| | | | | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
doranur
Warrior
180 Posts
    
 | | 06/29/2006 5:20 PM |
| while i agree with fenris to a certain extent that threads such as these have limited value, i do believe there is some value to this discussion so i'll throw in a few personal experiences why i feel this is an issue and then my proposed suggestion.
my first example is back in the 12 figure/tile days i was playing a limited game where i had drawn as my rares arachnomancer and iron golem. the iron golem obviously requires more time (number of rounds) to get into the engagement so i knew the only way i'd consistently win with this band was to go a larger number of rounds or place tiles very well. problem is i'm sorta crap at tile placement, so larger number of rounds was my key to victory.
late in a tournament, significant because it was a deciding match as to who would have a chance to qualify for the sealed championship, i was playing against a local player who i knew played slower than average. around turn 3 or 4 my iron golem was finally nearing the engagement, and a crit by it in the next round could swing points. not a good shot, but the only real chance i had. i was watching time and knew we had about 5 minutes left, so i activated my figures very quickly to force one final round and at least give myself a shot at being in the championship. my opponent, who out activated me, had about 4 activations left, and started counting and recounting thier movement to "make sure" they would be out of range next round. it took 5 minutes for him to make 4 unopposed activations that resulted in no dice rolled, and time was called before he made his last activation.
a second example i feel of slow play is a game i saw go to a 3-0 conclusion. i don't feel that either player was probably playing slower, just that they both overthought thier decisions, and no meaningful contact was ever made before time was called. while i understand the need for careful thought, i didn't feel that there was a meaningful resolution to the game. no disrespect to either of the players involved in that one, i like you both, but it didn't feel appropriate.
a third example related to me from another player was someone shaking dice for over a minute before rolling them after 1 minute had been called. this was a final swing in a round and would have been immediately followed by an initiative roll. needless to say the player who was shaking the die won the game on points because at the end of the round he was ahead as he well knew.
so how do we resolve each of these 3 examples (not the only ones i could have mentioned, but significant because the first and second require a different solution than the third). firstly i think we need to identify the differing problems in these examples.
in my first example, there are two problems. one is the lack of meaningful contact between the two bands. these two bands never really engaged each other, only tile points and a fodder peice or two were scored. the second problem with the match is the possibility that my opponent deliberately denied me a last round to totally lock in his win.
in my second example, the only problem in the match is that meaningful contact never occured.
the third example is based solely on one player unreasonably denying his opponent a turn when the clock stated he should get one.
so in a nutshell, i think there are the two problems, lack of meaningful contact in some games, and deliberate time wasting in others. both or neither could occur. these two problems require two different mechanics to deal with.
the meaningful contact issue is much easier to address than the deliberate time wastage. a simple metric and a bit of extra reporting can solve this issue. require players to notify judges when turning in match results sheets of the number of rounds played and the total points achieved by both players. the judge could then consult a table to determine if an appropriate degree of contact had been made. for example:
if the game went only two turns a minimum of 300 points should have been scored.
if the game went three turns a minimum of 200 points should have been scored.
if the game went four turns a minimum of 150 points should have been scored.
if a game went five turns a minimum of 100 points should have been scored.
if a game went six turns a minimum of 50 points should have been scored.
obviously if a player achieved a victory before the round/point total had been met, that requirement could be waived. similarly in case of concession that requirement could be waived. this method insures that players actually move to engage, rather than dancing around and the game is decided by trivialities. if the engagement happens earlier, you could play less rounds, since more is going on, and that is noted by the higher victory points needed in earlier rounds to show that engagement did take place. note the numbers i state are totally off the top of my head, actual good numbers would have to be established. if the players did not meet the proposed numbers, both would be issued a caution.
as to the second problem, deliberate slow play, only active judging can solve this issue. it's regretable that some people feel this is an acceptable means of winning, but they are out there. during the norcal qualifier this year, derry and i attempted to actively watch for players with slow play issues. one of us would focus on those tables, and the other would tend to answer rules questions. if i felt a player was playing slowly i'd weasel out and make derry watch the game since i hate getting involved in those kinds of disputes.
while we didn't notice any deliberate stalling, we did pull players aside and talk to them about certain games and thier play speed. it helped that it was primarily people whom we know, so we could get an idea of who would be likely to play slow, i can't imagine trying to do that at a national tournament with a larger playerbase that is more diverse and the judges are not as familiar with.
there is a final solution to slow play, and thats communication. during the utah qualifier, i knew it was likely i would be paired up against a someone i consider a very deliberate player, dagni, in the 4th round. immediately on reading the pairings, i spoke both to the judge at the event and to robert. while i may have been a bit of a dick about it, it was a highly competitive moment and i was very nervous about playing him, robert made me feel that my concerns could be dealt with without the need for a judge. we played a full game to conclusion before time was called, and i feel very positive about the way he played during that match. simply talking to your opponent about any concerns, without being as agressive as i probably was at that point, is highly useful in resolving these sorts of issues as we are mostly reasonable people.
so in short summary, it's not about number of rounds imo, it's about meaningful games and wins without deliberate stalling. while we can legislate what is and is not a meaningful game, deliberate stalling (which i feel accounts for far less of the problem) will always be the province of the judges. i would like to see some sort of addition to the ddm floor rules to mandate meaningful games, but can see the difficulty in doing so. i feel my proposed solution would generally address the issue, and provide a mechanic that does not require a judge to sit at every table for that issue.
p.s. i wonder how many times i could concievably get guyf'd for the above post? heh. | |
-Doranur
join the revolution! down with round/turn fascism! viva la resistance! | |
|
kgradert13
Sergeant
909 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 5:25 PM |
| quote:
p.s. i wonder how many times i could concievably get guyf'd for the above post? heh.
