Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

75 minute Top Cuts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not think that the number of top cut matches that are finished completely in 60 minutes is anywhere close to 90%.

I've played 4 cities top cut matches this year. 3 finished by someone taking one prize in game 3.

4 top cut matches at worlds. 1 did not finish game 2. 1 finished by a person taking one prize in game 3.

I've been playing Truth variants, admittedly slow decks but also:

Last year regionals: 4 top cut matches with SP, 1 did not finish game 1, 2 of them finished with a person taking 1 prize in game 3.


I may be a slower player, but you can see that a majority of my recent top cut matches have not even been close to finishing a full match. You can only finish 3 full games if players are just donking each other, and there's a lot of non donking decks in this format. You have 1 solid close game that gets down to the last prize, it isn't going to finish in less than 30 minutes and then you're definitely not getting 3 full games, if even 2. Even 'medium speed' decks are not going to finish 3 full games in 60 minutes. 2 tops.

I know there are many concerns with time etc., and I come in knowing what I'm up against with a slower deck. But to say that 60 min makes time a non-factor for 90%+ of the games just isn't close to being true imo. And again, even medium speed decks are not going to finish 3 in 60, this isn't just a slowest deck phenomenon, though they are the ones hurt most.
 
vanderbilt_grad said:
The truth of the matter is that not every top cut series is going to need 75 min Vince. In fact most of them probably will not. But that doesn't change Ness' point at all. The fact of the matter is that if you change even one outcome with 45 minute top vs 75 then you've totally changed the outcome of the event ... and affected it's legitimacy.

You also have to keep in mind that the players adapt to the folks running events (and no that’s not a good thing either). If everyone knows that you run 45 min cut rounds then the serious players aren’t going to run the slower decks. And right there you’ve created a self-fulfilling prophecy. You will never see the need because the players have done their best to win within the limits you’ve imposed.

I’ve got to add, I’m so sick and tired of it feeling like the PTO are always being negative about suggestions here no matter how positively they are suggested. We all know that not every suggestion is possible. There are probably unintended consequences for a huge amount of the suggestions made. But it really feels to me like the game is stuck in a rut event wise. I was really glad to see the shakeups with points and regionals this season. I hope that the folks in charge are willing to try other things out too.
Click to expand...

I would like to concur with you from the player standpoint that 75 min top cuts, when possible could and perhaps would be benificial. But one counterpoint to you statement about changing the outcome of an event. If the 75 minute top cut is not mandated, wouldnt a PTO choosing to run it as an option affect the event too? I mean players will decide to run faster decks if they know there is a shorter time limit; would they not choose to run slower decks if they knew there was a longer one?

There are countless angles to look at the point that Ness has made here, as well as many of the other points he has made in other threads. As a PTO, I encourage these kinds of ideas be brought up. If fact many of the recent changes to our tournament structure have been a result of good ideas like this. Also, I think that Ness is a well respected player in the community because he brings valid points to the ideas he has.

As far as looking for simpathy goes, that was not my goal here. I gave input from the PTO side of things; based on facts that I have personally encountered that would perhaps limit the idea thst has been brought up. I also believe that my points were to serve as a representation of the struggles that others running events encounter. I am only trying to provide the other side of the coin, and, at least from my eyes, show that although we may agree with ideas and changes brought forth, we may not always have the liberties to impliment said ideas.

Now granted there are venues and different events that would and perhaps will allow for a PTO to take advantage of longer time limits, and perhaps this could be experimented with. I for one am interested in trying it if the situation arises where I can. On the other hand I would sure hope that players dont look down on my events becuase I dont run longer time limits. I do everything I can to provide players with the best experience possible, and I know from traveling to numerous other events around the country, that there a lot of people out there doing exactly the same thing.
 
Ness said:
I think 75 mins should always be used unless a venue allowing it could not be found. (And let's be realistic, how often is 45m going to make or break which venue is chosen?)

75 mins isn't really a luxury, but rather necessary to consistently host legitimate Best 2/3 matches. I applaud the TOs (such as Heidi Craig and Larry Altavilla) that do 75 mins for their top cuts. Your dedication to your players is appreciated. I hope others will follow in your footsteps.
Click to expand...

Yes. There is a very REAL possibility that venues would stop participating given that time span change. I've seen tournaments be MOVED to another location during top cuts because they went beyond closing time (particularly if the tournament is on a Sunday)

Also, this sort of change places even more obligation on the part of the VOLUNTEER judges and staff.

