| From: | hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: National Tournament??? |
| Date: | Fri, 17 Apr 1998 08:04:18 +0800 |
>
>Debate? No. Discussion? Yes.
I was struggleing for the right word..
>
>> >What you don't get is the sometimes unforeseen consequences of ruling a
>> >card or game mechanic as being one way or another: no rules reversals,
>> >because they were never ground in stone to begin with. Live, and live
>> >easy; it's my particular belief that most people will be cool rather
>> >than turn into pricks in such a situation.
>
>> That's now, I'm thinking about the future... It's easier to shape metal
when
>> it's hot than when it's cold.....
>
>Strangely enough, I see SRTCG without hard-and-fast tournament rules
>being the more fluid. Obviously, some clarifications are needed, though
>(that Z-zone thing, for instance).
>
Ok... that I can live with but wasn't actually talking about the card
rulings.
>> >I wouldn't really call a Big Tough Guy deck speedy. In fact, my bets
>> >would swing their way in the long run: there's only so long you can keep
>> >resources under your control, and many of the anti-control cards cost
>> >nothing (Bar Fight, Riots). The resource-manipulator is more likely to
>> >run into problems on shadowruns, and its easier to score eight or ten
>> >decent shadowruns than sixty-odd visits to Fuchi.
>
>> Look I hardly play so I'm just guessing.....
>
>So am I. :) I've got three guys I play with, one of them only
>sporadically; what the 'big game' is like is unknown to me.
>
>> >Part of the fun inherent in *any* card game is the flexibility inherent
>> >in it -- paradoxical since the actual amount of rules are so small. I'd
>> >like to be able to rate, say, one group that likes to play 300-point
>> >games, and one that likes to play 75-point games, and -- since a
>> >tournament system is going to have the trappings of officialty about it,
>> >*encourage both*. That's the point I'm getting at here.
>
>> I'm sorry, Ishould have stated this before... Standardization should only
be
>> done during the tournament... For actual standards you'll need
democracy....
>> For example having a 300pt tourny one day and a 75pt tourney the next.
You
>> give everybody a fair chance while chatering to everyone.
>
>That sounds like a cool idea .. have a couple different levels in the
>tournament format (or, really, a couple different tournament types).
>There's a wide difference in strategy between one-on-one decks and
>multiplayer, and between short-game and long-game decks.
This is really the point I want to put through... Get the players together
and let THEM decide how they will play the tournament... Then as the
official you enforce the rules THEY have decided upon... I feel this is
fairer since ultimately it will be the players who will be paying entry fees
to bolster the prizes (in addition to the sponsors if any...)
The problem now is format.... Most players do not know of a way to play
competitively.... They need a system... only one idea for a new system has
come up (the fixed # of rounds system)... This is what I'm attempting to
find and preferably refine...
>> A lotta players have bluffed their opponents into conceiding ( if you
follow
>> the tournament scene you'll know who I'm talking about...)
>
>Not a clue. Last time I played Magic was.. um.. The Dark.
>
Trust me when there's $150,000 up for grabs , a lot of scummy things
happen....
>> >A while ago there was some talk of using Swiss-format scoring for
>> >tournaments, which at the time I was rather outspokenly against;
>> >however, given the possibilities for multiple tiers of game types, a
>> >similar system might be used. Any suggestions? I'd much rather allow
>> >(several) different gaming environments than one rather strict one, even
>> >if it makes direct comparison a bit limited.
>
>> Swiss format : I'm very comfortable with that....
>> Problem : time.......
>
>Mmm, I've seen a couple other problems with it. It was big in chess
>because, well, it's the only way to really assign points (win-2, tie-1,
>loss-0). Magic absorbed it because there are too many varied ways to
>win: If you assign points based on, say, your remaining life total when
>you kill your opponent, you ignore deck types that get kills by other
>means (decking, poison counters, and other means).
>
>SRTCG has a built-in score pad, though - Reputation. Using a second
>system seems unnecessary (and possibly unwieldy).
>
>At least, those were my beefs at the time. They don't quite seem as
>important anymore. I'm really looking forward to a tournament being set
>up.
>
You didn't catch my point (oh well it wasn't very clear in the first
place)... In swiss time is another resource. You can actually win by
manipulating the allocated time. The worst thing is that this can be done
without stalling. Swiss introduces a totally new resource into the game.
(Eg. Fast deck vs Slow deck. The slow deck manages to achive control. he
continues the game until the judge announces 5 minutes to time. He then
kills his opponent, sideboards & shuffels his opponent's deck. He draws his
cards and the judge announces time is up. He won the round W-U-U. No really
wonderful pointwise but still a win. Note this can happen with any deck that
have a fair amount of control.)
Of course, this is hardly what I call sportsmanlike but then I was giving
out a mox for the top prize and quite a lot of goodies for the rest of the
top 8.
