Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => League / Tournament Play => Topic started by: Death-from-above on May 25, 2014, 09:27:01 AM
-
So I have been trying to come up with a new way to handle a tie breaker. I have never been a fan of the "Whoever has the most health after a certain amount of time wins" sort of thing because I felt that it didnt give the mages enough credit for how they played throughout the game. It sounds silly, but I didn't like the feeling of looking at the clock, realizing I only had 10 minutes left and have to abandon my strategy that I had been working the whole match for, just to try to dump as much damage as I can onto the other mage.
As I was playing Mario Party last night, I had a thought. What if a tie breaker could be done through a point system? If you don't know what Mario Party is, it is a video game that is centered around party games and the whole object of the game is to get at many stars as possible before the game ends. At the end of the game, stars are given to players who achieved certain goals in the game and that, usually, is what ends up tipping the scales for a person to win.
Essentially, what I was thinking was, what if there were certain categories prescribed at the beginning of a match that were given a point value? At the end of the game, the person who earns the most points wins. (This is strictly for handling tie breakers and not a way to replace how to actually win, which is to kill the opposing mage)A few example categories would be something like:
Most creatures still on the board = 1 point
Least amount of creatures in the dead pile = 1 point
Most health at the end of the game = 2 or 3 points
Most equipment still attached = 1 point
Most conjurations still on the board = 1 point
Those are just a few examples of categories that could be used for points, but you get the gist of what I am saying. Instead of a damage race at the last few minutes of the game, a mage could hold strong on their strategy and aim to try and win certain categories that could tip the scales in their favor. I figured still having the most health at the end of the game would give the most points, but it wouldn't be the only way to win. I'm sure there have been some games out there where a mage executes a decent strategy all game, and yet still loses in the end because the other mage just beat them out by one point of health or at the end of the game, a mage who had been getting beat on the whole game is starting to make an amazing comeback only to have the momentum stopped due to the timer running out.
I don't know; this is just something I thought of last night and I haven't had the chance to see if this would even work as well as I think it would. If I am missing a critical piece or rule to the game, let me know.
-
Remember any tie break we choose always favors 1 build over another. That is why it has taken so long to choose what is best for the game.
-
Yeah I think most people agree that the "whoever has most health left wins" way isn't the best. There have been suggestions on other ways to do tie breakers before, not sure if you've read them or not.
I also don't know if this method has been suggested before, but I like it. Although I wouldn't use Equipment and Conjurations still in play as two of the things. Some spellbooks might just not have very many of those and it's slightly unfair to them.
I'd keep the other 3 though, and add one more.
Most creatures still on the board = 1 point
Least amount of creatures in the dead pile = 1 point
Most health at the end of the game = 3 points
Most unused spellbook points = 2 points
Total possible points = 7. It has to be an odd number for obvious reasons.
If a tie occurs (ie both Mages have 2 destroyed creatures), nobody gets the point. This means it is possible for an overall tie in points to happen, so there would either need to be a way to determine a winner after that, or simply call that case a draw.
Another intriguing way to determine tie breakers was discussed here, if you haven't read it. http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12812.msg19493#msg19493
An excerpt from it :
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?
Shad0w is right though that one style of build is always going to be favored nomatter what tie-breaking system is used. The trick is just finding the one that is most fair to everybody and doesn't make that one style have a huge advantage. And that is very hard to do.
Also, maybe this should be posted in Rules Discussion or League Play?
-
Will be moved latter
-
There have been many suggestions for tie breakers in the past, including a points system similar to the one you suggest. I was a big fan of the "overtime" rule (as I called it) like Lord0fWinter refers to, at one time. However, I am currently on board with the current tie breaker system, and I'll explain why.
You mention that you don't like that the game turns into a damage race during the final 10 minutes. What you seem to be forgetting is that the ENTIRE game is a damage race. Whether you take the slow and steady approach, or the blazing fast approach, you are trying to kill your opponent faster than they kill you. Ergo, a damage race. A time limit, no matter how strict or relaxed that limit may be, simply defines the pace at which the race can be ran. There's no way around this.
So, the question isn't about whether we want to change the game into a damage race, because it already is. Instead, we have this relevant question:What is a fair way to judge the damage race if time runs out and both parties have failed to complete it? I believe it boils down to three options.
1) Award victory to the person in the lead. This is the current method of judging it solely based upon health remaining and is the simplest method with the least room for controversy. If we compare it to a foot race, whomever is furthest ahead after a set time, wins. Clean, simple, and fair.
2) Award victory to the person most likely to win given an infinite amount of time. This method requires a lot of speculation and calculation, not all of which can be conducted in a completely unbiased manner. It could therefore stir a lot of ill will and controversy. How much controversy is a matter of debate, but I think we can all agree it is not as black and white as the first method.
3) Forget about who would have won the race all together and award victory based upon they way they played the game. This is probably the category that most points systems falls into, although such systems could be in the second category. Again, it is subject to a considerable amount of bias, however, as we determine what is worth points and how many points it's worth. This very noticeably affects game play as many players will then structure their builds to maximize points in addition to, or instead of, focusing solely on killing their opponent. I believe this shift in focus would negatively impact the game.
Thus, I am in favor of the current tie breaker because it is simple, easy to judge, and is the most unbiased. It KEEPS things as a damage race, which is how they begin and how they're meant to end. All it does is look at who's in the lead, who's winning, when time is called. It is true that that guy may have been recently tripped and is currently lying unmoving in the mud, but he's still ahead in the race and that is a lot easier to judge than trying to determine if he'll get back up or not.
-
The post that LordofWinter put up was something I never thought of. I guess the main reason I wasn't a fan of this sort of tie breaker was due to my specific play style. In all games that I've played, not just mage wars, i 've always opted for a strategy that depended heavily on preparation. Taking time to make sure I've researched and set up all the contingencies I could think of before I enacted. This is why I've never done well with aggro builds. I'm so worried that if the plan of rushing the opponent right off the bat trips up on just one bad action, the game will go downhill from there. I'm a turtle mage to the core haha
I guess that's why I was looking for a different tie breaker. Something that didn't favor certain builds. Its hard thing to do haha. I do appreciate the feedback from you guys. I always learn new things whenever I post on here
-
Here in my area we just arm wrestle for tie breaker. That or have a "Yo Momma" contest.
-
Here in my area we just arm wrestle for tie breaker. That or have a "Yo Momma" contest.
Thumb wrestling should work too. You might be onto something with that Yo Momma contest idea.....
-
Hmmmm do it Mage Wars theme:
Yo Momma so fat when she damages a corporeal creature she may Reconstruct up to 2 damage!
-
Hmmmm do it Mage Wars theme:
Yo Momma so fat when she damages a corporeal creature she may Reconstruct up to 2 damage!
Oooh snap! Would you like a geyser for that burn???
-
Hmmmm do it Mage Wars theme:
Yo Momma so fat when she damages a corporeal creature she may Reconstruct up to 2 damage!
Oooh snap! Would you like a geyser for that burn???
LoL oh I can see this may need to be it's own separate thread before long.
-
Hmmmm do it Mage Wars theme:
Yo Momma so fat when she damages a corporeal creature she may Reconstruct up to 2 damage!
Yo momma so fat that she gains the Unmovable trait.
Yo momma so fat that she cannot be even teleported.
Yo momma so fat that she can barely fit into the arena.
-
Yo Momma so fat she got more Growth markers than Kralathor!
Yo Momma so ugly Necropian Vampiress refuse to regain life from her!
Yo Momma so stupid her Thoughspire is empty!
-
This thread is veering wildly off topic. Perhaps a new one should be started to accommodate the mothers of the Arena?
-
True that Zuberi. Making it now.
-
There have been many suggestions for tie breakers in the past, including a points system similar to the one you suggest. I was a big fan of the "overtime" rule (as I called it) like Lord0fWinter refers to, at one time. However, I am currently on board with the current tie breaker system, and I'll explain why.
You mention that you don't like that the game turns into a damage race during the final 10 minutes. What you seem to be forgetting is that the ENTIRE game is a damage race. Whether you take the slow and steady approach, or the blazing fast approach, you are trying to kill your opponent faster than they kill you. Ergo, a damage race. A time limit, no matter how strict or relaxed that limit may be, simply defines the pace at which the race can be ran. There's no way around this.
