RULES UPDATE: Game two tie breaker changed. +3 Clarified

[Austino]

No, I am NOT a slowplayer. I am merely saying that those are options present to those who play that kind of decks. Accuse me of being a cheater while we're at it, are we? Lovely.

I'll quote you: "If I play Kingdra and you a slower deck, I WILL TAKE MY TIME ON MY TURNS. "

Also, I did not ever say anywhere that EVERY player who plays those decks is a slowplayer.

I'll quote you again: "THE PLAYER OF THE FASTER DECK CAN AND WILL SLOWPLAY." You even put it in all caps for me.

My most important point is simply this - this new rule nerfs slower decks so much it isn't funny anymore. Under the old rule, a fast deck player on the losing side would scoop early, to make sure he'd have to fight in game 2 to get enough prizes. Now, they can afford to let it drag out for too long, confident in the deck's early game prize taking.

Then make your issue that it reduces playability of slower decks, NOT that all players will slowplay you right out of Top Cut. Find your stance before blindly arguing something. Assuming we'll all slowplay in top cut because you're playing Steelix is a negative assumption that you don't really have grounds to argue if your stance is that it hurts the playability of a deck. That's the deck's fault, not the players' in Top Cut. YOU chose to play that deck.

Here is my point. I'd like to see you go against it.

DECKS THAT ARE SLOW BUT POWERFUL ARE ROYALLY SCREWED BY THIS RULE. Try and disprove it, you won't be able to. This new rule shifts the meta even more in favor of decks who can take cheap prizes (Oh hi Garchomp C) or can easily donk a basic (Hello Machamp, fancy seeing you here). Decks that fight from behind have no chance left anymore.

Yeah, the ruling does hurt slower decks, but a slower deck doesn't mean you have to play slower. Steelix isn't going to come back from a 4-5 prize loss within time limit, which is acceptable. If you take 4-5 prizes just to get set up, I'd say your deck isn't that good. Build better decks if you're worried about playing from behind. There's also no excuse for playing from behind now that Black Belt/Twins/Cynthia's Feelings, etc are all in the format. Why didn't you acknowledge those? Decks based around Garchomp C or Machamp are popular for a reason...THEY ARE WINNING. Learn from it. If fast decks are winning, don't play a slow deck. A person who actively knows the meta is fast and knowingly goes into a tournament with a slow deck, that player really has room to complain for their results.

I merely gave examples. You twisted my points.

I didn't twist anything, I took what you said word-for-word.

Also I love how you ignore any valid argument I make in counter to your argument and just simply say "Player hate".

Haters gonna hate. Assuming all players are going to slowplay vs slow decks is hating, siirrrrrrr.

Replies in Bold...

 

[Lawman]

@Scipio: The rules give guidelines for recommended time lengths for searches, play, etc. Those time limits are not absolutes and IF a player was taking the MAX amt of time for EVERY action, shuffling the MAX in between said actions, a Judge can and SHOULD give an extention and/or give penalties if you are manupulating the clock. Slow play does not equal surpassing those time limits, it can look at the entire turn too!

Keith

 

[baby mario]

There's a difference between slowplaying and playing slow.

Illegal slow play is taking too long over moves, repeatedly checking discards etc.

Legal slowplaying is doing every move you possibly can (pointless retreating, searches you don't need to do) but doing them in a timely manner.

It's not 'player hate' to say people will use the legal strategy to their advantage.

All this 'haters gonna hate' stuff is always just a meaning-free way to dodge a point.

 

[lucario aura wielder]

I love this. I hope it sticks!

the only thing this rule does is encourage rush/sp decks thats not good rush decks arent fun cause they usually donk people I Hate this rule after playing a long g1 game 2 they person b takes a cheap prize and wins the other 2 games:/

 

[bullados]

(going to try very hard to not lobby in favor of one side or the other with this post)

I'm going to first repeat what Lawman said earlier in this thread. The Penalty Guidelines quite clearly state what should happen if a player is consistently tying themselves to the maximum alotted time for any single action...

In general, the following time limits for various game actions should be appropriate. The times given below are general guidelines; players attempting to compartmentalize their turn in order to use every second of the time allowed for the items below are almost certainly stalling and should be subject to the Unsporting Conduct: Severe penalties.

