47 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

So why did they start at 300 points instead of 400, if as you say it was always intended to be 400.

My guess is financial considerations. At 400, you would be been running 2 VSDs, a GSD, and a fighter pack worth of squads. With the core, a minimum of around $180. At 300, you can drop it to $140. A pretty significant difference at the dawn of the game.

I could also also be full of crap.

I always wonder, "How much of the slow play is on the game, and how much of the slow play is on the players?"

I mean, I don't want to be dissing anyone in particular, but I know from my own anecdotal and recorded methodologies, that... I can't tell.

In Calgary, as I've expressed - we've always been solidly fighter-heavy. Even back to James with his Triple-Vics-and-Rhymerball days, Squadrons - and maxed squadrons- have been part of the game.

And currently, we really only have 1-2 players (out of 20) who are routinely pushing time limits on games.

And not only standard game times, we'v enot had a 400pt Fleet Patrol game go to time with the reduced time (2hrs) since I started running them... And Myth Games runs basically all of its tournaments under an amended game time of 100 minutes... A full 35 minutes shorter than legally perscribed for the game.

So perhaps it just shows that with experience and practice (and not neccessarily good play - just practice at play) - speeds up the competition somewhat. For one, I know that one of our Slower-playing serial players has attributed his slowness to overthinking, and to deliberately giving himself as much time as he can.

In short, I do think its a compounded problem. Its a longer, slower, plan-first rather than react-quick game... And we get faster as we play more games - but because we're slow at the start, it takes longer for us to play more games, and we get less games in, so we don't get faster any quicker, and it compounds...

I think I've addressed slow playing as a gaming group in Hothgary before - for lack of a better term, we exalt the player who can not only play well, but the player who is looking to constantly improve....... If you're winning your games, then how do you improve as a player? You practice playing - and winning - faster.

So Personally, I think fixing slow play is on the individual to correct. If that means you use a chess clock for your side of the game, by all means. Record how long you take, and personally strive to improve.

The game isn't without its flaws (Goddess knows I've raved enough on the Rules Forums about some of them ) - but Play time and Play speed is something the player can address personally.

HA!

If FFG increased it to 500pts for tournament play, people would start to make even bigger bids for 1st player, so we will end up having 400pts fleet games anyway

11 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

I always wonder, "How much of the slow play is on the game, and how much of the slow play is on the players?"

I mean, I don't want to be dissing anyone in particular, but I know from my own anecdotal and recorded methodologies, that... I can't tell.

In Calgary, as I've expressed - we've always been solidly fighter-heavy. Even back to James with his Triple-Vics-and-Rhymerball days, Squadrons - and maxed squadrons- have been part of the game.

And currently, we really only have 1-2 players (out of 20) who are routinely pushing time limits on games.

And not only standard game times, we'v enot had a 400pt Fleet Patrol game go to time with the reduced time (2hrs) since I started running them... And Myth Games runs basically all of its tournaments under an amended game time of 100 minutes... A full 35 minutes shorter than legally perscribed for the game.

So perhaps it just shows that with experience and practice (and not neccessarily good play - just practice at play) - speeds up the competition somewhat. For one, I know that one of our Slower-playing serial players has attributed his slowness to overthinking, and to deliberately giving himself as much time as he can.

In short, I do think its a compounded problem. Its a longer, slower, plan-first rather than react-quick game... And we get faster as we play more games - but because we're slow at the start, it takes longer for us to play more games, and we get less games in, so we don't get faster any quicker, and it compounds...

I think I've addressed slow playing as a gaming group in Hothgary before - for lack of a better term, we exalt the player who can not only play well, but the player who is looking to constantly improve....... If you're winning your games, then how do you improve as a player? You practice playing - and winning - faster.

So Personally, I think fixing slow play is on the individual to correct. If that means you use a chess clock for your side of the game, by all means. Record how long you take, and personally strive to improve.

The game isn't without its flaws (Goddess knows I've raved enough on the Rules Forums about some of them ) - but Play time and Play speed is something the player can address personally.

This is a really fascinating notion.

Based on my experiences, I don't think any of the players in my local area are necessarily slow, but I have no definition of speed to base what slow or fast would be. Thinking about it this way I am very curious what amount of time, on average, players spend per activation (both of ship and squadron). Is there a bare minimum that's unavoidable and therefore be deemed "slow play caused by the game" or is it all relative?

