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

[Glaceon]

1. I don't think that Prof Dav claimed to have a statistically valid sampling, nor did he publish his survey results (including margin of error).

He used his sampling as an argument that people are happy with the system, however.

2. I also am pretty sure that people commenting on a post titled "...Scrap the Disaster..." are not pre-disposed to be completely unbiased.

Likewise, I am sure the majority of people who would talk to Prof Dav (especially parents) would say something nice or nothing at all. So he only gets compliments and thus has a false impression on what people think of bo3.

In short - just because your own friends, followers, opponents or peers all agree with you on something does not mean it is the view held by everyone involved in the situation. "Everyone" doesn't hate the format, or TCPi would have gotten zero positive feedback. That is a significant flaw in your logic. I'm happy for everyone to have an opinion, but please don't confuse the discussion of "what I think" with "what everyone thinks". Trust me, it won't end well.

Do you think that a majority of players like bo3? Do you like bo3?

 

[FincastlePokemon2]

Using a statistical sampling of: my house (1 junior, 1 senior, 1 master, 1 judge, 1 dog)

40% For Best of 3
40% Against
10% Drool

100% For playing Pokemon regardless.

I talk to a mix of players and get about the same mix of like and dislike for the best of 3 format. My interactions with players predominately in North Carolina doesn't show a majority who prefer either - except that they want to play. I don't remember players talking to me who were getting out of the game because of best of 3... Doesn't mean there aren't any, just none of the ones I've talked to.

I'm not an expert, I'm not trying to be, just trying to insert the "fact" that this whole thread is not really black & white (or even X & Y :wink. The issue is divided, and that's OK with me. We're gonna play either way.

 

[vaporeon]

Do you think that a majority of players like bo3? Do you like bo3?

It's hard to say. I feel BO3 is for the better of the game since it offers a more competitive environment, which Im all for but it was handled poorly. We basically got only 10 more minutes to play 2 more game and thats where the problem is. As of now, I believe 1 single game of Pokemon is about as fast as a game of Magic, if both players got decent to good draws. BO3 is nothing new in cards games so its kind of odd for TPC to no reference the other games that use it and find out why it works the way it does.

If we loot at PTCGO, it give each player 25 minutes to do things during their turn (a full 50 for the entire game). Most competitive games end around the 20 to 25 minute mark (both players time spent together) so with another 25 minutes added, the problem should be fixed. After all if you show up for a tournament, you should be willing to stay till it ends if you happen to place well for top cut but this is not a true BO3, since they said they want 1 really good game to be played and 50 minutes is enough for that. This causes a lot of unforeseen issues, like slow playing when a player of game 1 wins, and having bad rules for ties.

I know Nintendo wants to keep things fun but they dont see to understand the spirit of competition. This is not a true BO3 since BO3 has to adapt to the rules of the game, which this does not do well. Perhaps its best to go to BO1 till they do more research.

 

[Glaceon]

Using a statistical sampling of: my house (1 junior, 1 senior, 1 master, 1 judge, 1 dog)

40% For Best of 3
40% Against
10% Drool

100% For playing Pokemon regardless.

I talk to a mix of players and get about the same mix of like and dislike for the best of 3 format. My interactions with players predominately in North Carolina doesn't show a majority who prefer either - except that they want to play. I don't remember players talking to me who were getting out of the game because of best of 3... Doesn't mean there aren't any, just none of the ones I've talked to.

I'm not an expert, I'm not trying to be, just trying to insert the "fact" that this whole thread is not really black & white (or even X & Y :wink. The issue is divided, and that's OK with me. We're gonna play either way.

The fact that many people are going to play either way doesn't make bo3 acceptable.


And now, you've spoken with me. I was going to play (to a lesser extent) this year, but when I saw that bo3 and longer rounds were about to be implemented, I quit because I just don't have the time. While that is not the point most people are trying to make in pushing for single games again, that was my reason.

 

[losjackal]

The fact that many people are going to play either way doesn't make bo3 acceptable.

From the perspective of the program itself, if Organized Play believes they made the right decision instituting Best of 3 in Swiss, and people continued to show up and play this year (especially Master's paying for their own admission)...then really what other measureable metric matters than attendance? This "acceptable" word is bothering me. If players find it so unacceptable, they need to stop coming to play. "Vote with their feet", as people say in other industries.

I mean, I suppose POP could start surveying people attendees after the fact somehow for satisfaction. But this opinion would be greatly influenced by how the event ran overall, which is in the PTO's control, not POP. So it would be a subjective metric, being added to an objective metric (attendance), to build evidence against what is believed the right thing to do in the first place. Just doesn't seem like a good use of time and effort when there are competing priorities.

 

[yoshi1001]

From the perspective of the program itself, if Organized Play believes they made the right decision instituting Best of 3 in Swiss, and people continued to show up and play this year (especially Master's paying for their own admission)...

To me, this seems like the kind of decision that will take a fair bit of time to reach its full impact. Based (in part) on this thread, I think a fair number of people will drop out if this system is used as-is next season.

then really what other measureable metric matters than attendance? This "acceptable" word is bothering me. If players find it so unacceptable, they need to stop coming to play. "Vote with their feet", as people say in other industries.

Well, just to name something, it's possible that the very large amount of time spent playing could negatively impact on-site retailers by giving people less time to browse or making them too tired to want to. I'm sure there are other possible impacts. Additionally, as a consumer I don't like my main/only recourse for trying to affect change being to not attend an event. Such a situation promotes less interaction between the parties and I feel leads to worse outcomes.

I mean, I suppose POP could start surveying people attendees after the fact somehow for satisfaction. But this opinion would be greatly influenced by how the event ran overall, which is in the PTO's control, not POP. So it would be a subjective metric, being added to an objective metric (attendance), to build evidence against what is believed the right thing to do in the first place. Just doesn't seem like a good use of time and effort when there are competing priorities.

A well-designed survey or focus group would be able to separate out the various factors that led to the overall opinion by asking questions that evaluate the aspects individually. Of course, it would be difficult to get the opinions of those that have left organized play entirely, which is another reason I'm leery of putting out "vote with your feet" as a primary option for dissatisfied players.

 

[Glaceon]

Some people who "vote with their feet" may just not come back - and that's not what POP wants.

I think a survey or making it up to the PTO would be a good idea.

 

[DukeFireBird]

Glaceon, what makes you assume that people ONLY say nice things to Dave? I've overheard conversations with parents bringing concerns, questions, and possible things to try, so the entire spectrum is covered. The key thing to note is that you need to be respectful when your talking since there is a key difference in telling your opinion, and basically trash-talking. Heck, even I have had a difference of opinion with Dave, and I let him know.

 

[Glaceon]

Glaceon, what makes you assume that people ONLY say nice things to Dave? I've overheard conversations with parents bringing concerns, questions, and possible things to try, so the entire spectrum is covered. The key thing to note is that you need to be respectful when your talking since there is a key difference in telling your opinion, and basically trash-talking. Heck, even I have had a difference of opinion with Dave, and I let him know.

Oh no, I'm sure he gets opposing opinions as well. But do you honestly think that the feedback Dave gets reflects that of all Pokemon players?

In addition, anyone who quits because of 50+3 is probably not going to being speaking to Dave with feedback. Why? Because they've quit.

 

[losjackal]

Some people who "vote with their feet" may just not come back - and that's not what POP wants.

I disagree...they couldn't possibly worry about every single person that leaves! POP wants healthy attendance numbers for the events, and especially growth in the Junior/Senior demographic. If 2 new people join while 1 disgruntled person leaves, the net result is growth.

 

[CeNturist]

From the perspective of the program itself, if Organized Play believes they made the right decision instituting Best of 3 in Swiss, and people continued to show up and play this year (especially Master's paying for their own admission)...then really what other measureable metric matters than attendance? This "acceptable" word is bothering me. If players find it so unacceptable, they need to stop coming to play. "Vote with their feet", as people say in other industries.

Players shouldn't have to quit for P!P to improve the game. This is Pokemon, not the 1920s labor industry lol

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree...they couldn't possibly worry about every single person that leaves! POP wants healthy attendance numbers for the events, and especially growth in the Junior/Senior demographic. If 2 new people join while 1 disgruntled person leaves, the net result is growth.

Also, this logic is flawed because people aren't joining the game because of tournament structure (in fact most growth occurred with single game swiss), but they ARE leaving because of it. So theoretically you could have your +1 growth with best of three, OR if we gave players sufficient time to play three games, eliminated ties, whatever it may be, you could keep that one disgruntled person from leaving and net +2 instead.

 

[losjackal]

Yet TPCi believes that Best of 3 Swiss is the correct choice. They believe they are improving the game with that tournament structure. If the attendance numbers meet their goals, and PTOs provide feedback that Best of 3 Swiss is okay, and events run according to schedule, then they will believe their choice is validated.

TPCi isn't being persuaded yet by the arguments presented in this thread.
Players can't say "this is unacceptable" yet continue to accept it by showing up at events.

What's next?

 

[cf11]

Do you think that a majority of players like bo3? Do you like bo3?

I think most players like best of 3, but not how TPCI implemented it. Best of 3 is great in my opinion but is held back by 50 minutes. If Pokemon wants to continue with best of 3 they should cut down the number of rounds and increase the time limit so ties aren't an issue and events aren't longer than they already are. Otherwise Pokemon should go to best of 1 with increased swiss rounds.

 

[NJ_Bob]

The problem with this is that then you have all sorts of problems with players missing out on extended swiss or top cut with good win-loss records but resistance problems. More swiss rounds is the solution to everything. Why they haven't seen that is beyond me.

