That is an interesting idea.

I'm pretty sure we didn't add any time last year. I used a 60-minute timer for all of my games.

And yes, definitely a Top 8 (or Top 4 for Regionals) is the way to go.

What a lot of people don't realize is that the stakes are a lot higher in playoff games, which tends to hinder people's willingness to extend themselves. If you know your opponent is capable of thrashing your squad if you make a single mistake, you're automatically going to be more careful...especially when the chance at playing for the title is at stake. Swiss rounds are different, because you don't have to go undefeated in Swiss to make the Top 8...but after you're in the Top 8, it's sudden death. Major difference in mindset...ask anyone who has made the Top 8 several times. After a while, you learn to relax and focus in these playoff games...but for most people, their stress level is quite a bit higher than it was during Swiss.

Adding more time to top 8 games would be something the top 8 next year could discuss beforehand. I don't recall seeing any of the top 8 this year complaining about time. Yeah, Deri and Gerry's game was really low scoring but that's what you get when you control tons of activations and are forced to play very conservatively. People outside the top 8 telling those in the top 8 that their games were played wrong is like me telling Bill Belechick how to coach a football game. I know all the words, but I really have no idea how anything works

We've heard from both of the participants in this thread that the matchup itself was the issue, not their playstyle or pace. Those of us who were there to observe the match are pretty much saying the same thing. I don't think there is anyone in our game who would like to see games of this score become the norm. However, I don't think this game is a sign of things to come. This game was an exception and, like Bill said, is going to happen from time to time no matter what we do.

Putting any restrictions on the final 8 is not the answer. If we make any changes to encourage engagement or faster play, it should be applied to the swiss rounds. I've already put forth some ideas in a thread on 'Gamers about this but, in short, any changes we make should be incentive based, not penalty based. We don't need to discourage participation at the tournament level at this stage of our game.

Also, for what it's worth, both Gerry and Deri are very fast players. I've played against both of them several times, and never once have I encountered anything even within the same galaxy as slow play.

I agree with Jim: I also don't want to see punishment getting handed out. Incentives should definitely be considered. Perhaps the 3-2-1-0 scoring system is the way to go in the Swiss rounds...but it still won't change anything in the playoff rounds.

I remember back in the '08 championship, that's the way a lot of the games went. Hell...those kind of scores was how I won a few of the games. I think people forget how the game was played and won...before super damage came about. I kinda miss those days to be honest. I like the 18-14 score line. Sounds like quite the chess match.

That's great! I am not accusing anyone of slow play, I am sure that in the top 8 of gencon if slow play were occurring a warning or something would have been issued, and that did not occur so great. Both players have commented about how much of a chess match the game was and that is cool to, all I am trying to do is find ways to make engaging more in the top 8 practical or worth doing.

Why?

There is zero issue with a play-off game going to time and being a low scoring chess match type affair when both parties are actively jockeying for position and trying to get the win.

Obvious exceptions would be blatant slow play by one party to gain the advantage and win. That's clearly not what this is.

As someone mentioned, Gerry and Deri are both capable of playing extremely fast even with these squads. The problem here is that between the specific matchup and map selection it ended up more of a standoff. Had either one of them rushed in that person likely would have put themselves in a very vulnerable situation. Who wants to do that?

In fact there is a reasonable argument to be made that this was a perfectly reasonable result in Swiss. Both players understand the implication of not getting a 3 point victory. If anything this scenario is a perfect example of how a 3-2-1-0 scoring system should be adopted. As Gerry said, he considered rushing his Pilots but didn't. Had this matchup occurred during Swiss its possible he would have elected to do so knowing that if that strategy failed that he could still muster a point for his aggression.

But leave the playoffs alone. These things happen and I could care less if 3 people get their undies in a bunch over it.

If the incentive to build a squad that can win complete games is there, a player making the top 8 will have such a squad. There's really no need to make any rules applicable to only the top 8.

Well on this note I would like to know how many top 8 games were decided by tiebreaker. I am using this game as an example because it was the lowest scoring one i heard about.