Issues Facing the TCG

[SLOW DECK]

Nononono I get you, man. I'm just saying, the +3 makes people naturally play slower without them realizing it, based on observation and own inner pressures. Not saying there needs to be leeway for it, just that people want to make SURE that what they're doing is right when they won't be able to toy around anymore.

Once time is called and you enter time matches. Now, some players will actually look at the board and concede the game knowing that there isn't a way to win the game at hand. I conceded a game this weekend, assuming regardless of my actions, my opponent had the cards to keep the win. I would only be playing the match if I was expecting some sort of major misplay by my skilled opponent.

Funny thing is that you can't ask for concession. I wish I could, it would have made some earlier matches go faster. In Nats last year my son told his opponent that he had the cards to win, and a judge actually gave him a warning for "intimidation" (I didn't know my 15 yo could intimadate any 20 something year old.) Thus I would assume if you tell your opponent that you have them in "check mate", this "intimidation" warning would come out again. Thus we are left with opponents trying to figure out any way to win the game in the last turns, and often there isn't.

When time is called, is there any polite dialogue that can happen in a obvious game situation that maybe your opponent should consider conceding? Or are we left with “playing it out”, with that opponent wasting everyone’s time trying to figure out the impossible.

 

[Rainbowgym]

Who here has personally experienced a Best 2/3 loss after winning Game 1, and losing a quick Game 2 and then Sudden Death Game 3? And of those of you that had this misfortune, how many of you felt bitter about it, or that it was unfair? I've lost in this manner, and I'll tell you straight up: it left me pretty sour.

I did and it felt not good, and it's the main reason we see so many SP deck winning.
However I am not giving up using stage 2/set up decks while I know I have a big disadvantage in best of 3.

 

[Diaz]

However I am not giving up using stage 2/set up decks while I know I have a big disadvantage in best of 3.

Why wouldn't you switch to something that doesn't give you such a disadvantage?

 

[ShadowGuard]

Why wouldn't you switch to something that doesn't give you such a disadvantage?

Because she wants to play the game as it is meant to be, and wants to play decks she has fun with.

Adjusting to the new rules to win by any means is what some players do (otherwise we would have the best format for about three years, because setup and rogue decks can win with the new cards), but in my opionion it doesn't comply with the Spirit of the Game.

 

[Diaz]

Because she wants to play the game as it is meant to be, and wants to play decks she has fun with.

Adjusting to the new rules to win by any means is what some players do (otherwise we would have the best format for about three years, because setup and rogue decks can win with the new cards), but in my opionion it doesn't comply with the Spirit of the Game.

Sounds like scrub player syndrome to me.
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

There have been stage two decks winning events recently though. Its not an insurmountable advantage to the fast decks.

 

[bullados]

Diaz, would you really call any of the Stage 2 decks currently in the format "setup" decks? Cuz I can't think of any that are winning that fit that description.

 

[Rainbowgym]

Why wouldn't you switch to something that doesn't give you such a disadvantage?

Because I would end up with something I don't like to play.
Does that make me a scrub? Serious?
I do play to win, but a win for me is not taking 2 quick prizes after loosing a long good first game.
I am playing to use my brains, my creativity.
If it satifies any person to win at any cost, let it be. I assume that makes them a good player while I am a bad player/scrub.


From my point of view many many cards could be used, we could have a great format.
But the new "take one prize and win" rule spoiled it more than anything else. (and that disgusting power of Gengar SF).

 

[butlerforhire]

Who here has personally experienced a Best 2/3 loss after winning Game 1, and losing a quick Game 2 and then Sudden Death Game 3? And of those of you that had this misfortune, how many of you felt bitter about it, or that it was unfair? I've lost in this manner, and I'll tell you straight up: it left me pretty sour.

I have experienced it several times this season, including twice last weekend. Not coincidentally, the decks I ran when I experienced this are meant to get behind by their nature (Regigigas, Steelix) yet do possess the ability to control and eventually win games against anything. Unfortunately, this format is not about letting decks fully unfold nor letting things "run their proper course"; everything seems to comes down to who can KO that benched Uxie two games a row in top cut. Everything is skewered by Pokemon like Garchomp C, Luxray GL, Machamp and Gyarados that can immediately take a prize out of thin air even against decks they would otherwise really have to PLAY against in games that were allowed to continue, thus allowing players with these cards to win solely based on the new top cut rules.

To be more specific, I lost with Steelix in a top 8 cut against Luxchomp after losing game 1, taking game 2 and then having no way to stop Dragon Rush from handing Sudden Death to the other player in game 3. On Sunday I ran Steelix again and was eliminated from top 4 by a Gyarados that I destroyed in game 1 and then lost to in exactly the manner described in the above quote-- time was called in game 2 and I lost the 2 subsequent Sudden Deaths, as I expected to do considering that Steelix takes 5 energy to do KO-inflicting damage and Gyarados can attack as soon as turn 1 for 110 (in game 3, it was turn 1 80).

I was bitter on both occasions. In the 2 games I won out of those 6, the deck did exactly what it was supposed to do-- weather the early storm and then sweep uncontested. In the games I lost due to time/Sudden Death, I could easily have done what I did in the games I won-- recovered and swept-- if I had only been given the chance to play the game out longer rather than sit there and try in futility to prevent my opponent from doing what his deck naturally does (take easy and fast prizes).

 

[Yoshi-]

Because I would end up with something I don't like to play.
Does that make me a scrub? Serious?
I do play to win, but a win for me is not taking 2 quick prizes after loosing a long good first game.
I am playing to use my brains, my creativity.
If it satifies any person to win at any cost, let it be. I assume that makes them a good player while I am a bad player/scrub.


From my point of view many many cards could be used, we could have a great format.
But the new "take one prize and win" rule spoiled it more than anything else. (and that disgusting power of Gengar SF).

Lia, you know that Im usually exactly the same but is this really a good thing to do? If were to nice to abuse the loopholes no one will think theyre serious enough to fix them, by now I actually think that abusing the heck out of them is the better thing to do. This is why I consider to play uxie at some cities...

 

[Rainbowgym]

Lia, you know that Im usually exactly the same but is this really a good thing to do? If were to nice to abuse the loopholes no one will think theyre serious enough to fix them, by now I actually think that abusing the heck out of them is the better thing to do. This is why I consider to play uxie at some cities...

David, it depends on what your goal is.
I don't think using decks who "profit" of the new rule will make any change happen.
Complaining about this rule will help, driving up complaints by using decks who will lead to people complaining (and even leaving the game) could be another option.

However it's not an option for me.
I have given my opinion on the professor boards about this new rule and if P!P does nothing with those opinions (or waits to long like in the GG period) we have to deal with this.
Sometimes the "rules" don't fit with the format, they ruin the format and the only thing players can do is wait untill the "powers above" realize what is going on and perhaps change something. (or abuse the heck out of them depending on your preference).

So what is left for players?
Go with the flow or try to find a deck who can stand up against the flow.
I am sorry to say but to many players are not even able to build a deck anymore.
They simply take a skeleton or complete list and that's it.
I a healthy format/environment those players would loose many more games against those who made their own decks. But due to the cardpool and rules we have now this "natural split" isn't happening.

Those who argue that "netdecking" is good and bring new players to a higher level are wrong.
Most of them don't even know how to work out the basic order of attacks.
They skip a step which would hurt them in a healthy format, but not now.
You cannot run if you didn't learn how to walk first.

I wouldn't mind if there was a rotation after EACH new set. One set in, one set out.
It would force people to learn about deckbuilding, which should be part of your "skills".
Some decks would dominate but only for a short period.

I keep on trying to play the cards I like and counter the "metagame".
No matter if I am in a disadvantage because the rules create such disadvantage.
Play to win is to limited for me, that's why I might be called a scrub.
My goal is much more difficult to achieve but it satisfies me more.

 

[Scipio]

I wouldn't mind if there was a rotation after EACH new set. One set in, one set out.
It would force people to learn about deckbuilding, which should be part of your "skills".
Some decks would dominate but only for a short period.

As awesome as that is, try explaining that to the kiddies.
"Yeah you CAN use Uxie tomorrow, but NOT next week..."

 

[Rainbowgym]

As awesome as that is, try explaining that to the kiddies.
"Yeah you CAN use Uxie tomorrow, but NOT next week..."

That isn't a problem since they could have used it a long time.
Even little children can understand things are not lasting forever and there is no difference with not being able to use card XX after the summer as not being able to use it after day xx.

 

[SLOW DECK]

I have experienced it several times this season, including twice last weekend. Not coincidentally, the decks I ran when I experienced this are meant to get behind by their nature (Regigigas, Steelix) yet do possess the ability to control and eventually win games against anything. Unfortunately, this format is not about letting decks fully unfold nor letting things "run their proper course"

Butler, it is nice to be frustrated by this fact. I got over this fact about 5 years ago. Come from behind decks have always been handicapped in tournaments. The tournament game is about being ahead at the end of the match, six prizes rule isn't the primary win condition in tournaments.

Some formats you can play defensive decks and do well, you can play offensive decks and do well, but formats often make it hard to win in the time allotment by playing a SLOW DECK. (Slow Deck, my oxymoron name or is it now a pun?) With Chomp C, the format has too much bench access have prize denial work...... Thus offensive decks do well.

 

[Scipio]

Thing is that with once a year rotations, its easy to keep track. Once every 3 months gets to be a lot for the kiddies.
I can also imagine the secondary market taking a hit from it, which will lead to annoyed players and collectors. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Cyrus]

With the swarm of drops nationwide, and the recent abuses reported of people deliberately entering tournaments late to be placed in "loser" brackets, I feel now is the best time to push hard for a sweeping reform to the rating and ranking system. Now is the time to replace ELO with a per-season Pro Point system.

Why is a pro point system better?

*Preserves everything good about ELO: increasing amounts may be rewarded for larger and/or higher-ranked events
*Allows for greater flexibility
*Allows for FAR less abuse of the system
*Doesn't require a ranking system that's subject to be inactive for over five months
*Allows P!P to move in the path of giving out more invites, and on an absolute basis - not a relative one.

Pro points are proven in all of these regards, and have been hugely successful in games outside of ours. If we don't outright do away with ratings and rankings, then we should at least get the pro point system layered on top of what we have now. Anything is more legitimate than a system that encourages players to not play, and that's what we've had for the past four years.

In the past, I won a trip from 0-1 dropping...But did I like doing that? No - I wanted to play, win or lose, but a broken system was enough to discourage me from doing so, since it'd be stupid to risk losing a prize valued at four figures. Fortunately, there hasn't been as big of a prize at stake since then, but it's still a system that needs to be repaired.

 

[Jaeger]

Cyrus you should probably explain what a propoint system is.

 

[Cyrus]

Cyrus you should probably explain what a propoint system is.

Glad you asked that, Jay, as I'm sure there are quite a few people who don't know what this sort of system is about...

The concept behind a per-season pro point system is not too different from what we have with ratings; however, the difference is that with pro points, there is nothing to "lose" if you do not place high enough. Furthermore, pro points are usually reserved only for the highest-placing individuals in a premier tournament (e.g., 4 points awarded to first, 2 awarded to second, and 1 each rewarded to third and fourth at a five-round, top four City Championship). With bigger tournaments and more prestigious events, there would be more points allotted to the high finishers.

Of course, P!P would have to decide the specifics of its own system, and test it before jumping into it head-first like I have, but without the unnecessary risk of loss, the incentive to _play_ is raised, and that's what everyone wants.


Since Pokemon is not a game of (near) pure skill the way chess is, ELO was never the best system to begin with. I feel like pro points are the best way to kill every bird with one stone: they allow for more SPT/regional/National emphasis, grant more prestige to bigger events (e.g., 50+ people Cities), and most importantly, DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM DROPPING!!!

 

[butlerforhire]

Butler, it is nice to be frustrated by this fact. I got over this fact about 5 years ago. Come from behind decks have always been handicapped in tournaments. The tournament game is about being ahead at the end of the match, six prizes rule isn't the primary win condition in tournaments.

Some formats you can play defensive decks and do well, you can play offensive decks and do well, but formats often make it hard to win in the time allotment by playing a SLOW DECK. (Slow Deck, my oxymoron name or is it now a pun?) With Chomp C, the format has too much bench access have prize denial work...... Thus offensive decks do well.

I am very aware of how this game works in a tournament setting and I am also aware of the way this format works as well as how those in the past have worked (I top 16'ed Nationals with Luxchomp last year so it isn't as if I don't know how or why that particular deck works either). Outside of a tournament, however, when games aren't timed, things are often very different. Time is not a factor inherently seen in card design; it is something we have to deal with because we can't allow games to drag on for 3 hours. Imposing time limits forever skewers the "true" course that any two given decks could take, if allowed. Because we do need time limits of some form, this problem will always exist at some level. The issue is then controlling how severe and prevalent the problem is, and right now it is both severe and highly prevalent.

Going back to the 4 prizes rule, as flawed as that also was, and going with an hour and 15 + 3 would at least give other decks besides Luxchomp, Gyarados etc. a more balanced shot at actually demonstrating what they are designed to demonstrate. Losing a long, drawn out, legitimate game and then taking 4 prizes is way harder to do than losing a long, drawn out, legitimate game and snagging one prize off a benched Uxie on turn 2 twice in a row to claim the series.

 

[NoPoke]

Players often throw around the accusation that the four prize rule was flawed without looking to see why it was flawed. It's flaw is that it is an estimate, an approximation, and as such may be wrong. But all of pokemon play is flawed in this way, even those games that complete do not indicate the long term outcome of a series of games between the two players.

Much better than declaring the four prize rule as flawed and then leave it condemned and dismissed is to try and see if there is a better alternative. remember to keep in mind the character of the "flaw".

A six prize rule: Doh That is the gold standard win and is not an incomplete game. I add it because even a 6 prize game is not a perfect indicator of the outcome from a series of games. I also list it because we have had this rule in the past in game two. Incomplete games did not count at all: it was not good.

A 5 prize rule: definately will make fewer mistakes at predicting eventual outcome but will discount a lot of incomplete games. So many that stalling will be rife

A 4 prize rule: we had this and though weaker than waiting for the fifth prize the stall problem is much reduced.

A 3 prize rule: Acceptable but probably worse than the four prize rule as a predictor of eventual game outcome. Three prizes is a long way from 6.

A 2 prize rule: hmmm, So you have taken a couple of prizes and that means you are going to win? Just how can you say that with any confidence.

A 1 prize rule: No PRIZE for guessing what I think of that as an indicator of the probable game outcome.
​

In a game that refuses to countenance draws then the four prize rule for incomplete games seems optimum to me. I can make a case for three prizes but At that point I think I'd prefer a prize difference to be considered too, adding complexity is a path I'd rather not take.

 

[Cyrus]

Ian: either for or against, what's your assessment of a gain-only pro point system that resets every season?