Those lists are brutally boring.

2 hours ago, NeonWolf said:

The one person from my local area (that means something entirely different here than in other parts of the world ) that was able to attend said that out of the 4 games he played only 1 of them actually went to Turn 3, the rest were over in turn 2 due to time limit.

The 2 hour time limit is fine, but when you plan to play a 6 round game and only finish two, it completely skews your strategy and lists. It would be interesting to see if @Orkimedes has the info on game rounds completed to go with lists and Battle Cards. It could shed some light on why the Top tier lists are what they are.

Yeah I feel the pregame card game, objective deployment, taking it in turns to deploy a unit really has a huge time factor and find it can easily take 1/4 of your time up

2 hours ago, NeonWolf said:

The one person from my local area (that means something entirely different here than in other parts of the world ) that was able to attend said that out of the 4 games he played only 1 of them actually went to Turn 3, the rest were over in turn 2 due to time limit.

The 2 hour time limit is fine, but when you plan to play a 6 round game and only finish two, it completely skews your strategy and lists. It would be interesting to see if @Orkimedes has the info on game rounds completed to go with lists and Battle Cards. It could shed some light on why the Top tier lists are what they are.

Yeah I feel the pregame card game, objective deployment, taking it in turns to deploy a unit really has a huge time factor and find it can easily take 1/4 of your time up

I think this is likely a big factor. “Gun line” lists like those shown always do better early game, but can struggle a little more over 6 turns.

if games are so short that would put lists like this at an advantage.

i guess learning to play faster is very important to balanced events.

6 hours ago, NeonWolf said:

The one person from my local area (that means something entirely different here than in other parts of the world ) that was able to attend said that out of the 4 games he played only 1 of them actually went to Turn 3, the rest were over in turn 2 due to time limit.

The 2 hour time limit is fine, but when you plan to play a 6 round game and only finish two, it completely skews your strategy and lists. It would be interesting to see if @Orkimedes has the info on game rounds completed to go with lists and Battle Cards. It could shed some light on why the Top tier lists are what they are.

Yup, I have all this stuff. The top 6 is just the tip of the iceberg.

Time was definitely a factor, though most games went at least to 4 after the first round. More details forthcoming.

5 hours ago, DarkTrooperZero said:

Yeah I feel the pregame card game, objective deployment, taking it in turns to deploy a unit really has a huge time factor and find it can easily take 1/4 of your time up

If you wanted to speed things up, the pre-game cards and objectives could be put down by the TO each round.

On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 10:44 AM, RaevenKS said:

This Top6 is sad as ****.

The only surprise is the Palpatine Top 2.

I clearly can't say "this is the most efficient tactict available" right now. We can't state this is the most advanced meta. It is barely "last year meta". With IRG. Lel.

Moreover, calling this a "World Championship" when there is almost only US players...

Can't wait for some "real" tournament coming in Europe. Europe always been better in meta creation.

Well, we european players could organize a big unofficial event. There are a lot for other game systems. Unfotunately looks like FFG Europe does not care for Legion tournament play.

3 hours ago, Dave Grant said:

I think this is likely a big factor. “Gun line” lists like those shown always do better early game, but can struggle a little more over 6 turns.

if games are so short that would put lists like this at an advantage.

i guess learning to play faster is very important to balanced events.

It could be done wth more harsh measures to contrast slow playing: you don't play up to turn 5 at least? your winn values 0.5 points instead of 1. Looser gets -0.5 points instead of 0.

2 hours ago, lologrelol said:

If you wanted to speed things up, the pre-game cards and objectives could be put down by the TO each round.

That removes a ton of strategy from the game.

I would rather see chess clocks or longer round times.

3 hours ago, Orkimedes said:

That removes a ton of strategy from the game.

I would rather see chess clocks or longer round times.

Honestly, I think more setup time is the answer. Like, have everyone select missions, , setup board and deploy etc off the clock. Once everyone is ready to start turn 1, start the clock and go. Granted, I don't have the most experience running events, but setup is universally the reasons why people haven't finished in the time limit. The actual game part is pretty easy to do in time.

3 hours ago, Orkimedes said:

That removes a ton of strategy from the game.

I would rather see chess clocks or longer round times.

I thought exactly the same thing to fixes those "I have 12+ activations and will take 30min for each of my turn LEEEEEL !" by using the blitz rule, or chesse clocks. This "reward" players knowing their list and how to rapidly process a strategy or a move. Let see you have 2 hours 30 minutes for each game. You set 5 mins for choosing the objectives, conditions and deployements, 7,5min for deployment, and then "1 hour" minus the time "taken in more" on the clock at the end of deployment (we could think also of a "+ time remaining") for both player, and if your flag is down, you lose. No matter the situation. This let 10 minutes for eventual judge problems or giving results.

I like the idea.

9 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

Honestly, I think more setup time is the answer. Like, have everyone select missions, , setup board and deploy etc off the clock. Once everyone is ready to start turn 1, start the clock and go. Granted, I don't have the most experience running events, but setup is universally the reasons why people haven't finished in the time limit. The actual game part is pretty easy to do in time.

This.

I would be pissed to travel to Las Vegas (I don't even live that far away), only to play on average, 2-3 rounds of a 6-round game.

11 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

Honestly, I think more setup time is the answer. Like, have everyone select missions, , setup board and deploy etc off the clock. Once everyone is ready to start turn 1, start the clock and go. Granted, I don't have the most experience running events, but setup is universally the reasons why people haven't finished in the time limit. The actual game part is pretty easy to do in time.

We did have some setup time notionally, but you still need a hard start/stop time for each round to keep things on schedule.

8 minutes ago, Orkimedes said:

We did have some setup time notionally, but you still need a hard start/stop time for each round to keep things on schedule.

All that said schedule and time was a big point of feedback for the event.

I would personally like to see either chess clocks or longer round times (or both) to facilitate reliably getting to 6 turns.

1 minute ago, Orkimedes said:

All that said schedule and time was a big point of feedback for the event.

I would personally like to see either chess clocks or longer round times (or both) to facilitate reliably getting to 6 turns.

This also feels like a game that would be very susceptible to deliberately slow play. As someone who is keeping an eye on LVO for possibly attending next year, I'm interested in how these rules or feedback are applied.

19 minutes ago, Orkimedes said:

We did have some setup time notionally, but you still need a hard start/stop time for each round to keep things on schedule.

I was more thinking that a longer setup time needs to be accounted for in the schedule. I had to tweak up the time between rounds because, compared to a lot of other games, Legion is actually more setup intensive i.e. figure out who's blue player, get their card pool, go through the card draft process, outline DZs ad setup mission components, then alternate deployment and finally you're ready to go. Even in relation to other games, that's not a short process unless both players are on point.

Alternating deployments really slows it down, I love this style of deployment but it introduces a dozen choices of which unit you pick and where it will go and what's my opponent put down and what's he got left etc compared to, and now I will put my entire army down in one go games

In the games that I have played that have only had a 2-4 turns it has all been due to "Turn 0" taking an inordinately long amount of time. Just picking the Battle Cards and then deploying can really get away from you if you aren't paying attention. What you think takes 15 minutes can take 30+, easily.

I'm not sure chess clocks are a good answer, but then I've never used them so they may be.

I think it would be wise to give players X amount of time for all setup items. You get 15 minutes to setup, then your round clock starts. If you're not setup in 15 minutes, you eat into your actual game time. If you are, then you get the full round's allotment to play the actual game.

It still sounds like slow-play was a factor, though, so round timers may also help, but I think not counting setup within the actual game round, would be fine, and 15 minutes of non-clocked setup, wouldn't really add that much time to the overall event, right? Maybe an extra hour or so.

Just now, manoftomorrow010 said:

I think it would be wise to give players X amount of time for all setup items. You get 15 minutes to setup, then your round clock starts. If you're not setup in 15 minutes, you eat into your actual game time. If you are, then you get the full round's allotment to play the actual game.

It still sounds like slow-play was a factor, though, so round timers may also help, but I think not counting setup within the actual game round, would be fine, and 15 minutes of non-clocked setup, wouldn't really add that much time to the overall event, right? Maybe an extra hour or so.

My experience, is that a minimum of 20 minutes between pairings and round start is likely going to be required for a full turn 0.

2 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

My experience, is that a minimum of 20 minutes between pairings and round start is likely going to be required for a full turn 0.

sounds good. Anything over 30 sounds too excessive, and anything less than 15 sounds like too little.

31 minutes ago, manoftomorrow010 said:

It still sounds like slow-play was a factor, though, so round timers may also help, but I think not counting setup within the actual game round, would be fine, and 15 minutes of non-clocked setup, wouldn't really add that much time to the overall event, right? Maybe an extra hour or so.

I'm not sure it was intentional slow-play as much as unfamiliarity with the rules, inexperience with timed games, etc. It sounds like this was the first major convention, much less tournament, that a lot of the players attended. That could be some interesting data for future events, number of conventions/tournaments the players have attended in the past.

1 minute ago, NeonWolf said:

I'm not sure it was intentional slow-play as much as unfamiliarity with the rules, inexperience with timed games, etc. It sounds like this was the first major convention, much less tournament, that a lot of the players attended. That could be some interesting data for future events, number of conventions/tournaments the players have attended in the past.

Come on, wasn't the LVO suppose to open "the gate" for the World ? Wasn't then it suppose to be played by almost "the best players in the world" ?

I mean, seriously.

1 minute ago, RaevenKS said:

Come on, wasn't the LVO suppose to open "the gate" for the World ? Wasn't then it suppose to be played by almost "the best players in the world" ?

I mean, seriously.

I can't answer that. I did not attend nor did I have anything to do with organizing it. I can speculate with the best of them, but since we have people on this forum who did attend, helped to organize it, and are compiling data from the event, they would probably be better able to answer your question.

4 minutes ago, RaevenKS said:

Come on, wasn't the LVO suppose to open "the gate" for the World ? Wasn't then it suppose to be played by almost "the best players in the world" ?

I mean, seriously.

As with any tournament, you get a mix of all skill levels. You have to start somewhere.

All of the players that won invites are excellent players and the competition level was, generally, quite high.