- - - Updated - - -

Juniors numbers fell for every major tournament that I attended both last and this year, and that includes Nationals which was off by about 10% or more according to my recollection. We were really borderline on attending. I can specifically identify juniors that quit because of Bof3.

Bof3 has serious problems which cannot be reconciled:
1. Ties are very bad for the game in multiple ways - play at the tables, demands on judging, manipulation, across the board player dislike, etc.
2. Bof3 has too much impact on deck selection.
3. Ties cannot be fixed in current structure without significant extension of time - this is a very undesirable path for many or the majority of players and particularly in juniors.
4. Bof3 needs really great TOs to function at even an acceptable level, and some of them just are not even good. I cannot imagine Bof3 at New Jersey states, which is a horribly run tournament (we skipped it).
5. The third game is pointless far too often. All of the above, including manipulation and judging impact, still exist with the third game even if time is extended. Many matches cannot even begin a third game in 50 minutes.
6. Bof3 forces players to consider scrapping games that have a good chance to be played out in very competitive fashion.
7. If the tie rate is only 11% or so, then all of this is to fix a problem that barely exists, i.e., the second game did not change the outcome of the match, so why have it? Even if we assume that another 11% of games were decided in a third game, which I'm not buying at all, then all of this has no impact about 8 out of 10 times in match play, but it causes problems across the board.

It has never ceased to amaze me that TPCi doesn't see the simple elegant solutions.

The whole problem of not being able to take a loss or spreading out bad draw is simply solved by going to swiss with +2 rounds beyond last X-0 standing based on the starting player cutoff (e.g., 32, 64, 128 players). Then you get better spread of win-loss, resistance and fortuitous match-up draws even at 31, 63, and 127 player starts. I would much rather spend time playing more games against different decks and different players than sitting across from someone for 60 or 75 minutes. I don't even care for the 50 minutes as is. Let's face it, some people are very unpleasant to be at the table with for that much time, especially with all of the slow play that happens now.

I would simply like to see an alternating go-first built into the pairings - like a home and away in sports. That takes care of evening out the flips, but it really isn't necessary. Over more swiss, in theory the 50-50 roll of the dice even out as well.

 

[Sadarac]

Ties should either split the rewards of a win equally or the tournament format needs to eliminate ties all together. If a tie were worth 1.5 points instead of 1, then players wouldn't feel like a ties would unfairly limit their chances at making cut.

This would make a 0/0/7 record the same as a 3/3/1 record, instead of being the same as a 2/4/1 record. The first two scores here represent players who demonstrated play at the 50th percentile, yet the current system would place a 0/0/7 player only just above a 2/4/1 player, based on tournament score tiebreaks.

- - - Updated - - -

Ties should either split the rewards of a win equally or the tournament format needs to eliminate ties all together. If a tie were worth 1.5 points instead of 1, then players wouldn't feel like a ties would unfairly limit their chances at making cut.

This would make a 0/0/7 record the same as a 3/3/1 record, instead of being the same as a 2/4/1 record. The first two scores here represent players who demonstrated play at the 50th percentile, yet the current system would place a 0/0/7 player only just above a 2/4/1 player, based on tournament score tiebreaks.

 

[Charranitar]

What Pokemon needs is for strict enforcement of match results to make best of 3, 50 minutes work. If you're working under the assumption that ties are a valid result if two players cannot gain two wins in a match, then all matches need to be preserved as ties that actually end in a tie.

As is, ties are worth 1/3 of a win. The system rewards winning, far more than tying. That is fine, but it needs to be recognized that wins are much more valuable than ties. Under this system, if you're able to win more of your games compared to having a mix of wins/ties, then you get rewarded heavily.

The problem comes up when matches that end in ties, are being recorded as wins and losses through coin flips, or some other various set of concession agreements. It doesn't matter that the concessions aren't decided by random means, as regardless of how it is decided, coin flip, board state....the match still was a tie, and reporting it as anything but a tie is highly damaging to the integrity of the tournament.

The tie system works if ties hold their value. Players who just outright win are most rewarded, but players who tie can have good tournament showings too...except that right now, the value of ties are being devalued. If you play the tournament honestly, you're at a huge disadvantage. Say around 40% of all matches that end in tie after a certain point in the tournament are being turned into wins/losses (I think this is a fairly accurate estimate at how often this is happening).

All of a sudden, the player who plays the tournament honestly is being shown to be having a lesser tournament than other players who would otherwise be on equal footing, or be getting jumped by players, who if results were reported accurately, would be lower in the standings.

Best of 3, 50 minutes isn't a problem in itself. Best of 3, 50 minutes where all ties aren't being reported as ties is a problem.

I'd like to see at big tournaments next season, judges hawking the matches still being played and having matches reported properly. If the game state is showing a tie, the game should be reported as a tie.

 

[NJ_Bob]

If ties stay, I think it should just be Bof2 in 50 minutes, 2nd decided on prizes if needed and 0-1-2 scoring.