Average turn length

In the effort to foster discussion, should there be a time limit on players turns? Average game length= 120 minutes Average # turns= 12 Average # of players= 5 So roughly that comes out to 2 minutes per turn That doesn't seem very long. So if we instituted timelimits then there should be a 2 minute limit for a players turn with a few exceptions -Combat pauses the timer until the end of combat -Any referendum pauses the timer but only for 60 seconds maximum. What do you think? -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:25:41 -0600, "XZealot" <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote: >In the effort to foster discussion, should there be a time limit on players >turns? No. >Average game length= 120 minutes >Average # turns= 12 >Average # of players= 5 >So roughly that comes out to 2 minutes per turn Fairly precise, actually. >That doesn't seem very long. It's more than plenty for most turns. >So if we instituted timelimits then there should be a 2 minute limit for a >players turn with a few exceptions >-Combat pauses the timer until the end of combat >-Any referendum pauses the timer but only for 60 seconds maximum. >What do you think? I think it would be a nightmare to adjudicate. I would expect tournament organizers to avoid it like the plague. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

"XZealot" <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote > > Average game length= 120 minutes > Average # turns= 12 > Average # of players= 5 > > So roughly that comes out to 2 minutes per turn Except that turns at the beginning of the game will be much shorter than the turns in the endgame. Although the average may work out to two minutes, I'm not sure that would be sufficient time for all situations especially near the end where a lot more consideration is needed. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the idea of having a time limit on turns, but I think two minutes would be way too low if this was implemented. Cheers, WES

> In the effort to foster discussion, should there be a time limit on players > turns? > > Average game length= 120 minutes > Average # turns= 12 > Average # of players= 5 > > So roughly that comes out to 2 minutes per turn > > That doesn't seem very long. > > So if we instituted timelimits then there should be a 2 minute limit for a > players turn with a few exceptions > -Combat pauses the timer until the end of combat > -Any referendum pauses the timer but only for 60 seconds maximum. > > What do you think? Hiya, For starters: nope,I definitely don't think there should be a timelimit on people's turns. I first of all don't agree with your calculation. To begin with your "average number of turns=12": it's a theory that's being stated for a long time now, and honestly, I don't believe it at all. There's just not enough exact proof of it. Secondly: you can't limit people's turns, because of a number of reasons: *they are not the only ones actually doing something on their turn ("oops, it just took me 2 minutes to decide whether or not I'll block that, and then it took me 4 minutes to actually try"), making decisions and playing cards. *I've seen and played turns where about a dozen different effects take place during your untap phase.In such circumstances, your untap phase alone takes quite a while, if not for the fact that it is bloody complicated, then simply because you just have to go through all of them. *You'de create huge problems for people playing turbo's :-) *it would severely trouble people playing lots of minions, lots of actions.. ... I could keep going on giving you hundreds of reasons not to, but I'm gonna cut my list short. either way, even should you choose to stick by the "averag turn = 2minutes, so we can put in a timelimit to ensure fast play": the fact your average would be 2 minutes, means you have really short turns (like the random tunr 1:" no master-no minion-influence-no discard") and really long ones. It's an idea which is totally off the charts of reason. Sorry, but I realy tihnk it's a lousy idea. Waiting to fid out what the rest thinks. Greetz Jo

XZealot wrote: > In the effort to foster discussion, should there be a time > limit on players > turns? I can honestly say that that is the worst idea I have heard for ages. I can't see how/why you would want to limit the turn time in a game that relies on so many variables and differing deck styles. Judge discretion and common sense is more than enough to highlight problem players. Limiting turn times would only lead to the degeneration of the game as more players would chose the non-interactive decks to get everything in within the 2 mins. The game would lose so much. Terrible idea. As a related aside I don't think finals should have a time limit either. Rob -- Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com http://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

> What do you think? Well. I am a rather impatient guy, and I often get restless while waiting for people to do thier turns but I do not think a timelimit of 2 minutes if a good idea. Most players (even the slow ones) will complete the majority of thier turns in less than 2 minutes. Sometimes the game situation warrents thought though. In these situations a 2 minute timelimit would be devastating to the game. It would force people to take more chances and there would be more stupid plays. This would favour the experienced players and make the game less attractive to new players. I could perhaps agree to a ...say 4 minute timelimit. In fungames only.

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 01:45:15 -0400, "Wes" wrote: > >"XZealot" wrote >> >> Average game length= 120 minutes >> Average # turns= 12 >> Average # of players= 5 >> >> So roughly that comes out to 2 minutes per turn > >Except that turns at the beginning of the game will be much shorter than the >turns in the endgame. Not to mention that there are far fewer players at the end of the game than there are at the start. If you figure 10 minutes per turn around the table, you get 2 minutes per player-turn with 5 players. However, once you're down to two or three players, you have the whole 10 minutes/turn to divide up among them. :) So really, 2 minutes per player isn't all that fair...you'd need to figure out a formula based on number of players, accounting for the quick first few turns, and then adjust for average time to first oust, allowing longer turns in that period, and then shortening them up again once multiple people have been ousted. Seems a little unlikely. Xian

Okay so if 2 minutes per turn is a bad idea then how about each player has their own timer and they start their timer at the beginning of their turn and end it at the end of their turn. We then give players a limited amount of time to play their entire game. So we take the game length divided by the number of players. Example A: 2 hour time limit = 120 minutes 5 players then each player would get 24 minutes to play their game. -Pauses for combat. - 60 second pause for referendums. Once your time expires you get a time limit of 60 seconds for your turn. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > Okay so if 2 minutes per turn is a bad idea then how about > each player has > their own timer and they start their timer at the > beginning of their turn > and end it at the end of their turn. No. :o) [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > In the effort to foster discussion, should there be a time limit on players > turns? > So if we instituted timelimits then there should be a 2 minute limit for a > players turn with a few exceptions > -Combat pauses the timer until the end of combat > -Any referendum pauses the timer but only for 60 seconds maximum. > > What do you think? Since the time spent on a player's turn is not under the sole control of that player (in contrast to chess), there's no point in trying to time the turn. If time runs out, whom do you penalize? The player whose turn it is, even if some other player's actions are the reason for the time taken? See http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2bade41e.0303150746.147ff04d%40posting.google.com and the surrounding articles. The trivial examples are provided by Madness Network, but many more abound. You'd have to approach it from a standpoint of time control - recording the amount of time the player spent "in charge" of events (per 1.6.1.6). You'd need a heavy-duty (high-traffic), 5-player chess clock for such an undertaking. <click A> A's turn begins. A plays Information Highway. (2.5 seconds on A's clock) <click B> B declines to Sudden (.5 seconds on B's clock) <click C> C declines to Sudden (1.0 seconds on C's clock) <click D> D Suddens (1.0 seconds on D's clock) etc. In a word: ugh. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

robtreasure wrote: > XZealot wrote: >> Okay so if 2 minutes per turn is a bad idea then how about >> each player has >> their own timer and they start their timer at the >> beginning of their turn >> and end it at the end of their turn. > > No. > > :o) First vote you tried to squeeze through would blow your timer to shit. :) Re: UK Gencon 2001 Dramatic Upheaval vote that caused the death of the german player through boredom whilst everyone else argued about where why and how you where gonna move. 45 minutes was it? Or a square hour? Sheesh. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <vfj5v1t...@corp.supernews.com>, XZealot <x_zealot@cox- internet.com> writes: >Okay so if 2 minutes per turn is a bad idea then how about each player has >their own timer and they start their timer at the beginning of their turn >and end it at the end of their turn. We then give players a limited amount >of time to play their entire game. So we take the game length divided by >the number of players. Which ignores a number of obvious "problems", which a few moments' thought reveals. For a start, intercept decks. Many intercept decks do relatively little during their own turn, but do a lot during someone else's turn. This has two distinct implications. First of all, other players can use up my time. And if someone is playing, say, a Tremere combat deck, that might go on for multiple rounds, similarly a Fortitude Undead Persistence type affair - my intercept combat could take a while, but my turns will often be untaps, a blood doll or two and passing to my left. Sounds great! Additionally, a player losing time will not always be the acting Methuselah's problem. If I have a newbie player as my prey, attempting to play (for instance) intercept badly, should it be on my timer? I don't see that it should. Further, out of turn actions. Specifically, Madness Network. Does a deck playing Madness Network get free time? It just doesn't act on its own turn, but it acts in the middle of yours. Oh dear, you've just lost your 24 minutes by virtue of having two players using them - you *and* me? Sounds good! I play Derange and get my prey ousted in quick time, by letting other people act during his turn as part of my bargain's, because he runs out of time because me and my grand prey (his prey) are *both* acting during his turn. An, uh, "interesting" deck style. On top of that, no player can necessarily control when a deal is offered or made. And they may take a little while to discuss. Someone, cross- table, asks for a deal "You get my vampire out of torpor and I'll..." and someone counter-offers. Whereas if I'd discussed it during his turn, when the vampire went to torpor (say), the time 'wasted' would be on his clock. Fair? I suppose it would give intercept decks something to do though. Stall their prey to death the first time he takes an action. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

> > What do you think? Just use my fast turn chant on slow players: "A good game is a fast game, a fast game is a good game" Keep chanting until people want to hit you :-)

"XZealot" <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message news:<vfi263i...@corp.supernews.com>... > In the effort to foster discussion, should there be a time limit on players > turns? > > Average game length= 120 minutes > Average # turns= 12 > Average # of players= 5 > > So roughly that comes out to 2 minutes per turn > > That doesn't seem very long. > > So if we instituted timelimits then there should be a 2 minute limit for a > players turn with a few exceptions > -Combat pauses the timer until the end of combat > -Any referendum pauses the timer but only for 60 seconds maximum. > > What do you think? Hey XZealot, This almost sounds like the 3 minute military shower. :) IMO, the introduction of a 2 minute time limit per player would bring in a new complication to a game that is already complicated. (Fun, but complicated) I would be against such a move, besides not all player's turns are always 2 minutes long. Many are usually quick and to the point. If, however, the game was to adopt this criteria, I would project an actual increase of turns per 2 hour game. My reasoning centers on all the deal making. IMO, it would be severely diminished or come close to stopping altogether. Michael Eichler

In message <f8fa1189.03062...@posting.google.com>, Ramsteiner <michael.e...@spangdahlem.af.mil> writes: >This almost sounds like the 3 minute military shower. :) Hmm... adapting this idea to V:TES sounds better. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jon Cooper wrote: > robtreasure wrote: > First vote you tried to squeeze through would blow your > timer to shit. > > :) > > Re: UK Gencon 2001 Dramatic Upheaval vote that caused the > death of the > german player through boredom whilst everyone else argued about where > why and how you where gonna move. 45 minutes was it? Or a > square hour? And your eloquent yet longwinded verbal defence of Jack would shat on yours :o) Rob [ quoted text not captured ]

> Re: UK Gencon 2001 Dramatic Upheaval vote that caused the death of the > german player through boredom whilst everyone else argued about where > why and how you where gonna move. 45 minutes was it? Or a square hour? Sounds liek a good reason for a limit to me -though on the referendum not on the turn length. Any reason you can't cap the referendum time?

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:UkLQVxVx...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <vfj5v1t...@corp.supernews.com>, XZealot <x_zealot@cox- > internet.com> writes: > >Okay so if 2 minutes per turn is a bad idea then how about each player has > >their own timer and they start their timer at the beginning of their turn > >and end it at the end of their turn. We then give players a limited amount > >of time to play their entire game. So we take the game length divided by > >the number of players. > > Which ignores a number of obvious "problems", which a few moments' > thought reveals. > > For a start, intercept decks. Many intercept decks do relatively little > during their own turn, but do a lot during someone else's turn. This > has two distinct implications. First of all, other players can use up > my time. And if someone is playing, say, a Tremere combat deck, that > might go on for multiple rounds, similarly a Fortitude Undead > Persistence type affair - my intercept combat could take a while, but my > turns will often be untaps, a blood doll or two and passing to my left. > Sounds great! Timers pause for combat. This has been addressed. > Additionally, a player losing time will not always be the acting > Methuselah's problem. If I have a newbie player as my prey, attempting > to play (for instance) intercept badly, should it be on my timer? I > don't see that it should. how long should it take for someone to play cards? > > Further, out of turn actions. Specifically, Madness Network. Does a > deck playing Madness Network get free time? It just doesn't act on its > own turn, but it acts in the middle of yours. Oh dear, you've just lost > your 24 minutes by virtue of having two players using them - you *and* > me? Sounds good! I play Derange and get my prey ousted in quick time, > by letting other people act during his turn as part of my bargain's, > because he runs out of time because me and my grand prey (his prey) are > *both* acting during his turn. An, uh, "interesting" deck style. That is a good point. So perhaps if you are acting during another players turn then you should run your clock but not theirs. > > On top of that, no player can necessarily control when a deal is offered > or made. And they may take a little while to discuss. Someone, cross- > table, asks for a deal "You get my vampire out of torpor and I'll..." > and someone counter-offers. Whereas if I'd discussed it during his > turn, when the vampire went to torpor (say), the time 'wasted' would be > on his clock. Fair? How long do these deals normally take? This is a major problem on the tournament scene that I have noticed. You have one talkative player who won't shut up and the round goes to time. Not because of any reason other than one player spends the whole round talking. > I suppose it would give intercept decks something to do though. Stall > their prey to death the first time he takes an action. How would they do that. They block or they don't. If intercept is required than they play it or they don't. Also stalling can be measured and defined which it cannot be now. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Mike McDonald" <swcru...@email.com> wrote in message news:b504c5f0.03062...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I wish it were that simple. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Hey XZealot, > > This almost sounds like the 3 minute military shower. :) Probably something we should adopt before all tournaments. You know chemical warfare, a.k.a. body odor, is considered a WMD. :) > IMO, the introduction of a 2 minute time limit per player would bring > in a new complication to a game that is already complicated. (Fun, > but complicated) > > I would be against such a move, besides not all player's turns are > always 2 minutes long. Many are usually quick and to the point. > > If, however, the game was to adopt this criteria, I would project an > actual increase of turns per 2 hour game. My reasoning centers on all > the deal making. IMO, it would be severely diminished or come close > to stopping altogether. I wouldn't mind a severe reduction in deal making. Especially those that last for 30-45 minutes. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > First vote you tried to squeeze through would blow your timer to shit. > > :) > > Re: UK Gencon 2001 Dramatic Upheaval vote that caused the death of the > german player through boredom whilst everyone else argued about where > why and how you where gonna move. 45 minutes was it? Or a square hour? Actually this is exactly what I am trying to address. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Timlagor" <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1pwqqklzsiabn.1...@40tude.net... [ quoted text not captured ] The cap under the proposed tournament rule would limit referendums to 60 seconds. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1pwqqklzsiabn.1...@40tude.net>, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >Sounds liek a good reason for a limit to me -though on the referendum not on >the turn length. Any reason you can't cap the referendum time? Because some referenda are complex things. Politics is there to up the diplomatic element. Artificially limiting it seems to be counter productive. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:42:57 +0100, James Coupe wrote: > In message <1pwqqklzsiabn.1...@40tude.net>, Timlagor > <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >>Sounds liek a good reason for a limit to me -though on the referendum not on >>the turn length. Any reason you can't cap the referendum time? > > Because some referenda are complex things. > > Politics is there to up the diplomatic element. Artificially limiting > it seems to be counter productive. You think spending 45 minutes is productive?

In message <vfjf0md...@corp.supernews.com>, XZealot <x_zealot@cox- internet.com> writes: >> Additionally, a player losing time will not always be the acting >> Methuselah's problem. If I have a newbie player as my prey, attempting >> to play (for instance) intercept badly, should it be on my timer? I >> don't see that it should. > >how long should it take for someone to play cards? Did you miss the word "newbie"? Many newbies will quite often have to spend a lot of time asking "Can I...?" Or finding that they've played the wrong card, and have to back up. And this might not be in combat! This might be a newbie trying to play Psychic Veil to get intercept on a block (newbies often get card types wrong, and try to play actions as action modifiers, and all that sort of thing). I don't see why I should pay for their newness. Nor do I see a useful manner in which a distinction can be drawn between a newbie like that, someone forgetting how a card works, someone seeing a card they've never seen before, and so on. Why should I lose out because someone doesn't understand my deck? Or their own deck? Or is learning the game? This isn't about "should". This is about real people. >> Further, out of turn actions. Specifically, Madness Network. Does a >> deck playing Madness Network get free time? It just doesn't act on its >> own turn, but it acts in the middle of yours. Oh dear, you've just lost >> your 24 minutes by virtue of having two players using them - you *and* >> me? Sounds good! I play Derange and get my prey ousted in quick time, >> by letting other people act during his turn as part of my bargain's, >> because he runs out of time because me and my grand prey (his prey) are >> *both* acting during his turn. An, uh, "interesting" deck style. > >That is a good point. So perhaps if you are acting during another players >turn then you should run your clock but not theirs. Sounds like an absolute nightmare to administer. What if someone wants to think "Do I take an action with the Madness Network?" because you're just torporised a vampire they didn't expect, causing them to have to radically rethink their plans. Whose turn is that in? Is it still in yours, or the possibly mine bit? And you're starting to cause people to scramble immediately after combat "Finished! End turn!" Which only compounds issues of people rushing through phases when someone else says "Uh, I wanted to play Cats' Guidance/Fast Reaction". And whose clock is that on? Is it my fault you rushed through before I could play? Should I be penalised and lose 30 seconds for that? Why's that fair? >> On top of that, no player can necessarily control when a deal is offered >> or made. And they may take a little while to discuss. Someone, cross- >> table, asks for a deal "You get my vampire out of torpor and I'll..." >> and someone counter-offers. Whereas if I'd discussed it during his >> turn, when the vampire went to torpor (say), the time 'wasted' would be >> on his clock. Fair? > >How long do these deals normally take? This is a major problem on the >tournament scene that I have noticed. Is it relevant? I can't control when they happen. Someone talks. They choose to make the offer in my turn. Whether it's 1 second or 1 minute, I'm losing time, and I only have 24 minutes! >You have one talkative player who won't shut up and the round goes to time. >Not because of any reason other than one player spends the whole round >talking. People can tell him they're not interested. If he continues to pester them with deals, they can say "I'm not interested". If it goes further than that, they can ask a judge for a stalling ruling. But with a pointless clock system, legitimate deals that the table *does* want to discuss are treated in the same way as one person trying to crowbar diplomacy in that isn't wanted by others. The rules already allow for a judge to intervene where there are issues. If it proves to be problematic, a judge could simply remind players beforehand that if they feel someone is stalling, they should call him or her over. Why stamp on non-problem diplomacy issues too? >> I suppose it would give intercept decks something to do though. Stall >> their prey to death the first time he takes an action. > >How would they do that. They block or they don't. If intercept is required >than they play it or they don't. > >Also stalling can be measured and defined which it cannot be now. No. Time taken can be measured. If you are confusing "time taken" with "stalling", you should give up that idea immediately, because it is blatantly unworkable. A deck can require lengthy situations, discussion, card playing, shuffling and so on. A deck that tries to dump cards and shuffle the useful ones back into its library, for instance, which is a perfectly valid option is not stalling. But it measures a significant amount of time. Indeed, a player may simply be bad at shuffling (I'm *terrible* at shuffling), but they get penalised for not having terrific manual dexterity. So, they play a deck that needs a bit of diplomacy, and they have the shuffle their deck a few times, but they get penalised for that. Sounds good to me! Stalling is not the same as using or needing time. Indeed, some decks *aim* to hog the table. One might point to, for instance, the Out of Turn Reversal of Fortunes deck. I get lots of goes. It's what the deck does. Should I be penalised for playing a deck that uses the facilities within the game to allow me to hog the table? And if that is a problem, it should be the deck being addressed, not some huge two-by-four trying to thump on people who play the game in a manner you don't like. If people stall, call over a judge. It's not hard. A judge can then watch and wait, until another table needs him. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:C$vlTgggd...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <vfjf0md...@corp.supernews.com>, XZealot <x_zealot@cox- > internet.com> writes: > >> Additionally, a player losing time will not always be the acting > >> Methuselah's problem. If I have a newbie player as my prey, attempting > >> to play (for instance) intercept badly, should it be on my timer? I > >> don't see that it should. > > > >how long should it take for someone to play cards? > > Did you miss the word "newbie"? > > Many newbies will quite often have to spend a lot of time asking "Can > I...?" Or finding that they've played the wrong card, and have to back > up. And this might not be in combat! This might be a newbie trying to > play Psychic Veil to get intercept on a block (newbies often get card > types wrong, and try to play actions as action modifiers, and all that > sort of thing). Then you tell them it is a action which gives stealth not a reaction that gives intecept. This is how they learn. > I don't see why I should pay for their newness. Nor do I see a useful > manner in which a distinction can be drawn between a newbie like that, > someone forgetting how a card works, someone seeing a card they've never > seen before, and so on. But you do anyway. If a newbie is that much of a problem then he is stalling out the whole table. > Why should I lose out because someone doesn't understand my deck? Or > their own deck? Or is learning the game? You are losing out already by having rounds go to time. If they are not then you shouldn't have to worry. > > This isn't about "should". This is about real people. Playing a game should be about "real people" interacting. Not people stalling the game. > >> Further, out of turn actions. Specifically, Madness Network. Does a > >> deck playing Madness Network get free time? It just doesn't act on its > >> own turn, but it acts in the middle of yours. Oh dear, you've just lost > >> your 24 minutes by virtue of having two players using them - you *and* > >> me? Sounds good! I play Derange and get my prey ousted in quick time, > >> by letting other people act during his turn as part of my bargain's, > >> because he runs out of time because me and my grand prey (his prey) are > >> *both* acting during his turn. An, uh, "interesting" deck style. > > > >That is a good point. So perhaps if you are acting during another players > >turn then you should run your clock but not theirs. > > Sounds like an absolute nightmare to administer. Not really, you want to take an action with the madness network then you run your clock and the acting player pauses his. > What if someone wants to think "Do I take an action with the Madness > Network?" because you're just torporised a vampire they didn't expect, > causing them to have to radically rethink their plans. Again, not really, you want to think about taking an action with the madness network then you run your clock and the acting player pauses his. > Whose turn is that in? Is it still in yours, or the possibly mine bit? Obviously, the Madness Network introduces and exception which must be dealth with. I think the solution above does so. > And you're starting to cause people to scramble immediately after combat > "Finished! End turn!" Which only compounds issues of people rushing > through phases when someone else says "Uh, I wanted to play Cats' > Guidance/Fast Reaction". You can do that now, and it still doesn't stop them from playing Cat's Guidance > And whose clock is that on? Is it my fault you rushed through before I > could play? Should I be penalised and lose 30 seconds for that? Why's > that fair? How does playing Cat's Guidance take 30 seconds? 5-10 seconds tops it sounds like to me. > >> On top of that, no player can necessarily control when a deal is offered > >> or made. And they may take a little while to discuss. Someone, cross- > >> table, asks for a deal "You get my vampire out of torpor and I'll..." > >> and someone counter-offers. Whereas if I'd discussed it during his > >> turn, when the vampire went to torpor (say), the time 'wasted' would be > >> on his clock. Fair? > > > >How long do these deals normally take? This is a major problem on the > >tournament scene that I have noticed. > > Is it relevant? Obviously, this is the point of the thread. So it would be relavent here. > I can't control when they happen. Someone talks. They choose to make > the offer in my turn. Whether it's 1 second or 1 minute, I'm losing > time, and I only have 24 minutes! You only have 24 minutes in reality anyway, at least until someone is eliminated. Which brings up a good point. When someone is eliminated shouldn't everyone gain time. How about 5 minutes each. That compensates for less players while still trying to keep players from stalling. > >You have one talkative player who won't shut up and the round goes to time. > >Not because of any reason other than one player spends the whole round > >talking. > > People can tell him they're not interested. If he continues to pester > them with deals, they can say "I'm not interested". If it goes further > than that, they can ask a judge for a stalling ruling. Really, and what has ever happened to someone for stalling? The most I have ever seen was a warning. > But with a pointless clock system, legitimate deals that the table > *does* want to discuss are treated in the same way as one person trying > to crowbar diplomacy in that isn't wanted by others. That is right. So be brief and to the point. Or talk about them between turns. > The rules already allow for a judge to intervene where there are issues. > If it proves to be problematic, a judge could simply remind players > beforehand that if they feel someone is stalling, they should call him > or her over. > > Why stamp on non-problem diplomacy issues too? I don't seem to get this point. > >> I suppose it would give intercept decks something to do though. Stall > >> their prey to death the first time he takes an action. > > > >How would they do that. They block or they don't. If intercept is required > >than they play it or they don't. > > > >Also stalling can be measured and defined which it cannot be now. > > No. > > Time taken can be measured. > > If you are confusing "time taken" with "stalling", you should give up > that idea immediately, because it is blatantly unworkable. > > A deck can require lengthy situations, discussion, card playing, > shuffling and so on. A deck that tries to dump cards and shuffle the > useful ones back into its library, for instance, which is a perfectly > valid option is not stalling. But it measures a significant amount of > time. Indeed, a player may simply be bad at shuffling (I'm *terrible* > at shuffling), but they get penalised for not having terrific manual > dexterity. So, they play a deck that needs a bit of diplomacy, and they > have the shuffle their deck a few times, but they get penalised for > that. Sounds good to me! > > Stalling is not the same as using or needing time. You have your time. Use it how you like. > Indeed, some decks *aim* to hog the table. One might point to, for > instance, the Out of Turn Reversal of Fortunes deck. I get lots of > goes. It's what the deck does. Should I be penalised for playing a > deck that uses the facilities within the game to allow me to hog the > table? Yes, you should. If you can't oust someone in the 24 minutes that you hog. > And if that is a problem, it should be the deck being addressed, not > some huge two-by-four trying to thump on people who play the game in a > manner you don't like. It is in the intrest of all players to keep the game going quickly. > If people stall, call over a judge. It's not hard. A judge can then > watch and wait, until another table needs him. And do what? Warn them. I have never seen a player penalized more than that, and that was when it was blatantly obvious. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <88f9561d.03062...@posting.google.com>, jo.her...@sca.com (wolflord) mumbled something about: >> What do you think? > >Hiya, >For starters: nope,I definitely don't think there should be a >timelimit on people's turns. I agree. >I first of all don't agree with your calculation. To begin with your >"average number of turns=12": it's a theory that's being stated for a >long time now, and honestly, I don't believe it at all. There's just >not enough exact proof of it. We tracked every game we played over a two-month period. The average was consistently 12. It is a theory which was backed with substantial testing and experimentation. No more proof is required. Have you done anything remotely similar? Until you do, you need to be accepting those figures as gospel, and not yapping from the sidelines. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:38:25 -0600, "XZealot" <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote: >Okay so if 2 minutes per turn is a bad idea then how about each player has >their own timer and they start their timer at the beginning of their turn >and end it at the end of their turn. We then give players a limited amount >of time to play their entire game. So we take the game length divided by >the number of players. > >Example A: >2 hour time limit = 120 minutes >5 players > >then each player would get 24 minutes to play their game. This is problematic. Why should a 4-player game give players an advantage on time? For consistency, players should have a set amount of time regardless of table size, or to accomodate for table size. Other issue is that as a tourney organizer, I like my rounds to begin and end at the same time. If there is a time difference per player for a 4-player table v. a 5-player table then my start/end times get messy. >-Pauses for combat. >- 60 second pause for referendums. No pause for combat. Players in combat should be playing a steady stream of cards, so no pause for combat. There should be a pause however when bringing a vote to the table, and pausing the clock once it's been determined that a referendum is to be called. This would be to prevent other players from stalling on the active players turn in order to burn time. On conclusion of the referendum, timer is restarted. >Once your time expires you get a time limit of 60 seconds for your turn. Other games do this, but you will have some problems as games that give you 60 seconds on your turn after time expiration are games that require a player to place or move a single piece (Chess or Go for instance). With VTES, it would be difficult to enforce a 60 second rule due to cardflow. You'd be better off saying that when a players timer is at Zero, that players game is over and thier VP is forfeited. >-- >Comments Welcome, >Norman S. Brown, Jr. >XZealot >Archon of the Swamp BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

