Issues Facing the TCG

[Porii Sames]

The quality of most things increase when you add an ' admission ticket ' to it. I've played other TCGs where there was an entry fee for playing and everything ran very smoothly and on time. Money has a magical way of making things more serious and to work better since people are more accountable for their actions (players and judges).

And the prizes are better

I wouldn;t say it increases always. I;m not sure how it adds or detracts from how the tourney runs. I guess that might be true...but I still doubt its usefulness.

ANd what about people like me who show up to a tourney with no intentions of winning, just play for fun? The prize can be 17,717 dollars and I couldn't care because I don't plan on winning.

 

[deogg]

After seeing the Time+3 in action, I think there's one thing P!P could do to improve it:

GET RID OF IT ENTIRELY

I saw numerous games go to time, then go through the +3, and only to end in sudden death, and wind up being longer than the 40 minute rounds like we had last year, including one game that went 46 minutes. I also noticed players playing slower once they get into the +3 (and had to remind players on more that one occasion to keep the pace of play going)

The best thing P!P could do is keep the time limit at 30 minutes, drop the +3 entirely, and let the cards fall where they may.

 

[z-man]

^Deogg, I agree with you and yet decrease with you entirely. 30+3 feels more fair. It means that the game isn't an effort to end the game on your turn, so that you win. Removing the +3 would be terrible... it would mean that decks that take faster prizes cannot do as well anymore. I am fully guilty of slowing down after time is called. Who wouldn't? You get to stop rushing to get the most done before time is called, and actually get a chance to think out your turns. If they drop the +3 idea, they have to go back to 40 minutes.

As far as donks, it looks like we're going back to avoiding them. I have seen very little donk potential with the new rules changes and the new Pokemon. Donks should be near go gone post rotation...


As far as finals play goes, I am dumbfounded. I think that the 4 prize thing was kinda worth it, but it never got that far and thus, first game = win. With the loss of donking potential, I'd say it has to go. The only thing I can honestly think of to help Finals play is to extend the length of finals. Hour fifteen would probably work... 2 games and a half for top cut. That would make the event longer (which is not very good idea), but that is all I can think of to do.

As far as tournaments go, I think that the biggest thing is to check tournament procedures. I KNOW that they are very hard to run and it takes a long time to run, but I can tell you all that the event takes too long to start up. I have seen 2 hour delays on states... I'm pretty sure that can be avoided. I'm sure very little time can be cut from this, but if we had a more effective system, it would be nice.

 

[Tagrineth]

After seeing the Time+3 in action, I think there's one thing P!P could do to improve it:

GET RID OF IT ENTIRELY

I saw numerous games go to time, then go through the +3, and only to end in sudden death, and wind up being longer than the 40 minute rounds like we had last year, including one game that went 46 minutes. I also noticed players playing slower once they get into the +3 (and had to remind players on more that one occasion to keep the pace of play going)

The best thing P!P could do is keep the time limit at 30 minutes, drop the +3 entirely, and let the cards fall where they may.

After judging a lot of Florida's CCs I'd say I saw mostly the opposite. Very few sudden deaths after the +3 and only a handful of incidences of slow playing, which we caught.

 

[Yoshi-]

After judging a lot of Florida's CCs I'd say I saw mostly the opposite. Very few sudden deaths after the +3 and only a handful of incidences of slow playing, which we caught.

Because top cut tmes are long enough anfd the game has become faster without claydl, still the rule is there to abuse snd at some point it will be abused. Even if it never ens, the rule stll doesnt make any sence :/

 

[SLOW DECK]

After seeing the Time+3 in action, I think there's one thing P!P could do to improve it:
GET RID OF IT ENTIRELY
I saw numerous games go to time, then go through the +3, and only to end in sudden death, and wind up being longer than the 40 minute rounds like we had last year, including one game that went 46 minutes. I also noticed players playing slower once they get into the +3 (and had to remind players on more that one occasion to keep the pace of play going)

The best thing P!P could do is keep the time limit at 30 minutes, drop the +3 entirely, and let the cards fall where they may.

30 minutes was BAAAAAADDD
40 minutes was fairly good.
30 +3 my jury is still out.
35 +1 would be a better than 30.

 

[kwisdumb]

30+3 is the best decision POP has made in quite a while. Or at least, Xminutes + XTurns is. It would be a terrible decision to ever forego the extra turns. Even if it does take longer (which I don't think is true), the integrity of the game is more important than that.

 

[Tagrineth]

Because top cut tmes are long enough anfd the game has become faster without claydl, still the rule is there to abuse snd at some point it will be abused. Even if it never ens, the rule stll doesnt make any sence :/

Any EOR procedures are going to see some form of abuse.

The additional-turns method makes perfect sense. We've seen SO many people even here on this forum say point blank "If I had been allowed one, maybe two more turns I would've won!" Well now you get those 1-2 additional turns to finish the job. Plain and simple.

 

[Ness]

After seeing the Time+3 in action, I think there's one thing P!P could do to improve it:

GET RID OF IT ENTIRELY

I saw numerous games go to time, then go through the +3, and only to end in sudden death, and wind up being longer than the 40 minute rounds like we had last year, including one game that went 46 minutes. I also noticed players playing slower once they get into the +3 (and had to remind players on more that one occasion to keep the pace of play going)

The best thing P!P could do is keep the time limit at 30 minutes, drop the +3 entirely, and let the cards fall where they may.

