As an MTG player, I wish we could test a two game format. We all know that going first is a significant advantage that can't really be overcome by sideboarding
A two game format with sideboarding is a bit awkward because it favors decks that are strong game 1 but weak to sideboarding. If the opponent entered a gentleman's agreement to go best of one, that's the dream for such a deck. Same goes if they were in a must 2-0 situation. Furthermore, if you went second in game 1 and won it because you had the strong preboard deck, you'd be going into game 2 on the play. This helps your chances significantly against their sideboard play. All in all, I think a two game format would heavily, heavily encourage playing these kinds of strategies and cause players to start building lists that preboard against them to various degrees. All I think you'd be heading for in such a format is the feeling of playing a graveyard based deck and your opponent slamming a game 1 leyline of the void.
I know we had the debate in pokemon tcg community. I wonder if a bo2 system where you get 1 point per win (so basically 2 bo1s) is good - since it fixes many problems of the bo3 limited time system that in Pokémon often leads to players trying to manipulate time in their favor.
Great video, concise with your points. Only criticism would be the title. To me, keeping the language critical but still positive is a better method to having civil discussions than calling something garbage. Loved the video 😊 thanks!
Agree entirely with this Joseph, especially around allowing for a legal way to determine a winner if a tie eliminates both if 2 game stays. -Bubble Boy (Kris)
13:50 Just want to point out that there will definitely be a lot of ties due to Lorcana’s time rules in a bo3 format I don’t think it’s fair to say there wouldn’t be as many ties or that it wouldn’t be a problem tbh especially coming from Yugioh lol which still amounts to “do you want to roll for it” half the time due to their time rules and lorcana is even harder to win in time First half of the video I 100% agree I prefer bo2 but the last round collision is kinda mid and , also Even though I’ve ID’d plenty of times in this game, I’m also not a fan of it lol ID’s are so weird to me Good points For me the shortened length of the tournament will out weigh everything else lol
I can understand the perspective. I also do think Lorcana's time rules need work. But from experience, it's rare for me to go to time now, even playing my YG deck that is extremely slow to quest. But I suppose slow players are out there that can make it more of a problem. I will say though, rolling it in Yugioh doesn't come up TOO often because most decks get a time safety button to gain life/burn in the main phase. And yeah, shortening the tournament length is certainly an upside. Thank you for the thoughtful comment!
In freakanomics by Steven D. Levet, and award winning economist. He talks about how sumo wrestlers will throw games if they hit their prize threshold and their opponent is close. This encourages draw don't bo2
If playing a 2 game format goalposts are needed. Simply put, think of a battle royale with a stock of lives. Organizers would always try to match where at least 1 player has 2 stocks (lives) When you have 4-6-8 players left, simply make a new pile of stocks (2-3 being ideal) Last man standing wins.
The way I would handle this is something the fan community tried in Netrunner: - Two game format for most rounds. - Last round is split into two half-rounds against different opponents, with one game each. The first player in each of these games is assigned at time of pairing, so players play an equal number of games as the first player and as the second player. This captures all the benefits (faster rounds, you play more opponents) but avoids the awkward end-tournament situation where players are encouraged to intentionally draw, split, or concede.
@LorcanaPandemonium Netrunner suffers from a similar problem with its double sided Swiss format (which is Bo2). They legalised IDs and 2-for-1s in the rules, but still somewhere 20-30% of games were skipped and so recently tournaments have been moving to a single sided Swiss structure which is best of 1 (where like... Two people end up IDing once at most). That said, Netrunner is an asymmetric card game with no side deck. There's no first turn advantage (one side always goes first), so a Bo1 format dodges many of the issues that would usually plague Bo1 in other card games (1st player advantage, required to preside, etc).
In regards to "The No Draw Deathmatch", I think the intent from Ravensburger is clear: They want you playing out the match, not "playing the tournament". My personal take is that if you and your opponent end up in the deathmatch and neither of you can 2-0, you haven't earned top cut and your opponent shouldn't concede just because they lost the first game. It's not just that one match that put you in that situation, it's all the matches you've played all day and all the misplays you've made up to that point that put you in that situation.
@@scruf713 I understand if you hold this position morally. But from a systems perspective, with so much potential prizing on the line, players are incentivized to do this. And it becomes a systemic problem. Metaphor, you can think of the players being mice doing this. But this two game format system is Ravensburger leaving cheese out in the open. You have to expect the rats to eat the cheese.
I look forward to trying 2GF in Toronto. I have not experienced first hand but in theory I do disagree. Players should not have an alternate means to decide who wins. You get enough points to Top Cut by successfully winning game 1 and 2 multiple rounds. This isn’t chess there is luck involved with all trading card games but there is deck optimization, making meta calls, and of course the skill of both knowing how to mulligan and playing against a deck. If you are in that final round and need to win both games to top then you are going to compete and play your best to earn that spot. Its that simple
I can certainly agree with the second to last sentence. The thing is though, even if you don't think players should use other ways to determine a winner, the players are going to do it due to the system. If agreeing to a Best of 1, whether formally or informally, means both players improve their chances to make top cut, both players are going to do it most of the time and it becomes the best option from a competitive perspective.
