Rainbowgym
Active Member
Even the CC"s overhere will be done 2 of 3.
2 of 3 games - how it is judged
- Thread starter meganium45
- Start date
GymLeaderPhil
New Member
farbsman said:
Gah, Pokemon USA needs to remember that the rest of us need to know the tournament structure and other important information!
-Phil
GymLeaderPhil said:
It is up to the PTO to inform the judges and players. Bad thing is the PTO's get so much email that sometimes after a while our mailboxes get filled and we don't get everything. PUI needs to just send out one document with everything on it instead of 20 emails with information on each one. Then the PTO's can forward it to there judges and post it on the message boards and websites.
Honestly I think the 2 of 3 is a great idea. I have lost a few times because of a bad starting hand. Not that I get to play anymore. If you get two bad hands in 3 games you then know there is something wrong with your deck, or your luck just sucks. Bad thing is it will be difficult to do with TMS since there is no way to do it.
I just heard that from one player in a neighboring state that because they're doing side events (an unlimited tournament and a GBA event), they don't have time to do best-of-3 for the main event. They're limiting their State Championship event to 3-4 hours, this at a place where they typically have 50-ish players. To me, that's sad when you sacrifice time from your main event in order to hold side events.
To me, it's all about the MAIN event. Side events are for those who don't want to play in the main event, or for those who didn't get enough in the main event (as will be the case for me if I decide to attend this neighboring State Championship). Best-of-3, at least in the playoffs, SHOULD be the standard, as M45 is striving to do in this post.
So M45, from your reasoning (complete games hold more value), a 2TKO game has more value that a marathon match that ends with one prize left for each player when time is called. I see I'm not going to convince you about partial games (yet you're convinced that partial matches are okay). :/
Finally, may I recommend that you be consistant in your 1st/3rd game extensions. Regardless of how far into the game you are, pick either time/turn extension or sudden death. Different extensions for different situations is not good in my opinion.
To me, it's all about the MAIN event. Side events are for those who don't want to play in the main event, or for those who didn't get enough in the main event (as will be the case for me if I decide to attend this neighboring State Championship). Best-of-3, at least in the playoffs, SHOULD be the standard, as M45 is striving to do in this post.
So M45, from your reasoning (complete games hold more value), a 2TKO game has more value that a marathon match that ends with one prize left for each player when time is called. I see I'm not going to convince you about partial games (yet you're convinced that partial matches are okay). :/
Finally, may I recommend that you be consistant in your 1st/3rd game extensions. Regardless of how far into the game you are, pick either time/turn extension or sudden death. Different extensions for different situations is not good in my opinion.
Last edited:
meganium45
Active Member
Thanks Steve. I agree, consistancy is the key, and that is why we will use the same extension.
Hey, YOU are the one who inspired me to pursue the 2 of 3 playoffs as the best way, before PUSA suggested it.
Thanks for your continued input.
I found it interesting that all of my side events were completed before my 15+ top 8 was completed.
It gave the "non-top 8 people" the opportunity to jump in and get some hacks while the "big guns" were still hitting.
Also, I cannot see making the entire crowd wait for, what 16 people (1/4 of the event) to finish while they sit around with their shiny promo card????
That is why at Stadiums we are going to have AT LEAST 2 waves of side events, so that even the top 8 players can jump in and play (Rochester will start after top 8 at the South Stadium Challenge)
Talk to you all soon.
M45
Hey, YOU are the one who inspired me to pursue the 2 of 3 playoffs as the best way, before PUSA suggested it.
Thanks for your continued input.
I found it interesting that all of my side events were completed before my 15+ top 8 was completed.
It gave the "non-top 8 people" the opportunity to jump in and get some hacks while the "big guns" were still hitting.
Also, I cannot see making the entire crowd wait for, what 16 people (1/4 of the event) to finish while they sit around with their shiny promo card????
That is why at Stadiums we are going to have AT LEAST 2 waves of side events, so that even the top 8 players can jump in and play (Rochester will start after top 8 at the South Stadium Challenge)
Talk to you all soon.
M45
Cool. Sounds like some good fun at the South SC, as far as being able to play in side events. Doing "waved" side events is a BRILLIANT idea.
Really? Best-of-3 for the playoffs has been suggested by PUSA? That's nice to know. Not being a PTO, I'm not in-the-loop about those suggestions. Did that suggestion come in your States kit? Or was that suggestion made on the PTO Yahoo bulletin board?
Really? Best-of-3 for the playoffs has been suggested by PUSA? That's nice to know. Not being a PTO, I'm not in-the-loop about those suggestions. Did that suggestion come in your States kit? Or was that suggestion made on the PTO Yahoo bulletin board?
Last edited:
RainbowGym, it's YOU who are reading too much into the rules. It's your assumption (a wrong assumption IMO) that the Floor Rules are meant for only 1-game matches. So, does that mean we can throw out lots of stuff from the Floor Rules if we run best-of-3? I think not.
