Restoring skill to the Pokemon TCG

[Regis_Neo]

For top cut that would be fairly interesting, as for Nats and Worlds those take place on the 2nd day, so the remaining players should have time to recuperate from the day before. But even then, I wouldn't say to do best of 5 for all players in the top 32; with more matches, there comes the chance for more errors to be made (like misrecording a match), more fatigue for both players and judges, etc. So in that vein, perhaps best of 5 for like the top 8 or so, the ones that have the greater shot at prizes with more at risk.

Still though, a counter-argument could be that that it could give the "worse" opponent who would normally lose, a chance to stage a luck-filled comeback; let's say someone takes a 2-1 lead, then proceeds to lose 2 straight times to donks. In such a case, more games doesn't do anything; if anything, luck has just as much of a chance to occur as the number of games to advance increases, if not more since it would be drawn out.

For what it's worth I like the current T1 rules, it's not like we haven't played with them before if you're a longtime player (speaking to the general public here), and I definitely don't remember as much QQ back then compared to now; granted it was a bit of a different environment, but say once babies get phased out (or lose popularity, because that seems to be the main reason for whining since so many people run Cleffa and counter with Tyrogue, so they all put themselves at risk for T1 donks), things will be better with that regard, as that seems to be the main source of donks with no more Crobat Gs and Sableye. As for the ban list, that would be a generally unpopular move I'd say to the players; imagine having to go through the hassle of explaining to younger players why they can't use their favorite cards again, or making the older ones annoyed since that's then more deck switching, which just inevitably will lead to the rise of another popular deck archetype regardless.

 

[Prof Clay]

I am with you on a modification of turn 1 Jason. But we also have to be sure not to sway things in favor the other way too...going 2nd under our previous rules did give player 2 an advantage as well.

We may have some leeway in our tournament rules for a slight modification of turn 1 if it can be shown with stats that the player going 1st has an unfair advantage...talking about it is great, but putting numbers down can make a stronger argument.

Definitely keep discussing the issue guys...

Dan is a great guy to email and keep in the loop about rules mods...he does listen...he may not be able to make a change we all want, but he does listen and read these posts

 

[P_A]

( ) Thoroughly understands purpose & reasoning of ideas discussed in thread
( ) Has general grasp of concepts discussed in thread
(x) Doesn't get it

Ha, funny. Good one. However I think I have the point of what you are trying to discuss. I just can't fathom why you think that introducing the possibility of more stress and fatigue into the system is gonna make it better? The players already get upset about poor judging on occasion. The players already have admitted that longer events have made them make mistakes. Introducing longer top cuts - whether you believe 2 hour best of 5 will make longer events or not (in my opinion you'd be silly not to think so), I think will create more problems than it solves. Sure Jason, the most resillient, the most skilled, the most under fatigued person would win out. However how good would the judging be at that point? How could you assure the rest of the world that something wasn't caught that shouldn't have happened by the fatigue of both players and judges? It doesn't matter if they are good players, average players, or even great players. Repeated mistakes or no mistakes. You will never have the best solution. Sure you can make suggestions to eliminate the worst of the problems, but is this really the reason why the cream doesn't rise to the top? Causing more stress and fatigue won't make it better. I honestly can't believe that suggestion could possibly and realistically work - regardless of all your good intention. Hey, I guess by your standards, perhaps I really don't "get it," but if so, you aren't making a clear enough argument for change, which your solution can become the ONLY solution. Good luck.

 

[Yoshi-]

Hes not talking about how we shoulld do it, just that its nessesary to do something

 

[SteveP]

Years ago during the WOTC era, I ran a Colorado States tournament using best-of-3 for swiss and top-X. IMO, the best players with the best decks came out on top. More games certainly helps the skilled players rise to the top.

Nevertheless, with over a dozen years playing, judging, and advocating this game, I've come to the opinion that while skill is important to some players, it will never become a prime objective for premier OP. IMO, there is a decent balance in Pokemon between "fun" (luck) and skill.

