Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Dear TPCi: Scrap the disaster that is 50+3!

Status
Not open for further replies.
CeNturist said:
or refuse to admit they've made an error i.e. Tropical Beach?
Click to expand...

What error do you think TPCI made with Tropical Beach?

They didn't print it. They don't make the final decision to reprint it (or not reprint it). In all likelihood, they don't decide if it gets banned or not. (Even if they did get to be the call on if it's banned or not, how would you like to be the one who has to deal with all of the rage-filled emails from people who paid $500+ for a playset of them, only to have it banned?)

The card itself and the situation in which it has been released probably isn't the best, no. But you're blaming the wrong entity for it.



About sideboards:

I've haven't played any games using a sideboard in recent memory - I played a tiny bit of MTG last year but never in non-casual (so never used them), and haven't played YGO in years and years, so honest question: in games that allow them, do you have to reset your deck back to what it originally was for game 1 in each match? Or is it more or less a free-for-all where you have X cards and you can pick what your deck is from that total card pool (within the constraints of the deck construction rules, obviously) for any game, no matter when it is?
 
Last edited:
Mystery Thing said:
About sideboards:

I've haven't played any games using a sideboard in recent memory - I played a tiny bit of MTG last year but never in non-casual (so never used them), and haven't played YGO in years and years, so honest question: in games that allow them, do you have to reset your deck back to what it originally was for game 1 in each match? Or is it more or less a free-for-all where you have X cards and you can pick what your deck is from that total card pool (within the constraints of the deck construction rules, obviously) for any game, no matter when it is?
Click to expand...

Sideboard can only be used by players after the first game of a match has finished. You can't use it once you hit the table. You have to play the very first game against your opponent with the deck you entered in. After that game (and game 3if it goes that far) you can change out cards in your deck for a X about of cards in your sideboard but you can only put in cards equal to what you take out. After the game, you have to put those cards back into your deck.
 
Mystery Thing said:
What error do you think TPCI made with Tropical Beach?

They didn't print it. They don't make the final decision to reprint it (or not reprint it). In all likelihood, they don't decide if it gets banned or not. (Even if they did get to be the call on if it's banned or not, how would you like to be the one who has to deal with all of the rage-filled emails from people who paid $500+ for a playset of them, only to have it banned?)

The card itself and the situation in which it has been released probably isn't the best, no. But you're blaming the wrong entity for it.
Click to expand...
I think we can certainly blame TPCi for not even addressing the Tropical Beach issues AT ALL, not even to say "we aren't going to do anything about it". It really is a big pretty significant issue that shouldn't just be entirely ignored. Blastoise is most certainly the best deck right now, and has always been a powerhouse, and you can't even consider playing it at a high level if you don't have hundreds and hundreds of dollars for Tropical Beach.
 
Ok, hold up.

This thread has NOTHING to do with the Beach issue. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

Can we keep it about the 50+3 to maximize the community opinion on that issue, not the Beach argument for the umpteenth time?
 
the biggest problem i have with the system is a low top cut size that undermines the use of draws in games. having anything more than 1 draw means you wont make top cut. this makes draws irrelevant to the tournament outcome.

in my opinion either lose draws all together when using a top cut to 8 or open it up to top 16 if draws are going to be used.
 
King Piplup said:
Ok, hold up.

This thread has NOTHING to do with the Beach issue. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

Can we keep it about the 50+3 to maximize the community opinion on that issue, not the Beach argument for the umpteenth time?
Click to expand...

I wasn't putting Beach up for debate. I was using it as an example of P!P and TPCi's failure to address issues that affect the playerbase, which has been continued by virtue of 50+3 Bo3.


So, then, is it reasonable to think that something will actually be done in regards to 50+3 Bo3 pre-nats?
 
celeni said:
the biggest problem i have with the system is a low top cut size that undermines the use of draws in games. having anything more than 1 draw means you wont make top cut. this makes draws irrelevant to the tournament outcome.
Click to expand...
Draws are also used to expedite the tournament rounds.
 
celeni said:
the biggest problem i have with the system is a low top cut size that undermines the use of draws in games. having anything more than 1 draw means you wont make top cut. this makes draws irrelevant to the tournament outcome.
Click to expand...

There are two sides to every draw.

Of course if you were heading towards a win, you don't like drawing
But if you were going to be on the losing end, a draw is better than a loss.

The fact is, you played two full games so far, and you were evenly matched. It's a draw.

More importantly, other players who were able to 2-0 an opponent, or complete a third game in this "fast format" as Jaeger says...manager to determine a clear winner by game rules alone. Another other method (prize lead, 4 prizes, etc) are tournament rules attempting to determine a winner. Instead of doing that this year, the tournament is leaving it up to the players to adopt a style of play that lets them determine the winner themselves.
 
CeNturist said:
I wasn't putting Beach up for debate. I was using it as an example of P!P and TPCi's failure to address issues that affect the playerbase, which has been continued by virtue of 50+3 Bo3.
Click to expand...

But you've got to at least acknowledge that the player base is divided on these issues. Many people don't think Tropical Beach as a problem. Others don't think 50+3 Bof3 is a problem. So you have unrealistic expectations if you think a company needs to respond to something that clearly they believe is proper, and that half their users thinks is just fine.
 
Tropical Beach is good for the game the price tag isn't. There seriously would be no complaining about the card if it were a $10 holo.
 
I agree that it needs to be changed... Either add about 10 more minutes. Or make it 50+3+most prize cards taken...

And the price of Beach is just too ridiculous to really comment on any further...
 
losjackal said:
There are two sides to every draw.

Of course if you were heading towards a win, you don't like drawing
But if you were going to be on the losing end, a draw is better than a loss.

The fact is, you played two full games so far, and you were evenly matched. It's a draw.

More importantly, other players who were able to 2-0 an opponent, or complete a third game in this "fast format" as Jaeger says...manager to determine a clear winner by game rules alone. Another other method (prize lead, 4 prizes, etc) are tournament rules attempting to determine a winner. Instead of doing that this year, the tournament is leaving it up to the players to adopt a style of play that lets them determine the winner themselves.
Click to expand...
your simply stating that even matches exist.
I was putting forth that draws were another form of game condition. a game condition of value toward higher placement in a tournament. as it currently stands drawn games for top 8 show up like this 5/1/1. in that measure draws were a detriment to all those who missed cut. may as well have been losses.
 
losjackal said:
But you've got to at least acknowledge that the player base is divided on these issues. Many people don't think Tropical Beach as a problem. Others don't think 50+3 Bof3 is a problem. So you have unrealistic expectations if you think a company needs to respond to something that clearly they believe is proper, and that half their users thinks is just fine.
Click to expand...

So you're suggesting that the status quo is healthy? Because even so called "supporters" of 50+3 on these boards have acknowledged it has tremendous flaws. I argue, as have many others, that constraining 3 games to an unreasonable time limit is fundamentally flawed. The purpose of a three game series is to maximize skill and minimize luck. But when three games can't be completed, this purpose cannot be fulfilled (and in many situations, 50+3 has adverse effects). That's axiomatic. There seems to be a tendency of many to assert that the system is effective solely because it is endorsed by P!P, which isn't the case. If one sees flaws in the system, they ought to voice concerns of those flaws with the community and strive for change. That benefits all involved. My expectations are that a company takes measures to better its product for its customers. As the premise of playing three games in a 50+3 timeframe is detrimental to the quality of the game, it is a logical expectation that P!P will make efforts to adress the issue.
 
CeNturist said:
So you're suggesting that the status quo is healthy? Because even so called "supporters" of 50+3 on these boards have acknowledged it has tremendous flaws. I argue, as have many others, that constraining 3 games to an unreasonable time limit is fundamentally flawed. The purpose of a three game series is to maximize skill and minimize luck. But when three games can't be completed, this purpose cannot be fulfilled (and in many situations, 50+3 has adverse effects). That's axiomatic. There seems to be a tendency of many to assert that the system is effective solely because it is endorsed by P!P, which isn't the case. If one sees flaws in the system, they ought to voice concerns of those flaws with the community and strive for change. That benefits all involved. My expectations are that a company takes measures to better its product for its customers. As the premise of playing three games in a 50+3 timeframe is detrimental to the quality of the game, it is a logical expectation that P!P will make efforts to adress the issue.
Click to expand...

That assumes that the point is to be able to play 3 full games in 50+3, which it isn't. The point is to be able to play 1 full, legitimate, didn't-lose-in-45-seconds game in 50+3. As far as I've understood it, the point of 2/3 50+3 was solely to put in protection against donks - if you got T1/T2ed in game 1, you still had a chance to come back and avoid a loss (ie, get a tie - you still lost the first game, so do you really deserve a win (in a non-completed 2 of 3)?). Then right after 50+3 was announced, Japan dropped the no attack on first turn rule, which was now solving a problem that had already been solved.

I have no problems at all with 50+3, given what it was introduce to accomplish. That said, I totally get people's disgust that a game in progress doesn't get to count. What if they did nothing at all but reinstitute the 4-prize rule for uncompleted games in the swiss rounds? Ties would still exist, but then if you outright lost game 1 and we winning game 2 5-2 (for example) after the +3, you win game 2 and the match ends in a tie. Would that solve most people's grumblings? Or is it not 2/3 50+3 that people are ACTUALLY mad about, it's that ties are a thing at all?
 
CeNturist said:
So you're suggesting that the status quo is healthy? … The purpose of a three game series is to maximize skill and minimize luck. But when three games can't be completed, this purpose cannot be fulfilled ... As the premise of playing three games in a 50+3 timeframe is detrimental to the quality of the game, it is a logical expectation that P!P will make efforts to adress the issue.
Click to expand...

Do you know what P!P publicly stated purpose of 50 minutes of Best of 3 Swiss is? It is to play "at least one game". Not "three full games".

I believe the status quo is NOT optimal and NOT flawless, but it's just fine as many other tournament structures for determining who performed the best that day, according to the day's tournament rules. And applied to tournaments throughout a whole season, it is proving to adequately allow the best, consistent players to earn their Worlds invitations.

So voicing opinions? Fine.
Expecting a public response, when their plan is working as intended? Unrealistic.
Expecting them to make modifications for next year, based on everything they learn this year? Realistic.
 
As someone who was solely a spectator and has only been to 1 Bo3 tournament (WI states), I will say that the energy level seemed really down from previous years-I got tired just being there. It didn't really seem like anything exiting was happening-it was more like watching people work.
 
I think that is a true statement...playing in the tournament is more work this year.

As a counterpoint, I surveyed the Virbank City Facebook group, and the majority preferred to still play 9 rounds of Best of 3 rather than go back to 9 rounds of Best of 1.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top