You're right. More playing is always good fun for players, but the players have got to appreciate the challenges of playing the game within its innate boundaries.

Part of what makes the game challenging is the limitations/restrictions that you are given.

If you move to 75 minutes, they'll be a school of thought that will propose shorter top cuts.
If you shorten the time to 45 minutes, they'll be a school of thought asking for 60.

This is one of those topics where there's an infinite amount of grey area and everyone claims to be standing on the outside looking in.

I kinda like the time limits where they are.

Kudos for starting the dialogue though. This is the kind of stuff that led to 30+3 which, in my opinion, is fantastic!
 
meganium45 said:
And I love how every player takes shots at PTOs and TOs running the events that they are only in this for the cash. Trust me, a lot better ways for a lot of us to make money than running these events. Most of us long-timers would have given this up a long time ago if it was just dollars and cents.

Now, VandyGrad...being one of the FIRST PTOs to jump on the 2-day Regional, to frankly run Regionals in a manner that makes them much more than just a tournament event, and being an organizer that takes a lot of pride in running quality events by every standard - take a look at my history, and my dedication to change in events...

Then, frankly, you can (going to retract myself here...although the comment is deserved)

I am not going to go for the "woe is me, just try to put yourself in my shoes and run an event" organizer drabble. I run events because they have to be run correctly, and when I stepped into the game, THEY WEREN'T (even at the highest levels). I want to run events, therefore I do.

Why don't I run 75 minutes best of 3??? Because UNTIL they mandate that the maximum time that one game can take is 30 minutes, then I feel that 75 minutes allows for a bestardization of the time allowed for swiss round games, by allowing a 40+ minute game, which is not permitted at this time.

I will be the FIRST to jump on the 75 minute best of 3 the MOMENT I can call time in game 1 after 30 minutes. But I can't. The rules don't let me. So, instead, we have the 60 minute time frame (and yes, I still know and HATE that the games can go to 60 minutes), but I haven't seen that sort of problem around here.

Maybe it is because I have a stable of great judges right now who know my philosophies, and frankly carry out my events better than almost any time in my PTO history. That is TRUE by the way.

Maybe it is because the judges in this area have NO TROUBLE in calling out players for unsporting conduct, and aren't bullied by players no matter their stature in the game, in a way that keeps the event civil, and sets a tone for sporting play.

I think before we dive after the "more time is better" solution, we had better look at all of its ramifications, and determine if it is indeed the proper solution.

Is that a better analysis???

Not saying it is right...just saying it is mine.

Vince
Click to expand...

I want to point out that you are defending yourself from an attack that wasn’t made. No one in this thread has attacked your dedication to the game. No one has suggested that you are in this for the money here. No one talked about what a bad judge/to/etc. you were.

Yet that’s exactly what happens every single time someone suggests a change or reports a problem. Someone (and usually not you) jumps in and talks about all the work they’ve done and acts like they are being attacked. There’s a HUGELY defensive mindset among event staff here on the Gym.

Yeah, I’ve seen the attacks in other places and at other times here. I get why you might feel that way. But that defensiveness is one of the things that’s slowly killing the Gym and it’s a real problem for the players who simply have an idea and post about it without trying to say anything bad about anyone.

Vince, please re-read my post. I talk about how I feel, not how *you* are. I talk about problems I perceive, not that you are a problem. There is a reason I said “I’m tired of feeling like” as opposed to “You are a real problem Vince.” Maybe I could have done better, IDK, but “frankly” I think that you put your own spin on my words based on past events with other folks.

You know what … everything can be made better. Saying that something in your area could be improved is not the same thing as saying you have been doing things badly. Ness posting that 75 min top cut rounds is good for the game doesn’t mean that you, Vince, and the folks who work in the game are bad for it. That’s the thing that ticks me off here. You responded in exactly the way that’s at the root of why I don’t hang out in the Gym as much anymore.

Now on to your wish to call games after 30 min … I personally would hate that. I’ve lost count of the number of games I’ve played in the past season and this one that have gone to time in 40 min. Frankly we all understand why time limits exist, but … WHEN POSSIBLE … I personally would like to see that distortion lessened in the game. This isn’t about stalling, slow play, or that sort of thing … it’s just that a real game frequently takes longer than we have now with 40 min … and that best of 3 in 45 min is pushing things to a huge extreme and even best of 3 in an hour is tough for many decks and many players.

What’s this really about? Killing staff? No way. It’s the same old thing that always comes up. The players just want to play. The skilled guys want their skill to matter. Is that the only thing that matters in an event? Nope. We get location limits, the fact that many people play for fun, and that Master’s Top Cut isn’t the only game in town at an event.

