logo

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 130 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:44 pm 
Warmaster
Warmaster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:06 pm
Posts: 572
Location: Lexington Park, MD
I really like the idea of 1 point for losing to a 3 point winner. Usually, when I see a match turning quite heinously on me, I don't try to delay the inevitable. This might not even need to be a permanent rule. If we introduce the 1-point loss and people start to play faster, we might be able to remove it later on down the line.

The 1-point loss also says - and I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, lol - "Hey, I know you got a really crappy matchup and there was nothing you could've done to win, so here, have a point!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:06 pm 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:03 pm
Posts: 2525
Location: Anderson, SC
Demosthenes wrote:
I really like the idea of 1 point for losing to a 3 point winner. Usually, when I see a match turning quite heinously on me, I don't try to delay the inevitable. This might not even need to be a permanent rule. If we introduce the 1-point loss and people start to play faster, we might be able to remove it later on down the line.

The 1-point loss also says - and I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, lol - "Hey, I know you got a really crappy matchup and there was nothing you could've done to win, so here, have a point!"


Exactly, the issue I think we are running into is people not completing games. So if you let you opponent get a 2 point win your only hurting yourself. Going for the 3 point win every game is now not a bad idea cause it's still more rewording then getting 2 pointers.

_________________
Bald is beautiful.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:06 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
MandalMauler wrote:
Another idea:

If time is called, total the kill points from the 2 players. If the total does not equal or exceed the team total, it is a double loss. For instance, in a 200 point game, a score of 95 to 90 (=185 summed) counts as a double loss because neither player engaged enough. Or make it 150% of team total.

Then apply any other score modifiers, like gambit.


This idea was discussed prior to the introduction of HSD (Hit, Save, Damage) into the game. Realistically there could be games with a lot of engagement but it all being shrugged off through Evade/Parry/Force powers/etc.

_________________
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: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:44 am 
Mandalore
Mandalore
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:43 pm
Posts: 1009
Location: Southern Illinois
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
MandalMauler wrote:
Another idea:

If time is called, total the kill points from the 2 players. If the total does not equal or exceed the team total, it is a double loss. For instance, in a 200 point game, a score of 95 to 90 (=185 summed) counts as a double loss because neither player engaged enough. Or make it 150% of team total.

Then apply any other score modifiers, like gambit.


This idea was discussed prior to the introduction of HSD (Hit, Save, Damage) into the game. Realistically there could be games with a lot of engagement but it all being shrugged off through Evade/Parry/Force powers/etc.


It's also a deathtrap for games where one player is dominating, but just cant get the last few points before time is called. If this was put into effect and someone is winning 170 to 12, they shouldnt get a 2pt victory.

Even though I havent done much competitive play, I think the 1pt loss is a very good idea.

_________________
WotC: 890/890
V-Set: 142/142

Wotc GTL: 52ish
Gamers GTL: 2 (dalsiandon, urbanjedi)

fingersandteeth wrote:
Also t4 for override and a cheeky flame.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:47 am 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
Disturbed1 wrote:

It's also a deathtrap for games where one player is dominating, but just cant get the last few points before time is called. If this was put into effect and someone is winning 170 to 12, they shouldnt get a 2pt victory.


This is a 2pt win now, and it should be.

_________________
Image

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:12 am 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:57 pm
Posts: 3483
billiv15 wrote:
Disturbed1 wrote:

It's also a deathtrap for games where one player is dominating, but just cant get the last few points before time is called. If this was put into effect and someone is winning 170 to 12, they shouldnt get a 2pt victory.


This is a 2pt win now, and it should be.


This is something that I've always felt needed to be clarified.

The 3/2 system is a way to rewarded players for more "real" wins, as in games where they are the clear winner and their opponent is the clear loser. That's the kind of finish to games we should be striving for, and it should be rewarded with 3 points.

Except when it's not.

I agree with you that if a person is winning 170 to 12, they should get a 2 point win. Sucks for you, shoulda played faster or called a judge if your opponent is stalling. But it's also obvious that the player winning in that game has won the game. I feel that we can call that player the clear victor. What if the score is 170 to 12, time has already been called, but the losing player has no attackers left (say it's just a whole bunch of Caamasi Nobles and that's it), and the winning player can't get to 200 points? 2 point win. Note that this is contrary to the idea that a 3 point win is to award the clear winner of the game; the clear winner of this game is the player with attackers left and the clear loser is the player with no attackers left. However, the winner did not get to 200 points within an hour, so they are not getting 3 points.

