Japan's time called procedure... why not that way here?

[JandPDS]

No Poke Time +1 (As it works in Japan) will not completely eliminate slow play, but it will make it much more difficult to successfully pull off. I believe that there is almost complete and total agreement that any changes to the game that will discourage stalling and deliberate slow play is a good thing. Lets Say that Time +1 only eliminates 60% of the slow play now currently done. That alone is more then enough reason to adopt it. One of my 1st points in this thread that no one has yet addressed is shy must our Start of the Game procedures match Japan's exactly (when Japan changed the rule that the person who goes 1st does not draw a card, we adopt that rule, when they change the rule that the person who goes first draws a card but cant play any trainers, we change our rules to match exactly) But when it rules for the end of the game are addressed, Japan has their way to decide how the game ends, and we have our own different rules. Why do we choose to adopt t Japan's rules for one aspect of the game, but not use Japan's rules at another time? Why does this rules inconsistency exist?

Right now all a player wishing to Stall out a game and win on time has to do is stay one turn ahead of the opponent, and have time end on their turn so that they can take the last prize and win the game (Gardevoir X is the best know current example of this, but any Sniping Pokemon can to this, or a saved warp point to KO a benched Basic Pokemon with no energy on it will also suffice).

Time +1 will force this player to have to slow play so that they are 2 turns ahead of the opponent, much much harder to do. And if a player is 3 turns ahead of thier opponent, then usually there is very little reason to have to slow play as in theese cases the opponent is most likely hopelessly behind and would get beat outright in an untimed game.

This move is as you say Suicide in that a good rule of thumb in Pokemon is never attack something that is not a threat to you when you have the option to attack a threat instead. But when time is called and you need one prize, proper game strategy is turned on its head. Time +1 will go a long way to fixing that problem. No, it cannot eliminate it, but any improvement should be adopted.

 

[Rainbowgym]

Perhaps the POP team was not aware of this +1 turn (end of game) rule of Japan?

 

[dogma]

No Poke Time +1 (As it works in Japan) will not completely eliminate slow play, but it will make it much more difficult to successfully pull off. I believe that there is almost complete and total agreement that any changes to the game that will discourage stalling and deliberate slow play is a good thing. Lets Say that Time +1 only eliminates 60% of the slow play now currently done. That alone is more then enough reason to adopt it. One of my 1st points in this thread that no one has yet addressed is shy must our Start of the Game procedures match Japan's exactly (when Japan changed the rule that the person who goes 1st does not draw a card, we adopt that rule, when they change the rule that the person who goes first draws a card but cant play any trainers, we change our rules to match exactly) But when it rules for the end of the game are addressed, Japan has their way to decide how the game ends, and we have our own different rules. Why do we choose to adopt t Japan's rules for one aspect of the game, but not use Japan's rules at another time? Why does this rules inconsistency exist?

Indeed. Why does it exist?

(BTW, I'm in favour of the +1 rule, I was just curious about its overall effect.)

Perhaps the POP team was not aware of this +1 turn (end of game) rule of Japan?

LOL, Lia, don't get me started again! But even I would be quite surprised if they just completely unaware of the rule. Maybe POP just didn't think it appropriate for their tournaments?

 

[NoPoke]

JandPDS. I am not convinced that +1 will reduce slow play at all: I'd use 1% and not 60% in your example, heck I could even argue for 0% as slow play sets in long before the last minutes of the game. Slow Play is unplanned.

Time+1 does make stalling in the last minute mostly pointless but I'd rather hit the staller with a penalty than rely on +X to redress the unfair behaviour. +1 does address the suicide play with EXes, but that will be a moot scenario soon.

All arguements for and against +1 hinge on player and judge behaviours and perception/prediction of such by others. The crucial question though is just how much of an advantage it is to actually have the last turn. Obviously there are games where it is huge but that is not always the case. So how many games that run to time would have their outcome alterered by one more turn? I can't even begin to guess.

 

[Rainbowgym]

NoPoke - Time +1 also address the (after thinking verrrrry long) Time-Bring Down-I win scenario if players are tied on prizes.
With prized tied it makes a huge difference, if there is a prize difference of 2 or more it doesn't.

