Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 217

Thread: Dear TPCi: Scrap the disaster that is 50+3!

  1. #151
    Here some feedback from our Nationals - 50+3 is absolutely killing metagame diversity. We had 8 swiss rounds 50+3 and cut to only top 8 for about 180 masters at our Nationals. That means that topcutting is pretty much impossible without a lot of luck.

    That's why i didn't really prepare something new and played a cool deck where frieds and me got some success with during this season - Flygon. It was actually good and I ended up 23th with a 5-2-1 score. All of the wins were 2-0 or 1-0 and the draw would also have been a win, and that's where the problem shows up - you can't win any more if you are one game behind with a slow deck, but you can have your win be turned into a draw if you lose second game and don't have enough time for a third.

    Evolution decks aren't bad (even if Muscle Band hurt them a lot), I think most of you can remember that Empoleon, Hydreigon and lots of other decks were played during fall Regionals, but besides Emboar and Blastoise, they are unplayable in 50+3 swiss with a top cut to less than 5% of the players. That even applies to the fairy decks, which have a really fun gameplay but are too slow for competitive gameplay in 50+3. As far as I know, the Flygon deck two friends and me played was the only non-meta deck in the whole top 32 list. Back in 2006-2012, we got a least one trip-winning non-meta deck in either Masters or Seniors each year at German Nationals.

    Top 4 was made of Genesect only, because its the only deck that can consistantly finish 3 games within 50 minutes while winning most of them.

    Maybe things get better with Flashfire, but the problem still remains.
    I'd rather have 1-3 additional swiss rounds and go back to b-o-1 gameplay. The main reason players (including me) were calling for b-o-3 before - T1 donks - has been pretty much eliminated by the new first turn rules (which I really appreciate).

    ---

    To add something completely different - a friend who is father of two children in Seniors/Juniors has (for now) quit the game, because his kids didn't want to wait for about 3 hours every tournament, since Seniors und Juniors have far less players than Masters and therefor less rounds which now take even longer. He told me that the 50+3 is a real problem for all families with parents who have serious chances and want to play to the end.
    Last edited by ShadowGuard; 05/06/2014 at 09:11 AM.
    2nd @ German Nationals 2008 with EmpZong
    2nd @ German Nationals 2009 with Blaziken
    2nd @ German Nationals 2011 with Magnezone/Steelix

  2. #152
    During the course of any tournament season, players must be flexible and adapt to a vast number of variables. Strategies change based on match-ups, new decks appear and disappear throughout the course of a season, and at each step, players must adjust to those changes in order to be competitive.

    The move to best of three, and the match time limits are another adjustment that players have had to make. Whether it means simply increasing the rate of play, or realizing that taking the time to attempt to reach the absolute best play may not be the best use of valuable match time, or acknowledging that a game is out of reach and making the move to start a new game, those are decisions that players have to adapt to.

    Now that we’ve been through nearly a full season, with multiple large events having been completed, we have a decent amount of data by which we can analyze trends and the implications of the changes that have been made this season.

    In analyzing round data, we see that beyond the base time limit for each round, the plus-3 turns portion takes 6-10 minutes, and the time to finalize results, post pairings and start the next round is another 5-10 minutes, on average. This means that typically speaking, it takes 65-70 minutes to get from the start of one round to the start of the next. This held true for nearly all Regionals this season, with 9 Swiss rounds taking approximately 11 hours, including most organizer’s allowing for a 30-45 minute lunch break.

    We would expect that to hold true regardless of whether the time limit was reduced, or extended. Players have a tendency to use the time they are given, and while we might expect fewer matches to require the plus-3 extension if the time limit were expanded, it will not likely reduce it to zero, and therefore will still see a 6-10 minute addition to complete.

    The Pokémon Organized Play team always working to reduce administrative time needed to enter matches and the like, but ultimately there will always be a number of minutes necessary each round to post pairings, allow players to find their seats, set up, start and enter all reported matches.

    With the above, we would expect, for example, that a 30+3 single game format would require approximately 45-50 minutes per round, and a 60+3 best of three round would take approximately 75-80 minutes. We feel strongly that a 14-15 hour tournament day is not fun for most participants. In addition, single game Swiss doesn’t provide the value of best of three, and is far less effective in mitigating a bad draw that could otherwise derail a player’s chances at making the top cut.

