Just now, I have lost my second draft match that I should have won due to the timer. This isn't idle speculation, but the second time I literally lost in the turn that I was swinging for lethal in. Lag in the draft caused about 2 minutes of total time loss. I really wished for those 2 minutes back as I entered the combat phase of what should have been a winning attack. Instead of moving on, I get the joy of the loser, new cards screen. After both instances, I PMed the opponent to see if I really had the game that far wrapped up. Both times, I got a yes. Now instead of basking in my misery, I will make a suggestion for improvement. Instead of instantly DQing an opponent whose timer reaches zero on their own turn, they should get, instead, the ability to finish out that turn with a seperate, "last turn" timer of about 2 minutes or so. I'm sure this has happened to others, but this being the SECOND time it happened to me, I thought it appropriate to speak up.
Just now, I have lost my second draft match that I should have won due to the timer. This isn't idle speculation, but the second time I literally lost in the turn that I was swinging for lethal in. Lag in the draft caused about 2 minutes of total tim
I've been on both sides of the table when this happens. My only suggestion is to play more quickly - learn how to use the function keys to skip through turns and phases where you don't want to do anything. Learn to use autoyeild and auto-YES and auto-NO so you don't have to OK repeated effects again and again. Become familiar with all the cards of a set before drafting, so you don't have to read everything during the game. Play lots of casual games so that you become familiar with the functionality of the client. Very importantly, watch your timer like a hawk. If you have less time on your clock than your opponent, then take steps to consciously play faster. As long as you're the player with less time remaining, you are in danger - if it's the other guy, then you're safe. If you won the first game but are running low on time during the second (and probably not going to win), then seriously consider conceding the second game to give yourself enough time to play out the third game for the match.
Your suggestion about having an extra 2 minute timer for your last turn doesn't really work, because time in MTGO is not simply divided between "my turn" and "opponent's turn". Instead, the timer keeps track of priority which changes sides many many times during a "last turn".
I've been on both sides of the table when this happens. My only suggestion is to play more quickly - learn how to use the function keys to skip through turns and phases where you don't want to do anything. Learn to use autoyeild and auto-YES and auto
Your improvement is arbitrary. Why not add 5 minutes? What if you have even more lag during those extra 2 minutes you want added?
You have X minutes. Not X+2. Plan accordingly. That simple.
Your improvement is arbitrary. Why not add 5 minutes? What if you have even more lag during those extra 2 minutes you want added?You have X minutes. Not X+2. Plan accordingly. That simple.
A more realistic solution is to play in the amount of time that everyone else has no problem playing in. Unless you are playing a Legacy tournament and piloting Eggs, 25 mintues is way more than enough time to play 3 games. Also, there is no such thing as "lag in the draft". If your computer and/or internet connection cannot handle a program that came out a decade ago, you should address those problems.
A more realistic solution is to play in the amount of time that everyone else has no problem playing in. Unless you are playing a Legacy tournament and piloting Eggs, 25 mintues is way more than enough time to play 3 games. Also, there is no such t
I hate to say it but the solution is to play faster.
Plan what you are going to do on your turn during your opponents turn.
Check what stops you have set, if you can't do anything during upkeep don't set a stop there...
Oh, and try Swiss 321. Even if you time out your first match, you get more matches to learn to play faster.
As far as the suggestion of adding more time, I don't like it. We all have to play under the same limit now and it does seem to work.
Andoru gives excellent suggestions.I hate to say it but the solution is to play faster. Plan what you are going to do on your turn during your opponents turn. Check what stops you have set, if you can't do anything during upkeep don't set a stop th
Most games don't even take 5 minutes off my clock and I have allstops set on my opponent's turn as well as my own.
f2, f4, f6, f8 wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/...Most games don't even take 5 minutes off my clock and I have all stops set on my opponent's turn as well as my own.
A possible thing to do is to allow playerA to GIVE playerB more time, subtracting from his own clock to add to opponents' clock - IF, and only if playerA wants to.
Why ?
Because everything on MtgO should be considered regular REL where being nice is one of the key-things the game should be about.
The MtgO-things that cant be considered regular REL, MocS and PTQs, shouldnt exist on mtgo in the first place, but that is a different discussion.
A possible thing to do is to allow playerA to GIVE playerB more time, subtracting from his own clock to add to opponents' clock - IF, and only if playerA wants to.Why ?Because everything on MtgO should be considered regular REL where being nice is on
I time out way more often that I should. Sometimes this is due to my internet connection temporarily dropping, and having to restart MTGO (used to be quicker in the old days when we could relog in, rather than restart the program).
More often than not, though it is because I'm quite slow to make decisions. I tend to use F2,4,6,7 and 8.
I have been in a few matches where I'm just hitting F6 as quickly as possible, as I realise before my opponent that we're both short on time, and have won a couple of matches this way.
I realise that I need to learn to play faster but it's still very frustrating to lose to time when winning otherwise.
Just seems for me MTGO was more fun and less stressful with the previous time limits (30 mins each, I believe) than the current ones.
Just my 2 cents... not that I expect it to change anything!
I time out way more often that I should.Sometimes this is due to my internet connection temporarily dropping, and having to restart MTGO (used to be quicker in the old days when we could relog in, rather than restart the program).More often than not,
I agree that 30 minutes was a nice cushion. OTOH, shaving 10 minutes per round is a good thing. Gripping hand, the faster we get done the faster we give WotC mo' money.
Don't forget F3! I agree that 30 minutes was a nice cushion. OTOH, shaving 10 minutes per round is a good thing. Gripping hand, the faster we get done the faster we give WotC mo' money.
I agree that 30 minutes was a nice cushion. OTOH, shaving 10 minutes per round is a good thing. Gripping hand, the faster we get done the faster we give WotC mo' money.
You know, it probably only takes me about 10 mins. to shave total. If you're shaving 10 minutes ever round, you're either doing something wrong or you're a werewolf. Just sayin'.
You know, it probably only takes me about 10 mins. to shave total. If you're shaving 10 minutes ever round, you're either doing something wrong or you're a werewolf. Just sayin'.
F8 is my friend. I just wish I could have the setting saved instead of having to spend a couple seconds doing it at the beginning of each game. Yes, 2 seconds, I use a VM on a Mac and can't actually press F8. I need to bring up a menu to select it and it seems like have the time its ignored at first.
Given that we do play with time limits, clock management is an important online skill. Falling behind on the clock can be as bad as falling behind on life. Love it or leave it, that's just the way it is.
F8 is my friend. I just wish I could have the setting saved instead of having to spend a couple seconds doing it at the beginning of each game. Yes, 2 seconds, I use a VM on a Mac and can't actually press F8. I need to bring up a menu to select it an
I agree that 30 minutes was a nice cushion. OTOH, shaving 10 minutes per round is a good thing. Gripping hand, the faster we get done the faster we give WotC mo' money.
You know, it probably only takes me about 10 mins. to shave total. If you're shaving 10 minutes ever round, you're either doing something wrong or you're a werewolf. Just sayin'.
Psh, real men don't shave.
You know, it probably only takes me about 10 mins. to shave total. If you're shaving 10 minutes ever round, you're either doing something wrong or you're a werewolf. Just sayin'.[/quote]Psh, real men don't shave.
I agree that 30 minutes was a nice cushion. OTOH, shaving 10 minutes per round is a good thing. Gripping hand, the faster we get done the faster we give WotC mo' money.
You know, it probably only takes me about 10 mins. to shave total. If you're shaving 10 minutes ever round, you're either doing something wrong or you're a werewolf. Just sayin'.
Psh, real men don't shave.
Hey now I just shaved today, after 2 months of not... How unfair to make up that rule now.
You know, it probably only takes me about 10 mins. to shave total. If you're shaving 10 minutes ever round, you're either doing something wrong or you're a werewolf. Just sayin'.[/quote]Psh, real men don't shave.[/quote]Hey now I just shaved today, a
I agree that 30 minutes was a nice cushion. OTOH, shaving 10 minutes per round is a good thing. Gripping hand, the faster we get done the faster we give WotC mo' money.
You know, it probably only takes me about 10 mins. to shave total. If you're shaving 10 minutes ever round, you're either doing something wrong or you're a werewolf. Just sayin'.
Psh, real men don't shave.
Ever since I started getting a lot of grey in my beard, I keep the razor handy.
You know, it probably only takes me about 10 mins. to shave total. If you're shaving 10 minutes ever round, you're either doing something wrong or you're a werewolf. Just sayin'.[/quote]Psh, real men don't shave.[/quote]Ever since I started getting a
I agree that 30 minutes was a nice cushion. OTOH, shaving 10 minutes per round is a good thing. Gripping hand, the faster we get done the faster we give WotC mo' money.
You know, it probably only takes me about 10 mins. to shave total. If you're shaving 10 minutes ever round, you're either doing something wrong or you're a werewolf. Just sayin'.
Psh, real men don't shave.
Ever since I started getting a lot of grey in my beard, I keep the razor handy.
You so vain!
A belated happy birthday btw.... Think of it this way, since our age is now a prime number we must be in our prime
You know, it probably only takes me about 10 mins. to shave total. If you're shaving 10 minutes ever round, you're either doing something wrong or you're a werewolf. Just sayin'.[/quote]Psh, real men don't shave.[/quote]Ever since I started getting a
I agree that 30 minutes was a nice cushion. OTOH, shaving 10 minutes per round is a good thing. Gripping hand, the faster we get done the faster we give WotC mo' money.
You know, it probably only takes me about 10 mins. to shave total. If you're shaving 10 minutes ever round, you're either doing something wrong or you're a werewolf. Just sayin'.
Psh, real men don't shave.
Ever since I started getting a lot of grey in my beard, I keep the razor handy.
You so vain!
A belated happy birthday btw.... Think of it this way, since our age is now a prime number we must be in our prime
Mine just passed too. :/ In fact the grey in my beard is mostly white now. (and my age is also a prime number! but I don't feel primary.)
You know, it probably only takes me about 10 mins. to shave total. If you're shaving 10 minutes ever round, you're either doing something wrong or you're a werewolf. Just sayin'.[/quote]Psh, real men don't shave.[/quote]Ever since I started getting a
I agree that 30 minutes was a nice cushion. OTOH, shaving 10 minutes per round is a good thing. Gripping hand, the faster we get done the faster we give WotC mo' money.
You know, it probably only takes me about 10 mins. to shave total. If you're shaving 10 minutes ever round, you're either doing something wrong or you're a werewolf. Just sayin'.
Psh, real men don't shave.
Ever since I started getting a lot of grey in my beard, I keep the razor handy.
You so vain!
A belated happy birthday btw.... Think of it this way, since our age is now a prime number we must be in our prime
Yes, a belated happy to you as well. I meant to post something on the day, but it slipped my mind.
You know, it probably only takes me about 10 mins. to shave total. If you're shaving 10 minutes ever round, you're either doing something wrong or you're a werewolf. Just sayin'.[/quote]Psh, real men don't shave.[/quote]Ever since I started getting a
My opinion is the opposite. If anything, I would like them to shorten the timers to like 20 minutes. I'm sick of playing games where 4 or 5 minutes have come off my timer and 19 minutes have come off the opponent's timer. If they're gonna take 4 times as much time as me, then maybe I'm going to respond by drawing out the games intentionally to make them time out. They need to play at a reasonable pace or meet with an appropriate punishment, IMO. There's too many events where 30 players finish their matches in 10 minutes and then they wait another 50 minutes for the last match to end.
My opinion is the opposite. If anything, I would like them to shorten the timers to like 20 minutes. I'm sick of playing games where 4 or 5 minutes have come off my timer and 19 minutes have come off the opponent's timer. If they're gonna take 4 t
My opinion is the opposite. If anything, I would like them to shorten the timers to like 20 minutes. I'm sick of playing games where 4 or 5 minutes have come off my timer and 19 minutes have come off the opponent's timer. If they're gonna take 4 times as much time as me, then maybe I'm going to respond by drawing out the games intentionally to make them time out. They need to play at a reasonable pace or meet with an appropriate punishment, IMO. There's too many events where 30 players finish their matches in 10 minutes and then they wait another 50 minutes for the last match to end.
You just found the solution to an old problem.
Sharks!
Have two different events.
1)Short Timed 15 minutes each.
2)Long Timed 120 minutes each. (it has to be long enough to deter sharks)
You just found the solution to an old problem.Sharks! Have two different events.1)Short Timed 15 minutes each.2)Long Timed 120 minutes each. (it has to be long enough to deter sharks)
My opinion is the opposite. If anything, I would like them to shorten the timers to like 20 minutes. I'm sick of playing games where 4 or 5 minutes have come off my timer and 19 minutes have come off the opponent's timer. If they're gonna take 4 times as much time as me, then maybe I'm going to respond by drawing out the games intentionally to make them time out. They need to play at a reasonable pace or meet with an appropriate punishment, IMO. There's too many events where 30 players finish their matches in 10 minutes and then they wait another 50 minutes for the last match to end.
This post is a sign of antisocial perspective - especially in MtgO where a players' time (and sometimes matchresult) is protected by the very nature of how the digital clock works.
Some players play more, some play less. Those who play less have to decipher/process more information while playing if they want to be on par with opponents' play. This roots in all the fun stuff the game offers; reading cards (also during drafts/deckconstruction), seeing/discovering interactions, timing, knowing the rules, knowing the interface, trying to remember cards from game1/2 and perhaps go to collection tab to search them out and reading text, etc, etc.
Complaining about opponents pace of play attacks the very root of the game and is a loosing proposition for WotC and their customers.
This post is a sign of antisocial perspective - especially in MtgO where a players' time (and sometimes matchresult) is protected by the very nature of how the digital clock works.Some players play more, some play less. Those who play less have to d
My opinion is the opposite. If anything, I would like them to shorten the timers to like 20 minutes. I'm sick of playing games where 4 or 5 minutes have come off my timer and 19 minutes have come off the opponent's timer. If they're gonna take 4 times as much time as me, then maybe I'm going to respond by drawing out the games intentionally to make them time out. They need to play at a reasonable pace or meet with an appropriate punishment, IMO. There's too many events where 30 players finish their matches in 10 minutes and then they wait another 50 minutes for the last match to end.
This post is a sign of antisocial perspective - especially in MtgO where a players' time (and sometimes matchresult) is protected by the very nature of how the digital clock works.
Some players play more, some play less. Those who play less have to decipher/process more information while playing if they want to be on par with opponents' play. This roots in all the fun stuff the game offers; reading cards (also during drafts/deckconstruction), seeing/discovering interactions, timing, knowing the rules, knowing the interface, trying to remember cards from game1/2 and perhaps go to collection tab to search them out and reading text, etc, etc.
Complaining about opponents pace of play attacks the very root of the game and is a loosing proposition for WotC and their customers.
That's funny, because IRL, they hand out slow play penalties. In fact, in my experiences, if a player calls a judge on another player for slow play, they have always gotten an automatic warning for slow play regardless of what their pace of play actually was. If you were playing three times slower than me and you called a judge on me for slow play, I would get a warning. Another bogus warning sometime later in the day and I'm getting game losses. But I guess players should only be penalized for slow play IRL, not online. You should tell Wizards that IRL slow play penalties are antisocial and a "loosing" proposition.
My opinion is the opposite. If anything, I would like them to shorten the timers to like 20 minutes. I'm sick of playing games where 4 or 5 minutes have come off my timer and 19 minutes have come off the opponent's timer. If they're gonna take 4 times as much time as me, then maybe I'm going to respond by drawing out the games intentionally to make them time out. They need to play at a reasonable pace or meet with an appropriate punishment, IMO. There's too many events where 30 players finish their matches in 10 minutes and then they wait another 50 minutes for the last match to end.
You just found the solution to an old problem.
Sharks!
Have two different events.
1)Short Timed 15 minutes each.
2)Long Timed 120 minutes each. (it has to be long enough to deter sharks)
120 minutes seems ridiculously long to me. I feel like 15 or 20 minutes per clock and 35 minutes per clock would be a wide enough gap between the different events. 35 minutes per clock is still practically an eternity. In fact, you can tell by my previous post that I already think 25 minutes is an eternity. I usually only use about 4-7 minutes of my clock. I would be happy with this if it didn't further divide the queues and thus make them fill more slowly, therefore creating new problems. Of course, the most proper way to segregate the sharks and the minnows is to offer both the lopsided payout like 8-4 and the flatter swiss payout; which is done more for limited than constructed, and of course there's not really enough constructed participation to further fracture the number of constructed queues.
This post is a sign of antisocial perspective - especially in MtgO where a players' time (and sometimes matchresult) is protected by the very nature of how the digital clock works.Some players play more, some play less. Those who play less have to d
For some reason I can't quite pinpoint this whole debate reminds me a bit of the old impatience rule.
In the old days if something took a few hours to happen people got impatient and started ranting, etc and then things became much more automated and we were able to have 5minute dinner preps and faster internet service and still we were impatient but this time it was because things were taking longer than a minute. Then pcs gained a ton of speed and we were able to browse sites almost instantaneously. At this point a 3 second delay in loading became an intolerable eternity.
I'd just like to reinforce the thought that everyone's perception of the passage of time is subjective. Even if you intellectually know exactly how long something should take you have an emotional reaction to when something is even marginally slower. It gets worse when you add in factors like lag, thought, bad keyboard/mouse habits, poor connectivity (a related issue to lag), and what amount of stimulants you partook of before game.
A sleepy player is a slow player. True story. Also a hungry player is an impatient player and may also be slow to boot.
I'm good with how the clocks are now. I can see 20 minute time limits being a hassle for a number of otherwise good players. I see no convincing arguments to sway my opinion here. (Yet.) 35 minutes seems awfully long compared to 25-30.
For some reason I can't quite pinpoint this whole debate reminds me a bit of the old impatience rule. In the old days if something took a few hours to happen people got impatient and started ranting, etc and then things became much more automated and
IF WOTC gave us a choice like 30 min game or 25 min game guess whos gonna pick the 30 min game everytime?
thats right me i dont even care if its 25 or 20 I will always pick the 30+ minute game everytime if u gave me the choice
sometimes i time out sometimes i lag out give us choices if ppl wanna play the 20 min timer que go do that as for me u will never me see me in that one and i like having my time in game clocks so plz give us choice an than will see who was right about the clock being too fast u can say its not fast enough well than lets find out which ques fire more the 30 min timers or 20 minute ones just make 2 new ones
IF WOTC gave us a choice like 30 min game or 25 min game guess whos gonna pick the 30 min game everytime?thats right me i dont even care if its 25 or 20 I will always pick the 30+ minute game everytime if u gave me the choicesometimes i time out some
[ This post is a sign of antisocial perspective - especially in MtgO where a players' time (and sometimes matchresult) is protected by the very nature of how the digital clock works.
Some players play more, some play less. Those who play less have to decipher/process more information while playing if they want to be on par with opponents' play. This roots in all the fun stuff the game offers; reading cards (also during drafts/deckconstruction), seeing/discovering interactions, timing, knowing the rules, knowing the interface, trying to remember cards from game1/2 and perhaps go to collection tab to search them out and reading text, etc, etc.
Complaining about opponents pace of play attacks the very root of the game and is a loosing proposition for WotC and their customers.
Disagree. People who use up a majority of their clock are usually people who are playing more game then they can handle. The next time you play against someone using a lot of clock, watch how they play. They play one or two turns very fast, f6 through everything, and then wait 2-4 minutes before they pass priority next. That's not someone who is reading a card or looking at a board state, that's someone who can't handle the two games they are playing. Is this everyone who uses a lot of clock? Of course not, but it's most of them. Newer players will read a card, and then play it, often times their problem is that they play too FAST.
Disagree. People who use up a majority of their clock are usually people who are playing more game then they can handle. The next time you play against someone using a lot of clock, watch how they play. They play one or two turns very fast, f6 thr
My opinion is the opposite. If anything, I would like them to shorten the timers to like 20 minutes. I'm sick of playing games where 4 or 5 minutes have come off my timer and 19 minutes have come off the opponent's timer. If they're gonna take 4 times as much time as me, then maybe I'm going to respond by drawing out the games intentionally to make them time out. They need to play at a reasonable pace or meet with an appropriate punishment, IMO. There's too many events where 30 players finish their matches in 10 minutes and then they wait another 50 minutes for the last match to end.
You just found the solution to an old problem.
Sharks!
Have two different events.
1)Short Timed 15 minutes each.
2)Long Timed 120 minutes each. (it has to be long enough to deter sharks)
120 minutes seems ridiculously long to me. I feel like 15 or 20 minutes per clock and 35 minutes per clock would be a wide enough gap between the different events. 35 minutes per clock is still practically an eternity. In fact, you can tell by my previous post that I already think 25 minutes is an eternity. I usually only use about 4-7 minutes of my clock. I would be happy with this if it didn't further divide the queues and thus make them fill more slowly, therefore creating new problems. Of course, the most proper way to segregate the sharks and the minnows is to offer both the lopsided payout like 8-4 and the flatter swiss payout; which is done more for limited than constructed, and of course there's not really enough constructed participation to further fracture the number of constructed queues.
By the way, they have already tried this for release events back on V2.5. I forget what the exact timers were (something like 25/40), and they added a heap of extra prizes to the slow queue, and still the slow queue would stop firing within a couple hours of being posted. Not playing magic is worse than playing magic, and for each single person playing their clock that far down, there were 30 others sitting around...
You just found the solution to an old problem.Sharks! Have two different events.1)Short Timed 15 minutes each.2)Long Timed 120 minutes each. (it has to be long enough to deter sharks)[/quote]120 minutes seems ridiculously long to me. I feel like
The time limits are fine. I almost always play 2 events at once and literally never time out unless my internet dies or whatnot. Just learn how to use the F keys
The time limits are fine. I almost always play 2 events at once and literally never time out unless my internet dies or whatnot. Just learn how to use the F keys
If you get a certain amount of time on the clock, are you a bad player if you use all of it for your match? Or are you just using the resource well? Are you being discourteous to your opponent? Or maybe your opponent should just mind his own business as well as his own clock?
I wonder, why do you think we USE a clock in the first place?
If you get a certain amount of time on the clock, are you a bad player if you use all of it for your match? Or are you just using the resource well? Are you being discourteous to your opponent? Or maybe your opponent should just mind his own business
I do pretty good with the clock on V3. Sometimes I'll draft a very controlling deck and use up a big chunk of the clock to win. But, that's to be expected with long stalls and complicated board states.
V4 is another story. I had to work very hard to keep up with the clock and failed in half of the "real" events I played in (i.e. I clocked out in 2 of 4 events).
I do pretty good with the clock on V3. Sometimes I'll draft a very controlling deck and use up a big chunk of the clock to win. But, that's to be expected with long stalls and complicated board states.V4 is another story. I had to work very hard to k
That's funny, because IRL, they hand out slow play penalties. In fact, in my experiences, if a player calls a judge on another player for slow play, they have always gotten an automatic warning for slow play regardless of what their pace of play actually was. If you were playing three times slower than me and you called a judge on me for slow play, I would get a warning. Another bogus warning sometime later in the day and I'm getting game losses. But I guess players should only be penalized for slow play IRL, not online. You should tell Wizards that IRL slow play penalties are antisocial and a "loosing" proposition.
I don't think any one else caught this, but there's a good reason why they have slow play in IRL tournaments: they don't have an individual clock. Both players only have 50 minutes to complete the match, so if one player is using twice as much time, they're essentially "stealing" time from their opponent. The warning isn't for taking a while to think, it's for forcing your opponent to make their decisions faster than you. That's the problem they solved by having the individual timers online.
Now, I just started playing online, and have only really played seriously for about a year. That said, I've yet to finish a match at under 15 minutes left on my clock, and I'm not even using anything other than just F6. I've already won 3 matches on timing out (out of about 10 events). Does it frustrate me that the opponent gets to sit there and waste my time by taking 1-2 minutes each time they get priority? Absolutely. Does it tick me off to finish my match in a total of 15 minutes and then wait for 50 minutes to start playing again? Sure. However, that doesn't mean the system needs to be changed.
That said, if the system were to be changed, I'd want to see something like the digital timers used in Chess. In Chess, any match played with a digital timer has a certain set amoutn of time for earch player as well as a "move" timer. The "move" timer would be something like 3-5 seconds and ticks off starting when the player's turn begins. If the player completes their move within that short amount of time, no time comes off their actual clock. With a "move" timer, the actual match time is shortened, so maybe both players only have 20 minutes each to finish a match instead of 25. However, that time is made up by the fact that if they play very quickly, they lose no time.
Now, for the OP, obviously there are the various shortcuts you can use to avoid timing out. You can also not play on a slow/spotty connection, don't try to stream video or download whatever while playing or play on a computer powerful enough to not cause lag. Those are all very valid options.
I don't think any one else caught this, but there's a good reason why they have slow play in IRL tournaments: they don't have an individual clock. Both players only have 50 minutes to complete the match, so if one player is using twice as much time
MadAdmiral, the suggestion about a move timer isn't really suitable for MTGO, as priority changes many times during even a single turn. Would you sugggest that you get a free 3-5 seconds every time you get priority? That can be 10-20 times each turn for a moderately complex board state.
MadAdmiral, the suggestion about a move timer isn't really suitable for MTGO, as priority changes many times during even a single turn. Would you sugggest that you get a free 3-5 seconds every time you get priority? That can be 10-20 times each turn
If you get a certain amount of time on the clock, are you a bad player if you use all of it for your match? Or are you just using the resource well? Are you being discourteous to your opponent? Or maybe your opponent should just mind his own business as well as his own clock?
I wonder, why do you think we USE a clock in the first place?
Yes, no, yes, no.
The clock isn't a resource to be used, it is a limit to play within. You don't get extra bonus points for using 24 of your 25 allotted minutes. If you think that running the clock is some sort of a mind game or tactic, then you are probably a horrible player. Poor gamesmanship aside, it's just bad since it's not day-ruining to have an opponent take forever to play a bear and go, it's just annoying that people can't keep up with the rate of play.
Yes, no, yes, no.The clock isn't a resource to be used, it is a limit to play within. You don't get extra bonus points for using 24 of your 25 allotted minutes. If you think that running the clock is some sort of a mind game or tactic, then you are
The clock isn't a resource to be used, it is a limit to play within.
Don't say silly things. Time IS a resource. The more there is the more you can think, ask any chess player. Sure, of course that resource is limited.
You seem to think you have a right to decide how your opponent uses the resources at his disposal. You seem to take it as a personal affront that your opponent dares use more time than you would need. You have no business judging others that way. The rules are clear. You get X time, they get X time. You wouldn't accept it if they got to mess with your time, so you don't get to mess with theirs.
Your position is unreasonable.
Don't say silly things. Time IS a resource. The more there is the more you can think, ask any chess player. Sure, of course that resource is limited.You seem to think you have a right to decide how your opponent uses the resources at his disposal. Yo
Don't say silly things. Time IS a resource. The more there is the more you can think, ask any chess player. Sure, of course that resource is limited.
You seem to think you have a right to decide how your opponent uses the resources at his disposal. You seem to take it as a personal affront that your opponent dares use more time than you would need. You have no business judging others that way. The rules are clear. You get X time, they get X time. You wouldn't accept it if they got to mess with your time, so you don't get to mess with theirs.
Your position is unreasonable.
You are comparing apples to wolverines. In chess, a player has to think of around 100,000 different scenarios before each move. In Magic the optimal move is VERY VERY OBVIOUS around 98% of the time.
You don't seem to understand what I was saying, so I'll try to express it in a different way. I don't think that I have the right to decide how my opponent uses their time. They can do whatever they want with it. However, it's usually bad gamesmanship and indivitive of a bad player. I have every right to have that opinion, because I'm smart. I never said anything about messing with anyone's time or limiting anything. The only thing that I said is that the winner isn't the person who uses the most of their time, so using your time just for the sake of using it (or possibly for the sake of annoying your opponent) is dumb, bad, and a waste of everyone's time. You seem to be trying to put words in my mouth to try to argue with me in order to try to advance your position, which seems to be that using a bunch of time for the purpose of annoying people is a sound strategy. I'm sorry but it isn't.
I'm not sure what's so unreasonable to say "use an appropriate amount of time when you play Magic", but I'm sorry that you find me unreasonable. I don't feel that wasting time, in any aspect of life, is a good idea, but I guess that's unreasonable. The next time you are at a red light behind a car, and the light turns green and then don't go, please don't honk your horn or get mad. That would be unreasonable.
You are comparing apples to wolverines. In chess, a player has to think of around 100,000 different scenarios before each move. In Magic the optimal move is VERY VERY OBVIOUS around 98% of the time.You don't seem to understand what I was saying, so
Worth made a comment related to this a couple of years ago:
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...
Worth made a comment related to this a couple of years ago: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 alm
The clock isn't a resource to be used, it is a limit to play within.
The clock is both a limit to play within and a resource to be used. I will use a minute or so off my clock to scout my opponent's previous games. I will use time from my clock to visit the Gatherer to lookup card rulings. I will use time from my clock to get something to eat so that my stomach isn't distracting me from concentrating.
When I do any of these activities, I trade clock time for something else: information about my opponent's deck, making sure the card works like I think it does, and not playing while distracted.
I do this knowing that I am consuming a valuable, but limited, match resource to help increase my odds of winning.
The clock is both a limit to play within and a resource to be used. I will use a minute or so off my clock to scout my opponent's previous games. I will use time from my clock to visit the Gatherer to lookup card rulings. I will use time from my cloc
... The only reason there is a time limit AT ALL is the need for tournaments to complete in a timely manner. Note that the top-8 in major paper events don't impose a time restriction. Timed matches are the result of the practicalities of running a tournament, not something inherent to the game of Magic. Being an artificial construct, if deck decisions are being imposed because of the time limit, that is a flaw in the rule, not with the player (beyond considerations of using the interface correctly and making timely decisions).
As far as the online timer matching paper: (1) the paper rule is impractical for online Magic because there is no judge to monitor slow play (2) WotC has already stated that the online method is superior, but impractical for paper Magic. Two methods, each of which is impractical in the other medium, means there will be no unity in the timing method anytime soon.
Any reform of the rule needs to still satisfy keeping the tournament on schedule while imposing no more (and preferably less) influence on deck choices.
Going to quote myself from a year ago:Any reform of the rule needs to still satisfy keeping the tournament on schedule while imposing no more (and preferably less) influence on deck choices.
Worth made a comment related to this a couple of years ago:
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 feel like this point is getting muddled. Nobody (especially not me) is saying that using all of your clock isn't your RIGHT. Of course it is your RIGHT. But that doesn't mean that it is right to do it.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
When I go grocery shopping, it's my right to leave my cart in the middle of the parking lot, correct? But I put it in the cart corrall. When I get something to drink, it is my right to grab all of the straws, correct? But I only grab one because that is all I need.
If you need to use extra time to read cards that you are unfamiliar with, or think out a complicated board state or important turn, good! That's what it's there for. But it is my opinion that using extra time soely for the sake of using extra time is pointless.
I feel like this point is getting muddled. Nobody (especially not me) is saying that using all of your clock isn't your RIGHT. Of course it is your RIGHT. But that doesn't mean that it is right to do it.Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah.When I go grocery shopping,
You seem to think you have a right to decide how your opponent uses the resources at his disposal. You seem to take it as a personal affront that your opponent dares use more time than you would need. You have no business judging others that way. The rules are clear. You get X time, they get X time. You wouldn't accept it if they got to mess with your time, so you don't get to mess with theirs.
Your position is unreasonable.
This isn't about choosing how the opponent uses their 25 minute timer. It's lobbying to change how many minutes are on the timer, which is a fair position. They get to use the 25 minutes however they want. Maybe 25 is too many. Maybe instead they should get to use 20 minutes however they want. It feels like I use an average of something like 7 minutes off of my timer in a given match. I time out maybe 1 out of every 1000 or 2000 matches, and haven't timed out at all in a few years. My experiences tell me that 25 minutes is too long.
Also, paper magic has 50 minute rounds, all-inclusive. Why would online magic have 25 minutes per player when it cuts down the time taken in the following ways... a) Sideboarding time cuts into the 50 minutes in paper magic, but it doesn't count against the round timers online. So really, in paper magic, you only have about 45 minutes (22.5 per player) of game time when you account for the time sideboarding eats-up. b) Shuffling is instantaneous in online magic. In paper magic, the initial shuffling procedures alone are allowed to and often do take-up 6-9 minutes of the rounds. That's not to mention that in some formats, or in some decks, you have so many shuffling effects that shuffling actually burns more like 8-12 minutes of the rounds. So now let's take that 45 minutes from before and cut it down to 38 minutes (19 per player). c) Some people deliberately stall in paper magic, either to earn a draw instead of a 1-2 loss, a 1-0 win instead of a 1-1 draw, or a 0-0 draw instead of a 0-1 loss. Regardless of whether penalties exist and partially mitigate the problem, if stalling were altogether impossible, an average round would be shortened by a few minutes, and matches where stalling was actually present would be shortened by perhaps 10 whole minutes. I would take the 38 minute number from before and cut it down to 35 minutes (17.5 per player). d) In paper magic, there is virtually no accountability for your own pace of place. There's the penalties, but again, enforcement is inconsistent, spotty, not a proper discouragement, and 98% of the time judges aren't called for unconscientious pace of place. If players were fully accountable for their pace of play, they would be at least a bit more conscientious about their pace of play, and wouldn't need as much time. Take 35, bring it down to let's say 33 or 31 (16 per player).
All right, there we go. 25 minutes per player in paper magic should be equated to about 16 per player online.
This isn't about choosing how the opponent uses their 25 minute timer. It's lobbying to change how many minutes are on the timer, which is a fair position. They get to use the 25 minutes however they want. Maybe 25 is too many. Maybe instead they
Worth made a comment related to this a couple of years ago:
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 feel like this point is getting muddled. Nobody (especially not me) is saying that using all of your clock isn't your RIGHT. Of course it is your RIGHT. But that doesn't mean that it is right to do it.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
When I go grocery shopping, it's my right to leave my cart in the middle of the parking lot, correct? But I put it in the cart corrall. When I get something to drink, it is my right to grab all of the straws, correct? But I only grab one because that is all I need.
If you need to use extra time to read cards that you are unfamiliar with, or think out a complicated board state or important turn, good! That's what it's there for. But it is my opinion that using extra time soely for the sake of using extra time is pointless.
This is a subjective point of view. AKA your opinion. People's opinions on ethical situations vary. So far you haven't persuaded me (or anyone else that I can see) the value of yours in this particular instance.
WHY is it unethical for someone to use their clock time: - That you both agreed upon (even though neither party had any choice) ahead of time? (Tacitly by joining the game and tourney itself.) - That you get an equal amount to spend? - That when it runs out a match loss occurs? - That is despite your arguments to the contrary NOT an eternity?
This isn't merely a question of "Oh the system is broke, we've gotta deal with how things are until someone fixes this. Oh btw fix this now!" This is plain out "This system has worked, and worked well for many years, despite incredible fails in other aspects of the program. WHY should it be changed now? Don't fix what ain't broke!"
I understand when you say it is discourteous that you mean you don't like wasting time (yours or anyone else) but that doesn't make it wrong in an objective sense. That just means it jars your sense of politeness and good behavior (ethics). The fun thing about this is, you can be totally right for yourself and totally wrong for everyone else.
So continue playing fast and being courteous and don't worry about anyone else. As I have said in numerous other places in reference to much larger scales of things: You can't legislate morality (or politeness.)
I feel like this point is getting muddled. Nobody (especially not me) is saying that using all of your clock isn't your RIGHT. Of course it is your RIGHT. But that doesn't mean that it is right to do it.Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah.When I go grocery shopping,
First beacuse of the points given by Lackeos the timer per player could be changed from 25 to 20.
Second the time betwean rounds I would prolong to 5 mins so you have a time for a personal brake.
This way a whole max time on a round would get shorter by 7 minutes. From 52 to 45 (this is excluding sideboard time).
I would also suggest that sideboard time is deducted from a player time. You would still be limited to 3 mins but the amount of time would be deducted from your play time. This way it's much easier to calculate maximum round times (exactly 45 mins).
I would suggest two changes.First beacuse of the points given by Lackeos the timer per player could be changed from 25 to 20.Second the time betwean rounds I would prolong to 5 mins so you have a time for a personal brake.This way a whole max time on
Nobody (especially not me) is saying that using all of your clock isn't your RIGHT. Of course it is your RIGHT. But that doesn't mean that it is right to do it.
My entire point is that you have no right to decide for others what is right or wrong in this case. Ok, so you can make all of your plays in 7 mins. Good for you. That's 18 minutes you don't usually need. But someone else might. It has been decided, very reasonably, in my opinion, that 25 mins is a fair amount; a compromise between having everything finish in a timely manner, and the clock not being an influence on gameplay in and of itself.
In general, clocks are a practical measure to keep things manageable. If that were not a factor, clocks would not be used at all. The ideal situation is therefore to always have completely untimed play or to approximate it close enough as to make no difference.
An example.
I used to play speed chess (5-10 mins per player for an entire match). I was pretty good at it too. In fact, whenever I played a 'normal' chess tourney I would also use far less time than my opponent, because I was apparently a naturally fast player. I would lose those kinds of matches far more often. So if I had it my way, EVERY chess match would have been a speed chess match, that would have been tremendously in my advantage. 2 hours for 40 moves, and an additional hour per 20 moves? That was like infinity to me. Who the hell needs that much time!
Simply put: I played optimally with little time, others played optimally with more time. The thing is, these time limits are only imposed to keep tournaments manageable, so what I preferred was the exception. Speed chess is seen as a variant of "normal" chess, precisely because time is much more restricted than pragmatism would demand.
Magic is not chess, no. But like in chess, every player has his own clock - his own (limited) time resource - with which to play the game how it suits them best (or better put: the way they need to play it to perform optimally).
Your preferences are just one among several; you have no right to impose your preferences on others.
My entire point is that you have no right to decide for others what is right or wrong in this case. Ok, so you can make all of your plays in 7 mins. Good for you. That's 18 minutes you don't usually need. But someone else might. It has been decided,
My entire point is that you have no right to decide for others what is right or wrong in this case. Ok, so you can make all of your plays in 7 mins. Good for you. That's 18 minutes you don't usually need. But someone else might. It has been decided, very reasonably, in my opinion, that 25 mins is a fair amount; a compromise between having everything finish in a timely manner, and the clock not being an influence on gameplay in and of itself.
In general, clocks are a practical measure to keep things manageable. If that were not a factor, clocks would not be used at all. The ideal situation is therefore to always have completely untimed play or to approximate it close enough as to make no difference.
An example.
I used to play speed chess (5-10 mins per player for an entire match). I was pretty good at it too. In fact, whenever I played a 'normal' chess tourney I would also use far less time than my opponent, because I was apparently a naturally fast player. I would lose those kinds of matches far more often. So if I had it my way, EVERY chess match would have been a speed chess match, that would have been tremendously in my advantage. 2 hours for 40 moves, and an additional hour per 20 moves? That was like infinity to me. Who the hell needs that much time!
Simply put: I played optimally with little time, others played optimally with more time. The thing is, these time limits are only imposed to keep tournaments manageable, so what I preferred was the exception. Speed chess is seen as a variant of "normal" chess, precisely because time is much more restricted than pragmatism would demand.
Magic is not chess, no. But like in chess, every player has his own clock - his own (limited) time resource - with which to play the game how it suits them best (or better put: the way they need to play it to perform optimally).
Your preferences are just one among several; you have no right to impose your preferences on others.
ONCE AGAIN, the difference between chess and Magic is massive. So massive as to say that trying to compare the two is pointless.
I've never said that we should impose my personal preferences on others. You implying that I said that is either a lie or your own ignorance.
ONCE AGAIN, the difference between chess and Magic is massive. So massive as to say that trying to compare the two is pointless.I've never said that we should impose my personal preferences on others. You implying that I said that is either a lie o
ProsperousBloom, nushae is not comparing chess and Magic, any more than you were comparing Magic and driving... He's pointing out that different players play different games at different speeds.
You state that a player using up a lot of clock is indicative of playing over their head. I agree. Problem is I play one match at a time and still occasionally have time problems. I lose much more often to awful, awful play decisons and mistakes. I really should be taking more time to play. Yeah, I suck at Magic. The optimal play is not (immediately) obvious to me 98% of the time.
But my rating stays between 1550 and 1700. Which indicates I am an average player. Which proves ratings are meaningless?
Or maybe there are a lot of bad Magic players?
Enjoy the advantage you have of being able to play quickly and well. Maybe consider that all the slow players you are beating may not be rude and intentionally playing slow, but bad, or maybe, just maybe, naturally slow?
I am pretty sure I missed your point. But then again, I'm not sure that I made a clear point either. Wanna join me for a beer?
ProsperousBloom, nushae is not comparing chess and Magic, any more than you were comparing Magic and driving... He's pointing out that different players play different games at different speeds.You state that a player using up a lot of clock is indi
ONCE AGAIN, the difference between chess and Magic is massive. So massive as to say that trying to compare the two is pointless.
You're either missing the point or pretending to in order to sidestep an actual discussion. Considering the rest of your post I'm inclined to believe the latter. That's a pity but so be it.
I've never said that we should impose my personal preferences on others.
Not explicitly no, but it IS what you are doing. I've asked you to explain what exactly makes it reasonable to reduce the time from 25 mins per person to less, but so far I don't see much of an argument, beyond "I think it's too much". So it appears that you have rather arbitrarily decided 25 mins is too much time for any player, since you can't or won't explain it. Similarly others think the amount is fine. Again: why do YOU think you are right?
I'll pretend you kept a mature tone all the way to the end of your post. Don't go there again.
You're either missing the point or pretending to in order to sidestep an actual discussion. Considering the rest of your post I'm inclined to believe the latter. That's a pity but so be it.Not explicitly no, but it IS what you are doing. I've asked y
ONCE AGAIN, the difference between chess and Magic is massive. So massive as to say that trying to compare the two is pointless.
You're either missing the point or pretending to in order to sidestep an actual discussion. Considering the rest of your post I'm inclined to believe the latter. That's a pity but so be it.
I've never said that we should impose my personal preferences on others.
Not explicitly no, but it IS what you are doing. I've asked you to explain what exactly makes it reasonable to reduce the time from 25 mins per person to less, but so far I don't see much of an argument, beyond "I think it's too much". So it appears that you have rather arbitrarily decided 25 mins is too much time for any player, since you can't or won't explain it. Similarly others think the amount is fine. Again: why do YOU think you are right?
I'll pretend you kept a mature tone all the way to the end of your post. Don't go there again.
I think the troll is out of the bag by now. Notice how he addressed your comments but mine which were very similar to yours he ignored completely including my questions concerning how/why using one's clock to one's advantage rather than rushing through each and every play is unethical.
It seems a little like humble bragging too to claim that he always sees (98% of the time, really??) the correct play in a given situation very quickly. Magic is an incredibly complex game with lots and lots of variables and a lot of hidden information. Implying that you KNOW that information by inuititing it 98% is quite the brag imho.
Both sides of the argument have had their say whether points have been made for one or the other. Any further discussion seems to be baiting imho.
You're either missing the point or pretending to in order to sidestep an actual discussion. Considering the rest of your post I'm inclined to believe the latter. That's a pity but so be it.Not explicitly no, but it IS what you are doing. I've asked y
Kudos to Lackeos for his previous post. Some very good points there.
I don't think anyone has ever brought up those points before comparing realpaper pantsed timed play to onlinedigital unpantsed.
I don't like your conclusion, but that is based solely on my own inadequacies as a player. Good stuff Lackeos.
Kudos to Lackeos for his previous post. Some very good points there. I don't think anyone has ever brought up those points before comparing real paper pantsed timed play to online digital unpantsed. I don't like your conclusion, but that is based
Shortening the clock would make it more difficult for new players, perhaps alienating some of them. Internet connection issues would be magnified by this as well. If you were playing someplace a large number of internet connections from the servers, your pace of play would suffer.
Why would WotC want to make things more difficult for some people? Or, make drafting certain types of decks impractical?
Shortening the clock would make it more difficult for new players, perhaps alienating some of them. Internet connection issues would be magnified by this as well. If you were playing someplace a large number of internet connections from the servers,
Yes, 25 min is too long for most matches. But that's how it should be. The timer needs to be long enough to accomodate the longest matches played at a reasonable pace. By definition, most matches are not that long. That people abuse this slack and play at an unreasonably slow pace is rude and unfortunate, but difficult to legislate against.
Yes, 25 min is too long for most matches. But that's how it should be. The timer needs to be long enough to accomodate the longest matches played at a reasonable pace. By definition, most matches are not that long. That people abuse this slack and pl
Remember way back in v1/early v2 when the clock was 60 minutes? Good times, good times... (and you needed it for all the server instability)
The people who frustrate me are those who go dead for 5 minutes, then play at a decent pace (usually for the rest of the game), then go dead again. Just long enough not to time out to inactivity, basically.
I don't think anyone here has an issue wih Algona-style "slow play," where you play consistently slowly. But, then again, I've called a judge for slow play (and taking more than 3 minutes to sideboard) from the 3-5 tables before. Proceeded to get rofl-stomped the next two games, but they were at a decent pace. To the point where I enjoyed losing more than winning. Go figure... I guess Magic is just more relaxing when you're pantsless on your couch than when you're in a room with 700 of your "closest" friends.
But in the end, it's just a frustration. If you let it get to you too much, you get focused on it and not the game you're playing. Those are the rules and I haven't yet seen a better alternative.
Remember way back in v1/early v2 when the clock was 60 minutes? Good times, good times... (and you needed it for all the server instability)The people who frustrate me are those who go dead for 5 minutes, then play at a decent pace (usually for the r
The people who frustrate me are those who go dead for 5 minutes, then play at a decent pace (usually for the rest of the game), then go dead again. Just long enough not to time out to inactivity, basically.
Somewhere out there is a player who decided that the 25 minute clock is so long that not only is he unhappy with how long rounds are taking with this limit, but he's decided that he can multitable without timing out. I find that funny, because it means with the 25-minute limit, the slow players annoy the fast players, and the fast players have even discovered a way to annoy the slow players right back. That makes me feel really happy. Keep on multitabling, impatient fast players, until the day that the timers are shortened.
Kudos to Lackeos for his previous post. Some very good points there.
I don't think anyone has ever brought up those points before comparing realpaper pantsed timed play to onlinedigital unpantsed.
I don't like your conclusion, but that is based solely on my own inadequacies as a player. Good stuff Lackeos.
Somewhere out there is a player who decided that the 25 minute clock is so long that not only is he unhappy with how long rounds are taking with this limit, but he's decided that he can multitable without timing out. I find that funny, because it me