Furthermore, your quotes from the Floor Rules just furthers my argument that incomplete games count.
and...
Notice that in the initial sentence, they talk about time being called for the match. There's no such thing as calling time for a game (except when game=match in 1-game matches). And, notice that in the last sentence, they talk about a tied game. That leaves us with the second sentence. Are they talking about the match winner or the game winner? When taken in context with the last sentence (and even the first sentence), who MUST conclude that they're talking about the game winner, NOT the match winner.
Furthermore, I challenge you to find ANYTHING in the Floor Rules about ignoring incomplete games, match-play or not. Everything that I read says to COUNT incomplete games.
Furthermore, your quotes from the Floor Rules just furthers my argument that incomplete games count.
and...
Notice that in the initial sentence, they talk about time being called for the match. There's no such thing as calling time for a game (except when game=match in 1-game matches). And, notice that in the last sentence, they talk about a tied game. That leaves us with the second sentence. Are they talking about the match winner or the game winner? When taken in context with the last sentence (and even the first sentence), who MUST conclude that they're talking about the game winner, NOT the match winner.
Furthermore, I challenge you to find ANYTHING in the Floor Rules about ignoring incomplete games, match-play or not. Everything that I read says to COUNT incomplete games.
Last edited:
Listen, I have no problem with not counting incomplete games. It's been done before (as WOTC Worlds). However, I don't think ANY PTO should make that call without prior approval from POP, at least for events that are sponsored by PUSA, such as the Championship Series and Challenges.
Last edited:
Rainbowgym
Active Member
First off all, English is not my first language so I translate it and have to understand it too.
And if there is stated you may do more games in a match I translate it as. It's not the usual way but you are allowed to. and SORRY I can't explain myself more clear in a strange language.
And this the the complete text out of the International POP Floor rules and I'm not sure if that will place it in another daylight. Because now we get the discussion what is a game win?
I also don't like not to count uncompleted cases, but what I like is a simple guideline.
And if there is stated you may do more games in a match I translate it as. It's not the usual way but you are allowed to. and SORRY I can't explain myself more clear in a strange language.
And this the the complete text out of the International POP Floor rules and I'm not sure if that will place it in another daylight. Because now we get the discussion what is a game win?
I also don't like not to count uncompleted cases, but what I like is a simple guideline.
Last edited:
Hmm.
This spirited debate is very interesting. To me the appeal of 2 of 3 is the _second_ chance, esp. in the swiss rounds. There a draw is a valid result of a match.
Constructed Swiss Round - 1 hour match limit - 30 minute first game limit.
Whenever a game finishes, set up and start the next without waiting, maximum 3 games or two wins.
Judge a timed game by prizes with ties allowed.
Possible results ...
- Two games to time
Two draws, tie match.
One win, one loss, tie match.
Two wins, victory.
- One game to time, one game to finish.
Two wins, victory (only possibility)
- One game to time, two games finish.
Two wins, loss - victory.
Draw, win, loss - tie.
Does 2-0 count more than 2-1? Hmm.
You now arrive at the elimination rounds, in all probability without taking a 'too bad/good game' win versus a well constructed deck run by a good player. At this point, I'm ready for a little luck, but you still have choices that are appropriate to the situation.
2 of 3 no time limit? (Highest levels only)
2 of 3 with time limit and sudden death? (Maybe some regional premiere events)
Single matches, no time limit?
If I lose in single elim on a bad draw, not so bad.
This spirited debate is very interesting. To me the appeal of 2 of 3 is the _second_ chance, esp. in the swiss rounds. There a draw is a valid result of a match.
Constructed Swiss Round - 1 hour match limit - 30 minute first game limit.
Whenever a game finishes, set up and start the next without waiting, maximum 3 games or two wins.
Judge a timed game by prizes with ties allowed.
Possible results ...
- Two games to time
Two draws, tie match.
One win, one loss, tie match.
Two wins, victory.
- One game to time, one game to finish.
Two wins, victory (only possibility)
- One game to time, two games finish.
Two wins, loss - victory.
Draw, win, loss - tie.
Does 2-0 count more than 2-1? Hmm.
You now arrive at the elimination rounds, in all probability without taking a 'too bad/good game' win versus a well constructed deck run by a good player. At this point, I'm ready for a little luck, but you still have choices that are appropriate to the situation.
2 of 3 no time limit? (Highest levels only)
2 of 3 with time limit and sudden death? (Maybe some regional premiere events)
Single matches, no time limit?
If I lose in single elim on a bad draw, not so bad.
Hey,
What do you do about stalling?? Not counting a unfinished 2nd game as complete leaves open ground for stalling. Say the winner of round 1, doesn't have the luck of round 2, he could easily stall because he knows that it doesn't matter how many prizes his opponet pulls, that he has this one bagged because he won the 1st round that you consider complete!!
Stalling is already a shaky issue to prove and having your unfinished 2nd round basically not count opens the door wide open. You'd really need alot of judges to frequently watch over all games to be on top if the issue arise.
