[Feedback] Oozeball Balance Changes

It seems to me there is enough call for it among the players to set the Oozeball timer to 20 min (and the league overtime to 40 min). It's the simplest way to make the league more pleasurable for more players. How about it, Blue Manchu?

 

Ummmm no, in fact I would prefer to see it go back to 10 mins.

 

Even I think 10 minutes would be a bit short. I could see 10 minutes with 2 VP goal.

 

I can't do that during opponant's turn, I am allready too busy thinking about my next moves lol. Plus if you're opponant is playing fastly you just can't do it. But my main point is that we are all playing for fun. And where can you find the most fun? By playing like the AI against someone who does the same or by exchanging some words with your opponant about how close your game is, making jokes, giving/receiving advices?
If DarkStexe plays against regular Stexe, Darkstexe will win just caus regular Stexe took 1 second to say hi.

People should in no way restrain themselves talking to their opponants, that's how we build a strong community.

 

I find it fun that it is a quick match. I've won matches where I chatted in the Lobby and talked with my opponent. Just because someone plays fast doesn't mean that the winner will be the faster player -- if that was the case then you would just constantly pass. It really boils down to card use and which card combos you can use to get on the VP spot or knowing you can't get there and decide to defend it. I actually really enjoy the league, save for a few cards that are really overpowered (Advanced Battle Tactics first turn is silly).

I'd be willing to play you and show you some tips if you want, just ping me if you see me online and chatting in the lobby.

 

From my personal experience, it's kinda more about who can draw the most muscle through/violent spin that wins.

I am fine, thanks tough. I have never had less then one epic chest (3rd place) since 50g leagues started, and I played like 50+ of them. As previously stated, I haven't timed out in a while, like maybe just the first two times I played the league. It also been a while since I didn't win by time. But everytime I get to play Oozeball, I always see people complaining in the chat about the time, people that don't use the forum but that still has a voice and a value as a player. Just saying that time shouldn't be a stress factor, I'd rather have longer but more pleasant/enjoyable games.

 

Muscle Through is really strong as well, and the fact Violent Spin / Muscle Through don't trigger blocks makes them game changers in the mid to late game, but getting an early ABT is like a free point.

And I guess that's where we disagree. I think time should be a stress factor for a "sports simulation" league.

 

I don't play oozeball much, but the last time my opponent timed out I had more than 5 mnutes on the clock. I often play poorly (like this morning in the barrels league) when I'm overly tired, but I hate to take too much time. It kinda feels like I'm insulting (trying to "ice") my opponent if I do. I think the current time is about right.
Edit: I'm at 36 hours wthout sleep right now, so please forgive me if this doesn't make sense.

 

It's simulating soccer where the time isn't an issue.

Anyway, what about this.

Cardhuntrians gather from all around the world for a real life meeting.
Ooozeball board and cards have been printed, chess clocks have been borrowed and dice have been collected.
Everybody's greeting, Stexe is whining, love and happiness are in the place.

And now, it's time for BoozeAll!
The rules are the same as for OozeBall but:
-5 VP are needed for the win
-Everytime one scores a VP, he gets a drink
-Everytime 5 minutes passed on your clock, you get a drink

Good luck for getting wins only with a fuzzy head!

Wouldn't that be the best league you would have ever played?

 

It isn't simulating soccer -- it is simulating a sport in general. Nearly all sports have a clock with time pressures.

 

Nearly all sports have a single clock that counts for both teams which will determine when a game ends, this only creates pressure if you're losing. A few sports have individual clocks for the offensive team that result in a penalty if a certain action is not accomplished in time, but never directly determines the winner of a game. Personally I can think of no sport (unless you count chess as a sport) where a team with the most points can lose directly due to an individual time infraction. Therefore I think it's inaccurate to claim that the clock in Oozeball simulates a sport.

 

Except sports are real time. Let's take a look at turn based games... Speed Chess has a clock which is essentially the same as the Card Hunter clock. Go uses something a bit different (maximum time per move).

