Jason Klaczynski pushes for 90 Minutes

[Bigbowlr1037]

Sounds like the smaller tournaments are the problem(cities and states) so would an entry fee(masters only) of 5 dollars help with the potential overtime fees venues charge. I know the cities near me averaged 60-70 people and states was about 100. I know it wont cover the entire cost of a venue but the extra might help with any overages a venue might charge as a result of longer top cut rounds.

 

[PokePop]

Sounds like the smaller tournaments are the problem(cities and states) so would an entry fee(masters only) of 5 dollars help with the potential overtime fees venues charge. I know the cities near me averaged 60-70 people and states was about 100. I know it wont cover the entire cost of a venue but the extra might help with any overages a venue might charge as a result of longer top cut rounds.

Not really. If POP has events charge an entry fee, then you can be sure that they will drop the support that they give to make that tournament free, so it would be at best a wash.

 

[bulbasnore]

One thing a (P)TO and his/her staff in concerned about is time management. Tournament Staff must be sure that the tournament flows at a reasonable pace and finishes at a reasonable hour and/or the venue closes/becomes unavailable due to another event.

This post is classic, I'm gonna bookmark it.

• As a TO, I run timely events. My staff knows I expect things to move along.
• As a judge I'd rather not deal with the second game being closed out by maxing out plays to get to time.

The biggest factor in 90 minutes is the +3 time.

 

[Cyrus]

Fantastic post, Anthony. If players want longer top cuts (we do), then we need to up our game as much as we want P!P to step up its game.

It's interesting: even though many people in this thread are treating smaller events as the problem children, it'd actually be easiest to implement 75+3 at Cities than just about anywhere else. Why? Because with a max top cut of 8, the maximum additional time would be 45 minutes (I say maximum because there's a strong possibility you won't have to use that time if all matches finish early). For some PTOs and venues, 45 minutes of extra time is seriously pushing it; for others, it's super easy. I also see venue costs at these littler events being less of an issue than at, say, Nationals, where it costs untold thousands of dollars.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, adding 45 minutes appears to be doable one way or another - oftentimes through cutting time wasted during registration (as Anthony/LOLZ discussed). This would take a lot of cooperation on the part of organizers, judges, and players, but taking this step would mean a world's difference in keeping the game legitimate.

 

[LOLZ]

Fantastic post, Anthony. If players want longer top cuts (we do), then we need to up our game as much as we want P!P to step up its game.

...

In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, adding 45 minutes appears to be doable one way or another - oftentimes through cutting time wasted during registration (as Anthony/LOLZ discussed). This would take a lot of cooperation on the part of organizers, judges, and players, but taking this step would mean a world's difference in keeping the game legitimate.

Thanks for the complement John. I feel inspired to expand on my post and write a full article. I am going to write an article on Player Responsibility and how players could impact the time and operation of a tournament. Hopefully the article I will write will give players insight into what happens during the course of the tournament and what they can do (or not do) to help the tournament proceed very smoothly at a reasonable pace

 

[ninetales1234]

It has already been proven that ONE LOSS can make the difference between getting 1st place and *not* getting first place.
It could be in round one, round five, round seven, whatever.
Why does it matter whether or not that *one loss* is in the top cut?

Which TOs are going to represent their players and actually make this much-needed change to improve the game?

Which TOs know what a loaded question is?

 

[bullados]

Cities are/were harder than Regionals and Battle Roads because there's lots of TOs that are already bumping up against their venue time limits and don't really have any other options for tournament locations. Cities attract more players, but are generally held in the same locations as Battle Roads (aside from Marathon events). Libraries are in many cases the only reasonable event locations, and to add 45 minutes to the tournament would force TOs out of those locations. Game stores are also fairly tight on their scheduling, and I'm not sure if they'd particularly like having to give a (generally) lower selling game that much more scheduled time without appropriate compensation.

I'm not arguing against longer Top Cut rounds in all cases. I'm arguing against them as the default, as it forces a good portion of smaller events out of their ability to run tournaments. States also, mostly b/c I don't see any of those going longer than one day, and some are already going until Midnight or later. For multi-day events like Regionals, Nationals, and Worlds, I don't see why they couldn't extend the Top Cut rounds. But for single-day events, I don't see how you can mandate it.

 

[Cyrus]

This isn't an issue about when a loss occurred; it's about playing the game in its optimal six prize form. 30+3 does a great job of facilitating the game's optimal six prize form, but 60+3 is woefully inadequate.

Yoshi brought up the interesting point of playing a four prize format. IMO that's an unsung, yet respectable opinion to have, but at any rate, let's have time limits that facilitate playing the game in an optimal fashion, regardless of the prize count.

 

[ninetales1234]

This isn't an issue about when a loss occurred; it's about playing the game in its optimal six prize form. 30+3 does a great job of facilitating the game's optimal six prize form, but 60+3 is woefully inadequate.

Really???
...Because I don't see anybody advocating for 90 minute swiss rounds.

 

[Cyrus]

Re-read the sentence following the one you bolded, and you'll see how silly that sounds . 30+3 does a great job of facilitating the game's optimal six prize form in the swiss.

 

[bullados]

Cyrus if you force the issue, you will lose tournaments. Plain and simple.

 

[Cyrus]

Bullados, that was in response to Ninetales. I don't think I've "forced the issue" once in this thread; in fact, I went into it with an immediate mindset that the OP's recommendation (90+3) was hopelessly impossible at this point, as well as a very real constraint. 75+3 is where it's at.

Perhaps the good that'll come out of this topic (and similar discussions) is that more PTOs will start using 75+3. You're right to say that a mandatory 75+3 may be too hard for now...But if the 75+3 is the norm as opposed to the very rare exception, we'll have a much healthier environment for the optimal six prize game.

 

[BrightRush]

60 + 3 is definitely flawed and needs to be changed as soon as possible. All the reasons in Jason's article and this thread supports this.

 

[Dawn]

Not a fan of 90 minutes, the format is already a very fast format and will continue as such next season, if you do than people playing fast decks will get nervous between rounds waiting for 90 minutes to go by,this will shatter them in the next round and will turn Pokemon into a game of stamina rather than a game of skill.

 

[Mykel]

From reading the article and the thread, it seems a majority of people are for longer top cuts, but many don't find them feasible, especially TOs with regards to smaller events. I think that this is okay, and that TOs try their best, and I can understand that in events they must run like Battle Roads, Cities, or States aren't always able to satisfy this long cut, even if they want to, due to various circumstances they have listed. Some will be able to, but many definitely won't. Even if it's something we want, we can't always have it, there must be compromise. I do, however, feel that when it comes to larger tournaments (Regionals, Nationals, Worlds), we really should have these longer top cuts, and that it's much more feasible to do them. There's a lot of disagreement in this thread, but I think this is something most of us can agree on.

 

[JandPDS]

There are so many things that HAVE to be considered by P!P brass on decisions from BRs up to Worlds. They dont have to explain WHY they do anything really. This game does have alot of feedback from TPCi OP brass, but remember....they have bosses too! I KNOW those bosses do not want all of THEIR decisions hashed out in the public. I can say this bc I have seen SOME of the back room issues bc I am a PTO and attend the PTO conference. I also have an NDA which means I am not at liberty to discuss the reasons why (unless TPCi allows us to do so or posts said reasons themselves).

Sometimes, you just gotta trust the higher ups on the decisions they make. I dont think they have run this game into the ground. Just sayin'

Keith

But that is not how businesses are supposed to work, when you make changes good or bad you need to explain them to your customers. That is just good business sense.

Look at JC Penny. This January they had a big announcement that they were doing away with sales. They EXPLAINED to their customers that they were doing this so that they could have everyday low prices on all their merchandise at all times and not have low prices on some items and higher on others.

Now the customers knew why the change took place but they did not like it so many stopped shopping at JC Penny and their sales dropped.

Now JC Penny has made another change and they EXPLAINED to their customers that sales would be coming back, and they did so because they found out that their customer liked shopping for sales and did not like shopping in stores that no longer had them.

Can you imagine what would have happened if JC Penny had just dropped sales from their stores without saying why? And then when a customer came in and asked a manager why noting is on sale? And the manager said "Well they are gone now and that is all you need to know." Then the Customer asks "Can you please tell me why they are gone I liked shopping your sale merchandise" What do you think would happen if the manager told the customer" You do not need to know why, but people in charge have your best interests in mind so do not worry about it"

Do you think that customer would ever shop at JC Penny again?

This is the situation we find ourselves in with Pokémon, but we cant choose to shop at Macys or Sears like the JC Penny shopper can, we don’t have the choice to play Pokémon at Organization A's torment or Organization B's tournament so we are stuck with changes thrust upon us with no recourse or options. It would just be so nice if we could be given some explanation for why thing are changed, it is just constantly being kept in the dark that is so frustrating.

 

[psychup2034]

Sometimes, you just gotta trust the higher ups on the decisions they make.

The players as a collective do trust the higher ups. We do believe that they have our best interests in mind. We're just looking for some validation that our trust is justified, which is accomplished through increased transparency and communication from those higher ups.

While players trust the higher ups, we're also looking for the higher ups to trust players enough to have more direct communication with the player base. The Pokemon website or even the Pokegym forums would be a great place where some of the higher ups could give us players a monthly update about what changes are coming. That gives players confidence that the trust they're putting in the higher ups to make the right decision is well-placed.

 

[Otaku]

Not a fan of 90 minutes, the format is already a very fast format and will continue as such next season, if you do than people playing fast decks will get nervous between rounds waiting for 90 minutes to go by,this will shatter them in the next round and will turn Pokemon into a game of stamina rather than a game of skill.

1) Seems like you're mistaking "discipline" for "stamina". Stamina is not being fatigued by longer rounds for top cuts. As someone prone to "twitting out", it really is a matter of self-discipline, of not dwelling on that which you cannot control. Indeed if you are running a faster deck you just need to take advantage of the down time; if a game ends significantly ahead of another, enjoy the chance to relax, to run over strategy, etc. Frankly, I expect champions to have such discipline.

