King Piplup
Active Member
What I've noticed is that what was formerly X-3 for Top Cut purposes is now X-2-1, X-2 is X-1-1, etc. This had held true at Regionals as far as T32 Day 2s have gone, and T8 at Cities.
Dear TPCi: Scrap the disaster that is 50+3!
- Thread starter Ness
- Start date
- Status
As someone who's brand new to the scene, I never understood why Prizes weren't taken into effect for ties. If time is called and I have 2 left and my opponent has 3, I feel that should win. Yeah, Lugia takes more prizes, but Shedinja and Life Dew exist, so whatever.
Of course, this idea doesn't bode well for a Prize tie when time is called. It is a bit more decisive, though.
Of course, this idea doesn't bode well for a Prize tie when time is called. It is a bit more decisive, though.
In the past we have had whoever has taken more Prize cards after the +3 turns would win. For some reason they took that away this time around, and they didn't even have it be the rule where if 4 Prize cards have been taken by one player, then the game is considered completed and the player with fewer Prize cards remaining wins, which would be a great rule to have in this tournament structure.
losjackal
Technical Administrator
HotDogHat, it's simply because having more prizes is not a win condition defined in the rules of the game, it's a rule defined in the rules of the tournament. And this year, the tournament rules have said you must win a game. Almost winning doesn't count.
What if you are running Blastoise, use Black Kyurem to Black Ballista for prizes 3 and 4, and your last Superior Energy Retrieval is trapped somewhere in your last two prizes. Practically all of your energy is in your discard, so you have no way to take your last two prizes. With a few more turns, your opponent would overpower you. Do you really deserve to win, just because you had more when time ended?
Some could argue yes. Others can argue no. The tournament rules have decided for this season, no. It really could go either way, but this is the format we have to play by if we want to play. So I hope this helps you understand why it is the way the way it is.
What if you are running Blastoise, use Black Kyurem to Black Ballista for prizes 3 and 4, and your last Superior Energy Retrieval is trapped somewhere in your last two prizes. Practically all of your energy is in your discard, so you have no way to take your last two prizes. With a few more turns, your opponent would overpower you. Do you really deserve to win, just because you had more when time ended?
Some could argue yes. Others can argue no. The tournament rules have decided for this season, no. It really could go either way, but this is the format we have to play by if we want to play. So I hope this helps you understand why it is the way the way it is.
King Piplup
Active Member
And if they don't change?
As has been noted, it's not exactly easy to get a judge to hand down slow play penalties, especially during early rounds when there's absolutely no pattern to look at. It's not necessarily a fault of the judges'; they can only do so much given the ratio of them to players.
As has been noted, it's not exactly easy to get a judge to hand down slow play penalties, especially during early rounds when there's absolutely no pattern to look at. It's not necessarily a fault of the judges'; they can only do so much given the ratio of them to players.
Top Cut Comics
Member
Yes... They do under the current rule. I know it seems bad, but they did EARN a tie by not allowing you to win within the time allotted. You are putting too much focus on the winner aspect. However, by forcing a tie you opponent didn't lose the game. So in a sense they won as well.
Jimmy
What I've heard Magic players do is that they ask a judge to make sure both players aren't playing slowly.
King Piplup
Active Member
It's less about asking for specific observation and more about the fact that a stalling player can pick up the pace for the relatively-brief period a judge can afford to watch your match alone. It's a deterrent, but suggesting it's the end-all solution as some have done is misguided, I believe.
ShadowGuard
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=
Here some feedback from our Nationals - 50+3 is absolutely killing metagame diversity. We had 8 swiss rounds 50+3 and cut to only top 8 for about 180 masters at our Nationals. That means that topcutting is pretty much impossible without a lot of luck.
That's why i didn't really prepare something new and played a cool deck where frieds and me got some success with during this season - Flygon. It was actually good and I ended up 23th with a 5-2-1 score. All of the wins were 2-0 or 1-0 and the draw would also have been a win, and that's where the problem shows up - you can't win any more if you are one game behind with a slow deck, but you can have your win be turned into a draw if you lose second game and don't have enough time for a third.
