Tournament Scoring

[zot]

this method was used at gencon2013. you have to rely on folks keeping accurate track of the dmg they deal. it turned out to be a bit of a pain/hassle in practice.

[Arkdeniz]

this method was used at gencon2013. you have to rely on folks keeping accurate track of the dmg they deal. it turned out to be a bit of a pain/hassle in practice.

But other than being a bit of a pain, did that tourney have balanced, well-fought matches? Notable benefits/penalties for certain types of mage? Overuse of specific cards?

This thread, and others, seem predicated on the basis that a holy mage with restore has an unfair advantage in a timed match that breaks ties by the amount of health left. I think a little work on the players' parts that eliminates the potential for such debates would be worth the effort.

[zot]

such strategies only have an impact if tied wins count as much as outright wins. and that is part of the discussion. from what i recall yes the matches were all fought to win back then. note, after that event, they did away with the tracking component.

[silverclawgrizzly]

The issue with the damage tracking component is simple: Players can lie. In a tense match where I need to concentrate on what I'm doing I likely don't have time to spare keeping a critical eye on an enemies side sheet he's tracking his damage.

We tried it a few times locally and while nobody ever cheated, it was determined it was too much hassle.

[Brian VanAlstyne]

And it completely nerfs healing. If I have my opponent three away from death having done 30 damage and my opponent has me 20 away from death having done 40 damage, how would that be a fair loss to me?

[Sailor Vulcan]

@Sailor Vulcan: I don't feel like we are talking about exactly the same things. My commentary was entirely on how to handle matches that run out of time. None of your proposed solutions address this at all.

@DevilsVendetta: By choosing a winner via the current tie breaker at time, it encourages play styles that wouldn't be seen in a normal game and has started to involve using cards in ways that they were not designed or balanced to be used in. Restore is the current poster child for this problem. It is a comparable life swing to Drain Soul. However, it is only 5 mana instead of 16. That's a big difference. The reason why it is so much cheaper is because it's supposed to be temporary, which isn't the case when it's used in this fashion. The fact that it can be cast in advance and you can reveal it when needed makes it even easier to abuse like this, since you don't have to anticipate when time will be called. Grizzly seems, to me, to be primarily concern with this use of cards against their intention and wanting to tweak the rules as slightly as possible to account for it. Others, however, see this as endemic of a bigger problem with the way tournaments are handled and have taken the opportunity to voice their concerns.

Chief among these concerns is coming from an entirely different camp, or school of thought, who think that timed matches shouldn't count as a win at all, but rather a draw or at best a partial win (which seems to be how you think they're currently handled). Currently, a win is a win. The points system is only used when two people have an equal number of wins. Otherwise a timed win is as good as a kill. If you have 3 kills and I have 4 timed victories, then I've won more matches than you and I advance. However if we both have 3 wins, then we look at the points and timed wins THEN count as less. Only then. Grizzly can correct me if I got any of this wrong.

Which is basically saying that their solution to the misuse of cards is to completely get rid of the tie breaker, or at least significantly devalue it, so that there is no reason for people to play for a timed victory, and thus won't use cards towards that end. You either kill your opponent within time or you're screwed. A valid approach, but a significant deviation from the current system.

So far I'm pretty sure we ARE talking about the same things. The solutions I proposed potentially could address that but would need to be tested to make sure they work. The idea is to PREVENT matches from going to time as often as they currently do if not just stopping that from happening altogether, without breaking the game or requiring more table space or event time. I'm not sure what wasn't clear about that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

No one is responding to any of the three specific potential solutions I posted earlier in the thread. Does anyone have any thoughts on them?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[RomeoXero]

 Well sailor, if we didnt convent on them its probably because we found them untenable. But if you want specific reasons here ya go.

1. Completely unacceptable. Limiting what equates to the US championships to 8 to 10 people, especially in as new a game as arena neither raises awareness of the game nor makes money for the con. Lose lose as far as the game, the con, and the players are concerned. This kind of treatment is reserved for invitationals and we dont have the meta for that yet. 

2. Equally handicaps slow books. So why change one problem for a different style of the same problem. A fast kill book still has the advantage In this match style and it arguably handicaps both players when one guy is playing aslowburn deck. One player is stuck at the table with the slow guy while the fast books are churning through opponents. You might lose without a chance at a high enough win count by getting hamstrung by a slow book.

I don't remember 3 hang on

[RomeoXero]

3. Timed phases is the same problem only now the pressure is on  the players to keep track of even more and not on the judges. Its the same issue just in a different box. 

[silverclawgrizzly]

I'll respond Sailor.

1. As Romeo said this is unfeasible. Trying to grow the crowd at these events, not restrict them.

2. I had an idea similar to this but for a casual thing you could do at a big con. For a tournament though it's be unsustainable. Main reason is most folks only have so much time for any one game at Gen Con and other huge events. They want to do other stuff too so I can't see punishing them for that.

3. Nope. Players need to focus on their match when it's go time, not helping me keep track of stats.

[Zuberi]

I will mention an idea I heard someone else give at one point that is similar to the timed phases. Use chess clocks. Take the allotted time for the game and divide it evenly between each player. For example, each player could have 37 min (giving a total time for the round of 74 min). You stop your clock whenever you're done with your tun. If a player runs out of time, they lose.

So basically instead of giving the win to whomever we think was ahead, or calling it a draw, we punish the person who actually went longer than time allowed. Given that time is the real enemy and issue at hand, this seems fair. However there are a couple of problems with it. First, it requires equipment, acquiring the chess clocks, which costs money and involves transportation and storage logistics. Second, people have to use the clocks, which they're probably not used to and could be a little distracting. Finally, and most importantly in my opinion, is figuring out how to handle the ready stage, when so much is done simultaneously.

The idea as it stood when previously discussed was to have the clock start on whomever has initiative for the ready stage and they pass time when they finish planning. Which I think could work but I'd want to test it before trying it at an event.

[Zuberi]

I don't really think that's the right way to go for GenCon. For the reasons mentioned. But it is another approach and might work for other events that have a time constraint.

[DaveW]

The issue with the damage tracking component is simple: Players can lie.

We were playing with a lot of players who were just in it for fun... the guys I played back then sometimes just let one of the two players keep track. From what I saw and experienced, there wasn't any lying.

With prizes and such, I can see it possibly happening though.