The Slow Win

[airdroppers]

Having thought It over it would be more like:

2 for the total win
1 for having the most points on the board if not a total win
0 for losing.

I see no flaws with this scoring system, the last one was a bit iffy, but this one sounds perfect. The only thing it really promotes is aggressive play, which would result in quicker games with all in your face action. I like it, I'm on board with this, let's try it out and let the community know how it went.

I have seen the Ice Dragon sooooo many times in tournaments, I don't think it's going to stop now. Not only do I see him in tournaments, a lot of my friends use him, new comer's will use him and kids will use him. I swear, I probably slayed more Nilf's than any other Hero (call me the Nilf Hunter )

 

[wriggz]

There's been a lof of good ideas thrown out, but I don't think any one system is foolproof. The best we can do is pick one and hope our opponent is gracious enough to not exploit the loop holes of whatever method the tournament is using.

Alternately, everyone can forget about their other responsibilities and remove the time limit from the games entirely.

Perfect?!?!

I just want to make the game into something I want to play. I hate playing against "slow and turtling" armies, so I'm coming up with a method make my local tournament seen match my play style. Also I'm more likely to win more games if the I set the rules to match my playing style.

It is nice to be in charge.

 

[hobosock]

There's been a lof of good ideas thrown out, but I don't think any one system is foolproof. The best we can do is pick one and hope our opponent is gracious enough to not exploit the loop holes of whatever method the tournament is using.

Alternately, everyone can forget about their other responsibilities and remove the time limit from the games entirely.

Perfect?!?!

I just want to make the game into something I want to play. I hate playing against "slow and turtling" armies, so I'm coming up with a method make my local tournament seen match my play style. Also I'm more likely to win more games if the I set the rules to match my playing style.

It is nice to be in charge.

And you actually came up with a point system that proved me wrong. That was pretty creative.

 

[lefton4ya]

When I am creaming an opponent, I actually feel bad and semi-intentionally make bad moves so they can at least get some more points and have a respectable finish. This is just my nature, but when tournaments put points second to wins, my nature is fighting my urge to cream an opponent for a better chance of winning. This is one reason why I prefer SOS above points because it reduces the urge to cream an opponent even if you know you will win. I do like the 1 point of for draw when you have more points as it stifles the urge to cream opponents - but with this you would almost need SOS added in to determine granularity if people have the same W/L/D record. SOS is just harder to calculate unless you have Tournament Director software or a good spreadsheet, but if you do it is a better measure of better players as opposed to just finding players with one or two lucky matchups or games (where they get more points out of luck) - just IMHO.

 

[kolakoski]

On the other hand, I always lose power grid to people who take a lot longer on their turns then me. I just estimate everything, and usually I do alright. Other people do the math, take the time to get it right, and usually do more alright then me, and beat me. I have yet to play Power grid against my primary scape opponent, mainly because I know he would take his time on his turns and completely destroy me (also, he's a math major, so has a natural advantage in the game).

Well met!

What is power grid?

 

[personwholives]

Well met!

What is power grid?

Power grid is a (IMO) fantastic auction and network building game, where your goal is to power the most cities (built in your network) using power plants bought at auction and resources bought from a fixed market. The game balances your current score against your action order, so the better you're doing, the worse your position for building your network (so you have to pay more to connect to new cities, typically, since other players will have grabbed the cheaper ones), the worse your position in resource buying (weaker players will usually have bought all the cheaper resources, leaving you paying more for the same stuff), and auctions (you pick earlier, so people who are doing worse will have less competition, typically, and new, possibly better, plants will be available).

To do really well, you have to plan a lot of your turn before the auctions (which happen first) even begin: I need these resources to run my plants, and I want to build these two cities, but other people might build them first, so I might have to build these other two, which means I need to have $x for the cities and connections at part 3 of the round, and $y for the resources at part 2, so I can spend up to $z on a power plant this round, or $w if I spend an extra $q on resources so I have extras for next round and my opponents have to buy more expensive stuff then me. All told, that'll net me $j in the end round scoring. But, the best deal I can get on a power plant will be $r, so maybe I'll have to pass on that city there if I get blocked out on this one, so I can get an upgrade.....


If that was a bit confusing, I would recommend giving it a try. Just know that, like with any auction game, you are almost guaranteed to lose your first time or two, until you learn what things are worth. It can be a lot of fun, especially if you like math, or if you just play it casually. It can also feel very dry and boring to some people, but honestly, I think that's a personal preference more then anything else. I've enjoyed it every time I've played, though I will say I enjoyed it a lot more when I was playing casually at home with friends, as opposed to the time I played in the "west coast boardgaming championships" at a local con. Tournament level players take way too long on their turns (we almost ran out of time) and are way better at this game then me (and that was just the first round... but also to be fair, that was the first time I had played in about a year, so maybe I did alright just not coming in last in that game).

 

[megalofred]

As said by others, slow isn't the same as better, just slow.

Why not a timer for turns, as in competitive Blood Bowl? (I've read the thread but if somebody has mentioned it before, please forgive me )

Let's give 1 min to put the orders, 1 min per turn order revealed. If you haven't finished doing things in time, then you only get what's been done.

So, I've only placed one order in 1 min? better place the others without thinking than lose 2 turns, no? The same with moves, if you only got 3 in a 4 miniatures-squad done, the fourth is lost.

Just my two cents, but this method works with many cases of AP : Blood Bowl, Dungeon Twister, Battletech and others

 

[Jexik]

The more life points each player has on their side, the longer a game is likely to go, especially if they have some higher defense units throughout (minumum of 3). So squad v. squad games will go longer.

I'm with dok in asserting that there are other ways to make games shorter, like reducing the number of hexes. This rule doesn't necessarily change what the best armies are, it just makes you hope that you don't face them if you've got one.

I've had very few games go to time, but when I have, it almost always involves at least one player with lots of Deathreavers, and the other player with a nearly-full start zone of squad figures.

I would like to hear how this goes when you try it.

I am not slow on my moves because I know the game fairly well, someone who doesn't know all the synergy/hasn't played that many games will obviously take longer than me (unless they are completely not thinking, which I dislike). Then there are people like my girlfriend/your friend, they know the game, they just want the best possible move. Strategy wise, there is a lot you can do in Heroscape, so the person who wants to do the best possible move has to mentally see a lot of moves before making them. That's why I think Summoner Wars players think a lot quicker, there aren't as many moves you could make, you are semi-limited (I think SW is an amazing game though).

There may not be as many places to move, but there are more phases to a turn in Summoner Wars. You have to decide what (and where) to summon, whether to play or hold on to your events, what to build as magic, etc. I think a lot of what makes moving and attacking take less time in SW is that attack resolution is much simpler- there's no rolling of defense or checking for Line of Sight.

I think both games get more automatic after many plays, but not nearly as much as people from other games might think.

 

[1Mmirg]

Having thought It over it would be more like:

2 for the total win
1 for having the most points on the board if not a total win
0 for losing.

This way the Goal is a total win, so you don't want to sit back, however if you are losing you don't want to wait out the person in the lead since they will still get a point and you get nothing.

In this type of scoring both parties are compelled to continue attacking until the bitter end. (Unless you are on round 5 and might win the tournament on points, but things can't be perfect).

I like this idea. I assume you would also still score SOS and points, for breaking ties, etc.

Like Jexik, I'd like to hear how this goes. I wonder if doubling the points for an all out win might be too much (i.e. a 3-2-0 point structure might balance better), but I'm curious to hear what you find.

If you are still matching people by SOS each round, then anyone who pulls a 2 pointer (or 2) ought to rapidly find themselves facing an opponent that isn't so easily annihilated, though, as has been said here, the reality is that total annihilation has a lot more to do with army composition than with the skill of the player. (If I'm playing piles of Reavers, it's going to be awfully hard to take me out. Likewise, if I'm running DCoT, if I don't crush you, there is a good chance you're annihilating me--i.e. that kind of army tends toward someone going down completely.)

Please share your results. This sounds interesting. I might just try a 3 (total win) - 2 (partial win) - 0 (loss) approach here and see what I see.

 

[dok]

I think the pace of play of one's opponent is at least as much of a factor in whether a game ends on time as the figures you choose to play. There's a few players I can think of where I would expect to end every game quickly, and others where I would expect games to go to time even with "fast" armies.

I still think this is too extreme a penalty based on not quite finishing a game. It seems strange to give half credit for a game that's almost won, versus a game that is just barely finished in time.

Another approach with similar effect, that's a bit more smooth as opposed to having a huge discontinuity, is to keep track of total opponent's points destroyed in wins. A complete game win (or a game where your opponent resigns) is worth the maximum allowed army point value. In a game called on time, the winner (i.e. the person with more points left) gets assigned points equal to the value of the figures in their opponent's army that are destroyed. In both cases, the loser gets no points. (Ties can be scored by giving both players their points destroyed, or perhaps one half of their points destroyed).

 

[Codeman]

Hunh.

In my experience very few tournament games are called on time - no more than one or two per round. I think I have been in two games EVER that were called on time. Having said that, if the meta is causing a time problem, hockey scoring seems like a good solution.

~Aldin, rapidly

I will add my experience with Aldin... The tournaments I have been to and associated with have all been 1 hour rounds ( don't use defensive glyphs ) and keep the army size between 400 - 550 points. We have 30 or so games per round and it typically is only one sometimes two games have to end in time. We even have some rounds where everyone ends before time.

I also do not see a connection between winning and slow play. The slow play typically involves the same individual(s) each round. You can set up a tourney so basically every match ends before time ( with a exceptions ). I also think it has to do more with the army... I played drones a few times this past year. Rolling a d-20 each time and then on some turns having to move 6 or even 9 and possibly attacking that many times as well does take a lot longer.

Slow play = Wins I don't see that at all, and I think I have seen a good cross section of tournaments ... sorry I did not play any HS when I've been to Toronto.
</IMG>

 

[wriggz]

The issue I have is not with games ending on time, rather that one can Stall their way to victory. Also consider a stinger/Q9 raelin rat army. Much of your offensive power goes into killing raelin and until she falls you are facing a full strength army that is requiring you to give up board control.

I prefer to have a set up where the winner needs to claim victory, not wait it out.

Also I do not enjoy playing, or playing against slow armies (not to be confused with fast armies that move slow, like zombies) and as the TD I decide how we play.

 

[dok]

The issue I have is not with games ending on time, rather that one can Stall their way to victory.

[snip]

I prefer to have a set up where the winner needs to claim victory, not wait it out.

Do you actually have issues with people doing what you perceive as stalling for a victory? That is, do you find people winning on points deliberately take a long time to make decisions in order to ensure a win on time? If so, that's a serious problem that hasn't been noticed in other places. In my experience (and the experience of most others in this thread), the slow players are slow players no matter what they play, and the same is the case for the fast players.

If you really do have problems with deliberate stalling, then I suggest using chess clocks to time players out (give each player 40 minutes for a 1 hour round; if a players clock goes empty they forfeit automatically).

If you don't have that problem, though, and instead the issue is just some armies taking longer than others, then I still think kill point scoring solves the problem in a more elegant way. That makes the goal clearly the destruction of as much of your opponent's army as possible. Alternative win conditions like treasure quest can also encourage more aggressive play.

If the problem is just that games take too long in general, then lower points, reduced startzones, scenarios like Heat of Battle, or just smaller maps could do the trick.

 

[airdroppers]

Do you actually have issues with people doing what you perceive as stalling for a victory?

I don't think anyone is stalling on purpose. Sure, there are some thinkers in Toronto, but no way we 'pretend' to think for the win. I actually play fairly fast, I am usually waiting for my opponent to set order markers and make moves. It's just my armies are hard to take out...

Last tournament I won I had:
Stingers X4
Rats X2
Raelin RotV
+ EoV/Brunak/Erevan (I chose EoV all games, but one)

Good luck taking all that out in 50 minutes.

The game I lost was against a 4th Mass + Nilf build and that game was well over 50 minutes.

I got into the tournament scene because of Sarpedon. I started meeting up with him for game days, then one day we played with Wriggz and they both asked me if I wanted to attend a tournament, they kind of put me on the spot, so I said yes. After that day, Sarpedon always stressed that you must bring the best possible army to a tournament or you will get creamed. The first tournament I attended, there were indeed a lot of Stingers and the tournament scene seemed very competitive and I realized the guy wasn't talking smack. After that, it was almost automatic for me to include Stingers in my army, it just felt right. (by the way, Sarpedon makes scenarios like you have never seen, seriously they are beyond epic. If he would of ever put any of them up, he would of been a great asset to the customs section)

Now, it seems like I am a minority with Stingers, a guy came second with an all Hero army last tournament . So, it's time to switch up the game. Plus, I am slightly getting bored of Stingers (even though I love how I matured as a Stinger player, rolling less and less for the Drain every tournament) I just think it will be more meaningful if I win with a unique army and not the standard old army I always play.

Every time I sat down to play I could just picture the person going like inside their head. I am a person who doesn't have as much fun playing a game if my opponent/team mate isn't having fun, I don't know, that's just me. I thought people would keep bringing "the best possible army", but after a while, that was not the case. So, there I am, sitting like a Jackass with an all A grade army and my opponent in the finals is playing an all Hero army with no Q9...

 

[wriggz]

The issue I have is not with games ending on time, rather that one can Stall their way to victory.

[snip]

I prefer to have a set up where the winner needs to claim victory, not wait it out.

Do you actually have issues with people doing what you perceive as stalling for a victory? That is, do you find people winning on points deliberately take a long time to make decisions in order to ensure a win on time? If so, that's a serious problem that hasn't been noticed in other places. In my experience (and the experience of most others in this thread), the slow players are slow players no matter what they play, and the same is the case for the fast players.

If you really do have problems with deliberate stalling, then I suggest using chess clocks to time players out (give each player 40 minutes for a 1 hour round; if a players clock goes empty they forfeit automatically).

If you don't have that problem, though, and instead the issue is just some armies taking longer than others, then I still think kill point scoring solves the problem in a more elegant way. That makes the goal clearly the destruction of as much of your opponent's army as possible. Alternative win conditions like treasure quest can also encourage more aggressive play.

If the problem is just that games take too long in general, then lower points, reduced startzones, scenarios like Heat of Battle, or just smaller maps could do the trick.

No it is nothing so monstrous.

Rather it is the spirit of the games, and the nature of the builds.

The key to beating a Dragon/greenscale army, elemental/kurrok, or other linchpin army is to kill the linchpin and clean up the rest. The issue with "slow armies" such as vydar range pods, or stinger/rat/raelin hordes is that the energy put into killing the linchpin takes up so much of the effort of the other player that by the time they have eliminated that figure there is little time to clean up the remaining figures.

On a second note, I wan the spirit of my games to require the winning player to pursue victory. I want the play in the winning position to push themselves towards total victory, rather than waiting for the win.

Valhalla is not like real life where you want to survive with the greatest number of forces, no this is about total domination.

 

[dok]

Last tournament I won I had:
Stingers X4
Rats X2
Raelin RotV
+ EoV/Brunak/Erevan (I chose EoV all games, but one)

Good luck taking all that out in 50 minutes.

It really is doable if both players play at a decent pace.

No it is nothing so monstrous.

Rather it is the spirit of the games, and the nature of the builds.

In that case, clocks probably aren't needed, but I continue to maintain that the 2 point/1 point thing is not a good solution. I honestly think this penalizes people who play against slow players much more than it penalizes slow builds.

Next tournament, pick some of the more compact maps out there, and if that's not enough, make it a treasure quest event, and maybe even reduce the maximum number of startzone spaces used.

If you do want to adjust the scoring itself, count points destroyed in wins in stead of just counting wins. That still penalizes those who play against slow players, but it does encourage aggressive play (better to win 50-40 on time than win 400-100 on time).

 

[wriggz]

I honestly think this penalizes people who play against slow players much more than it penalizes slow builds.

Hum... I see what you mean. Further thought is required before I comment further.

 

[airdroppers]

Last tournament I won I had:
Stingers X4
Rats X2
Raelin RotV
+ EoV/Brunak/Erevan (I chose EoV all games, but one)

Good luck taking all that out in 50 minutes.

It really is doable if both players play at a decent pace.

Of course it's doable...

Anyway, I think we need to go the banning route. It's been done before and it's not the best way to go about it, but it might just work here in Toronto.

Lowering starting zones is not a bad idea, but that doesn't make anyone not want to play Raelin and double spaced units get even worse.

I read an event where you get more points if you play Huge character's... Not a bad idea. Even though I am sure we will see more Dragons then ever.

 

[dok]

Last tournament I won I had:
Stingers X4
Rats X2
Raelin RotV
+ EoV/Brunak/Erevan (I chose EoV all games, but one)

Good luck taking all that out in 50 minutes.

It really is doable if both players play at a decent pace.

Of course it's doable...

Doable, and done. Armies of that type have been completely destroyed in 50 minutes or less many times at tournaments. It really does happen.

Anyway, I think we need to go the banning route. It's been done before and it's not the best way to go about it, but it might just work here in Toronto.

What maps do you folks use in Toronto? I looked through your event listings, and the maps are never specified.

Even if the maps are wide open, though, the idea that stingers would need to get banned is just bizarre to me. Counters to stingers abound, starting with the Krav and the 4th Mass.

Lowering starting zones is not a bad idea, but that doesn't make anyone not want to play Raelin and double spaced units get even worse.

The double spaced squads are never all that great in the first place, while powerful/expensive double-spaced heroes are still not a significant drain on startzone spaces. The real losers with reduced startzone sizes are hordes of cheap commons... like rats and stingers.

 

[spider_poison]

Interesting thread.

Games going to time is a bummer, but in my mind it really shouldn't happen that often. I find that the single largest factor in this is map selection. And I don't think it's so much size of the map that influences this, I think it's barriers on the map. If both armies are able to execute multiple attacks on most turns, the chances of a game going to time are sometimes nil. For this reason, my favorite tourney maps are often ones that are quite simple. Of course there are other factors that go into timed games as well, but I think if the tournament director does a good job selecting maps for the tourney, this goes a long way to getting games done in time and having the tourney run smoothly.

 

[airdroppers]

Last tournament, almost every single map included some sort of Custom Terrain. I remember playing on a map with a "desert expansion" with quick sand and poisonous plants, the map was great but definitely threw a curve ball. Another map featured these big Crystal looking things that did a -1 or -2 to Special attackers, attacking adjacent from it. Non of the maps were like your usual tournament maps.

Wriggz never posts the maps, so we never really know what to expect going in. I even remember a couple of tournaments ago, Wriggz asked someone to build a map on the spot, it was snow heavy and not symmetrical at all.

We play on BoV maps too though...

Maybe we need to do the whole "slugfest" thing. Melee units have high damage, which might speed up the game. Even though, Knights would be pretty damn good.

 

[dok]

airdroppers, I find that most custom maps tend to be much less melee friendly, and often encourage a much less aggressive (read: slower) style of play than the most popular tournament maps.

Next tournament, try playing with Trailblazer, or Fire Isles, or Highways and Dieways, or Embattled Fen. I bet you'll find that games go faster (and melee will probably fare better, too).

...or keep playing unusual custom maps, and try to adjust for them in different ways. That's totally fine, too; I don't mean to diminish that at all. But it seems likely to me that this is a big part of what is making your games go to time more often.

 

[Killometer]

I read an event where you get more points if you play Huge character's... Not a bad idea. Even though I am sure we will see more Dragons then ever.

I was more concerned about hordes of Hydras at Big is Beautiful than an overabundance of dragons (more dragons is actually something I'd love to see ).

After several considerations about how to limit that concern I took the time to actually test the power of Hydrasx4+Raelin/Kelda instead of just theoryscape fretting about it, and found that in reality OM efficiency (or more accurately, inefficiency) keeps it in line.

Either way, I'll be sharing the full results and my observations after the tourney, so more educated refinement can take place then if needed.