Suggested Rule change for cons

[Shad0w]

Right? 25 turns at 3 minutes a turn plus a minute for planning is 100 minutes. An efficency wizard (like Watergate) that is played at tournament speed is still going to draw all its hour-long games and some of its 90 minute ones, too.

That is the point it can still be in 75-90 minutes. As long as the players do not take too long planning. In fact dude and I played a 10 turn game in 15 minutes. Would have been 11 turns except I conceded. I was in a position I could not win.

[Hedge]

In Swiss Tournament play the Win-loss-Draw tracking is best, with a tie break system for the cut to top 8 or 16 depending on attendance. However, since the game is set in an Arena of Dueling mages you could use the L5R method that if one player does not concede defeat at the end of the round it is a double loss. Since one mage could not kill the other both were killed. Because I know my spellbook well enough  to know if there is any chance of me winning or not after 10 rounds of play.



Hedge

[ringkichard]

In tournament play, if a loss and a draw are the same, I would never concede a drawn game just to avoid a loss for my opponent, regardless of how far behind I was. He wants to win, he has to kill me. (By the same token, I would rather lose than accept a pitty concession.)

A rule that makes concessions common opens the door wide to collusion.

[ringkichard]

Right? 25 turns at 3 minutes a turn plus a minute for planning is 100 minutes. An efficency wizard (like Watergate) that is played at tournament speed is still going to draw all its hour-long games and some of its 90 minute ones, too.

That is the point it can still be in 75-90 minutes. As long as the players do not take too long planning. In fact dude and I played a 10 turn game in 15 minutes. Would have been 11 turns except I conceded. I was in a position I could not win.

How do you account for so many out of time games at the finals at Gencon?

[Hedge]

In tournament play, if a loss and a draw are the same, I would never concede a drawn game just to avoid a loss for my opponent, regardless of how far behind I was. He wants to win, he has to kill me. (By the same token, I would rather lose than accept a pitty concession.)

A rule that makes concessions common opens the door wide to collusion.

Then you sir, have no Honor.



Hedge

[ringkichard]

I didn't realize you knew me so well.

But I thought we were making arguments about tiebreakers?

[Shad0w]

Right? 25 turns at 3 minutes a turn plus a minute for planning is 100 minutes. An efficency wizard (like Watergate) that is played at tournament speed is still going to draw all its hour-long games and some of its 90 minute ones, too.

That is the point it can still be in 75-90 minutes. As long as the players do not take too long planning. In fact dude and I played a 10 turn game in 15 minutes. Would have been 11 turns except I conceded. I was in a position I could not win.

How do you account for so many out of time games at the finals at Gencon?

  Over 87% of the games in each round ended before time. The most games we had going when time was called was 3 and 1 of those ended as I called time

[Hedge]

I didn't realize you knew me so well.

But I thought we were making arguments about tiebreakers?

we are. An honorable and sportsmanlike  person would concede. You said you would never concede and always take the double loss, that shows that you have poor sportsmanship and inturn possibly no honor. Perhaps I went a bit too far, but at the time it was all I could think of to match the example of conduct. sportsmanship or lack thereof is a better term. You should always play with good sportsmanship even, and especially, during tie break instances. Sportsmanship is what makes a tournament system function all the way through each match and the tie breaks. The point about conceding is the two players can choose the method that decides the match as long as both agree to the method. Since whatever method is used it is outside the course of the tournament structure and the one that the method does not grant victory to must concede the match.


It may be splitting hairs, but it is conceivable to most that when you agree to use a different method to decide the match that each of you agree to concede if you lose to the method of choice.



Hedge

[Zuberi]

I do not consider it dishonorable or poor sportsmanship to refuse to concede defeat. Infact, I think it would be more dishonorable to admit defeat when you could possibly have turned the game around, no matter how slim that chance may be. My only chance of winning might be my opponent screwing up, but that's still a chance I think I should have. I agree whole heartedly with Ringkichard, if my opponent wants a win, he's got to earn it and kill me. To give anything less than my all and admit defeat before actually being defeated would make me feel cheap and dirty.

[HomelessJoe]

I don't think it  has anything to do with honor at all. Everybody is different. If you don't concede then don't. I hope you play with people who feel the same. 
IMO conceding is simply to mitigate loss of time. If there is a fair chance for me to turn a game around then I'll go down fighting so to speak. If it's an obvious loss I'll concede to save us all the hassle of 'going through the motions'. The act of conceeding is common place in tournaments of all games. The biggest that comes to mind is Chess. 

Sportmanship only comes into play when your opponent wishes to fully beat you and whether your willing to agree to that or not. Or if your willing to accept him conceeding.

[Hedge]

there are very few instances in mage wars where you can turn the game around past round 10 unless it is very close. I only had one game art gencon that came down to initiative.  the rest were clearly decided long before the game finished. And it will be that way most of the time.  You must decide a victor when time is called, at which time someone must agree to concede. unless there is an official method that denotes the victor. currently all the proposed methods suck.  Until they can find one that doesn't suck, letting the players agree on the proposed method is best. Again at that point both players agreed that one of them will concede. this method can be applied no matter the deck types used or how close the game is.


@homelessjoe   while what you talk about is part of it. this is mainly when time is called and there it's no more time left to play.



Hedge

[sIKE]

Conceding vs. Playing to the bitter end! Mate in 5 is mate in 5. If it is obvious that the game is over, then why waste the time of both players, time to reset and play another game. Once of my least favorite games went close to 4 hours, it was clear that I was going to win at about 2 hours. But all I could do is grind through walls and traps and finally finish the mage off. Ick!

There is no dishonor in conceding defeat when it is obvious.....

[Zuberi]

Maybe not when it is obvious, but even a slim chance is still a chance and I do think it would be doing myself a disservice if I were to concede when I had a chance of winning. If I haven't conceded by the time the end of the round is called, I see no reason why I would concede after time was called. Obviously I felt there was still a chance for me to win because we were still slugging it out.

I'm fine with allowing people to concede before time is called, but trying to force someone to concede after the fact does not sit well with me and I would never do it. To me, that is like having a tied Super Bowl game and the Ref tells the coaches that instead of going into over time, one of them has to concede or nobody wins the Super Bowl that year. It makes no sense and would piss a lot of people off.

[Zuberi]

Plus, if it's "obvious" that one player is going to lose, why not simply have a judge declare that person the loser and the other person the winner? Just tally up the points, hand out some Super Bowl rings, and call it a day.

[Hedge]

Maybe not when it is obvious, but even a slim chance is still a chance and I do think it would be doing myself a disservice if I were to concede when I had a chance of winning. If I haven't conceded by the time the end of the round is called, I see no reason why I would concede after time was called. Obviously I felt there was still a chance for me to win because we were still slugging it out.

I'm fine with allowing people to concede before time is called, but trying to force someone to concede after the fact does not sit well with me and I would never do it. To me, that is like having a tied Super Bowl game and the Ref tells the coaches that instead of going into over time, one of them has to concede or nobody wins the Super Bowl that year. It makes no sense and would piss a lot of people off.

Your super bowl refrence really isn't applicable. They have a Simple and definite way to end the game if normal play time ends in a tie.  WE are looking for one. Would it be better if I just didn't use the word Concede.


When time is called the players decide what method they will use to decide the Winner. they use the methed of choice and the winner is decided.


Better?


Hedge