It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:54 am


Dropfleet Deathclock...??

Tell the world your Dropfleet related trials and tribulations!
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Shikatanai

  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: Dropfleet Deathclock...??

PostSat Sep 09, 2017 2:48 pm

Phototoxin wrote:Deathclocks seem terrible for a game like DFC/DZC where there's a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

Also as it is a smaller/higher scale than some wargames it's probably easier/better for both players to each get X turns rather than one player get (X/2)+1 turns so to speak.

We see this a fair amount in Infinity where one player can get 3 turns and the other only 2 so it's not fair at all, especially as 1st turn is a massive bonus and last turn should make up for that but .. time up!

Similarly slow play is an issue in CCGs like Magic & Pokémon (yes really! :roll: ). I think for tournaments organisers should be realistic about the scenarios chosen and experience of players attending.

I know one TO who, when running a tournament for a new-ish system will check lists before hand, veto idiot lists (2,34,056 units - do you think you can move all them in the time given?!) and make sure that there's enough time. It's a lot of work but it's why his events are pretty amazing. <3

After one or two events, having gotten a feel of the system scenarios and timings can be nailed down. Veteran players who can use that list with a bajillion players are welcome to bring them etc.


I would never attend an event where the TO randomly vetos Lists. Either there should be clear restrictions beforehand or non at all. Removing valid lists because the TO does not think it'll work out is bullshit.

Regarding Clock: Tried it and it really seems hard or impossible to implement. Right now I'm a fan of just score in T5 if T6 is not completed because of slow play. Not optimal but still better than just removing the second scoring in this case.
Offline
User avatar

Phototoxin

  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:10 am
  • Location: Southampton, UK

Re: Dropfleet Deathclock...??

PostMon Sep 11, 2017 2:41 pm

Shikatanai wrote:I would never attend an event where the TO randomly vetos Lists. Either there should be clear restrictions beforehand or non at all. Removing valid lists because the TO does not think it'll work out is bullshit.

Regarding Clock: Tried it and it really seems hard or impossible to implement. Right now I'm a fan of just score in T5 if T6 is not completed because of slow play. Not optimal but still better than just removing the second scoring in this case.


It's not random - it's a case of practicality. For example if someone takes a list of 40 miniatures and 80 activations it is not a reasonable list to be able to play 3 turns with in the time given. It's simply a first pass to screen out idiocy. Perhaps its more a flaw in Infinity or the players rather than the TO?
If you play DzC on the south coast of the UK, join the South Coast Dropzone Commander Facebook group for the latest info on local events, news, to meet other local players and hear about tournaments!
Offline

Red Pendrigh

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:13 pm

Re: Dropfleet Deathclock...??

PostMon Sep 11, 2017 3:03 pm

So it's biased against frigate heavy fleets?
My 1500pt fleet consists of 32 vessels so I would regard that as a BS restriction.
If you know beforehand that your opponents are going to be frigate light would that alter the list you're likely to field?
Offline

Shikatanai

  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: Dropfleet Deathclock...??

PostWed Sep 13, 2017 7:36 am

Phototoxin wrote:
Shikatanai wrote:I would never attend an event where the TO randomly vetos Lists. Either there should be clear restrictions beforehand or non at all. Removing valid lists because the TO does not think it'll work out is bullshit.

Regarding Clock: Tried it and it really seems hard or impossible to implement. Right now I'm a fan of just score in T5 if T6 is not completed because of slow play. Not optimal but still better than just removing the second scoring in this case.


It's not random - it's a case of practicality. For example if someone takes a list of 40 miniatures and 80 activations it is not a reasonable list to be able to play 3 turns with in the time given. It's simply a first pass to screen out idiocy. Perhaps its more a flaw in Infinity or the players rather than the TO?


Sorry, but it is completely random if a TO decides what he thinks is practicable or not after receiving lists. End of the story.
If he thinks that something is not practicable he should just design a rule prior to registering / list building.
I don't mind TOs changing rules for their events but imho it needs to be made properly and not by just banning lists in the end after receiving them.
The TO's view is also subjective and maybe another player manages to play much faster then the TO would expect so just banning a single list is bullshit. If there is a transparent ruleset at the beginning it is fine as everybody who registers knows what he is doing.
Offline
User avatar

Klarg1

  • Posts: 496
  • Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 1:39 pm
  • Location: Boston Area

Re: Dropfleet Deathclock...??

PostThu Sep 21, 2017 2:45 pm

Shikatanai wrote:
Phototoxin wrote:Deathclocks seem terrible for a game like DFC/DZC where there's a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

Also as it is a smaller/higher scale than some wargames it's probably easier/better for both players to each get X turns rather than one player get (X/2)+1 turns so to speak.

We see this a fair amount in Infinity where one player can get 3 turns and the other only 2 so it's not fair at all, especially as 1st turn is a massive bonus and last turn should make up for that but .. time up!

Similarly slow play is an issue in CCGs like Magic & Pokémon (yes really! :roll: ). I think for tournaments organisers should be realistic about the scenarios chosen and experience of players attending.

I know one TO who, when running a tournament for a new-ish system will check lists before hand, veto idiot lists (2,34,056 units - do you think you can move all them in the time given?!) and make sure that there's enough time. It's a lot of work but it's why his events are pretty amazing. <3

After one or two events, having gotten a feel of the system scenarios and timings can be nailed down. Veteran players who can use that list with a bajillion players are welcome to bring them etc.


I would never attend an event where the TO randomly vetos Lists. Either there should be clear restrictions beforehand or non at all. Removing valid lists because the TO does not think it'll work out is bullshit.

Regarding Clock: Tried it and it really seems hard or impossible to implement. Right now I'm a fan of just score in T5 if T6 is not completed because of slow play. Not optimal but still better than just removing the second scoring in this case.


I'll have to agree with you on that one. List creation rules should be published ahead of time, and adhered to. Any abuses that result should be addressed with sportsmanship scores, and appropriate adjustments to the next version of the list rules.

Out of curiosity, what makes it impossible to implement a clock in DfC? There is actually a bit less reactive activity during a player's activation than in DzC. I'll admit that I am not a clock fan, but it seems like it should be feasible.
Forsan et haec olim pinxisse iuvabit

I maintain a Miniatures Blog, full of detailed WIPs and random miniatures-ramblings.You can read it here: http://blindmetalminis.blogspot.com
Offline

Shikatanai

  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: Dropfleet Deathclock...??

PostThu Sep 21, 2017 5:33 pm

Klarg1 wrote:
Shikatanai wrote:
Phototoxin wrote:Deathclocks seem terrible for a game like DFC/DZC where there's a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

Also as it is a smaller/higher scale than some wargames it's probably easier/better for both players to each get X turns rather than one player get (X/2)+1 turns so to speak.

We see this a fair amount in Infinity where one player can get 3 turns and the other only 2 so it's not fair at all, especially as 1st turn is a massive bonus and last turn should make up for that but .. time up!

Similarly slow play is an issue in CCGs like Magic & Pokémon (yes really! :roll: ). I think for tournaments organisers should be realistic about the scenarios chosen and experience of players attending.

I know one TO who, when running a tournament for a new-ish system will check lists before hand, veto idiot lists (2,34,056 units - do you think you can move all them in the time given?!) and make sure that there's enough time. It's a lot of work but it's why his events are pretty amazing. <3

After one or two events, having gotten a feel of the system scenarios and timings can be nailed down. Veteran players who can use that list with a bajillion players are welcome to bring them etc.


I would never attend an event where the TO randomly vetos Lists. Either there should be clear restrictions beforehand or non at all. Removing valid lists because the TO does not think it'll work out is bullshit.

Regarding Clock: Tried it and it really seems hard or impossible to implement. Right now I'm a fan of just score in T5 if T6 is not completed because of slow play. Not optimal but still better than just removing the second scoring in this case.


I'll have to agree with you on that one. List creation rules should be published ahead of time, and adhered to. Any abuses that result should be addressed with sportsmanship scores, and appropriate adjustments to the next version of the list rules.

Out of curiosity, what makes it impossible to implement a clock in DfC? There is actually a bit less reactive activity during a player's activation than in DzC. I'll admit that I am not a clock fan, but it seems like it should be feasible.


I think the main issue is that there is a lot of unintuitive clock switching and a lot of time were both players act.
E.g. Player 1 is activating something, Player 2 wants to think about if he plays a Commandcard or not. Also in between BG-Activations you'll need to pause - now one can decide / think about who should activate and the other one needs to activate the clock etc.
We tried it out and it did not feel that comfortable as you had to focus a lot on the clockswitching because there are so many points in the game were your opponent might step in - maybe it was also due to not thinking everything through before the game... I think it still might be possible but I'm not sure if it is worth the effort.

I'm basicly happy if there are rules that circumvent the issue of loosing the last scoring turn as it can switch games around and also most of the time enables you to score much more. That is at least partly solved by scoring in T5 if you can not reach T6.
Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests