No, really, how do you play a game in < 1 hour?

[Shad0w]

Now back to the OP. The reason are games take about an hour is our group is favoring more aggressive spell books rather than trying to turtle.

[Mestrahd]

My friend and I have played something like 10 or 11 games, now, and NOT ONE of them has gone less than 1.5 hours.

Common misconceptions debunked:

1) In but two of our games we were both very familiar with our decks
2) We don't spend 10% of our time looking for a specific token (they are laid out very meticulously prior to gameplay)
3) We don't spend 10% of our time looking through the glossary/index/rulebook

I'm talking about two grown, reasonably intelligent people sitting down and playing the game, to our best ability, with as little down-time between actions as still allows us to think about our moves.

How is it that others can play a game in < 1 hour? HOW?!?!?

-nihil

Ok, what part of THIS even SUGGESTS Organized Play? Alot of people are wondering how to reduce play time that haven't been wondering about Organized Play.

[Shad0w]

My friend and I have played something like 10 or 11 games, now, and NOT ONE of them has gone less than 1.5 hours.

Common misconceptions debunked:

1) In but two of our games we were both very familiar with our decks
2) We don't spend 10% of our time looking for a specific token (they are laid out very meticulously prior to gameplay)
3) We don't spend 10% of our time looking through the glossary/index/rulebook

I'm talking about two grown, reasonably intelligent people sitting down and playing the game, to our best ability, with as little down-time between actions as still allows us to think about our moves.

How is it that others can play a game in < 1 hour? HOW?!?!?

-nihil

Mestrahd Wrote:
Ok, what part of THIS even SUGGESTS Organized Play? Alot of people are wondering how to reduce play time that haven't been wondering about Organized Play.

I think the whole topic of organized play came up because I use it as an example in my original post.

My friend and I have played something like 10 or 11 games, now, and NOT ONE of them has gone less than 1.5 hours.

Common misconceptions debunked:

1) In but two of our games we were both very familiar with our decks
2) We don't spend 10% of our time looking for a specific token (they are laid out very meticulously prior to gameplay)
3) We don't spend 10% of our time looking through the glossary/index/rulebook

I'm talking about two grown, reasonably intelligent people sitting down and playing the game, to our best ability, with as little down-time between actions as still allows us to think about our moves.

How is it that others can play a game in < 1 hour? HOW?!?!?

-nihil

Shad0w Wrote:
I do not see how you can take over 90 minutes unless somebody in the match turtles. Our average play test game is 40-90 minutes.

When we are practicing for tourney play we use the tourney rules that are currently in development.
For example
Match is best of 1
We set the play clock at 75 min (most games are 40-50 minutes)
Once time expires you finish the current round of actions.
If time expires before the reset stage but after all actions are used the match is over.
If at this point no mage has fallen then you look for the mage with the least damage on them.

These are some of the tourney rules we have been working on. Once you get used to this matches tend to take less time. Just like in any game the more control heavy a build is the more it will drag a game on. Also another thing I would say is each player should have a copy of the game so you can build fully fleshed out spell books.

To me when I look at the entire post the most important part is unless somebody in the match turtles. Our average play test game is 40-90 minutes. This would imply that we are not playing heavy defense books and they favor a far more aggressive game. I guess it was not seen that way but that is ok.

[Nihilistiskism]

My friend and I have played something like 10 or 11 games, now, and NOT ONE of them has gone less than 1.5 hours.

Common misconceptions debunked:

1) In but two of our games we were both very familiar with our decks
2) We don't spend 10% of our time looking for a specific token (they are laid out very meticulously prior to gameplay)
3) We don't spend 10% of our time looking through the glossary/index/rulebook

I'm talking about two grown, reasonably intelligent people sitting down and playing the game, to our best ability, with as little down-time between actions as still allows us to think about our moves.

How is it that others can play a game in < 1 hour? HOW?!?!?

-nihil

Ok, what part of THIS even SUGGESTS Organized Play? Alot of people are wondering how to reduce play time that haven't been wondering about Organized Play.

...and this was in aid of...what?

-nihil

[Mestrahd]

@Koz: I think your comment is not applicable. If Organized Play is supposed to be a reflection of the game, then it should not, by the definition of its parameters, penalize certain mages for doing what they do best.

-nihil

Your original post said nothing about Organized Play or the parameters therein.  You asked how people are playing in less than one hour.  I suggested that perhaps your choice of playing Priestess might be causing your games to go longer than others who are not playing the Priestess.  It's a completely valid point.  Logically speaking, if you tend to play a mage that is known for slower play, then you are probably in for longer games than if you play a mage that is known for being more aggressive.  How this affects the Priestess in Organized Play is a completely separate issue from your original question.  

Since you are fond of logical fallacies, what you have done here is known as shifting the goal posts.  

You are misrepresenting, or misinterpreting, my position, Koz. My intent to dictate this thread toward the nature of Organized Play was implied, as otherwise there would be no presented grounds for the initial query or interest. If you feel I didn't represent my original intent sufficiently, then I believe that it is you who is guilty of the logical fallacy of "missing the point" since others who responded immediately knew the purpose of the thread, i.e. Shadow's response was entirely dictated toward Organized Play. ;-)

In this post, you very rudely posit that your original post was CLEARLY implying Organized Play. I was merely pointing out poppycock. Kudos to Shadow for being a mind-reader. Your post was identical to any of the extended time threads on BGG, none of which even mention Organized Play, so the natural assumption on your original post is to think you think the game plays too long. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Nihilistiskism]

@Koz: I think your comment is not applicable. If Organized Play is supposed to be a reflection of the game, then it should not, by the definition of its parameters, penalize certain mages for doing what they do best.

-nihil

Your original post said nothing about Organized Play or the parameters therein.  You asked how people are playing in less than one hour.  I suggested that perhaps your choice of playing Priestess might be causing your games to go longer than others who are not playing the Priestess.  It's a completely valid point.  Logically speaking, if you tend to play a mage that is known for slower play, then you are probably in for longer games than if you play a mage that is known for being more aggressive.  How this affects the Priestess in Organized Play is a completely separate issue from your original question.  

Since you are fond of logical fallacies, what you have done here is known as shifting the goal posts.  

You are misrepresenting, or misinterpreting, my position, Koz. My intent to dictate this thread toward the nature of Organized Play was implied, as otherwise there would be no presented grounds for the initial query or interest. If you feel I didn't represent my original intent sufficiently, then I believe that it is you who is guilty of the logical fallacy of "missing the point" since others who responded immediately knew the purpose of the thread, i.e. Shadow's response was entirely dictated toward Organized Play. ;-)

In this post, you very rudely posit that your original post was CLEARLY implying Organized Play. I was merely pointing out poppycock. Kudos to Shadow for being a mind-reader. Your post was identical to any of the extended time threads on BGG, none of which even mention Organized Play, so the natural assumption on your original post is to think you think the game plays too long. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's what I thought.

If Koz feels I was being rude to him I expect that he is capable of defending himself. Nothing more or less.

I'll take your valuable contribution to this thread under advisement. Have a nice day.

-nihil

[Shad0w]

When it comes down to it the OP very vague almost asking is it even possible to play in an hour. Therefore one of the first things I used as an example was OP. Due to the fact in a tourney format you need rounds to run in a reasonable and timely manner this was a good place to explain the basics of how such a format would work. When I did this I knew I would have to give examples of tiebreaker rules and how an end of round would work also.

It was not that I read his mind it was the most logical route to take when posed with the question "Is it even possible to play in an hour?".

[Nihilistiskism]

When it comes down to it the OP very vague almost asking is it even possible to play in an hour. Therefore one of the first things I used as an example was OP. Due to the fact in a tourney format you need rounds to run in a reasonable and timely manner this was a good place to explain the basics of how such a format would work. When I did this I knew I would have to give examples of tiebreaker rules and how an end of round would work also.

And you have been most gracious with your information.

I disagree with you on certain principles of how Organized Play will work, but I do believe, now, that it is not something that can actually be fixed unless the game itself begins to allow more varied playstyles and archetypes to be competitive. I'm wanting things for the game now that cannot probably exist now.

This game is very well designed and playtested, obviously, but as things are I feel a lot of what this game offers in terms of strategy and gameplay is hampered and unduly limited by slapping a time limit on it, which, as you said, is a necessity for Organized Play at any level. That isn't a problem unique to Mage Wars, however.

Mage Wars, then, is just another game on the totem pole where being reasonably informed about tournament structure includes the fact that certain decks and/or playstyles are not globally viable in a tournament setting, where outside of a tournament setting they can be exceptional. Nothing new. Unwelcome, but not new. I sincerely hope that future expansions and releases can help mitigate the disparity of viability between mages.

-nihil

[Shad0w]

When it comes down to it the OP very vague almost asking is it even possible to play in an hour. Therefore one of the first things I used as an example was OP. Due to the fact in a tourney format you need rounds to run in a reasonable and timely manner this was a good place to explain the basics of how such a format would work. When I did this I knew I would have to give examples of tiebreaker rules and how an end of round would work also.

Nihilistiskism Wrote:
And you have been most gracious with your information.

I disagree with you on certain principles of how Organized Play will work, but I do believe, now, that it is not something that can actually be fixed unless the game itself begins to allow more varied playstyles and archetypes to be competitive. I'm wanting things for the game now that cannot probably exist now.

This game is very well designed and playtested, obviously, but as things are I feel a lot of what this game offers in terms of strategy and gameplay is hampered and unduly limited by slapping a time limit on it, which, as you said, is a necessity for Organized Play at any level. That isn't a problem unique to Mage Wars, however.

Mage Wars, then, is just another game on the totem pole where being reasonably informed about tournament structure includes the fact that certain decks and/or playstyles are not globally viable in a tournament setting, where outside of a tournament setting they can be exceptional. Nothing new. Unwelcome, but not new. I sincerely hope that future expansions and releases can help mitigate the disparity of viability between mages.

-nihil

Have you had time to fully read over post #2387? I know due to the length most people would respond with TLDR. If the reader takes the time to fully read and digest all the info the quality of the discussion about tourney meta and player archetypes will drastically improve. That is not to says players are not informed it is just that the 2 writeups I sited have become almost a standard read when looking at how meta develops.
So at best I would put them at the top of my should read list from the stand point of game design and meta development.

[Nihilistiskism]

I'm not sure how the search function will get me there. Link, please.

-nihil

[Shad0w]

Just scroll down posts are numbered on the top right. hope that helps since it is in this thread.

[Nihilistiskism]

I read (have read) those, thank you.

I'll express myself more bluntly, I think:

I think there is an intrinsic flaw in a system that says "this Mage wins by stalling out the game until the last few minutes, then heals to win on a technicality of the tiebreaker system"

...

And I think it's especially telling when design/playtest points to that as "viable."

Actually, I think the word for which I'm searching is "tragic."

I'm pretty much done with this, I think. I appreciate the perspectives you've given, and the time you've taken. At this point, however, I see a flaw that you perhaps do not see, and so we are at an impasse. Obviously Mage Wars is still a young game, and most young games are flawed in some respect. What I would like to see is an effort by design to blur the lines and create viable options for players beyond blitz and swarm as approachable tactics in an organized play setting. Right now there is at least one Mage that can do neither, and at least one other that does neither particularly well. That doesn't speak well to the overall health of the organized play environment. More Mages, and more options for current mages are, IMO, necessary to see a healthy, flourishing OP environment take form.

-nihil

[Shad0w]

I read (have read) those, thank you.

I'll express myself more bluntly, I think:

I think there is an intrinsic flaw in a system that says "this Mage wins by stalling out the game until the last few minutes, then heals to win on a technicality of the tiebreaker system"

...

And I think it's especially telling when design/playtest points to that as "viable."

Actually, I think the word for which I'm searching is "tragic."

I'm pretty much done with this, I think. I appreciate the perspectives you've given, and the time you've taken. At this point, however, I see a flaw that you perhaps do not see, and so we are at an impasse. Obviously Mage Wars is still a young game, and most young games are flawed in some respect. What I would like to see is an effort by design to blur the lines and create viable options for players beyond blitz and swarm as approachable tactics in an organized play setting. Right now there is at least one Mage that can do neither, and at least one other that does neither particularly well. That doesn't speak well to the overall health of the organized play environment. More Mages, and more options for current mages are, IMO, necessary to see a healthy, flourishing OP environment take form.

-nihil

Thank you for your bluntness. What it comes done to is in any game that tries to maintain this balance of aggro, combo, and control. From a tourney stand point because of the time constraints.

We all know aggro is going to be the early spell book focus for several players. Most likely it will become the early meta of the tourney scene so I see little reason to go into how this is going to play out.

For control to win it requires the Aggro player to over commit. That is playing too many things early and then causing them to be set back be a well timed AOE. The other way control wins is to make it so the player is at a action / mana disadvantage. This can be hard seeing as we are only have the core set. The third way is to take advantage of the clock and use the tie breaker rules to your advantage. I know these may not sound like the best options but they are options. I would say rather than looking at the pure control game plan try to focus on a hybrid plan. I would lean toward a aggro / control plan myself if I was going to play priestess.

If you look at most tcgs the option for the control player to work the clock has always been available. It is not the fault of the game it is an intrinsic issue with the fact that in a tourney format thing need to run in a timely manner. A good example of why this is in place goes back to what I did at a untimed MtG event at Gencon a few years ago knowing that it would take so much effort to kill me I setup my deck to last as long as possible. I made the entire event last over 13.5 hours. Once they had finally kill me off the top 8 only took about 60 minutes more. This is the issue when you let a control or combo deck without any way to keep the time in check. I figured I could get enough people to quit just from the amount of time I could waste while making the game look like it was moving forward. Yes it could kill but I could make people no-longer want to play and at the time to me that was far more interesting. So I basically had a captive room of 260+ players and judges.  Once recurring becomes an option this is more likely to happen. I know that playing under a clock is like a burden to the turtle build but sometimes it is a necessary evil. I know this is taking it to the extreme but players have done things like this in several games. I fact I have done it 4 time out of the 5 I had played in that event.

Combo will be the least popular of all the book builds. Even the build I have proposed (DoT or Damage over Time) is more of a control combo build. Currently I do not see a pure combo build that could be tourney viable. Even wall of thorns force push could be call a combo but I do not seeing it have the damage output required to keep up with aggro.

This is fine for a game in its early stages as the game grows and develops the meta will change this is to be expected. As new sets come out and people start looking over the older cards and start to see new lines of play that maybe even the designers and playtesters missed.  This is one of the reasons I wanted to stay on and help this game evolve.  

[SeanDeCoy]

Nihil -

You're right, that probably is an intrinsic flaw. I've been debating it for awhile with some of the other rules guys. There've been a few different opinions about how to do end game - one is just a system where the players decide or else get a double loss. This works well for some games, but a lot of players feel like this isn't concrete enough for a competitive system. On my end, I love it because of the elegance - you two are in the battle, if you don't know who's winning, figure out a way to decide. However, I completely understand that for many players, this defeats the purpose of having played the game to begin with if you're just going to "decide" who wins at the end.

Time limits definitely favor blitz spellbooks as well, that's true. And they also favor Priestesses who can heal up at the very last minute. I agree with you there.

As for the OP - this is another one of the hard questions - we're getting feedback from all of our players, and its pretty varied. Long game times for people who have just recently started playing Mage wars are pretty normal we're finding out, and we're doing things to help this (the Apprentice Mode Spellbook is one thing, and we're trying to find a way to package the cards in future printings so that they come pre-sorted, this should at least help setup time).

But we're also getting a spectrum of player responses on game times as well. We're getting some 45 minute players, some 75 minute players, and some much much longer times. The experience ranges a lot as well. We've got expert long-term players that have a wide range of experience in several titles that say their games take long, and we've got newer players who say they just blast through it.

Honestly - when I have numbers like that, all I can say is that your mileage may vary on game time. I do believe game time shortens over multiple plays. But that belief is just based on my own personal experience, and then the experience of the other playtesters I've seen around me.

I don't think long game times should be attributed just to new players or to inexperienced players or unaggressive players as I feel like I've seen enough feedback at this point to say "some players game just take longer."

However, I think you guys know that I'm always open to feedback and suggestions and I always try to be as transparent as possible. If you see a problem, or are reporting a pattern that you're seeing that seems odd - then I am all ears! Also, if you just want to chat one on one about game time and our plans for OP and how to setup a great system you should always feel free to e-mail me.

Thanks again for the good discussion guys!

[Shad0w]

Nihil -

You're right, that probably is an intrinsic flaw. I've been debating it for awhile with some of the other rules guys. There've been a few different opinions about how to do end game - one is just a system where the players decide or else get a double loss. This works well for some games, but a lot of players feel like this isn't concrete enough for a competitive system. On my end, I love it because of the elegance - you two are in the battle, if you don't know who's winning, figure out a way to decide. However, I completely understand that for many players, this defeats the purpose of having played the game to begin with if you're just going to "decide" who wins at the end.

Time limits definitely favor blitz spellbooks as well, that's true. And they also favor Priestesses who can heal up at the very last minute. I agree with you there.

As for the OP - this is another one of the hard questions - we're getting feedback from all of our players, and its pretty varied. Long game times for people who have just recently started playing Mage wars are pretty normal we're finding out, and we're doing things to help this (the Apprentice Mode Spellbook is one thing, and we're trying to find a way to package the cards in future printings so that they come pre-sorted, this should at least help setup time).

But we're also getting a spectrum of player responses on game times as well. We're getting some 45 minute players, some 75 minute players, and some much much longer times. The experience ranges a lot as well. We've got expert long-term players that have a wide range of experience in several titles that say their games take long, and we've got newer players who say they just blast through it.

Honestly - when I have numbers like that, all I can say is that your mileage may vary on game time. I do believe game time shortens over multiple plays. But that belief is just based on my own personal experience, and then the experience of the other playtesters I've seen around me.

I don't think long game times should be attributed just to new players or to inexperienced players or unaggressive players as I feel like I've seen enough feedback at this point to say "some players game just take longer."

However, I think you guys know that I'm always open to feedback and suggestions and I always try to be as transparent as possible. If you see a problem, or are reporting a pattern that you're seeing that seems odd - then I am all ears! Also, if you just want to chat one on one about game time and our plans for OP and how to setup a great system you should always feel free to e-mail me.

Thanks again for the good discussion guys!

Aways good to hear the MW teams side Sean thanks for the input