It's a small distinction, and it's mostly an argument over rhetoric, but I think that there is some confusion here. The 3/2 system is NOT there to give a 3 point win to the "clear victor" of a game. It exists to reward players who reach the victory condition (point total/total decimation of opponent's squad [note that those are the ONLY win conditions]) within an hour of play. You can be way better than your opponent and clearly have the game in hand and have no way to lose and still get a 2 point win.

Despite some objective diction, the above is of course just how I view the system, but I'm not 100% sure that my view is the correct one, and I know for a fact that it's not the only one. Maybe this is worth creating a new thread for, but I've always felt that the purpose of the 3/2 system has been at best ill-defined and at worst defined in mutually exclusive ways.

_________________
"An elegant, easy-to-understand concept or mechanic that accomplishes 95% of what you want is much better than a clunky, obtuse mechanic that gets you 100%" - Rob Daviau

"You can't per aspera ad astra unless there's some aspera in front of your astra. And that means sometimes the aspera gets you." - Donald X. Vaccarino


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:15 am 
Big Bad Brad
Big Bad Brad
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:14 am
Posts: 5344
Echo wrote:
billiv15 wrote:
Disturbed1 wrote:

It's also a deathtrap for games where one player is dominating, but just cant get the last few points before time is called. If this was put into effect and someone is winning 170 to 12, they shouldnt get a 2pt victory.


This is a 2pt win now, and it should be.


This is something that I've always felt needed to be clarified.

The 3/2 system is a way to rewarded players for more "real" wins, as in games where they are the clear winner and their opponent is the clear loser. That's the kind of finish to games we should be striving for, and it should be rewarded with 3 points.

Except when it's not.

I agree with you that if a person is winning 170 to 12, they should get a 2 point win. Sucks for you, shoulda played faster or called a judge if your opponent is stalling. But it's also obvious that the player winning in that game has won the game. I feel that we can call that player the clear victor. What if the score is 170 to 12, time has already been called, but the losing player has no attackers left (say it's just a whole bunch of Caamasi Nobles and that's it), and the winning player can't get to 200 points? 2 point win. Note that this is contrary to the idea that a 3 point win is to award the clear winner of the game; the clear winner of this game is the player with attackers left and the clear loser is the player with no attackers left. However, the winner did not get to 200 points within an hour, so they are not getting 3 points.

It's a small distinction, and it's mostly an argument over rhetoric, but I think that there is some confusion here. The 3/2 system is NOT there to give a 3 point win to the "clear victor" of a game. It exists to reward players who reach the victory condition (point total/total decimation of opponent's squad [note that those are the ONLY win conditions]) within an hour of play. You can be way better than your opponent and clearly have the game in hand and have no way to lose and still get a 2 point win.

Despite some objective diction, the above is of course just how I view the system, but I'm not 100% sure that my view is the correct one, and I know for a fact that it's not the only one. Maybe this is worth creating a new thread for, but I've always felt that the purpose of the 3/2 system has been at best ill-defined and at worst defined in mutually exclusive ways.



Note my sig. Expect that from me at Gencon.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:19 am 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:57 pm
Posts: 3483
The_Celestial_Warrior wrote:
Echo wrote:
billiv15 wrote:
Disturbed1 wrote:

It's also a deathtrap for games where one player is dominating, but just cant get the last few points before time is called. If this was put into effect and someone is winning 170 to 12, they shouldnt get a 2pt victory.


This is a 2pt win now, and it should be.


This is something that I've always felt needed to be clarified.

The 3/2 system is a way to rewarded players for more "real" wins, as in games where they are the clear winner and their opponent is the clear loser. That's the kind of finish to games we should be striving for, and it should be rewarded with 3 points.

Except when it's not.

I agree with you that if a person is winning 170 to 12, they should get a 2 point win. Sucks for you, shoulda played faster or called a judge if your opponent is stalling. But it's also obvious that the player winning in that game has won the game. I feel that we can call that player the clear victor. What if the score is 170 to 12, time has already been called, but the losing player has no attackers left (say it's just a whole bunch of Caamasi Nobles and that's it), and the winning player can't get to 200 points? 2 point win. Note that this is contrary to the idea that a 3 point win is to award the clear winner of the game; the clear winner of this game is the player with attackers left and the clear loser is the player with no attackers left. However, the winner did not get to 200 points within an hour, so they are not getting 3 points.

