Time Limit for US Nationals Top Cut?

[Lunar Wing]

"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."
To argue this point. One of those seven matches was mine and I was playing the Mew/Accelgor/Chandelure/Vileplume deck and you can ask just about anyone that was watching me how fast I was playing and they will attest to how quick I was during most of my turns. My longest turn would be when I'd get to search the deck for the first time during the game to check for prizes but everything else after that was lightning fast.

And when time was called during the finals of worlds I was admittedly spooked by the announcement because I thought we had been up there for no more than 30 minutes. I found it annoying that these past years Nationals and Worlds top cut time limit has been 60 minutes when Swiss rounds are 30 minutes. With looked at this way they're essentially saying we have enough time to get two games done and if we go to a game three it's almost definitely going to be influenced by time in one way or another. Down here in Florida we've always had the luxury of 75 minute top cut and never once was forced to play anything less. For tournaments with the level of prestige that Nationals and Worlds have I see no reason to also have 75 minute top cuts.

 

[TheDarkTwins]

I've played in top cut of Worlds & Nationals 6 times (3 of each). I've got timed out in only 1 Worlds, but I've been also been knocked out twice because of time at Nationals. I've only won a top cut match ONCE be because of time. I'm 1-3 in matches decided by time. I'd argue that I would have won ALL 4 if there hadn't been a limit. Unfortunately that hasn't been the case and 2006 Worlds hurts the most because I may have T4'd Worlds due to a favorable bracket.

I'm for this, getting timed out stinks, and if we can prevent it, let's do it. Since Nationals is a 3 day event now, let's add a few more rounds on Day 1 to help give us more time in top cut.

Drew

 

[ajhawk]

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.

I'm actually in favor of extended time limits. I'm just pointing out the logical fallacies and the over the top whining.

On HeyFonte you said that the system is clearly broken. Your statement is based upon the if then statement, "if matches go to time, then the rules are broken (substitute "unfair," "illegitimate," etc.)." That is not a logical conclusion. If the matches go to time, then the system is working as designed.

We can argue all day about whether letting the games play out to their 6 prize completion is a better policy, but the current system is not broken. It just goes against your, others, and my own personal opinion about what should constitute the completion of the game.

To toss around words like broken, unfair, unjust, travesty, etc. when talking about the time limits is way over the top, and makes it come off as whiny. Nothing is broken, unfair, unjust, nor a travesty here. The rules are performing exactly as they are written.

As for Worlds last year, there were some lengthy pauses in the action that caused some speedy play latter in the game. But, I'll concede that yes, they were pressed for time.

However, I stand by the rest of my devils advocate position laid out. The number one issue is that players are looking at only one side of the issue and not even considering the other side and the skill it entails.

Furthermore, the biggest problem is enforcement of the time limits. There are clearly some players that dominate the allotted time and play with it to their advantage, outside what the rules allow for.

If possible I would make a trade with you right now: You can have 75 minute top cuts, and I get enforcement of the time limits so that each player has the time their are, by the rules, entitled to.

TLR: I actually agree with increasing time limits at larger, multi-day events. However, on this particular issue the language utilize comes off as whiny and overbearing.

 

[BlisseyRocks]

Honestly, I actually blame players for not being able to play within the 60 minute time limit(or at least having a game 3 develop within that time.) A lot of you just play SO SLOW. Kyle and Jason both play pretty slow(having played against both of these players, Kyle playing within a more reasonable time limit, but he is not exactly the definition of timely playing.) I still agree that I would love a 75 minute cut, but put some of the blame on yourselves. You guys play like turtles!

 

[K2theAblaM]

TLR: I actually agree with increasing time limits at larger, multi-day events. However, on this particular issue the language utilize comes off as whiny and overbearing.

This seems like a personal problem to me, and your problem alone.

If you agree with increasing the time limit, then that's really the only thing that matters.

 

[meganium45]

I would support the 75 minute timeframe at Nationals.

I was on the fence, and after seeing the effect, and I believe positive effect that the extra 15 minutes has is significant.

I won't agree 90 minutes is needed, but 75 minutes really makes for a better experience for the players, and surprisingly, the judges as well.

Nothing more stressful as a judge than worrying if one player is slowing another, due to the increased pressure of time.

So there, you have my opinion and support, for the little it is worth.

Regionals and States to me have proven the value of 15 minutes.

Vince

 

[Pooka]

Keep in mind that the purpose of this thread is to find out what the time limit will be in advance of the event, not necessarily to determine what it should be; we've had that discussion plenty of times already.

