July 23, 2019, 11:47:01 PM

Author Topic: Suggested Rule change for cons  (Read 27497 times)

nitrodavid

  • Sr. Mage
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Banana Stickers 7
    • View Profile
    • East Coast Hobbies
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #45 on: July 14, 2013, 10:42:30 PM »
so the first game of mage wars I had that lasted 8 hours is to long for tournaments?
Being Aussie we place all our cards face down, apart from enchantments which are face up

Shad0w

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #46 on: July 14, 2013, 10:49:28 PM »
The biggest concern is total time of the event. When you are at a show or renting a hall you are limited to the time allotted by the venue. For example the Gencon finals will be a 24 person 5 round Swiss we have 6 hours to work with including deck reg.


How long should the rounds be?
"Darth come prove to meet you are worthy of the fighting for your school in the arena and not just another scholar to be discarded like an worn out rag doll"


Quote: Shad0w the Arcmage

Texan85

  • Full Mage
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Banana Stickers 0
  • Game Free, or Die!
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #47 on: July 15, 2013, 08:16:17 AM »
The biggest concern is total time of the event. When you are at a show or renting a hall you are limited to the time allotted by the venue. For example the Gencon finals will be a 24 person 5 round Swiss we have 6 hours to work with including deck reg.


How long should the rounds be?

I think a 90 min model is needed per game to deal with top end, but include time limits during plans. Honestly if you condition players that: ok guys, this game can take a while and to respect a full game and not have ppl turtle the tie condition then at this level of play (the top tier, tier 1) then you have X time in planning (my suggestion is 60seconds) to get your 2 cards and be ready.

Yes, that's not casual friendly, but a tier 1 tournament isn't meant to be casual tournament.

Also that above is the stick ( of a carrot and stick methodology) let's also like in soccer, i believe, do this: wins = 4pts, ties = 1pt and losses = 0. Why? To encourage playing to win. If ties are so common make them negligible, and make wins so good that 2 wins in a 5 thing swice will get you to next day. And don't make losses super bad such that ppl will want to prevent a loss and not risk a loss to get a win.  Scenario: hmm I'm almost out of time I
 4 ties and in this game if I get a win I'll almost surely get to the next day,  I'll be aggresive and go for that win, and so might my opponent.  This will encourage ppl to play fast because they want wins so that they can advance.

Thoughts shadow?
Ipsa Scentia Potestes Est

Shad0w

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Tie Breaker conditions
« Reply #48 on: July 15, 2013, 12:00:50 PM »
Some things to think about before continuing this discussion.

Tie-breaking in Swiss-system tournaments
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tie-breaking in Swiss-system tournaments From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Tie-break systems are used in chess Swiss system tournaments to break ties between players who have the same total number of points after the last round. This is needed when prizes are indivisible, such as an official "champion", trophies, or qualification for another tournament. Otherwise players often share the tied spots, with cash prizes being divided equally among the tied players.
If the players are still tied after one tie-break system is used, another system is used, and so on, until the tie is broken. Most of the methods are numerical methods based on the games that have already been played or other objective factors, while some methods require additional games to be played, etc. The idea behind the methods based on the games already played is that the player that played the harder competition to achieve the same number of points should be ranked higher.


If you have not had the chance take sometime and read this
General Aspects of Tournament Systems and Tiebreakers

listing of possible tie breakers

« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 12:02:53 PM by Shad0w »
"Darth come prove to meet you are worthy of the fighting for your school in the arena and not just another scholar to be discarded like an worn out rag doll"


Quote: Shad0w the Arcmage

rcone002

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #49 on: July 15, 2013, 04:49:23 PM »
The biggest concern is total time of the event. When you are at a show or renting a hall you are limited to the time allotted by the venue. For example the Gencon finals will be a 24 person 5 round Swiss we have 6 hours to work with including deck reg.


How long should the rounds be?

If you're truly limited to 6 hours, that does not give you even 75 minutes per round to complete a 5-round event. If you're forced to run 68-minute rounds with a 5-minute break in between rounds (for restocking spellbooks, bio breaks, etc.), that completely fills your 360 minutes.

You need an extra 35 minutes for 75-minute rounds, and exactly 1 hour more for 80-minute rounds. Other than starting event earlier (extending time to run event to more than 6 hours), forcing players to end rounds in less than 70 minutes seems like a recipe for multiple ties per round, which of course heavily favors the aggro builds.

Perhaps some sort of article or series of articles or posts on ways to speed up game play would be warranted on Mage Wars site or in these forums? (apologies if that thread already exists)

Shad0w

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #50 on: July 16, 2013, 03:00:51 AM »
@rcone002 We have 6 hours for the finals total that is with deck reg and all.
"Darth come prove to meet you are worthy of the fighting for your school in the arena and not just another scholar to be discarded like an worn out rag doll"


Quote: Shad0w the Arcmage

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #51 on: July 21, 2013, 03:48:48 PM »
tl;dr: record damage done for a three round tiebreaker instead of for the whole game, and use that to break tied games.

Speaking of tiebreakers, I've given a lot of thought to an alternate tiebreaker for tournament games that go to time. I share Piousflea's and others' concerns that the current "Who did the most damage this game, total?"  tiebreaker system heavily favors aggressive decks like Forcemaster and Warlock, and adds an additional level of bookkeeping to tracking damage, which slows normal play.

If a control book starts the game by taking 22 damage in the first forty minutes, but thereafter kills all the opponent's creatures, takes no damage, gains 1 health and is does 2 points of damage to the enemy each turn, it's clearly winning. And it would be very likely to win if given enough time. But it's going to have a hard time proving it with the current tiebreaker system.

At the same time, I don't want to try to judge the game-state with a points system that awards victory points based on the levels of creatures and conjurations in play and tries to compare that to life totals (because who can say, exactly, how many points something should be worth?). I also don't particularly like the, "Everyone starts losing life each turn," elimination methods that try to impose a game shortening condition on play, because winning under those circumstances is very different from winning during normal play, and can distort the metagame badly. Warmachine's experience with "Victory Point Sniping" comes to mind, where one player does a little damage, then retreats for the rest of the game, and thus wins on tiebreakers.

But really, what I want to know isn't, "Who has done the most damage?" I want to know, "Who has come closest to winning". To use a mathematical analogy, I want to know the slope of the direction the game is heading, not the sum of where the game has been. If one player has an overwhelming creature advantage, I want to give them a chance to use it and prove their strength, while at the same time giving their opponent a last opportunity to win the game on the back of the damage they've already done.

Here's what I propose:
  • The final portion of every tournament game is reserved for tiebreaker play. In a 90 minute tournament game, the final 15 minutes is reserved for tiebreaker play. In a 60 minute game, the final 10 minutes is reserved. Prompt play during tiebreaker game rounds is strictly mandatory.
  • When the expiration of normal time is announced, the current game round is finished and the final three rounds of play begin. The game will end when the third game round finishes, or when final time is called.
  • The three rounds of Mage Wars Tiebreaker play proceed normally, with the exception that each player must record the damage done to his or her opponent. Each round, the player who does the most damage to the opponent's Mage (including loss of life, tainted, etc) wins the round and one of three possible tiebreaker points.
  • After three tiebreaker rounds, the player with the most tiebreaker points--two out of three--is the winner.
  • If, during tiebreaker rounds, one player takes damage in excess of his or her remaining life, that player loses as normal.
  • If a tiebreaker round is tied because neither player did any damage, or because the players did equal amounts of damage, no point is awarded.
  • If, at the end of tiebreaker rounds, the players are tied in round points awarded, the winner of the game is the player who did the most total damage summed over all three rounds
  • If both players did the same amount of damage totaled over all three rounds, the game is a draw.
  • If tiebreaker time expires without the completion of all three tiebreaker rounds, end the current tiebreaker round as it stands, and score it as above. The player who has done the most damage in the portion of the round that has been played scores the point. The player with the most tiebreaker points is the winner, as usual. If the points are tied, check total damage done during tiebreaker play. If that is tied, the game is a draw, as normal

My thinking is that while 50 minutes may not actually be long enough for a control book to win, it should certainly be long enough for the control book to stabilize the game and be on its way to winning... if that's what it's going to do. If the control book can limit the damage from the agro book's last desperate gasp to kill, for two out of three rounds, it probably has the game well enough in hand that it would eventually win.

The agro book, on the other hand, is given three more rounds to kill the opponent, or at least to prove 2-out-of-3 that it is still capable of putting up a a superior fight and is not controlled. If it can do that, it wins.

Of course, either book can win the game outright--by killing the opponent-- during the overtime turns, and may very well do so now that both books must concentrate on doing at least some damage immediately, and cannot win by defense alone.

I settled on three and a half rounds of overtime (finish the final round, then take three more rounds) because it is a relatively short amount of play that two skilled and motivated players will be able to finish in the time available, and because it prevents a single surprise unrepeatable nova-damage turn (e.g. Wall of Thorns + Forcepush) from deciding the game. Whatever a player does to win, they must be able to do it twice (or do it well enough to kill the other mage). 3.5 rounds is also provides a fair distribution of initiative between the players. Each player will have the benefit of initiative twice during the overtime period.

Any thoughts or improvements?
« Last Edit: July 21, 2013, 10:05:19 PM by ringkichard »
I can take the fun out of anything. It's true; here, look at this spreadsheet.

Nicho2222

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #52 on: November 06, 2013, 09:28:41 AM »
ringkichard I really like the model that you put forward there.  The amount of damage in the last 3 rounds when players are "forced" to act does show where the momentum of the game is going.

Bjorne

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #53 on: November 07, 2013, 02:56:51 AM »
I agree, this is the best tie breaker proposal out there.

Shad0w

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #54 on: November 07, 2013, 06:52:46 AM »
How do you define what rounds are the last 3. Most of the time players are barely watching the clock as it is. You also have to take into account that when time is called players can finish the current round. If the Reset phase had already completed they play the full round including planning.

To me the best solution is to allow for draws in a match and then match a tie breaker the applies over the full tourney.
"Darth come prove to meet you are worthy of the fighting for your school in the arena and not just another scholar to be discarded like an worn out rag doll"


Quote: Shad0w the Arcmage

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #55 on: November 07, 2013, 10:41:54 AM »
How do you define what rounds are the last 3.


The last portion of the game's allotted time would be reserved for the three tiebreaker rounds. I proposed the final 15 minutes for 90 minute games, for example. That means the TO would announce the start of the final 3 tiebreaker rounds after 75 minutes of play.

Quote
Most of the time players are barely watching the clock as it is. You also have to take into account that when time is called players can finish the current round. If the Reset phase had already completed they play the full round including planning.

My experience with Mage Wars and other timed games (chess, MtG, Warmachine) is actually somewhat contrary to this.  While it's certainly possible to lose track of time, usually I'm pretty aware of time pressure and how much is remaining. That said, the TO has a stopwatch and a loud voice, and that is usually enough.

Regarding the last round of the game, the rules I proposed don't actually let players finish their final round if they go long on time. Once time is called, it's dice down. This is for TO efficiency as well as to encourage prompt play. With this system the TO knows that the round will be over in exactly the appropriate amount of time, and not 90+x minutes. It's a timekeeping measure that insures the next round starts on time and the event doesn't outlast its booking. An extra 5 minutes each round can add up to half an hour extra time to your event, and if time is expensive or fixed, this can cause serious problems for the last round.

Quote
To me the best solution is to allow for draws in a match and then match a tie breaker the applies over the full tourney.

This isn't a bad way to go except that when running a high profile tournament you really don't want more than half of the games to be draws, as would have happened at Gencon when all the Wizards went to time. Calculating tiebreakers is a less sporting method of determining a champion than winning and losing games. Perhaps a longer round time would help, but ties are generally troublesome to ranking algorithms.
I can take the fun out of anything. It's true; here, look at this spreadsheet.

Shad0w

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #56 on: November 07, 2013, 11:11:15 AM »
How do you define what rounds are the last 3.


The last portion of the game's allotted time would be reserved for the three tiebreaker rounds. I proposed the final 15 minutes for 90 minute games, for example. That means the TO would announce the start of the final 3 tiebreaker rounds after 75 minutes of play.

Quote
Most of the time players are barely watching the clock as it is. You also have to take into account that when time is called players can finish the current round. If the Reset phase had already completed they play the full round including planning.

My experience with Mage Wars and other timed games (chess, MtG, Warmachine) is actually somewhat contrary to this.  While it's certainly possible to lose track of time, usually I'm pretty aware of time pressure and how much is remaining. That said, the TO has a stopwatch and a loud voice, and that is usually enough.

Regarding the last round of the game, the rules I proposed don't actually let players finish their final round if they go long on time. Once time is called, it's dice down. This is for TO efficiency as well as to encourage prompt play. With this system the TO knows that the round will be over in exactly the appropriate amount of time, and not 90+x minutes. It's a timekeeping measure that insures the next round starts on time and the event doesn't outlast its booking. An extra 5 minutes each round can add up to half an hour extra time to your event, and if time is expensive or fixed, this can cause serious problems for the last round.

Quote
To me the best solution is to allow for draws in a match and then match a tie breaker the applies over the full tourney.

This isn't a bad way to go except that when running a high profile tournament you really don't want more than half of the games to be draws, as would have happened at Gencon when all the Wizards went to time. Calculating tiebreakers is a less sporting method of determining a champion than winning and losing games. Perhaps a longer round time would help, but ties are generally troublesome to ranking algorithms.

You know it is a big difference between what more experienced players do and what your average player does. I like you am always aware of time. It seems the some players tend to lose focus and forget the goal is to kill the other mage.

Myself and a few other have built control heavy books that can and have won game in 45 minutes or less. So that leads to the question if control heavy books can kill that quickly what is dragging games to the 75 minute plus range. What I have found is that a majority of the games get bogged down during planning phase. I even watched one of the most aggro heavy build seen in MW go to time in 90% of its games. When looking over the games we found that it was do to analysis paralysis or tanking for far too long.
"Darth come prove to meet you are worthy of the fighting for your school in the arena and not just another scholar to be discarded like an worn out rag doll"


Quote: Shad0w the Arcmage

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #57 on: November 07, 2013, 11:49:27 AM »
Some control heavy books can kill relatively quickly, but some turtle books can easily drag out a game they have little ultimate hope of winning. And while Watergate Wizard can sometimes win in an hour or less, one of its kill conditions is to run the opponent out of cards, which can take over 25 turns.

When you're a playtester, you need to play lots of games quickly, but competitive players without that burden are happy to play slower books which win anyway... eventually.
I can take the fun out of anything. It's true; here, look at this spreadsheet.

Shad0w

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #58 on: November 08, 2013, 06:24:35 AM »
Ring, we play under both a 75min and 90 min clock. The only games that go longer are pure turtle builds(builds the do not attack with creatures, and use passive damage effects). The avg planning phase for my team is 1 minute. We think a planning phase is long when it take over 2 minutes.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2013, 06:27:36 AM by Shad0w »
"Darth come prove to meet you are worthy of the fighting for your school in the arena and not just another scholar to be discarded like an worn out rag doll"


Quote: Shad0w the Arcmage

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #59 on: November 08, 2013, 08:40:38 AM »
Right? 25 turns at 3 minutes a turn plus a minute for planning is 100 minutes. An efficency wizard (like Watergate) that is played at tournament speed is still going to draw all its hour-long games and some of its 90 minute ones, too.
I can take the fun out of anything. It's true; here, look at this spreadsheet.