|
3 years ago ::
Oct 31, 2009 - 6:11PM
#1
|
|
|
I hate waiting for some selfish #$#$% who wants to play in multiple events at once. I know this is a pipe dream since it should make more $ for wotc. I hate you multiquers, at least the ones who make me wait.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 31, 2009 - 6:12PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2003
|
Better solution: Faster tournaments (15-20 minute round clocks).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 31, 2009 - 6:57PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2005
|
We've done exactly that before Emoticon. The different queues end up fracturing the audience and then BOTH queues fire less/take longer. On a personal level I can understand the frustration, but everyone gets a clock to use in their game, it's no secret how much time is on it. If someone wishes to use the entire amount (or almost all of it), shouldn't that be their right? Both people paid to enter the event equally, and the terms were agreed on before any of it started...
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 31, 2009 - 7:30PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2003
|
We've done exactly that before Emoticon. The different queues end up fracturing the audience and then BOTH queues fire less/take longer.
If we're talking about the release event 32-man queues from V2, IIRC, the fast queue simply ate the slow queue (even though it had lower prize payouts) a few days into the release. Both fired decently at the beginning.
If we're talking about the drafts - the opposite happened. The slow drafts ate the faster ones. I don't recall any time when fracturing has been a significant problem. Usually the more popular one simply destroys the other in short order.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 31, 2009 - 8:29PM
#5
|
|
|
We've done exactly that before Emoticon. The different queues end up fracturing the audience and then BOTH queues fire less/take longer.
If we're talking about the release event 32-man queues from V2, IIRC, the fast queue simply ate the slow queue (even though it had lower prize payouts) a few days into the release. Both fired decently at the beginning.
If we're talking about the drafts - the opposite happened. The slow drafts ate the faster ones.
I don't recall any time when fracturing has been a significant problem. Usually the more popular one simply destroys the other in short order.
The "fast draft" queues were poorly implemented. I think what people wanted was to have the normal amount of time to make picks during the draft, but have the rounds on shorter clocks. We never got that option, but I think it would be popular. I don't know that one queue would devour the other, but I think it's worth looking into.
I can't speak to the casual and competative release event experiment because I only ever played in the competative ones. The casual queues took far too long per round for me to have any interest in them.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 01, 2009 - 5:10AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
We've done exactly that before Emoticon. The different queues end up fracturing the audience and then BOTH queues fire less/take longer.
Actually, as noted above, the only option I ever remember getting is the one where the draft picks and deckbuilding times were cut as well as round length. I think you'd see different results if the draft picks and deckbuilding times remained the same, but the rounds were shorter. On a personal level I can understand the frustration, but everyone gets a clock to use in their game, it's no secret how much time is on it. If someone wishes to use the entire amount (or almost all of it), shouldn't that be their right? Both people paid to enter the event equally, and the terms were agreed on before any of it started...
I agree that if someone wishes to use the entire amount for things related to that specific game, they should have every right to do so. But why should one person be effectively allowed to hold up an entire tournament for an extra 10 minutes every round because s/he wants to play in multiple queues? In real life, if a person showed up 8 minutes late for a round, and randomly didn't do anything for several minutes at a time during the course of a match (I'm not counting legitimate issues like taking time to think), s/he would incur several penalties, and would very likely end up with either a match loss or DQ.
Can you imagine someone showing 9 minutes late to a round in real life, stopping part way through the round to get up, enter a side draft.....come back, play a few more minutes, stop again, build his deck for the other draft........etc. etc. etc. That would NEVER be tolerated in real life, and I cannnot see why it's allowed online. The "it's their time" argument doesn't fly. People who play in multiple queues are, in my opinion, saying "My time is more important than everyone else's." and "I do not have enough respect for my opponent/other participants to focus my full attention on the match at hand." While their clock is ticking, real life is ticking away. The 10 minutes I've got to spend waiting for some schmuck to finish his multiqueuing, I'm stuck sitting in front of my computer, doing nothing. At least now, we know what WotC's official position on the subject is. Granted, we pretty much knew it before -- there's no possible way they're going to stop it because it would directly affect their revenue. But at least now we have confirmation. They took away the ability to see ratings (supposedly) because a few people complained that people were hurling insults based on ratings -- a complaint I had never heard of before. However, when paying customers have repeatedly begged WotC to do something about multiqueuers, WotC not only says no, but effectively gives them their blessing.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 01, 2009 - 7:33AM
#7
|
|
|
Can you imagine someone showing 9 minutes late to a round in real life, stopping part way through the round to get up, enter a side draft.....come back, play a few more minutes, stop again, build his deck for the other draft........etc. etc. etc. That would NEVER be tolerated in real life, and I cannnot see why it's allowed online.
I can almost imagine this if paper magic used a chess clock.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 01, 2009 - 8:12AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2003
|
Didn't we just have a 14 page thread about this issue? Oh yes, we did.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 01, 2009 - 8:26AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
Can you imagine someone showing 9 minutes late to a round in real life, stopping part way through the round to get up, enter a side draft.....come back, play a few more minutes, stop again, build his deck for the other draft........etc. etc. etc. That would NEVER be tolerated in real life, and I cannnot see why it's allowed online.
I can almost imagine this if paper magic used a chess clock.
And it still wouldn't be tolerated. The main difference between online and off in this case would be that, in the real world, the other participants (and probably judges) would practically lynch you for holding them all up. Seeing some random people typing "one guy who's drafting is holding us all up" does nothing. Nobody cares about the opinions of random strangers who they can't see and will never meet. But when they're right there in your face and it's your friends and other regulars you play with saying "Hey, ****. Quit holding us up!" , it's a whole different ballgame. People act differently online than they do in real life. Why? Because online, there's few to no real-life consequences for your actions. I can call you all sorts of names right now and not worry about you punching me in the face. Can't do that offline. The same thing applies here. A player can hold up the tournament because he's only pissing off a bunch of random strangers who can't do anything about it. But offline, he wouldn't dare piss off a bunch of friends and regulars.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 01, 2009 - 9:32AM
#10
|
|
|
|
|
|
