Prize Penalty Issue

[tutti]

But that negativity you are referring to is an opinion- a quality specific to that particular moment.

To put it into perspective better to suit that the penalties are not in need of improvement, as the player commiting the action you would have to think on the situation. Since everyone loves talking of Durant, I'll continue-

IF the player opts not to take the prize, then the player is now aware that their opponent has full control of the game (at least to an extent) and is priveleged in knowing information revealed through the penalty (such that a card that may have been useful was the random one put back).

IF the player takes the penalty, the player now has to see that the game can change more than what was expected. That drawn card could be anything. It may hurt, it may help. But regardless, you won't find out until their next draw, where afterwards they could play the prize or the card they drew, and you'll never quite know which was which or if it was still in their hand. It's a large disadvantage in terms of you just don't know what is going to happen, but now there are more options, applicable or not.

For "better" players, they will be able to play around it, but that's irrelevant as not "Everyone" is better.

The situation you described is, if I understand the playstyle of Durant decks, actually quite common in such decks when it comes to penalties, isn't it? I believe it also is a general problem with penalties for Gengar-based decks, although I'll admit I know little of those.

Besides, the fact that sometimes the penalty will benefit the offending player no matter what is an argument for changing the penalty system, not against.

 

[Roarkiller]

How about this, we assume that there is a change in ruling, and now penalties include, as suggested:

1) LZing a card from the deck.
2) Prize not taken, but the opponent requires one less prize to take to win.

Option two has been disregarded because of the difficulty in implementation; it's just that hard to keep track without using means that either worsen the situation or overcomplicates the matter. A special token, for example, can be misplaced, while a written note may be forgotten.

Option one is just plain odd. It does nothing to rectify the situation, nor does it help the situation.

I believe last time there was a certain penalty where, instead of just taking a prize, the player in the wrong also has to add a card from his deck to his prizes, essentially making it a multiple-prize loss. We can reverse this and just rule it as, instead of taking a prize, an extra prize is added.

Which of course does nothing to change the fact that it still benefits the wrongdoer.

I think we're missing the fact that the TCG is supposed to mirror the video game, and the six prizes are supposed to mirror KOing six of your opponent's pokemon, the max you can carry in your party. The other win conditions are simply there to compliment this first win condition: if there are no pokemon on the field, you can't take a prize. Similarly, in a deck out, the same thing can happen, aside from the fact that decking out is often a lose condition in the majority of TCGs currently existing. Prize penalties still mirror this game parallel, hence are used as the basis for penalties besides warnings and game losses.

Lost Zone, however, does not.

Before anyone starts bombarding me with stuff like how the health of the game is more important than trying to follow the VG too closely, remember that the TCG exists only because the VG does. The VG rules comes first, like it or not. The Lost Zone is supposed to add depth to the game without distubing with the overall mechanics of the game too much. If we start using the LZ in penalties, we are already messing with the mechanics, indirectly messing up the game state even more.

And that is NOT what a penalty should EVER do.

EDIT: As my final word, I strongly believe that you do not change a rule simply because a card/deck exists that can abuse this. The penalties are there for the general INTENDED metagame, and as far as I know, there has never been a metagame where a deck taking six prizes is a minority. And after over a decade, there's no reason to believe there will be.

Mewtwo EX anyone? Yeah.

 

[ChaosJim]

How about this, we assume that there is a change in ruling, and now penalties include, as suggested:

1) LZing a card from the deck.
2) Prize not taken, but the opponent requires one less prize to take to win.

Option two has been disregarded because of the difficulty in implementation; it's just that hard to keep track without using means that either worsen the situation or overcomplicates the matter. A special token, for example, can be misplaced, while a written note may be forgotten.

As it is right now, when there are time extensions given, judges often make a written note on a match slip. While not saying #2 as listed is perfect, I think it is far from "overcomplicating" since it is identical in complexity to a thing we already have.

Option one is just plain odd. It does nothing to rectify the situation, nor does it help the situation.

If my opponent accidentally draws extra cards, or otherwise incurs a prize penalty, me drawing that prize doesn't rectify the situation. Any form of a penalty against that player does help however, since it sends them the message that the type of play they made (intentional or unintentional) isn't acceptable, and should curb their behavior for next time.

I think we're missing the fact that the TCG is supposed to mirror the video game, and the six prizes are supposed to mirror KOing six of your opponent's pokemon, the max you can carry in your party. The other win conditions are simply there to compliment this first win condition: if there are no pokemon on the field, you can't take a prize. Similarly, in a deck out, the same thing can happen, aside from the fact that decking out is often a lose condition in the majority of TCGs currently existing. Prize penalties still mirror this game parallel, hence are used as the basis for penalties besides warnings and game losses.

Lost Zone, however, does not.

Also, after you win worlds, Cynthia or Your Rival doesn't step out and reveal that they are actually the champion and you must defeat them too. That doesn't mean there is a problem with the TCG.

Before anyone starts bombarding me with stuff like how the health of the game is more important than trying to follow the VG too closely, remember that the TCG exists only because the VG does. The VG rules comes first, like it or not. The Lost Zone is supposed to add depth to the game without distubing with the overall mechanics of the game too much. If we start using the LZ in penalties, we are already messing with the mechanics, indirectly messing up the game state even more.

First, it isn't your place to assume designer intent on the Lost Zone. The TCG exists only to build the Pokémon brand and generate revenue. If you want to zoom out beyond the TCG for your argument, I feel like it is cherry-picking to only include the video game. Pokémon is a brand, and it is in the best interest of the brand to make sure that their niche customers (people who play only the TCG, or only the VG, or only collect plushes, etc) are satisfied with the products and experiences offered to them. In the original post, Ness expressed that he was dissatisfied with something about the Pokémon TCG Organized Play experience. Instead of just whining, he expressed that he believed there were viable solutions. Through the course of the thread, not only have some others agreed with him, but the agreeing constituency has refined potential solutions. Even some who would disagree can concede that the suggested fixes have improved through this thread.

 

[Ness]

I strongly disagree that it is unhealthier for the game to fix this penalty loophole than to change a simple penalty structure. I also disagree that penalties should exist to benefit the "general metagame." That's just plain silly. No one's opponents should be allowed to screw up the game with no ramifications simply because of the Pokémon you choose to play in your deck.

 

[tutti]

Nobody's allowed to screw up the game with no ramifications though. Penalties accumulate and escalate.

 

[meganium45]

Ness, after hosting more events?

Who in this game right now has hosted more events than me, Terry Kamm? BDS??

That is about it.

Just because I disagree with your position, it may actually be because I disagree with you position, and not because I have not thought about it enough or had enough experience.

I respect both the thought, and the opinion that you are bringing forward here. I just happen to disagree with the opinion.

Maybe after you have run a few more tournaments you will understand LOL(seriously joking here).

Vince

 

[SteveP]

Experience can both help and hurt you. It can give you better insight/widsom, but it can also make you appear stubborn.

When growing up, I didn't like it when adults insisted that I "see it their way" because they were older. As an adult, I now dislike it when others claim their oppinion matters more because they have more experience.

We need to argue this on its merits. Any penalized action that can actually benefit the offender, should be rectified. We can disagree about the solution, but the problem remains. We can either make judges aware and let them rectify it by discretion, or we can codify it in the penalty guidelines and "force the judges' hands." I prefer the former solution.

 

[meganium45]

Allow judges to rectify it by discretion? Why does that phrase terrify me so?

Are we speaking the discretion of the judge, the player, or both?

There is no doubt that Ness and I both have strong opinions on this subject, and frankly aren't afraid to share them, and our opinions about them with each other.

How often do you really get one of the consensus top players in the world get to debate with, well, how do I say this without just stating it, a judge who has been chosen by Play! Pokemon to HJ US Nationals and Worlds?

I also like to think I have the ear of the Play!Pokemon people a bit, so when I raise an opinion or suggestion on a subject, it may actually get listened to.

I didn't simply brush off his suggestion, I analyzed it and challenged it. We can agree to disagree.

There are all sorts of penalties that do not do the opposing party ONE bit of good...the pass interference penalty on a completed pass, holding penalty when you get the 10 yard sack, a balk on a wild pitch...

The penalty is there, you just may have to decline it once in a while.

Vince

 

[SteveP]

A penalty that actually benefits the offender isn't a penalty at all. Likewise, an infraction that goes unpunished is unjust. It's nice when the victim gets some satisfaction, but I agree with you that justice sometimes goes unsatisified (in the victim's eye) when the victim is dead-set on imposing the most strict or unreasonable penalty.

I value your opinion Vince, and I value Jason's too. Experience and status mean something, but depending on the delivery and content of that message, reception of it might not always seem like you expect.

Letting a judge use discretion scares you? Really? I'm not talking about boundless discretion, rather, I'm suggesting circumstantial discretion within the guidelines. Judges are allowed to escalate the penalty. There might be situations like those discussed earlier in this topic where a game-loss would be proper.

I'm wondering if it would be possible to make penalties a high-level tie-breaker in the standings. That would certainly be harsh for those "on the bubble."

 

[ShuckleLVX]

A penalty that actually benefits the offender isn't a penalty at all. Likewise, an infraction that goes unpunished is unjust. It's nice when the victim gets some satisfaction, but I agree with you that justice sometimes goes unsatisified (in the victim's eye) when the victim is dead-set on imposing the most strict or unreasonable penalty.

No infraction goes unpunished. Even if you decline the prize penalty in favor of whatever game mechanic you want to use or whatever game mechanic you think your opponent is using or whatever whim crosses your mind, it's still written down. If that player shows a habit of making the same, or similar, mistakes, the penalty will quickly get escalated. Believe it or not, we pay attention to that, throughout the event and even across multiple events. Vinces reference to football penalties is spot on - Sometimes, the penalties just don't matter. But they will be tracked. Don't ever assume that just because a penalty is declined, or that it makes no impact in your game, that it isn't a penalty at all.

If a player, on his turn, with one prize left to his opponents six and the means to take that prize, makes a mistake awarding his opponent a prize penalty, would you complain that the penalty system is ineffective because it was really no penalty at all?

 

[tutti]

If a player, on his turn, with one prize left to his opponents six and the means to take that prize, makes a mistake awarding his opponent a prize penalty, would you complain that the penalty system is ineffective because it was really no penalty at all?

Assuming the opponent also aims to win by taking prizes, there was a penalty. It changed the game in the opponent's favour, it just wasn't enough to make them win the game. Prize penalties aren't meant to make the offender lose the game every time, if they were then they would just issue game losses anyway.

 

[ShuckleLVX]

And there IS a penalty even if you decline to take the prize card in any other situation, or the prize card doesn't really affect the outcome of the game (just like in the situation I described.)

 

[SteveP]

The football analogy by Vince that a 10-yard holding penalty after a 10-yard sack is really a non-penalty is not a good analogy in this situation. Two things happened. 1) The defense made a great play, and 2) the offense did something wrong. Declining the holding penalty is a no-brainer (loss of down versus repeat down). The defense always has the option to take the action that hurts the offense the most. However, in the prize penalty scenario, only 1 thing happened. The player did something wrong. Accepting or declining the prize-take is not a "cut-n-dry" choice. One choice might actually help your opponent more than it helps you, while the other choice does nothing at all to your opponent NOR you. That's a far-cry from the football scenario where you at least have a choice to hurt your opponent.

Logging a penalty might lead to escalation, but that provides little satisfaction to rectify the infraction at-hand. A penalty MUST hurt the offender or HELP the victim, or BOTH (or give the judge/victim the choice to make that "hurt" happen by other means).

Sure, life is plentiful with examples of unpunished crimes. However, I truly believe in devine providence. Someday, those criminals will get their come-up-ens, unless they seek and acquire devine mercy.:thumb:

 

[NoPoke]

Just because the prize penalty does not put a Durant player closer to the win condition they are going for does not mean that it should be changed as a penalty.

It does still give them access to one of their Prize cards and even Durant players can need something from their prizes to win.

 

[SteveP]

Just because the prize penalty does not put a Durant player closer to the win condition they are going for does not mean that it should be changed as a penalty.

It does still give them access to one of their Prize cards and even Durant players can need something from their prizes to win.

Why is Electrode prime so popular now? Because it triggers Twins and Black Belt. But, that's a legitimate, non-penalty game mechanic.

A Durant player who forgets to lay out his prizes, then catches the mistake almost immediately, triggers Twins NOT by a game mechanic, but by a penalty (if the prize-take is accepted).

So, if your opponent makes a mistake, and the penalty is designed to either hurt him or help you under normal circumstances, why would that NOT be a problem if the penalty failed to do either under unusual circumstances?

 

[NoPoke]

Twins Scramble.. the prize penalty has always come with that potential. Just as knocking out pokemon may not give you an advantage either. You can chose when you attack and thus when you take your prizes. With the prize penalty you still get to choose if you wish to take it.


The prize card is not the only component to the penalty. Offending players are not getting off scot free.

Twins etc players who attempt to engineer a prize penalty may get more than they desire.

 

[meganium45]

Spoken like another judge who has a Game Loss award under his belt for a player who was played the Twins after the Prize penalty was issued.

(Actually, mine was due to a scramble being played on turn 1 back in the day for a Prize Penalty/Donk, but the player was not that shocked that I accused him of not just the initial prize penalty, but of gamesmanship as well).

Doesn't take long for judges to catch up to this kind of stuff.

Vince

 

[Diaz]

Can you elaborate on that? You aren't saying that you gave a prize penalty, then the offending player played twins and was given given a game loss, are you? (or that theoretically you would?)
Posted with Mobile style...

 

[meganium45]

171717171717171717

 

[SteveP]

So, in your opinion, a player who has Twins should be restricted from playing that card after a he gets a prize-take penalty; otherwise, he get's a game-loss?