1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

If only someone had observed, directly to Alex, three-plus years ago, that the game would devolve to this if it weren't addressed. (Narrator: "Someone had.")

I bet he would have meekly accepted if you were 6'5", well over 300 pounds, and built like a truck.

19 minutes ago, Chumbalaya said:

I bet he would have meekly accepted if you were 6'5", well over 300 pounds, and built like a truck.

Alex must have meekly accepted, because he was told by someone who was 6’5” 300 pounds and built like a truck. So why the disconnect?

This thread is better than the trolley problem

24 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

This thread is better than the trolley problem

This is why everyone hates moral philosophy professors.

So...

What's the forcing function in the game played on stream, when both players are moving on their side of the board?

"Player 2, you must move towards Player 1!"

OR

"Both players must attempt to engage in X turns"?

If ships are moving, they just aren't moving to the center of the board for an engagement, how do you force a player to make what they believe to be a sub-optimal play?

I play Separatists now, historically First Order/Empire, and I pretty much always line up with intent to duke it out and see how the dice fall. I've played very few lists that don't want to punch the other list in the mouth early. I've never played a game where I avoided an engagement until after I have an advantage and need to run for the win (Kylo up on points after the list is pretty beat up). I just don't get how we make a judgement call that its "stalling" if a player can say they're trying to take the engagement on their terms.

35 minutes ago, dsul413 said:

I just don't get how we make a judgement call that its "stalling" if a player can say they're trying to take the engagement on their terms.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. A player could be trying to force the engagement to happen on their terms by stalling the game.

I find the idea of circling the board to avoid engaging until the last round dull (and incredibly risky, as you are relying on a single round of shooting to go in your favour), but the ships are moving. I'd hate it if FFG were to bring in some knee-jerk rules change to force players into playing aggressively, as that would be incredibly difficult to enforce (What if I'm planning to engage next turn, so slow-roll my list forwards this turn? What if I set my dials in anticipation of you going in one direction, but you go in the other?) and could limit list-building options (this ship/pilot doesn't want to rush into a fight, it wants to sit back and take potshots until the late game, but I don't want my opponent to accuse me of time-wasting/not playing aggressively, so I'll just take this Get-To-Range-One brawler instead).

In badminton, there happened to be a similar incident. Both teams refusing to play, trying to lose (they were secure 1st & 2nd place of a group and wanted to lose to become 2nd place)

Both teams got disqualified and the runner-up teams of the group qualified instead).

Just saying...

9 minutes ago, Rangor said:

In badminton, there happened to be a similar incident. Both teams refusing to play, trying to lose (they were secure 1st & 2nd place of a group and wanted to lose to become 2nd place)

Both teams got disqualified and the runner-up teams of the group qualified instead).

Just saying...

That's a very different set of circumstances. Neither of the players in this instance wanted to lose. They wanted to win, on their own terms of engagement.

The closest comparison I can think to your example would be two players, both who are guaranteed to make the cut, attempting to throw their game in order to somehow improve their match-ups in the next round. Or perhaps a case where a player who has made the cut is playing someone who won't be able to, with the player who has made the cut purposely throwing their game to somehow enable a friend/squadmate to be able to make the cut as well. Not certain how realistic (or possible!) these scenarios would be, mind you.

This is a perfect example of tornament mentality vs "lets have fun playing against each other" mentality. Fun requires playing people that share your mentality. This happens in many games.

58 minutes ago, LUZ_TAK said:

This is a perfect example of tornament mentality vs "lets have fun playing against each other" mentality. Fun requires playing people that share your mentality. This happens in many games.

Not... quite. I know what you're saying but, even a tournament needs to have fun. It's not like anybody is doing this for a living. There's no need to finger point here at any player or group. It's not as though the people who are using these tactics are wrong or bad people because they use these tactics.

The argument is that this is bad for the game and should be resolved.

2 hours ago, LUZ_TAK said:

This is a perfect example of tournament mentality vs "lets have fun playing against each other" mentality. Fun requires playing people that share your mentality. This happens in many games.

I think maybe you're specifically talking pint games vs. tourney games. In both you could have fun, but only in the former is it the only reason to play.

1 hour ago, LagJanson said:

Not... quite. I know what you're saying but, even a tournament needs to have fun. It's not like anybody is doing this for a living. There's no need to finger point here at any player or group. It's not as though the people who are using these tactics are wrong or bad people because they use these tactics.

The argument is that this is bad for the game and should be resolved.

Everyone likes winning, for it is a game. Everyone wants to have fun, for it is a game. But.... Maybe the difference is between those simply love our game best by simply "playing the game" and those that best love "winning the game"? If you get me, what's most important to the specific player. Intent is ultimately impossible to define, but implementing the best strategy to win the game (if your in the latter camp) even if it is to avoid playing, is the actual correct strategy? Heck, some could argue they have fun not playing?

I don't land in the latter camp, but I understand it, but I don't get that at the same time.

...now where's my tea?

8 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

I think maybe you're specifically talking pint games vs. tourney games. In both you could have fun, but only in the former is it the only reason to play.

Not quite.

I do want to win when I play a friendly game, I just won't use a tactic like the one in the video, which is a slog and might jeopardize the chance of having a rematch. Who would want a second serving of that?

Simply put: everyone wants to win and have fun. A good game gives a ruleset to achieve both, but cannot force all players to agree which of both "fun and win" takes precedence when they play.

Doesn't seem the marshalls or referees task to do so either...

24 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

Everyone  likes winning, for it is a game. Everyone wa  nts to have fun, for it is a game. But.... Maybe the difference is between those simply love our game best by simply "playing the game" and those that best love "winning the game"? If you get me, what's most important to the specific player. Intent is ultimately impossible to define, but implementing the best strategy to win the game (if your in the latter camp) even if it is to avoid playing, is the actual correct strategy? Heck, some c  ould argue they have fun not playing?

I don't land in the latter camp, but I understand it, but I don't get that at the same time.

I don’t disagree there are people who prioritize winning (hey, it’s fun to win. That’s not necessarily bad)

I disagree with broad brush painting a subset to appear as villains so we can dismiss the scenario.

Anyway, it’s a well discussed topic at this point. If anybody was going to be swayed today, then it’s already happened. All that’s left is to pour gasoline on this mess and light it on fire. I think I will leave that to someone else this time.

I'm still not seeing how it's bad for the game if both players are agreeing to delay their engagement and taking steps to ensure that. The only "fix" I would maybe add is to let them negotiate how much time they actually want to use for their game, and asking the judge to reset the clock to that mutually agreed value. If both players are in agreement that they would rather engage with 5 minutes left in the game instead of 70, then the judge fast-forwards their clock to that point.

58 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

I don’t disagree there are people who prioritize winning (hey, it’s fun to win. That’s not necessarily bad) I disagree with broad brush painting a subset to appear as villains so we can dismiss the scenario. Anyway, it’s a well discussed topic at this point. If anybody was going to be swayed today, then it’s already happened. All that’s left is to pour gasoline on this mess and light it on fire. I think I will leave that to someone else this time.

Agreed, but why the fire?

Some like to win above all, some like to play above all, some like to hang out with friends above all, some like all three. I'm saying let everyone have their selected draught and move along. This is a strategy issue, not a rules issue IMO. Live and let live. If you know the guy likes to wait you out, make a list that can go in and nuke him, or, get another pint and wait him out. :-)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mez78rwE6J2RWuRKZ6Cit4IpIByIdTsTHNT85eUAgZc/edit?usp=sharing

Iain Hamp's Stalling Manifesto

14 minutes ago, Quack Shot said:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mez78rwE6J2RWuRKZ6Cit4IpIByIdTsTHNT85eUAgZc/edit?usp=sharing

Iain Hamp's Stalling Manifesto

I agree with Iain's summary and raise my pint in agreement, "SO - in conclusion, knock it off."

...now where's my tea?

23 minutes ago, Quack Shot said:

I ain Hamp's Stalling Manifesto

Wow, that was good.

45 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

Agreed, but why the fire?

Fire isn't like sand at all. It's pretty, and warm and it cleanses everything.

I was referring to this thread being the mess, by the by...

But how do I know when to call over a judge because my opponent is stalling? I'd have to wait long enough to be sure he's stalling, and then - oh look! I am stalling, too! If I am not stalling, I have already run into his trap, for better or for worse. Thoughts?

What about the ol' toilet bowl routine. Both players may be waiting for the best engagement, rather than hoping to snipe some points at the end of time. How do you tell the difference?

I like where Iain is coming from because I hate the idea of using time as your main weapon to win, but the level of subjectivity is concerning.

21 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

But how do I know when to call over a judge because my opponent is stalling? I'd have to wait long enough to be sure he's stalling, and then - oh look! I am stalling, too! If I am not stalling, I have already run into his trap, for better or for worse. Thoughts?

What about the ol' toilet bowl routine. Both players may be waiting for the best engagement, rather than hoping to snipe some points at the end of time. How do you tell the difference?

I like where Iain is coming from because I hate the idea of using time as your main weapon to win, but the level of subjectivity is concerning.

It's really not confusing or suspect when you see it at tournaments.

21 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

But how do I know when to call over a judge because my opponent is stalling? I'd have to wait long enough to be sure he's stalling, and then - oh look! I am stalling, too! If I am not stalling, I have already run into his trap, for better or for worse. Thoughts?

First, understand that the simple fact of a major TO pointing out that he's now willing to call this, and other judges should also, is going to mean that it's simply not going to happen as often. Players willing to do this will no longer have the cover of "it's not explicitly fortressing."

Second, use your judgment. If you're both doing it, call the judge. He'll say, "Start moving," and watch to make sure you both start moving.

Quote

What about the ol' toilet bowl routine. Both players may be waiting for the best engagement, rather than hoping to snipe some points at the end of time. How do you tell the difference?

The circling-the-bowl isn't the same thing. Players are moving. There's nothing wrong with moving and jockeying for position. I don't understand, at all, why people make this false equivalency. If ships are moving, then players are risking making mistakes. That's what playing the game is.

Quote

I like where Iain is coming from because I hate the idea of using time as your main weapon to win, but the level of subjectivity is concerning.

Why? Have you really never played a game with officiating before?

I mean even in friendly league, or even non league, games we call people over all the time for marginal calls. ‘Is this in arc’ ‘what range’ etc. there is a certain amount of imprecision that we deal with every game, sometimes a third party is needed.

For real casual sometimes we just roll for it. ‘Hits it’s in arc/ on the rock’ since sometimes simply measuring is likely to alter the outcome, or require marking 4 ships.