    In analyzing the round data from Regionals, and some State Championship events, we found the following average draw rates:
    • Junior division is right about 10%, with the draw rate decreasing steadily from Autumn to Spring
    • Seniors is moderately higher at just about 11%, with a slight decline from Autumn to Spring
    • The rate for Masters players is right at 17% and shows no change from Autumn to Spring

    Of course, we will continue analyzing gameplay and tournament data, and we too will adjust if we feel it’s appropriate to do so.

  3. These members say thanks for this post:

    ExoByte (05/12/2014), Jaeger (05/09/2014), LOLZ (05/08/2014), tomoyosfan1 (05/13/2014)

  4. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Dav View Post
    In analyzing the round data from Regionals, and some State Championship events, we found the following average draw rates:
    • Junior division is right about 10%, with the draw rate decreasing steadily from Autumn to Spring
    • Seniors is moderately higher at just about 11%, with a slight decline from Autumn to Spring
    • The rate for Masters players is right at 17% and shows no change from Autumn to Spring
    Having the stats is appreciated, but it's worth noting (in my opinion) that there is some "fuzz factor" due to the games that would otherwise end in draws being conceded. I'd love to see a breakdown by round (first round vs last round of swiss vs. next-to-last round of swiss).
    Listen to PIRN! The Pokemon Internet Radio Network. We have tons of Pokemon Music, along with interviews with major players in the Pokemon world. Now in CD quality!
    Latest Song Parody: Dewott You Do
    League Leader-Pegasus Games-Madison, WI

  5. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by yoshi1001 View Post
    Having the stats is appreciated, but it's worth noting (in my opinion) that there is some "fuzz factor" due to the games that would otherwise end in draws being conceded. I'd love to see a breakdown by round (first round vs last round of swiss vs. next-to-last round of swiss).
    Just to add on, the data is also "fuzzed" by two other variables in addition to concessions. 1- Game Loss/DQ Penalties and 2- Intentional Draws

    While rare, Game Losses and DQs could prevent a match from being played out to a natural draw meaning that, like concessions, matches that are influence by penalty would not be counted as part of that X% of the Draw Rate.

    Intentional Draws cause the number of draws to be inflated. It is very interesting, Concessions and Penalties make the draw rate decrease while Intentional Draws increase the draw rate. I wonder if these equal the other out to make the "fuzz factor" no more or if one is so common that the draw rate is skewed in one direction or the other.

    Yoshi- Comparing the Draw Rate of earlier rounds to later rounds really doesn't prove anything because of the nature of Swiss. Round 1 pairings are random, there is likely 1 player in any given match that is the clear winner so the Draw Rate of Round 1 will be relativity low. As the tournament progresses, the skill level of two opponents become closer together, this means that a longer drawn out game is more likely and the chance of a Draw becomes greater. Seeing the Draw Rate of later rounds would be cool, Draw Rates of earlier rounds seem boring. Data is not interesting unless you can understand, interpret and most importantly, explain it.

    All this talk of variables, data and numbers make me feel like I am back in College, can't help to reminisce about my methods of research class. Thanks for posting that data Dave.
    Last edited by LOLZ; 05/08/2014 at 11:30 PM.
    Anthony Caspanello
    Pokémon Professor, Tournament Judge, League Leader
    Judges' Chambers Credentials- 2013/2015 United States National Championship Judge | Boston Open Masters Flight Lead | Judge of 20+ State/Regional Events | Head Judge/Divison Head Judge of a 7 State/Regional Events

  6. This member says thanks for this post:

    Noah121 (05/17/2014)

  7. #155
    Mr. Schwimmer,
    Thank you for finally addressing the concerns of players and staff regarding this season’s new time limits. I am glad to see that your team is recording data regarding the percentage of match ties that occur in each division. However, please realize that your data only tell half of the story. The data do not tell you how many players won their match in a 1-0 series that virtually guarantees players played some meaningless partial game. These data do not tell you how many matches determined a winner only after rushing and/or conceding games that may have ultimately been exciting and/or winnable. These data do not tell you how many games ended unfinished in Game 3, but were recorded in the books as a “win” only because players two frustrated players formed some informal agreement that one would concede to the other, rather than have them each receive only 1 point for a tie.

    In fact, the only thing your data ties tells you is the percentage of matches that ended by either:
    A) a mutual agreement between players to draw.
    B) matches that were in the third game when time was called, in which neither player had drawn all six prize cards, and neither player conceded to the other (the overwhelming majority of ties).