I would think much of it would have to do with the quality of activation as well.

Would squadrons compound time spent due to the complexity of placement with keywords such as escort, intel, bomber, snipe, relay, or perhaps effects that require extra involvement per activation such as swarm and counter also compound how much time an activation is worth. Would/could there ever be a base speed calculated on averages? Or is it all relative to player speed?

I personally think it is slow players, not slow games. Locally, we tend to knock down 400 point games in 90-120 minutes. We have a brutally squadron heavy meta (only bringing 100 is a light screen) except for the last few weeks.

If they are going longer, it is almost always because we are workshopping tourney builds. We discuss best commands/attack/placements/activations/everything in detail to knock out kinks and rough edges.

My only 3 hour game that wasn't a tourney prep round was because I fielded 6 phone calls for work in that time frame.

I think a timer could work as such…

Give each player 1 hour count down (easy to do and common on a modern Chess clock) for a total 2 hour count down time.

When it is your activation the clock is flipped so your time is going away. When your activation is completed, you flip it so his time is counting down for his activation.

When setting dials, pause the clock.

If your clock runs out. You lose the game.

Alternatively….

During dials Player 1 keeps the clock till his dials and reset is done. He then ships the clock to player 2 who does his dials and reset, and then play resumes.

And if you wanted to go further, during turn 1, player 1 keeps the timer. Turn 2, player 2 keeps the timer during dials, turn 3, player 1 again…

13 minutes ago, Hawktel said:

I think a timer could work as such…

Give each player 1 hour count down (easy to do and common on a modern Chess clock) for a total 2 hour count down time.

When it is your activation the clock is flipped so your time is going away. When your activation is completed, you flip it so his time is counting down for his activation.

When setting dials, pause the clock.

If your clock runs out. You lose the game.

Alternatively….

During dials Player 1 keeps the clock till his dials and reset is done. He then ships the clock to player 2 who does his dials and reset, and then play resumes.

And if you wanted to go further, during turn 1, player 1 keeps the timer. Turn 2, player 2 keeps the timer during dials, turn 3, player 1 again…

The one problem with the idea is who does time flip to when rolling attacks. So I roll and hit you for X, and then you have to spend defense tokens. Does that flip to you? Does that stay on me? That's the issue I've always heard with it.

Just now, geek19 said:

The one problem with the idea is who does time flip to when rolling attacks. So I roll and hit you for X, and then you have to spend defense tokens. Does that flip to you? Does that stay on me? That's the issue I've always heard with it.

Good point, I hadn't even considered that.

Most of the games I've had or watched that took way too long wasn't because of squadrons or even because of cautious play but mainly due to one or more players constantly stopping to chit chat with other players or spectators or taking a bunch of phone calls. I'd love the chess clock idea if there was some good way to handle time spent on defense.

9 minutes ago, ninclouse2000 said:

Good point, I hadn't even considered that.

That was the issue we came into, when I tested it here... I ran two sets of trials - one with just "activation to activation" flipping, and one with flipping the clock at every decision point.

In all cases, using a Chess Clock slowed us down... because we were now worrying and checking the clock rather than considering our moves... Go Figure.

And when it was activation-to-activation, the premise of "when it runs out you lose" added a stonewall side to the game, for sure...

But I put my results mostly under confirmation bias of sorts, (which is why I don't make a huge deal of them) - because I was moving form a premise where we already did not have a problem with timing - it really needs to be tested by a variety of people who do have the issue now. (Hooray, Science!"

4 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

That was the issue we came into, when I tested it here... I ran two sets of trials - one with just "activation to activation" flipping, and one with flipping the clock at every decision point.

In all cases, using a Chess Clock slowed us down... because we were now worrying and checking the clock rather than considering our moves... Go Figure.

And when it was activation-to-activation, the premise of "when it runs out you lose" added a stonewall side to the game, for sure...

But I put my results mostly under confirmation bias of sorts, (which is why I don't make a huge deal of them) - because I was moving form a premise where we already did not have a problem with timing - it really needs to be tested by a variety of people who do have the issue now. (Hooray, Science!"

Perhaps a blind recording is required? Players don't know they're being timed by a 3rd party?

Just now, Darth Sanguis said:

Perhaps a blind recording is required? Players don't know they're being timed by a 3rd party?

