Time limit for US Nationals Top Cut has been announced!

[Professor Dav]

Dave, what are you at liberty to discuss regarding the time change? As in, what can you tell us about the real reason/s why it was made?

We have always been aware that the community would like more time for finals rounds. We're also aware that other games have un-timed finals rounds, but far, far better management of stalling. It is also worth noting that the goal for a best of 3 match is not necessarily to have 3 full games played out. Rather, to have at *least* one solid game completed to determine a winner.

Part of the challenge for Pokemon, as opposed to most other games is the multi-age division play that we have to manage. There are huge differences in expectations for a tournament based solely on who's playing. We, and our PTO network have always felt that events should be "bedtime friendly", because parents like to not have cranky, overtired kids. It also, of course, makes for a far better tournament experience for players of all divisions.

Also, because many Masters are parents of Juniors or Seniors, there are problems with allowing the JR/SR divisions to wrap up many hours prior to Masters. That said, this year it's likely to happen that way, and those MA parents will have to manage the issue. And I fully expect we'll get some complaints about it.

Even those Masters players who don't care about staying up late end up caring quite a lot when the Judge staff is so wiped out that the quality of judging starts to suffer. This is something else that must be considered.

The biggest items we're trying to accommodate are the sequential finals matches, and featuring those matches. This is definitely something we've received feedback on over the years, and felt that the reasons to make that switch were compelling enough that we should try do so.

Once we had the approval to move on several of these items, we were free to work the schedule up accordingly.

I think overall that everyone should be pleased with the result of Nationals this year, but just like every year, it's just a stepping stone into the next season.

Thanks,
Prof Dav

 

[Ness]

It is also worth noting that the goal for a best of 3 match is not necessarily to have 3 full games played out. Rather, to have at *least* one solid game completed to determine a winner.

I'd like to touch on this concept because I think it is a dangerous mindset that produces unhealthy time limits for the game. When you have a time limit like 60 minutes or less, you almost always are going to get that one solid, complete game. The problem, though, is that the winner of the only full game might not even be the winner of the match!

To help illustrate an example, I'll use specific decks from this format, one slow, one fast:

Player A: Gothitelle/Accelgor
Player B: Plasma

Player A (Gothitelle) has gone first and wins its typically long, close match.

In Game 2, things go Player B's way. He either wins the match outright, or has just enough time to be declared the winner after drawing 4 prize cards -- even if Player A was mounting a comeback, a likely possibility. The series is now tied at 1-1 and now the winner of the match will be decided by a nearly skilless Sudden Death Game 3.

The extremely ironic result is that players would have produced a more legitimate winner with a Best-of-1 series than with this Best 2-of-3. The Best 2-of-3 simply resulted in a tied series (as about one half of them do) that was decided by a nearly skillless Sudden Death. Basically, the player with the slow deck either wins both Games 1 & 2 or faces an enormous disadvantage in a Sudden Death/low-time Game 3. He cannot win the series 1-0 as the Plasma player simply has the option to concede if the match drags too long, needing only enough time to draw 4 prize cards in Game 2.

I've touched on this before, and now that Nationals has implemented 75 minutes, I hope I won't have to keep trying to convince people the need for longer time limits. That post did make me a little nervous that we could at some point revert to lower time limits, though.

 

[KazamBolt]

I do want to make it known that as a player, I greatly appreciate both the 75 minute time limit and the fact that some of the decision makers in TPCi are discussing some of the issues with the players. It is a great step in the right direction and shows us that you do care about us and that you do at least read what we are writing.

Also, I think we all need to see that Dave is noting that many of these changes are being tried out for the first time, and definitely won't be perfect. We just need to give them a chance and continue to provide constructive and polite criticism.

 

[mattalvis]

Nice to hear 75 minutes will be implemented. Practical issues aside, I think most people understand it is better for the game.

Regardless of whether its implementation was in any way actually a response to the players' concerns, I found it a bit unprofessional for Dave to go out of his way to comment that it wasn't. If it really wasn't in response to players' concerns, then your response is kind of like a doctor saying, "God had nothing to do with it," in response to a wife's exclamation, "Thank God! It's a miracle!" after her husband recovers from some medical injury. I think everyone appreciates you coming on here and interacting with the community at large, but that was a little unnecessary.

