Time limit variant for finals

Orpheus wrote: It is great to ackowledge that there might be an issue, and to try to remedy it.

Except statistical analysis on tournament events (on another forum thread) shows that it is not an issue. I'm not sure what we think we're gaining by attempting to alter rules when the data shows that the current format is working well. The problem is a perception issue, not a format issue. People think there's a problem, so they want to fix it. The data just doesn't back the theory.

I'm curious to see if there will be tournaments where this makes a difference.

Matis wrote: I dont like it, this just give advantatge to blockers and stuff/shit like that.

Hmmm, if blockers and "stuff/shit like that" just sit here and don't oust how does this actually work into their benefit?

More time means someone made an oust. Which means is going to win. Shit like that is just going to block block block and watch while someone else grabs the GW....

Not really, I can get his point: wall decks are better with less opponents and need more time to kill, so it can actually benefit them.

kschaefer wrote:

Orpheus wrote: It is great to ackowledge that there might be an issue, and to try to remedy it.

Except statistical analysis on tournament events (on another forum thread) shows that it is not an issue. I'm not sure what we think we're gaining by attempting to alter rules when the data shows that the current format is working well. The problem is a perception issue, not a format issue. People think there's a problem, so they want to fix it. The data just doesn't back the theory.

But perception = reality.

What people perceive effects how they play. Easier to demonstrate with gambling: people tend to play in a less guarded manner playing with chips over loose cash, for example.

I will admit that the impact will be entirely dependent upon perception, but it is nevertheless possible it could effect gameplay and by extension results.

On walls:
Combat walls thrive in the three-way. Now, seeding will be king in any tactical decisions in the final, but additional time for let's say guns could influence if they keep a crossrable in the game, or if they need to cripple thier predator to make room for a more "manageable" . Of course, too seeds gotta go in some of these cases, but an extra 20 minutes to guarantee an attrition plan pays off? Golden. Being someone in the last 3 with such a deck as predator or prey has added reason at that point in the game to pursue risky moves with large payoff as well..

I'm interested in what will happen.

ReverendRevolver wrote: But perception = reality.

You mean perception != reality

Lönkka wrote: Hmmm, if blockers and "stuff/shit like that" just sit here and don't oust how does this actually work into their benefit?

More time means someone made an oust. Which means is going to win. Shit like that is just going to block block block and watch while someone else grabs the GW....

I can see the logic behind the suggestion. Someone making a lunge will open up his defense in order to deliver the killing blow, trusting that the time is called before his/her predator gets to take advantage of the situation. Adding more time on the clock will give opportunity to that predator to actually try to get a lunge themselves. If it succeeds, more time is added to the clock and so on. This means that the deck making the first oust cannot trust it being the deciding factor in a win. They might have to play differently.

I'm not sure if people are willing, or even able to change their strategies according to this rule though. I have noticed VTES is pretty stagnant and conservative in terms of new strategies or decktypes. Not all decks are capable of making a lunge. Thats mostly the purview of dominate and other high bleed modifier decks. Part of the reason why I've wished dominate get nerfed, and reduce its lunging potential. If a deck can't make such a huge lunge, it must adjust its play to be more aggressive early on. As long as that lunge is there, they can play it safe and static for most of the game.