Issues Facing the TCG

[kwisdumb]

Something can be "meant to be there" and still be a design flaw. Fossil Ditto, anyone?

Sure. I guess what I meant was that it's not as if the design teams didn't know that first turn wins would be a problem. The game is designed so that they happen, and fairly frequently.

Matt: Japan normally plays a different game than we do anyway when it comes to most tourneys. They play 30 and 40 card decks (3 or 4 prizes). They play single elim....basically...win and you stay at table, lose and go to end of the line. Wait in line to play again.

I think that format is only used for their less competitive tournaments that happen before their Nationals and Worlds qualifiers. I could be mistaken though.

 

[Rainbowgym]

1) Allowing Draws in Swiss excluding the last round.
2) Gameplay in top cut.
3) Lunchbreaks not over 1 hour

 

[kwisdumb]

Allowing draws in swiss excluding the last round would be good if you're not talking about IDs, and are just talking about not moving a game to sudden death. There wouldn't be much of a point in allowing IDs at all if you were going to disallow them in the final round(s).

Gameplay in top cut would be an even worse idea. In my opinion swiss should be best of three, but I understand why that's not possible right now with time constraints. I would absolutely hate to see top cut be changed to a single game just because of time issues.

And if there are any TOs giving over an hour for lunch breaks, that's something that should definitely be corrected, imo. 45 minutes seems like an appropriate option.

 

[Rainbowgym]

Gameplay in top cut would be an even worse idea. In my opinion swiss should be best of three, but I understand why that's not possible right now with time constraints. I would absolutely hate to see top cut be changed to a single game just because of time issues.

Sorry but we aren't even playing REAL best of 3 in Pokemon.
Best of 3 means 3 games with each game having a time limit and a "winner" when time of each game expires.
So for Pokemon it means 3 games of 30 minutes+3 Turns,
Game 1, time is called -> + 3 Turns taken, winner of that game known and noted.
Set up for game 2 and after 30 minutes time is called + 3 turns taken, winner known and noted
Depending on the previous 2 games there might be a 3rd game which will take 30 minutes + 3 turns.

This would take REAL best of 3 rounds go up to 2 hours and is not done.
So what we do is take XX minutes and you can play at the most 3 games in that timeframe.
Not even close to what REAL best of 3 means.

I never understood why swiss is done gameplay and top cut "best of 3 (adjusted)
If gameplay in swiss is enough to get "the best players" move on to finals, why isn't the same system used for finals?

 

[Redados1]

^ ^
two words: donks
wait... that was one word...

 

[Rainbowgym]

^ ^
two words: donks
wait... that was one word...

Nope that can't be the reason.
If donks allow you to enter the top cut, they should "allow" you to win the tournament.

Donks were always there but not as much since we got pokemon who have 0-1 nrg requirements/Crobat G and such cards.

 

[Raen]

Nope that can't be the reason.
If donks allow you to enter the top cut, they should "allow" you to win the tournament.

Donks were always there but not as much since we got pokemon who have 0-1 nrg requirements/Crobat G and such cards.

Donks really is a major reason. It simply isn't fair to make it to top cut, and lose while not even getting a turn, or maybe getting on turn where you can't do anything. That is NOT a determiner of skill whatsoever. Of course, best of 3 in Swiss would be better as well for the same reason, but time constraints make that absolutely impossible. It's not even an option; think about Nationals, with 800+ Masters playing tons of Swiss rounds, trying to play Best of 3 for all those rounds. It's simply impossible.

 

[SLOW DECK]

3) Turn 1 losses
For those of you who do not view it as a problem, try playing against the Rob D's Uxie deck up in Chicago. Fueled by 50 trainers, the deck takes a 13-minute first turn and consistently defeats 3 to 4 Pokemon when he has the option to play second. While not unbeatable (or near it), even decks designed to be good against it can be defeated on Rob's first turn if he plays second.

