jkwarrior
Active Member
The strategy should come with playing your "pokemon" cards correctly, not playing rps.
Why Team Galactic's Wager needs errata
- Thread starter PokeWisconsin
- Start date
The strategy should come with playing your "pokemon" cards correctly, not playing rps.
NoPoke
Active Member
A link to an online RPS... http://chappie.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/roshambot
(TYranitarFReak)
New Member
Blame ur luck then.
Hauntastic
New Member
I flat out refuse to play a game within a game. It doesn't make any sense. Cards like Team Galactic's Wager suddenly make pokemon look like we're debating who should get first pick for a friendly game of softball so we can get the ex-baseball player.
For those that argue that we have to play RPS because of the strategic element in a series of RPS games. Would they penalise a player who elects to chose Rock Paper or Scizors by a random means? The standard approach with RPS is to use random selection until an opponents pattern can be discerned.
I have a mild form of arthritis which makes forming a rock or scizors a little tricky. I can do it but I'm slow as my fingers don't currently close up very well into a rock. I anticipate that I'd be easy pickings in a RPS tournament
What's wrong with Old Man's solution?
Three cards. Choose one.
Mew
New Member
IMO, this is flawed somewhat. The cards could have some "wear and tare" if you will, and be distinguishable amongst the others (just enough, so that when your opponent sees you touch the one that had the "white" edges, he knows that you're picking rock). The same thing could happen with sleeves.
This could be prevented I guess, but I'm not sure how it would be played exactly.
NoPoke
Active Member
Pop, say I use three cards with Rock Paper and Scissors written on them. I shuffle them... now what. My question of am I allowed to use random means to make my selection still remains. If I am allowed then I might as well just flip a coin. I believe that it is not practical to prevent players from using random means as there are so many ways of making a single hidden (effectively) random selection.
FWIW 'Random' is the optimal strategy for RPS from a game theory point of view. What makes RPS interesting is that in a tournament consisting of many many rounds of RPS the only way to win is to adopt a sub-optimal strategy. Now unless we all start putting multiple copies of TGW into our decks the likelihood of anyone ever playing sufficient number of games against any opponent to give the possibility of discovering their flawed strategy and exploiting it is negligible. Which means that the best 'strategy' for winning RPS is most likely to be to throw late either intentionally or accidentally.
The question posed on the official forum remains too: Can a player INSIST that their opponent actually PLAYS rock paper scissors? If they can then what constitutes playing RPS? There are official rules for RPS that require the use of your hands.
I don't have a problem with TGW when both players agree to play RPS. I do anticipate that some will be unwilling to play RPS. (Myself included). I anticipate disputes over what is meant by playing RPS.
FWIW 'Random' is the optimal strategy for RPS from a game theory point of view. What makes RPS interesting is that in a tournament consisting of many many rounds of RPS the only way to win is to adopt a sub-optimal strategy. Now unless we all start putting multiple copies of TGW into our decks the likelihood of anyone ever playing sufficient number of games against any opponent to give the possibility of discovering their flawed strategy and exploiting it is negligible. Which means that the best 'strategy' for winning RPS is most likely to be to throw late either intentionally or accidentally.
The question posed on the official forum remains too: Can a player INSIST that their opponent actually PLAYS rock paper scissors? If they can then what constitutes playing RPS? There are official rules for RPS that require the use of your hands.
I don't have a problem with TGW when both players agree to play RPS. I do anticipate that some will be unwilling to play RPS. (Myself included). I anticipate disputes over what is meant by playing RPS.
Last edited:
Mew
New Member
You're not supposed to, but I suppose If your Head judge allows it, then you could.
Regis_Neo
Moderator
Though I think Dom exaggerated a bit there, I do agree that this RPS is a new mechanic the TCG is looking at, even if everyone likes to whine about it. I mean, you could always have those oddball Imakuni-varient cards and sing or dance if you really want to...
NoPoke, nothing you've said suggests that RPS shouldn't be played. Since RPS can be analysed using Game Theory, but (individual) coin flips are Bernoulli events, changing from RPS to coin flips changes the functionality of the card. It might be pedantic, it might be easier to just coin flip, but it changes the card.
That is why I'm against it. This makes the game more exciting for casual players, though if this causes so much grief for tournament players, you guys can do with it as you wish... I still hope it will remain RPS though...
EDIT: Reading through this (and similar threads), it is quite obvious that adding mechanics like RPS is not meant for the tourney crowd. This is not a bad thing. Pokemon is different things to different people, and there will be loads which enjoy RPS. If anything, this broadens the appeal of the game to more people. Always a good thing.
That is why I'm against it. This makes the game more exciting for casual players, though if this causes so much grief for tournament players, you guys can do with it as you wish... I still hope it will remain RPS though...
EDIT: Reading through this (and similar threads), it is quite obvious that adding mechanics like RPS is not meant for the tourney crowd. This is not a bad thing. Pokemon is different things to different people, and there will be loads which enjoy RPS. If anything, this broadens the appeal of the game to more people. Always a good thing.
NoPoke
Active Member
I'm not suggesting that RPS should not be played. I'm concerned about if an individual player can insist that RPS is played against the wishes of their opponent. Just how important is it to physically play RPS rather than use an alternative method to determine the outcome of Team Galactics Wager.
RPS tournaments have a judge watching the throws. Do we want this? I know I don't. RPS tournaments effectively exclude players with limited dexterity from taking part. Do we want this? Insisting that RPS is physically played will disadvantage some in ways that I doubt the card designers intended.
Not intended for the tourney crowd? Hmm, I'm not so sure. There is definately a difference between what I might call a western view of the flippy cards and the apparent elite Japanese use of these very same flippy cards. The reluctance to use a flipy card because it might fail vs the reward when it actualy succedes. Glass half full vs glass half empty.
RPS tournaments have a judge watching the throws. Do we want this? I know I don't. RPS tournaments effectively exclude players with limited dexterity from taking part. Do we want this? Insisting that RPS is physically played will disadvantage some in ways that I doubt the card designers intended.
Not intended for the tourney crowd? Hmm, I'm not so sure. There is definately a difference between what I might call a western view of the flippy cards and the apparent elite Japanese use of these very same flippy cards. The reluctance to use a flipy card because it might fail vs the reward when it actualy succedes. Glass half full vs glass half empty.
lolganium
New Member
i love the r-p-s idea, it's makes it more fun
there is a reason why this is called a trading card game, the idea is to enjoy it, not act like an idiot trying to hessitate or whatever. and a judge isn't gonna let people cheat there way through this card. at least, they shouldn't.
so, the card is fun, for a game that is suppose to be fun. 1+1 must equal 2...
there is a reason why this is called a trading card game, the idea is to enjoy it, not act like an idiot trying to hessitate or whatever. and a judge isn't gonna let people cheat there way through this card. at least, they shouldn't.
so, the card is fun, for a game that is suppose to be fun. 1+1 must equal 2...
No, I agree, neither of those things is desirable. Though if a person with limited dexterity were to play with/against TGW, it is quite reasonable to ask for a dice throw instead. You raise a good point, though it is also quite obvious what the solution is.
Should a judge have to present. Um, no. Seriously. What worries me is that people are willing to cheat over something like RPS. Maybe I'm just naive but I can't understand why anybody would (intentionally) stoop that low.
The scenario of a person having some sort of disability not allowing them to play is about the only reason why the functionality of the card should be changed.
charmander rox
New Member
I say we bring 6 Energy cards: 2 :water:, 2 :fire:, and 2 :grass:. You give your opponent 1 of each, and keep 1 of each. Each player selects their card and puts it down. Then they both flip their cards over.
:fire: beats :grass:.
:grass: beats :water:.
:water: beats :fire:.
It's that simple.:wink:
:fire: beats :grass:.
:grass: beats :water:.
:water: beats :fire:.
It's that simple.:wink:
IvesRountree
Member
There is a point I am surprised noone has brought up, at Mexico I have a player who is phisically unable to do rps, and at least a pair who have locomotive issues and might find it very hard to do so, aside from that at least half a dozen who have learning issues, and could find it rather hard to play RPS too... I knowthis sounds strange, but all organizers usually know at least a player which will find it very hard to do RPS, so perhaps the card idea (having cards emulating rps situation) could still keep the "strategy" part of rps intact, anyway, I am pushing for an universal method, consistency is important on this environment.
Ariados ex
New Member
That doesn't change the odds at all. If you roll first your dice lands on a number then your opponents dice lands on a number. you can look at the nice fancy chart you wrote out but your opponent has the same odds in the inverse still making it a 50/50 shot.