Restoring skill to the Pokemon TCG

[Ness]

Over the past three years, we've seen an increase in luck compared to the 2008 (and 2005-2006) seasons. In my opinion, this increase in luck is actually a bit exaggerated. The truth is the reason there seems to be more luck is because players are better and they are also playing better deck lists. Years ago there were more players playing bad decks. These players with bad decks needed to get luckier to beat you because there decks were so inferior. But with players both improving and solid deck lists spreading around the internet it's harder to outplay these players and the luck factor becomes more important in determining winners.

Anyway, moving on to my point. People have made several suggestions to "fixing" the game and restoring more skill, for example:

1) Change the Turn one rules! (Don't allow supporters, perhaps maybe no trainers as well. Some people have come up with unique ideas like not allowing an attack.)

I like this idea, personally. However, there's no sense even discussing it. Why? Because this cannot be done! We cannot change the rules of the game. Only Japan can.

2) Ban cards!

Often players complain about certain cards being overpowered and ask them to be banned. (For example, Uxie.) They feel that this would improve a format and make it more skillful. Again, not up to us! Take it out of the equation.

There is, however, one option we have to increase the amount of skill involved in Pokemon TCG tournaments. What is it?

Play more games.

Yes, the amount of games to determine a winner is not written in some rulebook. We can run tournaments however we please. What am I suggesting? Well, here's an example. Perhaps Nationals & Worlds should implement Best of 5 series with a 2 hour time limit. As for swiss, let's play more rounds. I've heard Magic: The Gathering tournaments run more swiss rounds, but then cut to a smaller Top Cut. I think Pokémon should do the same. We could also do Best of 5 at Regionals if all Regionals are two-day events (which they should be.)

Now, let's be real. People have children, etc. and don't have all day at tournaments. Understandable. Pokémon is played in the real world, not in fairy tale land. People have schedules, jobs, school, places to be. And that's why I am not suggesting implementing more Swiss rounds and Best of 5 in every tournament. However, at the very least, I believe large National tournaments (U.S.) and the World Championships should allow for a Best of 5 in the Top Cut. The amount of luck involved at this year's World Championship was an insult to the game. Let's look at the LCQ: 45 minutes for Best of 3? Half of those games may have been one game series, anyway. How many complete three game series did you see finish in the LCQ?

Now, let's fast forward to the finals of Masters at the World Championship. This huge, highly publicized event. The ultimate tournament of the year. Spectators, news reporters, fans and the best players in the world who labored all season to earn their invite fly from all over the world to play in this once a year event. And how do we determine the winner? With a Sudden Death coin flip? Come on. Imagine having little knowledge of the game and then having someone explain to you "Well, they only have an hour to finish, and since many Pokemon games take longer, the hour usually expires and they just play a sudden death game where whoever wins a coin flip usually wins." Would that spark your interest in the game? Or would you laugh it off as childish nonsense? Let's not insult this amazing, fun, skillful game. Let's let players play.

 

[Water Pokemon Master]

1) Change the Turn one rules! (Don't allow supporters, perhaps maybe no trainers as well. Some people have come up with unique ideas like not allowing an attack.)

I like this idea, personally. However, there's no sense even discussing it. Why? Because this cannot be done! We cannot change the rules of the game. Only Japan can.

The Japanese used to take American feedback and I'm sure they read online forums or at least receive information about what online players are saying. So I say complain all the way.

 

[mYzeALot]

I myself would love to have more rounds of Pokemon. I think that they could allow Bo5 rounds even for tournaments like Regionals and States. Regionals is also going to be a 2 day event, so I think it would be possible for that to happen.

 

[PokeDad]

The Japanese used to take American feedback and I'm sure they read online forums or at least receive information about what online players are saying. So I say complain all the way.

I'm sure both the Japanese and Americans who read the online forums don't appreciate comments like, "So I say complain all the way."