I'd say LOTS. | |
| |
|
Dagni
Sergeant
870 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 7:12 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Fenris
-- I strongly dislike ad-hoc, informal "community standards" in lieu of formal rules. They tend to be neither universally agreed upon, nor widely known of by casual players, nor consistently and fairly enforced.
I agree with your other points (well, except I'm not quite AS tired of these thread). On this point, not sure if I exactly disagree or not. I'm not looking for a 'community standard'. I want a judging standard!! Because Guy and others seem to think that would empower cheaters, I'm not asking for a hard-and-fast rule, just a really rough guideline. Unfortunately, I believe, although I'm not at all sure of this, that Guy doesn't want to even give a rough numeric guideline, again because he believes that would empower stall tactics.
Perfect example to illustrate what I'm talking about. One game my opponent called over the judge because he felt I had been taking too long, and more than that, was very worried I would take long enough he wouldn't get a chance to come back in the game. My opponent had been playing fast all day, and I had been taking the lion's share of the time. However, in my opinion, that was a natural consequence of the fact I was taking just a little more time than him. His moves, especially early, were less complicated than mine, and my moves didn't interact with his much anyway. So by the time I moved, naturally he had his moves figured out.
Well, now, at the point he calls over a judge, it's far more than that. He has a huge incentive to rush his turns, since he's way behind. And, in fact, he basically did every move as soon as it was his turn. So, now, I basically have to do every move with no time to think on my opponent's turn at all.
Finally to my main point. At some point, probably pretty early on after the judge comes over to watch the game, the judge says, iirc "30 seconds" (might have been 1 min, I forget). Oh, I think to myself, that's really useful. One of my biggest problems that leads to personal slow play is losing track of time. But, I think to myself, in this game, I won't have that problem, the judge will give me 1 and 2 minute announcements - if I haven't moved by the second minute, I'll know I absolutely need to come to a decision right away. (Plenty of times in my career I've had 5+ minute turns due to not having any such time awareness during complicated moves.) However, that "30 seconds" call was intended as a verbal warning that I would be guilty of slow play if I didn't almost immediately start moving!
Not having the slightest comprehension of that, of course I got an official warning for slow play. After that point, I had to rush more than I have ever rushed in games where it was to MY advantage to rush! I played the most stressfully quick game I've ever played, winning on dierolls when there was little doubt in my mind that had I had time my Artemis Entreri could've evaded the enemy for TWO hours given the difference in speed between him and the Iron Golem I think it was that I was facing.
I was really mad after the game. The other player had perhaps been a bit antagonistic about play speed during the game. So perhaps that helped get me angry. But really, it was all about expectations! My opponent had a preconceived expectation that players should play within a certain pace. My expectation of timely play was completely different, and allowed for much more deliberation.
If the clash of expectations between us players led to some animosity, it was nothing on how furious I was (not at the judge, but at that one particular judge ruling, which is quite different) when my expectations of the fastest a judge might POSSIBLY expect me to play turned out to be a good four times slower than what was actually enforced. I don't have a problem with that speed being enforced, but only if my opponents have to endure it too, and only if it's consistant throughout not only the tournament, but ALL tournaments.
As Fenris knows, we basically self-judge ourselves in SoCal local tournaments. If we have a rough judging standard, you'd better believe I'd start to enforce it as best as I was able, and I would actively ask my opponent to do the same when it's my turn.
- Dagni | |
Proud member of the GRUUMSH fan club! | |
|
Dagni
Sergeant
870 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 7:26 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Felagund
Once again, I would like to know where this is a problem.
At the Championships, not at the Qualifiers, that's where.
I hypothesized a long time ago that good players play a LOT slower when facing another really good player. More, they also play a LOT slower when the game matters far more than it does. Finally, and this one is *key*, I'm quite certain they play slower when the game won't go as many rounds! So each reason for playing slower feeds on itself.
My hypothesis has been proved to my satisfaction based upon last year's Championships and other games and tournaments I've been a part in, and from talking to players who have told me stories I feel support my hypothesis.
So trust me when I say there doesn't have to be a problem for one to materialize at Nationals, as it has done each of the last two years. The only major difference that I see is what the expectation is, and what the reality is likely to be. A year ago, the expectation was for 5-6 rounds, the reality was 3-4. Now, the expectation is more like 7 rounds, and thus 95% games getting finished, and the reality? Based upon the slowest reported games in big events, the reality is probably somewhere around 4-6 rounds in 50% of Championships matches, but with maybe 50% playing faster than that, and thus getting a full conclusion.
- Dagni | |
Proud member of the GRUUMSH fan club! | |
|
Tried
Sergeant
496 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 7:43 PM |
| Rob,
I agree that the judge may have been out of line. Slow play penalties should VERY rarely be awarded during play. New standards for judges should help with this, and get a more uniform expectation.
I believe that warnings/cautions/matchlosses should come at the end of the game, after the judge has verbally informed the players of his thoughts as he observes the match (and determined the effects of his verbal instructions). Also, if the slow play warning came without a game extension, then its clear the judge did not think it warranted too severe of a penalty. Maybe a warning was too strong?
Guidelines would help you as well, of course. In the above example, if a minimal number of rounds had been met due to timely play on both players parts, either might rightly be able to take a minute or so to contemplate their moves.
Still not stalling, but be able to think it through with appropriate considerations (ie., what if I move, then he moves, and he wins init next round, etc..)
However, I am not totally sold on the thought that complicated situations warrant "considerable" extra time (ie., five minutes) vs simple moves (especially early on, when they do not interact with the other player). Its possible that some players MAY need to play simpler bands so as not to cause problems, but you know that Guy has explicitly stated that complexity of the situation is no excuse for slow play. (whatever slow play turns out to be.)
I have played you (Often), and I personally don't see slow play on your part, at least lately, when you play a band you have practiced with, or one very similar to a band you have practiced with. (I have seen it only when I have seen you play a new band and run permutations during the early turns.) Similary, the first time I played AM I was a little slow, but remedied that with practice.
In any event, I don't necessarily want hard and fast rules, just guidelines that any competent judge can use common sense and some degree of compassion in implementing. Even if, for example, 6 rounds is chosen as a *benchmark* (not necessarily a rule), a judge may decide that a game that only went 5 rounds was fine.
The same judge, however, would be completely within the realm of reasonable behavior to question a match that only went 4 rounds.
BTW - I LIKE the idea of having "round indicator cards" next to the maps, (Or other similar mechanic.)
Judges should be able to walk by and see what round every game is on. It allows them to check up on things, without necessarily having to be "hailed" like a taxi.
| |
Let it be. | |
| 
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 7:46 PM |
| Without an objective standard it is largely unenforcable.
What if I'm playing a complex band on the Teleport Temple? I want to win, the rules don't preclude me from determining every place you can get to score points, work out the math and figure out the most optimum move. Where does it say I currently *can't* use 20 minutes in the first round? Or 30? So what if we end the game after only three rounds?
Without some sort of standard the players will be on unequal footing. If the player who brought the three-round-band (and I'm hyperbolizing here for the point) was called for slow play. What if that player could demonstrate each and every move, calculation and reason ... should he be rushed based on someone's discretion?
What about the other player? He's been practicing on Vassal and running games to six rounds each ... he's confident he can win on six rounds, but what happens when he can only get three in due to his opponent's speed? Was his expecation of six unreasonable?
And what if only three rounds happen (or two) but the slower player (and slow here isn't slow-to-think ... slow here is slow-to-progress-the-game ... move figures, activate, cycle through rounds, etc.) is persuasive and he isnt warned for slow play? Really, who can blame him for doing what he can to win?
This is why I think we need an objective, written standard ... or nothing at all.
-----------------------
donarur, your first and third examples are not slow play. Those are stalling ... and flat-out cheating.
One of the things that people constantly confuse is slow play versus stalling. Sometimes there is a fine line, but there is a difference.
One of the key differences is that the slow play may not be intended to win the match on the speed of play ... there is no intentional slowing down in order to prevent you from acting. Rather, slow play is a general speed of play that alters the game by causing it to end on time far without a really clear tactical advantage by one person or another. Again, I'll hyperbolize.
Imagine I'm playing a Lord Soth / Beholder / 6 Kobold Miner band.
I take an incredible amount of time setting up ... trying to make sure I try all permutations of where my miners end up from the wandering monsters, how close they are to your area, where Soth could get to and see by himself, where he could get to and see with a TK from the Beholder, etc. anticipating where you might set up your figures. I use markers and tokens to mark your likely positions.
Each of these individual operations I do quickly ... few dozen second each, maybe single digit seconds for the easy ones ... but they add up to 10 minutes for my setup time.
Am I stalling? I don't think so ... I'm trying to achieve the optimal tactical setup.
Then you place your figures and we roll for initiative and I win. Before deciding who goes first I check each of your figures and determine where I think you could move them too ... and then try to figure out which ones you're likely to move. I mark them all on the map with counters, then do the math / geometry to determine IF I pass initiative to you and if I'll be able to get a grouping with the Abyssal Blast effectively and determine whether or not I need to move a Kobold Miner + Soth, Soth by himself or TK w/ the Beholder and then blast. I talk all this through while I'm thinking ... and I'm in constant motion and train of thought. Again, I'm making scores of decisions, marking them, jotting down notes, calculating odds (including who may or may not rout if I catch them in the blast, etc.) to determine the most optimal path.
Either way, I decide if I'm going first or not. It takes another 10 minutes.
And, let's say we finish the first round at 30 minutes.
Am I stalling? No, I'm doing everything quickly. I'm making literally tons of decisions - far more than a casual player makes. However, there's a huge prize on the line and I'd be a fool not to be thorough.
Is this slow play?
Add this to the fact that I have two large figures and six fodder that are worth no victory points. It's quite likely that you'll realize I can win the match by killing a single 3-point figure on your band with the Abyssal Blast. Even if play speeds up my greater ranged / AoE abilities will get me ahead on points early. You realize that you wouldn't be able to drop Soth until you've been in melee contact with him for probably three rounds, two if you roll REALLY well. At the rate we're going you'll get two rounds of melee but not three ... you've already lost the game. Heck, you probably lost it as soon as you sat down but didn't realize it ... your band isn't tuned to be winning on round two.
This is slow play. Supposedly, this kind of play is criteria for a some sort of penalty. I say supposedly because no one can describe the condition that IS slow play and the condition that isn't ... OBJECTIVELY. Where is the line?
Honestly, without an objective standard you'd be a fool to come to an event with a band that couldn't be up on points on turns 2-4. If you come with a band that can "eventually win" if you "just get one more round" you're setting yourself up to face a slower-playing band and lose because the band you chose was built around arbitrary rules you had in your head about how many rounds to expect.
Think about this and consider where you stand ... are you ready for really competitive tournaments where games may only go two or three rounds? Are you really playing to win? Would you prefer an objective standard or not? | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
Lord_Raven
Sergeant
391 Posts
| | 06/29/2006 11:41 PM |
| I won't get deep into this mud slinging thread... I will say this:
Through three qualifiers I played my Signature warband "Brady Bunch" (3x FB's, Rikka, 3x Xeph's, Elf Warrior on Teleport)
I knew this warband very well and knew how my matches and games played out - SHORT! So this crap of minimum "6+/-" rounds is junk. My matches were over in 4-5 rounds average.
