Tint brings up the key point here.

Obviously any tournaments right up before Gencon should be, and were considered top level competitive play, where anything goes, heck most of us if not nearly all were preparing for Gencon. That's all well and good. I just assumed that after gencon we would be toning it down some, playing around with different figures, and so on. It can push away the newer players when every week they have little chance, or those who like to play oddball stuff - some people can handle losing almost every game, most cannot.

So I assumed we would be moving towards a more friendly playstyle - which is why I was getting so annoyed with you taking so much time, and Joruus locking the door instead of attacking my Mas. So perhaps it is all my mistake. If people want it competitive every week, then so be it, but I too rarely get to the local gaming store, so Vassal has become mine. Personally, I want it to be a little more friendly style of play, but that's my perspective on it.

Like the one tournament, where you played slower than dirt against me.

Were you playing tournaments are chash games?

Woot poker player!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, here is the thing, Most people who play vassal are probably near the top of their LGS (1st or second every time they go). On Vassal it is different people and people who are, at least in my experience, better players. You don't see the Kazdan Paratus/Garm Bel Iblis combination that ran around my LGS last night in the field. (Going 2-1 no less, while being played by a 10 year old) There is no way to slice it Vassal Tournaments will be of a higher competition and play level than the local scene anywhere. The Question is how do we deal with it? Sure I can play this squad:
Loda
Han Smuggler
Lando DS
Princess Leia
4-Lom Bounty Hunter

Or something similar based of Stunning and then Blasting with Opportunist, But chances are I will lose every game, at my LGS with this, I probably go 2-1. There is no good way to determine squad/tactics to be played in the games. I mean what are we gonna say, that the tournament is 1-3 on the Tacticometer? 1 being instruct your opponent of the best moves you see for him to your own detriment, 2 being play by the rules and don't "Stall" "Lock out" "Disentigrate" your opponents, and 3 being anything goes, lets get ready for Gencon? The prospect of trying to draw these lines is very difficult. If I am playing a Teir 1 squad am I out of bounds on what should be in the tournament? Just thinking and rambling, I like the IDEA of this being more like an LGS atmosphere, but I do not see how the APPLICATION of that Idea could be executed.

I agree with Luke_Skywalker, that it can be very hard to actually lay down any rules or anything like that in this regard. But in the discussion at hand, the problem wasn't that rules were being broken, or even that some squads were too powerful...the problem was that people came in with different expectations.

Maybe this is an effective way to implement what I'm suggesting:
In the sign-up thread each time, Dean (or whoever the TO is) could designate what the "style" or "feel" of the tournament is going to be. Maybe something in the title, such as "150pt High Competition Vassal Tourney" or "150pt Fun Vassal Tourney." Maybe alternate between the two (150 competitive then 200 non-competitive, then 150 non-competitive, then 200 competitive, etc). That would already go a long way in helping all the players to come to the tournament with the same kind of expectations. I think that's it's especially valuable on Vassal, since we can get a whole variety of people showing up, and all of those people are coming from different LGS backgrounds (or no LGS background, like me), with different expectations for a tournament.

Advertising and clarifying the style of tournament would help to get all the players on the same page and also help to govern the tactics used in each game. I, for one, know that in a non-competitive tournament I would never even consider a lockout or a run-away strategy. But in a competitive tournament, there are times when that kind of thing is the smartest move to do--sort of like not asking your opponent if he wants to us Draw Fire when Han is shooting at a 20 hp Boba!

It's all about helping to create common expectations, I think.

Let me start by saying this was one of the saddest threads I have read while being a member of this site. I wish to commend Bill by attempting to right the ship in his last couple of posts. I think he succeeded and am happy to see this turning positive.

I still am having a hard time with this. I get all the points Billiv is trying to make (even if I don't agree with how they were presented), but it still comes down to the floor rules. For me the issue is Vassal itself. I have been accused of slow play, but for me it is because I am looking for buttons or I am trying to use the LOS button and either can't turn it off (or on) and bungle around. Then I play someone like Fool and before I can get my last piece on the board he has already edited all of his pieces (and mine) with the attack/defense values and appears bored. I guess what I am saying is time expectation can be as big a problem as fun factor. The idea of making the rounds longer don't appeal to me either.

Just remember, Bill, you are an ambassador for this game and the competetive community. Your status as Hall member and Champion gave you this whether you like it or not. When people play you that IS there Gencon. I don't see this changing any time soon.

Maybe we could just have alternating tournaments. One week is DCI which in my mind (& I believe everyone else's) means highly competetive. The next week (or tournament) is non-DCI which should naturally imply to everyone that it's more for fun. That doesn't mean DCI tournies can't be fun, but certain things will be understood.

I think I understand where you're coming from, Dean, but I don't think you're understanding what I'm suggesting. What I was suggesting was not a "weak-squad" night and a "strong-squad" night with you as the person who has to judge the validity of the squads. Rather, I was suggesting that the tourneys could be advertised either as "competitive" (ala, how most people understand DCI) or as "not-quite-so-competitive" (ala, how Bill thought we were playing).

It's no extra work for you at all, other than typing out the extra 2-3 words in the thread title.

Perhaps we could make it even simpler:
--Competitive DCI tournaments: These tournaments would have a distinct "Gencon Championship" feel to them. They would be regular DCI tournaments, played at "championship level," with all the strategies and tactics to go with it. The results will be reported in to WotC as normal. We'd need to have someone be the TO. (So far, that someone has been you, but others could become qualified do be the TO too, right?*) Championship tactics and intense competition would be the theme. Tier 1 squads would show up a lot, but not by necessity. Over the long haul, having regular access to tournaments like this could really help many players by preparing them for the highest levels of competition (Gencon and others) through exposure to the top strategies and sneaky tactics. This would be a competitive, Tier 1 tournament to the max.

--Not-so-competitive non-DCI tournaments: These tournaments would have a "Friendly LGS" feel to them. They would not be scored as DCI tournaments, and would be played at "not-quite championship level." The results would not be reported to WotC, and therefore, you wouldn't need to be organizing them at all...heck, even I could organize these ones!* People would obviously still play their best and try to win (as they should in any tournament, IMHO), but wouldn't intentionally do something that keeps the game from proceeding toward a normal conclusion of one squad entirely defeating another (ie, no running until the clock expires, no lockouts, etc). Any squad is legal...it's just that the players would have a gentlemen's agreement not to use any strategy that keeps engagement from happening. This would still be a competitive tournament, but more like Tier 2. Top squads still show up, but with less intensity and drive to win. This would give people a chance to try out some new pieces and new strategies, but still in the context of a competitive environment.


I'm suggesting alternation between these two kinds of tournaments, but it's just a suggestion. What do you guys think?

* = Of course, I'm not suggesting that anyone try to replace you, Dean. If you want to continue being the organizer for all these tournaments, then that's great. I just don't want you to be worn out by them, that's all.

You shouldn't be expected to do that. I think you should just run the tournaments the way you have been & just put out a message on the tourney notice thread as to what's expected & what to expect. And then you ref the tourney accordingly.

Bingo! What he said.

Lockout wins. eh. whatever. I can't forsee a situation where I'd choose to win like that (and I've had plenty of opportunities) but I'm not going to complain about someone using a perfectly legal tactic within the game because that opens up a can of worms for others to complain in return about other legitimate tactics/squads. There's a few cases where I just mention "and that's game if I wanted to lock you out for the win" and that's about it.

But slow play bugs me. The game is designed to be played in an hour to a conclusion. You should move fast enough that this is possible. This may mean that you will have to make some suboptimal moves because finding the optimal move takes you too long. Thems the breaks. Your learning curve should generally occur outside of tourney games. In a tourney game you should keep moving at a speed that maintains the chance of completing the game whether you personally suffer tactically from it. Then learn from those mistakes for next time. I find too many experienced players feel it's perfectly acceptable to play as slow as they need to to be satisfied with every choice and a doublecheck of it even if doing so will result in absolutely no chance of ever finishing.

(This is not intended as directed at any particular person in this discussion. It's a general statement about the concepts under discussion.)

That's why I decided to post this Jason. Well said. I found that accepting one issue, the learning slow play one week, and then another player using lock out in a following week to be inconsistent. And again, this wasn't Dean's issue as the judge.

You really can't have it both ways. Either we are playing cutthroat competitive, or a more friendly competitive game. I am fine with either - I assumed people would want it a little less hard core after Gencon was over, but it seems people prefer it hard core. Which is all well and good as long as we all understand that's what we are playing. And then in the future, if I request Dean to come in for slow play, no one can get upset about it, or anything else related to technical hard core competitive play.

I recognize that you're not making a personal attack at me, Nickname. Sure. I don't like it when my opponents play slowly either.

And I agree with you, when you say that people's (read: my) learning curves should not occur in tournaments. When I made the triple-movement-breaker squad I didn't realize how difficult it would be to play; if I did, I likely would've chosen something else instead. But that's what you're sometimes going to get when people choose to build new squads for every tournament, rather than net-decking.

As for your comment that the player (read: me) should just settle for the sub-optimal move, well, I'll take that as something to learn from. I think you've got a point.



Actually, I think you can have it both ways, just not at the same time. Hence my suggestion of alternating tournament types. We can have it any way we want it as long as we clarify how we want to have it. You just state in the sign-up thread which style of tournament you're going to have. And you're right: none of this is Dean's fault at all, of course...it's the fault of the players. For simplicity's sake in the future, I suggested that the TO makes the decision (or at least advertises it), but it's not his fault if people use certain strategies or get angry about those strategies. Let's not draw Dean into this, other than to apologize to him because we've made an ugly thing out of something that he sacrificed freely for.

Neither you nor anybody else clarified any expectations for these tournaments, and so I'm surprised we haven't had any of this popping up before now. I always tell people in marriage counseling that "your spouse cannot respond to what he or she doesn't know about; you've gotta communicate clearly. Until you've communicated clearly, your disappointment is nobody's fault but your own." It's no different with SWM. This whole conflict is a lesson in the importance of clarifying our assumptions and understandings with each other. That's all there is to it. We can play the game any way we want...we just have to be clear about it beforehand.

You can also be quite friendly when you play a "highly competitive" game; I made a new friend (Georgiedenbro) at Gencon this year, after he and I played an incredibly competitive and close game, with each of us having to push our skills to the max. After the game, we both had a great deal of respect for each other as players, and we still keep in contact now. I don't like the word "cutthroat" because it implies malice and aggression, which is something that only shows up in a SWM game when one or both of the players is being childish. Some people refer to a game like this as "a game that turned hostile." In SWM, which is a game whose primary purpose is fun, it's always a tragedy when that happens. Not a single one of my "highly competitive" games at the Gencon Jedi Masters this year turned hostile, though there were a number of extremely close games. I think that fact alone proves that "highly competitive" is quite different than "cutthroat." Cutthroat is to competitive what alcoholism is to alcohol: it's a good thing that's been twisted and turned ugly through misuse.



How do you intend this statement to be read? Do I detect some veiled anger/irritation in there? It looks that way to me.
Once more, there's NOTHING to be angry about. It was simply a misunderstanding that resulted from a lack of communication. I've already mentioned (repeatedly) how a simple communication from you would've changed everything for me (and probably for Joruus too). There's no reason whatsoever to get vindictive or vengeful.

Please, for the love of Leia, let it go, and let's get back to enjoying these Vassal tournaments, as we always have until a month ago.

A-frakkin-men!

I recognize that you're not making a personal attack at me, Nickname. Sure. [/quote]

Your situation sounds like a good example of my general comment, but I hope that smiley means you do not consider it a personal attack. I've seen you play and didn't consider you to play slowly at all in general. And I didn't see the game in question. 4 rounds sounds rediculous to me under pretty much any circumstance, and I felt the same way about Mel's play speed in general at Gencon. But if you and Bill think the shoe fits in this case, feel free to wear it.




I didn't see the game under discussion, so that will be for you to decide. I can tell you that's what I do all the time when I feel like I'm taking too long. And I think more people should consider it in general as I find that fairly brisk play makes the game more fun win or lose and complete games in a tournement setting are more fun win or lose and nothing is less fun in a tournament than calling a judge to gripe about someone's (often a friends) play.

I really wish we had a timer even if it was non-enforcible. I think people honestly have no idea how long they're taking when they are lost in thought.

The other thing I wish we had was a mimumum number of rounds before a game is considered complete as part of the DCI rules. (My estimate 6 rounds) This would give judges a better idea of when to get serious about slow play and teach players they can't play as slow as they may be comfortable with at the moment.

No, I trully don't see it as a personal attack. That is exactly why I included the smiley. Heck, we hardly ever have contact with each other, so I can't imagine why you'd even have reason for a personal attack. It's all cool.

And I think you're right about the help that a clock would bring. When Bill said that I took 20 minutes, I was surprised...but then I looked at the clock and it turns out he was right. Maybe in future games (and certainly in Vassal tournament games) I'll lay my watch out on my desk and take note of how long I take for my turns. In most situations I think I play pretty quickly...but when it gets down to the game-changing decisions, I sometimes tend to second-guess myself, especially if I have a number of options. I remember in my preparation for Gencon I was focusing especially on learning to play faster, because I knew that speed would be a factor for me, as a newbie in face-to-face SWM competition.

Thanks for your comments, Nickname; I think you're right.

I wish VASSAL had a built in timer of some kind, even if it wasn't a chess clock like I've requested from the programming team. The watch is a good idea. Another possibility is you probably have some family game like Pictionary or Boggle with a 3 minute hourglass "egg timer". If you set that on your desk and start it running when it's your phase it shouldn't be running out before you YT.

Of course, there will be the occasional discussion and maybe once per game where you need to make some super-critical complex decision but generally 3 minutes is about the max you should take and most should be well under that. (And the super critical ones, I find it helps to mention to your opponent "this is a big decision--I need to think about it for a minute." It should never be a problem as long is you're really self-monitoring how frequently you call this "time out".

All good suggestions. Thanks!

I have only played in one of these Vassal tournies so far (the one were TINT diintegrated my Mara, lol), and I understand the concerns. In the pre-GenCon months when Dean first started these, I definitely think it was to provide a better high-competitive outlet for some people who didn't have that at their LGS.

With GenCon over, I can see the desire to change that, but frankly, for me, if I'm going to play against some of the people that I know are really good players, and if it includes people like Bill or TINT who were Top 8 at GenCon, well, then I'd really rather it be high-end competitive. Even if I get my butt kicked, I'd rather make the games against those tough opponents really well worth it.

If you want fun games, there's the GVL or the Sealed/KOTOR/CW Tournies that Fool has been organizing for the more relaxed atmosphere.

Just my 2 credits.

The dci tournies are good as is.

Heh, the minute you start trying to run not-as-competitive tournaments, you're going to run into players whining that their opponent was *too* competitive (whatever that means). It's not something you can enforce. I agree, it'd be too difficult to do it.