|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/4/2008
Posts: 1,441
|
DARTH BAKER wrote:Worst ideas ever!
I am kidding, I do not like some of the ideas and will comment fully when time permits.
DB Cool, I look forward to it.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/19/2009
Posts: 70
Location: Minnesota
|
billiv15 wrote:jbnimble wrote:Bill, I mentioned that I didn't understand #7 on SWMGamers... I don't want to be a pest, but could someone explain it to me? It's an abusive situation that would almost never come up, but none the less, we should kick it in the butt. The two scenario's involve getting a 51pt lead, and turtling. On the Teth map, there are now 4 squares on the right side that are immune to all attacks. If someone had a 51pt lead, and only 4 characters remaining worth points, they can turtle in these spots for the 10 round no combat rule and win. The same has always been true of locking someone out in gambit, while you are not in gambit, or are perhaps in gambit just enough to have a lead after 10 rounds of no combat. Basically, both are very minor issues, that Nickname wanted dealt with, and it's pretty well assured that he will take care of this one. Oh! (My lack of familiarity with the terms is showing...) This has to do with 10-turns, no combat... Right? Got it! Thanks. (And thanks for your patience with slow newbies... I appreciate the work you all are doing on these issues.)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/30/2008
Posts: 488
Location: Wisconsin
|
Everything looks pretty good to me. My only issue is that #5 would be too difficult to have GOWK changed to that. How would they get the word out that GOWK doesn't have Master of the Force 2 and can only Soresu the first 20 points of damage?
Other than that, I kinda like this idea.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 8/24/2008
Posts: 812
Location: Parkville, MD
|
billiv15 wrote:Please do not debate GOWK. That is not the primary issue of this thread. We already know of all of the options, and we do not need another thread on the topic. As I said already, the only reason for including it, is to show that there are people working on getting him fixed. I wouldn't say all possible options are known. There is always the possibility that there are other options not thought of (somehow missed, however unlikely that is). And expanding those involved with at least brainsotrming solutions is always a good thing beyond those who actually have the capability of implementing the solutions. But if people want to come up with a list of possible solutions to fix GOWK, then starting another thread would be most appropriate as that would detract from this one.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/9/2009
Posts: 936
Location: Southern Illinois
|
Is there a thread somewhere on gamers or WoTC that is discussing the options? I'd like to at least read over the ideas being thrown around to kind of get an idea what is in store.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/19/2009
Posts: 70
Location: Minnesota
|
Mickey wrote:Is there a thread somewhere on gamers or WoTC that is discussing the options? I'd like to at least read over the ideas being thrown around to kind of get an idea what is in store. There's the thread on SWGamers that Bill originally pointed to... http://swmgamers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7328This whole thing has made me start using that account I created almost six months ago over there... :)
|
|
Rank: B'omarr Monk
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/27/2009
Posts: 32
|
1 and 7 are excellent ideas.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/11/2009
Posts: 460
|
i would just get rid of GOWKs commander effect and change it to "this character isnt a follower"
then hes just a good character. nobody is keen though... lol.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/8/2008
Posts: 2,219
Location: East Coast
|
#4 & #7 ... are great.
|
|
Rank: Uggernaught
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/15/2008
Posts: 34
|
billiv15 wrote:DARTH BAKER wrote:Worst ideas ever!
I am kidding, I do not like some of the ideas and will comment fully when time permits.
DB Cool, I look forward to it. Bill, #1 - I like the ideas expressed, however what examples could you provide of "banning" are we talking about figures or maps? #2 - I would like a 200 pt. championship, however does that mean we would get rid of a 150 pt. championship? I would just as well like both and would come up Wednesday or Thursday to play in it instead of coming up on Friday like we did. #3 - I agree that this is a problem and has no place in competitive play. I also do not like that some can insinuate that this is called on by players just to disrupt the less confident player. #4 - This is probably the best idea you have. #5 - I like that you and Jim as well as others have ideas to help get GOWK back. I lost to him in regionals and did everything I could to make a squad that would reduce his effectiveness despite still losing to him. I still want him back, because I cannot stand having a piece that I cannot play whenever and wherever I want. #6 - I like the spirit of the idea, however I do not agree with this at all. I should go along with it, because it possibly would have put me across from you instead of DERI in the championship. Regardless, Deri was just playing an outstanding game with a squad I had no idea he would use Luke in that application. #7 - Please explain this further. #8 - I disagree, this needs to be the same time limit as the other rounds. I would agree to a no time limit kill them all, however with lockout and slowplay being a factor this would be a nightmare.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/4/2008
Posts: 1,441
|
DARTH BAKER wrote:
#1 - I like the ideas expressed, however what examples could you provide of "banning" are we talking about figures or maps?
