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

[Ness]

Anthony, if you read my post carefully, you'll see that I indicate that rounds are based on guaranteeing a player with an X-1 record makes Top 8. This means a player with a record of 7-1 and 8-1 can never miss cut. Depending on attendance, you would also see a varying amount of X-1-1 records make Top 8.

I completely agree that players enjoy the extra swiss rounds the second day of a Regional Championship. But this isn't just because players like an arbitrary increase in amount of rounds, but rather because it gives them a second day to play Pokémon, and more games to earn a spot in Top 8. 75+3 awards players with a second day of swiss just as 50+3 does, but the difference is that 75+3 does it in a much more relaxed atmosphere that is conducive to fairness and rewarding skillful play and players. It mitigates outside factors that affect player's records in 50+3, such as the pace of their opponent's play.

If you take a pro and con list, comparing the advantages of 75+3 to 50+3, the advantages of 75+3 are enormous:

PROS OF 75+3, LESS ROUNDS
-Matches are less likely to end in a tie
-Less incentive for players to stall
-Players are not rushed
-Strategic deck diversity increased
-Tournament finishes earlier
-Less work/stress on staff

Anthony, you'll also be pleased to know that with less rounds, and players needing X-1 to guarantee top cut, there is much less incentive for players to intentionally draw as well.

CONS OF 75+3, LESS ROUNDS
-Match-ups have increased importance (since only two losses knock you out of Top 8)

While two bad match-ups can knock you out of cut, also realize you're less likely to encounter multiple bad match-ups since you're only playing nine rounds.

As you see, when it comes to Best-of-3, 75+3 blows 50+3 out of the water!

 

[yoshi1001]

Another benefit (if you ask me) of extra Swiss rounds is that it increases the number of distinct people you play against. Sure, you can play games between rounds or whatever (though in the current structure folks seem to have all the games they can handle), but it could have social benefits.

 

[vaporeon]

I do agree that with each season that passes, players must must adapt to the changes to be competitive or "go home" but there are fundamental problems with the rules. 50+3 is killing the meta because it only allows fast, hard hitting decks. Some players look forward to playing new decks. I know I am but the problem is 50+3. If I can win game one, there will more than likely not be enough time to play the rest so the game ties because of my deck choice. I'm not the only one this effect. Also not all players are not as fast as others. Its not simple for others to pick up the pace of play. Some players need more time to think than others because of mental restrictions. Sure this is easily fix by everyone Plasma or Darkrai not not everyone plays like that. 50+3 is far too aggressive for creative and slower players.

 

[LOLZ]

In response to Jason's Pros and Cons list....

PROS OF 50+3, EXTRA ROUNDS
-Players can take 2 losses and still have a chance to make Top 8.
-Once a player makes Day 2, they can still take a loss or two and make Top 8 with 3 losses.
--With so many rounds being played, it is likely that the X-0s and X-1s will take a loss or two on Day 2. X-0-0s, X-1-0s will be rare. It is perfectly acceptable if X-2-0s/X-3-0S make Top 8 after 14 Rounds
-Players have the opportunity to play more games
-Players are challenged more because they are likely to face a greater variety of decks
-Knowing that there is only a 50 Minute Time Limit, players can playtest accordingly and learn to adopt to the Tournament Structure (See Dave's Post)
-With Extra Swiss Rounds, IDing outside of the Final Swiss Round is a foolish thing to do.



CONS OF 50+3, EXTRA ROUNDS
-Tournament finishes later (Compared to 75+3, Less Rounds).
-Less work/stress on staff.
-Players who can't adapt to the new tournament structure will Slow Play.
-Players who lose Game 1 might rush their opponent to avoid the tie.

Regarding the first 2 Cons above, I as a judge can live with the extra stress/work and the fact that the tournament goes on a little longer, reason being is because Extra Swiss Rounds provide for a better tournament experience for all players. I staffed 2 Regionals that had 14 Swiss Rounds and a Top 8 for Masters this year. Both tournaments were over by 7pm on Sunday. This was perfectly acceptable IMO.