So, the question isn't about whether we want to change the game into a damage race, because it already is. Instead, we have this relevant question:What is a fair way to judge the damage race if time runs out and both parties have failed to complete it? I believe it boils down to three options.
1) Award victory to the person in the lead. This is the current method of judging it solely based upon health remaining and is the simplest method with the least room for controversy. If we compare it to a foot race, whomever is furthest ahead after a set time, wins. Clean, simple, and fair.
2) Award victory to the person most likely to win given an infinite amount of time. This method requires a lot of speculation and calculation, not all of which can be conducted in a completely unbiased manner. It could therefore stir a lot of ill will and controversy. How much controversy is a matter of debate, but I think we can all agree it is not as black and white as the first method.
3) Forget about who would have won the race all together and award victory based upon they way they played the game. This is probably the category that most points systems falls into, although such systems could be in the second category. Again, it is subject to a considerable amount of bias, however, as we determine what is worth points and how many points it's worth. This very noticeably affects game play as many players will then structure their builds to maximize points in addition to, or instead of, focusing solely on killing their opponent. I believe this shift in focus would negatively impact the game.
Thus, I am in favor of the current tie breaker because it is simple, easy to judge, and is the most unbiased. It KEEPS things as a damage race, which is how they begin and how they're meant to end. All it does is look at who's in the lead, who's winning, when time is called. It is true that that guy may have been recently tripped and is currently lying unmoving in the mud, but he's still ahead in the race and that is a lot easier to judge than trying to determine if he'll get back up or not.
In a perfect world you would be right, Zuberi. However, there is only one time limit, not two. If the time limit is too short aggro builds have an advantage. The hare would certainly win against the tortoise if their race was prematurely interrupted before the hare tired out and fell asleep in the middle of the racetrack. It would hardly be fair to declare the hare the winner under those circumstances.
-
I have the perfect solution for the draw problem: Don't set a time limit! Play until the game is over. If you plan a tournament, plan it for several days so there is enough time to finish every game.
Mage Wars is meant to be played until the bitter end.
If both mages die in the same round, just replay the game and you will have winner.
I would never participate in a tournament in my region with a set time limit for games.
-
I have the perfect solution for the draw problem: Don't set a time limit! Play until the game is over. If you plan a tournament, plan it for several days so there is enough time to finish every game.
Mage Wars is meant to be played until the bitter end.
If both mages die in the same round, just replay the game and you will have winner.
I would never participate in a tournament in my region with a set time limit for games.
I love the long games. That's what makes me keep coming back. The problem is, I have so few opponents who want to play for as long as we can. A lot of the new people I introduce this game to also mention at the end of the game that this game is long and I'm afraid it is turning some of the off to the game.
Apprentic games run about 45 minutes to an hour and a half which is a decent time. But once we break into the advanced deck setups, I 've never had a game last less then 2 and a half hours. Doesn't bother me, but my new mage friends don't like it too much.
-
Damn.. 2.5 hours? I never had a game lasting that long. My longest game ever was 2 hours and 90% of my games last 60 minutes.
-
Damn.. 2.5 hours? I never had a game lasting that long. My longest game ever was 2 hours and 90% of my games last 60 minutes.
Yeah, I'm the extreme case haha. Its a mixture of my turtle play style and the fact that the new mage still has questions throughout the game that makes my games take so long. If there is one thing I know how to do, its last for a while.
-
Damn.. 2.5 hours? I never had a game lasting that long. My longest game ever was 2 hours and 90% of my games last 60 minutes.
Yeah, we tend to have pretty long games when we play. I'm pretty sure the time could be decreased quite a bit if we set a time limit for the planning phase, so let's try that next time Death.
-
The hare would certainly win against the tortoise if their race was prematurely interrupted before the hare tired out and fell asleep in the middle of the racetrack. It would hardly be fair to declare the hare the winner under those circumstances.
Why would that be unfair? I think declaring the person who was in fact winning at the time the race ended to BE the winner is the most fair you can get. In your situation, there is no way of predicting that the hare would fall asleep, or that he would stay asleep long enough for the turtle to win. The only thing you know for sure, is he was in the lead.
