Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

2 of 3 games - how it is judged

We did have an overwhelming demand from our players to do it this way. Too many titles are determined on one game factors.

Also, with the advent of free side events, there is plenty for players who have been eliminated to do while they wait for their cohorts in the elimination rounds to complete the event. While it may seem unfair to not include those in the elimination rounds in the side events, it allows for everyone to leave with a lot of prizes, as all of the elimination players are guaranteed prizes, and all of the side event players get prizes. Everyone leaves happy (except for a few players, but, heh, I can deal with him).

The 2 of 3 system has been used for the Missouri State Champs and the Tennessee State Champs, both of which I HJd, (Thanks Jon!)

There were NO matches in the elimination rounds that went to the full time. Some came within 5 minutes, but none went the distance.

I have only had to ask a player to make a decision ONCE during both of these tourneys, as a reminder not to stall. With a judge coming by your table every 3 minutes, in an elimination round, there is little opportunity to sit and stall.

I am putting together (in all of my free time) a list of comprehensive rules both for swiss rounds and elimination rounds for consideration by the other PTOs and PUSA to make all of the major events from Gym Challenges, Nationals, Stadiums and Worlds uniform in the way they are called, for penalties and other matters.

I will talk to you all soon. Hope this answers my position on these concerns, as I have, what, 12 trips and 18 invitations to worlds under my control at this point (2 GCs and a SC).

M45
 
meganium45 said:
I am putting together (in all of my free time) a list of comprehensive rules both for swiss rounds and elimination rounds for consideration by the other PTOs and PUSA to make all of the major events from Gym Challenges, Nationals, Stadiums and Worlds uniform in the way they are called, for penalties and other matters.
Click to expand...

M45, you stated a nice list on the PTO posting with rules and such, are you going to post that? Or are you going rework them?


meganium45 said:
I will talk to you all soon. Hope this answers my position on these concerns, as I have, what, 12 trips and 18 invitations to worlds under my control at this point (2 GCs and a SC).

M45
Click to expand...

Wow, that is a lot of trips and invintations in your control. Course I know of a PTO (Not Me) with 4 GC so similar number of control also. But hay I think of it this way, PUI is given a ton of trips away for Worlds which is great cause we have not seen this in a long time. :D It's great how much PUI had done for this game and prize support.
 
Last edited:
meganium45 said:
We did have an overwhelming demand from our players to do it this way. Too many titles are determined on one game factors.

Also, with the advent of free side events, there is plenty for players who have been eliminated to do while they wait for their cohorts in the elimination rounds to complete the event. While it may seem unfair to not include those in the elimination rounds in the side events, it allows for everyone to leave with a lot of prizes, as all of the elimination players are guaranteed prizes, and all of the side event players get prizes. Everyone leaves happy
Click to expand...

As such, it's good that you keep your players happy. Perhaps that will help the parents who are sitting off to the side waiting for their kids, knowing that they are having a good time. What I have issue with is that up to this point, I haven't seen one shred of evidence that POP wants us to do it this way. I'm not a PTO (yet), and I wouldn't pretend to be "in the know" as it were. As such if our "local" PTO decided to go with best of 3 matches for top 8, hey, ... so be it. It's his tournament so to speak. I'll still judge them as best as I can. But maybe I'm reading a little too much into this. I just feel that the way you are presenting this is not necessarily the right way. It looks like "This is a new format that I (or we) have thought up and I want everyone to seriously consider this (my way) so we can all be uniform .... OR ELSE"

Doesn't ....
meganium45 said:
Hope this answers my position on these concerns, as I have, what, 12 trips and 18 invitations to worlds under my control at this point (2 GCs and a SC).
Click to expand...

.... sound somewhat like a veilled threat? Hey, I hope I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.
 
Veiled threat, no.

Cry out for uniformity among us. Yes.

I have decided to take the lead here, and put suggestions forward that will either be accepted or denied by PUI.

I would love to have an environment that whether you go to a gym challenge under Scythking, Sensei, me, GL Blaine, Heidi Craig, or any other PTO, you get the same experience at any event, as far as the swiss and elimination rounds are concerned.