Evolution decks aren't bad (even if Muscle Band hurt them a lot), I think most of you can remember that Empoleon, Hydreigon and lots of other decks were played during fall Regionals, but besides Emboar and Blastoise, they are unplayable in 50+3 swiss with a top cut to less than 5% of the players. That even applies to the fairy decks, which have a really fun gameplay but are too slow for competitive gameplay in 50+3. As far as I know, the Flygon deck two friends and me played was the only non-meta deck in the whole top 32 list. Back in 2006-2012, we got a least one trip-winning non-meta deck in either Masters or Seniors each year at German Nationals.
Top 4 was made of Genesect only, because its the only deck that can consistantly finish 3 games within 50 minutes while winning most of them.
Maybe things get better with Flashfire, but the problem still remains.
I'd rather have 1-3 additional swiss rounds and go back to b-o-1 gameplay. The main reason players (including me) were calling for b-o-3 before - T1 donks - has been pretty much eliminated by the new first turn rules (which I really appreciate).
---
To add something completely different - a friend who is father of two children in Seniors/Juniors has (for now) quit the game, because his kids didn't want to wait for about 3 hours every tournament, since Seniors und Juniors have far less players than Masters and therefor less rounds which now take even longer. He told me that the 50+3 is a real problem for all families with parents who have serious chances and want to play to the end.
That's why i didn't really prepare something new and played a cool deck where frieds and me got some success with during this season - Flygon. It was actually good and I ended up 23th with a 5-2-1 score. All of the wins were 2-0 or 1-0 and the draw would also have been a win, and that's where the problem shows up - you can't win any more if you are one game behind with a slow deck, but you can have your win be turned into a draw if you lose second game and don't have enough time for a third.
Evolution decks aren't bad (even if Muscle Band hurt them a lot), I think most of you can remember that Empoleon, Hydreigon and lots of other decks were played during fall Regionals, but besides Emboar and Blastoise, they are unplayable in 50+3 swiss with a top cut to less than 5% of the players. That even applies to the fairy decks, which have a really fun gameplay but are too slow for competitive gameplay in 50+3. As far as I know, the Flygon deck two friends and me played was the only non-meta deck in the whole top 32 list. Back in 2006-2012, we got a least one trip-winning non-meta deck in either Masters or Seniors each year at German Nationals.
Top 4 was made of Genesect only, because its the only deck that can consistantly finish 3 games within 50 minutes while winning most of them.
Maybe things get better with Flashfire, but the problem still remains.
I'd rather have 1-3 additional swiss rounds and go back to b-o-1 gameplay. The main reason players (including me) were calling for b-o-3 before - T1 donks - has been pretty much eliminated by the new first turn rules (which I really appreciate).
---
To add something completely different - a friend who is father of two children in Seniors/Juniors has (for now) quit the game, because his kids didn't want to wait for about 3 hours every tournament, since Seniors und Juniors have far less players than Masters and therefor less rounds which now take even longer. He told me that the 50+3 is a real problem for all families with parents who have serious chances and want to play to the end.
Last edited:
Professor Dav
Master Trainer
During the course of any tournament season, players must be flexible and adapt to a vast number of variables. Strategies change based on match-ups, new decks appear and disappear throughout the course of a season, and at each step, players must adjust to those changes in order to be competitive.
The move to best of three, and the match time limits are another adjustment that players have had to make. Whether it means simply increasing the rate of play, or realizing that taking the time to attempt to reach the absolute best play may not be the best use of valuable match time, or acknowledging that a game is out of reach and making the move to start a new game, those are decisions that players have to adapt to.
Now that we’ve been through nearly a full season, with multiple large events having been completed, we have a decent amount of data by which we can analyze trends and the implications of the changes that have been made this season.
