Playing Games Best of 3

[Sabett]

(Final word)

Best-of-3 helps even out luck. Although it's a good thing, it might not be feasible during swiss play.

Winning a game of chance/skill (like Pokemon) by luck or skill is fair.

Roll the dice, flip the coin, or draw the card, and stop requesting additional rolls, flips, or draws just because you thought the result was not fair.

I'm only requesting that we do what other people in other countries are already working with and are fine with. That's proof that it's feasible.

Winning a game by luck alone is not fair, that's the point of luck, to not be fair,

Coin flipping and drawing cards are fair, you can do something about them, they don't typically create situations that give you no opportunity to get out of.

I've stated this before, but losing a game without no opportunity to even fight back is about as unfair as things can get.

 

[SteveP]

(final-final word)

You might not like it, but if the game allows it (it's within the rules and game mechanics), it's fair.

The point of luck in Pokemon is to balance power and provide oppurtunities for fortune and success that might otherwise be absent.

In Pokemon, it often requires both skill and luck to win. Conversely, it sometimes requires misplays and/or misfortunes to lose. That's not unfair in any way, shape, or form. That's just the TCG called Pokemon.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

I'm only requesting that we do what other people in other countries are already working with and are fine with. That's proof that it's feasible.

Feasible in other parts of the world maybe, but perhaps not everywhere. However, whether it's feasible or not might not matter if it's undesireable. I know PTOs and players who don't like it, regardless of feasibility. So, until you convince them otherwise to like it, best-of-3 is something that may only exist during the playoffs. God help us if they ever remove best-of-3 from the playoffs!

 

[Sabett]

(final-final word)

You might not like it, but if the game allows it (it's within the rules and game mechanics), it's fair.

The point of luck in Pokemon is to balance power and provide oppurtunities for fortune and success that might otherwise be absent.

In Pokemon, it often requires both skill and luck to win. Conversely, it sometimes requires misplays and/or misfortunes to lose. That's not unfair in any way, shape, or form. That's just the TCG called Pokemon.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:


Feasible in other parts of the world maybe, but perhaps not everywhere. However, whether it's feasible or not might not matter if it's undesireable.

That its absolutely not true, the rules are not written in stone, just because the rules currently validate one thing does nothing to argue that it's fair.

Alright well this particular spot where luck is at, it does not create a balance in power, it randomly makes people lose, with nothing to fight against it.

None of this explains how losing without any control, is supposed to be fair.

How exactly would it be feasible in Europe, but not here? Does Pokemon go faster there? I can understand venue problems, but I can't understand why that would be a nation wide problem. Also desire is another issue.

 

[SteveP]

For something to be fair, in the context of gaming, it must be allowed. Additionally, it must be impartial and free from favoritism. If you merely take the microscopic view that your starting hand is junk and mine is not, then you need to examine the process that got you to that point. Was the process that got you to that point allowed, impartial, and free from favoritism? If so, then unfairness is a very, very weak argument.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Many people are unfortunately born into poverty. They have little-if-any means to elevate themselves from such sorrows.

Some are lucky enough to be born into wealth.

Is that unfair?

Sometimes, it's not important what you're dealt with in life, but rather how you learn to deal with it and adapt accordingly.

Obviously, life is not a game. Nevertheless, games can often be used to gain life-lessons. :thumb:

Some have best-of-3 swiss, some don't. Can you deal with it and adapt accordingly?

 

[DIZZtheWHIZZ]

For something to be fair, in the context of gaming, it must be allowed. Additionally, it must be impartial and free from favoritism. If you merely take the microscopic view that your starting hand is junk and mine is not, then you need to examine the process that got you to that point. Was the process that got you to that point allowed, impartial, and free from favoritism? If so, then unfairness is a very, very weak argument.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Tego]

Sabett: I think sudden death is a horrible thing, and very little fun. It is sometimes a neccessary evil, though.

When running best-of-3 with a too short time limit, the number of sudden death games increases drastically compared to a single game Swiss round tournament.

And Sudden Death when an ongoing match goes on time, and Sudden Death games that start out with 1 prize card, are two COMPLETELY different things. I have no issues with the former, only the latter.

 

[Sabett]

For something to be fair, in the context of gaming, it must be allowed. Additionally, it must be impartial and free from favoritism. If you merely take the microscopic view that your starting hand is junk and mine is not, then you need to examine the process that got you to that point. Was the process that got you to that point allowed, impartial, and free from favoritism? If so, then unfairness is a very, very weak argument.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Many people are unfortunately born into poverty. They have little-if-any means to elevate themselves from such sorrows.

Some are lucky enough to be born into wealth.

Is that unfair?

Sometimes, it's not important what you're dealt with in life, but rather how you learn to deal with it and adapt accordingly.

Obviously, life is not a game. Nevertheless, games can often be used to gain life-lessons. :thumb:

Some have best-of-3 swiss, some don't. Can you deal with it and adapt accordingly?

So as long as the something that completely does not allow you to win is in the rules it's fair? What if it were in the rules that judges could decree certain players winners and others losers based on their own whims, would it be fair, because it's in the rules? They've already changed the rules before, there is nothing sacred about any of the rules because they are rules. They can all be changed, they do not decree what is fair and what is not. You have still yet to explain how it is fair that people will lose with not one thing to change it, they get a hand and now they are going to lose, no matter what, nothing will save them, not one thing. They didn't get to fight back, they didn't get to try it again, they just lost, without any say whatsoever. Please tell me how that is fair, and don't say it's because it's in the rules, because that is the weak arguement.

Comparing the Pokemon card game to life is terrible, Life is unfair, that's the way it works, I could go on many many tangents to demonstrate how life is not fair. The card game of Pokemon however was created to be fair, and if something is found to be unfair in the card game it should be changed.

Most card games are played best of 3, but for no reason and only in some places Pokemon isn't,

Quoted for truth.

If you're going to post on this thread, would you please add something to the discussion other that basically "I agree with what this person said". I appreciate you are voicing your opinion but please try to be more constructive.

Sabett: I think sudden death is a horrible thing, and very little fun. It is sometimes a neccessary evil, though.

When running best-of-3 with a too short time limit, the number of sudden death games increases drastically compared to a single game Swiss round tournament.

And Sudden Death when an ongoing match goes on time, and Sudden Death games that start out with 1 prize card, are two COMPLETELY different things. I have no issues with the former, only the latter.

Sudden death is a fine way to conduct tied up games, plenty of other places seem to do just fine with it when they play best of 3.

And you're wrong, those are the exact same thing, same format, same outcome, same name, same thing.

 

[SteveP]

Yeah, I think Sudden Death is fine too. It's the last resort when two opponents can't achieve victory when time is called. Nevertheless, best-of-3 needs to be accomodated by a reasonable time limit. 45 minutes is NOT reasonable IMO.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

So as long as the something that completely does not allow you to win is in the rules it's fair? What if it were in the rules......

Once again, you're taking a "blind-eyes view" of this. Certainly, it's disheartening to be placed into a no-win scenario at the start of a contest. But, how's that any different than watching your star player get injured during the opening play? Misfortune can happen at the most inoppurtune times.

In Pokemon, the whistle blows when the players start setting up. At that moment, both players are on a "level playing field" (both plays start with 60-card randomized decks). What happens from that point forward is left to skill and luck.

So yes, it's absolutely fair for someone to start with hand-crap. As has been discussed in your other topic, an optional mulligan can help remedy this situation, but hand-crap should NEVER be an excuse that something is not fair.

In Pokemon, luck is fair, as long as players aren't allowed to redo things everytime misfortune befalls them.

Comparing the Pokemon card game to life is terrible, Life is unfair,....

Yeah, but that's why I stamped my statement with a grin and follow-up disclaimer. :thumb:

 

[Master Yoda]

@Sabett

I see two important point in you view wich are wrong!

1.
You can´t just change the rules in relation to luck. This would be a change of the complete game mechanic. And this coud do only our japanese friends.

2.
Best of 3 preferred Luck/Donk decks. For example shuppet, you have a max. of 3 games to be lucky (Hit you heads on Blower,SSU,Victory Medal and so on) , not only 1.

shuppet can lose game 1 and just win two games in a row in....5 minutes....two turns?


Hope you see my point

 

[xcfrisco]

So as long as the something that completely does not allow you to win is in the rules it's fair?

Luckily nothing of the nature that you described in this sentence exists in the pokemon tcg. Someone is not automatically dealt an L on there score sheet because they start with only one basic and 6 energy/crap cards/whatever. Given the context of the situation, they might be likely to lose, but this isn't always the case (lol, my lone unown G sweeps are the greatest feeling in pokemon methinks, rofl).


Starting with bad hands is fair because YOU CAN STILL WIN even if at a significant disadvantage because of your "bad hand." Pokemon is cool like that (this is one of the main reasons I REALLY REALLY like this game)

 

[Sabett]

Yeah, I think Sudden Death is fine too. It's the last resort when two opponents can't achieve victory when time is called. Nevertheless, best-of-3 needs to be accomodated by a reasonable time limit. 45 minutes is NOT reasonable IMO.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:


Once again, you're taking a "blind-eyes view" of this. Certainly, it's disheartening to be placed into a no-win scenario at the start of a contest. But, how's that any different than watching your star player get injured during the opening play? Misfortune can happen at the most inoppurtune times.

In Pokemon, the whistle blows when the players start setting up. At that moment, both players are on a "level playing field" (both plays start with 60-card randomized decks). What happens from that point forward is left to skill and luck.

So yes, it's absolutely fair for someone to start with hand-crap. As has been discussed in your other topic, an optional mulligan can help remedy this situation, but hand-crap should NEVER be an excuse that something is not fair.

In Pokemon, luck is fair, as long as players aren't allowed to redo things everytime misfortune befalls them.

Yeah, but that's why I stamped my statement with a grin and follow-up disclaimer. :thumb:

Don't you think if you could prevent a star player from being hurt, or that it could somehow be reverted that it would be done? That's something you can't change, this is. Misfortune can happen, but we can change it.

Player's are not on a a level playing field once they start, do you not understand what I am describing? I'm talking about the hands that let you do absolutely nothing about it, you just lose, there's nothing you can do. Not one thing. That is not fair, that is not level.

A bad start is unfair, nearly all other card games give players the ability to change this, but in Pokemon it's forced upon you, no decision, no skill, just random hand, deal with it.

Also Pokemon doesn't have some kind of special excuse that makes unwinnable situations suddenly fair, it's just like everything else, it's not fair when you are given no chance to win.

I see two important point in you view wich are wrong!

1.
You can´t just change the rules in relation to luck. This would be a change of the complete game mechanic. And this coud do only our japanese friends.

2.
Best of 3 preferred Luck/Donk decks. For example shuppet, you have a max. of 3 games to be lucky (Hit you heads on Blower,SSU,Victory Medal and so on) , not only 1.

shuppet can lose game 1 and just win two games in a row in....5 minutes....two turns?


Hope you see my point

1. I'm not changing the rules to erradicate luck, I've already said that I advocate luck in the game, but manageable luck, not luck that shuts out all hope of winning with no outs.

2. For each opportunity a deck can get to donk the opponent, their is an equal ratio of opportunities for that player to not be donked by the opponent.

For each game Shuppet is able to win 2-1, there are more games where shuppet did not win, which, since the chances of being donked are lower, are out numbered everytime.

Luckily nothing of the nature that you described in this sentence exists in the pokemon tcg. Someone is not automatically dealt an L on there score sheet because they start with only one basic and 6 energy/crap cards/whatever. Given the context of the situation, they might be likely to lose, but this isn't always the case (lol, my lone unown G sweeps are the greatest feeling in pokemon methinks, rofl).


Starting with bad hands is fair because YOU CAN STILL WIN even if at a significant disadvantage because of your "bad hand." Pokemon is cool like that (this is one of the main reasons I REALLY REALLY like this game)

Except you're not listening, we are talking about just that, hand's that don't let you get out of losing almost immediately.

You are talking about hands that you can win from, we are talking about the hands that you can't come back from in a timely manner. And those do exist in pokemon, plenty of people can attest to that, including myself.


Just so everyone is clear, the main goal of playing games best of 3, is NOT to prevent losing from bad starts, that's merely something it kind of solves. I've said it before, but the main thing this is intended to do is represent truer results of who should've won in the match.

 

[Tego]

Sabett: I think sudden death is a horrible thing, and very little fun. It is sometimes a neccessary evil, though.

When running best-of-3 with a too short time limit, the number of sudden death games increases drastically compared to a single game Swiss round tournament.

And Sudden Death when an ongoing match goes on time, and Sudden Death games that start out with 1 prize card, are two COMPLETELY different things. I have no issues with the former, only the latter.

And you're wrong, those are the exact same thing, same format, same outcome, same name, same thing.

Sabett, you have throughout this thread completely ignored blatantly obvious facts when they don't support your own argument, and you have completely dismissed input from people who have far more experience with the 45-minute Swiss Match Play format than you have. Have you EVER tried this format?

In fact, I'm tempted to ask if you have ever played in the Top Cut of any tournament, ever. Your absolutely absurd and offensively arrogant comment here makes me seriously doubt just that. I'm "wrong"? I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. It's not my personal opinion that the two types of Sudden Death (1: when time goes out in a match, and the match is allowed to continue until the next prize card is drawn, 2: when time goes out after two completed games, and a Sudden Death match with only one prize card is conducted) are completely different, it's a fact and an objective truth.

Here are some differences:


Sudden Death A
when time goes out in a match, and the match is allowed to continue until the next prize card is drawn

Happens when: Game 1 lasted for 45 minutes and both players have the same number of remaining prize cards, or Game 2 is currently in process, but no player has drawn 4 prize cards yet, and also have the same number of prize cards
Is determined when: one of the players, who are past set-up and most of the time already a few turns into their game - often also at the very end of a long game, manages to draw his/her next prize car
Is biased towards these decks: Almost none, I'd say. All kinds of decks should have the same opportunity to draw prize cards every turn if they're past set-up, i.e. are a few turns into the match. The power inbalance between some deck types during the first turns of the game is undeniable, but this evens out mid-game. If Sudden Death A is biased towards one kind of deck, it would have to be decks that run switching (Luxray GL lv.X, Warp Point, Palkia lv.X) or sniping (Crobat G, Gengar, Garchomp C lv.X), because these have the best opportunity for knocking out a weaker benched Pokémon, which helps when you're tied mid-game and need just one prize. Still, virtually all kinds of deck types can run these mechanics.

Sudden Death B
when time goes out after two completed games, and a Sudden Death match with only one prize card is conducted

Happens when: Game 1 and Game 2 were both completed, with one win for each player, and time was called before the start of Game 3 (for example during post-game shuffling). The shorter the total allocated time for the Match, the more likely Sudden Death B is to occur.
Is determined when: the first KO of the whole game happens. I.e. when the first player has an able attacker that can KO something, anything. In this type of donk, not even running more Basic Pokémon in your deck will help you: You can have as many Basics as you want on your Bench, but if your active is KOed, it's over
Is biased towards these decks: Decks with attackers that only need one Energy. Decks like Dusknoir (needs two Energy cards to attack) or GG (needs three energy cards to attack) or Flygon without Machamp (needs three Energy cards to attack) have absolutely no chance of drawing the first prize card, while decks containing Sableye and Darkness Energy, or Kingdra, or Luxray GL lv.X, or Machamp, or Crobat G and Pokéturn combined with any one-energy attacker, are almost guaranteed a prize card within the match's two first turns if that's what they prioritize and focus their playing on. Especially with the heaps of options available to them thanks to having just one card from their entire deck prized!


Look at the result of any Pokémon tournament with an even number of Swiss rounds, and you will see that the most common result will always be to get an equal amount of wins and losses. (At a six round tourney, 3-3 is the most common result). In other words, it's common for the same player to win half of his games and lose the other half. Best out of three match play in 45 minutes will realistically only have enough time for two games to finish. That these two games end up with two different winners is extremely common, and thus every single Swiss round of a Match Play Swiss Round tournament see tons of Sudden Death B games setting up once time goes out. We tried Match Play in Swiss for the 08-09 BR and CC seasons in Norway. As a judge, I was not happy to see the room filled with 1-prize games and frustrated players who knew their deck couldn't pull off the win. These same players could have pulled off the win if it was a normal 6-prize game - your opponent drawing the first prize doesn't mean you lose! Upper Energy and Toxicroak Promo are good examples why. Also, generally, decks that live off speed and early KOs have lower mid-game and late-game strength.

I'm not being biased towards set-up decks. I just think we should have as much variety in decks as possible, and I don't think it's natural for so many matches each round to be decided by 1-prize games where the first KO is all that matters, because that is not how the game was designed to be played.

 

[NoPoke]

Personally opinion follows: Single prize sudden death with a completely new setup including the flip is a horrid way to decide a match and should be the absolute last resort. yet it isn't *shrug*

What does surprise me is that so many TOs like the single prize sudden death approach to resolving a tie. I know that sometimes there is no other option but I remain convinced that its use could be reduced and indeed that the rules for how the tiebreaking game in match play is decided when time is called simplified to only depend upon the outcome of the last game and not how far players are into the setup of the next game when the clock expires.

@Tego: obviously you have seen the worst possible outcome when our current single prize SD rules interact with 45minute match play. For myself I've only seen the problem show up with 60minute match play in the finals at Nationals. Exactly when you don't want to have to use single prize with a flip to decide who gets a trip

The experience I've had with 45minute match play is that at time there is almost always a game in progress that either resolves the match outcome immediately (prize count) or goes to next prize wins. The most common outcome is a 2-0 or 1-0 win at 45minutes.

Somewhat off topic:I wish we had draws back. I realy can't see why a close match that is tied at time can't be recognised for what it is. Reintroducing draws would take away most of the venue time issues caused by round overruns when resolving ties at time. Venue time overruns are a problem with the single game structure followed by SD too.

 

[SteveP]

If allowed, match ties should be even MORE uncommon than sudden death. AND, you shouldn't be allowed to mutually agree to end in a tie, like those horrific days in the past where everyone at the top table shock hands and walked away with a tie in the final round.

Like Tego and NoPoke pointed out, if sudden death is common (ie., too-little time in best-of-3), something isn't working.

 

[Master Yoda]

Like Draw ,too

But the downside with draw is that the high rank player in a tournement can "manipulate" the top cut.

Maybe not for them self but for others.

 

[NoPoke]

OT re draws: it is possible to arrange the pairings in the final round so that at least one of the players at each table needs to win. You don't get intentional draws then!

eg top 8 cut. final round #1 vs #9, #2 vs #10, #3 vs #11 etc. even at the top table #9 really does need to win to have a chance of getting into the T8. at table 8 where #8 is playing #16, #8 has to win to have much hope of staying in the cut.

 

[Sabett]

Sabett, you have throughout this thread completely ignored blatantly obvious facts when they don't support your own argument, and you have completely dismissed input from people who have far more experience with the 45-minute Swiss Match Play format than you have. Have you EVER tried this format?

In fact, I'm tempted to ask if you have ever played in the Top Cut of any tournament, ever. Your absolutely absurd and offensively arrogant comment here makes me seriously doubt just that. I'm "wrong"? I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. It's not my personal opinion that the two types of Sudden Death (1: when time goes out in a match, and the match is allowed to continue until the next prize card is drawn, 2: when time goes out after two completed games, and a Sudden Death match with only one prize card is conducted) are completely different, it's a fact and an objective truth.

Here are some differences:


Sudden Death A
when time goes out in a match, and the match is allowed to continue until the next prize card is drawn

Happens when: Game 1 lasted for 45 minutes and both players have the same number of remaining prize cards, or Game 2 is currently in process, but no player has drawn 4 prize cards yet, and also have the same number of prize cards
Is determined when: one of the players, who are past set-up and most of the time already a few turns into their game - often also at the very end of a long game, manages to draw his/her next prize car
Is biased towards these decks: Almost none, I'd say. All kinds of decks should have the same opportunity to draw prize cards every turn if they're past set-up, i.e. are a few turns into the match. The power inbalance between some deck types during the first turns of the game is undeniable, but this evens out mid-game. If Sudden Death A is biased towards one kind of deck, it would have to be decks that run switching (Luxray GL lv.X, Warp Point, Palkia lv.X) or sniping (Crobat G, Gengar, Garchomp C lv.X), because these have the best opportunity for knocking out a weaker benched Pokémon, which helps when you're tied mid-game and need just one prize. Still, virtually all kinds of deck types can run these mechanics.

Sudden Death B
when time goes out after two completed games, and a Sudden Death match with only one prize card is conducted

Happens when: Game 1 and Game 2 were both completed, with one win for each player, and time was called before the start of Game 3 (for example during post-game shuffling). The shorter the total allocated time for the Match, the more likely Sudden Death B is to occur.
Is determined when: the first KO of the whole game happens. I.e. when the first player has an able attacker that can KO something, anything. In this type of donk, not even running more Basic Pokémon in your deck will help you: You can have as many Basics as you want on your Bench, but if your active is KOed, it's over
Is biased towards these decks: Decks with attackers that only need one Energy. Decks like Dusknoir (needs two Energy cards to attack) or GG (needs three energy cards to attack) or Flygon without Machamp (needs three Energy cards to attack) have absolutely no chance of drawing the first prize card, while decks containing Sableye and Darkness Energy, or Kingdra, or Luxray GL lv.X, or Machamp, or Crobat G and Pokéturn combined with any one-energy attacker, are almost guaranteed a prize card within the match's two first turns if that's what they prioritize and focus their playing on. Especially with the heaps of options available to them thanks to having just one card from their entire deck prized!


Look at the result of any Pokémon tournament with an even number of Swiss rounds, and you will see that the most common result will always be to get an equal amount of wins and losses. (At a six round tourney, 3-3 is the most common result). In other words, it's common for the same player to win half of his games and lose the other half. Best out of three match play in 45 minutes will realistically only have enough time for two games to finish. That these two games end up with two different winners is extremely common, and thus every single Swiss round of a Match Play Swiss Round tournament see tons of Sudden Death B games setting up once time goes out. We tried Match Play in Swiss for the 08-09 BR and CC seasons in Norway. As a judge, I was not happy to see the room filled with 1-prize games and frustrated players who knew their deck couldn't pull off the win. These same players could have pulled off the win if it was a normal 6-prize game - your opponent drawing the first prize doesn't mean you lose! Upper Energy and Toxicroak Promo are good examples why. Also, generally, decks that live off speed and early KOs have lower mid-game and late-game strength.

I'm not being biased towards set-up decks. I just think we should have as much variety in decks as possible, and I don't think it's natural for so many matches each round to be decided by 1-prize games where the first KO is all that matters, because that is not how the game was designed to be played.

You're right, this is a problem. Deck's that manipulate speed shouldn't have this unfair advantage against slower decks, and I think the answer is allowing either more time in the round, or ties. Magic has more round in their times, and they have ties, but pokemon takes even longer to play.

Personally opinion follows: Single prize sudden death with a completely new setup including the flip is a horrid way to decide a match and should be the absolute last resort. yet it isn't *shrug*

What does surprise me is that so many TOs like the single prize sudden death approach to resolving a tie. I know that sometimes there is no other option but I remain convinced that its use could be reduced and indeed that the rules for how the tiebreaking game in match play is decided when time is called simplified to only depend upon the outcome of the last game and not how far players are into the setup of the next game when the clock expires.

@Tego: obviously you have seen the worst possible outcome when our current single prize SD rules interact with 45minute match play. For myself I've only seen the problem show up with 60minute match play in the finals at Nationals. Exactly when you don't want to have to use single prize with a flip to decide who gets a trip

The experience I've had with 45minute match play is that at time there is almost always a game in progress that either resolves the match outcome immediately (prize count) or goes to next prize wins. The most common outcome is a 2-0 or 1-0 win at 45minutes.

Somewhat off topic:I wish we had draws back. I realy can't see why a close match that is tied at time can't be recognised for what it is. Reintroducing draws would take away most of the venue time issues caused by round overruns when resolving ties at time. Venue time overruns are a problem with the single game structure followed by SD too.

I think draws would be an excellent decision. But what do you think about adding more time instead? If you could have more time, would you want that instead of ties?

If allowed, match ties should be even MORE uncommon than sudden death. AND, you shouldn't be allowed to mutually agree to end in a tie, like those horrific days in the past where everyone at the top table shock hands and walked away with a tie in the final round.

Like Tego and NoPoke pointed out, if sudden death is common (ie., too-little time in best-of-3), something isn't working.

What's wrong with ties? What's wrong with deciding to tie? Plenty of other card games do it. I guess the alternative as I said earlier in this post, is more time, but I'm afraid of the practicality of that. I remember people posting about how their tournaments as is go to time and have to be stopped because their venue was closing.

 

[Box of Fail]

You're right, this is a problem. Deck's that manipulate speed shouldn't have this unfair advantage against slower decks

What are you talking about?! An 'unfair advantage'? A player chooses which deck they want to run.... SD, like any other game mechanic, should be a factor in choosing a deck. Do you think, then, that Take Out should be banned because it gives Machamp decks an unfair advantage against SP decks? Should Power Spray be banned because it helps SPs take advantage of opponents' bad starts? For every handicap you may have, you can tech for it. Run Sableye! All game mechanics should be factored in when choosing a deck, and if your deck isn't prepared for one of them, that's how the game is played. Not every deck can be a winner, and if a deck is not viable due to the Sudden Death rule, so be it.

 

[Sabett]

What are you talking about?! An 'unfair advantage'? A player chooses which deck they want to run.... SD, like any other game mechanic, should be a factor in choosing a deck. Do you think, then, that Take Out should be banned because it gives Machamp decks an unfair advantage against SP decks? Should Power Spray be banned because it helps SPs take advantage of opponents' bad starts? For every handicap you may have, you can tech for it. Run Sableye! All game mechanics should be factored in when choosing a deck, and if your deck isn't prepared for one of them, that's how the game is played. Not every deck can be a winner, and if a deck is not viable due to the Sudden Death rule, so be it.

..........I didn't mention anything about anything being banned at all to any extent, so for you to suggest that my post is saying that at all is taking my post wildly out of context. Pokemon was meant to be played with 6 prizes, and 1 prizes games are a superficial and unintended way to play Pokemon. Sudden Death's consistent answer to end matches, and should only be used to solve matches in the rare incidents of a tie.

 

[nnaann]

Personally opinion follows: Single prize sudden death with a completely new setup including the flip is a horrid way to decide a match and should be the absolute last resort. yet it isn't *shrug*

What does surprise me is that so many TOs like the single prize sudden death approach to resolving a tie. I know that sometimes there is no other option but I remain convinced that its use could be reduced and indeed that the rules for how the tiebreaking game in match play is decided when time is called simplified to only depend upon the outcome of the last game and not how far players are into the setup of the next game when the clock expires.

@Tego: obviously you have seen the worst possible outcome when our current single prize SD rules interact with 45minute match play. For myself I've only seen the problem show up with 60minute match play in the finals at Nationals. Exactly when you don't want to have to use single prize with a flip to decide who gets a trip

The experience I've had with 45minute match play is that at time there is almost always a game in progress that either resolves the match outcome immediately (prize count) or goes to next prize wins. The most common outcome is a 2-0 or 1-0 win at 45minutes.

Somewhat off topic:I wish we had draws back. I realy can't see why a close match that is tied at time can't be recognised for what it is. Reintroducing draws would take away most of the venue time issues caused by round overruns when resolving ties at time. Venue time overruns are a problem with the single game structure followed by SD too.

I agree with this. Sablett, more time can't be added because tournaments are running too long already and with growth in OP it will get worse. Tournaments are sometimes running 12 hours + which causes alot of different problems.

Why were draws stopped in the first place?