 

[NoPoke]

I ran a 75minute top cut event in the UK this year. What I observed was that play slowed down. So much of the completed games benefit of the extra 15 minutes was lost. Since the top cut was taking place in the evening it is possible that the slowing down effect was a consequence of fatigue rather than conscious behaviour by players. But either way games still went to time and the tournament finished an extra hour later than it might have done.

Its only a single data point but my current position is the slightly counter-intuitive one that more time does not automatically mean more turns are played. For USA nationals where the cut takes place during the day, where fatigue will be less of an issue, 75 minutes may (should) yield the desired more turns per match.

As to an announcement I don't think you will get anything more than is in the floor rules. I would suggest it is unwise to expect anything other than 60 minutes match play this close to the event. I am going to guess that there is a hidden forum on the pokemon.com site for USA staff and that some of the PTOs already know if the change is being discussed and which way such a discussion headed or was still born. If the discussion has not started over there then I would not expect a change this year.

 

[Pooka]

I agree that if no announcement is made, everyone should go into the event expecting the time limit to remain 60 minutes as it has been since US Nationals began in 2004 (except for 2009 where a few matches were 45 minutes, but that's another story). However, it would be very beneficial to the players to know this for sure in advance. As players, it shouldn't be an unreasonable request to know this information before the event.

 

[Bigbowlr1037]

I've played in top cut of Worlds & Nationals 6 times (3 of each). I've got timed out in only 1 Worlds, but I've been also been knocked out twice because of time at Nationals. I've only won a top cut match ONCE be because of time. I'm 1-3 in matches decided by time. I'd argue that I would have won ALL 4 if there hadn't been a limit. Unfortunately that hasn't been the case and 2006 Worlds hurts the most because I may have T4'd Worlds due to a favorable bracket.

I'm for this, getting timed out stinks, and if we can prevent it, let's do it. Since Nationals is a 3 day event now, let's add a few more rounds on Day 1 to help give us more time in top cut.

Drew

This is the thing i dont understand for nationals. Ive played in WOW tcg nationals twice and thats also a 3 day event. They have ALL their swiss rounds on day 1(usually 9-11 rounds). Why doesnt pokemon do that? Have all 9-10 rounds on day 1 then have t128-t32 on day 2 with 75 minute rounds and top 16-on on day 3 with 90 minute rounds. The time limit for WOW top cut increases with each round(t16 and t8 is 60, t4 is 90 and finals is 120). If all the swiss was played on day 1 everyone would also have ample time to test for their top cut match(havent played Pokenats yet so i dont know how much time is between the end of swiss and start of 128 on day 2) not sure how feasible it is when there is 1000 masters but all of swiss on day 1 would give more time for top cut on day 2.

 

[Thatguy99]

I am all for a 75 minute time limit, as it would help with extra time to make game changing decisions and for more comfortable game 3s. I don't know how long the extra 15 minutes adds on. But I would think that it would have to take the latter of day 3 to take down and pack up everything at nationals (posters, banners, blowups, chairs, tables, picking up trash, etc.). So maybe a little help packing up from the players could get the 75 minute cut. Not a judge or TO but I think it would be considerate for an event as large as nationals that we play in for free.

 

[Ness]

I agree that if no announcement is made, everyone should go into the event expecting the time limit to remain 60 minutes..

If no announcement is made, someone should be fired and replaced. I don't know whose job that is (I can guess, but I'm not going to make this thread personal), but he or she is derelict in his or her duties if the players do not know such an important detail of a tournament. That might sound unfriendly, but that's what it takes sometimes to keep the ball rolling.

 

[baby mario]

I am all for a 75 minute time limit, as it would help with extra time to make game changing decisions and for more comfortable game 3s.

It shouldn't give you extra time to make decisions. You should still have to maintain the same pace of play.

The point is to have a legit, complete (or near-complete) 3 game series. If players are going to use the extra time to just play more slowly that isn't going to happen.

 

[ryanvergel]

I ran a 75minute top cut event in the UK this year. What I observed was that play slowed down. So much of the completed games benefit of the extra 15 minutes was lost. Since the top cut was taking place in the evening it is possible that the slowing down effect was a consequence of fatigue rather than conscious behaviour by players. But either way games still went to time and the tournament finished an extra hour later than it might have done.

Its only a single data point but my current position is the slightly counter-intuitive one that more time does not automatically mean more turns are played. For USA nationals where the cut takes place during the day, where fatigue will be less of an issue, 75 minutes may (should) yield the desired more turns per match.

As to an announcement I don't think you will get anything more than is in the floor rules. I would suggest it is unwise to expect anything other than 60 minutes match play this close to the event. I am going to guess that there is a hidden forum on the pokemon.com site for USA staff and that some of the PTOs already know if the change is being discussed and which way such a discussion headed or was still born. If the discussion has not started over there then I would not expect a change this year.

It seems like you're describing more well thought-out turns. Even if no additional turns are played out, the fact of the matter is that more time was used to think and have better plays, less dictated by fear of the clock.

This could be an easy thing to track, too. Just have a judge do slashes for turns taken on some of the matches.

 

[meganium45]

It shouldn't give you extra time to make decisions. You should still have to maintain the same pace of play.

The point is to have a legit, complete (or near-complete) 3 game series. If players are going to use the extra time to just play more slowly that isn't going to happen.

Really? You don't have ANY point in ANY match where you have had to slow down to do multiple calculations and determinations? Figuring out what resources you have left, and what resources your opponent may or may not have left?

There is a BIG difference between slow play, and making a careful decision on one play, which takes a little extra time to think through.

Sorry, I come from the camp that at times, a player should be allowed to think through a play. Do it ALL the time, and you are going to get called out. Take a few times in a game or match to really think something out, and you are OK in my book. See, letting you read a small page of my book!!!

What is a little extra time? Certainly not a few minutes in Zombie-pose.

At its heart, this is a game of calculation and skill. I am firmly convinced that the players who have stayed with this game, as opposed to moving on to a different game stay due to the SKILL factor of being able to control your resources in Pokémon, which appears to be much less luck based in other games (in my humble opinion as a game store owner at this point).

One of the results of this, is from time to time, players are able to actually make reasoned calculations, which may take a little extra time.

Yes, there is a fine line between thinking time, and stalling for time, but I think the 75 minutes really helps that factor. I would rather see a title decided by careful and thoughtful play, then a clock turning into a cobra.

This is EASILY one of the TOUGHEST calls in judging, that no one, myself included, ever gets the balance 100% right.

Vince

---------- Post added 06/11/2013 at 05:11 PM ----------

It seems like you're describing more well thought-out turns. Even if no additional turns are played out, the fact of the matter is that more time was used to think and have better plays, less dictated by fear of the clock.

This could be an easy thing to track, too. Just have a judge do slashes for turns taken on some of the matches.

Don't you EVER have judges do that....EVER. That can be seen as intimidation in and of itself.

 

[baby mario]

Really? You don't have ANY point in ANY match where you have had to slow down to do multiple calculations and determinations? Figuring out what resources you have left, and what resources your opponent may or may not have left?

There is a BIG difference between slow play, and making a careful decision on one play, which takes a little extra time to think through.

Sorry, I come from the camp that at times, a player should be allowed to think through a play. Do it ALL the time, and you are going to get called out. Take a few times in a game or match to really think something out, and you are OK in my book. See, letting you read a small page of my book!!!

What is a little extra time? Certainly not a few minutes in Zombie-pose.

At its heart, this is a game of calculation and skill. I am firmly convinced that the players who have stayed with this game, as opposed to moving on to a different game stay due to the SKILL factor of being able to control your resources in Pokémon, which appears to be much less luck based in other games (in my humble opinion as a game store owner at this point).

One of the results of this, is from time to time, players are able to actually make reasoned calculations, which may take a little extra time.

Yes, there is a fine line between thinking time, and stalling for time, but I think the 75 minutes really helps that factor. I would rather see a title decided by careful and thoughtful play, then a clock turning into a cobra.

This is EASILY one of the TOUGHEST calls in judging, that no one, myself included, ever gets the balance 100% right.

That's not quite what I meant. Apologies if I wasn't clear.

What I mean is, the major issue people are having with 60 mins is that it leads to sudden death/very incomplete 3rd games. If players are going to use a 25% increase in time to take 25% longer over their turns, you are still left with the match being decided on these incomplete games.

I fully recognise that some actions and turns need very careful thought, and that takes time. I just think that if players see the extra time as a reason to play at a slower pace generally, then we will still be left with unsatisfactory outcomes.

 

[Shen]

I don't think a higher time limit necessarily makes "longer" turns (longer as in longer than the average turn), but can decrease short and rushed turns. I'm all for 75+ if possible.

 

[sdrawkcab]

Chess clocks anyone?

 

[bullados]

Chess clocks anyone?

Even the cheapest chess clock costs $25 a pop. For a tournament like US Nationals, that's nearly twenty grand, or about half of the prize support for the entire tournament. How are they paying for these things, may I ask?

 

[Ness]

Chess clocks would be an expensive disaster. There's decisions your opponent makes that occur during your turn, too, meaning your opponent could eat up your time. (It's either that or switch time over every time you play a card like Escape Rope.) Good luck explaining that to everyone, especially the Junior division.

But to avoid derailing the thread, I'll get back on topic: Nats is in 3 weeks. It sure would be nice to know what kind of time limits we're playing with!