New Tournament rules documents have been posted

[losjackal]

Mystery Thing and I are thinking along the same lines. We may not even like it, but right now I'm posting just to try to help players see the other side.

A couple of summary points:

• +3 is still useful to prevent people from playing the clock. It may not be enough turns to let someone win by taking all six prizes, but it could make someone deck out or KO their only remaining Pokemon.
• Ties are being reintroduced to let rounds end in a timely manner, not to give more outcomes to a match. In the big picture of the tournament operation for the day, the benefit of the former outweighs the consequences of the latter.

I'm going to say this bluntly, and people won't like it, but it's the new reality:

If you spent 15+ minutes losing game one and decide to scoop, you probably deserve to lose the match. Your opponent was beating you. Last year you WOULD have lost. It was a fair game. Bof3 in Swiss now isn't designed to let you stage a plucky comeback.

 

[Yoshi-]

Im really happy that theyre trying to imrpove tournament struchture etc, but I feel like the 4 prices rule was a really good one and should still be there for swiss. A game counts when at least one player has taken 4 prices. I think the point of these rules is that you can either play one legit game (and whoever wins that probably wins the b03) or a donk and a legit game where the donked player can try to make up for it. These rules in combination with 50 min timelimit really shouldnt be called b03 because theyre not, this is something different. Im not saying that thats a bad thing, just trying to see the logic in these rules. Im really not sure how I feel about these rules right now, but I think bringbing back the 4 prices rule would be an improvement.

 

[PokePop]

Yes, those reading this as "donk-protection" are reading it right, in my opinion.

On the other hand, this opens up a lot of set up decks as viable!
Think about it. Only complete games count.
You have 50 minutes to win a game.

 

[ajhawk]

If you read the document, the +3 turns are clearly outlined at the start of section 8.1.

I agree with your concerns about stalling. In best of three, you have to watch for the person who is ahead. In single game, you have to watch for the person who is behind because they may be trying to play for a tie, rather than a loss.

Thanks, I haven't read the document in full, yet.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, those reading this as "donk-protection" are reading it right, in my opinion.

On the other hand, this opens up a lot of set up decks as viable!
Think about it. Only complete games count.
You have 50 minutes to win a game.

I'm not sure if it opens up the format to set-up decks or not. While getting donked in game one isn't a factor anymore, if you don't win game one chances are that game two is going to time. At the very minimum you might get into game three, and the match will often end in a tie.

Going x-x-4 isn't going to get you anywhere. that might as well be x-4

 

[Pidgeotto Trainer]

I can understand the time of event issue. The new rules do not have to be the way they are to keep things timely.

You could keep the 4 prize rule in game 2 and a 4 prize or 1 prize rule in game 3. If the game is tied at end of +3 that game counts as a tie. (So if game 2 is tied it's a match-win, and if game 3 is tied it's a match-tie) No extra time beyond +3 needed. This scenario would still leave much less incentive to stall.

Pokepop, do you really want a system where players have differing incentives on how to do their pace of play based on their deck choice? If you play a setup deck you could shoot for a 1 game match, and if you have a fast deck you could shoot for 3 quick games. When these players meet, neither will be happy with the others' pace, and judges will be taxed like never before.

If we're going for a best of 1, let's have a best of 1 and add a few more swiss rounds. This would both be more legitimate and reduce stalling issues. More swiss rounds would also reduce the importance of donks, with far less consequences than this system will introduce. Stalling issues will be much more prevalent than donks anyways, especially next month on.

 

[SMP88]

Just curious, but what would be considered an acceptable amount of matches that end up tying? 20%? More? Less?

 

[sdrawkcab]

I wonder who'll end up being the first person to go 0-0-X at an event.....only to get accused of doing so intentionally.

 

[Pooka]

Unfortunately, 50 minutes just isn't enough time for this system. Simply put, there are going to be a lot of draws and unhappy players. If this is the way things are going to be, I would prefer just playing more single game Swiss rounds. Another alternative is to play a few less Swiss rounds but extend the time limit to 75 minutes in order to allow three games to complete. Even if we could do 60 minutes, it would be a big improvement. My initial reaction to this is pretty negative, but we'll see how Regionals turn out.