In practice, the Stalling penalty is very rarely used. More often used is Slow Play, which tends to be enough in most situations to prevent the kinds of actions largely being discussed in this thread.

At the same time, it's also possible to not be slow playing on any individual play or time limit and still manage to maximize your time at the table. This is a type of slow play that's far more difficult to adequately Judge or enforce. Playing cards that have an effect on the short term gameplay, but will eventually mean very little to the overall progression of the game. Stuff like playing a Collector and getting 3 generally useless Pokemon from the deck, or a Palmer to grab some Pokemon and/or Energy that might or might not help with the strategy of a particular deck. It's generally somewhere from difficult to impossible to see whether these plays are actually advancing the game state or simply time wasters.

The +3 turns does give some way of balancing this tendency of players to play for the win in that gray area of the rules. Is it enough? I don't know, and I won't know until after the tournament results from Cities are properly organized and analyzed.

(did I succeed?)

 

[NoPoke]

good try. moderate too

The slow play guidelines are blind to what the player is doing. They have to be. It is far too dangerous for judges to decide upon the purpose of any card played. Where pace is concerned Judges judge the execution and not the what. Do everything you can is allowed, doing everything to the limits of the guidelines is not.

+3 helped to reduce the impact of last turn slow play. Just don't forget that the reduction in round time from 40 minutes to 30 minutes also favours fast decks.

+3 has no impact on the gametheory based strategy that players should adopt. Before the change if you were losing game one you should scoop to maximise the game two time. With this change you should not ,if you have a faster or a donking deck that is.

I don't know how this will play out in 60 minute top cuts. Can a fast deck hold out for 50 minutes? I've seen fast decks hold out for 30+ minutes which is why this change makes 45minute b-o-3 a very poor choice for any TO who desires that the tournament outcome has a chance of crowning the best player on the day. But holding out for 50 minutes is a bigger ask. Still just being able to hold out for 30+ minutes puts a lot of pressure on a setup deck in game two even with close to half the round time remaining.

---comment--
FWIW I don't see how extreme positions and the ping-pong attacks that they produce help either sides arguement.

 

[Scipio]

Replies in Bold...

Okay, so now I have to pay PERFECT attention to every little word I write. I did not say that EVERY player will do so. I know however that it will be taken advantage of, period.

I used Steelix and Kingdra as examples because they were the first that came up in my mind. Think about it this way. Do you want the meta to 100% revolve around donks and cheap prizes, right when Triumphant FINALLY gives slower decks and spread decks some much needed help?

Let me continue on the Steelix point where you say "Theres BlackBelt, Twins, etc etc." This is 100% true. However, never did I say Steelix would fall 4-5 prizes behind. Steelix is likely to get 1-2, maybe 3 prizes behind. From that point on, Steelix should be able to take prizes every turn. So Steelix comes back and snags a win. But the thing is...Steelix is still gonna fall behind in game 2 most of the time.

The points you highlighted were from a post born out of annoyance with someone who managed to read over the arguments made dozens of times before. It figures that it is the post you use more, when I have more posts with more dedication put in them. But hey, I guess you're only gonna use that which benefits your cause and ignore every valid point made against yours, right?

Again I say this. My main point is that slower decks who had a disadvantage already, are now 100% denied of any success, this while the new set has given them interesting cards to toy around with (Twins is the big one here, but how about Lunarock for spread, Black Belt, stuff like that)

I don't have anything against fast decks themselves (With the exception of Machamp). I do have something against denying other decks a fair chance to win.

Here is my main beef with your post.

Decks based around Garchomp C or Machamp are popular for a reason...THEY ARE WINNING. Learn from it. If fast decks are winning, don't play a slow deck. A person who actively knows the meta is fast and knowingly goes into a tournament with a slow deck, that player really has room to complain for their results.

This is fully true. Speed decks ARE good in the format. However, we have no idea how the new and improved slower decks stack up against them. What we DO know however is that the new rules are heavily stacked in favor of these fast decks.
In result, people who WANT to play the slower decks (And would possibly have a good chance with them at tournaments too), are now heavily discouraged from running these decks and will as such be forced to run the fast decks. This all due to the altered rule.

Ball's all yours now.

 

[Austino]

Here is my main beef with your post.

This is fully true. Speed decks ARE good in the format. However, we have no idea how the new and improved slower decks stack up against them. What we DO know however is that the new rules are heavily stacked in favor of these fast decks.
In result, people who WANT to play the slower decks (And would possibly have a good chance with them at tournaments too), are now heavily discouraged from running these decks and will as such be forced to run the fast decks. This all due to the altered rule.

Ball's all yours now.

My earlier post already covered the first half of your post, so I'm just quoting this part.

There's nothing wrong with playing slow decks (or bad rogues, or gimmick decks)....if you're looking to have some fun at an event. People wanting to play slower/tank decks isn't even an issue. Thing is, getting mad/irritated because slow decks aren't working in the format (and haven't for a few formats now) gets you nowhere. Nobody is being forced to run fast decks, either. If you wanna win some events, adjust to your meta and run something that can beat it, that simple. Play your slower, fun decks at leagues or with friends and still enjoy them. P!P isn't the ONLY venue to play pokemon, it's just the only one that's official. Nothing stopping players from playing slow decks there, either.

It comes down to whether or not you're wanting to be competitive or not. If so, play a competitive deck, but don't whine/moan because you don't like your chances with a deck in the format. That's just silly.:lol:

 

[Scipio]

Nono, I think you're getting me wrong.
I myself got no problem with running a fast deck at all. However, under the old rules combined with the new cards, I could've seen certain decks make somewhat of a comeback, spread in particular, but also a few other not so fast decks.
But then they go and change the rules, making all of those deck completely obsolete. That's just...insane.

That, and I'd like to hear everyone when they lose after a long fought out game 1...and still lose due to their opponent taking 1 prize in game 2 and taking sudden death.

 

[Austino]

Nono, I think you're getting me wrong.
I myself got no problem with running a fast deck at all. However, under the old rules combined with the new cards, I could've seen certain decks make somewhat of a comeback, spread in particular, but also a few other not so fast decks.
But then they go and change the rules, making all of those deck completely obsolete. That's just...insane.

That, and I'd like to hear everyone when they lose after a long fought out game 1...and still lose due to their opponent taking 1 prize in game 2 and taking sudden death.

Well, I heard people irritated about losing a close game one, then being denied the ability to take 4 prizes game 2 and losing then as well (I've done it without slowplay, myself. Won a 50 min game 1, then simply played completely defensive Game 2 as my opponent burned all of his resources taking 3 prizes while I walled with promocroak for a few turns building my own resources to recover when time was called) He could've probably taken another prize in his 2 turns with the new rulings, but it wasn't in play then, and he lost because of simple prize denial; I won game 2 without taking a single prize. Now how is THAT fair? Sour grapes will occur no matter what rules are enforced. There will always be a sour lose-condition, this is just merely a change in it, nothing more. If anything, I can see this shifting the format to a faster format, like Japan.

In regards to the first part of the post, spread's been dead for a while thanks to queen, chomp c x, etc. There's playable decks and non-playable decks, this new ruling simple strengthens the line between them a little bit more.

 

[Scipio]

Well, I heard people irritated about losing a close game one, then being denied the ability to take 4 prizes game 2 and losing then as well (I've done it without slowplay, myself. Won a 50 min game 1, then simply played completely defensive Game 2 as my opponent burned all of his resources taking 3 prizes while I walled with promocroak for a few turns building my own resources to recover when time was called) He could've probably taken another prize in his 2 turns with the new rulings, but it wasn't in play then, and he lost because of simple prize denial; I won game 2 without taking a single prize. Now how is THAT fair? Sour grapes will occur no matter what rules are enforced. There will always be a sour lose-condition, this is just merely a change in it, nothing more. If anything, I can see this shifting the format to a faster format, like Japan.

In regards to the first part of the post, spread's been dead for a while thanks to queen, chomp c x, etc. There's playable decks and non-playable decks, this new ruling simple strengthens the line between them a little bit more.

In that situation, your opponent COULD have scooped earlier. Its still more fair then "Oh lol time is called I'll just Dragon Rush that and win", but hey. More importantly - A CLOSE game 1 has been played, and the winner of that one ends up winning the match. Whereas in this situation, its much easier for the winner of a very close game to end up losing.

As for the first part...Solrock and Lunatone. Those two gave spread new hope. Twins and Black Belt gave slower decks more hope. Its all been shattered though. Fair enough? Eh...

