Timeouts in Finals: Do they happen too often?

nc-italy wrote:

Each cycle of ashur tablets can eat away as much as 5 mins of cards
selection-put in hand-reshuffle deck; also on top of that we see lots of decks regaining an huge amount of pool with villein+lilith's blessing tricks and the like
Now consider this multiplied at least for 2 players at the table (i've seen no no less than 2 decks at table playing massively the ashur recursion + villein and /or liquidations and so on, in recent times) and to me that's why lots of tables (not only finals) ends up at time limit nowadays

My thoughts exactly.

A lot of decks rely on big pool gain, then they are okay with eitheir timing out with 1,5 VP or a lose deal for 2 VP and give 3 to another, faster deck.
They often just need 1 GW to get to the finals with 1GW 5,5/6 VP. So, big problem apart, it's a always a win for those strategies.


Now, the game evolved.
Isn't it about time that the tournament rules evolves also ?
I'd say the current Victory point system tallying is obsolete. What I would like : Either you get the GW and garner the VP, or else you get nothing. So slow deck with mass pool gain will be forced to actually do something (take risks) to get to the finals.

Reyda wrote:

What I would like : Either you get the GW and garner the VP, or else you get nothing. So slow deck with mass pool gain will be forced to actually do something (take risks) to get to the finals.

Isn't that exactly how the current system works? It counts GWs first, but with such a crude measure you still need something to sort out ex-aequos. One could change the final ranking, but that would be rather drastric: no GW = no tournament winner.

extrala wrote:

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?

From that viewpoint, you're right - an ousted player shouldn't care who wins. But that's not the point in time we're talking about here. Step back to time zero, when selecting seats and think about this:

I'm #1 seed (a small subset of all tournaments I play, but OK....)

If I sit to the left of the #3-5 seed, he'll have 1 motivation to be an active predator......1 VP if he ousts me. Being #4 or #5 seed, finishing with 1.5 VP, is good - but many players won't take extra mid-game risks to reach that outcome. It's still too easy to lose in that situation.

If I sit to the right of the #2 seed, he has TWO motivations to be a very active predator earlier in the game....1 VP if he ousts me AND top (remaining) seed. Jeff's data suggests that 1.5 VP as top dog is frequently a winning position. This consideration SHOULD justify a higher risk tolerance, earlier in the game, from the #2 seed.

I know if I were #2 in that situation, I would be chanting the mantra "get my one and wall up" in that situation, starting about 30 minutes into the game. I'm notoriously left-looking anyway, but if I can get a double advantage from an oust, watch out, the fur is going to fly.

Following that thought process, the last thing I ever want to do is give my predator any additional excuse to stifle my development early, or to be looking at my pool total with too much interest. As #1 seed in a tournament, I should be extra-concerned about that.

I'm not saying it's the only thing a #1 seed should think about - but there's a subtle rationale to avoid sitting left of #2 when you're top seed.

Non-existant user wrote:

Reyda wrote:

What I would like : Either you get the GW and garner the VP, or else you get nothing. So slow deck with mass pool gain will be forced to actually do something (take risks) to get to the finals.

Isn't that exactly how the current system works? It counts GWs first, but with such a crude measure you still need something to sort out ex-aequos. One could change the final ranking, but that would be rather drastric: no GW = no tournament winner.

Let's find something else.
why not try this :
Gaining the most vp at a table is worth 1 Vampiric Point.
Sweeping a table is worth 1 Dhampiric point.
all the rest does not count.

the players going to the finals are the one with the most Vampiric / Dhampiric points count as tiebreakers.

Not that I'm also in favor of "no tournament winner if no VP" !

And for skeptical people : the tournament and GW system has already changed in the past.