At the 3 hour NAC final, Top seed Kevin was already gone. 5th seed Matt
was on the ropes. But up until 2 minutes before time was called, Matt
was winning (with 1 VP). His goal is to live, because he can't oust Ben
*in one turn*. Ira, Ben S, and Ben P. probably each felt he had the
goods to oust his respective prey, since everyone had 7 pool or less.
In those last 2 minutes, there was a lot of jockeying to try to get the
last turn in the final seconds. Ben S had out a Madness Network, which
helped him take actions in everyone else's turn. However, he knew that
if the turn got around to Ben P's, his Network would get burned due to
Ben P's many minions.
Basically what I saw was lots of small actions here and there for
upwards of 30 minutes, maybe even for longer than that, no one willing
to expose themselves, no one willing to lunge for fear of failing and
leaving themselves open.
Until the last 2 minutes, when Ben S lunges, then Ira, and finally Ben
P, who takes advantage of Ben S's and Ira's failed lunges, and mops up a
crippled Matt.
If the final had been only 2 hours long, I think a very similar scenario
would have played out - everyone trying to hold out, keep their prey
precariously low, but not lunging until the last possible moment.
However, a counter-argument could be made that because of that extra
hour, everyone was able to chip away at their prey a little more and
more, leaving everyone vulnerable to a strong lunge by their predator
(or grand predator).
In this final, the dynamic was that seed #5 got seed #1. So each of the
other 3 *had* to get that VP to get a win. Whoever got even 1 would win
the NAC, as long as no one else got 1 too. So there was that build-up
to get *just 1* vp, right at the end.
Every final is different, but depending on who gets the first VP, and
whose VP s/he gets, really influences whether the game times out or not.
Most of you have probably already figured this out, but I just thought I
would share.
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com
On Sep 25, 4:38 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
>
> Basically what I saw was lots of small actions here and there for
> upwards of 30 minutes, maybe even for longer than that, no one willing
> to expose themselves, no one willing to lunge for fear of failing and
> leaving themselves open.
>
> Until the last 2 minutes, when Ben S lunges, then Ira, and finally Ben
> P, who takes advantage of Ben S's and Ira's failed lunges, and mops up a
> crippled Matt.
>
> If the final had been only 2 hours long, I think a very similar scenario
> would have played out - everyone trying to hold out, keep their prey
> precariously low, but not lunging until the last possible moment.
>
I'm glad the topic has come up. Actually, both of the 3 hour finals at
the NAC *almost* went to time at the 3 hour mark. The extended duel
between Jay Kristof and Peter Oh on Day 1 and then Day 2 Finals were
very different games.
I'm very glad we had the extra time for the Day 2 Finals. Even with a
2 hour limit Matt's big turn still would have 45 minutes. I guessing
Ira would still have been working the deals like crazy, offering
rollover deals to everyone, every turn. Probably the game would have
timed out on like turn 7 and I, for one, would have been very, very
pissed off that I made the NAC finals but was't give the chance to
play because the other players chewed up the clock.
As it was -- yes, there was a lot of talking and maybe some kinda
slowish play (although not much as I recall). But it wasn't a big
deal. We had the time. We had a great game, and it had a really
exciting finish. We did speed up a little at the end under time
pressue, but I think it was mostly game state that collapsed the
table.
I actually wish we had not been under time pressure. Things got a
little sloppy there at the end because we were playing beat-the-clock.
David Tatu informs me that the game ended on turn 13. So, it wasn't
really a long game in terms of actual turns and actions.
- Ben Swainbank
Ben Swainbank wrote:
> As it was -- yes, there was a lot of talking and maybe some kinda
> slowish play (although not much as I recall). But it wasn't a big
> deal. We had the time. We had a great game, and it had a really
> exciting finish. We did speed up a little at the end under time
> pressue, but I think it was mostly game state that collapsed the
> table.
I don't recall any slow play for the sake of being slow. It seemed
clear to me that when things slowed down, it was because the players
were carefully deliberating. I agree that the game sped up at the end
because the game state had finally collapsed.
> David Tatu informs me that the game ended on turn 13. So, it wasn't
> really a long game in terms of actual turns and actions.
I've been vehemently against having extra time for final rounds, but
this is the kind of evidence that I think convinces me that extra time
is fine. I would prefer that the same amount of actual game be
played.
- Ben Peal
On Sep 25, 1:38 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
> Basically what I saw was lots of small actions here and there for
> upwards of 30 minutes, maybe even for longer than that, no one willing
> to expose themselves, no one willing to lunge for fear of failing and
> leaving themselves open.