What do you do about stalling?? Not counting a unfinished 2nd game as complete leaves open ground for stalling. Say the winner of round 1, doesn't have the luck of round 2, he could easily stall because he knows that it doesn't matter how many prizes his opponet pulls, that he has this one bagged because he won the 1st round that you consider complete!!
Stalling is already a shaky issue to prove and having your unfinished 2nd round basically not count opens the door wide open. You'd really need alot of judges to frequently watch over all games to be on top if the issue arise.
Let me expand on the 2 out of 3 and stalling (having much experience in 2/3 match, as I am a magic player also).
If you do not count all the games as a full game, there is no incentive for a guy with a bad draw and knowing he is going to loose to scoop and use his time for the next game. Instead he will stall and hope time runs out so the game doesn’t count toward the match. This is manipulating the results. If everyone knows all games count, and more importantly a win before time (really used in swiss not single-lim) weighs in at more points (along with a 2-0 win being the top) you will have more consistent players and more timely matches.
Also on the 5 turn rule to break a tie at time (sorry not sudden death, going back to the luck of the draw again instead of the meat of the deck building, i.e. who gets dunsparce out wins). Pokemon is all about the turn not time. If you instate a time rule there is a hole for stalling again. Why allow holes in game play if there are easy ways to get rid of situations that are already hard to prove.
Also on the time consuming, this isn’t a kid’s game. I see it as a family game more and more. The single kid getting dropped off to stay 4-5 hours is going away. Usually you have family member playing also.
So worrying about how long a child is going to be there or a parent asking every 2 hours," how much long" is sim. Also well advertisement of the length of the game will help allot also.
Not blaming all these decisions that are being made by PTO/TO's as bad or wrong. But Nintendo should have this down pat the first time, seeing there is way to many prior tournament ran games with all the rules and penalties all laid out and they already have seen what works and what don’t!
So to end here, maybe a little advise from some of the more diverse plays aren’t so bad to take into consideration or even just do!
If you do not count all the games as a full game, there is no incentive for a guy with a bad draw and knowing he is going to loose to scoop and use his time for the next game. Instead he will stall and hope time runs out so the game doesn’t count toward the match. This is manipulating the results. If everyone knows all games count, and more importantly a win before time (really used in swiss not single-lim) weighs in at more points (along with a 2-0 win being the top) you will have more consistent players and more timely matches.
Also on the 5 turn rule to break a tie at time (sorry not sudden death, going back to the luck of the draw again instead of the meat of the deck building, i.e. who gets dunsparce out wins). Pokemon is all about the turn not time. If you instate a time rule there is a hole for stalling again. Why allow holes in game play if there are easy ways to get rid of situations that are already hard to prove.
Also on the time consuming, this isn’t a kid’s game. I see it as a family game more and more. The single kid getting dropped off to stay 4-5 hours is going away. Usually you have family member playing also.
So worrying about how long a child is going to be there or a parent asking every 2 hours," how much long" is sim. Also well advertisement of the length of the game will help allot also.
Not blaming all these decisions that are being made by PTO/TO's as bad or wrong. But Nintendo should have this down pat the first time, seeing there is way to many prior tournament ran games with all the rules and penalties all laid out and they already have seen what works and what don’t!
So to end here, maybe a little advise from some of the more diverse plays aren’t so bad to take into consideration or even just do!
Last edited:
Hagrid23 said:
As I said in an earlier post, it was suggested that the PTO do it that way. I am not sure which email it was, we get almost 8-10 a day. Sorry, I don't really have time to go through all 230 we have gotten in the last 2 months.
Sometimes I wonder if the PTO's actually read all there email. Can't really blame them, some of the email isn't very helpful. I am pretty sure it was a "suggestion" so not all PTO's will do it as it does add time to the event.
Gym Leader Blaine
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/member.php?u=15
farbsman said:
As a PTO I can say that I do actually read all of them. Plus I go to were they are stored and reread all of them, just to make sure that I did not miss one for the day. I have not see anything from PUI stating that we have to run a tournament a best of 3 round.
Out of Almost 1000 post form PTOs and PUI I can only find one right now that this topic is even talked about, post number 946 that M45 Stated his rules on how is his going to run his tournaments best 2 of 3. There was not a responce by any other PTOs or PUI about this or any sugguestion yes or no that the tournaments had to be run this way. I ready all post forward and back from this one and did find anything. So those of you that are saying that PUI needs to let you know these things, they have not even commented on this to the PTOs in email.
Last edited:
P_A
Active Member
That's specifically why I think this is a dangerous area. I'm sure if Nintendo wanted us to use this format they would have shouted it from the highest mountain. You are free to do whatever you like in your tournaments, but until we see a definitive email or announcement from POP, I can't see the need to drag out tournaments longer than necessary. That's the way tournaments have been run in the past, we've all had a share of the ups and downs, why change what has worked in the past without an overwhealming response from the players that want it this way?