This isn't a reason to eliminate +3. It's a reason to reinstate ties.

 

[Yoshi-]

Any EOR procedures are going to see some form of abuse.

The additional-turns method makes perfect sense. We've seen SO many people even here on this forum say point blank "If I had been allowed one, maybe two more turns I would've won!" Well now you get those 1-2 additional turns to finish the job. Plain and simple.

I love the +3 turns, I was talking bout the b03 ruling

 

[Cyrus]

Ness revisiting ties out of left field reminds me of another issue of his that needs to be reiterated: the removal of the "4-prize difference" rule in best of three.

With nearly all competitive players back in the mix, one strategy that seems to be all-too common now is the outright manipulation of bad matchups in timed matches. In case it hasn't been explained before, here's an illustration of the process at work:

(Don't fight the hypo's unimportant specifics - it's just meant to explain)

*Player A's Vilegar is up against Player B's Gyarados. Player A's list is unquestionably good enough to combat the Gyarados matchup in nearly any untimed match, but it's quick to fall down a prize or two versus it in most games*

*Due to little fault of Player A's own, he/she wins game one, but with little time on the clock left for game two - every now and then, the Vilegar/Gyarados match can go surprisingly slow. With little time left, Player B's Gyarados then proceeds to establish a 1-2 prize lead even after the +3, and brings the game into a sudden death, which he/she also wins*

Here, we have a match won by a player who drew a grand total of 2-3 prizes, and no full games.

Granted, you could still have the same thing happen during the 4-prize era last format (5-6 prizes between G2 and sudden death), but it wasn't nearly as bad.

 

[Ness]

The removal of the 4-prize clause is so bad I actually dropped from every City Championship at the Georgia Marathon where I played Vileplume/Gengar. The disadvantage this deck has in 60 minute Best 2/3 is gross. I played only one Top Cut, where we had 75 minutes and even then, the deck (and any stage two deck) is at a disadvantage.

However, the 4 prize requirement was flawed, too. The only real solution is to have something like 90+ minutes for Best 2/3 matches, and this is simply not practical. That's why I created this thread: so that we could brainstorm new ideas.

 

[chriscobi634]

what is POP's answer in an attempt at solving this issue?

Lost World combed with broken card like Gengar, and I almost see it like we are going back to the good old days of Psychic Lock. We'll see what the next set brings though.

 

[MrMeches]

It is an opinion that on the next rotation, we will not be too concerned with the 4 prize situation. I understand that as of now, this is a definite concern and I have seen some Play Pace change to get to the +3 knowing that 1-2 Prizes wins it. Regardless of what is put into place, there is always going to be an adverse position.

And I agree that 90+ would be extremely difficult, especially for those of us that urn Tournaments in Libraries. Even to that point, however, it is probably just going to allow for similar end game shenanigans.

 

[Yoshi-]

No matter what, this rule will always be a concern! Because no matter how unlikely it is, there is no benefit and the moment it happens someones day is ruined because of a stupid ruling.

@Ness
If you have any examples of this rule changing a game, please post them. Unfortunatly It really didnt seem to happen so often, so odds are good that everyone will forget about it / think its fine, when its clearly not, thats why we need some prove, some concrete examples.

 

[yoyofsho16]

I will say that the plus 3 turns IS very, very pressuring. As noted before, pace of play does slow down. Knowing every move you make is essentially the last time you can do it in a game just makes people self doubt and deliberate a lot before things.

 

[totoro]

I will say that the plus 3 turns IS very, very pressuring. As noted before, pace of play does slow down. Knowing every move you make is essentially the last time you can do it in a game just makes people self doubt and deliberate a lot before things.

^
Sorry, Alex, no. I accept that there is increased pressure, but be advised that I have instructed my judges at each and every event so far this year (and they in turn have advised the topcut players) that slow play during plus 3 will be dealt with swiftly. Sorry to be so hard, but I do take major issue with your comment as it pertains to my events.

 

[Scizor]

The removal of the 4-prize clause is so bad I actually dropped from every City Championship at the Georgia Marathon where I played Vileplume/Gengar. The disadvantage this deck has in 60 minute Best 2/3 is gross. I played only one Top Cut, where we had 75 minutes and even then, the deck (and any stage two deck) is at a disadvantage.

However, the 4 prize requirement was flawed, too. The only real solution is to have something like 90+ minutes for Best 2/3 matches, and this is simply not practical. That's why I created this thread: so that we could brainstorm new ideas.

All this is pretty much true. I actually also dropped every City Championship this year and I was playing Gyarados for all of them. Despite playing a fast deck, I still dropped because I feel 60 minutes with the new top cut rules is way too luckbased. The four prize rule is better than we have now but it is also certainly flawed. I'm not sure I have a better solution.....

 

[Ness]

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.

 

[yoyofsho16]

^
Sorry, Alex, no. I accept that there is increased pressure, but be advised that I have instructed my judges at each and every event so far this year (and they in turn have advised the topcut players) that slow play during plus 3 will be dealt with swiftly. Sorry to be so hard, but I do take major issue with your comment as it pertains to my events.

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.