logo

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 323 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next

Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:57 am 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
As promised, I have been working on things I think we need to change for a while. Here are my proposals. Note, while I think each of them is a good idea, that does not mean we have to adopt everyone.

#1 - and this is regardless of number 2. We need to create a "Championship Format" for competitive play. Nickname's idea and I support it, is to change the Floor rules from focusing on the specific rules for different point limits, and instead use 3 new formats, that can be reported at any point level for DCI play.

For example, the three new formats might be, "Competitive, Huge Friendly, Open". Competitive can be used anywhere at any time, but it would be the required format for the regionals and championship and so on. It will have a hyperrestricted map list, and would be the only format where official "bannings" would be required. Huge Friendly will have a different map list (and ruleset if needed) based more on making huges playable (much like 200pts is currently). Open, would be the format that I talked about a while ago, however in this proposal, it will only be able to include official WotC materials (although I will be pushing to allow it to use fan created maps as well - no customs figures at this time).

For Competitive, I am proposing that the map list becomes:
Rancor Pit, Ravaged Base, Train Station, Jedi Temple, Deathstar, Cloud City, Muunalist (CS version), Chancelor's Starship and Nightclub.

HF would include the current 200pt legal maps.

Open includes every WotC released map, with the exception of the open Hoth maps (and if possible, fan created maps). Local Tournament Organizers would also have the power to restrict the Open format as needed. For example, one week to play "melee only", or to eliminate a problematic map for a couple of weeks.

#2 - If we don't completely like #1, option 2 is moving the championship to 200pts. A 200pt champ, would create other issues, which I will deal with in #3. But it will also have a hyper restricted map list using the "championship format" even if that list might not be exactly the same.

#3 - Stalling and slow play. I will be writing a couple of floor rules updates regarding these issues. First, I will be adding the following:

Changing the existing entry for Victory Conditions to more accurately reflect that scoring the build total is the Victory Condition. Everything else is considered a tie breaker (it's there currently that way, simply planning to clean up the wording.)

Add the following statement to the floor rules:
"Appropriate play speed is one that gives each player opportunity to reach the victory condition within the time limit."

Then perhaps add the following either as an appendix or on another site for judges and players:


Slow Play: Appropriate play speed is a speed that allows both players the opportunity to score the victory points of the format under the time limit. This does not mean that every single game will finish in time and it is judges discretion. In general, if games are going to the time limit with neither player reaching the point limit then the following are good guidelines to decide if slow play was in fact occuring. In a 100pt game 10 or more rounds were played. In 150pt or 200pt game, 8 or more rounds were completed. It is suggested that any game going less than 8 rounds without either player getting close to the victory conditions be considered grounds for a slow play warning for one or both of the players. It is the responsibility of the judge to maintain a fair game, and shrinking the game down to a low number of rounds restricts the ability of either player to complete the game. Attempting to trick the judge by playing slowly, and then asking for additional rounds as time expires can be considered cheating and warrant a DQ from the tournament for stalling.

Stalling: Intentionally slow playing a game. Stalling can also be an escalation for a player warned about slow play earlier in the game or tournament, but can also be a stand alone offense. It is defined as knowingly slowing the game down to prevent your opponent from having a legitimate chance at winning the game from it's outset. (Note, a player is not required to speed up in a situation where more than the minimal rounds of play have occurred, and it would only benefit the other player to do so). Slow play is a warning, and the judge should ask the player to move faster, and add as many rounds to play as necessary to reach a fair outcome. In many situations, a fair outcome cannot be reached, and in those cases, the judge should escalate it to stalling and issue a DQ from the game. For example, in a case where one player has been slow playing the entire time, has been warned, and still continues to turtle and hide his pieces from being defeated, after gaining a small points lead. Players should be encouraged by the judges to watch the time, and compare that to how fast their rounds are going. For example, in a 150pt game, if the minimum is considered 8 rounds, then an average round should not take more than 8 minutes. Players should also inform the judge as early as possible that a game is being played slow, so that the judge can watch it and issue warnings as appropriate.

#4 - Reinforcements cannot score gambit points. This will encourage people to actually risk pieces worth points in order to score points.
Edit: Change this one to read, "Score 5 points or the cost of the most expensive piece in gambit, whichever is LOWER."