Bah. I’ve probably wasted my time here. I'll go .... or whatever it is you orginally wanted me to do.
 
VG: I get your message was from your viewpoint. Please remember that not everyone here knows you personally either. As a PTO and long time Judge, many of the reasons that OP has put things into the tourney procedures is to allow the event to be legit and fair to most. They will never please all. That is an impossibility. There are staff and location concerns. Yes, some venues cause huge problems for the PTO, but if they looked at the time for players only, you would probably end up with LESS tourneys overall. Some areas would lose many tourneys, if not all CCs. There is a fine line to walk.

Please dont take this as being defensive towards the PTOs only. I get the OP's point. More time in a Bo3 topcut allows for more games and more legit results. I get donk decks. I understand the edge certain decks have in certain limitations. Players love to PLAY. Players want "more" legit results. I use "more" this way bc we are playing a bit of theorymon here. Some areas use 75 min bo3 topcuts, many use the more standard 60 mins. Some even use 90 mins. Very very few use the bare minimun of 45 mins. IMO, that is there to make sure topcuts arent manipulated too badly. Most people can play at least 1 legit game in 45 mins. (with competent judges watching the games and enforcing the correct time frames).

Keith

PS I would eliminate the 45 min minimum for Bo3 myself and make it 60 mins as the minimum. Just my opinion there. But I understand why the 45 min minimum is allowed by TPCi OP.
 
VG - Thanks for the response, and sometimes the best way to move a dialogue on is to take a stance, and frankly, I have nothing against you, I know you (although you may not know me) and respect you as a player.

The thing is, for OP, the gauntlet has been tossed down that 30 minutes is the standard time for games in this format. That is the time for games in a swiss round. The farther you move away from this in the top cut, the farther you move the format from what is intended.

Why is 60 minutes more ideal in my opinion? Even a longer game with a long game deck usually will not hit the 60 minute mark, usually about 45. This will leave the long deck vulnerable to two quick games that could decide the event.

Is that a bias in the system against long games? Potentially, yes.

The problem is, a bias in the system in swiss rounds should not be solvable by creating a completely different enviornment in my opinion in the top cut.

Remember, 30 + 3 was not done in order to give players more time, or take time off of venues. 30 + 3 was done to STOP players from playing the clock at the end of an event. All the great ones did it, as it was a parameter that they could use to their potential advantage. I swear that some players had a LIGHT go off in their heads at 5 minutes until the end of game, and knew what time should be to the SECOND without a watch.

Once again, I will join Keith in agreeing that 2/3 in 45 mins is just bad.

Vince
 
Ness said:
45 is just an absolute joke and insults the game. At that point, you're better off with one game. 60 minutes is similar.
Click to expand...

45 min cut screwed me and everyone else who was using a spread/disruption deck out of top cut at nats a few years back. It's nearly impossible for such a deck to win against anything remotely close to being fast under those time restraints. I hate when top cut goes to time more so than normal battles, especially when it takes what otherwise would be very viable decks, and suddenly makes them nearly unplayable.

For those saying live with it, how on earth were ANY of us who were using such decks on that day to know they would spring a 45min best 2/3 cut on us? What? We were supposed to be able to see the future and pick different decks?
 
This is one issue I wish we could borrow a solution from Magic the Gathering,

Most events PTQ all the way up to Worlds have untimed Top Cuts.

I understand not having untimed top cuts for CCs, but at Nationals and Worlds - it should be the standard. For CCs, I'd like to see at least 75 minutes, as I have personally had experiences where I went to time and lost a finals in sudden death when I had the game winning play in my hand for any game other than sudden death.

Again, just my opinion.
 
Rogue Archetype said:
If you move to 75 minutes, they'll be a school of thought that will propose shorter top cuts.
If you shorten the time to 45 minutes, they'll be a school of thought asking for 60.

This is one of those topics where there's an infinite amount of grey area and everyone claims to be standing on the outside looking in.

I kinda like the time limits where they are.

Kudos for starting the dialogue though. This is the kind of stuff that led to 30+3 which, in my opinion, is fantastic!
Click to expand...


