Jason Klaczynski pushes for 90 Minutes

[Mystery Thing]

Organizers have a tendency to be hyperbolic about the amount of time 75-minute top cuts will add to their tournaments. Part of the reason you believe your tournaments would be extended 2+ hours, though is because you are unaware of limits placed on top cut size. City Championships are limited to a Top 8. That means extending from 60 to 75 minutes in a City Championship extend your maximum tournament time by 45 minutes. (15 minutes for Top 8, Top 4 and Top 2). This is irrefutable math. If you want to denounce the proposed time extensions, feel free to, but at least have the good sense to admit you are not comfortable with extending your tournament by what will be at most 45 minutes.

I will give you that I was pulling the 2 hours off of a T16; my bad. But I thought you were arguing for 90 minutes? That would make it 1h30, not 45 mins. If we're trying to find room for 75 instead of 90, that would for obvious reasons be likely more doable.

If you read the article in its entirety, you will read that I actually use the possibility of a Turn 1 loss as a reason for Best 2-of-3. But this idea that 2-of-3 is only to ensure one legitimate game is misguided. What good does ensuring one complete game do when the winner of the only complete game loses the series because he loses a close Game 2 to the 4-Prize Rule and then a Sudden Death Game 3? Sure, you may have completed one game, but why does that matter? In such instances, you could argue that it would have been more fair to simply play a one game series than a 2-of-3 series.

And as I said in my post part 2, I don't think it's good that that's how it's set up. But what other way can it be read when we look at the time limits as written in the rules? Nobody here will try and argue that you can play 2 full games in 45 minutes; if we assume the goal is to do anything other than donk protection, there is simply not enough time in the rules, as the minimum is stated, to allow for that. And yes, that can result in the winner of game 1 getting massively hosed by the clock. 'tis the nature of the beast.


The player part of me would LOVE to have 90 minute cut rounds. I'm never going to sit here and try to tell anybody that, from a player perspective, 60 (or even 75) is better than 90, because that's just categorically untrue. The last year Gym Challenges existed I played in a final with no time limit, and we went over 120 minutes to get through the first two games. But from an organizer perspective, as much as I would love to give players at my CC and STP 90 minute cuts, it would be extremely difficult to run it up to 75, and 90 is more or less an impossibility without adding an extra day. You know, unless we cut lunch break, but I don't know how well that would go over. :wink:

 

[z-man]

You missed the point, I think, which is that the players that are concerned with this change are an overwhelming minority. I would like longer top cuts, so I'm kind of on Jason's side here, but I can't claim to feel any sense of outrage or unfairness over it. It's impractical, and given how much of a minority we are, the "fair" thing to do is to keep making the events practical to run so that we have as many as we do in the first place.

Unfairness? The current cut-clocks are unfair. Mathematically, in a perfect event, top cut is 1/4 of the player base, but its typically a little bit less. Stretch that over hundreds of Cities, 3 States, 2 Regionals, and Nats to get a HUGE population that would be affected by this change. 1/4 of all players every tournament will be affected by this. While the math is purely theoretical, you're discounting how many players will be affected by this. Even pokeparents will top cut at least once in their careers. The mots frustrating thing in this game is losing to time. Especially when you get one of your rare top cuts. You're discounting the MASSIVE amount of players this would affect. Try to think of it in the grand scheme of events... not just single events

Moving on. Does anyone disagree that longer cuts are good for the players? I haven't seen any posts complaining about 75 minutes being bad for the players. Can we agree that 75 and 90 minute cuts would be beneficial for the players?

As far as the actual running of tournaments, I'm pretty much ignorant to how PTOs get venues. Regionals and Nats are already 2 days. At the regionals I went to, we were in-and-out by 6. We could have easily played another round Day 1 to clear up time Day 2. Same goes for nats. Day 1, we could have easily played 6 or even 7 rounds without anyone complaining. Those events should be fairly easy to organize.

Many cardshops around the nation run FNM events (FRiday Night Magic) that can go until 2 AM (mine typically end 11PM, but we start early). With some coaxing, I'm sure TOs can convince these stores to allow Cities to run late. We're only asking for 45 extra minutes, afterall... not 5 extra hours. As I said, I'm ignorant to how TOs are running events, but I have trouble believing that there isn't some bargaining that can be done to make events run smoother.

 

[Glumanda]

I must really say that before people complain about the time limits, first of all they should play within the recommendations given in the rules. If you do and we run into an assessment that if players abide to the pace of play rules and have not enough time to finish b-0-3 in 60 minutes on a regular basis, then something should be done.

I mean, I have watched many of the recordings the TheTopCut made and most matches which were decided by time had a considerable amount of slow play in them. If someone goes into the tank for more than 45 seconds 5 times within one game then this is clearly not the correct pace of play.

If going to 75 or even 90 minutes, you have to realize this:
This does by no way mean that you now have MORE time to think.
What I fear when going to 75 minutes is that people will think that they have now more time, so they can spend more time on thinking and will slowplay even more thus again not finishing their match in time.

On a side note: It was so refreshing to see the HJ of a Magic PT making a pace of play-comment to one of the players in an UNTIMED Top 8 match.

 

[Cyrus]

Pokepop, exactly where are you finding these statements about the ease or difficulty of choosing venues? It's an argument that someone is making, and it's probably a statement that's been made word for word, but it's not one that I've heard in this thread or in the linked article.

 

[meganium45]

Darn it Ness, and OP, you are actually getting me to listen.

Check my posts. I have been staunchly against the increase in time for he cuts.

You may see 75 minutes experimented with at my Cities. I want to see the effect before going "all-in" at the Regionals or States level.

See, well thought out reasoned arguments get even this bull-headed judge to consider. Not by shouting and threatening, but by saying..."LOOK AT THIS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE PLEASE!!!"

Thanks Ness and OP.

Vince

POP is one of the people who has to FIND the venues and manage the time constraints.

It's really not as easy as you all think it is. I've been doing this for almost 10 years, and we still have venues that growl when we go over by 20 minutes.

You can't have an event cost a league its venue!!! The leagues are MORE IMPORTANT for the game than the bigger events!

 

[Alex(charm)ander]

In Oregon there have been a few times where the venue kicked us out during top cut. The tournament needed to be moved.to a nearby fast food restaurant in order to finish. Many venues in this area present significant time constraints where we must be out by six. Larger tournaments are already very long and exhausting, states would end past two AM easy. I rarely ever have games unfinished at time and the few times it has happened the game was.all but decided anyway.

 

[PokePop]

Pokepop, exactly where are you finding these statements about the ease or difficulty of choosing venues? It's an argument that someone is making, and it's probably a statement that's been made word for word, but it's not one that I've heard in this thread or in the linked article.

From Jason's original article:

"Venue Restrictions

Some tournament organizers claim that they wouldn’t mind extending their time limits, but their venues don’t allow it; there just isn’t enough time. To those TOs, I must remind them (I use the term “remind” loosely as most of them know this, but don’t like to admit it) that there is a myriad of places to host Pokémon tournaments, many of which are free or inexpensive. Occasionally, there may be a City Championship venue that is too convenient except that it would force a 60-minute time limit. I can accept this – a 60-minute 2-of-3 is better than having no tournament at all. However, I believe organizers should prioritize finding venues that allow sufficient time for 75 and 90-minute top cuts."

From the facebook discussion:
"Richard, as a TO, it is your obligation to prioritize finding a venue that allows for sufficient time limits. I recognize there are situations where there isn't always possible. I also realize there is a myriad of places to host tournaments for free or very inexpensively."
"While I agree almost every comic book store I've been to is crowded and disgusting, they are alluring because they are free venues. "
Both quotes from Ness

I know a few PTOs are lucky to have free venues.
No such venues exist in my neck of the woods.

 

[Pooka]

I hope that this thread doesn't turn into a battle between players and tournament organizers. After all, we should be trying to work together to resolve this issue. From what I experienced this season, Cities and States already are growing to a point where it's becoming difficult to hold them in one day. For those events, perhaps extending time limits is out of the question (at least for the time being). I don't care where you are; no venue is going to be happy with your tournament running late into the night or even the next day. So, for the single day events, it might not be feasible to change the time limits.