Ness I actually agree with you. The new "Quadro" Uxie Donk actually is TOXIC to the game. I created this Frankenstien monster, and I would be the first to sign on to banning the deck or the number of trainers in a deck or the number of uxies's in a deck, or something that basically stops the deck from spreading like a bad virus.

I don't think people really understand how dominating, and yet how completely BAD FOR THE GAME this deck is. I have read a few cities reports with them in there, but it reads basically the same. They would win just about any Trainer lock, and loss badly Vile-gar or Deafen Locked. The problem with the matches is that you basically get 5 wins, most in 1 trainer turn, your opponent does nothing but watch you play your deck in one turn, then they sign the match slip. That isn't what tournaments are supposed to be about.

There is not a "INTERACTIVE MATCH" going on. Compared to SP, which I think is, in my opinion, is stupidly overpowered, and folks who win with the deck, I view them the same way I few Yankee Fan's, Front Runners with a incredibly high Payroll that isn't really a fair fight. But at least one could try to challenge those SP decks, and have a REAL GAME, with INTERACTION.

 

[Porii Sames]

After speeding through the thread, I am pretty tired of people complaining about DONKS.

Seriously, there are many ways to avoid these. Call energies, Dialgachomp, Spiritomb, etc.

It's not that bad of an issue. Yeah, that IS coming from a Donkdeck player. I win by donking; and I do it fairly. If you run out of Pokemon; you lose. I honestly don't see why everyone is moaning about Quadro Uxie or what have you when it is nowhere near as successful as decks like Luxchomp, Dchomp, and Gyarados. Sure, it just kind of "invalidates" the game. But a win is a win; donk or no donk.

 

[Yoshi-]

There are options against it, the issue is that a donk is first turn so you cant get your options, you have to draw them, that depends on nothing but luck, loosing / winning on luck is something hardly anyone likes.

And how would you feel if you get donked? Would you think "what a great experience, Ill definitly come back"? No? Thought so...

 

[Raen]

After speeding through the thread, I am pretty tired of people complaining about DONKS.

Seriously, there are many ways to avoid these. Call energies, Dialgachomp, Spiritomb, etc.

It's not that bad of an issue. Yeah, that IS coming from a Donkdeck player. I win by donking; and I do it fairly. If you run out of Pokemon; you lose. I honestly don't see why everyone is moaning about Quadro Uxie or what have you when it is nowhere near as successful as decks like Luxchomp, Dchomp, and Gyarados. Sure, it just kind of "invalidates" the game. But a win is a win; donk or no donk.

No one here is calling a donk an illegitimate win (well, at least I"m not). It's a legitimate way to win; however, it's also makes for quite possibly the least satisfying games possible. People complain about donks because donks aren't very fun. Imagine going to a tournament, and out of, say 5 rounds, 3 of those are games that end within 2 turns. That's a waste of time, and even money if you traveled there. And if Uxie Donk ends up being as big of a problem as some people seem to believe it could become, I probably wouldn't go to Nationals this year. I'd have to spend about $500 + to go. If half the games I played in ended in donks, it would be a total waste of money. Of course, Uxie Donk may not be a huge deal ultimately, but still: Donks aren't fun, and aren't really the best way to get people coming to tournaments.

 

[kwisdumb]

Sorry but we aren't even playing REAL best of 3 in Pokemon.
Best of 3 means 3 games with each game having a time limit and a "winner" when time of each game expires.
So for Pokemon it means 3 games of 30 minutes+3 Turns,
Game 1, time is called -> + 3 Turns taken, winner of that game known and noted.
Set up for game 2 and after 30 minutes time is called + 3 turns taken, winner known and noted
Depending on the previous 2 games there might be a 3rd game which will take 30 minutes + 3 turns.

This would take REAL best of 3 rounds go up to 2 hours and is not done.
So what we do is take XX minutes and you can play at the most 3 games in that timeframe.
Not even close to what REAL best of 3 means.

