RegisterDonateLogin

Will make point five past light speed.

Welcome Guest Active Topics | Members

Games should not end before time with pieces that can cause damage left on both sides Options
TimmerB123
Posted: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 6:41:34 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 3,669
Location: Chicago
TimmerB123 wrote:
Chargers wrote:
So ... did everyone hope the topic would go away? Have more tournaments tried this? What were the outcomes?


I think some people hoped it would go away.

To my knowledge no other tournament has tried it.


I ask what I feel like are valid questions and people avoid answering.


There is still only one person who has given an honest valid answer to why they think they don’t want it to change, and through personal conversation has admitted that it was a fear reaction.


I had another game recently that I “won” (officially), but would have lost if it played out. It was awful. It really left a sour taste in my mouth. That’s not what I want the game to be. A bunch of half games.


It’s too late to change anything for GenCon (which I think was the intent on a lot of the avoidance).

I will very much press the issue afterward until there is resolution as opposed to just avoidance.



Time to re-approach the topic. Hopefully people have settled down a bit and can look at this with a clear head.


Here is what I (and many others) think the game should be - as boiled down to the basics as possible.

The game does not end before time UNLESS
1. A player concedes.
2. A player has no pieces that can cause damage left on the board.


That's it. It's really simple. It's how the game was always meant to be played, but somehow along the way got warped.

I don't think any other changes are necessary. Play the games out.


If you win the game and reach 200pts (including gambit), you will get your 3 tournament points. BUT - the game won't stop until time, concession, or one player has no pieces left that can cause damage.



I think people were really overcomplicating it before and it became a mess. It's simple, straightforward and has a lot of support.
DarthBainCapital
Posted: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 7:01:46 AM
Rank: B'omarr Monk
Groups: Member

Joined: 8/3/2020
Posts: 32
What are the current rules for how a game ends?
TimmerB123
Posted: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:18:59 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 3,669
Location: Chicago
DarthBainCapital wrote:
What are the current rules for how a game ends?


Very good question - because it's surprisingly nonsensical that a game should finish for any other reason.

There is a goofy loophole that is being expoited.

Currently - the game ends at the end of the round after time finishes or a player reaches 200pts - whichever comes first.

The issue is that many games are finishing before time based on gambit.

Example -
Player A has 4 rounds of gambit and 166 kill points, but only has Lobot (27pts) and 2 ugnaughts (3pts each) left on the board.(33 points left on the board)
Player B has 3 rounds of gambit and 167 kill points, but has Dash Rendar Renegade Smuggler left on the board (28pts) and 2 ugnaughts (3pts each) left. (34 pts left on the board.)
20 minutes left in the game. Score (including gambit Player A - 206, Player B - 197)

Player A has reached 200 or more points (player B has not). Currently - At the end of the round where Player A reaches 200pts, the game would end, with Player A as the winner - despite the fact that there is time on the clock and pieces left on the board.

In this illustration - clearly Player B is in the better position to win if the game continues, but Player A would win under current rules due to the fact that they raced to gambit first. In some maps - many teams cannot even get to gambit in round 1, which compounds the unfairness.


We think that gambit has it's place and purpose - but should not decide when games end in this matter.



Again - 3 reasons a game should end:
-Time
-Concession
-No pieces left that can cause damage.

Not a bunch of gambit points with damaging pieces left on both sides before time.
Darth_Jim
Posted: Thursday, September 24, 2020 6:01:59 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/23/2008
Posts: 798
Location: Central Pa
TimmerB123 wrote:
Again - 3 reasons a game should end:
-Time
-Concession
-No pieces left that can cause damage.

Not a bunch of gambit points with damaging pieces left on both sides before time.


I would agree with this. I didn't see the original discussion, so I'd be interested in hearing the opposing point of view.
imyurhukaberry
Posted: Thursday, September 24, 2020 6:05:37 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 5/8/2008
Posts: 2,044
Location: Canton, OH
What is the current scoring formula?
FlyingArrow
Posted: Thursday, September 24, 2020 7:59:37 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 7,889
You get 3 points for a full win (win while scoring points equal to the size of the opposing squad).

You get 2 points for a win that goes to time with neither side scoring a full win.

You get 1 point if you lose but score at least half the points of the opposing squad size.

0 points otherwise.

The proposal doesn't actually change that. It just prevents a game from ending as soon as one side scores 200 points (or whatever the squad size is for the match). This wasn't really an issue before we started using 10pt Gambit. With 5pt Gambit, players would usually just have enough Gambit to cover back row commanders, thus ending a game without having to do that final cleanup. Rarely would there be any doubt about how things would have gone if played out. With 10pt Gambit, it's not uncommon for a game to end with time on the clock and both sides still having fighters on the board.
imyurhukaberry
Posted: Friday, September 25, 2020 5:00:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 5/8/2008
Posts: 2,044
Location: Canton, OH
Why use 10 pt gambit then?
(I’m sure that involves a slight history lesson...)
adamb0nd
Posted: Friday, September 25, 2020 6:04:51 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 9/16/2008
Posts: 1,952
imyurhukaberry wrote:
Why use 10 pt gambit then?
(I’m sure that involves a slight history lesson...)


Not the most knowledgeable. I was questioning if gambit was the problem, and didnt need to be revisited since the needs of the game have evolved.

Correct my history if I'm wrong.

Rebel Storm R2D2 created some issues for the game. Override created a situation where you could kill a 3 point piece, lock your opponent out, and then wait for time and victory. Some special abilities were created (satchel charge) to fix this, but Gambit was initially created to help address this problem.

Gambit was also created to force engagement and speed the game up to "Get to the action". People would slow crawl and this encourages players to rush the center of the map.

Gambit used to be 5 points. It was changed to 10 points. I don't know why though. I'd be interested in hearing why this happened. Perhaps the need of 10 point gambit is no longer necessary, and 5 point gambit could help fix the issue as it's less impactful as a Victory condition.

At some point the rule was further expanded; only a piece costing =>10 pts could score gambit. I dont know why this happened, but i am guessing the dreaded Mouse had some role in this.

I think gambit is probably still needed to prevent stalling and boring games. But maybe it could be rolled back some or updated further to address our current problems.
TimmerB123
Posted: Friday, September 25, 2020 9:09:42 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 3,669
Location: Chicago
5 point gambit came into play when 100 and 150 were the main formats. Once 200 became the standard, it did make sense that gambit became 10 points, but it has become abused.

There has been much discussion on changing gambit, with strong feelings in both sides. I’m fine leaving gambit as is, as long as the loophole being discussed is closed.

We also talked about changes in the tournament scoring system, again strong feelings on both sides.

I really honestly think that we’ve pinpointed the main issue. Changing this really only closes the loophole being abused. Other changes (gambit, tournament scoring system) could have other effects. Changing this would only have the effect of letting games play out - nothing else changes.
TimmerB123
Posted: Friday, September 25, 2020 9:13:33 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 3,669
Location: Chicago
Darth_Jim wrote:
TimmerB123 wrote:
Again - 3 reasons a game should end:
-Time
-Concession
-No pieces left that can cause damage.

Not a bunch of gambit points with damaging pieces left on both sides before time.


I would agree with this. I didn't see the original discussion, so I'd be interested in hearing the opposing point of view.


Honestly, I’ve been begging for that for awhile. I think it honestly comes down to thinking that what many consider being a loophole and abusive, are perfectly fine and part of the game.

But those supporting it are reluctant to come out and say - “yes, I like that I can win a game early through gambit, even when my opponent has fighters left alive”

I also think that some are staying quiet and hoping this blows over.


However, too many people want this small change. It needs to be addressed.
adamb0nd
Posted: Friday, September 25, 2020 10:46:13 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 9/16/2008
Posts: 1,952
I'm happy to advocate for change, but have a few questions.

In the above lobot/dash scenario, you are saying the game should continue on even though scores exceed 200 pts unless one okayed quits or has no attackers, right?

What happens if player B (dash) kills all of player A's (lobot) pieces before time, but player A still has the higher score due to more gambit scoring?
imyurhukaberry
Posted: Friday, September 25, 2020 11:28:36 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 5/8/2008
Posts: 2,044
Location: Canton, OH
What about an extra victory point for total defeat? (All enemy characters defeated within time)
Not sure how that would affect standings and such...
imyurhukaberry
Posted: Friday, September 25, 2020 12:00:44 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 5/8/2008
Posts: 2,044
Location: Canton, OH
Also, the original end game rule of 100/150/200 pts was because that was the agreed upon squad totals for the game...correct?
Gambit was not factored in until much later, which altered that original goal for the total points.

When we played tournaments, way back in the day, we always played until time or assured defeat. Not to the points total. I guess we were "rebels" when it came to that rule.

To be honest, most games were decided by time in our group...and there were a few where if it went one more round, the end result would have been drastically different and the other player would have won. Those always felt like dirty wins, but it was the rule non-the-less...and yes, it made us want to play faster. (note: it wasn't from one person intentionally stalling)
DarthBainCapital
Posted: Friday, September 25, 2020 2:29:50 PM
Rank: B'omarr Monk
Groups: Member

Joined: 8/3/2020
Posts: 32
I had never heard of gambit scoring until now, but I've used something similar to create pressure to move to the center in my casual games that doesn't rely on a points system.

I just place a piece in the middle of the map and call it a replicator droid: any player whose characters are the only ones adjacent to the droid at the end of the round can add 5 points of reinforcements to their squad.

If time runs out victory is determined by who has the most points worth of characters remaining.
EmporerDragon
Posted: Friday, September 25, 2020 9:23:34 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 12/26/2008
Posts: 2,107
Location: Watertown, SD
imyurhukaberry wrote:
Also, the original end game rule of 100/150/200 pts was because that was the agreed upon squad totals for the game...correct?
Gambit was not factored in until much later, which altered that original goal for the total points.


IIRC, Gambit became a thing around the time of CotF, when the game scene shifted from 100 to 150 points.
TimmerB123
Posted: Saturday, September 26, 2020 12:05:14 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 3,669
Location: Chicago
adamb0nd wrote:
I'm happy to advocate for change, but have a few questions.

In the above lobot/dash scenario, you are saying the game should continue on even though scores exceed 200 pts unless one okayed quits or has no attackers, right?

What happens if player B (dash) kills all of player A's (lobot) pieces before time, but player A still has the higher score due to more gambit scoring?


Yes, game would continue until time, concession, or one players squad is eliminated.

There would be no need to even take score into account unless a game ends on time. Score is the deciding factor when a game doesn't finish on time, not what causes a game to end early.

In your extended scenario - Player B wins. That's already a rule - if a player eliminates the other player's entire squad before time is called, they win.
TimmerB123
Posted: Saturday, September 26, 2020 12:07:05 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 3,669
Location: Chicago
imyurhukaberry wrote:
What about an extra victory point for total defeat? (All enemy characters defeated within time)
Not sure how that would affect standings and such...


it's been discussed. Lots of trepidation on side effects of changing the tournament scoring system.

What I am proposing in this thread is a very small change that won't effect how gambit is scored or how tournaments are scored. Only when a game ends.

Really the only people against this will be the ones abusing the loophole.
TimmerB123
Posted: Saturday, September 26, 2020 12:08:54 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 3,669
Location: Chicago
imyurhukaberry wrote:
Also, the original end game rule of 100/150/200 pts was because that was the agreed upon squad totals for the game...correct?
Gambit was not factored in until much later, which altered that original goal for the total points.


Correct. And that is what we should return to, at least as far as when games end. Gambit can still be collected, it just doesn't cause a game to end early.
FlyingArrow
Posted: Saturday, September 26, 2020 12:20:24 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 7,889
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.

With the current rules, slow play like that to gain an advantage could still happen, but usually people are encouraged to play more quickly to race to either 200 or 100pts (depending on their position in the game). And once you reach 200 the game ends. If the game doesn't end but I already have 200pts, then what incentive do I have to keep trying for kills? I just need to run away and play slowly. Only kill the opponent if I can't get away fast enough.

I don't know if that would be a problem in practice, but maybe.
adamb0nd
Posted: Saturday, September 26, 2020 1:02:31 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 9/16/2008
Posts: 1,952
So either:

Stay: Incentives gambit as a primary victory condition, resulting in games where the loser may have more pieces and a superior tactical advantage.

Or

Change:Incentives complete Annihilation of your opponents army, with an increased likelihood of games going to time due to slow play as a winning condition strategy


With the change, the player with the greater tactical advantage and defeated enemies can still be at risk of losing due to slow play.

Neither seems ideal. slow play can be abused in either situation. I don't know that the current rules necessarily offends me either. It just puts the focus of the game on gambit over complete annihilation. That's not intended, but not necessarily bad, and maybe better in the long run than flying arrows points? I'd be open to voting in favor of it though, to see how it helps in practice. We can always revert.


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.