 

[eriknance]

There's nothing wrong with playing slow decks (or bad rogues, or gimmick decks)....if you're looking to have some fun at an event. People wanting to play slower/tank decks isn't even an issue. Thing is, getting mad/irritated because slow decks aren't working in the format (and haven't for a few formats now) gets you nowhere. Nobody is being forced to run fast decks, either. If you wanna win some events, adjust to your meta and run something that can beat it, that simple. Play your slower, fun decks at leagues or with friends and still enjoy them. P!P isn't the ONLY venue to play pokemon, it's just the only one that's official. Nothing stopping players from playing slow decks there, either.

It comes down to whether or not you're wanting to be competitive or not. If so, play a competitive deck, but don't whine/moan because you don't like your chances with a deck in the format. That's just silly.:lol:

Austino, let me ask you something right quick. If P!P decided to allow the HGSS-on rule changes to take place for us before, say, States – would you be in favor of that? Looking at your response on the issue in this thread, I’m assuming you would. Or at the very least, you would continue to defend P!P on that hypothetical issue, right? I mean, at what point does a player on the outside finally say, “Okay, this is a really bad move, I should say something.” I kind of thought this issue didn’t have a defense – it has the potential to kill setup decks, it can possibly encourage cheating/stalling/slow play, and the rule that existed before was absolutely fine and had nobody complaining. Aside from just arguing with the people who complain (which, I know, there are a lot of them… myself included sometimes, haha), why defend a step backwards?

The thing is, this rule change does hurt setup decks. And we’re not talking about “fun” decks to take to League, we’re talking about competitive decks. If we’re even having a discussion about how decks perform in the top cut – which we are – let’s assume that these decks are competitive. So no, this isn’t an issue about whether or not a player wants to be competitive, this is an issue about a rule change drastically effecting the way certain strategies work in the competitive format.

Now I’ll be honest here. I personally can’t stand SP decks. I’m also not too fond of speed decks in general (T2 Dark Slowking, Mario, Kingdra, Machamp, etc.), but that bias has little to do with my overall concern for the “health” of the game. Just because a rule is made or changed doesn’t always mean that it promotes a healthy format. To be clear, I think a healthy format is reflected by the number of decks or cards that can effectively be used to win a tournament – the higher the number of choices, the better the variety of strategies, the healthier the format. When over half the format is SP-based, and the other half is all about countering SP decks, it’s hard for me to see the format as healthy. I also happen to think that slower formats are generally healthier than formats rife with T1 donks (though it appears that idea is becoming less and less popular as I keep playing).

When I see rule changes like this come into place that have the possibility of keeping many setup decks from winning tournaments, I see the format get even unhealthier. To just sit back and say, “Well then don’t play Steelix!” is completely avoiding the point. I’m not trying to be disrespectful, because I definitely see your point in adapting to the competitive environment. My whole case, however, is that rule changes like this (along with a slew of other issues that have popped up recently) have the possibility of making the format terribly unhealthy. And at the very least, why change something that wasn’t broken to begin with? The only thing I can think of is that this rule change is meant to be a knife to the heart of Gengar Prime when/if Lost World is released. They can’t take prizes, so they’ll inevitably lose that second or third game when time is called unless they can Lost World themselves as the winner in a few turns.

 

[Austino]

Austino, let me ask you something right quick. If P!P decided to allow the HGSS-on rule changes to take place for us before, say, States – would you be in favor of that? Looking at your response on the issue in this thread, I’m assuming you would. Or at the very least, you would continue to defend P!P on that hypothetical issue, right? I mean, at what point does a player on the outside finally say, “Okay, this is a really bad move, I should say something.” I kind of thought this issue didn’t have a defense – it has the potential to kill setup decks, it can possibly encourage cheating/stalling/slow play, and the rule that existed before was absolutely fine and had nobody complaining. Aside from just arguing with the people who complain (which, I know, there are a lot of them… myself included sometimes, haha), why defend a step backwards?

The thing is, this rule change does hurt setup decks. And we’re not talking about “fun” decks to take to League, we’re talking about competitive decks. If we’re even having a discussion about how decks perform in the top cut – which we are – let’s assume that these decks are competitive. So no, this isn’t an issue about whether or not a player wants to be competitive, this is an issue about a rule change drastically effecting the way certain strategies work in the competitive format.

Now I’ll be honest here. I personally can’t stand SP decks. I’m also not too fond of speed decks in general (T2 Dark Slowking, Mario, Kingdra, Machamp, etc.), but that bias has little to do with my overall concern for the “health” of the game. Just because a rule is made or changed doesn’t always mean that it promotes a healthy format. To be clear, I think a healthy format is reflected by the number of decks or cards that can effectively be used to win a tournament – the higher the number of choices, the better the variety of strategies, the healthier the format. When over half the format is SP-based, and the other half is all about countering SP decks, it’s hard for me to see the format as healthy. I also happen to think that slower formats are generally healthier than formats rife with T1 donks (though it appears that idea is becoming less and less popular as I keep playing).

When I see rule changes like this come into place that have the possibility of keeping many setup decks from winning tournaments, I see the format get even unhealthier. To just sit back and say, “Well then don’t play Steelix!” is completely avoiding the point. I’m not trying to be disrespectful, because I definitely see your point in adapting to the competitive environment. My whole case, however, is that rule changes like this (along with a slew of other issues that have popped up recently) have the possibility of making the format terribly unhealthy. And at the very least, why change something that wasn’t broken to begin with? The only thing I can think of is that this rule change is meant to be a knife to the heart of Gengar Prime when/if Lost World is released. They can’t take prizes, so they’ll inevitably lose that second or third game when time is called unless they can Lost World themselves as the winner in a few turns.

I'm typically not one to defend P!P :wink: This ruling is a LOT different than the HGSS-on rule changes (that I'm not a fan of like [rare candy, plus power, support rule, etc]). I personally don't like seeing a rotation that isn't a post-Worlds rotation, doing it mid-season would be a bad move on P!P's part, IMO.

I don't think the 10 minute difference is going to make too much of a problem tbh. A set up deck should be set up theoretically within the first 3 turns of the game. If you don't have your attacker within 3 turns, chances are you aren't going to do very well that game (just the way the format is right now). That still gives the set up deck plenty of time to do it's thing, whether locking, tanking, or heavy hitting.

In a way, I can see both sides of the healthy format issue. There are always some decks affected by time limits reducing their playability, but I don't think it's a bad move on P!P's part to reduce the amount of time spent at huge events like states/regs/nats by removing 10 min/game and the trade-off (no pun intended) is worth losing the competitiveness of a couple decks for it. I played a 5 round tournament last week and didn't play the same deck twice. At regionals and nationals last season, I had the same thing. In fact, the last time I played against a deck multiple times was at one BR this season, I played against two different LuxChomp variants. Other than that, I've seen a vast, open format. With as many sets we've been given the past two years, the amount of decks played is tremendous. Now I'm not saying the amount of different decks winning is a large number, but it's still quite healthy, in my opinion. There isn't two decks duking it out for BDIF considering there are lower tier decks that are built specifically for beating them and can come out of nowhere.

My main point was that no matter what the ruling for time is, there's going to be complaining.

 

[skovtrold]

Have only read ½ of page 4, so sorry if what i'm saying has already been put out there.

In my opinion, people are all focusing at the problem we have now, not how to fix it.
The old ruling implied problems too, because if a tank deck,(let's keep it at steelix) was able to win a slow game 1, the faster deck would have a really hard time, to take 4 prizes before time was up.
So basically, the problem is not the ruling of how time determines the winner, it's the time itself that causes the problem. Right now we have 30 mins +3 turns timelimit, and games still go to time, then how the flag, are we supposed to get 3 games played in just 45 minutes ? To really get this problem fixed, we need to have longer minimum time in the bo3, in order for us, to be able to actually PLAY 3 GAMES, during bo3.
P!P can change the rules as much as they want to, but we need to have MORE TIME in bo3, otherwise it just wont be fixed and not before we can have a winner of a tourny, come out after the final and say "yea, I beat him/her over 3 games of intense play", will we have a good bo3 timeplay.

anyways, i'm blabbering, and my post prolly lost all sort of sense halfway in, but that's just my 2cents, and I thought i'd share it with you

//peace

 

[eriknance]

I'm typically not one to defend P!P :wink: This ruling is a LOT different than the HGSS-on rule changes (that I'm not a fan of like [rare candy, plus power, support rule, etc]). I personally don't like seeing a rotation that isn't a post-Worlds rotation, doing it mid-season would be a bad move on P!P's part, IMO.

Yeah, you're right about the difference in ruling. I'd like to see a mid-season rotation, but that's just me. I can understand why people wouldn't want it though.

I don't think the 10 minute difference is going to make too much of a problem tbh. A set up deck should be set up theoretically within the first 3 turns of the game. If you don't have your attacker within 3 turns, chances are you aren't going to do very well that game (just the way the format is right now). That still gives the set up deck plenty of time to do it's thing, whether locking, tanking, or heavy hitting.

Sometimes, though, it takes quite a while for a deck to make a comeback. This goes both ways too. The first game I played this season was me with Luxchomp vs. Machamp/Infernape 4. I had to sacrifice a lot before I was able to make a comeback. I barely won on the last turn of the +3 turns (whew!). I think when it comes to top cut, there can be a lot of pressure on a setup deck to make a comeback, especially if they're facing Garchomp C on the second turn sniping the heck out of stuff. Plus, the comeback potential is obviously there with cards like Twins, Black Belt, etc., so even if the rulings don't support the comeback, the cards themselves seem to.

HOWEVER, I'll agree with you in this way. If I, for example, wanted to play Steelix for CC's, it would be wise for me to practice with my deck enough so that I can play it effectively and quickly. In the top cut, I should be prepared to play rather quickly so that I put pressure on the opponent who may try to slow play or stall. I know the risks now of playing a setup deck. I don't think it was you who said this, but I disagree with the sentiment that a deck that must sometimes make a comeback to win is a bad deck. I think someone else said something to that effect earlier.

In a way, I can see both sides of the healthy format issue. There are always some decks affected by time limits reducing their playability, but I don't think it's a bad move on P!P's part to reduce the amount of time spent at huge events like states/regs/nats by removing 10 min/game and the trade-off (no pun intended) is worth losing the competitiveness of a couple decks for it. I played a 5 round tournament last week and didn't play the same deck twice. At regionals and nationals last season, I had the same thing. In fact, the last time I played against a deck multiple times was at one BR this season, I played against two different LuxChomp variants. Other than that, I've seen a vast, open format. With as many sets we've been given the past two years, the amount of decks played is tremendous. Now I'm not saying the amount of different decks winning is a large number, but it's still quite healthy, in my opinion. There isn't two decks duking it out for BDIF considering there are lower tier decks that are built specifically for beating them and can come out of nowhere.

Here is where I think we can just agree to disagree. Battle Roads in my area aren't truly indicative of the format, as a lot of people are just playing for fun anyways. At Worlds I played a lot of the same decks, and at Nats I did too (played against Luxchomp at least 6 times). For me though, I clump a lot of the SP decks together and just see that as a set of "speed" decks -- that is, whether they disrupt or hit fast, SP decks are notorious for doing it quicker than any other deck. Because of this, I see most of the format being a battle between SP and things that can beat SP. I don't find that to be healthy, but like I said, we can just agree to disagree. :thumb:

My main point was that no matter what the ruling for time is, there's going to be complaining.

Sorry, I think I missed that point, though I definitely agree with it, haha. I think it's a lot easier for people to be cynical and complain or get upset over an internet forum as opposed to real life. :lol:

I replied in bold.

 

[Prime]

If this is true it is the single-largest mistake in the history of POP/PLAY. Few of you seem to fathom the unfairness of removing the 4-prize rule. This means if you now win a very long Game 1, Game 2 can be called in the first few turns, meaning your opponent can take Game 2 in as little as three turns. Then, for Game 3? Sudden death again. Yeah, you can 6-0 someone Game 1, only to lose Games 2 & 3 by your opponent drawing a total of two prize cards: one per game.

Absolutely devastating. Do not underestimate this rule change. I will hope something got mixed up and this isn't the case.

I think your concern is fair, but I also had a concern with the past system. The system that said that if at least 4 prizes are not taken by both players (combined) in the second game, the game didn't count. (correct me if this was not the past system)

The first game is very long, your words. Under the new system, the person just has to win game 2, in any way possible by the time time is called, to move onto sudden death. Given your concern, that could mean just taking one prize and the other player taking none.

Under the old system, the loser of round one would have had to take 4 prizes, which is much harder to do when there is so little time left.

If round one is very long, which it seems to happen a lot (or you wouldn't express a concern about it ), I'd rather the losing player of round one have SOME chance to go into a round three. I'd rather not see matches ended after one game. That makes best 2-out of-3 kind of redundant, right?

I know it means that one player's 6-0 game win is just as important as another player's 5-6 win, but I think that the 1-prize win is a lesser evil than the lack of actual opportunity for the losing player of round one to come back whatsoever.

We want to see all three games, or at least I do. I don't want to see the Finals of Worlds ended after one game because that one game took the majority of the time. That one game may be a back and forth game, but it may not be the best representation of luck+skill from both players. That is what 3 games are for.

Again, if my quoting of past rules is incorrect, please let me know. I don't want to make any statements that are based on incorrect information.

 

[Yoshi-]

Prime, if game 1 lasts nearly all of the time it SHOULD be the only thing that counts, if I feel I cant win game 1 and want to move on I can scoop, if I dont scoop I decide I want to play on, even if that means that the game might be the only one that counts.

 

[nnaann]

I think your concern is fair, but I also had a concern with the past system. The system that said that if at least 4 prizes are not taken by both players (combined) in the second game, the game didn't count. (correct me if this was not the past system)

The first game is very long, your words. Under the new system, the person just has to win game 2, in any way possible by the time time is called, to move onto sudden death. Given your concern, that could mean just taking one prize and the other player taking none.

Under the old system, the loser of round one would have had to take 4 prizes, which is much harder to do when there is so little time left.

If round one is very long, which it seems to happen a lot (or you wouldn't express a concern about it ), I'd rather the losing player of round one have SOME chance to go into a round three. I'd rather not see matches ended after one game. That makes best 2-out of-3 kind of redundant, right?

I know it means that one player's 6-0 game win is just as important as another player's 5-6 win, but I think that the 1-prize win is a lesser evil than the lack of actual opportunity for the losing player of round one to come back whatsoever.

We want to see all three games, or at least I do. I don't want to see the Finals of Worlds ended after one game because that one game took the majority of the time. That one game may be a back and forth game, but it may not be the best representation of luck+skill from both players. That is what 3 games are for.

Again, if my quoting of past rules is incorrect, please let me know. I don't want to make any statements that are based on incorrect information.

To me, if the first game goes on for most of the time, then that deserves to be the only game that counts. If that game was one sided, it wouldn't last that long or the losing player can scoop earlier to save time. The main aim of the best 2/3 system is to more accurately find the better player, but having a long game 1 does this just as well.

 

[Lawman]

I think your concern is fair, but I also had a concern with the past system. The system that said that if at least 4 prizes are not taken by both players (combined) in the second game, the game didn't count. (correct me if this was not the past system)

The first game is very long, your words. Under the new system, the person just has to win game 2, in any way possible by the time time is called, to move onto sudden death. Given your concern, that could mean just taking one prize and the other player taking none.

Under the old system, the loser of round one would have had to take 4 prizes, which is much harder to do when there is so little time left.

If round one is very long, which it seems to happen a lot (or you wouldn't express a concern about it ), I'd rather the losing player of round one have SOME chance to go into a round three. I'd rather not see matches ended after one game. That makes best 2-out of-3 kind of redundant, right?

I know it means that one player's 6-0 game win is just as important as another player's 5-6 win, but I think that the 1-prize win is a lesser evil than the lack of actual opportunity for the losing player of round one to come back whatsoever.

We want to see all three games, or at least I do. I don't want to see the Finals of Worlds ended after one game because that one game took the majority of the time. That one game may be a back and forth game, but it may not be the best representation of luck+skill from both players. That is what 3 games are for.

Again, if my quoting of past rules is incorrect, please let me know. I don't want to make any statements that are based on incorrect information.

One player had to take at least 4 prizes in game 2 for it to be considered "significant" under the old rule. Not both players combined. Made it alot tougher to grab 4 prizes in a short game 2.

Keith

 

[Kayle]

Others beat me to it, but a long game 1 is a better indication of which player won the match than a long game 1, and then the opponent taking the first prize quickly and cheaply by preying on the set-up/slowness of the other deck in two consecutive games.