Restoring skill to the Pokemon TCG

[Ness]

Jason, I see where you are coming from, but it's a bit unfair to always have the top players always getting first. It really makes a kids day when they finally beat that player, the one that always snatches first place. And I can relate to this (because unlike someone I am not the eat player in the world). If I beat someone I really look up to it's really exciting. If there was no luck in the game it may never have happened. But I can also attest to being really P.O'd when I get donors or draw pass locked etc.

I think their needs to be a balance that is not currently being acheived in the current format.
Posted with Mobile style...

You do not understand the luck in the Pokémon TCG if you think Best of 5 will guarantee the best player will win every time (or even anything close to that). We have dozens of different Nationals & Worlds champions. Simply going from Best 2 of 3 to Best 3 of 5 isn't going to change that.

Additionally, keep in mind my suggestions for Best of 5 are only for Nationals & Worlds. I think these tournaments should reward the players who played and practiced more. If you disagree, perhaps a game like Bingo would better appease you.

Lastly, a 2 hours Best of 5 series will realistically become a Best of 3 series sometimes, simply because games take long. That is the reality of the Pokemon TCG. However, at least these players would get a chance to play 3 full, legitimate games, whereas 60 minutes often makes for a one game series, or a 1-1 going to Sudden Death.

Last year, Jason tried to get me to play him in a best of 9 series Gengar vs Gyarados. I don't think the general Pokemon player (let alone kids) can sit down and play a 2 hour, best of 5 series. But I definitely agree that playing more is the way to go. 90+3 for top cut, perhaps? Double Elimination top cut games?

I think that's complete nonsense that a kid can't sit down and play Pokémon for two hours. I actually think the kids would enjoy playing rather than restlessly wandering around in between rounds. These tournaments are broken up into multiple days. Juniors, Seniors and Masters all have the same passion for the same game. My suggested schedule does not suggest extending these days much further than they already would be. I would definitely support a 90+3 for Top Cut (as well as a 40+3 for Swiss), but I think those implementations belong at States & Regionals. At Nationals & Worlds, I believe we should be playing Best 3 of 5 with a 120 minute+3 limit.

I'd like to close with the fact that I wish Pokémon games only took 20 minutes. That is the only thing I miss about the Base Set days. The reality is: They don't. We can't change that. We can either play with unsuitable time limits that turn the game into a random luckfest of arbitrary sudden death and "4 prize" rules, or we can extend the limits to allow for a skillful and enjoyable game!

---------- Post added 08/29/2011 at 05:59 PM ----------

Looking at the suggested timeframes I've posted, I realize the days are a bit lengthy. It's been brought to my attention too that 10-11 hour days wouldn't work with only a one hour break for staff.

However, I don't think we are out of reach. So instead of 14 rounds, I think 12 would probably be more realistic. Instead of 40+3, maybe we could get 35+3. (Pokemon TCGO allows each player 20 minutes of time on a "chess clock," that switches whenever one player has to perform an action. This 35+3 would closely mimic that.)

Here is another proposed schedule based on 12 Rounds and 35+3 for Swiss:

Day 1 (35 minutes + 3 turns)
8:30 AM: Be seated, etc.
9 AM: Round 1
10 AM: Round 2
11 AM: Round 3
Lunch Break After Round 3
1 PM: Round 4
2 PM: Round 5
3 PM: Round 6
4 PM: Round 7
5 PM: Round 8
Finish @ 6 PM.

Day 2 (35 minutes +3 turns, 2 hours+3 turns)
8:30 AM: Be seated, etc.
9 AM: Round 9
10 AM: Round 10
11 AM: Round 11
12 PM: Round 12
Lunch Break / Deck Check After Round 12
2 PM: Top 32
4:15: Top 16
Finish @ 6:30 PM

Day 3 (Best 3 of 5, 2 hours+3 turns)
8:30 AM: Be seated, etc.
9 AM: Top 8
11:15 AM: Top 4
1:30: Lunch Break/ Final Tables Prepared
3 PM: Finals
5:30 PM Awards
Finish @ 6 PM.

 

[gallade]

Jason, I didnt bring up BO3. In fact, I'm strongly in support of Bo3, but im trying to bring up why there is always a certain need for luck in the game.
Posted with Mobile style...

 

[ajwalker]

1. Coin flip winner gets choice of going first OR second.

2. First turn player cannot play supporters. This limits the strength of opening with a pokemon collector in hand but players will still have the option of benching their pokemon through pokemon communication, dual ball, pichu and cards like stantler and minun for the second urn. Although you can still evolve on the second turn, your set-up is still hindered enough where it handicaps the benefit of going first and being able to evolve first. You are forced to rely on your deck build and ability to successfully evolve your attackers turn 2 with a handicaped setup to fully take advantage of going first.

I think your first two suggestions have merit and would be easy to explain/implement.

What would be so bad about the person who wins the coin flip deciding who gets to go first? Nothing that I could see. That would level the playing field a great deal. In fact, there should always have been this ability in the game in my opinion.

And/Or if that idea never sees the light of day, another fix would be to modify the rules so that only Trainer cards could be played but no Supporters. That would bring some of the skill back into the game that Ness is talking about.

I still think our Sudden Death rules need to be overhauled as well if we are talking about modifications. We should not have to start over when time is called, that truly makes no sense. Just continue on from when time ended for a set time (10 minutes, 15 minutes, whatever's reasonable) to determine a winner.

 

[butlerforhire]

I'm all for the sort of changes to the system that Ness has suggested. P!P/TPCi simply needs to stop treating this game, especially its high-end tournaments, so haphazardly, as if nothing really matters other than the bottom line that "players will still show up" no matter how little effort is put into fixing problems or, better yet, designing things well enough so that there are no problems to fix.

National and World are worth altering standard operating procedures for, if doing so would be to the benefit of the event. Top cut is one area where SOP can be adjusted with discretion. For example, this year's World top cut to 16 instead of 32 was a joke, especially considering that last year there was a cut to 32 with LESS PEOPLE in the field (115 versus this year's 122). The discrepancy between the two years was just ignored, or at least not explained to anyone I know, and 12 people with a perfectly good 5-2 record missed cut for no good reason at all. This is just one example-- the most recent, and also the most egregious, considering how prestigious World is (or is supposed to be). If P!P exercised discretion last year, why couldn't they do it again this year? It's analogous to how one year we get legitimate trophies and the next year we get medals; the only thing consistent is the inconsistency. It's pessimistic to say, I know, but I don't see why something bad like this WON'T happen again, unless more threads like those started by Ness pop up, generate feedback from the community and ultimately get P!P to take their game more seriously and respect their player base more.

Re: luck in this game: There is luck inherently in the TCG, but that doesn't mean that tournaments need to be designed in such a way that luck has more of a say-so in what happens than it should. Luck is NOT something that should just be bowed down to in utter submission. Having top cut only last one hour, even at National and World, is bowing down and saying "we're fine with this tournament ending in an unfulfilling, unrepresentative sudden death game COIN FLIP". Look at this year's National and World finals in the Master's division. Both matches ended in sudden death scenarios where coin flips essentially decided the game. Why is P!P so cool with letting their biggest tournaments end that way? Ness' suggestion definitely makes games like those we saw this year much, much more scarce, which is as it should be.

Also, time has NOTHING to do with this game's design. The creators of the Pokemon TCG did not make the game with built-in time rules. Time is something that we have to deal with somehow due to real-world logistics, but that "somehow" is not locked in stone, which some people seem to think is the case. One hour is NOT enough time for a best of 3 game, and unless we get back into the era of 20-minute-max, old-school Unlimited-style games, it never will be. Dealing with that throughout most of the season is unfortunate, yet bearable, but National and World? How is asking for another hour at the year's biggest events such an impossible request, as long as the entire event is designed to make that extra time completely manageable (see: Ness' event schedule outline)?

 

[P_A]

Both time and money invariably have something to do with this. Time IS money. Yes, real world logistics have lots to do with restraints on what a person can do, and even moreso for corporations. Ness's schedule gives no room for extended problems or hiccups of any sort - not that problems can be insurmountable, but that solutions have to be fast. Perhaps more flights can help bring the rounds closer to a similar schedule. However, with more flights, and with more attendance, more judging, more runners, and yes, more support staff is required. Sure, volunteers are used, but TPCi is not about to use volunteers without at least some compensation. Plus with more flights .... won't that just negate what Ness is trying to do by giving ... less games?

I will agree that luck should not be so important a factor in determining a national, or world champion. However real world logistics, and yes MONEY does play a part in determining how that result is reached. Since none of us players, LL's, TO's and PTO's have a say (or even info) on TPCi's budget, all we can do is make suggestions. For that, I give Ness credit for bringing up the subject. However thus far, the suggested solutions have fallen flat in my opinion to fix the underlying cause - that the pokemon trading card game is fundamentally flawed, and will always be until luck can be bred out of it - which will be never. In the meantime, with brainstorming and cooperation perhaps we can come to some agreement on what is needed and what will help.

