Magic-League.com Forum Index Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Magic-Leagues tournament round time limit.



 
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> General Magic-League Issues

Do you agree with my suggestion?
Yes, I love this idea.
14%
 14%  [ 2 ]
Yea...it seems ok.
21%
 21%  [ 3 ]
No, we dont want rounds lasting any longer!
50%
 50%  [ 7 ]
Birdyyy keep your opinions to yourself.
14%
 14%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 14

Author Message
BIRDYYY



Joined: 25 Jan 2006
Posts: 158

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:19 pm    Post subject: Magic-Leagues tournament round time limit. Reply with quote

I would like this bring up this issue with how a match is decided when time is called in a tournament round.

Anyone who knows there is very little time left in their round could easily just start stalling out 1 turn so easily. And the main problem is that the other player is only getting 1 more turn if hes lucky at this point.
This can be easily fixed by applying the 5 turn rule to Magicleague tournaments.
I understand this could make rounds take a few more minutes, but it is defeating the purpose of trying to make this site as hardcore as DCI rulings/procedures if your not going with the 5 turn rule. You guys already estimate 8max takes up to 3 hours, it still wont go over that 3 hour mark.
Back to top
Kabelis



Joined: 27 Jun 2010
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Anyone who knows there is very little time left in their round could easily just start stalling out 1 turn so easily. And the main problem is that the other player is only getting 1 more turn if hes lucky at this point.


I had a lot of problems with the current rule myself and got burnt pretty annoyingly once in a situation when both parties knew what was going on, but judges couldn't do anything about it. But 5 turn rule isn't used for a good reason, end match procedures may take ages already, this would slow the rounds down way too much.

Personally I would like a fix so that BOTH players would be well aware which turn will be the last one BEFORE that turn starts.

Whenever there's a race (especially with lifelink involved), having the last attack gives an insane advantage. That wouldn't be so bad if you could make attacks/blocks with a knowledge if the turn will be the very last or not.
The whole situation when an attack happens and you have to decide if you want to make blocks as if it's the last turn or if you'll have enough time to get another turn and win (because of something you have in your hand, for example) is awkward as hell.

I feel like there should be some kind of rule to enforce players to inform each other if the turn will be the last one or not to prevent these silly shenanigans.
Back to top
Kuberr
Level 1 Judge


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 31

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kabelis wrote:


Personally I would like a fix so that BOTH players would be well aware which turn will be the last one BEFORE that turn starts.


If 5 turns would take too long, how about 1 or 2 extra turns? As soon as both players aknowledge "time is called", then after the current turn, there is 1 (or 2 )more additional turn(s). this way nobody can abuse the last combat phase, because both players are absolutely aware of when the match will end.

I'm 100% against the "time is called, so gg" rule that is enforced now.
Back to top
Kabelis



Joined: 27 Jun 2010
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuberr wrote:
Kabelis wrote:


Personally I would like a fix so that BOTH players would be well aware which turn will be the last one BEFORE that turn starts.


If 5 turns would take too long, how about 1 or 2 extra turns? As soon as both players aknowledge "time is called", then after the current turn, there is 1 (or 2 )more additional turn(s). this way nobody can abuse the last combat phase, because both players are absolutely aware of when the match will end.

I'm 100% against the "time is called, so gg" rule that is enforced now.


Yeah, that was my solution as well a while back, but I got a response that "1 extra turn is just as unnecessary as 5".

It's not THAT big of a deal and match changing situations arise very seldomly, but current system does encourage stalling (and players to watch the chat to see how much time is left instead of playing) and there's actually no way for judges to enforce it as long as a person isn't doing it insanely obviously.
Adding 1 additional turn to make the whole end game procedure more official and logical isn't that big of a deal imo (other than the official announcement hassle and the like).
Back to top
niknight



Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 261

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just to point out, we tried the 5 turn rule a couple of years ago... and it was an abysmal failure. There were infinite arguments about whose turn it was when time was called, the extra turns were taken very slowly because people thought untimed = I can tank, and this was only magnified when we applied this to trials and masters.
Back to top
Steveman



Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 154

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No system is perfect, there's the game and then there's the game outside of the game, no matter what system you implement there will be exploitations.
Back to top
Weedmonkey



Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 324

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with niknight on this - whilst the 5 turn rule would be nice as we could closer mirror DCI policy, it just isn't feasible at the moment.

However - I'm completely open to re-exploring this in the future should an application have a spectator mode. This way we can have judges sit in on matches in extra time to ensure that they're running smoothly.

Similarly, another path through which we could consider extra turns would be by having an application capable of DDE and COM connections, through which we can send a notice to an application that time is up.

The bottom line is that if this is something you want to see implemented, approach developers that are active in developing applications and ask them to implement one or both of these features. Once they are implemented and are being used by Magic-League members, we can revisit this idea and consider it in light of the new tools judges will have available.
Back to top
Kabelis



Joined: 27 Jun 2010
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So really, what's the reason to not have only 1 extra turn to make sure games don't end randomly in the middle of the turn?
It also discourages stalling because if time ends while it's your turn, your opponent will have the very last turn.

The current system is illogical just from the core principle of the turn based game. I completely understand why 5 extra turns is too much, but you can't honestly argue that 1 extra turn after time ends when both players will be aware that it IS, in fact, the very last turn, will slow down tournaments too much if at all.
Back to top
pankill



Joined: 02 May 2011
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steveman because a system can not be perfect it does not mean also that you must not strive to optimize it.At the moment the magic-league system helps stallers,people that bend the clock in the favour and overall discourage player's from playing controll decks.I can understand that you can not change the current system for software reasons but saying that it is perfect or it is ok because every system is faulty is dumb at least.I hope we can find a solution and we have 5 round turns as the paper magic.
Back to top
Weedmonkey



Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 324

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, I've thought on this overnight, and here is where my thoughts are currently at:

Is stalling an issue on Magic-League? No. Stalling complaints aren't above what we would expect, and the number of people we've had to issue Stalling penalties to are very small.