I never understood why swiss is done gameplay and top cut "best of 3 (adjusted)
If gameplay in swiss is enough to get "the best players" move on to finals, why isn't the same system used for finals?

I'm not really getting what you're saying. I understand that untimed top cut, or even the method that you're discussion would be better than having to split all the games between a certain amount of time, but why go back and make it worse, just because it's not ideal? It seems like you're saying that you'd like to see more fairness in time and number of games played in top cut, but because it's not the way you want it (or the way it should be), we may as well go with the worse option. Not sure I'm following.

And as far as swiss being enough to launch the top players into the cut, the way I've always imagined it is that it's okay if you get donked one round of a 6 round swiss tournament, because your skill should still leave you with a top cut record, and then the top cut best of three is there to separate the people who are lucky/unlucky and the people who truly have the skill to win. Obviously making top cut requires an amount of skill, but I think the idea is to eliminate the luck as much as possible in top cut.

 

[Rainbowgym]

Donks really is a major reason. It simply isn't fair to make it to top cut, and lose while not even getting a turn, or maybe getting on turn where you can't do anything. That is NOT a determiner of skill whatsoever. Of course, best of 3 in Swiss would be better as well for the same reason, but time constraints make that absolutely impossible. It's not even an option; think about Nationals, with 800+ Masters playing tons of Swiss rounds, trying to play Best of 3 for all those rounds. It's simply impossible.

No, they could do Best of 3 of 45 minutes Swiss and allow draws, which makes almost no difference in total time used and Donks/T1 kills would matter less.
We have used B-o-3 45 minutes for years now (half of Europe does) and I don't see why it cannot be done elsewere. With draws (even ID's) back AND +3 gone, each round will end at the 45 minute sign.

People don't get it most times, but B-o-3 in 45 minutes is NOT meant to have 3 full games, it's a way to recover from those disgusting T1/donks.

 

[Raen]

No, they could do Best of 3 of 45 minutes Swiss and allow draws, which makes almost no difference in total time used and Donks/T1 kills would matter less.
We have used B-o-3 45 minutes for years now (half of Europe does) and I don't see why it cannot be done elsewere. With draws (even ID's) back AND +3 gone, each round will end at the 45 minute sign.

People don't get it most times, but B-o-3 in 45 minutes is NOT meant to have 3 full games, it's a way to recover from those disgusting T1/donks.

I don't want to see draws (especially IDs) come back. From what I've read, they were a very big problem. I suppose Best of 3 45 minutes could work here is the US, but I'm not an expert on tournament logistics. I'd like to hear a PTOs opinion on that.

 

[Rainbowgym]

I'm not really getting what you're saying. I understand that untimed top cut, or even the method that you're discussion would be better than having to split all the games between a certain amount of time, but why go back and make it worse, just because it's not ideal? It seems like you're saying that you'd like to see more fairness in time and number of games played in top cut, but because it's not the way you want it (or the way it should be), we may as well go with the worse option. Not sure I'm following.

And as far as swiss being enough to launch the top players into the cut, the way I've always imagined it is that it's okay if you get donked one round of a 6 round swiss tournament, because your skill should still leave you with a top cut record, and then the top cut best of three is there to separate the people who are lucky/unlucky and the people who truly have the skill to win. Obviously making top cut requires an amount of skill, but I think the idea is to eliminate the luck as much as possible in top cut.

No I see you don't get it, perhaps it's my English.

But about your second part, please don't even assume people make top cut with only 1 donk/T1.
If you would only have to face 1 donk/T1 each tournament I would be fine, but that isn't the case.
I have seen to many players going into top cut by donking 5 times/games (Yes at Worlds). Serious skill involved:nonono:

---------- Post added 12/11/2010 at 01:33 AM ----------

I don't want to see draws (especially IDs) come back. From what I've read, they were a very big problem. I suppose Best of 3 45 minutes could work here is the US, but I'm not an expert on tournament logistics. I'd like to hear a PTOs opinion on that.

They were not a problem, they were "made" a problem.
The remove of draws was made to have games really being played at the table and not end before a game was started.
Now we see games played at tables and end many times before some players even get a turn.
I don't call that playing,

 

[Porii Sames]

@Yoshi
I don't care if it isn't a fun game for the opponent. They can always replay me when they want to.

Still, if I lose a game in Indiana at Nats (coming from Texas) due to a donk, I suck it in and keep going; hopefully donking other players in the process.

It's not fun; but it really doesn't matter. You can always just play them again if you REALLY want to.

I donk people a lot; and it isn't even that fun for me. Plus; why just donks? What about a total lock? Something like Sablock playing a deck like Mother Gengar (just throwin that out there) would be an utter waste of time because Sablock would DOMINATE Mother Gengar. It'd just be Judge/Initiative, Overconfident when you need to, and Drush everything.

A win is a win.

 

[Raen]

@Yoshi
I don't care if it isn't a fun game for the opponent. They can always replay me when they want to.

Still, if I lose a game in Indiana at Nats (coming from Texas) due to a donk, I suck it in and keep going; hopefully donking other players in the process.

It's not fun; but it really doesn't matter. You can always just play them again if you REALLY want to.

I donk people a lot; and it isn't even that fun for me. Plus; why just donks? What about a total lock? Something like Sablock playing a deck like Mother Gengar (just throwin that out there) would be an utter waste of time because Sablock would DOMINATE Mother Gengar. It'd just be Judge/Initiative, Overconfident when you need to, and Drush everything.

A win is a win.

Dude, Texas to Indiana isn't that bad compared to what a lot of people have to do. Imagine living on the West Coast. Heck, even where I am in Utah, it's no easy feat to go to Nationals, and not worth it if you don't even get to play.

I just don't understand why you are defending donks. Your main point seems to be that they are legitimate wins; this is ENTIRELY TRUE. I don't debate that. However, what I do debate is the fun of a donk. They aren't fun, and making them less possible and less common should be a goal of P!P and the designers of the cards, I believe.

 

[The Gorn]

I don't want to see IDs come back. People will find some way to misuse them.

 

[Yoshi-]

@Yoshi
I don't care if it isn't a fun game for the opponent. They can always replay me when they want to.

Still, if I lose a game in Indiana at Nats (coming from Texas) due to a donk, I suck it in and keep going; hopefully donking other players in the process.

It's not fun; but it really doesn't matter. You can always just play them again if you REALLY want to.

I donk people a lot; and it isn't even that fun for me. Plus; why just donks? What about a total lock? Something like Sablock playing a deck like Mother Gengar (just throwin that out there) would be an utter waste of time because Sablock would DOMINATE Mother Gengar. It'd just be Judge/Initiative, Overconfident when you need to, and Drush everything.

A win is a win.

Yeah after they didnt have fun the first time they can play you again so they can not have fun a second time, what a great idea... And yeah, you basically described why I cant wait till we play rr-on/hgss-on...

 

[Porii Sames]

Dude, Texas to Indiana isn't that bad compared to what a lot of people have to do. Imagine living on the West Coast. Heck, even where I am in Utah, it's no easy feat to go to Nationals, and not worth it if you don't even get to play.

I just don't understand why you are defending donks. Your main point seems to be that they are legitimate wins; this is ENTIRELY TRUE. I don't debate that. However, what I do debate is the fun of a donk. They aren't fun, and making them less possible and less common should be a goal of P!P and the designers of the cards, I believe.

It isn't bad. It isn't great either.

Donks, in general, are not that fun. They can rarely be stopped if you are somewhat lucky. But you're missing the point that, when going to an event like Nationals, you have TWO DAYS to play with other people & decks; and I'm pretty sure that not all of those will be donx.

I play a donk deck to win quickly and easily. That is why I play Beedrill G. I aim to donk; and, sometimes, I succeed.