New rules and Best of 3 Swiss?

[losjackal]

This just occurred to me. We wanted Best of 3 Swiss because of donks and in general having "bad starts" and games finishing too quickly not really letting the better player win.

Now with the X/Y rules (meaning a hardly-played Pokemon Catcher and going first can't attack) we're going to have having longer, more skillful games.

So if we put these two together, what does the meta of Best of 3 with these rules look like?

Random thoughts:

1. The 50 minute timeframe is tighter than ever, since that first game might not end as quickly has before.
2. If you lose Game 1, you really do have a choice to make, going first or second in Game 2. And/or Game 3.
3. How fast does a deck need to be?
4. How fast do players need to play?

 

[Vegeta ss4]

Those are valuable points.

I would be worried a "high" level of ties will happen in Swiss. Iworry that it might make the format stale. I will agree that the new changes do make things a lot more skill based.

 

[JandPDS]

Those are valuable points.

I would be worried a "high" level of ties will happen in Swiss. Iworry that it might make the format stale. I will agree that the new changes do make things a lot more skill based.

Problem is a lot of people will scoop to eachother and both get one point so they make sure to both top cut at the end of Swiss.

 

[Mystery Thing]

Problem is a lot of people will scoop to eachother and both get one point so they make sure to both top cut at the end of Swiss.

Being in a position to do so is their reward for winning their first X games.


Anyways, it's not an automatic that this will cause more ties, not until we have the new tournament rules anyways. It's entirely possible that the second game won't count no matter the prize count unless somebody wins it outright. (Not saying that's how it'll be; obviously I have no idea if it will or not. Just saying it is a possibility.)

 

[TuxedoBlack]

My responses/comments to LosJackal's post:

1. The 50-minute match limit is not too much of an issue for me personally, but it does make me more conscious of time management. This will NOT impact any deck I choose to play.

2. Post-11/8 with the pending rule regarding NOT being able to attack T1 if you go first would influence my decision greatly. I'd definitely would want to go second then. On the other hand, pre-11/8, I would want to go first.

3. IMHO, the deck does not need to be "fast" given the pending game rule changes. The deck definitely still needs to be good and you still need to play well.

4. Players should still play at "normal" game pace. With that said, should you find yourself in a position that you feel you can't win the current game, then you may be better off scoping that game in order to conserve time and start the next game.

 

[dean]

I'm very happy for Catcher rule because I hate Catcher
Since then Stage 2 decks are more easier to play

 

[Jaeger]

60 +3 solves A LOT of issues.

 

[losjackal]

But we can't ignore that it would cause an event scheduling problem. There's barely time for 50 minutes as is, on either day.

 

[rileysill32]

Why don't they put a cap on rounds based on attendance, so time isn't a huge problem.
We upped the prize pool in major tournaments in the master division.
Why can't take a round cap at let's say, 8 rounds of swiss and a top 16 or 32 the next day? And it is that way for every large tournament.
Maybe exceptions for Nats because of the larger turn out.
That's only 8 hours, not counting lunch break as usual on the first day of swiss. It is the exact same time for the tournament as a 9 round first day, like the Indiana Regionals,
just a variation in operations mechanics.

Does my logic make sense? I still don't know if I explained my stance well enough. It at least makes sense in my head lol..
I'm cool with 2/3 swiss. But not cool with literally playing from Noon until 11pm in one day.

 

[losjackal]

TOM software has the option already for "one less Swiss round" for organizers to use as needed. But since it makes the cut harder to make, I think they strongly resist having to do that.

Right now it seems like players are generally okay with the more exclusive Top 8 cut. They just want a legitimate method for determining those top 8. For Cities and States, it needs to fit in a single day.

 

[TuxedoBlack]

Following is an addendum to my earlier Point 4 comments:

Right now, my biggest concern still is that a match can end in a tie. As was seen from my recent Regional tournament (with about 350 Masters), I believe the first round had at least 84 ties... I personally would like to see a new ruling that basically eliminates ties. In several of my matches, some of my game 3 "losing" opponents just needs to "hang on" until time was called in order to "not lose" the match.

Some suggested thoughts pertaining to how to determine a match winner after 2 games have been played and the game score is 1 to 1:

• If game 3 has not started when match time has just been called, each player sets up and then the player who takes the first prize wins the match.
• If game 3 has started when match time has just been called and the +3 turns have been taken, the player who has taken the most prizes at that point wins the match. If both players are tied in prize counts after the +3 turns, then whoever takes the next prize wins the match.
• If game 3 has started when match time has just been called and the +3 turns have not been taken, players should take the +3 turns. The player who has taken the most prizes at that point wins the match. Should both players tied in prize counts after the +3 turns, then whoever takes the next prize wins the match.

By eliminating ties, both players have mutual incentive to continue to win game 3.

Thoughts /any other ideas?

 

[losjackal]

Those are all valid suggestions for determining a winner when a winner must be determined.
Ties don't require you to determine a winner.

