For those who already played some:

Is 90 min per swiss round (best of three) too much or just enough?

I am imaging a 4 round tournament (9-16 players) going up to 6h what seems too much, specially when they are used to play rounds (best of three too) within 50-60 min.

I didn't play enough yet to figure out a "default" time per game as we spend a lot of time going through the rules. But I was wondering if rounds of 1 game played within 30 min would be better in the case of 4+ swiss rounds. The problem then is that then players are more affected by luck and power unbalance.

The last tourney my FLGS did was a best 2 out of 3 match-up with 4 rounds, and each round was 50 minutes long. In almost every instance of that tourney no one completed a second game. Most players got 2 or 3 turns into the second game.

I mean I think I make fairly quick decisions and the last game I played (casual) went close to an hour. I've had other games over in 15-20 minutes. That is just the way it goes sometimes.

Our next tourney (this weekend in fact) will have 90 minute rounds. I am thinking this is a good time amount per round but if you want I will let you know what I think after the fact.

I think everyone will be happy to get multiple games in per round, although it could get interesting if each player wins one and then time is called on the third (tie-breaker rules are functional but not my favorite). Plus I could still see the day becoming quite tedious if some players continuously finish quicker than others. So we shall see what happens.

With 16 people I would recommend 4 rounds of 45 min single game right now. That's just short enough of a tournament to not have to sacrifice an entire day and long enough for most people to comfortably finish their games. The ones that want to play more can always stick around and play some casual matches (trying different decks if they like).

I concur. A single game taking about 45 minutes is on point. I'm unsure how long it would take to complete the best of 3, because you really need to give enough time if playing in that format. You'd want enough time for 3 full games (which i think take about 30 minutes each). With the 45 minutes, that gives a nice 15 minute extra buffer on top of what I view as the needed 30 minutes. If you try and smush 3 games into those 90, then you don't have the extra 15 minute buffer for each game, so a player could lose out by not having enough time to come back in a close game, or finish the last round even.

Even though best of 3 usually is just 2 games, I would want to see enough time to play out three games. It would be upsetting to be tied 1 versus 1, and run out of time on the tie break game. That's just asking for upset players. Because of this, I think single rounds are better right now, unless you want to give around 110 or 115 minutes for the best of 3. If you take the 45 for a single and multiply it by 3, then you get 135 minutes. I think somewhere in between 90 and 135 is good, but it's much tougher to work into a tournament, because of the long time needed for multiple rounds.

7 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

For those who already played some:

Is 90 min per swiss round (best of three) too much or just enough?

I am imaging a 4 round tournament (9-16 players) going up to 6h what seems too much, specially when they are used to play rounds (best of three too) within 50-60 min.

I didn't play enough yet to figure out a "default" time per game as we spend a lot of time going through the rules. But I was wondering if rounds of 1 game played within 30 min would be better in the case of 4+ swiss rounds. The problem then is that then players are more affected by luck and power unbalance.

The OP rules say that for Archon games 35 minutes for a single game round , 90 minutes for best of 3.
With Sealed it's 45 minutes for single, 100 minutes for best of 3.

I think those times are pretty reasonable, the majority of game rounds that I've seen have been completed in time, and the players who hit time are usually pretty close.

I'd recommend best of 2 with a 60 min limit.

15 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I'd recommend best of 2 with a 60 min limit.

How do you get a best of two?

Just now, ovinomanc3r said:

How do you get a best of two?

Why you win your first game and declare it your best!

(not really sure, I’m curious too)

Both players get a chance to play first and rules for tie breaks have already been established. It also allows most of the 2 deck formats to be played easily.

If best of 3 could fit into a 60 min window that would be great, but, not everyone plays that fast. Two games in an hour is reasonable. Then just change to a best of 3 after "the cut" to the top whatever is reached.

Having round times of over an hour for the majority of a tournament is way to much of a grind for a game that is more casual in it's nature. It's highly unlikely that people want to spend several hours playing and only get to face 3-4 people. More rounds = more game diversity and a chance to meet more people within the game's community. There is less incentive to come out for "competitive" play if I'm likely going to be facing a couple of my friends that I normally play with.

Best of two works plenty fine and keeps the rounds to a reasonable time limit.

Maybe play another format. I really enjoyed what they called "Diminishing returns" at PAX. You bring 3 decks (you can also do it with blind draws.) When you win with a deck, you cannot use that deck again. When you are down to 1 deck you play it out for the rest of the tourney. There was also a survivor tournament when a deck lost it was out. That one only lasted 3 rounds unfortunately, but it would be a great multi-round with a last deck standing win possibility