Many of us know who the Pokemon elite are. We don't need to see them topX-ing major every tournament to justify their elite-ness. Tiger Woods not making the cut at the Masters didn't remove him from the PGA elite.

Anyway, I fully agree that more games makes for more skill, but I disagree that it's abolutely necessary to make Pokemon OP better.


Regarding the Worlds LCQ: I do agree that 45-minute, best-of-3, does NOT do justice for best-of-3. In fact, in some cases, it's worse than 1-game, 40-minute matches. If you're going to do multi-game matches, you need to support them fully -- not half-way.

 

[Cyrus]

Hes not talking about how we shoulld do it, just that its nessesary to do something

And I think P_A's point is that "anything" you do regarding point three (play more games) will lead to several unintended consequences that are negative for player skill (fatigue; bad judging). The question though is this: are the downsides worth the gain? To me they'd be, but to others, maybe not. While I don't know if best-of-five will ever be practical in any venue outside of a Nationals/Worlds championship match, it'd be nice to at least see swiss become best-of-three.

RE topic as a whole: another fun read, but you need to realize that points one and two are just as "out of our control" as point three...And by that, I mean that they're all things that aren't out of control. If we really don't like the first turn rules, then it helps to complain about them; if we really don't like the direction that PCL is taking the game, then is also helps to complain about it. Sure, there are more productive places to complain than others, but sometimes outfits will just continue with business as usual if there is no criticism.

 

[K2theAblaM]

It's not the first turn that's overpowered, it's the ability to evolve T2 to more powerful pokemon that is the real decider when your opponent hasn't even had a chance to evolve their bench/attacker yet. Factor in the possibility of not opening with a Pkmn Collector AND going second, it turns an even matchup into an unfavorable one and an unfavorable matchup to a near auto-loss.

With that said, I want to focus the discussion on the ability to set up and how going first factors in. By going first, you've already drawn 2 cards, and have the ability to play 2 supporters while your opponent has only the possibility of playing 1 and drawing a single card. To even this out, I suggest:

1. Coin flip winner gets choice of going first OR second.

2. First turn player cannot play supporters. This limits the strength of opening with a pokemon collector in hand but players will still have the option of benching their pokemon through pokemon communication, dual ball, pichu and cards like stantler and minun for the second urn. Although you can still evolve on the second turn, your set-up is still hindered enough where it handicaps the benefit of going first and being able to evolve first. You are forced to rely on your deck build and ability to successfully evolve your attackers turn 2 with a handicaped setup to fully take advantage of going first.

OR

3. First turn player does not draw an extra card when he/she opens the game. This is something borrowed from M:TG and I think would work well for our game as well. Limiting the starting hand is a a way to handicap the benefit of going first and might be the difference between topdecking a collector or oak's theory to save a potentially bad hand.


I don't necessarily agree on making the rounds longer or making the matches Bo5 since all that would do tire people out. What I would like to see is the same number of games played, but have the sudden death/time out rules changed to accommodate longer games. I recently participated in this years Grinder's and hated the fact that faster decks got the edge over longer, set up variants like typhlosion/reshiram, and Magneboar simply because their strategy relies on late game power rather than early strikes. I'll put it this way, If Ross's top 2 deck were somehow being played through the grinder this year, it would have a ZERO chance of surviving the first round, let along topping the entire field. It's an extremely patient (read: slow) build meant to set up for a late game comeback. It's not uncommon for that deck to drop 2-6 in prizes and still win the game. The time limit takes away from a certain dimension of the game and forces a fast style reliant upon coin flips (reversal & first turns to be exact) to win. Set up decks and slower decks really had no chance this year to survive..

 

[espeon200]

RE topic as a whole: another fun read, but you need to realize that points one and two are just as "out of our control" as point three...And by that, I mean that they're all things that aren't out of control. If we really don't like the first turn rules, then it helps to complain about them; if we really don't like the direction that PCL is taking the game, then is also helps to complain about it. Sure, there are more productive places to complain than others, but sometimes outfits will just continue with business as usual if there is no criticism.