Essentially, that's how I collected my baseline data - had a tournament where I was sitting out (as to not force a bye upon the populace!).

So I ran data collection alongside the list collections.

8 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

That was the issue we came into, when I tested it here... I ran two sets of trials - one with just "activation to activation" flipping, and one with flipping the clock at every decision point.

In all cases, using a Chess Clock slowed us down... because we were now worrying and checking the clock rather than considering our moves... Go Figure.

And when it was activation-to-activation, the premise of "when it runs out you lose" added a stonewall side to the game, for sure...

But I put my results mostly under confirmation bias of sorts, (which is why I don't make a huge deal of them) - because I was moving form a premise where we already did not have a problem with timing - it really needs to be tested by a variety of people who do have the issue now. (Hooray, Science!"

There's also the issue in a tournament of what "lose" means. 8-3? 6-5?

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

Essentially, that's how I collected my baseline data - had a tournament where I was sitting out (as to not force a bye upon the populace!).

So I ran data collection alongside the list collections.

Your said you had this recorded, consider my curiosity peaked, any chance you'd be willing to link me the data you've collected so far?

I'll prepare it into a more reasonable format when I have time.

But I mean, what for in particular? Looking for correllation between squadron-numbers-to-game time?

Just now, Drasnighta said:

I'll prepare it into a more reasonable format when I have time.

But I mean, what for in particular? Looking for correllation between squadron-numbers-to-game time?

Well, I sit a game out almost every friday

(As one of the top players at my group I deliver a lot of beatings, so I try to let the other players play each other. Losing all the time sucks, and I don't wanna drive 'em away) .

If you've recorded a base line, and begun collecting data (and I can manage to replicate the way you recorded your data) I may be able to add more data ( which is never bad).

The whole notion has me genuinely interested.

Though I don't think there's an actual conclusion that could be drawn just by adding my input, it'd be interesting to see the data.

Just now, Darth Sanguis said:

Well, I sit a game out almost every friday

(As one of the top players at my group I deliver a lot of beatings, so I try to let the other players play each other. Losing all the time sucks, and I don't wanna drive 'em away) .

If you've recorded a base line, and begun collecting data (and I can manage to replicate the way you recorded your data) I may be able to add more data ( which is never bad).

The whole notion has me genuinely interested.

Though I don't think there's an actual conclusion that could be drawn just by adding my input, it'd be interesting to see the data.

No worries.

Half of it is scribbled notebook notes - hence me transcribing it a system which I can actually send to you

3 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

No worries.

Half of it is scribbled notebook notes - hence me transcribing it a system which I can actually send to you

There's no rush.

Sitting here thinking about all the factors that go into timing a match I'm curious if my perception of time hasn't also given me a heavy bias.

A person who is not enjoying a particular aspect of the game may feel like that aspect is dragging on while realistically it could be well within acceptable averages. I think that could explain why heavy squadron players often finish within the time limits (though often closer to the 135 than the others who bring 30-80 points by 5-10 minutes or so). Maybe even the felt difference between a 600 point no squad game and a standard 400 point game with full 134s.

I'm from a warmachine background. Anytime you are waiting for a game play state from the other player, you ship the clock to them.I start my clock and pick my first activation, Command, decide my shot, roll to hit, spend my accuracy's, ship the clock to him. He uses defense tokens, and ships it back, I maneuver, and ship the clock back to the other player for his activation.

In the game games I've seen completed in this area, it has taken north of 3.5 hours. In tourney games, out of the last 6 I've played, 1 game was completed. All others timed out. And I've checked, I don't think I'm the issue. I've completed games of Warmachine maneuvering 50+ model armies in a 2 hour tourney game.

11 minutes ago, Hawktel said:

I'm from a warmachine background. Anytime you are waiting for a game play state from the other player, you ship the clock to them.I start my clock and pick my first activation, Command, decide my shot, roll to hit, spend my accuracy's, ship the clock to him. He uses defense tokens, and ships it back, I maneuver, and ship the clock back to the other player for his activation.

In the game games I've seen completed in this area, it has taken north of 3.5 hours. In tourney games, out of the last 6 I've played, 1 game was completed. All others timed out. And I've checked, I don't think I'm the issue. I've completed games of Warmachine maneuvering 50+ model armies in a 2 hour tourney game.

And you can forgive me for being completely astounded at hearing that, given the Data that I've collected on the matter...

It points to me that... There is no Single Factor to it.

Far too many variables to point out "this is the problem"

Perhaps its Demographic or other-game-playing based? Most of our players are Armada players primarily, with some splitting attention to Infinity - but the majority of the Armada game players play Armada primarily or only...

And I mean, my "backup Judge" for when I'm playing is an ex PP Pressganger, who I dare say, has a similar playing background to you, and is routinely the first player done with his games...

This is certainly long-term study material, I think.... Finding and eliminating variables is going to be the hardest part of it, if possible at all...

For a note, the last Tournament Game I had that went to time, was against an opponent who, essentially, "had only picked up Armada a few days ago, and was there to take the place of someone who had an emergency and had to leave right before starting."

- ie, new, and playing a list that they hadn't even put together.

And it ended Turn 5 still, with a 6th turn probably only taking a few minutes to get through - but I had to log results from other games and generate second-round pairings. ie - I was also distracted through the game, which is a big no-no typically.

I’m not even sure what you’re saying here Dras.

My argument is we should incorporate a timer so you finish your game in the allotted time. And I’m of course willing to have this happen, realizing my game will be the one lost if I run out of time..

What is your point now?

4 minutes ago, Hawktel said:

I’m not even sure what you’re saying here Dras.

My argument is we should incorporate a timer so you finish your game in the allotted time. And I’m of course willing to have this happen, realizing my game will be the one lost if I run out of time..

What is your point now?

That for us (not for you), incorporating a timer actually slowed us down. *

We already finish our games well within the time limit, on a majority of the set times - there are specific exceptions, of course.

* Players comments included, (not limited to, and paraphrased):

It was burdensome, unnecessary, stressful, and had us, basically, "focusing on the clock" and getting its timing right, rather than on the game itself... Which split our attention from the game.

Ergo:

My Position - which is my Position and based on my observed factors only:

I guess I'm against attempting to mandate a chess clock system as part of Armada Tournaments full stop.... That would be heavy handed, and in some cases, stress-inducing and unneccessary.

However, if in your area, you feel it is neccessary, then you should consider incorporating it in your play, to improve your play speed, either as a tool for training or as a definite limited in games, then go for it.

I feel its not a failing of the game system, because the game itself can and routinely is played within its given framework of time here, barring outside interference...

So when people say, "The game takes too long to play, we never finish games!"... I do instinctively ask "Why?" - because I do.... And we're playing the same game, here...

If I even had a witness that a chunk of games with diverse people were going to time that I'd observed -I'd change my position in a heartbeat... But that hasn't happened here since Wave 2, by my anecdotal evidence.

Games do take longer in the Corellian Conflict that we've played - we even played them in-store where we had a 8-hour Open-Time slotted to play 2 games and have 2 strategic phases... Barely finishing. Those were bigger games and involved more nebulous timing in matchups and in fleet changes after battles... So I understand that...

9 minutes ago, Hawktel said:

I’m not even sure what you’re saying here Dras.

My argument is we should incorporate a timer so you finish your game in the allotted time. And I’m of course willing to have this happen, realizing my game will be the one lost if I run out of time..

What is your point now?

As a fellow ex-warmahordes player, were you able to handle 50 units immediately and never timed out during your early games? Because that happens when you're newer with a list (never mind the fact that a unit of 10 dudes is really one unit with 10 slightly moving parts that all stay close enough to be in formation anyways.....). Further, the board is smaller and most WMH games end by turn 3. Armada you generally have to play it out the whole time.

I'm only making the point that WMH and Armada are different enough that comparing them for a time constraint is not really applicable. Or at least it was in Mark 2 when I stopped playing. (Maybe warmahordes is fun again ohhhhhhhhhhhhh)

Additionally:

I don't want to be or sound negative on it... My Focus is as much on "Why Can't Others" as it is on "Why Can We?!"

All in all, I want more People to Play Armada, and I want more people to be comfortable playing Armada well, to the full extent of the game...

Of course it took time to learn to play with a clock. It takes time to do anything, including learn the game to play to a skill level like all the guys in Dras's area where they knock out games in under a 2 hour limit.

The tourney rules for each game declare a 2 hour limit.

Did FFG not intend the majority of games to be finished?