RegisterDonateLogin

Tastes best fresh from the Bantha.

Welcome Guest Active Topics | Members

75 minute rounds (90 on vassal) for 200pt games Options
TimmerB123
Posted: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 8:10:43 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
Hey all

There has been plenty of discussion lately (a lot of it by me admittedly, but lots of other contributions as well) about gambit, tournament victory points, when the game ends, etc.

There have been lots of things brought up, lots of great ideas. I have personally tried to stay open to feedback and tried to admit when I am in the minority or see strong resistance. I have had my opinion changed or conceded that it's a losing battle on many of the issues (1pt for losing players, 10pt gambit, tournament score superseding record, etc.)

Through it all a clarity has risen to the surface for my own thoughts on the matter.

That is that destroying all of your opponents pieces is the most pure form of the game. It is how the game was always intended to be played, and is bar far the most satisfying finish to the game - win or lose.

It is truly what embodies "engagement". It is the actual definition of finishing a game.

Things like gambit and tournament scoring systems only exist because not all games achieve this before time.

Think about it - if every game had one player destroy all of the other player's pieces before time - gambit and tournament scoring tie breakers wouldn't really be necessary.

Since time limits are a necessary evil for tournaments, to get back to the pure form of the game (while acknowledging strong resistance to certain changes) - I really see only 2 solutions that are reasonably viable.

I'd love to implement them both, but either alone will be an improvement. I will put each in its own separate thread to have their merits considered individually, and not become a muddled mess (lesson learned)

1. 75 minute rounds (90 on vassal). +15 minutes means more games will finish. There seems to be this fear that the exact same number of games won't finish because players will slow down to fill the time. That is simply not true. Will all games finish? Of course not. However - I am willing to bet that 50-75% of the games that wouldn't finish in 60 min will finish in 75 minutes. In the beginning time limit was set at 1hr for 100pt games. With simple interactions and cards not packed full of complex abilities. Now we are at 200pts with some of the most complicated interactions in the history of the game. Save rolls and defender responses have skyrocketed, thus increasing interaction time. Even with the recent drop in the last 3-4 years in number of activations (which I think m most people would agree is good overall), games are sometimes just too complex to finish in 60 minutes when paired against certain other squads.

I know the first response many players will have is: well I play fast. Great! But in general it is also certain squad types and play styles that "play fast". As a player who has done both extremes and everything in between, I can say that it can be fun and freeing to play a run in and smack them up squad that plays fast (such as my 6 character squad I played 2 weeks ago). But I ALSO like to play cagey squads that have a lot of movement and more fragile pieces. So do we invalidate these types of squads? I think that just narrows the meta, which is a bad thing. I recognize it is incumbent on the player to play fast enough to win, but sometimes games innately take longer. When your opponent just keeps literally making every parry save, what do you do? The number of ways negate damage has skyrocketed, thus innately giving the possibility for games to last longer, even with full engagement. This is key. I am not talking about taking 10 minutes to spin one mouse droid. I am not talking about having a 30 activation squad and getting 3 rounds in. I am talking about full engagement from the beginning, 7,8,9+ rounds, and it's not quite finished.

Even though logic would dictate that if it was 1hr for 100pts, then it should be 2 hours for 200pts. (That's not even taking into account how much more complex interactions are now). I think a meager 15 minute time bump will allow a satisfyingly larger number of games to finish.


Now - my guess is that suggestion will send some people into an absolute panic. The thought of extending game time to some people is akin to having their eyelids ripped off. Keep in mind we have also had it brought up recently that some players actually PREFER to have a little break between games. If they finish early, they get a little extra of that which they are requesting. With so many games on vassal now it's also much easier to take that time in your home.

I just thought I'd voice it so that people can put their thoughts in if they agree. I have had it brought up to me, and I felt it deserved discussion on the boards.
Randy
Posted: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 8:42:58 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 2/20/2012
Posts: 159
What if a game needed to be a minimum of 5 rounds to finish? Would that help force the "30 activation squad and getting 3 rounds in" closer to completion?
UrbanShmi
Posted: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 9:06:35 AM
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member , Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2009
Posts: 1,318
Not panicking, btw LOL I do worry about how much time it could add to events, which already tend to run long. But not rejecting it out of hand.
TimmerB123
Posted: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 9:33:46 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
UrbanShmi wrote:
Not panicking, btw LOL I do worry about how much time it could add to events, which already tend to run long. But not rejecting it out of hand.


"Run long" is subjective, but yes, innately it would add time. More games would truly finish though.
TimmerB123
Posted: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 9:38:52 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
Randy wrote:
What if a game needed to be a minimum of 5 rounds to finish? Would that help force the "30 activation squad and getting 3 rounds in" closer to completion?


