| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
Hero of Skirmish
doubtofbuddha
Commander
3371 Posts
    
 | | 06/28/2006 3:50 PM |
| How many rounds is too few rounds?
Low round games have been something of a concern for awhile. The reduction to eight figures and the use of maps was supposed to alleviate this problem, but even now there are reports of slow play and low number of rounds games in certain play environments (particularly California.) I think it would be positive if we could get some sort of community consensus on this particular matter before we go into the Championship, in order to avoid any hard feelings in the community based on differing expectations. So, based on the expectation that the game is still going on when time is called (as the game being completed before time is called is always the ideal situation, in my eyes) how many is the minimum number of acceptable rounds in a tournament game?
| |
I am not gone. | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 3:52 PM |
| | 8 is ideal. Anything less than 6 isn't enough. | |
My online store http://store.hoardsters.com
Use quick search to see scans of every stat card! | |
|
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 3:55 PM |
| Less than 6 is too few. While I agree that counting out distances and really thinking about your moves is very important, 6 rounds means 1-2 for "setting up" and 4-5 for actually engaging. Anything less than that is just not much fun.
| |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
|
Venport
Sergeant
738 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 3:57 PM |
| 6 is my bottom number... Even with 6 rounds i have a few issues...
However saying that i have played games that felt full with 4-5 rounds... The times that bother me are when
1: People walk away from the table
2: People have no idea what they want to do when it;s their turn
| |
Sacramento DDM http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16854
New world Project http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=20745
| |
|
jeremiahcarissa
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 4:06 PM |
| | I have the same thought. 6 rounds for me makes it difficult to make the proper moves and have enough round of engagement to win. Also anything less than 6 benefits titan builds to the fullest b\c they can just kill one man ans be on VP to win. I know in Michigan if I would have had one or 2 more rounds then I would have easily been in the top 4 but i am going toearn the shot for real by going to the grinder. | |
Need Miniatures Painted? E-mail me at jeremiahschmidt2002@hotmail.com | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
636 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 4:08 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Venport
6 is my bottom number... Even with 6 rounds i have a few issues...
However saying that i have played games that felt full with 4-5 rounds... The times that bother me are when
1: People walk away from the table
2: People have no idea what they want to do when it;s their turn
6 is the bottom limit, unless the match completes before then.
You can get a judge to extend the match if one of the players goes to the bathroom. It's also potentially Stalling to do so when you are ahead. | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
Bluedevyl
Warrior
261 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 4:09 PM |
| DoB - I dont know if my opinion counts, my DCI ranking isnt high enough [:p]
For me, if we get 1 hour to play a match, with map init and setup, I've found that we tend to average 5-6 rounds in a competitive environment. To me, I dont think this is quite enough. I would rather see 6-7, but I think the pace of play, at least in my area, can be called "Deliberate" but I dont really look at it as stalling.
The way it tends to go, people want to think out their moves too much and it leads to the rounds taking a little bit longer than they probably should at times. | |
Champion of Tanis Half-Elven | |
|
kgradert13
Sergeant
909 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 4:12 PM |
| I'd like to see a resolution of the game (concession, victory) or 7 rounds+.
I don't mind a game going 4-5 rounds if there is a clear victor and anything beyond that would just be wasted time. (example, Archmage has both remaining hitters on opposing band sworded and is unreachable because of the movement difference)
I have a problem with a game going 4-5 rounds with a final score of 84-79.
Ideally, I'd like to see every game reach 200pts/concession, but barring that, I feel at least 7 rounds is usually suffcient for a clear leader, not ALWAYS, but usually. | |
| |
|
PerpetualStudent
Sneak
171 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 4:19 PM |
| I think it is a tough call between playing conservative and stalling, but that is why there are judges.