    As you see, your data are pretty specific, and do not speak to the multitude of problems caused by insufficient time limits, such as stalling, rushing, frequent and early game concessions, and promotion of agreements that conflict with sportsmanship and spirit of the game. These are things that only a player playing in the event can get a true feel of their impact, and they are the reasons 50+3 faces widespread criticism among players.

    The Pokémon TCG community, myself included is grateful for your company’s constant willingness to improve Organized Play events, including this year’s addition of Best 2-of-3 Swiss rounds. However, please do not be so shortsighted as to disregard the true, genuine player feedback you receive here, which is equally important as the data you have collected.
    Jason Klaczynski
    World Champion 2006, 2008, 2013
    Fan Appreciation Tournament Champion 2003
    Tropical Mega Battle Champion 2000

  8. This member says thanks for this post:

    deckmaster (05/31/2014)

  9. #156
    We certainly do not disregard feedback we see online, nor do we disregard feedback we receive in person. I spoke to many, many players and parents at events this year. The team has spoken directly with many players and parents this year. I personally heard as much, if not more, praise of the new format as I did disdain for it. I had more than one parent tell me that they sought out State events running best of 3, and avoided those using single game.

    I've heard the other side as well. I understand the concerns, but ultimately, we feel very strongly that best of three is the right way to go, and it sounds like you agree. We have to create tournaments that can end in a reasonable time, and extending round times by 25 minutes does not work towards that goal.

    Thank you,
    Prof_Dav

  10. #157
    You stated earlier that the goal of best of three was to mitigate the effect that a bad draw had on a player's chance on top cut. I would say that most of the negativity in formats past were due to first turn wins before a player can get a turn. With the change in first turn rules in XY, players no longer have to worry about being donked. This makes best of 3 almost obsolete. Very few games actually end quickly due to bad draws. What tends to happen with a bad draw is that the player will lose or scoop 10 minutes into the first game. Then they'll either lose the 2nd game, in which case it didn't matter that it's best of 3, or win it after 20-25 minutes. The 3rd game then either has to finish quickly for either player, or they end up tying, which in most cases is just as useful as a loss for making it into top cut.

    With the new rules I think more single game swiss rounds and/or extending top cut size would better alleviate bad draws in the future. More single swiss games means that a single bad draw isn't going to completely wreck your tournament. You can still make top cut if you do well the rest of the way. Truthfully, if your deck is failing you multiple times throughout a tournament you don't deserve to make top cut anyway. Time wise, for every 2 rounds of best of 3 you can fit in 3 rounds of single game swiss.

    You also mention that a parent sought out tournaments that used best of 3. Just at my card shop alone there are 4 masters who have quit the game until best of 3 isn't being used anymore. That also doesn't account for players who are just miserable while playing in tournaments now. At the states and regionals I went to players just seemed more exhausted and less excited to be playing. Many directly mentioned how this was due to the best of 3 format. There were multiple times during rounds 5, 6 or 7 where the players around me at the tables commented on how we still had multiple hours left remaining and they wished the tournament would be over with already. I also know multiple players who dropped in rounds 5 or 6 with records that could still make top cut due to exhaustion because of how many games were being played and how long it was taking.
    Last edited by SMP88; 05/09/2014 at 04:23 PM. Reason: Spelling

    YouTube Channel - Casual/Tournament games from Chicago
    Collector's Checklists - Includes all sets

  11. These members say thanks for this post:

    King Piplup (05/09/2014), Noah121 (05/17/2014), Unfallible (05/09/2014)

  12. #158
    The feedback I have gotten from players in my area has been mixed. Some love 50+3, some hate 50+3, the rest are just indifferent and just doesn't care.

    The bigger issue I have heard from players this year was regarding Top 8 Cuts. Players love it when tournaments have those extra Swiss rounds (227+ Players) because making "Day 2" is not only an achievement in itself but it allows players to play more rounds in order to determine who makes Top 8. A Top 8 in a 100+ player tournament that is determined by 14 or 15 Swiss rounds is preferable over Top 8 that is determined by 8 or 9 Swiss Rounds. Losing 2 Matches with only 8 or 9 Swiss Rounds played causes a player's tournament to be over. Losing 2 matches on Day 1 still gets players into "Day 2" where they can redeem themselves with a good "Day 2" run and possibly make cut with 2, 3 or maybe 4 Losses. Currently PTOs are prepared for (and successfully ran) tournaments that require 14 Swiss Rounds. Adding extra Swiss rounds to smaller sized tournaments should not add more time to a tournament as a whole

    I think all tournaments (with the exception of League Challenges) would benefit from extra Swiss rounds. Now I am not suggesting 5 extra rounds and X-2s or better for all tournaments, but rather allowing the attendance to dictate: how many extra rounds are ran, which records (or Top "X") makes "Day 2", and ultimately how many players make the Final Top Cut after Swiss Rounds are complete. A table describing my suggestion is below.

    I put "Day 2" in quotations for a reason, I am suggesting extra Swiss rounds for City Championships as well. Since Cities need to be a 1 Day event, calling extra Swiss rounds "Day 2" could be confusing, for the sake of this post "Pre-Top Cut" is a better way to put it. Since I am suggesting extra Swiss Rounds for smaller sized tournaments, I am also suggesting that the point when a Tournament should have a T8 be raised because extra Swiss rounds are ran. A 21 Player Tournament doesn't need extra Swiss rounds and a T8.

    My Suggestion
    Attendance ~ Rounds ---------(Pre Top Cut Rounds, Final Top Cut)---------------------------------------------------[Total Swiss/Top Cut]
    Less Then 8 ~ 3 Rounds-------- (No Extra Rounds, No Top Cut) ------------------------------------------------------[3 Rounds/No Cut]
    9-20 ~ 5 Rounds --------------(No Pre-Top Cut, Extra Rounds for All Players to Play in, Then T2 Cut)------------------[5 Rounds/T2 Cut]
    21-32 ~ 7 Rounds -------------(No Pre-Top Cut, Extra Rounds for All Players to Play in, Then T4 Cut)------------------[7 Rounds/T4 Cut]
    33-64 ~ 6 Rounds--------------(+3 Rounds for T16 or all X-2s or Better, then T4 Cut) ---------------------------------[9 Rounds/T4 Cut]
    65-128 ~ 7 Rounds-------------(+4 Rounds for T16 or all X-2s or Better,, then T8 Cut) --------------------------------[11 Rounds/T8 Cut]*
    129-226 ~ 8 Rounds------------(+5 Rounds for T32 or all X-2s or Better,, then T8 Cut)--------------------------------[13 Rounds/T8 Cut]*
    227-410 ~ 9 Rounds------------(+5 Rounds for T32 or all X-2s or Better,, then T8 Cut)--------------------------------[14 Rounds/T8 Cut]*
    411+ ~ 2 Flights, 9 Rounds--------(T32 or all X-2s or Better, from each flight, +6 Rounds for T64, then T8) ------------[15 Rounds/T8 Cut]*

    *City Championships Max at T4 cut. Tournaments with 65+ players in a given age group needs to be ran as a 2 day event to prevent player fatigue.

    Sorry for the crude table, hope it is understandable


    Edit- Another advantage of having extra Swiss rounds is it makes it very hard for players to ID outside of the final Swiss round. IDs have been the one of the TO/Judge gripes all season. Extra Swiss rounds will allow tournaments to be decided on the table and not though IDs.
    Last edited by LOLZ; 05/09/2014 at 04:46 PM. Reason: formatting
    Anthony Caspanello
    Pokémon Professor, Tournament Judge, League Leader
    Judges' Chambers Credentials- 2013/2015 United States National Championship Judge | Boston Open Masters Flight Lead | Judge of 20+ State/Regional Events | Head Judge/Divison Head Judge of a 7 State/Regional Events

  13. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Dav View Post
    I understand the concerns, but ultimately, we feel very strongly that best of three is the right way to go, and it sounds like you agree. We have to create tournaments that can end in a reasonable time, and extending round times by 25 minutes does not work towards that goal.

    Thank you,
    Prof_Dav
    Thanks for the response! One very, very important detail about extending round times by 25 minutes (to 75 minutes) is that it would be accompanied by cutting one third of the swiss rounds. Two-day Regional tournaments that have a maximum of 15 rounds would now have a maximum of 10 rounds. (The amount of rounds is determined by ensuring anyone who has an X-1 record is guaranteed to make Top 8.)

    Believe it or not, tournaments that adopt this format would not only end at a reasonable hour, but even earlier than your current two-day events!

    I can even prove it using your data! In your first post, you acknowledge that on average about 15 minutes passes between +3 and posting of new pairings after time is called each round. That means a 50-minute round lasts about 65 minutes, and a 75-minute round would use about 90 minutes.

    Example: Current two-day Regional with heavy attendance:
    14 rounds of 50+3 = 14 * 65 = 910 minutes

    Example: Proposed two-day Regional with heavy attendance:
    9 rounds of 75+3 = 9 * 90 = 810 minutes

    As you see, cutting rounds in place of higher time limits actually saves 1 hour, 40 minutes! Considering that less rounds and longer time limits also puts less stress on the staff, it's reasonable to assume that in reality, it would save at least two hours.
    Jason Klaczynski
    World Champion 2006, 2008, 2013
    Fan Appreciation Tournament Champion 2003
    Tropical Mega Battle Champion 2000

  14. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by Ness View Post
    Thanks for the response! One very, very important detail about extending round times by 25 minutes (to 75 minutes) is that it would be accompanied by cutting one third of the swiss rounds. Two-day Regional tournaments that have a maximum of 15 rounds would now have a maximum of 10 rounds. (The amount of rounds is determined by ensuring anyone who has an X-1 record is guaranteed to make Top 8.)

    Believe it or not, tournaments that adopt this format would not only end at a reasonable hour, but even earlier than your current two-day events!

    I can even prove it using your data! In your first post, you acknowledge that on average about 15 minutes passes between +3 and posting of new pairings after time is called each round. That means a 50-minute round lasts about 65 minutes, and a 75-minute round would use about 90 minutes.

    Example: Current two-day Regional with heavy attendance:
    14 rounds of 50+3 = 14 * 65 = 910 minutes

    Example: Proposed two-day Regional with heavy attendance:
    9 rounds of 75+3 = 9 * 90 = 810 minutes

    As you see, cutting rounds in place of higher time limits actually saves 1 hour, 40 minutes! Considering that less rounds and longer time limits also puts less stress on the staff, it's reasonable to assume that in reality, it would save at least two hours.
    227 Is a Magic Number.

    With 226 Players, there should be no more then 7 X-1-0s (assuming players do not tie).

    With 227 Players, there exists the possibility of 1 X-0-0 and 8 X-1-0s.

    Jason, do you think ANY X-1-0s should miss cut? There are alot of people who believe that X-2-0s should not miss cut. If an X-1-0 misses cut there would be the equivalent of a riot on Forums and Social Media.

    Extra Swiss Rounds are a Good Thing. Alot of players like extra swiss rounds, you are in the Minority on this one Jason.
    Anthony Caspanello
    Pokémon Professor, Tournament Judge, League Leader
    Judges' Chambers Credentials- 2013/2015 United States National Championship Judge | Boston Open Masters Flight Lead | Judge of 20+ State/Regional Events | Head Judge/Divison Head Judge of a 7 State/Regional Events

  15. #161
    Anthony, if you read my post carefully, you'll see that I indicate that rounds are based on guaranteeing a player with an X-1 record makes Top 8. This means a player with a record of 7-1 and 8-1 can never miss cut. Depending on attendance, you would also see a varying amount of X-1-1 records make Top 8.

    I completely agree that players enjoy the extra swiss rounds the second day of a Regional Championship. But this isn't just because players like an arbitrary increase in amount of rounds, but rather because it gives them a second day to play Pokémon, and more games to earn a spot in Top 8. 75+3 awards players with a second day of swiss just as 50+3 does, but the difference is that 75+3 does it in a much more relaxed atmosphere that is conducive to fairness and rewarding skillful play and players. It mitigates outside factors that affect player's records in 50+3, such as the pace of their opponent's play.

    If you take a pro and con list, comparing the advantages of 75+3 to 50+3, the advantages of 75+3 are enormous:

    PROS OF 75+3, LESS ROUNDS
    -Matches are less likely to end in a tie
    -Less incentive for players to stall
    -Players are not rushed
    -Strategic deck diversity increased
    -Tournament finishes earlier
    -Less work/stress on staff

    Anthony, you'll also be pleased to know that with less rounds, and players needing X-1 to guarantee top cut, there is much less incentive for players to intentionally draw as well. ;)

    CONS OF 75+3, LESS ROUNDS
    -Match-ups have increased importance (since only two losses knock you out of Top 8)

    While two bad match-ups can knock you out of cut, also realize you're less likely to encounter multiple bad match-ups since you're only playing nine rounds.

    As you see, when it comes to Best-of-3, 75+3 blows 50+3 out of the water!
    Last edited by Ness; 05/09/2014 at 05:38 PM.
    Jason Klaczynski
    World Champion 2006, 2008, 2013
    Fan Appreciation Tournament Champion 2003
    Tropical Mega Battle Champion 2000

  16. #162
    Another benefit (if you ask me) of extra Swiss rounds is that it increases the number of distinct people you play against. Sure, you can play games between rounds or whatever (though in the current structure folks seem to have all the games they can handle), but it could have social benefits.
    Listen to PIRN! The Pokemon Internet Radio Network. We have tons of Pokemon Music, along with interviews with major players in the Pokemon world. Now in CD quality!
    Latest Song Parody: Dewott You Do
    League Leader-Pegasus Games-Madison, WI

  17. #163
    Forum Moderator vaporeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    5,242
    Images
    78
    I do agree that with each season that passes, players must must adapt to the changes to be competitive or "go home" but there are fundamental problems with the rules. 50+3 is killing the meta because it only allows fast, hard hitting decks. Some players look forward to playing new decks. I know I am but the problem is 50+3. If I can win game one, there will more than likely not be enough time to play the rest so the game ties because of my deck choice. I'm not the only one this effect. Also not all players are not as fast as others. Its not simple for others to pick up the pace of play. Some players need more time to think than others because of mental restrictions. Sure this is easily fix by everyone Plasma or Darkrai not not everyone plays like that. 50+3 is far too aggressive for creative and slower players.
    Times like this make you wish you had Energy Switch.

  18. #164
    In response to Jason's Pros and Cons list....

    PROS OF 50+3, EXTRA ROUNDS
    -Players can take 2 losses and still have a chance to make Top 8.
    -Once a player makes Day 2, they can still take a loss or two and make Top 8 with 3 losses.
    --With so many rounds being played, it is likely that the X-0s and X-1s will take a loss or two on Day 2. X-0-0s, X-1-0s will be rare. It is perfectly acceptable if X-2-0s/X-3-0S make Top 8 after 14 Rounds
    -Players have the opportunity to play more games
    -Players are challenged more because they are likely to face a greater variety of decks
    -Knowing that there is only a 50 Minute Time Limit, players can playtest accordingly and learn to adopt to the Tournament Structure (See Dave's Post)
    -With Extra Swiss Rounds, IDing outside of the Final Swiss Round is a foolish thing to do.



    CONS OF 50+3, EXTRA ROUNDS
    -Tournament finishes later (Compared to 75+3, Less Rounds).
    -Less work/stress on staff.
    -Players who can't adapt to the new tournament structure will Slow Play.
    -Players who lose Game 1 might rush their opponent to avoid the tie.

    Regarding the first 2 Cons above, I as a judge can live with the extra stress/work and the fact that the tournament goes on a little longer, reason being is because Extra Swiss Rounds provide for a better tournament experience for all players. I staffed 2 Regionals that had 14 Swiss Rounds and a Top 8 for Masters this year. Both tournaments were over by 7pm on Sunday. This was perfectly acceptable IMO.

    Regarding the second 2 Cons above, Players who feel that their opponent is slow play or stalling can simply call a judge to watch pace of play. Regardless if the time limit is 30 Minutes, 50 Minutes or 75 Minutes... Pace of play issues will always be present. Judge will have to watch for these issuses any way.
    Anthony Caspanello
    Pokémon Professor, Tournament Judge, League Leader
    Judges' Chambers Credentials- 2013/2015 United States National Championship Judge | Boston Open Masters Flight Lead | Judge of 20+ State/Regional Events | Head Judge/Divison Head Judge of a 7 State/Regional Events

  19. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by LOLZ View Post
    Just to add on, the data is also "fuzzed" by two other variables in addition to concessions. 1- Game Loss/DQ Penalties and 2- Intentional Draws
    Occurred to me as well. I think IDs are probably outnumbered by intentional concessions to avoid draws.

