Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Time Limit for US Nationals Top Cut?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pooka

Pooka

Master Trainer
Over the past few years, time limits have been a controversial topic for Pokémon TCG tournaments. Many players feel that 60 minutes isn't enough for a Best 2/3 series in top cut matches, and there have been many arguments against extending the time limits as well. Whichever side of the debate you're on, I think we can all agree on one thing. We should know what the time limits are heading into the event.

So, the point of starting this topic is to ask that question. What will be the time limit be for the top cut matches at 2013 US Nationals? If it continues to be 60 minutes, players need to know. Unfortunately, time limits do affect how certain strategies work. Some decks are at a huge disadvantage in a 60 minute situation, but they would have a better chance if 75 or even 90 minutes were implemented. The information is crucial to have well in advance of the tournament. Even if it is announced on the day of the tournament, it's too late; players have already made their decisions on what to play.

If the decision is still being made on how long top cut rounds will be, I'd just like to leave these statistics for everyone.

The past two US National Champions and World Champions in Masters have been decided by time limits.
Last year, seven of the eight matches in the Top 16 of US Nationals in Masters were decided by time limits.

So, what will the time limit be for this year's event? Please let us know soon!
 
Pooka said:
The past two US National Champions and World Champions in Masters have been decided by time limits.
Last year, seven of the eight matches in the Top 16 of US Nationals in Masters were decided by time limits.
Click to expand...

Not to derail the thread immediately, but let it be known that this is total trash and a mockery of the game.
 
The time limits have almost become a joke amongst the community. Huge props to David Cohen and John Roberts II for their achievements, but those games had completely different outcomes coming had it not been for the time constraint. 75 Minutes isn't asking for much, but the difference is substantial.
 
Just gonna be one of many to say that we would really appreciate 75 minutes. That gives a big help towards actually determining the best deck in the format, not just the one that does best under the time limit. It also gives everyone some crucial time to plan out their moves and not worry about misplaying due to time constraints.
 
Time limits for U.S. Nationals should be posted ASAP so players can plan their decks accordingly. Let's all hope for 75 minutes, a time limit that doesn't stifle creativity by punishing players for playing evolution-based decks.
 
While I'd prefer that it is 75 minutes, the main thing is I hope the time limit is announced soon.
 
I'm just a senior, and sometimes I start playing fast, and sometimes I play slow and think out more. I really am hoping for a 90 minute time limit, not just cause its for masters who generally take a longer time thinking, but because I have had problems to with time. In a cities I was playing ZPST, and went against a ZPST in the finals of a cities. And we got time called on us at the beginning of game 3. We had decks that could donk, but last out the game longer, and we both went for late game constantly. 75 minutes would have been perfect probably for our finals, but I could only imagine how 90 minutes would be so amazing for masters as well with quad snorlax and gothetelle accelgor in the format, but of course we need to know ahead of time. If its 60 minutes so be it, we have to play our pokemanz.
 
For the record, I'd also like to see 90 minutes at a tournament as prestigious as U.S. Nationals, but 75 minutes is a compromise I'm happy with. Even a budge on TPCi's part is a nice way to say "Hey, we're trying."
 
Top cut should be 90 minutes. With 60 minutes, the last 3 national champions have been decided by time. However, even if this time change does not occur, the players deserve to know the decision long before the actual Tournement.
 
For a big event like nationals or worlds especially, it just isn't fair to send someone home based on your sudden death draw and who gets to go first in game 3. I think a change from 60 to 75 minutes would help a lot. The fact that low time limits affect deck choices is a really unfortunate part of the game and should be mitigated.
 
If nothing is announced I'd assume it's the same as last year (although 75 minutes would be nice of course, but we got 60 min in most of the European Nationals as well).

I'm pretty sure they won't make it like in our last Prague Cup where they announced a 45 min topcut in the morning of day two.
 
If and when any announcement comes, I really hope that it is accompanied by a reminder of the rules for prompt play and the commitment that the rules will be blindly enforced, regardless if you are a newbie or a well-known top placing player.
 
I would also like to cast my opinion for a 75 minute top cut. If anyone is listening, it is a very integral part to the deck(s) I plan on using.
 
Even though 75-minutes would make my most hated deck of this format better (go ahead and guess what that is), it is overall much healthier for the game, so here is hoping it happens, or at VERY least we know ahead of time.
 
I've played in a lot of games in Pokemon, Yugioh and Naruto in which I lost due to time where the extra 15 minutes would have helped. Players like the security of knowing they have time to play their games to the best of their ability without being rushed. 75 minute top cuts for Nationals would be the most respectable thing for TPCi to do by its players and put Pokemon one step closer to running more efficient tournaments. The players of the game are what keeps the game alive and if you have players in the top cut all say "make tournament top cuts 75 minutes matches", then it should be considered.
 
Fully expecting this to be opposed by quite a few players, but here we go:

The incessant whining about the time limit is getting a little over the top. Yes, it may be nice to get to play out all three matches, but restrictions always breed skill.

Perhaps the company generally wants time to be a factor in the game. Perhaps it is good that you have to think and act quickly. Making very sound, relatively quick decisions is a skill set unto itself.

People act like it's a divine right to think out each move for 30+seconds and then make it and then think out the next move for 30+ seconds, so that we have 5+ minute turns.

If you want to play a set up deck, learn how to play it as fast as possible without crucial mistakes. Figure out how to process information quickly, instead of at a slow drawn out pace. Too many people pick up slow decks and then proceed to play at an even slower than normal pace. If you want to play that slow deck, learn to play faster. It's just another aspect of playing that deck that requires more skill.

You say that, "The past two US National Champions and World Champions in Masters have been decided by time limits. Last year, seven of the eight matches in the Top 16 of US Nationals in Masters were decided by time limits." Could not the argument be made that the players simply played too slow and they forced the time issue or that they picked decks that factored into the equation?

Also, let's not be naive here. Often games that go to time could be played out in full, but one or the other decides to try and take it to time. The big problem is that the judges generally do a poor job enforcing the time limits.

I also find it ironic that several of the examples often touted as arguments for a time extension are situations where the "slower" deck won on time, i.e. KKEX beating a quicker deck on time. Also, the fact that these slow decks make it into the Top8+ indicates that they are perfectly capable of succeeding in time.

Also, to call something "unfair" is ridiculous. Both players know the general time limits for every event. Those time limits are applied equally. That is by definition fairness. The only thing unfair about it is when one player monoplizes the time allotted.

All that being said, I would prefer 75 minute cuts, but you act like it is a one sided argument and that there is only one right answer. That is a false dichotomy, because time limits simply shift the areas where skill is needed.
 
To add to ajhawk: I think that more games would be ended in time, if players would finally adhere to the rules of timely play. it is no secret that taking more time to think will enhance the quality of your decisions. So, anyone not adhering to the rules of timely play gives himself an unfair advantage over those players who do.

So, first of all, players should plat by the rule and judges should enforce them. As long, as we do not have a situation in which these two prerequisites are met, any discussion about the time limits being appropriate or not is a moot point.
 
ajhawk, if you think people aren't playing fast enough, what about Igor and Harrison's Finals match? Both players flew through their turns, recklessly exchanging EX KO after EX KO with the fastest decks in the format, yet still exhausted 60 minutes.

Would you support 18 mins + 1 turn for swiss? Because any 2-of-3 series that goes to 3 games allows a mere average of 18 and a half mins per game -- remember the clock doesn't stop in-between matches for shuffling.

I don't consider it whiny at all to demand more sensible time limits. I admire players that stand up for much-needed changes and demand them. It's the first step in improving the game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top