I have trouble with people stating there need to be 7+ rounds, especially when they believe most of those rounds should be combat, specifically melee. Many builds, archmage is an example, try to minimize melee. Some players may not like it, but that is the eay the game/rules work. As long as there is no stalling I am usually happy with games in the 5 round range. | |
| |
|
PerpetualStudent
Sneak
171 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 4:20 PM |
| | Double post, sorry. | |
| |
| 
Avatar of the Tank
Newtoncain
Commander
2982 Posts
Land of 10,000 taxes
| | 06/28/2006 4:27 PM |
| 6 rounds as a minimum.
-please, please, please, if you have finished your game, do not ask my opponent or I a question while we still do battle. | |
They just don't know what's good in life...Conan, tell them what is good in life.
To rip the boosters. To count the minis spilled out before you, and to hear the indifference of the women... | |
|
memphisto
Warrior
213 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 4:27 PM |
| I agree that anything less than 6 rounds is unacceptable in my book. 8 rounds should be about average. These are both generalizations; some games are completed in less than 6 rounds - but at least they are decisive.
I've noticed that if I'm playing a game and round 3 hasn't started by the 30th minute of play, then the game's probably going too slow and might not make it 6 rounds - even though many games do speed up as rounds progress. A very loose, empirical observation mind you, but it's been a fairly reliable rule of thumb.
No one phase should really take more than 5 minutes to execute, with or without n-die rolls. I don't think it's unreasonable to call someone on slow play if they haven't begun their second activation within five minutes of beginning their phase. There are always exceptions to this, of course, like when calling over a judge, or getting out the rulebook to discuss a situation, etc. | |
Completed trades: arbados
Completed 23 trades on Hordelings www.hordelings.com - http://www.hordelings.com/directory/profile.php?user_id=429 | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 4:40 PM |
| I only had one match go over 30 minutes at our qualifier, and I had one game go 8 minutes.
Of course, I was playing hill giants and failing most of my morale checks. [:p]
My feeling is that most games should be ending at 200 points before you hit an hour. Going less than 6 rounds in a game that doesn't hit 200 points, except in exceptional circumstances, means that at least one player is probably playing too slow.
At 16 activations per round, 6 rounds of play is at MOST 96 activations, and that's assuming that nothing has been killed in any of the intervening rounds. That's ~37 seconds per activation before you factor in setup time, which is quite frankly *plenty* of time. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
Gloom_
Sergeant
583 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 4:43 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by PerpetualStudent
I think it is a tough call between playing conservative and stalling, but that is why there are judges.
I have trouble with people stating there need to be 7+ rounds, especially when they believe most of those rounds should be combat, specifically melee. Many builds, archmage is an example, try to minimize melee. Some players may not like it, but that is the eay the game/rules work. As long as there is no stalling I am usually happy with games in the 5 round range.
I dislike Archmage bands where the players which play the clock. Point denial is well and good, but it should *not* change the speed in which you play. But it usually does.. simply put, point denial bands are often played slower deliberately ( I've played people and can notice the difference between a melee/ranged type band they're using, and when they're playing with an Archmage [or LSD or whatever]). It's no fun whatsoever IMO if an archmage player kills some 20/30 point fodder, then the player spends ages thinking about how to gma away/ where to place etc. It's a pretty sure thing they know exactly what and where they want to do something, but are dragging it out to minimise rounds remaining.
Absolute minimum 7+ rounds, but I like to play to resolution of some kind or other. I know people take time to think & count, but I very rarely spend more than a minute on a single activation, I usually know exactly what I want to do, and where. It really makes me annoyed when people slow-play (deliberate or not) but I can't do much more than take my turn as fast as possible, and always prompt rolling for initative/scoring tiles etc. It just doesn't seem fair to me that someone percieves an advantage in their favour, then tries to effectively freeze the game in order to obtain victory. | |
| |
|
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 4:44 PM |
| quote:
-please, please, please, if you have finished your game, do not ask my opponent or I a question while we still do battle.