I would assume the obvious caveat that destroying your opponents entire squad before 5 rounds would also be fine, lol.

The question arises of what happens if they don't do 5 rounds in time.

Do they get extra time? if so how much? What if they still aren't there?

Do they get penalized? If so how do you determine which player, or is it automatically both?


It seems like there would have to be a lot addressed, some of which would need a lot more attention from judges/TOs, and that could get tricky quickly.

If you could get more specific on some of those things we could explore it closer.
urbanjedi
Posted: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:03:08 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/30/2008
Posts: 2,037
I would like to see more data on this point. I haven't really heard anyone talking about needing more time, or wishing games were longer.

Looking at the last couple vassal regionals (thanks TOs for making the rd results super easy to find),
Carolina had 10/12 games that ended with 3 pt. win
Chicago had 19/20 games end with 3 pt victories


I know it is a fairly small sample size, but I don't really see an issue.


Certainly something to look at going forward. Would also like more data on the games that do go to time (specifically how many rds were played in that game)
TimmerB123
Posted: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:25:08 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
urbanjedi wrote:
I would like to see more data on this point.


I’ll have everyone keep track during the tournament on Saturday.

In the vassal regional it looks like there were 9 games in Swiss the went to time. I was not playing in any of those so I idea how many of those were close to finishing.

The other thing to look at (perhaps more relevant to the other thread) is how many of those 3 point wins were solely do to gambit and how many were where they destroyed all their opponent’s pieces (or where a victory was clear and there would be a concession)
Randy
Posted: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:29:26 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 2/20/2012
Posts: 159
TimmerB123 wrote:
Randy wrote:
What if a game needed to be a minimum of 5 rounds to finish? Would that help force the "30 activation squad and getting 3 rounds in" closer to completion?


I would assume the obvious caveat that destroying your opponents entire squad before 5 rounds would also be fine, lol.



Wiping them out, all of them, is always acceptable. Maybe it should be the only way to get a full win.

TimmerB123 wrote:
The question arises of what happens if they don't do 5 rounds in time.

Do they get extra time? if so how much? What if they still aren't there?

Do they get penalized? If so how do you determine which player, or is it automatically both?


You can already ask for an extra round if you complete less than 5 rounds correct? Is there a time limit on that? Maybe they get 15 minutes to get to 5 rounds. It is a timed win unless the opponent has no characters capable of attacking outside of the starting area.

Still not over 100 or at 5 rounds? Double loss. Both over 100, still not at 5 rounds? 1 point each. Double loss.

Just my initial thoughts. Five rounds has kind of been the standard for a long time. That means an average round of 12 minutes or less in the current rules set. Bumping up the time to 75 minutes increases that average to 15 minutes. 18 minutes on the Vassal 90 minute tournament round.

I'm not necessarily opposed to longer time limits, but I would echo UrbanShmi's statement about overall tournament lengths.

I don't think it would be so bad if we went to a specific number of rounds per tournament. At 6 tournament rounds you are looking at 9 hours easy in a live event. Most likely 12 on Vassal. Say 3 rounds of "qualifying" , then cut to a single elimination bracket for the last 3 rounds. IDK just thinking "out loud".
kezzamachine
Posted: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:34:39 AM
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member , Moderator

Joined: 9/23/2008
Posts: 1,467
Location: Lower the Hutt, New Zealand
I just looked back at my Vassal Regional. Of my 6 games on the table, I won two games fully, another three as 2pt wins (which would have likely been 3pts with another 15 minutes), and lost one as a 2pt games (which again easily would have completed at 90 minutes). Plus, having my first two 2pt wins being 3pt wins would have put me in the Top 8 and probably far higher as I had head-to-head wins against 4th, 5th, and 6th!
gandalfthegreatestwizard
Posted: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 12:53:47 PM
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member , Moderator

Joined: 4/30/2017
Posts: 848
Location: Lower Hutt, New Zealand
It's already a significant commitment of time to play in a tournament- I'd hesitate to make it longer. The proposal will also sometimes mean that everyone has to wait around for 15 more minutes before they can start their next game.
thereisnotry
Posted: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 1:03:48 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/29/2008
Posts: 1,679
Location: Canada
On the other discussion (applying gambit score to kill score only after time expires) I am rather neutral; I think there are good points on both sides of the discussion. It's fascinating, actually.

On this discussion, though, I firmly disagree with the change being proposed, and for several reasons:

1. The original 60-minutes-for-100pts scenario was fully arbitrary. It seems that almost all miniatures skirmish games have 60 minute rounds in tournaments. As far as I know, only Armada and Legion tournaments have games that exceed 60 minutes. (Heck, even SkyTear, an awesome new game that I've picked up, which is loaded with complexity, has 60 minute rounds.) The fact that people could take 60 minutes to finish a 100pt game was irrelevant; they didn't need to...they could've taken 90 minutes as well.

