Japan's time called procedure... why not that way here?

Discussion in 'TCG News & Gossip Discussion' started by JandPDS, Jul 18, 2008.

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

    JandPDS New Member

    Tego: What differences did you notice in the way the tournament was run today? Did the use of TOM, Swiss pairings etc. have aspects that surprised you or made things feel different?

    S-royal: Actually, I don't really think today's tournament felt all that different. The only thing that can cause a really big difference is mistranslations and erratas. Steven's Advice used to be so different abroad. Same with Electrode ex. Now these kind of misakes seem to occur less often, and when they do they always are fixed to match Japan. This is very different from how things were done back in the days.

    I was mildly surprised by two differences in the way of running tournaments, though. First, in the playoff, I was surprised to learn that 4th seed always meets 1st seed and 2nd meets 3rd. In Japanese tournaments, there would be no seeding, it'd just be random. Secondly, when time is called in Japan, the player whose turn it currently is will finish his turn, just like in the INTL rules, but then the next player also gets one more turn. This is a big difference!

    When time is called in a Pokemon game, why are our rules so different then Japan's. When time is called here the game is over after the person who turn it currently is when time is called, is finished (unless the game is still tied). In Japan the other player gets one last turn. That seems a much, much more fair way to handle the end of time situation. Even though I have won many a game by bringing down a benched Pokemon when time is called on my turn. That is a real cheap way to win. And often I would probably loose the game if my opponent had one additional turn to return the KO and put the game into sudden death.

    Why is the procedure so different here. We were told that we can no longer do the high roll on a dice to decide who has to first because in Japan they use heads and tails only. So we have to do it the way Japan does it. If the procedure for how the game starts has to be by the rules Japan uses, then why is the way the games ends not the way Japan does it? Why is there a contradiction?
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2008
  2. G-Dog4377

    G-Dog4377 New Member

    Wow, that end game ruling will make a lot of people here angry. Isn't there a petition somewhere around here for getting games to be like that here with one extra turn? I do agree with that. If Japan does it, then we should do it.
  3. Umbreon777

    Umbreon777 New Member

    Now that we dont seem like whiny players, Im completely into this idea.
  4. The_Lurb

    The_Lurb New Member

    Maybe PUI or whoever makes the rules will actually change it now that we have evidence from Japan, that would be really great.
  5. Articjedi

    Articjedi Active Member

    Why would any one be angry? Players have wanted it for a long time, most of the people who argue against seem more indifferent to changes rather than against changing the rules.
  6. G-Dog4377

    G-Dog4377 New Member

    Well, I was thinking about how Gardellade can abuse the clock and then get cheap wins that it wouldn't have gotten if the other player had the next turn. It is also about the whole "give us more time and that will help the problems with Gardellade." All that and then to find out that is the way it has been in Japan the whole time.
  7. ShadowCard

    ShadowCard Active Member

    Single elimination style tournaments? :eek:
  8. G-Dog4377

    G-Dog4377 New Member

    Well, if that is the way they do it, then maybe. The way I view any tournament series, the objective is to evaluate every competitor's abilities and determine which one is the most adept at whatever game they are playing. Single elimination style tournaments are good for this task, and swiss has its advantages as well, especially when there is a large number of competitors. When different structures are used during the series however, my opinion is that the results aren't technically valid. If you played a single elimination tournament, the undefeated player is the winner. When you play with our swiss rounds and top cut though, the one that goes undefeated through swiss does not always win, and people who suffer losses during swiss frequently end up winning.
    With different winners, you get different ratings, and different competitors invited to Worlds. That is why I think it needs to be changed.

    I'm not saying the way we do it is bad, but it is not technically accurate. I don't care much whether we do have the Japanese single elimination tournaments or if we have our current swiss style tournaments, but what I do care about and want is that everywhere in the world the tournaments are all the same. That way, everyone is playing by the same rules and have the same chances of winning. I feel the same about the format thing they do with Japan. It is not the same as it is in the rest of the world, so in my opinion, their results are not valid. If they did swiss style tournaments like everyone else did and played with our format, I highly doubt we would have the exact same Japanese competitors going to Worlds.
  9. Absoltrainer

    Absoltrainer Active Member

    You know, you really have to respect the japanse players. Come worlds, they conform to a completley new format and set of rules.
  10. Cyrus

    Cyrus Iron Chef - Master Emeritus

    K, before I say ANYTHING else, let me say this...

    Random seeding is foolish.

    With that out of the way, I like the TIME idea. Anything to correct that - or at least alleviate it - is huge IMO.
  11. Prime

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

    So you think it is a fair test of skill to pit the person that had the best record at the tournament to the person who had the lowest record that make the top cut? I'd much rather have randomized seeding since it would give the tournament a little more spice. You wouldn't know who you are facing, so you can't plan out the game until you sit down and play.
  12. Articjedi

    Articjedi Active Member

    I'd rather not have them random, it was bad enough at nats when they might as well have random paired the T32. It's a lot closer to a fair test of skill if the top seed is placed against the lowest one, because it gives the strongest player the best chance to win, theoretically.
  13. Absoltrainer

    Absoltrainer Active Member

    They both made top cut so there can't be THAT much difference in player skill.
  14. Prime

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

    This isn't a game of pure skill though. The person in 1st place got there with luck on their side too. So how fair is it to give them the weakest opponent when 2nd place might be the better overall player?
  15. Articjedi

    Articjedi Active Member

    Name a sport that is, but you just make the assumption that the top seed is more skilled because that's the closest you can get.
  16. Cyrus

    Cyrus Iron Chef - Master Emeritus

    Yes, I do. That way, you make it so that the two (technically) best players of the day do not have to face each other until the finals, and you put the pressure on the under-performers to prove their worth.
  17. pikachu*

    pikachu* New Member

    That doesn't matter sure the other player gets another turn, then there would still be sour grapes for the person that could have won the turn after the extra one. I believe it should stay as is, but the judges should give an announcement for 2 minute time warning or something.

  18. Rocketman

    Rocketman New Member

    Seeding rewards the players who have done weel to have a somewhat easier way to the top. Also, the 1 and 2 seeds don't face each other until the finals. Kinda a reward for doing so well, and the lower seeded players will have to beat the best to move up.
    You would rather the 1-2 seeds play each other and the 15-16 play? I'm sure only if you're the 16 seed........
    Bad idea. Theres a good reason for seeding.
  19. Prime

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

    I think Rocketman was thinking about quoting me instead of Cyrus, who agrees with everything he just said.

    I can understand the concepts behind it.
  20. Rainbowgym

    Rainbowgym Active Member

    How a tournament is run is upto the OP, which is different in Japan as the OP run under POP USA.
    So Japan can run Single Elimination while we have Swiss, I don't see any problem in that.

    But there should be no difference in how games rules are applied.
    If the rule in Japan is: time called -> current player finish turn -> between turns effect - opponent gets a last turn
    we should have that also.
    It's just like the "take a card/no card as first player", No trainers/supporters on first turn of first player.
    We had to adapt those game rules, so if this +1 turn ruling is the official way of playing in Japan it should be a matter of time we get it. (and the sooner the better I would say)

    I only wonder why nobody did find out about that earlier?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page