logo

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 323 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:54 am 
General
General

Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:04 am
Posts: 400
#1 - I rather go with number 2, not a fan of restricting maps, but can see the points.

But this could work out

#2 - I am all for moving championship to 200 level.

#3 - Stalling and slow play.

I think this section needs to be careful on its wording if implemented.
I feel a change should be time limit or 8 rounds minimum regardless even if time runs out. A judge can actually sit over the players at this point and see what is going on and can go from there.

For my part all my games ended in half hour or so. So I haven't run into the slow player problem.

#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."

I'm liking the way the other thread has brought this out. Jersey and nickname I believe.

Maybe an addition of all pieces 10 points or less score half their cost rounded down and all pieces over 10 points gain 5 points in gambit.

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

I don't agree with losing motf 2
changing ssm like above I can see as long as it is against adjacent pieces.

#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 one needs some more looking at. I haven't read everyone's post but strafe and gallop pieces can abuse this. How do you account for healing? Not really on board with this.

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

Like this. I also think that if all pieces are defeated on one side they can't win regardless of points.

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

I don't think that will work. Especially with hotel checkouts by noon, parking cost, etc or more money out of pocket. Not meaning the players so much but meaning the support staff for the event.

_________________
Every move in this game is the wrong move. You just hope your opponent's move is more wrong then yours.
Image3.0
Quote:
Khanbob42You, sir, are amazing :D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:30 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)
Just a bit of a report here....

We played 300 points at the LGS last night. Dream Team squads, so no faction restrictions.

Only 4 players unfortunately, but I think it's still worth mentioning. 3 out of 4 squads contained Rieekan. 2 of those also had tempo control (one with Dodonna, one with Ozzel). The other Rieekan squad also had Leia JK for the re-rolls, plus Sidious Hologram, so lots of re-rolling. The 4th squad had Super Stealth. One of my match-ups was with my mostly melee squad vs. another guy's GMLS, so had some Djem So rolling going on there. So, funny enough, a decent cross-section of the squad archetypes that people typically accuse of slowing down games.

At 300 points, we played a total of 4 games (2 rounds basically). EVERY game finished in less than an hour. Now, none of the games played to the full victory condition of gaining 300 points, but every game got to a point where the opponent conceeded (all offensive pieces were dead, or enough were dead that it was obvious no comeback was possible).

Funny thing was....we actually weren't running a timer. We were just playing casually last night, no prize support on the line or anything like that. We just said "Eh, let's just play the games to completion". But we actually managed to finish all of them in less than an hour for each game.

So, discussing with StriderRe80 afterwards last night, we both agreed that perhaps because there wasn't the looming threat of "how much time is left in the round??", perhaps we played a little faster, and didn't get distracted otherwise. Don't know for sure, just speculating. Whatever the case, no one had trouble playing fast enough to win the games. We took time checking LOS here and there, took a few minutes here or there to figure out really tough movement/attack decisions.

So, my point being, you don't HAVE to take more than hour to play a game. I actually lost my game to StriderRe80, which you could call an upset. I had a decent chance going into the game to win it, but he got some nice breaks, and a squad matchup that favored him (stupid me forgot to include a Disruptive piece! Doh!). So that could be considered your typical "I'm playing a really good opponent, so I should be extra careful about my moves" type of game. But he didn't play it slow, and he came out on top.

So, just some things to think about. I'll try to post up a full tourney report on my two games when I get a chance if anyone's interested in the break-down of the games.

_________________
-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: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:11 am 
Jedi Knight
Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:39 pm
Posts: 370
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
maybe that is something we can try a few times and forgo the time for a few nights to see who it goes and tell people play till the game is done. with school back in right now i don't think we are going to have to many people show up right now so i don't think it should effect us to much

_________________
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: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:15 am 
Unnamed Wookiee
Unnamed Wookiee

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:17 pm
Posts: 16
billiv15 wrote:
#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."

Wouldn't it be simpler to remove the DCI rule that killing reinforcements doesn't score points?
We could still change gambit so that the points received are based on the value of the charicter. But it is the freebies from reinforcements that are really abusive.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:38 pm 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:07 pm
Posts: 811
I agree. Lets start with the reinforcements no scoring and if there is a still a problem we can address it later.

_________________
The Wookiee Master

Check us out over at Pojo.com

"It appears the Bothans have rooked us again."
-Obi wan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:31 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
I think he's saying he wants kill points for reinforcements, and if I'm right, I'm further guessing you don't really agree with that. :)

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:43 pm 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:07 pm
Posts: 811
Kill points for reinforcements is a BAD idea. Characters that grant reinforcements are costed accordingly. Lobot is in no way worth 27pts if his reinforcements cost 20 kill pts.

_________________
The Wookiee Master

Check us out over at Pojo.com

"It appears the Bothans have rooked us again."
-Obi wan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:25 am 
Black Sun Thug
Black Sun Thug
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:49 pm
Posts: 74
Location: Southern Illinois
Why not make pieces that grant those worth their value minus what they bring in? So for Lobot killing him would be worth 7. Then no tracking what pieces were brought in and all pieces can be used normally.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:45 am 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:07 pm
Posts: 811
Basically because that makes everything a whole lot harder and requires erratas to the characters.

_________________
The Wookiee Master

Check us out over at Pojo.com

"It appears the Bothans have rooked us again."
-Obi wan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:25 am 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
So any other thoughts on the changes?

_________________
Image

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:57 pm 
Imperial Dignitaries
Imperial Dignitaries

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 225
Location: Renton, WA
I'm really worried about the time games will take if we put guidelines in for X rounds.

Could really hose up tournaments.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:28 pm 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
Cybit wrote:
I'm really worried about the time games will take if we put guidelines in for X rounds.

Could really hose up tournaments.


Please explain your concern, I am not sure I understand it.

Are you saying that you are afraid judges will give infinite time extensions to games until they reach the guideline number of rounds? If so, I think you missed some of the discussion where I pointed out that all I really want in the floor rules is something like, "Appropriate play speed is one that allows both players adequate opportunity to reach the victory condition". The guidelines would likely go somewhere else entirely, perhaps as an appendix to the floor rules, perhaps on the RAC, or perhaps as some kind of FAQ or something somewhere.

Also, I have been thinking about the Huge Friendly Format. What if we add "All huges lose rigid and gain stable footing (or just either of those)? Any issues with something like that?

_________________
Image

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:30 pm 
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)
I definitely think Huges gaining Stable Footing would be great. Definitely make them more playable. Not so sure about Rigid though. You're already restricting the maplist to help with that. If you take Rigid off them altogether, it can lose a tad of it's flavor.

So, I'm in favor of the Stable Footing thing, but keeping Rigid, and addressing that aspect through the map list.

_________________
-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: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:33 pm 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
I don't think players should be making errata changes to stat cards. That's designer territory IMO.

When the floor rules start changing how the abilities of various pieces perform, well let's just say it could be a can of worms we may wish we hadn't opened.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:38 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 don't think players should be making errata changes to stat cards. That's designer territory IMO.

When the floor rules start changing how the abilities of various pieces perform, well let's just say it could be a can of worms we may wish we hadn't opened.


Yes in general I understand, but last time I checked, I do not have that power. If we were to think about something like that, it would be a suggestion sent up to WotC as an option to consider for the new format. I certainly am not anticipating that this would be something that would just be able to be added to the floor rules without WotC consent and approval. Especially since it easily could be something that they intend to address in another way in a coming set (for example, a Major Veers that grants Stable Footing to huges, or something like that :)). Quite obviously this would have to go through the design team before it would ever be considered. I just wanted to throw it out there as an idea to consider, to see if it's something the community would want. Since the discussion of the other ideas had died down, I thought it might be a fun direction to take the conversation. That is all.

_________________
Image

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:54 pm 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
billiv15 wrote:
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
I don't think players should be making errata changes to stat cards. That's designer territory IMO.

When the floor rules start changing how the abilities of various pieces perform, well let's just say it could be a can of worms we may wish we hadn't opened.


Yes in general I understand, but last time I checked, I do not have that power. If we were to think about something like that, it would be a suggestion sent up to WotC as an option to consider for the new format. I certainly am not anticipating that this would be something that would just be able to be added to the floor rules without WotC consent and approval. Especially since it easily could be something that they intend to address in another way in a coming set (for example, a Major Veers that grants Stable Footing to huges, or something like that :)). Quite obviously this would have to go through the design team before it would ever be considered. I just wanted to throw it out there as an idea to consider, to see if it's something the community would want. Since the discussion of the other ideas had died down, I thought it might be a fun direction to take the conversation. That is all.


Oh, I see. Well no harm in asking them for that, I agree.

Your post is worded in a way that (to me) suggests adding something to the floor rules.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:56 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:
billiv15 wrote:
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
I don't think players should be making errata changes to stat cards. That's designer territory IMO.

When the floor rules start changing how the abilities of various pieces perform, well let's just say it could be a can of worms we may wish we hadn't opened.


Yes in general I understand, but last time I checked, I do not have that power. If we were to think about something like that, it would be a suggestion sent up to WotC as an option to consider for the new format. I certainly am not anticipating that this would be something that would just be able to be added to the floor rules without WotC consent and approval. Especially since it easily could be something that they intend to address in another way in a coming set (for example, a Major Veers that grants Stable Footing to huges, or something like that :)). Quite obviously this would have to go through the design team before it would ever be considered. I just wanted to throw it out there as an idea to consider, to see if it's something the community would want. Since the discussion of the other ideas had died down, I thought it might be a fun direction to take the conversation. That is all.


Oh, I see. Well no harm in asking them for that, I agree.

Your post is worded in a way that (to me) suggests adding something to the floor rules.


Gotcha, but I will reiterate a point I have made several times already in this thread. Not all of these are intended to be floor rule changes. This would be one of those :)

_________________
Image

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:04 am 
Imperial Dignitaries
Imperial Dignitaries

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 225
Location: Renton, WA
billiv15 wrote:
Cybit wrote:
I'm really worried about the time games will take if we put guidelines in for X rounds.

Could really hose up tournaments.


Please explain your concern, I am not sure I understand it.

Are you saying that you are afraid judges will give infinite time extensions to games until they reach the guideline number of rounds? If so, I think you missed some of the discussion where I pointed out that all I really want in the floor rules is something like, "Appropriate play speed is one that allows both players adequate opportunity to reach the victory condition". The guidelines would likely go somewhere else entirely, perhaps as an appendix to the floor rules, perhaps on the RAC, or perhaps as some kind of FAQ or something somewhere.

Also, I have been thinking about the Huge Friendly Format. What if we add "All huges lose rigid and gain stable footing (or just either of those)? Any issues with something like that?


OK, that makes me feel a little better. One of the things I've learned to appreciate now that I judge Magic is the ability to nuance. I still think the game design is what is leading to slower play (much higher punishment for mistakes).

I like the stable footing / lose rigid idea myself. Huge pieces need *something*.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:50 pm 
Unnamed Wookiee
Unnamed Wookiee

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:17 pm
Posts: 16
I would rather see huge mini's fixed with a cheap tech piece. One with a special ability like:
Vehicle Upgrade- Huge charicters gain stable footing, huge charicter's that do not have savage gain DR10, Huge charicters with mounted weapons gain accurate shot.
That way huges might have a chance in all forms of play, instead of being limited to a special olympics format.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:54 am 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:18 am
Posts: 532
Location: Eugene Oregon
I was pondering last night as I was flipping through my binders if some figures that seem to be overcosted get a little better with Healing being a game strategy (points for health under 1/2 at time) Does Cade at 61 feel better because his heal 40 is more useful? Or even Barris with her Heal 20 make you want to spend 70 points to put in the synergy combo...

_________________
Text Based RP @ The Galactic War Site


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 323 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 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