How should the HL format looks like?

[Mir]

I have been involved into one discussion about Highlander format. Some people around me believes that the normal HL game has to end in 15 to 20 minutes and if not it means that both decks of the duel are not good, just because they are too slow.

We had a pentagram play here, it took two hours until I was able to leaving the game, I commited suicide because it was horribly boring and it took several hours - three or more. But on other hand I was on tournament, and i think it is almost impossible to play 3 HL games in 45 minutes.

One group here believes that Highlander games should not have any time limits. We build decks which are quite unique. The other group is trying to build tournament competetive decks, which purpose is to kill the opponent within time limits and gain the points - this mostly includes aggro decks.


I am trying to find a balance between agro decks and control decks for upcoming tournament. My experience shows that people here want to build fast decks, but also i see that tournaments are focused for shortest time possible, which makes control decks unusable. Timing rules just say that if you want to play control deck, you cannot win, but it is higly possible that your opponent cannot win either.

Owners of aggro decks are arguing that there must be some time limits, because if there are no time limits, the control decks will take the advantage. Well... what advantage? I think they have confessed that there is some kind of advantage on their side.

What do you think about it?

[so_not]

It is perfectly possible to play three games with control decks within the time limit. 50-60 min rounds should be more than enough. Players with time limit issues just have to learn to play faster. If they don't maintain a proper playing speed you can have a judge to follow their plays. And if you don't have a judge, then get one.

[Nastaboi]

Players with time limit issues just have to learn to play faster.

QFT. As many of you already know, I piloted my 250-card Battle of Wits deck with 20 tutors, 15 fetchlands and a heavy control shell into a tournament with six timed rounds. You can only imagine the difficulty of tutoring and shuffling such a deck, yet I make it to extra rounds only once. And I am not a remarkably fast player.

You can't really make comparisons between Pentagram or any other multiplayer variant and duel play, though. Multiplayer games naturally take more time. I agree that 45 minutes is rather short, but normal 50 minutes tournament round should be enough, and 60 minutes should be more than enough. Over 60 minute rounds become pure pain as tournament proceeds.

[pyyhttu]

but normal 50 minutes tournament round should be enough, and 60 minutes should be more than enough.

There's also another point of view to this: If people expected the round time to be 50 minutes every time, I'd say this encourages competitive players to lean more towards aggro/fast combo in their deck selection --> lopsided meta.

Even if you pilot your deck fast enough, there are no guarantees your opponents are able to do the same with their borrowed builds/no prior playtesting --> risk of ties increases when it goes to third game.

That's also why I encourage tournament organizers to tell in advance what the round times will be. If it's 50 minutes, I leave my prisonstax home. On 60 minutes I option to run whatever deck type I choose, regardless of what my opponents run --> more diverse meta.

That why I hope this 60 minutes would become some sort of recommended standard by the council.

[Mythrandir]

Well, being  a control player, i consider myself to play relatively fast, and i´ve lost and won most games  within the "legal" time, ocassionaly, there are games when no player can get an upper hand and the game drags a bit. But i like long games, really don't like losing/winning on 4th turn.. where's the fun of having a singleton 100 card deck if i only use a bunch of them  just my opinion.

It's normal for control decks to be little less homogenous since they have to have board/game control + winning conditions unlike an all pure aggro deck where all of the cards are meant to kill as fast as possible

[Mir]

Well at this point most people here agree that shorter time limits for each game can affect metagame. Decks are then built much faster. Also I agree with that less different cards during play means less interactions and less fun. All these factors are negatively affecting gameplay.

I personally play blue combo deck. Some people describe it as control deck, but i dont. It works not slow nor fast. There are possibilities that it can kill in third turn, but the statistical probability is very very low. I also like longer games but everything has its limits. If the game is taking too long its not fun anymore for one or both players. People just dont like being locked in combo, while their opponent is unable to kill them for more than ten minutes.

The worst case is that player is not using any of his methods to kill the opponent even when he is unable to break the lock. For example - i can lock my opponent in stasis while i can have infinite color mana, but i will not play stroke of genius in order to kill the opponent but i will play it to draw a lot of cards on my hand, playing them all but not attacking.

This behaviour is quite common among some combo players, but I dont like it at all. Therefore I am considering a rule in our tournament which will avoid such situations. Time limits are also not a good kind of solution. I remember game when i was winning and opponent had no possibility to stop me, he just delayed me for two rounds which caused that the game ended in a draw. I believe that he had to penalized for long play because he was certainly waiting for signal annoucing end of game.

Our tournament rules require that each game has to end in victory or defeat. This require that the tour will be based on casual play, spreaded around our city, with no time limits, just being carefully under the watch of judges...

Now i want to ask if somebody of you will theoretically join such tournament which can take several months to complete, but with sense for free metagame.

[Mythrandir]

The worst case is that player is not using any of his methods to kill the opponent even when he is unable to break the lock. For example - i can lock my opponent in stasis while i can have infinite color mana, but i will not play stroke of genius in order to kill the opponent but i will play it to draw a lot of cards on my hand, playing them all but not attacking.

Well, this is just weird... you can win, but wont?!  Unless it's in a very casual match i really don't see this happening or being a problem. One thing is to hold a winning card and waiting for the right time or counterbackup or something like that. Otherwise it's just bizarre gameplay.

I remember game when i was winning and opponent had no possibility to stop me, he just delayed me for two rounds which caused that the game ended in a draw. I believe that he had to penalized for long play because he was certainly waiting for signal annoucing end of game.

Like in all formats, you should have called a judge

Now i want to ask if somebody of you will theoretically join such tournament which can take several months to complete, but with sense for free metagame.

well, a league type tournament yes, a single tournament, no.

[Tabris]

50 minutes or maybe 60 are more then enough. I ve played a lot of highlander tournaments, and maybe 1 of 15 games ends bc of the time limit. Maybe it depends on the number of control -highlander in the tourney. I think a Best of 3 in max. 60 minutes, is the right decission for this format.

[Nastaboi]

People just dont like being locked in combo, while their opponent is unable to kill them for more than ten minutes.

...

For example - i can lock my opponent in stasis while i can have infinite color mana

There is always the option to conceed.

[Mir]

to Mythrandir:
It should be league type tournament of course. The behaviour I described is common for some sort of control players, who like the format, but also want to use the most strange ways of killing the opponent, or just their favourite combo even if it takes more time. Apparently not present on tournaments where time matters, but that kind of behaviour is something I want to avoid even in plays with longer time limits as normal.

to Nastaboi:
Of course there is, but it depends on many things. But also there is a possibility to never concede, without longplay against player with lock to gain few minutes which may lead last game to draw.


Well I think I have all answers i wanted. Thanks.

[Nastaboi]

I just can't see why anyone should support a tournament structure which encourages people to play suboptimal win conditions that everyone hates to play against.

[Mir]

I dare not to say which winconditions are suboptimal or optimal, and also i dont want to dictate to players what to play. But that brings the danger that some people will play such decks, in way you described. The opposide danger is making tournament rules which will encourage people to build only one type of decks.

Right now I have some ideas how to fix this but it needed to be tested in practice.

[Mythrandir]

The behaviour I described is common for some sort of control players, who like the format, but also want to use the most strange ways of killing the opponent, or just their favourite combo even if it takes more time. Apparently not present on tournaments where time matters, but that kind of behaviour is something I want to avoid even in plays with longer time limits as normal.

This is really weird! Specially in a (paid) tournament with prizes? I run a 5cc which isn't the greaste deck around, but i don't include "favorite" cards just because....
Once there are a few competitive decks/players those players (who drag the matches) will either have to start adjusting or starting losing their matches.

For example, i'd love to play with an empyrial archangel, but it just too sub-optimal in my deck.. i can play with it, but i also wanna have a competitive deck..

[Mir]

Tournament or league which is in preparation should be more casual than competetive, since it is not paid. There will be the prize of course, but the main goal is to find new players for this format and include them in organized casual play. Not only for purpose to compete other players, but also for purpose to learn the play (i know that casual and organized are somehow opposites ).

The main goal is to increase activity here, and give to it some form.

[Mythrandir]

Tournament or league which is in preparation should be more casual than competetive, since it is not paid. There will be the prize of course, but the main goal is to find new players for this format and include them in organized casual play. Not only for purpose to compete other players, but also for purpose to learn the play (i know that casual and organized are somehow opposites ).

The main goal is to increase activity here, and give to it some form.

the problem with casual play is: there is bound to appear a player who has the "most" competitive deck and "nails" all other sub-optimal/more casual decks. However if you have a small pool player, it's easier to adjust to a more casual meta, specially if all of those players are more into having good casual play than beating all others.

Starting a "new format" is always a more casual process, since players don't know what to expect, i also think the leap to casual highlander to a more competitive one is gradual in these types of enviroments (newly introduced format)