In analyzing round data, we see that beyond the base time limit for each round, the plus-3 turns portion takes 6-10 minutes, and the time to finalize results, post pairings and start the next round is another 5-10 minutes, on average. This means that typically speaking, it takes 65-70 minutes to get from the start of one round to the start of the next. This held true for nearly all Regionals this season, with 9 Swiss rounds taking approximately 11 hours, including most organizer’s allowing for a 30-45 minute lunch break.
We would expect that to hold true regardless of whether the time limit was reduced, or extended. Players have a tendency to use the time they are given, and while we might expect fewer matches to require the plus-3 extension if the time limit were expanded, it will not likely reduce it to zero, and therefore will still see a 6-10 minute addition to complete.
The Pokémon Organized Play team always working to reduce administrative time needed to enter matches and the like, but ultimately there will always be a number of minutes necessary each round to post pairings, allow players to find their seats, set up, start and enter all reported matches.
With the above, we would expect, for example, that a 30+3 single game format would require approximately 45-50 minutes per round, and a 60+3 best of three round would take approximately 75-80 minutes. We feel strongly that a 14-15 hour tournament day is not fun for most participants. In addition, single game Swiss doesn’t provide the value of best of three, and is far less effective in mitigating a bad draw that could otherwise derail a player’s chances at making the top cut.
In analyzing the round data from Regionals, and some State Championship events, we found the following average draw rates:
• Junior division is right about 10%, with the draw rate decreasing steadily from Autumn to Spring
• Seniors is moderately higher at just about 11%, with a slight decline from Autumn to Spring
• The rate for Masters players is right at 17% and shows no change from Autumn to Spring
Of course, we will continue analyzing gameplay and tournament data, and we too will adjust if we feel it’s appropriate to do so.
The move to best of three, and the match time limits are another adjustment that players have had to make. Whether it means simply increasing the rate of play, or realizing that taking the time to attempt to reach the absolute best play may not be the best use of valuable match time, or acknowledging that a game is out of reach and making the move to start a new game, those are decisions that players have to adapt to.
Now that we’ve been through nearly a full season, with multiple large events having been completed, we have a decent amount of data by which we can analyze trends and the implications of the changes that have been made this season.
In analyzing round data, we see that beyond the base time limit for each round, the plus-3 turns portion takes 6-10 minutes, and the time to finalize results, post pairings and start the next round is another 5-10 minutes, on average. This means that typically speaking, it takes 65-70 minutes to get from the start of one round to the start of the next. This held true for nearly all Regionals this season, with 9 Swiss rounds taking approximately 11 hours, including most organizer’s allowing for a 30-45 minute lunch break.
We would expect that to hold true regardless of whether the time limit was reduced, or extended. Players have a tendency to use the time they are given, and while we might expect fewer matches to require the plus-3 extension if the time limit were expanded, it will not likely reduce it to zero, and therefore will still see a 6-10 minute addition to complete.
The Pokémon Organized Play team always working to reduce administrative time needed to enter matches and the like, but ultimately there will always be a number of minutes necessary each round to post pairings, allow players to find their seats, set up, start and enter all reported matches.
With the above, we would expect, for example, that a 30+3 single game format would require approximately 45-50 minutes per round, and a 60+3 best of three round would take approximately 75-80 minutes. We feel strongly that a 14-15 hour tournament day is not fun for most participants. In addition, single game Swiss doesn’t provide the value of best of three, and is far less effective in mitigating a bad draw that could otherwise derail a player’s chances at making the top cut.
In analyzing the round data from Regionals, and some State Championship events, we found the following average draw rates:
• Junior division is right about 10%, with the draw rate decreasing steadily from Autumn to Spring
• Seniors is moderately higher at just about 11%, with a slight decline from Autumn to Spring
• The rate for Masters players is right at 17% and shows no change from Autumn to Spring
Of course, we will continue analyzing gameplay and tournament data, and we too will adjust if we feel it’s appropriate to do so.
Having the stats is appreciated, but it's worth noting (in my opinion) that there is some "fuzz factor" due to the games that would otherwise end in draws being conceded. I'd love to see a breakdown by round (first round vs last round of swiss vs. next-to-last round of swiss).
Just to add on, the data is also "fuzzed" by two other variables in addition to concessions. 1- Game Loss/DQ Penalties and 2- Intentional Draws
While rare, Game Losses and DQs could prevent a match from being played out to a natural draw meaning that, like concessions, matches that are influence by penalty would not be counted as part of that X% of the Draw Rate.
Intentional Draws cause the number of draws to be inflated. It is very interesting, Concessions and Penalties make the draw rate decrease while Intentional Draws increase the draw rate. I wonder if these equal the other out to make the "fuzz factor" no more or if one is so common that the draw rate is skewed in one direction or the other.
Yoshi- Comparing the Draw Rate of earlier rounds to later rounds really doesn't prove anything because of the nature of Swiss. Round 1 pairings are random, there is likely 1 player in any given match that is the clear winner so the Draw Rate of Round 1 will be relativity low. As the tournament progresses, the skill level of two opponents become closer together, this means that a longer drawn out game is more likely and the chance of a Draw becomes greater. Seeing the Draw Rate of later rounds would be cool, Draw Rates of earlier rounds seem boring. Data is not interesting unless you can understand, interpret and most importantly, explain it.
All this talk of variables, data and numbers make me feel like I am back in College, can't help to reminisce about my methods of research class. Thanks for posting that data Dave.
Last edited:
Ness
Member
Mr. Schwimmer,
Thank you for finally addressing the concerns of players and staff regarding this season’s new time limits. I am glad to see that your team is recording data regarding the percentage of match ties that occur in each division. However, please realize that your data only tell half of the story. The data do not tell you how many players won their match in a 1-0 series that virtually guarantees players played some meaningless partial game. These data do not tell you how many matches determined a winner only after rushing and/or conceding games that may have ultimately been exciting and/or winnable. These data do not tell you how many games ended unfinished in Game 3, but were recorded in the books as a “win” only because players two frustrated players formed some informal agreement that one would concede to the other, rather than have them each receive only 1 point for a tie.
In fact, the only thing your data ties tells you is the percentage of matches that ended by either:
A) a mutual agreement between players to draw.
B) matches that were in the third game when time was called, in which neither player had drawn all six prize cards, and neither player conceded to the other (the overwhelming majority of ties).
As you see, your data are pretty specific, and do not speak to the multitude of problems caused by insufficient time limits, such as stalling, rushing, frequent and early game concessions, and promotion of agreements that conflict with sportsmanship and spirit of the game. These are things that only a player playing in the event can get a true feel of their impact, and they are the reasons 50+3 faces widespread criticism among players.
The Pokémon TCG community, myself included is grateful for your company’s constant willingness to improve Organized Play events, including this year’s addition of Best 2-of-3 Swiss rounds. However, please do not be so shortsighted as to disregard the true, genuine player feedback you receive here, which is equally important as the data you have collected.
Thank you for finally addressing the concerns of players and staff regarding this season’s new time limits. I am glad to see that your team is recording data regarding the percentage of match ties that occur in each division. However, please realize that your data only tell half of the story. The data do not tell you how many players won their match in a 1-0 series that virtually guarantees players played some meaningless partial game. These data do not tell you how many matches determined a winner only after rushing and/or conceding games that may have ultimately been exciting and/or winnable. These data do not tell you how many games ended unfinished in Game 3, but were recorded in the books as a “win” only because players two frustrated players formed some informal agreement that one would concede to the other, rather than have them each receive only 1 point for a tie.
In fact, the only thing your data ties tells you is the percentage of matches that ended by either:
A) a mutual agreement between players to draw.
B) matches that were in the third game when time was called, in which neither player had drawn all six prize cards, and neither player conceded to the other (the overwhelming majority of ties).
