Playing Games Best of 3

[SteveP]

Stop trying to bring the two thread discussions together, choosing a starter has nothing to do with playing games best of 3. Also idk what you mean by benching rule, do you mean how there are 5 bench spots and 1 active spot? Have you ever played the video game or seen the show? It works just like that nearly all the time.
Once again, not the thread to discuss the mulligan system. I made two threads for a reason.

I was just responding to your own statement about losing a game due to only one starting basic. Having more games doesn't directly address that kind of ill-luck.

"Benching" means to lose a game because you can't activate a Pokemon (ie., no bench). By itself, the rule is okay, but when you put it into the context of starting hand, it becomes a negative aspect of the game. SlowDeck and myself just provided possible remedies for that negative aspect -- in response to your own statement.

 

[Sabett]

I was just responding to your own statement about losing a game due to only one starting basic. Having more games doesn't directly address that kind of ill-luck.

"Benching" means to lose a game because you can't activate a Pokemon (ie., no bench). By itself, the rule is okay, but when you put it into the context of starting hand, it becomes a negative aspect of the game. SlowDeck and myself just provided possible remedies for that negative aspect -- in response to your own statement.

I know playing best of 3 doesn't directly address that, but it does in some small way, and still represents a truer match up between the decks and players.

Alright those examples still aren't a good replacement for playing games best of 3 and are still much more appropriately argued on the other thread.

 

[xcfrisco]

Playing 2 out of 3 games would be a lot more fun if you could change your decks after a loss. Similar to what they do at most American street fighter and fighting game tourneys where people can counter pick, lol.

But in all honesty, single game would be a bigger issue if players had to consistenly go undefeated to top cut at most tournaments. As it stands, people with 1 or 2 losses can still make top cut, and its at top cut where 2 out of 3 is implemented anyway. Donks really, really suck, but I'm not seeing donk decks dominate this format, nor do i see it dominating a future format (is SP a donk deck? lol). One game matches are simple, straightforward, take up less time, and mitigates stalling (whoever wins game one in a 2 out 3 match has a HUGE adantage anyway in the current system).

 

[Sabett]

Playing 2 out of 3 games would be a lot more fun if you could change your decks after a loss. Similar to what they do at most American street fighter and fighting game tourneys where people can counter pick, lol.

But in all honesty, single game would be a bigger issue if players had to consistenly go undefeated to top cut at most tournaments. As it stands, people with 1 or 2 losses can still make top cut, and its at top cut where 2 out of 3 is implemented anyway. Donks really, really suck, but I'm not seeing donk decks dominate this format, nor do i see it dominating a future format (is SP a donk deck? lol). One game matches are simple, straightforward, take up less time, and mitigates stalling (whoever wins game one in a 2 out 3 match has a HUGE adantage anyway in the current system).

That would obviously become too manipulative, and is more like of using a really big sideboard, which will be discussed as soon as that article about sideboards goes up.

Also if you hadn't noticed 2 new donk archetypes have sprang up out of nowhere, obviously not dominating but still there. And as stated that is only one thing this helps out in.

Also 15 more min. a round doesn't take up that much time, also if you're advocating to play only one game, then what is wrong with the person winning the initial game and then stalling throughout the second game? Not that I'm advocating to stall, but that if you think there isn't going to be enough time, what difference would it make then?

 

[xcfrisco]

Also if you hadn't noticed 2 new donk archetypes have sprang up out of nowhere, obviously not dominating but still there. And as stated that is only one thing this helps out in.

If you can understand why donk decks aren't dominating, then I don't see how you can make 2 giant threads countering every post in regards to practices that attempt to reduce the amount of donking in a pokemon game.

(lol, the counter-deck idea was a joke, If i wanted to play a game where i could counter pick then I would go play steet fighter more often)

 

[Sabett]

If you can understand why donk decks aren't dominating, then I don't see how you can make 2 giant threads countering every post in regards to practices that attempt to reduce the amount of donking in a pokemon game.

(lol, the counter-deck idea was a joke, If i wanted to play a game where i could counter pick then I would go play steet fighter more often)

I don't "counter" every post, I reply to every post, and not every post is about reducing donking in the game, there has been several post about people who advocate that being part of the game, and other posts talk about many other things within the subject. I've also already said that this is only one thing that this simply helps with, not that it is the only thing it helps with and even already said that this is more appropriately discussed on the other thread.

 

[NoPoke]

..... single game would be a bigger issue if players had to consistenly go undefeated to top cut at most tournaments. As it stands, people with 1 or 2 losses can still make top cut,...

Really? At a lot of tournaments you should know that X-1 is not going to be good enough! Here is a simple example for you.

16 players: 4 rounds swiss and a top 4 cut.

At the end of the swiss you have

1x 4-0
4x 3-1
6x 2-2
4x 1-3
1x 0-4
​

So one player with a 3-1 record does not make the cut.
​

This is not an isolated special case.

 

[Tego]

One problem is what we call the machamp win over here.

This was a major factor back when I used iPlox. You basically won round 1 but it took a long time since your deck is slow and you have to play carefully since you dont want to get flipped out ()
The round 2 starts, your opponent takes a lead, you mount a comeback ocne you're ready, but time gets called although you would have won that game.
Timeout starts and you play against Machamp

This way Machamp wins without having won a real game

This.

What Yoshi is describing here is exactly what happened in Norway when we tried best of 3 in Swiss rounds last season. Someone would win a legit game in 25 minutes, then someone would donk with Machamp or Sableye in the second game, then time would be called, and then the third and deciding game would always be a game called "the deck that is able to draw a prize early game wins".

 

[Victory Bell]

This.

What Yoshi is describing here is exactly what happened in Norway when we tried best of 3 in Swiss rounds last season. Someone would win a legit game in 25 minutes, then someone would donk with Machamp or Sableye in the second game, then time would be called, and then the third and deciding game would always be a game called "the deck that is able to draw a prize early game wins".

^ thats my point on what im afraid would happen entirely.

Well the arguement would be that it would be killing off entire archetypes, but I also agree that it needs to go. This particular point is more suited for the new mulligan rule thread, but I agree that playing games best of 3 would increase your chance of being donked in a game, but I don't agree that it happens more often then when you don't. You more than often get good starts as apposed to bad starts, so where you say that you'll get more bad starts, that's only because there's more games being played as apposed to changing games best of 3 manipulating you getting a bad start. For every bad start you get, you'll have more good starts.

No I usualy get more better starts with that deck (sable,call,very few nrg ect) but the fact that shuppet and other decks like it are built to donk alot of the time, so if I start lone sable (which is good) I still surcumb to what a shuppet player whould call, below avrage. Shuppet, nrg, belt and one of like 10 other cards to kill my chances of makeing top cut. How "fair" is it that their bad start can still beat my good one?

The reason I posted my way of fixing donks is beacuse that is what this thread seemed like it was trying to do.

Im saying that this topic all boils down to stoping donks and bad starts. Just an other reason I would love to be a fly on the wall at PCL.

 

[Box of Fail]

Frankly, I think that one of the major factors of a Pokemon game is luck. I LIKE how a noob who netdecked the world champion's list and misplays all over the place can beat an extremely skilled, worlds-tier player who does everything right, and that, through the points system, that kind of loss is more likely to cost you your invite.

Winning without skill, and only with luck is totally fair. Pokemon ENCOURAGES this through the points system. It's how the game was designed.

 

[Victory Bell]

^Right now it but beacuse hgss is on its way I see donks leaveing. At least T2 donphant is more legit than T1 champ and better too.

 

[Box of Fail]

^Broken Time-Space will still be legal, and that makes it a T1 Donphan.

 

[Victory Bell]

^True but that also means going second and looseing to a ton of other set up decks and any thing that plays DGX or is sp.

But I still dont see why playing 2 of 3 helps any of this.

 

[Sabett]

This.
What Yoshi is describing here is exactly what happened in Norway when we tried best of 3 in Swiss rounds last season. Someone would win a legit game in 25 minutes, then someone would donk with Machamp or Sableye in the second game, then time would be called, and then the third and deciding game would always be a game called "the deck that is able to draw a prize early game wins".

