30 + 3

[bullados]

However the players don't have access to the standings and can't carry out what-if experiments to see if IDs are safe for the marginal case.

Ian, if this is the case, then why is the biggest question I hear between players who have never seen each other before the tournament began, "What is your record?"

Players are smart. A lot smarter than I think you're giving them credit for. It's possible to figure out all of the tiebreakers just by looking at a Record sheet and asking around a little bit. And it's quite easy to figure out at least your own tiebreaker and what it could look like at the end of a given round based on the record sheet and the pairings. Players do this all the time.

Perception is reality, even when it isn't. The perception, with draws around, is that smart players can take advantage of the system for their own ends. So, we remove the perception entirely. Maybe it's the right thing, and maybe it isn't. But IMO it's solved more problems than its created, so I'm fully in support of not having draws in the TCG.

 

[Ness]

IDs in every round but the last one would be good. Shortens the tournament without breaking balance.

But people will probably still complain!

You can't have draws without intentional draws. The reason for this is because players can naturally draw a game out by exchanging prizes evenly.

And if you're honestly going to tell me that it's going to be up to judges to watch games and determine if players are intentionally drawing the game versus unintentionally, and then allow judges to issue penalties to players who they deem are intentionally drawing, you're out of your mind. This would just lead to tons of arguments, bitterness and hurt feelings. That would not only be too difficult for most judges to determine with certainty, but also a time-consuming, stressful burden to put on them.

 

[Kayle]

You can't have draws without intentional draws. The reason for this is because players can naturally draw a game out by exchanging prizes evenly.

Yeah, so there will be no draws in the last round. At all.

 

[NoPoke]

Bullados: Trust me I'm allowing for smart players. I'm allowing for them to have laptops and be trying out the scenarios. But unless they have the actual tournament files they will not be able to calculate what happens at the margins. You need the Win loss record and pairing for every player in the room. Anything less and you cannot tell who will be 16th and in and who will be 17th and out.

In reality it isn't a battle between 16th and 17th. The way the swiss pairs works makes it much more likely that it is between 12th and 24th a pair of players actually distant from the 16th /17th cut. It isn't enough to have information on the current top 16. Draws do push the battle closer to the 16th/17th cut though.

I'm fairly sure that I'm giving full credit to the numerical skills out there amongst the players. Figuring out tiebreakers isn't hard having all the information necessary to avoid mistakes is hard. Remember that we no longer post the tiebreakers until the swiss has ended.

You assume that players ask for win loss records to manipulate the tournament. Most are just interested in how their fellow players are getting on. I'm sure that some are trying to see if they are in with a chance at the cut but for those where it matters they do not have access to the level of information required to be certain that they are anything other than close to either being in or out. I used to be asked by players what I though of their chances: for some it was easy as they were clearly in or out, others might get a probably in or probably out but there are lots of players for whom it just wasn't possible to get any more accurate than I can't tell if you are in or out.

 

[Ness]

And yet, no one addresses the issue of even ONE player getting screwed over with the IDs.

The same person that can narrowly miss the Top Cut because two peopple ID'd could have the option to ID into the Top Cut had he had the same record & tiebreakers as the person that ID'd. In another tournament, he may be the one who IDs into the Top Cut, causing someone else with a lower record to miss. IDs have no bias towards any type of group. You want to make the Top Cut? You still have to do exactly the same thing: Win more games.

---------- Post added 09/13/2010 at 03:58 PM ----------

Yeah, so there will be no draws in the last round. At all.

You have to get this idea that IDs are unfair out of your head. And with this idea, you still end up with the possibility of one round going very long. Not nearly as bad as every swiss round disallowing draws, though.

 

[Cyrus]

Keith, your main post from earlier can be summarized by three snapshots (if I'm leaving something out, say so):

1) "Everyone deserves a fair shot"

2) "Team play"

3) "Let tournaments be decided at the tables"

And unless I'm mistaken, Ian already addressed those points. Even if it wasn't directly to your post, he made a compelling case for fairness, a compelling case _against_ it being team play, and a compelling case that IDs have a marginal impact at best on where tournaments are decided.

All of these concerns are marginal to the legitimacy of the game, which should be top priority. It doesn't sit well with me that we've had a perfect stalemate legal for the past two years, and yet there's NOTHING you can do to reflect that simple truth.

The truth of the game state is subverted by the tournament system's inability to accommodate for draws, and so you have a "fake" conclusion (forcing a sudden death, or handing out double game losses). Getting as close as we can to the "truth" is what an ideal tournament structure ought to aim for.

 

[sdrawkcab]

*reads thread title*

*reads posts*

hmmm something doesn't match up here....

 

[yoshi1001]

In another tournament, he may be the one who IDs into the Top Cut, causing someone else with a lower record to miss.

What if there is no other tournament, at least not for a year?

 

[PokePop]

I've noticed a pattern on this board where many judges and moderators rarely seem to disagree with anything PUI does. Perhaps you guys get sick of listening to the players complain all the time. (Afterall, we do complain a lot. Not gonna lie.) But don't shut down every idea for change. Some of these would make tournaments more enjoyable for all of us!

On a side note, I wanted to touch on this a bit more.

Yes, you often will see higher end tournament staff posting when they agree with a POP position and/or in support of a POP position. There's a very good reason for this.

Usually, when we disagree with a POP position, we keep our mouths shut and don't post!

This is not surprising.
Usually, we're the PTOs or HJs running events.
Would it make sense for us to go on and on about how this or that sucks about how Pokemon is running things and then go out a run a series of a half dozen events for Pokemon?
Also, if you check the Prof Core Values, Professors (which we are) are not supposed to rail against POP policies unless we have worked to address them in private first.

So, yes, often you'll see judges and moderators taking positions on the side of OP.
But, so what?
Are their reasoning and arguments sound?
If so, then it's worthwhile hearing them present that side of the argument.
You probably won't get POP coming on a public forum and doing it directly themselves!

 

[Mach]

Why can't ID's just be given on a case-by-case basis, with Sudden Death being the alternative? To be honest, the only problem I have with the current system is that SD gives an obscene advantage to certain decks over others.

 

[Ness]

On a side note, I wanted to touch on this a bit more.

Yes, you often will see higher end tournament staff posting when they agree with a POP position and/or in support of a POP position. There's a very good reason for this.

Usually, when we disagree with a POP position, we keep our mouths shut and don't post!

This is not surprising.
Usually, we're the PTOs or HJs running events.
Would it make sense for us to go on and on about how this or that sucks about how Pokemon is running things and then go out a run a series of a half dozen events for Pokemon?

I already knew that, but I'm surprised you admitted it. It's disappointing, though, because by being a Yesman with every single aspect of OP, you're not only not helping the game advance, but hindering it.

I also want to point out there's a difference between throwing a childish rant and constructively suggesting an idea. I don't think anyone at PUI (or anyone, for that matter) should be upset by discussing a legitimate idea. In fact, I believe such ideas and discussions should be encouraged!

It's time to remove this Players vs. Moderators/Judges attitude of the board, and instead realize we're all on the same team, with the same goal: to make tournaments as enjoyable as possible for everyone.

 

[Prof Clay]

The 30+3 change came because of discussion with players and a desire to improve tournament play...I'll even go as far as to say that the push for it in the Chicago area contributed greatly to the testing of it in side events at both Nats and Worlds...

So to say the gang at PUI never listens or tries new ways of doing stuff is just argumentative

 

[PokePop]

I already knew that, but I'm surprised you admitted it. It's disappointing, though, because by being a Yesman with every single aspect of OP, you're not only not helping the game advance, but hindering it.

I didn't say I was being a yes man. I do disagree with aspects of OP and I do dispute them.
Directly with OP.
I just don't bring it out in public.
I'm a professional. It would not be very professional to rip apart the company that I'm representing in public!
However, I have a sneaky way of doing it. If you promise not to tell, I'll let you in on my secret...
I have a message board where lots of people can post all kinds of complaints and disagreements with Pokemon and they come and read them! Hopefully people will also post the things they like, too. :tongue:
Are there "yes men"? Yeah. Sad to say that there are some. In my case, though, if I don't agree with POP's current position, I'll either bring it straight to them or cheer on those making that point.

I also want to point out there's a difference between throwing a childish rant and constructively suggesting an idea. I don't think anyone at PUI (or anyone, for that matter) should be upset by discussing a legitimate idea. In fact, I believe such ideas and discussions should be encouraged!

Agree 100%!
Please don't take my or anyone's taking up the opposing position on a subject to mean that I or we or they want you to shut up. I'm more than happy to have these things discussed on our boards.
On this issue, I'd be happy to enforce whichever position POP winds up taking. I'm merely presenting some of the reasons that they have taken the current position and if that position is argued against, I'll bring up counter arguments.
I'm missing where there is a childish rant in this topic. Can you point me to it, or are you talking about the general case?

It's time to remove this Players vs. Moderators/Judges attitude of the board, and instead realize we're all on the same team, with the same goal: to make tournaments as enjoyable as possible for everyone.

I don't see it as players vs. Mods/judges.
It's simply that we are viewing the game and organized play from a different viewpoint.
Our view is valid.
Your view is valid.
The fact that they are different doesn't invalidate either of them.
It would be pretty boring if someone started a topic on the PokeGym and all the follow up posts were:

"Yep"
"That pretty much covers it!"
"You said it".
etc.

 

[Lawman]

I already knew that, but I'm surprised you admitted it. It's disappointing, though, because by being a Yesman with every single aspect of OP, you're not only not helping the game advance, but hindering it.

I also want to point out there's a difference between throwing a childish rant and constructively suggesting an idea. I don't think anyone at PUI (or anyone, for that matter) should be upset by discussing a legitimate idea. In fact, I believe such ideas and discussions should be encouraged!

It's time to remove this Players vs. Moderators/Judges attitude of the board, and instead realize we're all on the same team, with the same goal: to make tournaments as enjoyable as possible for everyone.

We aren't "yesmen" for OP. We will argue in their favor on issues that have been hashed out in private. That is the key here...the PTO's (and top judges) will meet with PUI and talk about issues. When we have the PTO conference, PUI brings issues to the table to discuss with us and vice versa. Sometimes, this includes issues broached by players....whether here or elsewhere. I understand where you come from here. Dont take it to mean that your idea(s) are simply dismissed. Keep bringing issues forward bc one never knows where the next "good idea" will come from.

Keith

 

[PokeDad]

I know we had IDs, and now we don't. The posts in what has morphed into the ID discussion thread have been thoughtful, and a compellingly valid case for IDs in the game has been made. I don't think IDs are inherently wrong at this point, certainly not as wrong as I assumed them to be. I can also see the value of making the game as fair as possible for all, even if the benefit of a rule is mathematically negligible, not zero, but approaching zero - near zero > zero. I am okay with the "No ID" rule, and I am okay if the rule were lifted. I don't know that either side of this coin can be shown to be empirically superior. I think this is a worthwhile and intelligent discussion and I am glad I read it. Either way, I am very comfortable supporting POPs rule decision and following and enforcing it when I judge events.

 

[Muk Man]

30+3 isn't new... Isn't that the format that Japan has ALWAYS used, and instead of switching to it YEARS ago, we kinda dragged our feet on it? Like honestly our format is slowly slowly conforming to japans. So why the big fuss? am i the only one who noticed this? As far as ID... we had them before PLAYERS ON ALL LEVELS ABUSED THEM so we dropped them, so why bring them back?

 

[NoPoke]

Just a detail but my argument for draws to be reintroduced is based upon the proposition that removing draws as the best way to fix the ID problem has turned out to have much more far reaching consequences than I suspect were expected. That the unexpected consequences are almost all bad and taken as a whole the cure is worse than the illness.

I'm not anti ID or pro ID. I would prefer players to play out games (so I'm actually slightly anti-IDs) but even after removing draws players still concede to their friends so the problem hasn't actually gone away. (I don't like it but I'm stuck with it as you can't remove winning!)

I have not shown conclusively that the wholesale removal of draws was unnecessary to address the ID issue as to do so would require a change to how TOM pairs the final : essentially motivate playing in the final round. Instead I've shown that the impact of the top tables IDing is much less than most would think. I used an actual tournament where despite the presence of IDs the top cut changed by just one player when more than half the top tables ID. It didn't change at all when half the tables IDed and it only changes by two players if all eight results from the top tables are reversed. I used an actual tournament where the problem should show up and not a rigged tournament where I could hide the issue. The ID problem was actually a molehill that was thought to be a mountain and as such did not need a big change solution.

DCI Reporter does not randomly pair players in the last round of swiss. Reporter gives the game away and makes the ID decision much simpler for the players. When using Reporter the top tables really are by rank in that last round. This isn't the case for TOM where pairing is random by record for every round including the last. Table 1 may have the two X-0s playing and is definitely the top table but for the 11 X-1s at the next five tables it is very unlikely with random pairing that table two has the next best pair playing. I think that TOM is superior to reporter in this respect. The history is such that the changes that POP made to remove standings information from players came after the removal of draws. That change would have had a beneficial side effect on IDs by making the decision for the players less clear. As you make the decision less clear you get fewer players prepared to risk it. It would not have been enough on its own but every little helps.

If the only impact to removing draws was that players who were already guaranteed their place in the cut had to play out relatively meaningless games in the last two rounds to appeal to spectators, or quiet the unease of parents and staff, or just because it is simpler to explain to juniors then I would have zero issues with the change. But that isn't the case.

No one should believe that the wholesale removal of draws came without side-effects.

 

[sdrawkcab]

It would be pretty boring if someone started a topic on the PokeGym and all the follow up posts were:

"Yep"
"That pretty much covers it!"
"You said it".
etc.

Wouldn't those posts look more like:
"Yep 117171717171717"
"That pretty much covers it!"
"You said it seventeen"
etc.
:thumb:

 

[Lawman]

30+3 isn't new... Isn't that the format that Japan has ALWAYS used, and instead of switching to it YEARS ago, we kinda dragged our feet on it? Like honestly our format is slowly slowly conforming to japans. So why the big fuss? am i the only one who noticed this? As far as ID... we had them before PLAYERS ON ALL LEVELS ABUSED THEM so we dropped them, so why bring them back?

No! Japan usually plays half decks (30 cards/3 prizes) or 40 card decks. They also play single elimination events. Would you want to travel hours to a Regional. lose rd 1 and be done??? We are not moving closer to Japan's way of running tourneys. Shoot, Japan doesn't even have PRs! You should see the japanese players playing the PRs @ Worlds....they are a hoot!

Keith

 

[Biggie]

I already knew that, but I'm surprised you admitted it. It's disappointing, though, because by being a Yesman with every single aspect of OP, you're not only not helping the game advance, but hindering it.

I also want to point out there's a difference between throwing a childish rant and constructively suggesting an idea. I don't think anyone at PUI (or anyone, for that matter) should be upset by discussing a legitimate idea. In fact, I believe such ideas and discussions should be encouraged!

It's time to remove this Players vs. Moderators/Judges attitude of the board, and instead realize we're all on the same team, with the same goal: to make tournaments as enjoyable as possible for everyone.

Sorry this is off topic but I would like to point out that there is a difference between being a professional who follows the Professor Core Values, and being a “yes-man”.

No one here is upset that folks want to discuss what they see as issues. We do and always have encouraged people to send us feedback and suggestions. (In fact Dave and I had a good conversation about the email you sent us just the other day.)
In order to run a program like this you also have to be able to seek out and appreciate those who are also willing and able to offer constructive criticism and POP is fortunate to have plenty of folks who care enough about the game that they are willing to tell us exactly what they think.
Most of those folks also manage to do so while still following the Professor Core Values, which is even more impressive. :wink:

Also, while "yes-men" exist, I think you may be using the term unfairly. I have met precious few “yes-men” in our program thus far. Keep in mind that what you are talking about are sycophants who claim to agree with POP regardless of what their own opinion might be. We may have plenty of folks who like the way things are and who are super excited with our program just the way it is, but that does not make a person a sycophant.

We don’t ever immediately assume that a person who criticizes us is doing so just to be contrary or a hater so I would caution folks to not label those who might legitimately support our programs as sycophants or yes-men. One of the fastest ways one can break up constructive debate on a topic is to disparaging a person’s opinion based on an unfair label.