Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Serious Topic: Legitimate Proposal for Worlds 2005

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sebastian, you know I have never argued with you, but here I must say my own two cents. I have been designing a game myself for 10 years almost, and one thing I have learned is that luck is about half of any game. Luck is there for a reason, as to not discourage less skillfull players from even playing, that is the same in every game. Your idea could work, yes. But have you even thought about why luck exists in this game? When you and me played at City's, you were screwed by luck, and that's why you would have lost, if I hadn't conceded. But I conceded because I wanted a more even match, which will happen. Hopefully at regionals :thumb: .
Anyway. Your example of a lucky 3/3 heads and weakness, is just pointing out the exact kind of luck that's supposed to exist in any game to make it balanced and fun for people of all skill levels. I know if that match at City's had gone a little better, I probably would have lost to you. That's almost certain because you are a far more skilled player than I. But again luck came into play. I think Legitimate luck should be present in any game.
Anyway, I'm probably just rambling. Your idea could work, to help with stalling, but you will never trully weed out stalling. Stallers are present in every game. But there you go. I am just saying, that you will almost always be screwed by luck in one way or another, that's just a fact of life and a fact of any game in existence. Well TCG's anyway.
 
FUNNY JOKES GUYS! My name's not Pablo OR Pedro
Eliminating Intentional draws was a huge mistake, it really was. You wanna talk about adding luck to a game? All Intentional draws are there for is to ensure that players with the best records get into the top cuts. I really wouldn't wanna be 5-2 at regionals tomorrow and not make the top cut b/c i lost round 7 after starting the day at 5-1. Not only do they eliminate some luck from the game, but they also reduce fatigue, which EVERYONE seems to believe is crucial.

2/3 Match play in swiss is overrated, it really is. The only major advantage in 2/3 over more 1/1 rounds is the security it gives to players with a matchup advantage (such as lanturn vs zapdos). The better players really don't get as much of an advantage as you guys think. 1 match will more than likely be decided by the starts players get, then unless your matchup is a 50/50 matchup vs your opponents deck, the player with the matchup advantage will win (not very many top decks are coinflip matches against other top decks)

The only time i can see a better player overcoming his weaker opponent in 2/3 match play after a bad start on game 1 in a matchup where he isn't at a heavy advantage is when that better player is just overwhelmingly better than his opponent.
 
No pun intended but I think people that say the only reason they lost is because the other person was lucky need to mature a little more. Think about Zapturndos. The whole deck is about flipping coins, and if you get tails on most of your flips you usually lose. Other Zapdos decks though are more definite that don't rely on coin flips as much. It's not luck in my opinion, but how your deck is put together.
I'm probably rambling though, just a thought anyways.
 
It's not needing to mature, its needing to understand the basic rules of probability.
If I run a deck with 4 Pokemon Reversal, 4 Super Scoop Up and 4 Energy Removal 2. I'm bound to play in a game where i hit maybe 4/4 heads. My opponent will then call me a lucky player and say I only won off of luck (i of course know better ;)) It's in the part where a player gets 4/4 tails that he usually makes a mistake. I'm just as likely to get 4/4 heads as i am to get 4/4 tails, so inevitably, it WILL happen. Players need to understand this and move on, you will get lucky and you will get unlucky, its how games work. Opening draws, starting rolls, and topdecks work similarly.
 
