Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
After this past weekend, I think it would be hard to justify continue to play this game in a competitive manner past this season when the competitive tournament structure is so obviously flawed. I finished 4-0-3 for 11th place, playing a Plasma deck which can hit for 120 damage on turn 1 and has multiple OHKO attacks, so by no means was I playing a slow deck, yet close to half of my games ended in a tie (and actually more than half did as my final round opponent conceded to give one of us a shot at Top, as a tie did neither of us any good). I don't think it's good to have a tournament structure in which you never lose a single match the entire day, but you don't get a shot to try to become the champion of the tournament. I think in that regard, an expanded top cut (Top 16 like it used to be just a year ago) would rectify the issue of having all worthy players in contention to win the tournament.

The bigger issue though, than the limited cut, is the best of 3, 50 minutes. The game is at a pace right now, where it's almost impossible to finish 3 complete games, but it's also really hard to not finish 2 games in that time limit, making for a tie to be the most likely outcome of a match against two evenly matched players with evenly matched decks. This rewards the good players who hit less skilled players, or favorable matchups, and punishes the good players who get paired against other good players, and even/unfavorable matchups. I think the good players still rise to the top, but some are unfairly punished by having to play more of the other highly skilled players than others. Again, an expanded top cut would help to alleviate this problem.

When two good players play each other, the margin of difference can be so little in a game, that the decision of a match would expected to be extremely close. With the current system, extremely close means tie. In the past, and I think what most players would prefer, extremely close would mean, extremely close, but one player came out ahead by the slimmest of margins.

I'm not sure if anyone will actually care about this thread, but I think my opinion should matter to the higher ups in charge of this type of stuff because I'm #22 in North America in play points right now, which means I invest more money than most into the organized play system than most others. This thread has plenty of others high up in the play point standings posting out against the current system, so I think it would be wise for the people in charge of this to take seriously the request for change.

And remember, these are your competitive players who would like skill to be best represented in determining a winner. If the competitive players reject the system and would appreciate a change, it's only logical that the more casual players would like to do away with the system of bountiful ties and exclusionary top cuts.
 
I've yet to speak with a single person this year who didn't cringe at the idea of Bo3 Nats.

I'm not expecting a change, but it'd be nice. Guess we'll see how Nationals goes, but looking into the future, 5-1-1 bubbling Worlds looks very, very ugly; and more than possible.
 
At states this year, I went 2-2-3. Of those games, I only outright lost my last game. In fact, I won my first game of each of the ties and my first loss (which I agreed with my opponent that whoever was ahead on prizes after +3 would be conceded to). If I had slowplayed my opponent instead of keeping up a lively pace, I might have gone 5-1-1, but that's not within the Spirit of the Game. However, I did overhear at least one other player talking about how he slowplayed to victory with some of his friends. Now, given the ability to play out all my matches, I think I would have ended up 5-2-0 or 4-3-0 depending on luck.

50+3 for three-game match play is ridiculous. There has to be a better option for high-level events. As it is, it is hurting the game and the integrity of events. Whether it is players slow-playing to keep game 2 from finishing or some players flipping coins to determine who will "win" a game and go on to top cut, the rules as they are right now encourage cheating through difficult-to-detect methods. Please review this, TPCi and come up with something that works.
 
Charranitar said:
After this past weekend, I think it would be hard to justify continue to play this game in a competitive manner past this season when the competitive tournament structure is so obviously flawed. I finished 4-0-3 for 11th place, playing a Plasma deck which can hit for 120 damage on turn 1 and has multiple OHKO attacks, so by no means was I playing a slow deck, yet close to half of my games ended in a tie (and actually more than half did as my final round opponent conceded to give one of us a shot at Top, as a tie did neither of us any good). I don't think it's good to have a tournament structure in which you never lose a single match the entire day, but you don't get a shot to try to become the champion of the tournament. I think in that regard, an expanded top cut (Top 16 like it used to be just a year ago) would rectify the issue of having all worthy players in contention to win the tournament.

The bigger issue though, than the limited cut, is the best of 3, 50 minutes. The game is at a pace right now, where it's almost impossible to finish 3 complete games, but it's also really hard to not finish 2 games in that time limit, making for a tie to be the most likely outcome of a match against two evenly matched players with evenly matched decks. This rewards the good players who hit less skilled players, or favorable matchups, and punishes the good players who get paired against other good players, and even/unfavorable matchups. I think the good players still rise to the top, but some are unfairly punished by having to play more of the other highly skilled players than others. Again, an expanded top cut would help to alleviate this problem.

When two good players play each other, the margin of difference can be so little in a game, that the decision of a match would expected to be extremely close. With the current system, extremely close means tie. In the past, and I think what most players would prefer, extremely close would mean, extremely close, but one player came out ahead by the slimmest of margins.

