We're going to be testing a new match structure at the Sydney 10k Event.
What will change?
- Only a single (1) game will be played each match
- Rounds will be changed to 30 minutes long
- You will play more rounds (an additional three rounds will be added to the number of Swiss rounds based on attendance)
- Tournament penalties will be adjusted to take this into account
Why are we doing this?
- Reduces the impact of a bad deck match up
- Removes current issues with end-of-match problems
- Forces deck builders to honor odd and even initiatives more equally
- Significantly reduces any stalling
- Players will not have to race against the clock, this reduces play mistakes
There has been a lot of talk on various websites about this topic and I think that after testing this format you will agree that this is the best thing for VS.
http://www.vsrealms.com/forum/showthread.p...=&threadid=9209 is a great thread.
Please feel free to ask questions, post concerns and I will do my best to answer them.
As a way of thanks to our players for helping UDE with this, we would like to offer every participant in the Sydney 10k an Extended Art promo card just for playing.
Full Version: Single-Game Matches
I've been following this line of discussion and we've had a bit of a chat about it in Sydney as well - and honestly I think it's a brilliant idea.
W/o sideboards, there is really no NEED to have a best of 3 matchup anyway. Too many games go to time in 60 minute rounds, and those that are done quickly mean you'll be waiting around for ages.
Should be fun to give it a go.
Hey CZ re the "Extended art promo just for playing" is this in addition to the normal one you get for Top 64ing the event?
W/o sideboards, there is really no NEED to have a best of 3 matchup anyway. Too many games go to time in 60 minute rounds, and those that are done quickly mean you'll be waiting around for ages.
Should be fun to give it a go.
Hey CZ re the "Extended art promo just for playing" is this in addition to the normal one you get for Top 64ing the event?
Yep - an additional foil for everyone.
Woot - any idea which one?
*crosses fingers* Savage Beatdown? hahah
*crosses fingers* Savage Beatdown? hahah
Before anyone rushes in and adds their two cents, read the thread CZ has posted. It is invaluable; it really gives you a good impression of not only the functional impact this will have, but the entrenched emotional investment some people seem to have with the best of three format. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages; we should be weighing them against one another in an assessment of what is better for what we want from the gmae, rather than simply dismissing either outright.
| QUOTE (ssteven @ Sep 3 2004, 11:44 AM) |
| Woot - any idea which one? *crosses fingers* Savage Beatdown? hahah |
I'm thinking either Wolverine, TNB, or another uncommon. With the rares (CotA PLEASE!) being kept for the Top 64.
PLEASE NOTE:
Due to my inability to attend this event, I will be doing everything in my power to remove above noted Extended Art Foils from their owner's possession from 13/09/2004.
I was trying to present this as best I could.
I have (and the whole or Organized Play) have spent a ton of time thinking and collecting information about this.
We want to do what is best for the game.
Thanks for your post Uly.
Take care
I have (and the whole or Organized Play) have spent a ton of time thinking and collecting information about this.
We want to do what is best for the game.
Thanks for your post Uly.
Take care
I am still working out which promo it will be.
It will not be Savage Beatdown.
It will not be Savage Beatdown.
Sounds great - I have been frustrated by my only loss in a draft match (in the PCQ!) by extremely slow play. I would rather have a result. in 30 min, and play more matches. Sounds great. However, I still expect to be playing in the PCQ rather thatn WOS - doh!
yey, i can beat my record of losing under 10 minutes in a sealed deck match! achieved last weekend thanks to DXu.
i've got mixed feelings about the 1 match format, i guess it'll reward decks that are most consistent and punish bad draws severely. we'll see what happens next weekend. it may be the biggest factor yet in who makes top 8.
i've got mixed feelings about the 1 match format, i guess it'll reward decks that are most consistent and punish bad draws severely. we'll see what happens next weekend. it may be the biggest factor yet in who makes top 8.
Seriously pl, read the thread on VSrealms. There is a lot of crap an drepetition, but there are some incredibly insightful ideas. I am going to write an article about this i feel. I am itching to nut this out.
I love the idea!
I was very surprised when I found out about this game that it was based on best out of 3 games. Plus I think its great that we'll be able to play more opponents. So i assume after the 30 minutes if there's no result that it will be based on highest endurance?
I was very surprised when I found out about this game that it was based on best out of 3 games. Plus I think its great that we'll be able to play more opponents. So i assume after the 30 minutes if there's no result that it will be based on highest endurance?
Can we start doing this with local tournies as well?
I am running a tournie on Sunday and would like to use this format is that possible or is it only for big events?
EDIT: I like the idea of this as I have so many of the people that play at tounies that I run complaining about time being called game 2 and whoever wins game one wins the match. I was starting to think about increasin the time limit but The store that I run it at has to close some time before 3am!
I am running a tournie on Sunday and would like to use this format is that possible or is it only for big events?
EDIT: I like the idea of this as I have so many of the people that play at tounies that I run complaining about time being called game 2 and whoever wins game one wins the match. I was starting to think about increasin the time limit but The store that I run it at has to close some time before 3am!
uuggghhhh.................just went through 6 pages of the vs realsm thread, although feeling quite brain f&^$ed, i do feel that both sides have relevant arguments.
as far as the decision to "test it out at the sydney 10k", isn't there a better way Chris Z? surely UDE can compile a list of match statistics (as they seem to have done on the vsrealms thread) that can support the decision one way or another by producing a definitive conclusion from fact, as opposed to trial and error? People are less likely to complain if the evidence is there to back up the new policy.
i ain't against the 1 match idea, i just think UDE may be attacking the problem from the wrong perspective and hence piss ppl off.
my2centavos.
RAY Isais
as far as the decision to "test it out at the sydney 10k", isn't there a better way Chris Z? surely UDE can compile a list of match statistics (as they seem to have done on the vsrealms thread) that can support the decision one way or another by producing a definitive conclusion from fact, as opposed to trial and error? People are less likely to complain if the evidence is there to back up the new policy.
i ain't against the 1 match idea, i just think UDE may be attacking the problem from the wrong perspective and hence piss ppl off.
my2centavos.
RAY Isais
Lol i went through all 16 pages of the Forum, and although i feel that both sides have valid arguments, a decision still has to be made. At the moment i don't think the one-game-match plan can hurt to try, even at high-level events. I am going to write an article in summary of the problems, as i can't do them justice here at all. Hopefully Scott and Paul can speed up its post date if i finish it by tomorrow night, considering this issue is probably the biggest thing to hit tournament Vs play so far.
i think ur right about trying 1 game matches Lex, but the simple fact is
1) 10 k is in 8 days
2) everyone is used to sitting down opposite opponents expecting 2 play best 2 out of 3
3) none of the decks have been suited up to play 1 match rounds (can we do that? is it possible?)
apart from the obvious psychological adjustments, players will also have to play in a new environment (in addition to playing for BIG $$$$), it could be a lot of pressure put on some young shoulders, i think they (UDE) could find a better avenue of fact finding.
edit: up to page 9, what did u get me into lex?
1) 10 k is in 8 days
2) everyone is used to sitting down opposite opponents expecting 2 play best 2 out of 3
3) none of the decks have been suited up to play 1 match rounds (can we do that? is it possible?)
apart from the obvious psychological adjustments, players will also have to play in a new environment (in addition to playing for BIG $$$$), it could be a lot of pressure put on some young shoulders, i think they (UDE) could find a better avenue of fact finding.
edit: up to page 9, what did u get me into lex?
I'm not sure if ppl are reading CZ's article or not, but there haven't been that many posts from different ppl about this.
Anyone who is planning on attending the 10k event in sydney should be posting their opinions on this topic (if you disagree with the change, post now otherwise don't get upset about it at the event).
I personally have no problem either way with 1 game in 30 mins or 3 games in 1 hr.
Anyone who is planning on attending the 10k event in sydney should be posting their opinions on this topic (if you disagree with the change, post now otherwise don't get upset about it at the event).
I personally have no problem either way with 1 game in 30 mins or 3 games in 1 hr.
| QUOTE |
| Hopefully Scott and Paul can speed up its post date if i finish it by tomorrow night, considering this issue is probably the biggest thing to hit tournament Vs play so far. |
No probs Uly, get that into me Saturday night and I'll do me best to have it up that night (if im awake) or Sunday.
I'll be at the 10K and seeing as how it's my first Vs tourney, I obviously have no issue with the change in format.
I'm curious and look forward to seeing how it goes.
I like having the greater differentiation between Vs and Magic too.
I'll wait and see what I ultimately feel about it.
I'm curious and look forward to seeing how it goes.
I like having the greater differentiation between Vs and Magic too.
I'll wait and see what I ultimately feel about it.
Ill be interested to know if limited ormats will change? I mean if it is 1 round limited why bother drafting. Drafting is an event which should last for about 2-2half hrs. With this system it should take about an hour. Thatsa expensive meatball
-Scott
-Scott
Yeah good point Scott, It will probably be very tempting (and expensive) to fit in like 2 or 3 vs drafts on a Thursdya night.
To be honest if they changed it for constructed I would think they'd have to change it for limited too.
To be honest if they changed it for constructed I would think they'd have to change it for limited too.
Agreed, the draft format would have to be looked into - would it mean more than 3 rounds of draft? Is there any reason there couldn't be 5 rounds to a draft? Obviously I'm sure this has been covered in the VSrealms thread taht I haven't read yet
actually no scott, it doesn't deal with that, i just finished it (whew!) n it seems to focus on the fact that tournaments go for waaaaaaaayy past their advertised duration. i think most of would agree with this.
should there be a crackdown on slow play? how would they identify slow players? can we identify slow players by distinguishing features?
edit: they should change the flavour text on Dark Knight to:
"YOU, are you a slow player?!"
should there be a crackdown on slow play? how would they identify slow players? can we identify slow players by distinguishing features?
edit: they should change the flavour text on Dark Knight to:
"YOU, are you a slow player?!"
The thing is with VS is that once the game hits turn 5 the options for attacking and defending are rather large. You can think through everything on the initiative and then your opponent plays something and changes formation and bam start again. Turns 6 and 7 are just as bad, if not worse. this gamei s also make or break - you stuff up formation or attacks and your a done dog. So having more time to think is good, as is playing against more opponents.
I think it is worth trying, although yuo may likely have to change your decks to suit a little, but in hindsight most games end upon who wins the RPS anyway.
I think it is worth trying, although yuo may likely have to change your decks to suit a little, but in hindsight most games end upon who wins the RPS anyway.
Lol re Dark Knight.
And this is true - the fact of the matter is that with VS, once you get to around turn 6, the math becomes very very complicated and does require a reasoanble amount of time. Now a lot of the guys that draft a lot are quite "used" to the combat math now and can probably knock it out quite quickly, while the newer and/or slower players are often going to time.
Distinguisihing features - well a good indication is if their name starts with P and ends with Ross I think he's my only opponent so far that I've had limited games go to time in (and he's bashed me up in the last two, stealing my chances at Garths and glory, damn you!)
And this is true - the fact of the matter is that with VS, once you get to around turn 6, the math becomes very very complicated and does require a reasoanble amount of time. Now a lot of the guys that draft a lot are quite "used" to the combat math now and can probably knock it out quite quickly, while the newer and/or slower players are often going to time.
Distinguisihing features - well a good indication is if their name starts with P and ends with Ross
I think he's my only opponent so far that I've had limited games go to time in (and he's bashed me up in the last two, stealing my chances at Garths and glory, damn you!)
My article regarding slow play has been submitted and it covers allof the issue to do with slow play.
And i agree with Ray. although i like the 1-game plan, maybe it should have been trialled at low level tourneys first, extensively.
And i agree with Ray. although i like the 1-game plan, maybe it should have been trialled at low level tourneys first, extensively.
Can we be as bold as to ask why Sydney of all places to try this out?
Surely DragonCon or something closer to home (US) would be better for a trial run of a new tournament format.
UDE run a heavy risk of alienating the VS community here should this format fail however as a TO and Judge, I totally understand the need for it!
No doubt all eyes will be on Sydney to see if wethere the format is workable. I see alot of implications for deck building and play as a smaller time limit and 1 game format suits the quicker decks like TNB beats or the radiation-happy FF Burners. I look forward to it and take the format change as an additional challenge to my skills as a deck builder and player.
Regardless of which way it falls come Sep 11/12, Im glad that UDE staffers have their finger on the pulse of the game so much that they can address these issues openly with the VS community. What other game does that or has done it on this scale? For this, I applaud them.
BTW Are we going to get a Donais-like 'Dont be Dicks' speech?
Surely DragonCon or something closer to home (US) would be better for a trial run of a new tournament format.
UDE run a heavy risk of alienating the VS community here should this format fail however as a TO and Judge, I totally understand the need for it!
No doubt all eyes will be on Sydney to see if wethere the format is workable. I see alot of implications for deck building and play as a smaller time limit and 1 game format suits the quicker decks like TNB beats or the radiation-happy FF Burners. I look forward to it and take the format change as an additional challenge to my skills as a deck builder and player.
Regardless of which way it falls come Sep 11/12, Im glad that UDE staffers have their finger on the pulse of the game so much that they can address these issues openly with the VS community. What other game does that or has done it on this scale? For this, I applaud them.
BTW Are we going to get a Donais-like 'Dont be Dicks' speech?
LOL, doubt it, that was just for the PC.
But this whole idea of Australia being the guinea pig country doesn't seem very nice. The idea is probably a good one, but I can't really talk as I have yet to play in a sanctioned tourney. The only thing that is a little bit discouraging is that it seems like our country is just being used to experiment while they don't want to make any big shakeups over in the US until they've tried it out on us first.
But this whole idea of Australia being the guinea pig country doesn't seem very nice. The idea is probably a good one, but I can't really talk as I have yet to play in a sanctioned tourney. The only thing that is a little bit discouraging is that it seems like our country is just being used to experiment while they don't want to make any big shakeups over in the US until they've tried it out on us first.
As for us being guinea pigs - I am pretty sure the PC last week used the 1 game format - i remember reading about it somewhere. It has definately been used before.
Thats the biggest load of rubbish ive ever heard, if you want to test a different format it should be done in the US and shouldnt be on the first major event in Australia on top of that it should have been advertised when the event had been first annouced, theres no way i would want to come down if i knew about the format change.
Playing one game makes a big difference since you cant adjust the way you play in the following games, taking the even iniative because your opponent is stronger on evens for example. It also means decks that can get random god draws (Brotherhood) or decks that dont need have a huge preference on there iniative are a great deal better.
Theres a reason most other games dont use best of 1 game simply because its not a good idea.
Playing one game makes a big difference since you cant adjust the way you play in the following games, taking the even iniative because your opponent is stronger on evens for example. It also means decks that can get random god draws (Brotherhood) or decks that dont need have a huge preference on there iniative are a great deal better.
Theres a reason most other games dont use best of 1 game simply because its not a good idea.
It was tested at another event. I just cant find the damned thing. It was a 10k even in USA i believe.
We have actually been taking in a lot of information about this and we have been talking at great length about it (with players, with the greater community and with our Premier Tournament Organizers). This isn?t something that we have just randomly decided to do.
During feature matches at 10k events in the USA and for the PC itself it was found that the person who won the first game won 78% of matches.
That's an interesting statistic and it's important as it shows us that playing out the second and third game resulted in no change to the match outcome in a fairly high number matches.
I'm sure that given a larger sample set we will see that number skew even higher towards single-game format.
Australia isn't a guinea pig region in the least; I actually suggested that we use this system at our 10k event, as I believe it is a better way of playing the game.
Bad match up don?t hurt you anywhere near as much as they used to and you get to play against a larger part of the field (i.e. more people) because we are adding a significant number of rounds.
Give this a chance; I think you will really like it.
During feature matches at 10k events in the USA and for the PC itself it was found that the person who won the first game won 78% of matches.
That's an interesting statistic and it's important as it shows us that playing out the second and third game resulted in no change to the match outcome in a fairly high number matches.
I'm sure that given a larger sample set we will see that number skew even higher towards single-game format.
Australia isn't a guinea pig region in the least; I actually suggested that we use this system at our 10k event, as I believe it is a better way of playing the game.
Bad match up don?t hurt you anywhere near as much as they used to and you get to play against a larger part of the field (i.e. more people) because we are adding a significant number of rounds.
Give this a chance; I think you will really like it.
Flame me if this has been asked already, but the top cut will still be open to best of 3?
Given that the format is set, Scouting becomes a HUGE factor because if I know what you have going into any given match ... i maybe able to manipulate (a) the initiative (if i get the choice) and (
gameplay (eg saving the Acrobatic Dodges for their key drops, knowing where I have to be my most defensive or offensive as the case maybe)
Then there is the problem of teams and sharing info between rounds, it wouldnt take a team of 4 to scan theirs and their teammates opponents once pairs are posted and *cough*advise*cough* what the opponent has if they have faced them in previous rounds. With more rounds, the coverage should be wide, 4 teammates could have played upto 20 different players by round 5 and this could be half, third or quarter of the floor on any given day.
All said. Im still turning up. Im still playing. And I do hope for a most successful event. What can I say, Down Under leads the free World again!
gameplay (eg saving the Acrobatic Dodges for their key drops, knowing where I have to be my most defensive or offensive as the case maybe)Then there is the problem of teams and sharing info between rounds, it wouldnt take a team of 4 to scan theirs and their teammates opponents once pairs are posted and *cough*advise*cough* what the opponent has if they have faced them in previous rounds. With more rounds, the coverage should be wide, 4 teammates could have played upto 20 different players by round 5 and this could be half, third or quarter of the floor on any given day.
All said. Im still turning up. Im still playing. And I do hope for a most successful event. What can I say, Down Under leads the free World again!
Initially I thought this would be great, until I thought about drafts. For some reason, maybe it is just me, I have only ever lost a single draft and yet I lose maybe 20% of first games. Is that the figure that Chris noted - that 78% of matches are won by the player who won the first. In the other 20% maybe it is the more skillful player that goes on to win, after a facing a god draw in the first . Maybe... Suddenly this change makes me scared.
The draft aspect has not been covered as yet (as far as I'm aware), so there may be different ways in which drafts are done
this is starting to resemble the vsrealms discussion, cept no Jeff Donais, oh well, u'll have to do Chris Z jk.
funny how things can change so quickly, i for one am scrambling and tryin to figure out which deck will be more consistent over a 1 game, 10 match tournament. although i think this is time wasted (since i thought i'd be playtesting from now till the 10k) i guess its part of being a VS player. the game is still young and i'd rather they figure out fundamental aspects of the game now than let it get out of hand. despite this, i still disagree with the way they've gone about it. i mean couldn't they (UDE) get results from the major events, extract the data from them, give us the actual numbers in a press release of some type and then tell us why they've made a decision and the time it'll become active.
UDE handled the CP system in the same manner and for ppl out there like me (i.e. ppl who don't like to be startled) it's a major issue. i think it shows a lack of confidence and organisation in the system.
we should also make sure that the news is spread to all involved in the 10k. i know i wouldn't wanna rock up n be punked with this news.
my2centavos
RAY
jk.funny how things can change so quickly, i for one am scrambling and tryin to figure out which deck will be more consistent over a 1 game, 10 match tournament. although i think this is time wasted (since i thought i'd be playtesting from now till the 10k) i guess its part of being a VS player. the game is still young and i'd rather they figure out fundamental aspects of the game now than let it get out of hand. despite this, i still disagree with the way they've gone about it. i mean couldn't they (UDE) get results from the major events, extract the data from them, give us the actual numbers in a press release of some type and then tell us why they've made a decision and the time it'll become active.
UDE handled the CP system in the same manner and for ppl out there like me (i.e. ppl who don't like to be startled) it's a major issue. i think it shows a lack of confidence and organisation in the system.
we should also make sure that the news is spread to all involved in the 10k. i know i wouldn't wanna rock up n be punked with this news.
my2centavos
RAY
It looks like all the World's eyes will be on Sydney for the $10k....
I thought I might add that Uly has put together an article on this subject here.
TY Paul it is rather long but i feel important (savage ouns intended always).
My own opinions were going to be done today as well but after reading and rereading my stuff and everyone else's i think i need to sit on some of it for a day or so. So long as the "facts" are up i hope we can begin to be rational and empathic about this whole affair.
At this point i support the new system but for reasons of efficiency more than anything else. Both formats reward different skills. More on this soon!
My own opinions were going to be done today as well but after reading and rereading my stuff and everyone else's i think i need to sit on some of it for a day or so. So long as the "facts" are up i hope we can begin to be rational and empathic about this whole affair.
At this point i support the new system but for reasons of efficiency more than anything else. Both formats reward different skills. More on this soon!
Nice write up Uly.
Someone asked if the top 8 would be best 2/3 - the answer is yes.
Someone asked if the top 8 would be best 2/3 - the answer is yes.
Ugh that was Epic, I can't believe you took the time to disseminate that from all the VSRealms info. It would appear that the people against the 1 game issue are largely coming at it from a rather uninformed/naive perspective. Seriously a few of the comments are quite laughlable. The fact of the matter is that with VS too many games are currently going to time and reliant on a necessary-but-evil tiebreak mechanism. Anything that gets away from that has to be a good thing. Is the answer 30 minutes rounds w/1 game? It's worth a shot. I am impressed that UDE are willing to listen to the players and put these decisions out there for us to discuss.
Thanks Scott.
Actually, thank you everyone.
I really appreciate the civil discussion that is occurring here, I knew this would cause some controversy and I am glad that we're able to talk about this.
Take care
Actually, thank you everyone.
I really appreciate the civil discussion that is occurring here, I knew this would cause some controversy and I am glad that we're able to talk about this.
Take care
It is clearcut to me that 2/3 is a better option than the one-game option. That is why it is being kept for finals, etc. However, 4/7 would be even better, but we don't use that because it just isn't possible. I would prefer 2/3 but it just aint possible at the moment, and unlikely to improve.
I would rather play more opponents and get home earlier than ahve to sit around for half an hour to an hour in between rounds waitng for them to end or bring my TT deck and end up playing three Doom decks when opnly 5 are in the field. They are only the reasons that come immediately to mind.
Both options have advantages and disadvantages. I think, even before playing in one, that one-game just suits Vs more. We'll have to see next week.
I would rather play more opponents and get home earlier than ahve to sit around for half an hour to an hour in between rounds waitng for them to end or bring my TT deck and end up playing three Doom decks when opnly 5 are in the field. They are only the reasons that come immediately to mind.
Both options have advantages and disadvantages. I think, even before playing in one, that one-game just suits Vs more. We'll have to see next week.
Agree Uly.
I'm pretty excited about the event.
I'm pretty sure i want to say "dont be a dick..."
I'm pretty excited about the event.
I'm pretty sure i want to say "dont be a dick..."
| QUOTE ("The Legend") |
Given that the format is set, Scouting becomes a HUGE factor because if I know what you have going into any given match ... i maybe able to manipulate (a) the initiative (if i get the choice) and ( gameplay (eg saving the Acrobatic Dodges for their key drops, knowing where I have to be my most defensive or offensive as the case maybe) |
How do you suppose this would be different in a best of 3 match? Most player won't need scouting to figure out what their opponents deck is after the first couple of turns, which makes your second point kind of moot. Manipulating the initiative? Whatever =/
| QUOTE ("The Legend") |
| Then there is the problem of teams and sharing info between rounds, it wouldnt take a team of 4 to scan theirs and their teammates opponents once pairs are posted and *cough*advise*cough* what the opponent has if they have faced them in previous rounds. With more rounds, the coverage should be wide, 4 teammates could have played upto 20 different players by round 5 and this could be half, third or quarter of the floor on any given day. |
This is going to happen in both the single game and best-of-3 formats. It won't really matter that much. Any secret tech you might be running is going to be spread pretty quickly.
I personally think this is a lot better. 10 rounds of 1 game is going to be quicker then 6 rounds of 3 which means less mistakes, more time for trading, eating and socialising. Also rules out all the stalling in game 2 that would be likely to happen.
A lunch break at a major event?
Who would have thought it?
Who would have thought it?
i'm late to this debate, but what of those games that are lost narrowly? isn't a second, if not third game, warranted then? i recall someone mentioning that the person who wins the first game also goes on to win the second game. obviously, this is due to the meta, and is not due to the skill of the opposing player. furthermore, the time in which the game has been available, which also impacts upon the card pool size, has not seen the game reach its zenith. with added expansions and the increase in number of competitive decks, a best of three series of games may well be warranted. the notion of a single game formula may merely encourage deck builders to utilise the more aggressive deck types rather than considering control decks.
| QUOTE (Matt @ Sep 4 2004, 06:19 PM) | ||
Manipulating the initiative? Whatever =/ |
Err ... yeah probably not the best way of putting it. What I meant was Scouting will allow me to choose the appropriate initiative, if I get the choice, for the appropriate deck, if I have the correct information ... eg vs Straight Doom, I might choose evens or Odds vs a FF Beats ... after all any advantage, no matter how little, is still an advantage.
| QUOTE ("Matt") |
I personally think this is a lot better. 10 rounds of 1 game is going to be quicker then 6 rounds of 3 which means less mistakes, more time for trading, eating and socialising. |
Uly, Matt couldnt agree more ... and since we're coming over from New Zealand, ti'll give us all the more time to enjoy that wonderful Australian hospitality ...
Actually, we had a tourney at our local store today using the 1 game format with more positives than negatives.
The 30 minute time limit wasnt a real factor in the end with many games ending around the 20 minute mark and going to 8+ drops in many instances. At the start of the tourney, players were flopping there 1-4 drops at a mad pace to ensure that they'd get to their late drops in time however by mid-tourney most games were running at close to normal pace without problems.
We also found some decks suit the format more than others. We had a good cross section present today Mutant Nation, 2 x Common Enemy, Brotherhood (2 x Medium and TNB), Pure TT, Bold and Brave, FF Beats, GCPD Vomit and Straight Doom. And the early hitters like TT definitely having the advantage over control decks. Some control players felt like they were rushed to ensure they got damage on an opponent just to make sure they made time and did not lose because of endurance difference.
IMHO and from what I viewed today, the new format is an Organisers/Judges dream. Definitely made my day. As for players, the jury is still out but almost everyone agreed less time and more opponents is good. Alot of these guys have best of 3 mentality inprinted on the brain so that are not an easy bunch to please at the best of times but I received very little negative comments.
In fact, most of the negatives were centred around the players who made mistakes because they were playing the clock not the opponent or felt they were cheated because a bad draw had put them on the back foot from drop 1. Nothing on the actual format itself.
Given time Im sure players will soak it up and move on ... they did with Dragonball Z/GT .... they will with Yu-Gi-Oh! under the new Ban List regimen.
Looking forward to next Saturday.
PS Forget to mention todays winners were FF Beats, CE and Mutant Nation in that order.
Hi Legend...
I'm super glad you guys are making the trip, I look forward to seeing ya'll again.
I'm super glad you guys are making the trip, I look forward to seeing ya'll again.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.