Professionally, I have found helpful, well intentioned, constructive criticism is always more welcome than serial complaints. Complainers are often marginalized as much as possible, appropriately; their negative energy is not conducive to a cheerful and productive workplace. Those offering constructive criticism are often put forward before the public, their positive attitude is one a company is proud to present.

As a community leader, many look up to you. Like it or not, you are a role model. I imagine the "complain" note was just an unfortunate turn of phrase. Sadly, it reinforces some of the less positive posts that sometimes populate the threads here.

You'll do what you want, but I would ask everyone who posts in the News and Gossip forum to try to elevate discussion by remaining positive in your posts.

Thanks everyone.

 

[Shino Bug Master]

I think the phrase "complain all the way" was meant to counter off the statement of the Op that seemed self-defiatist about trying to influence the game. No one wants to hear "I hate teh knew turn 0n3 rul3s," again and again. And i don't believe that's what WPM was encouraging. But echoing the common sentiment of a bad turn one rule changing shouldn't be discouraged.

I think it's just a natural understanding on the forum that your posts should be tasteful, respectful and on topic.

 

[Otaku]

I think the phrase "complain all the way" was meant to counter off the statement of the Op that seemed self-defiatist about trying to influence the game.

You're fifth post and you referred to Ness as "OP". XD

I think both approaches make sense. First, do what we can to improve the game, and make sure we focus on providing constructive criticism for feedback. I'll add another thing we can do:

Educate ourselves. Much like merely complaining and not substantiating it, try to learn a bit before you start a threads worried about the state of the game. Honestly I don't think anyone should ever start a "ban X" thread or a "X will ruin the game!" because even if "X" would, those titles are so overused and cliche using them counts as an auto loss on the debate.:lol:

If you're struggling, accept that maybe something you've been doing this whole time isn't necessarily a good strategy, and try to get other player's perspectives. I know I may seem quite eccentric at times, but I am also able to back up (well, when I am not playing the fool) my stances on what constitutes a broken card, and what is the "true problem" with many broken combos (all cards, one card, or even rules).

 

[z-man]

Ness, I 100% agree with you. From what I understand, the standard Grand Prix in magic is 12 Rounds (usually 2-3 formats in those rounds) with top cut (top 8 from what I understand). Pokemon is a bit different, but it can still take lessons. Pokemon directly markets itself towards all age groups while magic prefers older audiences. I know for sure that, as a senior, I could not have survived a 12 round tournament. I had trouble playing through the '06 grinder that went until 3 AM... even so, more rounds means more chances to lose. A natural progression of players will result. It will give a very accurate representation of who is on top, who is second, etc. Then you cut to a small top cut as you will clearly have 8 of the best players on top. This is not applicable to smaller events (you may as well have a round robin cities), but it could certainly apply to nats/worlds.


Next, time is a huge issue. I am convinced that we can have best of 5 games during most cuts, but the schedules really don't allow for such a thing. With the new two day regionals, those events have that extra time. At worlds, we saw how much of an issue time was. To be frank, grinders time was an insult and worlds was decided by a coinflip? That isn't fun D: Time is certainly an issue, but I'm sure we can find time. Perhaps only make top 8 best of 5 to start out with. Moreover, there is a lot of wasted time at events. I am totally ignorant to how to run a big event (Dave S. was sweating at worlds... must be intense), but I can certainly find time to cut. We had big issues at nats, and grinder started LATE. If they can manage their time better, we'll have more time to play. I know that most foreign events use best of 3 during main rounds. On our current American schedule, this is probably impossible. If we make States a two day event as well, it COULD be possible. The more games we play, the more skill is favored. The game itself still favors skill, but not as much as it did in the past. Something should be done to make up for this.

 

[NoPoke]

Fight the battles you can win.
Put resources into the battles you might win.
You may have to fight a loosing battle if it is the only option.
Picking fights you can only lose is stupid.

===my personal campaigns===
bring back draws. (scrapping draws was not the best way to fix the ID issue)
match play as standard for swiss rounds.
X-2s should make the cut
the number of swiss rounds should follow the binomial distribution and not the power of two that will produce a single winner.
It is possible to accommodate luck in the mechanics of the rating system.