 

[Brawler]

NoPoke - Time +1 also address the (after thinking verrrrry long) Time-Bring Down-I win scenario if players are tied on prizes.
With prized tied it makes a huge difference, if there is a prize difference of 2 or more it doesn't.

Uh, excuse me? Of course 2 or more could make a difference.

Cresselia X's Moon Skip?

Empoleon's Dual Splash knocking out two?

Any Damage Spreader K0'ing 2?

It does make a difference sometimes.

Even with the new deck coming in Autmnn BR's that a lot of people are hyping about...

 

[PokePop]

One of my 1st points in this thread that no one has yet addressed is shy must our Start of the Game procedures match Japan's exactly (when Japan changed the rule that the person who goes 1st does not draw a card, we adopt that rule, when they change the rule that the person who goes first draws a card but cant play any trainers, we change our rules to match exactly) But when it rules for the end of the game are addressed, Japan has their way to decide how the game ends, and we have our own different rules. Why do we choose to adopt t Japan's rules for one aspect of the game, but not use Japan's rules at another time? Why does this rules inconsistency exist?

I'll be happy to address that.

The start of the game follows the rules as outlined in the Rule Book. The Rule Book always takes precedence over any manufactured Tournament procedure, if possible.

The end of the game, when ended on time, it completely outside the Rule Book. The Rule Book has no provision whatsoever for a timed win. It is needed for Tournament play for logistical reasons, so it is allowed even though it does not follow the rule book.

So, since we are outside the rule book at this point, whether it is done the Japanese way or the US way is totally up to that regions OP team. There is no Rule Book procedure to give precedence to.

Hope that clears that up.

 

[NoPoke]

NoPoke - Time +1 also address the (after thinking verrrrry long) Time-Bring Down-I win scenario if players are tied on prizes.

Rainbowgym,

GameLoss or DQ is a much better way of addressing that behaviour. If the judge does not believe it was deliberate but does think the pace dropped then tag on a minute.

 

[PokePop]

My point has clearly been misunderstood. I was not debating which OP is better... How would I know which system works, I don't play!!

Which is why it can be dangerous to make broad statements of blame, when you don't know the underlying causes or reasons. You don't know what you don't know.

My problem is not even with POP per se, it's with whichever muppet thought it would be a good idea to create the unique situation where PUI does things differently from PCL, but does not have (as far as I can see) any real powers to just change things.

Calling the people you wish to influence an insulting name generally lessens your chance of influencing them. In fact, the US tournament system is pretty much a legacy of the system that WotC put in place when they ran the game and started up OP for it. It is based directly on the tournament rules that were developed for MtG. They have been running tournaments for many years and seem to know what they're doing in that areana, for the most part.

It seems to me that Japan just gets on with things. Security alerts? No biggie... lets change the tournament structure. I just cannot see POP being able to act so fast and decisively.

You haven't seen POP swivel. That doesn't mean they can't or don't. Just last month, at Nationals, they had to swivel to run flights for Masters on 3 hours notice when Origins gave out more tickets than their 512 cap. Considering that they were expecting to run 3 huge tournaments at the same time and had to suddenly run 4, I think they showed pretty good flexiblilty.

Let me put it this way: so few people here care about Japanese promos, etc. etc. because they aren't going to be able to get their hands on them. And why should they care if they don't collect? But it also means that just because of where you live, you aren't getting cards, even though the gameis supported both where you live and in Japan. It's just bizarre!

This is a whole different issue than how OP and events are run. I would love to see more of the Japanese promos out here.

As for the actual topic on hand, this might be a stupid question, but if the issue is slow play and stalling, can't people just adapt their play so that when time is called, they will be the one with the final turn? Or is that just really difficult to do?

Yes it is.

 

[Rainbowgym]

Uh, excuse me? Of course 2 or more could make a difference.

Cresselia X's Moon Skip?

Empoleon's Dual Splash knocking out two?

Any Damage Spreader K0'ing 2?

It does make a difference sometimes.

Even with the new deck coming in Autmnn BR's that a lot of people are hyping about...

