Timeouts in tournaments

jhattara wrote:

TunFiskeMad wrote:

jhattara wrote:

DTA wrote:

Would not only giving players that already got 1 or more VPs eligible for the 0.5vp solve many timeout situations? since then you would gain noting from just surviving to the end.

Same issue. 2vp is more than 1.75vp.

I think he ment: Only people with atleast 1 vp will get the 0,5 vp in case of at timeout.

Wouldn't do anything to the perceived issue of people first getting 2 vp quickly and then stopping to wait for the 0.5 more and GW.

Might not - but as it is now he still wins. The other way might give more of an incentive to try and oust because the fear to get ousted yourself would perhaps be lessend, since you would get 0 vps either way.

I don't know if this is a good idea or anything - just wanted to explain what I think DTA ment.

Just don't award a Gamewin on timed tables.

TunFiskeMad wrote:

jhattara wrote:

TunFiskeMad wrote:

jhattara wrote:

DTA wrote:

Would not only giving players that already got 1 or more VPs eligible for the 0.5vp solve many timeout situations? since then you would gain noting from just surviving to the end.

Same issue. 2vp is more than 1.75vp.

I think he ment: Only people with atleast 1 vp will get the 0,5 vp in case of at timeout.

Wouldn't do anything to the perceived issue of people first getting 2 vp quickly and then stopping to wait for the 0.5 more and GW.

Might not - but as it is now he still wins. The other way might give more of an incentive to try and oust because the fear to get ousted yourself would perhaps be lessend, since you would get 0 vps either way.

I don't know if this is a good idea or anything - just wanted to explain what I think DTA ment.

Yes that is exactly what i meant=).
But no i do not think this would solve all possible timeouts but i think it would be a really good start.

KevinM wrote:

Instead of whining, these people, if they want anything to change, should be calling a judge and asking for a stalling penalty or a slow play penalty and then asking for more time to be added to the game clock. I've done all of these things to and for slow players, and they work quite well in order to facilitate change in player's attitudes when they constantly get called on slow play and want to avoid the embarrassment.

Of course, there are the stallers, as well. They just need to be educated, or ejected, as you find necessary.

I don't know how much of a diplomat you are, Kevin, but in a game with such a dwindling player base I find that such confrontational and heavy-handed measures could quite possibly end up having counterproductive effects (of course you can still defend that you'd rather not play than play with stallers or people who would react negatively to being called out on it).

That said, adding time can definitely be an option in many cases, not that I've ever seen it done as a reaction to slow play. Our local meta is fortunately not too marred by stalling behaviours though I have seen the ocasional occurrence.

Awarding 0 additional VPs for timing-out has probably been suggested a hefty number of times before but It still seems to me like an idea that merits discussion. Not that it helps with 2VPers turtling for the rest of the game.


Drain

Just don't award a Gamewin on timed tables.

So all I do once I can't get a GW is stall in legitimate ways so no one else gets a GW either.

Two hours is more than enough to play a game of VTES. Learn to make decisions and play the game, not spend half the game talking about an action.

Changing the length of games will not change timeouts either. All you're going to do is make tournaments take even longer and see the same number of timeouts as deck building changes to allow even slower decks to survive.

So all I do once I can't get a GW is stall in legitimate ways so no one else gets a GW either.

You cannot stall legally. Besides, you can already do this regardless.

Two hours is more than enough to play a game of VTES. Learn to make decisions and play the game, not spend half the game talking about an action.

Well ya know, the game's 18 years old. After 18 years about 40% of the people playing this game are mindnumbingly slow in tournament games. Saying they "should play faster" will not happen unless you enforce it. Which cannot realistically be done.

Changing the length of games will not change timeouts either. All you're going to do is make tournaments take even longer and see the same number of timeouts as deck building changes to allow even slower decks to survive.

Oh sure I agree that making 4 hour rounds will just make 4 hour rounds time out. Maybe it's worth looking at other options, for example allowing every player 12 turns and ignore the clock otherwise. Or make up rules that allow judges to award VPs and GWs depending on the state of the table when the time is up.

I'm not particularly bothered by the 2,5 VP gamewin, as you still have to oust two people to get said gamewin within 2 hours. I'm a lot more bothered by people that are on the verge of dying in the next ~3 turns making those 3 turns last 40 minutes by initiating all sorts of pointless tabletalk and DI-threats until timeout.

(On that topic I *really* believe DI should be banned because it simply makes the game less fun to play. I was playing the final table of the EC and we had to ask "DI?" on literally every freaking action. Of the 2 hours that game lasted almost 20 were wasted on talk about DIs. That's just ridiculous.)

As a player, I tell people to move on all the time, especially early in the game but that doesn't exactly get you a lot of table popularity. Around where we play people tend to play reasonably quick and we don't have a lot of timeouts, but when you hit an EC, ECQ or NC you'll get annoyed at 5-minute minion phases fairly quickly.

Until judges actually get some tools to punish borderline stalling and slowplay, people will play slow. Telling them to "play faster" hasn't worked in 18 years, so I doubt telling people to "learn to make decisions" now will suddenly work.