Jump to content
unfassbarnathan

[Blog] Some thoughts on Slow Play in X-Wing

Recommended Posts

I'm unable to reach the website for whatever reason.

But I'd say Slow Play amounts to two problems:

  • The game's core design turning it into an optimal strategy
  • Success being a tight-run thing, any edge could mean the difference between winning and losing
  • Players being willing to pursue that strategy no matter the cost to the enjoyment of the game

Yes some players are a problem.  If psychologically traumatizing their opponent with truly horrifying war tactics would win them the game (and not get them thrown out), a certain percentage of players of any game's community would always do it.  Any amount of pushing and stretching of the rules (game rules, social rules, the law itself) is fair game for them.  Frankly some players will actively cheat.

But it's also a facet of the game's design that needs work, and I don't know the best way to address the problem.  Yes there are terrible players out there who will do anything to win, but there are also good players who just feel cornered into taking the optimal strategy.  I remember a really skilled player lamenting to me that he felt trapped into always putting regen on his aces and flying them cagey to restore shields; anything else put him at a major disadvantage in a tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Wazat said:

I'm unable to reach the website for whatever reason.

 

37 minutes ago, 5050Saint said:

While the text there shows the correct address, the direct hyperlink is missing a colon.

Link fixed now I think. Bizarre, don't know how that happened. Thanks for pointing it out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read it, I agree it's a problem (frick'n aces lists designed around slow play are awful opponents), but unfortunately it's not solvable without changes to the rules.  I don't know what those changes should be or how they'd be enforceable.  But as I said before, bad players are happy to exploit problems in the rules for an advantage, and good players feel trapped into dominant strategies because playing any other way greatly harms their chances of winning.

Anyone who's read The Dictator's Handbook knows you can't guilt players in any system (games, politics, etc) into playing nice, at least not when the stakes are high enough for them to justify the bad behavior to themselves.  You have to change the incentives and penalties of the system itself to alter their calculus, either as a player in how you behave toward their strategy, or as someone in a position to alter the system's design (developers).

If there were viable list designs that severely penalized slow play somehow, then that would be a player-initiated solution that could help balance the system out by changing the incentives (now the reward of slow play maybe isn't worth it).  But as it stands now, it'll probably require developer intervention, assuming any devs even view this as a problem worth addressing.  Or could find a viable solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this bit:

Quote

I’m not saying that everyone going to time should be penalized, but if going to Final Salvo is a stalemate, so is going to time. So a strategy or decisions that encourage the game to go to time are seeking to create and exploit a stalemate, so should be considered a form of stalling. It’s also exploiting a time limit, which is something mentioned in the stalling Floor Rules.

And this is where slow play is heavily normalized. People play so slowly and ‘cautiously’ that going to time is considered normal. Why is killing half a ship and then running away considered okay, or seeing you’re ahead with 15 minutes to go then deciding to not kill any more ships and try deny your opponent any more points.

One thing which always irked me about the original hover/mobile fortress kerfuffle was that it felt very focused on a very narrow range of generic lists.  However, it always struck me that the hover/fortress strategy came out of generics adapting tactics pioneered and normalized by ace play like circle the drain and killing one thing and running.  Always felt to me like folks wanted a different sauce for their goose, than the one for someone else's gander.

I can't really see entirely a way to change stuff, so that fighting-it-out is more common, that trying to destroy one-more-ship is more common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, this discussion... Again... Yay.

Is every piece removed at the end of a chess game? How about in Go, how many pieces should be removed? Or any strategy game you may consider, what should the death count proportional to the initial force be to declare a victor? Say in StarCraft or Stratego? 

The problem with this blogs argument is very simple, it's subjective. The writer 'feels' the game should have a particular ending so argues that the world should bend to their view to make that a reality. But never in the article does the author indicate a why the game should do so, or why the reader should feel the same. They just want everything to be dead at the end to feel good about the game regardless of how the mechanics of the game get them there. They never are able to qualify or quantify a reason for it beyond 'I feel this way', or 'this is not what I want'. Then bring in all manner of anecdotal evidence to support that to veil the fact that the emotion is all they have. Like in this article, using a simple rule instruction for how a standard game is concluded to support their opinion. BUT only by taking the rule completely out of the context in which it is written and for the propose it serves by ignoring that it is superceded by the tournament rules which are there to give you a way to resolve games in a timely fashion for the propose of events. 

