only taken one, then this game should not be considered a tie. Player A clearly won the game. It is wrong to give each player one point for the game when there was a clear winner and looser at the moment time expired. Maybe it would be more equitable to give partial credit if you are ahead on prizes. Say instead of a win being worth 3 points make it worth 4. Then a prize lead win could be worth 3 points, an actual tie game worth 2, a game ending behind in prizes could be worth 1 point and a loss 0

It is just not fair that a player who is hopelessly behind can stall out and get the same amount of points as a player who is actually trying to play the game to win.

 

[Abudoggie]

You're quoting how to resolve a single game match.

Everyone else is talking about how to resolve a 3 game match were time is called during the first game.

Dylan.. not sure I follow. His original quote a few posts above said that prize count DOES matter in resolving single game Swiss. Someone pointed out that he was quoting the old document. Are you saying now that prize count is how to resolve a single game swiss (as opposed to Bo3 swiss)? It would seem in Section 8 of TCG Rules that all Swiss rounds now require complete games. Relative Prize card count now only seems to matter in resolving games in Top Cut per Section 9. Or am I all confused?

 

[ShadowCard]

Why give the game to the person ahead on prizes?

Because they are winning when time is called.

That will be the penalty of trying to play slow playing decks. Slow play resulting in that should be called when its occurring to a judge however.

Unfortunately, the game tempo rules do not empower judges to adequately approach slow play. What is the judge going to do, award a PL? It doesn't do anything if the PL doesn't lead to the final prize being taken. The game would still be a tie.

 

[Bilbo Baggins]

Unfortunately, the game tempo rules do not empower judges to adequately approach slow play. What is the judge going to do, award a PL? It doesn't do anything if the PL doesn't lead to the final prize being taken. The game would still be a tie.

(edited my post from before to make the last sentence sound better / make more sense )

The slow play should be called when it's occurring mid game. If you wait till +3 to come out and say slow play, it's just words at that point to the judges. This is for if prize counts are a tie breaker, cause that is where I see a big problem in having that as a tiebreaker. People will stall just long enough in a game someone is coming back on and win by being up 3 to 1 but have the board be like FunnyBear's scenario.