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

[littleryan18]

I agree that 50+3 really does not ever get finished in enough time. The third game rarely ever gets finished and the games almost always end in undeserved ties. It should be changed eventually to something that is more accommodating to everyone's wishes and hopefully won't come with as much controversy.

 

[wildlion2014]

It seems with TPCi that with every step in the right direction, they take two steps back. The first turn rules and the catcher errata were absolutely amazing for the game; 50+3 and Top 8 is not. Finishing 3 full games in 50 minutes is almost inconceivable right now, even though this game has been dumbed down considerably. Since this format is such a toss up, Top 8 cut at large events like States essentially makes doing well a crapshoot.

Please listen to your player base and realize how bad 50+3 is and change it for Nationals or next season.

 

[Qzin]

Give tournament organizers more ways to customize their tournament so everyone can enjoy them.

You want to have 7 rounds tournament wish just 8 players? Just make it possible to input that into TOM.

You want your Bo3 swiss for big event? Allow it. Don't make a software that enslaves T.O. Make it work FOR T.O.

And if that's too hard I'm all for single games with time limit like 40 minutes.

 

[Champ Buster]

Went undefeated at 2-0-5 at TN states. I don't ever want to say that again. Please get rid of this awful format.

 

[cpeterik]

There is nothing more unsatisfying than tying. Give us enough time to finish our games and determine a true winner!

 

[Knuts]

I absolutely despise 50+3 Bo3. It shouldn't feel like an accomplishment to end your match before time gets called. It also, with the addition of ties, encourages slowplaying your opponent to either secure a victory by not finishing game 2, or to avoid a loss by stalling out game 3. The scumbaggy playstyle 50+3 Bo3 encourages is in no way healthy for the game.

 

[megatron]

50+3 does not seem to have solved a single problem it was meant to. I agree with Pooka's sentiment in that I fully support TPCi embracing trial, but only if they're willing to recognize error. The system's broke, yo.

 

[Jigsaw]

if game 3 could be winned by the player who has taken more prize cards i might say it's Ok, but it's almost impossible to complete game 3, as a matter of fact 50plus3 matches are such a bad bad idea

 

[Moss Factor]

Jason and Kyle said it all. Couldn't agree more. Glad to see Pokemon is trying new things as this is and should be an iterative process - but part of that is getting player feedback and this is a exactly the type of constructive criticism that helps make the game better. Thanks J&K!

 

[Raen]

For what it's worth, I really like ties. I do not, however, like 50 minutes. 60 would be fine for me, if we re-implemented the 4 prizes must be taken rule for Bo3 in Swiss. Sadly, that probably takes too much time.

What I would REALLY like if to go back to the old Bo1 40 minutes without a +3 turns clause, and implement the 4 prizes must be taken rule for Bo1, keep ties, and add 2 or 3 extra Swiss rounds from what we have right now.

I definitely don't want to see more 2-day events, though. Too many of those as it is already. It's impossible for me to go to more than 1 Regionals per cycle (1 fall, 1 winter, 1 spring), so adding even more would really kill any chance for me to compete. That just takes up WAY too much time (not to mention travel money), and I"m sure I'm not alone here.

 

[ShadowGuard]

Completely agree with Jason here.

At ECC I got pretty much kicked out of the tournament by drawing a match where I was about to certainly win the 3rd game, ending up 4-2-3 when the swiss rounds of day 1 finished at midnight.

Time issues also impact the deck choice and make the format less interesting that way.

Another thing is that in MtG there actually were played cards to abuse time limit (like this one sideboarded after winning the first game). This can also happen in Pokémon. I know we don't have something like Chatter lock or Gliscor w/ Unown K right now, but the new bo3 give completely new options for gamekillers like these.

I feel like TPCi introduced bo3 to combat T1 donks, which were the worst things about the Pokémon TCG for about two years (yea got donked twice in a row last Worlds while playing Darkrai). While I'm really grateful that TPCi has come up with a solution for this, it might be the wrong time, since the new XY starting rules took pretty much care of this issue.

Personally I'd suggest to go back to b-o-3 but play more swiss rounds, not only so much that there could be possible one unbeaten player. I'd prefer playing a States/Regionals with 100 masters in 9 rounds b-o-1 instead of 7 rounds b-o-3. It takes about the same time (or even less) nad is much fairer, since it's less dependant on a) time and b) pairing/matchup luck.

 

[King Piplup]

Add me to the list.

More Swiss>Bo3 Swiss, and as it is, Masters Regionals ending at midnight-1:30am is not at all good.