Unsurprisingly there is an overlap between many of the above. I might want to change some game rules but I don't hold out any hope that PCL will listen to me: not least because I am unable to communicate with them in any kind of meaningful way.

 

[Water Pokemon Master]

I'm sure both the Japanese and Americans who read the online forums don't appreciate comments like, "So I say complain all the way."

Professionally, I have found helpful, well intentioned, constructive criticism is always more welcome than serial complaints. Complainers are often marginalized as much as possible, appropriately; their negative energy is not conducive to a cheerful and productive workplace. Those offering constructive criticism are often put forward before the public, their positive attitude is one a company is proud to present.

As a community leader, many look up to you. Like it or not, you are a role model. I imagine the "complain" note was just an unfortunate turn of phrase. Sadly, it reinforces some of the less positive posts that sometimes populate the threads here.

You'll do what you want, but I would ask everyone who posts in the News and Gossip forum to try to elevate discussion by remaining positive in your posts.

Thanks everyone.

I think it's pretty obvious what I meant. >_>

 

[ajwalker]

1) Change the Turn one rules! (Don't allow supporters, perhaps maybe no trainers as well. Some people have come up with unique ideas like not allowing an attack.)

Play more games.

Yes, the amount of games to determine a winner is not written in some rulebook. We can run tournaments however we please. What am I suggesting? Well, here's an example. Perhaps Nationals & Worlds should implement Best of 5 series with a 2 hour time limit.

Now, let's be real. People have children, etc. and don't have all day at tournaments. Understandable. Pokémon is played in the real world, not in fairy tale land. People have schedules, jobs, school, places to be.

Love your YouTube channel.

Two things: why was the first turn rule changed to begin with? I think the finding out the rationale behind it (i don't know why personally, I just know that it was changed to allowing Trainers/Supporters to be played on the first turn) might shed some light as to what the powers that be were thinking in making the change.

I don't know how you can "level" the start of the game, somebody has to go first, it is a turn based game after all. Even if you bar both players from using T/S their first turn, the third turn would be the "first turn" anyway. The rule before was no T/S could be played the first turn. That seemed ok, but so does using T/S the first turn for either player as well.

Part of the skill is turning a first turn "advantage" (if there is one) to your advantage. I think good players do that all the time.

The second point I have is the time limit. I know it seems counter intuitive, but there should be a time limit as well as sudden death. All sports (with the exception of golf and tennis, I think) are played against the clock, whoever scores the most points within the time period is the winner. That works.

For us, best 2 out of 3 within an hour. At the end of time, sudden death kicks in. But the real change should be continuing where the game was at the end of official time instead of starting over. That's the part of the rules that doesn't make any sense to me. Why start over?

In no other sport do they erase what has happened before just because time ran out, it's sudden death. If Lebron James fouled out of the game in regulation, he doesn't get a "do-over" just because it's OT. He fouled out, the game picks up where it left off. The score isn't reset to zero, they keep playing from where they left off. It's the same for football, hockey, baseball, soccer, etc.

For us, "Time ran out. You have five minutes (or whatever) to get more prize cards than your opponent. At the end of the (whatever) time. Whoever has the most prize cards is the winner." End of story. That way it doesn't drag on forever but still gives players time to "work their magic" and come out with the win. Teams have completely turned it around in OT to win games, series and championships. Pokemon deserves no less.

Good players will always find a way to win or try their hardest.

 

[bugsbite]

Nice post Jason, head on or might I say tails.

First post in some time, my younger daughter is interested in playing now, so I am back feeling the waters, man does my head hurt from information overload.

 

[untitled]

@ajwalker- The first turn rules were just changed to simplify the game for new players and for no other reason.

 

[Tego]

Regarding your point #2 on the list:

Japan has recently experimented with official tournaments run in an Extended format (DP On) with bans and restrictions lists. So I don't think Japan would be entirely opposed to P!P introducing the same kind of lists for their Modified format if that should at one point become necessary.