Regarding the second 2 Cons above, Players who feel that their opponent is slow play or stalling can simply call a judge to watch pace of play. Regardless if the time limit is 30 Minutes, 50 Minutes or 75 Minutes... Pace of play issues will always be present. Judge will have to watch for these issuses any way.

 

[yoshi1001]

Just to add on, the data is also "fuzzed" by two other variables in addition to concessions. 1- Game Loss/DQ Penalties and 2- Intentional Draws

Occurred to me as well. I think IDs are probably outnumbered by intentional concessions to avoid draws.

Yoshi- Comparing the Draw Rate of earlier rounds to later rounds really doesn't prove anything because of the nature of Swiss. Round 1 pairings are random, there is likely 1 player in any given match that is the clear winner so the Draw Rate of Round 1 will be relativity low. As the tournament progresses, the skill level of two opponents become closer together, this means that a longer drawn out game is more likely and the chance of a Draw becomes greater. Seeing the Draw Rate of later rounds would be cool, Draw Rates of earlier rounds seem boring. Data is not interesting unless you can understand, interpret and most importantly, explain it.

Ah, but that's exactly why I want the data-to see if it holds up.

Vaporeon's statement is also important-to some players, deckbuilding is actually a creative or exploratory exercise, much like film or music. I'm not saying that it needs to be as open as possible, but I will say that it seems to me that the current tournament structure makes those barriers higher.

 

[Jaeger]

I think have game 3 determined by prizes would solve a lot of issues. You can still leave ties in the game incase players are tied at even prizes at the end of +3.

 

[Raen]

At very least, I'd like to see ties completely removed from Bo1 Swiss during LCs and Cities. Having a round end in a tie based off of ONE game is awful, ESPECIALLY when someone is winning in prizes by a huge margin (this has happened to me many times).

 

[Glumanda]

Over here in Germany, we lose massively players from the Casual department because the tournaments last for too long. Especially, practically all Juniors with competetively playing parents completey lose interest because when their parents play the 2 to 3 extra rounds, they now have to wait double the time which is boring.

As the danger of being donked is greatly diminished due to the new first-turn-rule, I would not mind going back to best-of-one with some extra rounds to reduce the variability this way. In the end, Pokemon is a Family game. The competitive scene wants to make a second M:TG out of it which IMO is not appropriate given the composition of the player pool. Best-of-3 75 minutes would be certainly the next step in this direction and will do more damage than it will do good.

 

[ShadowGuard]

As the danger of being donked is greatly diminished due to the new first-turn-rule, I would not mind going back to best-of-one with some extra rounds to reduce the variability this way.

qft
more rounds > longer rounds

Lets's look at a tournament with 100 Masters.

With current rules, there would be 7 rounds b-o-3 50+3 and top cut to 8. The swiss rounds take at least 7 hours and there's a chance of bubbling with 5-1-1.
With 9 rounds b-o-1 30+3 and a cut to 8, the swiss rounds take 6 hours and almost all 7-2 players make the cut.

So playing 1-3 additional rounds instead of b-o-3 means:
+ less dependance on matchups and pairings (this is the #1 luck factor in a tournament, not draw or coinflips!)
+ better chances for rogue decks
+ lower tournament duration
+ fewer games decided by time
+ no more draws (--> no more intentional draws or inofficial agreements to avoid draws --> more games are decided by playing)

= better for competitive AND casual players

The only problem is that when you get a poor start in a game, you don't have a chance to come back by winning the next two games. But honestly, how often does that happen? In my experience, it's way more often the other way around. Last year in Nationals top 8 I won a long and fair game 1 (was even behind at the start), then lost the next two games due to horribly bad luck and time call in the third game. And I think everyone knows these games this season where you win a long and fair first game, get bad luck in a 10-minutes second game and then end up in a draw. If you really lose because of a bad starting hand, you will probably not even have the time to win the second and third game but draw in the end.

 

[LOLZ]

As the danger of being donked is greatly diminished due to the new first-turn-rule, I would not mind going back to best-of-one with some extra rounds to reduce the variability this way.

qft
more rounds > longer rounds

I 3rd that suggestion. Best of 1 with Extra Rounds is a great idea.

Even if the plan is to stick with Best of 3, More rounds for tournaments of all sizes is still a great idea for the same reasons. It is very possible to do Best of 3 with 14 Swiss Rounds and a Top 8 over the course of 2 days, see all the Regionals that did this.

 

[deckmaster]

TPCI, scrap 50+3.

 

[flyinghigh11]

We certainly do not disregard feedback we see online, nor do we disregard feedback we receive in person.......

I understand that some people like the old way of tournaments and others the new. Instead of having the "i heard more people like/hate it" based on word of mouth/forums, why not take an actual vote upon it? Have people use their poke ID and vote for this new format or the older one or possibly a new idea. This can be done online or during a tournament, ie US Nationals with a slip to be entered later. This would provide actually statistical data of how players truly feel about the tournament format and put to rest whether or not this format should be kept.

 

[LOLZ]

I understand that some people like the old way of tournaments and others the new. Instead of having the "i heard more people like/hate it" based on word of mouth/forums, why not take an actual vote upon it? Have people use their poke ID and vote for this new format or the older one or possibly a new idea. This can be done online or during a tournament, ie US Nationals with a slip to be entered later. This would provide actually statistical data of how players truly feel about the tournament format and put to rest whether or not this format should be kept.

What the majority wants does not represent what is best for the game.

 

[jwkdpster]

I haven't had the privilege of playing in a tournament that's best 2 out of 3, but I have played a couple of small vanguard shop tournaments that were 2 out of 3. There's no draws but the rounds will still go over an hour every once and a while. But it's usually only three rounds, and ends up taking around 3 hours to finish every time. It's still fun, and the 2 out of 3 rules tend to work well. However in the time it takes to have 3 rounds, we could have done 5 rounds of best of 1. There are times where I have really preferred to play one game and be done, but there are also times where you won't get a good hand and playing one game really is annoying. I think that the time is a problem, but once you remove the ties 2 out of 3 runs quite smoothly. With the ties removed playing is a lot less stressful and I think it would improve a lot.

 

[Pidgeotto Trainer]

Jumping in on some posts a month late but anyways…

There are real ways to fix the current system, which has real issues. The 50 2/3 format makes time, game situation agreeing to not have a draw etc. too important, issues that I don't believe are 'Pokemon TCG'. These issues can't be seen in just a single statistic on ties recorded. If anything from those statistics, at the master level the problem isn't likely to go away. Games just aren't short enough for these time limits. (By the way, I think the higher % for masters is clearly due to a more even distribution of skill.)

Prof. Dav gave a nice post on that the time of event issues are likely at their limits, but that still leaves options (many already stated).

-Make it 2/3 75 minutes with less rounds, or spread over 2 days. This may simply be a necessity to preserve matches come down to real, earned games, but having enough rounds/matches to have a fair event with how many players Pokemon has gained over the years. (Jason mentioned this.)

-Go with more rounds 30 minutes, best of 1. I am starting to like this more I think to be honest. Every game counts, no games are wasted time. Sure a bad hand costs you a game, but in the current system a bad hand often makes you settle for a tie even if you come back to win game 2. With more rounds though, protection for the one bad game is still built in. You have none of the time/tie related issues we've had this year.

-Even simpler solution, reinstate partial game rules as Jay mentioned. (i.e. the top cut rules for deciding a winner) These rules aren't perfect, but they do a much better job of rewarding who would've won the game than the current swiss rules do. Once in a while you will still have a game where someone wins on time that shouldn't have, but literally every swiss match right now, someone has the incentive of trying to stall out a game 3 to a tie, or stall out game 2 for a win. It is much different from a year ago.

2/3 50 is not the optimal system. There are real alternatives.

 

[vaporeon]

TPC just needs to stop changing rules every year and leave them the same. Format for pokemon should be best of 3 with side decks, 75 minute rounds and rotation after worlds. Make solid first turn rules, including a damage immunity rule so attacks on turn 1 cant deal or place damage counters and setup attacks can be use. Player who goes first cant draw but can do everything else.

This would be nice because we wont have odd card/rule interactions and weird formats where cards are use based on 2 different rule sets.

 

[LOLZ]

-Make it 2/3 75 minutes with less rounds, or spread over 2 days. This may simply be a necessity to preserve matches come down to real, earned games, but having enough rounds/matches to have a fair event with how many players Pokemon has gained over the years. (Jason mentioned this.)

You can not do 2/3 75 Minutes with only a T8. When attendance rises players who are X-1 begin to whiff cut. I have said this multiple times before, sorry my name isn't Jason.

 

[Axew]

TPC just needs to stop changing rules every year and leave them the same. Format for pokemon should be best of 3 with side decks, 75 minute rounds and rotation after worlds. Make solid first turn rules, including a damage immunity rule so attacks on turn 1 cant deal or place damage counters and setup attacks can be use. Player who goes first cant draw but can do everything else.

This would be nice because we wont have odd card/rule interactions and weird formats where cards are use based on 2 different rule sets.

TPCi please don't take this as what we as a community want

 

[vaporeon]

TPCi please don't take this as what we as a community want

Ok, ok, lets figure it out. You're not giving info as to what the "community" wants. Sometimes change it is better for the community. I play other card games and its normally acceptable to have enough time to play 3 full game if you do best of 3. Its the consensus here that 50 minutes is not enough to play 3 complete game so 75 seems to be the next best option as 25 minutes per game should be enough. The rules should only change to make the flow of play better. As of now, the first turn rules dont know what they are doing and its hard to balance.

The problem with that is cards of older formats dont work well with the new rules and "artificial" rules are imposed on them, like first turn attack rule ruins things like Emolga Call for Family, First Ticket, Rare Candy and odd Juniper/Sycamore rule. Good balance BW and XY cards dont work well with XY rules because XY rules try to nerf broken BW basic Pokemon.

As for side deck, what competitive game doesn't have counter plays between rounds. in card games, players are allowed to switch cards between their main deck and side deck to counter concepts of their opponents deck. In fighting games, the player who lost gets to counter pick a character against their opponent if they choose to and or counter pick a stage to fight on so they have a advantage. Both these concepts are taken very well except in Pokemon. Its almost as if most Pokemon players don't want real competition and rather use odd 1 time use decks like safeguard just to win. You dont ever hear anyone complaining about counter picks or side deck. Also, most cards that dont see play will see play because they have life as side deck options.

So Axew, you don't speak for the community nor do I but I do believe in competition and if you're going to have something like best of 3 in a card game, you need to do it right and thats enough time to play 3 full games with side decks. So the real question is why don't you want this? It works for every other card game, so why not Pokemon.

 

[ChaosJim]

System is still broken.

Magic basically dictates what the industry best practice is. Yu-Gi-Oh! could also be characterized the same way. For many things, the same is undoubtedly true for Pokémon. However, despite finally conforming to best of 3, this isn't a step forward (honestly probably a half step).

This post comes to you all about 3 months after this thread began. This problem is still relevant to our interests. However, it might not be relevant to TPCI's. If you look at the following: http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/28121.html you'll notice that Pokémon is only the 5th highest hobby channel game (that's our demographic) whereas it is 2nd among Mass Channel Collectible Games (that's everyone who primarily buys from Target/WalMart).

The math is simple - if 30 minutes was a fair amount of time to play one game, it's highly unlikely that 50 minutes is enough time for 3 games. That being said, I'm not going to advocate for any particular time limit. I feel like a concession of the obvious needs to happen here.