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=7032TILE 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.