baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
I agree that the majority should be catered for, but not when it comes to such a lame reason as 'well, I have more chance of a lucky win'.
Playing Games Best of 3
- Thread starter Sabett
- Start date
- Status
You're certainly welcome to invent a new term to distinquish players who generally finish at the top of the standings from those who generally finish below them.
All too often, I see parents who insist their kids are "winners" regardless that they just lost. Competition means there are winners and there are non-winners (or losers). It's okay to console the non-winners, but it's a bit ridiculous, IMO, to equate effort to victory.
Pokemon is a game of chance MIXED with skill. Some players actually LIKE the element of chance when playing Pokemon -- they find it attractive.
I also play a variety of other card and boardgames. I'm very good at games of skill like PowerGrid, Agricola, Puerto Rico, Caylus, and others. But, those games don't often "hit the table" in my boardgaming groups because other gamers know I'll probably win. So, I'm often playing other games that involve more chance than skill.
Top-decking and coin-flipping are a part of Pokemon that are attractive to me. I'm not alone in this attraction.
All too often, I see parents who insist their kids are "winners" regardless that they just lost. Competition means there are winners and there are non-winners (or losers). It's okay to console the non-winners, but it's a bit ridiculous, IMO, to equate effort to victory.
I think you miss the bigger picture.
Pokemon is a game of chance MIXED with skill. Some players actually LIKE the element of chance when playing Pokemon -- they find it attractive.
I also play a variety of other card and boardgames. I'm very good at games of skill like PowerGrid, Agricola, Puerto Rico, Caylus, and others. But, those games don't often "hit the table" in my boardgaming groups because other gamers know I'll probably win. So, I'm often playing other games that involve more chance than skill.
Top-decking and coin-flipping are a part of Pokemon that are attractive to me. I'm not alone in this attraction.
Last edited:
Sabett
Active Member
I said "lesser players" implies some kind of impassible hurdle some players have, when actually everyone is on the same level, just some choose to work hard, and others don't, and those that do should win more often than those that don't. I just wanted to make that clear, that what you call "lesser players" are people who don't work hard at the game. IDK, what's hard to understand about a tournament, it's about winning, not losing, the winners are rewarded, and the losers are not, and the majority of people will always be people that lost, not that won. If we were going to appeal to the mass of players then why don't we just give medals to all the players? Because that's not what a tournament's about. It's about a select number of players being better than the mass of players, it obviously advocates elitism and competition. I absolutely do not understand why players that didn't work hard should win a tournament.
If a parent argues that their kid won, when they clearly lost that has nothing to do with the tournament. The kid lost, his record says he lost, so he lost. And it's also apparent that this problem has nothing to do with playing games best 2 out of 3, since it's already a problem.
Also yes chance is an attractive part of the game, but competitive players, and casual players don't like to lose because they had a bad start, and tournaments are not about lady luck deciding who is better than the rest. There is a place for luck, and there is a place for luck, and it even has a small part in tournaments, as you said coin-flipping and top-decking, but it shouldn't be given an unfair leg upon skill. Other card games have this, this isn't even that condescending and unfair to players that don't play competitively.
EDIT: I can understand this being a problem for juinors, but at the time of seniors I think it should be implemented.
If a parent argues that their kid won, when they clearly lost that has nothing to do with the tournament. The kid lost, his record says he lost, so he lost. And it's also apparent that this problem has nothing to do with playing games best 2 out of 3, since it's already a problem.
Also yes chance is an attractive part of the game, but competitive players, and casual players don't like to lose because they had a bad start, and tournaments are not about lady luck deciding who is better than the rest. There is a place for luck, and there is a place for luck, and it even has a small part in tournaments, as you said coin-flipping and top-decking, but it shouldn't be given an unfair leg upon skill. Other card games have this, this isn't even that condescending and unfair to players that don't play competitively.
EDIT: I can understand this being a problem for juinors, but at the time of seniors I think it should be implemented.
I agree, wholely. But, the question is, should the element of chance be reduced merely to benefit the "elite" as you call them.
Generally, the more-skilled players will rise to the top. The question is, do you want to make that road more-certain at the expense of making it harder and time-consuming for lesser-skilled players and TOs/Judges?
TPCi and PTOs really see the bigger picture of OP than the factional top players.
Sabett
Active Member
I've already addressed how TOs and judges play into this situation and you have not addressed it, so I'm not going to repeat myself.
Should it be hard for someone who didn't work hard to win a tournament? Yes. Should it be time consuming for them? No, they can drop out whenever they feel like it.
Also please try to keep up with my posts, I have another post after your previous one.
It is NOT unfair to lose a game-of-chance/skill due to luck. That's where I think you're missing the "bigger picture."
Listen, I really think best-of-3-swiss is a nice thing. I'm just playing the role of "devil's advocate" here and pointing out that there are many issues against it.
Sabett
Active Member
It is unfair to lose to luck, that's the point of luck, it's not fair, it's the great equalizer, where anyone can win, no matter what. Now I'm not saying it's like poker, but we all understand how people lose from bad starts, and we all understand that you can lose despite how much of a good player you are than the other person.
I understand you're playing devil's advocate, you've said you were in favor many times now, and I'm attacking that POV you are advocating, not you.
Really? Losing a game-of-chance/skill to luck is unfair? I don't get that argument.
Losing a game-of-pure-skill to luck is unfair. Pokemon is no-such game.
Victory Bell
Member
Time to enject my 2 cents :smile:
Well none of us like to loose on luck but saying its unfair is not true at all.
Pokemon is in the "grey" area of games. Somewhere in between chess (all skill other that who goes first) and poker of some sorts (all in how the dealer shuffles so in most cases, based on luck) When one decides to play a game in the grey area that person has to understand that luck is involved and if they are donked, that is just too bad.
Me, I am personaly against 2 out of 3 games even though I hate luck and donks. If it were for an hour I would be a happy boy but the masters division doesent have time for that anymore.
Having more matches in 45 mins imo would give my opponent more chances to beat me quickly and me less time to catch up.
Sabett
Active Member
What are you talking about? You just said you don't like donks, but that more games would give your opponent more time to beat you? This isn't making any sense, this isn't really the place for self pity. If you're going to lose so easily, why enter in the tournament first place? Pokemon was made with you to lose to donking, they're even trying to fix it, look at call energy, or the countless Pokemon with call for family. Obviously if these were to be implemented more time would be necessary for more rounds, I like that Europe plays best of 3, but enough time to play all three games should be given.
I never said Pokemon was a game of pure skill, but it already has enough luck with randomized decks and coin flipping. I've already stated in this quote that even the format is trying to fix being donked via call energy/call for family. It's unfair to all players that they should lose a match because they got one basic and no way to get out of it.
SLOW DECK
New Member
I agree that Pokemon is a mix between chess and poker. Chess for the strategic part of the game. Poker, not just of luck, but because of:
1. Luck (small part).
2. A sense of Knowing approximate odds of cards coming in the draw or your opponent hand/draw.
3. Reading your opponent intent.
4. Good old fashion Bluffing your opponent into play, and then springing a trap on them.
The aspect that a player can beat a great player with an undetermined combination of both luck and skill makes organized play great. Why is Poker so popular?. If their wasn't the fuzziness of luck, 90% of the players would realize that they aren't as good as they think they are. Actually, I think it is more 25% of the players swear it is just bad luck that makes them lose. The other 75% of the players don't have over inflated ego's. (I am probably a part of the minority here!)
Even if you go 2/3, luck would still remain, and still be an excuse for players to have to give for losing. Where would it end, making it a Best of 7 to remove the luck aspect of the game. Do we make it 120 card decks with 12 prizes???
If you can't stand that luck has such an important part of pokemon, I would suggest playing chess, or focusing on building decks that are "Luckier".
Last edited:
I think the benching rule is a negative element of Pokemon, but my remedy to fix that doesn't involve more games or voluntary mulligans. My remedy would be similiar to the setup in another TCG called Lord of the Rings (LOTR). In LOTR, you are allowed to choose and start with any number of characters if the total health is 4 or less. For Pokemon, you could do something similiar with total HP.
SLOW DECK
New Member
I agree, I would further it with a suggestion of a "game mechanic" that allowed a "Call NRG" option rather than attacking would definitely improve the game aspect of luck though. Thus if I start with a lone Unown G, and have no other playable cards, the option of using "Call" to get 2 pokemon from deck would remove the Donk aspect of this game.
The game mechanic could be an option of 4 items:
1. Call for Two Bench Pokemon or
2. Call for Any Card in you deck to put into your hand. (Why stop with calling bench).
3. Attack with the Active Pokemon.
4. Pass
Thus the dead-dead-dead-dead hand luck aspect of the game could be removed. Again, this changes in the mechanic would have to be designed in by the game designers. I think consistency of setup is a major part of deck design today, and the teched to the hilt players will never admit too. Giving a mechanic to give a slowly but surely set up is something that would eliminate the donk's and lead to more competitve games. Most everyone prefers a good battle over a dead hand win or loss.
Last edited:
Victory Bell
Member
Wow way to sound mature. Obviously I know enough to use CFF on my pachi as my favorite way to fix donks is to chose your basic. Say, in the current format, I play against a shuppet with gyarados, a deck easily donked. If I get "lucky" (for lack of a better word) to beat them the first game, do I want to risk getting donked in the next two games or looseing on time to a fast deck?
Sorry my first post was not well worded, explained or clear.
And btw self pity? Do YOU like getting donked?
I dident say it was a mix I sayed that it was classified between them. And you are 100% correct about the poker part and skill. Some how it sliped my mind to mention that.
In pokemon, the movements as in chess are more blurred beacuse of the odds of drawing and prizeing and the like. And in pokemon, bluffing and odds of what your opponent has as in poker are blurred beacuse pokemon decks are custom and quntities are an unknown.
Naw, I think deck searching needs to remain as a card action/effect, not a free starting action.
In LOTR, you decided BEFORE the deck was randomized what your starters were, AFTER the starting player was determined. It worked in that game, and could work in Pokemon for starter/bench Pokemon.
Interesting discussion, one thing I would like to point out though...
Deck A may usually lose to deck B. But deck A put in a tech to beat deck B; that deck B didn't see coming and therefore deck A won.
In a best of 1 situation the tech would have payed off for deck A, but in best of 3, deck B will probably be able to play around it for the next 2 matches and therefore will probably walk off with a win.
Deck A may usually lose to deck B. But deck A put in a tech to beat deck B; that deck B didn't see coming and therefore deck A won.
In a best of 1 situation the tech would have payed off for deck A, but in best of 3, deck B will probably be able to play around it for the next 2 matches and therefore will probably walk off with a win.
NoPoke
Active Member
Unfortunately though it is possible for many events to have an extra hour of play time to accomodate 45 minute best of three in the swiss rounds the same is not the case for 60 minute or 75 minute swiss rounds where many fewer venues could accomodate the extra two or three hours that are likely under those round structures.
Every round half the players in the room lose. That does not change under single game swiss, best of three swiss or best of whatever swiss. Personally I want to maximise table time and 45 minute swiss b-of-3 does that better than single game swiss. Best of three is also superior as a source of data for the rating system to use and superior at determining who makes the cut. Its only downside is that 45 minute b-o-3 costs up to an extra hour of venue time.
Sabett
Active Member
That's dramatizing the situation too much, you're slippery slope idea doesn't apply because the difference between one game and 2-3 games is incrementally more representative of the decks matchups and the players skill than the difference between best of 3 and best of 5. Best of 3 is a nice compromise between time and representation of both players skill.
Stop trying to bring the two thread discussions together, choosing a starter has nothing to do with playing games best of 3. Also idk what you mean by benching rule, do you mean how there are 5 bench spots and 1 active spot? Have you ever played the video game or seen the show? It works just like that nearly all the time.
Once again, not the thread to discuss the mulligan system. I made two threads for a reason.
So you're saying that it is a coincidence that gyarados can get past a donk from shuppet, that the shuppet donk typically beats gyarados? Then wouldn't you find it unfair to the shuppet donk player that he lost a good matchup? Wouldn't it be a better way to represent which deck+player would win in that match if more games were played, instead of the gyarados being able to barely get by that match?
I just said the thing about self pity, because it sounded like you expected to lose, and not win at all. That since you lost the first game, why bother to play the rest?
This is more of a comment for sideboards, and there was a thread for it, but it got locked. Although it was said that an article was going to be made on it, so I was waiting until then to talk about it.
But to counterpoint, this would only be true if the tech was a surprise, like maybe a relicanth, but if it were something like mewtwo, then it wouldnt really make a difference.
Hmm, I'd really like to see an hour for best of 3, but if Europe can do it in 45, I would assume it'd be ok since they're fine with it.
Victory Bell
Member
Yes it is unfair (even though I still dont agree on the use of that word). But donk decks in my opinion are unfair in the first place. If the player built the deck to donk then he should win that match. But Im saying that donk decks (the decks im trying to put down) shouldent be givin that oppertunity to win in the first place. The only reason that gyarados would loose that match would be that 50% of the time it looses its set up card T1. If gyra sets up it wins. Period. But donks dont let it do that. In my opinion keeping things the way they are (or best 2 of 3 with more time maybe) help hinder donk decks more (My goal in this argument).
DISCLAIMER: I play gyra (as alot of people know) but im not defending it, just useing it as an example.
Sabett
Active Member
Well the arguement would be that it would be killing off entire archetypes, but I also agree that it needs to go. This particular point is more suited for the new mulligan rule thread, but I agree that playing games best of 3 would increase your chance of being donked in a game, but I don't agree that it happens more often then when you don't. You more than often get good starts as apposed to bad starts, so where you say that you'll get more bad starts, that's only because there's more games being played as apposed to changing games best of 3 manipulating you getting a bad start. For every bad start you get, you'll have more good starts.
- Status