I'm not sure if anyone will actually care about this thread, but I think my opinion should matter to the higher ups in charge of this type of stuff because I'm #22 in North America in play points right now, which means I invest more money than most into the organized play system than most others. This thread has plenty of others high up in the play point standings posting out against the current system, so I think it would be wise for the people in charge of this to take seriously the request for change.

And remember, these are your competitive players who would like skill to be best represented in determining a winner. If the competitive players reject the system and would appreciate a change, it's only logical that the more casual players would like to do away with the system of bountiful ties and exclusionary top cuts.
Click to expand...

Here is another problem with the tie system. Had Andrew actually made top cut he would have "screwed over" somebody who "earned" top cut without the need of a scoop. Most likely he forced a player out of prize contention with said scoop. This new system creates so many scoops and "underhanded deals" between players.
 
Underhanded might be a really bad word because I'm not referring to Andrew for this. I've seen so many deals made between players on how to decide game out comes including more prizes taken, die rolls or prize splits.
 
I personally think this is a step in the correct direction. I think the problem lies with having to have players agree in the later rounds that whoever is winning G3 after the +3 turns gets the win. It's not against the rules, because you're willingly conceding based on game state.

I've played now 9 rounds at Regionals. I went 5-2-2, and my last round opponent I was up 5-0 on prizes and ran out of time to win. I got the win from him, but it was stupid to be in the position.

I played 6 rounds in the first states, and went 4-1-1 in swiss. My last round opponent scooped the series after I won G1.

I played 7 rounds in the second states, and went 4-2-1 in swiss. The one tie was because I was stupid, but one of my wins should have been a tie, a PokeParent wasn't going to stay and wasn't going to ruin someone else's shot to make cut, so I got the win instead of the tie.

I played 6 rounds in the third states and went 4-1-1 in swiss. I had one game I got lucky to win and not tie, another I got the win due to being ahead in G3 and both of us agreeing to it.

I haven't seen a huge issue with it, and I like the Bo3 format better than previous ones, but there are some obviously flaws. I understand not wanting to have games that have 4 prizes or whose ahead in G3 count, because if it is tied, it causes the round to be even longer, but maybe it's needed. I think that the best of 3 is a good one, and while there are issues with it, I'm not overly worried about it in general. The fact that I can't get donked in one game and lose, is very nice.

I don't know, I see the problems, but I've been able to avoid it, and overall I'm a fan of it. It becomes an issue if there is a noticeable difference from the winner of G1 in G2 though.

Drew
 
Agree completely. The past tournament structure had random scoops for the 1-2 matches involving a downpair, but nothing more, and that was such a minuscule part of the total tournament. It's really hard to tell how much, but a good number of games in the last 3 rounds were decided by some type of concession agreement.

I think it creates a really sucky situation for all players involved. A record like 4-0-3, or 5-2 may be the record that plays out as normal. However with lots of concession agreements making up the results for a solid percentage of the matches in the tournament, the number gets pushed higher because of artificial wins (that should be ties), making it unacceptable for all other players to take more than 1-2 ties, without giving up on cut. It's just a giant domino effect of one concession agreement between one matches causes a bunch of others, as they all need to do it to keep up.

This has been the case at both regionals and all three state championships I've been to, so I would say its a widespread problem.

And to elaborate more on the ties. The last two states I played a TDK Plasma variant with lasers and muscle bands. It does lots of damage fast and can obviously ohko. Even that is too slow to finish three games in this format (possible because my opponent wins slower against my deck, because they only take 1 prize for each ko's).

I technically should have had 6 ties out of 14 rounds at TN and KS playing the deck. That's a whopping 42.9% of my matches ending in a tie. But actually it's 6/13, since I got a 1st round bye at TN.

So match conclusions were:

2-0 Win: 4/13 (30.7%)
2-1 Win: 1/13 (7.7%)
0-2 Loss: 1/13 (7.7%)
0-1 Loss: 1/13 (7.7%)
1-1 Tie: 6/13 (46.1%)

The ties happened with the following game situations:

TN
R2 - Time called during setup for game 3.
R3 - Time called with neither player taking a prize in game 3.

KS
R1 - I was up 5-0 on prizes game 3.
R2 - No prizes taken in game 3.
R6 - No prizes taken in game 3.
R7 - No prizes taken in game 3.

I think there's a strong trend of have enough time to finish two games, but not enough for much more. I don't think that should be too surprising with 30 minutes for single game Swiss being what they seem to be enough time to complete a single game.

Hopefully the additional information in regards to the nature of the ties can help the people in charge of making changes to the tournament structure see exactly where the flaw in 50 minutes best of 3 lies.
 
Dear TPCi: Please acknowledge your players' concerns.

Given the enormous and obvious unpopularity of the 50+3 time limits, I think it would would be appropriate if a member of TPCi's Organized Play team addressed the players' concerns.

Dear TPCi:
As your loyal customers, competitive Pokémon TCG players expect your Organized Play team to address concerns regarding your tournament system, especially ones that make events less enjoyable for players and staff alike. Please take a moment to address these concerns, and let players know if and when improvements can be expected.


A response would be appreciated by the entire community.
 
Last edited:
I personally think 50+3 is fine and fair, I understand the time restraints of not only the staff but the venues as well. I am speaking as both a TO and competitive player, best of 3 is a welcome addition and is a good step in the right direction. I do however feel that there are issues that need to be addressed with 50+3 mainly the "+3", there should be a tie breaker in place to decide some matches. I am personally a fan of the old rule of more than 50% of a players prizes have been taken. I propose we reinsert that rule into this 50+3 format, so if a player has only 2 prizes left on game 3 they are declared the winner. If this is not accomplished or it is not game 3 the end result would be a tie.
 
I know I personally chose to play fast decks (Empoleon and Tool Drop) over more strategic decks this season because I was afraid of the tie, and 15/16 of my games did not involve one. I prefer BO1.
 
First off - I’d like to start off by thanking TPCi for taking a step in the right direction with the introduction of what they felt would be a means of reducing a little variance from the Pokémon TCG. Also, for listening to your player base that have longed for the introduction of Match-play Swiss rounds for many, many years. I do however share the sentiment of those that have been left unsatisfied with the issues that arise when attempting to complete a match in just 50 minutes. I won’t bother listing personal experiences or specific issues (they’ve been nailed in this thread already) though hope TPCi do their best to push on from the solid foundation they’ve set this year by giving us a more satisfactory time limit at the start of next season.

I think the community would also highly appreciate if a member of TPCi's OP team took a minute to address these issues, so we may know what to expect in the future.

Many thanks,

Sami.
 
Personally, I don't have a problem with the 50+3 format. It gets the job of completing one 'legit' game done. However, I think that the top cut should be expanded. Having 100+ players for states and having only 8 people with a shot at 1st place after swiss is just silly to me.
 
I noticed at events that morale seems to be really low. Players all seem to be asking the question "should I go this this event" or just flat out say "I am not playing". I don't know if this is either due to the entry fee of the best-of-three rule, but players just seemed tired of Playing Pokemon. Did TPCI really screw up here?

- - - Updated - - -

Golfer570 said:
This format encourages stalling.

This format prevents properly timed game making decisions to take place due to time restraint.

This format discludes people who score 5-1-1 from top cut, even though 5 people got the exact same score.

This format makes tournaments go all the way to midnight.

This format is very upsetting, and needs to be changed from 50+3. -Caleb Broeker
Click to expand...

"This format is very upsetting, and needs to be changed from 50+3. -Caleb Broeker"
Yes, I very much agree!
 
Given the enormous and obvious unpopularity of the 50+3 time limits, I think it would would be appropriate if a member of TPCi's Organized Play team addressed the players' concerns. (Ness)

I don't know if this is really the case that this 50 + 3 is really that unpopular.
From a tournament organizers point of view:
1. I don't like ties and think we should have a clear winner in the swiss rounds or at least have the person ahead on prizes (50% or more) in a game the winner.
2. I think that as an organizer I must teach my judges to be more proactive in speeding up the games, penalties for slow play. This is active judging and must be taught.
3. Give ties .5 points

chuzzoe
 
In addition to this post, some others and I used Pokemon.com's support system to contact the Organized Play team regarding our concerns. Today, I received a message from Dan Brandt (one of the staff members of Pokémon's Organized Play team), in which he wrote Please note that we are kind of backlogged if you have already submitted something and you are wondering why it is taking longer than usual.

It appears their staff is quite busy at the moment. Hopefully, they will address these concerns in the near future, and I will of course continue to share with the community any responses I receive. (If anyone else receives any responses regarding 50+3, I encourage them too to keep us updated.)
 
Chances are the next thing P!P publicly announces is the schedule for Nationals. If we go by what has already been posted, namely the tournament structure for the season, that already includes Nationals (but not Worlds).
 
Am I overly optimistic in looking forward to a change to 50+3 for Nationals, or is there a realistic possibility that TPCi will do something about it? Will they take a utilitarian approach and do the best they can for the playerbase, or refuse to admit they've made an error i.e. Tropical Beach?
 
Guess I'll add something. I want a Bo3 with more time. Anything less than 1 hour and maybe 10 minutes is bad. If anyone here knows me, they know I play really weird decks that take time to get going and dont prefer to play aggro because its not fun. The problem with this current Bo3 is it favors 1 deck type (aggro) and encourages stalling and slow decks that run the clock. More time means more deck types are playable and prevents stalling. More time also allows at least 2 full 25 to 30 minutes game with time to play a third if it goes that far. It also allows me to play my setup decks without worrying about time. It pretty much the reason I'm not playing this season is because a lot of my decks are unplayable because of time. I also dont want to deal with players gaming the clock.

Also side decks would be nice... Just going to leave that there...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top