When in reality any given player could have a different take away from even the example they share in the article. The author/op posits that the example is a bad game when the two sides have only scored half a ship each. But notably it's just the authors opinion as a spectator. Nowhere is there a reference to how the players of that match they shared as evidence felt about it. Did the A-wings player or the Jedi user feel that it was a good game? That their opponent played well to their outs? That the incongruous nature of having all 3 agility ships against predominantly 2 die attacks slowed progress even before you count on the Evades and Force? 

As counterpoint, with my own admittedly anecdotal but at least first hand experience. One of the best games I played recently was at an SC. 5xRZ2 mirror match. Played amazing. At time only one ship of mine was dead with most the rest on fire. Fortunately, almost by luck but also enough food decisions, all theirs were at half. Won by 2pts. Every move mattered. Every shot counted. Every mistake cost. Best game I played in a long time. Felt to me like a complete experience. You don't see me complaining about it. And because it took so long with so little to show it locked me down at third instead of jumping higher as it was finals. Not my fault 2d attacks don't do much. I still got top 4.

 I'm still going to go strongly with the designers take on this one. (And mark that down in the record books because I am also proudly one of their toughest critics lol 🤪) A game where every match is decided at the time limit or before by total destruction is always tied to an opposing player usually having an over powered list in general that's likely still fully on the board. And therefore having more games go to time is a good indicator that your game is in fact balanced, since it's harder for one side or the other to overwhelm it's opponent. 

And now we'll enjoy the inevitable multiple pages of healthy and polite discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

One of the biggest mistakes of the early community might have been to call a ship type "ace". That sounds like a description as well as a judgement of player skill. Are you a highborn !!ACE PLAYER!!, or are you a lowly jouster?

This is 100% true. A lot of players feel like they're not playing good enough if they aren't flying Aces. Hel, even I feel like flying an Ace list would be the mark of me being a good player.

But I've found joy in dismantling lists with fodder. With the little guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

As counterpoint, with my own admittedly anecdotal but at least first hand experience. One of the best games I played recently was at an SC. 5xRZ2 mirror match. Played amazing. At time only one ship of mine was dead with most the rest on fire. Fortunately, almost by luck but also enough food decisions, all theirs were at half. Won by 2pts. Every move mattered. Every shot counted. Every mistake cost. Best game I played in a long time. Felt to me like a complete experience. You don't see me complaining about it. And because it took so long with so little to show it locked me down at third instead of jumping higher as it was finals. Not my fault 2d attacks don't do much. I still got top 4.

I dunno.  To me, it reads like this was a game where you and your opponent were each trying to kill each other through the entire match.  Am I correct in that?

You're right that 2 Red + 3 Green = Few Deaths.  I don't think anyone has a problem with that, so long as the match was an active one.  From the article:

Quote

Some of this is always going to be unavoidable with a time limit, but where’s the line? If you can do it on the last turn, can you do it with 15 minutes to play, 30 minutes left, or even turn zero with a Final Salvo advantage.

I think this shows that what it comes down to is a preference for "Fight It Out" over "Avoid Fighting For Long Periods Of The Game."  Maybe the original poster picked a bad game as an illustration; I haven't watched it.  I feel like that's a totally fine preference.  Subjective, sure, but reasonable.

Now, whether or not what someone wants to *do* with that preference is a good idea, that's a separate thing.  I really hated the full-out assault on quad Starvipers from some judges and organizers, with preemptive threats of disqualification from tournaments.  But at the heart of it is the thought that long delays before fighting, and later spending a lot of the game trying to sneak off and flee with a slight points advantage, are unsatisfying.

3 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

Is every piece removed at the end of a chess game? How about in Go, how many pieces should be removed? Or any strategy game you may consider, what should the death count proportional to the initial force be to declare a victor? Say in StarCraft or Stratego?

Chess fans want more decisive matches, too.

In the 2018 World Chess Championship, Carlsen and Caruana played 12 straight draws in the classical time format.  I'm sure a lot of fans would have preferred some more decisive matches, but ultimately, most of the games did indeed get played out to totally drawn endgames, where the pieces remaining meant there was nothing to push for.

What folks want is for a hard-fought battle, players to honestly attempt to win and not play for a draw.  They want players to take risks.  This is why folks love Mikhail Tal's games.  He'd sacrifice pieces to make his attacks happen faster, before an opponent's pieces can contribute to the defense.  When two of his pieces were under attack, he'd offer up a third, since the opponent can only capture one, and you can use that to press for advantage elsewhere.  It's all active play, win or lose.  Complicate the position, lead an opponent into a mistake, and use that to win.  It's even satisfying when the opponent didn't fall for it, when someone like Paul Keres calmly thwarted all of Tal's tricks.

//

These are also games where the clock functions really differently.  The shared clock in X-Wing leads to an entirely different set of advantages and disadvantages.  Running out of time in chess means you lose.  Often in X-Wing, it's an advantage for one player to run down the clock and win because of it.  But X-Wing with separate clocks probably kills swarm lists, just due to the physical time it'll take to go through all their moves and attacks.  There's no quick and easy solution, but I think a lot of folks would like it if there was a little bit more of an incentive for players to get in, try to kill that last ship, rather than bug out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea the point of this thread is that running away and running down the clock makes the game a worse experience.  The blog post is deliberately grasping at straws and showing it's kind of an unsolvable problem right now with the tools we have, but expresses the wish that there were a clear line we could act upon.  Lots of us feel that way.  ForceSensitive: if you had a really intense & satisfying game that came down to points, and you and your opponent weren't running down the clock with slow decision making or by running away, then that's irrelevant to this post.  We all like games that are really close and exciting where both sides are engaged.  Most people dislike games where a player runs away or stalls as much as possible to weaponize the clock against their opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

Like in this article, using a simple rule instruction for how a standard game is concluded to support their opinion. BUT only by taking the rule completely out of the context in which it is written and for the propose it serves by ignoring that it is superceded by the tournament rules which are there to give you a way to resolve games in a timely fashion for the propose of events. 

 

On 4/23/2020 at 12:16 PM, Wazat said:

The game's core design turning it into an optimal strategy

Not to be too grumpy or dump on anybody, but I'm not sure I'd buy that it's out of context or simply an emotional argument. And maybe not that it's a part of the core design (although I realize Wazat couldn't read the article at the time of writing.)

The Tournament Regulations pg 2 state that:
"Tournaments are played using the rules provided in the most recent version of the X-Wing Rules Reference and this document, both of which can be downloaded from X-Wing.com."

The Rules Reference, as stated in the blog post, the defines Winning the Game on pg 20 as:
"The game ends at the end of a round if all of a player’s ships are removed from the game. The player with no ships remaining loses, and the player with at least one ship remaining wins. If both players’ last remaining ships are destroyed in the same round, the game ends in a draw."

A game going to time comes up in the Tournament Regulations on pg 8:
End of Round Each tournament round ends in one of the following ways:

• One Player Defeated: At the end of a game round, all of one player’s ships have been removed by being destroyed or fleeing the battlefield. The player with at least one ship remaining immediately earns a win and the opposing player receives a loss.

• Mutual Destruction: At the end of a game round, all of both players’ ships are destroyed. Players follow the rules for “Final Salvo” below using all of their ships to determine the winner.

• Time: At the end of a game round, the round time limit has been reached. (If time is called during a game round, players must finish that game round.) The player with the greater score receives a win, and the opponent receives a loss. If both players have the same score, they follow the rules for “Final Salvo” below to determine the winner.