I can see players getting irritated wondering, why was it a warning at farbsman's event, but is a prize penaly under rainbow richards?

Just trying to help make this uniform.

My declaration of trips and invites was just to state that I have a lot under my control. No threat, what would I threaten? I am on the same level with every other PTO, and we have all been given latitude to run things under the rules to the best of our abilities.

I love being a PTO, and would never jeapordize that status, nor would any other acting PTO that I know!

Trying to keep it uniform, and this open dialogue seemed to be a great place to start.

M45
 
meganium45 said:
I would love to have an environment that whether you go to a gym challenge under Scythking, Sensei, me, GL Blaine, Heidi Craig, or any other PTO, you get the same experience at any event, as far as the swiss and elimination rounds are concerned.
Click to expand...

It is a good idea to have a uniformed environment for the Challenges and all the PTOs will be willing to follow. I think that this will be something that PUI will fulling have to say it has to be one way or another. Right now the only thing I have seen on this is the FAQ on the Gym Challenge that states:"After Swiss rounds are complete, there will be a cut to single elimination finals. The number of players to qualify for the finals will be dependant upon the total attendance in their age bracket." So it says single elimination, but I know the best of 3 is being played in that single elimiation round. I think it is up to each PTO right now, but we do need to hear form PUI their thoughts on it.
 
Well, one thing that would help make things 'uniform' from tourney to tourney would be actual penalty guidelines...

'mom
 
I honestly don't see why some people would have a problem with 2 out of 3 format. I doubt any parent would complain if there kid lost his first match but then won the next two and got to go to Florida free.

I just feel that the way you are presenting this is not necessarily the right way. It looks like "This is a new format that I (or we) have thought up and I want everyone to seriously consider this (my way) so we can all be uniform .... OR ELSE"
Click to expand...

If they didn't mention it, why did others do it? It was suggested in a phone conversation plus an email I received from a member at POP, so it is what I did. I was glad to see someone else did it too. So does that mean when I and others tested the Ladder program earlier this year and it wasn't posted for all to see that I and the others were conspiring against POP and the players?

Sure it takes a bit longer, but nobody would complain if it would have been started that way. Its simple, don't want to wait around, then don't. You can drop.

Unless told otherwise all my finals will be done this way. I didn't hear a complaint from anyone at my tournament about the length of time it took. Now if it delays side events that is another problem. I finished Swiss and started top 25% and was able to do a side event in the time that it took to finish the single elim 2 of 3. Then we played Gameboy.

I know very few people that leave right after the main event is over anyway.

Only complaints I had at the tournament was that the kid that went undefeated during swiss didn't win State because he got wipped in 2 of the 2 games he played in the finals.
 
SD PokéMom said:
Well, one thing that would help make things 'uniform' from tourney to tourney would be actual penalty guidelines...

'mom
Click to expand...

I will agree with this. They updated the website, but yet we still have no guidelines.......
 
Last edited:
farbsman said:
I honestly don't see why some people would have a problem with 2 out of 3 format. .
Click to expand...

I dont think people have a problem with the format, just that it was stated in a earlier post that is was suppose to be that way and those that dont might be in trouble. I think that how this stated worry some of the TOs since they had not heard anything.

This is what is it stated in the Pokemon Floor Rules from the website:

Tournament Structure

Definition of a Match
Each match consists of one game of Pokemon. A tournament organizer may declare at the beginning of a tournament, that a match consiste of more then one game, but must state this before the tournament starts.

Match Time Limits
Each round has a recommended time limit of 30 minutes. The head judge will announce the time limit for each round at the beginning of the event.

This is what is posted in the Floor Rules so it looks like TOs and PTOs can do the best-of-3 match round as long as it is stated at the beginning of the tournament. So you can use this format for State, Gym, Stadium, and what other tournaments you want, but it or PUI doesn't state that you have to for them. It is left upto the TO of that tournament which they want to do.

Now it does say the recommended time limit is 30 minutes, which best-of-3 TOs have been using a hour. But that is okay also since the rule is open when it says it is a recommended and could be changed by the Head Judge, just it has to be announced at the beginning of the Event. So before the tournament event starts you have to let players and parents know your match and time limits.
 
Last edited:
farbsman said:
If they didn't mention it, why did others do it? It was suggested in a phone conversation plus an email I received from a member at POP, so it is what I did. I was glad to see someone else did it too. So does that mean when I and others tested the Ladder program earlier this year and it wasn't posted for all to see that I and the others were conspiring against POP and the players?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the rest of us here in the pokemon community are not privy to your phone conversations or emails. Unless of course you'd like us to be! No one is trying to accuse you of conspiring against POP and the players. And there is no reason why anyone wouldn't want uniformity in pokemon, regardless of the situation - be it prize structure (for those not in North America), rulings, or tournament format. Lack of communication to the rest of the community is the issue here. If you were sent an email privately by one person at POP, and others did not, what good is that? Nintendo, and POP have not announced these things openly, so who wouldn't wonder why this subject came up? Pushing the subject ahead as gospel without an announcement to the rest of the pokemon community is folly if you ask me. Until we have an announcement, I still can't see the need to change the format, even though it is not up to me. If you feel this format suits your players and you have no complaints, far be it for me to try to change your mind. But in the same breath, I wouldn't want this to be forwarded (especially in the unfinished manner that it is in) as the defacto way of doing things, trying to make me change my mind either. If I am wrong, I will be more than happy to edit my posts.
 
This was meant to begin a discussion to get a feel for these ideas, and how they work, to develop a unified set of rules.

Hey, I could have simply asked for approval from PUI and made the rules stick for everyone, but decided I would rather get the input of the community, which I believe this board serves.

Don't worry. Once I have these, and my next post, proposed uniform penalty guidelines to a point where there are a number of us who agree, then I will propose them to PUI and try to get them to adopt them as universal rules for all Championship Level events.

That will benefit the community, and the players as a whole, in that we will all know what to expect.

I am using the State Championships as a great way to test these theories out, and it is working out quite well. A few rules tweaks, but still I should be able to post on those this evening.

Not meant as a take it or leave it, but just meant to get the ball rolling.

I figure the Compendium Members have done a great job in taking the lead in the rules meetings, and judgements, that it was my turn to try to contribute to the overall community.

If it works, great. If not, and they say, SORRY, good try but we will put forward NO universal rules, then at least I went for it, and have solid rules for all of my events that players are aware of.

OK, off of my soapbox, back to the real job.

M45
 
As a proponent of best-of-3, my opinion is biased. I support Meganium45's effort to make best-of-3 playoffs a Major Event standard.

NO ONE is going beyond the rules to use multi-game matches. It's ALWAYS been a PTO decision whether to use it or not. It's NOT a format change, just an OPTION.

If you don't believe that best-of-3 is a "step above" 1-game matches, then you're probably a random player who knows you can't beat your local "top-dog" unless you win the coin flip and hope your opponent gets a bad draw.

I'm going to the South Region Stadium with my Colorado Players MAINLY because of Meganium45's decision to use best-of-3 in the playoffs. Why drive 720 miles just to loose because of a coin flip and/or bad draw? That STILL may happen, but it's 2-3 times less likely to happen. I'll take those odds!
 
GLBlaine said:
It is left up to the TO of that tournament which they want to do.
Click to expand...

A good TO will consider the needs and desires of his/her players, also considering the parents' needs and desires (keeping in mind that some parents only care that less-time is better). I'll be more than happy GLB to present a best-of-3 playoffs proposal to your players next week. In fact, I'll put up a booster box as prize support if you'll run a side event using best-of-3, maybe for your Unlimited side event if you want.

So Meganium45, have you received ANY response from PUI regarding best-of-3? I thought you sent them an email about this?
 
SteveP said:
So Meganium45, have you received ANY response from PUI regarding best-of-3? I thought you sent them an email about this?
Click to expand...

I just talked with PUI on the phone about this, and before anyone ask, no I didn't recorded the phone conversation to prove what I am about to post it true or not. :p

For the Swiss part of the tournament it would be better to do it single elimination to keep the tournament on track but a best-of-3 can be done also. For the playoff rounds after the Swiss part of the tournament is it left up to the TO running the event to continue with the match being one round or best-of-3. They are not going to force it one way or another, but leave it to the TO who is running the event. :pokeball:

The important thing is to make sure that players have fun at the tournaments and that TOs need to announce at the start of the tournament the time and format of rounds before anything starts so they and their parents are aware. :D
 
Gym Leader Blaine: said:
For the Swiss part of the tournament it would be better to do it single elimination to keep the tournament on track but a best-of-3 can be done also.
Click to expand...
Single elimination or one-game matches?

'mom
 
Thanks GLBlaine for the phone conversion quote. For a minute, I was afraid they'd "shoot down" any hope of doing best-of-3 at the major events.

I like the comment that numero-uno is to "have fun."

So, is it fun to loose a 1-game match on bad luck? (Sorry GLB, I just couldn't resist.) :) :)
 
Last edited:
SteveP said:
Thanks GLBlaine for the phone conversion quote. For a minute, I was afraid they'd "shoot down" any hope of doing best-of-3 at the major events.
Click to expand...

Nope I dont think they'd "shoot down" any hopes since the floor rules leave it open as long at the TO lets the players know at the first of the tournament what to expect.

SteveP said:
I like the comment that numero-uno is to "have fun." Is it fun to loose a 1-game match on luck? (Sorry GLB, I just couldn't resist.) :) :)
Click to expand...

For your comment on that one, here you go :p It is not fun to loose in any way you look at it, if it was from a 1-game match or best-of-3. What is importand if we handle that loose in a sportmenship way or not.

BTW Steve, if you are going to be in town Friday night before the tournament I can check with the owner of one of the shops and see if we can have some space to play if your players would like a little warm up after the drive.
 
Last edited:
farbsman said:
As I said in an earlier post, it was suggested that the PTO do it that way. I am not sure which email it was, we get almost 8-10 a day. Sorry, I don't really have time to go through all 230 we have gotten in the last 2 months.
Sometimes I wonder if the PTO's actually read all there email. Can't really blame them, some of the email isn't very helpful. I am pretty sure it was a "suggestion" so not all PTO's will do it as it does add time to the event.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah - I read 'em all. Matter of fact I have the list send me a daily summary of all new messages which I can search when an issue comes up. Occasionally it seems to drop a message so I make sure now that I forward any important emails that I worry it may have missed. It's more like a job sometimes keeping up with them but - there it is...
PUI has not made any "official" comment on the 2/3 issue - which I feel is a comment in itself if ever so subtle. Essentially they have always iterated that it is up to the PTO - I for one appreciate the flexibility this gives. In theory it sounds nice to have "standards" but truthfully I think the only standard needed is a penalty guidelines. Even WotC was fuzzy on that one as they stressed the fun factor as GLB has stated. I think PUI is staying with that sort of hands-off approach.
 
meganium45 I like most of how you structured the 2 of 3 format. I do agree with SteveP that it needs to be consistent for resolving draws when time elapsed. Rather than doing a time extension I like the sudden death where the next player who draws a prize wins that game (or in the case where the third game hasn't started, first player to draw a prize). Time extension (i.e. 5 or 10 minutes) is okay but what happens if it is still a draw after that ? Then do you do sudden death ? If so, then the game was extended just to use sudden death anyway. Granted the scenario where the 3rd game hadn't started will favor a person with a faster deck but it is also possible that the faster deck gets a slow start.
It is nice to have this as an option but I feel the ultimate decision (1 game vs 2 of 3 for single elimination) should be left up to the PTO (based on their time constraints, etc...). IMO it makes sense to do a 2 of 3 for single elimination where there are trips up for grabs. I don't know about using this for Pre-Releases and City/State Championships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top