So you think that is unfair? What if the machamp deck had gotten the first win? Wouldn't it seem unfair to that deck to the same token? Or is it that you're saying sudden death is an unfair way to solve matches? Plenty of games are decided by sudden death and it's a simple, quick and fair way of solving a tied game, through matches, or through one game going to time because of prizes. It makes no difference that it happens because of each person winning a match identical situations are already happening and are conducted with just fine.

No I usualy get more better starts with that deck (sable,call,very few nrg ect) but the fact that shuppet and other decks like it are built to donk alot of the time, so if I start lone sable (which is good) I still surcumb to what a shuppet player whould call, below avrage. Shuppet, nrg, belt and one of like 10 other cards to kill my chances of makeing top cut. How "fair" is it that their bad start can still beat my good one?

The reason I posted my way of fixing donks is beacuse that is what this thread seemed like it was trying to do.

Im saying that this topic all boils down to stoping donks and bad starts. Just an other reason I would love to be a fly on the wall at PCL.

So you say that in this situation the gyarados deck does have a better chance of not being donked? If that is the case where you say more games invites more chance to become donked, there is even more chance if not the same of you not being donked. If you roll a ten sided die twice or three times, as apposed to once, you will still more often than not roll 1-7 than 8-10.

No, fixing donks is not the aim of the thread, the aim of the thread is to discuss how playing games best of 3 would or would not benefit the game. Decreasing you from losing to a single donk is one of the various things it does.

This topic does not boil down to just how to stop donks and bad starts. I've said many times that playing games best of 3 will also represent a truer display of the mathc-ups between the two decks and players. For example if Player A plays Player B using Deck A, and Player B is using Deck B. They play a game and Player B wins the game. However the match-ups are in favor of Player A using Deck A, if they play another game then Player A could win, and then win the game after that, which would then represent the truer display of who wins more.

Frankly, I think that one of the major factors of a Pokemon game is luck. I LIKE how a noob who netdecked the world champion's list and misplays all over the place can beat an extremely skilled, worlds-tier player who does everything right, and that, through the points system, that kind of loss is more likely to cost you your invite.

Winning without skill, and only with luck is totally fair. Pokemon ENCOURAGES this through the points system. It's how the game was designed.

Many people who put in their hard effort, and play competitively don't like to lose without being able to do anything about it.

Also I think that even people who are disagreeing with me on other subjects, would agree with me that winning without skill and only luck in a competitive environment, isn't fair at all. The game was not designed for you to lose randomly without being able to do anything about it, look at the beginning of Pokemon, there weren't any donks happening, nobody was knocking you out on the first turn, even less so because of all the ridiculous trainer draw. Also look at today how the developers have made things like call for family and call energy, they're obviously trying to stop donks from happening.

 

[SteveP]

Also I think that even people who are disagreeing with me on other subjects, would agree with me that winning without skill and only luck in a competitive environment, isn't fair at all. The game was not designed for you to lose randomly without being able to do anything about it, look at the beginning of Pokemon, there weren't any donks happening, nobody was knocking you out on the first turn, even less so because of all the ridiculous trainer draw. Also look at today how the developers have made things like call for family and call energy, they're obviously trying to stop donks from happening.

But, Pokemon games WILL be won due to luck. Fair or not, that's how it is. Best-of-3 helps even out the luck.

Last year I won my first and only BZ. I attribute it to a high degree of luck (matchups and opponent hand-craps). Still, I feel I accomplished something good.

And, like I stated in your other topic, I don't buy the notion that donks were not intended by the designers. In fact, the evidence goes contrary to that argument -- there are a variety of cards that support donk decks. Don't look at just CFF and Call Energy. I'd argue there are more cards that support donk decks than setup decks -- at least in the current Modified format.

 

[User Name]

@Sabett

Also I think that even people who are disagreeing with me on other subjects, would agree with me that winning without skill and only luck in a competitive environment, isn't fair at all. The game was not designed for you to lose randomly without being able to do anything about it, look at the beginning of Pokemon, there weren't any donks happening, nobody was knocking you out on the first turn, even less so because of all the ridiculous trainer draw. Also look at today how the developers have made things like call for family and call energy, they're obviously trying to stop donks from happening.

Did you even play in the beginning? Just look at the old days cards and decks, then you will see how many donk ability thes decks had.

Erica's`s Jigglypuff +DCE for example and many more.

The Game is created with the luck based elemts and donks are a legal way to win a match.

 

[Sabett]

But, Pokemon games WILL be won due to luck. Fair or not, that's how it is. Best-of-3 helps even out the luck.

Last year I won my first and only BZ. I attribute it to a high degree of luck (matchups and opponent hand-craps). Still, I feel I accomplished something good.

And, like I stated in your other topic, I don't buy the notion that donks were not intended by the designers. In fact, the evidence goes contrary to that argument -- there are a variety of cards that support donk decks. Don't look at just CFF and Call Energy. I'd argue there are more cards that support donk decks than setup decks -- at least in the current Modified format.

So you would rather have the game be unfair, because that's how it's always been? Even though they've already changed rules before?

What cards are you talking about? What, machamp? It's a stage two, that's fine, most times if a stage two has a single energy attack it'll be KOing a basic. Kingdra could do the same thing. Uxie? Shuppet? Uxie goes back into your deck for reuse of it's power, Shuppet has what was supposed to be a drawback for doing 30 for one energy on a basic.

Did you even play in the beginning? Just look at the old days cards and decks, then you will see how many donk ability thes decks had.

Erica's`s Jigglypuff +DCE for example and many more.

The Game is created with the luck based elemts and donks are a legal way to win a match.

No I hadn't played back then, but I see things like haymaker and see that there's no donking potential there whatsoever, funny that it's not there, and yet it was an intentional part of the game?

But it should also be besides the point if it was intended or not, it's not fair now, and it can be easily fixed.

 

[SteveP]

So you would rather have the game be unfair, because that's how it's always been? Even though they've already changed rules before?

You keep throwing that word "unfair" at me. It doesn't work on me. Try using the word "improvement" or "enhancement" and maybe it will work.

What cards are you talking about? What, machamp? It's a stage two, that's fine, most times if a stage two has a single energy attack it'll be KOing a basic. Kingdra could do the same thing. Uxie? Shuppet? Uxie goes back into your deck for reuse of it's power, Shuppet has what was supposed to be a drawback for doing 30 for one energy on a basic.

Any card or combo of cards that allow you to KO your opponent's first Pokemon or two within the first 2-3 turns. The T1/2 donk may only happen every 4-5 games, but (in your own words) it seems "unfair" when it happens. Examples are Crobat (flash bite), Plus Power, Expert Belt, Rare Candy, etc. A couple years ago when Absol was big, a lucky pick or two could literally cripple your opponent at the start. I don't really think TPC designs those kinds of cards by mistake.

 

[Sabett]

You keep throwing that word "unfair" at me. It doesn't work on me. Try using the word "improvement" or "enhancement" and maybe it will work.


Any card or combo of cards that allow you to KO your opponent's first Pokemon or two within the first 2-3 turns. The T1/2 donk may only happen every 4-5 games, but (in your own words) it seems "unfair" when it happens. Examples are Crobat (flash bite), Plus Power, Expert Belt, Rare Candy, etc. A couple years ago when Absol was big, a lucky pick or two could literally cripple your opponent at the start. I don't really think TPC designs those kinds of cards by mistake.

What are you talking about? You said "fair or not", which means that despite this rule being unfair you would still want it to be in place.

Also I've already made the disclaimer that whether or not donks were intended, has nothing to do with it being fair or not. Also please tell me what about losing from a basic and 6 energies in hand and another on the draw is fair, if you think that's unfair someone else has claimed that to happen to them, and there is also plenty of other examples I can give for bad starts. I would also like to keep the discussion on bad starts on the other thread, this is only one thing that playing games best of 3 solves, and it only does it so-so at that. I've already stated that it also shows a clearer representation of the match-ups between the two players.

 

[SteveP]

(Final word)

Best-of-3 helps even out luck. Although it's a good thing, it might not be feasible during swiss play.

Winning a game of chance/skill (like Pokemon) by luck or skill is fair.

Roll the dice, flip the coin, or draw the card, and stop requesting additional rolls, flips, or draws just because you thought the result was not fair.