At the Pitt, PA Qual. I upset my opponent (not intentionally) when I was a few min's late starting (due to a phone call I was taking outside - unaware of the round starting) then setting up on his map vs his warband that I hadn't played before. So I took my time - knowing full well that my game would be over in a few number of rounds - no matter what!!
This caused some tension during the match - because he thought I was stalling... I was not, just knew that the match would not last long for one of us, and planned my moves carefully.
As the Game wrapped up, he was complaining about time, yet we still had 20-30 min's left in the round. My warband beat his in 5 rounds - with time to spare on the clock.
The number of rounds is not as important - knowing your band and how it playes is critical!! If a player is trying to play the game to reach a conclusion by stalling vs. trying to eliminate the opposing warband... then that player should be warned.
I don't think this will come to a mutual happy resolve, so I shall leave on this point:
Try to beat your opponents warband by killing it, not boring it to death.
LR | |
Winter Fantasy, Wardrums Pre-release Champion
**Proud Member of Team Amish!** | |
|
Tried
Sergeant
496 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 12:15 AM |
| Raven, I'm not sure you're getting the point.
6 rounds is what is being suggested as the minimum *if other victory conditions have not been otheriwse been met.*
Ώ] You are not denying units any activation if they have already been eliminated. (ie., if the 200 points have been reached.)
ΐ] If you played 4-5 rounds with 20 minutes left, what's the problem? The slow play guideline is meant for a full time match, including the extra round that finished overtime.
In your case, a judge would not, in any way, penalize you. | |
Let it be. | |
| The Defenestrator
AesophDarkfable
Warlord
5628 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 12:20 AM |
| | I must say the idea of round markers is very good. At nats for example for the judges to be able to look across and see what rd everyone is in very clearly sounds like a positive thing. | |
Im out- find me on Hordelings if you want to chat. | |
|
robbdaman
Underboss
2380 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 1:05 AM |
| I wonder how many of the individuals that have long drawn out posts in this thread are also slow players?
My last tidbit of though is if you're playing slow then you're thinking too much. Just play!
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..... | |
|
Weaponbreaker
Skirmisher
47 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 3:53 AM |
| | I think 5-6 rounds is ussually plenty of time to figure out a winner. How ever I think "finals" ie Elite Eight/Final Four SHould be Played to Victory(200pts) ThaT way we know who did it, who pwned all those that came before them, who was able to win with out a clock. I saw heard of very few games that were with a few points and none in the Top Four rounds, but If I were in a Championship match and the other player was playing the clock not me I would be infuriated especially if the match were won by 5-10 points. | |
Hunter of CE d20's. Destroyer of false hope and punisher evil dice across the planes. | |
|
rondom
Skirmisher
42 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 4:38 AM |
| Some thoughts.
The basic presumption should be that you are playing to hit the 200 point winning mark. If someone wins the game by this method then all is well (doesn't matter how many or few rounds have been played).
If, at the end of the game, neither player has crossed some points threshold (say 100 points, although personally I might prefer 150) then between you, you played too slowly. I (as the judge who couldn't spare the time to watch the game) hit both players with whatever penalty is assessed as sensible for slow play and you BOTH get a loss. (This removes most of the reward for slow play, and frankly if you can score 150+ points you were probably going to win, unless you are both close and then the game will probably end due to unit killage.)
And to anyone who suggests 'this nerfs my X band that plays to score 14 points and then run the clock out' I say 'tough'. If your warband cannot (in indefinite time) expect to cross 200 points then it isn't a valid band, and if my proposal nerfs it, good! | |
Rondom
Remember - if you can use all your figures it's 'Full' - if not it's 'Restricted'. Anything that cycles figures out of use in a planned timetable is 'Planned Obsolesence'. Never accept your enemy's terms! | |
|
alepulp
Underboss
1529 Posts
Manchester, England
| | 06/30/2006 6:03 AM |
| | Rondom's comments kind of makes me wonder whether the game would become very one-dimensional. There are very strong warbands that against certain others will reach 200 pts very quickly (less than 1 hours), however, there are other warbands that simply have to hang on and hope not to lose too many points in one hour in order to win. I'm thinking of bad matchups - they exist! A slayer of domiel warband would struggle v Marut on the Drow Outpost, and Archmage v Arcane Ballista, Kord and Couatl on any map, except, maybe, the King's Road(I know you can banish - but you're likely to be blown to smithereens if you get too close), HHx3 v MCB, Archmage v LE pents. Do you just go in and hit/hit/hit and then die because of the bad matchup? That sounds exceptionally boring - not only do you have to engage in order to reach 200 pts, but you have to do it quickly! I'd rather concede at the beginning and have a rest. In some matchups you simply HAVE to stop the opponent scoring in order to win in one hour. You just won't always be able to make 200 pts. | |
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
| |
|
XAos
Underboss
2382 Posts
London
| | 06/30/2006 6:33 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by alepulp
Rondom's comments kind of makes me wonder whether the game would become very one-dimensional.
Your exagurating, removing warbands which do nothing for the whole game. would not make the game "one dimensional".
And without having an judge sit and watch every game for the entire hour. It's impossible to distinguish such warbands from ones which deliberatly cheat by stalling (chess clocks simply won't work for the ddm turn sequence)
If makeing this type of warband "non-competative" is a side effect of preventing stalling. That's fine by me. Personally I would not call a warband wich kills a 3-point filler & then runs away "competative" in the first place. If your warband is not designed to gain 200 points (even if just by sitting in the assault area) then it doesn't deserve to score better than a draw.
| |
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. | |
|
Dagni
Sergeant
870 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 6:38 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tried
I believe that warnings/cautions/matchlosses should come at the end of the game, after the judge has verbally informed the players of his thoughts as he observes the match (and determined the effects of his verbal instructions). Also, if the slow play warning came without a game extension, then its clear the judge did not think it warranted too severe of a penalty. Maybe a warning was too strong?
No, it was a big tournament with a high REL (Rules Enforcement Level). I *want* the slow play guidelines to be aggressively enforced, or they don't matter at all. I forget if he added time to the match or not, it didn't matter. The only part of the decision I disagreed with was where timely play ends and slow play begins. More, it's all been long ago talked about and resolved. There's no hard feelings there.
quote:
BTW - I LIKE the idea of having "round indicator cards" next to the maps, (Or other similar mechanic.)
Judges should be able to walk by and see what round every game is on. It allows them to check up on things, without necessarily having to be "hailed" like a taxi.
I admit I like having the round be visible to the judge. It allows him to concentrate on watching the games more likely to be problematic.
However, having the round visible should ONLY be so the judge can, at a glance, tell which games are more likely to have players who are playing slowly. A low round game MIGHT have players that are both playing quickly!
I will compare and contrast two games. In both games, each player takes exactly 1 minute per important activation, and in each game manages exactly 30 seconds per fodder (3-5 pt creature) activation. Plus let's say it took both games exactly 5 minutes to get started, with map init, terrain init, and setup. At the 45 minute mark, one of the games still has 3 activations left in round 3, and only 2 creatures have died all game! In the other game, it's halfway through round 5, and only 5 creatures are left alive between the two sides.
It is my passionate opinion that each game should be treated EQUALLY by the judges!! All four players played in just as timely (or untimely, if 1 min avg is slow) as each of the others!
If both players pursue a strategy that leads to NO combat, and likewise keeps the activations at 8 (or higher!), that has no bearing on whether or not the players played in a timely manner. The slow play guidelines do NOT say that you need to play in a timely manner because the creatures on each side of the table are costed for N rounds! They do NOT say you need to play in a timely manner regardless of how many activations you control, and that by round 4 you should ALWAYS play faster than round 1... because, after all, you PROBABLY have fewer creatures now!
That is why I think that a round minimum guideline is so bad! As a guide to judges so they can tell at a glance which games are more likely to include one or both players slow playing, great! But as a guide to pre-determine that one or both players ARE at fault because they didn't reach such and so a round by such and so much time?! No way. Not without a completely different definition of Slow Play.
I'd be happy to debate the actual Slow Play DCI rule, in case I'm reading it wrong.
- Dagni | |
Proud member of the GRUUMSH fan club! | |
|
alepulp
Underboss
1529 Posts
Manchester, England
| | 06/30/2006 6:53 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by XAos
quote:
Originally posted by alepulp
Rondom's comments kind of makes me wonder whether the game would become very one-dimensional.
Your exagurating, removing warbands which do nothing for the whole game. would not make the game "one dimensional".
And without having an judge sit and watch every game for the entire hour. It's impossible to distinguish such warbands from ones which deliberatly cheat by stalling (chess clocks simply won't work for the ddm turn sequence)
If makeing this type of warband "non-competative" is a side effect of preventing stalling. That's fine by me. Personally I would not call a warband wich kills a 3-point filler & then runs away "competative" in the first place. If your warband is not designed to gain 200 points (even if just by sitting in the assault area) then it doesn't deserve to score better than a draw.
Well, killing 3 pts is a little too extreme even for me - but you can't defend a bad matchup on engagement. In today's game there are a lot of Tier 1-esque warbands - however, some of those simply haven't got a chance against another one if they engage in the way the dominant warband is designed. You have to find another way to deal with it. If the opponents warband has one weakness, milk it. IMHO there'll be situations where you simply will not be able to win with a Tier 1-esque warband against another one using normal engagements tactics - so don't. However, don't stall. My point isn't to defend stalling, but to challenge the view that it is necessary toreach 200 pts in a game. Sometimes that just won't happen... sometimes the player can't allow it to happen.
In Kiddoc's recent EU Champs game in the Atlantic Cup he milked one of the less utilised rules - the one for determining a winner in case of a draw - the highest cost piece nearest the centre at the end wins. He parked his Marut in the centre squares with the Bodyguard surrounded by all relevant pieces and protected his tile grabber. The opponent and he then just watched the VPs going up at the same rate, moving a mini one square at the time, adjusting their position ever so slightly. Had this gone on, Kiddoc would have won based on no attacks whatsoever. As it was, Kiddoc really didn't like winning in that way and so engaged - missing a Sacred Watcher twice. His opponent pulled Ulmo into the middle of his pieces, Kiddoc pulled back his Marut and critted Ulmo. Game over. That's clever play from both sides. They'd both have reached 200 pts by whatever method if they didn't engage. The point here is: "if you want to win, you need to do it on your own terms." In a bad matchup you still have to work out a way of dictating the game rather than fight against impossible odds. Sometimes that leads to a low scoring game. | |
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
| |
|
XAos
Underboss
2382 Posts
London
| | 06/30/2006 7:23 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by alepulp
Well, killing 3 pts is a little too extreme even for me
That sounds like your argreeing in principal that below a certain number of points the game is basically a draw. So where would you draw the line ?
quote:
In Kiddoc's recent EU Champs game in the Atlantic Cup he milked one of the less utilised rules - the one for determining a winner in case of a draw - the highest cost piece nearest the centre at the end wins. He parked his Marut in the centre squares with the Bodyguard surrounded by all relevant pieces and protected his tile grabber.
I didn't stay to watch that game. But from your description Kiddoc was gaining assault points every round.? So he would clearly have won in a maximum of 20 rounds. And with neither side attacking, 20 rounds could be played in less than 20 minutes. Thats not at all the situation rondom's suggestion would affect. i.e. where one/both players is not gaining points by any means and have no chance to reach 200 points (or even 100).
| |
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. | |
|
alepulp
Underboss
1529 Posts
Manchester, England
| | 06/30/2006 7:39 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by XAos
quote:
Originally posted by alepulp
Well, killing 3 pts is a little too extreme even for me
That sounds like your argreeing in principal that below a certain number of points the game is basically a draw. So where would you draw the line ?
quote:
In Kiddoc's recent EU Champs game in the Atlantic Cup he milked one of the less utilised rules - the one for determining a winner in case of a draw - the highest cost piece nearest the centre at the end wins. He parked his Marut in the centre squares with the Bodyguard surrounded by all relevant pieces and protected his tile grabber.
I didn't stay to watch that game. But from your description Kiddoc was gaining assault points every round.? So he would clearly have won in a maximum of 20 rounds. And with neither side attacking, 20 rounds could be played in less than 20 minutes. Thats not at all the situation rondom's suggestion would affect. i.e. where one/both players is not gaining points by any means and have no chance to reach 200 points (or even 100).
I don't think that it is possible to set a minimum, I'd just be annoyed if it was 3-0.
Remember that the Atlantic Cup had no time limit, so they'd have reache 200 each. However, they moved very slowly, anticipating the others options. If they'd played to 200 pts I suspect they'd have ended up doing 2 hours at least. In other words, after 1 hour, they'd possibly have reached 100. Is that too little? | |
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
| |
|
XAos
Underboss
2382 Posts
London
| | 06/30/2006 8:29 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by alepulp
In other words, after 1 hour, they'd possibly have reached 100. Is that too little?
100 points is exactly what Rondom propossed about 8 posts up this thread. | |
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. | |
|
YRM_DM
Sergeant
902 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 10:41 AM |
| There are a few kinds of slow play.
I'm not sure that too many people are actually purposely looking to "stall", but, it might be a secondary goal.
One kind of slow play is to play DDM as if you're playing chess, and treat each move with extreme care to the point of dragging out every move.
Another kind of slow play is if you have a slight lead, but, you're in a situation where you're losing or might lose, and you hear a "time" warning called out, and you become paralyzed with trying to find the right move, even if you don't have a perfect move.
In chess, for example, you'll see players who only have one move, and it's obvious, contemplate that move for ages.
Other times, a player may not have an "optimal" move that works to their advantage, but, they still have to pick the best of their options and get their move over with.
People are saying "six rounds" is a good target.
To me, that sounds like anything 5-8 rounds is ok.
Four rounds and less is questionable.
If a player, over the course of many games, doesn't make it past 3-5 rounds, I think the judges need to watch that player closely.
I get very frustrated when someone that I am playing appears to be stalling or over-thinking a move at a point in the game when delaying will "win them the game" rather than simply not delay and take their best percentage chance of winning without the slow play.
At the end game, with fewer pieces left alive, there is even less reason to play slowly.
It's not that hard to determine:
1 - I'm going to move so that I can't be charged or based and attacked.
2 - I'm going to stand and attack.
3 - I'm going to attack once, and if the enemy is still there, I'm going to eat an AoO and move to a victory area or to the center of the board.
It's not hard to base your strategy on a rough estimate of your chances of winning initiative.
Sure, you can take all high-percentage chances, and have them ALL FAIL, but, you're still not wrong for taking a high percentage chance. I mean, if you get a pair of Aces in Poker and bet carefully, you can still, occassionally, lose to a guy who drew a 3 and a 6, bluffed in, and flopped 2 sixes and a 3 on the river.
If DDM was meant to be played as slowly as grand master level chess, the games wouldn't have an hour time limit.
| |
Completed good trades with Demagogue, PigSnot, DoB, and Alepulp.
I know you can hear MY thoughts... Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow... | |
|
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 11:19 AM |
| As a judge, I really like the round indicator idea a lot. It lets me know which games I should watch for slow play, but does not force me to say "you are playing to slowly" like an arbitrary time limit per piece or minimum rounds played rule does.
I see no problem with the judge needing to make a judgement call on speed of play, my 6 round minimum is just from my experiences playing that indicate that most players should be able to get 6 rounds in in an hour, but I don't think it should be a hard rule. | |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
|
PerpetualStudent
Sneak
169 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 1:52 PM |
| While the round indicator is an interesting idea, I think it is flawed and this was well stated by Dagni earlier.
Limits on number of rounds or minimum points are similarly flawed and do not take into consideration that some matches, some players, some warbands need to be played in a more delibrate and thoughtful fashion rather than just run in and smash - actually many run in and smash warbands would also benifit from a bit of thoughtful play as well.
What bothers me more, and what I have not seen mentioned in this thread is when a game is being played and there are plenty of points and rounds, the game is close, has been moving well and one person has been winning most of the time when suddenly the player that is behind kills a critical piece or somehow gets ahead in points and then they, for the first time in the game, slow to a crawl. No way to forsee this, no warning for the judge, and yet their play-style totally changes now that they are ahead. This would seem the ideal place for stalling to be called, yet the most difficult to prove and none of the suggestions in this thread come anywhere near solving it. I have not seen this much, but I have seen it and it concerns me more than any of the complaints posted so far. | |
| |
|
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 2:15 PM |
| Actually, I was agreeing with Dagni, I think.
It is a tool that a judge could use as an indicator, not as a decider, which is what I think is called for. I am opposed to hard rules on numbers of rounds or time to move a piece. | |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
|
kgradert13
Sergeant
909 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 2:19 PM |
| As has been previously mentioned, many people feel that the complexity of the band and/or situation does not warrant additional time beyond your opponent or justify playing slowly.
If you can't finish a game (ie, completion of 200pt/concession) regularly in under 60 minutes with your band, you should explore a different style of band. | |
| |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 2:36 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by PerpetualStudent
What bothers me more, and what I have not seen mentioned in this thread is when a game is being played and there are plenty of points and rounds, the game is close, has been moving well and one person has been winning most of the time when suddenly the player that is behind kills a critical piece or somehow gets ahead in points and then they, for the first time in the game, slow to a crawl. No way to forsee this, no warning for the judge, and yet their play-style totally changes now that they are ahead. This would seem the ideal place for stalling to be called, yet the most difficult to prove and none of the suggestions in this thread come anywhere near solving it. I have not seen this much, but I have seen it and it concerns me more than any of the complaints posted so far.
That is stalling and should be reported to the judge. | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 2:38 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Dagni
I will compare and contrast two games. In both games, each player takes exactly 1 minute per important activation, and in each game manages exactly 30 seconds per fodder (3-5 pt creature) activation. Plus let's say it took both games exactly 5 minutes to get started, with map init, terrain init, and setup. At the 45 minute mark, one of the games still has 3 activations left in round 3, and only 2 creatures have died all game! In the other game, it's halfway through round 5, and only 5 creatures are left alive between the two sides.
I can tell you exactly where this example falls apart for me - taking 30 seconds on non-important activations seems very slow to me. That's 1 minute to move two fodder pieces on the first turn of a game? I can deal with a minute for a crucial move, but I expect non-important activations to go faster than you describe, personally. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
Fry
Underboss
1724 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 5:41 PM |
| | I want to say I read/heard/something that pieces/abilities are costed with the idea of a game going six rounds. If that's the case, I think most games should be in the 5-7 round range. | |
"Why am I all sticky and naked? Did I miss something fun?"
-Vindicated champion of Tordek, Dwarf Champion | |
|
Dagni
Sergeant
870 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 5:54 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by PerpetualStudent
While the round indicator is an interesting idea, I think it is flawed and this was well stated by Dagni earlier.
Limits on number of rounds or minimum points are similarly flawed and do not take into consideration that some matches, some players, some warbands need to be played in a more delibrate and thoughtful fashion rather than just run in and smash - actually many run in and smash warbands would also benifit from a bit of thoughtful play as well.
To clarify, I think the round indicator is a great idea. I think a round minimum is a terrible idea.
quote:
What bothers me more, and what I have not seen mentioned in this thread is when a game is being played and there are plenty of points and rounds, the game is close, has been moving well and one person has been winning most of the time when suddenly the player that is behind kills a critical piece or somehow gets ahead in points and then they, for the first time in the game, slow to a crawl. No way to forsee this, no warning for the judge, and yet their play-style totally changes now that they are ahead. This would seem the ideal place for stalling to be called, yet the most difficult to prove and none of the suggestions in this thread come anywhere near solving it. I have not seen this much, but I have seen it and it concerns me more than any of the complaints posted so far.
Many people in this thread are worried about cheating. Many others, myself included, have primarily stuck to a different topic, that of slow play.
There are two distinct possibilities here, and I'm guessing a lot of opponents will only see one of these two possibilities. One, the player is deliberately stalling, and is guilty of cheating. Two, the player's natural pace is the pace you're describing at the end game, but he was intentionally rushing throughout the first 50 minutes of the game, because he was behind and felt it was to his advantage to play extra fast even at the risk of making dumb mistakes. Once he finally caught up, he'd be a fool to continue to rush his moves. Of course, if his natural pace is too slow, then he's still guilty of Slow Play.
That said, cheating is a big concern, and one of the reasons we have judges in the first place. It's not like there's a good way to add a rule that will suddenly make it easy to tell when someone is cheating like this. It's a judgement call by the judge, and it's already against the rules and honor of the game.
- Dagni | |
Proud member of the GRUUMSH fan club! | |
|
Dagni
Sergeant
870 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 6:11 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by IanB
I can tell you exactly where this example falls apart for me - taking 30 seconds on non-important activations seems very slow to me. That's 1 minute to move two fodder pieces on the first turn of a game? I can deal with a minute for a crucial move, but I expect non-important activations to go faster than you describe, personally.
That's not the point of the example, however. The example doesn't fall apart whether or not the players were too slow. The point is that the players in the game on pace for 4 or 5 rounds and the players in the game on pace for a completed game both played at equal speed.
I guess while we're on the subject, I may as well say I disagree, however. Although I used the label, calling some of a players units 'non-important' is totally the wrong way of looking at them. A Marut is important - a mistake with him WILL lose you the game. A Human commoner not so much... but a mistake with him still has a .05% chance of costing you the game. Treat all of your weapons as vital, and your winning percentage will go up, not down. In recent games with a Kord/Couatl band, say, I'm 99% sure that my first round moves that were quick were with the Kord and Couatl, and I may have been slowest with the Human Commoners!
Any move can be quick if you already know what you're going to do. If you don't, it's not normally going to take merely 30 seconds to find the right strategy, much less precise position for your Timber Wolf.
- Dagni
| |
Proud member of the GRUUMSH fan club! | |
|
lantern314
Sergeant
684 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 6:17 PM |
| I don't play slowly to limit activations late in the game, I don't think that is fair.
But, I'm a slow player, and I'll tell you why.
The fights that I have seen or been in that have been over quickly have either involved a real band or player mis-match, or have had some maneuvering then a rush to the middle where activations involve just swinging at each other. I have found that if I allow that to happen, I lose. I try to pick and chose where the fight happens, not just once a game, but in a continuous fashion as the game goes on. Just because shots have been taken, or creatures killed doesn't mean that you have entered a cascade of combat where all you do is swing/kill/base. If I create a mis-match to kill your first creature, then stop trying to maneuver to create mismatches, I've stopped thinking after the first attack roll. Lots of my warbands rely on being able to maneuver to create mismatches throughout a game. This makes my games take longer.