1. This is the truth. The grass is always greener on the other side, and debates like this will always occur
2. I think debates like this are critical to the development of the game

But (not to Rogue Archetype but to OP and others) when we make a format "better" by making the odds for the slower deck to win you are minimizing the winning odds of the faster decks. I dont think that 75 minutes is reasonable since the strategic benefit of running quick decks would be diminished, unfairly favoring a certain (not universally appreciated) deck type over another. I like long games, but i also think that a loss due to time/fast decks is something that you accept as a risk of playing a slower deck. These risks give the game more depth and make the slower deck tech and metagame for advantages. I think 45 minutes is too short. 75 is too long

Further, an alternative brought up earlier that would serve the same purpose (creating more legit games) without sacrificing potential strategies was to just have more rounds before breaks. Instead of 75 min it out rounds, why not just have 2 or even 3 more rounds? This would diminish the auto-losses certain decks face, but also give the more "legit rounds" that Ness desires. This would also have the additional benefit of giving more kids "more fun" since they would have more opportunities to participate with others, play, and (of course) learn.

Of course, this is just my opinion. This is interesting, like all of this form of discussion on here.

Gowk
 
PokeMedic said:
I use the minimum 45 minutes in my tournaments. Hit me with your best shot, PokeGym.
Click to expand...
Why? Why would you ever run 45-minute top cuts unless you had to, and why do you feel the need to provoke the community with this post in the first place?
 
Raen said:
unless you had to,
Click to expand...

There's your answer right there. Time is an issue when I do events in the evening. My sanctioned events aren't top-level serious, either The rules allow me to do 45 minutes so I do it. People who come to my events understand that it's about good natured fun, not for die-hard competitive spirit. Tournaments award winning, but there's nothing at stake here in a non-premier event. They like the experience without all the risk, granted each one of them has played and does play in events with all that risk. In the end they still walk away with an entire box of cards divided up between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, age-modified or not.

My events open the door for more people. It offers them an open atmosphere with less time commitment and helps spark their interest in premier events, and it's worked.
 
Last edited:
PokeMedic said:
There's your answer right there.
Click to expand...
And again, you make a vague, unhelpful post in response.

All you've really done is provoke negative responses to your post. You've done nothing to actually further the conversation or the discussion. You've done nothing to help us all sympathize with you or understand your reasoning for your decisions. You've also not said whether removing the 45 minute option would stop you from being able to run tournaments.

An actual well thought out, helpful post would be far more useful here.
 
What is the argument for timed top cuts? That doesn't make sense to me, tim limits are only to make sure events are completed within the amount of time allowed by the venue. When you are in top cut, the better player should win, not the one who was more advantaged by a time limit.
 
pat460 said:
What is the argument for timed top cuts? That doesn't make sense to me, tim limits are only to make sure events are completed within the amount of time allowed by the venue. When you are in top cut, the better player should win, not the one who was more advantaged by a time limit.
Click to expand...

You answered your own question.
 
PokeMedic said:
There's your answer right there. Time is an issue when I do events in the evening. My sanctioned events aren't top-level serious, either The rules allow me to do 45 minutes so I do it. People who come to my events understand that it's about good natured fun, not for die-hard competitive spirit. Tournaments award winning, but there's nothing at stake here in a non-premier event. They like the experience without all the risk, granted each one of them has played and does play in events with all that risk. In the end they still walk away with an entire box of cards divided up between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, age-modified or not.

My events open the door for more people. It offers them an open atmosphere with less time commitment and helps spark their interest in premier events, and it's worked.
Click to expand...

If it isn't a premier event, I don't see it being a big deal. However, hosting 45-minute 2 of 3 at a City Championship is a slap in the face to the players. I encourage you to do 75 minutes whenever possible. Your players will appreciate the opportunity to play and demonstrate their skills!
 
If the TO is faithful to the announced top cut that was set prior to registration, I'm all for longer top cuts. What I would hate is something like the TO lengthening the top cut without prior knowledge. I don't want to register for an event with a deck like ZPS, then be told that top cut is 75 minutes AFTER registration. Like it or not, time IS a factor in choosing a deck, and it's a big deal for players to know the match lengths before the tournament.

I'd prefer the TO also list it on a website, but being notified at the tournament well in advance would be fine as well.
 
Slowkingrocks said:
If the TO is faithful to the announced top cut that was set prior to registration, I'm all for longer top cuts. What I would hate is something like the TO lengthening the top cut without prior knowledge. I don't want to register for an event with a deck like ZPS, then be told that top cut is 75 minutes AFTER registration. Like it or not, time IS a factor in choosing a deck, and it's a big deal for players to know the match lengths before the tournament.

I'd prefer the TO also list it on a website, but being notified at the tournament well in advance would be fine as well.
Click to expand...

You're right. Time limits can affect deck choice, and players should have this knowledge in advance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top