November 22, 2024, 12:09:15 AM

Author Topic: Suggested Rule change for cons  (Read 59698 times)

Wildhorn

  • Superior artificial brain, feel free to call me Blaine.
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
    • Mage Wars Quebec
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #105 on: January 15, 2014, 04:32:15 PM »
I thought about a very easy and simple way to "tie break" a game.

Mage Wars, is "all" about killing the opponement mage. No matter what happens in a game, it ends with the death of someone.

But what make it not easy is that there are way to remove damage (heal) and increase your maximum life. It would be unfair to limit outcome of a match only on damage dealt due to this two factor.

But the game still resolve around damage. So the easy way to end a game would be after X amout of time (I think tournament is 90 minutes, am I right?), you start the end game. The arena is colapsing (or whatever fit the lore) and everything inside the arena start to take unavoidable damage during the Upkeep. First round, 1 normal + 1 critical (to factor in armor/resilient). Second round, 2 normal + 2 critical, thirs round, 3 normal + 3 critical, etc.

It is easy, quick and do not favor much any kind of build.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 04:49:43 PM by Wildhorn »

Sailor Vulcan

  • Secret Identity: Imaginator
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3130
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #106 on: January 18, 2014, 11:45:21 PM »
Except what happens to the audience if the arena is collapsing like that? And the arena still needs to be rebuilt for the next fight.

And if one mage surrenders, does that mean instant death, or just that he loses the match?

I think generally no matter what you do there's going to be a tiny amount of uncertainty about the outcome of an unfinished match until the last possibly point of damage is dealt, since attacks are through dice rolls. The only way to be certain is if they're taking upkeep damage that they have no way to prevent, remove, or stop receiving. Like say, Ghoul Rot and no dispels, purifies, or purge magic. But even then, unless that damage would kill them during their very next upkeep, you don't know absolutely for certain if they might be able to turn it around and kill the enemy mage before the Ghoul Rot takes them out.

Therefore, the best tiebreakers should be an extremely accurate approximation that predicts who would have won if the game continued. Some of the ideas already presented here look like they would do a pretty good job of that all things considered. Also, don't forget that since Mage Wars tournaments are in swiss format, the only ties that will need to be broken will be between the top participants, like first place, second place, etc., so that prizes can be awarded without tearing them in half. A win would be +1 to your tournament score, a loss would be -1, and a draw would be 0.

That being said, I think I can combine RingKichard's plan and aspects of Zuberi's and my own plans into a procedure for breaking ties when it is necessary to do so that is slightly more accurate. The idea is that the fairest tiebreaker is the one that most accurately predicts who would have won if the game hadn't gone to time, and that you can use the current game state at the end of the tiebreaker to predict where it would have gone with a high accuracy.

To review Ringkichard's original plan:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. After three tiebreaker rounds, the player with the most tiebreaker points--two out of three--is the winner.
    5. If, during tiebreaker rounds, one player takes damage in excess of his or her remaining life, that player loses as normal.
    6. 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.
    7. 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
    8. If both players did the same amount of damage totaled over all three rounds, the game is a draw.
    9. 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 addendum: If the game still ends in a tie after this process, follow this procedure for measuring and comparing average mage damage potential.

Here's how it goes...


1. Check your mage-damage potential (the total attack dice that could be rolled against you during the next rounds' action phases. So if a creature has a full action attack and you are in range of it, or if they have a quick action attack that will only take one move action to put in range, then the dice of that creature's attack count as part of your mage-damage potential. If you are within range of a conjuration's attack, that attack's dice is added to your mage-damage potential. If you are in a zone bordered by a wall with the passage attacks trait, your opponent must reveal any force wave, force push, or jet stream they have planned or spellbound. Check if you are in range of these spells and whether they can affect you. If they can, add the number of dice from the passage attacks to your mage-damage potential.

2. Find the difference between your life stat and your mage-damage potential.

3. Repeat the process for your opponent. Find the difference between their life stat and their mage-damage potential.

4. If the difference between your life and your mage-damage potential is greater than the difference between your opponent's life and your opponent's mage-damage potential, then you win. If your opponent's is greater than yours, then you lose. If it is still a draw, the player with initiative wins. If after that it is still a draw, the player with the most mana wins. After that, give it up; it's a draw whether you like it or not.

For this measurement we use average potential damage as the unit. So we'll assume the average potential damage to be 1 damage per die when the enemy mage has no armor, and then each point of armor reduces the average potential damage by .5 (to take into account critical bypassing armor and normal being blocked by it). If the enemy mage has incorporeal, the average potential damage is reduced by half.
  • 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.

Wildhorn

  • Superior artificial brain, feel free to call me Blaine.
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
    • Mage Wars Quebec
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #107 on: January 19, 2014, 04:40:38 PM »
The collapsing arena was just a suggestion... Use your imagination ;)

Could be some sort of magic aura that surround the inside of the arena.

Sailor Vulcan

  • Secret Identity: Imaginator
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3130
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #108 on: January 19, 2014, 08:44:37 PM »
It's not just a matter of using my imagination. In terms of gameplay, such a rule would make for VERY cheesy endings. In terms of story, it begs the question of why anyone would have the incentive to cast such a spell over the arena in the first place. The crowd would hate it since it makes for extremely cheesy anticlimactic endings. Not to mention this question: How do you explain why the officials in charge of the Mage Wars institution would legislate that such a spell be cast in all arena matches to keep them short when there are other more exciting ways to shorten matches? And it doesn't break ties, just shortens the game. If the arena wide damage bubble affects both mages equally, then theoretically if they have the same amount of damage and don't manage to damage each other in time, then they will die at exactly the same time.

Perhaps there are other things I'm not considering that could make your idea mechanically effective and thematically plausible, but I can't think of any right now. I won't say for certain that your idea has no merit, since the last time I did that on this forum I was struck by inspiration and came up with a way the idea could work. I do think that there might be a way to implement this sort of mechanic into a really good alternate format. In fact, I was just inspired and will go post in alternative play now.
  • 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.

DaveW

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 926
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #109 on: April 10, 2014, 05:00:42 PM »
I used to play in SFB tourneys. In that game, if neither player had lost when time was called, the winner was determined by an experienced, impartial judge. The judge looked at the situation and declared a winner.

In MW, the judge would check out the mage boards, the position of the mages and spells on the board, the spells remaining in each spellbook, and asks each player privately how he plans to finish the game... then the judge just decides.

Why not just do that?
  • Favourite Mage: Asyra Priestess

Zuberi

  • Rules Guru
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2504
  • Banana Stickers 57
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #110 on: April 11, 2014, 12:37:34 AM »
The impartiality would be questioned. Even if the judge has no connection to the actual players, he may favor one mage type over another or one strategy over another, or any number of other concerns players could come up with to whine and moan about being treated unfairly. I'm not familiar with any type of tournament format really, but the idea of someone else telling me I would have lost when I personally think I could have won does not sit well with me. And if I'm admitting that I would have lost then the need for what you suggest disappears. Thus, it can't do anything but cause hard feeling from players like me.

I would prefer a hard and fast rule that can be easily seen and calculated by everyone rather than depending on someone else's OPINION which may differ from mine. I want to see that I lost per the rules, not just because someone thinks I should.

wtcannonjr

  • Ambassador of Wychwood
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 811
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
    • WBC Mage Wars Tournament
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #111 on: April 11, 2014, 05:54:54 AM »
I used to play in SFB tourneys. In that game, if neither player had lost when time was called, the winner was determined by an experienced, impartial judge. The judge looked at the situation and declared a winner.

In MW, the judge would check out the mage boards, the position of the mages and spells on the board, the spells remaining in each spellbook, and asks each player privately how he plans to finish the game... then the judge just decides.

Why not just do that?

This sounds similar to a boxing match except that a panel of judges score each round. If there were guidelines established and published so both players and judges understand the factors that are taken into account, this would work. However, it is labor intensive and difficult to use in small tournaments.
  • Favourite Mage: Wychwood Druid
"Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin

Shad0w

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #112 on: April 11, 2014, 02:41:53 PM »
I used to play in SFB tourneys. In that game, if neither player had lost when time was called, the winner was determined by an experienced, impartial judge. The judge looked at the situation and declared a winner.

In MW, the judge would check out the mage boards, the position of the mages and spells on the board, the spells remaining in each spellbook, and asks each player privately how he plans to finish the game... then the judge just decides.

Why not just do that?

This sounds similar to a boxing match except that a panel of judges score each round. If there were guidelines established and published so both players and judges understand the factors that are taken into account, this would work. However, it is labor intensive and difficult to use in small tournaments.

We would not have enough judges to put one at every table
"Darth come prove to meet you are worthy of the fighting for your school in the arena and not just another scholar to be discarded like an worn out rag doll"


Quote: Shad0w the Arcmage

DaveW

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 926
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #113 on: April 11, 2014, 04:52:58 PM »
I'm not saying one per table... whoever is running the tournament or someone else designated who isn't playing. How many ties do you have to break in a round, after all?

How about this... let a tie be a tie... 5-2-0 points for win-tie-lose. Or give no points for ties, and just count numbers of won games.

I hate having to worry about what happens at the end... and it seems that the books I play always have me playing well into the time limits. Maybe it's the player, and I'm just playing... wrong. Maybe I should just stop playing tournaments and just play for fun instead. To be honest, that's why I go to tournaments... experience and fun... I never expect to win anything.

How about offering non-tournament play more often at cons? Have a designated place for people to sign up and play pick-up games.
  • Favourite Mage: Asyra Priestess

Shad0w

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #114 on: April 11, 2014, 05:09:30 PM »
Still waiting to hear format for Origins and Gencon
"Darth come prove to meet you are worthy of the fighting for your school in the arena and not just another scholar to be discarded like an worn out rag doll"


Quote: Shad0w the Arcmage

wtcannonjr

  • Ambassador of Wychwood
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 811
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
    • WBC Mage Wars Tournament
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #115 on: April 12, 2014, 09:03:11 AM »

How about offering non-tournament play more often at cons? Have a designated place for people to sign up and play pick-up games.

This is common at boardgame conventions. It is often called open-gaming and I have played pick-up games of Mage Wars. It is a great way to find new gamers who already play or want to learn.
  • Favourite Mage: Wychwood Druid
"Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin

Shad0w

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #116 on: April 12, 2014, 09:15:53 AM »
I would love more room for open gaming but space has always been an issue. :(
"Darth come prove to meet you are worthy of the fighting for your school in the arena and not just another scholar to be discarded like an worn out rag doll"


Quote: Shad0w the Arcmage

Sailor Vulcan

  • Secret Identity: Imaginator
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3130
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #117 on: April 12, 2014, 09:53:01 AM »
What about this? Have a time limit for the entire event but not for individual matches. Have a time limit on the planning phase of three minutes. Don't count unfinished games.

Then at the end whoever's won the most games is the champion.

This way, the rules don't favor faster builds, only faster planners. I think this is acceptable because someone who takes more than a few minutes to plan usually doesn't know their own spellbook that well or is a newer player.

Otherwise they probably are sleep deprived or have ADHD. Sleep deprivation can usually be prevented by going to bed on time or taking sleeping pills/melatonin etc.

And ADHD is actually helpful to someone who really loves mage wars once they've gotten a hang of all the multitasking in the game. And they'd have to love it to be competing in tournaments.

There might be other examples of people who take more than a few minutes to plan but are neither new nor lack knowledge/experience of their own spellbook. However I can't think of any more off the top of my head.
  • 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.

Sailor Vulcan

  • Secret Identity: Imaginator
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3130
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #118 on: July 26, 2015, 11:54:11 AM »
Any more thoughts on this after another year has passed? People are still complaining about long game spellbooks not being viable because of time limit.

I think the idea posted above might have some merit. A 3 or 4 minute time limit in the planning phase instead of a hard time limit for each and every whole game might go a long way towards ensuring that longer game spellbooks are still competitive without running out of time for a tournament. This might make for more games that end more naturally.

Also, no one ever surrenders in official organized play even when their loss has become pretty much inevitable if they were to keep playing to the natural end, but because of the time limit, players keep playing a lost game in order to reach a "draw" that clearly isn't really a draw.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2015, 11:57:58 AM by Sailor Vulcan »
  • 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.

Borg

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested Rule change for cons
« Reply #119 on: October 13, 2015, 11:56:46 AM »
MW is about getting the other mage down to 0 life while still having some life left.
Which means it's about doing damage and preventing being damaged,
thus : if neither has died when time is called find out who is closest to winning/losing at that point.

Each player adds up his "damage dealt" + "life left".
Highest total wins.
If tied .... a tie :)

Simple to keep track of and a correct representation of the situation imo.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 11:59:32 AM by Borg »
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster