Best-of-3 Match play at Worlds

Discussion in 'TCG News & Gossip Discussion' started by SteveP, Mar 24, 2004.

8 league13 468 60
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SteveP

    SteveP Active Member

    I'm bring this up now because it is my hope that POP "will see the light" like WOTC did and use best-of-3 match play at the World Championship. Here's why:

    Most of the players at Worlds will be near the same skill-level. I'd hate to think that a single game with bad luck will determine the World Champion. For example, I saw Matt Moss win an STS championship game on turn-2 when his opponent failed to draw another basic. Although Matt was a great player that year (and might still be), it was very disappointing to see the Championship match (1-game) last for only 3 minutes, when it took both players all day to get to that point.

    We've been doing best-of-3 match play here in Colorado Springs for over two years now and the players in our area (and in Denver too) view 1-game matches as unfair and undesireable. In fact, when time was critical a couple weeks ago, our players preferred to play fewer best-of-3 matches instead of more 1-game matches.

    Furthermore, I think all PTOs should make every effort possible to support best-of-3 at their upcoming Challenges. It would be ashamed to see a player win a free trip because his/her opponent got unlucky for 1 game and didn't get a proper chance to "comeback" from this bad luck.

    IMO, players who win best-of-3 match play games are the best players. And, we certainly want the best players to play at Worlds AND the best player to be the World Champion.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2004
  2. Pablo

    Pablo New Member

    couldn't agree more SteveP, that's the way we've been doing it here in Mexico with just a slight alteration, and it is perfect for everyone.

    -MuD
     
  3. Clefable73

    Clefable73 New Member

    I like the idea of playing best of three matches also. But in tournaments that are not well organized or have a ton of people that is a long day of playing pokemon. Most parents of young kids do not like staying there or leaving their kids their for 6,7 or 8 hours. With registration, dead time between matches, setting up and playing three games and hopefully at least getting 5 rounds it is a 6 hour plus venture, if it is well organized. I would love to see it at worlds though.
     
  4. PokePop

    PokePop Administrator

    Yes, Worlds will have Pre Registration and will be a two day event.
    Matches make sense for this event.
     
  5. meganium45

    meganium45 Active Member

    For smaller events, sure. And maybe for the top 4 at the Gym Challenges and Stadium Challenges, but 6-7 rounds, at one hour each, just seems brutal, and then 3 rounds of top 8, seems unrealistic for most tourneys. That would be a 9-12 hour event, which is NOT feasable.

    My proposal would be that swiss rounds are still one game each, 30 minutes, and the top 8 rounds are 2 of 3, with 60 minute time limits. Any less time than that, you cannot effectively run 2 out of 3 games, especially with the larger decks that are out there right now, and the better players that are out there right now. You are effectively running a one game match.

    With 7 rounds swiss, one game, and a 2 of 3 top 8, with lunch breaks and all, you are looking at a 7.5 hour tourney, which is really pushing the limits.

    I know players can be "trained" to play faster, but it is not fair or feasible for the players who are playing under the traditional tourney structure.

    How do you decide a match that has one game decided, and the other player leading in game 2 when time is called? Seems to be an unfair result EITHER way that you call this, and the just call, to let them play on until it is decided, or play a third sudden death game, is no real result. The only option is a full third game (with so much at stake), which drags your event on even longer.

    I would be interested in hearing more discussion on this.

    M45
     
  6. NoPoke

    NoPoke Active Member

    I'll bet that SteveP will propose match play and 45 minute rounds...

    One of the reasons for his suggestion of match play is to allow you to recover from those nightmare starts where you loose turn two.


    Oh if time is called part way through a game in match play the result of the unfinished game is discarded.

    Biggest crunch is going to be how effective the TMS software is at minimising the inter-round pause.
     
  7. nikePK

    nikePK New Member

    Like meganium said, I think quite a few people would get upset about 7-8 hour tournaments, but I think for a 2 day event at Worlds, THIS IS A GREAT IDEA! Also, I would really love to see the Gym/Stadium Challenges be at very least best 2 of 3 for top 8. I would really prefer it be best 2/3 for every single round in those because there is just soooooo much riding on it.

    In short I would really like to see best 2/3 for the GC/SCs and most definitely Worlds, as that is 2 freakin' days long. Good idea to bring this up, Steve.
     
  8. Adv1sor

    Adv1sor New Member

    I like two out of three matches. I also like sideboards.

    But, to me, that's not Pokemon.

    It seems to me that a lot of this game is based on luck. Many cards and attacks rely on a coin flip.

    I add in search cards and pokemon like Dunsparce and Wynaut to help, but sometimes a bad draw gets me anyway.

    I hate losing to a bad draw. I don't enjoy winning against my opponent's bad draw. But that's part of Pokemon.

    Win or lose, Pokemon is fun game. I wouldn't want to see that change.
     
  9. nikePK

    nikePK New Member

    When you play 2/3 how is that losing out on fun? You get to play an extra game, where your opponent (or you) will hopefully not get a bad draw if you or your opponent already got one. This makes the game more fun imo.
     
  10. bulbasnore

    bulbasnore Administrator Staff Member Trader Feedback Mod

    Did any of your 2 of 3 Organizers play your CC that way?

    I could see 'slower play' as a tactic if someone won relatively quickly in the first game. NoPoke, when discarding the in-progress game, does anyone 'legal stall' to get it discarded?

    Is discard in progress the accepted rule, or does anyone play it 'rule it as a game called by time'?

    I was going to try 45 minute rounds for something like this. . . Has anyone done 45 minute rounds?

    Does anyone call the individual games at say 25 minutes?

    Could it be played where each game was limited to 25 minutes and any in-progress game was judged on prizes as a win or loss?

    So, 1 game win = 1 match win; 2 game wins = 1 match win; 1 game win and one game loss = 1 match draw; 1 game win and 1 draw = 1 match win and so forth?

    ===

    Oh, P.S. - has anyone ever tried games using a 'chess clock'? There each player is alotted equal, but finite time and concludes their turn by tapping their button on the clock, which starts the clock for their opponent. This has been a tempting thought when some players take too long to make their play round after round, but don't exhibit other traits of stalling. It might also make 'match play' a little bit more possible.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2004
  11. Adv1sor

    Adv1sor New Member

    On the few occasions that I played MTG online a chess clock type timer was used.

    I liked it, but some did not.
     
  12. NoPoke

    NoPoke Active Member

    I'm sure that players in MTG have tried to stall out games in match play. I'm equally sure that the judges know of the tactic and take the appropriate action.
     
  13. Cooltrainer Aaron

    Cooltrainer Aaron New Member

    I'll admit its a good idea, but I don't think it'll really be put into play because it's far too time consuming.

    Also, Pokemon is a game of luck as well. I mean, you don't complain about a lucky critical hit or one hit KO in the video game do you?

    I'm not gonna axe the idea, I think it is a logical thing, but I think they'll go by the second statement.
     
  14. zell94606

    zell94606 New Member

    instead of 2 out 3 matches how about the use of three free hands to choose from. players set there prizes and set out three sets of seven cards and choose one from the three. I would rather have a good lost match than a lost match with a bad draw. 2 out of 3 matches are time consuming. u could do that in the worlds. but is not he greatest idea in small tourney.
     
  15. Articjedi

    Articjedi Active Member

    that would change the rules too much.
     
  16. Prime

    Prime Content Developer<br>Blog Admin<br>Contest Host

    I couldn't agree more. Why do we need one hour per match? Are we so special that we need extra time now? I say give us 30 minute games, and 2 out of three. If two out of three isn't enforced at events, nobody will know who is the better player. Because I could be the world champ and get a crappy hand and a newbie could get an awesome hand and whoop me. Now is it fair that he is now the world champ?
     
  17. nikePK

    nikePK New Member

    you expect to get through 3 games in 30 minutes? Sorry, but that is completely unrealistic.
     
  18. in reality its very realistc. It is a good idea. For a 2 day event going 8-9 hours a day i like the idea that a 3 match round will be played. It gives a fair shot to all who fought thier hearts out to get to that point
     
  19. Prime

    Prime Content Developer<br>Blog Admin<br>Contest Host

    not 3 games in 30 minutes, but 1 game in 30 min and a match(2 out of 3) in 1.5 hours. But again, that might be too mcuh time. How about 20 mins a game, 3 games in a hour. 5 matches equals 5 hours. If it starts at 10:00 AM, it ends at 3:00 PM.
     
  20. Pablo

    Pablo New Member

    I'd be happy to play for 12-19 hours in the WORLD Championship I mean we do want to make sure the winner is the world championship, if it were up to me, I'd make the top 8 unlimited time and swiss rounds, my CC lasted a bit under 10 hours, I mean IT IS 10 hours of FUN FUN FUN FUN, and now 15 hours of FUN with the TOP players, heck I'd lay 24 hours straight!

    but that's just IMO

    -MuD
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page