|
Yes
|
22
|
  
81.481481
%
|
|
No
|
5
|
18.518518
%
|
|
It needs to be focused grouped first ;)
|
0
|
0.000000
%
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/18/2008
Posts: 1,098
Location: Kokomo
|
Echo24 wrote:Ok, lets dissect it further.
What do you think the problem is that makes people want the 3-2-1 system, and what specifically do you think causes that problem? I think the problem with 3/2/0 for players happens immediately after they lose a well fought high scoring game that finished on time. Because, they look around and see games still being played where nither player has hardly lost any pieces. They walk around and watch games where it's obvious that the winner is playing for a two point win. They realize that the winners of those games will advance and that they were a fool for having played so aggresively. Therefore, they play timidly and cautiously... unless they're just crazy aggressive players that refuse to change.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2008
Posts: 1,288
|
fingersandteeth wrote:
There is only so much the victory conditions can do. A massive part of the tourney outcomes is design ramifications.
I don't think you're necessarily wrong about this; the game inherently rewards playing more activations. However, I think that "there's only so much we can do" is an especially poor argument against doing something more. You're right; there IS only so much the victory conditions can do. But if we can do more than we're doing now, why shouldn't we? I think it's possible that tournaments reward fast, aggressive play enough to overcome the basic game's design problems enough that people play faster and more aggressive. I think adding the points system already did that somewhat. Adding gambit did a little more. Why not do more if we can and it doesn't hurt anything? If you think the suggested changes DO hurt the system, that's a fair argument, although I remain unconvinced of the reasoning given up to this point.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/18/2008
Posts: 1,098
Location: Kokomo
|
fingersandteeth wrote:
I just don't think that a significant amount of games are conducive to being finished in an hour.
There is only so much the victory conditions can do. A massive part of the tourney outcomes is design ramifications.
To summarize, i think you can mess with the tourney victory conditions ad infinitum but core aspects of the game will always dictate how it plays.
Observing the differences between US use of the 3/2/0 system and NZ players using 3/2/1 these past 4 years... I think it's safe to say that Victory conditions can influence the overall attitude or "culture" of playstyle. However, if core aspects of game do not allow games to be finished in an hour then playstyle incentives or deterants are not a fix all. 3/2/1 scoring system = encouages and rewards agressive playstyle, but doesn't mean games will finish. Increasing gambit (a core aspect of the game) = games can finish faster.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/2/2008
Posts: 522
Location: Chicago
|
Echo24 wrote:
I think it's possible that tournaments reward fast, aggressive play enough to overcome the basic game's design problems enough that people play faster and more aggressive. I think adding the points system already did that somewhat. Adding gambit did a little more. Why not do more if we can and it doesn't hurt anything?
Changing something for no other reason to change it can only create confusion. If the situation is better then its worth doing no matter how small the benefit. However, i don't think either recent proposed changes worry me at all. darthdrakul wrote:Observing the differences between US use of the 3/2/0 system and NZ players using 3/2/1 these past 4 years...
I think it's safe to say that Victory conditions can influence the overall attitude or "culture" of playstyle.
However, if core aspects of game do not allow games to be finished in an hour then playstyle incentives or deterants are not a fix all. It might be just the culture of the players regardless of the ruleset.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 9/23/2008
Posts: 1,487
Location: Lower the Hutt, New Zealand
|
thereisnotry wrote:IMHO, NZ is the best place to play SWM on the planet;
I have to say, reading this makes me almost tear up a little. I originally just wanted to create a playgroup so I had someone to play against with this new game that I was really getting into.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2008
Posts: 1,288
|
fingersandteeth wrote:Echo24 wrote:
I think it's possible that tournaments reward fast, aggressive play enough to overcome the basic game's design problems enough that people play faster and more aggressive. I think adding the points system already did that somewhat. Adding gambit did a little more. Why not do more if we can and it doesn't hurt anything?
Changing something for no other reason to change it can only create confusion. If the situation is better then its worth doing no matter how small the benefit. I agree 100%. I think that this change does bring with it a benefit, and isn't a change just for the sake of change.
|
|
|
Guest |