Except for the turns where I promised Matt no bleeds, I was
consistently going forward as fast as I could without getting minions
burned. I would have ousted Matt several different turns if I had
played smarter, or he didn't get crosstable help. Until the very end
when I was low on pool (and after having 22 pool worth of minions
burned), I was never particularly worried about a lunge from Ben.
I definitely appreciated the additional time because I felt like it
gave me a chance to talk without pissing people off. There was plenty
of time to talk and play the game, both. For any big final event,
having a 3 hour time limit is great.
Regarding the game, here's the list of mistakes I made:
- Not putting fame on one of the weenies
I could have rushed one of them into torpor mid-game when Una was
tapped.
- Not blocking the rush against Donal with Cameron.
This is probably my biggest mistake. I don't get what I was thinking
- I think I knew I had Bonding in my hand, so I just figured I'd oust
Matt the next turn guaranteed. OOPS.
- Not putting the Dom skill card on Cameron (and forgetting about
Blessing of Chaos)
Turns out that Blessing of Chaos is pretty strong against Bonding. :)
As Darby pointed out to me after the game, Matt had card text on me
this whole weekend! In the finals of the LCQ, I chose to sit as his
predator, knowing in advance that he was playing Stanislava and I was
playing Enkidu Brinksmanship Raptors. Note to readers: Raptors don't
work so well against Stanislava.
- Even after screwing up the Bonding and being left with Cameron,
Volker, and a new Costanza, I *still* could have ousted Matt if I had
just bled with Volker, gotten blocked with one of the weenies, and
left it with 0 blood OUT of torpor.
On Matt's next turn, he would have had to hunt (instead of staying
untapped in torpor to be rescued), and one of my three minions would
have made it through.
Mistakes that I potentially made (but I don't think so):
- Not playing the Bonding earlier
Some people claimed that I could have ousted Matt earlier by playing
the bonding on the turn after he ousted Kevin, but as far as I counted
his pool, he would have been left with 1 (even after paying for the
Cam Seg.)
- Not voting down Ben Peal's vote that ousted me
As far as I know, Ben had 2 untapped Daughters, plus the acting voter,
plus a vote card, plus the edge vs my two princes. Some people
claimed he didn't have vote lock at that point, but I think the vote
still realistically passed.
- Not using the Dreams for Cards at the beginning of the game
I used the Dreams twice for transfers, and only once for cards.
Against Una, it's better to cycle cards early. I really didn't expect
a cross-table DI from Ben against me, but I could have played the
combat slightly differently so it would have been less obvious that I
was going to torpor Una.
Overall, I thought it was a great game, very well played by everyone
but especially Ben Peal. I made some pretty dumb mistakes that cost
me Matt's VP. That said, even if I did manage to oust Matt, I think
that Ben Peal would have made a deal with Ben Swainbank to back oust
me and then fight it out Ben vs Ben.
Being able to sit cross table from Una is very helpful, too.
Great games, everyone!
Ira
[ quoted text not captured ]
But there is alot more chatter for obvious reasons in the final. If
there was only a way to stop the round clock when someone was speaking
about a non-game mechanic. You know like a clock with a "Snooze" bar
on the top that any player could slap to stop/start the clock when
someone starts to jabber.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
On Sep 25, 3:05 pm, Ben Swainbank <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> David Tatu informs me that the game ended on turn 13. So, it wasn't
> really a long game in terms of actual turns and actions.
>
> - Ben Swainbank
Now it may not be feasible, but what if we used a more flexible
limit:
Time limit = 2 hours with a minimum of X rounds being completed.
If time is reached before X rounds have been completed then the time
limit is X rounds + Y(10/15???) minutes.
The difficult part being defining X.
The easiest answer would be to define X arbitrarily, but given a
little bit of extra work at tournaments over a few months reporting
period, the average (or median/mode) number of rounds could be
identified and then used for X.
I don't think it would be too difficult to nominate one player (seat
1) at each table to count the number of rounds played. I don't know
how difficult it would be to record this data, but modifying the
Archon or White Wolf's web reporting system to track this is
theoretically possible (Archon is more likely since it already tracks
data by round).
The benefits to the system would be it allows for adequate table talk
without reducing "card-playing" time.
The obvious con would be needing to track one more piece of data
(number of rounds played). If this were only used at the final table
the head judge could track it instead of players.
Any other pros or cons?
If this or a similar method were adapted, should it be used just for
final tables or for all tournament tables?
jon
Jon wrote:
> On Sep 25, 3:05 pm, Ben Swainbank <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote:>> David Tatu informs me that the game ended on turn 13. So, it wasn't
>> really a long game in terms of actual turns and actions.
>>
>> - Ben Swainbank>
> Now it may not be feasible, but what if we used a more flexible
> limit:
> Time limit = 2 hours with a minimum of X rounds being completed.
> If time is reached before X rounds have been completed then the time
> limit is X rounds + Y(10/15???) minutes.
>
> The difficult part being defining X.
>
...
> Any other pros or cons?
> If this or a similar method were adapted, should it be used just for
> final tables or for all tournament tables?
one con being the game can last an arbitrarily large number of minutes,
if the turns around the table take some length of time. this can be a
problem with venue hire, people's plans, etc.
knowing what time a tournament actually starts and ends can be quite handy.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sure, but let's suppose for discussion purposes that the average 2
hour tournament game is over within 13 rounds (within time limit).
Then in the finals the game times out at 2 hours and only 9 rounds
have gone by. Why did they only play 9 rounds? If it was high level of
play, players taking their time so as not to screw up in a very
intense game, then shouldn't they have the privilege of playing it
out. Even as a spectator wouldn't you rather watch a well-played game
finish, rather than just call time 2/3rds of the way through because
it was such a good game?
If this 2007 NAC final had timed out at 2 hours, how many rounds would
have been played? Would it have been as satisfactory for the players
involved?
Sure there might also be some bad games that go in circles for hours
if you let them play it out, but that is why it should be capped at X
rounds, whatever that is determined to be...
I don't have the answers, but it seems that a 2 hour time limit would
have not only had different results this year, but at least three
players involved in the day 2 final are quoted in this thread as
applauding the extended time limit (and presumably the conclusion of
the game). Then again the other two players might not because either
one might have been the winner of the 2 hour time out game if I
understand how the final unfolded (Kevin was top seed going in and
first ousted right around 2 hours...and Matt having the only oust
until the final minutes???).
Most finals would still probably finish around 2 hours or so, but a
change to the time-out scenario might let some really good, but slow
games finish more satisfactorily...
Anyway, I'm not actually unhappy with the current 2 hour time-limit
norm, I'm just throwing out an alternative based on what I read into
Ben's Swainbank's recounting of a David Tatu comment :)
jon
"Jon" <jsush...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1190799940.3...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 25, 3:05 pm, Ben Swainbank <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote:>> David Tatu informs me that the game ended on turn 13. So, it wasn't
>> really a long game in terms of actual turns and actions.
>>
>> - Ben Swainbank>
> Now it may not be feasible, but what if we used a more flexible
> limit:
> Time limit = 2 hours with a minimum of X rounds being completed.
> If time is reached before X rounds have been completed then the time
> limit is X rounds + Y(10/15???) minutes.
...
> The benefits to the system would be it allows for adequate table talk
> without reducing "card-playing" time.
> The obvious con would be needing to track one more piece of data
> (number of rounds played). If this were only used at the final table
> the head judge could track it instead of players.
>
> Any other pros or cons?
As I pointed out to David Zopf, any non-time game limit misses the
point. The time limit is there because tournaments need a strict
time limit. Facilities close, players need to have some idea when
they need to return for the next round with some assurance that a new
round will begin and, must more importantly, when a tournament will
end. It's an interesting proposal. And unworkable.
Fred
On Sep 26, 11:06 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> "Jon" <jsushin...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1190799940.3...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...[ quoted text not captured ]
Still playing devil's advocate here, but what if it is only for the
final and you don't have to worry about the venue closing (i.e. it
could be an optional rule only available to the final, similar to a
longer timed final, yet different)...
"Jon" <jsush...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1190830399.3...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 26, 11:06 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:>> As I pointed out to David Zopf, any non-time game limit misses the
>> point. The time limit is there because tournaments need a strict
>> time limit. Facilities close, players need to have some idea when
>> they need to return for the next round with some assurance that a new
>> round will begin and, must more importantly, when a tournament will
>> end. It's an interesting proposal. And unworkable.>> Still playing devil's advocate here, but what if it is only for the
> final and you don't have to worry about the venue closing (i.e. it
> could be an optional rule only available to the final, similar to a
> longer timed final, yet different)...
Better, but you still have to be able to assure the participants that
they don't have to stay all night, I think. It might work with a
primary and secondary time limit, the secondary time limit being the
"drop dead" time - when we end the final no matter how few turns have
taken place.
Fred
On Sep 26, 2:22 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> "Jon" <jsushin...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1190830399.3...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...[ quoted text not captured ]
If you're going to bother having it, it makes more sense to me to just
use the "drop dead" time limit in the first place (which we can
already do under VEKN rules).
witness1
Jon <jsush...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't have the answers, but it seems that a 2 hour time limit would
> have not only had different results this year, but at least three
> players involved in the day 2 final are quoted in this thread as
> applauding the extended time limit (and presumably the conclusion of
> the game). Then again the other two players might not because either
> one might have been the winner of the 2 hour time out game if I
> understand how the final unfolded (Kevin was top seed going in and
> first ousted right around 2 hours...and Matt having the only oust
> until the final minutes???).
I don't care how it would have unfolded if there would have been a 2hr
time limit. for all I know, we would have talked less and everything
would have unfolded similarly.
My only contention with having a final of a different length than the
prelims is that is brings a level of corruption to the game that I do not
want. If you play imbued or lots of permanents or big eye, and you manage
to get to the finals, you now have a distinct advantage over the other
players, as well as an advantage that you didn't have in the prelims, i.e.
you have just changed the game from the prelims to the finals.
I also think that if timing-out is allowed to be part of the prelim game,
then it should be allowed to be part of the final game. Why change the
final, for whatever reason, when you are unwilling to change the prelims?
Seems contradictory to me.
I would prefer that the finals are just another game, but for the top 5
players, with nothing else changed. And I have a creeping suspicion that
>2hr time limit finals are the wave of the future (although they won't be
at Origins, if I have anything to say about it).
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message
news:1kyKi.158657$xx1....@newsfe09.phx...
> My only contention with having a final of a different length than the
> prelims is that is brings a level of corruption to the game that I do not
> want. If you play imbued or lots of permanents or big eye, and you manage
> to get to the finals, you now have a distinct advantage over the other
> players, as well as an advantage that you didn't have in the prelims, i.e.
> you have just changed the game from the prelims to the finals.
>
> I also think that if timing-out is allowed to be part of the prelim game,
> then it should be allowed to be part of the final game. Why change the
> final, for whatever reason, when you are unwilling to change the prelims?
> Seems contradictory to me.
I agree. The final round game should be the same one you play in
preliminary rounds.
I also think most of the travel days in the baseball playoffs ought to be
eliminated for the same reason.
Fred
On Sep 26, 2:00 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message[ quoted text not captured ]
Ok, I'm going to leave it at this since I really don't care much
either way...
but I think you (Fred) and Kevin missed the point of my suggestion.
I am against adding more time regardless of amount of game played
(which is, I think, the same opinion as you have in regards to longer
time limit finals).
However, in some cases now (say this years NAC final, with a 2 hour
time limit) the final game is not the same as the preliminary games.
It is in some cases significantly fewer rounds than an average
tournament game, assuming tournament games generally go to conclusion
in less than 2 hours and around 13 rounds (yeah, assumptions with no
empirical basis at this time). The suggestion I proposed would not
enable walls or imbued, or any other longer setup decks. The 2 hour
(or preliminary) time limit would still be in effect, unless an less-
than-average (less-than-normal) number of rounds had been played.
Normality being determined by a large sample size of tournament rounds
which did finish.
This suggestion only extends time played if too few rounds were
played. There is no extension if the final has gone 2 hours and the
number of rounds is equal to or more than the norm.
Anyway, I'm going to stop promoting a fix for something that probably
doesn't need to be fixed anyway.
Just play the game faster and better (this is for me)
:)
jon
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:6WyKi.37068$RX.2...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
[ quoted text not captured ]
...erm, I _meant_ the final round game should _also_ have a two-hour
time limit. :-P
Fred
On Sep 26, 3:20 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> I would prefer that the finals are just another game, but for the top 5
> players, with nothing else changed.
Me too, but I don't think I could get many people to agree to have a
timed-out final with no Game Win. But if you want to champion parity,
that's the only logically consistent conclusion. And since everyone,
in fact, agrees that the finals should be a very very very different
game than the prelims, we're just left quibbling about details.
--
David Cherryholmes
[ quoted text not captured ]
I don't know what you mean by saying that everyone agrees the finals
should be a very different game than the prelims, but I don't believe I
agree with that statement (as given in my previous post), so obviously not
everyone, in fact agrees with your statement.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sep 27, 3:27 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> I don't know what you mean by saying that everyone agrees the finals
> should be a very different game than the prelims, but I don't believe I
> agree with that statement (as given in my previous post), so obviously not
> everyone, in fact agrees with your statement.
I would say everyone is captured in two groups: either they think the
system should stay as it is, or that it should be changed. The final
round as it is, is already wildly different than the preliminary
rounds; there's a whole other path to victory, namely, don't die. The
groups arguing for this or that change would make it even further
different. Either way, you have a final round that is tangibly
different from the preliminary rounds. Hence my conclusion that
"everyone agrees."
Is there a flaw in my logic? I don't think so.
--
David Cherryholmes