RegisterDonateLogin

Has never underestimated the power of the Dark Side.

Welcome Guest Active Topics | Members

Games should not end before time with pieces that can cause damage left on both sides Options
adamb0nd
Posted: Saturday, September 26, 2020 1:03:15 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 9/16/2008
Posts: 1,952
Also open to doing some play testing
TimmerB123
Posted: Sunday, September 27, 2020 7:51:28 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 3,669
Location: Chicago
FlyingArrow wrote:
A possible drawback to the change is the incentive for intentional slow play. If I'm ahead and already have 200pts, then I'm going to win (3pts) as long as I stay ahead. If the opponent has the advantage on the board, then I'm better off playing slow so that we get in fewer rounds and I stay ahead.


So in this scenario, the player not at 200 still has a chance to win. Even if (already illegal) slow play happens, they still have a better chance than they would currently.

There are already a million different scenarios where it would give a player an advantage to slow play. You highlighting one that could happen even after a rule change doesn't really change anything.

I could argue that gives the person who is behind incentive to play faster, while currently they'd have more incentive to play slower (less gambit rounds).

Yes it's hard to determine and call out slow play. It is that way now and would be no different. Where and when it could be more inclined to happen might change slightly, but that doesn't mean it will increase. I would argue it would decrease slightly. From the first second both players are going to be trying to KILL pieces, not just occupy gambit.

Pointing out things that already exist in our game and saying it will still exist afterward is completely irrelevant to what we are trying to solve.
FlyingArrow
Posted: Sunday, September 27, 2020 7:56:33 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 7,889
I think it's worth trying.
adamb0nd
Posted: Sunday, September 27, 2020 8:26:32 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 9/16/2008
Posts: 1,952
TimmerB123 wrote:

Pointing out things that already exist in our game and saying it will still exist afterward is completely irrelevant to what we are trying to solve.


It already exists in the game, but stand to increase with the change. That isn't irrelevant and is worth bringing up when weighing all the factors before making a decision.

I ultimately agree with you that the slow play increase risk isn't worth preventing the rule change, but I don't agree that FA did something detrimental to the conversation by stating it. I found the information helpful.
adamb0nd
Posted: Sunday, September 27, 2020 8:27:36 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 9/16/2008
Posts: 1,952
Also, now you have a at least a few people on board. Do we bring this to a vote or something?
TimmerB123
Posted: Sunday, September 27, 2020 8:23:38 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 3,669
Location: Chicago
adamb0nd wrote:
TimmerB123 wrote:

Pointing out things that already exist in our game and saying it will still exist afterward is completely irrelevant to what we are trying to solve.


It already exists in the game, but stand to increase with the change. That isn't irrelevant and is worth bringing up when weighing all the factors before making a decision.

I ultimately agree with you that the slow play increase risk isn't worth preventing the rule change, but I don't agree that FA did something detrimental to the conversation by stating it. I found the information helpful.


Entirely a fair point. It should be brought up. I personally disagree that slow play will increase (I think it will decrease), but it should be discussed
TimmerB123
Posted: Sunday, September 27, 2020 8:24:44 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 3,669
Location: Chicago
adamb0nd wrote:
Do we bring this to a vote or something?


It is officially on the list for the balance committee to consider
adamb0nd
Posted: Monday, September 28, 2020 4:47:25 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 9/16/2008
Posts: 1,952
TimmerB123 wrote:
adamb0nd wrote:
Do we bring this to a vote or something?


It is officially on the list for the balance committee to consider


BlooMilk
imyurhukaberry
Posted: Monday, September 28, 2020 10:07:57 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 5/8/2008
Posts: 2,044
Location: Canton, OH
I would be for it...for the same reasons Timmer put up.
Getting to the points total first shouldn't be the objective. Defeating the opponent was the original intent of the game and I think this helps get back to that...in the most logical way.
May not affect many games, but the ones it will affect are the ones it needs to affect.
Randy
Posted: Monday, September 28, 2020 7:27:08 PM
Rank: TIE Crawler
Groups: Member

Joined: 2/20/2012
Posts: 43
TimmerB123 wrote:
“yes, I like that I can win a game early through gambit, even when my opponent has fighters left alive”


I like that there is an alternative way to win the game and force the conflict.

A big reason I play this game is to satisfy my Star Wars fix. Having an implied objective makes the game feel more Star Wars like. The action sequences within the movies are driven by a sense of urgency. They often revolve around holding off the enemy or holding a specific area. The battle is not always about destroying the enemy.

FlyingArrow wrote:
A possible drawback to the change is the incentive for intentional slow play. If I'm ahead and already have 200pts, then I'm going to win (3pts) as long as I stay ahead. If the opponent has the advantage on the board, then I'm better off playing slow so that we get in fewer rounds and I stay ahead. Yes, "slow play" like that is against the rules, but it's hard to enforce, especially in a Vassal format where there's usually no judge immediately available.

I think that this will be a very real consequence of this change.

Characters like Daala, Piet, Thrawn, and Ozzel can all do damage. If my opponent doesn't accept defeat I have to spend my time walking to the back of the map to clear them out? If the game was that close, maybe those commanders should have been out front helping.

If I bring a reserves squad and hit extra characters twice over the course of the game you have the disadvantage of having to kill 240 points to assure victory? Meanwhile I only need 200 points in an hour. That much more meat to chew through could mean even more reserves before time is called.

I think that a more realistic approach is to modify how gambit works.

For example, If both players are in gambit no gambit is scored. Or...

if both players are in gambit each player is awarded 5 points. That way gambit is only ever worth 10 points total.

I have been in a few games that could have gone either way. The winner of those games was the player that controlled gambit better. Using the rules of play to win. We both knew the stakes going in and the player who made the smarter plays won the day. Gambit serves as part of the objective in the competitive game. You don't know what map you will be on, you don't know specifically what squads you will face, but being in gambit on the first round is something that we are all aware of going into the fight. You have to have a way to deal with that in your squad. I think gambit allows for a bad match up to be evened out. Maybe my squad shouldn't be good against whatever the other person is playing. But I can push hard and hopefully end the game before they are able to fully abuse my squad. In the last 2-3 years I have had multiple games where I lost even though I scored over 200 points. The only thing I have to blame is myself for not playing better.
imyurhukaberry
Posted: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 7:26:49 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 5/8/2008
Posts: 2,044
Location: Canton, OH
Randy wrote:
The battle is not always about destroying the enemy.

Actually, in this game, originally skirmish battles were designed for that specific outcome. Competitive play was designed to defeat the opponents team. There were also separate objective style skirmishes designed for the other types of play: where you stall your opponent, have to acquire an item, defeat one specific character, etc. Those were not intended for standard competition play.

Randy wrote:
Characters like Daala, Piet, Thrawn, and Ozzel can all do damage. If my opponent doesn't accept defeat I have to spend my time walking to the back of the map to clear them out? If the game was that close, maybe those commanders should have been out front helping.

Part of playing the game. Either you hunt them down while the main battle is going on, or you hunt them down later. You want the full points, defeat the points...or a decent player will concede.
Keep in mind the 5 round rule...that should end those types of games very quickly. I'm sure the judge would award a full win.
And totally agree with the last part of that. A good player will know when to commit even the commanders into the fray. If they are left out of the skirmish until it's too late, then...well...it's too late.

Randy wrote:
If I bring a reserves squad and hit extra characters twice over the course of the game you have the disadvantage of having to kill 240 points to assure victory? Meanwhile I only need 200 points in an hour. That much more meat to chew through could mean even more reserves before time is called.

Reserve squads are gimmicky but part of the game and a tactic to use...that's what it was designed for anyway. Just like everything else, you have to play around it. The idea of the rules is not to nerf every ability that goes against the "norm" in competitive play.

Randy wrote:
Maybe my squad shouldn't be good against whatever the other person is playing. But I can push hard and hopefully end the game before they are able to fully abuse my squad.

If the underdog squad can do that, then it deserves to win. If you are outmatched by a squad and you win, then either the dice went bad for your opponent or you just proved to be the better player. Not sure gambit will have a huge effect on that outcome...or at least it shouldn't if the other player is playing to win.

Randy wrote:
The only thing I have to blame is myself for not playing better.

Boy can we all say that one!
Or...just blame it on the dice...
adamb0nd
Posted: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 8:08:31 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 9/16/2008
Posts: 1,952
Quote:

If I bring a reserves squad and hit extra characters twice over the course of the game you have the disadvantage of having to kill 240 points to assure victory? Meanwhile I only need 200 points in an hour. That much more meat to chew through could mean even more reserves before time is called.


This change does stand to give reserves a boost. I don't know that that's a bad thing. Reserves are generally a bad idea in the current game, because it usually brings in lower point scrubs that pose as a liability and gives your opponent more chances to git the 200pt goal. At least with this change reserves are competitively feasible.

If the game goes to clock, those reinforcements may still end up costing you the victory.
AceAce
Posted: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 6:14:20 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 8/26/2008
Posts: 481
Location: Kokomo, IN
No way should the game be played on as long as pieces are on the table. Time limits are there for a reason. If someone is a slow player, the game could go on and on and on. It's bad enough to have to stand around for 15 minutes watching a slow table play their last round that they hurried to roll initiative for just prior to the end of time. If we played it on and on we'd be standing around for lots longer than the 15 minutes or so that we on occasion do so now.

