Man did that come out wrong - I didn’t intend to imply you specifically as a person being that, and I’m sorry it ended up sounding that way. In fact, the paragraph was originally written with “player A” and “player B”, but it seemed completely unintelligible to me on proof-reading, so I changed it to “you” and “me”.
So: sorry for implying you’re that and the other thing, here comes attempt #2 at formulating my point:
It is naturally both players’ responsibility to try to finish the match in time. I simply believe that if one of them makes a conscious deck building/selection that causes the match to actually require more time to finish, it does not cause an obligation for the other player to speed up his portion of that particular match to compensate. If I take a slow corp deck, it’s my responsibility to take a fast runner deck and/or play fast as the runner, not yours.
That’s great, but (part of) what I’m saying is that the capacity to create board states requiring ample evaluation on the runner’s part is an attribute of a corp deck. A particular deck may or may not have it, and the amount of time available for the runner’s decisions should not be contingent on that, as it’s not something under the runner’s control.
You played it sportsmanlike, but in my opinion you went above and beyond what the rules require you to do. Unless “playing at your own pace” is excruciatingly slow, you should be at liberty to play at your own pace, no matter the amount of time left on the clock.
Slowrolling intentionally is a separate topic - the way I see it, if you slow-roll you’re basically lowering the payoff of victory in the match intentionally (1 prestige instead of 2). In some cases you’re also increasing your chances of getting the payoff (being 6-0), in other cases you’re increasing the variance of the result (being 4-2 with 3-pointers in the deck). I don’t actually have a fully formed opinion on whether this should be legal or not, but to me it seems at least similar to intentional splitting, as far as problematic topics go.
[quote=“bluebird503, post:152, topic:3704”]
If you think that RP/Blue Sun/etc are too slow to be played competitively by someone like me that has only gone to time maybe 4-5 times(in person) since I started playing this game then umm I think you need to write to FFG about some time extensions or something? [/quote]
The current tournament rules say 65 +/- 10 minutes for a round. The base is fine, shit just gets complicated with the “minus” part of that particular paragraph.
65 minutes is good, 60 is cutting it close, 55 is too little and has significant impact on the viability of several decktypes / archetypes. The tournament rules should allow for longer rounds, but not shorter (as they do now).
Cutting rounds to 55 minutes is inexcusable in my opinion - if you’re running into time issues from an organizational standpoint, either play more rounds of swiss and cut the double elim part of the tournament, or make it a 2-day event. There’s the potential argument about competitive/premier level events requiring a higher level of proficiency of the attendees (and thus technically needing less time per round), but it’s still kinda fishy, with the setup time of match 2 being part of this time.
I’m in the same boat re: 2 glacier games, but then again I suspect we’re both in the top 10-15% of player speed, globally. Some people just play slower and more deliberate. However, there’s a difference between “slower than me” and “too slow”, which I recognize and do not blame players of the first (but not second) category if we go to time.