At the same time, I think this is a dangerous thing to say. Yes, there are things in the game that we wish would be changed. There are things in this game that really need to be changed to improve the overall health of the game. We need to make our opinions known to the higher ups at TPCi so that they can keep an eye on player satisfaction with the game. But the second it becomes complaining it starts to lose credibility.

Let me define what mean by complaining. Complaining is starting a 7th "CATCHER IZ GOIN TO RIUN TEH GAME!!1!" thread. Complaining is getting on an internet forum and using a bunch of theorymon to create panic about a new card or a new game mechanic six months before it is even released. We "complain" too much on the gym. It makes it much more difficult to get a point across when something legitimately is going to ruin the game. It was said on one of the other threads that it turns into "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf." TPCi isn't run by the mob, even when the mob happens to be right.

What we need more of is constructive criticism. This post is an excellent example of that. Ness made his points clearly and concisely and gave reasoning behind what he was suggesting. Are there problems with what he is suggesting? Sure. To go to Bo5 games in swiss at some major events could take them from being 3-day events to being week-long extravaganzas. It also does put a lot more stress on the judging staff and creates more player fatigue. Especially when things beyond the organizer's control happen such as TOM deciding to take a vacation right before the first round of swiss.

Another example of constructive criticism that happened recently was J-Wittz's video about how broken Sabledonk made the game if trainers could be played turn one. The thing about that example is he was able to look past the "complaining" that was going on everywhere and criticize the way the new approach "broke" the game. He used logic and YouTube to great effect and that combined with some of the more level-headed comments of players who weren't happy with the rule convinced TPCi to do an early rotation.

Sometimes even the best criticism is ignored. Again, TPCi isn't ruled by the mob. Their decisions can be influenced by what the players suggest, but the second players start demanding that something be changed the criticism, no matter how valid, is treated as baseless complaining and ignored.

Now, I find it kind of ironic to post this here, because I don't think of most of the posters in this thread as "complainers." In fact these are some of the most level-headed topics on the gym, IMHO. But hopefully those who do complain will read this and understand that by trying to change something they are dooming their suggestions to be ignored.

TL;DR: Pokemon players "complain" too much. We need to be constructive in our criticism.

 

[Ness]

This idea that these longer tournaments will "wear people out" makes me laugh. Let's be realistic. First of all, I'm only asking for these longer series at Nationals & Worlds. When crowning a National and World Champion, I find it silly to have luck play such a tremendous role. It insults the game. These tournaments are three & two days long, respectively, and these schedules would be able to accommodate my suggestion. Additionally, keep in mind that I am suggesting more swiss rounds & a smaller Top Cut.

Anyone who has made the argument that increasing a series from Best of 3 to Best of 5 does not increase skill or actually increases luck is simply flat-out wrong and doesn't understand simple probability.

Some hypothetical examples:

U.S. Nationals, Masters. Say we have 850 Masters. Instead of doing 9 rounds and cutting to a Top 128, let's play 12-14 rounds and cut to Top 32.

Having this many rounds adds a lot more skill in determining who the better players are. Then, we cut to a smaller Top Cut, which gives us a lot of that time back since the Top Cut matches are Best of 5 and 2 hours long.

Hypothetical Nationals 2012 Schedule, Masters: To further prove my point at how practical my suggestion is, I am going to assume the maximum rounds (14), and also accommodate a +10 minute extension for time limits in swiss rounds.

Day 1 (40 minutes + 3 turns)
8:30 AM: Be seated, etc.
9 AM: Round 1
10 AM: Round 2
11 AM: Round 3
Lunch Break After Round 3
1 PM: Round 4
2 PM: Round 5
3 PM: Round 6
4 PM: Round 7
5 PM: Round 8
Finish @ 6 PM.

Day 2 (40 minutes +3 turns, 2 hours+3 turns)
8:30 AM: Be seated, etc.
9 AM: Round 9
10 AM: Round 10
11 AM: Round 11
Lunch Break After Round 11
1 PM: Round 12
2 PM: Round 13
3 PM: Round 14
4 PM: Deck checks/Dinner Break, Post Top 32
5 PM: Top 32 Match
Finish @ 7:15 PM.