With the rule changes eliminating donks, the primary reason for bo3 (protecting from donks/bad starts—to play 1 good game) is diminished.

Bo3 encourages collision once players reach x-1-1 (or similar) which is not a desireable result whatsoever.

 

[Slev]

The best of 3 format is a fantastic one in theory, but in practice I believe this season has come to show that its rather impractical in its current state.

50 minutes is not enough time to finish 3 games. 16 mins 40 seconds per game is unfeasible with the amount of shuffle/draw actions that are required within a turn of Pokemon. Not to mention the majority of this is also purely dependent on your opponent. In reality each player should use 8 mins 20 seconds.... Think about that. You as a player have 8 minutes and 20 seconds to complete all the actions you need to take for an entire game. The other player, in theory, uses the other 8 mins and 20 seconds. It should be fairly obvious that this split rarely occurs. Especially once we get to the 2nd or 3rd game in a series. It is advantageous to be more methodical once you've won a game. No true statistical data has been measured that I know of but it is evident that players wearing watches has increased a fair amount since the best of 3 ruling entered play.

I've been told by a few judges and others that you "aren't supposed to be able to finish 3 games". I find this to be the most irritating set of logic. If I'm not supposed to be able to finish 3 games then why is the win condition for a round win 2 out of 3 games within 50 minutes.... Might as well change the logic to be you play 2 games. Win both you win. Win one you tie. Lose both you lose. The majority of rounds follow this assuming a dead draw donk situation didnt occur.

I've complained enough so lets talk about solutions:

If best of 3 is going to continue changes need to occur. At minimum there needs to be a good way for players to decide winners in rounds where a tie is unacceptable to each player. This NEEDS to be facilitated by TPCi. There needs to be a standard way to solve an unfinished game 3. It could be a special mark that both players circle on their match slip before they start the series or something else to signify that the player with the least prizes wins the final game. The awkward attempts at making "rules" for who wins game 3 or the "illegal" dice roles that can end in double game loss need to be prevented and replaced with something that is actually made by TPCi. This situation occurs and it occurs frequently. FIX IT.

Another point that needs to be addressed by TPCi if best of 3 is going to occur is time management. I have a solution that realistically I hate and find it to be a logistical nightmare but it would work. Give players chess clocks. Each player gets 25 minutes. If a player runs out of time then they lose or have 3 turns to win the series. I can't manage my opponent. I can call a judge. The judge will sit there for a couple of minutes. My opponent will play at a "reasonable" pace. In the end my opponent will be using 3:1 ratio on time per turns. This isn't acceptable. If we have such a harsh time limit time needs to be allotted equally. FIX IT. (The other obvious way to fix this is increase the time to 60 or 75 minutes. Though this does not address an opponent hogging more time than their competitor)

The final course of action would be to abandon best of 3. It seems like a very logical route to go into next season of competitive play. 30 minutes best of one with more rounds is logistically the simplest. It gives both players 15 mins (versus the current 8 mins 20 seconds per game) to play out all the actions of their turns while still reducing variance through more rounds played. The clock is no longer an opponent weighing down on players. I highly suggest TPCi move to this.

The Best of 3 50 minute series was an interesting trial, but ultimately as others have stated here it has failed our needs as a community of players. I have given some of the problems that have occurred and potential solutions to remedy our current situation.
All I ask now is that TPCi take these in to consideration for next season.

 

[losjackal]

If a change were in order, WHEN should it happen?

The 2014-2015 season is a next natural opportunity.

Is there anyone that can present an argument for changing it mid-season? In other words, are there any considerations to keep it fair by having it remain consistent with previous tournaments?

 

[Mune]

Initially, I was very excited for these new rules. A 2/3 series would potentially reduce the bad game variance where you could lose to a 'bad' player simply because of poor draws or even a t1 KO. However, as time has progressed, I think it is safe to say that no one enjoys these rules and ultimately it is not conducive to producing good and competitive tournaments. So often now do I enter into games or overhear 'Hey, if this goes to time, do you want to decide the winner so that we both don't miss out on cut'. When you have a large amount of tournament games be decided in a way that is not prescribed by the rules (and the judges doing little to 'prevent' its occurrence) then it is time to reevaluate the position and implement something new.

Ties are a necessary evil for the game but not in the way we are using them. There are some very easy and simple fixes that I think would do wonders for the format and the game (many of which are set out in Jason's varying proposals). People want to play this game competitively and TPCI certainly has the interest of these players in mind, but 50+3 is a large regress from previous developments.

 

[Gaaraofthesand]

This season, Play! Pokémon followed the lead of other successful TCGs, finally introducing Best 2-of-3 into the Swiss rounds of large tournaments. While players enjoy that Best-of-3 gives an opportunity to come back from one unlucky loss and still win a match, the official time limit of just 50 minutes +3 turns prevents players from having enough time to consistently finish a third game, and instead often dooms players who lost one game to a best-case scenario of a tie.

Dear The Pokémon Company International and its Organized Play team,
Without enough time to play three games, Best-of-3 defeats its own purpose. It also creates long, exhausting events, where players are both rushed and stalled out of games. Additionally, 50+3 encourages concession agreements between players that border on collusion and conflict with the Spirit of the Game. Please abandon 50+3 and replace it with a system and time limit that rewards skill, encourages fair play, and is not stressful and exhausting on players and staff.

Seconded. I have not gone to any events since the new rules because of everything you said here. too exhausting, and I don't want to pay money to play a grind.

 

[Arks Arcanum]

I would like to point out that I do not feel like 50+3 is meant for you to play out 3 full games. It is meant to deter 1 flukey game from determining a whole set. Mind you, a flukey game can still have an impact on a set, but it gives a chance for good players to recover from it. Bo3 is optimal for good players and I feel like the 50+3 time limit is a good balance for TOs and Players. People need to play faster, know when to scoop games, and need to call judges on slow play when applicable. I think the current ways in which Judges are trained and manage pace of play in events is a much larger problem then the time format.

 

[ShadowCard]

I think more Swiss rounds at all tournaments with 9 or more players is better then Best 2 out of 3. Best 2 out of 3 as donk protection is moot now considering the new first turn rules.

More Swiss Rounds + A smaller Top Cut (T4 at Cities and T8 at States and Higher) is a great combination IMO.

Agreed 100%

If a change were in order, WHEN should it happen?

The 2014-2015 season is a next natural opportunity.

Is there anyone that can present an argument for changing it mid-season? In other words, are there any considerations to keep it fair by having it remain consistent with previous tournaments?

There was a modified rotation mid-season for the health of the game. Consistency with previous tournaments gives way to the health of the tournament format.

Plus, Juniors and Seniors were able to use single-game matches at States and it was completely up to the organizer.You could have had two states next to each other running different tournament structures. No consistency there with the previous events or even necessarily with the same event series.

By round 3, you have played minimum 6 games and you are at best 3-0-0. It is exhausting. At regionals, players were dropping from Day 2 swiss because they were physically sick. More time for games that do not count is not needed.

 

[losjackal]

By round 3, you have played minimum 6 games and you are at best 3-0-0. It is exhausting. At regionals, players were dropping from Day 2 swiss because they were physically sick. More time for games that do not count is not needed.

Presenting this argument against 50+3 leads me to believe you would not be in favor of more time for Best of 3? (Ness has argued for 75 minutes.)

This is my concern…that everyone just asking for ANY change, without specifying what the change should ideally be…everyone will still not be happy.

 

[eriknance]

From the Pokemon TCG General Rules, under "Spirit Of The Game":

Fun: Pokémon is a game, and games are meant to be fun for all parties involved. When a game
ceases to be fun, players find other things to do.

Best of 3 in its current form detracts significantly from this. All season long, I have heard players gripe about ties and IDs, complaining that if they "only had one more turn" they would have won. It has happened to me as well, and it doesn't feel good at all. It doesn't feel fun. The current system also provides a backdrop for slowplaying. While judges may catch this, they can only do so much, and it's not fun at all to be slowplayed against. Of course, there's also the perception of an opponent slowplaying, which usually arises because players get frantic towards the end of the match (they want to win rather than tie). Best of 3 has introduced a lot of stress and pressure to the game, and I'll argue that for many it has caused the game to be less fun.

Personally, I am neutral on the issue, but that's because I've played decks that perform very well in best of 3. Even then, I've been "robbed" of wins because of time ending when I only needed a couple more turns. I've also felt the temptation of slowplaying to seal a victory, as well as faced opponents who tried to rush me because they wanted to avoid a tie. Additionally, both my brother and I nearly passed out at the last Regional Championship we attended. My brother made it to top 8 and couldn't continue playing because he was so exhausted.

For a long time, I've maintained that "I'd rather have 3 games than 1 any day," but I too would like to see a change in this system because of everyone's concerns. It's clear that best of 3 is encroaching on the fun that players normally experience at a Pokemon tournament.