 

[losjackal]

Matt, in all sincerity, did you read Dan's post above? The first few paragraphs explain how the change comes about by players working with PTO's and testing it out in local tournaments and providing evidence of the value. Not by "lobbying".

----

Gonna follow up on myself (cause I hate deleting), by explaining my definition of lobbying, and then probably leave this alone. The waters are settling anyway.

If I walk up to Dave or Dan every chance I see them, and try to persuade them to change something I don't like, that is lobbying. But change is usually hard to do in an organization, so something more is needed than just a whim. Persuading Regional PTO's to try 75 minutes is easier, and was successfully done earlier this year. With that input, and with other considerations for schedule figured out, the change was possible for Nationals.


The takeaway I would very much like the community to have is this: words alone are not enough to get a change made, no matter how loud or demanding they are. Want progress? Prove value. Prove usefulness. Prove savings. I'm doing what I can with online pairings and other online tools. I'd like to think Josh Wittenkiller's video a couple of years ago of Sabledonk helped prove the need for rotation, in addition to data collected during that one tournament where it was all legal. Give TPCi something to work with, and it helps them make a change.

 

[Ness]

The path Mr. Brandt suggests for implementing changes is actually the exact path we followed that led to 75 minutes at Nationals. After making our case to local TOs, we got 75 minutes at a few local events, then at all U.S. Regional Championships (except Philadelphia), and now I'm pleased to see 75 minutes has made its way to U.S. Nationals. (Let's hope Worlds is next!)

I feel like Mr. Brandt (an awesome guy that I've met personally) is trying to dig Mr. Schwimmer out of a hole for posting something the head of Organized Play simply shouldn't have posted. But rather than blow this out of proportion and continue to embrace this Players vs Judges/TPCi mentality, an annoying undertone of this board, we need to all be willing to see things from both sides of view and work in the best interest of the game together. We are all on the same team here.

 

[mattalvis]

Matt, in all sincerity, did you read Dan's post above? The first few paragraphs explain how the change comes about by players working with PTO's and testing it out in local tournaments and providing evidence of the value. Not by "lobbying".

I wasn't really commenting on whether lobbying was the cause for the change, nor whether lobbying is effective in general; rather, I was simply saying it was unnecessary and a bit unprofessional of Dave to respond as he did, i.e. to make sure everyone knew that voicing their legitimate concerns had nothing to do with the change. If he says it had nothing to do with it then I have no reason not to believe him, but then why say it at all?

Regarding the definition of lobbying, it is all really semantics. You seem to attach a negative connotation to it, I don't. As Jason mentioned above, the information requested is exactly the kind of evidence players and PTOs put forth in support of implementing 75-minute time limits, and when I talk about lobbying this is what I mean. I think what you are distinguishing between is effective and ineffective lobbying, and if what Dave was in fact referring to was ineffective lobbying then I welcome him to clarify as much.

 

[psychup2034]

Had nothing to do with lobbying, Jason. There are other considerations.

And the Gulf War had nothing to do with the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003. They had weapons of mass destruction.

 

[losjackal]

And the Gulf War had nothing to do with the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003. They had weapons of mass destruction.

Let's check what Dan said:

Your version of why we make the calls we do actually proves Dave's point: You can't actually fully understand why we do the things we do. It's not a slight on you, how could you take those things into account without being an employee here? The point is that if you decide that you know why we are doing a thing and you find that it makes no sense, arguing against the logic that you just made up does not help change things.

Honestly, I think your analogy fits appropriately the other way. If the Gulf War is all of the subtle considerations that players don't know about, and lobbying is the weapons of mass destruction argument, then yeah, it makes sense why you see things like that.


And maybe some of the considerations aren't subtle anymore. Some have already been stated:

While you may not believe it, there are many, many things that we'd like to see that align with what the player community would like to see. But again, there are other considerations that we have to take into account, that you do not, that make these things either difficult, or impossible to achieve, particularly within the RIGHT NOW timeline that most would prefer.

Also, because many Masters are parents of Juniors or Seniors, there are problems with allowing the JR/SR divisions to wrap up many hours prior to Masters. That said, this year it's likely to happen that way, and those MA parents will have to manage the issue. And I fully expect we'll get some complaints about it.

