First of all I'm sorry. The way this was approached and rolled out was very upsetting to me on a personal level, and I know some of my responses where infused with that anger and came across poorly. I never meant any personal attacks.



I'm very confused by this. There were some things you brought up that had no relation to anything I was promoting, so I didn't comment on those. Otherwise I thought my in depth post clarified how I felt on many things related to what you brought up. I'll try and be more clear.



This simply isn't true. Did it matter less mathematically? Yes, of course. But this hyperbole is not helping anything.


I think the 3/2 change made a MASSIVE difference (I think this was before your time in the game?). There was a tangible difference in the way games were played. The 3-2-1 and 10pt gambit, also made a change. Unfortunately while there was some good to this change, there was also some bad that came along with it. I understand why it was implemented, and don't want to totally abolish it, but I think it could be tweaked to keep the good and close the loophole for bad.

Yes, designs have made some progress in this area as well, but I agree they have not been the biggest factor.

What you didn't mention is actually probably the most significant change to the game yet - the hardcore nerf of activation control. The change to the game since then has been absolutely drastic. Not all in a bad way, but certainly much different. This has been the biggest change yet.



I absolutely agree! In fact some of the changes we have made along the way have been overall good, but imperfect and allowed other less than desirable things to be present.

Furthermore - it doesn't have to be all or none. It can be incremental, and that aside - I do think we should actively pursue ways to KEEP the positive changes, and correct the negative ones. It doesn't have to be either or.

To use Trevor's analogy - let's put the chainsaw away, and get out the scalpel.



Agreed, but I actually think it should be even greater than a tiebreaker. To reiterate the point I made in the previous post, (I'll reframe it here):
(by our current system) 6pts, 2-2 record (3,3,0,0) should be greater than 7pts 2-2 (3,2,1,1) in my opinion. But obviously it isn't currently. Why? Same record, but one player had all wins 200pts or greater. One player only had one win of 200pts or greater. That should outweigh a couple of 1pt losses in my opinion. We can come up with all kinds of scenarios on why one engaged more than the other - but again - there are extremes in all cases (kamikaze just to barely get 100, vs a nail biter where you scored 199 and lost), and likewise with 2pt victories (won 5-0, vs 199-198). It gets really complicated to define a dividing line to differentiate, and ultimately you have to draw it somewhere. However, a full victory where one player defeats all of the other players pieces cannot be argued. It is above reproach. It is what should be sought after every time. Thereby it should be rewarded the most. a 2pt victory and a 1 point loss cannot equal a 3pt win and a 0pt loss, even if the prior wins in a tiebreaker. Why? Because 1pt losses actually encourages 2pt wins. You can FULLY make up for a 2pt win by getting a 1pt loss instead of zero. That should not be the case. 200+pt wins should stand above and not be able to allow 2pt wins to make up for it, much less surpass it, except perhaps in extreme cases. (say three 1pt losses can make up for one 2pt win)

Everyone talks about finishing games finishing games finishing games. That's great. But then we have a system that allows a player that NEVER finishes a game to surpass a player that finishes ALL their games, even if they have the same record. (and yes, I know this isn't always the case, but in my opinion, it shouldn't even be a possibility.)

We have been using a sledgehammer to try and PUNSIH slow play, but in doing so actually promoting it in another way.

Thank you for reframing and clarifying where you're coming from, Tim. This was helpful (at least for me).

I also agree fully with the definition of engagement that you and Laura discussed. As long as engagement (by that definition) is happening, then I have no concerns. I think all the rules/structures around tournament ranking should aim toward reinforcing this singlular goal.

I think that's a great idea!

Now any moment someone will post an extreme example that would likely never happen on why this idea won't work, but I think this needs to be seriously considered.

It feels very cut and dry. Gambit is there to promote engagement. If both players are in gambit and engagement has occurred, gambit no longer serves it's one and only purpose.

Good post Tim,

I do not believe it was Hyperbole. On average most games were not affected by 5 point game. From the polls done at the time this was a very widely accepted viewpoint. It was not worth the opportunity cost and thus did not properly encourage engagement. As was it's purpose.

I like the idea of making Completed Wins weighted over Partial Wins and 1 point losses. An obvious solution is to just increase the amount of points a Full win is worth. I am not sure how we do that without making 1 point losses no longer a factor though.

On changing gambit to be added on at the end of regulation time as a tiebreakers. I think that the way I would be most comfortable doing this is instead allowing 1 additional round after a player reaches 200 with Gambit. Meaning with time still on the clock, play would end the round after 1 player reaches 200 victory points in kills and Gambit.

Thoughts?

Yes, I am quoting myself here, but I felt it should be looked at specifically as its own point. I'm afraid it got lost in the mix.

Once all pieces that can do damage (any damage) on a squad are defeated, the game ends immediately and that player loses. Full 200pt victory no matter what.



Sincerely, I'd like to hear objections to this becoming a rule, and rationale. I for the life of me can't think of any.



The above is the conservative approach. Very cut and dry.

I would be willing to take it a step further and instead of no damage, I'd say 10 damage or less (accounting for all CEs, SAs and FPs, but not crits).

The game is done when all you have left is 3 uggies. (where as the idea based on literally only pieces that do zero damage would allow the game to play on in this instance)

As would I, and this is one of those cases where if there happens to be an exception then you can call a judge over. Say you have an uggie and they have a character with 10 hit points lefts within 6. Honestly at that point you can gentlemens agreement that without even needing the judge.

Yeah that would work to.

No, there is Rackghoul Disease (maybe others?) where added characters don’t count toward the cost of a squad.

The glossary must specify that added characters do not count for kill points.
For instance, Porgs count for points because the glossary doesn't specify otherwise.

For continuity Bribery could change in the future. Maybe even Rakghoul Disease, but i'm not sure it is necessary

For gambit, I like the idea of having 10pts of gambit available per round. If you're the only one in gambit you get all 10pts. If both players are in gambit, each get 5. So if you're not in gambit, you're giving up a lot, but if you are in gambit, the game doesn't rush so quickly to 200pts.