Well, currently, maps are banned, such as Mustafar, Geonosis, Korriban, Endor, Hoth Maps, Ossus, etc. The only banned figure is GOWK. If we had these formats a couple of months ago, GOWK would only have been banned from the Championship format. It's not that we intend to ban lots of other figures in the future, but if we have to, we would have the adequate formatting to do so in a way that affects only the necessary tournaments, rather than everyone. We have to date, never been able to please a large number of players who were not seeing abuse of these maps, or of GOWK, because all we could do was universally ban for DCI play or not. This would give us the freedom to do so in the future, and to bring back those things that some never wanted gone to begin with because they weren't issues locally. It's a win-win for everyone. The same would be true for any new material. Maps have to prove themselves for Champ play, rather than the reverse, of prove abusive and then get removed. DARTH BAKER wrote:#2 - I would like a 200 pt. championship, however does that mean we would get rid of a 150 pt. championship? I would just as well like both and would come up Wednesday or Thursday to play in it instead of coming up on Friday like we did. It probably would. I know others would like a 200 championship as well, I'm just not sure Gencon or Jim can support it at this time. This would be a good topic for further discussion elsewhere however. DARTH BAKER wrote:#3 - I agree that this is a problem and has no place in competitive play. I also do not like that some can insinuate that this is called on by players just to disrupt the less confident player. I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying "slow play" is the problem, or that people can call it? Or both? DARTH BAKER wrote:#4 - This is probably the best idea you have. Cool, most people seem to like it. I first stated it after 2007, and it didn't earn much traction. Seems like it will go through this time. DARTH BAKER wrote:#5 - I like that you and Jim as well as others have ideas to help get GOWK back. I lost to him in regionals and did everything I could to make a squad that would reduce his effectiveness despite still losing to him. I still want him back, because I cannot stand having a piece that I cannot play whenever and wherever I want. Agree completely. DARTH BAKER wrote:#6 - I like the spirit of the idea, however I do not agree with this at all. I should go along with it, because it possibly would have put me across from you instead of DERI in the championship. Regardless, Deri was just playing an outstanding game with a squad I had no idea he would use Luke in that application. Well it would simply change end game tactics, and that's the idea. It puts the onus on damaging figures and not running them from battle as often just because a game is going to time. Given that it's the one relatively new idea, I think it bears testing, and some have offered to try it. I look forward to seeing their results with it. I know I can think of a couple of games of mine where this would have made a significant difference for the positive (and by that I don't mean me winning, I mean in the late game tactics specifically). DARTH BAKER wrote:#7 - Please explain this further. I did above. It's a technical issue of minor abuse, and simply just should be in the rules. I wouldn't worry much about it. DARTH BAKER wrote:#8 - I disagree, this needs to be the same time limit as the other rounds. I would agree to a no time limit kill them all, however with lockout and slowplay being a factor this would be a nightmare. I can agree with the sentiment. And I too would like it officially, "untimed". I honestly think anyone who can make it that far, wouldn't be one of the slow players or stallers so it wouldn't be an issue. I went with 2 hours, simply as a way to at least in sure, in the odd chance that a statelmate happened, or a slow player made it, that there would be some resolution for the judges and volunteers. Ultimately, I would never expect a game to actually last 2 hours at that level of competition.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/18/2008
Posts: 153
|
No one is making anyone create an account at Gamers, but I think it warrants saying that if you don't have/don't want an account over there and instead want to discuss it over here exclusively, you have isolated yourself from the conversation.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/18/2008
Posts: 153
|
No one is making anyone create an account at Gamers, but I think it warrants saying that if you don't have/don't want an account over there and instead want to discuss it over here exclusively, you have isolated yourself from the conversation.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/5/2008
Posts: 294
|
Just a couple of question.
How many of you as players struggle with slow play either yourself for some reason, or an opposing player who always seems to take a long time?
If yes, is it an established seasoned experinced player? Or a new player?
Do you have lots of games that go to time?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/19/2009
Posts: 70
Location: Minnesota
|
I just posted this over on Gamers, but...
I do see a lot of games going to time (especially at 200 points). I see both new players and the occasional experienced player going slow. (I really don't believe anyone is stalling, either.)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/4/2008
Posts: 1,441
|
jbnimble wrote:(I really don't believe anyone is stalling, either.) Are you sure? Stalling = purposefully slowing the game down in order to gain an advantage. If the judge determines you are stalling, you are DQed automatically right then and there. This is in fact considered cheating. Slow Play = playing slow enough that the game has no chance for either player to score the victory points in the time limit. This offense is not being done on purpose (more or less anyways). The recommended ruling for slow play is a warning, which can then be escalated as needed. As it is the judges job to ensure fair play to both players, if one player, or both are playing too slow for the game to reach it's conclusion, then the judge should issue a warning, add round(s) or issue a DQ in some cases. If your games are not completing on a regular basis, it probably isn't "stalling", but I would almost ensure you it's slow play.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/19/2009
Posts: 70
Location: Minnesota
|
billiv15 wrote:jbnimble wrote:(I really don't believe anyone is stalling, either.) Are you sure? Pretty sure... It really is more of a casual atmosphere, even during the sanctioned tourneys... And the one or two more experienced players who are slow are slow even when we aren't playing in a tournament setting.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/5/2008
Posts: 294
|
Well that certianly sounds like a play speed problem, no doubt about it there. What are the possiblities they are to even aware they are going slow and need someone to nudge them to speed up.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/6/2009
Posts: 1,632
Location: Desintegrating some Djem So Sucka!
|
dalsiandon wrote:Well that certianly sounds like a play speed problem, no doubt about it there. What are the possiblities they are to even aware they are going slow and need someone to nudge them to speed up. theres nothing i cant stand more when playing miniatures: a slow Player who is only aiming to stalemate, or is just plain slow. it can make you very uninterested halfway through the game.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/24/2009
Posts: 251
Location: ZAFT Headquarters, Planet Zi, GFFA
|
Mandalore Da Beast wrote:dalsiandon wrote:Well that certianly sounds like a play speed problem, no doubt about it there. What are the possiblities they are to even aware they are going slow and need someone to nudge them to speed up. theres nothing i cant stand more when playing miniatures: a slow Player who is only aiming to stalemate, or is just plain slow. it can make you very uninterested halfway through the game. I agree completely. Regardless of whether its a timed game or not, slow play is just simply annoying.
|
|
|
Guest |