However, this is something that needs to be addressed for the multiple day events that do have sufficient time: Regionals, Nationals, and Worlds. Overall, these are the big events with the most on the line. It's no coincidence that the last three huge tournaments (US Nationals 2011, Worlds 2011, and US Nationals 2012) all crowned their champions in an incomplete third game. The way things are now, the winners of events are being decided by the clock, not the players. No matter how you look at it, that's just not good for the game. Hopefully we can have a civilized discussion about this so that we can make improvements to the game we all love.

 

[Cyrus]

Fair point to show some frustration with that line. He's assuming something relatively major about some PTOs that is taken for granted as truth (especially for PTOs who handle business in areas with high costs and/or population density). However, it really isn't the same thing as saying or even implying that it's "easy" - his argument at that point simply fails to appreciate how difficult it can be for some organizers, which isn't the same as saying it's a hand wave. It would have made his argument much stronger to account for the difficult situations, but the "insult" element seems relatively absent.

EDIT: ninja'd through edits, Pokepop! Based on that context, there is enough proof to assume that "yes," he does think it's easy. However, that doesn't make the prospect of increased time limits any less desirable. There really is an unspoken, massive difference between "up to an hour" of extra venue time and "up to two hours" of extra venue time.

 

[King Piplup]

Blaming the (P)TO's for venue time constraints is the worst argument I've heard on the subject of longer Top Cuts. It's not their fault if no other venues exist, and it shouldn't be treated as such.

JMHO

 

[psychup2034]

However, this is something that needs to be addressed for the multiple day events that do have sufficient time: Regionals, Nationals, and Worlds. Overall, these are the big events with the most on the line. It's no coincidence that the last three huge tournaments (US Nationals 2011, Worlds 2011, and US Nationals 2012) all crowned their champions in an incomplete third game. The way things are now, the winners of events are being decided by the clock, not the players. No matter how you look at it, that's just not good for the game. Hopefully we can have a civilized discussion about this so that we can make improvements to the game we all love.

This.

I think this is definitely a fair compromise to consider. Especially at Worlds, I don't think there will be any players (at least in Masters) who will be opposed to 90 minute top cut rounds.

I have been involved in the booking of multiple hotel conference rooms for my job. I can understand how strict certain places are about penalties for going over the allotted time period (or rather, the period you paid for). Nonetheless, I think the players deserve to have 90 minute top cuts, especially at high stakes events like Nationals and Worlds. It would be amazing if the tournament organizers could somehow work out a way to have longer top cuts at Worlds this year!

 

[PokePop]

I'll just mention that I am in favor of the general desire for longer top cuts.
At one of my early events I tried an unlimited time finals.
That was a huge mistake, but I agree that no one wants to see a match decided by who manages to power up their starting Pokemon first.
Extending top cut times for Regionals and above would probably be workable.
I'm just objecting the the assumption that it would be easy at all event and the only thing holding it back are PTOs loving their 60 minutes and not caring.

 

[kirwin3180]

i agree 100% with this article

 

[Cyrus]

Back on point, there really is an unspoken, yet massive difference between "up to an hour" of extra venue time and "up to two hours" of extra venue time. This whole PTO/venue time issue is a major reason why I'm a much bigger fan of a flat 75+3 as opposed to a 90+3: because 75+3 is the option that would far more realistically be accepted as a community standard, and would stand to have the least unforeseen negative consequences.

 

[psychup2034]

I'm just objecting the the assumption that it would be easy at all event and the only thing holding it back are PTOs loving their 60 minutes and not caring.

Pokepop, I'm sorry to you and to other TOs for having made that assumption. I understand the hard work you guys put in to make tournaments happen for us players. I've attended many of your events, and I can say that I have always felt like you are extremely reasonable in your running of events.

I'm glad that we're having this discussion, because many players, like myself, have grossly underestimated the difficulty of securing venues. Moreover, I know that I didn't consider the importance of maintaining good relationships with the managers of those venues. I can see how going over the time limit by half an hour would irk the venue owner, and sour that relationship very quickly.