As you see, your data are pretty specific, and do not speak to the multitude of problems caused by insufficient time limits, such as stalling, rushing, frequent and early game concessions, and promotion of agreements that conflict with sportsmanship and spirit of the game. These are things that only a player playing in the event can get a true feel of their impact, and they are the reasons 50+3 faces widespread criticism among players.
The Pokémon TCG community, myself included is grateful for your company’s constant willingness to improve Organized Play events, including this year’s addition of Best 2-of-3 Swiss rounds. However, please do not be so shortsighted as to disregard the true, genuine player feedback you receive here, which is equally important as the data you have collected.
Professor Dav
Master Trainer
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'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
You stated earlier that the goal of best of three was to mitigate the effect that a bad draw had on a player's chance on top cut. I would say that most of the negativity in formats past were due to first turn wins before a player can get a turn. With the change in first turn rules in XY, players no longer have to worry about being donked. This makes best of 3 almost obsolete. Very few games actually end quickly due to bad draws. What tends to happen with a bad draw is that the player will lose or scoop 10 minutes into the first game. Then they'll either lose the 2nd game, in which case it didn't matter that it's best of 3, or win it after 20-25 minutes. The 3rd game then either has to finish quickly for either player, or they end up tying, which in most cases is just as useful as a loss for making it into top cut.
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.
You also mention that a parent sought out tournaments that used best of 3. Just at my card shop alone there are 4 masters who have quit the game until best of 3 isn't being used anymore. That also doesn't account for players who are just miserable while playing in tournaments now. At the states and regionals I went to players just seemed more exhausted and less excited to be playing. Many directly mentioned how this was due to the best of 3 format. There were multiple times during rounds 5, 6 or 7 where the players around me at the tables commented on how we still had multiple hours left remaining and they wished the tournament would be over with already. I also know multiple players who dropped in rounds 5 or 6 with records that could still make top cut due to exhaustion because of how many games were being played and how long it was taking.
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.
You also mention that a parent sought out tournaments that used best of 3. Just at my card shop alone there are 4 masters who have quit the game until best of 3 isn't being used anymore. That also doesn't account for players who are just miserable while playing in tournaments now. At the states and regionals I went to players just seemed more exhausted and less excited to be playing. Many directly mentioned how this was due to the best of 3 format. There were multiple times during rounds 5, 6 or 7 where the players around me at the tables commented on how we still had multiple hours left remaining and they wished the tournament would be over with already. I also know multiple players who dropped in rounds 5 or 6 with records that could still make top cut due to exhaustion because of how many games were being played and how long it was taking.
Last edited:
The feedback I have gotten from players in my area has been mixed. Some love 50+3, some hate 50+3, the rest are just indifferent and just doesn't care.
The bigger issue I have heard from players this year was regarding Top 8 Cuts. Players love it when tournaments have those extra Swiss rounds (227+ Players) because making "Day 2" is not only an achievement in itself but it allows players to play more rounds in order to determine who makes Top 8. A Top 8 in a 100+ player tournament that is determined by 14 or 15 Swiss rounds is preferable over Top 8 that is determined by 8 or 9 Swiss Rounds. Losing 2 Matches with only 8 or 9 Swiss Rounds played causes a player's tournament to be over. Losing 2 matches on Day 1 still gets players into "Day 2" where they can redeem themselves with a good "Day 2" run and possibly make cut with 2, 3 or maybe 4 Losses. Currently PTOs are prepared for (and successfully ran) tournaments that require 14 Swiss Rounds. Adding extra Swiss rounds to smaller sized tournaments should not add more time to a tournament as a whole
I think all tournaments (with the exception of League Challenges) would benefit from extra Swiss rounds. Now I am not suggesting 5 extra rounds and X-2s or better for all tournaments, but rather allowing the attendance to dictate: how many extra rounds are ran, which records (or Top "X") makes "Day 2", and ultimately how many players make the Final Top Cut after Swiss Rounds are complete. A table describing my suggestion is below.