2) We are also talking about top cuts, not the full event, and possibly even only for the highest level events. This makes my first point even more critical; yes if it is something like Top 64 at Worlds this would be a substantial increase in time for someone to wait, but there I'd find it even more required. At a smaller event with a Top 8? Another 30 minutes per round (for 90+3, which is largely considered infeasible) isn't much, even if you make it to finals that's just an extra hour (the last round is over when you win or lose, so no waiting! :lol, and if we switched to 75+3, that is only an extra 15 per round, which would only total an extra 30 minutes of waiting for speedsters.

3) Playing a fast deck doesn't guarantee a fast round; even if both players are using "fast" decks, the cards will fall where they may. Otherwise fast decks may be jockeying for position and forced to a crawl due to key match-ups, including mirrors.

3) I reject the premise that we should penalize slower decks (and in this case "average") decks in favor of pampering "fast decks". What is more fair and demonstrative of greater skill: giving time for a slower strategy to mature and push for a win from behind and easily giving enough time for two full games to complete even for two average decks... or keeping rounds as is so that speedy decks/players who lack self-discipline won't freak out while waiting?

I know some players have more legitimate reasons for the wait being an issue, but let those be addressed. I personally have issues with my g.i. tract that can mean I either need extra time between rounds, or would be better off if we could rush, rush, rush before anything has time to go wrong... but no tournament should have to adjust for me, even if it is as small as possible with only seven other players.

 

[Dawn]

1) Seems like you're mistaking "discipline" for "stamina". Stamina is not being fatigued by longer rounds for top cuts. As someone prone to "twitting out", it really is a matter of self-discipline, of not dwelling on that which you cannot control. Indeed if you are running a faster deck you just need to take advantage of the down time; if a game ends significantly ahead of another, enjoy the chance to relax, to run over strategy, etc. Frankly, I expect champions to have such discipline.

2) We are also talking about top cuts, not the full event, and possibly even only for the highest level events. This makes my first point even more critical; yes if it is something like Top 64 at Worlds this would be a substantial increase in time for someone to wait, but there I'd find it even more required. At a smaller event with a Top 8? Another 30 minutes per round (for 90+3, which is largely considered infeasible) isn't much, even if you make it to finals that's just an extra hour (the last round is over when you win or lose, so no waiting! :lol, and if we switched to 75+3, that is only an extra 15 per round, which would only total an extra 30 minutes of waiting for speedsters.

3) Playing a fast deck doesn't guarantee a fast round; even if both players are using "fast" decks, the cards will fall where they may. Otherwise fast decks may be jockeying for position and forced to a crawl due to key match-ups, including mirrors.

3) I reject the premise that we should penalize slower decks (and in this case "average") decks in favor of pampering "fast decks". What is more fair and demonstrative of greater skill: giving time for a slower strategy to mature and push for a win from behind and easily giving enough time for two full games to complete even for two average decks... or keeping rounds as is so that speedy decks/players who lack self-discipline won't freak out while waiting?

I know some players have more legitimate reasons for the wait being an issue, but let those be addressed. I personally have issues with my g.i. tract that can mean I either need extra time between rounds, or would be better off if we could rush, rush, rush before anything has time to go wrong... but no tournament should have to adjust for me, even if it is as small as possible with only seven other players.

1) Either way there is going to be an advantage generated for one player, would someone be at an advantage if they had been playing for 90 minutes and then got rushed to the next round? Yes. Would someone be at an advantage if they had been playing recently while their opponent sat around doing nothing? Yes. This will all turn into "discipline" warfare with winners being decided by how tired their opponent gets.

2) Trainer lock decks already have an advantage in 30+3 so why should they also get an advantage in a place where fast decks thrive? The format has to be balanced and if the top cut time extends all we will see at worlds is Vaniluxe and Accelgor, is that what you want? Slow, gimmicky, luck based decks being the face of the format?

3) Time management has been a large part of the game for a long time, it is advised that you wear and watch and do your own time keeping, players nowadays have just become to lazy to play at a decent pace and keep track of time.

 

[Ness]

2) Trainer lock decks already have an advantage in 30+3 so why should they also get an advantage in a place where fast decks thrive? The format has to be balanced and if the top cut time extends all we will see at worlds is Vaniluxe and Accelgor, is that what you want? Slow, gimmicky, luck based decks being the face of the format?

This is kind of a distorted way of looking at things. Don't try to think of 90+3 giving an advantage to certain decks. You are right - technically, when you move from 60+3 to 90+3 certain decks become better, but whether the best decks end up indeed being Stage 2 decks, Stage 1 decks or basic-based decks shouldn't matter. All you're doing is allowing Pokémon games to be played as real Pokémon games. Calling certain decks slow & gimmicky seems pointless, too. Whether 90 minutes results in a basic-based, Stage 1-based deck, Stage 2 deck, "lock" deck, etc is irrelevant. The entire point is that the game is being played in the way it was intended to be played.