Well I'm going to say definatly not for 10-. They won't be able to consentrate might even fall alseep in the middle of a match! O.O No I'm serious. Yeah the games ment for the more umm "younger" kids but the 11-14 and 15+ are the more competitive ones. Yeah howbout 15 extra minutes for each round? Because an extra 15 minutes CAN turn the game around. ANY game can be turned around yes ANY game can be turned around if given the time. Example. We had a TRR pre for fun winner gets free admission to Emerald prerelease. So yeah that attracted alot of people's attention so this was a tournament that 1st place basicly gets 20 bucks. Pretty serious. So like 2nd or 3rd round I play against my friend who drafted a like 3-2-2 Dark T-tar line wich made me MAD but anyways I get Togepi benched (I paly Togetic) so I'm basicly trying to stall until I get it. He has practicly no un Dark Pokemon except for the weaklings that do 10 damage. Yes finaly I get Togetic evolve get active and it finaly turns into my favor. I was Koing things like mad only needed like 2 more prizes wich I could get in 1 or 2 hits. So I needed about 3-4 turns and I win. Or just stall it out. So I decide to do a bit of both. Then he gets Dark Houndoom up the only thing that can beat me. He tries tails. He tries a couple times. And wer'e getting low on time and deck amount. Then he finaly gets heads I'm burned. I'm like oh noooo. Because I have nothing on my bench that is good. Eventualy get KOed bring up something he KOs and that's game. I dunno we had I'm pretty sure just a few minuts left. So yeah an extra 15 min. would work or 2/3 for 15+ ad 11-14. My vote: Yes. And maybe it's already been decided can't change it well there is future tournys to.
 
This thread is comedy gold.

On topic, I think 2/3 would definitely be a good idea at least for 15+. Losing because you get 1 basic that you can't use blows and there's no good way to prevent it. Decks can be made more consistant, but no deck can be 100% bad start proof. If anything, going 2/3 would help those who have more consistant decks, not risky decks.
 
GrandmaJoner said:
At worlds, I was 3-0 and had 1 prize left, when someone got lucky with a Steven's Advice and pulled 3 Rare Candy to Blaziken in one turn, and Knocked out my active Blaziken ex. I was then able to draw 12 of the 15 cards in my deck, needing my one remaining Multi energy to win, and did not get it. After all this, it came down to a game - deciding flip which I then proceeded to lose.
Click to expand...

Was that Aaron? He pulled that on me at the ECSC last year, too. =/

Anyway, APT, you don't understand the point of the discussion. Bad hands happen, and they can ruin the entire game for you if they're bad enough. Adding 15 minutes onto the round won't change much, because the round is over in five anyway. ;/

I say go for 2/3 in Swiss.
 
No, stalling still goes in the elimination rounds, that's why at OK states, I only got 3rd because a kid kept taking 2 minute+ turns. Also, I lost having lost 1 game, I was about to win the 2nd when they called time and I was 1 prize behind 2-1. grrrr. stupid jumpluff. But that would be torture having to play that long, eventually, someone in 10- would start crying, that would get on everyone's nerves, then in the finals, there could be some pretty foul language or worse, tables could be thrown.
 
still noone identified who made it into the cut who should be replaced by an unlucky player who didn't make it.

In essence this is the nub of the problem. With only 32 places and presumably more than 32 worthy competitors then something is going to decide that any particular player doesn't make it into the TOPX. That something is most probably going to be LUCK.

I don't favour 2/3 becaue it does not have any impact on reducing the luck in the initial pairings predominately the first three rounds. Increase the number of rounds by all means but suppose the 'undeserving' lucky player has lucked out three times and has a 6-0 record, this is perfectly possible with so much LUCK in the game (yes/no???) even with three extra rounds that lucky player is still likely to make the cut.

It makes much more sense to me to accept that there will be a few wild-card players who make the cut. And a few strong players who don't for any number of reasons. Using this reasoning the swiss should be long enough to ensure that the majority who get through are the better players. Unless you are planning on playing many many rounds then luck and early pairings will always be a factor.

It is for this reason that I view the swiss section as primarily to eliminate the weakest players. It wont get rid of all of them and a couple of strong players may have to go too either through tough luck or just because there aren't enough slots in the TOP X single elim.

As I've posted before I believe that the emphasis should be on the single elimination tournament. Where 2/3 still leaves a large chunk of luck to decide the outcome. Going first is still an advantage in this game. So my proposal would be timed best 3/5 in the TOP 16. Firrst round of the TOP32 would be 2/3 and the swiss would be six or seven rounds but stay with 30min single game matches.

There is luck in the game and the place where you want to eliminate the worst impact of bad luck is in the TOP16 where the prizes start to get big!
 
Listen everyone, there is always going to be luck in the game, but 2/3 is made to favor the better player. Of course there is always going to be that 1person who lucked out hte entire tourny, but 2/3 is made so that the topX consists of mainly good players. With 2/3 you almost never have the excuse, i got terrible hands both games. 2/3 is just made so players don't lose matches to bad hands, when they should win that game. All of you nay sayers don't understand that this system works. Also if you say that it's bad for younger kids, thats why we are saying "use it only in 15+" its really not that long, if you have 50 minute rounds. Also top X should have been untimed at worlds, but thats just my opinion. Is 2/3 better for the game? Yes! Will it be put into place? no. Everyone is afraid of change, even if its better for the game.
 
see examples where 2/3 has NOT saved players from bad luck...

2/3 does not fix the luck. pokemon isn't quaite as bad as chess where if you don't go first you can't win. But it is still a factor. In 2/3 play the player who flips heads on the first game has a big advantage due to what? Nothing but luck.

2/3 helps but will not of itself prevent players from saying they were screwed over. 2/3 does nothing to affect the luck in the initial round pairings. 2/3 lengthens the play time. Add a couple of extra rounds if you must. However, the ideal length for the swiss is the MINIMUM number of rounds to ensure that the majority of the best players get through to the cut. So make the cut big enough that there is space for a few lucky wildcards without rejecting a significant number of strong players just down to bad luck. ie run enough swiss rounds such that all players with two losses or better make it into the cut.Let a few players in with three losses. Anyone with four or more losses no matter how much they say it is down to dumb luck just has to try again another year.
 
I like the idea of best 2 of 3 for the whole tournament. Keep in mind, this is WORLDS. Skill and deck choice should be THE primary factors in determining the outcome of a match.

However, we are humans. Especially for 10-, adjustments would have to be made. I'm thinking a ten minute break after each round; that would add another hour or so to play time each day, but it's enough to run out for the food stands they always have in the halls and gulp down some provisions. Also in that time bit, parents of 10- can bring them goodies etc. I know this would help me at least, because a single lunch break is usually held after I have a headache, at which point not even food helps get rid of it.

EDIT: Btw, if that ^^^ sounds cheesy/end-all-be-all, it's cuz I didn't realize there were 7 pages in this topic before I posted this ;/
 
Last edited:
Articjedi said:
Tego, I've had far worse than that, try getting all of the judges to agree on a TRR prerelease ruling on Dark Tyranitar vs. poison. Explaining the rules to a person is one thing, but when the compendium and the rulebook conflicts in a ruling that actually affects the outcome of a game, it's much more difficult. I think afterward we were still arguing.
Click to expand...

Aw, sounds bad. I've had those kind of hard situations too, and it's a judge's nightmare. My example perhaps wasn't the best one, but I wanted an example of a situation where actual rulings wasn't the challenge at all, but communicating with players, especially young children. :)
 
people...last year's WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS were fine! and that would be insane best 2/3 during swiss, probably not going to happen...to many other important things will be going down weekend of WORLDS...hec, since your suggesting match play for main tourney during swiss rounds, why not also suggest it for THE GRINDER too...why??? because it probably wont happen...JMHO!!!
 
Tego said:
Aw, sounds bad. I've had those kind of hard situations too, and it's a judge's nightmare. My example perhaps wasn't the best one, but I wanted an example of a situation where actual rulings wasn't the challenge at all, but communicating with players, especially young children. :)
Click to expand...

Actually I find it much more difficult to teach players how to build decks for sealed. We get a lot of really young players who had parents, older siblings, etc. build their decks. So the TO authorizes us to help certain new players just starting out. The hard part is explaining why I do a certain combo, or why certain cards are better than others. Most of the time they don't listen though, oh well.
 
I would like to propose a alternative to end of time.

If the call time at 30 minutes:
1. Current player finishes their turn.
2. If the other player is ahead in prizes, that player Wins.
3. If the other player is behind in prizes, that player may complete one turn.
4. At the END of the 2nd Players turn, if the prizes are even, then the match goes into Sudden Death.
(Same as now with being late and etc.) (or they win, if they get multiple prizes that turn.)

I like the idea that the player who is behind get's to execute their turn to tie the prizes. (I know that this would have helped one of my opponents this weekend, but it seem's fair to me, I despise stalling, and would like to lessen the incentive as much as possible.)

THOUGHTS ON THIS EVER SO SLIGHT MODIFICATION?
 
Last edited:
Just for fun LOL! I ran a simulated tournament using TMS.

7 rounds with 128 entrants.

BUT HERES THE THING I ranked every player before entry and ran a ZERO LUCK tournament THE STRONGEST PLAYER ALWAYS wins.

Code: 
Rankings (Round7)
Rank   Player                    Score     Wins      Losses    Ties      TieBrk
1      A A1                      21        7         0         0         75.51%
2      A A3                      18        6         1         0         73.469%
2      A A2                      18        6         1         0         73.469%
2      B B13                     18        6         1         0         71.429%
2      A A4                      18        6         1         0         67.347%
2      A A7                      18        6         1         0         65.306%
2      A A6                      18        6         1         0         63.265%
2      A A8                      18        6         1         0         61.224%
2      A A5                      18        6         1         0         59.184%
10     B B11                     15        5         2         0         67.347%
10     C C17                     15        5         2         0         65.306%
10     C C20                     15        5         2         0         65.306%
10     B B10                     15        5         2         0         63.265%
10     B B14                     15        5         2         0         63.265%
10     B B15                     15        5         2         0         61.224%
10     C C21                     15        5         2         0         61.224%
10     C C24                     15        5         2         0         61.224%
10     D D36                     15        5         2         0         61.224%
10     C C35                     15        5         2         0         59.184%
10     D D42                     15        5         2         0         59.184%
10     C C23                     15        5         2         0         57.143%
10     C C25                     15        5         2         0         55.102%
10     D D41                     15        5         2         0         55.102%
10     C C30                     15        5         2         0         55.102%
10     C C27                     15        5         2         0         55.102%
10     B B16                     15        5         2         0         53.061%
10     D D39                     15        5         2         0         53.061%
10     D D45                     15        5         2         0         44.898%
29     B B9                      12        4         3         0         67.347%
29     D D40                     12        4         3         0         65.306%
29     D D46                     12        4         3         0         63.265%
29     C C32                     12        4         3         0         61.224%

The following players miss the cut.....

29     D D49                     12        4         3         0         61.224%
29     C C33                     12        4         3         0         61.224%
29     C C18                     12        4         3         0         59.184%
29     C C22                     12        4         3         0         59.184%
29     E E65                     12        4         3         0         59.184%
29     C C26                     12        4         3         0         57.143%
29     D D44                     12        4         3         0         57.143%
29     E E68                     12        4         3         0         57.143%
29     B B12                     12        4         3         0         55.102%
29     C C31                     12        4         3         0         55.102%
29     D D48                     12        4         3         0         55.102%
29     D D37                     12        4         3         0         53.061%
29     D D63                     12        4         3         0         53.061%
29     E E71                     12        4         3         0         53.061%
29     C C34                     12        4         3         0         53.061%
29     E E77                     12        4         3         0         53.061%
29     D D56                     12        4         3         0         53.061%
29     D D51                     12        4         3         0         51.02%
29     D D54                     12        4         3         0         51.02%
29     D D57                     12        4         3         0         51.02%
29     E E69                     12        4         3         0         51.02%
29     D D60                     12        4         3         0         51.02%
29     C C29                     12        4         3         0         48.98%
29     E E73                     12        4         3         0         48.98%
29     E E72                     12        4         3         0         48.98%
29     C C19                     12        4         3         0         46.939%
29     D D47                     12        4         3         0         46.939%
29     D D62                     12        4         3         0         44.898%
29     E E88                     12        4         3         0         44.898%
29     E E90                     12        4         3         0         44.898%
29     E E106                    12        4         3         0         44.898%
29     E E84                     12        4         3         0         44.898%



65     C C28                     9         3         4         0         59.184%
65     D D58                     9         3         4         0         59.184%
65     D D38                     9         3         4         0         57.143%
65     E E67                     9         3         4         0         57.143%
65     E E78                     9         3         4         0         55.102%
65     E E102                    9         3         4         0         55.102%
65     D D50                     9         3         4         0         53.061%
65     D D55                     9         3         4         0         51.02%
65     D D52                     9         3         4         0         51.02%
65     E E74                     9         3         4         0         51.02%
65     E E80                     9         3         4         0         51.02%
65     E E94                     9         3         4         0         51.02%
65     D D43                     9         3         4         0         48.98%
65     E E89                     9         3         4         0         46.939%
65     E E66                     9         3         4         0         46.939%
65     E E110                    9         3         4         0         46.939%
65     E E91                     9         3         4         0         46.939%
65     D D53                     9         3         4         0         44.898%
65     D D64                     9         3         4         0         44.898%
65     E E86                     9         3         4         0         44.898%
65     E E95                     9         3         4         0         44.898%
65     E E103                    9         3         4         0         44.898%
65     E E70                     9         3         4         0         42.857%
65     E E81                     9         3         4         0         42.857%
65     E E83                     9         3         4         0         42.857%
65     E E96                     9         3         4         0         42.857%
65     E E75                     9         3         4         0         40.816%
65     D D59                     9         3         4         0         40.816%
65     E E79                     9         3         4         0         40.816%
65     E E97                     9         3         4         0         38.776%
65     E E108                    9         3         4         0         36.735%
65     E E99                     9         3         4         0         34.694%
65     E E109                    9         3         4         0         34.694%
65     E E114                    9         3         4         0         32.653%
99     E E76                     6         2         5         0         48.98%
99     E E113                    6         2         5         0         48.98%
99     D D61                     6         2         5         0         46.939%
99     E E82                     6         2         5         0         44.898%
99     E E85                     6         2         5         0         44.898%
99     E E93                     6         2         5         0         44.898%
99     E E107                    6         2         5         0         44.898%
99     E E112                    6         2         5         0         42.857%
99     E E92                     6         2         5         0         40.816%
99     E E101                    6         2         5         0         40.816%
99     E E100                    6         2         5         0         40.816%
99     E E104                    6         2         5         0         40.816%
99     E E98                     6         2         5         0         38.776%
99     E E87                     6         2         5         0         38.776%
99     E E116                    6         2         5         0         36.735%
99     E E115                    6         2         5         0         36.735%
99     E E122                    6         2         5         0         34.694%
99     E E105                    6         2         5         0         34.694%
99     E E111                    6         2         5         0         34.694%
99     E E117                    6         2         5         0         32.653%
99     E E120                    6         2         5         0         32.653%
99     E E124                    6         2         5         0         28.571%
99     E E125                    6         2         5         0         26.531%
122    E E119                    3         1         6         0         40.816%
122    E E121                    3         1         6         0         38.776%
122    E E118                    3         1         6         0         34.694%
122    E E127                    3         1         6         0         34.694%
122    E E123                    3         1         6         0         34.694%
122    E E126                    3         1         6         0         28.571%
128    E E128                    0         0         7         0         38.776%

Notice that even in this tournament where the strongest player ALWAYS wins.

The following players did not make the TOP32 cut.

12th
18th
19th
22nd
26th
28th
29th
31st


The lowest rated player who made the cut was ranked 46th.

THE only luck in this tournament is in the round pairings.

=========================================

To make it statistically valid I ought to run several simulations but even with just this one you can clearly see that the best players don't always make the cut. And this is a tournament where the strongest player in a match always wins. No flips, No deck failures, no bad draw, perfect play by both players, no problems with a scrub playing adeck that is your only weakness. the only rule was that the strongest plaer wins.

This demonstrates that running 2/3 in the swiss does not fix players getting 'screwed'!

Sorry Joner and everyone else who wants to increase the amount of time spent in the swiss.

anyone who wants the player database I set up and the pre-registration file is welcome to run their own simulation. just email me and I'll send you a copy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top