logo

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 323 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 17  Next

Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:11 pm 
The One True Sith Lord
The One True Sith Lord
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:12 pm
Posts: 2026
Location: Nixa,Missouri
Cybit wrote:
Grand Moff Boris wrote:

I'm sorry. I just don't see it as a black and white issue, based on personal experiences. Some people simply don't have the mental prowess to play at the same speed as others, and these guidelines seem to, IMO, discriminate against people in that category. (I know it is not intentional, but nevertheless.)


Aye. This is a game. I have 12 year olds and 8 year olds playing against 35+ year olds. They are trying their hardest, but it takes them a long time to play. These kids are pretty smart by all measures, they're still just, well, kids. This game needs to be more inviting, not less. Even in Magic, they don't have a set time per turn. To do so breaks too many things. (I'm aware that MtG has its own issues, but the principle at this high of a level is still the same).

Grand Moff Boris wrote:
These guidelines will have people coming out of the woodwork, looking to blame their bad games - losses - on the fact that they didn't play the recommended number of rounds. I don't really want to have another knock-down drag-out over this, but I just think you are opening a door that we may never be able to close, one that introduces a lot of unnecessary headache for judges.


This will also be true, especially if we're trying to make the game competitive at a high level. I think the way Dean handled it by walking by, and seeing if a game had not reached full tilt engagement, decided whether to add rounds or not, is a good way to start approaching such things. In the end, the key is to create incentives for those who engage quickly, and dis-incentives for those who play back and take their time.

Actually, the entire slow play problem can be really blamed on the proliferation of damage per activation versus how slowly HP seems to rise. People play slow because its not that a piece takes a bit of damage if he's left out in the wrong spot, the piece will flat out die, almost regardless of how big it is.

If you want to fix slow play, fix *that*, and see how many games go to time afterward?


I think that make sense Krupal.

The difference I am thinking and maybe this is what BIll is driving at. The guidelines would be effective in the Championship format.

Let's be honest if you come play int he Champs you should be held to higher standard than the regular tournies. I think in the context of Championship format for the game that we could have the guideline discussion. again a guideline not hard line rule or anything would seem ok.

_________________
ImageImage
"What is your bidding, My Master?"

Collection: 934/934

SWM DCI Content Manager


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:16 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
Cybit wrote:
Aye. This is a game. I have 12 year olds and 8 year olds playing against 35+ year olds. They are trying their hardest, but it takes them a long time to play. These kids are pretty smart by all measures, they're still just, well, kids. This game needs to be more inviting, not less. Even in Magic, they don't have a set time per turn. To do so breaks too many things. (I'm aware that MtG has its own issues, but the principle at this high of a level is still the same).


This is why it's a guideline. Obviously, children and new players at a LGS would not fall into the same category as hardcore players at Gencon or a Regional contending for first place.

Quote:
I think the way Dean handled it by walking by, and seeing if a game had not reached full tilt engagement, decided whether to add rounds or not, is a good way to start approaching such things. In the end, the key is to create incentives for those who engage quickly, and dis-incentives for those who play back and take their time.


Hm. All Bill has done is put what Dean did in the Championships (and other events he judged) in written form to share with other judges. I'm not sure how you can like it in execution, but not in documentation.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:21 pm 
Imperial Dignitaries
Imperial Dignitaries

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 225
Location: Renton, WA
In my experience NN, even my players who are better and tend to want to play faster can differentiate between a younger player taking his time, and another veteran player who is milking the clock. At that point, it is the player's responsibility to ask for a judge, or, if he wishes to be more discreet, excuse himself from the table and talk to the judge on the side. (Also, one of those 12 year old kids nearly took out Omnus first round during regionals with B&B, and will almost always give shinja/Omnus/Joelker/players of that caliber a rough match, if not beat them. :D Take him lightly and you'll lose)

Also, once you give people a number of rounds, even as a guideline, it will end up turning into a hard and fast rule. (See comments further below re-iterating this) I liked what Dean did because he used the context of the situation, and his own experience, to formulate his judgment. No player can complain "well, he didn't give us all 8 rounds! I could have pulled it out!". The whining could be asinine.

@ Dean: How would DCI rankings be affected with these new format changes? Almost all of our weekly tournaments are DCI sanctioned, and I know all of my players would want to be in the "championship" (ie, DCI ranked) bracket. Also, as much as this sucks (and this is not bill's fault), guidelines almost *always* turn into hard and fast rules. Players (generally) like hard and fast rules, judges (generally) like leeway. The paradox of all games like Minis. Though if Championship format is *just* stuff like Regionals and GenCon/PAX/Bloomilk Championship, then I say add a 4th level, something like Tournament level, which would just be what a DCI tournament is currently.

As for huge friendly, I just say wipe out Rigid. Would anything become broken if Rigid was removed from the game?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:28 pm 
The One True Sith Lord
The One True Sith Lord
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:12 pm
Posts: 2026
Location: Nixa,Missouri
ok from my talks with Bill and NN about this subject because I have been invloved with quite a bit of the thought process.

The way I understand the Championship format would be very big tournies, Regionals, and Gencon Tournies. The championship format guidelines, map lists and rules (for lack of a better word there) would only be in effect there.

So the normal DCI game and Ratings would not have anything to do with it other than the fact rules become more strict because it is basically the same as the Magic Pro Tour (sorry I know but I could not think of any other example)



Also for everyone that thought I did ok job judging dont be quick to pat me ont he back. I thought I did ok.... but honestly I am still sick for an incident involving Jason Tanner's brother Nick.... I have asked Jim to give me a written critique of the job I did because in the end my goal was to service you guys and give you a fun and fair championship. If I came up short in any way then I feel I have failed you guys. So I am really slow to hand out kudos for the job done.

Being that I was the head judge it all falls on me. I will tell that I was totally impressed by the job done by the guys wrking for me in the champs and can only praise them for their work.

_________________
ImageImage
"What is your bidding, My Master?"

Collection: 934/934

SWM DCI Content Manager


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:35 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
My brother is totally cool with it--he doesn't blame you. And we're friendly with his opponent. That small moment in time sucked a bit for him, but 10 minutes later we were back to having fun. And my drop was not influenced in any way by that event. I already knew if I didn't have a winning record at lunch and my brother was in the same boat I was done, just as I knew if I made the top 8 by some stroke of fortune I would have conceded to let the 9 player play in my place on Sunday.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:12 pm 
Mandalore
Mandalore
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:06 pm
Posts: 1209
Location: Aboard the Exocarrier Resalute, waiting to free all SWMer's from Tyrnany
I commented on this over in the RAC, but there's more here then there is there. So, my remarks are as follows.


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 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.


I see some potential to this, just don't know if the custom maps would be acceptable, just for the fact that they are not excessable by all. And it's hard to plan for something you've never used before. But all in all decent ideas.

billiv15 wrote:
#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 love 200, I think 150 really forces the meta to a sharpe point, and 200 is good and diverse, as for resetting the championship, IDK. Especially because I've never played in one that wasn't more then 150.

billiv15 wrote:
#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: ...
This is gonna be the most difficult to nail down, determining deliberate slow play is the one of the hardest thing to determine. Especially by a judge who hasn't seen it all. And point totals only give you a limited amount of info. FGranted it gives you some and that at times is enough, but not always.

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


This I'm perfectly fine with. Kill points still work as normal.

billiv15 wrote:
#5 - General Obi Wan Kenobi needs an errata losing MotF2, and changing SSM to negating only the first 20pts of damage received.


Hum...

billiv15 wrote:
#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 like this alot. It still forces engagement, and provides a boost to healing that we haven't seen before. But I would probably set it on a figures HP ration, say only figs with more then 40 HP or 50 HP. Take a snowtrooper, 20 hp, takes a hit to 10 damage, now that's 3 points, IDK, I like it but I'm thinking of ways it could be manipulated or how someone might do funny math with damage near the end of a game just to avoid the damage margian. It might be better to award poitns for any damage and not just half.
1 point for ever 10 damage dealt to a character that survives the skirmish, then it still gives points but is far less abusive.
Just a though

billiv15 wrote:
#7 - Change the 10 rule end game to include scoring Gambit points as qualifying to prevent the 10 round limit.


No kidding, If a player has reached the point total for the game, there's no reason to play two or three more rounds.

billiv15 wrote:
#8 - The final round of the National Championship will have a 2 hour time limit.


I don't have any experince ot comment on this, but I think the argument about the venue and hotels and check out and all that is a legitament one.

_________________
"Rolling a Natural 20, there is no other feeling like it."

Member of the SWMRAC
Member of the Completed till the End and Beyond Club

Come rate my squads on Bloomilk...http://www.bloomilk.com/Squads/Search.a ... dalsiandon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:14 pm 
One of The Ones
One of The Ones
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8395
NickName wrote:
And some people prefer to play the game and determine if they won or lost based on actually winning or losing the game, not on how they're doing at some arbitrary stopping point with arbitrary tiebreakers and the rules as they are discrimate against people in that category.


I understand what you're saying, and agree, to an extent. But how is this suggestion any less "arbitrary?" "Well, you didn't play 8 rounds, you have to play another round..." I stand by the opinion it is not black-and-white. Honestly, I don't think all of my games on Saturday went 8 rounds, but I didn't keep track either. I never felt like the game was moving too slowly, or that my opponent stalled. I hope no one felt that way about me, there were some damn hard choices.

_________________
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 5:16 pm 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
NickName wrote:
On another topic, parking in the adjoining mall lot Sunday ran me $5. Move your car if your hotel is an issue. I'll pick it up for any Gencon judge who's in this pickle. It really seems like a non-issue. I think a bit of extra time in this one case might be worth the slight inconvenience. (But I don't think it needs to be in the rules at all. Time limits are TO discretion already and we don't need to "waste" space in the document for this lone item. Jim says it once and done i he wants to do it.)


Yeah, clearly that isn't meant for the floor rules :) Same with GOWK fix. But I mention them anyways, as this isn't entirely meant for the floor rules.

Back to the point about the Open format you made, if we cannot do the optional rules as part of the floor rules, then I would remove Endor from the list for Open probably. But I am not particularly attached to either idea. What I want is a way for players to play DCI games using all (or most) of WotC released material. That to me, is very important.

_________________
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 5:20 pm 
One of The Ones
One of The Ones
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8395
NickName wrote:
Hm. All Bill has done is put what Dean did in the Championships (and other events he judged) in written form to share with other judges. I'm not sure how you can like it in execution, but not in documentation.


1. We can't trust every judge to handle slow play/stalling issues the way Dean did. I had 2 games go to time, and Dean didn't ask us how many rounds we played. Once it's in written form, I believe there will be judges that will completely base their decisions on whether a game that went to time deserves a warning on how many rounds were played. Period. I just don't think it's accurate or fair to do so, either.

2. I share the opinion that the "guidelines" are based on personal issues that not everyone has had. I don't think the suggestions - while well-intended - solve the underlying problems, they just (IMHO) add a layer of rules-lawyering that I think some players will try to use to manipulate legitimate losses into victories. A less confident judge will fall back on those guidelines as hard-and-fast rules that must be abided. That is a concern to me.

_________________
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 5:28 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
Quote:
What I want is a way for players to play DCI games using all (or most) of WotC released material. That to me, is very important.

Me too. That and Keep It Simple, Stupid.

#7 is pretty much a sure thing. And then possibly #1, #4 and #6 if they're popular enough could go in the floor rules in January and I think WotC will not bat an eyelash.

(If people go ape about a 200 champs, that of course as well but it doesn't need to be in the rules as this option is available to Jim any time and is not mutually exclusive with any decision regarding #1 now.)

WotC decides what to do about #5.

#3 concept appears as a seperate article, or perhaps in abbreviated form as an appendix or something. Not sure on the best way to convey this kind of info. No matter how much I agree with it in principle, I'm a bit hesitent to say it belongs in the doc itself. Really unsure here so I'm glad we have a lot of time to think it through...

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:38 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
I understand what you're saying, and agree, to an extent. But how is this suggestion any less "arbitrary?" "Well, you didn't play 8 rounds, you have to play another round..." I stand by the opinion it is not black-and-white. Honestly, I don't think all of my games on Saturday went 8 rounds, but I didn't keep track either. I never felt like the game was moving too slowly, or that my opponent stalled. I hope no one felt that way about me, there were some damn hard choices.


It will never be black and while until all games finish (which of course will be ideal.) If you and your opponent feel the game is proceding at a reasonable pace then neither of you will be alerting a judge, and really nothing is likely to be done. We're back to the point where hard choices don't grant you unlimited time to make them as outlined in the UTR. You must make the best decision you can while still attempting to play at a speed that allows the possibility of the game to complete. And your opponent should have the courtesy to do the same. The idea is to set some very broad posts for how quickly a game should be moving along to actually reach that goal of finishing (or close to it) within the allotted time.

I do worry a bit about granting multiple extra rounds. I can see the claims of favoritism and judge manipulation when round after round is granted until player X wins.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:03 pm 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
NickName wrote:
#7 is pretty much a sure thing. And then possibly #1, #4 and #6 if they're popular enough could go in the floor rules in January and I think WotC will not bat an eyelash.
Yep, I agree. Those ones are the possible floor rules updates.

NickName wrote:
(If people go ape about a 200 champs, that of course as well but it doesn't need to be in the rules as this option is available to Jim any time and is not mutually exclusive with any decision regarding #1 now.)
Exactly. It's a suggestion that has been made, multiple times to me, by different people, so I include it for discussion. Obviously, it's in Jim's hands.

NickName wrote:
WotC decides what to do about #5.
Agreed, I included it simply to let people know that people are working on the issue.

NickName wrote:
#3 concept appears as a seperate article, or perhaps in abbreviated form as an appendix or something. Not sure on the best way to convey this kind of info. No matter how much I agree with it in principle, I'm a bit hesitent to say it belongs in the doc itself. Really unsure here so I'm glad we have a lot of time to think it through...
I think what needs to be in the floor rules is this statement or something like it.
"Games are intended to be played to completion within the time frame given." And then something that differentiates slow play from stalling (intentional slow play). Heck, as it is, there have been 2-3 people posting in this thread who are still confusing the two things as if they are the same. Since these are guidelines, making it some kind of appendix makes sense to me. But something, even just the simple statement I posted here, needs to be in the floor rules I believe.

_________________
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 6:58 pm 
One of The Ones
One of The Ones
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8395
NickName wrote:
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
I understand what you're saying, and agree, to an extent. But how is this suggestion any less "arbitrary?" "Well, you didn't play 8 rounds, you have to play another round..." I stand by the opinion it is not black-and-white. Honestly, I don't think all of my games on Saturday went 8 rounds, but I didn't keep track either. I never felt like the game was moving too slowly, or that my opponent stalled. I hope no one felt that way about me, there were some damn hard choices.


It will never be black and while until all games finish (which of course will be ideal.) If you and your opponent feel the game is proceding at a reasonable pace then neither of you will be alerting a judge, and really nothing is likely to be done. We're back to the point where hard choices don't grant you unlimited time to make them as outlined in the UTR. You must make the best decision you can while still attempting to play at a speed that allows the possibility of the game to complete. And your opponent should have the courtesy to do the same. The idea is to set some very broad posts for how quickly a game should be moving along to actually reach that goal of finishing (or close to it) within the allotted time.

I do worry a bit about granting multiple extra rounds. I can see the claims of favoritism and judge manipulation when round after round is granted until player X wins.


I think its fine to grant extra rounds, and in fact that is already being done. What is new is telling players to expect to play X number of rounds, and if they don't but think they can win with one more round, to call a judge and make the judge let them play another round, even though it might not be warranted.

_________________
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 7:18 pm 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
I think its fine to grant extra rounds, and in fact that is already being done. What is new is telling players to expect to play X number of rounds, and if they don't but think they can win with one more round, to call a judge and make the judge let them play another round, even though it might not be warranted.


Guideline.

Abuse can only happen if the judge allows it to happen. That is nothing different than the current rules.

And if games are going to time, with basically nothing happening, a player who is "victimized" by this has no one to blame but themselves in all honesty. In high level competitive play, which is what we are talking about, both players are aware of these rules, and both players are responsible to call the judge as needed earlier in the game than at the time limit.

Would you as a judge feel entitled to grant the extra round in the situation you described? I wouldn't necessarily do so. It would depend on the other factors of the game, players involved and the day.

_________________
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 7:30 pm 
One of The Ones
One of The Ones
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8395
billiv15 wrote:
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
I think its fine to grant extra rounds, and in fact that is already being done. What is new is telling players to expect to play X number of rounds, and if they don't but think they can win with one more round, to call a judge and make the judge let them play another round, even though it might not be warranted.


Guideline.

Abuse can only happen if the judge allows it to happen. That is nothing different than the current rules.

And if games are going to time, with basically nothing happening, a player who is "victimized" by this has no one to blame but themselves in all honesty. In high level competitive play, which is what we are talking about, both players are aware of these rules, and both players are responsible to call the judge as needed earlier in the game than at the time limit.

Would you as a judge feel entitled to grant the extra round in the situation you described? I wouldn't necessarily do so. It would depend on the other factors of the game, players involved and the day.


*Shrug*

I really can't disagree with anything being said here. I can envision 30 hands going up in the air when time is called that only X rounds were played, where X is less than the "guideline," which I guess is where the real problem for me is: most players will try to push it as mandate, not a guideline. You yourself said to JonnyB that you think his 6-round games are 2 rounds too short. I couldn't tell from the post if it was because you have watched his games, or if you were making a general statement intended as a counter-argument to what he was saying.

_________________
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 7:38 pm 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
I really can't disagree with anything being said here. I can envision 30 hands going up in the air when time is called that only X rounds were played, where X is less than the "guideline," which I guess is where the real problem for me is: most players will try to push it as mandate, not a guideline. You yourself said to JonnyB that you think his 6-round games are 2 rounds too short. I couldn't tell from the post if it was because you have watched his games, or if you were making a general statement intended as a counter-argument to what he was saying.


Both. I think his point was exemplary of the mindset of many of our players. We play 5-6 round games with regularity, and have adapted to think that we are playing at an acceptable pace. It isn't a judgment on Jonny, or on anyone else for that matter. It's just a good example of where we are as a community.

I guess to counter your scenario, all that needed to happen was for the judge to set different expectations to start the day off, which is no different than what we do now already. We repeatedly tell the players to call as soon as they think slow play is affecting the game, and not only at the end. That doesn't mean someone shouldn't call at the end, but at that point, they have put themselves at the mercy of the judge to figure it out after the fact, rather than giving the judge the best opportunity to see what is going on for themselves.

If I thought our judges need strict rules, I would have proposed that. But from my experiences, both as a judge, and as a player, and from the countless conversations I had with TOs, judges, players and so on over the last 2 years on the topic, I don't think that is needed. What they need are guidelines that help them define some of these things better, without taking away their ability to be situational as needed.

_________________
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 7:40 pm 
Unnamed Stormtrooper
Unnamed Stormtrooper

Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 8:33 am
Posts: 14
Location: Minnesota
This conversation is very interesting to me. I haven't seen this as an issue in my limited experience, so I'm very curious to see how this shakes out. (The only time it comes up in our local arena is that a few of us wind up serving as encyclopedias for other players, so we often take too long to play our turns. We're too busy answering other questions. But that's dropped off as people get more familiar with the rules.)

I do think, however, if there is a concern about slow play, and keeping the time to 60 minutes, moving to 200 point squads in the Championship seems to work against that impulse. Maybe I'm just too inexperienced (and I grant that possibility), but even the most experienced players in my venue seem to have trouble finishing a 200 point match in 60 minutes. Just an observation.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:15 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
I can envision 30 hands going up in the air when time is called that only X rounds were played, where X is less than the "guideline," which I guess is where the real problem for me is: most players will try to push it as mandate, not a guideline.


Hm. I don't see it. We're talking about trying to (slowly) push from averaging 10 minute rounds to 8 minute rounds. That's not revolutionary change.

And we were pretty vocal this year about the option to grant extra rounds when needed and I haven't heard any concerns this was abused which would be the basically the same fear a week ago going into Gencon. I just don't think this community works on the same priciples as your history with the Magic community where a lot of your opinions formed. (Granted, there remains value in knowing that history even if it doesn't always apply.)

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:27 pm 
The One True Sith Lord
The One True Sith Lord
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:12 pm
Posts: 2026
Location: Nixa,Missouri
I would also chime in that as a judge in that situation if 30 hands go up at the end of round the only ones being considered are the ones that called a judge earlier in the round. Otherwise I will be assuming they are stretching after a tough game.

I think the pre-tourney instructions were clear on how we as a team of judges wanted things to proceed. I also think the message was heard because only one player seemed to not get the message. That player being a nice person is also a notorious slow player and recieved a warning during the tourney.

Again I think guidelines are fine. I mean some of the stuff talked about in the Universal Floor Rules are no more than guidelines. Even the concrete stuff is open to interpretation. So I think Guidelines just give players an idea where they need to be but situations may dictate differently.

_________________
ImageImage
"What is your bidding, My Master?"

Collection: 934/934

SWM DCI Content Manager


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:30 pm 
Really Cool Alien from a Cantina
Really Cool Alien from a Cantina
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 3:58 pm
Posts: 198
Location: Lurking on forums
Don't play competitive but won't a good guide line or rule for slow play be: in 150 game a 75-100pt+ score is need for a win(after the 1/2 hp tie break comes into effect) else it's a tie? It would show a solid amount of action has happen in the game, which to me is more important than the number of rounds that has pass. It also harder for people to plan to play to 100 score game than to plan to play 6-8 rounds.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 323 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 17  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Darth Ruthven and 10 guests


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