Does adding one extra turn discourage players from playing slowly towards the end of the round? No. Players who choose to stall will still play slowly up until the end of the round, and then pass the turn to their opponent so they're guaranteed to get the last turn.

Whilst I understand the desire to discourage Stalling, adding one extra turn I really don't think is going to achieve what players want it to achieve. I am however happy to discuss this with judges and see what they think of this.
Back to top
Kabelis



Joined: 27 Jun 2010
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Is stalling an issue on Magic-League? No. Stalling complaints aren't above what we would expect, and the number of people we've had to issue Stalling penalties to are very small.


Yes, it's because it's nigh impossible to prove the last minute or so stalling so no one bothers to complain. It's one of those things which any spiky player will take advantage of because current system indirectly encourages it.

Quote:
Does adding one extra turn discourage players from playing slowly towards the end of the round? No. Players who choose to stall will still play slowly up until the end of the round, and then pass the turn to their opponent so they're guaranteed to get the last turn.


The point is that you can't make your opponent play faster, but you can play faster yourself. If you are aware of the board state and know your outs (in the case of a board stall, for example), your turn may literally take 3-5s. Potentially rewarding players who advance the gamestate (and thus increase the # of turns in the game) by passing the turn more often is better than potentially rewarding players for slowing down.

The way I see it it's A LOT harder to intentionally time passing the turn with like 5s left on the clock so your opponent doesn't have time to pass the turn back, than it is to just wait it out.

With current rules a staller with a vague knowledge that time will be called in 15 to 30 seconds can easily wait it out and pretend he has a decision with actual 0% chance to be punished. With the proposed change he can get burnt a lot more easily because the higher fraction of shared time he spends on his turn the more likely that time will be called during said turn. If that makes sense.

Basically it won't prevent people from trying to manipulate the clock, but by changing the rules so that the player who is looking to actively advance the gamestate is potentially rewarded more just makes sense to me..

TLDR; current rules potentially reward passive behaviour rather than active one.
Back to top
Weedmonkey



Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 324

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Yes, it's because it's nigh impossible to prove the last minute or so stalling so no one bothers to complain. It's one of those things which any spiky player will take advantage of because current system indirectly encourages it.


Stalling is the easiest of the Cheating penalties to prove, as we have timed logs of how long it takes each player to perform actions. The two things you are assuming are:

1. Judges do not have sufficient skill to identify cases where a player is Stalling.

2. Every player that brings a case of Stalling to #judges4you is correct, and therefore judges should find their opponent guilty of Stalling.

Further, judges do not require concrete evidence of Stalling - only reasonable belief that it has occurred.

Quote:
The point is that you can't make your opponent play faster, but you can play faster yourself. If you are aware of the board state and know your outs (in the case of a board stall, for example), your turn may literally take 3-5s. Potentially rewarding players who advance the gamestate (and thus increase the # of turns in the game) by passing the turn more often is better than potentially rewarding players for slowing down.

The way I see it it's A LOT harder to intentionally time passing the turn with like 5s left on the clock so your opponent doesn't have time to pass the turn back, than it is to just wait it out.


If a player is aware of how much time is left in the round, then it is reasonable to assume that they are sufficiently aware to know when to pass the turn to their opponent. The pattern of behaviour you're describing here is that Stallers are aware of how much time is left in the round, and therefore time their actions accordingly.

Quote:
With current rules a staller with a vague knowledge that time will be called in 15 to 30 seconds can easily wait it out and pretend he has a decision with actual 0% chance to be punished.


The number of times I have seen this particular case pop up in my time as a judge is few.

Quote:
Basically it won't prevent people from trying to manipulate the clock, but by changing the rules so that the player who is looking to actively advance the gamestate is potentially rewarded more just makes sense to me..


The issue here is that the tournament will be slowed in order to address a pattern of behaviour that anecdotally just isn't there. If players are choosing not to address issues in their match then that's their decision, but judges cannot take action on issues that we aren't made aware of. Should a time in the future arise where Stalling becomes problematic then I can foresee revisiting the question of whether we should add one extra turn, but until such an issue arises then there is no compelling case to make such a change.
Back to top
Mizukage



Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 106

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've had my opponent penalized for stalling at least a couple of times.

Just putting it out there to make people aware that the system works.
Back to top
Kabelis



Joined: 27 Jun 2010
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I always assumed that rules would protect me from blatant last minute stalling when you're dead on board next turn and you have no outs, but when it happened and it couldn't be more obvious as to what my opponent was doing and judges turned the blind eye to that kind of extremely obvious situation, yeah, I don't trust that it's possible to investigate a player who intentionally waits out the last 30s if he didn't stall beforehand. I'm biased, but that was my experience.


So I'm proposing a change to possibly give a player who's more honest a better chance to not be taken advantage of even if it is very subtle and doesn't come up that often.


And even if you completely disagree that this type of stalling is an issue, just making it so that game always ends with a full turn where both players are aware that, yes, this will be the VERY last turn, seems worth it from logistics' perspective.

The fact that a player isn't required to announce that a certain turn is the last, and can do stupid shit like attack and after favourable combat phase say "oops time's over" is just stupid and exploitable and simply fundamentally wrong in a turn based game.. It's a clean and simple fix.

At this point.. I don't care anymore.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> General Magic-League Issues All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy