Jason Klaczynski pushes for 90 Minutes

[Piplup9977]

Jason recently wrote a lengthy, persuasive article about why Pokemon needs longer top cuts. Jason calls for 75 minutes in City Championships and State Championships and 90 Minutes for Regionals, Nationals and Worlds. Though the link to the article was removed, Jason did respond to this thread below:

http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2292067

I am with Jason 110% and it's about time someone stood up and said it. 60 minutes does not work for 2 out of 3. I'm sick of hearing that 75 or 90 minutes will not work when the charts clearly show how practical it is. My question is this: Which TOs are going to represent their players and actually make this much-needed change to improve the game?

 

[ToysRUsKid]

Maybe the TOs want to do it, but aren't allowed too?

 

[Jaeger]

I support this petition!

 

[Mystery Thing]

Don't get me wrong, it's a well thought out article and well written, but that doesn't mean I need to agree with all of it.

I COMPLETELY disagree that there are a myriad of venues out there for "inexpensive or free" where I would be able to wring another 2+ hours out of them. I run my CC in a gaming store, and I already max out their hours as it is, and that's never having larger than a T8. If I ever get enough players for a T16, I would be screwed. That is just the reality of store hours on a weekend here. If I were to move it ANYWHERE where I can control hours (hotel ballroom, for example), I am now paying for the space, and no hotel ballroom in this city is going to come cheap. (For example, the one CC that I ~did~ run in a hotel ballroom went 40 minutes past our booked time (which I was already paying a decent amount for), and for that overrun, I had to pay another $200. And even before that $200, I was already running the event at a loss. Say it was a lousy venue choice if you wish (there's a reason it was the one and only I ran there), but the fact of the matter is that hotel ballroom space in this city is stupidly expensive.) I run my provincial in the largest indoor shopping mall in North America and even at that, I'm there running the tournament (not staff hours - I'm talking about when the mass public is allowed in the mall) from opening to closing. Were the duration of the cut 90 minutes, I would simply be forced to go to two days. Is that doable? Hey, maybe. I'm not going to sit here and tell you 100% either way that it is or isn't. But it would still take a lot of booking work with the mall to make it happen. And, as you can imagine, with the size of the mall comes a whole ton of groups wanting to book space.

Now, Regionals and higher, that's a different beast. Since Regionals are already two days, I suspect most of them could survive 90 minute cut rounds. Nationals would be more difficult just due to the convention center rules for when we all need to be out of there so their unioned staff can start pulling stuff down. I would imagine the same goes for Worlds.

tl;dr: In a perfect world, sure, maybe everything for a cut gets pushed to 90 minutes. Bad sadly, the world isn't perfect, so don't be holding your breath, at least not for STPs and lower. Regionals, I could see it. Nats and Worlds, probably more wrinkles involved than Regionals, but perhaps doable.


But I resent how you (OP) make it sound like the TOs are automatically a bunch of player ignoring bad guys if this doesn't happen.

 

[Mystery Thing]

Oh, also: I still disagree that the purpose of best 2 of 3 is to make the better player win 2 games. Since the minimum time limit for a 2/3 is 45 minutes, I still feel that the reason for 2/3 in the top cut is solely for donk protection.

I'm not saying that's how it ought to be, but as the rules have been written for ages, I feel that that is the mindset of the rules right now.

 

[Scizor]

Good luck actually consistently finding venues that will stay open long enough to do this here in California. 90 minute matchplay is a nice thought but I think it is near the bottom of a long laundry list of things I'd rather have.

 

[bullados]

I ran all of my events out of public libraries. I overran once due to my own inexperience. But for all of my events with a T8, I was pushing up against my closing time pretty hard, and the tournament experience suffered for it.

My area didn't have any tournament spaces that were both "cheap-to-free", that could handle the number of people I was getting, and that allowed for the amount of time a 90 minute top cut would force.