Either way, if someone takes too long in football (setting up a play) they can be penalized. That can in theory cost them the game.

Yes, there is probably a better way to deal with the timer -- but that would require development work that would reduce other, more important features. I'd much rather they spend time on things that matter a lot more.

 

I can think of at least 3 distinct ways sports handles match end:
1) Some sports use a game time (American Football, Association Football, Basketball). In these cases, the point of time seems to be to cause the game to end, where the point is to have the highest score at the end of that game. Some of them do employ clocks that penalize you for taking too long (Basketball shot clock), but these feel more like they're there so that you can't just get a score lead and then sit there holding the basketball for an entire quarter, and not necessarily to force you to make decisions rapidly.

2) Some sports play to a specific point total. (Volleyball, Tennis, Ping Pong). When I looked up the rules for Volleyball to see if it included a timer, the default rules for Volleyball do not include a timer. And Tennis matches can go on for a very long time until someone gets enough of a lead over the other to qualify as a victory. None of these games say "you took too long total in preparing to serve the ball, so you lose, nevermind that you're currently winning)

3) Some sports play for a specified non-time game length. (Baseball, Golf).

For situations #2 and #3, I'm not aware of any clocks on these either that would penalize you for slow play. Presumably if you're obviously stalling a referee can call you on it.

In these sports, the point of calling you for stalling is because you're "abusing the rules". Luckily they have a referee for that. Cardhunter doesn't. But otherwise, it's exactly like game type #2.

In high-level(even ProTour Qualifiers) Magic tournaments, time is a factor but if time runs out that game is typically considered a draw. Again, there are judges who can call you for slow play. They will do this even after time runs out (after time runs out the game has 5 turns left, this can take a variable amount of time, but they will still call for stalling - presumably because the overall tournament schedule needs to keep moving). Note that these judges take some note of board complexity. If it's your first turn in a sealed deck tournament they're much less lenient than if you're trying to work out whether your combo can go off and win you the game.

Speed Chess does use a timer in exactly the way Card Hunter does - but it's the only example I can think of. Normal chess uses a timer too I think but I'm not sure how much of a factor it is in regular play.

So - what's the point of the timer in Oozeball? Is it to make you play super quickly like Speed Chess, or is it to act as a "referee" and prevent stalling? I feel like the timer in Oozeball is too short given how complex some of the games can get. Games can run multiple rounds, and making sure you make the right moves is kind of important. I think it does a good job of preventing stalling, but I think it does a poor job of causing matches to end on points instead of time.

One reason I think the clock is bad is I *suspect* that it punishes the guy who is winning. It feels like it takes more time to get your Ooze on the point than to simply prevent your opponent from getting his Ooze on the point. If that is true, then that means that a guy who is winning 2-0 is usually going to behind on time, in which case the clock is actively hurting matches.

I'd be curious what Blue Manchu's statistics on time-out games are - what percentage of them are lost by the guy who is ahead on points?

 

Those examples are real time. Look at games like Chess, Go, Magic: The Gathering, and other turn based games. You can't really have a "judge" who determines what "slow play" means though. I mean, at the highest level of Card Hunter you could get a judge to watch a match, but that isn't viable for thousands of players.

I think the point of the timer at Oozeball is to make it quick like Speed Chess.

I'd be curious on the time out percentages and how they stack up with previous games like Geomancy and such. I do see a lot of people time out on Oozeball, but when I play them they spend a ton of time thinking simple moves. Just play and don't think so much, go with your gut instinct!

When we played the 6 minute speed tournament people still had fun and knew they were racing against the clock. If it worked there it should work here.

 

@Stexe, at this point I'm not arguing for or against the clock/time length in Oozeball (we've already had that discussion and I think we both understand and can accept where the other is coming from), my comment is purely about your justification for the clock because Oozeball simulates a sport.

My point is that the losing-on-time aspect of the game does not simulate a sport and therefore is not a valid justification for it (there may or may not be plenty of others, but sport simulation isn't one of them). See my previous post for the full argument.