    Quote Originally Posted by LOLZ View Post
    Yoshi- Comparing the Draw Rate of earlier rounds to later rounds really doesn't prove anything because of the nature of Swiss. Round 1 pairings are random, there is likely 1 player in any given match that is the clear winner so the Draw Rate of Round 1 will be relativity low. As the tournament progresses, the skill level of two opponents become closer together, this means that a longer drawn out game is more likely and the chance of a Draw becomes greater. Seeing the Draw Rate of later rounds would be cool, Draw Rates of earlier rounds seem boring. Data is not interesting unless you can understand, interpret and most importantly, explain it.
    Ah, but that's exactly why I want the data-to see if it holds up.

    Vaporeon's statement is also important-to some players, deckbuilding is actually a creative or exploratory exercise, much like film or music. I'm not saying that it needs to be as open as possible, but I will say that it seems to me that the current tournament structure makes those barriers higher.
    Listen to PIRN! The Pokemon Internet Radio Network. We have tons of Pokemon Music, along with interviews with major players in the Pokemon world. Now in CD quality!
    Latest Song Parody: Dewott You Do
    League Leader-Pegasus Games-Madison, WI

  20. #166
    I think have game 3 determined by prizes would solve a lot of issues. You can still leave ties in the game incase players are tied at even prizes at the end of +3.

  21. #167
    At very least, I'd like to see ties completely removed from Bo1 Swiss during LCs and Cities. Having a round end in a tie based off of ONE game is awful, ESPECIALLY when someone is winning in prizes by a huge margin (this has happened to me many times).
    Follow me on Twitter:
    http://twitter.com/xRaen

    My Pokemon TCG YouTube Channel:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/raenpokemon

  22. #168
    Rulings Compendium Translator Glumanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    413
    Over here in Germany, we lose massively players from the Casual department because the tournaments last for too long. Especially, practically all Juniors with competetively playing parents completey lose interest because when their parents play the 2 to 3 extra rounds, they now have to wait double the time which is boring.

    As the danger of being donked is greatly diminished due to the new first-turn-rule, I would not mind going back to best-of-one with some extra rounds to reduce the variability this way. In the end, Pokemon is a Family game. The competitive scene wants to make a second M:TG out of it which IMO is not appropriate given the composition of the player pool. Best-of-3 75 minutes would be certainly the next step in this direction and will do more damage than it will do good.
    Last edited by Glumanda; 05/11/2014 at 09:36 AM.

  23. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by Glumanda View Post
    As the danger of being donked is greatly diminished due to the new first-turn-rule, I would not mind going back to best-of-one with some extra rounds to reduce the variability this way.
    qft
    more rounds > longer rounds

    Lets's look at a tournament with 100 Masters.

    With current rules, there would be 7 rounds b-o-3 50+3 and top cut to 8. The swiss rounds take at least 7 hours and there's a chance of bubbling with 5-1-1.
    With 9 rounds b-o-1 30+3 and a cut to 8, the swiss rounds take 6 hours and almost all 7-2 players make the cut.

    So playing 1-3 additional rounds instead of b-o-3 means:
    + less dependance on matchups and pairings (this is the #1 luck factor in a tournament, not draw or coinflips!)
    + better chances for rogue decks
    + lower tournament duration
    + fewer games decided by time
    + no more draws (--> no more intentional draws or inofficial agreements to avoid draws --> more games are decided by playing)

    = better for competitive AND casual players

    The only problem is that when you get a poor start in a game, you don't have a chance to come back by winning the next two games. But honestly, how often does that happen? In my experience, it's way more often the other way around. Last year in Nationals top 8 I won a long and fair game 1 (was even behind at the start), then lost the next two games due to horribly bad luck and time call in the third game. And I think everyone knows these games this season where you win a long and fair first game, get bad luck in a 10-minutes second game and then end up in a draw. If you really lose because of a bad starting hand, you will probably not even have the time to win the second and third game but draw in the end.
    2nd @ German Nationals 2008 with EmpZong
    2nd @ German Nationals 2009 with Blaziken
    2nd @ German Nationals 2011 with Magnezone/Steelix

  24. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowGuard View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Glumanda View Post

    As the danger of being donked is greatly diminished due to the new first-turn-rule, I would not mind going back to best-of-one with some extra rounds to reduce the variability this way.
    qft
    more rounds > longer rounds
    I 3rd that suggestion. Best of 1 with Extra Rounds is a great idea.