I put "Day 2" in quotations for a reason, I am suggesting extra Swiss rounds for City Championships as well. Since Cities need to be a 1 Day event, calling extra Swiss rounds "Day 2" could be confusing, for the sake of this post "Pre-Top Cut" is a better way to put it. Since I am suggesting extra Swiss Rounds for smaller sized tournaments, I am also suggesting that the point when a Tournament should have a T8 be raised because extra Swiss rounds are ran. A 21 Player Tournament doesn't need extra Swiss rounds and a T8.
My Suggestion
Attendance ~ Rounds ---------(Pre Top Cut Rounds, Final Top Cut)---------------------------------------------------[Total Swiss/Top Cut]
Less Then 8 ~ 3 Rounds-------- (No Extra Rounds, No Top Cut) ------------------------------------------------------[3 Rounds/No Cut]
9-20 ~ 5 Rounds --------------(No Pre-Top Cut, Extra Rounds for All Players to Play in, Then T2 Cut)------------------[5 Rounds/T2 Cut]
21-32 ~ 7 Rounds -------------(No Pre-Top Cut, Extra Rounds for All Players to Play in, Then T4 Cut)------------------[7 Rounds/T4 Cut]
33-64 ~ 6 Rounds--------------(+3 Rounds for T16 or all X-2s or Better, then T4 Cut) ---------------------------------[9 Rounds/T4 Cut]
65-128 ~ 7 Rounds-------------(+4 Rounds for T16 or all X-2s or Better,, then T8 Cut) --------------------------------[11 Rounds/T8 Cut]*
129-226 ~ 8 Rounds------------(+5 Rounds for T32 or all X-2s or Better,, then T8 Cut)--------------------------------[13 Rounds/T8 Cut]*
227-410 ~ 9 Rounds------------(+5 Rounds for T32 or all X-2s or Better,, then T8 Cut)--------------------------------[14 Rounds/T8 Cut]*
411+ ~ 2 Flights, 9 Rounds--------(T32 or all X-2s or Better, from each flight, +6 Rounds for T64, then T8) ------------[15 Rounds/T8 Cut]*
*City Championships Max at T4 cut. Tournaments with 65+ players in a given age group needs to be ran as a 2 day event to prevent player fatigue.
Sorry for the crude table, hope it is understandable
Edit- Another advantage of having extra Swiss rounds is it makes it very hard for players to ID outside of the final Swiss round. IDs have been the one of the TO/Judge gripes all season. Extra Swiss rounds will allow tournaments to be decided on the table and not though IDs.
The bigger issue I have heard from players this year was regarding Top 8 Cuts. Players love it when tournaments have those extra Swiss rounds (227+ Players) because making "Day 2" is not only an achievement in itself but it allows players to play more rounds in order to determine who makes Top 8. A Top 8 in a 100+ player tournament that is determined by 14 or 15 Swiss rounds is preferable over Top 8 that is determined by 8 or 9 Swiss Rounds. Losing 2 Matches with only 8 or 9 Swiss Rounds played causes a player's tournament to be over. Losing 2 matches on Day 1 still gets players into "Day 2" where they can redeem themselves with a good "Day 2" run and possibly make cut with 2, 3 or maybe 4 Losses. Currently PTOs are prepared for (and successfully ran) tournaments that require 14 Swiss Rounds. Adding extra Swiss rounds to smaller sized tournaments should not add more time to a tournament as a whole
I think all tournaments (with the exception of League Challenges) would benefit from extra Swiss rounds. Now I am not suggesting 5 extra rounds and X-2s or better for all tournaments, but rather allowing the attendance to dictate: how many extra rounds are ran, which records (or Top "X") makes "Day 2", and ultimately how many players make the Final Top Cut after Swiss Rounds are complete. A table describing my suggestion is below.
I put "Day 2" in quotations for a reason, I am suggesting extra Swiss rounds for City Championships as well. Since Cities need to be a 1 Day event, calling extra Swiss rounds "Day 2" could be confusing, for the sake of this post "Pre-Top Cut" is a better way to put it. Since I am suggesting extra Swiss Rounds for smaller sized tournaments, I am also suggesting that the point when a Tournament should have a T8 be raised because extra Swiss rounds are ran. A 21 Player Tournament doesn't need extra Swiss rounds and a T8.
My Suggestion
Attendance ~ Rounds ---------(Pre Top Cut Rounds, Final Top Cut)---------------------------------------------------[Total Swiss/Top Cut]
Less Then 8 ~ 3 Rounds-------- (No Extra Rounds, No Top Cut) ------------------------------------------------------[3 Rounds/No Cut]
9-20 ~ 5 Rounds --------------(No Pre-Top Cut, Extra Rounds for All Players to Play in, Then T2 Cut)------------------[5 Rounds/T2 Cut]
21-32 ~ 7 Rounds -------------(No Pre-Top Cut, Extra Rounds for All Players to Play in, Then T4 Cut)------------------[7 Rounds/T4 Cut]
33-64 ~ 6 Rounds--------------(+3 Rounds for T16 or all X-2s or Better, then T4 Cut) ---------------------------------[9 Rounds/T4 Cut]
65-128 ~ 7 Rounds-------------(+4 Rounds for T16 or all X-2s or Better,, then T8 Cut) --------------------------------[11 Rounds/T8 Cut]*
129-226 ~ 8 Rounds------------(+5 Rounds for T32 or all X-2s or Better,, then T8 Cut)--------------------------------[13 Rounds/T8 Cut]*
227-410 ~ 9 Rounds------------(+5 Rounds for T32 or all X-2s or Better,, then T8 Cut)--------------------------------[14 Rounds/T8 Cut]*
411+ ~ 2 Flights, 9 Rounds--------(T32 or all X-2s or Better, from each flight, +6 Rounds for T64, then T8) ------------[15 Rounds/T8 Cut]*
*City Championships Max at T4 cut. Tournaments with 65+ players in a given age group needs to be ran as a 2 day event to prevent player fatigue.
Sorry for the crude table, hope it is understandable
Edit- Another advantage of having extra Swiss rounds is it makes it very hard for players to ID outside of the final Swiss round. IDs have been the one of the TO/Judge gripes all season. Extra Swiss rounds will allow tournaments to be decided on the table and not though IDs.
Last edited:
Ness
Member
Thanks for the response! One very, very important detail about extending round times by 25 minutes (to 75 minutes) is that it would be accompanied by cutting one third of the swiss rounds. Two-day Regional tournaments that have a maximum of 15 rounds would now have a maximum of 10 rounds. (The amount of rounds is determined by ensuring anyone who has an X-1 record is guaranteed to make Top 8.)
Believe it or not, tournaments that adopt this format would not only end at a reasonable hour, but even earlier than your current two-day events!
I can even prove it using your data! In your first post, you acknowledge that on average about 15 minutes passes between +3 and posting of new pairings after time is called each round. That means a 50-minute round lasts about 65 minutes, and a 75-minute round would use about 90 minutes.
Example: Current two-day Regional with heavy attendance:
14 rounds of 50+3 = 14 * 65 = 910 minutes
Example: Proposed two-day Regional with heavy attendance:
9 rounds of 75+3 = 9 * 90 = 810 minutes
As you see, cutting rounds in place of higher time limits actually saves 1 hour, 40 minutes! Considering that less rounds and longer time limits also puts less stress on the staff, it's reasonable to assume that in reality, it would save at least two hours.
227 Is a Magic Number.
With 226 Players, there should be no more then 7 X-1-0s (assuming players do not tie).
With 227 Players, there exists the possibility of 1 X-0-0 and 8 X-1-0s.
Jason, do you think ANY X-1-0s should miss cut? There are alot of people who believe that X-2-0s should not miss cut. If an X-1-0 misses cut there would be the equivalent of a riot on Forums and Social Media.
Extra Swiss Rounds are a Good Thing. Alot of players like extra swiss rounds, you are in the Minority on this one Jason.
- Status