Recently, and dare I say radically, Upper Deck Entertainment (UDE), through
its Organized Play arm, decided to implement a one-game match policy at
the $10K event to be held in Sydney on September 11th. This is to replace
the best of three format that is currently in existence. Rumours suggestive
of such a change had been filtering into the Vs community for some time,
given credibility by statements made by Jeff Donais at the Pro Circuit
event in Indianapolis. However, in a general sense I don’t think
anyone saw this happening so soon. In response to what I believe is the
most important issue to confront Vs tournament play yet, I want to draw
not only on the official reasons given by UDE, but also upon the varied
and significant response made throughout the Vs community. Hopefully in
the next couple of thousand words you will have a better understanding
of the effect this issue has and will have on the Vs community as a whole.
To begin, the announcement, from Chris Zantides of Organised Play Australia/New
Zealand, as posted in these forums:
The above is the official reasoning behind the decision. It is worth
taking time to consider what UDE have decided are the significant reasons
for the changes. As we shall see later on, many varied motivations have
been mobilised for and against the new structure. UDE has distinctly focused
on the issue of time in tournaments, both in an administrative sense and
in a gameplay sense (for more information/vitriol, I have given my spiel
on some of this very controversial subject here).
UDE also insist that that the new structure forces other changes. More
rounds mean less bad match-ups. Factoring initiative into deckbuilding
changes as you are no longer guaranteed your choice of initiative at least
once a match.
More information has been provided later on in the thread prompted by
this initial post:
Further reasoning behind the alterations. Think about these reasons and
digest. Eating your food slowly allows you to savour the taste. Take it
all in before rushing a response; talking with your mouth full is rude.
I think UDE has offered some interesting reasons for the changes. On
some levels they are flawed, and this will be discussed later on. However,
considering the game is still very young in a tournament sense, it takes
both gall and confidence to make such decisions. As you read some of the
following information, remember: there are always multiple perspectives
on an argument, many of which are valid. However, at some point theory
must become action, and actions often cannot please everybody. Yet actions
must be made. I am not advocating a utilitarian philosophy, I am merely
suggesting that these changes may not suit you, but try and envisage their
benefits and disadvantages as a whole. I don’t believe the decision
was made to make change because it suited the largest amount of people.
I think the decision was made to benefit the game in the long-term. At
the very worst it can be reversed.
Before passing judgement on UDE, I want to share some of the more enlightening
responses from a very engaging and enthusiastic (though almost intolerably
lengthy) forum that can be found at www.VsRealms.com. Here
is the link, provided by Chris in his initial post. .
This thread represents what I believe to be a typical sample of tournament
Vs players, so hopefully covers all the relevant issues at this point.
All of the below are direct quotes, and although there are many, this
issue needs to be fully read through to be fully understood. All grammatical
errors are sic.
I am getting the feeling from things Jeff Donais has said recently
that UDE may try single game matches at future tournaments. While this
may offer some advantages, it is a very bad idea for the following reasons:
The dice roll for initiative will determine the winner of most matches.
Initiative is tremendously important in most games. In a lot of matchups
your deck's win % may swing 30-40% depending on which initiative you
get. Example:
Doom Gamma Bomb vs. FF Beats
FF Beats will win most games if it goes second since TELBET will bounce
Beast on 7. Doom GB will win most games when it goes second because
they will be able to Gamma Bomb on 7.
This also leads to instances where scouting decks becomes tremendously
important as well. With a one game match, if you know what your opponent
is playing then you won't choose the wrong initiative if you win the
roll. If you don't know then there is a chance that you will.
-Tostito Bandito
If this is the case how would it matter if it was best of 1 or best
2 out of 3? If I am playing FF Beats and win the initiative on game
one, then game two my opponent takes it followed by game three where
I get it back the results are the same.-DarkHorse
From the judge's perspective, I understand the 30 minute single game
all too well. The reason behind it is simple: Time. It can be very difficult,
especially in larger tournaments, to remain on schedule simply because
some decks take a long time to properly run. I would say that generally
speaking in a best of three one hour match, when time is called roughly
one quarter to one third of the players will still be playing which
means a few things (this is not counting those with time extensions
due to deck checks or extended rulings questions):
First, they need to finish the turn and then the next turn. This means
even more time.
