PokeThoughts By Dave II: Procedures Problem?

[Ardoptres]

IMO, it should be 30 min. + 3 min..

 

[lik]

YGO’s has the +3 turns when the time is called: the current turn player finishes the turn, then the opponent has 1 turn, then the turn player has the 2 turn, and the opponent has the last (3) turn. And if it is still a tie, then it goes to sudden-death. It works pretty wells, since each player has 2 turns after the time, it eliminates the player just stalling for the win.

 

[dld4a]

Adam - I truly hope a balance can be found.

I hope so. Thirty minutes + five turns really doesn't seem like too big a deal to put into place. Nice article by the way dld4a. I wish I had more to say on the issue but what Ice'Cold suggests here sounds plausible and fair.

Thank you.

 

[Master_Whiscash_77]

I don't see why free play wouldn't be allowable with the new fossil ruling. There would be no reason to stall.

Free Play Pods would fix the problem up the best, but it would get sooo many complaints if we turned to pods.

if you have as much time as you want, some people will not see any problem in taking 10+ minutes on a turn. they have time to plan out exactly the best move, and exactly what their opponent will do in the next two or three turns so they don't mess up. Games could potentially go for hours.

 

[Professor_Rocket]

I am a little late chiming in...

but a "+X" system to me sounds like "X" should be a predictable number based on the state of the game. Look at the number of prize cards remaining. Whichever player has the highest number of prize cards remaining determines the number of rounds (or X). One round for each of his/her prize cards remaining. 6 prizes left, 6 extra rounds. 3 prizes remaining/3 rounds. This forces an assumption that after 30 minutes of game play, a player is firmly set up on the board and can take a prize card every turn to finish their win condition. Since the opponent has fewer prize cards remaining, it assumes that they can take all of their prizes in less than "X" turns, so this will not hurt them in finishing their win condition either . X should never exceed 6 turns and in my limited experience, never be more than roughly 10 minutes.

I admit not reading every post but scanned enough to develop my opinion. Sorry if it is a replication of previous similar statements.

Professor_Rocketokeball:

 

[Ice'Cold]

if you have as much time as you want, some people will not see any problem in taking 10+ minutes on a turn. they have time to plan out exactly the best move, and exactly what their opponent will do in the next two or three turns so they don't mess up. Games could potentially go for hours.

Doesn't happen, the longer they take, the longer EVERYONE including themselves has to stay at the event. There is pressure on the players to get their game finished to get on to the next round and get on with the tournament. And believe me, if ANYBODY took a 10 minute turn while I was judging they would definitely be severly penalized.

 

[NoPoke]

re pace of play during the +5

Doesn't happen, the longer they take, the longer EVERYONE including themselves has to stay at the event. There is pressure on the players to get their game finished to get on to the next round and get on with the tournament....

And there we differ. My experience of magics +5 (and this is after an hour of play already) is that the pace of play during those +5 turns slows down. I've never seen it speed up ever and it so rarely continues at the same pace that I can't recall any occasions where this happened.

If we go for a +3 or +5 or +whatever then we should be under no illusion that the pace of play during those turns will slow down. It may not necessarilly slow down to the point that players have to be penalised but it will slow down nevertheless. I'm not against a +X turns approach. I'd just prefer us to try to enforce the existing guidelines first.

 

[dld4a]

If we go for a +3 or +5 or +whatever then we should be under no illusion that the pace of play during those turns will slow down. It may not necessarilly slow down to the point that players have to be penalised but it will slow down nevertheless.

Agreed. I've experienced it myself, from both sides. When time expires and the game is on the line it's natural to want to make sure everything is right.

I'm not against a +X turns approach. I'd just prefer us to try to enforce the existing guidelines first.

Existing guidelines? Enforce time per turn guidelines? Is it possible? (If that's what your talking about)

 

[NoPoke]

Is it possible to enforce the slow play guidelines?

I run a mental count from the instant that a player performs an action to the moment that they start a different action. So while the player is thinking I'm counting. If one player is bumping into a count of 20 then its definately time for a comment. If they keep running my mental counts into the high teens then we are in the land of slow play and time extensions.

The only time when I'm 'powerless' is when both players drop their pace of play. I'm not going to reward either one with a time extension under that curcumstance. Though I will comment and be less forgiving in subsequent rounds.

 

[Bitmancer]

Hold to time, but what about player age?

First of all its nice to know that POP employees actually look at serious discussions about something that has been a problem in this game for awhile. We always hear the "sour grapes" about people needing just one more turn, or the player who just manages to hold a one prize lead right at the end, even though it is very clear had the game progressed one or two more turns the end outcome would be very different. That said, timed matches are a reality, there HAS to be a point at which the game must end, there must in order to run multiple rounds in a single day, each game cannot take more than a set amount of time. Pokemon, as all card games still takes a lot from the father of all TCG's, magic. Being a magic player myself the logical solution for still the most popular TCG in the world was the 5 turn extension. When time is called, active player finishes their turn, then 5 more turn commence, effectively giving each player 3 turns (we add the turn that the player is currently finishing, then they get two more). To determine a more fair outcome without the need to stall, and belive me, during those 5 turns slow play is more severely enforced. It just seems like the most logical solution for pokemon as well, maybe not 5 turns exactly but it seems like the pokemon community is leaning toward that decision.

I concur, except that some sanctioned M:tG tourneys have recently gone to just counting "finish current turn plus two more each".
In Legend of the Five Rings, for which I have been a Judge and TO for a few years, we hold to 45 minute rounds, plus 3 minutes to decide who is the winner. After the 48th minute the Judge awards a tie, but in our Tourney scoring that can be worse than a loss.
That method covers stalls, limits Swiss round length, and keeps the Tourney flowing.
The usual number of L5R Tournament players too young to drive is very small. That is not the case for Pokemon, so the situation may need to be modified to take age of player into account.
Can you PTO folks reasonably expect Juniors to do this? <<<--- asked in teacher-to-teacher tone, not confrontational

 

[Ice'Cold]

Obviously magic and other adult oriented games have a bit more leeway time wise, as tournaments can take a lot longer. That said I have been to regionals that have gone well into midnight, so we already have tournaments that have been lasting that long anyways. Most of the time that is just the masters though, and the juniors and seniors almost always finish well before that. As for play slowing down we already have instances of that happening, when two players are tied on prizes and the next prize wins, those turns usually take fairly long no? 3 Turns might be a more acceptible number for pokemon if we are concered about time, effectively giving each player and additional two turns of play, with a judge present of course.

 

[dld4a]

Is it possible to enforce the slow play guidelines?

I run a mental count from the instant that a player performs an action to the moment that they start a different action. So while the player is thinking I'm counting. If one player is bumping into a count of 20 then its definately time for a comment. If they keep running my mental counts into the high teens then we are in the land of slow play and time extensions.

That sounds like a very good system, but from my experience, you're one in a hundred (maybe a thousand). Even then you are only one person and can only watch one game at a time. In my opinion, we'll never have enough judges, to watch, enough games, catch enough slow players/stallers to sufficiently inhibit stalling, or encourage faster play as the case may be. Rules that penalize slow play (or at least don't reward it) are a must combination with the system you suggest.

As for play slowing down we already have instances of that happening, when two players are tied on prizes and the next prize wins, those turns usually take fairly long no?

Yea, but it doesn't happen nearly as often as a +X would create.

 

[Ice'Cold]

Seems like what we need is some testing.