Day 3 (Best 3 of 5, 2 hours+3 turns)
8:30 AM: Be seated, etc.
9 AM: Top 16
11:15 AM: Top 8
(Food provided for Top 8 inbetween rounds.)
2 PM: Top 4
4:15 PM: Finals
6:45 PM: Awards, etc.
Finish @ 7:30 PM.

Edit: Alternate, Shorter Timeframe (12 Rounds) Posted


Day 1 (35 minutes + 3 turns)
8:30 AM: Be seated, etc.
9 AM: Round 1
10 AM: Round 2
11 AM: Round 3
Lunch Break After Round 3
1 PM: Round 4
2 PM: Round 5
3 PM: Round 6
4 PM: Round 7
5 PM: Round 8
Finish @ 6 PM.

Day 2 (35 minutes +3 turns, 2 hours+3 turns)
8:30 AM: Be seated, etc.
9 AM: Round 9
10 AM: Round 10
11 AM: Round 11
12 PM: Round 12
Lunch Break / Deck Check After Round 12
2 PM: Top 32
4:15: Top 16
Finish @ 6:30 PM

Day 3 (Best 3 of 5, 2 hours+3 turns)
8:30 AM: Be seated, etc.
9 AM: Top 8
11:15 AM: Top 4
1:30: Lunch Break/ Final Tables Prepared
3 PM: Finals
5:30 PM Awards
Finish @ 6 PM.


If this seems to go a little bit longer than you are comfortable, remember we can cut one or two of the swiss rounds. Or, if you play as many as 14 rounds, you could even cut to Top 16. Now, who here wants to tell me this schedule is impractical or illogical? I have allowed for 20 minutes for +3 and sudden death games after each round, and that's even assuming swiss rounds were extended 10 minutes! I have given a lunch break of what will amount to a minimum of 1 hour (most players will get 1 hr, 15 minutes) both days as well.

If we can pull this off at the largest tournament of the World, creating the schedule for Worlds should be even easier. What's great about it is it allows everyone to play more Pokémon than they usually would. With all the luck in the game, a lot of people usually feel discouraged after only 9 rounds of Nationals, especially when some of the games ended on the first turn. This format gives more rounds to everyone, and then that allows us to cut to a smaller Top Cut.

I guess the real question to ask is: Who would rather see this format (and a similar format) determine our National & World Champions rather than our current format?

 

[Cyrus]

espeon200: Stupidity is not a prerequisite for a complaint, since you can be perfectly reasonable in the way you complain. Plus, constructive criticism is not mutually exclusive from complaining - you can have a perfectly sound, valid "complaint" for the sake of improving the system.

You probably would have been better served just saying, "I agree with you, but everyone should keep in mind that some complaints are better than others." Lol.

Ness: I notice you haven't jumped onto the top 8 bandwagon yet, and instead aim for a more inclusive top cut - why is that? Do you think the inclusiveness is naturally better for the game?

 

[vaporeon]

Maybe this can work. The player that goes first can do everything they do for going first. The player that goes second can evolve their Pokemon but can't attack. So when turn 3 comes around, no player has a real advantage over the other. Maybe you guys can try this out and see if it works.


K2theAblaM is right. The first turn is overpowered not because the player who goes first can play first but the fact they can evolve first and that is what makes going first so powerful.

 

[untitled]

^I think another simple thing to be added to that would be the player going first doesn't draw a card. The first damage on the board is ALWAYS an advantage. But like Ness said, we might as well not discuss it because it can't be changed.

 

[vaporeon]

^I think another simple thing to be added to that would be the player going first doesn't draw a card. The first damage on the board is ALWAYS an advantage. But like Ness said, we might as well not discuss it because it can't be changed.

This true but think about it. We can play supporters on the first turn and pokemon has a few raw draw cards so you can make up for not drawing that 1. It would be nice if they would change this though because when I go second, I feel my heart sink because I know I'm going to be at a huge disadvantage.