 

[losjackal]

Just curious, but what would be considered an acceptable amount of matches that end up tying? 20%? More? Less?

Acceptable to whom? As long as the list of Top 32 (or X-2 equiv) can be determined at the end of Day 1, and the Top end on Day 2, if I were the Tournament Organizer I wouldn't care.

I wonder who'll end up being the first person to go 0-0-X at an event.....only to get accused of doing so intentionally.

After 9 rounds, that yields 9 points...not enough to advance to Day 2. Why would someone make any kind of accusation?

 

[losjackal]

Simply put, there are going to be a lot of draws and unhappy players.

Pooka, many look to you and other notable players for insight. But from a commentator perspective, could you summarize how players would end up unhappy?

Let me set the stage:

1. Last year, single-game matches made it imperative to have consistent decks. You also needed to have fortunate matchups to make cut, since opp win % was the primary tiebreaker.
2. This year, there is the opportunity to try again if rotten luck quickly ruins your chances in Game 1 or even Game 2.
3. A time limit of 50 minutes is not intended to have 3 full games played. It is designed to have a 2nd or 3rd game if necessary after a quick first game.
4. Someone who ends Day 1 with a record of 9-0-0, 8-1-0, 8-0-1, 7-2-0, 7-1-1, 7-0-2, or 6-0-3 will advance to play Day 2.
5. If there are fewer than 32 players with that record, even more players will advance to Day 2.

Those are facts, they explain why the structure is the way it is.

If there are a lot of draws, it would be enlightening to see the explanation of how they torpedo the good intentions of the structure above so much so as to yield unhappy players. Do you understand what I'm asking?

 

[yoshi1001]

Just curious, but what would be considered an acceptable amount of matches that end up tying? 20%? More? Less?

This is a point I like to bring up with intentional draws. In theory, a draw is a more accurate representation of the majority of games in terms of skill disparity, but the problem is that they're not very good for determining a winner if 80% (I'm making a number up here-I'm not making any predictions on how this system will turn out) of the games are draws. In this extreme example, the system might end up rewarding the players who got paired against the weakest players and were able to have a severely one-sided match.

Basically, what percentage is acceptable depends on what you feel the functional and statistical purpose draws serve should be. I know that's more of a question than an answer, but I felt I could give things a bit more focus here.

 

[sdrawkcab]

Acceptable to whom? As long as the list of Top 32 (or X-2 equiv) can be determined at the end of Day 1, and the Top end on Day 2, if I were the Tournament Organizer I wouldn't care.

Over the last 4 online tournaments I've ran (untimed) 60/112 matches have gone to game 3. How would you feel about a tournament that resulted in 40-50% of the matches being tied?

 

[losjackal]

Over the last 4 online tournaments I've ran (untimed) 60/112 matches have gone to game 3. How would you feel about a tournament that resulted in 40-50% of the matches being tied?

Hi, thanks for contributing your information. I do wish to point out that it is imperfect input, because players will play differently knowing they are untimed versus having a time limit. Make sense? When pressed for time, players will make different strategic decisions, even mistakes.

I can't answer your question yet, because without factoring in time, we can't know how many of those would not have even finished game 2 to necessitate a game 3. Do you have any insight into how many were still in Game 2 at the 50 minute mark?

 

[vaporeon]

I can't say I agree with this decision. The point for best of 3 games are to give players enough time to play to play out their games. Pokemon is much faster now then it was many years ago but if both players have a good game, those matches can go for 30 minutes. The system now sets people up for failuar unless one player is steamrolling the other, which in that case we should just play best of one.

Pokemon is not a new card game. its been going on for over 10 years now and they are still making very 'noob' mistakes. They also choose to not learn from other successful card games like Magic and Yugioh to make Pokemon the best it can be because they want to be different. These new tournament rules pretty much say "heres 10 more minutes to play 2 more games". Also picking a tie is also bad. If anything, in my opponent won game 1 and time was called in game 2 and I was winning, then I should be awarded game 2 and it either ends in a draw or we play a sudden death match. Again, these rules favor aggro decks or lock decks that can stall a match till time is call.

This would be the one time where listening to the players would be better for the game.

 

[losjackal]

The point for best of 3 games are to give players enough time to play to play out their games.

I really wish we had a better name for it than "Best of 3", because it's not meant to be the same. It even has it's own section in the Rules, called "Best of 3 Swiss" compared to "Best of 3 Single Elimination" which hasn't changed.

If anything, in my opponent won game 1 and time was called in game 2 and I was winning, then I should be awarded game 2

If you wish to stand behind this statement, how do you account for other potential win conditions that might have happened had time not been called? For instance, you may have been winning in prizes, but perhaps you had no cards left in your deck. Or if your only Pokémon left on the board was your Active and could be KO'd next turn. Were you really "winning"?

 

[vaporeon]

Well, if time was called in any game, no matter how the game state was, the person winning the game and that determined by prizes taken would be awarded the win if time was call and still had the lead at the end of +3. To say game 2 does not matter at all is a slap in the person face who was winning the game. It should be seen as that player winning game 2 and that player given the win, then you can decide if its going to be a sudden death or a draw. The way it is now, there is no real reason to play game 2.

 

[losjackal]

You are citing the past rules, which were written so that procedures were in place so that a winner could be determined no matter what. With ties now possible in Swiss, there is no longer that need. And those rules still exist for Best of 3 in Single-Elimination, because a winner does need to be identified.

Furthermore, you didn't answer my question about the other win conditions, you just stated your argument again. Back when Durant was a viable deck, players acknowledged that just looking at prizes is not the only way to look at a board and make a judgment of who is winning.

 

[vaporeon]

You are citing the past rules, which were written so that procedures were in place so that a winner could be determined no matter what. With ties now possible in Swiss, there is no longer that need. And those rules still exist for Best of 3 in Single-Elimination, because a winner does need to be identified.

Furthermore, you didn't answer my question about the other win conditions, you just stated your argument again. Back when Durant was a viable deck, players acknowledged that just looking at prizes is not the only way to look at a board and make a judgment of who is winning.

I though I did. I was saying once time is called under the new rules, +3 does not matter. It does not matter id I had 0 cards in deck or my active would die between turns because once time is called, the game just ends. All that matters is prize count once the game ends and if I'm winning by prize count, game 2 should be awarded to me and not thrown out of the window because my opponent won game 1. Nothing else matters after time being called other then prize count unless there is a new rule I'm not aware of.

 

[pankanese]

After 9 rounds, that yields 9 points...not enough to advance to Day 2. Why would someone make any kind of accusation?

I was wondering how much a tie is worth...
How much is a win worth? 3 points?

 

[Pooka]

Pooka, many look to you and other notable players for insight. But from a commentator perspective, could you summarize how players would end up unhappy?

You bring up some good reasons for implementing this system, but I think the biggest problem is a very simple one. Under this system, I honestly would expect over half of the matches each round to go to time. In those situations, instead of the gameplay itself deciding a winner (or lack thereof), the time limit does. For both experienced and new players alike, the desire is for the game to be decided by what happens at the table, not by the clock. Now players are going to focus on playing the clock more than the game itself. If I won the first game (no matter how long it took), it's my not my goal to win the second game; it's to make sure it doesn't finish. If I'm about to lose the third game, I'm trying to draw it out so I get a tie instead of a loss. Without even playing a game in this system, I'm dreading it.

Even if the goal of this system isn't to play three complete games, the reality is that most series will go to a third game - and not finish. As a result, we're going to see lots of ties. Honestly that is the flaw here; there's a good chance that there are going to be more ties than wins. Why are we moving towards a system that makes it more difficult to complete games? Either give players a reasonable amount of time to play three games, or just keep it at one game and add more rounds to reduce the impact of quick wins. We're shifting away from Pokémon and towards clock manipulation. I'm certainly not happy with that.