My thoughts on this.

First, its not the players fault and I feel a lot of what the Mynocks have been saying has been towards the players. @Brunas corrected them on Facebook stating that its clearly the games fault and its dangerous territory putting blame on the players for what has been considered normal time since the beginning of the game.

The game has changed a lot from 1.0. Average ship count is drastically up which has a lot to do with it. For instance, @Tlfj200 you mentioned how you'd be playing a tie swarm and if you'd just have another 2 rounds you'd win but tie swarms prevent that from happening by pure volume of ships, as well as, Iden of course. The game also now requires smarter play. Player's can't get away with jousting anymore, so they'll "dance" longer before first engagement happens. Half points on all ships is another reason why. I don't need to chase down that ship halfway across the board or necessarily keep focused on the same ship this turn because I can score points on a different ship with better shots. Mods are also not as prevalent. We don't have Dengar/Tel type lists (except for Maul/Dooku for that little bit) that can one round a B-Wing. A lot of things have changed and player's aren't just all of a sudden going slower. We got the game we wanted, but it came at the small cost of games going to time.

One thing that hasn't changed is the tournament regulations which were meant for 1.0, some have suggested a round limit or another 15 minutes. These are problematic for obvious reasons. I suggest a change in tie breakers. Currently, we have MOV, and SoS. The subtle change to make Points Destroyed the first Tie Breaker would solve this issue by having an incentive for players to enter engagement faster, going after all remaining points on the board, and list build to be more offensive. The game was made to have a conclusion, the obvious evidence to this is how red dice have better odds than green dice. This tie breaker would also help solve final salvo. People hate draws, so final salvo was introduced. I think the original intent of final salvo everyone is fine with. The problem occurs when one list has more red dice and just "fortresses" and waits for the opponent to come to them. If they implement this strategy, then they'll have a high likelihood of missing the cut. Sure they'd get the W and 200 MOV for not losing a ship, but they'd have 0 Points Destroyed and significantly be behind in that tie breaker.

5 minutes ago, Quack Shot said:

My thoughts on this.

First, its not the players fault and I feel a lot of what the Mynocks have been saying has been towards the players. @Brunas corrected them on Facebook stating that its clearly the games fault and its dangerous territory putting blame on the players for what has been considered normal time since the beginning of the game.

The game has changed a lot from 1.0. Average ship count is drastically up which has a lot to do with it. For instance, @Tlfj200 you mentioned how you'd be playing a tie swarm and if you'd just have another 2 rounds you'd win but tie swarms prevent that from happening by pure volume of ships, as well as, Iden of course. The game also now requires smarter play. Player's can't get away with jousting anymore, so they'll "dance" longer before first engagement happens. Half points on all ships is another reason why. I don't need to chase down that ship halfway across the board or necessarily keep focused on the same ship this turn because I can score points on a different ship with better shots. Mods are also not as prevalent. We don't have Dengar/Tel type lists (except for Maul/Dooku for that little bit) that can one round a B-Wing. A lot of things have changed and player's aren't just all of a sudden going slower. We got the game we wanted, but it came at the small cost of games going to time.

One thing that hasn't changed is the tournament regulations which were meant for 1.0, some have suggested a round limit or another 15 minutes. These are problematic for obvious reasons. I suggest a change in tie breakers. Currently, we have MOV, and SoS. The subtle change to make Points Destroyed the first Tie Breaker would solve this issue by having an incentive for players to enter engagement faster, going after all remaining points on the board, and list build to be more offensive. The game was made to have a conclusion, the obvious evidence to this is how red dice have better odds than green dice. This tie breaker would also help solve final salvo. People hate draws, so final salvo was introduced. I think the original intent of final salvo everyone is fine with. The problem occurs when one list has more red dice and just "fortresses" and waits for the opponent to come to them. If they implement this strategy, then they'll have a high likelihood of missing the cut. Sure they'd get the W and 200 MOV for not losing a ship, but they'd have 0 Points Destroyed and significantly be behind in that tie breaker.

I kind of actually agree with Fly Better (or whatever the spoopy space bats are going by these days) in their initial declaration against slow play. I'm paraphrasing here, but one of the guys said something along the lines of "If you are a slow player, maybe tournament play is not the best thing for you because you're going to make a lot of people have a bad time". And I agree with this statement. Casual and competitive are different for a reason. If people cannot fly 5/6 ships in a reasonable amount of time, then they should be encouraged through the rules of OP to choose a different list next time or play in a non-competitive format. And if we drive away slow players from competitive by doing this, then it will have worked as planned. OP players are paying good money to have a good OP experience and things need to change because clearly slow play is becoming too much of a problem to ignore.

1 minute ago, ThinkingB said:

I kind of actually agree with Fly Better (or whatever the spoopy space bats are going by these days) in their initial declaration against slow play. I'm paraphrasing here, but one of the guys said something along the lines of "If you are a slow player, maybe tournament play is not the best thing for you because you're going to make a lot of people have a bad time". And I agree with this statement. Casual and competitive are different for a reason. If people cannot fly 5/6 ships in a reasonable amount of time, then they should be encouraged through the rules of OP to choose a different list next time or play in a non-competitive format. And if we drive away slow players from competitive by doing this, then it will have worked as planned. OP players are paying good money to have a good OP experience and things need to change because clearly slow play is becoming too much of a problem to ignore.

Dee also said on the latest cast he's only had a problem with slow play on average 1 player a year. That's not very much. I've only had a problem with 1 player ever, and that problem was solved simply by telling him he was taking awhile. 5-6 ships just take longer, they could take the same amount of time per ship, but there are more of them. This is a game problem, players aren't just going slower out of nowhere, especially at these high of numbers that we're seeing. Take away all the players that go "slow" and you won't have a community left to play against.

4 minutes ago, ThinkingB said:

I kind of actually agree with Fly Better (or whatever the spoopy space bats are going by these days) in their initial declaration against slow play. I'm paraphrasing here, but one of the guys said something along the lines of "If you are a slow player, maybe tournament play is not the best thing for you because you're going to make a lot of people have a bad time". And I agree with this statement. Casual and competitive are different for a reason. If people cannot fly 5/6 ships in a reasonable amount of time, then they should be encouraged through the rules of OP to choose a different list next time or play in a non-competitive format. And if we drive away slow players from competitive by doing this, then it will have worked as planned. OP players are paying good money to have a good OP experience and things need to change because clearly slow play is becoming too much of a problem to ignore.

So, instead of creating a welcoming environment, you are suggesting an elitist way of play that actively pushes people away? And this wouldn’t be just “slow players”, but players who are low on mental energy, had a bad day, and the like. If you are going to be further punished for things you don’t have control over, why devote more time to it?

Your suggestion seems likely to lose us more than just those you think shouldn’t be there (who also paid money) and creates a very unfriendly atmosphere. I’ll pass.

12 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

So, instead of creating a welcoming environment, you are suggesting an elitist way of play that actively pushes people away? And this wouldn’t be just “slow players”, but players who are low on mental energy, had a bad day, and the like. If you are going to be further punished for things you don’t have control over, why devote more time to it?

Your suggestion seems likely to lose us more than just those you think shouldn’t be there (who also paid money) and creates a very unfriendly atmosphere. I’ll pass.

You seem to misunderstand. I don't want slow players welcomed in OP, which is I suppose there is a huge controversy with this subject. Yeah call me a monster or whatever. There is a format called casual, where they are more than welcome to play to their hearts content. I will happily play casual with slow players. I will teach them about fundamentals, how to make decisions more quickly, and all of the usual stuff. However, a tournament where people pay a lot of money to travel to, that they practice for months to do well in, that they care very much about doing well in is not the time or place for slow players to play the game at a slow pace. End of story really from my perspective.

But, I guess people just like going to time so much more than in 1.0, so I'll just switch to Inferno Swarm and take my Ws doing just that; if only to lampoon the problem that I've been consistently seeing with OP. People need to learn how to play the game faster if they don't want to make other people have a bad time at organized play. It's really simple as that, but suggesting that people not waste time in a game that is literally decided by what is accomplished in a set amount of time seems to just be heracy apparently.

1 minute ago, ThinkingB said:

You seem to misunderstand. I don't want slow players welcomed in OP, which is I suppose there is a huge controversy with this subject. Yeah call me a monster or whatever. There is a format called casual, where they are more than welcome to play to their hearts content. I will happily play casual with slow players. I will teach them about fundamentals, how to make decisions more quickly, and all of the usual stuff. However, a tournament where people pay a lot of money to travel to, that they practice for months to do well in, that they care very much about doing well in is not the time or place for slow players to play the game at a slow pace. End of story really from my perspective.

But, I guess people just like going to time so much more than in 1.0, so I'll just switch to Inferno Swarm and take my Ws doing just that; if only to lampoon the problem that I've been consistently seeing with OP. People need to learn how to play the game faster if they don't want to make other people have a bad time at organized play. It's really simple as that, but suggesting that people not waste time in a game that is literally decided by what is accomplished in a set amount of time seems to just be heracy apparently.

Again, you seem to be thinking that what you term “slow players” haven’t also paid and traveled to get to a tournament, giving them as much right to play as you.

I also explained why a “slow player” might not be something deliberate or control able. And as what is considered “acceptable speed” is a subjective term, your whole suggestion is a mess to me. I will continue to pass.

IMHO, with the number of real-games that I play (and it is not that much), I have learned a lot about this very interesting article. I was playing casual games of 1.0 pratically always going to the endgame, because it was fun to end, and there was little question about who is going to win, even if we get on time.

In 2.0, even if I play in 75 minutes, there are many games that I have played in tournament that haven't been settled (or that the winner was not still clear) on time. I will now force myself to play with a limited number of rounds on Vassal (VL 8 is lmiting to 15 rounds, which I found interesting), and an IRL clock to force myself to be used to play in these conditions.

Playing casual is fun, but if you want to practice yourself and get used to it, you better play the good tourney way with the lists that are playing with the clock also.

3 hours ago, nikk whyte said:

quick question: does it matter?

I always lose my game on time, because I wrongly analyze the time remaining and what I need to do to win....
so yeah, it matters!!!

25 minutes ago, ThinkingB said:

You seem to misunderstand. I don't want slow players welcomed in OP, which is I suppose there is a huge controversy with this subject. Yeah call me a monster or whatever. There is a format called casual, where they are more than welcome to play to their hearts content. I will happily play casual with slow players. I will teach them about fundamentals, how to make decisions more quickly, and all of the usual stuff. However, a tournament where people pay a lot of money to travel to, that they practice for months to do well in, that they care very much about doing well in is not the time or place for slow players to play the game at a slow pace. End of story really from my perspective.

But, I guess people just like going to time so much more than in 1.0, so I'll just switch to Inferno Swarm and take my Ws doing just that; if only to lampoon the problem that I've been consistently seeing with OP. People need to learn how to play the game faster if they don't want to make other people have a bad time at organized play. It's really simple as that, but suggesting that people not waste time in a game that is literally decided by what is accomplished in a set amount of time seems to just be heracy apparently.

Not every delay is the fault of "slow players". I saw a game where one player was down to one hull, and the other still had three ships left. Yet for multiple turns, the first guy's green dice and the second's red dice refused to let the game end. I'm not sure there's a way to avoid "wasting time" in that case without loaded dice, which would probably end your tournament experience pretty quickly.

51 minutes ago, ThinkingB said:

You seem to misunderstand. I don't want slow players welcomed in OP, which is I suppose there is a huge controversy with this subject. Yeah call me a monster or whatever. There is a format called casual, where they are more than welcome to play to their hearts content. I will happily play casual with slow players. I will teach them about fundamentals, how to make decisions more quickly, and all of the usual stuff. However, a tournament where people pay a lot of money to travel to, that they practice for months to do well in, that they care very much about doing well in is not the time or place for slow players to play the game at a slow pace. End of story really from my perspective.

But, I guess people just like going to time so much more than in 1.0, so I'll just switch to Inferno Swarm and take my Ws doing just that; if only to lampoon the problem that I've been consistently seeing with OP. People need to learn how to play the game faster if they don't want to make other people have a bad time at organized play. It's really simple as that, but suggesting that people not waste time in a game that is literally decided by what is accomplished in a set amount of time seems to just be heracy apparently.

With 58% of games going to time, you're talking probably about half of the community is considered "slow" for you. It would kill the game.

So the echo chambers are in full spin again. One podcast (themselves agreeing being loud and caustic) states the theme, another hops on. Of course we get a post here as well (from a know person in these circles). I fully expect 2 more US podcast lamenting about the same theme again. And several similar threads on the forums.

It is extra hilarious, when

1 hour ago, Quack Shot said:

Dee also said on the latest cast he's only had a problem with slow play on average 1 player a year

Then we get a data set. Cudos for diving into this, but with all statistics you have be careful what put into a set of data/model, and what you conclude.

"About twice as many games go to time in 2nd edition compared to the Post-wave 11 1st edition" just to remind us. Post wave 11 means after Scurrg, Auzituck, Aggressor, very near the end of 1st ed. The game was already totally derailed then, Expertise was wave 10! So tons of attack dice, passive modified bump resistant, full combo wing. Of course many ships died.

So you can not abbreviate this to 2nd ed is half of entire 1st ed, as some do.

Since when is all ships dead the only acceptable end state of a game? Many games are decided earlier than this.

Then some sound suspiciously like "i want to play 3 aces, so I want my opponent to play not many high points or a list where 3 aces have many targets/arcs to evade". Respectively "I am a fast dial setter" - of course if you are moving last with several repositions and maybe force. The other player with low ini, maybe a loose swarm, has think a lot more, because (s)he has not the full knowledge. Especially with stiff ships, where you have to plan ahead, prefeable for more than the immediate turn.

Worst are the condescent ones, learn to play fast or stay away from us leet top dogs - that is a sure recipe for killing the game.

Fixed amount of rounds is problematic, in most games. You know the game is ending turn x, so you jockey for a favorable position, and then in turn x-1 you do moves you never would do, if there was a turn x+1 (e.g. in strategical games conquer a position you never would be able to hold, in X-wing e.g. it could be your high point large base directly facing the board edge, would be flying off turn x+1). How is that less frustrating, esp. for the loosing player?

2 hours ago, ThinkingB said:

Yeah I forget that 6 rounds of activation followed by time being called is fUn AnD eNgAgInG

sounds like your problem is less about going to time and more about how you dont play lists that can win in 5 activations.

2 hours ago, Quack Shot said:

what has been considered normal time since the beginning of the game.

I do need to point out that for the first 4 waves of 1.0, tournament rounds were 60 minutes.

13 minutes ago, Managarmr said:

So the echo chambers are in full spin again. One podcast (themselves agreeing being loud and caustic) states the theme, another hops on. Of course we get a post here as well (from a know person in these circles). I fully expect 2 more US podcast lamenting about the same theme again. And several similar threads on the forums.

It is extra hilarious, when

Then we get a data set. Cudos for diving into this, but with all statistics you have be careful what put into a set of data/model, and what you conclude.

"About twice as many games go to time in 2nd edition compared to the Post-wave 11 1st edition" just to remind us. Post wave 11 means after Scurrg, Auzituck, Aggressor, very near the end of 1st ed. The game was already totally derailed then, Expertise was wave 10! So tons of attack dice, passive modified bump resistant, full combo wing. Of course many ships died.

So you can not abbreviate this to 2nd ed is half of entire 1st ed, as some do.

Since when is all ships dead the only acceptable end state of a game? Many games are decided earlier than this.

Then some sound suspiciously like "i want to play 3 aces, so I want my opponent to play not many high points or a list where 3 aces have many targets/arcs to evade". Respectively "I am a fast dial setter" - of course if you are moving last with several repositions and maybe force. The other player with low ini, maybe a loose swarm, has think a lot more, because (s)he has not the full knowledge. Especially with stiff ships, where you have to plan ahead, prefeable for more than the immediate turn.

Worst are the condescent ones, learn to play fast or stay away from us leet top dogs - that is a sure recipe for killing the game.

Fixed amount of rounds is problematic, in most games. You know the game is ending turn x, so you jockey for a favorable position, and then in turn x-1 you do moves you never would do, if there was a turn x+1 (e.g. in strategical games conquer a position you never would be able to hold, in X-wing e.g. it could be your high point large base directly facing the board edge, would be flying off turn x+1). How is that less frustrating, esp. for the loosing player?

I mean, okay.

I'm not sure that the data explicitly tells you "what to do", or if there's "even a problem" - but project away. I definitely just want to play triple aces. I guess you got me.

1 hour ago, Silver_leader said:

there are many games that I have played in tournament that haven't been settled (or that the winner was not still clear) on time.

This is WILD considering literally every game has a winner and loser. seems pretty settled to me.

10 minutes ago, nikk whyte said:

This is WILD considering literally every game has a winner and loser. seems pretty settled to me.

Again, you're focused on a weird interpretation of what people are saying man. I don't really understand why you are, either.

Just play faster all the time. Don’t play faster because the time on the clock or how that relates to your win condition or whatever, that shouldnt be a factor in whether you play slower or faster because if you only play faster when its advantageous to you that means you're deliberately slow-playing to gain an advantage.

Just. Play. Faaaaaassstttteerrrr. All the time. Stop 4th guessing that dial and pick a maneuver. Stop waffling on which target to shoot at and just pick one and roll the dice. If you can't figure out the "correct" answer in your head in 30 seconds (which is actually more time than most people realize, go ahead and count 30 one-thousands out loud) then you wont find it in 5 minutes either so just pick something and let the dice or templates fall where they may.

And STOP telling people to quit OP if they get analysis paralysis, which is something that the vast majority of NEW players have to deal with while they're learning. Playing quickly and decisively is a skill that everyone can learn and develop if they want to and are given the tools and encouragement, we don't need to make people feel unwelcome to speed up play. I'm sad to hear that mynoks have gone from just being a mediocre podcast to being an actively toxic one.

2 hours ago, SabineKey said:

Again, you seem to be thinking that what you term “slow players” haven’t also paid and traveled to get to a tournament, giving them as much right to play as you.

I also explained why a “slow player” might not be something deliberate or control able. And as what is considered “acceptable speed” is a subjective term, your whole suggestion is a mess to me. I will continue to pass.

I don't agree with @ThinkingB at all. But I think he is German, and there are some top German players that shamelessly abuse slowplay and get regularly called out for it (without consequences). I guess that is why he doesn't see the forest for some big trees in his area.

e: Sorry, I mixed him up. Not German.

1 hour ago, Quack Shot said:

With 58% of games going to time, you're talking probably about half of the community is considered "slow" for you. It would kill the game.

Maybe that's a sign that 58% of players need to speed up or pick different lists. I don't want to kill the game; I'm just trying to stir enough of a stink to get a third party time arbitrator (like a set number of rounds or a chess clock) added to the game, so I don't feel like I have to tell another grown man to hurry up. I just don't want that type of awkward situation to be a part of my leisure activity. I'd just rather not go around creating real personal conflicts, which accusing of slow-play happens to do; especially since I'm not a real "warm and fuzzy" type person. And for the record, I consider OP to be leisure activity because games are a fun experience; even in OP. What is not fun is not being able to play the game because of exploitation of the time limit.

10 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I don't agree with @ThinkingB at all. But I think he is German, and there are some top German players that shamelessly abuse slowplay and get regularly called out for it (without consequences). I guess that is why he doesn't see the forest for some big trees in his area.

I'm actually Californian, but thanks for the compliment. But you do have a point here. Mostly, I end up playing a lot of bad actors from another city when I got to our local hyperspace trial events and every time, they are always flying 6 ship, inferno swarm and you'll be lucky if you get in even 6 rounds of play. I don't play the game to not play the game, which is where the frustration comes from. And calling out these consistent bad actors (more than handful) would have the same result in reducing players as discouraging honest slower players. I want FFG to tell these people to speed up; not me telling them. That's it. Just introduce something that ensures people don't take their sweet time because calling a judge is just how you lose after you've already been slow played because every single turn matters. That's it. Just give us a round limit or a chess clock. People already play to the 75 minute win, so it wouldn't make much of a difference if people just had to play til turn 15 instead or whatever pre-selected turn amount they would go with.

Until this happens, I'm just going to play 5/6 ship lists to the 75 because I'm a fool not to if I want an invite at this point.

Just now, ThinkingB said:

I'm  actually Californian, but   thanks for the compliment.    

Sorry, then I mixed you up with someone. Or were you in Hannover at the SOS by chance? Probably not. I know there's a German poster around who is a good player and plays against the slow ones relatively regularly.

15 minutes ago, ThinkingB said:

I'm just trying to stir enough of a stink to get a third party time arbitrator (like a set number of rounds or a chess clock) added to the game, so I don't feel like I have to tell another grown man to hurry up.

You could try being a little more patient. If someone's genuinely thinking and not just stalling, distracting them and throwing off their concentration is probably counterproductive.

17 minutes ago, ThinkingB said:

I'm not a real "warm and fuzzy" type person.

You don't say...

18 minutes ago, ThinkingB said:

People already play to the 75 minute win, so it wouldn't make much of a difference if people just had to play til turn 15 instead or whatever pre-selected turn amount they would go with.

If there's not much difference, why change it? Couldn't people just stall the turns like they stalled the time?

And it would make it even worse against people who are genuinely slow rather than stallers, because no time limit means the game could drag on, and in organized play an exceedingly long game would start impacting the round schedule.

To come at this from a different angle, FFG's tournament rules currently give TOs no teeth or guidance on how to deal with this issue. While it does give a vague description of what is not allowed, it gives absolutely **** all solutions about what TOs can actually do about it when it happens in their event.

X-Wing absolutely NEEDS a penalty guideline for formal and Premiere level events at this point and a way to track penalties on players so that a pattern can be established when people are deliberately cheating or ignoring warnings at multiple events instead of just having convenient accidents. An escalating penalty system would give TOs at higher level events something to actually do about bad actors and would also communicate to the players that "if you continue to do this bad behavior, this is what will happen to you". First time a judge observes a player slow playing, they get a verbal caution (which is currently the only thing TOs can do short of a DQ). If you're observed slow-playing again, you get a written warning that stays on your record for X months. If you get 3+ warnings for the same infraction, that's a game loss. 6 warnings in X months gets a DQ. Escalating penalties give players ample chance to correct unwanted behavior while also firmly communicating that there will be serious consequences if they don't.

The article is interesting but there are still a lot of unanswered questions.

The first and most important is, is this impacting enjoyment of the game? Both for players and spectators. Is OP participation higher or lower when this happens? Are people walking away from the table thinking it was a good game or not? Some of this is very subjective but there are still ways to gauge quality of life impacts. If the game goes to time with both players maneuvering, attacking, feigns etc, it may still be a very exciting game. If the game is two players circling in their corner until there are ten minutes left, people will express their discontent.

Relating to that are the specific why. Is it because people don't know the rules or are second guessing themselves? Or are people VP sniping and running out the clock? And how? Is it because of too many ships? or bricks?

But yeah, the most important thing is impact on player experience and the how and why impact that a lot. Useful but not actionable data at this point, as the kids like to say.

1 hour ago, Tvboy said:

To come at this from a different angle, FFG's tournament rules currently give TOs no teeth or guidance on how to deal with this issue. While it does give a vague description of what is not allowed, it gives absolutely **** all solutions about what TOs can actually do about it when it happens in their event.

X-Wing absolutely NEEDS a penalty guideline for formal and Premiere level events at this point and a way to track penalties on players so that a pattern can be established when people are deliberately cheating or ignoring warnings at multiple events instead of just having convenient accidents. An escalating penalty system would give TOs at higher level events something to actually do about bad actors and would also communicate to the players that "if you continue to do this bad behavior, this is what will happen to you". First time a judge observes a player slow playing, they get a verbal caution (which is currently the only thing TOs can do short of a DQ). If you're observed slow-playing again, you get a written warning that stays on your record for X months. If you get 3+ warnings for the same infraction, that's a game loss. 6 warnings in X months gets a DQ. Escalating penalties give players ample chance to correct unwanted behavior while also firmly communicating that there will be serious consequences if they don't.

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/e0/4f/e04f6d73-6e5e-4351-b067-0020f070365a/fantasy_flight_floor_rules.pdf

Holy **** am I a prophet? That was like an hour between my post and the doc being posted.

11 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/e0/4f/e04f6d73-6e5e-4351-b067-0020f070365a/fantasy_flight_floor_rules.pdf

Holy **** am I a prophet? That was like an hour between my post and the doc being posted.

They also updated this: https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/ed/29/ed29d996-4241-4e6f-94c5-a6a1e396717a/fundamental-event-document_21_final.pdf