 

[untitled]

That used to happen to me, so I moved over to the Twinplume decks. It still sucks to go second, but not nearly as much. It's all about creativity and how you adapt to the changes they throw at you, even if they're obviously horrible for the game.

 

[Ness]

espeon200: Stupidity is not a prerequisite for a complaint, since you can be perfectly reasonable in the way you complain. Plus, constructive criticism is not mutually exclusive from complaining - you can have a perfectly sound, valid "complaint" for the sake of improving the system.

You probably would have been better served just saying, "I agree with you, but everyone should keep in mind that some complaints are better than others." Lol.

Ness: I notice you haven't jumped onto the top 8 bandwagon yet, and instead aim for a more inclusive top cut - why is that? Do you think the inclusiveness is naturally better for the game?

I think cutting to only a Top 8 defeats the purpose of what we are going for. You are punishing a lot of good players for not being lucky. Only letting in 8 of 850 players after 14 rounds means what, you have to go 12-2? (I am just guessing.) I think it's reasonable to expect even the best players to lose 3 games on average. Assuming 14 rounds, I think you would want to aim for the closest thing to all or most of the 11-3's getting in, possibly 10-4. I'm sure there is someone else here that is better at figuring that out than me. I think almost everyone would agree that you want to aim for a number of rounds and a size of Top Cut where most players who make the cut did so on having a good record, not on having good resistance. With one less round, 10-3 making the cut seems legit, too.

 

[vaporeon]

That used to happen to me, so I moved over to the Twinplume decks. It still sucks to go second, but not nearly as much. It's all about creativity and how you adapt to the changes they throw at you, even if they're obviously horrible for the game.

Change in deck can help but it should not have to come down to that. I already have the decks I want to play so I'll just have to deal with going second. To me, Vileplume is anything but creative but it does fix the going second issue.

 

[gallade]

Jason, I see where you are coming from, but it's a bit unfair to always have the top players always getting first. It really makes a kids day when they finally beat that player, the one that always snatches first place. And I can relate to this (because unlike someone I am not the eat player in the world). If I beat someone I really look up to it's really exciting. If there was no luck in the game it may never have happened. But I can also attest to being really P.O'd when I get donors or draw pass locked etc.

I think their needs to be a balance that is not currently being acheived in the current format.
Posted with Mobile style...

 

[Bolt]

Last year, Jason tried to get me to play him in a best of 9 series Gengar vs Gyarados. I don't think the general Pokemon player (let alone kids) can sit down and play a 2 hour, best of 5 series. But I definitely agree that playing more is the way to go. 90+3 for top cut, perhaps? Double Elimination top cut games?

 

[baby mario]

Jason, I see where you are coming from, but it's a bit unfair to always have the top players always getting first.

How is that unfair? I mean, it can see that beating a better player on luck might feel good (until you realise it was just luck), but if anything that would be unfair on the better player.

There would still be luck in the game and it would still be possible for a lesser player to win . . . but that should happen only rarely in an ideal world.

I am not the eat player in the world

I should hope not.

 

[Magic_Umbreon]

As you pair better players, the luck of the draw and coin flips ends up being the primary determining factor of who wins and loses.

You're a living counterexample lol :thumb:

re Gallade: That's an unmovable position I happen to share, but it's as foundational as the alternative view. Everyone's somewhere between the extremes of purely fun and purely competitive. I think it's fair to say that most successful players would lean towards the right and less successful players towards the left.

I think there's a middle ground, the ideal situation would be inverted to the situation Jason formalised. Differences between skill at the very top should be heavily weighted in the outcome, but for lower skill levels, luck should be a large factor. This would sustain appeal for all players. When I played during the delta cards era, it seemed close to this. It all comes down to the cards more than rules, as long as there are tech strategies available for the very best players to use for a significant advantage, the best will accordingly win, but the remainder with evenly balanced decks can enjoy the experience as gallade described. Everybody wins. The card designers should focus on producing cards that counter very specific strategies, but in a more complex sense than the Battle Frontier and Cursed Stone stadiums I remember.