[bosskamiura]

I'm not sure I know what the answer is either, but it's definitely something that bears consideration going forward.

Rotation!

More MTG design in 2e? Ewww.

TK

[Armus]

I'm not sure I know what the answer is either, but it's definitely something that bears consideration going forward.

Rotation!

How about Retirement?

How many dilemmas that play in core or return to the pile are HoF-eligible? If the community wants this problem solved, there is a way to solve it.

[Latok]

I also took a quick look at Al's tournament report. Having just played an event where every single one of my games went to time, I'm sympathetic to his point. It seems like dilemma piles these days have gotten really good at minimizing the number of dilemmas overcome per attempt such that it takes more attempts, and thus more turns, to finish a game. Like Al, I'm not sure I know what the answer is either, but it's definitely something that bears consideration going forward.

This has gotten worse over the years, and every time someone brings it up the response is "just play faster". I had hoped a streamlined Excelsior format would solve it, but it's just as bad if not worse. It's frustrating spending hours making a deck, only to have half(?) of your games decided at the clock.

I honestly think the best long-term solution would be to reshape the game so two average missions would win it. Maybe in 3e.

"Just play faster" is the simplified version of the simplest and easiest solution to the problem. Last time slow play was discussed Charlie posted what was essentially my conclusion from 2.5 years ago.

Our community of players tends to share a culture that values not making an in-game mistake more than timely completion of games. As long as that remains the status quo, it's going to be onerous to do anything to time to make decisions. We will have to decide, as a culture, that finishing promptly is more important than not making a mistake.

Bouncing or all stop dilemmas aren't the problem, interference/maquis aren't the problem, games go to time because players allow them to. Timed games will only become more common going forward as long as players priorities remain in this order,
1) Play my own game as best I can and avoid mistakes
2) Finish before time

Any change in the cardpool to fix slow play is just going to divide the player base and have a negligible effect. Design could probably fix the problem with an extreme shift (basically reshaping the game like Naetor said) but that'd likely also just divide the playerbase (people would probably quit).

[KillerB]

How about Retirement?

How many dilemmas that play in core or return to the pile are HoF-eligible? If the community wants this problem solved, there is a way to solve it.

There's a solution in place right in front of everyone.

But the guy who came up with it used to be mean to people on the internet from 1999-2015.

[Naetor]

Any change in the cardpool to fix slow play is just going to divide the player base and have a negligible effect. Design could probably fix the problem with an extreme shift (basically reshaping the game like Naetor said) but that'd likely also just divide the playerbase (people would probably quit).

You're right. But, I'm curious about these:

1) How often does the player who completed their second mission first win the game?

2) How much longer does a game last after the first player to solve their second mission solves it?

3) How often do games when a player solves 2 missions go to time? And how often did this first player to solve 2 still get a MW?

My gut instinct is that >90% of the time, the person who solves 2 missions first wins the game. And, as the last turns typically take the most time, that games last another ~15-20 minutes. My point is, games push up against the clock largely for minimal gameplay effect beyond the comeback MW that is highly susceptible to stalling, shady time management, etc.

Obviously my argument starts to break down when you factor in 2-mission win and round-the-corner bonus point mechanics -- that's why I made this a 3e argument.

[LORE]

Sweet tournament report, Steve. Always interesting to get both takes on what went down in the final match.

[karonofborg13]

Steve, Steve, Steve. Congrats on your well-deserved win. But, I take umbrage at your very first sentence of the report, "My first time facing a Khan deck."

Really?

May I refresh your memory, November 7th, 2015. At Minnesota Masters. Round two. And also against your Romulans in round one of the league event on November 22nd, 2014.

'Nuff said.

-Matthew

[Armus]

Steve, Steve, Steve. Congrats on your well-deserved win. But, I take umbrage at your very first sentence of the report, "My first time facing a Khan deck."

Really?

May I refresh your memory, November 7th, 2015. At Minnesota Masters. Round two. And also against your Romulans in round one of the league event on November 22nd, 2014.

'Nuff said.

-Matthew

Maybe it was his first time facing a Khan deck with his current deck?

Or his first time facing a Khan deck in the current meta?

Don't know, wasn't there, but I could envision some plausible context where that statement is effectively true.

:shrug:

[Boratus]

Steve, Steve, Steve. Congrats on your well-deserved win. But, I take umbrage at your very first sentence of the report, "My first time facing a Khan deck."

Really?

May I refresh your memory, November 7th, 2015. At Minnesota Masters. Round two. And also against your Romulans in round one of the league event on November 22nd, 2014.

'Nuff said.

-Matthew

Maybe it was his first time facing a Khan deck with his current deck?

Or his first time facing a Khan deck in the current meta?

Don't know, wasn't there, but I could envision some plausible context where that statement is effectively true.

:shrug:

I should clarify, that was the first time my bajoran resistance deck faced a Khan deck. Oh and kudos to Lucas for predicting I would win the DS9 regional. All those predictions and only 1 had faith I could do it.