 

[yoyofsho16]

Both time and money invariably have something to do with this. Time IS money. Yes, real world logistics have lots to do with restraints on what a person can do, and even moreso for corporations. Ness's schedule gives no room for extended problems or hiccups of any sort - not that problems can be insurmountable, but that solutions have to be fast. Perhaps more flights can help bring the rounds closer to a similar schedule. However, with more flights, and with more attendance, more judging, more runners, and yes, more support staff is required. Sure, volunteers are used, but TPCi is not about to use volunteers without at least some compensation. Plus with more flights .... won't that just negate what Ness is trying to do by giving ... less games?

Doesn't make sense. It's not like there's any more actual players. Why would they need more staff? They'd just have to work a little longer.

 

[TheDarkTwins]

I think another issue is stop printing cards that are and shouldn't be printing or reprinted.

Junk Arm and Catcher have no business being printed. They are bad for the game, there is NO way to stated this more clearly. I'm okay with Reversal being legal IF Junk Arm wasn't. I mean an average of 2/4 on Reversal is a lot better than 4/8. There are cards that should be legal, and then cards that don't. Those two to me are horrible for the game. Catcher makes skill lower, and Junk Arm makes Reversal act like Catcher. It's silly and wrong and broken (Catcher and Junk Arm). I played when GOW and Item Finder were legal the first time, they were too powerful then, I have no clue why they felt reprinting similar cards would be thought as a good idea.

Drew

 

[espy87]

You are spot on with these articles/posts. I hope somebody sees these. Thanks.

 

[P_A]

Doesn't make sense. It's not like there's any more actual players. Why would they need more staff? They'd just have to work a little longer.

You don't think there was more staff this year from last years? You don't think there will be more players this season? That's foolishness. You need to address the problems before the situation arises. Suspected greater number of players + greater numbers of games due to Bo5 = need for more flights and volunteers .... in my opinion.

Next thing - Do you like it when your boss tells you that you have to work harder and longer? How about when you are just volunteering in the first place? Empathy bud. Empathy.

That may be true Drew, but TPCi may not have input (or pull) on what TPC prints. Our options are limited on that front.

 

[TheDarkTwins]

That may be true Drew, but TPCi may not have input (or pull) on what TPC prints. Our options are limited on that front.

I never said in my post that I thought that TPCi was to blame. I blame PCL as I have no clue what they are thinking in printing these cards that are reprints, but aren't.

Drew

 

[ajhawk]

I mostly agree with Ness on this one.

@ Ness: On a side note, there is one point that is faulty. You implied that the reason why we have so many different National champions is inherantly luck. While luck might be the cause, it is not the only possible reason. Maybe those players really were that good the year they won. You appeared to have marginalized those players accomplishments through luck. Don't do that.

 

[ExoByte]

I've heard Magic: The Gathering tournaments run more swiss rounds, but then cut to a larger Top Cut.

Major Magic events do a Top 8 cut, regardless of event size.

 

[kwisdumb]

It's also important to note that MTG events are set up so that all of the X-1s will make the cut. Not sure how that works with draws and all, but I believe that's the "rule" of MTG swiss rounds vs. attendance and such.

Also, if I remember correctly, I believe that 1 12-4 player usually makes the top 8.

 

[Ness]

It's also important to note that MTG events are set up so that all of the X-1s will make the cut. Not sure how that works with draws and all, but I believe that's the "rule" of MTG swiss rounds vs. attendance and such.

Also, if I remember correctly, I believe that 1 12-4 player usually makes the top 8.

Not understanding you. So if there are 16 rounds of Magic, are you saying that only 15-1 gets in, or that 13-3 (and one 12-4) makes the cut?

While decreasing the cut size is a legitimate option imho, you don't want to cut too small because there is a lot of luck involved in the swiss rounds of Pokémon. For example, we wouldn't want to do something like 12 Rounds of Swiss where only 10-2 got in simply because there is too much luck in the game and so many solid players would miss the cut. Rather, I think we should aim for something like 9-3 getting in, 8-4 seems a bit generous - perhaps 9-4 would work with 13 rounds. I'm not sure.

Can someone run some numbers for me? Assuming 900 players, if we had 12 rounds, what records (on average) would make: Top 8, Top 16, Top 32, Top 64?

How about with 13 rounds? What makes Top 8, Top 16, Top 32, Top 64?

 

[kwisdumb]

What I meant was that I believe all MTG tournaments are structured so that there's a guarantee that every X-1 will make the cut. Usually worse records will also make the cut (such as my example about Pro Tours, where I believe there is often 1 X-4 to make the cut), but the X-1 always making it in is a guarantee that Pokemon doesn't always have (there are often CCs with top 4s where one player at 4-1 will bubble).

Just thought I would include that in the discussion as long as we're comparing tournament structure to MTG.

 

[Dr. Mason]

The problem lies more in the power creep of the game than the new rules themselves. Maybe if the cards weren't so overpowered...

Where are the petitions to stop making 1 for 60 cards, draw Pokemon, and energyless attackers? Even if you change the first turn rules or add extra rounds, this game is truly rotting at the core, and changing its clothes isn't going to help in the long run.

 

[Cyrus]

Can someone run some numbers for me? Assuming 900 players, if we had 12 rounds, what records (on average) would make: Top 8, Top 16, Top 32, Top 64?

Hah, psychic connection - I actually ran nearly all of the numbers yesterday! Good thing I saved the file.

Anyways, this isn't for a 900 person tournament, but a 1024 one, which I feel is a more realistic reflection of next season's Nationals attendance (not to mention that it's much easier math). After the tenth round, we are left with only one X-0, so the "complete" record-running would be represented by at least eight different possibilities. But since I didn't really care that much, I decided to run "universe A.1": where the X-0 always wins.

Oh yeah, and I also stop counting X-6 records, since there's never been a 256 in the history of Pokemon TCG.

1,024 competitors begin the day 0-0 (assumes no byes)

*"-------" denotes a top cut break of 8, 16, 32, and 64

512 1-0
512 0-1


256 2-0
512 1-1
256 0-2


128 3-0
384 2-1
384 1-2
128 0-3

64 4-0
64 3-1
192 3-1
384 2-2
192 1-3
64 1-3
64 0-4

32 5-0
160 4-1
320 3-2
320 2-3
160 1-4
32 0-5

16 6-0
96 5-1
240 4-2
320 3-3
240 2-4
96 1-5

8 7-0
56 6-1
168 5-2
280 4-3
280 3-4
168 2-5

4 8-0
32 7-1
112 6-2
224 5-3
280 4-4
224 3-5

2 9-0
18 8-1
72 7-2
168 6-3
252 5-4
252 4-5

1 10-0
10 9-1
45 8-2
120 7-3
210 6-4
252 5-5

"UNIVERSE A.1" (the person paired up always loses; the person paired down always wins)

1 11-0
5 10-1
27 9-2
83 8-3
165 7-4
231 6-5

1 12-0
2 11-1
17 10-2
-------(minus 12 for T8; minus 4 for T16)
44 9-3
-------(minus 32 for T32; exact count for T64)

Disclaimer to all: I don't guarantee perfect math with these totals.

Double disclaimer to all: there isn't too much variance from these totals no matter which route you take. I'm pretty sure that if someone does A.2, B.1, etc, then the counts will stay pretty similar.

 

[NoPoke]

some numbers but not very many: http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=981079&postcount=91

some math, but not a lot http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=889120&postcount=72

 

[Ness]

12 rounds with a Top 64 looks real solid. It looks like with 1,024 players (which I agree is a good estimate for U.S. Nationals 2012) that we'd have a pretty even break of 9-3 getting in.

However, 12 rounds with Top 64 might be too lengthy to do Best of 5. (This would be six 2 hour Top Cut matches.) In order to do this, we would need to have the tournaments run a little bit longer each day, which means there would be a dinner break as well.

Day 1:
8:30 AM: Be seated
9:00 AM: Round 1
10:00 AM: Round 2
11:00 AM: Round 3
Lunch Break After Round 3 until 1 PM.
1 PM: Round 4
2 PM: Round 5
3 PM: Round 6
4 PM: Round 7
Dinner Break After Round 7 until 6 PM.
6 PM: Round 8
7 PM: Round 9
Finish @ 8 PM.

Day 2
8:30 AM: Be seated
9:00 AM: Round 10
10:00 AM: Round 11
11:00 AM: Round 12
Lunch Break & Deck Check until 1:30 PM.
1:30 PM: Top 64
4:00 PM: Top 32
(Food provided for Top 16 inbetween rounds.)
6:30 PM: Top 16
Finish @ 8:45 PM.

Day 3
8:30 AM: Be seated
9:00 AM: Top 8
(Food provided for Top 8 inbetween rounds.)
11:30 AM: Top 4
Finals prepared after Top 4.
3:00 PM: Finals
5:30 PM: Awards
Finish @ 6 PM.

^This schedule actually looks pretty solid to me. The only thing I wonder is if we're better off keeping a similar structure as we've done before (9-10 rounds of Swiss with a Top 128), but then allowing 90 minutes for Top Cut matches...

 

[walrus]

@Ness: I would love for nationals to be that organized!
This year was a mess with the time between rounds and the time waiting to start.

and how hard is it to put the pairings on a projector screen instead of printing out a thousand pieces of paper and taping them all together for 10 minutes?