Given our current timeline, it looks like only the Juniors/Seniors may have to play a round or two on Sunday morning, depending on total attendance.

Also means that a lot of the staff who's working the event, who worked events all year, probably won't be able to either. I'd suggest that some sincere "thank you's" for the staff will be in order this year. Without them, this event isn't half of what it is today.

I don't want to take the space to quote this entire response from Dave to Cyrus, who asked for "the real reason/s why it was made":

http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2447591&postcount=41

 

[LibertyFigter]

Wowzers, this is really interesting, and despite being pretty new to this whole PTCG thing (meaning that I've heard cries for 75 minutes literally since I started playing last season) I have a few things to say.

1. The way for companies to be successful, in part, is by listening to their base and responding accordingly. Take Microsoft's huge makeover of the Xbox One-- players complained (not lobbying, but complaining) and were listened to, and the DRM and other undesirable features were removed. Imagine how Xbox's player base would have felt, if after that announcement, Microsoft made a point of holding a press conference just to say, "Yes, we removed undesirable features. However, it was not because our community was upset, we did it because we wanted to. The community was spouting vitriol and acting like kids crying for ice cream, we don't listen to that." Do you really think their sales would improve? That the community would be happy? I am doubtful.

2. I'll keep this one short, as it is slightly off topic. People get so frustrated in threads regarding TPCi and OP because we have no solid communication line, so angry people are left to fester, and reasonable voices get very tired with no response.

3. 75 minutes is great for the game. Seriously, I am ecstatic about this announcement. However, the idea that only one complete game is the goal for 75 minute best 2-of-3? Then why aren't we doing a single, untimed match? I think the reason is that the true goal is something else entirely-- to eliminate some of the less satisfying match win conditions (donking) and make the match more likely to be decided on skill, deck-building, and matchup than chance.

Anywho, I am extremely happy about the 75 minute announcement (even though I'm not going to Nats) and the time extension for the LCQ's best 2-of-3. I am fairly unhappy that this great announcement was sullied by the response that the players were not listened to. No reason to specify that, and I think it is a bad way to go about announcing good news.

 

[losjackal]

When I read about Microsoft yesterday, I thought similarly. However, the situations are somewhat different. Microsoft has Sony which completely annihilated the Xbox One with their announced product plans. Product Management is hard, you have to predict what the market will want and at what price. Clearly Microsoft though they could overly restrict, and luckily for the consumer there are competitors with alternatives. Yes, the potential customers were vocal, but there was a real threat of people switching to Sony. In our case here, players were just politely asking to know what the time limit was, and hoping it was 75 minutes, so that they could make a correct deck choice in time.

However, the idea that only one complete game is the goal for 75 minute best 2-of-3? Then why aren't we doing a single, untimed match? I think the reason is that the true goal is something else entirely-- to eliminate some of the less satisfying match win conditions (donking) and make the match more likely to be decided on skill, deck-building, and matchup than chance.

Your reasoning is right, that's why Dave emphasized at *least* one complete game.

 

[LibertyFigter]

When I read about Microsoft yesterday, I thought similarly. However, the situations are somewhat different.

That's true, the situations are somewhat different. However, I'm not sure the difference is relevant when considering the way the two companies handle announcing changes. If OP hadn't announced the change from 60 to 75, saying, "people are complaining to both companies but one listens and one doesn't" would be dubious at best. However, I think the situations are relevantly similar, being that significant changes to a gamer's experience were announced that gamers viewed positively in both situations, it was just the announcement itself (or the aftermath) that was handled differently.

Your reasoning is right, that's why Dave emphasized at *least* one complete game.

That's also fair: I ignored any nuance in Dave's statement, and for that I apologize. You should always be maximally charitable in good-hearted discussions. My bad. However, I am still worried that there is a big difference between "*at least* one game" completed and "as many games as possible" completed. I would rather hear the second than the first, yet I could see OP not considering the statements to be much different, and if they don't, then no issue with that part of the statement.

 

[Otaku]

However, I am still worried that there is a big difference between "*at least* one game" completed and "as many games as possible" completed. I would rather hear the second than the first, yet I could see OP not considering the statements to be much different, and if they don't, then no issue with that part of the statement.