I’ve only played a single tournament. I overheard people talking about best of two, in a negative light, but didn’t know what they meant, because the tournament was bo3. I went 0-3(not surprising), but it seemed like bo3 worked really well. Wow, it’s almost as if trying your own, innovative thing, ignoring what works, is not always good.
Im only just getting into Lorcana and never played any other tcg's so i don't really have much of an option on if one is better or not but i did enjoy hearing yours. Great video.
The only thing i will say in your favor that would stop gaming the system is making it ppw (points per win) Seems to me you are promoting the idea of conceding for the other players 2-0 is okay but later you say somebody wanting to play it out and go 1-1 is bad. Why? Thats the rules and you want to circumvent them to let someone in who didnt earn it. If you dont win both games then you werent good enough to make the cut. End of story. If your deck bricks and costs you a game then maybe fix it so it doesnt happen as often. Bo3 has its own problems such as purposefully going to time, early dropouts, first player advantage 2/3 rounds. Maybe next time just play the game and worry about if you did good enough when the time comes instead of trying to game the system.
All I keep hearing is, if two players want to break the rules to avoid a tie then it shouldn't be against the rules for them to break the rules. Maybe if you don't like the rules, this game isn't for you.
Your addendum in the description is actually incorrect. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying you’ll concede after game 1 if you lose when both players are in a must win situation, and there is nothing preventing this in the rules. You are allowed to concede whenever you want for whatever reason you want at any time. Not only is that perfectly fine and valid, there are no issues with doing so. Your title should also be updated.. the 2gf is not failing at all, it’s actually a great format that a lot of people are starting to prefer over BO3. Just like all change, it takes time to adapt and get used to the differences.
You are tripping. Literally EVERYONE I know that plays hates it, which is about 30 people. That is an anecdote of course but from what I'm seeing online, it is YOU who is in the minority.
@@ROYBGP and literally EVERYONE that I know likes the new format. So keep being wrong if you want lol really the only people online complaining about it are the echo chamber created by a small minority of “content creators” and “pros” that have no lives lol
As an MTG player, I wish we could test a two game format. We all know that going first is a significant advantage that can't really be overcome by sideboarding
It's terrible because you get an extra point from going 2-0 so unfair decks are always better
A two game format with sideboarding is a bit awkward because it favors decks that are strong game 1 but weak to sideboarding. If the opponent entered a gentleman's agreement to go best of one, that's the dream for such a deck. Same goes if they were in a must 2-0 situation. Furthermore, if you went second in game 1 and won it because you had the strong preboard deck, you'd be going into game 2 on the play. This helps your chances significantly against their sideboard play.
All in all, I think a two game format would heavily, heavily encourage playing these kinds of strategies and cause players to start building lists that preboard against them to various degrees. All I think you'd be heading for in such a format is the feeling of playing a graveyard based deck and your opponent slamming a game 1 leyline of the void.
Sounds like a terrible idea.
I know we had the debate in pokemon tcg community. I wonder if a bo2 system where you get 1 point per win (so basically 2 bo1s) is good - since it fixes many problems of the bo3 limited time system that in Pokémon often leads to players trying to manipulate time in their favor.
Great video, concise with your points. Only criticism would be the title. To me, keeping the language critical but still positive is a better method to having civil discussions than calling something garbage. Loved the video 😊 thanks!
Thank you kindly and I made an adjustment accordingly.
Agree entirely with this Joseph, especially around allowing for a legal way to determine a winner if a tie eliminates both if 2 game stays. -Bubble Boy (Kris)
Opinions aside
Good video, I like how respectful it is
Subbed
13:50
Just want to point out that there will definitely be a lot of ties due to Lorcana’s time rules in a bo3 format
I don’t think it’s fair to say there wouldn’t be as many ties or that it wouldn’t be a problem tbh especially coming from Yugioh lol which still amounts to “do you want to roll for it” half the time due to their time rules and lorcana is even harder to win in time
First half of the video I 100% agree
I prefer bo2 but the last round collision is kinda mid and , also
Even though I’ve ID’d plenty of times in this game, I’m also not a fan of it lol ID’s are so weird to me
Good points
For me the shortened length of the tournament will out weigh everything else lol
I can understand the perspective. I also do think Lorcana's time rules need work.
But from experience, it's rare for me to go to time now, even playing my YG deck that is extremely slow to quest. But I suppose slow players are out there that can make it more of a problem. I will say though, rolling it in Yugioh doesn't come up TOO often because most decks get a time safety button to gain life/burn in the main phase.
And yeah, shortening the tournament length is certainly an upside.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment!
In freakanomics by Steven D. Levet, and award winning economist. He talks about how sumo wrestlers will throw games if they hit their prize threshold and their opponent is close.
This encourages draw don't bo2
If playing a 2 game format goalposts are needed.
Simply put, think of a battle royale with a stock of lives.
Organizers would always try to match where at least 1 player has 2 stocks (lives)
When you have 4-6-8 players left, simply make a new pile of stocks (2-3 being ideal)
Last man standing wins.
The way I would handle this is something the fan community tried in Netrunner:
- Two game format for most rounds.
- Last round is split into two half-rounds against different opponents, with one game each. The first player in each of these games is assigned at time of pairing, so players play an equal number of games as the first player and as the second player.
This captures all the benefits (faster rounds, you play more opponents) but avoids the awkward end-tournament situation where players are encouraged to intentionally draw, split, or concede.
@@asherstuhlman2424 Huh, that is a really interesting concept. I don't mind it.
@LorcanaPandemonium Netrunner suffers from a similar problem with its double sided Swiss format (which is Bo2). They legalised IDs and 2-for-1s in the rules, but still somewhere 20-30% of games were skipped and so recently tournaments have been moving to a single sided Swiss structure which is best of 1 (where like... Two people end up IDing once at most).
That said, Netrunner is an asymmetric card game with no side deck. There's no first turn advantage (one side always goes first), so a Bo1 format dodges many of the issues that would usually plague Bo1 in other card games (1st player advantage, required to preside, etc).
In regards to "The No Draw Deathmatch", I think the intent from Ravensburger is clear: They want you playing out the match, not "playing the tournament".
My personal take is that if you and your opponent end up in the deathmatch and neither of you can 2-0, you haven't earned top cut and your opponent shouldn't concede just because they lost the first game. It's not just that one match that put you in that situation, it's all the matches you've played all day and all the misplays you've made up to that point that put you in that situation.
@@scruf713 I understand if you hold this position morally. But from a systems perspective, with so much potential prizing on the line, players are incentivized to do this. And it becomes a systemic problem.
Metaphor, you can think of the players being mice doing this. But this two game format system is Ravensburger leaving cheese out in the open. You have to expect the rats to eat the cheese.
I look forward to trying 2GF in Toronto. I have not experienced first hand but in theory I do disagree. Players should not have an alternate means to decide who wins. You get enough points to Top Cut by successfully winning game 1 and 2 multiple rounds. This isn’t chess there is luck involved with all trading card games but there is deck optimization, making meta calls, and of course the skill of both knowing how to mulligan and playing against a deck. If you are in that final round and need to win both games to top then you are going to compete and play your best to earn that spot. Its that simple
I can certainly agree with the second to last sentence. The thing is though, even if you don't think players should use other ways to determine a winner, the players are going to do it due to the system. If agreeing to a Best of 1, whether formally or informally, means both players improve their chances to make top cut, both players are going to do it most of the time and it becomes the best option from a competitive perspective.
I’ve only played a single tournament. I overheard people talking about best of two, in a negative light, but didn’t know what they meant, because the tournament was bo3. I went 0-3(not surprising), but it seemed like bo3 worked really well. Wow, it’s almost as if trying your own, innovative thing, ignoring what works, is not always good.
Im only just getting into Lorcana and never played any other tcg's so i don't really have much of an option on if one is better or not but i did enjoy hearing yours. Great video.
The only thing i will say in your favor that would stop gaming the system is making it ppw (points per win) Seems to me you are promoting the idea of conceding for the other players 2-0 is okay but later you say somebody wanting to play it out and go 1-1 is bad. Why? Thats the rules and you want to circumvent them to let someone in who didnt earn it. If you dont win both games then you werent good enough to make the cut. End of story. If your deck bricks and costs you a game then maybe fix it so it doesnt happen as often. Bo3 has its own problems such as purposefully going to time, early dropouts, first player advantage 2/3 rounds. Maybe next time just play the game and worry about if you did good enough when the time comes instead of trying to game the system.
Playing RP at dallas whent to time 4 out of 9 rounds. So bo3 will go to time every time.
All I keep hearing is, if two players want to break the rules to avoid a tie then it shouldn't be against the rules for them to break the rules. Maybe if you don't like the rules, this game isn't for you.
Your addendum in the description is actually incorrect. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying you’ll concede after game 1 if you lose when both players are in a must win situation, and there is nothing preventing this in the rules. You are allowed to concede whenever you want for whatever reason you want at any time. Not only is that perfectly fine and valid, there are no issues with doing so.
Your title should also be updated.. the 2gf is not failing at all, it’s actually a great format that a lot of people are starting to prefer over BO3. Just like all change, it takes time to adapt and get used to the differences.
You are tripping. Literally EVERYONE I know that plays hates it, which is about 30 people. That is an anecdote of course but from what I'm seeing online, it is YOU who is in the minority.
@@ROYBGP Who knows? It's not like there is anny real data. It's a problem whit stating it definitifly. Either way.
Nah looks like it's just you mate. Sorry.
@@CiciColino nah bud, keep staying delusional 🤷♂️
@@ROYBGP and literally EVERYONE that I know likes the new format. So keep being wrong if you want lol really the only people online complaining about it are the echo chamber created by a small minority of “content creators” and “pros” that have no lives lol