RegisterDonateLogin

Remember: Always drink responsibly.

Welcome Guest Active Topics | Members

Games should not end before time with pieces that can cause damage left on both sides Options
TimmerB123
Posted: Saturday, October 3, 2020 10:33:51 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
Randy wrote:
TimmerB123 wrote:

(side note - I honestly don't understand the question you posed about "Prior to this year, have you ever played a tournament game, at the competitive level, that gambit could not end?" Could you elaborate or rephrase it?)

Earlier this year, we played a tournament where we tested your suggestion. So that one doesn't count.

Have you ever played this game in a standard competitive event where the victory condition wasn't reaching the build total? (Kills + Gambit)

I stated earlier in this thread that gambit came into being somewhere in the first 11 months of this games existence. Well before Gen Con 2005. Before any organized competitive play. In my opinion the actual competitive game did not begin until Gen Con 2007. We discussed that last night on the Holonews.


Well you hemmed it in by saying standard competitive event. So anything outside that would not be standard, correct?

Interestingly, we never played that way in tournaments for years. Most of the time it didn't matter, as it was rare that people would reach the build total and not also have the game virtually decided as well.

I remember the first time it happened where a game "finished" before time and the outcome was not clear. Neither player liked it. Most everyone agreed it was a dumb rule, but followed the ruling. This was years into the game. It's not like I played in some backwater place. I played in one of the biggest hubs of Star Wars Miniatures in the world.

Clearly we were not alone. As stated earlier in the thread - Canada still plays this way.

Then gambit went to 10 pts and the incentive grew. (Even as a percentage of the build total, it grew. 5pts in 150 does not = 10pts in 200. Simple math.)

Even then it wasn't too bad at first, but then builds started to change. Players intentionally build squads just to game gambit as fast as possible. The meta shrank. Less squads were viable and the game became less fun. It started to feel like most games that ended before time with the losing player with half a squad still on the board.

I have heard this comment over and over. Too many times for me to ignore.

Randy wrote:
Killing all of your opponent's characters has always been one way to win. Even before the existence of gambit, there was more than 1 victory condition. You just needed more points than your enemy when time expired.


If you want to get technical - that is not true. Time limits were implemented later.

But that aside - The look art the title of the thread. The concern is games ending before time. Games going to time is a whole different issue. Worthy of discussion and it's own thread. It does have its own penalty or disincentive, but again - separate topic.

Randy wrote:
I have trouble understanding why we are concerned about games ending too early when we have games that still are not being finished at all. A long drawn out snooze feast where neither person was able to actually play the game. A game that ends with a score of 2-0 is problem. Maybe I'm one of the people you think is abusing it. Am I?


To be clear - Randy, I do not think you are one. I will refuse to answer that question about anyone else.

As to the rest - this thread alone should make it clear that many players feel it is a concern. It's possible to have more than one concern. This thread is about one that has not been addressed in any way. What you brought up has been talked about, action has been taken. It has gotten better. Has it been solved? Not completely. Have a theory on how to help it? Great - start that thread. This is not that thread.

Randy wrote:
TimmerB123 wrote:
Many maps have separated gambit where the 2 teams are locked in separate rooms, both getting gambit. That’s not engagement. One player could out-activate, swap in a 10pt piece, and then run that piece away. That’s not engagement.

You are correct, I did miss understand scenario A. The word "Locked" is probably where I became confused. In that case the game would still end early due to no saves or attacks for 5 rounds. If both players don't want to engage no amount of time will change that. I'm not sure what maps in the "Restricted" level this applies to though.

As far as set-up 2, only a hand full of people have pulled this on me since the 10 point change. Tim, you were one of them.

My point was that these are both strategy theory in my opinion. Not actually related to any kind of abuse.


I fully agree that those are strategy theory. I brought those examples up to show that gambit does not mean engagement. That is all.

"Abuse" is subjective. I sincerely am not calling anyone a cheater or a bad person for employing any legal strategy.

But as has happened many times in our game - it evolves. We as a community have made many changes to the game in the attempt to make it better for the most players. Some more successful than others.

I am completely baffled by how my suggestion would make the game worse, or encourage stalling or slow play.

Stalling is illegal, but obviously subjective and hard to police. That said - I honestly don't think we have ANY active players anymore that engage in intentional stalling to win. I don't know why that would suddenly change. I DO think that players actively and intentionally build squads that have the main focus of speed gambit stocking. I don't think that makes for fun games. Many others don't either. It's not illegal - heck, I'll even give it up - it's blasted smart considering how the rules as are basically encourage it.

But many players are fed up with it. Myself included. I want engagement of pieces. I want games decided by which team is left standing. I honestly think that gambit (and specifically the fact that it ends games before time and before one team is eliminated), ironically, has lead to LESS engagement.

When I play casually (which admittedly is much less frequently these days), I never finish a game before it's done. Even if it means me losing. I don't want to win that way. That's not the game to me. And clearly, I am not alone.
TimmerB123
Posted: Saturday, October 3, 2020 10:42:22 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
Darth_Jim wrote:
I just caught up on this thread. As an old player testing the waters by playing in some Vassal tournaments, my position in the game... and thus my perspective... has changed. After 'retiring' from the game in 2017 and returning this year to play a bit on Vassal, I don't share the investment that many of you have. I think in reading my comments that should be taken in consideration, but not to the point that my opinion would be irrelevant.

Like Tint, I thought Timmer's concern was valid. I waited for more voices here.

I really like Randy's suggestion of 10pts if you are the only one in gambit, opts if you both are. I thought Tint demonstrated how that starts to address Timmer's concern. Does it solve it? I don't know, but I DO know that it is the right direction to go. We should at least implement that.

With that adjustment in place, is there an issue with not ending the game before time is called because of points? What if we let the game go to time THEN award a 3pt win based on points?



It's such an interesting mix of reactions.

I ultimately think the combo (10pts for gambit only if one player alone is in it, AND not finishing before time unless only one team has damage dealers left) would be the best solution.

I have been advocating very strongly for not allowing games to finish before time unless one team has not damage dealers left, because of the very strong pushback I got about changing gambit.

Now it seems like there is a lot of support for changing gambit.

I feel like the focus should be on eliminating your opponents pieces. I fear certain changes in gambit will only put more focus on gambit. (All I have to do is run a 10pt piece into gambit to negate their whole squad in gambit). I personally want to put the focus back on engagement. That is why what I am proposing doesn't actually change gambit. But - I think any change in this area is for the better, because it has gotten really bad.
Randy
Posted: Saturday, October 3, 2020 5:23:40 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 2/20/2012
Posts: 159
TimmerB123 wrote:
Randy wrote:
TimmerB123 wrote:
What I don't want to have happen - is infighting here (so to speak) costing us the chance for any meaningful change.

If this is true, maybe refrain from comments such as...
TimmerB123 wrote:
I love this whole post. imyurhukaberry is my new hero.

That was a vicious beatdown my friend.

TimmerB123 wrote:
It's so dead on - I just had to quote it again.


It could lead someone to believe that you are merely bringing it up so that you can shout down any opposition. Especially when you ignore the the point that the post was trying to get to.


You are totally right. I got carried away and went overboard there. I apologize. I will endeavor to work toward positive changes in a constructive way.

Apology accepted Captain Needa. BigGrin
Randy
Posted: Saturday, October 3, 2020 6:02:23 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 2/20/2012
Posts: 159
TimmerB123 wrote:
Well you hemmed it in by saying standard competitive event. So anything outside that would not be standard, correct?

Interestingly, we never played that way in tournaments for years. Most of the time it didn't matter, as it was rare that people would reach the build total and not also have the game virtually decided as well.


TimmerB123 wrote:
If you want to get technical - that is not true. Time limits were implemented later.


TimmerB123 wrote:
When I play casually (which admittedly is much less frequently these days), I never finish a game before it's done. Even if it means me losing. I don't want to win that way. That's not the game to me.


We definitely played in very different metas back then. We were playing with a time limit as early as December 2004. It was common for a 100 point game to go to time back then. Even with an hour time limit. Though we usually played 45 minutes. Once gambit was introduced we had some disagreements about how it worked. One place I played only awarded it to the highest cost character within 4 squares of the center. (Not sure why they thought that.)

TimmerB123 wrote:
To be clear - Randy, I do not think you are one. I will refuse to answer that question about anyone else.

Okay, understood.

I thought of this, thought I might bring it up while we are talking.

Is anyone concerned about how tournament scoring would work under the proposed change? I would image that the 3-0 victory would be nearly eliminated. Maybe I'm wrong. I know that there are some games where someone just has a bad match and try as they might cannot land any meaningful damage. It just seems like there will be a lot more 3-1 endings.

thereisnotry
Posted: Saturday, October 3, 2020 7:36:56 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/29/2008
Posts: 1,679
Location: Canada
TimmerB123 wrote:
Just so you all are aware - I proposed my change based on not only conversations on the boards, but also conversations with people directly (phone, bloomail, in person)

There are some who are EXTREMELY against any change to gambit scoring (lowering, not scored if both teams are present, etc).

This is interesting. I would love to hear from these people. I think this is a good conversation, and I’d like to hear everyone’s voice.

So far, I don’t see anyone who is extremely against a change to gambit scoring. Perhaps there are angles that we’re not seeing?

I obviously don’t know who these people are, Tim, but perhaps you might contact them and invite them to share their thoughts here? It’s very difficult to take seriously the opinions of unnamed people if those people won’t share their opinions and engage in conversation. I’d like to hear them out and listen to their perspective. Especially if there’s a lot of them, because the results of this conversation are likely to impact the whole SWM community (at least with regard to competitive play).
TimmerB123
Posted: Sunday, October 4, 2020 7:43:47 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
I know at least a couple who feel this way have been reading along. I have encouraged them directly to post their opinions. I encourage all voices to be heard here
TimmerB123
Posted: Sunday, October 4, 2020 10:20:49 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
Other thoughts -

Have a couple outlines on when the game should continue.

It's clear both "sides" have fears of extreme examples that set them off.

So why not address those extremes?

Extreme 1-
One squad has reached 200 (including gambit) in 30 minutes, while the other squad is still in their back row. Why should I have to go hunt down them when they are not engaging.

Fair point - that is annoying. How about - if the player who is behind has not reached 100pts, the game ends at 200. This forces engagement to happen, and if it's not - game ends.


Extreme 2-
Squad A and Squad B race to gambit and have the same amount. Both squads are engaged, but Squad A has a 100pt rock piece. Squad B kills all other pieces on Squad A's team except that 100pt piece which is down to 10hp. Squad A kills 120 pts of characters on Squad Bs team, but Squad B still has 80 pts of legit combatants at full health. 8 rounds of gambit has been reached, and the game ends 180-200 with 20 minutes left on the clock.

Fair point, that is annoying. How about if the player who is ahead has not made at least 150 pts in kills, the game continues on until time or 150pts in kills is reached?



If we implement both of these - it's a "happy medium" that eliminates the extremes on both ends.


To boil it down - game ends at 200 only if the player reaching 200 has at least 150 points in kills or the opponent has not reached 100.

So only in a case where the player reaching 200 has LESS than 150 points in kills AND the player with less than 200 has at least 100 pts (kills and gambit) will the game continue.


In other words - only when the outcome is really not decided.




This is all not mutually exclusive with other suggestions (Randy's, tint's, etc) of modifying how gambit is awarded. In fact I think they work best together.



The goal of this - on both sides - is more engagement
TimmerB123
Posted: Sunday, October 4, 2020 10:26:08 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
What the above suggestion implemented would look like

Quote:
Game End Conditions:
A. One team fully eliminated
B. The end of the round when time is called.
C. The end of a round in which a player reaches 200pts, AND that player has minimum 150pts in kills
D. The end of a round in which a player reaches 200pts, AND that player's opponent has not reached 100pts
E. Concession (with the same caveats we currently have)
FlyingArrow
Posted: Sunday, October 4, 2020 10:48:25 AM
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member , Moderator

Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,407
TimmerB123 wrote:
What the above suggestion implemented would look like

Quote:
Game End Conditions:
A. One team fully eliminated
B. The end of the round when time is called.
C. The end of a round in which a player reaches 200pts, AND that player has minimum 150pts in kills
D. The end of a round in which a player reaches 200pts, AND that player's opponent has not reached 100pts
E. Concession (with the same caveats we currently have)


Seems too complicated. And the combination of C and D means that the new restriction would almost never come into play. Not worth the complication.
TimmerB123
Posted: Sunday, October 4, 2020 11:01:21 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
FlyingArrow wrote:
TimmerB123 wrote:
What the above suggestion implemented would look like

Quote:
Game End Conditions:
A. One team fully eliminated
B. The end of the round when time is called.
C. The end of a round in which a player reaches 200pts, AND that player has minimum 150pts in kills
D. The end of a round in which a player reaches 200pts, AND that player's opponent has not reached 100pts
E. Concession (with the same caveats we currently have)


Seems too complicated. And the combination of C and D means that the new restriction would almost never come into play. Not worth the complication.


Is it really that complicated? it's just giving a high and low cap. is 100 and 150 that hard to remember?

So I was trying to say the solution didn't have to be black or white - it could be a shade of grey.

Your response sorta felt like saying grey is to complicated. That is deflating.



And the combo of C+D happening far too frequently is the whole purpose of this thread.
TimmerB123
Posted: Sunday, October 4, 2020 11:03:39 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
This is what it is currently, btw. The above would add 1 condition, and specify another.

Quote:
Game End Conditions:
A. One team fully eliminated
B. The end of the round when time is called.
C. The end of a round in which a player reaches 200pts
D. Concession (with the same caveats we currently have)
DarkDracul
Posted: Sunday, October 4, 2020 6:53:22 PM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/18/2008
Posts: 1,048
Location: Kokomo
Rest assured the Balance Committee will see these conversations and will reach out to individuals on all sides of the issue. We will deliberate until the end of the year and announce official rulings by end of January or early February.

My impression is the majority of players do not oppose changes intended to improve the game for everyone.
However, they do fear changes that might return the game to a snail-paced 5pt gambit (Daala-Meta) game.
That discussion is just getting started for us and we appreciate all the great ideas being tossed around here!
AndyHatton
Posted: Monday, October 5, 2020 4:08:48 AM
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member , Moderator

Joined: 8/9/2009
Posts: 1,935
TimmerB123 wrote:
FlyingArrow wrote:
TimmerB123 wrote:
What the above suggestion implemented would look like

Quote:
Game End Conditions:
A. One team fully eliminated
B. The end of the round when time is called.
C. The end of a round in which a player reaches 200pts, AND that player has minimum 150pts in kills
D. The end of a round in which a player reaches 200pts, AND that player's opponent has not reached 100pts
E. Concession (with the same caveats we currently have)


Seems too complicated. And the combination of C and D means that the new restriction would almost never come into play. Not worth the complication.


Is it really that complicated? it's just giving a high and low cap. is 100 and 150 that hard to remember?

So I was trying to say the solution didn't have to be black or white - it could be a shade of grey.

Your response sorta felt like saying grey is to complicated. That is deflating.



And the combo of C+D happening far too frequently is the whole purpose of this thread.



I'm with TJ, its too complicated. I don't really want to add an "If X go to Y" check at the end of rounds to see if I won. That doesn't really feel like a better choice for the game IMO
TimmerB123
Posted: Monday, October 5, 2020 7:17:21 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
I was trying to address the concerns others have brought up. But if being simple is more important - my original suggestion is the easiest.

Nothing changes except we drop one end of game condition.

Quote:
Game End Conditions:
A. One team fully eliminated
B. The end of the round when time is called.
C. Concession (with the same caveats we currently have)

thereisnotry
Posted: Monday, October 5, 2020 7:37:47 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/29/2008
Posts: 1,679
Location: Canada
DarkDracul wrote:
Rest assured the Balance Committee will see these conversations and will reach out to individuals on all sides of the issue. We will deliberate until the end of the year and announce official rulings by end of January or early February.

My impression is the majority of players do not oppose changes intended to improve the game for everyone.
However, they do fear changes that might return the game to a snail-paced 5pt gambit (Daala-Meta) game.
That discussion is just getting started for us and we appreciate all the great ideas being tossed around here!
That's good to hear. Thanks for commenting!

It would be helpful to also hear where you're coming from, what your thoughts are. if you have objections that you're not sharing, then we cannot address them. Rather than holding your objections close to your vest (probably in the interest of objectivity), I think it would be far more helpful if you shared those objections so that we can all wrestle through them together.

For instance, if (as Tim has said) some people in the wider community are adamantly opposed to changing how gambit works, then I'd be really interested to hear why that is. There's probably something that some of us are missing, which would render our ideas moot. However, up to this point nobody has really articulated anything to that effect, and so the rest of us can only assume that an adjustment to gambit might be a solution.

As Tim has said, the more voices we can involve in this discussion, the better. I'm fully in agreement with him on that.
FlyingArrow
Posted: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:02:37 AM
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member , Moderator

Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,407
Two issues that I think got passing mention and might be worth more conversation...

* Playing to time or until one team is eliminated (instead of just playing to 200) means tournaments are more likely to run longer. It only takes one game going to the time limit to make the whole round take the full time limit. In a large tournament, that probably happens anyway, but in smaller tournaments, you might have a round where everyone would've finished up in 40 minutes but one of the games goes another 20 minutes just trying to do cleanup.

* More 3-1 scores. Currently, in order to get a 1pt loss you have to get to 100pts by the time your opponent reaches 200. With kill-em-all or time limit, players have more time to earn their 1pt loss.
TimmerB123
Posted: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:12:30 AM
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
I would say a better way of stating the first point is:
Tournaments will not end up shorter than expected as often as it does now.
You already have to allot for the whole hour each round. So they will not go longer.

In theory it is probably correct that there will be more 1pt losses

Is either of those a problem?

I've never really understood the concept of wanting to play less minis.
gandalfthegreatestwizard
Posted: Thursday, October 8, 2020 7:50:30 PM
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member , Moderator

Joined: 4/30/2017
Posts: 848
Location: Lower Hutt, New Zealand
I haven't decided if I support or oppose the proposed change to the rules (game doesn't end when one or both player(s) reach(es) the build total). I think there are some good points made by the side wanting the change.

One observation, that I think was alluded to in a previous thread, is that the proposed change seems to penalize squads with a focus on securing gambit in the first round (e.g. squads with Battle Ready).

Battle Ready allows you get to gambit easily in round 1, and in some situations (map dependent) forces your opponent to reconsider moving into gambit themselves in round 1, since if they do so they may be at risk of being attacked by most of your squad. One of the effects of the proposed change is that the strategic value of gambit is reduced, since if the game ends before time gambit does not factor into determining who won. With a reduced importance of gambit, Battle Ready is far less valuable. Instead of giving you an improved strategic position, it effectively just makes the map smaller.

I would prefer that characters with Battle Ready not be penalized, so this argument favours opposition of the proposition. As I said, I haven't decided either way yet- I just thought this was worth stating (and now people can debunk it or poke holes in it).
FlyingArrow
Posted: Thursday, October 8, 2020 8:20:05 PM
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member , Moderator

Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,407
Battle Ready still gives you the advantage of being able to set up the kill box and forcing the opponent to come to you.
gandalfthegreatestwizard
Posted: Thursday, October 8, 2020 9:02:37 PM
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member , Moderator

Joined: 4/30/2017
Posts: 848
Location: Lower Hutt, New Zealand
True, to an extent. I don't think the kill box will be quite as effective, since while it will still force your opponent to attack you, they won't necessarily have to move into gambit itself (and maybe that's a point in favour of the change, since I don't think anyone likes kill boxes that much).
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.