• Concession: A player voluntarily concedes defeat at any point during the game. All of that player’s ships are destroyed. The conceding player receives a loss and the opponent receives a win. Remember that collusion among players to manipulate scoring is forbidden, and the scores should still be calculated based on the final game state (including the winner’s destroyed and damaged ships) (see “Unsporting Conduct” on page 3).

I find it interesting to note the order here, although I'll admit that this is some conjecture.
It starts with one player being defeated according to the rules given above in the Rules Reference regarding "Winning the Game."
It is followed by both players being defeated according to the same rules.
I believe it's fairly reasonable to assume that if either player finds all of their ships destroyed, it is because their opponent set about destroying them because they recognized that the object of the game, given in the "Winning the Game" section, is to destroy all of the opponent's ships.

The last way that a tournament round ends is with a player deciding not to play the game anymore.
It is in between these options that a game going to time occurs and it must be somehow determined who the winner is when neither player has met the conditions set forth for winning the game.

Order of presentation aside, I do think it's telling that of the four ways given for a tournament round to end, two of them have the goal that players achieve the stated means for winning the game. The other two are concessions to life moving forward outside of the game. That is to say that players may choose to no longer play, and that the game rounds can only last a certain amount of time.

The Tournament Regulations pg 7 are also of note for stating that a game that goes to time is not actually concluded.
If a game has not concluded when the time for a tournament round runs out, the players finish the current game round and then calculate their scores

We can then see from the Tournament Regulations pg 8:
Calculating a Player’s Score

A player’s score helps determine who won the game in certain circumstances and is used to calculate Margin of Victory (emphasis mine)...

It seems that determining the winner based on score at the end of the round, is not set forth as the main and normal mode of declaring the winner of the game. Rather, it is assumed to be a circumstance outside the normal way that a game is designed to end and a winner declared.

All of that said, I don't think it greatly changes the way the game is played because at a tournament we all know that games go to time and score is always calculated at the end. As such, it does become the default means of determining the winner. 


But I do think it's good to note for the sake of discussion that the aim of the game is to destroy all of your opponent's ships.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wazat said:

The blog post is deliberately grasping at straws

This part is very confusing. I have no idea what you mean and I only know this figure of speech as negative expression. I don't understand why you said that. I initially wanted to comment, but really shouldn't. Couldn't resist with the react though 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GreenDragoon said:

This part is very confusing. I have no idea what you mean and I only know this figure of speech as negative expression. I don't understand why you said that. I initially wanted to comment, but really shouldn't. Couldn't resist with the react though 😄

Ah, by that I mean, he's saying there's no easy answer.  He's making a show of "grasping at straws" by presenting some ways to fix this that don't work or would be hard to enforce, at least if I remember the article right.  I don't mean anything disparaging against the article, rather, I'm explaining that part of its point was there's no easy answer.

Another point though is that the intent of the game isn't for players to run down the clock.  Whatever our lack of clear solutions, he's arguing we do in fact have a problem to solve, and I suspect most of us here agree with that sentiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

Ah, this discussion... Again... Yay.

Is every piece removed at the end of a chess game? How about in Go, how many pieces should be removed? Or any strategy game you may consider, what should the death count proportional to the initial force be to declare a victor? Say in StarCraft or Stratego? 

The problem with this blogs argument is very simple, it's subjective. The writer 'feels' the game should have a particular ending so argues that the world should bend to their view to make that a reality. But never in the article does the author indicate a why the game should do so, or why the reader should feel the same. They just want everything to be dead at the end to feel good about the game regardless of how the mechanics of the game get them there. They never are able to qualify or quantify a reason for it beyond 'I feel this way', or 'this is not what I want'. Then bring in all manner of anecdotal evidence to support that to veil the fact that the emotion is all they have. Like in this article, using a simple rule instruction for how a standard game is concluded to support their opinion. BUT only by taking the rule completely out of the context in which it is written and for the propose it serves by ignoring that it is superceded by the tournament rules which are there to give you a way to resolve games in a timely fashion for the propose of events. 

When in reality any given player could have a different take away from even the example they share in the article. The author/op posits that the example is a bad game when the two sides have only scored half a ship each. But notably it's just the authors opinion as a spectator. Nowhere is there a reference to how the players of that match they shared as evidence felt about it. Did the A-wings player or the Jedi user feel that it was a good game? That their opponent played well to their outs? That the incongruous nature of having all 3 agility ships against predominantly 2 die attacks slowed progress even before you count on the Evades and Force? 

As counterpoint, with my own admittedly anecdotal but at least first hand experience. One of the best games I played recently was at an SC. 5xRZ2 mirror match. Played amazing. At time only one ship of mine was dead with most the rest on fire. Fortunately, almost by luck but also enough food decisions, all theirs were at half. Won by 2pts. Every move mattered. Every shot counted. Every mistake cost. Best game I played in a long time. Felt to me like a complete experience. You don't see me complaining about it. And because it took so long with so little to show it locked me down at third instead of jumping higher as it was finals. Not my fault 2d attacks don't do much. I still got top 4.

 I'm still going to go strongly with the designers take on this one. (And mark that down in the record books because I am also proudly one of their toughest critics lol 🤪) A game where every match is decided at the time limit or before by total destruction is always tied to an opposing player usually having an over powered list in general that's likely still fully on the board. And therefore having more games go to time is a good indicator that your game is in fact balanced, since it's harder for one side or the other to overwhelm it's opponent. 

And now we'll enjoy the inevitable multiple pages of healthy and polite discussion.

Jesus Christ, you're the only person on this website that makes me regret saying this community is better than FIFA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@theBitterFig to you first question, no not at all. We're were playing fairly fragile ships and as stated all but one by the end was down to half or worse. There was A LOT of trying to get away on both sides. From almost there first engagement we had at least one thing needing to break for it. In the last round we each had a ship trying to just not be there for a shot or risk the game. Like I said, great interplay. To your second, you take it out of the context it's intended for.

Curse you text based communication.*shakes fist at the sky*

More my point in chess is that only one piece matters to declare victory. Hence why I was also sharing the other listed games as a group. Hyper focusing on the one game in the set I fear diverted you from seeing the forest I was trying to describe. In all of them not every piece had to die. I'm no chess guru so I can't say how great the games you mention were. But twelve rounds of draws? That sounds cool to me. I'd liken that to a boxing match. 1 round KOs are impressive, but twelve rounds is more interesting to watch. And notable, what a skill match up to watch those twelve rounds, and all still so many draws? *Whistles

@Rebel Rogue that second set of tournament time conditions is exactly the context to which I'm referring. In the article the author doesn't address that tournament rounds have a complete set of additional instructions. 

Essentially the author holds up the casual instructions as the criteria for a tournament setting. Where you have quite correctly included both. Also thanks for typing/pasting it all out. The reason being as everyone here agrees I wager, there's simply different circumstances. You could get rid of the time limit and play multi day events.  It would be a drag for many and scheduling would suck, but the casual condition would then rule again. Or simply say that since time is a constraint, we'll also constrain the board to a 2x2 where you can't run as easy.

@Wazat great way to put it, grasping at straws. Totally agree

I'm on the essential list and at work right now so I'll try and chat again later. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

More my point in chess is that only one piece matters to declare victory.

Yeah, pretty much any piece.  If my opponent wins a clean piece, even just a knight or bishop in an otherwise even position, if I'm not able to recapture in a few moves, or I don't have a major lead in development and piece activity, it's potentially a resign-able position for me.

A single pawn advantage in the late game can often be the sole difference between a win and a loss.  Sure, the game is technically "won" when you checkmate the opponent's king.  That rarely actually happens in the higher levels of chess.

But one difference, however, it that an advantage has to be pressed.  Once you're up a piece or a pawn or have technically equal pieces but a passed pawn (that is, no enemy pawns could stop it from reaching a promotion square), you have to play it out.  You can't just stall for time and have the clock grant you a win because you were a little bit ahead in position or material.  Great example: where other folks might agree to a draw or resign, current champion Magnus Carlsen will often grind out endgames, take an equal position to a win, or even succeed with a slightly worse position, because he's just that good at the endgame.