Sorry for the question in Niles, but, your match with the other MN looked to be more than plenty over when I asked you a question - won't happen again (assuming that was aimed in my direction[:)]). | |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
| 
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10288 Posts
United States
| | 06/28/2006 4:44 PM |
| Sixteen activations per round, times six rounds, is 96 activations. At 3600 seconds per hour, ninety-six activations in one hour is 37.5 seconds per activation. I don't see any reason why this can't be a benchmark.
That said, I do not think that fewer than 6 rounds is unacceptable, I mean, what am I going to do when a game goes 5 rounds?
I mean, many times I can, for example, have a piece cast a buffing spell and move 6 squares, and be done with an activation in 10 seconds. But, other times I need to sit and think for at least a good full minute before I'm reasonably sure what to do. And, I certainly wouldn't appreciate my opponent reminding me every 5 seconds of that minute that I need to hurry up (if anything would make me go slower, it would be that).
On the third hand, a game that only goes three rounds has definitely been played too slowly (hopefully by both players, otherwise there's potentially some abuse going on there).
Quite a few games can go as far as 10 rounds rather easily, once the total number of pieces on the board is fewer than 8.
It's really hard to say, but I'm glad it's been brought up because I really would like to see what others think that the standard ought to be.
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
|
robbdaman
Underboss
2380 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 4:46 PM |
| In general I agree with anything under 6 rounds being too little. Some players purposely play so slow but even then if you don't hit 6 rounds they are stalling in my opinion.
R~ | |
Champion of the Titan
******************************************************************************************************************************************************
Successful trades with: Tickparasite, Iyceman, Faragdar The Wise's friend, avrivah, Drakkengi, brucemc, Krush, maniacal_mini_monger, hung4treason, Gandy, NarlethDrider, Kunimatyu, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah..... | |
|
kgradert13
Sergeant
909 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 5:12 PM |
| People need to remember, the complexity of a situation does not warrant additional time.
A move is a move is a move. | |
| |
|
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 5:44 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by kgradert13
People need to remember, the complexity of a situation does not warrant additional time.
A move is a move is a move.
While it doesn't warrant extra time, it is important in distinguishing between stalling and slow play. Somebody who spends several minutes pondering GMA is much less likely to be cheating than somebody who spends several minutes pondering where they want to move Mialee after she's Magic Weaponed something. | |
Champion of Gnomes | |
|
kgradert13
Sergeant
909 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 5:57 PM |
| | However, both are stalling or toeing the line of stalling. | |
| |
|
robbdaman
Underboss
2380 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 6:05 PM |
| If someone takes several minutes to GMA they are definately milking the clock. GMA should be rather easy, it should take a minute or so tops.
R~ | |
Champion of the Titan
******************************************************************************************************************************************************
Successful trades with: Tickparasite, Iyceman, Faragdar The Wise's friend, avrivah, Drakkengi, brucemc, Krush, maniacal_mini_monger, hung4treason, Gandy, NarlethDrider, Kunimatyu, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah..... | |
|
Tried
Sergeant
497 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 6:10 PM |
|
It doesn't matter that slow play is not stalling.
Slow play is slow play, even when it is not stalling.
You are responsible for getting in a certain number of rounds. The figures are costed based on this. Fewer rounds is, in effect, a form of cheating, as it biases the figure cost.
Is "Regardless of the complexity" an absolute, however?
Not always.
One slow turn does not make a player necessarily eligible for sanctions. It will depend where, when and be influenced by other conditional mods. Most of the time, its not a problem.
Consistent slow play is the problem. Generally, players familiar with their meta and their own band already know what speed to play at, and it can be avoided.
If you can't get a sixth round begun before time goes, odds are very, very good you are playing too slow.
Solution is easy and fun, though. Practice more. [:)]
| |
Let it be. | |
| 2005 D&D Miniatures Champion
Fenris
Sergeant
974 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 6:18 PM |
| There seem to be a lot of people who think six is the magic number, which feels rather arbitrary to me. Why not five, or seven?