If the time limit is too short aggro builds have an advantage.
That is quite true. As I mentioned, setting a time limit, any time limit, will define what speeds a viable strategy can perform at. The shorter this limit, the fewer viable strategy options are available as players are forced to play quickly and aggressively. But that is a concern over time limits, not over the methods of deciding an unfinished match. If you are concerned about the time limit being unfair and seeking to use the decision method to tip the scales back into balance instead of simply looking for a fair decision method, then we are discussing different agendas entirely. There is nothing biased about looking at who's closest to dying to determine a winner. It can give victory just as easily to a slow mage as to a fast one. The real concern you seem to have is with how much time is granted per match.
Apprentic games run about 45 minutes to an hour and a half which is a decent time. But once we break into the advanced deck setups, I 've never had a game last less then 2 and a half hours. Doesn't bother me, but my new mage friends don't like it too much.
Your experience is most certainly due to your strategy and your friend's inexperience. If your friends are concerned about the game time, perhaps you should try implementing a time limit such as tournaments do? I think 90 minutes should be fine, but you could go for longer (2 hours? 2 and a half?) if you are concerned about your preferred play style remaining viable. Find some balance that works for everyone involved. After they become more experienced and know how to combat your fortress then you should see game time reduced drastically on it's own without the need for a contrived time limit. I'm not certain if this would actually help matters, as I've not encountered time frames such as you describe since I was first teaching myself how to play, but it might be worth a try.
-
Damn.. 2.5 hours? I never had a game lasting that long. My longest game ever was 2 hours and 90% of my games last 60 minutes.
Yeah, we tend to have pretty long games when we play. I'm pretty sure the time could be decreased quite a bit if we set a time limit for the planning phase, so let's try that next time Death.
My games last around 10 rounds for 60 minutes of play time. So it gives an average of 6 minutes per round (first and second round of course doesnt last that long, so 8th, 9th and 10th round probably last a little longer). 7-8 rounds game last about 45 minutes and 12-13 rounds game last about 90 minutes, so my average is about right.
So count how many rounds your games last and how long they last. That way you might find out that the probleme is that you play too slowly and not that a game is too short (round-wise). Taking 5 whole minutes to choose your 2 cards might even be considered dragging the game in a tournament (which is anti-sportmanship in most games).
-
I have the perfect solution for the draw problem: Don't set a time limit! Play until the game is over. If you plan a tournament, plan it for several days so there is enough time to finish every game.
Mage Wars is meant to be played until the bitter end.
If both mages die in the same round, just replay the game and you will have winner.
I would never participate in a tournament in my region with a set time limit for games.
At any convention or store event time limits have to be used because we are restricted by the venues hours
-
Damn.. 2.5 hours? I never had a game lasting that long. My longest game ever was 2 hours and 90% of my games last 60 minutes.
longest playest game for me was at 4 hours when we quit
Let's get back on topic :P
Remember that the goal of MW is to kill the other mage. Why would the tie breaker of choice not favor aggressive play?
-
Remember that the goal of MW is to kill the other mage. Why would the tie breaker of choice not favor aggressive play?
To me, it's almost like you're saying that THE way to play Mage Wars is by being aggressive and other ways are "wrong". That can also turn some people off of the game.
Not that I have a better idea for tie breakers though.
-
Remember that the goal of MW is to kill the other mage. Why would the tie breaker of choice not favor aggressive play?
To me, it's almost like you're saying that THE way to play Mage Wars is by being aggressive and other ways are "wrong". That can also turn some people off of the game.
Not that I have a better idea for tie breakers though.
Not wrong but MW is a hp race. You can try to win slowly but it is still a race.
Like F1, going too fast can lead to crash and what not, but go too slow and you are sure to lose.
-
Being aggressive is the only way to play Mage Wars. If you never attack or damage your opponent in any way, you will lose every time. If you do damage your opponent, then you are by definition being aggressive :-P
It's possible in the future there might be alternate victory conditions, but until then aggression is the name of the game. The question is rather about your method of aggression. Does it start strong and wind down, or does it start with a whimper and build up? In both cases you want it to be fast enough to win within the time constraints. Wildhorn's comparison to a Formula 1 race is very apt.
Because of this sole focus on killing your opponent and being aggressive that is inherent to the game, Shad0w is correct that any tie breaking method needs to also focus on aggression or risk drastically changing that inherent nature. I do still like the "overtime" method, which only looks at the last few rounds of the game when control mages should be at their strongest and aggro mages should be at their weakest, but it is still a method that focuses on how aggressive the mages are being during that time. However, that method requires extra management and record keeping, with having to announce when overtime begins and then recording how much damage is dealt each round.
It's not overly complicated, but certainly is more so than the current method and I'm not convinced it would be any more fair. If I'm closer to killing my opponent than he is me, but he wins due to some lucky rolls in the last few rounds (even though I still end up ahead overall) then I may be a bit sore at my defeat. It may very well be that he would have won given infinite time because my lead was slipping, or perhaps I could have pulled off the win. Predicting the future is basically guess work and not exact, especially in a game this complex. It's still my favorite alternative, and I wouldn't be upset if some version of it was implemented, but after thinking about it I do think the current method is actually superior for being simpler and less biased.
-
Being aggressive is the only way to play Mage Wars. If you never attack or damage your opponent in any way, you will lose every time. If you do damage your opponent, then you are by definition being aggressive :-P
Zuberi, by aggressive I was referring to "aggro" books instead of say, control.
-
Being aggressive is the only way to play Mage Wars. If you never attack or damage your opponent in any way, you will lose every time. If you do damage your opponent, then you are by definition being aggressive :-P
Zuberi, by aggressive I was referring to "aggro" books instead of say, control.
Ah. We have different interpretations of what Shad0w meant then. I don't think he was trying to imply that any style of play is wrong or inferior to any other. Simply alluding to the nature of the game in general principal, ie killing your opponent faster than they kill you, as something that should be rewarded rather than trying to change the nature of the game on some fundamental level.
-
Remember that the goal of MW is to kill the other mage. Why would the tie breaker of choice not favor aggressive play?
To me, it's almost like you're saying that THE way to play Mage Wars is by being aggressive and other ways are "wrong". That can also turn some people off of the game.
Not that I have a better idea for tie breakers though.
I am a control combo player by nature. Just because a build is heavy on control cards does not mean it can not be aggressive. In fact I am working on a combo control build that wins on turn 7-9
-
Being aggressive is the only way to play Mage Wars. If you never attack or damage your opponent in any way, you will lose every time. If you do damage your opponent, then you are by definition being aggressive :-P
Zuberi, by aggressive I was referring to "aggro" books instead of say, control.
Ah. We have different interpretations of what Shad0w meant then. I don't think he was trying to imply that any style of play is wrong or inferior to any other. Simply alluding to the nature of the game in general principal, ie killing your opponent faster than they kill you, as something that should be rewarded rather than trying to change the nature of the game on some fundamental level.
Correct
As an example look at the DoT builds. Even if it is a slow build up they are always moving towards the win
-
Remember that the goal of MW is to kill the other mage. Why would the tie breaker of choice not favor aggressive play?
The goal of Magic the Gathering is to kill the other guy/gal too. That doesn't mean that Psychatog + Upheaval was a bad deck. Or that Blue Stasis decks were an error. Certianty is a far greater vitrue than speed.
The agressive book that deals 10 quick damage and then stalls out should not get the victory over the control book that stabilizes and then tightens like a ratchet for 10 rounds. That control book is winning.
The current tiebreaker method favors short term plans over long term ones, and that's the problem.
-
The current tie breaker doesn't favor any plan. It simply measures how close one is to the already existent goal of killing their opponent when time is called. The time limit, however, may favor one plan over another, but there is little we can do about that. Should we adopt an unbalanced tie breaker to try and fix the imbalance caused by the time limit? Perhaps, but I'm not sold on the idea quite yet.
I would argue that a control book which hasn't managed to do any damage to their opponent over 10 rounds while they themselves have been damaged, is not winning. No matter how much control they've exerted. A control book that's managed less damage than their opponent, even by a single point, also is not winning currently. It is possible that they have recently been approaching the finish line at a faster rate than their opponent, but they are still further away from it and thus not winning. Any claims to the contrary attempt to predict the future which can not be done with certitude.