Derek Ray wrote: > We tracked every game we played over a two-month period. The average > was consistently 12. "Average" is at odds with "consistently". An average is a single number. A single number will, of course, be consistent with itself. Do you mean that the average of all games played in the observation period was twelve? Or that the average of every random sampling of games within the two-month observation period was consistently twelve? Or something else? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <rlcct55mov07.f...@40tude.net>, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >> Because some referenda are complex things. >> >> Politics is there to up the diplomatic element. Artificially limiting >> it seems to be counter productive. > >You think spending 45 minutes is productive? That would be up to the judge to rule, based on the play. You think you can understand the politics of a situation you're not present for? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <vfjjk1k...@corp.supernews.com>, XZealot <x_zealot@cox- internet.com> writes: >> Many newbies will quite often have to spend a lot of time asking "Can >> I...?" Or finding that they've played the wrong card, and have to back >> up. And this might not be in combat! This might be a newbie trying to >> play Psychic Veil to get intercept on a block (newbies often get card >> types wrong, and try to play actions as action modifiers, and all that >> sort of thing). > >Then you tell them it is a action which gives stealth not a reaction that >gives intecept. This is how they learn. And in the process, I lose my time. Why should I lose my time because someone else is an inexperienced player? C'mon, actually give a reason. I lose my time because someone else doesn't know the rules. Is that even remotely fair? >> I don't see why I should pay for their newness. Nor do I see a useful >> manner in which a distinction can be drawn between a newbie like that, >> someone forgetting how a card works, someone seeing a card they've never >> seen before, and so on. > >But you do anyway. If a newbie is that much of a problem then he is stalling >out the whole table. Seems quite plausible that *his* grand-prey and *his* grand-predator aren't going to be losing too much time during their turns. >> Why should I lose out because someone doesn't understand my deck? Or >> their own deck? Or is learning the game? > >You are losing out already by having rounds go to time. If they are not >then you shouldn't have to worry. They may or may not go to time. He may be ousted first in the game, for instance. (Quite plausible, with a newbie.) During which time he has managed to waste a large portion of my time, however. Again, why is this even remotely fair? Why should other players get to use up my time? *I'm* playing at a reasonable pace. *Someone else* isn't. But they're using up *my* time. There is a small problem here that you appear to be ignoring. Why is this? >> > This isn't about "should". This is about real people. > >Playing a game should be about "real people" interacting. Not people >stalling the game. Or about people trying to enforce play-styles on others, or producing arbitrary sets of rules which fail to address the perceived problem, perhaps? Letting other people waste my time doesn't help me. >> Sounds like an absolute nightmare to administer. > >Not really, you want to take an action with the madness network then you run >your clock and the acting player pauses his. Excellent. And when things come down to time and someone has three seconds left on their clock because they started it a fraction too late and the judge has to come over and rule? >> And you're starting to cause people to scramble immediately after combat >> "Finished! End turn!" Which only compounds issues of people rushing >> through phases when someone else says "Uh, I wanted to play Cats' >> Guidance/Fast Reaction". > >You can do that now, and it still doesn't stop them from playing Cat's >Guidance This way, someone is having their time wasted. Which if it runs out, penalises them. But if I *don't* rush through my turn at a break neck pace, I lose *my* time. Which penalises *me*. Creating a race condition in a game of finely tuned timings is not a good idea. >> And whose clock is that on? Is it my fault you rushed through before I >> could play? Should I be penalised and lose 30 seconds for that? Why's >> that fair? > >How does playing Cat's Guidance take 30 seconds? 5-10 seconds tops it >sounds like to me. Because someone wants to think about playing it? You know, this "thinking" thing. Or you have to explain and ask them to go back, which may involve them getting back their discard, and so on. Or the player may say "Uh, actually, I wanted to tap The Barrens to see if I drew something". But if their clock is running whilst they explain this, why are they being penalised because you ran quickly through everything? And if timing is so urgent that we need to have clocks, 5 to 10 seconds will make a difference. If it is so soul wrenchingly important to have players take no more than 24 minutes each to play a game, someone, somewhere will find that they have 5 seconds less. And what if someone sneezes? Or has a nosebleed? And for a few precious seconds, they can't play and stall things for other people. Oh no! But now *someone* is having their specific time wasted. >> >How long do these deals normally take? This is a major problem on the >> >tournament scene that I have noticed. >> >> Is it relevant? > >Obviously, this is the point of the thread. So it would be relavent here. It's also patently rubbish. Deals that take a long time to discuss are not inherently a problem. Some of them can be perfectly valid. Some of them can be time-wasting. The judge can intervene if any player chooses to bring it to his attention, or if he is already watching the game. >> I can't control when they happen. Someone talks. They choose to make >> the offer in my turn. Whether it's 1 second or 1 minute, I'm losing >> time, and I only have 24 minutes! > >You only have 24 minutes in reality anyway, at least until someone is >eliminated. Which is one point against your nonsense. And no, you don't have 24 minutes in reality. Since currently, deals can be discussed at any point and don't affect any player disproportionately. The *table* has two hours (plus any brief adjustments for lengthy rulings). If people stall, you call the judge over. If they don't, it's valid play and how long it takes is irrelevant. Just because play can take a long time doesn't make it stalling. >Which brings up a good point. When someone is eliminated shouldn't everyone >gain time. How about 5 minutes each. That compensates for less players >while still trying to keep players from stalling. Fiddling round with adding time to a stop-watch, or allowing other players to gain just a few extra seconds in the process. Quite easily abusable. It's also a nonsense. A game goes on for a long time. 5 players have 24 minutes each. Then add 20. Then add 15. Then add 10. Then add 5. That's another 40 minutes added to the game, plus all the faffing around with stop- watches. Games have just gone up to nearly 3 hours, without trying. >> >You have one talkative player who won't shut up and the round goes to >time. >> >Not because of any reason other than one player spends the whole round >> >talking. >> >> People can tell him they're not interested. If he continues to pester >> them with deals, they can say "I'm not interested". If it goes further >> than that, they can ask a judge for a stalling ruling. > >Really, and what has ever happened to someone for stalling? The most I have >ever seen was a warning. So what's going to happen to people with your system? And that a judge chooses to only issue warnings reflects the flexibilitiy of the penalty guidelines. A judge can exercise his discretion, to deal with the severity of a problem. Bear in mind also that Warnings can be tracked by V:EKN. >> But with a pointless clock system, legitimate deals that the table >> *does* want to discuss are treated in the same way as one person trying >> to crowbar diplomacy in that isn't wanted by others. > >That is right. So be brief and to the point. Or talk about them between >turns. So people can stall *anyway*, they just do it between turns. Great! So the point of your system is? But deals don't just come up between turns. They come up when they come up. If I have a bleed bounced to you by my prey, and you have to block so I don't oust you, and I have to send you to torpor because neither of us have useful combat, we need to talk *now*. You need to try to convince me to rescue one of your vampires, or rush one of my prey/your predator's, to stop you being ousted. Or whatever. How would you care to place that in a turn? And would you care to call making such a deal stalling? >> The rules already allow for a judge to intervene where there are issues. >> If it proves to be problematic, a judge could simply remind players >> beforehand that if they feel someone is stalling, they should call him >> or her over. >> >> Why stamp on non-problem diplomacy issues too? > >I don't seem to get this point. That's because you're being pointlessly blinkered. All time taking == stalling. If stalling is a problem, it can be addressed. However, stalling is not simply a problem of a deck taking a long time to do things, or a player needing to negotiate tricky situations over a long period of time. Introducing a time limit stops *ALL* lengthy play, whether it is stalling or not. You have yet to provide *ANY* rationale why preventing proper play is either good, useful or necessary. Proper diplomacy can take much negotiation. Problem tables can occur, where people need to discuss things. To maximise their chance of a table win, people might need to discuss things in order to work out how they can do it! When these are stalling, a judge can intervene. But they are just as easily *not* stalling, but proper, well-thought out tactical or strategic discussion, in order that two players can co- operate in a necessary fashion to remove Arika from the table who is killing both of them, but neither of them can do it alone, so they have to do it in tandem. And it's perfectly plausible for *that* to come up during random people's turns. It's very, very possible for a prey to talk to a predator in order to establish what they can each do. You have Arika and are bleeding me. I think I can block, but can't do her enough damage. So I negotiate with LSJ, your predator, in order to establish what he wants to do. He needs to get rid of her too, and maybe he'll do better if I lend him the intercept. Or perhaps if I weaken her with a Telepathic Tracking/Blood to Water, even allowing for S:CE and Prevent, maybe LSJ has enough combat that he can burn her next turn. That might take a little while to discuss. But isn't stalling. "If a judge believes that a player is intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, that player is guilty of Stalling (section 162)." "A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit." I'm not trying to take advantage of the time limit. I'm trying to kill you! But it takes a little while to discuss what we're doing, how, where and why. So in the process of trying to stop stalling (and failing to do so), you also stamp on legitimate play. Why? >> Stalling is not the same as using or needing time. > >You have your time. Use it how you like. Or have others use it for you! You are not in sole control of your turn. >> Indeed, some decks *aim* to hog the table. One might point to, for >> instance, the Out of Turn Reversal of Fortunes deck. I get lots of >> goes. It's what the deck does. Should I be penalised for playing a >> deck that uses the facilities within the game to allow me to hog the >> table? > >Yes, you should. If you can't oust someone in the 24 minutes that you hog. Complete nonsense. If I craft a deck, and I am playing to win, why shouldn't I be able to play it how it was designed? >> And if that is a problem, it should be the deck being addressed, not >> some huge two-by-four trying to thump on people who play the game in a >> manner you don't like. > >It is in the intrest of all players to keep the game going quickly. You appear to have confused "the game" with "play of cards". The game can be going quickly, but require a tricky piece of diplomacy. Should a politics deck that finds itself on a tough table simply pack up and go home, because it can't negotiate? Simply throwing down cards isn't V:TES. V:TES was *designed* to have diplomacy built in. True, this is not unfettered - and it is not unfettered now. The judge can intervene on stalling. >> If people stall, call over a judge. It's not hard. A judge can then >> watch and wait, until another table needs him. > >And do what? Warn them. I have never seen a player penalized more than >that, and that was when it was blatantly obvious. Then if slow play not being penalised heavily enough is a problem, address *that*. People talking is not inherently stalling. Your method does nothing other than produce some entirely arbitrary rules for people to follow, for no gain. If actual detrimental slow play is a problem, ask V:EKN to upgrade it and make a bigger point of it. Call your judge over to rule on slow play when it happens, and point them to Repeat Offences in the Guidelines. Your suggestion as outlined, however, does nothing to address actual stalling, and everything to allow other players to screw up my game for me, whilst stamping on many forms of legitimate play that are not stalling, but legitimate diplomacy that takes time and effort. When a new player sits down at the table, and I'm playing a politics deck, and I have to explain to him why what I'm doing is in his interests so he should vote for me, I should get penalised? Great. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:26:01 -0400, LSJ wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: >> We tracked every game we played over a two-month period. The average >> was consistently 12. > > "Average" is at odds with "consistently". An average is a single number. A > single number will, of course, be consistent with itself. > > Do you mean that the average of all games played in the observation period > was twelve? > > Or that the average of every random sampling of games within the two-month > observation period was consistently twelve? > > Or something else? The average of a number of non-random samples was consistently near 12?

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:24:59 +0100, James Coupe wrote: > In message <rlcct55mov07.f...@40tude.net>, Timlagor > <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >>> Because some referenda are complex things. >>> >>> Politics is there to up the diplomatic element. Artificially limiting >>> it seems to be counter productive. >> >>You think spending 45 minutes is productive? > > That would be up to the judge to rule, based on the play. > > You think you can understand the politics of a situation you're not > present for? I think that a (reasonably long) limit on referenda would not be detrimental to game play.

>> You think you can understand the politics of a situation you're not >> present for? > I think that a (reasonably long) limit on referenda would not be detrimental > to game play. to clarify: I don't hold this opinion very strongly but I thought it worth raising as a side issue to see what other people think and why.

>To begin with your >"average number of turns=12": it's a theory that's being stated for a >long time now, and honestly, I don't believe it at all. What I believe is that the heart of a game is usually covered in 10-12 turns; especially when down to 2 players, the game goes far longer often even if it's clear who's likely to win. I don't base this on any formalized tracking, though occasionally it's possible to go back and figure out that a game had to have lasted longer than 12 turns based on card play, and it's clear enough that a number of 2 player endgames use a large number of turns*. However, Derek's right that if you want to convince someone that the game doesn't last 12 turns - on average, usually, whatever - then you should produce some data. * However, in tournament play, this isn't as common, even ignoring the time limit.

>As a related aside I don't think finals should have a time limit either. I find it really annoying to play different tournament rounds differently unless it's part of the novelty of a tournament variant to play different rounds under different rules. For instance, we almost decided to run the Anarchs prerelease with 3 player tables the first round and 4-5 the second. But, then again, such tournaments aren't going to be looked at as seriously in the first place.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:xMbZflmz...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <vfjjk1k...@corp.supernews.com>, XZealot <x_zealot@cox- > internet.com> writes: > >> Many newbies will quite often have to spend a lot of time asking "Can > >> I...?" Or finding that they've played the wrong card, and have to back > >> up. And this might not be in combat! This might be a newbie trying to > >> play Psychic Veil to get intercept on a block (newbies often get card > >> types wrong, and try to play actions as action modifiers, and all that > >> sort of thing). > > > >Then you tell them it is a action which gives stealth not a reaction that > >gives intecept. This is how they learn. > > And in the process, I lose my time. You are a good player. You probably wouldn't have to worry about it. > Why should I lose my time because someone else is an inexperienced > player? You apparently don't realize that you already are. > C'mon, actually give a reason. I lose my time because someone else > doesn't know the rules. Is that even remotely fair? They don't know the rules, at all. Then they will probably be ousted rather quickly. Problem solved. > >> I don't see why I should pay for their newness. Nor do I see a useful > >> manner in which a distinction can be drawn between a newbie like that, > >> someone forgetting how a card works, someone seeing a card they've never > >> seen before, and so on. > > > >But you do anyway. If a newbie is that much of a problem then he is stalling > >out the whole table. > > Seems quite plausible that *his* grand-prey and *his* grand-predator > aren't going to be losing too much time during their turns. Just so long as you don't run out of time then it isn't a big issue. > >> Why should I lose out because someone doesn't understand my deck? Or > >> their own deck? Or is learning the game? > > > >You are losing out already by having rounds go to time. If they are not > >then you shouldn't have to worry. > > They may or may not go to time. He may be ousted first in the game, for > instance. (Quite plausible, with a newbie.) If he is ousted then your problem is solved. > During which time he has managed to waste a large portion of my time, > however. And so if you play quickly, then you shouldn't be affected that much. > Again, why is this even remotely fair? Why should other players get to > use up my time? *I'm* playing at a reasonable pace. *Someone else* > isn't. But they're using up *my* time. Tell them to make a decision > There is a small problem here that you appear to be ignoring. Why is > this? What problem would that be? > >> > This isn't about "should". This is about real people. > > > >Playing a game should be about "real people" interacting. Not people > >stalling the game. > > Or about people trying to enforce play-styles on others, or producing > arbitrary sets of rules which fail to address the perceived problem, > perhaps? 45 minutes of haggling is a little more than a perceived problem, and this was the acting player's fault. > Letting other people waste my time doesn't help me. So don't let them. > >> Sounds like an absolute nightmare to administer. > > > >Not really, you want to take an action with the madness network then you run > >your clock and the acting player pauses his. > > Excellent. > > And when things come down to time and someone has three seconds left on > their clock because they started it a fraction too late and the judge > has to come over and rule? That is what judges are for. > >> And you're starting to cause people to scramble immediately after combat > >> "Finished! End turn!" Which only compounds issues of people rushing > >> through phases when someone else says "Uh, I wanted to play Cats' > >> Guidance/Fast Reaction". > > > >You can do that now, and it still doesn't stop them from playing Cat's > >Guidance > > This way, someone is having their time wasted. Which if it runs out, > penalises them. Not if they are courteous and play promptly. > But if I *don't* rush through my turn at a break neck pace, I lose *my* > time. Which penalises *me*. > > Creating a race condition in a game of finely tuned timings is not a > good idea. This is true, but it happens now. Have you noticed that games accellerate once the judges announce that there is 15 minutes left, 5 minutes left, and 1 minute left? Have you also noticed that the player on the table that doesn't think they can get their prey tend to slow down their turns? > >> And whose clock is that on? Is it my fault you rushed through before I > >> could play? Should I be penalised and lose 30 seconds for that? Why's > >> that fair? > > > >How does playing Cat's Guidance take 30 seconds? 5-10 seconds tops it > >sounds like to me. > > Because someone wants to think about playing it? You know, this > "thinking" thing. Or you have to explain and ask them to go back, which > may involve them getting back their discard, and so on. Tell them to either play it or not, but to make a decision one way or the other. > Or the player may say "Uh, actually, I wanted to tap The Barrens to see > if I drew something". Okay, then they do so. > But if their clock is running whilst they explain this, why are they > being penalised because you ran quickly through everything? I don't understand which player you are talking about. Perhaps you should designate them A + B. > And if timing is so urgent that we need to have clocks, 5 to 10 seconds > will make a difference. If it is so soul wrenchingly important to have > players take no more than 24 minutes each to play a game, someone, > somewhere will find that they have 5 seconds less. We already find that. Tables time out all the time. > And what if someone sneezes? Or has a nosebleed? And for a few > precious seconds, they can't play and stall things for other people. Oh > no! But now *someone* is having their specific time wasted. Obviously, time could be paused if someone had a heart-attack. > >> >How long do these deals normally take? This is a major problem on the > >> >tournament scene that I have noticed. > >> > >> Is it relevant? > > > >Obviously, this is the point of the thread. So it would be relavent here. > > It's also patently rubbish. How verbose. > Deals that take a long time to discuss are not inherently a problem. > Some of them can be perfectly valid. Some of them can be time-wasting. Yes, they are. No deal offered should last longer than one sentance. If and then are normally the two words used to make them. Haggling should be at a minimum. > The judge can intervene if any player chooses to bring it to his > attention, or if he is already watching the game. Good luck seeing that enforced. > >> I can't control when they happen. Someone talks. They choose to make > >> the offer in my turn. Whether it's 1 second or 1 minute, I'm losing > >> time, and I only have 24 minutes! > > > >You only have 24 minutes in reality anyway, at least until someone is > >eliminated. > > Which is one point against your nonsense. > > And no, you don't have 24 minutes in reality. Since currently, deals > can be discussed at any point and don't affect any player > disproportionately. The *table* has two hours (plus any brief > adjustments for lengthy rulings). If people stall, you call the judge > over. If they don't, it's valid play and how long it takes is > irrelevant. > Just because play can take a long time doesn't make it stalling. It should though. > >Which brings up a good point. When someone is eliminated shouldn't everyone > >gain time. How about 5 minutes each. That compensates for less players > >while still trying to keep players from stalling. > > Fiddling round with adding time to a stop-watch, or allowing other > players to gain just a few extra seconds in the process. so it goes from 24 to 31 to 36 to 41 minutes. No adjustment is required if you start with 00:00. > Quite easily abusable. How so? > It's also a nonsense. How trite. > A game goes on for a long time. 5 players have 24 minutes each. Then > add 20. Then add 15. Then add 10. Then add 5. That's another 40 > minutes added to the game, plus all the faffing around with stop- > watches. > > Games have just gone up to nearly 3 hours, without trying. But the stallers have been penalized for using up their time if they do that for the duration of the game. > >> >You have one talkative player who won't shut up and the round goes to > >time. > >> >Not because of any reason other than one player spends the whole round > >> >talking. > >> > >> People can tell him they're not interested. If he continues to pester > >> them with deals, they can say "I'm not interested". If it goes further > >> than that, they can ask a judge for a stalling ruling. > > > >Really, and what has ever happened to someone for stalling? The most I have > >ever seen was a warning. > > So what's going to happen to people with your system? You end their turn. > And that a judge chooses to only issue warnings reflects the > flexibilitiy of the penalty guidelines. A judge can exercise his > discretion, to deal with the severity of a problem. > > Bear in mind also that Warnings can be tracked by V:EKN. Where would I find this list of Warnings? > >> But with a pointless clock system, legitimate deals that the table > >> *does* want to discuss are treated in the same way as one person trying > >> to crowbar diplomacy in that isn't wanted by others. > > > >That is right. So be brief and to the point. Or talk about them between > >turns. > > So people can stall *anyway*, they just do it between turns. Great! So > the point of your system is? To prevent people from stalling on their turn. If you stall between turns then someone calls the judge. > But deals don't just come up between turns. They come up when they come > up. If I have a bleed bounced to you by my prey, and you have to block > so I don't oust you, and I have to send you to torpor because neither of > us have useful combat, we need to talk *now*. You need to try to > convince me to rescue one of your vampires, or rush one of my prey/your > predator's, to stop you being ousted. Or whatever. Let me see if I get this right. Someone blocks to prevent themself from being ousted, but the blocker is going to torpor because you don't play "useful" combat. Sounds like the correct decision. They want to make a deal with you. How long would it take to offer and accept? How about counter-offering and accepting? How about counter-counter-offering and accepting? How about counter-counter-counter offering and accepting, and so on....? How much time must we waste haggling over individual deals before someone realizes how much time you have wasted? If you were limited by time, then you would reach the point pretty quickly. > How would you care to place that in a turn? And would you care to call > making such a deal stalling? You the acting player would be under the pressure of time to either accept or reject the offer or counter it in as quickly as possible. > >> The rules already allow for a judge to intervene where there are issues. > >> If it proves to be problematic, a judge could simply remind players > >> beforehand that if they feel someone is stalling, they should call him > >> or her over. > >> > >> Why stamp on non-problem diplomacy issues too? > > > >I don't seem to get this point. > > That's because you're being pointlessly blinkered. All time taking == > stalling. I thought I was opening a discussion. It is nice that you have started the name calling. > If stalling is a problem, it can be addressed. By the time it is addressed then it is usually to late to do anything about it. > However, stalling is not simply a problem of a deck taking a long time > to do things, or a player needing to negotiate tricky situations over a > long period of time. > > Introducing a time limit stops *ALL* lengthy play, whether it is > stalling or not. Do show the need for lengthy play that has not been addressed. > You have yet to provide *ANY* rationale why preventing proper play is > either good, useful or necessary. Play is not proper if it causes the round to go to time when it should not have. > Proper diplomacy can take much negotiation. Problem tables can occur, > where people need to discuss things. To maximise their chance of a > table win, people might need to discuss things in order to work out how > they can do it! When these are stalling, a judge can intervene. But > they are just as easily *not* stalling, but proper, well-thought out > tactical or strategic discussion, in order that two players can co- > operate in a necessary fashion to remove Arika from the table who is > killing both of them, but neither of them can do it alone, so they have > to do it in tandem. Then do it but be quick about it. > And it's perfectly plausible for *that* to come up during random > people's turns. And they should be encouraged not to waste everyone's time doing it. > It's very, very possible for a prey to talk to a predator in order to > establish what they can each do. You have Arika and are bleeding me. I > think I can block, but can't do her enough damage. So I negotiate with > LSJ, your predator, in order to establish what he wants to do. He needs > to get rid of her too, and maybe he'll do better if I lend him the > intercept. Or perhaps if I weaken her with a Telepathic Tracking/Blood > to Water, even allowing for S:CE and Prevent, maybe LSJ has enough > combat that he can burn her next turn. > > That might take a little while to discuss. But isn't stalling. Then discuss it. You have the time to do it. 24 minutes is a long time. > "If a judge believes that a player is intentionally playing slowly to > take advantage of a time limit, that player is guilty of Stalling > (section 162)." > > "A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the > time limit." > > I'm not trying to take advantage of the time limit. I'm trying to kill > you! But it takes a little while to discuss what we're doing, how, > where and why. You may spend your time however you would like, but we are trying to be considerate of the other players on the table who your discussion would cause their game to time out when it shouldn't have. > So in the process of trying to stop stalling (and failing to do so), you > also stamp on legitimate play. You are not the only one playing the game. Everyone should have an equal share of time, or do you think you are so important that you deserve more time than anyone else on the table? > Why? To make it fair to all players, not just the vocal ones. > >> Stalling is not the same as using or needing time. > > > >You have your time. Use it how you like. > > Or have others use it for you! How would that happen? > You are not in sole control of your turn. But you are. If someone attempt to waste your time then you tell them that you have a limited amount of time and would like to make full use of it. > >> Indeed, some decks *aim* to hog the table. One might point to, for > >> instance, the Out of Turn Reversal of Fortunes deck. I get lots of > >> goes. It's what the deck does. Should I be penalised for playing a > >> deck that uses the facilities within the game to allow me to hog the > >> table? > > > >Yes, you should. If you can't oust someone in the 24 minutes that you hog. > > Complete nonsense. If I craft a deck, and I am playing to win, why > shouldn't I be able to play it how it was designed? Apparently you take a long time to do so, and that isn't very fair to everyone else who has shown up to play. > >> And if that is a problem, it should be the deck being addressed, not > >> some huge two-by-four trying to thump on people who play the game in a > >> manner you don't like. > > > >It is in the intrest of all players to keep the game going quickly. > > You appear to have confused "the game" with "play of cards". Oh really, So perhaps you would think that under the current rules that if I spent and hour playing my portion of the game and let everyone else only play 15 minutes in a 2 hour round then that would be okay? > The game can be going quickly, but require a tricky piece of diplomacy. > Should a politics deck that finds itself on a tough table simply pack up > and go home, because it can't negotiate? It should do so at the consideration of other players. > Simply throwing down cards isn't V:TES. Nor is dragging the game out to time. > V:TES was *designed* to have diplomacy built in. True, this is not > unfettered - and it is not unfettered now. The judge can intervene on > stalling. It never happens. I have seen the most obseen breaches of the stalling rule not get a player anything more than a warning by LSJ who was the judge, no less. > >> If people stall, call over a judge. It's not hard. A judge can then > >> watch and wait, until another table needs him. > > > >And do what? Warn them. I have never seen a player penalized more than > >that, and that was when it was blatantly obvious. > > Then if slow play not being penalised heavily enough is a problem, > address *that*. This is one way to address the problem. You are welcome to contribute ideas. > People talking is not inherently stalling. Your method does nothing > other than produce some entirely arbitrary rules for people to follow, > for no gain. People talking too much is stalling. We do not have a good benchmarch on what is too much, so we can address this by limiting the amount of time that a person has to play. > If actual detrimental slow play is a problem, ask V:EKN to upgrade it > and make a bigger point of it. Call your judge over to rule on slow > play when it happens, and point them to Repeat Offences in the > Guidelines. > > Your suggestion as outlined, however, does nothing to address actual > stalling, and everything to allow other players to screw up my game for > me, whilst stamping on many forms of legitimate play that are not > stalling, but legitimate diplomacy that takes time and effort. Apparently your disproportionate use of a limited resource (the length of a round) is okay when you do it, but not okay for everyone else. Shouldn't all players get an equal amount of time availible for them to play the game, or maybe you think you are the only one with strategies that require time to put into effect. > When a new player sits down at the table, and I'm playing a politics > deck, and I have to explain to him why what I'm doing is in his > interests so he should vote for me, I should get penalised? Great. You get one minute extra per referendum to do so under the currently suggested guidelines. If you are calling alot of votes then you are getting alot of extra time. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message >>Seems quite plausible that *his* grand-prey and *his* grand-predator >>aren't going to be losing too much time during their turns. > Just so long as you don't run out of time then it isn't a big issue. If you don't run out of time, why keep time at all? I thought the point of keeping time was to have something happen when time runs out. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message >>Again, why is this even remotely fair? Why should other players get to >>use up my time? *I'm* playing at a reasonable pace. *Someone else* >>isn't. But they're using up *my* time. >>There is a small problem here that you appear to be ignoring. Why is >>this? > What problem would that be? The problem stated: other people using up the time supposedly allotted to you. >>Letting other people waste my time doesn't help me. > So don't let them. ... but since the proposed rule necessarily involves other people using the time allotted to you, you are not at liberty to stop them. >>This way, someone is having their time wasted. Which if it runs out, >>penalises them. > Not if they are courteous and play promptly. This same "solution" (having players be courteous and play promptly) also suffices without the chess clock. >>Just because play can take a long time doesn't make it stalling. > It should though. No. Non-stalling play that takes a long time shouldn't be classified as stalling. >>Bear in mind also that Warnings can be tracked by V:EKN. > Where would I find this list of Warnings? Contact Robyn. >>That might take a little while to discuss. But isn't stalling. > Then discuss it. You have the time to do it. 24 minutes is a long time. If time won't run out, then what does keeping time accomplish? >>Or have others use it for you! > How would that happen? Having them play their part in the game on your turn (when your time is being used), as in: >>You are not in sole control of your turn. > > But you are. If someone attempt to waste your time then you tell them that > you have a limited amount of time and would like to make full use of it. You cannot preclude other players from playing their part in the game during your turn (blocking, reacting, etc.) > Oh really, So perhaps you would think that under the current rules that if I > spent and hour playing my portion of the game and let everyone else only > play 15 minutes in a 2 hour round then that would be okay? If you didn't stall and actually played the full hour, yes. Certain "turbo" decks (with extremely lucky deck draws) may be able to accomplish this. >>Simply throwing down cards isn't V:TES. > > Nor is dragging the game out to time. But playing to time (instead of stalling or dragging out) is part of timed V:TES sometimes (if it weren't, there'd be no need to keep time). > It never happens. I have seen the most obseen breaches of the stalling rule > not get a player anything more than a warning by LSJ who was the judge, no > less. Right, because stalling hasn't yet grown to be a problem. The most obscene breach you've seen was minor enough to warrant only a warning, for example. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3EF9FFCC...@white-wolf.com... > XZealot wrote: > > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message > >>Seems quite plausible that *his* grand-prey and *his* grand-predator > >>aren't going to be losing too much time during their turns. > > Just so long as you don't run out of time then it isn't a big issue. > > If you don't run out of time, why keep time at all? > > I thought the point of keeping time was to have something happen when > time runs out. Really, As i understood it, a time limit is mainly used to schedule an event so that the event occurs during the alloted time. Also it is a consideration to other players so that they don't have to wait as long for a table to finish their game. The fact that an effect occurs other than the game ending when time runs out is a benny to anyone surviving for the duration. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I wouldn't mind a severe reduction in deal making. Especially those that > last for 30-45 minutes. Then again I had often enough more fun in 10-20 minutes deal discussion, than in 15 minutes, "I hunt, hunt, end of turn" "I also hunt, end of turn" that I have experienced so often. If we introduce a time limit we should also introduce a penalty for boring style of play :-) johannes walch

In message <3EF9DB29...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> We tracked every game we played over a two-month period. The average >> was consistently 12. > >"Average" is at odds with "consistently". An average is a single number. A >single number will, of course, be consistent with itself. Your fly is down. >Do you mean that the average of all games played in the observation period >was twelve? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

swcru...@email.com (Mike McDonald) wrote in message news:<b504c5f0.03062...@posting.google.com>... > > > > What do you think? > > Just use my fast turn chant on slow players: > > "A good game is a fast game, a fast game is a good game" > Keep chanting until people want to hit you :-) As someone who has to put up with this chant, I'd say that it is rather effective, if only because most of the people Mike and I play with are good friends so our games can get chatty. The circumstances where it is not effective are with newbie players (at which point Mike has enough respect not to chant it) or the endgame (at which point you really do want to smack him). -Matt

"XZealot" <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote in news:vfi263i...@corp.supernews.com: > In the effort to foster discussion, should there be a time limit on > players turns? > having a time limit would require a) a clock and b) someone to keep track of time. I believe that consistently having those two things at every table would turn into a logistical nightmare, at least at the tournaments I've been to. --Andrew

XZealot wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3EF9FFCC...@white-wolf.com... > >>XZealot wrote: >> >>>"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message >>> >>>>Seems quite plausible that *his* grand-prey and *his* grand-predator >>>>aren't going to be losing too much time during their turns. >>> >>>Just so long as you don't run out of time then it isn't a big issue. >> >>If you don't run out of time, why keep time at all? >> >>I thought the point of keeping time was to have something happen when >>time runs out. > > > Really, As i understood it, a time limit is mainly used to schedule an event > so that the event occurs during the alloted time. You're changing the subject. The time limit in question is the per-turn time limit you suggested. Why implement such a time limit is you'll never reach that time limit? [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > In message <3EF9DB29...@white-wolf.com>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: > > >>Derek Ray wrote: >> >>>We tracked every game we played over a two-month period. The average >>>was consistently 12. >> >>"Average" is at odds with "consistently". An average is a single number. A >>single number will, of course, be consistent with itself. > > Your fly is down. PKB much? My fly is fine, thanks. Refering to your figures as "gospel" invites one to examine them more carefully. If you wish to have your figures as gospel, precision is important. [ quoted text not captured ]

"robtreasure" <robtreasure....@web2news.net> wrote in message news:<4408...@web2news.com>... > XZealot wrote: > > In the effort to foster discussion, should there be a time > > limit on players > > turns? > > I can honestly say that that is the worst idea I have heard for ages. as i hope most of us will agree. > I > can't see how/why you would want to limit the turn time in a game that > relies on so many variables and differing deck styles. Judge discretion > and common sense is more than enough to highlight problem players. > Limiting turn times would only lead to the degeneration of the game as > more players would chose the non-interactive decks to get everything in > within the 2 mins. > > The game would lose so much. Terrible idea. amen. > > As a related aside I don't think finals should have a time limit either. > uh-oh. rob, sorry to disagree strongly, but this can be nightmarish. ask jay kristoff, my brother tom, or ira fay to describe their feelings on this. in a fairly recent pittsburgh tourney, ira chose to go with an unlimited final. jay was ousted early(?), then waited to see the final end. (i hadn't made the final, so i'd already waited a little by then, playing 2 games.) and we waited. this final went beyond the 4+ hour mark before tom m was ousted and we headed back to central PA (jay also left for columbus OH.) i read on google who won. ira said he'd never let this happen again. it was horrible. and it wasn't stalling. there was a lot of discussion, and a very new player involved, and frankly, a very balanced table at most points of the game, with oodles of pool gain. again, unless you're all local, this is a terrible idea, and even if everyone is local, why not fricking end it at 2 hours, and play another game or something? > > Rob --john m, sporemage "do what thou wilt; this shall be the whole of the law." ...a crowley (not timothy) "do unto others, then split."..some hippie

<berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM> wrote in message news:3ef9d5c3....@netnews.attbi.com... > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:38:25 -0600, "XZealot" > <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote: > >Once your time expires you get a time limit of 60 seconds for your turn. > > Other games do this, but you will have some problems as games that give > you 60 seconds on your turn after time expiration are games that require > a player to place or move a single piece (Chess or Go for instance). > With VTES, it would be difficult to enforce a 60 second rule due to > cardflow. Not just "other" games but V:TES tournaments used to do this as well. When time expired in a round players had 1 minute to finish their turns. The rule was dropped because of the very problems being mentioned in this thread. The "1 minute" didn't belong to the acting player and they didn't have enough control over the minute to make it a meaningful limit. -Robert Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20030625153254...@mb-m26.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I think I may have been the one that started the whole 12 turn estimate. It was not very scientific and used a fairly small sample. I recall that many of the games in the sample went to the 2 hour time limit. YMMV, but I am surprised that others have experienced roughly the same thing. -Robert rob...@vtesinla.org

Robert Goudie wrote: > Not just "other" games but V:TES tournaments used to do > this as well. When > time expired in a round players had 1 minute to finish their turns. Woah, when was that? What a nightmare. -- Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com http://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

XZealot wrote: > > 45 minutes of haggling is a little more than a perceived > problem, and this > was the acting player's fault. And you know that as a fact do you? Thats poor man. The vote was Dramatic Upheaval, with the exception of Kindred Restructure it is possibly the single vote that has the most ramifications for the table in the whole game. I did honestly not know where to swap places to, everyone aside from the German guy (who had no votes to throw in... or no desire to get involved IIRC) had an opinion as it directly affected _their_ game, as the discussion panned out it became clear(er) to me where the best place was for me to win the game and I spent the remaining time trying to get the vote through and get the game back on track. When you have a situation like the final of a national or some such, there is a have a high calibre of player - I don't think it's unreasonable to assume they are able to tell other players to 'get on with it' and 'shut up' if that's what they want to happen. The game has soooo many variables and limiting time in the fashion you suggest would create an entirely different game, full of clock watching, pointless constraints and players constantly hurrying up other players. Sounds a lot like a game that many players I know would not play to me. Rob [ quoted text not captured ]

> So if we instituted timelimits then there should be a 2 minute limit for a > players turn with a few exceptions > -Combat pauses the timer until the end of combat > -Any referendum pauses the timer but only for 60 seconds maximum. > > What do you think? It seems that many people discuss your topic, is there a reason to this? Of course there is. Slow play is very tedious, boring, and sometimes it is a deliberate strategy to reach time limit or "deal time" 20 minutes before the TL, where the table gets splitted. What about the following play example ? I think 20 seconds. I get a blood from Rufina Soledad's blood doll. 20 seconds. She hunts. 5 seconds. "Prey, no block ?". Prey moans, like if Beast is likely to play special report and block. 20. seconds "No block for me". "Predator, Rufina hunts". "OK, good for me". 5 seconds player. K .... cross table player. "Hey, wait, there cards that allow cross table blocking." 1 minute stare. "Well, OK, I do not block you". Rufina gains onee blood. 10 seconds. Giuliano Vicenzi hunts ... Is that enough ? So I agree to the idea of deterring slow play. Currently in Paris, we have a rule (I don't know if "jurisprudence" is an english word) that states that, during a referendum, each player can count loudly from 1 to 15 if no new votes/ reactions happens, then voting is over. Of course, if a vote is cast, the counting player has to reset its timer. This limits the "45 minutes Dramatic upheaval". Limiting each player's turn length is unappropriate for many reasons. * there are turns that should go fast and turns when you need to think a little. Turns where you play a vote deck, having dramatic upheaval and a few trick cards in hand, knowing that you prey can block you once .... At that time, even in silence of death format (no talking except anouncing actions) you may need 2 minutes thinking. * you are not the noly acting player during your turn. In fact, there are four elements that slow a game * many actions/combat. Well, this means many events to resolve, and much time needed. So be it. * stalling. Theoretically, this is forbidden. I have never seen effective sanctions on staller (part from the probleme comes from the fact that "pool penalties" are not in the penalty Guidelines, thereby a warning is nothing but a strict "don't do it again") * slow play. This acceptable from a beginner, but very irritating otherwise. Hunting with an empty and unblocked vampire shoudn't be as long as in the example stated above. However, it is very hard to spot and sanctionnate this. But I think this definitely lacks sportmanship. Moreover, in casual games, I don't see super slow player as a specially entertaining partner, or more precisely someone I want to play with. * excessive table talking. This should be limited, especially as the guy complaining about "time waisting" will appear as the bad guy. How ? I would personnally be in favor of something like "negociating is not allowed during actions, apart while voting during a referendum". In wich case each player should be allowed to count up to 15 seconds. This would limit the "I try to negaociate the same thing you refused me 10 seconds ago" which can be boring. Emmanuel

On 26 Jun 2003 03:13:18 -0700, e...@boursorama.com (Emmanuel Martin) scrawled: [snip] >Currently in Paris, we have a rule (I don't know if "jurisprudence" >is an english word) that states that, during a referendum, each player >can count loudly from 1 to 15 if no new votes/ reactions happens, then >voting is over. Of course, if a vote is cast, the counting player has >to reset its timer. This limits the "45 minutes Dramatic upheaval". not really. i am sure the bulk of the 45 mins was before the erms were even set, which means obiously you can't cast any votes at that point, so it's not up to the point where counting to 15 should come into it.... salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:45:25 +1000, salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >On 26 Jun 2003 03:13:18 -0700, e...@boursorama.com (Emmanuel Martin) >scrawled: >[snip] >>Currently in Paris, we have a rule (I don't know if "jurisprudence" >>is an english word) that states that, during a referendum, each player >>can count loudly from 1 to 15 if no new votes/ reactions happens, then >>voting is over. Of course, if a vote is cast, the counting player has >>to reset its timer. This limits the "45 minutes Dramatic upheaval". > >not really. i am sure the bulk of the 45 mins was before the erms TERMS. before the TERMS were even set. note to self: proof read posts. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >>Bear in mind also that Warnings can be tracked by V:EKN. > > Where would I find this list of Warnings? > > Contact Robyn. No such animal. There is no current list of stallers or those who have received a warning for stalling. In fact, no warnings of any kind are kept track of. As a side note, I think Robyn does a great job, and this is not criticism of her. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: >>>>Bear in mind also that Warnings can be tracked by V:EKN. >>> >>>Where would I find this list of Warnings? >> >>Contact Robyn. > > > No such animal. There is no current list of stallers or those who have > received a warning for stalling. In fact, no warnings of any kind are kept > track of. > > As a side note, I think Robyn does a great job, and this is not criticism of > her. So Robyn hasn't gotten any warning reported to her in tournament reports, or are you saying she has, but that they aren't tracked? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3EFA4092...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> In message <3EF9DB29...@white-wolf.com>, >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >>>Derek Ray wrote: >>>"Average" is at odds with "consistently". An average is a single number. A >>>single number will, of course, be consistent with itself. >> >> Your fly is down. > >PKB much? My fly is fine, thanks. That was "look, a monkey!", not PKBing. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:48:15 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >In message <3EFA4092...@white-wolf.com>, >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: > >>Derek Ray wrote: >>> In message <3EF9DB29...@white-wolf.com>, >>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >>>>Derek Ray wrote: >>>>"Average" is at odds with "consistently". An average is a single number. A >>>>single number will, of course, be consistent with itself. >>> >>> Your fly is down. >> >>PKB much? My fly is fine, thanks. > >That was "look, a monkey!", not PKBing. =) i have to ask.....what's a PKB? [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > That was "look, a monkey!", not PKBing. =) My mistake. Your reputation precedes you. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3EFAEA3...@white-wolf.com... > XZealot wrote: > >>>>Bear in mind also that Warnings can be tracked by V:EKN. > >>> > >>>Where would I find this list of Warnings? > >> > >>Contact Robyn. > > > > > > No such animal. There is no current list of stallers or those who have > > received a warning for stalling. In fact, no warnings of any kind are kept > > track of. > > > > As a side note, I think Robyn does a great job, and this is not criticism of > > her. > > So Robyn hasn't gotten any warning reported to her in tournament reports, or are > you saying she has, but that they aren't tracked? I am saying that there is no list that you speak of Robyn having. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > I am saying that there is no list that you speak of Robyn having. Well, if none have been reported to her, then she won't have a list, sure. [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message news:<vfi263i...@corp.supernews.com>... > In the effort to foster discussion, should there be a time limit on players > turns? > > Average game length= 120 minutes > Average # turns= 12 > Average # of players= 5 > > So roughly that comes out to 2 minutes per turn > > That doesn't seem very long. > > So if we instituted timelimits then there should be a 2 minute limit for a > players turn with a few exceptions > -Combat pauses the timer until the end of combat > -Any referendum pauses the timer but only for 60 seconds maximum. > > What do you think? V:EKN Tournament Rules 2003 Season 3.1.1. Round Time Limits Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced before play begins. The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds, at the judge's option. If timing tables is a big problem in your playgroup, just change the limit from two hours to three or four. /Henrik

salem wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:48:15 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> > scrawled: > >>In message <3EFA4092...@white-wolf.com>, >>LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >> >>>Derek Ray wrote: >>>> In message <3EF9DB29...@white-wolf.com>, >>>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >>>>>Derek Ray wrote: >>>>>"Average" is at odds with "consistently". An average is >>>>> a single number. A >>>>>single number will, of course, be consistent with itself. >>>> >>>> Your fly is down. >>> >>>PKB much? My fly is fine, thanks. >> >>That was "look, a monkey!", not PKBing. =) > > i have to ask.....what's a PKB? I suspect it stands for "Pot calling the Kettle Black." In any case this portion of this thread seems to be a bit unproductive. While the terms "consistently" and "average" may be at odds in a mathematical sense, the point is clear enough here out of a classroom or a lab. If each random sampling of turns is consistently 12 then the arithmetic mean would be 12 as well. If every game played for 2 months is consistently 12 turns then the arithmetic mean would be 12 as well. Doesn't seem like the stuff that needs much mulling over. Cecil [ quoted text not captured ]

Cecil wrote: > If each random sampling of turns is consistently 12 then the arithmetic > mean would be 12 as well. > > If every game played for 2 months is consistently 12 turns then the > arithmetic mean would be 12 as well. True. But both of those cases would carry much more weight than the case in point - that the simple mean average of the entire sample was twelve. As would be the case for the sample (8,8,8,8,16,16,16,16), for example. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3EFAF91D...@white-wolf.com... > XZealot wrote: > > I am saying that there is no list that you speak of Robyn having. > > Well, if none have been reported to her, then she won't have a list, sure. So what was your point about warnings being tracked? They aren't. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:28:38 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> scrawled: >Cecil wrote: >> If each random sampling of turns is consistently 12 then the arithmetic >> mean would be 12 as well. >> >> If every game played for 2 months is consistently 12 turns then the >> arithmetic mean would be 12 as well. > >True. But both of those cases would carry much more weight than the >case in point - that the simple mean average of the entire sample was >twelve. As would be the case for the sample (8,8,8,8,16,16,16,16), >for example. or the sample (1,23), which just goes to show sample means aren't a sufficient statistic for the data. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>XZealot wrote: >>>I am saying that there is no list that you speak of Robyn having. >>Well, if none have been reported to her, then she won't have a list, sure. > So what was your point about warnings being tracked? They aren't. ? I didn't make such a point. You inquired where you could find a list of warnings that the V:EKN has tracked. The response was to contact Robyn for the list, since, if there were any warnings in the tracking system, Robyn would have that list. Or perhaps you are misremebering the point that James Coupe made that such warnings can be tracked by V:EKN. It's true. If the warnings are reported to the V:EKN in the tournament points, they can be tracked. [V:EKN 20] [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3EFB0F40...@white-wolf.com... > XZealot wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > >>XZealot wrote: > >>>I am saying that there is no list that you speak of Robyn having. > >>Well, if none have been reported to her, then she won't have a list, sure. > > So what was your point about warnings being tracked? They aren't. > > ? > I didn't make such a point. > > You inquired where you could find a list of warnings that the V:EKN has > tracked. The response was to contact Robyn for the list, since, if there > were any warnings in the tracking system, Robyn would have that list. > > Or perhaps you are misremebering the point that James Coupe made that > such warnings can be tracked by V:EKN. > > It's true. If the warnings are reported to the V:EKN in the tournament > points, they can be tracked. [V:EKN 20] The optimal word there is "can", but yet they aren't. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:02:36 -0600, "XZealot" <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> scrawled: > >"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >news:3EFAF91D...@white-wolf.com... >> XZealot wrote: >> > I am saying that there is no list that you speak of Robyn having. >> >> Well, if none have been reported to her, then she won't have a list, sure. > >So what was your point about warnings being tracked? They aren't. what if every single warning was tracked. and it just so happens that no-one, ever has got a tracked warning? Maybe she does have a list, with 0 entries in it, because no tracked warnings have been reported to her. There is a distinction between a verbal warning (or 'caution' as the Judge's Guide calls it), and a written tracked warning. From said Judge's Guide: (http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknJudgesGuide.html) *** 141. Slow Play - Playing Slowly Definition: Players who take longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions are engaged in slow play. If a judge believes that a player is intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, that player is guilty of Stalling (section 162). Example: (A) A player is unsure of with which minion to block, and spends five minutes trying to decide. Philosophy: Slow Play penalties do not require a judge to determine whether a player is intentionally stalling. All players have the responsibility to play quickly enough so their opponent is not at a significant disadvantage because of the time limit. A judge should take into consideration the tournament scores when deciding if this should be upgraded to a Stalling penalty. Penalty: Caution. In addition to the penalty, the judge may assign extra time to the game if he or she feels it is appropriate. The option to add extra time should be used sparingly in order to avoid tournament delays. *** Note that the recommended infraction thingy is 'Caution'. ie: verbal only, and not tracked, as such. people would need to repeatedly play slowly after being verbally cautioned for a judge to issue a (tracked) warning. and this is of course at the judge's discretion. the judge might just issue further warnings if IT sees fit (Methuselahs are 'she', minions are 'he', so the Judge gets to be IT, in capital letters, because they're special). [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > The optimal word there is "can", but yet they aren't. If there are no warnings, how would you recommend tracking them? [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Really, As i understood it, a time limit is mainly used to schedule an event >> so that the event occurs during the alloted time. > > You're changing the subject. The time limit in question is the per-turn time > limit you suggested. > > Why implement such a time limit is you'll never reach that time limit? The idea is to encourage people not to reach it.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:01:51 -0400, LSJ wrote: > XZealot wrote: >> The optimal word there is "can", but yet they aren't. > > If there are no warnings, how would you recommend tracking them? I thought it had been established that you (LSJ) gave a warning...

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:15:16 +0200, Johannes Walch wrote: >> I wouldn't mind a severe reduction in deal making. Especially those that >> last for 30-45 minutes. > > Then again I had often enough more fun in 10-20 minutes deal discussion, > than in 15 minutes, "I hunt, hunt, end of turn" "I also hunt, end of turn" > that I have experienced so often. If we introduce a time limit we should > also introduce a penalty for boring style of play :-) > > johannes walch Now *that* is a much better idea! ;-D

[ quoted text not captured ] That wasn't the idea being put forward in this thail of the thread, no. This tail was about using other people using up the time alotted to you for your turn. More specifically, how that is not a problem, since the time limit won't be reached. [ quoted text not captured ]

Timlagor wrote: > I thought it had been established that you (LSJ) gave a warning... Not that I recall. I recall giving a caution once. But even that was probably not at the level to even warrant a caution. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Timlagor wrote: > >> I thought it had been established that you (LSJ) gave a warning... > > > Not that I recall. > > I recall giving a caution once. > But even that was probably not at the level to even warrant a caution. > Last EQ qualifier 2002 ought to have resulted in one or two warnings according to the penalty guidelines (102 Illegal Main Deck with Legal Decklist). The one person with affirmative knowledge would be Carl I guess? Sten During

>So roughly that comes out to 2 minutes per turn I don't think I've ever spent that long on a turn, even in a tournament when every action needs to be considered. I'll put my vote in on the no time limit side of things. ------------------------- Cambridge by Night. http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html

In message <11m9kku5xm5su$.cc4amhxx...@40tude.net>, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >> Why implement such a time limit is you'll never reach that time limit? > >The idea is to encourage people not to reach it. If people are stalling, they are unlikely to be paying attention to "encouragements" not to stall. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D