It's a small distinction, and it's mostly an argument over rhetoric, but I think that there is some confusion here. The 3/2 system is NOT there to give a 3 point win to the "clear victor" of a game. It exists to reward players who reach the victory condition (point total/total decimation of opponent's squad [note that those are the ONLY win conditions]) within an hour of play. You can be way better than your opponent and clearly have the game in hand and have no way to lose and still get a 2 point win.

Despite some objective diction, the above is of course just how I view the system, but I'm not 100% sure that my view is the correct one, and I know for a fact that it's not the only one. Maybe this is worth creating a new thread for, but I've always felt that the purpose of the 3/2 system has been at best ill-defined and at worst defined in mutually exclusive ways.



Note my sig. Expect that from me at Gencon.


Yep, and that's more or less my views on the matter as well. At first I felt much less strict on the matter, but after this regional season (especially after judging in Atlanta) I think that's usually the best way to go about it. However, "200 or 2" is contrary to some of the rhetoric used to explain/discuss the 3/2 system; specifically that it is NOT about who is the "clear victor", as that can often be someone who doesn't get 200 points.

_________________
"An elegant, easy-to-understand concept or mechanic that accomplishes 95% of what you want is much better than a clunky, obtuse mechanic that gets you 100%" - Rob Daviau

"You can't per aspera ad astra unless there's some aspera in front of your astra. And that means sometimes the aspera gets you." - Donald X. Vaccarino


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:41 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:01 pm
Posts: 6662
Location: Chicago, IL
The_Celestial_Warrior wrote:
Note my sig. Expect that from me at Gencon.



200 or 2 is the only completely unbiased way to judge. You start getting in sticky situations fast otherwise. So this means less 3 point victories? That's fine. So 3 points is a REWARD more than 2 points is a PUNISHMENT. I see nothing wrong with that.

The only exceptions to 200 or 2 (imo) is a judge ruling slow play or stalling previously in the game, and therefore preventing the 200. Then at the judges disrcetion, he can award a 3 point win. And this is a RARE exception to 200 or 2.

In the system we have now - this really HAS to be the way it works.



That being said - I personally see nothing wrong with the system we have now, and see no reason it should be changed. Moving to the 3/2 system WAS the big change that was needed. It has worked wonders - and a HUGE percentage more of games finish to completion than ever before.

So some games don't finish? Well - there is a LARGE incentive to finish games. If you want to advance to the finals in competitive tournaments, you need to generally win more games than other competitors, or complete all your games and win the greater percentage of your games to have a shot. I see nothing wrong with this.

Changing our currant system will either leave room for abuse, or actually do nothing and therefor be pointless.

I guess I just don't see the evil problems that are so rampant in other players eyes. In fact - in some cases, frankly it comes across as sore losers complaining that they can't figure out how to compete in this meta.

When I hear, "You keep killing my pieces and not allowing me to retaliate" it sounds to me like the other player is doing exactly the right thing strategically speaking. Why should we change the rules to allow the clearly lesser player in this scenario an unfair boost to give them a chance to complete? That is unfair to the superior player.

Of course this only applies to competitive games. In casual play I am all for not using the strongest tactics to make sure that everyone is having fun.

What we are talking about here is for top level competitive play. And guess what - it's not for everyone. There is plenty to do in SWM that is not top end competitive - so stick to those things if it's not your cup of tea.


It really just sounds like some people in the community want to run all their pieces to the center and have a big brawl, and are angry when their opponent out smarts them and won't let them do that.

Well guess what? We already have a format that REQUIRES Kill 'em all. It also forces engagement every round and outlaws locking doors, diplomats and other means of non-engagement. It sounds like it is the PERFECT SOLUTION to many complaints about the current meta.

It's called TILE WARS - and you can check out how to play it here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7032

TILE WARS is awesome, and a great diversion to the competitive meta. Don't change the regular game to force it into basically being like TILE WARS. We already have that format. :)


Last edited by TimmerB123 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:44 am 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
Echo wrote:
billiv15 wrote:
Disturbed1 wrote:

It's also a deathtrap for games where one player is dominating, but just cant get the last few points before time is called. If this was put into effect and someone is winning 170 to 12, they shouldnt get a 2pt victory.


This is a 2pt win now, and it should be.


This is something that I've always felt needed to be clarified.

The 3/2 system is a way to rewarded players for more "real" wins, as in games where they are the clear winner and their opponent is the clear loser. That's the kind of finish to games we should be striving for, and it should be rewarded with 3 points.

Except when it's not.

I agree with you that if a person is winning 170 to 12, they should get a 2 point win. Sucks for you, shoulda played faster or called a judge if your opponent is stalling. But it's also obvious that the player winning in that game has won the game. I feel that we can call that player the clear victor. What if the score is 170 to 12, time has already been called, but the losing player has no attackers left (say it's just a whole bunch of Caamasi Nobles and that's it), and the winning player can't get to 200 points? 2 point win. Note that this is contrary to the idea that a 3 point win is to award the clear winner of the game; the clear winner of this game is the player with attackers left and the clear loser is the player with no attackers left. However, the winner did not get to 200 points within an hour, so they are not getting 3 points.

It's a small distinction, and it's mostly an argument over rhetoric, but I think that there is some confusion here. The 3/2 system is NOT there to give a 3 point win to the "clear victor" of a game. It exists to reward players who reach the victory condition (point total/total decimation of opponent's squad [note that those are the ONLY win conditions]) within an hour of play. You can be way better than your opponent and clearly have the game in hand and have no way to lose and still get a 2 point win.

Despite some objective diction, the above is of course just how I view the system, but I'm not 100% sure that my view is the correct one, and I know for a fact that it's not the only one. Maybe this is worth creating a new thread for, but I've always felt that the purpose of the 3/2 system has been at best ill-defined and at worst defined in mutually exclusive ways.


Daniel, you are correct, the only thing you missed is that there will always be "exceptions" to any rule. Sure, a 172-12 score shows a clear winner, but I can make up an example of a counterpoint to it as well. Let's say of those points, the 172pt guy has 8 rounds of gambit (some kind of open map, matchup that doesn't favor the guy with 12 so collecting gambit is unsafe). That means guy with 12 could have Darth Vader completely unhit still remaining. The guy with 172 could have killed nothing but support and a secondary attacker, and have all of his attackers at 10-20hps. In that case, the 12pt guy could easily be seen as the clear winner if the game were played out to completion. When we talk of a "clear winner" I mean in a situation where there is 0 doubt at all. Not a particular score. The only less than 200pt scores I've ever considered giving a 3pt win were those that had slow play involved, or those where there was literally no way for the opponent to win. For example, the score is 195-12 when time is called, and the 195pt guy will clearly be able to collect gambit the next round. But even then, it's completely judges prerogative to decide - an in the case of the Champs, I'm fully in support of going the most strict route possible (Brad's 200 or 2 other than slow play issues). People prefer fairness to correctness and this is the most fair way to run a large event I believe.

_________________
Image

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:49 pm 
Mandalore
Mandalore
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:43 pm
Posts: 1009
Location: Southern Illinois
billiv15 wrote:
Disturbed1 wrote:

It's also a deathtrap for games where one player is dominating, but just cant get the last few points before time is called. If this was put into effect and someone is winning 170 to 12, they shouldnt get a 2pt victory.


This is a 2pt win now, and it should be.


My apologies. I apparently completely forgot what I was commenting on. Re-read MandalMauler's entire suggestion that I commented on.

My response to his idea should have been along the lines of "It's also a deathtrap for games where one player is dominating, but just cant get the last few points before time is called. If this was put into effect and someone is winning 170 to 12, this should not be a double loss."

And no, Im not arguing that 170-12 shouldnt be a 2pt win, though apparently my fingers disagreed with me when I typed that first message, lol.

_________________
WotC: 890/890
V-Set: 142/142

Wotc GTL: 52ish
Gamers GTL: 2 (dalsiandon, urbanjedi)

fingersandteeth wrote:
Also t4 for override and a cheeky flame.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:45 pm 
General
General

Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:04 am
Posts: 400
I like the idea of no gambit on round 1 but maybe it should be a couple rounds no more then 2.

I kinda like the idea of 10 point gambit but I would like to see it that you have to be on your opponents side of map in gambit to get it. I also would like to see that a 10 point piece is the only way to get gambit at all.

As far as the 3/2 or 3/2/1 scenarios I have no real opinion, they don't really concern me.

As far as maps other gambit looks can work for those that don't work for the middle.

As far as forceing an engagement. Maybe each round the back row on each side of map falls off and is unusable. Any pieces on it are auto defeated. But this would probably fall for another scenario.