-
Unless you think that accumulated damage is always more likely to give you a win than than board position, awarding the win based on damage done means that the tiebreaker will be awarding the game to the mage who opened with attack spells instead of the mage casting creatures, even when the attack spell mage is losing (defined as having less than a 50% chance of victory).
This gives a stalled agro book incentive to avoid combat and wait for the tiebreaker to salvage an impossible game.
It, for example, rewards liberal use of Wizard's Tower. It doesn't matter if the Attack spells would be enough to win: the defender has to play as if they're near death even if they're not.
Or consider Sardonyx. A great creature you'd never use near the ent of time because suddenly life left NOW is the only thing that matters.
I'll say more when I'm not on my phone.
-
Ok, at a keyboard, finally.
I think there are two definitions of "winning" in this thread and the other, and the differences between them are causing miscommunication. (http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/charlie-sheen1-650x487.jpg)
It's been said that whichever mage is furthest ahead in the damage race is "closest to winning" and should therefore win a tiebreaker. But if you define "closest to winning" like that, it no longer means "most likely to win". You create a whole class of possible games where Alice is most likely to win -- but Bob is "closest to winning". This is a problem.
Imagine a game where Alice has 20 life left, and Bob has 25. We might say that Bob is closest to winning. But if Alice has 3 Dire Wolves and Bob's got nothing, then Alice is much more likely to win. Alice is winning. And any measure that says that Bob is closest is measuring the wrong type of distance.
This creates perverse incentives for the players. Bob may realize that if he continues to press the attack he's doomed, but can try to flee and avoid conflict and somehow salvage a tiebreaker win from a game he could otherwise only lose.
Or remember that article Piousflea wrote about how important it is to get your opponent down to a low level of life? His reasoning was that once they're at risk of dying next turn they have to change their strategy and must make short term plays instead of long term plans. This is because only the last life point matters, and until your opponent is in a position to take that last life point, you don't actually have to make sacrifices to save your hide.
Well, if we award the game to the player with the most life, we're suddenly making all the life points matter, not just the final one. That 1 damage you took on round 3 is now very important, not just because it made death somewhat more likely, but because it's a victory point of equal value to all other victory points.
--
So, how does the current tiebreaker system affect the current meta?
It rewards mages with access to frequent and large attack spells. 4 consecutive Hurl Boulders might do maybe 20 damage to an opponent with some armor, but they won't kill him or her. And in a long game, the player who invests in some armor and a belt of Regrowth and some creatures will win against an All-Boulder-All-The-Time strategy. But for most of the game the creature mage will have less health than the Boulder mage, even if the creature mage almost immediately has a much higher chance of winning.
This effect makes Wizards Tower even better, because Wizard's Tower's weakness is that you have to spend mana on Attack spells when you'd usually be better off investing it in a creature or conjuration. But now, since whomever is at lower life dies when time is called, short term tactical play beats long term strategic.
Or consider Sardonyx. He's big and mean and can probably help you win the game, but he's costs you 2 life a turn. Which, if you've got 20 life remaining isn't a big deal. But now, suddenly when time is called, you don't have 20 life remaining, you have the difference between your life and your opponent's life. That 2 life loss a turn goes from being 10% of your life to 50% of your life in a real hurry, and now Sardonyx is a bad investment.
Frankly, if the old Tiebreaker didn't help Wizard so much, I think I'd be more ok with it. Yes, it looks like it helps Warlock and Beastmaster, but it's Wizard who's best at crunch time nova damage because of an elemental training and Wizard's Tower. I really don't think we need to be making Wizard even stronger.
-
You present a very good argument, ringkichard, but it is late and so I shall postpone a full response until the morrow. I just wanted to mention that I don't think that there has been a miscommunication. I fully agree that being closest to winning is not the same as being most likely to win. Looking at who is closest to winning is measuring a fact, while looking at most likely to win is trying to predict the future. I discussed both methods and why I dislike playing fortune teller.
Predicting the future is impossible to do with any kind of accuracy. You present a lopsided situation as an example for your case, but the real test is with fine measurement of a close game. If we both have multiple creatures on the board spread around the place, who is to say that you are 51% likely to win and I am only 49%? Can you honestly concoct a method of predicting the future with that degree of accuracy? Meanwhile, it is very clear if I have 1 life more than you do.
You claim this measurement of life is the wrong type of distance, but it is the ONLY type of distance. Even if we were to take up your attempt at predicting the future, we would have to use some measurement of life remaining compared to damage potential to do so. My method is the exact same measurement. I merely restrict myself to the damage potential that has already occurred, while you wish to try and imagine what damage potential could occur in the future. This might work when there is a major difference between players, but in a close game it breaks down to biased guesswork.
Now, I've already typed more than I meant to, but I will end with saying we should be wary of changing the nature of the game and your predictions about that deserve consideration.
-
There have been some interesting points made on both sides of this argument. Tie breaking is certainly a topic I could see individual venues tackling differently. I'm inclined to side more towards the argument made by Zuberi and I'll give a few non-Mage Wars comparisons to explain why.
In the other game I play Hero Clix,you get points for KOing enemy pieces. Now the game is over and you have won when you take out their entire team. Of course that doesn't always happen, often times matches go to time limit with pieces from both armies still on the board. Now lets say we're playing 600 points and you've taken out 305 of mine and I've taken out 300 of yours. Your big Superman piece who costs 300 is on his last bit of life and I'm about to finish him off when time is called. Obviously I was about to win, but I did NOT win. Per the rules of clix, which has a very strong competitive scene, I've lost.
Now lets step away from gaming. I hire two men to dig two trenches for me and I tell them they have 1 hour to do it, and since I'm a nice guy I leave them a couple of shovels. The first guy gets his shovel and starts digging. The second guy drives down to the local construction rental store and rents a bulldozer then drives it back only to get there when the hour is up. I come back and ask see that my trenches aren't done. I ask the first guy what's up and he says "Well I tried to get it done but time ran out. I did however get this much done, isn't that worth something?" I may partially be inclined to pay him a little something for his time and work. I ask the second guy what's up and he says "Well I rented a bulldozer and though I didn't actually move any dirt in the time allotted I still think you owe me something cause I could easily do it now." I'm gonna tell him he's out of luck most likely.
Eh one more example just for kicks. I'm a pretty big boxing fan actually, always have been. I like to watch people slugging it out for whatever reason. Well in boxing obviously you wanna knock the guy out, the sooner the better really. Now if we start going at it and I'm just whaling away on you, knocking you every which way while you just absorb the punches hoping I wear myself out and conserving your strength for a big knock out punch....you had better deliver said knock out punch before time runs out. Fighters get scored for actively trying to knock their opponent out on the off chance they aren't able to do it. Whoever succeeded in hitting the other guy more wins. Now yeah sure the other guy may have been about to knock the winners block off, but PREPARING to hit someone is nowhere near as exciting as HITTING someone. Now Mage Warriors are in an arena trying to take the other guy out right? It's a fight, a fancy magic fight, but it's a fight lets be honest. There's a crowd in attendance a winners purse on the line and high stakes all around. Hence the same basic concepts of any other organized fight for entertainment would logically apply would they not?
Anyway this is just my take on it. Like I said I could see venues doing things differently.
-
using your thinking, if neither can finish off the other I think the King, Emperor, Ceaser, or the defaocto leader should have them both killed, that is unless one of them decides to fall on thier "sword," so to speak. :P
-
using your thinking, if neither can finish off the other I think the King, Emperor, Ceaser, or the defaocto leader should have them both killed, that is unless one of them decides to fall on thier "sword," so to speak. :P
I agree completely. ;D
-
I debated not posting this, because I don't want to sound dismissive, but I promised a response. Your concerns about changing the nature of the way in which the game is played are something we should take seriously. However, I'm not convinced they're well founded. Do we have any data about this actually occurring?
If this burst damage occurred early in the game, and it was made in a poorly advised manner as you suggest, then I suspect your opponent could capitalize on the mistake before time is called and overtake you. If the burst was made towards the end of the game, however, then I don't see the problem at all. By then, you are both aware that time is running out, and you should be making a last ditch effort to pile on the damage and try to kill your opponent.
In the end, I would like to see how big of an effect we're actually looking at. I'm okay with players firing all of their guns at the end of the match, though I'm not sure you would agree, but I think we both agree that a strategy of hitting early and then avoiding combat should not be extremely viable. I really think that anyone capable of finishing the match within whatever allotted time has been given though, should be able to capitalize on any bad plays made during that time. The problem may revert back to the fact that many control strategies can not finish within the time allotted, and so they are vulnerable to these absurd strategies while Aggro Mages would not be. In which case, poor tactical decisions would not end up overwhelming the meta, but control mages would remain underrepresented.
I think I've already discussed the issues with control mages and the time limits. We don't have much control over the time limits, and unfortunately that does give control mages a raw deal. I don't believe that trying to compensate for this with a weighted decision method is the right way to go though.
-
I've always thought that highest score should win, where score is some function
s =life left+a*(mana remaining+sum(mana cost of each constant you control))
Problems:
Yes it ignores how close a creature is to dying, but that makes it too hard to calculate. I'm only saying its more precise than the current method. i define "winning" not as who did the most damage, but who is best at dealing damage without dying themselves, so life remaining, resistance to mage damage, and damage you can deal to the enemy mage are all variables. all these variables are far too much to compute for the average player, so thats not gonna happen. I fear even adding up the total mana cost of all constants in play will be too much work for some players.
This method does not consider upkeep or channelling, but i'm not sure how i would or how relevent it even is. the constants which are channelling boosters are counted for their mana cost, and the constants with an upkeep cost generally have a lower mana cost, so this helps balance things out on their own without having to directly look at upkeep and channelling.
My first guess is that a = 1/2, but i'm open to alternatives.
Example:
you have 20 mana, 10 life left(life-damage), and 30 mana of creatures, equipment, enchantments(facedown and revealed), conjurations in play.
Score s1 = 10+(1/2)(20+(30)) = 20+25 = 35
Your opponent has 0 mana, 20 life left, and 10 mana of constants.
Enemy score s2 = 20+(1/2)(0+10) =25
s1 >s2 so player one wins!
-
Then people would just armor up to the extreme and avoid spending mana since a round of channeling suddenly become equivalent of 5 life.
-
wildhorn, you seem confused. 10 mana in your pool is the same score as 10 mana in your creature, but the creature can actually be useful by damaging the enemy mage or killing enemy constants. just dont make creatures that will die easily. killing a constant will be equivalent to dealing its cost/2 damage to the enemy mage.
or if an attack spell will deal more than cost/2 damage to the enemy mage, that could work too. spend mana to reduce the damage you take, increase the damage they receive, or destroy their cost in a cost effective manner.
-
It seems more and more to me like what well need is either a way to accurately and reliably predict outcomes of unfinished games, an increase to time limits or my current favorite: just accept the tie and move on. Mage wars tournaments are Swiss style, anyways. Thematically speaking, time limits make sense to me since spectators to the mage wars include some very important people and they don't have all day. if both mages are still alive in the end then neither one has really lost in story. However, if games are frequently and consistently going to time then I really think they should extend the time limit. Or put time limits on the planning phase.
-
However, if games are frequently and consistently going to time then I really think they should extend the time limit. Or put time limits on the planning phase.
That is actually something I will try to do for my next few matches is to try and set a time limit for planning. I find that a good chunk of time I spend during a whole match is the planning phase. The first 4-5 rounds is pretty quick but once you get into the meat of the game and you really have to start considering different avenues for success, planning can take a bit of time. I believe someone somewhere in this post mentioned there is a time limit in tournaments for planning as well?
I will start there and see how much time I can shave off games. I don't like having to rush strategy but it won't do me or anyone else any good to sit here and complain and not attempt to offer any sort of solution or at least try other solutions people have suggested :D
I really appreciate everyone's input on this particular topic. Both sides present valid arguments and it has given me the opportunity to see what everyone thinks.
-
From my experience, the planning phase is what drags the game out the most.
-
From my experience, the planning phase is what drags the game out the most.
Indeed. I think in tournaments, planning phase should be limited to 3 minutes. If the time is up, you go with what you already selected (if you got more than 2 cards out, opponents randomly select 2 cards among them).