The libraries were the best "cheap-to-free" locations I could find. One of them was open 9-5. The other was open 9-6. A 6 round tournament with a T8 takes a MINIMUM of 6 hours. And that's not taking into account the amount of time between rounds or for a lunch break. Almost all TOs use the same (or a similar) calculation for their round numbers: 40 minute Swiss, 70 minute Top Cut. And that's optimistic. If I give a half hour lunch break (HA, good luck with that), then my tournaments lasted 8 hours for 6 rounds top 8. For one of my locations, this is just enough time to get done what needs to get done. For the other, I was doing everything in my power to cut time from the tournament.

As for the venues that were open longer hours on tournament days and had enough floor and table space for this kind of tournament? $30/hour. Very few TOs have that kind of budget for a City or BR.

Would I have wanted to run more than 60+3 in the top cut? Absolutely. But I would have prioritized running 45 2/3 in the Swiss over 75+3 or longer in the Top. Why, you ask? Because that keeps people playing longer. And it has to do with my final point in this post.

Mandating anything longer than 60 minutes for States or smaller events is event suicide. Even Super TOs like Jimmy and Vince would have to drop down the number of tournaments they would run because there is a general lack of "cheap-to-free" venues that could possibly support a tournament of that magnitude.

If you're talking about multi-day tourneys like Regionals, Nationals, and Worlds, then I'd be open to listening. But for local events up to States, it's simply not feasible to extend the Cut in any way, shape, or form.

Jason also completely misunderstands the purpose of Best 2/3. The purpose of Best 2/3 is to ensure that there is AT LEAST one complete, non-donk game. It's NOT to ensure that one player actually WINS 2 games out of those 3. It's basically a protection against donks in the finals.

 

[Ness]

First of all, I'm glad this is getting attention. Going in, I knew it would be harder to convince the organizers than the players, but here's my opportunity.

I COMPLETELY disagree that there are a myriad of venues out there for "inexpensive or free" where I would be able to wring another 2+ hours out of them. I run my CC in a gaming store, and I already max out their hours as it is, and that's never having larger than a T8. If I ever get enough players for a T16, I would be screwed. That is just the reality of store hours on a weekend here.

Organizers have a tendency to be hyperbolic about the amount of time 75-minute top cuts will add to their tournaments. Part of the reason you believe your tournaments would be extended 2+ hours, though is because you are unaware of limits placed on top cut size. City Championships are limited to a Top 8. That means extending from 60 to 75 minutes in a City Championship extend your maximum tournament time by 45 minutes. (15 minutes for Top 8, Top 4 and Top 2). This is irrefutable math. If you want to denounce the proposed time extensions, feel free to, but at least have the good sense to admit you are not comfortable with extending your tournament by what will be at most 45 minutes.

Nationals would be more difficult just due to the convention center rules for when we all need to be out of there so their unioned staff can start pulling stuff down. I would imagine the same goes for Worlds.

Then it would be the obligation of TPCi to find a venue that would accommodate sufficient time limits. 60 minutes is so detrimental to the game that players should be unwilling to accept it. If you're willing to sacrifice a much-needed 30 minutes from top cut rounds because of venue restrictions, what else are you willing to sacrifice? What if the venue only allowed for 45-minute top cuts, or didn't even allow for top cuts at all and we simply crowned our champions by resistance? There is a certain expectation of fairness and respect the players and the game should demand, and one of those expectations should be to have 90-minute top cuts at our largest tournaments. A venue should not decide the manner in which we play the game - the game should determine the venue.

Jason also completely misunderstands the purpose of Best 2/3. The purpose of Best 2/3 is to ensure that there is AT LEAST one complete, non-donk game. It's NOT to ensure that one player actually WINS 2 games out of those 3. It's basically a protection against donks in the finals.

If you read the article in its entirety, you will read that I actually use the possibility of a Turn 1 loss as a reason for Best 2-of-3. But this idea that 2-of-3 is only to ensure one legitimate game is misguided. What good does ensuring one complete game do when the winner of the only complete game loses the series because he loses a close Game 2 to the 4-Prize Rule and then a Sudden Death Game 3? Sure, you may have completed one game, but why does that matter? In such instances, you could argue that it would have been more fair to simply play a one game series than a 2-of-3 series.

The fight to maintain 60-minute top cuts is a losing battle. The players want it, the game needs it, and the math allows it.

 

[thepokemonnetwork100]

Oh, also: I still disagree that the purpose of best 2 of 3 is to make the better player win 2 games. Since the minimum time limit for a 2/3 is 45 minutes, I still feel that the reason for 2/3 in the top cut is solely for donk protection.

I'm not saying that's how it ought to be, but as the rules have been written for ages, I feel that that is the mindset of the rules right now.

i disagree with this partially yes 2 out of 3 can help with donk protection but at the same time that means the games will be played out and the better player will win majority of the time

 

[psychup2034]

Oh, also: I still disagree that the purpose of best 2 of 3 is to make the better player win 2 games. Since the minimum time limit for a 2/3 is 45 minutes, I still feel that the reason for 2/3 in the top cut is solely for donk protection.

I'm not saying that's how it ought to be, but as the rules have been written for ages, I feel that that is the mindset of the rules right now.

You're absolutely right that the original intent of best of 2 of 3 was for donk protection, and it worked pretty damn well. Con Le's lone Unown Q got donked in game 1 of the National Championship finals, but because of best 2 of 3, Con was able to recover and win the last two games to take the title. This shows that best 2 of 3 has accomplished its original intent to prevent donks from affecting the outcomes of matches as much.

However, just because the original intent of best 2 of 3 was "solely for donk protection," it doesn't mean that best 2 of 3 always has to be used solely for donk protection. As the game develops, improvements need to be made as well. There are very, very few competitive players who do not favor longer top cuts. I believe that if you ask all the Masters worlds invitees this year (both from the US and internationally), they will overwhelmingly support longer top cuts. In fact, I don't think there's a single issue that players agree more on than longer top cuts, except first turn balancing. The good news is that while we can't do anything about the first turn rules without Japan, we can do something about making sure that we get in full games in top cut as much as possible. We just need the tournament organizers to be on board with this positive change for the game.

The fact that the original intent of a rule was for a specific purpose does not preclude that rule to improve to satisfy other purposes. For example, the 2-minute rule in American football was originally instituted because there were not digital clocks back in the day, so the referees would need to give players on both teams a sense of how much time was left in the game. However, as times have changed, the 2-minute rule was changed to be a full time-out so that (1) games would be more exciting with the trailing team effectively having an extra timeout, and (2) networks could make a little more money by being able to show a couple more advertisements.

Similarly, the original intent of best 2 of 3 was to prevent donks. It's time to improve this rule and bring it into the Black & White era by reappropriating the best 2 of 3 rule to achieve the purpose of letting full games get played.

Obviously, there should be exceptions where a venue restriction prevents a full 75-minute top cut from being played. I believe that having a 60 minute top cut is better than having no tournament at all. However, I feel like 60 minutes should be the exception—not the rule.

As Jason eloquently put, at our larger events (States/Regionals, Nationals, Worlds, etc.), the venue should accommodate the game, not the other way around!

 

[NoPoke]

If you are already against the wire on event time adding more event time is possible... how?

I'd love for the venue to accommodate the game. But who is going to pay for that? Even if you solve the cost and availability issue will all players and parents be so happy that events run longer? two day events become the norm for Cities and higher? The bulk of pokemon players, are not ultra competitive. All this discussion about what hte events should look like for the top players is fine but it must not loose sight of the majority who are not top players.

Saying that the swiss takes the same amount of time when all you are doing is adding time to the cut misses the point that many of those added time cuts will have to take place on the next day. Now the message to players is what : play in the first day and leave with nothing or book an overnight stay just in case.

IMO: Fixing the time issue for pokemon tcg means bringing back draws or going to the Japanese winner stays on approach. The former isn't likely as the USA seems dead set against draws and the latter would be worse than what we have now as the Japanese tournament structure is very close to single elimination.

 

[Kayle]

The game is 10% extremely competitive players who absolutely require 90-minute top cuts, and 90% families, casual players, and children who don't really care.

I'm sure TPCi loves that 10% just as much as the 90%, but when what you're asking has the potential to be a logistical and financial nightmare for many TOs and players, I don't see why you should be surprised or upset that they side with the 90.

Disclaimer: percentages fabricated.

 

[K2theAblaM]

The game is 10% extremely competitive players who absolutely require 90-minute top cuts, and 90% families, casual players, and children who don't really care.

I'm sure TPCi loves that 10% just as much as the 90%, but when what you're asking has the potential to be a logistical and financial nightmare for many TOs and players, I don't see why you should be surprised or upset that they side with the 90.

Disclaimer: percentages fabricated.

Did you just make those stats up or is that actual data surveyed from a pool of players from across the country.

Either way, the only players being affected by the 90 minute rule are the players that consistently make top cut anyways. Why should the "90%", as you've calculated, even matter when it comes to this since they're casual players who don't really care? They're going to be gone after swiss anyways, right?

Edit: just read the "percentages fabricated" quip. LOL, do people understand the point of using statistics and numbers in the first place? I mean honestly.. when did people think it was okay to make points based on arbitrary numbers pulled from thin air to support their arguments in the first place.

 

[psychup2034]

If you are already against the wire on event time adding more event time is possible... how?

Not every event is against the wire on even time. I've been at City Championships that finished at 4 pm. I've attended State Championships that finished 2 hours before the store closed. As I said, when time is an issue, 60 minute top cuts are a compromise that needs to be made. However, 60 minutes as the "default" time limit seems very short to me, especially at higher level events (Regionals and above).

I'd love for the venue to accommodate the game. But who is going to pay for that? Even if you solve the cost and availability issue will all players and parents be so happy that events run longer? two day events become the norm for Cities and higher? The bulk of pokemon players, are not ultra competitive. All this discussion about what hte events should look like for the top players is fine but it must not loose sight of the majority who are not top players.

The higher level events in the United States (Regionals and above) are already 2 days long, and there's often plenty of time on both days. For example, at New England Regionals last year, we finished 7 rounds of Swiss at 5:30 pm. The entirety of top cut was played the following day, and the finals Finished around 5 pm. It was entirely possible to move Top 32 to the Saturday and play Top 16 on the Sunday, while giving players 15-30 minutes more time per round.

Saying that the swiss takes the same amount of time when all you are doing is adding time to the cut misses the point that many of those added time cuts will have to take place on the next day. Now the message to players is what : play in the first day and leave with nothing or book an overnight stay just in case.

While that may be true for the United Kingdom, this is certainly not true for the United States. Events that are two days already can accommodate a longer top cut in terms of time. Easily.

Another example is the Prague Cup this season, which unexpectedly had 45 minute top cuts. I haven't heard of a single player, competitive or non-competitive, who thought this was a good idea. Why? Because full games could not be played, and faster decks had a distinct advantage. The same problem exists for 60 minute top cuts, just to a slightly lesser extent. When game 3 is started with 10 minutes or less to play, the faster deck has such a huge advantage that the players feel should not be there.

IMO: Fixing the time issue for pokemon tcg means bringing back draws or going to the Japanese winner stays on approach. The former isn't likely as the USA seems dead set against draws and the latter would be worse than what we have now as the Japanese tournament structure is very close to single elimination.

There are multiple ways to fix the time issue. The best example is one of the tournament organizers in the Southeastern United States who already implements 75-minute top cuts at all her events, whether it is Cities or States. It can be done. It's a matter of whether people are willing to do it.

I think by proposing bringing back draws or using the Japanese winner-stays approach, you are sensationalizing the issue by bringing up extreme examples of what could be done. It's more constructive to focus on the feasible solutions, like following the excellent example set by tournament organizers who are already implementing 75-minute top cuts. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to disparage any tournament organizers who don't implement longer top cuts.)

I don't think taking the attitude of "I think your solution is infeasible, ergo, the problem shouldn't be fixed" is the best way to address this problem of games decided by time. 7 out of the 8 Top 16 matches at U.S. Nationals were decided by time. That's a pretty ridiculous rate. I know at least one player who had a "winning" game (established the lock), but lost their game 3 because of time. Players don't like that.

 

[Cyrus]

Has P!P ever said that its purpose behind best two of three is only to prevent donks? I don't think it has, but even if that's the case, it's clear that their main goal is event legitimacy.

This is like everything else: an argument between things as they are vs things as they should be. However, how much does event legitimacy have to give up in exchange for efficiency? 90 minutes is probably way too much to demand out of PTOs right now, but let us not forget that they receive financial compensation for their efforts (whether this compensation is enough for what they do is an entirely different matter). If P!P asks for a higher standard on event legitimacy (e.g., requires longer time limits), then why can't they oblige?

Caution: Don't interpret the above to imply some outlandish, disrespectful, overly-entitled "you work for ME"!-type claim. I'm also not trying to underestimate the challenges of coordinating venues, people, and your own personal schedules to make events a success. However, 0-60 minutes' worth of extra time is worth many of the extra hoops it would take to accommodate - yes, even if that means top cut must be held at McDonald's! I really like Florida's can-do attitude on this, and hope that the rest of the country can learn from it.

 

[Pooka]

Overall, this is going to be a big struggle between venue limitations and the time necessary for completing matches. To give you an idea of what my tournament experiences have been like with 60 minutes, I'll list out every top cut match from the past few years from States and higher that was affected by time limits.

Wisconsin States 2012 (Using Zekrom/Eelektrik)

Top 16 - My opponent, Ryan Borgmann, is using Durant, so all of his turns are extremely quick. He ends up rushing himself in the third game because of the time limit, and he makes a rash decision that costs him the match. I win 2-1, but my opponent had to concede one of the games early to save time.

Top 4 - I face Jay Hornung in another mirror match that goes to Game 3. Time is called near the end of the third game, which forces me to make a play that loses the game instantly instead of giving me a chance.

Illinois States 2012 (Using Zekrom/Eelektrik)

Top 2 - The series is very close and goes to a third game. However, time is called early on. I become State Champion because I am leading by a prize as Yoshi Tate and I draw/pass during the +3 turns.

Wisconsin Regionals 2012 (Using Zekrom/Eelektrik)

Top 2 - The series goes to a third game, where time is called a few turns into it. I am ahead a prize when the +3 turns are finished. I become Regional Champion by taking one or two prizes, a very empty win over Nikolas Campbell.

Illinois States 2011 (Using Dialga/Garchomp)

Top 4 - Only one game completes. My opponent cannot take four prizes in the small amount of time remaining.

Top 2 - I win the first game against Josh Wittenkeller. In the second game, he concedes because he realizes that he is unable to take four prizes in the remaining time.

Wisconsin States 2011 (Using Dialga/Garchomp)

Top 16 - Chris Wood and I go to a third game, which ends up being Sudden Death because time is called. He takes the first prize, and I lose.

Wisconsin Regionals 2011 (Using Dialga/Garchomp)

Top 2 - I go to a three game series with Ross Cawthon. Time is called early on during the third game, and he wins by taking the first prize.

US Nationals 2011 (Using Donphan/Yanmega/Zoroark)

Top 4 - Time is called during the third game against Jayson Harry. I end up taking a prize to take the lead on the third turn.

Top 2 - Time is called during the third game against Justin Sanchez. He becomes National Champion by knocking out my Tyrogue with his Tyrogue to take the first prize.

If you notice, not only is this a ton of games being decided by times, but many of these are extremely important matches that did not get to complete. While I understand that it might not be a possibility to extend time limits for States and lower, it needs to be done for Regionals and higher. If 10 of my matches in the past two years have been affected by time limits, something needs to change.

 

[K2theAblaM]

Maybe the TOs want to do it, but aren't allowed too?

It's been done in Florida, to the acclaim of many competitive players. Like Sam said, it comes down to whether or not PTOs are willing to, not if they're able to.

 

[PokePop]

It's been done in Florida, to the acclaim of many competitive players. Like Sam said, it comes down to whether or not PTOs are willing to, not if they're able to.

Wrong.
You may be partially correct, but you are no where near 100% correct.

I have some events where if I added 45-60 minutes to the event time, I'd be fine with my venue.
However, I have a number of venues with limited time and/or larger events where I'm hitting/breaking my time limit as it is.
You have one issue come up and you can just forget about meeting your time commitment to the venue.
In the Judge Seminar that we held at Nationals this year, we devoted one whole segment to the importance of time management for a tournament, and that was from the Judges' perspective, never mind what a TO has to worry about.

I'm not concerned at all about my time in an event that I'm running. I'm usually either the PTO or the HJ and my main concerns are the event legitimacy, meeting venue requirements, keeping the bulk of the players/parents satisfied with the flow of the event, respecting the time of my staff, and accurate rulings. If I can give more time to top cuts while meeting all those other things, I'll be happy to do it.

But those other things are going to come first.

On another topic, I have to say that, frankly, I take offense at the statement that TOs/PTOs can just easily find venues that can accommodate larger numbers/longer times.
When a PTO has to set up 8-12 locations for Battle Roads (that now are topping 50+ players) and a similar number of locations for City Championships (now topping 100+ players if you consider marathons) and they must be during prime rental time such as all day Saturday or all day Sunday and they must be at rate where we're not losing money (sorry, I love this game, but I REFUSE to run events at a loss!), well, there those venues just aren't hanging from the trees!
The one and only reason that I was able to get a large venue for one of my City Championships was, since I'm running a marathon, I was able to get a venue during the week that I'd have to pay 2x or 3x as much for on a weekend.
This is not easy to do, folks. I'd say getting (and KEEPING!) venues is where PTOs earn their money. It is just the opposite of the easy part of running these events!

Let me give you an extreme example: I'd have loved to run the NY State Championship at Rockefeller Center next to Nintendo World.
But they wanted, and would not budge from, $10,000+ to use a space that they have available and empty.
Ten.... Thousand... Dollars.
OK, that's extreme.
You go to any rental hall and see what they want for a prime weekend day.
They want $500 and up. Quite often $1000.
I'm not going into what PTOs are compensated for events, but I think you can guess that it's nowhere near that for BRs and Cities.
I'll reiterate: Getting venues IS NOT EASY.

 

[yoyofsho16]

This thread is being viewed the wrong way to me.

Nobody's asking for every tournament to come to 90 minute top cut. I think players just want TO's to examine each tournament individually and do a 90 minute top cut IF time constraints allow. Right now I doubt many ever have considered it.

 

[Kayle]

Edit: just read the "percentages fabricated" quip. LOL, do people understand the point of using statistics and numbers in the first place? I mean honestly.. when did people think it was okay to make points based on arbitrary numbers pulled from thin air to support their arguments in the first place.

You missed the point, I think, which is that the players that are concerned with this change are an overwhelming minority. I would like longer top cuts, so I'm kind of on Jason's side here, but I can't claim to feel any sense of outrage or unfairness over it. It's impractical, and given how much of a minority we are, the "fair" thing to do is to keep making the events practical to run so that we have as many as we do in the first place.