Fundamentally, my understanding is that ties were reintroduced so as to help the event run on time. I don't know how big of a problem it was before, or if it would still be as much of a problem with only a Top 8 cut, but it seems to be imperative with 50 minute matches.

I think ties (and thus records being determined by Match Points) are here to stay for a while. Regardless of the system that is used, a Top 8 or Top 32 will emerge. I don't know if we'll ever be able to have a structure where that Top 8 is guaranteed to be the best players in the room. If we did, wouldn't it follow that Jason K., Ross C., Kyle S., and Jay H. for example would always fill at least half the slots for events here in the Chicago area?

So if we can't have a perfect system to determine the best players in the room, then we have degrees of imperfect systems. I think an important concept to embrace this year is that it's impossible to look at an individual's performance and judge if it's good enough to deserve cut; it's all going to be RELATIVE. If 8 people had a better day, you're not going to make it. To some extent, the tournament event itself doesn't care who the Top 8 are. It was a valid tournament with valid selection rules, and some players will get lucky and win.

I feel like I've delved into a really philsophical area now, regarding the purpose of tournaments.

 

[TuxedoBlack]

Those are all valid suggestions for determining a winner when a winner must be determined. Ties don't require you to determine a winner.

But with the current game format, more ties can be caused by a player just "not losing" game 3. This is very frustrating when you're ahead in prizes and can't "complete" the 3rd game resulting in a tie. Also, did you notice the number of players who dropped from the IN Regional tournament by round 6? At least half the Masters starting field (if memory serves me correctly). If those "ties" had had clear winners, then more players would have been "in the hunt" to top cut, IMHO

Fundamentally, my understanding is that ties were reintroduced so as to help the event run on time. I don't know how big of a problem it was before, or if it would still be as much of a problem with only a Top 8 cut, but it seems to be imperative with 50 minute matches.

The 50 minute match could easily stay intact while having no match ties.

I think ties (and thus records being determined by Match Points) are here to stay for a while. Regardless of the system that is used, a Top 8 or Top 32 will emerge. I don't know if we'll ever be able to have a structure where that Top 8 is guaranteed to be the best players in the room. If we did, wouldn't it follow that Jason K., Ross C., Kyle S., and Jay H. for example would always fill at least half the slots for events here in the Chicago area?

Not necessarily. I personally would gladly welcome the challenge of playing against any of the aforementioned players (I've defeated 3 of the 4 in tournaments before and have not yet played against 1 of them). Chicago area is a great place to compete since there are so many top-notch players here in this area (as well as those players who would also join us from the greater Midwest). I enjoy competing and true competitors, IMHO, want to compete against the "best."

So if we can't have a perfect system to determine the best players in the room, then we have degrees of imperfect systems.

And would not eliminating a system "imperfection" further enhance the tournament?

Thanks Carlos for your thoughts and feedback. It's appreciated.

 

[losjackal]

But with the current game format, more ties can be caused by a player just "not losing" game 3. This is very frustrating when you're ahead in prizes and can't "complete" the 3rd game resulting in a tie.

Is it more frustrating for the Player who won game 1 who is going from 3 points to 1? Or more frustrating for the Player who won game 2 and is going from 0 points to 1?

Here's my spiel on this: the 50 minute Swiss Best of 3 format isn't designed to let you complete three games. It's designed to let you complete at least one. Perhaps people just don't like that, but that's what it is. So any arguments towards making sure a winner is determined in game 3 falls on deaf ears for me, personally. If someone won a legitimately well-played out game 1, I'm all for them winning the match. If match victory is snatched away from them in game 2, well, so be it….it means the players were somewhat evenly matched then.

The 50 minute match could easily stay intact while having a no match ties.

You lost me here, so I want to ask how could this be? 50 minute round yes, but the turnaround time to start the next round is jeopardized by all of your suggestions above….waiting to take next prize, and especially the one where they set up a brand new sudden death game. In those situations, both players often get extraordinarily strategic to figure out how to pull out the win, and thus can take even more time than normal turns would.

 

[FincastlePokemon2]

There was another post (perhaps on the Pokemon forums) where it was pointed out that while we've been "trained" that the player who takes the most prizes wins the game, there are actually multiple win conditions which are all equally valid in Pokemon. Decking your opponent out or knocking out all of their available pokemon are both "wins" that are equal to taking all of your prize cards. The "most prizes" standard is an artificial construction created to enforce winners within a limited time constraint.

Think about Durant players awhile back - they had to move the game along quickly because if time was called and they had not yet achieved their targeted win state - they would lose - every time, although they may have been "closer" to winning in their chosen method than their opponent was in theirs. Yet under those rules, if their opponent had even one card left in their deck at the end of +3, the Durant player would lose - even though they would win if the game progressed just one more turn.

These new rules, with ties reintroduced, are removing the incorrect assumption that taking prizes is more of a win than the other methods. If there are three possible "win" conditions and all are equally "wins" - then we have to accept ties, because while there are arguably games whose outcome at time +3 that can easily be predicted, and are also many, many games which cannot.

 

[TuxedoBlack]

Agreed that players should try to win games, and the strategy one employs can change given the game position/status at different times. The key is "try to win," in my honest opinion. I'd rather have a clear match winner because it is too "easy" for either player "not to lose" game 3 while staying within the confines of a 50 minute, best-of-3 games match.

In talking with many players throughout the day at the Regional tournament, ties were in their "top 2" points of frustration for the tournament. As LosJackal has already stated, the system is imperfect; so, I hope action is taken to improve/eliminate any game imperfection sooner than later while still achieving key tournament objectives like having a 50 minute round. I just view match ties as a HUGE imperfection.

 

[losjackal]

So to answer my own original post, I consulted some players at Regionals.

There are two situations where Best of 3 Swiss helps:

1. A player gets donked
2. A player draws dead in the first few turns, falls behind, and scoops

Both of these are a "quick game 1". (It could happen in game 2 as well, but to keep the discussion easy lets just focus on game 1).

The new rules will help prevent donks from happening. But what about the #2 situation? I like the possibility to scoop and try again, but I asked Pooka, and he offered his opinion that if he draws dead early in a game, he is content to lose the game and match. It's a sign of bad luck, sure, but could also be a sign of an inconsistent deck. In short, the player deserves to lose either way (luck is part of the game, and they shouldn't be playing an inconsistent deck).

Any thoughts on this? Do most players believe similarly?
Because if so, maybe we truly don't need Best of 3 Swiss anymore when the new rules take effect.

 

[TuxedoBlack]

If there is one major theme of deck building that's been discussed / preached / argued about alot, it is "consistency." A great deal of time and effort is spent developing a deck so that card draw "consistency" is maintained. Event 2 occurs because there is an amount randomness in the game (so, "stuff happens"). Hence, a player can draw "dead" for several turns unfortunately despite his/her early efforts to incorporate card draw consistency during deck building.

Depending upon the game position, should I find myself too far behind, I'd also concede that game in order to preserve time in the round and hopefully still win the match. Fortunately, the best of 3 games match, IMHO, addresses the "bad" start situations quite well.

With the pending rule changes, both of your stated events would also be addressed. Time and a few tournaments will provide more insight later. But, if I had a choice to choose between a) new rules applied to a 30 + 3 match versus b) new rules applied to a best of 3 game match, then I would definitely vote for option "a" without a doubt.

 

[FunnyBear]

There was another post (perhaps on the Pokemon forums) where it was pointed out that while we've been "trained" that the player who takes the most prizes wins the game, there are actually multiple win conditions which are all equally valid in Pokemon. Decking your opponent out or knocking out all of their available pokemon are both "wins" that are equal to taking all of your prize cards. The "most prizes" standard is an artificial construction created to enforce winners within a limited time constraint.

Think about Durant players awhile back - they had to move the game along quickly because if time was called and they had not yet achieved their targeted win state - they would lose - every time, although they may have been "closer" to winning in their chosen method than their opponent was in theirs. Yet under those rules, if their opponent had even one card left in their deck at the end of +3, the Durant player would lose - even though they would win if the game progressed just one more turn.

These new rules, with ties reintroduced, are removing the incorrect assumption that taking prizes is more of a win than the other methods. If there are three possible "win" conditions and all are equally "wins" - then we have to accept ties, because while there are arguably games whose outcome at time +3 that can easily be predicted, and are also many, many games which cannot.

So basically, you are saying that because there are three win conditions, they should be given equal footing. That is a poor position as ~95% of the games that are decided are done so by prizes. Decking out is probably one game in 100 and benching probably around 4 in 100. Adjudicating an unfinished game based on prizes seems to me to be pretty fair, though not perfectly fair.

How about this? I'd be ok with prize position unless the opponent claims he has a more imminent win condition and this can be confirmed by a judge. In Chess OP, to move a tournament along where there is a game that just won't end, the game can be adjudicated by a judge. This almost never happens, but its in the rules and I've seen it done once. I think non-prize adjudications would be so rare, I wouldn't have a problem with judges determining the "natural winner" given a game state on the few games in which the players can't agree that there may be another win condition other than prizes. Would this be a disaster? How many disputes do you think would have to be resolved?

 

[NikkiK]

I have a friend that this was a problem for. He went to Regionals and he had around 4 ties. What's worse, though, is that he had an opponent, whom he was clearly beating and by fast-playing would have achieved one of the 3 methods of winning (in this case, it was prizes), that said "Well, I guess I'll just take it to time so it'll be a tie." The issue is that players will have this attitude--and it wouldn't even be considered slow-playing, because the standard game takes 20 minutes. Seeing an inevitable loss, all they have to do is "stall" to time, and get a tie that they didn't deserve.