_________________
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: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:50 pm 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:00 pm
Posts: 6547
Location: Southern IL
Gurneywars wrote:
I like the idea of no gambit on round 1 but maybe it should be a couple rounds no more then 2.

I kinda like the idea of 10 point gambit but I would like to see it that you have to be on your opponents side of map in gambit to get it. I also would like to see that a 10 point piece is the only way to get gambit at all.


I find these two ideas coupled together intriguing. Maps would probably have to be reviewed.

Also agree alternate gambit areas would be cool.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:03 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:01 pm
Posts: 6662
Location: Chicago, IL
In all honesty I am very wary of any changes.

Our system works well. This year everyone who finished all their games and won at least 4 were rewarded by making it in the top 8.

The system works exactly as it should. No changes are necessary.


I fear if we make changes such as 10 pt gambit, it will have the opposite effect. People will build squads meant solely for getting gambit and avoiding combat. Systems like this would reward movement breakers even more when they already are very powerful.

It's interesting that the people who play the game the most are not looking for changes in the system, since they understand it and see how it already functions well.

And there is an outcry from people who barely play the game anymore. It's hard to take stock in opinions of people who don't truly understand the game very well.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:15 am 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:57 pm
Posts: 3483
TimmerB123 wrote:
In all honesty I am very wary of any changes.

Our system works well. This year everyone who finished all their games and won at least 4 were rewarded by making it in the top 8.

The system works exactly as it should. No changes are necessary.


I fear if we make changes such as 10 pt gambit, it will have the opposite effect. People will build squads meant solely for getting gambit and avoiding combat. Systems like this would reward movement breakers even more when they already are very powerful.

It's interesting that the people who play the game the most are not looking for changes in the system, since they understand it and see how it already functions well.

And there is an outcry from people who barely play the game anymore. It's hard to take stock in opinions of people who don't truly understand the game very well.


Especially after GenCon, I agree with all of the above. I didn't see anything wrong with the system; why fix what isn't broken?

_________________
"An elegant, easy-to-understand concept or mechanic that accomplishes 95% of what you want is much better than a clunky, obtuse mechanic that gets you 100%" - Rob Daviau

"You can't per aspera ad astra unless there's some aspera in front of your astra. And that means sometimes the aspera gets you." - Donald X. Vaccarino


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:01 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:00 pm
Posts: 6547
Location: Southern IL
TimmerB123 wrote:
It's interesting that the people who play the game the most are not looking for changes in the system, since they understand it and see how it already functions well.

And there is an outcry from people who barely play the game anymore. It's hard to take stock in opinions of people who don't truly understand the game very well.


I don't think there is an "outcry" happening here - not from me anyway (speaking as someone who doesn't get to play much these days). I do think that some folks are forgetting that this is just a brainstorming thread, and that it was even suggested way back that these ideas could be pursued as an alternate competitive format. (which I think is a great idea)

So I see no reason not to continue the discussion, regardless of where the suggestions and opinions are coming from. ;)

Grand Moff Boris wrote:
billiv15 wrote:
Mapmaker wrote:
I'm going to stay out of most of this discussion to leave the details to those better versed in the nuances of the system, but speaking as a map maker, I would very much like to see an option to define gambit differently on different maps.

The floor rules could (and I've often thought should) include a small gallery of legal maps, and the gambit area could be highlighted on each of these.

It would be up to the community leaders to determine the legal gambit areas on each map, but if you guys end up going in this direction, I'd gladly make suggestions for my maps and provide thumbnail images with your gambit decisions highlighted for easy reference.


While I'm not in favor at this time of Dennis' major change to the general game (and it should be obvious that he isn't proposing these go into effect without immense play testing, which he in the first post promised to do), I could be convinced for making major changes like those proposed, probably with some modifications.