Since, in practice, the definition of slow play depends entirely on the judge's interpretation, it is my opinion that threads like this are not productive. It frankly doesn't matter if everyone here agrees that n-rounds is the minimum; there is no rule to that effect and judges will not be enforcing an n-round minimum at Gencon unless the rules change before then.
And frankly, this issue has been talked to death already, here and elsewhere. Absent any new statements about it from official sources, I don't think there'll be any change in the speed of games at the championship.
Note that I'm not making a judgement about whether that's good or bad. I just fail to see how what anyone says in this thread makes any difference, with perhaps Talafenix excepted. [)] | |
Read my championship tournament report.
Successful trades:
xBrendanx | Cha0tic G0od | ThatOneGuy | BrazenWood | Finley | Arris | Drift x2 | Neonmage | Cthulu's Librarian | Kalvos | PatEllis15 | Paradox1995 | Rhane | Gildogg | Darthrau | Vrecknidj x2 | erian_7 | Octavius Drowslayer x2 | stheis | Garate | thenameless | Lucky_ksu | ckissee | Corim Danex | Schooly_D | Username | |
|
Tried
Sergeant
497 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 6:27 PM |
| Well,
It WILL make a difference - at least in the Grinder, old friend, as I will be judging.
And it may make a difference in the champs, because I have been trained by GuyF (he takes no credit. I'm not really trained that well), and I am simply repeating the slow play guidelines that he and I have discussed as "generally" applicable. Since GuyF will be back at GenCon this year....well, you get the idea.
You have to pick one arbitrarily, btw - but the number has to be in line with that number the designers normally playtest around. So if they cost figs on 6+ rounds, then thats how its gotta be.
5 is a little too short (most people feel). 7 is fine, if 6 is, right? I think people are just trying to come up with a minimum.
You said it yourself when you said "a lot of people feel...."
I think the thread helps a lot, personally, because it gets the general guideline "out there" for discussion, and hopefully, eventually, in print somewhere. | |
Let it be. | |
|
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 6:32 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tried
It doesn't matter that slow play is not stalling.
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that stalling is a more serious offense than slow play, and actually constitutes cheating.
I'm certainly not trying to argue in favor of either, but I do think there should be a difference in dealing with someone who is intentionally trying to drag a game out to his benefit, as opposed to someone who is unintentionally taking too long to think. | |
Champion of Gnomes | |
|
Gunthar
Commander
2938 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 6:37 PM |
| | I think 8 should be the norm, with about 6 as the low-end for reasons already stated by others in this thread. | |
Champion of Prit(Wemic vindication is here)
Minneapolis/St. Paul area
Completed trades: Aspect of Cheese (Love that moniker), Tickparasite, Elderthing, Lalato, Sodj, Grimoire, SmilinIrish, Zeb, RWarehall,Link, wikkawikkawa, Auramancer, Rommers, HK, Ivid5,Qillan_dvra, Puggins, Arcabius, Ironfist Boulderbender, Robby, Corim Danex, monster_slayer, DNDJUNKIE, Kelemvor, Krush, ckissee, Massawyrm, hockey fan, Wish, Uninspiring Lieutenant, vtloon x2, Vrecknidj, Darthpoke, WakeXX, AnarionZell, lycusmike, papabear5 and umpteen local trades with board members
| |
|
ManoVega
Sneak
108 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 7:02 PM |
| If it's going to be set at a certain number, then it should be firmly set at a certain number so that people can build their warbands knowing the rule. Archmage teams have MUCH more to lose if they make a slight miscalculation than a Helmed Horror team, yet they really need time for the Mordy Swords to work. Titan builds obviously would rather have less rounds for beaters to wail on them, but at the same time the rest of their team is usually fragile and a misstep could cause them to fall behind on points. What if someone decides to make a team with 10 Greycloaks (and 10 wolves), Nentyar Hunter & Xeph (22 activations), does he get more time to move? Is it really fair to rush one team over another? At the very least a minimum should be written in the official rules, along with a penalty.
What even happens if a person takes too long, are they disqualified? I've personally felt the sting of slow-play in the championship, and while it sucks, what can you really do? If the penalty is significant, then it should be clearly stated and enforced, no warnings. If it's a minor penalty, then it's almost worthless to bother enforcing.
For my money, the minimum (if enforced) should be one less than what most people feel is the minimum. In this case I feel that 5 would be an acceptable low. At while we're at it, we should probably make a Maximum number of rounds to avoid potential problems and give players something to aim for. Maybe 10 should be the Maximum. | |
Mano Vega | |
| 2005 D&D Miniatures Champion
Fenris
Sergeant
974 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 7:06 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tried
Well,
It WILL make a difference - at least in the Grinder, old friend, as I will be judging.
And it may make a difference in the champs, because I have been trained by GuyF (he takes no credit. I'm not really trained that well), and I am simply repeating the slow play guidelines that he and I have discussed as "generally" applicable. Since GuyF will be back at GenCon this year....well, you get the idea.
So, let's say at the grinder someone calls you over with 2 minutes remaining in the round, and says "Hey, we're only on round 3 and my opponent is playing slow." The opponent denies it, so you sit and watch the game. They play reasonably fast from the time you start watching, but only get halfway through round 4 before time is called. Do you issue cautions/warnings to the players? Both? If not, which one?
This highlights my point, which is: if there is to be a hard rule about a minimum number of rounds that judges will be enforcing, it should be added to the floor rules, preferably before Gencon. Not everybody reads this board.
If there is NOT a hard rule, then threads like this increase ill-will among players by encouraging a mismatch in expectations between those who read this thread and those who don't.
It's kinda like that article someone linked to a while back, about how some video game players have a set of internal "rules" that they expect other players to follow, well outside of the actual rules of the game. | |
Read my championship tournament report.
Successful trades:
xBrendanx | Cha0tic G0od | ThatOneGuy | BrazenWood | Finley | Arris | Drift x2 | Neonmage | Cthulu's Librarian | Kalvos | PatEllis15 | Paradox1995 | Rhane | Gildogg | Darthrau | Vrecknidj x2 | erian_7 | Octavius Drowslayer x2 | stheis | Garate | thenameless | Lucky_ksu | ckissee | Corim Danex | Schooly_D | Username | |
|
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10288 Posts
United States
| | 06/28/2006 7:13 PM |
| It's been discussed and dropped before, often criticized as being too unwieldy for large events like minis conventions, but the possibility of playing to a round limit should still be on the table. (Not for this year's championship or the Grinder, but in general.)
Let's say that you know that a match cannot before the 6th round, unless someone already has 200 points or someone concedes. Does this change anything about your warbands or style of play? Let's say that a match cannot end before the 8th round? Does that change it? Are you more likely to play a Large Silver than a Large Red in either case? (In intentionally chose those two pieces, given that they're different kinds of titans than we've been seeing lately, and that they're played differently from one another usually.)
What if you knew that, at the end of the 7th round, the player with the most points (if less than 200) got the win? Would that change your view of assault points?
Just curious. I mean, I've chosen 6, 7, and 8, three of the numbers that come up the most here. I suppose some games could last for three hours, but I kinda doubt it would really happen much. Maybe some players wouldn't feel the pressure of the clock and so might actually lighten up and play a little faster, ironically.
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
|
Sirohk
Commander
3809 Posts
USA
| | 06/28/2006 7:23 PM |
| I agree that 6 rounds sounds like about the right number for a norm.
I also see a lot of games go 4-5 rounds, mainly because both players take a lot of time checking all of their moves, grabbing tile points, and not really engaging in combat until the 3-4 round. At that point both players are still moving 7-8 figures and it takes time to do so.
Also, as a point of ediquette, when yopur opponent is taking too long to complete their moves / actions, do you:
1) Politely ask them to please go faster
2) How many times do you do #1
3) Just call a Judge over right away when they first slow play
4) Call a judge over after X times asking them to speed up
IMO you should ask soemone once then get the Judge involved. But I think once that has happened, the damage has been done and the game will only go 4-5 rounds unless thigns speed up very rapidly.
One other item. What about time spent taking notes, keeping score, recording warband information, etc.. This does take up some of the 60 minute time limit. Myself, I try to do while my opponent is setting up.
One thing I will say is that I very strongly agree with Tried in that PRACTICE (with your warband and against the various other warbands) is a very good solution to getting more rounds done in a game. It has helped me and I am finding it helping opponents that I play against.
I hope that the new unfamiliar mini's from WotDQ will not slow down play at GenCon, but I think that that may for some players.
Anyhow, that's my $0.02 on the topic.
Cheers.
| |
Sirohk, the Bard of Heartstone
Knight of the Rahshasa's
And Crusader of the Zakya, Ak'chazar, Naztharune, and Naityan Rakshasa's | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
636 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 7:23 PM |
| 6 rounds isn't totally arbitrary. As has been pointed out already, it's close to 30 seconds per activation, which I feel is achieveable as an average per activation, no matter the warband.
Fenris - I totally agree that if any 'minimum rounds per game' rule needs to be in the Floor Rules before being implemented.
The best policy at this point is to police ourselves. Ask your opponent to speed up if you feel they are consistently playing slowly (one or two activations should not make a difference in the number of rounds played, unless they are taking significant chunks of time). Be sure you are playing at least at the speed which you expect your opponent to be playing. As always, ask a judge to watch and let them determine if your opponent is playing slowly. | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
636 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 7:30 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Sirohk
One other item. What about time spent taking notes, keeping score, recording warband information, etc.. This does take up some of the 60 minute time limit. Myself, I try to do while my opponent is setting up.
I thought this was covered the the UTR, but don't see it in there at a glance. It must be in the Magic Floor Rules. Recordkeeping in Magic does not give you the ability to play any slower than if you were not recordkeeping. Since we do have some necessary recordkeeping, I would say that is part of play in DDM, but notes for write-ups later do not give you the right to take up additional time on your phases. | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
doranur
Warrior
180 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 7:32 PM |
| | warn both players. the player that wasn't playing slow won't get another warning, the player who was will get dq'd eventually. sucks for that one player who lost a game because his opponent was playing slow but it is the long term solution. | |
-Doranur
join the revolution! down with round/turn fascism! viva la resistance! | |
| DDM Constructed Champion 2006
derry
Warrior
268 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 7:48 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Fenris
It's kinda like that article someone linked to a while back, about how some video game players have a set of internal "rules" that they expect other players to follow, well outside of the actual rules of the game.
Exactly! If the rules allow something and it gives you advantage, only dorks do not play to win.
Like most players today, I am one of those dorks not playing to win. I am actually so dorky that I do not want to play DDM if the rules cannot provide remedies for this issue. I like to have meaningful resolutions of my DDM matches. Almost every player I have ever discussed this issue with also wants to have meaningful resolutions of their matches too.
Clean remedies are available for this issue, since DDM has a quantifiable way to understand whether a match was impacted by slow play or not. These clean remedies do not require high levels of judge involvement in matches and work for the reality of the environment we face at both local events and world championships.
Regardless of how this will be handled at the Constructed Championship, communication of the specific ideas and guidelines need to be communicated, not just to the judges, but also to all players. This communication should be well enough in advance to allow players to make warband choices that are appropriate to these guidelines (and to the map choices.)
Although posts in threads about issues our community faces rarely help drive toward a solution, I suggest that if you have feelings about this issue, you post your concerns and anecdotes here. Awareness that this is a problem is not universal and stands in the way of getting to a soltion. | |
Member of the Low Post Count but High Post Content Society | |
|
Neidhart
Skirmisher
37 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 8:42 PM |
| Ok here are two situations.
Let's say you are playing a titan type warband where your last move is always an important one. Let's also assume that you are playing with the idea in mind you have 37 seconds per activation - which will allow for a 6 round game.
Situation #1 - my first 7 activations take only 2 seconds each leaving me 35 x 7 = 245 seconds which is just over 4 minutes for my last activation "IF" I was to use up that so called allotted time. So now on my last activation if I use up 4 minutes is that slow play? Yes, probably it is. If I use up 3 minutes? 2 minutes? Where do you draw the line? If a judge comes over to see me take 2 minutes on one activation and yet I only took a total of 2:14 for 8 activations is that slow play?
If the answer to situation #1 is yes then let's go to situation #2 - Instead of taking 2 seconds for each activation I take the full 37 seconds. Now for my first 7 activations I know what I want to do but I am using the extra time to plan for my last activation. In total I will only use my 8 x 37 seconds of time but it would seem ridiculous to use 37 seconds to move a wolf 16 spaces to a victory point area, right? This is probably a situation of stalling???
What is the solution - a time clock? Then you know exactly how much time you have to make all your moves and you can never be accused of slow play or stalling because once your time is done you can no longer move. There are many problems with using a time clock though, and do we really want to go there? I don't think so.
As Sienar stated I think the bottom line is that we have to police ourselves. I always hear about what great sportsmanship is shown by every player. Having said that, I would think that if someone is playing a little slow then just ask them nicely to speed up a bit. If you feel that does not work then call over a judge. I would expect with the great sportsmanship that most everyone possesses that nobody would/should take offence to that and if they do, they are probably someone who is stalling, moving too slow or does not possess great sportsmanship.
Everyone has an opinion of what slow play is. Look at the examples above - there are a couple of scenarios that on the outside my appear to be slow play but in reality it is not. But... that is why we have judges. Whatver the judge says goes.
So are we really going to ask the governing body to create rules about how many rounds we must get in, how much time we have for each activation, how much time constitutes stalling vs moving slow, or can we effectively try and police ourselves. I think if we police ourselves we can effectively control the problem. As Sirohk stated, once the judge gets involved the damage may be done already and that may be true for that game. But, if that person consistently has complaints about them being slow and it is recorded with DCI then those slow players will eventually be weeded out.
Sorry for such a long post.
Excellent thread though!
| |
| |
|
Darksuit
Skirmisher
44 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 9:20 PM |
| This is a complex issue, with not just a single factor, but multiple factors and issues.
For myself it breaks down into 2 divisions. Intentional Slow Play, and Unintentional Slow Play. Both can be considered stalling and have to be examined at the time it happens.
Intentional Slow Play - When a player delerbertly performs an action to slow down, or intterupt the pace of the game. (Examples, excessive time being taken to move, staring into space, calling for time more than 3 times in the space of 5 minutes)
Unintentional Slow Play - When a player performs an action that slows down play from a lack of understanding of rules, or a physical condition. (Examples: exhaustion, not knowing Melee Reach or LoS rules, Not knowing the abilities of a particular figure)
While I might be able to play fast enough to counteract most people's slow playing, there are a number of people who can not.
I am a pretty good sport about playing DDM. I will put up with a lot of peoples slow playing if for no other reason I know that I can play fast enough to counter act the slow playing. I would also persoanlly rather have fun and not have to think about certain things, but it does irrate me, if I have to start babysitting someone becuase they are intentionally slow playing. All that tells me is that, that person can not honestly win the match.
| |
| |
|
johnny.quest
Underboss
1341 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 9:24 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by derry
Like most players today, I am one of those dorks not playing to win.
That doesn't make you a dork, Derry. It makes you a scrub [)]
Seriously, I think the expectations already exist, so talking about them is a good idea. By the same token, expectations aren't rules. | | | |
|
Feathers
Underboss
1140 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 10:12 PM |
| One point I'd like to point out is that sometimes, you can play under 6 rounds and still be playing fast. A few of my games at the Santa Clara qualifier only went 5 rounds, but I had won the game by then with 10-15 minutes to spare.
Let's also not forget that some bands (Quad, Hill Giants) are faster to play than others (Beholder, Archmage, ranged bands).
However, that having been said, players need to do their part to speed up their play. And as Tried says, that means practicing.
At the latest qualifier, I am ashamed to say that I was guilty of playing slow in the early rounds (1-2) and then faster in rounds after that. I was never stalling, but doing things like pondering multiple moves with my pieces and checking and rechecking lines of sight and generally overthinking things.
The problem is I played Archmage. The paradox with the Archmage is you need to be very deliberate in how you move because one mistake will kill you. But at the same time, you need to speed things up because you need extra rounds to inflict max damage with your swords.
In rounds 1 and 2, my opponent and I both spend time setting up and checking lines of sight. Then the initial movements are very deliberate on both sides as both players try to maneuver for a future attack or spellcast.
However, once my spells are cast, I try to be quick. It is to my adantage. I don't play slow deliberately. Tried speaks the truth. The remedy is practice. I feel my slow play in the early rounds of each match could be attributed to lack of practice time with the AM and with D&D minis in general.
I have hardly played any D&D minis in the past 3 months. The only time I did play in that span of time has been at the Utah qualifier, 2 games at league after that, and then this last Santa Clara qualifier. And of those, I didn't play Archmage until Santa Clara. Granted, I have played Archmage alot a year ago and so was familiar with him, but a complete lack of pracrice meant that I was often checking and rechecking movements and lines of sight that probably wouldn't have tripped me up during my heydey with the Archmage.
So the moral there is: players need to practice to pick up their play speed. I can give new players the benefit of the doubt. But if you are tuning your warband for GenCon and key tournaments, then you probably need to practice some so you can at least do your part to play at a reasonable pace. I'm guilty of not really having done that. But if you are playing to win, you're going to practice anyway. | |
Champion of Neogi
Completed Trades/Transactions: sttmxn, Krush, jgsugden, Ayrychx2, Venport, Tysac
| |
|
PerpetualStudent
Sneak
171 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 10:34 PM |
| | While I find this topic fascinating, I have not seen any suggestions as to how to solve this problem without causing even more. The idea of clocks have been discussed and discarded as not being remotely practical. Setting a predetrmined number of rounds, or even a round limit, would not make people play faster, on th contrary, it would allow people the freedom to play as slow as they wanted knowing they do not have to worry about being called for stalling - because they will get in at least 6 rounds. I see this making tournaments last even longer as each round does not end until everyone has played the minimum, and this could mean 2 really slow players take up to 2 hours to reach this point. Finally, if stalling constituted a game loss and judges were to 'crack down' then someone could play a speedy beater band and everytime they came across someone playing a finess band that needed time to calculate moves they could call a judge early and claim stalling, and then that player would be under the gun to move quickly or lose. I don't like this idea, talk about limit the viable warband possibilities. I know most of the people that I have had the pleasure of playing with were excellent sports and generally good guys, but it would only take a few to take advantage of something like this and really spoil the game for many players. I recommend caution before enacting new rules to fix percieved problems without knowing as best as possible how it will change the game, and I believe R&D has done a good job of that so far. | |
| |
|
Kyuketsuki
Warrior
183 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 11:05 PM |
| | I never count the number of rounds but iknow this: if I manage to win a battle aganist a good, player with a good warband in few rounds; the better for me, it means im a very good player with an impresive luck and i coul rest a little for my next match, but for me rounds doesnt matter, time is the fact wich matters nothing else nothing more. | |
in a world of eternal darkness theres no shadows to fear.
Kerwin Wolfheart was here | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 | You must be signed in to participate in the
games. |