Second, because they know that these are their last two turns, players
often SLOW DOWN even further thinking and rethinking their moves.
Third, in the event the game ends when time is called and the record
is now 1-1, another game has to be started going to turn 3. Now while
this usually isn't horrible, you need to spend the time shuffling up
and so forth. Then people STILL play slowly even going to turn 3 and
finishing it.
The end result is that a one hour round will typically end after about
an hour and a half (And this is being generous) which combined with
a 10-15 minute time lag to wait to re-pair, etc (since this cannot be
done until the final match is done), you are looking at about 1.75 hours
per round. In large tournaments with more than 64 players (might be
a few more or less), this means 8 rounds of 1.75 hours each... 14 hours
for a tournament that should last 9-10 hours.
This also begins affecting those who are hosting the tournaments as
they need to pay for the room/location. Since 14+ hours (And really,
it will be 17-18 if they are running constructed and sealed) needs to
be accounted for, building fees start going up (especially after hours).
A tournament starting at 10am sharp is looking to end about midnight
assuming no other hitches. If they are running constructed and sealed/draft,
you're looking at getting out about 2am. This may be acceptable to players
(they get the money at the end after all), but I know that as a judge
when you start running that long your feet get sore and the brain gets
muddled.
A half hour round would cut that time dramatically. The third point
brought up is no longer an issue as there is no best of three. The second
point won't take as long because really, it is a lot easier to finish
one game in 30 minutes than 3 games in an hour. The first point will
still be there, but since you aren't worried about points 2 and 3, it's
not as big an issue.
-Dlanaan
1-game and 3-game matches share exactly the same reliance on initiative.
If your deck needs or favors choosing initiative timing, you will have
the same effect whether you are playing 1-game or 3-game matches.
Also note that 1-game matches means more matches in the tournament,
which means you have more matchups and you reduce the luck factor of
your deck "auto losing" against a certain deck type.
-Jeff Donais
It would seem that a 1-round match would force players to think on
their feet
-beeble218
I don't know about the skill vs. luck angle, but my only major problem
in over 80 matches probably cost me at least $1,000 in prize money and
would have been solved by 1 game matches. I will be the first to admit
that I might have been 0-10 in a different format, but the grievance
would not have occured.
-stubarnes
However the main concern is that the more casual players will think
that it's actually more random, even if it's not the case. So, the major
argument against 1 game matches is the perception issue.
We have to consider if the perception issue is problematic enough to
stop us from trying it out. It's more an education issue than anything
else.
-Jeff Donais
Things like making game loss mistakes which are very easy to do. (such
as getting food and it taking a little longer then you'd think since
theres no lunch break,or accidently drawing 1 extra card,or searching
deck and then your opponent sais "i was gonna fizzle that!")
-Fry
The argument was that the person who gets initiative will win? Then
why prolong things? If you believe that is the case then it would still
be whoever starts game 1 with initiative.
-Latuki Joe
Wow, this thread has gotten a lot of people talking. One thing that
don't think has been discussed is the narrowing of the metagame as a
result of single game matches. The currently viable but less consistent
decks like sentinels, rigged elections, and so on will not be viable
with single game matches. With decks like that you basically conceed
that 25-30% of the time you will get a bad draw and probably lose but
the rest of the time you win at a very high percentage against most
everything. With single game matches you would be coming into the tournament
expecting to lose 25-30% of your matches just from bad draws and maybe
a couple more to bad matchups. That is unacceptable and decks like that
won't see play as a result. Only the most consistent decks will be played
and the overall metagame will narrow significantly. I am against anything
that takes away freedom in deck construction, including sideboards.
Also, if UDE is really gonna do this, what do they plan on doing about
scouting now that it plays a more important role? I know I wouldn't
want to play in any feature matches under this new system and I'd want
to finish my matches as quickly as possible to minimize the number of
people that see my deck.
Note that I am not totally against them doing this as long as they
are aware of the ramifications of what they are doing and take the proper
measures to ensure a fair play environment.
-TostitoBandito
I have to agree with both sides of this discussion. While we are eliminating
the amount of time we used in games are we not just adding the same
time by adding more rounds? I mean the purpose for the 1 match is to
make time more effective but if we are going to make more rounds then
time is being used just the same is it not. I do agree though that 80%
of the time the person that wins the first game wins the match but then
the idea of bad draw or stall decks that miss one drop come into mind.
I mean playing against those decks are fun and I myself dont want to
see a deck thrown out just because it can only win 75% of the time.
Hmm but you know even with this knowledge the idea of this time saved
brings up the idea of the time being used to bring a new element to
the tournament team games. I mean I believe that would be fun to add
to a tournament at least coming from a diffrent perspective. I think
it would be neat to see people team up in a tournament and go at it
and see what weird team deck ideas they come up with. So with the 1
match rule I would like to see somthing added to a tourny.At least thats
what I think.-Dragoonxix
If you have 10 matches instead of 7 the number of match wins needed
decreases as a percentage of wins needed. With 7 matches you basically
have to go 6-1(85.7%). With 10 you most likely need 8-2(80%). So you
can still run less consistent decks.-GDE
And IMO the time aspect is the WORST reason to implement this. I'd rather
judges strictly enforce the time rules, and bust people for slow play,
than try to cut corners and cut back on games.-Wrathraven
Everyone keeps trying to grind percentages into us, but guess what 80%
is not 100%, and I think the correction for their drops some decks get
with character search is already advantage enough without cutting games
back to 1 game matches.-InnErgEE
I think maybe you miss the point. If one game matches is 80% accurate
in determining the winner when compared to the 2/3 style. If you then
increase the number of rounds by 20-30% you will end up with pretty
close the same match win loss percentage statistically as you would
the other way. The advantage is that you can play 2 one match rounds
in the roughly the same amount of time as one 2/3 round meaning that
you can play 16 rounds in about the same length of time you could play
8. But since they are doing it to save time they will only be doing
11-12 rounds.
The funny thing about the proposed new system is trying to figure out
the cut from a players stand point after swiss top seed could be undefeated
or have as many as 3-4 losses. -FlawlessVictory
what i don't like about 1 game matches is that 1 bad draw = 1 lost game.
i was in a small tournament once where its a 1 game match. i had a terrible
draw, we went 8 turns and i even mulliganed but i didn't draw my key
character, i lost the match. but we played again for hobby league points
and i got my draw and i completely clobbered him.
on the other side of the story, i lost a lot of PCQ games because we
ran out of time. my deck isn't particularly strong on the first 3 turns.
how about a 30 minute per game rule on tournaments? should be enough
time for at least 2 games. or even a 20 minute rule instead. i know
games can be played even quicker, i just hate it when some people seem
to stall on making decisions in the middle of the game.-choy
That's very narrow-minded. Perhaps its less a mathematical issue for
some and more of a personal preferrence. For example, I personally enjoy
the feeling of being down 0-1 and making the impossible comeback. Sure,
you've told me that that only happens about 20% of the time, but that
just makes it all the sweeter.
Moving to one game matches means that aspect of the game is eliminated.
If you enjoy that aspect of the game, that's a perfectly reasonable
excuse to dislike single-game matches.
You are assuming that all players are playing only to win and so they
will not care if some of the more aesthetically pleasing qualities of
the game are left by the wayside in favor of promoting efficiency.
I'm sure that one-game matches have benefits as well, and I would not
be opposed to trying out the format, but as far as personal preference,
2 out of 3 sounds fairer to me. You get the chance (albeit only 20%)
to shrug off a bad draw and play your cards right to find that 20% window.
Throw math at me all you want. I'm quite familiar with it. I just like
it the way it is . -MadCow21
You all know me, I worship at the Altar of Aesthetics... but I found
out real quick that there are different Gods around when each game is
worth thousands of dollars. Efficiency is much more important on the
Pro Circuit. The least efficient, the least objective, the least fair
part of the entire game is the issue of stalling and games that go past
time. Focusing only on solving that problem, the 1 game match is a clean
solution. It does not seriously help or hinder either player. If it
changes the game, all players have equal opportunity to adjust. Good
deckbuilders will love the challenge-stubarnes
I would support the 1 game system for a few reasons. First, with more
rounds spread out, the average games per tourney is not as reduced as
one would suspect. If you have 10 roudns instead of 7, for example,
you're at absolutely most 11 games behind. However, this is assuming
that the matches have 3 full games at roughly 20 minutes each. It's
far more likely that you'd see around 20 games total, and without accounting
for 'half-rounds', that's 6 less games total. This amounts to a 30%
game reduction, which means that the issue of luck isn't so big an issue.
Also, with the current setup, some decks are penalized because they
don't trigger fast. Therefore, forcing one into a 'half-round' where
they can't get to their goal is going to make it lose more than it would
if you'd play the games out fully. Single games all but entirely fix
that.
Finally, I believe it's better that each player get around to as many
opponents as possible. This way, there's less of a luck factor in the
metagame... if 50% of the people are playing BBH, roughly 1/2 of your
games would be against BBH. This lets decks have more diverse facing
scheme, so a deck which is really weak overall can't sneak up through
unusually easy matches.
The issue of randomness is something to which all players must answer.
More matches means more different opponents, and a better overall representation
of the competition, and therefore les ramdoness in that regard. The
time issue is also more fair in the single game match scheme. Bad draws
will happen no matter what you do... if you're really concerned, it's
possible to have the top 8, 4, or 2 play beast 2 of 3 to remove that
piece of randomness. With less players around, it's possible to run
full games for the matches as well.-canamrock
I think my main concern about the 1 game system is based on the conception
of initiative. Something just doesn't feel quite right. We seem to be
fine having a 50/50 chance in getting to choose our fate (or even a
5 or 10 percent chance if a 10 or 20 sided die is used) in the current
3 game system because we know that if we lose that first game, we get
to choose on the next one, and hopefully the opponent will miss drops
on the 3rd game assuming it makes it there. It definately does a jedi
mind trick however when you face the prospect of being reliant on initiative...losing
your die roll or coin flip, then having to pray that your opponent chooses
the initiative you WEREN'T going to choose or you are now a match loser
(of course the matchup affects this as well...not everything is an auto
loss if you dont get your initiative). There are only a few decks out
there right now that seem to be capable of beating anything consistently
and most of those are centered around Doom and his teams ability to
search for the plot twists that can bail you out. Knowing that I only
have 1 game against each opponent and I have to be prepared for anything
now more than ever because I am now facing more opponents, which deck
should I play? (this is of course a statement that is ignoring future
sets and their impact on the game just for the sake of the current argument).
I just can't fully convince myself because there are days where I can't
even buy a die roll which gives me the feeling that I have less control.
yeah, I know that the dice don't win games, the player has to do that
but the feeling can't be ignored.-Speedball
Okay, the only way to make a fair 2/3 format would be 90 minutes + per
match. UDE has never said that they are thinking about one game matches
"cuz most ppl who win game 1 win the match." They are thinking
about it because games take over thirty minutes and a large Professional
Event takes a long time and there is no objective way to solve the stalling
issue. The "huge flaw" in the game is something along the
lines of a chess clock. That has nothing to do with future sets, it
is simply a matter of the growing and learning proccess of a new game
system.-stubarnes
And... how is a judge supposed to objectively assess stalling? Don't
we need a rule that guarantees sufficient decision time as well? This
magnificent game gives multiple options per move. We need a fair amount
of time to think through the options, as well as a limit to discourage
stalling.
Either way, one game matches would relieve the pressure greatly-stubarnes
I think the exact opposite is the case. In single-game matches the less
consistent decks would have more of a chance because instead of having
to be good two times our of three, that deck only has to do it once.
It also increases the chance of "surprise" decks doing well.
Those decks that try to win in a way you're not expecting but could
adjust to the second and third time you played against it would have
a chance.-rickert
The scouting issue is VERY easily solved. Put in a penalty for watching
matches after you're finished playing. Make players leave the table
area to report results and announce that they can't go back to the area
where games are being played at the risk of an automatic loss in the
next round.-rickert
The serious competitive professional seems to desire a game that rewards
consistency and homogenization. Sure, I cannot generalize like that...
but that attitude is real in the community. If one game matches give
"less serious" deck designers more of a chance, those who
consider the game a cutthroat serious business will not approve.-stubarnes
I truly believe that 1-game Matches(1GM) with additional rounds lessen
the amount of luck in the game OVER THE LONG HAUL. Please do not get
myopic and focus on the one game you got screwed and then cam back and
won 2 to win the match.-GDE
The top 8 single-elimination would still be best 2 out of 3 if we decided
to go with the 1-game match system.-Jeff Donais
You are forgetting though that over the course of three games instead
of one there is a much greater chance of bad/great draws or play mistakes
influencing the game. If I lose the initiative roll in a 3 game match
I have basically an extra game for him to get a bad draw, for me to
get a great one, or for him to make a mistake. Lets say he wins 80%
of the time when he has initiative and I win 80% of the time when I
have initiative. In a one game match he would win 80% of the time if
he won the roll. In a 3 game match he would win only 64% of the time
assuming that I won the second game. And that doesn't even take play
mistakes into account; it is just calculating luck of the draw. So it
isn't even close to a sure thing as you were stating. This seems to
happen a lot in my matches. I've won a lot of matches in large tournaments
after losing the first game by outplaying my opponent for the remaining
two.
Remember that time is the reason UDE is doing this. There are other
solutions though. 60 minutes was plenty of time to finish a match and
70 minutes definitely is. If UDE cracks down really hard on stalling,
and changes their tiebreak/timeout policies so they no longer favor
stallers, that would help a great deal. Also, as the game matures players
will get more experienced and matches will go faster. I have played
in a lot of tournaments and gone to time only once in constructed. This
just isn't as big of an issue as people think it is.-TostitoBandito
1. If I get a bad draw in top 8, I lose just 1 game and I am out.
Single game matches would be for SWISS only. Therefore the 1 shot and
I'm out of top 8 arguement is mute.
2. If I have less then %50 matchup, it puts me at a disadvatage.
How do your odds get better the more games you play? If you have less
than 50%, it doesn't matter if you play 1 3 or 5, you still have less
than 50% match-up.
In fact, if you have less than 50% match-up, the more games you play,
the less likely you will beat the odds.
3. My deck is only good when I am odds(evens) so if I lose the iniative,
I lose the match.
Well, how is this different in a 2/3 match? Lets assume you always
win if you are odds, and you always lose of you are evens, since the
loser gets to choose intiative, how does playing more games change it?
4. I like that come from behind rush when I lose the first game and
then come back to win the next two.
Well, the only difference is your opponant changes, but there is the
same element. You can lose your first 2 matches, then have to win out
to make top 8. What could be more dramatic than starting out 0-2, then
come back and finish 8-2, make top 8 and win it all. (Yes, X-2 is guarenteed
top 8 in a single game format, some X-3 will even make it)
6. Well it just seems I am getting short changed with playing only
one game in a match.
Exactly, it just SEEMS that way. It in all honesty is just a perception
issue, which is the hardest thing to overcome.-cdaniel
Lets say I'm playing wild vomit and it wins 75% of the time (when it
draws well). In a one game match system that translates to winning 75%
of your matches, not including losses from bad matchups.
Lets say I'm playing the same deck in a 2/3 match system. I now have
an 84.4% chance of winning each match, again not accounting for bad
matchups.
You are half right though and there is a breakpoint at <=70% where
you are better off playing one game matches. I just don't think you
really play inconsistent decks with percentages that low because they
will have auto-loss matchups that you will take losses to in tournaments
and you have to ensure that you win the highest possible % of your remaining
matches. Maybe people will start if they make one game matches though.
You would have to be feeling awfully lucky to play a deck like that...-TostitoBandito
I know I am Mr. Casual when it comes to VS but I am against a 1-game
match on principal. No matter how much you tell me that the person who
wins the first game usually (which is only an 80% usually) wins the
match that does not change the fact that there is still 20% of matches
out there where the better deck had a bad first game draw and won or
the better player learned how to deal with their opponent's deck and
came back and won.-erick
I tell my students; "If you can argue both sides of an issue, you
own it. If you can't, it owns you."
Well, Teach?
Okay, I can see the other side. It would FEEL like luck wins more often
in a one game match. It would open the door to less experienced players
running through Swiss without anything close to the preparation and
skill of most of the other players. It might even punish those who spend
massive amounts of time and testing.
However, best-of-three-game matches need to be 90 minutes. That would
allow for a fair ending to slower match-ups and give some extra time
to eat every so often.-stubarnes
All this "1 game matches does not decide who the better player
is" is absolutely 100% correct , if you hold it in a one game concept.
The better player will not always win in just one game, however take
the one game round and play it out over 10-12 rounds and the better
players will inevitably have the better records.
So just to clarify I am totally against 1 game matches if there is
only one round of swiss. -FlawlessVictory
Here is a simple solution to the long game problem; lower the amount
of endurance. I think 40 would speed things up enough without throwing
the game out of whack.-videokyd
I think a solution that would make 1 game matches more reasonable is
to change the Mulligan rule. Maybe let people shuffle when they mulligan
and thus try to stop people from losing due to bad draws.-Cronos1388
Players in mass lose confidence in producers when producers, even in
good faith, change what the players have struggled hard to learn.
How can I believe you know what you mean if you keep changing what you
are saying?
This is the underlying emotion, aside from logic, the greater body of
players will be left with.
No one wants this if you think it through. what will serve the elite
will anger the many.-Mordencanon
The issue is time. Right now your sanctioned Vs. match has a high probability
of going to the time limit. It's true. So if you're in game 2 when it's
called, and that game doesn't come to a natural conclusion, then the
entire game was played for nothing. If you're in game 3, when it's called,
and the game doesn't come to a natural conclusion, it comes down to
highest endurance. It's the best way to handle it, but it's not ideal.
Here's the worst case scenario. You're in game 2 when time is called
but the game DOES finish. Now we have to play a game 3. But not a REAL
game 3, a three turn game 3. At worst, the very real possiblity of a
sudden death overtime affects deck building. At best, this SDO game
doesn't really resemble a game of Vs. It introduces a huge amount of
luck.
Keep in mind that even in the event a match just finishes the current
turn and the next turn after time is called, that's at least 10 minutes.
Add on the possiblity of another game, we're talking 30. Each round.
Time adds up. I judged the Pro Circuit and was drained by the end of
the day. I can only imagine how some of the players felt. We want a
competitve day of Vs. to be enjoyable and fun. We don't want it to feel
like a test of endurance. Going to one game matches seems like a reasonable
way to accomplish this. Keep it exciting and moving.-M Tabak
I just came from a PCQ yesterday. I played in the sealed deck tournament
and placed 9th. I went 3-2 during the preliminaries and my matches went
like this:
1st round L W W
2nd round L W W
3rd round L L
4th round L W W
5th round L L
so my matches may have been a statistical aberration but if not for
the 2/3 format i would have layed a big fat egg.
my contribution to this discussion is whether you play in 1/1 or 2/3.
Luck does play a part. You'll have your good days and bad days. Whether
it finally becomes 1/1 or 2/3, If you really love the game you'll learn
to adjust as a player.-taleweaver
I never liked the randomness of the die roll (or coin flip) to determine
who decides initiative. This seems to be even a bigger negative if you
only play 1 game matches. Why not have people bid endurance to see who
decides initiative for the game? For example... at the start of the
game players can bid between 0 and 10 endurance to see who decides initiative.
Whoever bids more decides, however your starting endurance total is
50 minus whatever you bid.
This way, if gaining initiative is all important to you, you can go
all out and try to get it. However if you really don't care who has
initiative first, you get a bonus from it. This seems more fair than
just randomly determining who gets initiative. If you both bid the same
amount then you go w/ a coin flip or die roll.
For those of you who have never played LotR, this is a very simliar
method to what they use to determine who goes first in a game (though
in that game you bid burdens, which are then placed on your ring-bearer).-Dalton
I've been to several PCQ and WW Chicago, and the one thing that I would
say just in terms of player satisfaction is that -no one- likes a tournament
to last 14 hours each day.
The ones that are still in the game are in full 'slogging it out' mode,
trying to get through the game, while the rest of us scrubs are sitting
around waiting to see if we get any prizes for our mediocre performance.
My understanding of the goal of this is to maintain a competitive environment,
while sparing players (and their families) the necessity of gobbling
up their entire day and night with a single tournament.-cfbrunner
I have played legitimate 45 minute games.-stubarnes
There's nothing wrong w/ trying to force people to play quicker, but
in practice it just doesn't seem to work. By lowering the time limits
you punish players who have the misfortune of getting paired up against
a slower player. Judges can't watch every match all the time, you will
get timed out and you might very well lose a game you should have won
because of it.-Dalton
To WATCH the entire game, the judge won't and can't.
If you think someone is stalling, you could call the judge, but how
much could he really do? If you keep calling a judge, eventually the
judge will become upset with you about it.
And don't forget, the main reason (there are others) to switch to a
1 game format is to reduce the amount of time a game takes, and if you
keep calling a judge, and EVERYONE keeps calling a judge, you will tack
on even more time to the tournament length.-kairos10
Within reason, players are a lot like water. They'll conform to the
container in which they are placed. The same people who are going to
time with 70 minute rounds will go to time for 60, 80, or 90 with rare
exception.
So, the overall goal is 'make tournaments shorter.' It seems to me
that we just have to accept that the current tournament structure is
slow, and look for ways to improve. There are a few reasons for this:
1) The game is complicated. Even with games lasting only 7-8 turns
on average, there are a lot of decisions that need to be made, and combat
is pretty complex.
Changing this seems poor. It makes it a different game, and I think
players like it as is for the most part.
2) Tournaments have too many rounds.
Well, you change this and all of a sudden going 5-1 in a 6 round tournament
(where there should be 8) doesn't necessarily get you to top 8. Also
poor - we have to recognize the game does involve some luck and account
for it.
3) The overtime procedure takes too long. The current model seems pretty
fair, but it does take a while. Like I said before, finishing game 2
in OT and going to game 3 takes at least 15-20 minutes. And shouldn't
the tiebreaker game go 4 rounds instead of 3 to be fair? Only if you
want to add another 10 minutes, as the complexity of turns increases
almost exponentially. Maybe draws aren't so bad.
4) Players are slow. When I play, I'm slow. When I judge, I see players.
They are mostly slow. Not stalling most of the time, but definitely
slow. Slooooooooooow.
The time from the last match finishing in a round to the next round
beginning is negligible - judges are just waiting for that last slip
like the starter's pistol. It's getting that last match done that's
agonizing.
We want tournaments to be fun. We don't want them to be arduous. We
don't want players to avoid them because they're perceived as painful
and long.-M Tabak
Editor: Webmaster. Saturday 4th September 2004.
