Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Time limits need to be looked at more closely in ROOT then. Not just in regards to best 2 of 3 but also towards ROOT in its entirety. Why again are we nearly tripling the time for a single ROOT game in relation to its IRL counterpart? I don't believe I had a single match with best 2 of 3 last month that exceeded 2 hours.

I'm usually very lenient towards that kind of stuff when it happens, and I'm not trying to be a killjoy or anything, but I really think a ROOT game should be given the same amount of respect that any ordinary IRL tournament game would also command. Using the same example, if someone got a call on their cell phone during an IRL tournament game, barring an emergency, would it be appropriate for them to get up in the middle of the game to answer it? Not trying to nitpick, but I think if its expected of a person to set aside X amount of uninhibited free time in order to throw down on some IRL tournament games, you'd figure the same would be translated towards ROOT tournament games which are far more flexible towards everyone's schedule. 2 out of 168 hours a week isn't too much to ask for, is it? Personally, again, this has never been an issue for me, and I myself have even dropped the good ol 'brb' when I needed a bathroom break during considerably long games or something, but I'm just thinking out of respect to the people that are on the receiving end of those specific occurrences. Does this bother anyone in particular and should ROOT protocol align with the expectations of IRL tournament games?

I agree that two hours is excessive, but I believe it's okay to give a bit of extra time. An hour and 15 minutes would be a time I could support.

I sometimes use a "brb" when I get a phone call or need to take a bathroom break.  My opponents sometimes do the same.  I don't have a problem with it at all.  Even in a live tournament I am willing to let my opponent's go to the bathroom as long as the judge OKs giving extra time at the end.  Although I am competitive in that I always try to win my games, I also enjoy a more relaxed tournament atmosphere.

As for time limits in ROOT, they were started a loooong time ago based on 2 factors.  The first is that RTS games tend to take longer than regular games.  Perhaps this is because the cards on the screen are smaller, and so you have to click on them sometimes to see what they are or what their SA is.  Perhaps this is because it takes multiple movements to put a card on the bottom of your deck or give a LS to your opponent's LoB, but in real life this is much faster/easier.  The second is that there are people (including myself) who like to play defense-heavy decks that lead to longer, more strategic games.  The time limits of other tournaments prohibit these types of decks from winning at the top levels, so it was nice to have at least one format where people could experiment more.

Then a medium time ago, there were some vocal people who wanted to change the time limits to a shorter time.  After a lot of ruckus it was decided to let the players vote, and so a poll was created.  It turned out that the largest number of votes were in support of maintaining the longer time limits.

Then a short time ago, we took a single month to experiment with a shorter time limit (75min).  Only 8 players ended up participating.

Ultimately I'm convince that it will never change because Mark runs ROOT and he likes long slow games.

You are right that this is unlikely to change while I'm running ROOT, but again it was voted on by a lot of players, not just me.  And I've already made plans to take a break from running ROOT to let someone else have a chance when the summer arrives.  It is possible that person will change the time limits.  So don't give up all hope Gabe

The second is that there are people (including myself) who like to play defense-heavy decks that lead to longer, more strategic games.  The time limits of other tournaments prohibit these types of decks from winning at the top levels, so it was nice to have at least one format where people could experiment more.

There is a format called Type 2 as well that fosters longer games.

Then a medium time ago, there were some vocal people who wanted to change the time limits to a shorter time.  After a lot of ruckus it was decided to let the players vote, and so a poll was created.  It turned out that the largest number of votes were in support of maintaining the longer time limits.

I remember this time specifically, it was over 2 years ago. A lot of things change in 2 years. It's time for a new direction, let the players vote again.

Then a short time ago, we took a single month to experiment with a shorter time limit (75min).  Only 8 players ended up participating.

I'm not sure how many more times I have to tell you this, so I'll try the original Latin: cum hoc non propter hoc.

I'm fine with :45 (T1)
and with 1:15 (T2).

I joined that ROOT in particular to try to support the format. I haven't joined recently, but I wanted to support the best format I've seen ever. Unfortunately I got paired with Underwood first week and had to sit there for 4 hours. We started around 10:30 and finished around 2:30 with a short break somewhere in there.

Just play faster. Just because turtle decks can succeed doesnt mean they should. Underwood wasn't even turtling. It was dumb.

I'm not playing this month due to time constraints. I vote we cut the time limit down to an hour fifteen at most, 50 mins to an hour being ideal.

Contrary to popular belief on this particular thread, most people actually enjoy playing games with me even if they tend to be a bit longer than usual.  Win or lose, there are often combinations that come up that are new and interesting.  Both my opponents and I often learn something new about our decks and we have a fun time talking to each other along the way doing it.  This is the kind of experience that a longer, more strategic game leads to.

Length doesn't contribute to strategy. I can have just as much strategy in a half an hour game as somebody else has in a 5 hour game. Playing slow isn't strategic, it's just time consuming. Alex played you in a speed versus speed match and each game took just under 2 hours, IIRC. Slug and I played each other in a 154 on 154 match and each game would have taken an hour and a half or less. That shouldn't be the case. So while your games may be fun, they'd be more fun if they finished in a decent amount of time, which a shorter time limit will assist with because people play faster when they have less time.

Since everyone playing this month so far has voted to eliminate NJ, this would certainly NOT be a good time to lower the time limit.  But like I mentioned earlier, it is something that could happen down the road when the next person is running ROOT.

It's obvious personal bias has lead towards a tournament that only advocates a single persons agenda, which has in turn led to highly subjective tournament formats. In fact, I believe at this point it's glaringly obvious you're thoroughly terrified of putting the time limit up to a vote to the public, which is the proper way to resolve this matter. For a tournament that supposedly promotes high player participation and interaction, that clearly hasn't been the case when so many people quite bluntly relaying to you in no shorter terms that the time limit is an evident flaw within the system. Am I the only one that finds it highly ironic that an aspect that claims it advocates more strategic and fun games is the very reason many people are choosing not to play ROOT?

I agree, which is why I said that the request for time limits was not a request for Mark's resignation. Some things go without saying, but I'm sure Mark needs to hear how much we appreciate his work with ROOT from time to time. 

The point is that I will not play ROOT without time limits, and I am apparently not alone in my stance. I do not need more than an hour to lose. I can do that in much less time.