Let's say it's my turn and I am ahead 2 prizes, time is called and I attack taking my 3rd leading prize.
I would say it's pretty much game over.
If it's my turn when time is called and I am ahead 2 prizes and I can't take a 3rd, your examples might occure, but they are limited to only very few cards.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Rainbowgym,

GameLoss or DQ is a much better way of addressing that behaviour. If the judge does not believe it was deliberate but does think the pace dropped then tag on a minute.

I have to see the first GL or DQ being adressed that way.
It's very difficult to caught deliberate stalling imo even more when it occures only in the last 5-10 minutes.

 

[dogma]

Which is why it can be dangerous to make broad statements of blame, when you don't know the underlying causes or reasons. You don't know what you don't know.

This is hard to explain in a forum situation like this. In general, POP/PUI would be entitled to keep their processes private. On a day-to-day level, no-one needs to be told how to do their job.

The problem here is that POP only exists because we, the fans, buy enough of the product to warrant it. Now no one can deny sales of the cards is not great - PUI have done a great job of rejuvenating the game.

That does not mean that they cannot do better. And I'm sorry, but when the headline forum on Pokégym is full of suggestions/complaints, someone should be addressing the issue. Publicly. (Of course the actual decision making can be private). At least let the fans know that they are aware of the issue and they are actually listening to peoples frustrations and ideas for improvement.

And if they don't use any of the suggestions, or disagree with what we say, at least explain that. There is absolutely none of that here. As an example: I would be able to contact any number of people in M:TG R&D and share my grievances. I wouldn't have a clue who to email in PUI that would (a) read the email, and (b) would have the power to do something about it.

The fans deserve better. And I don't know the underlying causes of the complaints for POP. I'm man enough to admit that. But that is because POP is opaque, as is PUI. And it shouldn't be, not to the extent it is!

Calling the people you wish to influence an insulting name generally lessens your chance of influencing them. In fact, the US tournament system is pretty much a legacy of the system that WotC put in place when they ran the game and started up OP for it. It is based directly on the tournament rules that were developed for MtG. They have been running tournaments for many years and seem to know what they're doing in that areana, for the most part.

- Where I come from, muppet is not insulting. I'm sorry if anyone is offended. I still stand by the sentiment, however.

- Agreed, the current OP is due to legacy issues. But why is that? There has been plenty of time to change that! That is unacceptable as an excuse, especially given Japan's restructuring of their Pokémon tournaments.

- M:TG tournaments have changed a lot from those days, which further compounds the issue.

You haven't seen POP swivel. That doesn't mean they can't or don't. Just last month, at Nationals, they had to swivel to run flights for Masters on 3 hours notice when Origins gave out more tickets than their 512 cap. Considering that they were expecting to run 3 huge tournaments at the same time and had to suddenly run 4, I think they showed pretty good flexiblilty.

-Um, they clearly can't, because if they could, why haven't they?

- Agreed again, the running of Nationals this year was by all accounts, commendable. But that is not flexibility, it's competence. It is a minimum standard to expect. Is that expecting too much? No, I don't think it is, not in the long run.

This is a whole different issue than how OP and events are run. I would love to see more of the Japanese promos out here.

The issue referred to is me wanting more Japanese cards and products. Since we agree here, I'll only point out that I don''t know why there aren't more. Who would I ask?

Yes it is.

This quote refers to how difficult it is to plan further ahead to ensure you are the one to get the extra turn in +1.

- Is it difficult or impossible? I only ask because I don't know how much luck plays a part.

- I like your explanation as to why this is not somthing we automatically assume once the Japanese have the rule. It makes sense. It still just further accentuates the point that if part of the rules (even if they are tourney rules) are made in an uncoordinated fashion, what are you going to get?

d

 

[PokePop]

This is hard to explain in a forum situation like this. In general, POP/PUI would be entitled to keep their processes private. On a day-to-day level, no-one needs to be told how to do their job.

The problem here is that POP only exists because we, the fans, buy enough of the product to warrant it. Now no one can deny sales of the cards is not great - PUI have done a great job of rejuvenating the game.

That does not mean that they cannot do better. And I'm sorry, but when the headline forum on Pokégym is full of suggestions/complaints, someone should be addressing the issue. Publicly. (Of course the actual decision making can be private). At least let the fans know that they are aware of the issue and they are actually listening to peoples frustrations and ideas for improvement.

And if they don't use any of the suggestions, or disagree with what we say, at least explain that. There is absolutely none of that here. As an example: I would be able to contact any number of people in M:TG R&D and share my grievances. I wouldn't have a clue who to email in PUI that would (a) read the email, and (b) would have the power to do something about it.

The fans deserve better. And I don't know the underlying causes of the complaints for POP. I'm man enough to admit that. But that is because POP is opaque, as is PUI. And it shouldn't be, not to the extent it is!

I agree that people have a right to complain and that POP should listen to the feedback.
That's not what I was saying. My statement was in response to your saying that you don't really play.
As a person not experience in the day to day of tourney play, you still make some bold statements of blame about things that you admit you are not familiar with. I would suggest getting more experience in playing or running OP and then you will have a basis to make statements like that.

- Agreed, the current OP is due to legacy issues. But why is that? There has been plenty of time to change that! That is unacceptable as an excuse, especially given Japan's restructuring of their Pokémon tournaments.

You're assuming that POP needs to make big changes to follow how Japan does things. I think this and other discussions shows that players would not like everything being exactly like Japan. In fact, Japan really likes the way POP does things. That is from a conversation I had with Mr. Ooyama, one of the game creators, last year.

-Um, they clearly can't, because if they could, why haven't they?

Haven't done what, exactly?
So far, the only thing that Japan does that I would rather see here is the +1 turn. Otherwise, I prefer how PUI/POP runs their events.

- Agreed again, the running of Nationals this year was by all accounts, commendable. But that is not flexibility, it's competence. It is a minimum standard to expect. Is that expecting too much? No, I don't think it is, not in the long run.

That went well above competence. It could have gone very wrong.

 

[Mob2099]

An idea to try this time + 1 turn could be used at the LCQ to find out some good feedback from the players and judges before the thought of an option for Worlds that weekend. This is an unsanctioned event??? Even if its not.

PUI made some great decisions and testing during Nats this year, why not this.
1. Pod master with top 32 each pod.
2. 45 min top in Prof cup with all games counting.
3. Top 16 Masters invite.
4. Increase actual LCQ invites.

Worlds:
1. Time +1 turn for LCQ. :biggrin:
2.?

 

[dogma]

I agree that people have a right to complain and that POP should listen to the feedback.
That's not what I was saying. My statement was in response to your saying that you don't really play.
As a person not experience in the day to day of tourney play, you still make some bold statements of blame about things that you admit you are not familiar with. I would suggest getting more experience in playing or running OP and then you will have a basis to make statements like that.

I would suggest that as a relative 'outsider', it is easier for me to see both sides of the proverbial coin.

As I keep trying to explain, my issue is not with POP as a whole. It is with the concept that at the moment, POP/PUI can make some decisions but not others. And I'd really like to know why that is. In this respect, a lot of people who are defending POP have access to information they can't disclose to everyone else. But one point in particular confused me: why would the structure of who TC reports to be a secret? Or when POP consults PCL? I probably know the least about PUI than any of the other TCGs I keep an eye on. Again, compare to M:TG, where you can contact every member of their R&D and OP, and they will read your response!

POP is just the example to use here because there are so few vocal collectors. I still stand by my earlier points. Who do I speak to directly about this in POP/PUI?

 

[NoPoke]

dogma I must be missing something obvious.

POP/PUI is just like every other large organisation (remember that the POP bit is small in number) Some decisions are devolved downwards and some are not. responsibility can also be devolved down too, but not all.

The there is the issue of size. Even if POP wanted to take on more responsibility their current workload/capacity may not allow it.

None of this is confidential or special knowledge.

 

[dogma]

dogma I must be missing something obvious.

POP/PUI is just like every other large organisation (remember that the POP bit is small in number) Some decisions are devolved downwards and some are not. responsibility can also be devolved down too, but not all.

Not at all NoPoke, it's probably because I'm explaining myself really badly. Thanks for the patience in trying to understand my point of view.

I'll try to explain myself a little better. I obviously have an issue with the way PUI/POP do certain stuff. Now I think I've derailed this thread enough; I should just talk to PUI myself. But who do I speak to about it? How do I know that someone will read my response if I just send it to a generic address?

If I have an issue with M:TG does something, I know how to contact the person directly responsible for making that decision. That is true for OP, the design of a certain card, power issues, even decisions relating to the art of a card.

How comes I know the structure of WotC R&D but not PUI? I'm far more a Pokémon collector than a M:TG player, believe me! I would like to think I'm not a complete idiot, and that I have tried to work out who does what in PUI. But still, I haven't been able to work it out!

This is what I mean about how there is definitely an obstacle between the fans and POP/PUI that shouldn't be there. Unless I'm missing something obvious.

As for responsibility being devolved etc., this is a corporate issue that I do not think the fans should be able to tinker with. That is what I meant in an earlier post about how POP/PUI have the right to do things in a certain way.

I don't care who makes the decision. As long as someone makes it, and is then able to communicate with the fans why this is being done. Again, M:TG does this (it has had to do this in the last month because there are substantial changes to M:TG coming this autumn).

The there is the issue of size. Even if POP wanted to take on more responsibility their current workload/capacity may not allow it.

None of this is confidential or special knowledge.

I agree, what you've described is not confidential. What is confidential (or at least, I don't know it), is who has responsibility for Pokémon, who decides what cards we get, who tests our formats, who decides on our OP structure, etc. etc.

And what I was trying to say is that if I knew who to contact about these things, that would be one barrier down, and rather than me confusing everyone here and derailing the thread, I could do something constructive for the community and develop a proposal to take to PUI (mostly non-OP stuff as that is my area of 'expertise'), and see what they say.

Poképop mentioned that maybe I shouldn't make bold statements if I don't have all of the information. I can't have all of the information, it's not available to me, even if I wanted it! (And I really do, I think it's obvious I love Pokémon (mostly collecting all the pretty cards!) and should have an opportunity to suggest improvements / raise my concerns to those in the company who would be able to do something about it).

This is just an example. There are other issues I have with PUI/POP, including what I actually want to say to them, but I think it's easiest to understand why I'm frustrated with this example.

d

 

[JandPDS]

Dogma, you need to give up this fight as you cannot win it. PUI/POP as wonderful as they have been for the game of Pokeomon, they also have a long history of not explaining the decisions that they make. There has never been any reason yet given as to why Battle Roads and City Championships can only have a top 4 cut no matter how big the participation, or why States are limited to top 8 cuts. In the past I have attended City and State Championships that had top 16 cuts, the top cut restrictions were put into place with no reason given for why it was occurring. When a decision is made you just have to accept it as there is no other alternative open to you. If you desire you can keep asking for explanations but you will end up only getting frustrated in the end.

 

[jkwarrior]

Rainbowgym,

GameLoss or DQ is a much better way of addressing that behaviour. If the judge does not believe it was deliberate but does think the pace dropped then tag on a minute.

The judges can't watch every match...

Stalling in swiss is the problem.

 

[yoshi1001]

Dogma, you need to give up this fight as you cannot win it. PUI/POP as wonderful as they have been for the game of Pokeomon, they also have a long history of not explaining the decisions that they make. There has never been any reason yet given as to why Battle Roads and City Championships can only have a top 4 cut no matter how big the participation, or why States are limited to top 8 cuts. In the past I have attended City and State Championships that had top 16 cuts, the top cut restrictions were put into place with no reason given for why it was occurring. When a decision is made you just have to accept it as there is no other alternative open to you. If you desire you can keep asking for explanations but you will end up only getting frustrated in the end.

I'm sure someone could also come up with a very good list of examples where PUI has made a point to explain themselves, such as some of the reasons for the changes in invite structures.

 

[JandPDS]

I'm sure someone could also come up with a very good list of examples where PUI has made a point to explain themselves, such as some of the reasons for the changes in invite structures.

I was not intending to make a criticism only make a point. Repeatedly posting the same complaint on the Gym will not get you an answer that is all.