Jump to content

Rabbitball

Members
  • Content Count

    205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rabbitball

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Will you still enjoy Shadows after the Bait and Switch errata? Bait and Switch (COTA 267) Should read: “Play: If your opponent has more A than you, steal 1A. Repeat the preceding effect if your opponent still has more A than you.”
  2. I don't know if it's truly random, first to X wins, or what WER does (order of registration), but I would not base a prize schedule for Chainbound on place, but rather number of wins. The chains to be added are based on number of wins, and that explains why you have 3 rounds for a 4-person pod.
  3. My understanding of Gen Con/Origins setup is that they have enough room to run everything onsite, so that would require a badge. That may have changed since my last time attending either was 2015, but that has been remarkably consistent for these conventions.
  4. All right. I finally got a chance to run something on GEM. And while the actual event went well enough, there were a few hiccups that were bothering me for a while. The first thing was that when the program came up, it wasn't in full screen mode. That meant that the Login Button (which you need to click to access your event) isn't visible (and is so far away from the main body of text that it doesn't appear in scroll up). Fortunately, the store manager (I'm just the trained monkey they bring in to run the events) knew about going to full screen to find and use the Login button. The next annoyance happened after I found the event. Even with full screen, there are two nearby buttons begging to be clicked on, and neither one of them is correct if you are simply looking to get into the event that has already been created but not yet started. It took a while to guess that I was missing something, scroll down, and find this "Next" button that I hadn't tried yet. That one is correct, but I wouldn't have guessed it. The final annoyance was getting the players and decks registered. I understand having the "Scan QR Code" button to start the process, but having to do that between every player entry gets annoying, especially if you're experiencing a rush of players coming to the registration table at once. Of course, if you move away from the registration screen, requiring the "Scan QR Code" button makes sense to confirm that you are returning to the Add Player mode, but at a bigger event, I would like the software to assume I'm adding another player after the previous one is entered unless I give indication otherwise, such as by clicking "Confirm" to end registration or move to another screen. The time lost by clicking "Scan QR Code" repeatedly can add up over the course of several registrations. Overall, I rate this iteration a B+. It does its job effectively, but the learning curve is steeper than it needed to be.
  5. Board Game Barrister at the Bayshore Mall (just north of Milwaukee, WI) will be hosting Chainbound events every Sunday starting May 5, 2019 at 1:00 p.m.
  6. I just found another one on Facebook: That which Legendarily Laughs at Collapse
  7. Of the ones I have: Adorable Tordynnar of the Heath Joyously Fierce Scarlett Others I have seen on YouTube videos or other places: The Creature that Screams at Dreams Flarepeeve, the Philosopher of Victory
  8. Nope. You need to post a winning record (2-1, 3-1, 3-0, or 4-0) at a single event to get power and chains.
  9. True, but that doesn't mean I prefer a house with no doors, just so I can be assured I don't have people breaking in. I want a house with a strong lock, but one that I can disable with the key when the time is right. And I certainly don't want a key that I can't duplicate and offer to my friends or family. The net effect of a lock isn't to keep dishonest people out; it's to keep honest people honest. The truly dishonest ones will find a way around even the best lock, but those who are flirting with dishonesty but are otherwise honest will be reminded by the barrier that a lock poses and back away.
  10. I understand the basic principle of this, and in a perfect world, I would be completely on board with it. I just have had to deal with an imperfect world, as evidenced by the "let's add 3 players at the end, and only tell the scorekeeper so that the computer sets the number of rounds differently from what was just announced" debacle I mentioned. If the rule is "once announced, it cannot be changed", then the computer needs to be adjusted; if the computer's round calculation can't be adjusted once the first round begins, the rule can't be followed and must bend to the computer's calculation. There is one saving grace here that we don't need to adhere to the Magic expectation that every player with no more than one loss must make the cut. Whether you created the formula with that in mind or not, by stating that the rules are as they are you have created a situation where the expectation may not be met, and any such instance is "unlucky" on someone's part. That is good. I am working with a store to start Chainbound next month, and until I can actually look at the software, I have to operate on what's reported here. From an outsider's perspective, it sounded much worse than what you're portraying here. What I heard was: Can't change match pairings Can't set match pairings (useful for recreating an event after it happens so it's in the right format) Can't adjust number of rounds once set Et cetera Now that I know that some of these are addressed, I can use my talents to solve some problems, although some things will still be a problem (which I will get to once I have personal experience with the software). I wouldn't normally have even considered it, but I had that one event where that very thing happened. And given the circumstances, I don't think there was a way to prevent it. That's why I generally make sure there's a "finalizing period" during the first round where we confirm everything; I don't like getting burned the same way twice. It's not just that. The people most surprised were the ones who were listening to the announcements. The announcement was, "We have 64 players at this event," and those who are familiar with tournament structure know what that means. When the computer registered 67 instead of 64, and given the large number of tables and events at GenCon, the event didn't start at Table 1, it was easy for everyone to miss the "extra match" that happened for the first 2-3 rounds. I fully expect it will be better. And when I get a chance to use it live, I will see what is available. What I am looking at (from my current view as a future user and not a current one) is the glitches that appear here and trying to extrapolate what I need to prepare for. With any luck, it won't be as frustrating as I expected.
  11. Those would be from your Chainbound events. Mark your casual wins and losses yourself. You don't have any chains because I'm guessing that this deck hasn't posted a winning record in a Chainbound event. When it does, it will get chains then.
  12. The problem is that this approach violates one fundamental rule and another vital principle. The fundamental rule is Thou shalt not infuriate the customer. This occurs when an expected behavior does not happen. And the vital principle is Thou should not reinvent the wheel without a vital reason for doing so. I appreciate the desire to provide a consistent and fair tournament experience. However, if it is done in a way that frustrates the organizers or the players, the need for a consistent and fair tournament experience vanishes, as there will no longer be any tournaments run. So, from the experience of someone who has had experience in running tournaments in various games (chess, bridge, Magic) over a long time (first bridge event was 1988, others over that time); let me give you the basic expectations of the situations you presented above. It is considered good customer service to clearly state the number of rounds and a cut by the end of the first round. It is expected that changes may occur during that round, but once those are finalized, there is no need for further adjustment. People drop all the time, especially in Magic events; the format does not change from that established by the end of the first round. Players are not added as a general rule, but when they are, it is under very controlled circumstances: A player who paid for the event but somehow didn't get registered must be added. A player who arrives very close to the start time of the first round may be added at the organizer's discretion. This is especially useful if there were an odd number of people to begin with, and adding the players means there is no bye. Players who arrive late enough in the first round to compromise their ability to complete it should not be added under all but the most extreme of circumstances. Players who arrive after the first round are almost never added. In all cases where players are added before the first round is complete, the expectation is that the rounds and cuts will reflect the tournament size as of the end of the first round, before drops. Again, to be clear, drops, DQ's and other adjustments made after the end of the first round do not affect the number of rounds and the cut. But given the chaos of trying to create the event, it is considered good customer service to wait until the event is "finalized" during round 1 to give a definite round and cut announcement. To address the what happens if adding a round or extending a cut would cause someone to need to drop, let me point out what I have found from experience: People who come in do so either to play and have fun or to try to win. If they are playing to have fun, they will stay as long as it is fun and drop when they need to regardless of the format. If they are playing to win, they have already budgeted out enough time to stay and win if they get that far. The only glitch I had was once at GenCon where the organizer added his 3 kids into an event and didn't tell the judges making the announcements, so the event was booked for one round more than what was announced, and it wasn't noticed until the players were expecting standings (Magic events tend to post standings 2 rounds before the cut to give people the chance to plan their last 2 rounds accordingly) and were then told by the judge running the software that the event was one round longer than "expected". This led to a scramble to explain to the players that there was an "extra" round. A judge who is aware of just how close to the borderline the event is can adjust a pre-first round announcement to cover this: "Players, we have 8 people right now, but there is a possibility of another player or two showing up real soon. If that happens, we will go to 4 rounds, and we will let you know before the start of the second round." While I appreciate your concern, there are certain adjustments that must be made to maintain tournament integrity, and failing to allow for them is a greater injustice. The repairing to insure a matchup favorable to the organizer (or their friends and family) is minimal compared to the repairing to correct misentered results. Whether it's the players who marked the wrong winner or the scorekeeper clicking the wrong player (or deck), the essence of a Swiss event is that players play opponents with equal records whenever possible. Suppose I, as a player, know that I am undefeated going into the last round of Swiss, and my nemesis, whose deck is especially good against mine, is also undefeated. What stops me from "accidentally" recording my last match as a loss, knowing that my opponent (who may have the tools necessary to defeat my nemesis) will end up facing him in the last round? If I win, and my nemesis loses, I can "discover" that there was a mistake and have it corrected so I win without playing the correct player. Maybe my penultimate round opponent realizes the mistake when the pairings are posted, but since you can't correct a match pairing once made, they're out of luck (and paired against a better player than they should be). This situation is more common (and can happen in more than just the top brackets) than organizer shenanigans, and is much more visible (and frustrating) when it can't be corrected. By all means, continue to make the GEM as good as possible. But please hearken to the counsel of advanced organizers who have seen things from other games and learn to prioritize what people need, even if it isn't what you think they need (or actively think they don't need). There's a reason that MRE's contain candy such as Skittles or M&M's; the troops that are taking fire need that extra boost. 😄
  13. Rabbitball

    Going To Time

    In Magic events, they are considered good customer service but sometimes you can't do it because of other distractions. I haven't had the chance to use the GEM, but it looks like the only official timer is on the app. I would probably find a way to get a more visible timer in place when the store I frequent starts doing their Chainbound events.
  14. Rabbitball

    Going To Time

    When judging Magic events, I usually gave time warnings when I wasn't busy doing something else.
  15. And people were wondering why I'm creating the KCR... It's specifically to take these things that some people say are "clearly" in the rules and others say are "clearly not" in the rules and either put them in the rules or remove any hint of misinterpretation of a rule that does not act according to what someone "clearly" thinks it does. Is it FFG official? Not now, but thanks for the demonstration of why it should be...
×
×
  • Create New...