Timeouts in Finals: Do they happen too often?

I'm seeing an awful lot of 1.5 VP tournament wins in recent reports.
Are you seeing the same thing locally?
Are players playing the clock rather than playing the game?

People just play too slow in general, not just in the finals.

Some players just have obnoxiously slow styles of play. discussing for ten minutes as to IF your calling a krc then arguing another 5 over terms is unacceptable. I don't think many players intentionally time out finals, but sometimes play more defensively during them. a trend of girls style decks has probably led to the increase, since it moves forward very slowly and gains mounds of pool, 1 vp is often all it does before just sitting as the table does whatever.

When the only players with .5 VPs are those that are in the finals, and those .5 VPs were earned in the finals, it isn't a problem with their slow play. It is a problem with their changed behavior because it is a final round.

How can you judge it? You would need to do an experiment in which you time and record the time for each person's turn.

I recently played in a final in which the judge asked a player to pick up the speed of his play. The player argued with the judge, indicating that he did not accept the judge's subjective opinion for what amounted to an unofficial warning against stalling. The judge said that he had been timing the player's most recent turns, and, citing those times, he indicated exactly how much slower the player's turns had become. The player then accepted the informal warning and play continued.

But without using a timer it's hard to really judge. I've played in slow finals, I've played in slow non-finals. I've played in fast finals, I've played in fast non-finals. If most games end with a timeout, why wouldn't most finals end with a timeout?

I have only ever played in one final in which I was certain a player was trying to time the game: he played very slowly in the mid-game (it was subtle but noticeable) and then sped up his turns towards the end. He miscalculated, however, because the game ended on his predator's turn and all he needed was one more turn in order to win the tournament.

Adonai wrote:

I'm seeing an awful lot of 1.5 VP tournament wins in recent reports.
Are you seeing the same thing locally?
Are players playing the clock rather than playing the game?

1.5 / 0 / 0.5 / 0.5 / 0.5 is not really the same as 1.5 / 1 / 0 / 0.5 / 0.5 or even 1.5 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0.5 (where 3 players were ousted)

By their very nature, a finals game is less likely to end in a game win than preliminary rounds are.

In prelims, players are forced to push for wins to reach the finals. Even in small tournaments where a win might not be needed to reach the final, players push for that one extra VP.

It's this forced aggression which result in lunge-VPs (successful lunge) or ousting opportunities for others (failed lunges).

In the finals, seeding actually demotivates the top seeds (presumably the decks with the highest ousting potential) from lunging.

Consider: Any 1st seed is nearly assured a tournament win if he can a garner a reasonably timely VP and survive to the 2 hour mark. In this case:

- his predator clearly could not win (no VP),
- his original grand predator could not win (at most having 1.5 VP, but lower seed),
- his original prey probably couldn't win, (he would have to accumulate 2 VP before the top seed ousts him)
- that leaves only the top seed's original grand prey as real threat to accumulate 2 VP.

(Note: edited for corrections on seating and VP distribution, sorry about that - I hurried too much in the initial post).

If the top seed makes the mistake of sitting to the left of the number 2 seed, he can put himself in a position where the #2 seed can become the de facto top seed. Most top seeds never seem to think about this, instead focusing only on deck match-ups and/or player tendencies (e.g., never sit on Randall Rusdam's left). IMO, that's poor play, even before the game starts.

Back to the original line of thought: This whole phenomenon is part of what makes Stickmen work so well. Players lunge in the early rounds, so Stickmen get a game win taking advantage of redirected lunge bleeds, which they follow with their own [DOM] powered bombs. If Sticks can get enough VPs in the prelims, any crafty player sits 2 seats behind some deck with limited offense and good defense (or huge bloat). They'll win a disproportionate number of those encounters with 1.5 VP.

That doesn't even count the "playing chicken" part of the finals, where players are trying to snipe a VP on their final turn, despite having a disregarded opportunity to oust (or set up the oust) on previous turns.

AaronC wrote:

If most games end with a timeout, why wouldn't most finals end with a timeout?

Take a look thru the Tournament Reports forum, and look for the .5 VPs for the non-finalists, when the Archon results are reported. I've observed that the vast majority of games are ending in the initial rounds and only the finals is different. Locally, you may see timeouts in every round, in which case it is not players playing the clock, only players playing badly ( ).

TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote:

.. never sit on Randall Rusdam's left). ...

Not trying to derail the interesting thread, it's good news that this valuable hint also reached the new world.

TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote:

If the top seed makes the mistake of sitting to the left of the number 2 seed, he can put himself in a position where the #2 seed can become the de facto top seed.

Can you explain, I simply don't understand the rationale. If the top seed is the prey (left side) of the #2, and #2 becomes the defacto top seed, he must have ousted the top seed. So why should the top seed care?