logo

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 167 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:18 pm 
Major Tierce
Major Tierce

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 4268
I would hate to see the judge having discretion on whether to award a 2 or 3 point win in either a concession or a timed game. It should be very black and white what happens when a particular set of circumstances happens.

I think that a concession shold be worth the full 3 points as it would be awful to sit down and have your opponent not show up and only get a 2 point win. It is abusable on the other end as well but scooping someone to a 3 pt win is less offensive thn penalizing someone without an opponent or whose opponent has to concede for some "real" reason with a 2 point win.

I also think we can sit here and aruge with each other until we are blue in the face when in all reality this particular DCI update will only affect about 6-8 tourneys nationwide for the year. It really only affects those tourneys tha are larger and require 5 rounds to play. It will affect the order of the finishers somewhatbut no more than the current system we have in place and the randomness of the DCI pairings (ie SOS). IMO we will not know how this will really affect things until Gencon next year. Some people will get screwed by it and others will benefit greatly but overall I do not think that this will change how people play the gamethat much at the local level.

The map issue is much morehe issue that I am looking forward to and IMO also creates many of the slowplay isues. Between that and the new gambit/reinforcement rules I think games will automatically speed up.

Just my 2 cents

_________________
When I left you I was but the learner . . . now I am the master.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:01 pm 
Big Bad Brad
Big Bad Brad
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:14 am
Posts: 5343
urbanjedi wrote:
I would hate to see the judge having discretion on whether to award a 2 or 3 point win in either a concession or a timed game. It should be very black and white what happens when a particular set of circumstances happens.

I think that a concession shold be worth the full 3 points as it would be awful to sit down and have your opponent not show up and only get a 2 point win. It is abusable on the other end as well but scooping someone to a 3 pt win is less offensive thn penalizing someone without an opponent or whose opponent has to concede for some "real" reason with a 2 point win.



A "no show" is far different than a concession. In that case, its a full win.

_________________
"200 or 2"
"Consistency is the key, not crying"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:22 pm 
One of The Ones
One of The Ones
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:46 pm
Posts: 7960
Location: West Chester, OH (near Cincinnati)
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
I don't really think you understand what is happening in the situations being described. It's not about how fast it takes to activate characters on a tempo control squad.

It forces the opponent to position a lot more carefully than if there is back-and-forth engagement. Only a moron puts his pieces in a position to be unloaded on by the opponents' forces at the end of a round, and a tempo-control player - most of those I have fared against, anyway - can move their pieces into a new hiding position very, very quickly to wait around for the next round in the hopes that I - the non-tempo control player - will make a poor move that allows them to unload then. But when I don't the hiding game continues, right up until the final 10 minutes of the game when time is called.

So my choices are to commit suicide with my squad by positioning for a strike on the next round that I will never get to take, or force my opponent to come to me at the end of a round, which he won't do either because my pieces are perfectly placed to prevent him from seizing the end-round strike.

It's not really slow play in the sense of taking a long time to figure out which pieces to move. It's just a lot of boring inaction that neither one of us are really in a good position to overcome without handing the game to the other player.

In cases like these what usually happens is we get down to the last 15-20 minutes and then one of us is close enough to force the action in the middle of the round, but odds are time will be called before the game is over at that point.


Dennis, what I'm trying to get at though, is partly what you've identified in your post here. 90% of the time, people play either with or against tempo control squads, with this hide-n-seek attitude until the last 10 minutes of the game, where they make an all out attack and either fail miserably, or win brutally. On both sides of the coin. My point has always been, and from talking with Bill I know he feels similarly, that there's really no need to wait so long to do that. You can spend 6 rounds jockeying for position, or you can make that same pounce on round 3 and have the game be over in 45 minutes. If it's going to be a suicide run, or forcing your opponent to come to you, either way you slice it, one player or the other has to make the first move.

Yes, when playing against tempo control squads, often-times being that person who 'makes the first move' can be a death sentence. Hence my comments about learning the squads/tactics of tempo control better. There are ways to play with/against tempo control to mitigate those risks. Most times, you have to make a bigger risk to get a bigger reward as well.

My point has always been though, if the game is going to come down to a mad rush for points in the last 5 minutes anyways, you may as well just do that earlier in the game and be done soon enough to go get a soda.

Grand Moff Boris wrote:
That is not the same thing as in SWM, where you might be on an unfamiliar map or you are not sure about LOS from specific positions. Should every move require that level of thinking? Nope, of course not. But it does affect the overall pace of the game for people who are playing strictly for points, or for people playing against someone with that mentality.


This comes down partly to a super-competitive event vs. a more casual one, but...

Anyone who makes the excuse that they are unfamiliar with the map, or they don't know the LOS on this map....those are NOT valid reasons for slow play in my book. I spent HOURS before coming to Gencon this year studying some of the newer maps. I sat at my dining room table with my dry erase markers, and my LOS tools, and my minis, studying set-up areas, key LOS, safe squares, etc. I wouldn't have been anywhere near as comfortable with Taris or Teth if I hadn't done that. Sure, maybe not everyone has the time to do that kind of thing, but that is NOT an excuse to slow down the game. Just as it's no excuse to slow down the game because you don't know the abilities on your cards.

To compare to the Magic example you gave:
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
In Magic, you know you can play a land card each turn. You know you can attack with the creatures on the table, what can block, and you can eyeball the mana on the table vs. the costs of cards in your hand. You either turn the cards sideways to play new cards or to attack, or you don't. Period.


The same applies in SWM 75% of the time as well. There are ALWAYS pieces in the back-field or far enough out of play that should require almost no thinking at all about them. People will sit and waste a full minute trying to decide where to position their San Hill, Dodonna, or Battle Droid Officer. Those players simply need to take some time to THINK about the various maps/strategies (on their own time, not during the game), and realize that there are simple, quick, ways to decide where to move or tap those types of characters. I truly believe a large portion of slow play can be attributed to people who struggle deciding what to do with inconsequential pieces.

Yes, I understand this ends up coming off as a slight against people who are just naturally slower players. But enough of you are familiar with my buddy James here in Cincy to know that he's improved his play speed immensely in the past 2 years. It can be done. It's a matter of whether it matters to you or not. The current rules system doesn't make it matter, but these suggested changes should help.

dnemiller wrote:
It is comments like this that I find discouraging. This discussion on how to deal with slow play is three years old. If you have not presented it in 3 years I really have no idea what you are waiting on.


I'm assuming he's referring to something he mentioned in a past thread. I for one, can't even remember the stuff that I suggested in some of those threads. So, Dennis, if you have something particular in mind, by all means, just suggest it again, rather than posting things that sound to me more like "Boo hoo, nobody wants to listen to my ideas". I don't think that's what you're trying to say, but it's how it appears to some degree.

empirejeff wrote:
You know, if the first tie breaker was total number of points you scored in all your games (ideally with the max you can score in a game is the point limit, scoreing 174 points in a 150 points odes not make much sence) that would encourage you play down to the end every time, even if the game was totally one sided. In order to score as many points as you can, killy your oppoent pieces and gambit.


I'm pretty sure something like this has been suggested several times, with the major hurdle to such a system being how to implement it into the DCI Reporting software. It's a piece of cake to tally up tournament placement by hand this way, and it's how we did it quite frequently at the LGS before we got more serious about DCI. It's also how we usually determine placement when we do EPIC events at the LGS, as it does force people to just engage and get as many points as they can, rather than sit back and win on gambit/time limits.

_________________
-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: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:13 pm 
One of The Ones
One of The Ones
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8395
fingersandteeth wrote:
i don't think i entered that tournament, did I?

grand moff Boris wrote:
If the goal is to break the mindset that this is a game where players win by being the person with the highest score after 60 minutes, then IMO that's where we should be focusing our energy rather than just dilluting the system with something that is just going to end up having a handful of nasty side-effects. Make points matter less. There's a way to do it, but no one has wanted to hear it.


I've never really heard any suggestions on how to make points matter less.

The whole issue of having points (gambit) is intimately linked to override, a pretty core special ability that has existed as long as the game. Its an ability that allows for complete non-engagement and is the ability that is most likely to result in a 10 round lack of action tiebreaker.
Because of the strength of this ability a points system has to be put in place to force engagement.
Center points perhaps is a simplified system to work with but its either that or altering the scoring areas which would require a long hard look at maps and what you are aiming to achieve with the alternative areas.

Another way to make points count for less is to remove the power of override by giving it limits but people always will turtle in order to fight on their own terms.
Its a frustrating fact of a strategic games that people will often not engage if there is no reason to do it especially if it reduces their chances of winning.
in magic if you do nothing you get wasted, your forced to act because you will lose rapidly.
Not so with SWM, if you sit in a corner your probably the safest you will be the whole game. People need a reason to get out of the room.
Gambit gives them that reason at least to put a figure there.
It will be much better when that the figure must cost something. If it costs about 5 or more then thats even more significant.

So rather than saying no-one wants to listen, why air your idea because i've thought about this issue a lot, and i don't see any alternatives to what we have now and what Dean is implementing.


I've already discussed the alternatives, which despite you saying you've never heard it you then go on to recap the entire conversation about the alternatives. None of the suggestions were completely my idea, either, if in fact at all.


Gambit was where the game left intent behind, and although you say you've never heard the alternatives discussed, weren't you the one who asked to see a DDM map at Genon for a comparison of victory conditions? There are other things that have been suggested but as I said no one wants to hear it and so the ideas were all dismissed out of hand - again, not all of the ideas were mine or even brought up by me.

To say any more on the subject would only invite the opportunity to make this seem like something personal and it's really not. I understand that Dean and a few others worked hard on this and put a lot of thought into making the system work in a fair way that accomplishes making the game be played the way it was originally intended. None of that really has any bearing on the fact that I think this concept is going to have some unintended consequences and inadvertently harm some people who don't deserve that.

_________________
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: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:19 pm 
One of The Ones
One of The Ones
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8395
LoboStele wrote:
I'm assuming he's referring to something he mentioned in a past thread. I for one, can't even remember the stuff that I suggested in some of those threads. So, Dennis, if you have something particular in mind, by all means, just suggest it again, rather than posting things that sound to me more like "Boo hoo, nobody wants to listen to my ideas". I don't think that's what you're trying to say, but it's how it appears to some degree.


I could care less about appearances. Dean has a selective memory. One only needs to go digging back through about six weeks worth of threads to see some of the proposed ideas. And again, not necessarily anything proposed specifically by me.

As for the rest, nevermind. This is no longer worth the bother.

_________________
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: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:24 pm 
One of The Ones
One of The Ones
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:46 pm
Posts: 7960
Location: West Chester, OH (near Cincinnati)
Well, if the multiple victory zones thing is the main suggestion that you feel has been ignored/overlooked/whatever, then I don't really know why you feel that way. It has come up virtually every time these kind of discussions take place, and it is usually met with two responses: 1) it's too much effort to implement such a system, since the maps already exist without those areas denoted on them like the DDM maps have, or 2) people are content with the current gambit system, and don't feel that forcing a person to cross the map to gain gambit will provide any different incentive (change for change's sake).

I'm not sure that Deri was intentionally mentioning the things you were referring to though Dennis. I think that's just a coincidence. I think his comments about Override and such were simply his own opinion on what the major issues are.

Sure, I think Override can be an issue, but I see just as many games go to time where neither squad has Override.

Quote:
I could care less about appearances. Dean has a selective memory. One only needs to go digging back through about six weeks worth of threads to see some of the proposed ideas. And again, not necessarily anything proposed specifically by me.

As for the rest, nevermind. This is no longer worth the bother.


Dennis, come on man. We're not trying to attack you. I really don't think anybody's trying to completely dismiss ideas out of hand. It would take a lot less time for you to quickly jot down 3-4 bulleted points about other changes that have been suggested, than for all of the rest of us to go hunting for said changes. In some cases, it's possible that those discussions were in a thread in moderator section, so some people on the boards here may not be able to read those, and so re-posting it would be good for their sake. We're not mind-readers, so even I was to start go searching for whatever you're referring to, there's no guarantee I'd dig up the right stuff.

_________________
-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: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:28 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
Nice yeah that is it I have selective memory Dennis.


Was it buried in the thread that became an f-bomb fest is that where it was because that thread had to be edited so much I doubt anyone could make heads or tails out of it.

Or was it in another thread in which I read all of the ideas that I thought were viable for the game but you just dont like what I chose or thought I could implement into a rules form. Is that the selective part?????

Please let me know just a bit little bit but I cannot gurantee I will remember it since I may choose to ignore it with my slelective memory....... by the way what is your name again?

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

Collection: 934/934

SWM DCI Content Manager


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:44 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
urbanjedi wrote:
I would hate to see the judge having discretion on whether to award a 2 or 3 point win in either a concession or a timed game. It should be very black and white what happens when a particular set of circumstances happens.

...

I also think we can sit here and aruge with each other until we are blue in the face when in all reality this particular DCI update will only affect about 6-8 tourneys nationwide for the year.


This is exactly why it should just be judge's discretion. It's not going to come up that much and there's no need for a full page document on exactly what is 3 and what is 2 in every possible case when the judge will pretty clearly know abuse when he sees it and not issue 2 points in other circumstances, like the one you mentioned for example which would clearly be a 3 point win as there is no intent there to circumvent the slow play "penalty" for an incomplete game. We already trust the judges on a lot of stuff that comes up a lot more. This one is pretty trivial beyond players needing to know that attempting to abuse concession won't work.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 4:58 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:22 pm
Posts: 4994
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
I've already discussed the alternatives, which despite you saying you've never heard it you then go on to recap the entire conversation about the alternatives. None of the suggestions were completely my idea, either, if in fact at all.


Gambit was where the game left intent behind, and although you say you've never heard the alternatives discussed, weren't you the one who asked to see a DDM map at Genon for a comparison of victory conditions? There are other things that have been suggested but as I said no one wants to hear it and so the ideas were all dismissed out of hand - again, not all of the ideas were mine or even brought up by me.


I was one that was curious about the victory conditions and you did mention that you had one, but that was after midnight during the TileWars tourney when i didn't have much time and was pretty knackered. I've seen maps from D&D and have seen the scoring areas. I don't know how much they change the game though. However,i'm not sure that altering the scoring areas results in any less of an impact of points. More like it just alters the difficulty of getting the points which might force engagement, or it just might stimulating camping around your opponents most accesible scoring zone with the mentality of "i might not score, but he won't either" which really does nothing for the engagement principes. Like i said i just don't know. Its not that I don't think its a good idea but i need to be convinced as i have no experience with the playstyle.

The only way i can see removing points from the current game is to have scenario based play or a 'capture the flag' type game where the victory conditions are just to do X or die trying.

But then you alter the game away from the straight skirmish.

Even if you lower the effectiveness of override (which can only come from the developers not players involved in altering competitive rules) you still need to persuade some players out of their starting spots.

Really, what is trying to happen is making a game that was never designed as a competitive game into one, and its quite difficult.

There appears to never have been a concerted effort of the designers to sit down and work through the issues of non-engagement, map design and victory conditions. It appears that they have just instilled quick fix after quick fix. So its left to people who only have a love of the game to fix it. This can only come about by constructive discussions.

I would love for override to lose effectiveness, for it to have limits preventing lockout victories and for other abilities like door gimmick to get around it. Hell even if Jedi could cut open doors by replacing their turn and spending a force to remove a door would radically alter game play in a benificial matter. It would be decidedly cannon and every squad could counter override albeit in a less effective fashion than having it yourself. Unfortunately, it was down to Rob and now peter to make these rules changes and so its not really going to happen because, for some reason, override was deemed to be king $**t of abilities.

Altering victory conditions to something other than center points is do-able. However, no-one has ever explained how this would work or even proposed where they would appear on maps. Would we need new maps to do it? Could the deathstar be used for example? Its conversations like these that need to be had in order for them to be taken seriously.

One possible solution is to alter maps radically. Rather than have a 34 by 22 map, drop it to 26 by 10 and have dissapearing starting areas (i.e. a start up tile that is removed in 2 rounds). Smaller confines results in higher probability of engagement but people need to fight for something.

At the moment, the rules set to be introduced is a step in the right direction but its not a done deal. You (We, those of us who play) have to work on these issues particulally if there are things your not happy with. When a good idea comes it usually sticks.

The gambit change for instance was first suggested by bill but a suggestion by JdJersey came up with the tweak so that only 5 point figs can score if i'm not mistaken.

Its all a work in progress. Altering the gambit scoring principles is a large task. We MIGHT be able to implement it in a year if discussion of the concepts results in progress.

We arn't gonna achieve that without discussion and i think if any ideas result in a positive step as far as forcing engagement and making players finish games then everyone is going to be open to hearing it.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:31 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:53 pm
Posts: 8250
fingersandteeth wrote:
...Hell even if Jedi could cut open doors by replacing their turn and spending a force to remove a door would radically alter game play in a benificial matter. It would be decidedly cannon and every squad could counter override albeit in a less effective fashion than having it yourself. Unfortunately, it was down to Rob and now peter to make these rules changes and so its not really going to happen because, for some reason, override was deemed to be king $**t of abilities....

