Dealing with slow play?

We use chess clocks with an "only AROs after the player's time ended" policy. Therefore slow players penalise themselves automatically.

 

Totally with @Tristan228
Chess clocks make it fair for both players. 2 hours playtime, 1 hour each. Your time is gone, u are not allowed to spend orders anymore and all your aros are limited to "reset" or" dodge"
Wasn't a problem in any of my games

 

There's no good answer. This sort of question has been considered extensively in contract bridge, and one option is to follow the same approach: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/missing-player-during-an-event.41081/#post-433344 So award 120% of a bye score to the non-offending player. The offending player would get either 80% of a bye, or 0.

If the non-offender had already scored more OP than 120% of a bye when time runs out, they should get their current score instead.

That said, in the given example it happened on round 1, so it's the first offence and I would be inclined to be lenient. Either award the offender 80% (rather than 0), or just give a warning.

2 hours is a tough timeframe. If a game goes a bit over, it's hard to assess whether someone was being unreasonable, or whether it was just a legitimately long game - e.g., not a lot of units were killed so both sides had to spend a lot of orders for all three turns. I've played in a lot of 2-hour-game tournaments (though mostly all in the same meta) and in my experience, most of the games typically go a bit over each round, and the TO should mentally schedule the rounds for 2:15 or so to accommodate.

2:30 is a much better timeframe IMO, it allows everyone to play properly without having to rush. Obviously there are practical considerations and 2:00 may be a necessary timeframe, but I'd be loath to be punitive when someone has trouble finishing right on time, especially on a first offence.

 

Chronic slow player here (I’m slow in a lot of areas of life, so at least it’s not out of character!).

The chess clock thing has really helped me both stop annoying others and learn to prioritize. I was annoyed by it when I first encountered it (at a random ITS in Paris and and then the European Infinity Challenge one year)… but quickly came to see it as a good way to keep things fair and fun for all.

With N4’s lower model counts compared to N3, it’s also probably an easier conceit for many to accept. 25-trooper Ariadna players tended to take it poorly back in the day. Now we’ve all got 13-18 models with few exceptions, so 2 hours should be plenty.

 

Are they playing slow, or are they slow playing?

There is different connotation to both terms. Slow playing usually refers to someone who's doing it on purpose, and doing so tu purposefully play the clock is simply a form of cheating. If they're playing slow, it might just be because they're new or not used to their faction or rules. While you still need to find a solution, the way to approach it should be different.

As others have mentionned, Chess Clocks are amazing. They let you equally split the time between two players without any bias. More people should be using them. Either have them as a standard for the event, or if a player has been warned, you can take out the chess clock for their future games to make sure they play in a timely manner (this works for both slow playing and playing slow).

If a player was slow playing (cheating), I'd warn them, then give them a game loss and potentially a DQ.

If a player was playing slow, I'd try my best to rectify the solution over imposing a penalty. The goal is to make the event go smooth and everyone to have fun and if there is no malicious intent, option for a non-penalty way is much better imo. (Chess clock would be the best. Pick your favourite way to use it, a lot has already been suggested in this thread and others.)

As for how to score a player when you issue a game loss to the opponent (either if the opponent got DQ'd, if they had to leave, if they ragequit, etc.) The ITS document covers this issue, but there is multiple ways to go at it (some with more issues that other.)

• Awarding the winning player a set score (10-X, 5-X, etc) : The issue here is that it doesn't accurately represent the game that they played, so a 10-X (especially in a hard to score mission) or a 5-X (especially in a easy scoring mission) could greatly affect the tournament integrity.
  I think a set score is a very poor solution.

• Awarding a bye to the winning player : This is not too bad, because OP and TP from byes are averages from the others games the player will play in the tournament, however, byes have a set TP that is lower than the maximum you could've won. (I really think byes should also be the average of all your TP at the end of the tournament to better represent the performance of a player).
  I think a bye is the easiest solution. It's also a very low impact on the tournament integrity.
  I think a modified bye (with TP averaged) would be even better.

• Awarding possible to score points to the winning player : I think this is a reasonable way to do it, but it requires a bit more thought and is more prone to errors. Figure out what the possible max score of the winning player could've been for that game. (For example, if it was a end of round mission, they can't get the points from previous rounds. If they would require button pushes and they have no specialists left, they can't get those points.)
  I think awarding possible to score points is the way that reflects the game (the part that was played) the most. I think that this however should not be considered if the opponent cheated in ways that affected the game state, because this solution uses the game state to issue the scoring.)

As for the losing player, you can simply award them 0 in TP, OP and VP. (This is obviously in case of slow playing, DQ, ragequit, etc.)

 

Fair. I would just try to use a Chess Clock to solve this issue then, it lets you make sure the game come to an end where the other player had agency the whole time.

It unfortunately doesn't, that's why I listed a bunch of different possible solutions that I've seen used in the past. It'd be neat if it did.

As long as you meet the suggested amount of game per player (3 for 8, 4 for 16, 5 for 32) then the OP tiebreakers are fine. It's when you have less games than the amount that they become pretty poor. (But most event are just 1 day and 3 is usually the reasonable amount of games to expect)

I really think flat score is the worst possible way to handle it (some mission are nearly impossible to 10-X, some you can't 5-X if you win, etc. It also doesn't accurately represent how good the player does normally). The average you get from byes makes this a lot better because it at least scales in fonction of their performance (So if they just crushed the rest of the event, they get a good score. If they performed average the rest of the event, they get an average score).

And like I said, if Byes averaged the TP as well, they'd just be the perfect solution, and would solve the issues of a player having a bye round 1 in a >8 player, 3 round events and not being able to finish first.

Though maybe in this situation a modified bye (averaging OP / VP) and a flat TP value of 5 (major win) would also be a good solution (because a bye averaging TP could actually be lower than a win if they lost their other games).

 

I agree with the punitive aspect giving the loser player a fix 0.

But giving the winning player a 10 is punishing versus the rest of the field and giving them a 5 is punishing torward them.

Yeah, opponent win% would def be a much better tiebreaker than OP imo aswell. a 5-4 win versus an opponent that finished the tournament 2-1 should def be worth more than a 10-0 verus an opponent who finished the tournament 0-3.

 

Yeah, the problem with replacing any missed game (whether from a bye, or because the opponent dropped out, or the opponent played too slow, or whatever) is that what the player was denied was the opportunity to score well. And you just can't measure the value of that opportunity because, by definition, you don't know how well they would have done if they'd played.

 

Opponents running out of chessclock time and only getting AROs has been pretty simple the 2 or 3 times I’ve had it happen. The opponent managing their emotions was the only difficult part, and that was just one time. It can be pretty disheartening to lose agency like that, even if you did it to yourself.

A terrain company (Dovige I think?) made really cool MDF phone stands with our ITS nicks burned into them for the European Infinity Challenge one year, handed out as swag. Same guy who makes really really good command boards. That stand was super handy for chess clock app use, and getting that cool swag made those of us new to chess clocking slightly less salty about it.

 

How do you count time during aro? Like I declare my short skill and opponent takes long time to check every possible aro he could have. Whos time does it eat?
Whos time does it eat when we both calculate all the mods for FtF and roll everything? With random ZoC dodges, many aros, many mods, and saves with multi wounds ammo or burning this can take decent time.
Whos time does it eat when we have to place silhouettes and use laser to determine if there is LoF?
Sometimes you have to explain rules or interactions, or even both players dont know something and they have to check it, whos time doest it eat?

Im asking these questions as I myself am quite slow player and Im curious how to deal with that.

 

The way it happened at EIC (and I think at Furor Teutonicus too?):

- People were switching the clock for ARO declarations. In practice, that was mainly for slower/more thinky ARO declarations. Fast AROs like “Okay I shoot back twice with my Keisotsu” were too fast to switch the clock so people just left it.

- Calculating odds etc is on the active player’s clock.

-Determining sight lines is active player unless it’s a dispute/question by the reactive, in which case switch the clock.

- Rules questions tended to be either on the active player’s turn, or pausing both clocks (so null time). At least 15 minutes of slack time between rounds is wise anyways, so eating maybe 5 of that for rules questions is fine. More than that could get tricky.

The big thing I learned to do (or started to learn ) from keeping time is to have a list of priorities and execute them in order. When things don’t go to plan that does get tricky, but it’s still helpful.

Also time per round is rarely proportional: I put 1/2 my time into the first round most games. If I could keep it to 15-20 minutes that would have been better.

And getting deployment down to 5 minutes max is important. Going first helps with that. :)

 

I may have some unpopular opinion but:
We are speaking about some tournament environment. When you participate at a tournament, there can be some expectations, starting with "at least primed miniatures", "not proxy too much", "knowing the rules properly" (at least to an extend which is not discussed in this forum) and "finish your game in a set amount of time".
If you are a slow player, thats fine. But then you have to count with a disadvantage to someone beeing able to make decisions fast, beeing it a more veteran player, faster calculating, more experience, or just faster overall. I am not talking about a fungame or a training game. I am talking about the "now it counts"-type of game. And playing fast is a skill. Like making good decisions. Being succesfull at a tournament is the combination of skill and experience (and luck, in a certain amount). Playing slow is a disadvantage. So be it. In an "real" combat environment you survive not just by smart decisions and good aiming, but also if you decide faster than an opponent. So it is in a lot of sports you play against someone else.

AROs in my experience run on the active turn players Time, at least if the ARO does not get out of hands. I played twice against someone taking ages for his AROs. The First time i told the opponent, does if he wants to check the dice calculator for all of his options, he can do that, but not with my time, cause i dont "need" that, or: i live with suboptimal decisions i made.
The second one said needed more time for a handful of his decisions in ARO, so he said by himself he switches to his time, cause he has to make his mind up. True sportsmanlike behavior.

It´s not a secret i dont like dice calculator. I see the point were people try to messure chances to the last half percent, whats better and whats not. Thats good to get a "feeling" for chances. Is it better to have more shots on smaller numbers or a single die at a high one? Try it, but dont waste time with that on a tournament game. Either you know, whats the better option, or you have to live with the worse one. OR you take all the time you need. But then you may running our of it.

Thats tricky. A good thing is: one of the players know the rules and knows where to find it (sometimes more easier said than done). Otherwise calling the judge or searching for it is quite time consuming, thats a good time for a good old 11+ roll to just let fate decide.
In case it consumes a lot of time i experienced it that the its roughly split in half and the time limit for each participant is not that strict anymore. Again: that has smth to do with sportsmanship.

In case you have someone wasting your time with his AROs on purpose .... well, that will not be a fun game in any terms. Also experienced that. Thats just a "rough ride to hope it fast ends". There will be games like that. especially in a tournament. Hopefully there are enough judges to stay at the table. An impartial person is mostly a good option to make it "fair"

 

Jep, experienced it the same and always felt fair for everyone

Due to pointing out every line of sight (also for the opponent) is part of the game and sportsmanlike behavior, it is also in the interest of the active player, so active players time.

exactly. If you play your games with a 5 hour avarage time, cause you look up each and every option, then you are getting used to. Making decisions in fast (no matter AROs or active turn) makes the game more fluently and you learn (in my opinion) more, how to play the game good. You´re becoming better in executing actions, may get a better eye for good options and also a better feeling, whats a good chance and whats not.

I for myself had the feeling to become better in the game the moment u play "under pressure", or in other words, learned to handle a timelimit better than the opponent.

 

If you have the space in the schedule, very good idea. Or you could make them 135, and then just allow 15 extra minutes between rounds for the inevitable overruns.

Are you guys considering chess clocks? Speaking as someone who hated the idea then learned to respect and enjoy that tool/practice, bet it would save you a lot of headaches. Plenty of apps out there for it.