With the Wotc forums ocming back this week (finally) and some of mickey's comments about the loudest voicest and then a comment by Boris over at bloo

[quote=Boris]No one is making anyone create an account at Gamers, but I think it warrants saying that if you don't have/don't want an account over there and instead want to discuss it over here exclusively, you have isolated yourself from the conversation.[/quote]

I'm just worried that once the main forums get back online that anything thats said over there will be brushed aside with comments of "that was already covered at such and such site" which is something I wouldn't like to see happen,even if it is justified.

I hope someone understands this,cuz it made sense in my head.

I'm not really as concerned with GOWK being banned as I guess the process to banning. I know I participated in the discussion a bit and it seemed like a very mixed field of opinions. I know I saw a post where someone was watching the results from the regionals and said they had mixed feelings on what the data was showing. I have heard all the concerns that the game would have been hurt if that piece was not banned. I'm still not convinced, but I don't want to start an argument over it.

My concern is how does the discussion part end up in a banning? I don't think I saw any polls or places to vote. Was the decision made by a committee, an individual, WoTC? I have to admit I really don't understand the process. If we have a handful of individuals making decisions that affect all DCI players are we given any kind of representation? I'm not saying that the people making the decisions are not capable because I know the guys speaking in this thread are of great caliber. I just think a few people might have a different interest than everyone else. Also if we want to encourage people to partake in forum discussions shouldn't they be able to be involved in the decision making process as well?

Also, for the slow play, since it seems scoring for a win is basically how you win is there a way to put in a point deduction for slow play? I mentioned this a couple of times but not really seen any feedback negative or positive yet. Can't you just give a -5 deduction each turn someone does not score a kill or gambit points? That will prevent people from hiding and waiting until the end. It will force people to play a bit more aggressive and may even speed up the game a bit since they will be forced to score some points.

The SWM design team has final say on all changes. They took an active part in the discussion of the GOWK banning.

In more typical cases (like the map list changes) they're more likely to just trust the judgement of the volunteers (me in the past, and now Dean, and to an extent Jim as well) who have updated the document and have a ton of DCI experience but the SWM design team still has the final say if they choose to overrule something.



No. This game is not designed by democracy. We don't get to vote on what characters we want in sets, what stats they should have, or anything else. We (players) have been given more control of the shape of the DCI game, and those who have been given the responsibility are entrusted to make those decisions on behalf of the whole community. It's inevitible that our vision will not fully mesh with every single player's opinion every time, but this discussion is the place to voice your opinion and disagreeing with anyone in particular doesn't mean your voice isn't being heard.

Well I do applaud all of you for all the extra work you all put into this game to try to make it better for everyone. I don't want any of you to think otherwise. I know you all do your best to try to do what is best to make the game more enjoyable. My thanks for that.

I didn't really consider the comment to be a positive one, Tanner. In fact, if this goes into effect, I expect to see more of this, especially at the national level, where people who are behind in points play more cautiously in the hopes of the last-minute "come-from-behind victory" and when they don't get it, calling a judge over to try to squeeze in one more round so they can win.

Only because you separated it from its context.

What context makes it helpful? Do you have a position or not? Do you think your position is the right one? Then why not say that?

If there is no agreement as to how the game should be played (that's the only extra "context" that I can find left out of what i quoted), then how are we supposed to arrive at rules. Of course anyone can take minis and play a game with whatever rules they want, but the question at hand is what is the game supposed to be. If there is no answer we can agree on, then we aren't playing the same game.

What would happen? Just look at the success of Dynamic Duo.
Activation limits make for better timed games.
It's a change that should have been made years ago IMHO.
It's a 1 hour game but 20 some activation squads with tempo control are still legal.

p.s. I agree with Boris in his assesment of the proposed changes..

I know you intended it differently, thus the smilie.

You're saying a guideline that gives a framework about what constitutes slow play is somehow going to get people to ever so slightly slow down when they're behind just enough that their opponent won't call a judge or that a judge won't catch on but enough to subtly maneuver the game in their favor? I just don't see this level of abuse as a viable problem to worry about. You're basically saying there's the potential to abuse it just as badly as players abuse the current situation so let's do nothing. I'd rather try something.

Here's what I see happening from a guideline:

Most LGS's won't know about it or read it at all. The online regulars will become (more) aware that the game is intended to be played to the end even if this requires some compromise in making the "perfect" move every move and some subset of them will make a good faith effort to speed up as will some subset of judges start making a good faith effort to make sure their players are clear about the intend of the game and we'll see more situations where an extra round is added, or a player recieves a verbal request (not even a warning) to speed up.

That's pretty much all I expect to hear about preceding the 2010 regionals and gencon.

I'm saying it already happens, and with this they will have an "out."



I'm not saying do "nothing." I have made some suggestions, none of which have really met with any level of support. (Then again, I never pushed the ideas very hard, either.)

Clearly you have misunderstood the point of the post. Aaron made some blanket statements about how the game was supposed to be played in a way that came across as facts. My post was meant as a friendly reminder that those statements were from his viewpoint, and not necessarily indicative of the entire community, nor is the philosophy of the game a universal standard. I doubt very many people give it that level of thought until something that directly affects them happens (ie the banning of GOWK, as mentioned earlier).



Yes I have a position and I have been stating it all along. A lot of the conversation has not been seen by the general public, and that was for the best.



That is not at all what was said, nor was it the context. Aaron made the comment that the game is supposed to be kill-em-all FIRST and that points are a "tiebreaker" formula. That's his opinion, and not one that is universally shared. I know many people - myself included - who pay heavy attention to the points score throughout the game. Do I try to finish? Absolutely! But I sure as hell do not intend to be behind in points if the game goes to time. Because the DCI rules don't care about engagement, whether they were originally meant to or not, whether some people think that is supposed to be the true spirit of the game or not.

These "guidelines" won't change that. If the judge is having to issue additional rounds, well then guess what - the games are still going to time. So that is my real problem with this, and why I say this idea doesn't really solve anything. I can play slower and more deliberately, cautiously, against a difficult squad that is built to score points, and then call a judge when we only go 5 or 6 rounds to try to squeeze another round in there if my "come-from-behind" play doesn't pan out.

There are other ways to make people play faster, and probably some that haven't been thought of yet. While - as I have said - appreciate that Bill and I have the same philosophy about the issue - we just don't come to the same conclusions.

I've read the entire thread and I have to admit it made me think about how the game is played at my LGS. Ever since I started playing SWM, I grew as a player. I went from the being a new and inexperienced player to being one of the more knowledgeable ones. In these 3 years or so, I've learned to play cautiously instead of always rushing my opponent. I've learned the importance of getting gambit points. I've learned that a game never finishes and that you have to be ahead in points before the clock ends the game. I hadn't realized how my perception of the game and it's objectives and been tainted by slow play. Our games almost never finish and it is certainly because of slow play.

I now understand how insidious that problem is. It gradually changes the way you play the game and how you build your squads. If you go in knowing that you're not going to play the game to it's conclusion, you look for a points lead rather than to the destruction of your opponent's squad. It distorts everything about the way a game is played. It makes people much more cautious about losing pieces, especially in those late rounds. A bait strategy can cost you the game in the last round, when you only have time for the set up and not for the execution. Kind of a vicious circle, actually. The ending point being the one-round games Bill mentionned. That is what slow play eventually leads to: a one-move, risk-free way of getting a points lead, than sitting on it. I've seen many games with no exchange for most of the game, both players only setting up a single killshot that would hand them the victory in the last round.

I've certainly been guilty of slow play, but I could say the same of most other players at my LGS. Over the years, our crowd has gradually changed, including younger players who look to us more experienced ones too learn the ropes. From now on, I intend to concentrate on playing as quickly as possible. If nothing else, I will lead by exemple. I will also never use maps that encourage the one-kill strategy, as I see the more open maps as an aggravating factor to slow play. Planning an advance strategy on Taris is a nigtmare in the best circumstances, so I plan on using maps that actually encourage confrontation. That being said, I fully agree with the restiction of the legal map list as a way to make games more interesting and to play them to their conclusion. I also agree with the creation of guidelines helping judges determine what constitues slow play.

Thanks to everyone for opening my eyes to what the game used to be (and should have remained).

Here's a thought: go ALL THE WAY with the guidelines.

Set round minimums:

100 pts. - 10 rounds
150 pts. - 8 rounds
200 pts. - 6 rounds

Games stop at the end of the established round based on point build, regardless of time. Games that don't reach the required number rounds within 1-hour are a double loss at the judge's discretion.

This still doesn't address Aaron's concern (which I tend to agree with him about what the spirit of the game should be even if its not right now) that players will get a points lead and then hide.

Finding a fair solution to that will take a lot of thought.

Thanks for writing that. You've just about perfectly encapsulated the nature of the problem and how it's become accepted as the norm over time. I expect your story will be hitting home for a LOT of people. Great post.

Intentionally stopping the game early is just as much a subversion of the intent of the game as playing at a speed where there is no realistic chance it will finish. And I don't see the benefit a preventing two fast players from actually finishing if they're playing at a speed capable of doing so.

I don't think we're at the point where "manditory" (granted, you said judges discretion so I'm not sure how manditory you mean, thus quotes) penalties are a good idea either. I'd much rather leave it in the judge's hands for the most part. We've let this problem build up over years and I don't think it's fair to instantly alienate players who have been playing "within the rules" (or as we've allowed them to be played) for that amount of time.

I think the suggestion works better if you take off the round cap. But then it's just sort of back to the guidelines so I'm interested in hearing why you think making it both a min and a max solves the issue better.

You've made this suggestion a couple times over the last page or two of the thread. The notion that you could play slower, hoping for the judge to grant you that extra round....

Honestly....why would you do that??? That just seems silly to me. Play at the normal speed, and get in that extra round without having to get the judge involved at the end. If you play slow hoping the judge will grant extra rounds...well, that's a 50/50 chance he won't agree with you, and then you lose! That just doesn't make any sense to me.

In addition, again, this is absolutely no different than what can be accomplished under the current rules. The judge still has the decision whether to add more rounds or not. It's just with the 8-round 'guideline', as I said previously, the player might have a tad bit more ammo for trying to convince the judge to grant extra rounds. However, I would expect the opponent to complain in that scenario that the other guy was playing slow anyways. As a judge, I would think that would be a pretty cut and dry scenario where no extra rounds would be granted. Obviously, if the judge never saw what was going on in the game otherwise, then it could be tough for the judge to make the decision. Almost nobody plays slower if they are behind though. That just seems like a pretty bad plan of action, IMO.

And I don't really like setting the exact round minimums. Some people end up only playing 3-4 rounds in the 1 hour time limit already. Do we really want tournaments to be round-based instead of time-based? Do you grant double-losses to anyone who doesn't finish 8 rounds in an hour for a 150 point game? Sure, that might encourage people to play faster, but as others have pointed out in the thread, that unnaturally balances the game toward the top-end players who are capable of not only playing fast, but playing cautiously AND playing fast at the same time. So, I personally wouldn't go for that suggestion. I like the 'guideline' approach better, as it still leaves it in the hands of the judges, who are able to observe each game first hand, and what the various scenarios are.

Here's a good example for you. My game with thereisnotry during the Championships at GenCon. It was a mirror match on Teth, so a stand-off for the most part. We only played 4 rounds in the 1 hour time limit. Maybe 5, but I'm pretty sure it was only 4. However, by the end of that 4th round, both of TINT's Speeder and Han were dead, and my Han was dead. At that point, it was obvious who would win, as TINT only had Leia left who could do any damage to my Speeder without rolling crits. If we were to play the game to the full conclusion, I surely would have still won. So, neither of each reached the full match total, but the outcome of the game was quite obvious. Honestly, if the tables were turned opposite, and TINT had beat me that way, I would have surely conceded at that point, even if there were no time limit. It isn't worth playing out the rest of the game. With the 8-round minimum hard-and-fast rule, we would HAVE to play out the other 4 rounds, as I picked off small fodder and his commanders, effectively wasting the time of all the other players who are waiting around (unless someone conceded, but you at least see my point).

So yes, I feel like TINT and I were probably playing a tad slow. Neither of us complained about it though, and we were perfectly OK with how it ended, as honestly, the game likely should have played out similarly even if we'd been playing faster. But even with 4 rounds, we had played enough to show a fairly clear winner (I had killed all his main attacking pieces, while keeping my main piece). So there are certainly instances were only 4-5 rounds is acceptable in an hour. That's where the judges discretion is necessary, IMO.

Instead of penalizing slow play, maby we should alter the scoring system to reward fast play. Make total victories worth more than points victories. It is hard to define slow play, so any rules that penalize slow play are likely to be arbitrarilly applied, no matter how good the judge is. Total victories are easy to define. if we make them worth persueing instead of the points wins it could change the game for the better.

We've talked about this over the years, and it has more problems. First, you reward the guy who had the weakest SoS. Second, you allow for manipulation of the scoring system by opponent's who simply won't let you get the full "win" for a variety of reasons. And third, you don't actually do anything about slow play. In this case, there is no real penalty. So the guy who does it, can still do it just fine. He might not win, but he is still going to affect the outcome, and will never learn to play faster.

You overlooked the qualifier: "if my 'come-from-behind' play doesn't pan out." I didn't say the player would be intentionally seeking another round, but that that would be an avenue they might keep in the back of their mind if they didn't finish the game the way they wanted when time was called.

Meant to respond to this, but forgot.

There were SEVERAL polls about it. Polling is not allowed on the WOTC forums, but we did have a poll here on Gamers, there were two or three on Bloomilk at different times, and there was one amongst the DCI Rules Advisors Committee on the swmrac.org site. This would be in addition to the massive pages of discussion on the topic across all different sites. A large part of the issue of a poll though, as seen in several of the threads regarding GOWK, would've been the difference between DCI players and non-DCI "casual" players, or even between high-end competitive DCI players vs. people who play for fun, but still use DCI rules and reporting. The methodology used to arrive at the decision to ban GOWK is about the best available, IMO.



This is a great idea, but the problem is that t requires a change to the DCI software, which doesn't seem likely. Personally, I would love to see an option where a player's victory points are recorded, and then that is used to help with tie-breakers at the end of a tournament. The players who consistently completed games would have more victory points then those that played to time, and thus would get placed higher when there were ties between all of the, for instance, players with 5-2 records. There's some issues with that as well (players with weak SOS get lots more victory points, etc.), but it would encourage people to play the games to conclusion. Again though, the problem with that is that it would require a change to the DCI software, which is about as likely as Carrie Fisher winning the SWM Championship some year.