60 minute time limits are fine, I could go for 10 minutes longer, that said, I think a bigger issue is slow play. If you are playing 4 rounds or even 5 depending on squad sizes in the 60 minute time limit that is a problem. More rounds mean a better opportunity to get a satisfactory outcome to the game.


imyurhukaberry
Posted: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 6:58:59 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 5/8/2008
Posts: 2,044
Location: Canton, OH
I’m pretty sure nobody is advocating for longer timed games.
60 minutes is long enough.

When we talk about hunting down pieces, it’s after the main battle and during clean up...if there’s time.
And not having enough time to hunt down non-combatants during the 60 minutes can be a problem.
TimmerB123
Posted: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 8:07:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 3,669
Location: Chicago
AceAce wrote:
No way should the game be played on as long as pieces are on the table. Time limits are there for a reason. If someone is a slow player, the game could go on and on and on. It's bad enough to have to stand around for 15 minutes watching a slow table play their last round that they hurried to roll initiative for just prior to the end of time. If we played it on and on we'd be standing around for lots longer than the 15 minutes or so that we on occasion do so now.

60 minute time limits are fine, I could go for 10 minutes longer, that said, I think a bigger issue is slow play. If you are playing 4 rounds or even 5 depending on squad sizes in the 60 minute time limit that is a problem. More rounds mean a better opportunity to get a satisfactory outcome to the game.


This is not at all what we are talking about. Don't muddy the waters.
TimmerB123
Posted: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 8:09:17 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 3,669
Location: Chicago
imyurhukaberry wrote:
Randy wrote:
The battle is not always about destroying the enemy.

Actually, in this game, originally skirmish battles were designed for that specific outcome. Competitive play was designed to defeat the opponents team. There were also separate objective style skirmishes designed for the other types of play: where you stall your opponent, have to acquire an item, defeat one specific character, etc. Those were not intended for standard competition play.

Randy wrote:
Characters like Daala, Piet, Thrawn, and Ozzel can all do damage. If my opponent doesn't accept defeat I have to spend my time walking to the back of the map to clear them out? If the game was that close, maybe those commanders should have been out front helping.

Part of playing the game. Either you hunt them down while the main battle is going on, or you hunt them down later. You want the full points, defeat the points...or a decent player will concede.
Keep in mind the 5 round rule...that should end those types of games very quickly. I'm sure the judge would award a full win.
And totally agree with the last part of that. A good player will know when to commit even the commanders into the fray. If they are left out of the skirmish until it's too late, then...well...it's too late.

Randy wrote:
If I bring a reserves squad and hit extra characters twice over the course of the game you have the disadvantage of having to kill 240 points to assure victory? Meanwhile I only need 200 points in an hour. That much more meat to chew through could mean even more reserves before time is called.

Reserve squads are gimmicky but part of the game and a tactic to use...that's what it was designed for anyway. Just like everything else, you have to play around it. The idea of the rules is not to nerf every ability that goes against the "norm" in competitive play.

Randy wrote:
Maybe my squad shouldn't be good against whatever the other person is playing. But I can push hard and hopefully end the game before they are able to fully abuse my squad.

If the underdog squad can do that, then it deserves to win. If you are outmatched by a squad and you win, then either the dice went bad for your opponent or you just proved to be the better player. Not sure gambit will have a huge effect on that outcome...or at least it shouldn't if the other player is playing to win.

Randy wrote:
The only thing I have to blame is myself for not playing better.

Boy can we all say that one!
Or...just blame it on the dice...


I love this whole post. imyurhukaberry is my new hero.

That was a vicious beatdown my friend.
TimmerB123
Posted: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 8:11:19 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 3,669
Location: Chicago
adamb0nd wrote:
Quote:

If I bring a reserves squad and hit extra characters twice over the course of the game you have the disadvantage of having to kill 240 points to assure victory? Meanwhile I only need 200 points in an hour. That much more meat to chew through could mean even more reserves before time is called.


This change does stand to give reserves a boost. I don't know that that's a bad thing. Reserves are generally a bad idea in the current game, because it usually brings in lower point scrubs that pose as a liability and gives your opponent more chances to git the 200pt goal. At least with this change reserves are competitively feasible.

If the game goes to clock, those reinforcements may still end up costing you the victory.


If this is really a concern, there is an easy fix. You must reach 200 kill points. You don't add gambit points in until after the game is over.

Easy.

The point of all of this is that gambit points shouldn't end games early.
TimmerB123
Posted: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 8:14:20 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 3,669
Location: Chicago
Randy wrote:
I like that there is an alternative way to win the game and force the conflict.


Well I gotta give you credit Randy - at least you came out and said it. Most people are too afraid to admit it.

But unfortunately - that is not what this game was meant to be. It is what it has become, and clearly many people aren't happy about that.

imyurhukaberry wrote:
Randy wrote:
The battle is not always about destroying the enemy.

Actually, in this game, originally skirmish battles were designed for that specific outcome. Competitive play was designed to defeat the opponents team. There were also separate objective style skirmishes designed for the other types of play: where you stall your opponent, have to acquire an item, defeat one specific character, etc. Those were not intended for standard competition play.


It's so dead on - I just had to quote it again.


Let's restore the game to it's original intent, and you can feel free to play whatever scenarios you like or any alternate format you come up with
thereisnotry
Posted: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 8:23:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/29/2008
Posts: 1,092
Location: Canada
Let me start off by saying that, yes, I do think that Tim raises a legitimate concern: I acknowledge that with our current gambit scoring system it is possible to reach 200pts while your opponent still has significant attackers on the board. And I agree that is not a preferable outcome. [Personally, I've found that in most cases the one who reached 200pts that way was probably going to win anyway, but still, I think that Tim's concern remains.]

However, I think the real question is, what is the BEST way to solve this situation? Tim's solution would address the problem, but I'm afraid it would inadvertently foster problems of its own:

--Gambit becomes irrelevant unless the match goes to time. This encourages slow play (or slowER play) on the part of the player who has more gambit points than his opponent, since the player with the extra gambit points has more to gain by going to time than his opponent does.

--It encourages kiting and non-engagement. Currently, if I'm in gambit then I don't care if my opponent wants to take 3-4 rounds dancing around outside of gambit, because I'm just going to win on pts if he doesn't engage. However, with the suggested rule change I don't have a way of forcing the issue if my opponent wants to play keep-away.

The suggested rule change would certainly prevent games from finishing (by reaching 200pts) before the outcome of combat has truly been decided. However, I think it would inadvertently create other problems, the chief of which is the encouragement of non-engagement strategies.


However, I think Randy made some very good points in his post, and either of them would be much better answers to the situation we're trying to address:
Randy wrote:
I think that a more realistic approach is to modify how gambit works.

For example, If both players are in gambit no gambit is scored. Or...

if both players are in gambit each player is awarded 5 points. That way gambit is only ever worth 10 points total.

I like both of these ideas. They're both variations on the same theme.

If you think about it, gambit should only matter if 1 player is engaging (ie, in gambit) while the other player is not. The whole purpose of gambit is to force engagement, but if both players are already engaging, then gambit's goal has been achieved and so it doesn't need to be applied. [Think of gambit like a referee in a sporting competition: a referee should only need to interfere if the rules are infringed upon, and not otherwise.]

Therefore, here is my suggestion:

A player only scores gambit points at the end of a Round if he has a qualifying piece in gambit and his opponent does not. Neither player scores gambit points at the end of a Round if (1) neither player has a qualifying piece in gambit, or (2) both players have a qualifying piece in gambit.

Under this rule, the non-engaging player had better have something up his sleeve, because he's falling behind on points each round that he chooses not to engage. But as long as both players are in gambit at the end of each round, then the game CAN NOT finish before one player has defeated the attackers of his opponent, and that's simply because there aren't enough gambit points to fill the difference between the build total and the points already killed.


Imagine a hypothetical scenario, where 2 players are actively engaging in combat. Player 1 was able to get to gambit in Round 1, but Player 2 joined him the next round. Both players have remained in gambit the whole time.

--Using our current ruleset (both players score 10pts at the end of each round that they're in gambit)...after 6 rounds of play each player has a lot of gambit points (60 and 50), which allows one of the players to reach 200pts while his opponent almost certainly still has at least a couple of significant attackers left.

--However, under the ruleset I've suggested in this post...then Player 1 has only 10pts of gambit over his opponent, which means that if either player reaches 200pts it was because that player has eliminated all of his opponent's main attackers. If at some point Player 2 defeats all of his opponent's pieces in gambit, then Player 2 would start gaining 10pts of gambit each round until Player 1 was able to re-engage.


BOOM! This solves the concern that Tim has raised. And it also still encourages active engagement (rather than non-engagement).
adamb0nd
Posted: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 4:55:46 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 9/16/2008
Posts: 1,952
I do like TINT's idea. It does also alter the strategy of the game further from the original design, which was one of Timmer's point. It will become more important to get your beat sticks into the center and then keep them alive. Just makes the game play differently and the goals a little different from original design intent.
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.