Finals are boring. Pt. 1: Slow Play

Squidalot wrote:

As i'm sure you're aware it's pretty hard to judge ratioanlly on anything that is subjective such as 'slow play'.

It is indeed, and it's an issue that has to be judged on a sliding scale. Both of these situations occurred in finals I judged.

Case 1. I timed a players time between actions. Over 3 turns, it steadily increased (more than doubling), was consistent between actions and reached 1.5 min when I intervened. At the same time, the opposing player exhibited a modest increase in time between actions.

I know the player in the winning position wasn't deliberately stalling. He was just really trying to avoid mistakes. But the effect was the same and it was actionable.

Case 2. This time, the two remaining players BOTH played measurably slower. Since the relative increase (and absolute elapsed time) per action was the nearly identical for both guys, I couldn't point to the player in the winning position as doing anything outside the normal flow of that game.

I'll tell you though, that EVERY turn I was itching to step in and had to justify my inaction to an equally frustrated spectator after the game.

D.

Jeff wrote:

...but that does seem more fair to me than providing an incentive for the top seed to stall.

KevinM wrote:

As has been said MANY times before, the top seed CANNOT stall, because it's illegal. tbh I'm surprised that you even mentioned it.

Just because it is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Irrespective of any judge's willingness to enforce the rules, I actually mentioned that this would reduce any *incentive* for the top seed to stall. Such an incentive does exist and is in fact part of the tournament rules:

3.7.5 Final Round Scoring
In the event of a tie, the players' rankings at the end of the preliminary rounds will be the deciding tiebreaker.

KevinM wrote:

What alternate tournament scoring procedures are you keen to have sanctioned, specifically?

Personally, I think the best way would be to have "sudden death overtime." If the game is tied at the end of regulation time, a new rule is imposed (you cannot transfer down to zero pool), and each time a victory point is earned, the game may end if it is not still tied.

Alternately, as I mentioned, I don't see any problem with a final ending in a tie if no one has a clear VP advantage. I also mentioned that pool remaining could also be used as a tie-breaker, but others thought that would lead to more king-making and conservative (keep your pool high) play. Perhaps it would.

Allowing flexibility to score final tables won't change the only real reward that requires tracking by the V:EKN: Bids to continental championships.

But, if you allow tournament organizers a choice of ways to determine a final winner, then some might actually try things differently and find a better way. Most won't, but even fewer will do so unless given the opportunity.

Another thought: Suppose in the preliminary standings there is a tie for 1st place. Some random means will then determine who has the choice of seating, but is it also fair that the randomly determined "top seed" also wins the event if there is a tie at the end of regulation time? I don't think this contingency is accounted for in the tournament rules. Perhaps it should be.

I feel style points should be the tie breaker. B-)

"You actually played becoming of ennoia before rushing cross table out of turn with Lutz via madness network, punching for one, playing armor of caines fury @ pre, and disarming?" That should be worth a tournament...



(Especially if your deck runs those cards and MADE finals)

Or at least stop the game at the end of a table turn so that everyone gets to play the same number of turns.