 

[Jason]

@Tego, mind tell you what was the DP-on extended format banlist ? I suppose it already have Sableye, Uxie, Claydol, Porygon2 GE, but what else?

 

[kwisdumb]

I would say the main way to increase skill in the game, aside from the things that have been mentioned as impossible/highly unlikely, would be to increase the number of swiss rounds, but have a lower top cut. This would ensure that players have to win more games to make the cut, and in theory the top cut in itself would be more competitive, as it would be all the X-0/1 and maybe some 2/3s depending on the attendance. It's not a sure fire plan and I honestly don't see Pokemon implementing it anytime soon (I feel that the bigger top cuts help Jr/Sr players feel better about their placing, etc.), but it's definitely one of the better ideas and something to consider.

The other option is having more rounds and a bigger top cut (ensuring that all X-2s make it into the cut of every tournament is something I've seen discussed before), but that would both take a lot of time that I'm guessing TOs/Judges/Players/Store owners/etc don't have, and could potentially cause the reverse effect in that a lot of "unworthy" X-2s who wouldn't have otherwise made the cut would now have a chance to knock higher level/"better" players out of the cut.

Having best of three, 60 minute games in swiss + a small (5-10) card sideboard + untimed BO3/2-hr BO5 in top cut would definitely eliminate some of the luck factor as well, and are all great ideas, regardless of their legitimacy as a practical option.

One thing we shouldn't be overlooking, though, is that Pokemon was intended at least somewhat to have quite the luck factor. Turn one wins aren't something that designers overlook and players exploit, they're something that is a conscious part of game design to ensure faster games. Coin flips are the exact same thing, too. For better or worse these things were all intentionally designed within the game, so to that extent we're never going to be able to escape luck completely.

Good thread, hope this sparks some meaty discussion.

EDIT: Oh, and as long as it's being brought up, I think "Extended"/"Legacy" events could be great in Pokemon. It would definitely take some careful considerations as far as ban and restricted lists (and honestly, with all the differences between the US and Japanese system as far as sets, release schedules, etc. goes, I'm not sure it could be done successfully), but if that all were taken care of it would be super interesting. Having BRs be Modified, CCs be Extended, States week 1 be Modified, States week 2 be Legacy, Regionals be Extended, etc., etc. would be great. At bigger events like Worlds (maybe Nats as well) you could even have something like 3 rounds of each format, with the top cut being Modified, etc. Limitless possibilities if it were pulled off right.

 

[cpeterik]

Just throwing this out there...
In the '05-'06 season you stated that there were more bad players with bad lists, let's say their skill level is 5. Good players with good lists came out on top, (less dependence on luck) let's say their skill level was 10. Now, 5-6 years later, thanks to more readily available strategy websites and decklists or what have you, those players who were once 5's have become 10's themselves. Is it really their fault that those players who were 10's before didn't take the same allotted time to become 15's?
Or, are you suggesting that there is a skill level cieling, where 10 is the highest number reachable? (using arbitrary figures here).
Playing Devil's Advocate, I don't see it fair to change time limit/format because it's harder to win than it used to be. I think the real solution is to try to raise the skill level ceiling by playing more, knowing more, and becoming the more formidable opponent.
Posted with Mobile style...

 

[Raen]

Just throwing this out there...
In the '05-'06 season you stated that there were more bad players with bad lists, let's say their skill level is 5. Good players with good lists came out on top, (less dependence on luck) let's say their skill level was 10. Now, 5-6 years later, thanks to more readily available strategy websites and decklists or what have you, those players who were once 5's have become 10's themselves. Is it really their fault that those players who were 10's before didn't take the same allotted time to become 15's?
Or, are you suggesting that there is a skill level cieling, where 10 is the highest number reachable? (using arbitrary figures here).
Playing Devil's Advocate, I don't see it fair to change time limit/format because it's harder to win than it used to be. I think the real solution is to try to raise the skill level ceiling by playing more, knowing more, and becoming the more formidable opponent.
Posted with Mobile style...

You sort of have a point. But the truth of the matter is that the game right now is incredibly dependent on luck. Who goes first (and as such, evolves first) is just such a deciding factor right now, to the point to being stupid. If I go second, particularly if it's against someone I know to be skilled, I'd say I'm instantly at a significant disadvantage, and I have to essentially rely on luck to allow me to win at that point. I need to have a great setup, and I need them to dead draw. That's the only way I'll win at that point, other than misplays. But if no one makes any (or any major ones), that initial coinflip basically has decided the game already.

That's only the first major luck factor, though. The other one is opening hands. Right now, what cards you start with in your opening hand can almost entirely determine the results of a game. You need that turn 1 Collector, and you need to evolve T2. If you start with a bad hand, or even just a mediocre one, that may as well be game if you went 2nd, or if you went 1st it's a huge uphill battle from there.

Obviously, luck is just part of TCGs. But right now, when draw is at such a premium (I mean, the best out we have is Cleffa, which says something right there), and with the blazing speed decks have - along with the huge benefit going first now gives you - opening hands are just far, far too important.

This problem is bad enough that my brother, the one I got into the game with and was an avid fan of Pokemon, has basically quit the game. As he told me, he pretty much knows who will win pretty quickly in a match, and it doesn't feel worth actually playing the game, and so it's just frustrating/boring to him now. If you can tell the result of a match in the first 5 minutes, we've got a bit of a problem with the game.

Interestingly, if you'll notice, I believe most of the problems with the game at the moment are just that; problems with the game design itself. Still, I think making outside adjustments such as those suggested by Ness (although not necessarily exactly what he said) is worthwhile, and could help skill become more and more relevant, as it should be.

 

[Ness]

Colin, in terms of practicality, there is a ceiling. Here's an example using hypothetical numbers and estimates.

Let's say we have 5 levels of players:
-A new, inexperienced player.
-An experienced, but average competitive player. (Examples: Matthew Alvis)
- An above average player. (Examples: Joshua Wittenkeller)
-A very solid player. (Examples: Chris Fulop, Stephen Silvestro)
-One of the game's best players. (Exmaples: Kyle Sucevich, Alex Brosseau, Myself)

These five players are all going to play against an average competitive player.

The new, inexperienced player might win only 10% of the time against the average competitor.
The average, experienced player will win 50%.
The above average player will win about 65%.
The solid player will win around 75%.
One of the game's best players will win 80%.

Now, say you're trying to separate the very best players in the world from the one best player in the world: Let's say you believe Kyle is just slightly better than Alex. How many games out of 100 is Alex then going to win that Kyle isn't going to win, assuming they draw the same hands against the same deck, and each of them experience the same luck? Probably 1 out of 100!

Now, keep in mind these numbers are all just estimates based on generalizations, but I use them to prove a point. Do you see how with each step up the player's edge increases less & less? That's because the subtle plays in Pokémon rarely make the difference between who wins and loses. Rather, it's only obvious and repeated misplays of inexperienced players that are enough to turn what should have been a loss for a good player into a win. As you pair better players, the luck of the draw and coin flips ends up being the primary determining factor of who wins and loses.

 

[P_A]

Might work, Ness for smaller BR, CC, and possibly SC size events, but I sincerely doubt extending the play time of the larger events which are full time events already will "restore skill to the PTCG." If it don't got it by now buddy, it ain't gonna get it by more games. Making it tougher and longer on the staffing at these larger events aren't gonna help either. Interesting suggestion though.

 

[Ness]

Might work, Ness for smaller BR, CC, and possibly SC size events, but I sincerely doubt extending the play time of the larger events which are full time events already will "restore skill to the PTCG." If it don't got it by now buddy, it ain't gonna get it by more games. Making it tougher and longer on the staffing at these larger events aren't gonna help either. Interesting suggestion though.

( ) Thoroughly understands purpose & reasoning of ideas discussed in thread
( ) Has general grasp of concepts discussed in thread
(x) Doesn't get it