I think this gets into the realm of "considering the whole". Does anyone have a good idea of how many games it takes to ensure that the winner of the match (forgive me if I am messing up official tournament terminology) to minimize "luck" in the outcomes? Obviously, a single game is completely exposed to all the various forms of "luck" in the game: poor opens, runs of bad luck, etc. Best two of three with unlimited time reduces this, but it doesn't eliminate it.

So you can still fail to determine the "true" winner with best two of three, even with no time limit: sometimes the shuffling just doesn't go your way. This is before considering the expenses incurred by increasing tournament length, alienating other customers (some people don't have time for that "slow but sure" deck to win twice), and the fact that some would consider winning in a timely fashion to be a part of winning in general.

So... I thank TPCi for listening to those who have worked hard to make change happen, and I thank those that have worked hard to give TPCi the tools it needed to convince their bosses. I would ask that those that constantly hijack threads to stop; even though some are also working hard through correct means... you can undo all of that with one stupid post.

I think we can all agree that I have first hand experience with stupid posts and how they can undermine an otherwise good argument. :thumb:

 

[LibertyFigter]

Best two of three with unlimited time reduces this, but it doesn't eliminate it.

Hence, complete "as many games possible" rather than "at least one game" is my preferred goal...?

I would ask that those that constantly hijack threads to stop; even though some are also working hard through correct means... you can undo all of that with one stupid post.

Discussing a response to the topic at hand isn't a hijack... I actually feel as if the vast majority of responses on this thread have been relatively on topic.

I think we can all agree that I have first hand experience with stupid posts and how they can undermine an otherwise good argument. :thumb:

Sure. However, most posts on this thread have been at least moderately intelligent! : ).

 

[Ice'Cold]

Does anyone have a good idea of how many games it takes to ensure that the winner of the match to minimize "luck" in the outcomes?

While obviously the more games two players engage in the more statistically likely it is that the "better" player is the actual victor (Ness and Pooka's Best of 100 series anyone?) I think most competitive players would agree that a Best of 5 series would strike the best balance between minimizing luck while staying with the maximum time constraints that would be needed in a tournament. I'd personally love to see at least one master's world championship that uses a best of 5 format.

 

[Otaku]

Discussing a response to the topic at hand isn't a hijack... I actually feel as if the vast majority of responses on this thread have been relatively on topic.

The title of this thread is "Time limit for US Nationals Top Cut has been announced!". So we have already altered course, but it appears to be within the bounds of discussion. This is not true of past threads; the most recent example was Time Limit for US Nationals Top Cut? a thread just looking for information. Restarting the long running debate is fine, but (and I know I struggle with this myself) when every related topic is turned into "the debate part XXIII" it can cloud the issue instead of making things more clear.

While obviously the more games two players engage in the more statistically likely it is that the "better" player is the actual victor (Ness and Pooka's Best of 100 series anyone?) I think most competitive players would agree that a Best of 5 series would strike the best balance between minimizing luck while staying with the maximum time constraints that would be needed in a tournament. I'd personally love to see at least one master's world championship that uses a best of 5 format.

Thank you for answering; I prefer to work with "boundaries" for a topic as I have learned far to often the "obvious stopping point" for one person may not even be the starting point for another. :lol:

 

[pokeirv]

I'm so glad for the extra time. That way my finals match on Sunday will be more exciting for everyone to watch!!!

I think its a great move for everyone!

 

[LuMaga1]

So, Friday's going to be a long day nonetheless. It's not a surprise to me, was expecting something like this anyways.

I had thought when I finally returned to Nats last year, the anticipation I felt coming to the event wouldn't be felt again for a few years. How I've seen the format change over the season, I am now ready to admit I was wrong with that assumption. I loom forward to seeing everyone again and getting down to the chess I appreciate again.

Well everyone, prepare to roll up your sleeves and get busy! I hope those Hot Dogs and Pizza was as good as last year! I have a feeling we'll all need them.

 

[The Pinecone]

So worlds is back to 60 minutes, correct?

The 75 minute top cut means serious players should be heavily practicing their Gothitelle match-up before the tournament. Also some instances where a player would scoop after winning game 1 if things got dicey in game 2 will be less likely to do so now, or possibly being able to see game 2 out a few more turns before doing so.

Darkrai users should see this news and make sure they got 2 Keldeos in their deck :thumb: