Council of Elrond

I want to make sure that a majority is for the time limit.

Viva la democracia!

I voted "no" because I think that time limit makes sense only when games have to be played contemporarily. In NC players have a whole week at disposal to arrange date and time for a game, and they'll presumably choose for a day/time when both have enough free time to play without feeling put under pressure by time costraints.

IMO a time limit would be likely to raise arguments between players: imagine a player having the edge in a game and receiving a phone call or being called by a parent/spouse/child who needs him/her. He would be suspected of intentionally delaying in order to take vantage of the time limit. Similar suspects and/or arguments may arise if a player has internet connection troubles and gets often kicked out.

In a broader sense, during an online game the events which may forcefully suspend (or even interrupt) a game are countless, and unpredictable. Even if players wouldn't suspect each other of intentionally delaying, and trust in each other's goodwill, there could be several game interruptions due to a lot of different possible reasons. The losing player could feel damaged from this, and reclaim for some time recovery, in order to play 2 hours of effective play. And who would be in charge of measuring such time recovery? It should be pretty straightforward how this could lead to more disputing instead of preventing it.

I'll try to put this in a sheer cost/benefit perspective: I don't think that saving 30 minutes of time is worth the risk of feeding reciprocal complaints and tensions among players. I think I wouldn't have great problems with a slow player taking a bit too much time for his choices: if I'm in a hurry I'd simply warn him and say "I have to log out by x hour and y minutes, mind if we save the game in case we've not finished?" (possibly before the start of the game, that would make things even more straightforward). On the other hand, I'd really feel annoyed by an opponent who repeatedly bugs me with requests of faster playing: at the end of the game I'd only feel more nervous and embittered.

We're playing for fun after all, aren't we? I think that hurry and fun never come along with each other.

Moreover, players can always agree a time limit before the game start, if they want to. I don't think there's need for imposing sucha time limit by means of tournament rules.

Just my two cents.

I agree with the arguments exposed by Bruce, but I guess that this is a matter of preferences. While all that stuff about possible interruptions is true, it is also true that the same players can agree to extend the time limit if someone was away from the computer for some reason (such as wife calling, bathroom break, etc)

Anyway, like in a RL tourney, those kind of situations should be avoided (when able to, of course); even more avoided if we consider that the time to play was agreed by both players.

Talking about tension between players: yes, there could be some tension about this, as with any other things; as much tension as having to wait my opponent 15 minutes every organization phase. What I mean is that there will never be tension while players play in a respectable way, and that, no matter how much or less restrictions do we apply, one player taking too many time to think about his stuff everytime is always irritating, but at least if we have a time limit there is a reason why one can rush him.

I voted no, simply because I think it doesnt really matter for Nations Cup, since there is a broad timespan, not a deadline to catch. Also people stal less if there is no time limit, simply because it doesnt work. IF I play vs someone stalling I open up Patience and play with half an eye on the table till something happens. Not gonna upset me

Also, I can remember a legendary match vs Bernd last nations cup, which lasted almost three hours. We both played rather fast and good, and we had some tough decisions. The game was so close that neither of us dared to call simply because we stayed 2 points ahead. It finally ended when I got the Axe and a 6 point lead, when I called (decks almost twice exhausted).
I cant think that suddenly things are decided because of time.

In situations such as this, I think the call should be left to the players. In a case where a limited amount of judges have to oversee a large amount of games, a time limit makes more sense.

I voted yes, for the simple fact some deck archetypes makes better use of time limits.

For example, a CvCC deck may not generate the 25 mps for a long time. Giving your opponent time to regroup and win.

With a time limit the CvCC person could hurt them bad enough and not score 25 points, but still win because time runs out.

Etc.

Voted no because I enjoy the full-length ME experience in Nations Cup!

As the GM of Team Finland I voted no, simply because I'm a negative person and I'm not playing.

I voted yes for many reasons, the main one because of deck advantages Sauron pointed above.

I voted yes because in the last two years all my games took longer than 2.5hrs and that is too much for me for a single game.

miguel wrote:As the GM of Team Finland I voted no, simply because I'm a negative person and I'm not playing.

Quite funny, why did you vote if you are not playing?

No offense, but I find this disturbing.

Balin wrote:

miguel wrote:As the GM of Team Finland I voted no, simply because I'm a negative person and I'm not playing.

Quite funny, why did you vote if you are not playing?

No offense, but I find this disturbing.

None taken, but...

First of all, OP didn't say only players could vote, so I voted.

Second, I'm not currently in any team's roster, but I might still play.

Third, Nations Cup format was constructed by me, I've ran it and I've played in it. I'd say I qualify for an opinion here.

It's true that without a time limit some decks might do better than others, but why would you want an exact replica of the normal tournament environment? Time limit isn't a part of normal MeCCG rules, it was created so live tournaments could be finished in a sane amount of time.

Some people don't like the fact that the games take so long. If you're too busy to find a couple of hours one night of the week, then maybe this tournament isn't for you. Casual games on GCCG don't have time limits, and I've never seen anyone claim they should, yet people still seem to play them from time to time.

Even if you don't care about any of the above, consider this: If I do end up playing, and if there is a time limit, I will abuse the hell out of it. There are no judges, so what are you gonna do?

I agree with miguel. Wanted to write the same,so if you cant find one morning/evening of the week, dont play. It isn't event like champs/nats when we have 2 days to play 4-5 rounds. I dont want to lose because i didnt have enough time but i had weaker deck..

so i voted no

miguel wrote:Third, Nations Cup format was constructed by me, I've ran it and I've played in it. I'd say I qualify for an opinion here.

I'm sure you qualify, but since your reasons for voting no were "simply because I'm a negative person and I'm not playing", I thought you were joking. Now you gave us a reasonable answer, I disagree but I accept it, of course

miguel wrote:Even if you don't care about any of the above, consider this: If I do end up playing, and if there is a time limit, I will abuse the hell out of it. There are no judges, so what are you gonna do?

Same problem again: I can't say if you are serious here or just joking. Anyone could abuse of unlimited-time games too, e.g. annoying the opponent by taking 30 min. each org. phase. There will be no judges either, so what´s the point? I assume we are all playing fairly, aren't we?

Muad'Dib wrote:Wanted to write the same,so if you cant find one morning/evening of the week, dont play.

It's easier to find 2 hours than a whole morning/evening, that's for sure. The less time needed to play, the more chances for people to play.

Balin wrote:Anyone could abuse of unlimited-time games too, e.g. annoying the opponent by taking 30 min. each org. phase.

Annoying your opponent isn't abusing the system, it's just poor conduct. You can't win by stalling without a time limit.