Finals are boring. Pt. 1: Slow Play

I'm suggesting that we should give the win to a player who can oust at least 2 players in a final, not just one. Most players who have reached a final should be able to oust a bare minimum of one player.

The secret to winning a final is to always make sure you have 0.5VP more than anyone who is seeded above you. But there is little incentive for a top seed to therefore oust anyone unless they must. Giving the final to the top seed in the event of a tie reduces the motivation for the top seed to be aggressive. Top seeds want ties, because they have an advantage over every other player. Hence why making it so that you have to get half the VPs available or more forces every player to be more aggressive. The Top Seed can no longer rely on people's slower play, or to wall up/bloat up to the point where they are effectively un-oust-able. This change to the rules gives an incentive to a top seed to also be aggressive. It removes the 'king of the hill' scenario.

You keep not addressing the fact that players that aren't good enough to win finals *now* won't be good enough to win finals under your rules, either.

New game, same as the old game.

I watched two finals at the EC, Day 1 and Day 2.

1. I do not think they were catastrophically boring, although they could have been more exciting.

2. I do not think anyone was slow playing (stalling).

3. I don´t understand why ALL players ever should play slowly in a final. The 4 players that wasn´t 1st seed should play more aggressively, at least until someone is ousted, when the ouster may somewhat focus on defense and slow play, but they the remaining 3 players should play even more aggressively. Or have I misunderstood something fundamentally in this game?

The game must be timed. 2 hours is enough for most games of 4-5 players.

IMHO I think that games with 4 players should only have 1h40m. Finals should have more ~20-30m than normal time.

I disagree with time-per-player. Lets say that I have 3 minions and that you are playing with a legacy of pander with a dozen minions on the table... not to mention time related with casting votes, making deals, reaction times, enkil cog, madness network, etc, etc.

One of the things that could be done is suspend the time during negotiations... political tables with no majorities usually end by time.

Maybe if the first seed just comes into the finals wearing a hat that says "Winning" in big letters people won't forget to oust their preys.

Being boring and coming to time are so not the same thing. I think it mostly depends on the personnalities of the finalists and the connexion existing between them.
We had a lot of fun playing the LCQ final in Prague even if it went to timeout because all 5 players knew each other pretty well and we were kind of the enthusiastic guys, in opposite I have seen finals going to time or even ending after 1h30 and no watchers being happy because the players were not speaking enough... but you can't blame them for playing the way they like, right?