One possible solution is to alter maps radically. Rather than have a 34 by 22 map, drop it to 26 by 10 and have dissapearing starting areas (i.e. a start up tile that is removed in 2 rounds).


Great ideas! (Give all doors hitpoints or a save to open or destroy. Expand the size of the starting areas.)
Great ideas that were suggested and shot down several times over the years. :(

That being said I'm very glad to see the changes that are being made to improve the game.
These new floor rules are going to help me get some old friends back into the game.
They are going to be a real positive for the game. Next year is going to be an exciting time for swm players. :D

Good work to Dean and his groupies. :lol:

_________________
FlyingArrow wrote:
I'm sure he'd have been on the ship if he been alive and able to get there.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:10 pm 
One of The Ones
One of The Ones
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8395
dnemiller wrote:
Nice yeah that is it I have selective memory Dennis.


Was it buried in the thread that became an f-bomb fest is that where it was because that thread had to be edited so much I doubt anyone could make heads or tails out of it.

Or was it in another thread in which I read all of the ideas that I thought were viable for the game but you just dont like what I chose or thought I could implement into a rules form. Is that the selective part?????

Please let me know just a bit little bit but I cannot gurantee I will remember it since I may choose to ignore it with my slelective memory....... by the way what is your name again?


Well Dean I certainly didn't intend to hash this out in public but if that is how you want it then so be it. My comment about your "selective memory" has more to do with your statement that I have never talked about this on the phone with you, when in fact just less than a week ago I tried to explain to you that I think the point system is not really a solution to the problem and just adds more layers, but you really weren't listening. I came to the conclusion you had already made up your mind about it and so I concluded the conversation because I really didn't want to argue - not to mention my wife was standing there tapping her foot waiting for me to take her out for dinner.

I have said for months that I believe the issue to be the fact that the game has reached a point where people have discovered the best strategy is, rather than to go for kill-em-all, simply be the person with the most points at the end of one hour. I don't agree with that style of play, but some prefer it. I know I'm not the only person to bring this up, and not the first. If you want to take the fact that I have problems with the unintended consequences of this approach as some sort of personal slight, well there's really not much I can do about that. That's not my problem. It won't be the first time we disagreed about something.

_________________
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: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:30 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
omg Dennis this has to be your most hilarious post.


So what you said that it may not be perfect. You offered nothing better as you said you had to get off the phone. So that is my selective memory. You criticizing but offering up absolutely nothing in turn?????? Wow so I should just scrap everything and just go with whatever you tell me to????? Sorry I dont work that way. I heard everything you said and until you offer up this big secretive solution in a form beyond alluding to it I will go the direction I am headed. I am not ignoring you like you seem act like..... I actually done waiting for you to say something. This is just like the Hall of Fame thread where you wanted us to beg you for the tidbit of info you got. I mean really sorry you dont trust my judgement enough to tell me. It somehow has to be about you it seems for it to be worthy. There is only one problem I have with that you want to keep it all to your self which does me no good.

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

Collection: 934/934

SWM DCI Content Manager


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:05 am 
Mandalore
Mandalore

Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:05 pm
Posts: 1170
NickName wrote:
Yup. And all that takes is allowing concessions to be 2 or 3 point wins for that particular aspect to allow repercussions for abuse.

empirejeff wrote:
Was the organized on wizards? I think i played in that. ;)


I found the old document with the scores and indeed you did. You completed all 10 of your games for 660 points finishing in 9th overall out of 37 participants.


o yeah that was fun times.

_________________
Image
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:20 am 
General
General

Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:04 am
Posts: 400
Quote:
Altering victory conditions to something other than center points is do-able. However, no-one has ever explained how this would work or even proposed where they would appear on maps. Would we need new maps to do it? Could the deathstar be used for example? Its conversations like these that need to be had in order for them to be taken seriously.



Just to add to the discussion and move it forward to be discussed more especially since this would be the most radical change if gambit gets moved or change shape or just tossed out as not needed anymore.

As far as DDM style where they would be at different points on the maps I haven't seen anything concrete but for alternate gambit sites that would work on any of the maps we have now with minimal change, well there has been a few.

I brought up a couple things personally that might work to get gambit out of the dead center and allow for more maps to be playable without the open center.

1st was change it to gambit line across center of the map. Closes to line gains gambit. If there is a tie the highest point piece gains it.

2nd idea was 2 rows of squares across the entire center of map would be the gambit area. Which would allow for more types of squads to be played on many of the maps because they don't have to go for the dead center which on most maps is wide open.

other ideas I can remember

If I remember right engineer threw out a proposal 3 gambits areas. One as it it is now and 2 others spaced out evenly one to each side dead center between center gambit and edges of map. Same look as gambit now just three spots have it across center of map. Which again allows for gambit gains without having to go for the dead center again.

Another guy can't remember his name propose that gambit was on each end of the map. You had to go through your opponent to get to your gambit area which was his starting area.


Other then the proposals being put out not much was discussed on any of them. Meaning that no one gave much input whether they were good or bad ideas. If they were bad what was the problem with them? If they were good what was good about them? Nobody said they used these ideas or tested them and this was the outcome after so many games.

_________________
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: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:41 am 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
I'm only going to give a couple of sentences to the moving/altering gambit ideas.

1. No one has shown that these would solve any problems without creating other equally problematic ones.
2. They add unneeded complexity to the game without potentially solving anything.
3. Just because we didn't do pages and pages of discussion about something, does not mean it wasn't considered or listened to.
4. Our maps were not designed for it.

And that's it. The idea is great for a brainstorming session, but it has many more hurdles to overcome than other options. That's why it didn't seem to receive the attention Dennis is claiming. But it was thought through regardless. In practice these ideas just don't do enough to solve the real issues, and create other problems, while adding complexity. So that's really all I am going to say on it here as well. I find the following statement very odd, because the above actually does nothing about it, yet the coming solution actually does. Take that irony for what it's worth.

Quote:
I have said for months that I believe the issue to be the fact that the game has reached a point where people have discovered the best strategy is, rather than to go for kill-em-all, simply be the person with the most points at the end of one hour. I don't agree with that style of play, but some prefer it. I know I'm not the only person to bring this up, and not the first.

You say this as if this is a new revelation we haven't recognized as well. Yes, everyone who has thought about this problem for 3 years is well aware that this is the primary issue. It's why the solutions need to have someway to help change the culture of the players. Changing the point scoring system, actually doesn't do that at all, it simply tries to fix the abusive nature of it. Which in the end, once the new system was figured out by the players, I am sure would end up equally abusive. Your statement is actually a direct support for the reason Dean went the way he did. He is trying to give people a motivation to think otherwise.

Will it solve everything? Of course not, it's not intended to, and no solution will. But it wasn't Dean's solution either. This was the collective work of all of us over the past three years talking about this stuff. You had an equal hand in what is happening as any of the rest of us, because the issues you brought up in the discussions were carefully looked at. It really is time you give Dean his due credit for the work he has done here. This is the result of looking at and thinking through these issues, and countless conversations with everyone he can talk to.

In the end guys, I think Dean well knows there might be problems that develop with any system chosen. The question has never been, what change fixes all of it, or what system changes things the most just for change sake. It's what system changes as much of the problems as possible, without being overly complicated, easy to understand, and simple to implement. If you don't agree that this is the one, that's fine, but you need to start with the assumption that Dean did consider all possible options carefully.

I don't think anyone, including Dennis, has a right at this point to claim he wasn't listened to if he/she has participated in one of these threads over the past 3 years. I think the near universal support for the changes in this thread, points to the quality of the answer. I am sure once this gets off onto other boards, we will see more negativity, but in the end, I think the vast majority of players will appreciate it.

Now, anyone want to talk about any of the other changes? The "winning when you kill the opponent's squad" came directly from Dennis pointing out the problem. But I guess that's another example of him not being listened to :)

_________________
Image

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:08 am 
One of The Ones
One of The Ones
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8395
billiv15 wrote:
I'm only going to give a couple of sentences to the moving/altering gambit ideas.

1. No one has shown that these would solve any problems without creating other equally problematic ones.
2. They add unneeded complexity to the game without potentially solving anything.
3. Just because we didn't do pages and pages of discussion about something, does not mean it wasn't considered or listened to.
4. Our maps were not designed for it.

And that's it. The idea is great for a brainstorming session, but it has many more hurdles to overcome than other options. That's why it didn't seem to receive the attention Dennis is claiming. But it was thought through regardless. In practice these ideas just don't do enough to solve the real issues, and create other problems, while adding complexity. So that's really all I am going to say on it here as well. I find the following statement very odd, because the above actually does nothing about it, yet the coming solution actually does. Take that irony for what it's worth.

Quote:
I have said for months that I believe the issue to be the fact that the game has reached a point where people have discovered the best strategy is, rather than to go for kill-em-all, simply be the person with the most points at the end of one hour. I don't agree with that style of play, but some prefer it. I know I'm not the only person to bring this up, and not the first.

You say this as if this is a new revelation we haven't recognized as well.


New revelation? Not at all, nor did I suggest that it was. All I said was that no one wants to hear about changing what created this problem in the first place and suddenly I am accused of having some super-secret solution that I've been storing away in my cookie jar for the past three years. LMAO

I mean God forbid that I have a difference of opinion about something that one of the other "big three" just grandstanded. And when I try to say, well your solution penalizes people you aren't actually targeting, the response is, whoopity doo.

I mean seriously, you must think me pretty stupid if you believe that I think I can persuade you guys. Both of you are as bull-headed as me and you've already made up your minds about this. As far as I'm concerned, it's just one more reason to stop playing in a DCI Swiss style format, though not the top of the list one.

Finally, Bill, I can appreciate the hard work Dean puts into this without having to agree with the outcome.

@Dean: WTF are you talking about? I NEVER begged you to listen to anything I had to say, on the subject of HoF or otherwise. All I said was that people were PMing me with their concerns and I was mulling over their comments and that I might, MIGHT have a suggestion. But there goes your selective memory again, because in the end I decided that I disagreed with those people and said as much.

Have fun with your cookie jar, Dean.

_________________
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: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:23 am 
Imperial Dignitaries
Imperial Dignitaries

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:17 pm
Posts: 5934
Sorry my qouting skills aren't up to par.

From LoboStelle
"This comes down partly to a super-competitive event vs. a more casual one, but...

Anyone who makes the excuse that they are unfamiliar with the map, or they don't know the LOS on this map....those are NOT valid reasons for slow play in my book. I spent HOURS before coming to Gencon this year studying some of the newer maps. I sat at my dining room table with my dry erase markers, and my LOS tools, and my minis, studying set-up areas, key LOS, safe squares, etc. I wouldn't have been anywhere near as comfortable with Taris or Teth if I hadn't done that. Sure, maybe not everyone has the time to do that kind of thing, but that is NOT an excuse to slow down the game."


What happens then when a new map no one has played on is used at Gencon? Not that it matters much to me, but earlier you also say you are in favor of a new map at Gencon.

I have thought this whole slow playdiscussion very interesting. I think it boils down to gamers in general will never be happy.

Let me explain what I am getting at. Please correct me if I am confused about something here.
Gambit was introduced because at the time one piece had override and nothing could be done about it. Thus a player could shoot one piece and then lock himself in a room. With that the person with the most points at the end of the time allowed is the winner.

Now there has been ways of dealing with override for a while now. Some of course are better then others, but like mentioned earlier, no one should come to a competative tournament with out it. So people follow the rules and developed squads that followed the rules and scored points. I have won several games with a score of 3-0 or 8-5. Was I playing slow? I don’t think so. My argument, much like Dennis’s, is why should I be forced to engage if my squad is develpoed to take shots when it benefits me? I talked with Dean about this at Gencon breifly, because I was running at 200 a San, GGDAC, and IG86s. I had about 18 activations or so. I had just won a game 3-0. I could tell my oppenent wasn’t happy about it. So I asked Dean if I should have done something differently, because I didn’t want to be accused of playing slow. I moved my pices to have good lines of fire into gambit against a melee squad. At time I was tapping or spinning pieces sending descions back to my oppenent. My point is that I was following the rules set up. So was this a quality win deserving of 3 points or would it fall into the 2 point category?
I guess I am left wondering if SWM is going to turn into a no stratagey game in the long run. You bring your beatsticks and I will bring mine. We will play on the blank map because shooters can no longer be used and we just run up and beat on each other.
I guess I am really finding elements of the game frustrating. I feel it is becoming harder and harder to get players into the game with all the floor rule changes. See all those map packs on the wall kid. You can’t use any of them. See the piece here you can’t use that either. Oh you wonder where you can get maps. Well…..if you would have started playing years ago you would have them. But here you can buy one pack and get three…..good like finding any others. Oh I quess you can print them out online.
I am starting to ramble. Sorry. I like the fact that pieces now have to be worth 5 points to get gambit. This is a great idea. I hope it is worded well in the rules so it is clear what can and can’t score points.
Maps – I understand why they are being banned.
Dean and Jim I apperciate the hard work that you both put into this game and community.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:25 am 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
You guys sure enjoy your drama. :lol: Anyway...

fingersandteeth wrote:
i don't think i entered that tournament, did I?


You did actually! But you only completed 4 of your 10 games for 220 points. You must have hit a horrid matchup because in your fourth game scored 3 points. :)

@Les. I don't think the floor rules changing has any direct impact at all getting new players into the game. I mean, they don't even know it's a change if they're not into the game. :) Floor rules are the last thing new players tend to be thinking about. They see a mountain of pieces they'll never be able to afford and a core of established highly skilled players, and the game just looks intimidating to start. DCI tourneys will be subpar experience in most cases regardless of the wording of the rules. I think you really need to hook them with more casual play and build toward getting them into DCI. What changes are really intended to do is keep veteran players in the system so there's a visible, vibrant organized play group at LGS around the country showing the game off.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:02 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:22 pm
Posts: 4994
billiv15 wrote:
I'm only going to give a couple of sentences to the moving/altering gambit ideas.

1. No one has shown that these would solve any problems without creating other equally problematic ones.
2. They add unneeded complexity to the game without potentially solving anything.
3. Just because we didn't do pages and pages of discussion about something, does not mean it wasn't considered or listened to.
4. Our maps were not designed for it.

And that's it.


Our maps are not designed for gambit either. I mean even when maps are "designed" with gambit in mind they fall short mostly (i.e. out of all the recent maps made after gambit none of them make the cut as judged by Nicknames thread over at wizards.)

The issue with gambit is that you can get to it without risking engagement in a lot of maps. In my mind its a flaw of the gambit scoring system. I draw your attention to one of games in the last round of the Jedi challenge 100 where both guys sat in gambit on one of the favoured maps (Ruined Base) and did nothing until time forced them to. Both sides had figures higher than 5 points in gambit. With the new rules, this eventuality can still occur (its actually one of the only maps it can occur on).

The 2 point score will make a difference to players motives, but perhaps not depending on how the players have performed.

If scoring zones forces you into enemy territory that has to alter that kind of camping to some degree. I can't believe that no-one has experience with D&D minis scoring to add to this discussion.

The complexity of altering scoring zones is just adding map diagrams to the PDF on the DCI website. It would take me or NickName one night to put relevant diagrams on the PDF and people could print it out. There might be Wizard beurocracy that makes this more complex thatn its sounding but if the limit of the complexity is just letting people know where the scoring zones are then its a fairly achievable task.

Anyway, i'm really happy about the changes. I don't want to encourage discussion that is going to piss all over Dean's hard work. I think what he has done with the rules is excellent and should have positive ramifications for the enjoyment of the competitive game.

I do want to rivisit the scoring zones at some point because i believe it has potential merit and it is due to the point I brought up above.
However, I do appreciate that this is probably not the thread to do it so i'll stop with it now.

Quote:
Now, anyone want to talk about any of the other changes? The "winning when you kill the opponent's squad" came directly from Dennis pointing out the problem. But I guess that's another example of him not being listened to :)


Sound good to me. So what happens, you kill the opponents last piece and win immedeately?

All i got from the holonews was

1. you go to time and win you get 2 points not 3.
2. Need a figure costing 5 to score gambit
3. restricted map list

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:15 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
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
@Dean: WTF are you talking about? I NEVER begged you to listen to anything I had to say, on the subject of HoF or otherwise. All I said was that people were PMing me with their concerns and I was mulling over their comments and that I might, MIGHT have a suggestion. But there goes your selective memory again, because in the end I decided that I disagreed with those people and said as much.

Have fun with your cookie jar, Dean.



no Dennis I remember it well. You had info that you were talking about sharing with me and no one else. The other members had every right to hear it not just me. After a couple of days you shared it..... but why the wait? It concerned everyone. Me wanting all the Hall of Famers is me not wanting all the info quite the opposite.

You are upset because you said I didn't listen to you on your phone call. But you had to leave not me. I did nto finish explaining the rest of rules to you I was only partially done. It would seem you might want to hear the rest of it or something before you claimed I did not listen to your ideas. But ok whatever sadly this is not the first time you have threatened to quit playing DCI in SWM and it wont be the last. It seems that ever since Gencon has been over you have been upset about something and for the life of me I dont know why. I know you have other real life issues that keep you occupied but still it seems like something else.

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

Collection: 934/934

SWM DCI Content Manager


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 167 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights style by Scott Stubblefield