Additionally, it's no surprise to me that there is in fact some middle ground that players and tournament organizers can reach. I think the end goal of both parties is the same: we want to see the game grow and improve. To that end, there needs to be a balance between the top cut length players desire and logistical constraints. Sometimes a longer top cut is not possible; for example, one-day events like Cities and States. Nonetheless, I still encourage tournament organizers to consider lengthening the top cuts at all events where possible, especially when there's some time remaining in the event.

That being said, I agree 100% that Regionals and Worlds could go to 75- or 90-minute top cut. (Nationals may be problematic because of various reasons out of Pokemon's control.) I hope that this is a positive change that we will experience next season, if not in 3 weeks at Worlds!

 

[Pidgeotto Trainer]

I have to agree with pretty much Jason's whole article. It is an undeniable fact that time is an enormous factor in a majority of top cut matches as we all see time and again. As someone who has played slow, intricate decks before (like The Truth), the biggest annoyance is how it makes some decks much worse or even unplayable despite them being great Pokemon decks. Anyone who plays a Vileplume deck knows this going in, but it definitely doesn't seem right for the game. Why should one group of decks be hurt SO much by time? It just doesn't feel like a 'Pokemon TCG issue' like say energy count, consistency etc.

I agree with some of the posters here that this may be unviable in small events, and that's fine. But everything seems to wrap up so early on the Sundays of nationals and worlds, I can't believe those events don't have the time for this.

I've heard some argue that it's better to have 60 minutes all year than 60 min at small events, and 90 at larger events. I completely disagree. I will gladly remove time as an issue in the biggest events, even if you can't at the smaller events. And it makes sense too, you just need one match decided by time in nationals or worlds to define your whole season, but a cities loss by time won't have as far-reaching influence. If we have to make solid, creative decks unplayable at cities, I'd still rather see them playable at nats/worlds (and 2 day regionals).

 

[User Name]

While i support 75/90 min b-o-3 at Nationals or Worlds, i can´t agree on it at lowler level events.

Some points:

- 1/3 of my games are done in like 10 minutesin the current format. 2/3 in 20-30.
- Players/Parents travel in groups, longer topcuts mean longer waiting time.
- peope just have to play faster (like glumanda was saying)
- vendors/ TO´s that allow us to play shoud be supportet. So stop acting like player> all.
Longer Events means more time effort for Vendors, what ends in higher cost for sombody.
If i had to guess vendors make the most $ befor the event, more time topcut = not more $.

 

[Politoed666]

The game is 10% extremely competitive players who absolutely require 90-minute top cuts, and 90% families, casual players, and children who don't really care.

Wrong. Even if your percentages are fabricated (that's obvious), you're still wrong overall. While that might be true at League and smaller events, such as Battle Roads, I think the majority of people at States, Regionals, and Nationals are serious players. If they aren't concerned about the length of top cut games, they should be. Unless they're bad, in which case it doesn't matter.

Regarding the OP... Amen, Jason. Not surprising there isn't much support for the idea coming from OP on here. It would require them to do something differently, wouldn't it?

Honestly, many of the players opposed to the idea for whatever reason ought not to concern themselves with it. This is a big deal for the players who are perpetually in cut. If you're never in cut, why worry about it? You can go home anyway!

 

[JokerBoi]

While 90 minute top cuts would be nice. I am still okay with the idea of 75. I think so many matches I have played, observed, and heard about would have went so much differently if we were allowed those 15 extra minutes. It makes no sense for players to get 30 minutes to play one game and then an hour to play up to 3 games. Those 15-30 extra minutes should reflect the possibility of playing that third game.

Another problem is how these rules have caused players to ignore playing decks that focus less on skill and set up in favor of speedy decks that have the ability to donk fast and put early pressure on your opponent. I feel like a best 2 out of 3 is a good indicator of who should ultimately win the match but with 60 minutes that argument becomes nerfed.

 

[Mystery Thing]

Not surprising there isn't much support for the idea coming from OP on here. It would require them to do something differently, wouldn't it?

Strange, I don't recall seeing any posts from the OP guys in this thread...

Would it kill you to not be so freaking cynical? :nonono: