Melee taking too long?

[shags]

Hey all,

Since we are seeing a lot of new players participating in the melee, we have been seeing the melee going overtime. I've noticed this is particularly evident when there are a lot of players.

Someone suggested a while ago that if there are too many players then we should split the melee up. If there ar eason this can't happen if there is more than 10 or so people?

The split should be completely random and the prizes accordingly.

It means the same amount of prizes get added to the end of year pool and a melee doesn't go for the 3 hours it did yesterday.

Any thoughts?

[cleverfellow]

Speaking from my sick bed, I agree.

I think if the melee goes above 10 players, it should be split into two. So if we have 11 players for example, there is a five player and a six player melee. 12 players means two six-player melees. And so on.

Also, assuming we have up to date melee results (KEITH!!!) I would base the split on standings, and have all players with the highest points playing together.

I would make an exception for the end of year melee, assuming it starts earlier.

[lyrebird]

1. Have a firm starting time. No sittee, no playee.

2. The split into 2 (or perhaps 3?!) groups via last available standings is a good one. something similar is used for chess swiss pairings.

3. I was also wondering if last available standings could be used for seating. I personally think that initial dice roll is a game maker/breaker. Perhaps highest standing sits first? Perhaps after a random cut of your deck before a final shuffle? To assist a decisision to sit ahead/behind a red player? I dunno.


Discussion Welcome


Lyrebird

[keithdone]

Perhaps we start at 2pm instead of 3pm.

Regards,

Keith

[cleverfellow]

I don't feel that setting aside more of the day for this is a solution. I've no interest in encouraging slow play in what is already a long event.

A combination of a firm 3pm start, and split groups when we have over 10 players should give us an event that can be completed within two hours, which is plenty of time for magic.

The use of placements for seating is interesting. It's not something we've ever tried before. It does mean that we would start a game with first attacking second, second attacking third and so on.

Happy to shuffle my neighbour's deck and have them return the favour if shuffling is being perceived as an issue.

[lyrebird]

"Happy to shuffle my neighbour's deck and have them return the favour if shuffling is being perceived as an issue."

My oops.

1. All players reveal one random card from their deck. This gives opponents a "shaky" idea of what each player is planning. (imagine flipping a COP Black)

2. "Top Rated" player sits, then second player sits, then next rated player _chooses_ where to sit and so on down to lowest rated.

3. The random card may impact on seating decisions. Sitting in front of Red Deck may be better than sitting in front of a black deck, if you left your anti-red cards were left at home.

4. Player to the left of "top rated" player starts.

5. Look Ma, no dice rolls!

6. What if two players are on the same points? - Arrgh!

Shutup


Lyrebird

[shags]

I don't think deck shuffling is necessary. We are already having opponents split the deck due to cries of cheatin from some players in the melee.

[Milo Greentin]

The ULTIMATE solution to every MTG Melee problem?

Easy...

1. NO SPELL RANGE
2. COMBAT CAN BE BETWEEN ANYONE SITTING AT THE TABLE
...and
3. BAN ALL BLUE DECKS (Stasis translates into pointless (he he he... just kidding on this one))

But how much quicker would the game go with another 9 people smashing you eh?

[keithdone]

Allowing unlimited spell range often lengthens games, due to as everyone resolving instants and interupts.

Cancon decided to run one of these one year - 30 players and no spell range. I believe it took one hour to resolve a turn on the avarage. the organisers were amused, the players were not!

Regards,

Keith

[rushcutter]

I'll bring a standard deck of cards and we can deal each player a card. Two sits first followed by three etc up to Ace. Ties split Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades.

I think the random seating disadvantages no one in particular. Yeah, sometimes you get a bum draw.... so what.

Splitting games is ok, but I suggest that when we get down to six players left we move to one table.

Newbies do tend to slow the game down, but we all have to start somewhere and I thought that as a Games Club, we are there to help them learn and enjoy the experience. Lets not make them feel bad because some of us know what we're doing and want a fast game.

Chow....

[shags]

Not trying to make them feel bad. And it's not about a fast game. It's about a game that can be finished in the allotted time. All of the suggestions are, if anything, to help the newbies get their heads around the game a little better. With smaller melee's they can get more assistance from the table.

[lyrebird]

rushcutter said:

Splitting games is ok, but I suggest that when we get down to six players left we move to one table.

.

Hard to manage. Assuming 4 players on one table, and 2 players on the other after the death of a player, where do you sit? Redraw seating? I dunno.

Another alternative is to have two turns circling the table out of range of each other. One is the primary turn, the other is the secondary turn. When the players are reduced to an agreed number (say 7), the secondary turn vanishes when it reaches its starting point.

It's still not very easy, and perhaps even needs a playtest.

My 2c

Lyrebird

PS Where's my cards? deathbed indeed!

[shags]

Oh and did I mention we should put the scores up Keith.

[davidmorton]

I think that this whole discussion is taking too long. You Magic folk should have a time limit on both the games AND on this discussion!

Personally, I think you should introduce a fine system like in the cricket. Anyone not finishing their turn in a reasonable time (eg 30 seconds) should be forced to play Talisman with Keith, who is probably already out of the game & looking for an opponent for a boardgame. In addition, a challenge penalty should also apply. For example, the offending player should be expected to jump up & down, run around in little circles & fall down. Perhaps while balancing some dice on their nose.

Alternatively, you could take 7 turns each, played on any one of 5 tables, randomly spaced & using 3 decks. Each player gets 13.5 life points & a bag of chips. When the chips run out the first person to sing the alphabet backwards wins.

I hope I have been of some help.

Regards,
David
Club Treasurer & Magic Advisor (newly elected)

[lyrebird]

Centuwion, is he wagging us?

Lyrebird

PS "you could take 7 turns each, played on any one of 5 tables, randomly spaced & using 3 decks. Each player gets 13.5 life points & a bag of chips. When the chips run out the first person to sing the alphabet backwards wins"


I think there was a card that did this in the latest expansion, although the chips were not specifically mentioned.