Playing Games Best of 3

[Master Yoda]

Why were draws stopped in the first place?

When i remember right because to prevent price speeches (cheating) and because they think pokemon need a winner and a loser in every match. (maybe because in the gameboy you can´t draw neither)



But i coud be easily wrong with that^^

 

[baby mario]

Why were draws stopped in the first place?

I asked that once.

Apparently, people worked the system to make sure they and their mates made top cut by agreeing draws on the top tables in the final round.

If you could stop people doing that (DQ for collusion?) then draws would be a legit way of doing things.

But I don't think Americans like draws much (if you go by their sport).

 

[Sabett]

Aren't their draws in the video game? ie explosion? I'm not too hip on that, but Magic does use ties all the time, and people agree to tie all the time, I don't understand the big deal about it. This would only be implemented in certain age groups, so that means their wouldn't be any parents to complain about their kids not winning, which I think may have been the problem in the first place.

 

[baby mario]

I'm not really in favour of different rules for different age groups. If a rule makes the game better then ALL age groups should benefit from it.

I honestly don't see parents whining about it and even if they did, that would be a terrible reason not to do something.

Besides, who are the biggest whiners in the game anyway?

(Clue: it isn't the parents of Junior players)

 

[Victory Bell]

Plenty of games are decided by sudden death and it's a simple, quick and fair way of solving a tied game, through matches, or through one game going to time because of prizes. It makes no difference that it happens because of each person winning a match identical situations are already happening and are conducted with just fine.

What would you feel if you just lost in sudden death to a donk deck? Ask someone who has...

So you say that in this situation the gyarados deck does have a better chance of not being donked? If that is the case where you say more games invites more chance to become donked, there is even more chance if not the same of you not being donked. If you roll a ten sided die twice or three times, as apposed to once, you will still more often than not roll 1-7 than 8-10.

No im saying I start well but still loose t1. also the case with other decks.The problem is the worst with sableye.

No, fixing donks is not the aim of the thread, the aim of the thread is to discuss how playing games best of 3 would or would not benefit the game. Decreasing you from losing to a single donk is one of the various things it does.

And if donks dident exist then what would the point be? The current system would work without tons of players grapeing about their losses. If it isent the point then do you not agree that according to your argument regarding random losses, it would not be fair if player A was useing a donk deck?

This topic does not boil down to just how to stop donks and bad starts. I've said many times that playing games best of 3 will also represent a truer display of the mathc-ups between the two decks and players. For example if Player A plays Player B using Deck A, and Player B is using Deck B. They play a game and Player B wins the game. However the match-ups are in favor of Player A using Deck A, if they play another game then Player A could win, and then win the game after that, which would then represent the truer display of who wins more.

Many people who put in their hard effort, and play competitively don't like to lose without being able to do anything about it.

*coughdonkdeckscough*

Also I think that even people who are disagreeing with me on other subjects, would agree with me that winning without skill and only luck in a competitive environment, isn't fair at all. Well duh... The game was not designed for you to lose randomly without being able to do anything about it, look at the beginning of Pokemon, there weren't any donks happening, nobody was knocking you out on the first turn, even less so because of all the ridiculous trainer draw. Also look at today how the developers have made things like call for family and call energy, they're obviously trying to stop donks from happening.

^Only their obviously not trying hard enough beacuse people still grow their grapes... but they always will...

So as long as the something that completely does not allow you to win is in the rules it's fair? What if it were in the rules that judges could decree certain players winners and others losers based on their own whims, would it be fair, because it's in the rules? They've already changed the rules before, there is nothing sacred about any of the rules because they are rules. They can all be changed, they do not decree what is fair and what is not. You have still yet to explain how it is fair that people will lose with not one thing to change it, they get a hand and now they are going to lose, no matter what, nothing will save them, not one thing. They didn't get to fight back, they didn't get to try it again, they just lost, without any say whatsoever. Please tell me how that is fair, and don't say it's because it's in the rules, because that is the weak arguement.

Comparing the Pokemon card game to life is terrible, Life is unfair, that's the way it works, I could go on many many tangents to demonstrate how life is not fair. The card game of Pokemon however was created to be fair, and if something is found to be unfair in the card game it should be changed.

Most card games are played best of 3, but for no reason and only in some places Pokemon isn't,

Whats so bad about beaing diffrent...

If you're going to post on this thread, would you please add something to the discussion other that basically "I agree with what this person said". I appreciate you are voicing your opinion but please try to be more constructive.
Sudden death is a fine way to conduct tied up games, plenty of other places seem to do just fine with it when they play best of 3.
And how fair is getting donked in that game that decides it all?


And you're wrong, those are the exact same thing, same format, same outcome, same name, same thing.

My responses in bold.

 

[Sabett]

I'm not really in favour of different rules for different age groups. If a rule makes the game better then ALL age groups should benefit from it.

I honestly don't see parents whining about it and even if they did, that would be a terrible reason not to do something.

Besides, who are the biggest whiners in the game anyway?

(Clue: it isn't the parents of Junior players)

Parent's whine about a lot of ridiculous things that judges get put into awkward situations about. Also, think about the stamina of Junior players. I know some of them like playing, but their interests can often be sporadic, and want to do something else.

@Victory Bell: You're kind of late to reply to that post, sir. If you had paid attention I already changed my mind. Also one problem with us being so different from say Magic, is because Pokemon was designed off of Magic. There's also the point to make that even two games that try to differ themselves so much, Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh, still play in this same system.

 

[Victory Bell]

^ ya i had no time to respond faster. And no I wasent paying super close attention ^-^" I was getting sick of restateing my points.

^also I dont understand. Are you saying pokemon is based off magic? Or something im not getting...

 

[Sabett]

^ ya i had no time to respond faster. And no I wasent paying super close attention ^-^" I was getting sick of restateing my points.

^also I dont understand. Are you saying pokemon is based off magic? Or something im not getting...

I'm saying that Pokemon is based off of magic, yes. But at the same time I don't want you to get the wrong idea, I'm not trying to say we should make it the same.

 

[SteveP]

What's wrong with ties? What's wrong with deciding to tie? Plenty of other card games do it. I guess the alternative as I said earlier in this post, is more time, but I'm afraid of the practicality of that. I remember people posting about how their tournaments as is go to time and have to be stopped because their venue was closing.

If you go down this road and try to argue "what's wrong with deciding to tie?," you'll lose. In a tournament environment, TPCi has already ruled that match results must be decided by game-play.

Generally, in most competitive sports, a tie is given when the game has been going for a considerable amount of time. It's not a decision the opponents generally make, and certainly not at the very beginning of the game.

The debate about ties in Pokemon has been decided, so until a system is devised that totally eliminates the possibility of ties through anything other than game-play (a mutual agreement is NOT game-play), discussion about ties in POP is moot.

 

[Sabett]

If you go down this road and try to argue "what's wrong with deciding to tie?," you'll lose. In a tournament environment, TPCi has already ruled that match results must be decided by game-play.

Generally, in most competitive sports, a tie is given when the game has been going for a considerable amount of time. It's not a decision the opponents generally make, and certainly not at the very beginning of the game.

The debate about ties in Pokemon has been decided, so until a system is devised that totally eliminates the possibility of ties through anything other than game-play (a mutual agreement is NOT game-play), discussion about ties in POP is moot.

You're wrong, by bringing up this discussion of playing games best of 3, we have already defied POP or any other authority anyone has on the game, their decisions do not limit our discussion. Also, I am not only suggesting ties, but also in place, but not along with, extra time in the rounds. People complain about it taking too much time, but plenty of other games have tournaments that end in a timely manner with longer matches.

 

[SteveP]

If POP once had ties, then eliminated them, that's quite different than if they never had them at all. The precedence has been established for not having ties in POP. Once you have precedence, it's often very difficult to overturn it.

I agree with you that to give best-of-3 justice, more time is needed. Currently, the rules say 40-minute 1-game matches and a minimum of 45 minutes for match play. But, I can sense a bit of "writing between the lines" in that ruling. Although POP allows swiss match play, they also realize it can jepordize tournament operations (ie., too much time). I have personal experience in this area because years ago we did best-of-3 swiss 1-hour matches in Colorado. It worked for small tournaments. But, when we had 100 people attend our State Championship, it took us 14 hours to complete the event. Certainly, the best players/decks reached the top at that event, but at what cost? Best-of-3 swiss simply was too costly for us at major events.

 

[Sabett]

If POP once had ties, then eliminated them, that's quite different than if they never had them at all. The precedence has been established for not having ties in POP. Once you have precedence, it's often very difficult to overturn it.

I agree with you that to give best-of-3 justice, more time is needed. Currently, the rules say 40-minute 1-game matches and a minimum of 45 minutes for match play. But, I can sense a bit of "writing between the lines" in that ruling. Although POP allows swiss match play, they also realize it can jepordize tournament operations (ie., too much time). I have personal experience in this area because years ago we did best-of-3 swiss 1-hour matches in Colorado. It worked for small tournaments. But, when we had 100 people attend our State Championship, it took us 14 hours to complete the event. Certainly, the best players/decks reached the top at that event, but at what cost? Best-of-3 swiss simply was too costly for us at major events.

What's the cost at a 100 person tournament (I'm assuming that was all in one age group) of 14 hours? That sounds like a very big tournament, and cutting it short seems bad and not opportune enough for everyone. Other games play such large scale tournaments within that given time.

Perhaps this could be implemented instead of age groups, to certain types of high scale tournaments, such as states and up, or regionals and up.

 

[SteveP]

Perhaps this could be implemented instead of age groups, to certain types of high scale tournaments, such as states and up, or regionals and up.

That's what I'm trying to point out. The last major best-of-3 swiss was the first WOTC Worlds. It took two full days to complete. It's possible, but costly. And since TPCi has never chosen to do it, they probably view it as too costly too, especially since Pokemon has grown in size since those days.

At our 2002 CO States, we had about enough Masters for top 8, so probably about 55. So we probably had 6 rounds plus 3 playoffs. At about 75 minutes per round, that's about 11 hours. Now add 1 hour check-in, 1 hour lunch, and 1 hour dinner, you end up with 14 hours. For many, that's not feasible for a 1-day tournament, so either they cut the rounds down to 45 minutes or don't run best-of-3. Personally, I still think 45-minute best-of-3 is better than 40-minute 1-game matches, but as has been voiced in this topic, some feel differently.

 

[homeofmew]

this would take forever alex.
+ Pokemon isn't MTG and kids can stay up to 2am.
Heck I played in a ton of MTG events that are 2/3 and I can bearly keep awake.
+ the drive home :/

 

[Sabett]

That's what I'm trying to point out. The last major best-of-3 swiss was the first WOTC Worlds. It took two full days to complete. It's possible, but costly. And since TPCi has never chosen to do it, they probably view it as too costly too, especially since Pokemon has grown in size since those days.

At our 2002 CO States, we had about enough Masters for top 8, so probably about 55. So we probably had 6 rounds plus 3 playoffs. At about 75 minutes per round, that's about 11 hours. Now add 1 hour check-in, 1 hour lunch, and 1 hour dinner, you end up with 14 hours. For many, that's not feasible for a 1-day tournament, so either they cut the rounds down to 45 minutes or don't run best-of-3. Personally, I still think 45-minute best-of-3 is better than 40-minute 1-game matches, but as has been voiced in this topic, some feel differently.

Why 75 minutes? 60 should be enough. Also, Magic very high scale tournaments, something like worlds, took 2 days. When things get to such a high scale, more than 1 day should be excusable, not for states though, maybe regionals, but idk, definitely worlds though. How much more expensive could another day be with little reward? They seem to be extravagant aplenty with worlds, giving away countless free promos. I can see expense being a problem, but not nearly the only.

this would take forever alex.
+ Pokemon isn't MTG and kids can stay up to 2am.
Heck I played in a ton of MTG events that are 2/3 and I can bearly keep awake.
+ the drive home :/

Pokemon is based off of MTG, I never said it was the same thing, there's also still the point that even cards that seem to purposely be different from MTG (Yu-Gi-Oh) still play games best of 3. Also the tournaments you are describing were either A) A high scale tournament and were in the top cut, or B) started at a very late time.

Also, don't refer to me in my real name please, Tina.

 

[SteveP]

Child labor laws prohibit excessively long hours. Although I can't quote you, I'll bet there's something, somewhere governing acceptable hours for children who participate in competition.

Regarding a 2-day Worlds, you need to consider other all things, not just the competition. The planners and budgeters at TPCi consider a LOT more things than just what would be good/bad for the players. I'm absolutely certain that if you saw the constraints and considerations they had to deal with, you'd view best-of-3 swiss differently.

Anyway, I can see that you just have a different opinion about what's feasible and what's not. In practice, rounds with X-minute time limits actually last X minutes plus 10-25% longer (inbetween-round time). And, that's if nothing unforeseen happens. If you've ever done project or budget planning, you ALWAYS need to make room for the unknown.

No improvement is ever free.

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

Also, don't refer to me in my real name please, Tina.

Hypocrit! :tongue:

 

[Sabett]

Child labor laws prohibit excessively long hours. Although I can't quote you, I'll bet there's something, somewhere governing acceptable hours for children who participate in competition.

Regarding a 2-day Worlds, you need to consider other all things, not just the competition. The planners and budgeters at TPCi consider a LOT more things than just what would be good/bad for the players. I'm absolutely certain that if you saw the constraints and considerations they had to deal with, you'd view best-of-3 swiss differently.

Anyway, I can see that you just have a different opinion about what's feasible and what's not. In practice, rounds with X-minute time limits actually last X minutes plus 10-25% longer (inbetween-round time). And, that's if nothing unforeseen happens. If you've ever done project or budget planning, you ALWAYS need to make room for the unknown.

No improvement is ever free.

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


Hypocrit! :tongue:

I know for a fact that children play magic for that long in tournaments, and child labor laws going into voluntary recreational events sounds a bit iffy to me, but if it came down to that then it could be limited to age groups as well as tournaments.

I considered that budget could be a problem in my post, but I bet there's has to be more to it than that.

This thread was also made not to exactly discuss the practicality of best of 3 games, but that if it were possible would you want it to happen.

I referred to her name as a joke, but she does have her name right there in the sig, lol.

 

[yoyofsho16]

Really? Losing a game-of-chance/skill to luck is unfair? I don't get that argument.

Losing a game-of-pure-skill to luck is unfair. Pokemon is no-such game.

FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT!

Pokemon is partial luck. Eliminating the luck factor is part of the game, and the fact that it still happens sometimes is also part of the game. If your deck is built the best it can be, your luck factor is just as good as anybody else, whether they're a 1900 rated player or a 1500 rated player.

 

[Victory Bell]

FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT!

Pokemon is partial luck. Eliminating the luck factor is part of the game, and the fact that it still happens sometimes is also part of the game. If your deck is built the best it can be, your luck factor is just as good as anybody else, whether they're a 1900 rated player or a 1500 rated player.

Pokemon players do their best to eliminate luck. But is it possible to make a deck "the best it can be"? Pokemon decks arent set in stone; their more of a jello.

More on topic, how would it even be possible to do 2 day regs and longer nats/worlds. Sunday regs become impossable depending on reg size. (Either that or you masters get to get out at 2 drive for 2+ hours and go to work in 2 more. :/ What fun. Masters nats attendence is predicted to still soar even more this year. Plus juniors and seniors attendence will drop dramaticly at local large events cause non player parents wont like sitting around for 9-10 hours and well into the night with late start time. Even if there arent laws against it, that doesent mean they will still go.

*all based on the fact that POP extends rounds*

 

[Sabett]

FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT!

Pokemon is partial luck. Eliminating the luck factor is part of the game, and the fact that it still happens sometimes is also part of the game. If your deck is built the best it can be, your luck factor is just as good as anybody else, whether they're a 1900 rated player or a 1500 rated player.

You haven't been reading my posts, I'm not trying to eliminate luck, I'm trying to diminish it to a manageable degree, luck shouldn't be able to tell you so strongly that you're going to lose before you can make any decision.

Pokemon players do their best to eliminate luck. But is it possible to make a deck "the best it can be"? Pokemon decks arent set in stone; their more of a jello.

More on topic, how would it even be possible to do 2 day regs and longer nats/worlds. Sunday regs become impossable depending on reg size. (Either that or you masters get to get out at 2 drive for 2+ hours and go to work in 2 more. :/ What fun. Masters nats attendence is predicted to still soar even more this year. Plus juniors and seniors attendence will drop dramaticly at local large events cause non player parents wont like sitting around for 9-10 hours and well into the night with late start time. Even if there arent laws against it, that doesent mean they will still go.

*all based on the fact that POP extends rounds*

Day 2 would have a cut, so not everyone would be playing for all 2 days, also only a small amount of people would be playing at the end of day two, in fact it might even be over before the end of that day. I also said that having this specific to certain age groups is still an option, so that eliminates the parent factor.