What I think is more interesting, and perhaps a better way to go however, is to work on an alternative format entirely. There are a few reasons I think this would be the better solution. First, not all of our maps were made with Gambit in mind. Second, many of the custom maps, were designed with other considerations entirely. Chris as we all know, makes beautiful maps that we all enjoy, they just aren't 100% catered to our rules in many cases, which causes problems with their playability in the competitive game. But we were able to add a bunch to the Standard list. When we came up with the idea for multiple lists of maps, one of the "future" plans was to look at other formats that might cater to different maplists. I think a great idea, is to consider that we might be able to create/run a different format of play that can use many of the maps we all already have effectively. Alternative victory conditions could do that. It will take a lot of work and play testing, but it's worth looking into. And if we were able to establish an alternative format effectively, that would give us the option of running 2 different championships at Gencon, instead of just one. Even further, if after a year or so of play, if people started preferring the new format, it could replace "Standard" play as the dominate version. I'm all for trying out new ideas and seeing what can happen. I don't agree with Dennis that the current format cannot be continually tinkered with, or that his assessment of the "problems" is fully correct. But I also don't think it has to be one way or the high way. I would love to find a way to use other maps for another way to play, that will help keep the game fresh and interesting for years to come. It also could foster a greater use of maps that aren't as good for our current format, and help keep our friendly neighborhood mapmakers in business - which we all want.

I was upset that none of Chris' maps were able to make the Restricted list. That was indeed unfortunate. It was the right decision however, and I recognize that Brad and Dean made a very very tough call on it. I respect them greatly for taking the heat for doing it. I know a couple of Chris' maps right off the top of my head that would have worked great with alternative gambit locations. Even if they weren't the best choices for our current rule set, what's to stop us from looking at creating an alternative format that caters to other ways to play? Chris - I'd love to see a couple of images of maybe 2-3 of your maps on the standard list with something like this outlined just as a conversation piece. I think it would help people visualize ideas better.


Thanks Bill. This is along my line of thinking. My suggestions/proposals are nothing more than a starting point for discussion and testing. They are not meant to be an end-all be all set of changes to the game. Any or all of these are worth consideration as are other ideas that could crop up along the way, and especially from other people. :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:37 pm 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:01 pm
Posts: 6662
Location: Chicago, IL
swinefeld wrote:

I don't think there is an "outcry" happening here - not from me anyway (speaking as someone who doesn't get to play much these days). I do think that some folks are forgetting that this is just a brainstorming thread, and that it was even suggested way back that these ideas could be pursued as an alternate competitive format. (which I think is a great idea)

So I see no reason not to continue the discussion, regardless of where the suggestions and opinions are coming from. ;)


I certainly don't think the discussion should stop, I was just expressing my opinion.

And I am all for alternate formats. I still think TILE WARS satisfies every complaint about the current meta, and is great for people who want to just get down to the fighting.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:02 pm 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:00 pm
Posts: 6547
Location: Southern IL
TimmerB123 wrote:
swinefeld wrote:

I don't think there is an "outcry" happening here - not from me anyway (speaking as someone who doesn't get to play much these days). I do think that some folks are forgetting that this is just a brainstorming thread, and that it was even suggested way back that these ideas could be pursued as an alternate competitive format. (which I think is a great idea)

So I see no reason not to continue the discussion, regardless of where the suggestions and opinions are coming from. ;)


I certainly don't think the discussion should stop, I was just expressing my opinion.

And I am all for alternate formats. I still think TILE WARS satisfies every complaint about the current meta, and is great for people who want to just get down to the fighting.


Yes, of course. My bad wording it the way I did. :)
I love Tile Wars, but I'd like to see something kind of in between it and current constructed tourney format, using full sized maps, but with some different strategic goals (while still trying to kill all your opponent's pieces).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:43 pm 
General
General

Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:04 am
Posts: 400
Quote:
It's interesting that the people who play the game the most are not looking for changes in the system, since they understand it and see how it already functions well.

And there is an outcry from people who barely play the game anymore. It's hard to take stock in opinions of people who don't truly understand the game very well.


Well I don't think I was making an outcry. I was throwing out some brainstorms to go with the discussion on a change in gambit.

As far as not playing anymore that is more a circumstance versus a want.

_________________
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: Winning the game (Proposed Gambit changes)
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:14 am 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:11 pm
Posts: 206
It didn't seem like many were saying it, but IF Lancers or Yobuck are a problem (and it sounds like that damned Yobuck Anistap garbage that I faced in 5 consecutive vassal games a year or two ago did well at Gencon this year), then maybe just a teency counter for strafe and gallop might be worth trying before changing things on a much bigger level with gambit.

Maybe an ability like:
Formational Logistics (Enemy characters using Strafe Attack or Galloping Attack are limited to attacking X characters per round on their Strafe Attack or Galloping Attack, where X equals 1/2 of the attacking character's Speed)

Or:

Non-unique allies who are defeated by an enemy using Strafe Attack or Galloping Attack may make one immediate attack at +2 attack against that enemy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 130 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

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