2. Certainly, a 200pt game needs more time than a 100pt game. However, that doesn't mean that players need more than 60 minutes to complete a 200pt game. That's because the original WotC timing was more than necessary; a 100pt game does not require 60 minutes. That is, show me any two 100pt WotC squads and get two competent players to play them in a match. I guarantee that it won't require 60 minutes. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that an average 200pt game necessarily needs more than 60 minutes.

3. Certainly, cards and squads are more complicated now than ever before. However, damage output is also far higher now than ever before. I remember back when Darth Vader JH dominated the game because he could put out a reliable 90dmg on his turn. (Those were also the days when a piece in LOS of your opponent's squad could often survive 2 or 3 rounds of fire.) Now, those same 75pts can get you several pieces that put out far more damage than Vader ever could, and many pieces can eliminate a significant piece from the opposing squad in 1 activation. So yes, the game is more complex...it's also more lethal. More lethal = less durability = more characters dying per round = quicker match resolution. If you don't understand your squad well enough to play it at least moderately quickly, then don't play it in a tournament and also expect to get 3pt wins.

4. There can be no doubt that adding 15 minutes would allow people to finish more games, which would mean that some players would then make the top cut, who wouldn't have made the cut with our current time limit. This is a truism. The other side of that coin is that there are an equal number of players who would no longer make the cut for those same tournaments. The question is, which players are more deserving? I think this is a po-tay-to/po-tah-to distinction, and is therefore irrelevant. Why not make the rounds a full 2 hours long? That way everyone will get full wins! Because it's a tournament; people don't want to spend 8 hours playing 4 games, when those same games can be played in 4 hours.

5. This one is more personal to me, so I don't expect it to hold weight for most other people: I'm almost always finished well before 60 minutes (especially when I play vs Jason!), and I'd rather just get on with the next round sooner rather than later. I signed up to play, not to wait. I've got a family and other things to do. Adding 15 minutes per round would add a full hour to a 4-round tournament. That time is basically down-time, since it's not enough time to do anything productive. Will it keep me from playing? No. But playing with our current time limit won't keep others from playing either.



Btw, my attitude as I write this post is playful and at least partially tongue-in-cheek, so please don't take offense. You're welcome to disagree with me. You'll just be wrong! Flapper LOL
jen'ari
Posted: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:19:07 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 5/3/2014
Posts: 2,098
I said it a while back and will say it again.
Referees solve all these issues.
Referees have to be heartless.
If a player has had a past of slow play that person should be shadowed and warned from the get go.
Until referees uphold the roles of slow play there will not be change.
In soccer there are rules to penalize players for flopping. Only a very few select refs will uphold them. So flopping is a large part of the game now and is taught to the youth as a way to turn in unfavorable situation into goal scoring opportunities.
Quick to penalize referees can solve all the issues.

But in other discussion.
I would love for there to be a way to reward large differences in gambit. I remember playing a game
And losing 185-42.
2 pt win? I conceded so the opponent got a 3 pt win but didn't have to.

How do people define a truly victorious defeat?
If someone wins 220-195 is that a better defeat than the mentioned 185-42?
What part does protecting your own pieces play? Any good commander wants to maximize opponent deaths while minimizing lost to his own.

In soccer a 3-0 win is the absolute best. If you can near a team 3-0 it's the same as 7-0 in terms of domination. You truly dominated the opponent.
It is also better than a 7-1 win.

I would love to see something like if you score 175 or more gambit and lose 50 or less gambit it is a 3 pt win.
kezzamachine
Posted: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 3:00:44 PM
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member , Moderator

Joined: 9/23/2008
Posts: 1,467
Location: Lower the Hutt, New Zealand
jen'ari wrote:
I would love for there to be a way to reward large differences in gambit. I remember playing a game
And losing 185-42.
2 pt win? I conceded so the opponent got a 3 pt win but didn't have to.

How do people define a truly victorious defeat?
If someone wins 220-195 is that a better defeat than the mentioned 185-42?
What part does protecting your own pieces play? Any good commander wants to maximize opponent deaths while minimizing lost to his own.

In soccer a 3-0 win is the absolute best. If you can near a team 3-0 it's the same as 7-0 in terms of domination. You truly dominated the opponent.
It is also better than a 7-1 win.

I would love to see something like if you score 175 or more gambit and lose 50 or less gambit it is a 3 pt win.


I think there is something in this!
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Bloo Milk Theme Created by shinja
Powered by Yet Another Forum.net.
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.