| | | | | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
Dagni
Sergeant
870 Posts
    
 | | 06/28/2006 11:28 PM |
| On the assumption that this thread matters a great deal to the people who will be judging at GenCon, I'll make some counterpoints to what some have said.
First off, doubtofbuddha asked a great question, the question that matters by far the most to all of us *players* - but as Fenris and others have tried to point out, it's not at the question that should *directly* affect how the game is judged, or how a person tries to play 'in a timely fashion'. Like Fenris brought up, rushing yourself to get in the sixth round is NOT playing to win! It's an artificial rule, that won't be found in any rulebook. All the player has to do, and all he should be trying to do, is (I'm paraphrasing) 'play in a timely fashion, regardless of game complexity'.
In other words, I think it is entirely the wrong way to judge to base slow play upon a minimum number of rounds guideline. That is, until and unless the definition of slow play is changed. Under the current rules, a player should not have a sliding scale of slow play based upon the likelihood of the game ending with one player over 200 pts, nor a sliding scale based upon the probability of getting 6+ rounds.
Haha, that would imply a player in an exceptionally complex situation with only 2 minutes left in the game and 2 figures to move (but he wins for sure if he takes over 2 minutes) would be slow playing if he didn't finish his moves in that time IF it was round 5, but would NOT be slow playing IF it was round 6! In this specific example, please remember that if the player pretends to be thinking, but is really stalling, he's guilty of cheating, which is a totally seperate issue. Likewise, I gave 2 minutes left in the game, but that exact number isn't the point. Assume it's exactly the most borderline number you can think of, where the player might be barely playing at a reasonable pace, but might be barely not playing at a reasonable pace.
Mind you, probably the rules should be changed to allow for the possibility that it's alright to play slowly if the game clearly will still end 10 minutes before time is called. However, to my knowledge there is no such rule. Nor is there a rule that a player should play in an *even more timely* fashion than normal if that player is using tactics (running away) that will result in a satisfactory resolution being reached after more like 8 rounds, rather than 6. Nor is there a rule that a player should play equally quick per *round* regardless of whether he has 8 activations left, or only 2.
So how can 6 rounds minimum be a reasonable guideline when most games will be down to 6 creatures (per side) by round 3, and often 4 creatures by round 5, but a few games could have 8 (or more) creatures per side throughout the first 6 rounds?
quote:
Originally posted by Vrecknidj
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.
Personally, I feel that's an unacceptable benchmark, though perhaps many people would disagree. Everyone wants every game to finish completely without a time limit being a concern. I'm willing to wager that most everyone does NOT want a time limit of 5 seconds per activations, either. The goal is to balance the desire to have as much time as needed for each phase, yet still have as many phases as needed for the game. The goal of this thread ought to be to find a happy medium between two extremes.
In such a compromise between two incompatible goals - the Championships last year proved that it was NOT at that time possible to both have as long of a phase as desired yet also have games reach satisfactory resolution - we have to realize that we can't get everything we want. The desire is to minimize the sacrifices we have to make. Clearly, the consensus is that we don't want to sacrifice so much on the game length side of things that we get fewer than 6 rounds of play. However, the trouble is that if we try to enforce that, we're not putting any limit on the amount we have to sacrifice on the other side of things. Personally, on that side of things, I think anything less than a minute per important move, and thus 2 min per phase, is too little.
Sure, we could have a 37.5 second guideline per move. For many players, it might be business as normal. For me, once it was a consistantly enforced rule, I'd get used to it, and I'd be able to play under that constraint. However, for me, it would be the biggest single change to the game since the switch to maps. It'd be the same game, but it wouldn't. I could live with it... but I highly doubt I'd enjoy it as much. In my opinion, that sacrifices far too much on the side of having as long of a phase as desired.
Likewise, that's where I think that the X round minimum is ridiculous. In my opinion, better to have one game in forty go only X-1 rounds, then force an even tighter Slow Play guideline on that game... and every one of the other 39!
-----
I probably sound like I'm arguing the 'slow players' side, or something. Likewise, I have a rep as a slow player. Don't let that fool you - my goal is to improve the game by having the best possible guideline for slow play, and my goal is not to simply allow slow play to continue. If I'm arguing one side over the other, it's only that I disagree with some people on how much time is needed to complete a typical set of 2 moves in a typical game without being forced to totally rush the moves.
-----
In conclusion, I suggest this discussion gets moved into two different areas. Perhaps one or both should have it's own thread? One, discussion of about what the right 'per move' guideline is acceptible. I've already started that one, as has Vrecknidj and sienar. They think that 30 seconds per move is acceptible, I do not think it is close to acceptible.
Two, discussion of possible rules changes or rules clarifications that would make a round minimum something that mattered. Should the round minimum, which is harder to enforce, be of more importance than the per move maximum guidelines? Do you disagree with my premise that slow play has nothing to do with what round it is after 30 min, only with how long each player has been taking per move? The current rules, by my interpretation, give no import to one, and totally focus on per move guidelines. If the fact that we as a community believe games should get in 6 rounds affects the judges' rulings, it should only do so indirectly, in that they choose a per move guideline that will generally allow that many rounds if it is enforced. However, perhaps there's a good way to get this rule changed/clarified into something different?