This is my point, the clock does not make it like a sport, you had to go to board games to find a comparison. And once you start comparing CH mechanics to other board games then we have left the discussion of Oozeball specifically as far as the nature of what that specific league simulates and gone back to what is proper to CH and leagues in general.

 

But sports are real time which means there's always a time pressure. Football, basketball, and water polo all have clocks for a play / amount one can hold onto the ball that results in penalties if you go over. It isn't an auto lose, but it s definitely something people have to be wary of. That's why time outs are so important in football, because it gives someone time to plan and stop the clock.

If you have a suggestion to keep games manageable in a reasonable amount of time with some time system that isn't abusable I'd be curious to hear it. Especially one that doesn't require a ton of development time and/or special rules to explain how it works to new players.

 

This last part is exactly why the nature of a play clock and the nature of what happens in Oozeball do not make a good comparison unlike Oozeball and speed chess (that make a very similar comparison), so the sport analogy still does not hold and we find ourselves returning to general game design discussion over Oozeball specific "simulation feel."

I don't, other than what we have already discussed in this thread. Jade and I played a very enjoyable game of Oozeball the other day where we were both legitimately trying to score, not using a blocking strategy except sparingly and as a last resort, after 25 minutes (total) the game ended due to my timeout* but at that point the score was only 1-0! I'm afraid I don't remember how many rounds we had gone, but it was in the normal realm we'd just had round after round of no one scoreing. It is the most fun Oozeball game I'd played to date because it was two really well matched players trying to out strategize each other. But had the game gone to 3 points it could have easily taken at least another 40 minutes even if I was playing at my normal Oozeball pace. I think in some sense its the nature of a game without damage - damage creates a necessary terminus to most games (even Geomancy), whereas in Oozeball it is not only possible to have a round create no advancement toward game's end, but with well matched opponents, its common that that is the case.

*It was late and I was getting tired and playing slower than what has become my normal Oozeball pace in addition to the game not mattering for either of us so we were a little chatty.

 

Yes, I understand that damage creates attrition. But you still haven't offered a better suggestion on how to handle the time that doesn't require a large amount of development work and isn't abusable.

 

Nor do I intend to, as I stated repeatedly, it was not the point of my last 3 posts.

 

Ok here goes then.
Concrete Suggestion #1: I think this suggestion is likely simple to implement and test.

Basic Description: For Oozeball change match timer to 10 minutes. At the start of each round (including round 1) add 1 minute to both timers. After the timers have hit 20 minutes, time is no longer added.

Estimated Development Complexity: I can't speak to the code architecture for changing it, but from a logic-flow standpoint it seems straightforward and without weird edge cases.

Reasoning: To my mind, the external timer serves two purposes:
1)To force an eventual end to games (we're not playing Tennis)
2)To keep the game moving by putting some time pressure on.

The problem is that a lot of games are ending even when they're still interesting, and I don't think 30 minutes is too long for a game that's actually doing interesting stuff. Interesting games tend to be typified by more rounds, so by adding some amount of time each round, interesting games get more time.

I picked these particular numbers because:
a) If an Ooze(yours or your opponents) is on the point every single turn, then the game will end within 5 turns(worst case 3-2), bringing us to the current 15 minute timer.
b) By starting with a large timer, you get some time to plan moves at the start, and if you can find a way to dominate your opponent with well thought out play, you should have enough time (13 minutes for a 3 round victory)
c) 1 minute is less than players typically spend on a round, so there is still some time pressure, but a game can continue for a while.
d) 20 minutes has been requested by several players as an increased timer, maybe the system would work well with a 25 minute or higher cap, but 20 minutes seems like a reasonable test bound.

Possible Variation:
a) Instead of capping the timers at 20 minutes end the game after round 10. Give the winner to whoever has more points. If both players tied, call it a tie and either don't count it as one of their 4 games, or count it as 1/3 of a win (3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie is fairly typical in various tournaments). This is probably more developmentally complex than the basic, since I don't think there's currently a way to end matches on X rounds or in ties.