April 24, 2019, 11:17:33 AM

Author Topic: Suggested Rule change for cons  (Read 26611 times)

jacksmack

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1039
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: Tie Breaker conditions
« Reply #30 on: June 14, 2013, 03:08:00 PM »
But Finite life is a condition already in the game, while restricting spells is not a current in-game condition

Thats not a good argument. Any deck relying of healing will surely have Means to get rid of finite life conditions gained the normal way.

nitrodavid

  • Sr. Mage
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Banana Stickers 7
    • View Profile
    • East Coast Hobbies
Re: Tie Breaker conditions
« Reply #31 on: June 14, 2013, 11:10:40 PM »
there is a slight difference
even decks that rely on healing still need another form of damage to kill the other mage, and just to clarify only the mages get finite life, you can still heal your minions if you require.

picking finite health or not, the double damage option is the main thing that will accelerate the game. because only a handful of spells and attributes (vampire, regen, healing, +life) increase your health While every mage wars strategy (assume you want to win) will require you to deal damage.

perhaps to make it fair they could ignore my finite life suggestion but still take the double damage, there is no mage wars match up that would be uneven with double damage to mages.

Note: only mages get double damage and this is double damage from all sources including; idol of pestilence, creature attacks, burn, attack spells, unavoidable damage, damage barriers, the damage portion of Life drain. you should also double the amout of Life you loose including; blood reaper, tained etc.
Being Aussie we place all our cards face down, apart from enchantments which are face up

TricksterHat

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Tie Breaker conditions
« Reply #32 on: June 23, 2013, 06:17:58 PM »
Just discovered this thread. Inspired from some of the other suggestions, I would suggest:

The Gentleman Way: First option Ė if one is clearly in a stronger position or have played better, the other may give him/her the game. In a single/casual game players can agree to a tie. This can happen even before the time expires and is the equivalent of offering a draw in chess in chess.

Approximated calculation: The second option is trying to calculate which player is ahead. See below.

Lady Luck: If the two above fails, it is probably impossibly to say anything objective about who is ahead, therefore luck might as well decide. Each player rolls 5 dice, the highest wins. If tied, reroll.

Calculation table. For each player:
a)   Add remaining life, channeling, remaining mana/2 (rounded down) and subtract any upkeep not coming from opponents spells.
b)   Add the manacost of all the enchantments you control, subtract the removal cost for each negative condition on your mage and your creatures*.
c)   Add the manacost of each conjuration you control, subtract any damage.
d)   Add the manacost of each creature you control, subtract any damage.
e)   Add the manacost of all your equipment.

Compare a-e. The winner in each category gets 1 victory point (vp). If the difference > 5, the winner gets 2 vp, if the difference > 10, the winner gets 3 vp etc.

*in this step, add 2 points for each armor token from the Priestess crown of protection and subtract 2 points for each counter below three on the Forcemasters Forcefield.

The last option should hopefully never be used, but I think it is better to have this, than obvious bias in the calculation. And yes, I know this calculation isnít perfect.

rcone002

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Tie Breaker conditions - zone removal
« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2013, 03:13:30 PM »
I recently played in an 8-man tournament with 75-minute rounds. Of the four matches each round, about half of them resulted in draws, and each player received 1 point. I would prefer 90-minute rounds for organized play, as I think more than half of those draws would have resulted in victories for the players instead, but sometimes venue limitations exist on timing of rounds.

One possibility kicking around my brain was some sort of zone exiling as the end of a round nears. For example, in a 75-minute round, let's say after 60 minutes each player, beginning with the player who currently has initiative, gets to choose one zone that no mages occupy and destroy/exile either everything within that zone or put some type of black marker over the zone to signify that players can no longer use that zone to move through (as well as exiling or destroying everything that resides in that zone). Then at the 65-minute mark, each player again gets to choose a zone to destroy/exile from the game, and finally, one final zone destruction phase at the 70-minute mark.

I believe this would act a lot of strategic decisions as those time markers approached. If it was in a game where one player obviously has the upper hand, I think they're just going to ignore the time left on the clock and go for the win the way they have been. For an even match, or worse yet, a priestess v. priestess battle between healers, it could introduce some elements that could significantly speed up play by removing a zone with a critical spawnpoint or with a large amount of creatures "holed up" and basically just trying to prolong the game.

Just a thought, and I'd be interested to get some feedback on feasibility, alternatives, and rules tweakage.

sdougla2

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: Tie Breaker conditions
« Reply #34 on: July 10, 2013, 02:18:55 AM »
I could easily see someone using the zone block you describe to do all kinds of position control. I really dislike the idea because it would completely warp the game from that point on, more than tiebreakers based on remaining health.
  • Favourite Mage: Straywood Beastmaster

Texan85

  • Full Mage
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Banana Stickers 0
  • Game Free, or Die!
    • View Profile
Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #35 on: July 12, 2013, 02:52:06 AM »
Instead of a 75-90min limit, how about a rule that limits the planning phase? After reading posts, and from teaching others how to play, this seems like the part of the game that takes the longest in a turn.

The question is how long is too short? Is 30sec too short, likely. What about 60sec, this seems reasonable for someone that is experienced and played several times, but would be rough on newer players. So that leaves 90-120sec planning, is this too much time? 

The answer will be based on how skilled or experienced the players are, which then begs the thought of leagues or levels.

Solution: multiple or just more than one tournament.

At a con: solution 1 (think Yugioh tv show) where during the week days prior, everyone signs up on the first day, and based on the number of players and days in the con, everyone is given 2 chips and only those with Y number of chips may enter into the top 4-8-16, on the final day. This style would benefit from a semi honor system where the staff wouldn't have to run rounds. Downside is no one will want to play well known players, but with a wagering system of (ok, I'll play you, but I'll only put up 1 chip if you put up 2). One way to keep things fair is that all games must be played in play area, etc).

Solution 2: run 2 leagues. Where the "pro" league has better rewards/perks and sets planning stages to 60 seconds(or whichever is play tested best) and an "armature" one with longer planning stages.

Also maybe leave 30, 45, or 60 second sand timers on tables for taking turns or deciding on moves.

Otherwise there is a problem If you can't play a turtle strat against an aggro and it take 3hrs.
Ipsa Scentia Potestes Est

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #36 on: July 12, 2013, 04:02:31 AM »
I hadn't heard of the Yu-Gi-Oh method, but I like the idea as an example of alternative tournament formats. I do think that copying the Magic: the Gathering tournament format may not be the best fit for this game.

In M:tG, an agro deck can complete in 15 minutes without much difficulty, while a control deck might take 35 min. Since a match is best of three, the control deck is trying to win the first game, and then survive the second game, while the agro deck is trying to win the first game, or win both of the second two games. (The control deck that loses the first game is in a weaker position, because it must now try to win twice in whatever time it has left. Sometimes control players will concede a hopeless but slow game 1, to try to have enough time to win games 2 and 3.)

But in Mage Wars, there's really only time for one match, and Agro really does have a much easier experience with the time limit than control does.

I don't have a solution, but I'd love to hear some more ideas.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 12:08:50 PM by ringkichard »
I can take the fun out of anything. It's true; here, look at this spreadsheet.

cohlrox

  • Playtester
  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Tie Breaker conditions
« Reply #37 on: July 12, 2013, 10:17:11 AM »
I just played at the Dice Tower Con tournament this past week and this issue came up there as well. There was a great deal of heated discussions regarding running out the 75 min round timer with no clear victor and how to break draws.

What about comparing the "Spell Potential" of the two drawing players spell books against each other to determine a tie breaker. Also, do not award a full 3 points for a victory by tie breaker to the "winner" only award 2 points for draw-win and 1 point to the draw-loser. This way the "winner" gets something more than the "loser" but not the full match points because they failed to decisively defeat their opponent in the allotted round time.

"Spellbook Potential" would be the sum of the levels of spells left over in the mages spellbooks (ignoring actual spell book preparation point costs of the specific mage, only the printed values).

The one whom has more "Spellbook Potential" gets 2 points for the round and the other player who has less gets 1 point for the round.

Texan85

  • Full Mage
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Banana Stickers 0
  • Game Free, or Die!
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #38 on: July 12, 2013, 12:41:16 PM »
I hadn't heard of the Yu-Gi-Oh method, but I like the idea as an example of alternative tournament formats. I do think that copying the Magic: the Gathering tournament format may not be the best fit for this game.

In M:tG, an agro deck can complete in 15 minutes without much difficulty, while a control deck might take 35 min. Since a match is best of three, the control deck is trying to win the first game, and then survive the second game, while the agro deck is trying to win the first game, or win both of the second two games. (The control deck that loses the first game is in a weaker position, because it must now try to win twice in whatever time it has left. Sometimes control players will concede a hopeless but slow game 1, to try to have enough time to win games 2 and 3.)

But in Mage Wars, there's really only time for one match, and Agro really does have a much easier experience with the time limit than control does.

I don't have a solution, but I'd love to hear some more ideas.

I didn't say anything about mtg formats.

The premise is to limit the planning period for spells because that cAn take a long time.

And it posits the best time limitation, I don't think you read my post; this game is nothing like magic.

Ipsa Scentia Potestes Est

Sailor Vulcan

  • Secret Identity: Imaginator
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3128
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #39 on: July 12, 2013, 07:46:05 PM »
I think any sort of time limit will make the game imbalanced for us less experienced players. Some playstyles take more thinking to use than others, and with less experienced players this might give the rush strategies more of an advantage. I think a time limit might not be the best idea. I know that time for a tournament isn't infinite, but let's not forget that Mage Wars was designed to be a relatively long game--usually over an hour for just one.

My idea is to break up tournaments a bit. Depending on the number of people who preregister for a tournament, make more than one tournament, and then have the winners either be invited to face each other in another tournament later, or just have them be the winners of their respective tournaments.

Having tournaments for multiple formats of play and having an attendance cap for each one might work better for this. Anyone left over can play against anyone they want who isn't in another tournament, and the ones with the highest win percentages get prizes (with a minimum number of games, depending on the total tournament time). However, they'd only be able to play against each of the "leftover" participants once.

So you would have to register for an event ahead of time, and then if there are any open spots still left after the event starts, then people could come and register onsite.

While this might not work if the game becomes insanely popular, I don't know if there's a better alternative, since time limits for organized play in Mage Wars would probably suck. That's part of the problem with Mage Wars being such a long game, I think.
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster
I am Sailor Vulcan! Champion of justice and reason! And yes, I am already aware my uniform is considered flashy, unprofessional, and borderline sexually provocative for my species by most intelligent lifeforms. I did not choose this outfit. Shut up.

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #40 on: July 12, 2013, 10:29:41 PM »

I didn't say anything about mtg formats.

The premise is to limit the planning period for spells because that cAn take a long time.

And it posits the best time limitation, I don't think you read my post; this game is nothing like magic.

And I was agreeing with you? I brought up MtG because it's the second most successful card game tournament organization in the world, and pretty clearly the model for Mage Wars tournaments so far.
I can take the fun out of anything. It's true; here, look at this spreadsheet.

sdougla2

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: Tie Breaker conditions
« Reply #41 on: July 12, 2013, 10:55:04 PM »
Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate who has the stronger board position in some fashion?

If someone has a full spellbook still, but no permanents in play, and their opponent is a Warlock with a Lord of Fire with Bear Strength and Vampirism, a Necropian Vampiress with Bear Strength, a Dark Pact Slayer Blood Reaper with Vampirism, and 60 points left in their book, I'd much rather be in the Warlock's position.
  • Favourite Mage: Straywood Beastmaster

The Dude

  • Hitchhiker of sorts
  • Playtester
  • Sr. Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 435
  • Banana Stickers 5
  • It's like... good gracious...bodacious.
    • View Profile
Re: Tie Breaker conditions
« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2013, 01:18:01 AM »
It would be incredibly difficult to implement an objective, studious method for determining strength of board position. As well, most games do use such a method when determining board positions. Most games use a secondary numeric value when determining strength of schedule and tie breakers. An interesting method Mage Wars could use is recording who won (represented by 2n, where n is the number of rounds won), and then recording the differential damage between the winning and losing mage (represented by L-W, where L is losing players damage total, and W is the winning players damage total). These would be recorded each round as follows:

G1, I won, and the opponent took 38 damage, and I took 17. 38-17=21, so I would record 2 (27) on my score sheet.

g2, I lost, and the opponent took 19 damage, and I took 32. 32-19= 13, so I would record 2 (40) on my score sheet.

IF the game came down to a tie due to time, players would split the points, so each player would receive 1 point apiece. You would still record damage differential as normal. Note that you may have a negative total in this column, but that is okay.

If, in cutting to the top eight, two players have the same match point number (in my example two), then we would go by the higher damage differential recorded.

This is just a rough idea, but I think it most effectively implements what you folks are tackling. Cheers!

Padawan
  • Favourite Mage: Johktari Beastmaster
Always carry a towel...

Texan85

  • Full Mage
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Banana Stickers 0
  • Game Free, or Die!
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #43 on: July 14, 2013, 08:59:51 PM »
I think any sort of time limit will make the game imbalanced for us less experienced players. Some playstyles take more thinking to use than others, and with less experienced players this might give the rush strategies more of an advantage. I think a time limit might not be the best idea. I know that time for a tournament isn't infinite, but let's not forget that Mage Wars was designed to be a relatively long game--usually over an hour for just one.

My idea is to break up tournaments a bit. Depending on the number of people who preregister for a tournament, make more than one tournament, and then have the winners either be invited to face each other in another tournament later, or just have them be the winners of their respective tournaments.

Having tournaments for multiple formats of play and having an attendance cap for each one might work better for this. Anyone left over can play against anyone they want who isn't in another tournament, and the ones with the highest win percentages get prizes (with a minimum number of games, depending on the total tournament time). However, they'd only be able to play against each of the "leftover" participants once.

So you would have to register for an event ahead of time, and then if there are any open spots still left after the event starts, then people could come and register onsite.

While this might not work if the game becomes insanely popular, I don't know if there's a better alternative, since time limits for organized play in Mage Wars would probably suck. That's part of the problem with Mage Wars being such a long game, I think.

That's the point, tournaments are to test for the best, if you can't do it then you aren't the best. That's why casuals of other tcgs don't play in major league level tournaments, and why cons also run armature level tournaments.

Ipsa Scentia Potestes Est

Texan85

  • Full Mage
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Banana Stickers 0
  • Game Free, or Die!
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #44 on: July 14, 2013, 09:04:39 PM »

I didn't say anything about mtg formats.

The premise is to limit the planning period for spells because that cAn take a long time.

And it posits the best time limitation, I don't think you read my post; this game is nothing like magic.

And I was agreeing with you? I brought up MtG because it's the second most successful card game tournament organization in the world, and pretty clearly the model for Mage Wars tournaments so far.

Yea but you can't copy a tournament model of a tcg and apply it to this game. They are night and day, and the point is to speed up the slowest part of the game. Just like in magic (possibly to your pt) planning takes time, and in mtg you have maybe 7 cards likely less to make a decision from. In MW you have 25-40+ depending on where in the game you are at.

A 1min limit on planning, and on table 30 sec timer between creature actions would allow for long play game strategy games to develop. Or say f$&k it and use chess clocks. If it works in chess why not here, MW is the wizards chess LOL!
Ipsa Scentia Potestes Est