- Dagni | |
Proud member of the GRUUMSH fan club! | |
|
Pegasus Knight
Sergeant
896 Posts
| | 06/28/2006 11:51 PM |
| I'm not sure I have any direct solutions to the matter. In fact, I can't even really qualify myself to comment on the topic, since I have played a grand total of eight tournament games; hardly an impressive number and nowhere near enough to give me any insights on pace of play and guidelines for it.
However, there is one thing I wanted to mention since fighting games (videogames) were brought up in regards to this and playing within the scope of the rules. There is one huge contrast between DDM and Street Fighter: In SF, both players are always 'active.' They are constantly doing things. Your opponent tossing fireballs doesn't stop you from jumping, or running away to build up your energy meter, or whatever; you are both always active and the only way that changes is if the 99-count timer reaches "00" or one character is knocked out. In DDM, the amount of time you spend doing things is tied to how long your opponent does things.
Whether this brings us any closer to a solution, agreement, or resolution to the matter...I don't know. But in this case, your opponent's pace genuinely influences your options, and this has to be kept in mind for any decision reached on pace of play. | |
- Irrationally Fanatical Champion of Pegasus-mounted cavalry
- Proud member of Team Low Tier Beasting: I play CG as my main faction!
- Garland, TX 2006 Qualifier Champion
My trading thread: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=19725 | |
| 
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 12:19 AM |
| Alright. I read this thread ealier in the day and didn't comment, but maybe I'll chime in now.
First, a nod to Fenris, etc. This discussion is simply discussion. At this point slow play is a discretionary judgement call on the part of the judge and discussion here will likely not sway that.
Second, a nod to Dagni/Derry/etc. As long as there are not hard and definite rules a player would be a "scrub / dweeb / whatever" to not play to his advantage. I play fast, and there's no reason for that. If someone else has a better chance of winning by playing ... deliberately ... they'd be a fool not to do so. Doing otherwise isn't playing to win, right?
---------------------
That said, I personally think there SHOULD be hard benchmarks and I DO think there are specific actions that judges can take with and without those benchmarks to improve this problem.
And yes, I do think it is a problem. It may not be a huge problem, but it's the largest complaint I hear from players in different areas about the tournament game for which there are not clear and objective guidelines. Cheating, misrepresenting the game state, etc. are all objectively measureable ... and currently slow play is not. It is also the problem that when it arises most frustrates players as they also feel there is a problem but feel there is little recourse to complaining due to the lack of an objective standard.
Seriously folks ... many of us thought four rounds was pretty bad in 12/tiles ... there are matches going four with 8/maps ...
-----------------------------
So, what can we do.
Within the current system, I believe judges should be diligent and watchful. This means NOT chatting around or playing with whoever has the bye ... that may work for a small event, but a larger event or one with the potential for slow-play requires different behavior. I believe that if judges are actively watching matches and monitoring play then slow play happens less often.
This isn't perfect, as the watchdog-approach only works on a subset of problematic players. Still, this alone can make huge improvements.
Even with more diligent judging, however, I think there is still a need for an objective standard or set of standards.
These standards would need to cover the bare-minimum requirements and official penalty guidelines. The bare-minimums would need to be "real" minimums ... something like an official warning for less than X rounds. Not "should go X rounds" ... that's not fair to players or judges to include "should" ... And X needs to be defined so we all know what we're doing. Four rounds? Five?
And that warning should probably go to BOTH players unless the judge can accurately determine who the slow player was if it was a single player. Call it a warning to one for playing slow and a warning to the second for not reporting it.
Further, when called to observe a match the judge should be able to tell immediately the round, etc. of the match and the judge should have some gross minimum guidelines so that the judge can determine if the match is progressing too slowly. The judge should monitor the match and if appropriate assign either a caution or warning to the player(s) playing slow.
Finally, players need to be encouraged to call a judge for slow play EARLY. Calling in the last 5 minutes does no good. Calling early allows the judge to monitor the situation and that observation could itself speed play.
Now, I'm not sure what X is above. It needs to be something LOW. I'd like to see matches go a minimum of six rounds, but I'm not sure that means I'd give a penalty at five. Four maybe? I'm not certain ... either way X would need to be defined clearly in the floor rules so that all players could adjust their play-style and warbands as appropriate.
---------------------
And that, as they say, is that ... my opinion | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
| Knight of the
Round Table
Thenameless
Warlord
8888 Posts
The Fortress of Solitude
| | 06/29/2006 12:26 AM |
| So, should we re-visit the idea of chess-clocks for serious tournament play? I tend to play very fast (sometimes to my detriment), as evidenced by the fact that every game I played in the qualifier came to a conclusion before time was called. And, some of my opponents were not playing with the same speed.
I know it affected one of the parties at our qualifier. My friend didn't want to call out his opponent for stalling, but both he and his opponent knew that the game would very likely turn in his favour if an extra round was played. There was no extra round, and the other guy won - but man, was he playing slow. | |
Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| |
kgradert13
Sergeant
909 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 12:59 AM |
| One simple way for a judge to have an idea of what games are proceeding "off pace" would be a stand with spiral pages labeled 1-12 or whatever. When the first round is complete, flip from 1 to 2. This gives the players an easy way to calculate where they are, and a judge can walk through and have a quit way to see the pace of each game.
When he sees a game or 2 lagging behind, the judge is more able to monitor those closely.
One of the single biggest problems with slow play is few people want to be "that guy" that calls over the judge. Since I play very fast (probably way too fast), when there is an issue of not completing a game, I am almost always certain I haven't caused it, even when playing supposedly slow bands such as Archmage. I had 1 game go to time in the Niles qualifier, and it only went 4 rounds, which I lost. After that, I sped up my game even more to make sure I got done what I needed to get done, and all others were resolved within the 1 hour limit (3 of the last 5 in under 30 minutes). Could I have called over a judge and sped up the game I lost first round? Possibly, but I for one don't like having to do so. No one wants to be the "whiner". In the future, I guarantee I will, as that loss may have cost me a trip to Gencon (would have been close).
Any type of system where a judge could get an accurate accounting, at a glance, at the state/pace of the game, would help elminate the feeling of being the cry-baby. Or maybe that is peculiar to just me | |
| |
|
delguidance
Sergeant
394 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 1:00 AM |
| Paraphrasing wikipedia: Chess is a well organized sport with an international governing body that has been around for decades, it is even a member of the Olympic committee though of course chess isn't played in the olympics.
How can you refute the logic of using chess clocks if it works for chess? They are objective and keep accurate time.
Can someone provide a link to the chess clock arguement?
My personal and offensive bias is that faster play equals more intelligent players. Sure, consider all the options and angles, but do it fast. I've got Orcs waiting to kill.
| |
| |
|
sienar
Sergeant
636 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 1:12 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Dagni
In conclusion, I suggest this discussion gets moved into two different areas. Perhaps one or both should have it's own thread? One, discussion of about what the right 'per move' guideline is acceptible. I've already started that one, as has Vrecknidj and sienar. They think that 30 seconds per move is acceptible, I do not think it is close to acceptible.
- Dagni
I probably was not totally clear. While I do think that an average of 30 seconds per activation in not unreasonable to achieve, I don't want to see a maximum per activation set in any way. To do that would empower a staller to continually use the maximum time alloted within the rules.
I would say that, typically, if you have not achieved conclusion or 6 or more rounds of play, too much time has probably been taken somewhere during the game.
This really needs to be a judgement call by the judge. What the judge needs are guidelines for how long it should take to make decisions (which the Magic definitions are vague on the actual amount of time).
Keep in mind, this discussion has nothing to do with games that have concluded before the time limit. Those have been played to a satisfactory conclusion.
Presuming this is a problem that needs to be fixed, I see imposing a round minimum being the most reasonable solution. If you have not achieved that number, Cautions can be issued, and the game can either be extended or ended.
What makes this discussion so difficult to arrive at a conclusion is that every solution has its' own set of problems it causes, which would lead me to consider this question first:
Is this currently a problem?
My experience is that most games I am participating in or have witnessed have achieved victory or at least 6 rounds. | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
636 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 1:19 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by delguidance
Paraphrasing wikipedia: Chess is a well organized sport with an international governing body that has been around for decades, it is even a member of the Olympic committee though of course chess isn't played in the olympics.
How can you refute the logic of using chess clocks if it works for chess? They are objective and keep accurate time.
Can someone provide a link to the chess clock arguement?
My personal and offensive bias is that faster play equals more intelligent players. Sure, consider all the options and angles, but do it fast. I've got Orcs waiting to kill.
Simple answer. Because DDM is not chess. A chess clock doesn't work in soccer, either. They are different sports.
Slightly more complicated answer. DDM activations are interactive, where you and your opponent can both be doing things, such as measuring LOS, reading cards, rollong dice. Chess turns are not interactive. You move. Your oppoenent moves. | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
Kalrin
Sneak
90 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 1:35 AM |
| You know. I've never been in a situation where someone I was playing against was being deliberatly slow. Nor have I ever been deliberatly slow. Course I don't attend that many tournaments.
I feel that 4 rounds is the actual limit for "too short". In nearly every game I've played contact with the enemy has been achieved by round 3 unless both players were deliberatly avoiding it. Thus the fighting had already begun. more then 4 rounds begins to give an idea of some resolution (factoring luck out of the picture).
But, that's just my admittedly inexperience opinion. | |
| |
|
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 1:57 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by delguidance
How can you refute the logic of using chess clocks if it works for chess? They are objective and keep accurate time.
The same way I can refute the logic of using penalty boxes even though it works for hockey. They are two completely different games.
Here's an example:
On your turn you move a Graycloak Ranger, and announce that you are shooting at one of my figures. I claim that you don't have LOS. You get out your string and prove it. I ask you to count and make sure one of my other figures isn't closer. You do so. So you roll, and announce the total. It hits, let's say, my Cloudreaver. I have to make a morale save. I do so and fail, but I'm considering using his Lucky ability.
In DDM, there are too many things that can be done on the opponent's turn. Chess clocks are not a feasible option. They would cause a need for an entire set of rules to govern how they are used, what actions are on whose time, when time can be stopped, etc. Additionally, it would either require judges/TO's to provide them, or the players to provide them for themselves.
In regards to the topic as a whole, is this still really an issue? I can only think of two 200 pt. games that I have played since the start of the qualifier season that have gone to time (though I may well be forgetting some). One of these was decisive anyway. Are games elsewhere failing to be completed in an hour? Because I'm just not seeing it occurring with any frequency around here.
| |
Champion of Gnomes | |
|
Pegasus Knight
Sergeant
896 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 2:08 AM |
| On a more comical note, just imagine if we did have penalty boxes in DDM. I think it'd go something like this:
"You're playing too slow!", cries Fenris as he watches DoubtOfBuddha weigh his play options with the Couatl. Doubt feigns innocence, "What? There's no hard and fast rule about it. We're on at least Turn 5." Fenris' patience comes to an end, and he shoulder-rams Doubt away from the table with jarring force!
GuyF noticed the ruckus, though his eyesight was unnecessary since he instinctually homed in on the use of the 'T' word. He walks up to the pair, first dealing with Fenris. Fenris gets hauled off to a boxed off area of the GenCon floor. Then GuyF helps a dazed but largely alright Doubt get up, and informs him: "Round, not Turn," before escorting him to the penalty box as well. Upon arriving, Doubt noticed the letters "HoS" in big, bold print on the front of the box.
-- Okay, so that was kind of silly. But maybe we'd get ESPN coverage if we had stuff like this. | |
- Irrationally Fanatical Champion of Pegasus-mounted cavalry
- Proud member of Team Low Tier Beasting: I play CG as my main faction!
- Garland, TX 2006 Qualifier Champion
My trading thread: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=19725 | |
|
Janos M.
Underboss
1015 Posts
Hamburg / GErmany
| | 06/29/2006 2:53 AM |
| I'm sorry, but I don't get it why there must be a number of rounds to play.
For example: In all of my 6 of 7 games in the european Championship my opponent and I played 8 rounds or so.
But the one game going not 8 rounds was the quartefinal. Cesare had 2xIM, 2xFrenzied, 2xGraycloak, 3xWolves and a Xeph. I played IM,Elf Pyro, 2xWemic, 2xGraycloak, 2xT-Wolves, Xeph.
Cesare and I played only 4 rounds, because I counted all possibilities for his double GMA, while he counted all squares for GMA-Fireball since round one. Kiddoc stood behind us most of the time as a Judge but he never felt like we were stalling.
So in a tourney players can try to play fast, but I doubt that there should be a magical number indicating how much rounds a game must have. | |
My Haves and wants:
http://www.maxminis.com/hw_list.asp?user=Janos_M.
Champion of Elan Psions
Proud Owner of the "Aura of cursed dice" | |
|
ManoVega
Sneak
108 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 3:13 AM |
| Using a Round "counter" isn't a bad idea, as it does allow a judge to see who is lagging behind without serious interruption. Players could also look around and get an idea as to where they SHOULD be in their match. I'm also thinking a simple flip book with numbers on it would suffice.
That being said, without clear rules and set consequences, who can really judge slow play fairly? Most "stallers" will speed up if there is a judge hovering. Maybe it's a question of the judge just seeing a certain player during a particularly difficult turn. Some have mentioned that we need to police ourselves, and that it's an honor system... which all goes out the window when you are in the top 8 at GenCon, trust me I was there. If it's a close game, and getting into the final rounds is on the line, everyone will do what they need to do to win.
I'd be all for a 5 round minimum, with the penalty for not finishing 5 rounds (or 200 pts) in an hour being a warning to both players. The slow player would never make it past 3 games before being an obvious candidate for disqualification. It doesn't really help you if you lost to the slow player, but at least the stall tactic wouldn't be an option that could take you into the finals.
| |
Mano Vega | |
|
Dagni
Sergeant
870 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 4:49 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by sienar
I probably was not totally clear. While I do think that an average of 30 seconds per activation in not unreasonable to achieve, I don't want to see a maximum per activation set in any way. To do that would empower a staller to continually use the maximum time alloted within the rules.
Yeah, I understand that argument. Not sure if it really does empower anyone any more than what such a person can get away with now, though. More, I'm not saying that a average game phase guideline should be a hard and fast rule, either. Leave it subjective... but give the whole community an approximate guideline so that if a player glances at a clock at the start and end of an opponent's moves for a few activations in round one, he has a good idea of whether or not there's any cause to bother a judge. Likewise, for the majority of us that are honorable, and even the unknown percentage of us that are honorable even when the stakes are at the highest, we have a fairly specific guideline to police ourselves with.
When the judge comes over, however, it's his sole discretion. If he sees a player consistantly going right up to the guideline on every single move, even when it's a Timber Wolf that - eventually - decides to stand still, obviously the judge can choose to give a slow play warning. Still, knowing around what the judges are likely to enforce does more good than harm, in my opinion.
- Dagni | |
Proud member of the GRUUMSH fan club! | |
|
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10253 Posts
United States
| | 06/29/2006 8:02 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by sienar
quote:
Originally posted by Dagni
In conclusion, I suggest this discussion gets moved into two different areas. Perhaps one or both should have it's own thread? One, discussion of about what the right 'per move' guideline is acceptible. I've already started that one, as has Vrecknidj and sienar. They think that 30 seconds per move is acceptible, I do not think it is close to acceptible.
- Dagni
I probably was not totally clear. While I do think that an average of 30 seconds per activation in not unreasonable to achieve, I don't want to see a maximum per activation set in any way. To do that would empower a staller to continually use the maximum time alloted within the rules.
I run into this problem all the time on these boards (let me explain).
[brief diversion]
I like to think of you guys as being at my house, sitting around the dining room table, having a nice chat about minis with me. There we are, sipping our beverages of choice (or arguing about why we should be sipping something else), and talking minis. When I reply to things, I very often (all too often) shoot from the hip. Sometimes I'm just plain wrong, sometimes I use words when other words would have been clearer. But, this place is more organic and less academic for me than, I fear, it is for many of you. In casual conversation, I often take back a point I've tried to make because I see the fault in it. And, in casual conversation (I hope), most of you recognize that that's how casual conversation works.
[/brief diversion]
I shouldn't have used the word "benchmark." When I was referring to the 37.5 second per activation claim, I was referring to a calculation by which to consider whether an average activation seemed to be taking a long time. I wasn't in anyway intending this to be something that should be a written rule. Some games go 4 rounds, some go 14. From the sounds of folks, quite a few go 7 or 8. I don't like stalling as much as the next guy doesn't like stalling. And, I'm often more courteous than I probably should be when I think my opponent is taking too long. (Heck, I've given my opponents suggestions before, and they've beaten mee with them--oops.)
When I said that playing to a round limit instead of a time limit might be a good idea, I meant that to be taken as I almost always do here--I was dropping an idea in casual conversation. The idea (whether it would turn out to succeed or fail) would have to undergo rigorous empirical testing, and there's no way to do that any time soon. It's not an idea that I think we should blindly implement. When it comes to rules, I'm far more conservative than I come across as being. Heck, I still sometimes get grumpy about there not being a speed 2 rule when out of command.quote:
What makes this discussion so difficult to arrive at a conclusion is that every solution has its' own set of problems it causes, which would lead me to consider this question first:
Is this currently a problem?
My experience is that most games I am participating in or have witnessed have achieved victory or at least 6 rounds.
Same here. I wonder if there are regional variances that are significant enough to be throwing the conversation out of whack?
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! | |
|
XAos
Underboss
2382 Posts
London
| | 06/29/2006 8:36 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Darksuit
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 the issue is complex, the solution is simple.
Change the DCI floor rules so that all "incomplete games" score a penalty of -1 match point to both the winning & loseing player.
Anyone delibrartly playing slowly with that rule will be "cutting their own throat".[:D] | |
Don't worry about the current metagame. It doesn't matter if it's ugly, bad, or the best ever. In 2 years time, set rotation will ban everything. | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
636 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 9:32 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Dagni
quote:
Originally posted by sienar
I probably was not totally clear. While I do think that an average of 30 seconds per activation in not unreasonable to achieve, I don't want to see a maximum per activation set in any way. To do that would empower a staller to continually use the maximum time alloted within the rules.
Yeah, I understand that argument. Not sure if it really does empower anyone any more than what such a person can get away with now, though. More, I'm not saying that a average game phase guideline should be a hard and fast rule, either. Leave it subjective... but give the whole community an approximate guideline so that if a player glances at a clock at the start and end of an opponent's moves for a few activations in round one, he has a good idea of whether or not there's any cause to bother a judge. Likewise, for the majority of us that are honorable, and even the unknown percentage of us that are honorable even when the stakes are at the highest, we have a fairly specific guideline to police ourselves with.
When the judge comes over, however, it's his sole discretion. If he sees a player consistantly going right up to the guideline on every single move, even when it's a Timber Wolf that - eventually - decides to stand still, obviously the judge can choose to give a slow play warning. Still, knowing around what the judges are likely to enforce does more good than harm, in my opinion.
- Dagni
Setting subjective guidelines is really what I think most people want - we're just not all saying it the same way. (That is, we may *want* objective rules, but, this being such a fluid game, that is impractical). Set guidelines for the judge to use as tools to be less subjective in deciding Slow Play and Stalling.
Using 37.5 seconds (or some other number) can be used as one tool to help determine Slow Play/Stalling, rather than defining it.
I imagine players would be more willing to request a judges' aid and judges would be more comfortable enforcing Slow Play/Stalling rules if we had guidelines more appropriate to DDM rather than Magic. How long it takes to resolve Fact or Fiction means nothing to us (which is in the UTR). | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
636 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 9:37 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by XAos
quote:
Originally posted by Darksuit
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 the issue is complex, the solution is simple.
Change the DCI floor rules so that all "incomplete games" score a penalty of -1 match point to both the winning & loseing player.
Anyone delibrartly playing slowly with that rule will be "cutting their own throat".[:D]
And the throat of their opponent. The solution can't be that simply solved, unfortunately. | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
XAos
Underboss
2382 Posts
London
| | 06/29/2006 9:53 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by sienar
And the throat of their opponent. The solution can't be that simply solved, unfortunately.
Yes it can.
If stalling guarentees a loss of one match point. then anyone who deliberatly does so will rapidly end up on the bottem tables of any swiss pairings.
And what sort of idiot would continue to cheat if it's guarenteed to loose them the tournament. [)] | |
Don't worry about the current metagame. It doesn't matter if it's ugly, bad, or the best ever. In 2 years time, set rotation will ban everything. | |
|
kgradert13
Sergeant
909 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 10:04 AM |
| | Might be worth taking -1 score to help out friends and "teammates". Could take the score penalty and cost a good player wh o may be competing, the same loss. | |
| |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 10:20 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Janos M.
I'm sorry, but I don't get it why there must be a number of rounds to play.
Because without an objective standard you have NO STANDARD.
My point is not that we "must" because of some compulsion or desire to achieve a certain amount of rounds.
Rather, my point is that if we want to address this and be able to objectively identify what slow play is or isn't then we "must" necessarily have an objective standard.
Without a standard slow play remains entirely "judge's discretion". Not having an objective rule is tantamount to having no rule at all. How would a player protest if the felt he wasn't playing slowly? There is now way he can refute the arguement of "judge's discretion" ... How would a judge justify his call of slow play and issuing an official DCI caution/warning/whatever? At this point a judge doesn't really have to justify his ruling.
The only way to address this fairly to all involved is to have an objective standard. That is the "must". If players know the expecation is to finish X rounds they can pick their bands, maps and strategies based on that knowledge.
As I said above, I don't know what the right # of rounds is precisely. What if an official warning were to be issued to both players if the game only completed one round in an hour ... does that sound reasonable? What about eight rounds? That's clearly unreasonable ...
And remember, slow play isn't stalling ... stalling is different and specific. Checking and rechecking everything a million times to get it right and taking a long time to do so *is* slow play (or at least slower-play) by definition ... your game is progressing at a slower rate than customary. It may be reciprocal in that you and your opponent both do it, but that doesn't change the speed of the play ... and it may be a function of the band you play or the map. Those things may "slow down the game" and contribute to or cause slow play ... but the "play" is still "slow". | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
alepulp
Underboss
1529 Posts
Manchester, England
| | 06/29/2006 10:24 AM |
| Here's my take - playing slow deliberately is just wrong. However, I am a slow player - although sometimes I can be fairly quick. I find I am slower at the beginning of a game while there are a lot more options open to me. Once the game starts and the battle plan becomes more firmed up, I speed up.
In a recent tournament against an excellent Czech player we basically neutralised eachother and sat moving things in such a way that the opponent might not see the plan - however he and I both did. A mistake from either of us would have been the end. I suspect both of us spent quite some time exploring the weakness of the others' position and endless combinations that the opponent could execute. I think the game went 6 rounds - the last one being the longer one because I didn't realise that the game was over and that I'd won (trying the execute a GMA + placement of a sword and getting into cover that'd protect me for a possible loss of initiative the next round).
The shortest I've ever played was 2 rounds v YRM_DM with 12/tiles - and I think we started late as well as executed a complex manouver with fireballing my own AM in his fodder, hiding my own pieces without making it too obvious and then executing a GMA to protect the AM, sneak tile points and protect the pyromancer from the advancing titans of Ulmo and Drizzt. Also tried to get a chance to place a sword on Ulmo on the way to the fodder - but couldn't pull it all off. However - 2 rounds is too few and time was in fact called at the end of the 1st round. There's no way that we'd played 1 hour by then though - I was still feeling too fresh for that. Assuming the timing of the judge was correct, that's the longest single round I've played - but... no way that it was correct. Both YRM_DM and I really didn't see how it could've been. We reminisce about it (online) nowadays. But... that was not deliberate slowness - and I never play slow to win a game. I'd cry foul if someone would to me - so don't do so myself. The days of LSD delay is past and long live the days of gaming. | |
One of these days WoTC will update their tournament page when I'm in the top 5... they never seem to do when I'm in that bracket :(
My Collection My DDM Website And My Trade Refs Be a part of the UK DDM Forum
| |
|
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 10:31 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by XAos
Yes it can.
If stalling guarentees a loss of one match point. then anyone who deliberatly does so will rapidly end up on the bottem tables of any swiss pairings.
And what sort of idiot would continue to cheat if it's guarenteed to loose them the tournament. [)]
It's not necessary to do so continually in order to abuse the system. Imagine we're at a qualifier going into the final swiss round. Let's say sienar is undefeated, and will make finals regardless of the outcome. I need to win to have a shot at the finals, but it's unlikely I will do so due to poor tie-breaks. Now if sienar beats his opponent, that player will have the same record as I will if I win, but his tie-breaks are much stronger. So if sienar wants to slow play to help me out, -1 match point won't really matter much to him (actually, -2 wouldn't really matter), but it's enough to drop that other player out of contention for the finals.
It's an idea that's remarkably easy to abuse. | |
Champion of Gnomes | |
|
Tried
Sergeant
496 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 11:10 AM |
| Well, Felagund, now you are talking about team play, which is a camel of a different color....
**************************
However, in answer to Dagni's well thought out arguement - yes, it is stalling in round 5, because you are denying the player his sixth activation. He has already done that in round 6.
But its not a great specific example anyway.
As in soccer, hand ball is called based on a referee's perspective. sometimes the ball plays the hand, sometimes the other way around.
If you call the judge over with 2 minutes left in round 3, and nobody plays slow, you are technically both guilty of slow play. You need to call the judge over much, much sooner. Period, or it won't do a thing. (other than show you are contributing to the problem).
We are not talking about games that would end in fewer rounds.
Nor would a player be penalized if he scored 200 points after 60 minutes, despite playing only 4 rounds. The slow play point becomes moot because the player would not have had an opportunity to score points on round 5 and 6 if he has already lost.
What we are talking about is denying your opponent activations.
Don't kid yourself that its because of some cerebral exercise - that should be done on your own time, during practice, so that when it comes down to the real match, you can consider quickly the options and go, confident that you are probably not making a mistake. But your opponent is entitled to be able to activate his figures a minimum number of times.
Denying them is not fair play, intentional or not.
| |
Let it be. | |
|
Chairman7w
Sergeant
484 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 11:19 AM |
| I'll chime in with a couple of comments:
- No chess clocks. Who pays for them? What brand? What's the time limit? How bout just: No.
- There's no reason a game can't be more than 4 rounds. A game on a slower pace than that warrants a call to a Judge to keep an eye on. ONE of the players is likely stalling.
- This (and many other rules discussions) are usually solved by people just being mature and sportsmanlike. If they're not solved, it's usually cause one of the parties is NOT acting that way. And they're usually singled out pretty quick.
- Nine times out of ten, a little comment of, "Can you please pickup the pace a bit? Time is getting low," is more than sufficient. Sadly there will always be that ONE time when there's a problem, but I don't think that one instance is worth introducing new rules, or worse, new equipment. | |
Dr. Simon: A phrase that's encoded in her brain, that makes her fall asleep. If I speak the words, "Eta...
Jayne: Well don't say it!
Zoë: It only works on her, Jayne. | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 11:34 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by XAos
quote:
Originally posted by sienar
And the throat of their opponent. The solution can't be that simply solved, unfortunately.
Yes it can.
If stalling guarentees a loss of one match point. then anyone who deliberatly does so will rapidly end up on the bottem tables of any swiss pairings.
And what sort of idiot would continue to cheat if it's guarenteed to loose them the tournament. [)]
I've seen player intentionally drop form a tournament, in an attempt to lower the tiebreakers of a player that beat them.
I don't know about the viability of such a tactic, but I think it is dishonorable. Given the presence of dishonorable people, I don't think your solution is viable. | |
My online store http://store.hoardsters.com
Use quick search to see scans of every stat card! | |
|
Richard II
Commander
3663 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 11:34 AM |
| I'll chime in and agree that games that go at least 6 rounds generally have a fairly obvious winner, so aiming to get at least 6 rounds in in every game seems like a good target to me.
The games that bother me are the ones that go 3 or 4 rounds, with only one or two of those rounds being an engagement round with one player winning 47-38 or some other low score where a hitter or two has taken a bit of damage and only fodder has died. | |
 | |
|
Blunt Claymore
Sneak
78 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 11:41 AM |
| | I certainly haven't "practiced" enough (sometimes I call it playing), but my sense is that the Teleportation Temple is a major contributor to slow play. Has anyone else observed that they get systematically fewer rounds the more complicated the map becomes? | |
A journey of 1,000 miles starts with a good whooping. | |
|
XAos
Underboss
2382 Posts
London
| | 06/29/2006 11:51 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Felagund
quote:
Originally posted by XAos
Yes it can.
If stalling guarentees a loss of one match point. then anyone who deliberatly does so will rapidly end up on the bottem tables of any swiss pairings.
