Worlds 2014 - Tourney reports

MECCG World Championship discussion forum.
zarathustra
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Worlds 2014 - Tourney reports

Post by zarathustra » Wed Sep 24, 2014 12:47 am

Sorry we've been a bit quiet about the event. Here's my tournament report, as best I can remember.

Friday: Hero sealed followed by ARDA. Heiner won hero sealed. ARDA was great fun. I believe Chad Martin won.

Saturday: Semi-finals and drinking game. The top four in semi-finals were Joe, Heiner, Mark, and Brian. Brian and Wolfgang tied for 4th place, but Brian won the tie-breaker. Only two of the finalists competed in the drinking game: Heiner and Mark. Heiner won it. Joe and Brian may have had an unfair advantage the next day. ;)

Sunday: Finals and casual games. Round 1: Heiner defeats Mark 4-2; Brian defeats Joe 5-1. Round 2: Heiner defeats Brian 4-2; Joe defeats Mark 4-2. At this point, the TP situation was: Heiner 8, Brian 7, Joe 5, and Mark 4. Mark was effectively eliminated from the tournament, but the result of his match could eliminate Brian or make it easier/harder for Heiner/Joe. Round 3: Mark defeats Brian 4-2; Joe defeats Heiner 6-0. Final TP results: Joe 11, Brian 9, Heiner 8, Mark 8. Each player had 2 wins and 1 loss. During the semi-finals, Brian defeated Mark 4-2, so there was a reversal there. Likewise during semis, Mark defeated Joe 4-2, another reversal. If I recall correctly, Heiner defeated Brian in both semi-finals and finals, and there were no other repeat match-ups.

Personal report: I played a deck that was very similar to the hero deck I used to win worlds 2013 -- short rest in Eriador with Radagast. Because I'd seen a lot of snowstorms and foul fumes/morgul night combos from the finalists in the semis, I went into the finals with 3 twilights and 1 Gates of Morning in the deck (normally just two twilights). Since I was fairly sure that I wouldn't face another hero, I packed 2 Blind to the West and 1 Ire of the East against Hero/Fallen Wizard. This was a good idea, though when I played the cards they turned out to be pretty ineffectual (e.g., I tagged Heiner's Bold Thrust with an Ire of the East, but he killed the creature anyway). In my first matchup against Heiner, I was ahead for about the first half of the game. Then I faced a single corruption check of 4 against Pallando (he was fallen Radagast, so I substituted P). Rolled a 4. Blew up my wizard. Still managed to call the next turn with 27 TP, but then the -5 penalty took my total below his. Shit happens. Round 2 against Joe was another case of shit happening. Despite my putting 3 twilights and 1 Gates in the deck, he was able to Snowstorm me back into Rivendell for three straight turns. This occurred even though I had at that point drawn 42 cards. Joe played extremely slowly, so we ran out of official time at the end of turn 3.5. We talked each other into having 5 turns each, to make it a real Middle-Earth game. Have to admit that I don't want to play another game of this sort ever again. Round 3 was against Joe. As I mentioned above, I was out at this point, but I could still make a difference for the other players. Brian was also playing an environment hazard deck, but I was able to get to Himring and the Isles of the Dead that Live to play some points. In the end, I was just a little too fast for him, ended up winning 4-2. Meanwhile, Joe and Heiner's game lasted over two hours, at the end of which Joe won.

Reflections on the state of the game: As I remarked after Worlds 2013, the tiebreaker system we currently have is stupid and broken. We should switch to something more rational, such as strength of schedule as the main tiebreaker. Time-wasting is also becoming a serious problem. The game isn't fun or interesting when someone's organization phase takes 15 minutes. It also creates all sorts of knock-on problems. The player who takes a huge amount of time puts pressure on the opponent to rush (in order to have a game with the usual number of turns) or go at the usual pace (and then either end after 3 turns, which is unfair, or go way overtime, which is also unfair). I suggest a chess-timer approach in the future, at least for finals. Each player would get 40 minutes of decision-making time, which adds up to the usual 80 minutes. If a player goes over, the opponent gets to proceed without hazards being played on him, receives incremental bonus tournament points, or some other penalty. Without such adjustments, I doubt I'll participate in another World Championship.
http://www.alfanos.org

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2626
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Tourney reports

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:01 pm

I agree with the time comments. I'd also add, though, that it would also be beneficial to reward players who take their turns quickly -- since the ability to analyze situations and make the correct decision is a function of player skill, it makes sense to translate this into a tournament edge. As long as there's an environment where going slowly is more likely to make you win, people will try to do it.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Re: Tourney reports

Post by marcos » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:00 pm

i believe warnings (and eventually DQs) should be considered more seriously, and enforced if needed. I don't see any other adjustments being easily implemented.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Tourney reports

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:51 pm

thanks for the report!
and many congrats to Joe of course, practise finally paid off 8)
Without such adjustments, I doubt I'll participate in another World Championship
you've participated in quite a few, so what has essentially changed that you would draw this conclusion now?
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2626
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Tourney reports

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed Sep 24, 2014 10:19 pm

The passing of years can make time a much more precious commodity than it once was.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Mordakai
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:38 am

Re: Tourney reports

Post by Mordakai » Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:45 pm

Thanks for the report, Mark. I'm sure it was a great time.
zarathustra wrote:Personal report: I played a deck that was very similar to the hero deck I used to win worlds 2013 -- short rest in Eriador with Radagast.
Gotcha! :lol:
zarathustra wrote:Reflections on the state of the game: As I remarked after Worlds 2013, the tiebreaker system we currently have is stupid and broken. We should switch to something more rational, such as strength of schedule as the main tiebreaker. Time-wasting is also becoming a serious problem. The game isn't fun or interesting when someone's organization phase takes 15 minutes. It also creates all sorts of knock-on problems. The player who takes a huge amount of time puts pressure on the opponent to rush (in order to have a game with the usual number of turns) or go at the usual pace (and then either end after 3 turns, which is unfair, or go way overtime, which is also unfair). I suggest a chess-timer approach in the future, at least for finals. Each player would get 40 minutes of decision-making time, which adds up to the usual 80 minutes. If a player goes over, the opponent gets to proceed without hazards being played on him, receives incremental bonus tournament points, or some other penalty. Without such adjustments, I doubt I'll participate in another World Championship.
I'm not an English native speaker, can you explain you tiebreaker option? I suppose you are talking about using the points achieved by all you opponents, maybe? (we call it puntos de desempate in Spanish, which, translated literally, are tiebreaking points in English. The more tiebreaking points you have (which more or less should mean the most difficult opponents you faced) the better). Is that the idea?

I totally agree with you about timing. Also, there are certain decks wich are specially favoured by time-wasting. Chess timer is a great idea, but the actual implementation is difficult:
- Real chess clocks are expensive (around 40$ the cheapest), who can get around 15 of them to run a championship? Of course, smartphones can bypass this (https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... lockdeluxe https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... Clock.Free https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... chessclock to just name a few free apps just using Google Play)
- The "time counting" must be strictly ruled. I start my clock at the beginning of org. phase, that's pretty clear, but... when do I stop it? At end of turn? at end of long event phase, and count the m/h phases as opponent time, then my time again at site phase? I'm sure you get my idea, in m/h phase the time is more or less "shared", as the opponent thinks of what to play and you think how to face his hazards... Not so simple, methinks.
- The same policy can be followed in other aspects of the game, like dice rolling. Who knows if the opponent's dice are loaded or not? (here in Spain we had an embarrasing example a lot of years ago). Should both players be forced to use the same dice? Must the organisation of the event provide dice ad-hoc fot that day? Should all use an "official" smartphone dice app? (oh man, that should be great; CoE, do something about that :wink: ).

I think trust and fair play must be the base here. We have to trust the opponent, and we must be fair players. If you know the game is in good course for you, you must not linger there to consume all the time and avoid playing more turns. Referees were available long ago, when this game was more popular, but nowadays we are so few that noone quits from playing just to act as referee. We can also use some kind of "fair play points", when you finish the game and write the results in the sheet, you also make a secret vote about the opponent's fair (or not) playing. At the end of the day, that could be taken into account in some way.

Sorry for the wall of text, the target of it is just to say to you: Don't ever think to skip next tournaments with such a weak reason, I'm still eager to beat the crap out of you next time we meet :lol:

Again, thanks for helding the event and telling the rest of us who could not be there. Now... photos!! (we've seen the polite ones, saturday morning, all peacefull... we want saturday late evening and sunday early morning :twisted: )

Cheers
C'mon, not the Elves of Lindon AGAIN...

dirhaval
Posts: 576
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:39 am

Re: Tourney reports

Post by dirhaval » Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:46 am

This was my first tournament and my non-palantir using game of MECCG (not using technology of long-distance communication)
since the 1990s. It showed in my poor decision making with the speed of the game and card memory too such as Trouble on All Borders.

I made my resource decks on the plane ride. I only brought my hazard box and minion box, so I had two minion decks.
The hazard decks were made less than an hour before the first round; I awoke at that time so that was my problem.
Airport security does not like boxes of cardboard moving through their x-ray machines so you know. No trouble
on those borders, just detainment :)

First round was against Henrik's Balrog burning, map finding deck against my Grey Road Underdeeps deck.
Henrik said he thought he know of my deck since I started with Lt. of Dol Guldur, Taladhan, Tracker and Ostien.
But after the game he said he never seen my deck! That was great to hear!
I recommend someone making such a deck since it has promise. You would guess correctly that I lost; 45-15 or so.
My first mistake was forgetting to put in my Ringwraiths (Dwar x2, Hoarmurath) since I was sharing some resources
and hazards between the two decks, which made it troublesome to keep things organize; I had no container for my cards.

My first turn I moved to Mount Gundabad since I drew Ancient Black Axe. Then moved to Under-leas.

Turn 3 I moved to Under-Vaults to play Iron Shield of Old and Blasting Fire.

Turn 4 I moved to Iron Deeps to play Liquid Fire and Blasting Fire.

Turn 5 I moved to Carn Dum to heal. Yes, I know you cannot win games not playing resources every turn,
but I had someone wounded and this was slowing me down. Henrik was showing me how to play Balrog.
My deck exhausted since Henrik is moving so many companies.
I placed Great Goblin in my deck from the sideboard now.

Turn 5 I moved to Mount Gundabad.

Turn 6 I moved to Under-Leas again I think.

I finish with the axe, Blasting fire, a couple of Goblin Earth Plumes, liquid fire, Iron Shield of Old, troll, tracker, Taladhan I think.
Many shadow-magic events were played. I should of placed Well-preserved in the deck.
Crept Along Carefully and Orc Quarrels were much help too in my deck. My hazard deck was loose.
I had Saruman the White in my sideboard, but Henrik played him first.
I frequently drew Legendary Stair, World Gnawed by the Nameless, and Far Below the DD.
This to me means that this deck has potential to gain MPs fast such as
axe, iron shield of old x2, technology items to use and maybe a high MP item such as Scroll, Mithril-Coat too.
for 13 item MPs. Another company, Horseman, can gather Blackbole (2MP) and influence man factions around Mirkwood for 2 MP.
for 2 ally MP, 2 faction MP. Character MP would be at 7 (troll, taladah, tracker, Horseman) for 24 MP.

I selected Lt. of Dol Guldur for his DI to control Ostien and his Sage skill. Now I think to use Lt. of Minas Morgul for his Ranger skill.
But 9 mind is high limiting the use of other minions in the second company. So maybe use Shagrat controlling Ufhak.
Then Shagrat (6) controlling Ufhak (4) with Taladhan(6). Horseman can then start too for 20 mind.
The under-deeps company then uses 11 mind and Horseman can join with a Ranger such as Mionid.
Why three rangers in the under-deeps company, because someone might play three Rivers on your last turn!
Having Far Below Deepest Delving is a resource I need to get to my hand on my last turn so to bypass Rivers.

Char-7......shagrat2, ufhak1,taladhan2, mionid1,horseman1
Items-13....axe4, old3, old3, greater3
ally-2....blackbole
faction-3...woodmen

for 25 MPs.

Dwar can play another 2 MP minion. We Have Come to Kill would be good too.

zarathustra
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Re: Tourney reports

Post by zarathustra » Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:54 am

Regarding tie-breaking:

The current tournament tie-breaking rules hold:
When all rounds are completed, it is possible that more than one player will have the same highest tournament point total (i.e., the leaders will be tied). The following menu of tie-breaking criteria is followed. Each tied participant is in contention until a criterion is resolved that takes him or her out of contention. Those leading participants removed from contention are relegated to the tier of runners-up (and possibly could face another series of tie-breaking criteria-see below). The coordinator resolves the list of criteria in the order given, establishing each player removed from contention, until one player is left in contention, or until the entire list of criteria is resolved and a tie still exists (see below for this case).
I. Head-to-Head. Tally the number of losses of each tied player from all games played with any other tied players. The players with the fewest total head-to-head losses stay in contention. All other players are out of contention.
II. Number of Wins. Tally the number of games each tied player received 3.5 or more tournament points-these are wins. Players with the most wins stay in contention, all others are out of contention.
III. Sum of Opponent's Scores. For each tied player, add up all of their opponent's tournament point totals. The player with the highest sum wins the tie-breaker.
If more than one player is still in contention after criterion III is resolved, playoff rounds are held.
This is just silly. It privileges wins over ties and losses, but it doesn't privilege ties over losses. It makes strength of schedule (i.e., sum of opponents' TPs) the third tie-breaker when it should be the first or maybe the second. I think this needs to be rethought before worlds 2015.
http://www.alfanos.org

lucas.kubisch
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 6:51 pm

Re: Tourney reports

Post by lucas.kubisch » Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:57 am

Damn that is the true story from inside the championships, thanks for all the details. I always like to hear about the cards and stradagies, ive been going thru the wizards companion like a fine tooth comb learning about all the turn phases i cant imagine fifteen minutes for an organization phase but i did see some pics of the games and there were cards every where lol. Was snow storm really such a popular card? I want to kill people with dragons and trolls not make them turn around that lame, but effective? Should i put some in or atleast in my sideboard? What kind of hero decks were there elf/dwarf/ man? I didnt know you got a ring if you won thats awesome do they do that everyyear? Well hope to see you at the next one, didnt they say its not always in the u.s. I want to find out when and where the one for 2015 is going to be so i can make plans a.s.a.p. and not at the last minute like this time

zarathustra
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Re: Tourney reports

Post by zarathustra » Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:57 am

Regarding time: maybe it's that I have less patience than I used to (though I never had much) or just that this year there seemed to be much more dilatory behavior than before (more likely). The fact that I would have only gotten three rounds of regular-time play in the allotted 120 minutes was mind-boggling. I still don't understand it, especially given that I do (and did) play quickly. In the two hours that game took, I'd estimate that 30 minute were due to me.
http://www.alfanos.org

lucas.kubisch
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 6:51 pm

Re: Tourney reports

Post by lucas.kubisch » Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:25 am

I have always held you folks in the highest regaurds i cant believe what im hearing about all this time wasting and rule revisions is this what its come too. I mean even if your losing your still playing middle earth, in spanish is it media tierra? El nuevo palabra aprendí de las tarjetas es "golpes" is it strikes or attacks? Could i say, di mi amigo uno golpe porque él usó todo el vez jajaja lo siento probo...

jhunholz
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:24 pm

Re: Tourney reports

Post by jhunholz » Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:48 pm

Some players have always played slower than others. If anyone has played Magic Online, they solved this with the chess-clock approach (when it's your turn, you are on the clock). If you run out of time, you lose. Obviously that wouldn't work for Middle Earth, but I do think something like Mark's suggestion where having 0 time left means you can't play hazards (or maybe just reduces the hazard limit?) would be worth looking into. Maybe that is something the CoE can look into this next year?

It sounds like it was a great tournament though! I'm sorry I couldn't make it, but I'm glad we had a good showing from the US!

Muad'Dib
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:41 pm
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Contact:

Re: Tourney reports

Post by Muad'Dib » Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:35 pm

I have to agree with Mark about speed of playing. Maybe im not of these fastest players but i think im not slow too. Usually i keep my mouth zipped but sometimes im losing my patience. I understand when my opponent is newbie and still learns the game, cards etc. But its annoying when i see im losing the game because my opponent is playing slow. I think im nice, calm and friendly person and dont want any quarrels, also because our community is very small. But its unfair when my turns take only 25-30% of our time limit.

I also vote for change the tournament tie-breaking rules. Maybe because last year i was a victim of these rules ;)
IMustNotFear.FearIsTheMind-Killer.FearIsTheLittle-death ThatBringsTotalObliteration.IWillFaceMyFear.
IWillPermitItToPassOverMeAndThroughMe.
AndWhenItHasGonePast,IWillTurnTheInnerEyeToSeeItsPath.
WhereTheFearHasGoneThereWillBeNothing. OnlyIWillRemain.

User avatar
Mordakai
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:38 am

Re: Tourney reports

Post by Mordakai » Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:38 pm

Yeah, tie-breaking should be revised. I still remember my first championship, back in the 90's, it was Madrid's first official tournament (oh, nice days when still basic rules were played and Old Road + Muster + 3MP Factions was the mega-combo), and I remember I gained the 4th place due to tie breaking with other guy.
The process was: first, tournament points (of course), then tie-breaking points (tournament points of all your opponents) and after that (we still were tied), total marshalling points achieved during all the games. That is why filling all the data in the tournament sheets was so important. I finally got the 4th place by just a few MP's (nice Bombur playing the Arkenstone at Mout Gundabad for 5 MP and passing the CC at the Council, is funny how the brain can store such insignificant things...).
C'mon, not the Elves of Lindon AGAIN...

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Tourney reports

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:15 am

Sure, the CoE could propose a rule/measure to decrease or eliminate the factor of time shortage in the tourney games.
But first one needs to know if this is an incidental, personal, or general observation.
In games with newbees it is indeed an issue (or online games, or DC games, all of which have to deal with inexperience). But I don't often hear it affects top tier games.

Let's open a thread then at the appropriate section of the board to discuss it.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

Post Reply

Return to “Worlds”