The rules allow for victory through accumulation of 200 vps, or by being ahead of your opponent at the end of the time limit. I think that insiting on warbands that can win by accumulating 200vps severly limits the options out there, both in what can be included in a warband, as well as what a fight looks like (think heavyweight fight vs. fencing match).
When I was playing football I was a second string linebacker. One day our first string O Guard complained to the coach that at the snap of the ball I wasn't barrelling into him. Rather I would move away to put myself into a position to make the play. I played the game the way that I needed to to win, because if I played it his way I would lose, every time. Was I cheating, nope. Was I playing football, yep. Did I make more tackles, yep.
| |
| |
|
doranur
Warrior
180 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 6:20 PM |
| stalling and slow play are related topics, and i believe that it is necessary to systematically address slow play in order to start to address stalling. until we have a clearly stated rule on what constitutes slow play, it places the burden on the judges to determine what is and is not slow play. with an easy rule in place clearly stating what slow play is, we then free up the judges from judging slow play in matches to be able to address other issues, allowing them to be more able to observe for stalling.
when helping judge the norcal qualifier this year, aside from simple rules querries, slow play was the number one thing discussed by the judges. i spent more time observing games for slow play than i did anything else. had i had a simple mechanically determined way of saying "this is slow, that is not" i could have instead watched for stalling.
also a rule determining what is and is not slow play helps determine when slow play is actually stalling, and when it is not. as it is i had no real guidelines to address this issue, so i had to rely on my own judgement in consultation with the other two judges at the event.
finally clearly stated slow play rules help the players who don't want to cheat, because it gives them something to aim for. as it is, some people out there may suggest i play slow (i usually finish my games at approximately the 40 minute mark, but i tend to play fast bands too), because they finish thier games 10 minutes faster than me (extreme example to illustrate my point). instead of having a relative standard, we need an absolute standard to clearly demarcate what is acceptable and what is not.
chess clocks will not work, as has been demonstrated throughout this thread in numerous arguments. having a judge sit there througout a players entire game does not work due to the finite number of judges. some sort of rule, whether the table sort as i presented above, a strict turn minimum (be it 4 or 10), a minimum points scored for a game to be considered not an auto draw, or some other example is needed. if we present a consensus view as a community WOTC is much more likely to listen to our requests.
This issue will be even more a concern imo at gencon this year. we'll be playing on maps we don't normally use if my guess is right, and thats going to dramatically increase set up and first round times. as it currently is i expect to be done with the first round on my map within the first 10 minutes of game play (including set up). that will not be possible at gencon due to the fact that i will have to count at least two turns of moves. this is why i would not have maken the decision regarding maps that they did, although i understand from a "championship" perspective why it's interesting to force players into tactical situations more diverse than they are used to.
if your band has bad matchups, and time will be an issue in some of those matchups, i sort of feel thats your own responsibility. triple slayers against marut unlikely to win a straight confrontation? thats a good reason to not consider that band (although i still love it). if you can only win by playing time games, then we need rules defining what time games are acceptable and what are not.
so i once again call upon the luminaries, and not so luminaries, to actually come up with proposed methodologies and rules. don't tell me why this is needed, tell me what rules you think we should propose and why. until then, as fenris has stated, this discussion isn't really that helpful because it gives us nothing to grow on, just feelings of discontent. | |
-Doranur
join the revolution! down with round/turn fascism! viva la resistance! | |
|
TianZi
Skirmisher
25 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 7:09 PM |
| Speed is relative.
If both players are playing slow then who's to say 3 rounds is too little? A little cheesy, sure, but if that's the framework 2 players develop in a tourney game then so be it. Setting a Min Round rule will be a poor precedent. Setting a Max Round will also be a poor precedent. Just cuz WotC costs mini's on an assumed 6 round game doesn't mean we should make games 6 rounds. They give it a good guess based on a variety of play styles and speeds.
If one player is slow, the other fast, perhaps the fast player is thinking during Slow Guy's turn, then quickly executing. This doesn't give the other guy much chance to think/plan. 2nd Round Init can be huge in this. I win Init, Kord swings, Cuatl SS's, roll, roll, your turn. While you think, I think. You execute 2 phases and I'm all ready for my next 2 activations.
If time is the issue, perhaps we should be more flexible with set-up. I thought it was silly we had to wait for time to roll for maps and side/setup. Why not just sit down, shake hands, introduce and call your CR & map, and roll the dice? It would shave some minutes off the overall game time. Further, why not just roll for sides before official time is called?
Perhaps this is the way it is (I've never read the Floor Rules), but I got the feeling at my 2 tourneys that we waited til Time was started, then rolled for maps/sides/etc. I'd rather be set up and looking at the board, waiting to roll 1st round Init when Time is started than fumbling with 8 little mini's, 8 little cards, some dice, some more dice, a candy bar and a bottle of water at a small table.
If time is the issue, let's put the notebooks to the side during game play. I did not have a problem with my opponent taking notes mid game, but my games were decisive either way. If it becomes an issue, once Slow Play has been called, no more notes?
Also, nothing beats a public shaming. | |
| |
| DDM Constructed Champion 2006
derry
Warrior
268 Posts
| | 06/30/2006 8:01 PM |
| Two players can play three rounds and have meaningful conclusions to their matches. Of course this means that at least one player scores many points (and often means getting more VPs than the opposing warband is worth.) When players have a match with a small number of rounds but with very conclusive outcomes are not the matches people are talking about when they talk about a minimum number of rounds. Rules regarding a minimum number of rounds will have thresholds that provide penalty exceptions for high scoring matches, regardless of the number of rounds played.
But most matches with a low total number of rounds do not have meaningful conclusions. In these matches, |
|
|
|
|
|