    Even if the plan is to stick with Best of 3, More rounds for tournaments of all sizes is still a great idea for the same reasons. It is very possible to do Best of 3 with 14 Swiss Rounds and a Top 8 over the course of 2 days, see all the Regionals that did this.
    Anthony Caspanello
    Pokémon Professor, Tournament Judge, League Leader
    Judges' Chambers Credentials- 2013/2015 United States National Championship Judge | Boston Open Masters Flight Lead | Judge of 20+ State/Regional Events | Head Judge/Divison Head Judge of a 7 State/Regional Events

  25. #171

  26. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Dav View Post
    We certainly do not disregard feedback we see online, nor do we disregard feedback we receive in person.......

    I understand that some people like the old way of tournaments and others the new. Instead of having the "i heard more people like/hate it" based on word of mouth/forums, why not take an actual vote upon it? Have people use their poke ID and vote for this new format or the older one or possibly a new idea. This can be done online or during a tournament, ie US Nationals with a slip to be entered later. This would provide actually statistical data of how players truly feel about the tournament format and put to rest whether or not this format should be kept.

  27. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by flyinghigh11 View Post
    I understand that some people like the old way of tournaments and others the new. Instead of having the "i heard more people like/hate it" based on word of mouth/forums, why not take an actual vote upon it? Have people use their poke ID and vote for this new format or the older one or possibly a new idea. This can be done online or during a tournament, ie US Nationals with a slip to be entered later. This would provide actually statistical data of how players truly feel about the tournament format and put to rest whether or not this format should be kept.
    What the majority wants does not represent what is best for the game.
    Anthony Caspanello
    Pokémon Professor, Tournament Judge, League Leader
    Judges' Chambers Credentials- 2013/2015 United States National Championship Judge | Boston Open Masters Flight Lead | Judge of 20+ State/Regional Events | Head Judge/Divison Head Judge of a 7 State/Regional Events

  28. #174
    I haven't had the privilege of playing in a tournament that's best 2 out of 3, but I have played a couple of small vanguard shop tournaments that were 2 out of 3. There's no draws but the rounds will still go over an hour every once and a while. But it's usually only three rounds, and ends up taking around 3 hours to finish every time. It's still fun, and the 2 out of 3 rules tend to work well. However in the time it takes to have 3 rounds, we could have done 5 rounds of best of 1. There are times where I have really preferred to play one game and be done, but there are also times where you won't get a good hand and playing one game really is annoying. I think that the time is a problem, but once you remove the ties 2 out of 3 runs quite smoothly. With the ties removed playing is a lot less stressful and I think it would improve a lot.

  29. #175
    Jumping in on some posts a month late but anyways…

    There are real ways to fix the current system, which has real issues. The 50 2/3 format makes time, game situation agreeing to not have a draw etc. too important, issues that I don't believe are 'Pokemon TCG'. These issues can't be seen in just a single statistic on ties recorded. If anything from those statistics, at the master level the problem isn't likely to go away. Games just aren't short enough for these time limits. (By the way, I think the higher % for masters is clearly due to a more even distribution of skill.)

    Prof. Dav gave a nice post on that the time of event issues are likely at their limits, but that still leaves options (many already stated).

    -Make it 2/3 75 minutes with less rounds, or spread over 2 days. This may simply be a necessity to preserve matches come down to real, earned games, but having enough rounds/matches to have a fair event with how many players Pokemon has gained over the years. (Jason mentioned this.)

    -Go with more rounds 30 minutes, best of 1. I am starting to like this more I think to be honest. Every game counts, no games are wasted time. Sure a bad hand costs you a game, but in the current system a bad hand often makes you settle for a tie even if you come back to win game 2. With more rounds though, protection for the one bad game is still built in. You have none of the time/tie related issues we've had this year.

    -Even simpler solution, reinstate partial game rules as Jay mentioned. (i.e. the top cut rules for deciding a winner) These rules aren't perfect, but they do a much better job of rewarding who would've won the game than the current swiss rules do. Once in a while you will still have a game where someone wins on time that shouldn't have, but literally every swiss match right now, someone has the incentive of trying to stall out a game 3 to a tie, or stall out game 2 for a win. It is much different from a year ago.

    2/3 50 is not the optimal system. There are real alternatives.
    I found The Truth
    You Play To Win The Game!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Mulder
    This whole phenomena is a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a government agenda.

  30. This member says thanks for this post:

    FirestormXVI (06/15/2014)

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •