logo

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:55 pm 
Unnamed Wookiee
Unnamed Wookiee

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:23 pm
Posts: 41
eMouse wrote:
SWM, unlike chess, requires player interaction during most turns. If I attack, I'm going to ask you to check your defense value. If the player has evade or other similar values, they need to make rolls and decisions based on that.

Throw in line of sight and cover decisions, and there exists a lot of potential for an unscrupulous player to eat time off of the other player's clock.


I just read this after my post & so in conjunction with that I'd say you're right. Those are big issues with the timer idea. A player would have to be allowed to pause the timer to take measurements & be on the honor system to do it quickly. Also, once I've decided to attack (or replace attacks) there may have to be a pause. But really, this like anything else that will be done to "solve" this "issue" will merely complicate the game & I think we need to ask ourselves how prolific is this "problem". Out of say roughly 80 players at GenCon, how many experienced this? Does it matter how many or who? And before I'm accused of yelling from the "cheap seats", I wasn't at GenCon this year but I was the last two so I can speak from experience.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:32 am 
Imperial Dignitaries
Imperial Dignitaries
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 2:55 pm
Posts: 162
Location: Germany
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
NickName wrote:
Honestly, Tanner, do you really think that Gambit as it exists today "forces the action?"


Well, I think it does. Yesterday evening I played a guy from my store on Vassal (hi Jari! :D ). He played the Snowspeeder and I my Nym build. as his last activation he moved an Ugnaught forward into gambit (we played Christophsis) to score points and force me to come over. However I was able to kill that Ug (on my 3rd shot, grrr) and he didn't score points at all. After I won init I shot another mini of his and he was down 2 activations and gave up since my setup area was a deathzone for him and I could manouever at will.

Of course, this is an extreme example, but gambit does force people to act and best act quickly. There is a time when you have to make sure to be ahead on activations, but there is definitely a time when you have to make sure you are ahead on the score board.

The big problem are minis like BBSV, General Wedge, Rieekan, Nom (to a lesser extent), RCSL, Nyna and Bacara. Evade and Super Stealth make the games slow. Whenever I play Thrawn with Nyna I have to fear that the game goes overtime because my opponents always have to think how to get rid of my Grans and not risking their own minis by doing so. It is no fun to run straight into a swap death trap. The same with Evade. You think twice (or thrice) about moving out and taking an aim at an Ugnaught or even major character (especially if it has Force points) that has Evade. These two abilities are passive game stallers, IMHO, because they make your minis last longer and on the other side give your opponent something to think about.

_________________
Image Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:56 am 
Imperial Dignitaries
Imperial Dignitaries

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:17 pm
Posts: 5934
ender_ wrote:
I know i'm not as exprince as some,but what about this along iwth the point cost of the piece you get an addtionial 5 points for each piece killed or some sort of sliding scale depedning the point cost of the charcter for example

1 to 10 =10 extera points
11-20 = 20 points
and so on

I would think that could see more action but on the flip side it may also cause a slow down,so what do you more exprinced fellas think?



This one made me think a bit. I am in the middle of the busiest time of year at work, so I didn't have the time to read through 11+ pages of stuff on the other thread. When I read this thread I read it wrong, but it made sense in my mind what I was thinking about. So, Ender thanks for the inspiration of this.

Keep gambit at 5 points as normal. I like the idea of only the highest point value piece get gambit. this would have changed at least 2 of my games at Gencon. One at 200 against JEW where he ran Liea diplomat in the turbo lift on the hard map with obi FS. The second would have changed the game against James, from Cincy in the 150 national championship game.

The idea that I thought I read was this. For every kill you have you get points for it each round. So if I kill and ugy during round two and have gambit, I get the points for the kill, 3, points for gambit, 5, and for lack of a better term body count points, 5. At the end of the round i would have 8 points. Players would accumulate body count points every round. So, that ugy I killed in round two keeps earning body count points. If I lose gambit and make no more kills I would still be gaining points. So, by round 4 I would have 10 more points bringing the total to 18. Maybe pieces that cost over 20 build points earn you 10 body count points a round.

I feel that if your know your opponent is gaining at least 5 points a round for each body he has taken, it would make one player quicker and take more chances.

I also don' think that there is a single magic bullet that will fix this problem. However I think a combination of things posted here will help.
1 - only the highest point mini will earn Gambit.
2 - Reinforcements count as kills
3 - Body count points each round. characters under 20 points earn you 5 points a round. Over 20 earns you 10 points around.

Thougts?

_________________
Really???....... DRINK


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:25 am 
Imperial Dignitaries
Imperial Dignitaries
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 2:55 pm
Posts: 162
Location: Germany
LESHIPPY wrote:
1 - only the highest point mini will earn Gambit.
2 - Reinforcements count as kills
3 - Body count points each round. characters under 20 points earn you 5 points a round. Over 20 earns you 10 points around.


Well, I think that points 1 and 2 are very playable and should be given some thought and playtesting. The third is much too complex and eats up more time than anything. I don't want someone get 23 points for killing my Ug on round 1. That is just wrong. It encourages abuse and slow play. I'll give you an example on the current meta:

Player A runs an Ug into gambit. Player B still has a Snowspeeder left. He moves, kills and moves back into his starting area, where he sits and waits. Even if I score gambit every round now I have to kill something because my opponent keeps earning points for killing a little pigman. Have you ever tried to rush into a Snowspeeder squad? I can't recommend it. ;)

Also the 3rd proposal makes swarm squads even less play- and enjoyable as they already are at the moment.

IMHO the point scoring system is fine as it is right now with the exception of point 1 and 2.

Don't make this rocket science, it is a game and should be kept as simple as possible.

_________________
Image Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:31 am 
Sith Apprentice
Sith Apprentice

Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 3:30 pm
Posts: 265
LESHIPPY wrote:
ender_ wrote:
I know i'm not as exprince as some,but what about this along iwth the point cost of the piece you get an addtionial 5 points for each piece killed or some sort of sliding scale depedning the point cost of the charcter for example

1 to 10 =10 extera points
11-20 = 20 points
and so on

I would think that could see more action but on the flip side it may also cause a slow down,so what do you more exprinced fellas think?



This one made me think a bit. I am in the middle of the busiest time of year at work, so I didn't have the time to read through 11+ pages of stuff on the other thread. When I read this thread I read it wrong, but it made sense in my mind what I was thinking about. So, Ender thanks for the inspiration of this.



as long as some one read it and thought about it i'm happy :)

_________________
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: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:11 am 
Unnamed Wookiee
Unnamed Wookiee

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:23 pm
Posts: 41
Another idea is something that has been kicked around in the past. A special map for the championship or for torunament play in general. With the resources available now, this should be easy. The map would potentially be a smaller more open map that forces engagement early. And everyone would play on the same map or maybe there could be say 4 variations that all look different & are different locations but are very similar in design.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:50 am 
Imperial Dignitaries
Imperial Dignitaries

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:17 pm
Posts: 5934
I kill Gungans wrote:
LESHIPPY wrote:
1 - only the highest point mini will earn Gambit.
2 - Reinforcements count as kills
3 - Body count points each round. characters under 20 points earn you 5 points a round. Over 20 earns you 10 points around.


Well, I think that points 1 and 2 are very playable and should be given some thought and playtesting. The third is much too complex and eats up more time than anything. I don't want someone get 23 points for killing my Ug on round 1. That is just wrong. It encourages abuse and slow play. I'll give you an example on the current meta:

Player A runs an Ug into gambit. Player B still has a Snowspeeder left. He moves, kills and moves back into his starting area, where he sits and waits. Even if I score gambit every round now I have to kill something because my opponent keeps earning points for killing a little pigman. Have you ever tried to rush into a Snowspeeder squad? I can't recommend it. ;)

Also the 3rd proposal makes swarm squads even less play- and enjoyable as they already are at the moment.

IMHO the point scoring system is fine as it is right now with the exception of point 1 and 2.

Don't make this rocket science, it is a game and should be kept as simple as possible.



If these rules were in place, would you actually run an ugy into gambit? Really? If so, then you deserve to loss. I also think there is a big difference between slow play and playing the squad the way it is set up to run. Killing a piece early and then making your opponent come to you is a very legit strategy. If I activate each piece I have waiting on my opponent in 10 seconds or less how is that slow? Is it tough to go in to the line of fire? Yes it is. But if you know you are going to keep going down points, doesn’t it make you want to make up that difference quicker?

Granted I haven’t play tested this idea at all. But, I am not sure how it falls in the realm of rocket science. It seems to be pretty basic math.

_________________
Really???....... DRINK


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:00 am 
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:
Honestly, Tanner, do you really think that Gambit as it exists today "forces the action?"


Over no gambit? Absolutely. It's a huge huge difference. Could be better though.

Quote:
If it did, we wouldn't be having this very heated discussion about how the point scoring system has slowed the game down.


Hm. I thought we were having a discussion about minor tweaks to improve the fun and fairness of the game in the DCI environment.

And I don't really think that the scoring system is the cause. As we've agreed before, it's a confluence of things that resulted in the current situation. I would say the more relevent items (within the realm of our control) are player decision-making speed and the difficulty in engaging highly mobile squads due to overly open maps. These things weaken, but don't eliminate, the value of gambit.

(I think there's a relevent argument in saying gambit could be changed in some way to overcome the map issue, but I think it will likely be more difficult to find a working solution, more complex, and harder to predict the full repercussions of the change than just limiting the maps.)

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:23 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
NickName wrote:
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Honestly, Tanner, do you really think that Gambit as it exists today "forces the action?"


Over no gambit? Absolutely. It's a huge huge difference. Could be better though.


Here we agree. I just don't believe that Gambit as it is utilized today is the Gambit Rob intended. I talked about this some in one of the other threads, but let me expound on it some here, too.

At my LGS, I pushed Gambit once we started running sanctioned events. I kept up with point totals. I remember a few games from a couple of years ago where we'd be going along and suddenly the round would end and I would say, "I win," to the shock of my opponents. Playing to the build total was something they didn't understand. And I remember this happening at a few convention events as well, where suddenly I reached the build total and the game was over, even if I was losing based on the situation with combat. "Do you want to play it out?" was a question that was commonly asked.

It took about 6 months, but eventually the people I play with got used to the idea of Gambit, and one of two things began to happen:

1. Players started building squads that were designed to do nothing except score points.
2. Players became less inclined to engage early, instead opting to wait until time was about to run out and then rush to get a "come-from-behind" point victory. Sometimes this strategy worked and sometimes it didn't.

I adjusted my playstyle and squad building decisions accordingly. At my LGS, I tend toward Superstealth/Cloak/Tempo control options when I am playing a serious game. Even when I'm making a goofy build, I still try to include at least one of those elements. I may not go cutthroat but I'm not going to play something that gets steamrolled, either.

Quote:
Quote:
If it did, we wouldn't be having this very heated discussion about how the point scoring system has slowed the game down.


Hm. I thought we were having a discussion about minor tweaks to improve the fun and fairness of the game in the DCI environment.


It started out that way - as a discussion to "improve the fun and fairness of the game" in DCI, but I don't think that is still the focus of it. Look at what people have had to say. (And I don't just mean my posts, either.)

Quote:
And I don't really think that the scoring system is the cause. As we've agreed before, it's a confluence of things that resulted in the current situation. I would say the more relevent items (within the realm of our control) are player decision-making speed and the difficulty in engaging highly mobile squads due to overly open maps. These things weaken, but don't eliminate, the value of gambit.

(I think there's a relevent argument in saying gambit could be changed in some way to overcome the map issue, but I think it will likely be more difficult to find a working solution, more complex, and harder to predict the full repercussions of the change than just limiting the maps.)


Here we agree. Gambit is still necessary IMO, but the sentiment expressed by some people who have posted is that scoring points is not the true spirit of the game. I just can't agree with that based on my understanding of the floor rules, watching how people play, and how new players have honed their skills at this game. I've personally seen the game go from a setting of - OMG what is Gambit and what did you mean you just won even though there are still figures on the board - to "What's your score now? And my score is (X). Okay I can win this round if I can just get to Gambit."

It's a fundamental shift in thinking that has taken place at the national level. I do agree that its in situations where games go to time that it is abused, but as someone else said, if Gambit is little more than a killbox from one side or the other, well then I'm not sure what the solution to that is. We can all toss out suggestions that try to retain the spirit of fairness, but at the end of the day, it's next to impossible to say for sure if any of these ideas are the "light-bulb" solution.

_________________
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: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:38 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)
I kill Gungans wrote:
2. New tie-breakers
Points scored and points scored by the opponent should be noted and used for DCI. Also an in-time win should give the winner 3 points and the loser 1 point. If you don't finish in time, both lose 1 point, so the game ends 2-0 instead of 3-1. These would be superb tie-breakers that would encourage both players to end the game in time, since both have something to lose, if they don't.


Something similar to this has been suggested several times previously, and is still a sub-par solution, IMO. This is too easy to abuse, or for an opponent who knows he is beaten to play slow or run around the map hiding until time runs out. Then they force you to take a 2 point win instead of the 3 point win. You could play 7 rounds of the championship, winning every game, but only score 14 total points, while other players score up to 21 points. It unnecessarily boosts the players who have weak Strength of Schedule as well.

The idea is going in the right direction, but there's too much possible abuse for it to work, IMO.

I kill Gungans wrote:
3. Reinforcements
Let players score points by killing Reinforcements. No easy gambit grabbing and hiding anymore.


This would require a change to the game rules themselves. Reinforcements should NEVER count for points, because the point vaules for those pieces are already factored into the piece. You seriously would want to play Lobot, and lose 27 points when he dies, PLUS another 20 points when the Reinforcements get killed? 47 points for that? No freaking way. Nobody would EVER play Universe Lobot again if this happened.

The easiest way to do that is the suggestion that Bill made in the other thread. Pieces that came into the squad via Reinforcements cannot earn gambit. No easy gambit grabbing, but you still get the free, customizable points. This would make players risk pieces that actually cost something in order to gain those gambit points.

However, that change still really doesn't even do anything to help with slow play issues. As NickName pointed out in the other thread, a 5-3 lead has the same effect as a 5-0 lead, for the most part.

_________________
-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: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:42 am 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
@Boris

So, hey, we disagree on virtually none of that.

And I think we agree, that players adapt to the design and if the result isn't what you expect, well, it's a problem with the design not the players.

And we've let it go a bit too far.

And the too far part (IMHO) is:

Scoring enough points to achieve victory morphing to scoring enough points to have a lead when time runs out early/mid game.

So we make some minor changes to the design that try to push it back in the other direction and maybe throw in some education/guidelines about the item that really is a player and judging issue (slow play) rather than a design problem.

And I'm not certain any of this will work. I think it will. And more importantly I'm pretty sure none of the suggestions will do greivous harm even if it doesn't work. So I think it's worth a try.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:51 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
NickName wrote:
@Boris

So, hey, we disagree on virtually none of that.

And I think we agree, that players adapt to the design and if the result isn't what you expect, well, it's a problem with the design not the players.

And we've let it go a bit too far.

And the too far part (IMHO) is:

Scoring enough points to achieve victory morphing to scoring enough points to have a lead when time runs out early/mid game.

So we make some minor changes to the design that try to push it back in the other direction and maybe throw in some education/guidelines about the item that really is a player and judging issue (slow play) rather than a design problem.

And I'm not certain any of this will work. I think it will. And more importantly I'm pretty sure none of the suggestions will do greivous harm even if it doesn't work. So I think it's worth a try.


As long as judges are also issued guidelines about watching for players who complain about the round minimum guidelines (ie a player who calls a judge over when time is called to say they played a round or two fewer) to make sure they aren't trying to manipulate their own cautious plays into something that makes it appear they deserve another round.

As a player, with these guidelines in effect, I will simply change my strategy if I think my opponent is going for the last-second win with the expectation of getting another round if he doesn't accomplish the goal. I won't be loosening up my positioning to score some extra points that would just end up making me lose a game I would have otherwise won. I hope other players realize that, too, and more importantly I hope the judges of the events are watching for that sort of thing.

Personally, I have a solution to the problem but I doubt that it would ever be implemented. If you have a game that goes to time due to a complaint of slow play, you are cautioned and possibly warned. If you have a second game that goes to time due to a complaint of slow play during the same event, you are DQ'ed. Period.
So if you have already been warned and you think your opponent is playing slow against you, you better call the judge over before the first couple of rounds end.

As someone who has judged major events, it is usually easy to spot who the stalling players are. I do agree that judges should do more about them, and that players need to feel comfortable speaking up. Sometimes though, it's not anything to get worked up about, or players don't want to make a scene. I have been in that situation too.

_________________
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: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:09 am 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
I think something along those lines would be a solid addition to the guidelines.

I'm not in favor of making a fixed penalty progression ending in DQ. I think judge's discretion is more important for keeping the game fun and fair overall even if a specific incident may not be addressed as strictly as I would prefer.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:31 am 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:06 pm
Posts: 249
Just tossing this out there, based on some personal observations and some of what has been discussed so far...

What if scoring the build total or higher at the end of a round didn't equal an automatic victory? What if the victory conditions were "defeat your opponents entire squad" -or- "score more victory points than your opponent" when a game goes to time?

Do you think that would take the focus off of playing just to score points, enough, to make a significant difference?

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:38 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)
I think what your saying there Dennis is definitely something to keep in mind. Could certainly be added to the separate 'guidelines' document that we've discussed otherwise.

I know I had a similar discussion with my buddy James from Cincy shortly before GenCon. He's been teased in the past about being a slow player, because he used to be one. Have to say though, I was SUPER proud of him after I heard that he lost to Bill by a super narrow margin in Round 7 of the Championships (like 5 points, last round gambit, I think), and they played like 8-9 rounds in that game. He's definitely come a long way in improving his play speed.

That said though, I was cautioning him, leading up to GenCon, that Dean may crack down on the slow play issues a bit more, and during the discussion, the scenario came up where the judge might come to the table, see the game is in Round 2 at 30 minutes, and issue both players a warning. Now, James was concerned because he tries his best not to play slow, so he felt that wouldn't be fair to him, and he's probably right. It might not be fair to both players. But then he extrapolated it further, and said "well what happens if you get paired against two slow players in a row?" If both players get the warning, then James might get two slow play warnings in two games back to back, while the other guys only get 1 warning each (assuming they learn from the warning and don't get further ones). But with two warnings now, would that create a DQ situation for James?

Again, this is where the judges discretion stuff comes into play, and I really don't think something like that would ever happen. But it's certainly plausible for the judge to assume that since James was the common factor in both games, that perhaps he was the one causing the slow play.

So, yeah, judges still have to be involved, and need to pay attention to the games in order to make fair and just decisions.


Nivuahc wrote:
What if scoring the build total or higher at the end of a round didn't equal an automatic victory? What if the victory conditions were "defeat your opponents entire squad" -or- "score more victory points than your opponent" when a game goes to time?


Wouldn't that cause people to play slower? If you knew that even though you gained gambit, you couldn't win the game unless you defeated your opponent's whole squad (which I admittedly rarely do...usually win with 20-30 points of gambit, i.e. don't have to kill all the fodder or that last commander hiding in the corner) then wouldn't just encourage people to plan to win by points when time is called? What about that suggestion would encourage me to play faster? I can still win by just having more points when time is called. That actually penalizes someone who plays fast enough to reach the build total (including 20-30 points of gambit), by making them play several more rounds just to finish off the fodder.

_________________
-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: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:13 pm 
Imperial Dignitaries
Imperial Dignitaries
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 2:55 pm
Posts: 162
Location: Germany
LESHIPPY wrote:
If these rules were in place, would you actually run an ugy into gambit? Really? If so, then you deserve to loss.


EXACTLY! That is why nobody will run into gambit, thus making the game even slower and favouring defensive slow coaches.

_________________
Image Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:17 pm 
Imperial Dignitaries
Imperial Dignitaries
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 2:55 pm
Posts: 162
Location: Germany
LoboStele wrote:
Something similar to this has been suggested several times previously, and is still a sub-par solution, IMO. This is too easy to abuse, or for an opponent who knows he is beaten to play slow or run around the map hiding until time runs out. Then they force you to take a 2 point win instead of the 3 point win. You could play 7 rounds of the championship, winning every game, but only score 14 total points, while other players score up to 21 points. It unnecessarily boosts the players who have weak Strength of Schedule as well.


I don't think that there is much abuse involved since a person that plays slowly also loses points. So the difference between you and your opponent is always 2 points, but the difference between you and another victor is either 1 or 0, depending on how the games go. I haven't encountered "team play" so far, where one guy "cheats" you out off your points to help another guy get past you.

_________________
Image Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:20 pm 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
LoboStele wrote:
But with two warnings now, would that create a DQ situation for James?


As you and others have pointed out before with other hypotheticals, it would be James' responsibility to call a judge early in the game in that example, rather than waiting til time ran out.
But I would agree that such a DQ should be at the judges' discretion. Like everything else, this suggestion really doesn't change anything except you skip the match loss step. I don't think a person who is intentionally playing slow should be allowed to hold up an entire tournament every round.

_________________
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: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:47 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 somehow skipped over this post earlier....

Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Here we agree. I just don't believe that Gambit as it is utilized today is the Gambit Rob intended. I talked about this some in one of the other threads, but let me expound on it some here, too.

At my LGS, I pushed Gambit once we started running sanctioned events. I kept up with point totals. I remember a few games from a couple of years ago where we'd be going along and suddenly the round would end and I would say, "I win," to the shock of my opponents. Playing to the build total was something they didn't understand. And I remember this happening at a few convention events as well, where suddenly I reached the build total and the game was over, even if I was losing based on the situation with combat. "Do you want to play it out?" was a question that was commonly asked.

It took about 6 months, but eventually the people I play with got used to the idea of Gambit, and one of two things began to happen:

1. Players started building squads that were designed to do nothing except score points.
2. Players became less inclined to engage early, instead opting to wait until time was about to run out and then rush to get a "come-from-behind" point victory. Sometimes this strategy worked and sometimes it didn't.

I adjusted my playstyle and squad building decisions accordingly. At my LGS, I tend toward Superstealth/Cloak/Tempo control options when I am playing a serious game. Even when I'm making a goofy build, I still try to include at least one of those elements. I may not go cutthroat but I'm not going to play something that gets steamrolled, either.


What do you suggest to try to change that mind-set then? Dennis, you keep saying you disagree with the ideas that Bill or I or others are presenting, and I understand your concerns (and agree with some of them, to some degree), and you're presenting great hypothetical things to think about for all of it....but I don't think I've seen you present real suggestions on how to address it (other than your "characters in gambit can't attack/be attacked thing). We need to figure out what would help people change their outlook on how to play games.

That said....

Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Gambit is still necessary IMO, but the sentiment expressed by some people who have posted is that scoring points is not the true spirit of the game. I just can't agree with that based on my understanding of the floor rules, watching how people play, and how new players have honed their skills at this game.


I think you're taking some of those comments a tad out of context perhaps. I don't think any of us are saying that "scoring points is not the true spirit of the game". Gambit is essential, IMO, and in 90% of games, it actually does force engagement (IMO, the only games it doesn't is on the wide-open maps). It's not that gambit is against the spirit of the game. It's that grabbing a few points and then waiting till time runs out, is against the spirit of the game. From what I see, Rob felt the same way. When the DCI Floor Rules were first introduced, you could win by using Override and locking out your opponent. You were not playing to reach the build total, but you won based on the fact that you had more points when time was called. So they introduced Gambit, thus allowing one player to continue getting closer to the build total, letting the other guy hide in a corner if they wanted. The point of adding Gambit then, was to allow players to continue gaining points, and move towards that build total.

Yes, we've distorted that intention a little bit. But I still think Gambit is important. It's the "I'm going to grab some quick points, and then not engage the enemy any more for the next 20 minutes" that needs to go away, IMO.

That make sense?

_________________
-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: So how do we put a stop to this?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:13 pm 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:06 pm
Posts: 249
LoboStele wrote:
Nivuahc wrote:
What if scoring the build total or higher at the end of a round didn't equal an automatic victory? What if the victory conditions were "defeat your opponents entire squad" -or- "score more victory points than your opponent" when a game goes to time?


Wouldn't that cause people to play slower? If you knew that even though you gained gambit, you couldn't win the game unless you defeated your opponent's whole squad (which I admittedly rarely do...usually win with 20-30 points of gambit, i.e. don't have to kill all the fodder or that last commander hiding in the corner) then wouldn't just encourage people to plan to win by points when time is called? What about that suggestion would encourage me to play faster? I can still win by just having more points when time is called. That actually penalizes someone who plays fast enough to reach the build total (including 20-30 points of gambit), by making them play several more rounds just to finish off the fodder.


I've noticed some of what I believe Boris was alluding to at my LGS, once the players understood that scoring the build total by the end of the round was a condition of victory. Prior to that, most of our games ended up as kill-em-all games and players were reluctant to leave it all to victory points. Since they understood that scoring 150 victory points means that they win, all of the players keep score throughout the game, and all of the players seemed geared towards "get to 150 points" instead of "kill-em-all and sort it out later". Beforehand, having a game go to time was an undesirable thing. Now, having a game go to time isn't a big deal, just so long as they have more victory points.

I understand your point. Games that go to time will still come down to points, so it would make little difference. The difference I'm thinking of is a psychological one. Less emphasis on points, more emphasis on carnage. In order to win, kill everything. Failing that, we resort to tallying points.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights style by Scott Stubblefield