#5 - General Obi Wan Kenobi needs an errata losing MotF2, and changing SSM to negating only the first 20pts of damage received.

#6 - In any game that goes to the time limit, all figures who have taken 1/2 damage or more score as 1/2 their kill points (rounded down).

#7 - Change the 10 rule end game to include scoring Gambit points as qualifying to prevent the 10 round limit.

#8 - The final round of the National Championship will have a 2 hour time limit.

Ok, that's it for now, let me know what you all think.

_________________
Image

http://www.bloomilk.com/Squads/Search.aspx?UserID=29


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:22 am 
Jedi Knight
Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:39 pm
Posts: 370
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
billiv15 wrote:
(Note, a player is not required to speed up in a situation where more than the minimal rounds of play have occurred, and it would only benefit the other player to do so)

could you elaborate on this a little bit becasue to me it sounds like if you have meet the 8 round limit you can slow down and slow play

billiv15 wrote:
#4 - Reinforcements cannot score gambit points. This will encourage people to actually risk pieces worth points in order to score points.

#5 - General Obi Wan Kenobi needs an errata losing MotF2, and changing SSM to negating only the first 20pts of damage received.

#6 - In any game that goes to the time limit, all figures who have taken 1/2 damage or more score as 1/2 their kill points (rounded down).

#7 - Change the 10 rule end game to include scoring Gambit points as qualifying to prevent the 10 round limit.


Ok, that's it for now, let me know what you all think.[/quote]

The GOWK thing is stiring the pot a little and don't want to get this into a GOWK fight about what is the best way to change him but the others are a great idea. #4 is great becasue people bring in 6 uggos just to score gambit points which now you have to build into you squad

#6 is also something i like and it helps if a tight game were you missed that opportunity to kill the last piece because of a bad roll and could of won the game that way but they ran it away and their is no way that you could kill it now. It is a way to really but kill up a few notches and i kind of like that.

_________________
Image*******Image

Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the world together.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:24 am 
Sith Apprentice
Sith Apprentice

Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:05 am
Posts: 269
The ban on Boba Fett BH for Duos is based on Disintegrate, correct?

Since the floor rules already have an instance of dropping special abilities (Rigid for Huge figures), would it be reasonable to have a rule that figures with Disintegration lose it for the Duos format?

Or was the choice to block BFBH for the format more than just Disintegrate?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:37 am 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
StriderRe80 wrote:
billiv15 wrote:
(Note, a player is not required to speed up in a situation where more than the minimal rounds of play have occurred, and it would only benefit the other player to do so)

could you elaborate on this a little bit becasue to me it sounds like if you have meet the 8 round limit you can slow down and slow play
The wording probably needs some cleaning up, and technically speaking, this line isn't even really necessary. I put it there, so that players would not get the mistaken view that they were forced to speed up late game, just to get another round in, provided they have been meeting the other guidelines throughout the game.

So a case like this. It is round 10, the score is 142-110, and the player with 142 has Aurra Sing left with 10hps and some other scrubs or something. The other player complains to the judge that this player is taking too long to activate Aurra, as he is checking los to try to prevent a last second kill. The point of that line, is to make clear that this player is not required in this situation to play faster, simply to get another round in for the player that is behind. Change this example to a score of 50-12, and round 4, and the Aurra player has already been warned for slow play and this line no longer applies. Hope that clears it up.

_________________
Image

http://www.bloomilk.com/Squads/Search.aspx?UserID=29


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:38 am 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
eMouse wrote:
The ban on Boba Fett BH for Duos is based on Disintegrate, correct?

Since the floor rules already have an instance of dropping special abilities (Rigid for Huge figures), would it be reasonable to have a rule that figures with Disintegration lose it for the Duos format?

Or was the choice to block BFBH for the format more than just Disintegrate?


I believe Boris has said it was disintegration. He may be rewriting that rule for DD, but you would have to ask him.

_________________
Image

http://www.bloomilk.com/Squads/Search.aspx?UserID=29


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:50 am 
Unnamed Wookiee
Unnamed Wookiee
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:17 pm
Posts: 33
For #1, the change in formats, i'm not sure i have enough 'time in' to really have an educated weigh in, but the map list looks fair, and I don't see any problems with it.

For #2, I suppose that all depends on what is decided with proposal #1, however, I like 200 pts as a format. Completely personal choice. Timing of games (in my area) isn't generally a problem, except in the case of newer players, which is pretty universal in that regard. 150 is fine too.

For #3, you had mentioned this 8 round completion theory before on Wizards, and I supported your idea then because I think it is a completely reasonable (at 150 or even 200) amount of rounds to get done in an hour if both players are focused on getting the game done. I think it would behoove anyone playing 200pts to keep their activation counts within reason on the high end ( I played a Youngling swarm recently with 15 or 16 activations) , and it does tend to go a bit longer when San Hill, Ozzel or Dodonna are around.

For #4 - This is an idea that I feel is almost mandatory. There should be a risk to point scoring figures in Gambit.

For #5, i'm sure i will go along with whatever is decided, but i don't really want to discuss it here, but the proposal of fixes for it might be as heated as the idea of banning it.

For #6, I have more of a question. Is this related to the slow play issue or is it related to the idea of going to 200 pts. I'm just trying to understand the ned for this one.

For #7, I don't really understand the existing rule.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:52 am 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
Added #8

_________________
Image

http://www.bloomilk.com/Squads/Search.aspx?UserID=29


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:57 am 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
Master_Jorth wrote:
For #6, I have more of a question. Is this related to the slow play issue or is it related to the idea of going to 200 pts. I'm just trying to understand the need for this one.

It was an idea that Nickname had. In cases where games do go to time, players (anyone playing to win under the current rule set) will logically move their heavily damaged pieces away from the battle if they can, to prevent them from scoring points, and to maintain their points lead. Other players, will use an offensive piece early in a game, kill something, take a lot of return damage but perhaps survive, only to then hide that piece for the rest of the game.

With this rule in place, you get points for the actions you have taken. So putting 1/2 damage on a piece at least now would score you 1/2 points. Running at time, is a perfectly legal and abusive tactic (which I have done), and needs to have some penalty attached to it. The idea of the game is to score the victory total, not run for time. We can't totally solve every level of abuse, but we can make it more painful to do so.

_________________
Image

http://www.bloomilk.com/Squads/Search.aspx?UserID=29


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:59 am 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
1. Support, of course. The champ map list will need to be tested. Your list looks solid as a starting point. I do wonder about your rationale for including Night Club.

2. I've never been a fan of 200 so I'm biased. I'm open to the change if it were super-popular but I strongly prefer the consistancy with past championships at 150 and minimizing the playspeed issues that increase with each increase in points.

3. Bravo. Great starting point. Just needs some minor emphasis on a point here or there.

4. Never felt this does enough to be worth the change. It just forces people away from Lobot as the scrub provider (which I find interesting tactically as is) but a 5-3 lead causes the exact same problems as a 5-0 lead in the current environment. But I don't care enough to oppose it.

5. I support finding a way to bring GOWK back. Beyond that, it will be WotC's decision how to do it. The "bill solution" will likely be in the mix but we've covered the possibilities so much in the past that I think the discussion here should just skip this item for now. This horse is dead, reanimated, and zombie killed until WotC decides how to proceed.

6. Needs discussion for possible abusive situations, but I think it results in a more accurate, if not perfect, representation of who wins a game that comes down to points tiebreakers. I kind of like that it could create a niche for healing which hasn't really been seen since RotS.

7. Consider this one a done deal.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:05 am 
Unnamed Wookiee
Unnamed Wookiee
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:17 pm
Posts: 33
billiv15 wrote:
Master_Jorth wrote:
For #6, I have more of a question. Is this related to the slow play issue or is it related to the idea of going to 200 pts. I'm just trying to understand the need for this one.

It was an idea that Nickname had. In cases where games do go to time, players (anyone playing to win under the current rule set) will logically move their heavily damaged pieces away from the battle if they can, to prevent them from scoring points, and to maintain their points lead. Other players, will use an offensive piece early in a game, kill something, take a lot of return damage but perhaps survive, only to then hide that piece for the rest of the game.

With this rule in place, you get points for the actions you have taken. So putting 1/2 damage on a piece at least now would score you 1/2 points. Running at time, is a perfectly legal and abusive tactic (which I have done), and needs to have some penalty attached to it. The idea of the game is to score the victory total, not run for time. We can't totally solve every level of abuse, but we can make it more painful to do so.

Ah, ok. I see now.

I'm sure we've all done that one in at one point or another. In that case, i'm onboard. also, Nickname brings up the idea healing being used a bit more, and that's definitely interesting.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:19 am 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:06 pm
Posts: 249
I think that trying to define what constitutes slow play is dangerous. Putting a set limit on the number of rounds played and the victory points scored is treading on shaky ground. I don't think your boundaries are unreasonable... I just don't believe that every game can so easily fall under the same set of guidelines. So a game goes 7 rounds and the score is 140-95... both players should get a slow play warning at the end of the match? Or a game goes 5 rounds and the score is 85-35. The game has been a lot of cat and mouse tactics with large numbers of activations on both sides of the table. Neither player feels that the other player went slowly and, when time is called, they both shake hands and congratulate each other on a well played game... putting those types of defined limits in the DCI floor rules means that both players get a warning. I don't see how that promotes fairness. You might have played right next to them and went 15 rounds. Good for you. Their game didn't change the outcome of your match one bit, and both players were satisfied with the outcome.

The only other concern that I have is #6.

If a person puts a piece out there, at risk, to get off a crucial shot and, as a result, takes some damage themselves, I don't see how penalizing them for taking risks is fair, based on whether or not they killed all of their opponents in 60 minutes. Because, from what I understand, if a game finishes before time you're not going to apply those same penalties to those players, correct? We're talking about potentially changing the final score to where the loser = the winner because the game didn't finish in 60 minutes. So why wouldn't someone do half damage to a few of his opponents high cost pieces and just play slow, knowing that he'll get half points for them without actually having to kill them?

_________________
Image
Check us out if you're in the Atlanta area!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:25 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
billiv15 wrote:
#1 - and this is regardless of number 2. We need to create a "Championship Format" for competitive play. Nickname's idea and I support it, is to change the Floor rules from focusing on the specific rules for different point limits, and instead use 3 new formats, that can be reported at any point level for DCI play.

For example, the three new formats might be, "Competitive, Huge Friendly, Open". Competitive can be used anywhere at any time, but it would be the required format for the regionals and championship and so on. It will have a hyperrestricted map list, and would be the only format where official "bannings" would be required. Huge Friendly will have a different map list (and ruleset if needed) based more on making huges playable (much like 200pts is currently). Open, would be the format that I talked about a while ago, however in this proposal, it will only be able to include official WotC materials (although I will be pushing to allow it to use fan created maps as well - no customs figures at this time).

For Competitive, I am proposing that the map list becomes:
Rancor Pit, Ravaged Base, Train Station, Jedi Temple, Deathstar, Cloud City, Muunalist (CS version), Chancelor's Starship and Nightclub.

HF would include the current 200pt legal maps.

Open includes every WotC released map, with the exception of the Endor map, and the open Hoth maps (and if possible, fan created maps).


Agree, I like this change. It encourages people to not grab top-tier competition stuff in every weekend setting.

Quote:
#2 - If we don't completely like #1, option 2 is moving the championship to 200pts. A 200pt champ, would create other issues, which I will deal with in #3. But it will also have a hyper restricted map list using the "championship format" even if that list might not be exactly the same.


Agree. I would prefer the championship be 200 pts.

Quote:
#3 - Stalling and slow play. I will be writing a couple of floor rules updates regarding these issues. First, I will be adding the following:

Slow Play: Appropriate play speed is a speed that allows both players the opportunity to score the victory points of the format under the time limit. This does not mean that every single game will finish in time and it is judges discretion. In general, if games are going to the time limit with neither player reaching the point limit then the following are good guidelines to decide if slow play was in fact occuring. In a 100pt game 10 or more rounds were played. In 150pt or 200pt game, 8 or more rounds were completed. It is suggested that any game going less than 8 rounds without either player getting close to the victory conditions be considered grounds for a slow play warning for one or both of the players. It is the responsibility of the judge to maintain a fair game, and shrinking the game down to a low number of rounds restricts the ability of either player to complete the game.

Stalling: Intentionally slow playing a game. Stalling can also be an escalation for a player warned about slow play earlier in the game or tournament, but can also be a stand alone offense. It is defined as knowingly slowing the game down to prevent your opponent from having a legitimate chance at winning the game from it's outset. (Note, a player is not required to speed up in a situation where more than the minimal rounds of play have occurred, and it would only benefit the other player to do so). Slow play is a warning, and the judge should ask the player to move faster, and add as many rounds to play as necessary to reach a fair outcome. In many situations, a fair outcome cannot be reached, and in those cases, the judge should escalate it to stalling and issue a DQ from the game. For example, in a case where one player has been slow playing the entire time, has been warned, and still continues to turtle and hide his pieces from being defeated, after gaining a small points lead. Players should be encouraged by the judges to watch the time, and compare that to how fast their rounds are going. For example, in a 150pt game, if the minimum is considered 8 rounds, then an average round should not take more than 8 minutes. Players should also inform the judge as early as possible that a game is being played slow, so that the judge can watch it and issue warnings as appropriate.


I have a lot of problems with this one. I don't think it really solves the underlying issues and unintentionally creates some awkward situations that could penalize the wrong player, or worse, end up hurting both of them. It also discourages, albeit unintentionally, people from playing squads with unusually high or unusually small numbers of characters in their squads. Granted, most of the times squads that fit into one of those two categories aren't incredibly competitive, but nevertheless, the rules about slow play should not be dictating squad-building decisions.

My suggestion would be rather than to offer guidelines or markers on how many rounds should be played to set guidelines about the decision making process. Checking multiple lines of sight before moving the piece a player has chosen to activate in a timely fashion is acceptable. Checking those lines and then counting multiple different paths and end-square movement only to decide to simply "tap" or "spin" a different piece — and to perform this process repeatedly throughout the game/tournament — is inappropriate.

Stalling can occur through other methods, none of which are mentioned here. Sometimes stalling has nothing to do with the speed of the characters activations and movement. One example is distracting your opponent with idle chat on his or her turn. (Yes, I have seen this happen more than once.)

Quote:
#4 - Reinforcements cannot score gambit points. This will encourage people to actually risk pieces worth points in order to score points.


Agree.

Quote:
#5 - General Obi Wan Kenobi needs an errata losing MotF2, and changing SSM to negating only the first 20pts of damage received.


Disagree, and to be honest I'm a little disappointed to still see this being touted. The change as presented here does not "flow" with the basic style. What I mean is, with each lightsaber form, we see the basic style and then a mastery style that builds on the basic style. The only way I would support this is if the basic style was changed to something similar (which I admit that IMO basic Soresu Style poses just as much of a problem as SSM).

Quote:
#6 - In any game that goes to the time limit, all figures who have taken 1/2 damage or more score as 1/2 their kill points (rounded down).


This would create a serious change to how the game is played. How do you address healing? What if I have a figure with 100 HP that took 80 damage every round, but got healed back to full health before the start of the next round? What about a character like Yoda on Kybuck or the IG-Lancer that swoops through and damages every enemy without really killing more than just the cheap fodder pieces? I'm not opposed to this one, but I think it needs serious testing before it is implemented. IMO its a "change for the sake of change" sort of concept.

Quote:
#7 - Change the 10 rule end game to include scoring Gambit points as qualifying to prevent the 10 round limit.


This solves multiple problems. Along with it, there needs to be a statement that the game ends when all of a player's pieces are defeated, and that a player without a piece on the map cannot win the game, regardless of points. (Yes, that really happened.)

Quote:
#8 - The final round of the National Championship will have a 2 hour time limit.


Disagree, but only because of the time constraints at the show. The hall closes at 4. Most hotels have a check-out time of noon, and cars parked in the garage have to be gone by 2 or 3 or get charged the parking fee for another day. Making the event a 2-hour one puts an unnecessary burden on the event management team, and its volunteers.

_________________
Click here to check out all the people who have realized the truth. Someday you will, too.

"I would really, really like to not have anything else happen at the end of the round other than things just ending." -- Sithborg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:28 am 
Sith Apprentice
Sith Apprentice

Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 3:30 pm
Posts: 265
Not owning the Endor map,why is it the exception? And spekaing of maps,how do you plan to make sure that everyone has a copy of the maps?

_________________
STOP IT! STOP IT! CAN'T YOU SEE THIS CONSTANT FIGHTING IS TEARING US ALL APART?-Carl

Things i've said in the past that got dismissed and now are being talked about:
restricting formats by set
Some chosing not to play the game if and when another company picks it up without the current mechanics


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:33 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
eMouse wrote:
The ban on Boba Fett BH for Duos is based on Disintegrate, correct?

Since the floor rules already have an instance of dropping special abilities (Rigid for Huge figures), would it be reasonable to have a rule that figures with Disintegration lose it for the Duos format?

Or was the choice to block BFBH for the format more than just Disintegrate?


I'm looking at a way to put Boba BH back in the DD game, but it won't happen until the next floor rules update.

_________________
Click here to check out all the people who have realized the truth. Someday you will, too.

"I would really, really like to not have anything else happen at the end of the round other than things just ending." -- Sithborg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:33 am 
Dark Lord of the Sith
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:38 am
Posts: 1959
I say Change the Round 6 rounds. I still feel half the time i dont even play 8 round games. You get a warning if your at 30 mins and only 2-3 rounds have been played still up to a judge. You get a game lose if you have only played 4 rounds. My whole idea is that I think we need to make people get game loses if they are only going to play 3-4 round games. I think number 6 might fix this.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:40 am 
Sith Apprentice
Sith Apprentice

Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:05 am
Posts: 269
I like #1. Though I suspect having one of the formats named "Huge Friendly" will get people asking you if Huge figures are not allowed in the other formats.

For #6, I think you want to word this so that it's 'figures with half or less of their starting HP remaining'. That wording should avoid the question of situations where a figure has managed to take 'more than half' of its HP in damage, but through healing still has more than half of their HP remaining.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:42 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:46 pm
Posts: 7960
Location: West Chester, OH (near Cincinnati)
billiv15 wrote:
As promised, I have been working on things I think we need to change for a while. Here are my proposals. Note, while I think each of them is a good idea, that does not mean we have to adopt everyone.

#1 - and this is regardless of number 2. We need to create a "Championship Format" for competitive play. Nickname's idea and I support it, is to change the Floor rules from focusing on the specific rules for different point limits, and instead use 3 new formats, that can be reported at any point level for DCI play.


I agree fully with this idea. I think the restricted map list for the "Championship" format is exactly what the game needs, plus it allows the majority of LGS's to run "Open" format, and utilize ALL the maps that WOTC makes available. I think this actually manages to have a "best of both worlds" thing to it, which is great.

Quote:
#2 - If we don't completely like #1, option 2 is moving the championship to 200pts. A 200pt champ, would create other issues, which I will deal with in #3. But it will also have a hyper restricted map list using the "championship format" even if that list might not be exactly the same.


I'm OK either way on this one. Most of my 200 point games at GenCon either finish within the time limit, or at least pretty close. Perhaps could look to making them 70 minute rounds if we went to 200 points. If #1 goes through though, I don't see as much reason for #2.

Quote:
#3 - Stalling and slow play. I will be writing a couple of floor rules updates regarding these issues. First, I will be adding the following:

Slow Play: Appropriate play speed is a speed that allows both players the opportunity to score the victory points of the format under the time limit. This does not mean that every single game will finish in time and it is judges discretion. In general, if games are going to the time limit with neither player reaching the point limit then the following are good guidelines to decide if slow play was in fact occuring. In a 100pt game 10 or more rounds were played. In 150pt or 200pt game, 8 or more rounds were completed. It is suggested that any game going less than 8 rounds without either player getting close to the victory conditions be considered grounds for a slow play warning for one or both of the players. It is the responsibility of the judge to maintain a fair game, and shrinking the game down to a low number of rounds restricts the ability of either player to complete the game.


I still think the following line that I suggested previously could be a good addition here:
"Judges should consider adding one or more rounds of additional play if it is both obvious that Slow Play has occurred and if adding additional rounds would allow one or both players to gain a significant number of victory points (i.e. if a key figure(s) has a high chance of being defeated in the next round)."

Personally, I hate the idea that if one player has been moving slowly, the other player gets within 1 round of finally beating that person, but time runs out and they end up losing. Judges should be reminded that they have the authority to grant extra rounds so that the game achieves it's TRUE outcome, not just whatever outcome it is at that round. If the game is such that Player A has been soundly "beaten", but has managed to stay 3 points ahead, simply because all his pieces are at 10 HP, but none are dead, then it judges should realize that Player B will quite likely be solidly winning after 1 more round, and therefore grant that extra round of combat.

However, if suggestion #6 is put into action, perhaps this becomes a mute point.

Quote:
Stalling: Intentionally slow playing a game. Stalling can also be an escalation for a player warned about slow play earlier in the game or tournament, but can also be a stand alone offense. It is defined as knowingly slowing the game down to prevent your opponent from having a legitimate chance at winning the game from it's outset. (Note, a player is not required to speed up in a situation where more than the minimal rounds of play have occurred, and it would only benefit the other player to do so). Slow play is a warning, and the judge should ask the player to move faster, and add as many rounds to play as necessary to reach a fair outcome. In many situations, a fair outcome cannot be reached, and in those cases, the judge should escalate it to stalling and issue a DQ from the game. For example, in a case where one player has been slow playing the entire time, has been warned, and still continues to turtle and hide his pieces from being defeated, after gaining a small points lead. Players should be encouraged by the judges to watch the time, and compare that to how fast their rounds are going. For example, in a 150pt game, if the minimum is considered 8 rounds, then an average round should not take more than 8 minutes. Players should also inform the judge as early as possible that a game is being played slow, so that the judge can watch it and issue warnings as appropriate.


I'm still not in favor of how that's worded. I do agree that a player shouldn't be forced to CHANGE their playing speed. But judges should also be aware of what is going on in a game, and whether the player needs 20 seconds, or 2 minutes in order to figure out a LOS. Yes, sometimes there are legitimate reasons to talk extra time to find a safe spot to hide. But there have been plenty of times where I've seen someone waste 3 minutes trying to hide one piece, when they really only had 1 option that they already noticed 15 seconds into their LOS checking. Granted, they are looking for a better option, so I can understand that. But what they end up doing is causing the game to go one round less, and when the other player inevitably rolls that 1 which would've won them the game, well, then what do you do?

No, players shouldn't be forced to speed up unnecessarily. But judges should also keep people from taking more time than necessary at the end of a round, even if it is to their advantage. Most times that people try to stall at the end of a game, is because they are more or less beaten, and the only way they can win is to hope their last big piece stays alive. Well, yes, finding a good hiding spot is one way to do that, but it's also a way to stall and keep the opponent from getting any more rounds of attacking. In 90% of those situations that I've seen, if the game was played without a time limit at that point, it would be obvious who would win and who would lose.

I'd just like the Stalling aspect of things to take that into account. No, players shouldn't be forced to speed up if it is to their disadvantage. But they shouldn't be allowed to play slower either. And if it is possible for them to speed up, whether it's to their disadvantage or not, per the "spirit" of finishing the game within the time limit, they should be speeding up their play appropriately.

Quote:
#4 - Reinforcements cannot score gambit points. This will encourage people to actually risk pieces worth points in order to score points.


I could go either way on this one. On the one hand, I agree with NickName, that a 5-3 lead is no different than the 5-0 really. All it would do is serve to decrease the usefulness of Universe Lobot, which has already gone down a little bit due to Lobot CLO. I'm OK with it either way, but in general would disagree at this point I think.

Quote:
#5 - General Obi Wan Kenobi needs an errata losing MotF2, and changing SSM to negating only the first 20pts of damage received.


There are a ton of different opinions regarding GOWK out there. This one has been fine with me for the most part. Even without taking away MOTF2, I like the rest of this change, as it means pieces like the IG-86 Droids or Darth Bane have a niche to some degree. I'd almost rather see Mettle come off of him rather than MOTF2, but I don't feel strongly either way.

Quote:
#6 - In any game that goes to the time limit, all figures who have taken 1/2 damage or more score as 1/2 their kill points (rounded down).


I think this is a great idea, and as I said above, should alleviate problems where players run at the end of a game just to keep the small points lead. If it's a close game and that 1/2 points would put the other player in the lead, then it will force people to play to engage, rather than run. If who wins will not change based on the 1/2 points idea, then it's likely that one player was fully in command of the game anyways, and so should still be a good indication of the rightful winner. I personally think this one would make a nice impact on the end-of-game-stalling-to-hide-a-key-piece problems.

Quote:
#7 - Change the 10 rule end game to include scoring Gambit points as qualifying to prevent the 10 round limit.


Makes sense, and I see no reason that this shouldn't be in there already. Just no one has thought about abusing it yet. Typically, it's tough to get that 51 point lead and then hide ALL of your pieces. I realize Teth gives that sort of option, so I think this change will be a good one.

Quote:
#8 - The final round of the National Championship will have a 2 hour time limit.


Sure, works for me! I'd almost be fine with saying that the top 8 for the National Championships have no time limits for the game, but that the Judges caution all players to proceed under good sportsmanship and play with a 1-hour limit in mind.

_________________
-Aaron
Mand'alor
"You either die a hero, or you live to see yourself become the villain."
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:43 am 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
jonnyb815 wrote:
I say Change the Round 6 rounds. I still feel half the time i dont even play 8 round games. You get a warning if your at 30 mins and only 2-3 rounds have been played still up to a judge. You get a game lose if you have only played 4 rounds. My whole idea is that I think we need to make people get game loses if they are only going to play 3-4 round games. I think number 6 might fix this.


Nope, 6 rounds is generally not enough. The fact that many players (you included, but certainly not only you Jonny) regularly play 6 round games (which not coincidentally, typically go to time), does not mean it is an acceptable amount of time.

You see part of the problem has been that we have accepted for a long time, that games in tournaments just "have to go to time" and that there is nothing we can do about it. Sorry, you can play the game fast enough to complete it, and it doesn't matter what squad you have chosen. Or at the very least, you can make an effort to do so.

@Boris - your suggestions actually have to deal with distinguishing stalling from slow play. I would be happy to include some of those issues in the "Stalling" section, so that judges can have something to look for to determine the difference, as the two have very different defined penalties in the floor rules.

For those that are not aware, Slow play escalation goes, "Warning, Warning, Warning". At any time the judge can award as many extra rounds as they deem necessary to reach what they consider a fair outcome to the game. They can also at any time issue a game loss, especially in situations where the game has been dramatically altered by the slow play to prevent a fair outcome from occurring.

If a judge determines stalling has occurred, they immediately DQ the player. There is no warning. Boris is talking about stalling tactics. And I think most of us, for a long time, have been trying to make this distinction. However, it hasn't worked. Stalling is almost impossible to prove, unless the player makes it obvious, or you as the judge know the player well enough to "guess" at what they intend. It can be done, but it's tough. Slow play, on the other hand, is easily measurable, and can be dealt with, which then covers stalling. Stalling becomes for the most part, nothing more than dealing with obvious situations of it, and as an escalation of warning the same player for slow play multiple times.

It is a much better system. But to be clear, the guidelines are simply judging guidelines, not hard and fast rules. It actually changes 0 in the power and control that judges have. Instead it gives them a clearer picture of what slow play is, and what they can do about it.

_________________
Image

http://www.bloomilk.com/Squads/Search.aspx?UserID=29


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:48 am 
Sith Apprentice
Sith Apprentice

Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:05 am
Posts: 269
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
eMouse wrote:
The ban on Boba Fett BH for Duos is based on Disintegrate, correct?

Since the floor rules already have an instance of dropping special abilities (Rigid for Huge figures), would it be reasonable to have a rule that figures with Disintegration lose it for the Duos format?

Or was the choice to block BFBH for the format more than just Disintegrate?


I'm looking at a way to put Boba BH back in the DD game, but it won't happen until the next floor rules update.


Will this also consider Betrayal and Internal Strife (more the former than the later). Both have a similar effect as Disintegrate, with the two differences that it might be possible to reroll out of the '1' and that the figure effected switches sides instead of being defeated.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:49 am 
Imperial Dignitaries
Imperial Dignitaries

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 225
Location: Renton, WA
I think instead it should be a minimum round limit then -- 8 or so. Problem is, it could drag games out for a while, making tournaments harder to run. Good luck tackling that one.

My SSM fix (trying to keep it in line with Soresu): On a save of 11, ignore all damage done from nonadjacent enemies, and the first twenty damage done by an adjacent enemy.


Makes melee more important, stops Speedy Cannon from still whomping GOWK (Han Cannon laughs at your measly 20 damage reduction). Drop Mettle first, as I'm a fan of incremental downward changes, as opposed to kneecapping the piece. :-p If GOWK is still surviving unnecessarily long after FPs run out, (and it isnt because of hot dice, which, face it, can almost keep Jarael alive indefinitely as well).

Or, keep old school SSM, but have it replace attacks. :D Would need to word the ability differently (basically, this ability lasts until this piece is activated again)

How's that for a SSM fix?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 323 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights style by Scott Stubblefield