And what sort of idiot would continue to cheat if it's guarenteed to loose them the tournament. [)]
It's not necessary to do so continually in order to abuse the system. Imagine we're at a qualifier going into the final swiss round. Let's say sienar is undefeated, and will make finals regardless of the outcome. I need to win to have a shot at the finals, but it's unlikely I will do so due to poor tie-breaks. Now if sienar beats his opponent, that player will have the same record as I will if I win, but his tie-breaks are much stronger. So if sienar wants to slow play to help me out, -1 match point won't really matter much to him (actually, -2 wouldn't really matter), but it's enough to drop that other player out of contention for the finals.
It's an idea that's remarkably easy to abuse.
These tournaments use swiss pairings. Which is why a match point penalty will work.
If your buddy is playing against someone who has a chance to beat you.
Then by the definition of how swiss pairings work, your buddy has a chance to win the tournament as well.
So yes it can be abused, but it's not as easy as you claim. For one thing the player trying to abuse the system must be playing on the current round of top tables. They then have to deliberatly sabotage their own chance to win. Which can't be nill or swiss pairing would not put them on a top table.
So it's much harder to abuse thamn the current DCI floor rules. Which activly reward a player who deliberatly stalls. It requires collusion between 2 players. It specifically becomes impossible for one player to deliberatly stall and gain an advantage for themselves. They can only gain an advantage for someone else.
| |
Don't worry about the current metagame. It doesn't matter if it's ugly, bad, or the best ever. In 2 years time, set rotation will ban everything. | |
|
kgradert13
Sergeant
909 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 12:03 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Blunt Claymore
I certainly haven't "practiced" enough (sometimes I call it playing), but my sense is that the Teleportation Temple is a major contributor to slow play. Has anyone else observed that they get systematically fewer rounds the more complicated the map becomes?
I don't encounter any issues on teleport temple. Slow players play slow on this and any other map. | |
| |
|
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 12:17 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by XAos
It requires collusion between 2 players. It specifically becomes impossible for one player to deliberatly stall and gain an advantage for themselves. They can only gain an advantage for someone else.
While this is true, it doesn't mean that this type of abuse of the system is any better than the current methods for abusing the system.
Additionally, I don't think that your proposition actually solves the problem. Say, for example, that I take my second loss in a tournament to a player who stalls. Even with that loss, I would have a chance at making the finals. However, with the -1 match point, I have dropped below all the other players with two losses.
Finally, I will ask again, is this a consistent problem that people are noticing? I can only see it being a problem if specific players consistently play games that are inconclusive. And if this is the case, the current rules are set to address it, so long as their opponents are reporting this behavior to the judge as it's occurring. | |
Champion of Gnomes | |
|
XAos
Underboss
2382 Posts
London
| | 06/29/2006 1:05 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Felagund
Finally, I will ask again, is this a consistent problem that people are noticing? I can only see it being a problem if specific players consistently play games that are inconclusive. And if this is the case, the current rules are set to address it, so long as their opponents are reporting this behavior to the judge as it's occurring.
The current rules do not address the problem.
The slow player gets a warning. By which time they have already achieved their objective of stalling so that a win on points is virtually certain.
In most tournaments there simply are not enough judges available to watch slow players and to do all the other adjudication of rules questions that usually arise. So the rules badly need a compleatly objective analysis of what constitutes slow play. And one that does not require a judge to watch the entire length of each game. | |
Don't worry about the current metagame. It doesn't matter if it's ugly, bad, or the best ever. In 2 years time, set rotation will ban everything. | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
636 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 1:24 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by XAos
quote:
Originally posted by Felagund
Finally, I will ask again, is this a consistent problem that people are noticing? I can only see it being a problem if specific players consistently play games that are inconclusive. And if this is the case, the current rules are set to address it, so long as their opponents are reporting this behavior to the judge as it's occurring.
The current rules do not address the problem.
The slow player gets a warning. By which time they have already achieved their objective of stalling so that a win on points is virtually certain.
In most tournaments there simply are not enough judges available to watch slow players and to do all the other adjudication of rules questions that usually arise. So the rules badly need a compleatly objective analysis of what constitutes slow play. And one that does not require a judge to watch the entire length of each game.
They receive Cautions first, before Warnings, then Match Losses. And the judge can add time to the match, therefore mitigating the effect of Slow Play.
You can't have a completely objective set of rules governing it, without them being overly complicated. An activation that is a simple move will plain take less time than one that involves area of effect actions.
It is not reasonable to say they must take the same amount of time (objective), which would imply some method of determining how long each part of an action should take: the move, the placing of template, the saves, the marking off the effect, the marking damage, morale saves, discussing the DC's, etc. | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 1:28 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by XAos
The current rules do not address the problem.
The slow player gets a warning. By which time they have already achieved their objective of stalling so that a win on points is virtually certain.
And if a player is consistently stalling, they will get enough warnings to be eliminated from the tournament. This is essentially the same as what you are proposing, with the exception that a staller's opponents will not be harmed by one warning of slow play, whereas the loss of a match point can drastically hurt their standing.
Once again, I would like to know where this is a problem. | |
Champion of Gnomes | |
| Hero of Skirmish
doubtofbuddha
Commander
3371 Posts
|
|
|
|
|