//

I know it's not logistically feasible for X-Wing to work the same way.  We're on a tighter schedule, and have to get all the games in.  I also know that it's a matter of degree.  Some amount of jockeying for position early and avoidance late is always going to be part of the game. 

Maybe there's some rules change to make "fight sooner, and kill one more ship in the end" more preferable.  Is it time to bring back modified wins?  Maybe not. Even if there's nothing to change in the rules, still I'd prefer for the social norms of playing X-Wing to be more directed at more turns of fighting, and fewer turns of avoiding fights.

10 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

I'm no chess guru so I can't say how great the games you mention were. But twelve rounds of draws? That sounds cool to me. I'd liken that to a boxing match. 1 round KOs are impressive, but twelve rounds is more interesting to watch. And notable, what a skill match up to watch those twelve rounds, and all still so many draws? *Whistles*

Some of the draws were really interesting, a few were pretty bland.  But then it all came down to the tiebreak rapid games, and Magnus won 3 straight against Fabi, and it was over.  Kinda felt like the entire tournament of classical time format (as much as around 3 hours per player... it's complicated) didn't matter, and a four-game set of 25 minutes per player was all there was.  To be sure, it takes an immense amount of skill to draw those 12 games, with the players having a lot of deep preparation into the lines, into the options an opponent might react with.  But with a lot less time in rapids, well, mistakes will be made.

Contrast, however, with the most recent Women's World Chess Championship between Ju Wenjun (reigning champion) and Aleksandra Goryachkina (challenger).

  • Classical Time Format: 1 Draw - 2 Draw - 3 Draw - 4 Champ - 5 Challenger - 6 Draw - 7 Draw - 8 Challenger - 9 Champ - 10 Champ (with the Black pieces!) - 11 Draw - 12 Challenger (a must-win game, to force a Tiebreak!)
  • Tiebreaks: 1 Draw - 2 Draw - 3 Champ - 4 Draw.

Sure, it's another World Chess Championship won in tiebreaks, oh, but the path to get there.  From round 8 onwards, dang.  Goryachkina strikes first, Ju Wenjun answers and takes the lead, draws the next game, forcing the challenger to win on demand or go home.  That's still 9 draws across 16 games, more than half.  But having a back and forth between players is just a lot more exciting.

Quote

"To play for a draw, at any rate with white, is to some degree a crime against chess. "

-  Mikhail Tal

I don't always agree with Tal here, but dang is it a wonderful line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Flurpy lol why? Because we debate in a public forum where everyone's allowed to share their own ideas? Was really only one dissenting opinion to your own all it took? I debate the ideas and argue for or against them. You're just debating my presence, which is against the forum rules. If you really got that much beef with me then start a private chat. Your welcome in my inbox friend.

Back to it then.

@theBitterFig you really like your chess! That's awesome. I was always more for the openness of Go myself, even if I was never that good at it. (I liked making pretty shapes lol 😅😂) Go had a very different approach to draws, which are actually impossible with the half point komi, as often times within one game several smaller games take shape. Sometimes of which you and your opponent may play some of them to a near draw by agreement in acknowledgment of how the overall game is going to come together. For xwing I'd liken that to the occasional board state where both players are at too high a risk of a much bigger loss by committing a specific ship each, that they kinda just mutually acknowledge those and make their final threats where they can and the risk ships move on, maybe the token jab going after them to keep it honest.

If it gets to a board state where your up, and you have the ability to just get away, and we want this to be a strategic game, then you'd be silly to not take it. And at some deep part of this discussion we always get to this. If it's a valid way of winning in the rules then why would I fault you for that? It often feels to me in this subject that what's being asked is that everyone commit everything until it's all dead regardless of the why. Many ships in the game are valued because of their ability to hold points, so why handicap them for being good at something? 

Which is where I always get the high emotional vibe out of it. We've all played that game where they just got away in the end. But it's their decision to make. If they don't feel it's a good engagement, that is their choice. And if it wins, it's clearly the correct choice. 

To use your very good shared quote as a basis. If someone is winning, and they choose to run, it's not a decision to chase a draw, it is simply a decision to win. How is it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ForceSensitive I mean, I guess a lot of it is aesthetics, and a lot of it is about degree.

Most folks can point to a game they played or watched a VOD of, and think "that's the stupidest game of X-Wing I've ever seen."  For a lot of folks, it'll be that one HST final between the Starvipers and the Sinker Swarm.*  Going back to 1e, there was a somewhat infamous Lowhhrick/Biggs/Mirada mirror match, and the judge wouldn't let the two players go to a draw/final salvo once it was down to Miranda vs Miranda, and literally no way to make progress for either player, despite it being late and everyone just wanting to go home.  For me, that stupidest game I saw someone stream was a TIE swarm vs Soontir, Countess Ryad, and like Grand Inquisitor or something.  I don't exactly recall the 3rd ship, but it was probably that.  Soontir killed 1 TIE, and everyone on the ace-squad just ran for like 75 minutes.  Never tried to get another shot.  Never tried to kill an extra few TIEs so that, if they did mess up, they could still win in points.

Just seems like that's a few orders of magnitude too much running.  Some is fine.  Too much is kinda bad.  Maybe there's some small nudge which could be done to the rules to make it a bit less.  Maybe it's just a culture of X-Wing which finds it better.  That's it.

//

RE: Chess.  I'm terrible at it, and seldom actually play, because it's a game which I think is pretty unfun if the players aren't somewhat evenly matched.  That's why I play X-Wing where the dice equalize things somewhat (and I've got a lot of faith in my dice).  Ah, but I love watching breakdowns of well-played games of Chess.  One of those things I stumbled onto on YouTube, and I've been a fan ever since.

RE: Go.  I know at least the basic rules of Go.  Got into it a little back in High School, but anything subtle or clever about it is beyond me.

RE: Chess again.  There was a great draw the other day.  Anish Giri, a GM somewhat infamous for playing for draws more than wins, was playing Magnus in an online Rapid tournament.  Format is four games, then a potential tiebreak Armageddon game (White has more time, but Black "wins" a draw).  Giri had won a game and drawn the other two, so Magnus Carlsen (world champion) had to push for a win to force a tiebreak.  However, at one point, Giri is able to launch his Queen towards Magnus' King, backed up by a Knight.  While Giri didn't have a checkmate available, he was able to perpetually check Magnus, and force a draw in this game, and thus win the best-of-four match.  A lot of times, a draw is a game progressing normally, then pieces get traded down a few times, and you'll wind up in an endgame where there's nothing more to play for.  This, however, really felt different.  An "attacking draw" if that term makes sense.  Really enjoyable to watch.

Again, I think there's a place for draws, and delays, and whatnot.  I'd prefer if they were a bit less.  There's a reason folks aren't often excited to watch Anish Giri games.  Most of them are the boring kinds of draws.

 

 

 

*For the record, as long as the ace culture of a lot of pre-fight drain circling followed by extended fleeing exists, I am 100% fine with the mobile fortress.  I think it's utter BS to ban that, while aces do their own version of engagement avoidance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2020 at 2:16 AM, ForceSensitive said:

Ah, this discussion... Again... Yay.

 

On 4/25/2020 at 2:08 AM, Flurpy said:

Jesus Christ, you're the only person on this website that makes me regret saying this community is better than FIFA.

 

2 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

@Flurpy lol why? Because we debate in a public forum where everyone's allowed to share their own ideas? Was really only one dissenting opinion to your own all it took? I debate the ideas and argue for or against them. You're just debating my presence, which is against the forum rules. If you really got that much beef with me then start a private chat. Your welcome in my inbox friend.

Hard to say since he didn't specify (and he should specify -- again, people don't understand emoticons out of context or complaints without explanation), but my guess is a perceived force of argument or your argumentation style, which you might not fully be able to easily control in text alone, e.g. since it lacks voice inflection and flourish that would turn a somewhat dismissive and condescending argument into one more whimsical and relaxed in actual face-to-face conversation.  I tell you, this drives me crazy.  I've had someone pick me apart atom by atom in text and then they're totally flabbergasted at my reaction, then we talk in person and go over the text and they turn white realizing how that looks.  ;)

God knows who I've offended for life with how I phrase stuff.  It's part of why I take the tone I do on the wiki, even when correcting someone or trying to direct them to leave and take their arguments over to these forums instead of rules-lawyering at us admins -- it's way better to be neutral or chill in tone right up until a firm hand is needed.  I don't think I've done so well on these forums, partly because some people just make me bristle on sight.

 

Regarding when and whether it's appropriate to run away, there's definitely a fuzzy-but-present threshold where it's too much.  We can discuss this threshold as though it were a thin and identifiable line (it's not), but you can tell the difference between nudging a cat aside so you can sit down vs karate-chopping it nearly in half and then flinging it through the window.  A threshold has been crossed even if you struggle to agree on its exact boundaries.  We disagree with the karate chop.

It's definitely a mainstay of ace list culture and it feels bad when someone spends most of the match refusing to engage at all because their strategy is to snag the tiniest points lead and then draw it out.  How to distinguish between emergency maneuvers where plans have collapsed and they're trying to salvage, or just trying to not commit fragile aces too carelessly?  God knows it's not always clear.  But we've all been the cat getting chopped before, and it objectively feels bad.  Slow play is, in my opinion, very frequently a Negative Play Experience, and if it were more clear cut I can guarantee it'd be banned in all its forms simply because it sucks hard for the opponent.  At the abuse state it feels like an exploit rather than a strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ForceSensitive it has nothing to do with dissenting opinions, I disagree with a lot of people on this site and yet I always feel they contribute to the discussion and do not turn every thread they stain with their presence into a monologue driven one man show with endless contrived arguments for the sole purpose of proving to everyone else how superior to their own logic you are. 

It's like you feel down the neckbeard stereotype tree and hit every single branch on the way down. I can smell the Dorito stained swollen fingers as they hack away at the mechanical keyboard looking for the next three syllable word in a desperate attempt to prove your worth in the online world having failed to do so in the real one, pausing only to inject a vague attempt at humor with an emoji or *descriptive text* to prove that, while you are a serious person of immense intellect, you also do know how to have fun like the simpletons do. 

I deeply resent the fact that I have to share this hobby with people like you and listen to the endless stream of misogynistic bull about whatever the topic of the week is as you try to crusade against an entire gender for not touching your pp since you were in diapers. 

For that and many more reasons you irritate me to the fiber of my being. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Flurpy said:

@ForceSensitive it has nothing to do with dissenting opinions, I disagree with a lot of people on this site and yet I always feel they contribute to the discussion and do not turn every thread they stain with their presence into a monologue driven one man show with endless contrived arguments for the sole purpose of proving to everyone else how superior to their own logic you are. 

It's like you feel down the neckbeard stereotype tree and hit every single branch on the way down. I can smell the Dorito stained swollen fingers as they hack away at the mechanical keyboard looking for the next three syllable word in a desperate attempt to prove your worth in the online world having failed to do so in the real one, pausing only to inject a vague attempt at humor with an emoji or *descriptive text* to prove that, while you are a serious person of immense intellect, you also do know how to have fun like the simpletons do. 

I deeply resent the fact that I have to share this hobby with people like you and listen to the endless stream of misogynistic bull about whatever the topic of the week is as you try to crusade against an entire gender for not touching your pp since you were in diapers. 

For that and many more reasons you irritate me to the fiber of my being. 

Yikes, that got extreme and personal fast.  What exactly did he say that led you to that reaction?  It feels like you're greatly overstating what he said and how he said it, at least in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, that's some very uhh... your choice of language clearly makes you out to be the bad guy @Flurpy.  Lots of petty personal insults.  Unless there's something much worse going on outside this thread that I haven't seen, that's totally unwarranted.  Try to keep it civil and respond to arguments instead of slinging mud at the person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...