|
11 months ago ::
Aug 13, 2012 - 10:50PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2005
|
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.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 13, 2012 - 10:57PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2007
|
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.)
Winter.Wolf
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 14, 2012 - 12:21AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2009
|
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 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).
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 14, 2012 - 3:51AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2003
|
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.
Free Speech
Show
Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of extralegal retaliation like harassment or violence. That’s all!
Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere.
The government may not prevent you from speaking, but private parties, like blog owners or corporations, aren’t required to let you use their property as your platform.
Free speech doesn’t include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously.
People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright.
Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to.
People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, block you on social media, change the channel, close the browser tab. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to bombard people with harassing messages or otherwise force them to pay attention to you against their will.
And free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 14, 2012 - 4:30AM
#45
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 14, 2012 - 6:39AM
#46
|
|
|
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?
Thank you, Erik.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 14, 2012 - 8:21AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2003
|
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.
Free Speech
Show
Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of extralegal retaliation like harassment or violence. That’s all!
Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere.
The government may not prevent you from speaking, but private parties, like blog owners or corporations, aren’t required to let you use their property as your platform.
Free speech doesn’t include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously.
People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright.
Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to.
People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, block you on social media, change the channel, close the browser tab. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to bombard people with harassing messages or otherwise force them to pay attention to you against their will.
And free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 14, 2012 - 8:58AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2007
|
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.
Winter.Wolf
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 14, 2012 - 9:34AM
#49
|
|
|
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 solely on my own inadequacies as a player. Good stuff Lackeos.
Thank you, Erik.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 14, 2012 - 9:55AM
#50
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
