Palatinus' OverPower Forum

I just wanted to push out some clarifications and minor rule changes to OverPower Toronto's tournament rules to be use for future events.

It should be obvious and was never a problem, but decks cannot be changed after a tournament has started.

The tie-break for Swiss Rounds will be based on points. Assuming n rounds of Swiss, you get n+1-c points for a win in the c-th round. So in a 4 round Swiss, 4 points for a win in the first round, 3 points for second round, 2 points for third round, 1 point for fourth round.
This should probably involve further discussion for balance. For now, without tournament software, this is the easiest method on paper.

At the last hand (the hand played after the hand when "last hand" was called), if the ventures are tied, the battle ends in a draw and no further hands are played, Missions ventured return to their piles. Tie-breakers are then applied.

There were some complaints about players taking too long to make a decision. I'm not sure how we are going to address this, some could be: issue warnings for stalling, chess clocking, turn timers, etc.

This is not a shot at anyone.  I have not attended any of the tournaments that have been organized for OP, but I was a judge for Upperdeck's VS system card game not too long ago, and have a touch of insight for the organizers/judges.

As a VS judge, we had to be wary of folks taking over 30 seconds to make a decision, and if they took over 1 minute they would get a warning for stalling or "slow play."  I am aware that Overpower is a strategic game, as is any other card game, but most players should be able to discern the bulk of what they plan to do moments after they draw their hands.  Most players know exactly what they put in their decks, why that card is there, and how they plan to play it even before they sit down at the table.  ...but not all do...

For the tie-breaking, I referenced this article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie-breaking_in_Swiss-system_tournaments

The method that I explained above is effectively the Cumulative method.

The other manual I used was from Wizard/DCI.

Honestly, I think 30 minutes is too short of a time limit. I know their are time contraints based on the venue and other factors, but 40-45 minutes has always been the sweetspot in my local tournaments. Ask yoruself how many games actually finished and how many went to tie breaker in Buffalo. Im guessing its around 50-50. I think adding the extra 10-15 minutes would make it more 75-25. You will just have to be super fast organizing between rounds, cut down on unnecessary breaks, ect.

"10 Minutes to Eat Lunch! HURRY UP!"

Dr. Death makes a good point, about deciding Venture being a time eater, but even then, you should be able to discern in less then 2 minutes whether you feel your hand is strong, and what you should be risking.

The only problem with 45 minute matches would be if there are a lot of folks at the event, or in a round robin format.  With 20 people and a 45 minute time frame, you are looking at 7.5 hours of play, without breaks, without tie-breakers, without potential slow play, ect, ect.  With 30 minute matches, those same 20 players would take 5 hours, again without anything that might prolong a match.

Quote from: Jack on March 25, 2013, 12:57:45 PM
There were some complaints about players taking too long to make a decision. I'm not sure how we are going to address this, some could be: issue warnings for stalling, chess clocking, turn timers, etc.

I'm still so on the fence about this. On one hand, I think a couple extra hands would help. Average deck has 56-64 cards, so 7-8 hands. 5 minutes per hand = 35-40 minutes. Screw power pack.

On the other hand, Dr. Death brings up a good point about the overall event taking way, way too long.  Sigh.

As for slow playing, take a cue from poker. Call a clock on them. If a player thinks their opponent is stalling, judge brings over a 1 minute timer. If it expires, they either make an instant decision or its a renege + warning. Too many warnings = forfeit.  Give each player a single 1 minute extension for that rare instance where it is an honest brain scratcher.

Part of the problem is getting players to actually call a clock. It is a bit aggressive and a bit of a dick move-- but then again, so is stalling.  It's a tough thing to do in what is ostensibly a "casual fun" game.

Time is one of those things that was discussed and we would love to see all the games finish properly. But as you pointed out, we are working with venues that have time constraints that we need to abide by.

Even if we did go for 40-45 minute matches, there will still be that one match that plays out their last hand beyond the limit and pushes our schedule to its limits. When the events draw more people and we outgrow our borrowed spaces from hobby stores, etc., we should be able to rent out spaces and not worry.

Just to put it in perspective, our tournaments in Toronto get about 10 to 15 players, getting a room at a public school, library, or community center is about $150 for the day. That already takes in $10-$15 from each player and gives us almost no margin for the prizes. But, if we were to double the number to 20 to 30 players, the costs are the same and allows us to offer more prizes.

The lunch break we scheduled in for Buffalo was basically a way to catch up on the schedule. We wanted to get things going against at 3PM or so but, given our location, there wasn't many places to get food within a 5-10 minute drive. The other breaks, as seen on the live stream, was because of those matches that went beyond the 40 minutes slotted for the rounds. I'm sure if we put the long matches on the stream it would not have been as noticeable.

Determining rounds will be more efficient when we get/make software to handle it for us. Larry had said he used software to determine the rounds but it still ended up being worked out on a table with our index cards.

---

The clock idea works but only if we have a dedicated judge at events, or at least someone that's just the time/score keeper. I wouldn't want to take away from one of our playing judges games just to officiate another player.

Quote from: Jack on March 25, 2013, 04:36:58 PM
The clock idea works but only if we have a dedicated judge at events, or at least someone that's just the time/score keeper. I wouldn't want to take away from one of our playing judges games just to officiate another player.

The only problem with having someone who's JUST a time/score keeper is incentive for that person to take that role INSTEAD of playing in the tourney that is only bringing in 10-15 people as it is.  This is basically going to be an on-going issue, as with all tournaments.

Before this event, I had never played a timed OverPower game before, and it was much different.  But I liked it.

I feel that being able to make the call in a reasonable amount of time is what separates the skilled from the unlearned.  In many cases, I rushed a play because I didn't want to hold out on my opponent (allow me to note that no one pressured me to make any plays).  If I had taken a few minutes to think or count and make a more calculated play, I might have had better results (maybe not ), but doing that can rob my opponent of their rightful victory, and I wouldn't want someone to do that to me.  I've seen near fistfights break out due to stalling at Magic events.

I'm not sure how the chess clock works, but I think you forfeit your turn if you don't make a move in the time allowed by the clock... this could really be good for the sharp players that know their decks and playtested hard before the tournament.  I'm a guy that feels reward should be based on merit, and if I can't make the right play in a reasonable amount of time, I either throw an attack, for better or worse, or give up priority to my opponent, who gets to apply more pressure on me.  Either way, the battle will likely go to the deserved winner (there's always room for a random lucky break). 

On one hand, this clock could give the game a more instinctive feel, kinda like a REAL fight. 

On the other, the less experienced players might lose ALL hope of achieving victory, preventing them from coming to future events.  Not to mention, you might run into problems when you need to search a deck or draw pile... but if you could stop the clock for these purposes, it would probably be ok. 

Chess clock is basically two clocks, one for each player, that counts down from a certain amount, usually half the alloted time for a round.

What happens if a player hasn't made a decision when the time is up?

That's why it's up to discussion. Either trading ventures for more time or straight out forfeit.

I would also like to point out this is not the desired solution. Out of the box chess clocks don't normally have a neutral time (since when playing chess, your turn begins at the end of your opponent's), where OverPower has the draw phase, events, venture calculation, etc. It becomes a huge mess to get it working correct -- and to make sure people use it right.

zip and i were just discussing the idea of using a chess clock

first player to hit 20 minutes loses.  no tie-breakers

a few details will need to be hammered out, like when to have it time-neutral, but i think it would be better than the current format.  i think tournament overpower is too far from the actual game

get an early lead, and stall to time limit

Quote from: breadmaster on March 25, 2013, 05:33:14 PM
zip and i were just discussing the idea of using a chess clock

first player to hit 20 minutes loses.  no tie-breakers

a few details will need to be hammered out, like when to have it time-neutral, but i think it would be better than the current format.  i think tournament overpower is too far from the actual game

get an early lead, and stall to time limit

Okay, now I see how the clock works.  That way you have your time, and the opponent has theirs. 

The clock starts on me.  I play my attack, hit the clock... now the clock is on you, so you take your time choosing a defense, then you make an attack and hit the clock... I take my time to defend, then I attack you and hit the clock... and so on. 

It might demand alot of attention... anyone ever play with a chess clock?

i've played chess with a chess clock, but not overpower

i think standard clocks can be time-neutral by half-pressing each players button. 

times for that would be:

-drawing the cards
-playing/resolving events
-calling a judge for a ruling
-calculating venture

there's sure to be some more