Editor: Keh-Gan Hau. Friday 3rd September 2004.
|
You are: Home -> Articles -> Columns -> Good Games
Editor: Keh-Gan Hau. Friday 3rd September 2004.
|
 "Talking Time" Eventually I plan on writing a much longer effort on the important differences between playing Vs and playing Vs in a competitive, UDE-sanctioned environment. However, as I play this game more and more, a very particular issue that was to be dealt with in that piece has become very important to me. I feel that with the upcoming $10K tournament to be held in Sydney, this issue needs to be brought into a public forum. The issue is that of time constraints on tournament Vs play. From the Vs Tournament Policy Guidelines: B-10 End of Match Procedure When time is called at the end of a round, the current turn of each match still in progress is completed, and then play stops and the match winner is calculated using the following process:
In defence of those who have created the current tournament rules, there is hardly an alternative solution that is likely to garner popular support. At the same time, I don’t know any Vs player who would see a match decided on time being a fair outcome. Thus we are left in a bind. Without a better solution the only way we can ensure that that the best players continue to win is to place renewed emphasis on the monitoring of the influence of slow play on the result of a match. Slow play does not have to be intentional. Although intentional slow play, commonly known as “stalling”, is one of the most reproachable TCG crimes, it is rare for this to occur, and even rarer to prove. Slow play is simply taking too much time to play our cards within the course of a match. We all believe that it is fine for one person to take up more time than another, just as the amount of time they take is not too much more than the other player. What this says to me is that although hard to define, we do have some idea of how much time is too much time. This may vary from player to player. However, in the interests of players, and the judges who have to observe and enforce the laws of tournament Vs, we need to standardise our approach. The easiest solution would be to split the available time in two. Again from the Vs Tournament Policy Guidelines: B-9 Time Limits The normal time length for a round is 60 minutes. This time may be reduced after the Vs. System game has been on the market for a while and players are used to playing more quickly. The only other information I could yield from the UDE website were the Penalty Guidelines for Slow Play: P-18 Procedural Error–Slow Play (Penalty: Warning) This penalty is appropriate when a player unintentionally causes a minor delay of the game. Players are responsible for playing at an efficient pace regardless of the complexity of the situation in the game or the number of decisions that have to be made. The official rules leave a lot of room for complaint. Intolerably vague for the most part, we are left with one clear decree. Players are responsible. Now this is a statement that acts on a few different levels. We can only assume that this means players must take responsibility for a fair and mutually acceptable result to the match. It is worth stressing that in this case the players are responsible not only to themselves, but also tho the other players in the tournament and the tournament administration. Not at the least their current opponent. However, the most important issue that has been legislated for is thus: players are responsible for playing at an efficient pace regardless of the complexity of the situation in the game or the number of decisions that have to be made. Acknowledging that what is considered a reasonable amount of time to be spending on making decisions is too varied to articulate clearly. I have to promote the use of “efficiency” as being synonymous with having enough time to finish three games of a match. Anything less than this should be considered slow play. If you are acutely observant, you may have deduced my thesis. Any match that goes to time is the result of slow play, in the tournament sense, by one player or the other, or both. Before you rush off to flame me in the forums take some time to think about the above statement. The complexity of the game has been listed as no excuse. Occasionally a game may provide a uniquely difficult to comprehend set of circumstances, and I feel that so long as both players felt that the game required as much time as it did, that horrible endurance rule should be implemented. However, these situations are extremely rare, and often involve card interactions that have never been assessed before. If there are going to be sixty-minute rounds, no player should be allowed to take up more than thirty minutes of the other player’s time. This is obviously a lot easier said than done but I feel should still be the backdrop of all correct judgements on slow play. It is too difficult to break down rulings on the time spent on turns because some turns obviously involve a lot more thinking than others. This article is probably going to ruffle a few feathers, and I fully intend it too. The general understanding of slow play in tournament-level competition is criminally misunderstood. There is a definite social stigma in mustering up the courage to prompt your opponent to make a play. This should not be the case. The vilification and vitriol that generally pleasant gamers often receive after correctly informing their opponent that they are playing too slowly is unfair. It is the responsibility of the player to play fast enough. If someone thinks you are playing slowly, and you disagree, call a judge. Don’t take it out on them, they probably spent ten minutes earlier finding the balls to say anything at all. As far as I am concerned, even if that player making the call is wrong, it is much better that they said something than let the game drag out to something like a 1-0 result. The thing is, if you play too slowly, it is your fault. I don’t want to hear any apologies after I just lost because you took up forty minutes of the game time and I had to rush my decision-making processes to ensure I had the best chance at a positive result. Playing at an efficient speed is as important as presenting a sixty-card deck. It is not my fault you don’t know the cards. It is not my fault you are new to the game. This may be harsh to some, but that is the tournament environment. If you are not fast enough or knowledgeable enough to play tournament-level Vs, play casually. I made a concerted effort to learn how to play Vs at an acceptable speed before I entered a tournament. Reading cards is fine and you should check what your opponent’s cards do, but this should subtract from your available time, rather than adding to it. Being able to play quickly is a skill and a skill that should be rewarded. This onus on calling slow play needs reversing. Playing tournament Vs is an altogether different experience from casual play. When I play casually I never ask anyone to play faster. However, in a tournament environment, I am continually frustrated by players who are taking more than their fair share of the game time away from other players. Too many people play too slowly. Because of this many deserving players are being short-changed by opponents who play at an unacceptable speed. It is unfair to those who play within the rules to have their efforts compromised in this manner. Until a better solution presents itself, the players are responsible for monitoring slow play. Don’t get upset if you are asked to play faster. It is part of the game.
|