Who the hell comes up with the time to play a scenario on this site?

[Actionjick]

At events where the TD provides a list of scenarios to choose from has the TD actually played all those scenarios?

Personally I think there are too many variables to make any attempt at determining scenario playing time for the general population of players anything but a WAG.

Btw not criticizing the effort to come up with a means of determining play time.

 

[Actionjick]

That depends on the tournament. I know Albany plays all (or almost all) before they go on the list. I know others have the same approach but I cannot speak with authority. I know Dave Goldman plays a LOT of ASL which I think feeds the playlist for the Chicago ASL tournament. -- jim

Thanks Jim!

 

[Robin Reeve]

I once mused about calculating a "bulk" value of scenarios, by multiplying the number ot units (after the rules definition and excluding dummies) by the number of turns.
The idea was to simply have an immediate idea of how heavy the scenario is, compared with others.
How it could translate in game time is totally dependent of a host of subjective factors.

I do hope that tourney organizers are using common sense rather than rely on automated calculations to choose scenarios.
Good experience of the game is enough to evaluate if a scenario fits within the limits of a given time of play.

 

[daveramsey]

Just to be clear - no tournament organiser that I'm aware of is going solely by the archive's estimate. It might be used as a filter but never as a deciding point.

 

[asloser]

I have been involved selecting scenarios for our tournament on and off for 25 years and we judge the time needed by our own experience, not by any formula.

Sometimes we play the scenarios to get an idea how is it.

At least I have a difficult time understanding how you can make a good formula for this-- there are just so many variables in the equation. Carrier and King Tiger have a different impact on how a Scenario is going to play out.

 

[Turuk]

The data lover in me sees an opportunity (admittedly, highly unfeasible as yet another ask on their time) to ask tournament organizers if they would track scenario chosen, hours played, and if it ended on VC (which turn), concession (which turn), or on scenario end. This could be provided by the players when reporting results.

Over time, tournament scenarios would provide enough data that could be extrapolated based on S/G/A, map size, VC etc. to roughly correlate a playing time. As others have mentioned, this is still highly dependent on player speed and one could make arguments for/against tournament players as a subset of the larger player base's playing speed. Still, that dataset could form a basis for refining a rough/approximate/hopeful formula for playing time.

It could also be an ask of players when recording a play on the Archive. If known, provide playing time (H:M), which would build up a second source of data.

I liked Jim's threading the needle comparison, it's very challenging given the mix of objective and subjective data. Still, all the perspectives have been enlightening - improvement only comes from dialogue and constructive feedback.

 

[Ric of The LBC]

Dave. Thank you for the effort to provide this means of understanding a scenario.

This game is fun, right?

 

[davegin]

AS a TD and as a player, I don't look at formula times of play. I strictly go by how long it takes myself and someone like Kevin Killeen to play. A prime example would be AP205 A Kick In the Teeth which we played today. Although, I set the defense beforehand, we played all 5.5 turns in just under 3 hours. This was PTO with Hips and vehicles, on board setup as well as entry. It came down to Japanese win as the Brits could not secure one last building. If this is any indication of the majority of scenarios in this newest AP, I would never hesitate to include them in any tournament round. I agree with Fort that formulated playing times are detrimental to at the very least, picking tournament rounds. Fear not Fort, I will be playing these often.

 

[buser333]

I am guessing the estimated play times are based on a formula I had come across online some years ago, but can't remember where it was or who had come up with it.
I consider myself an average-speed player, and personally I find these estimated play times quite accurate.

 

[sswann]

The largest variable is...
the Speed of each player

 

[daveramsey]

I think the vast majority of players concede a game at some point. Knowing when you're mathematically (or tactically) out of it is another thing. I usually try to hold on until the point of impossibity is reached. Sometimes earlier if the scenario is just a dog and getting my butt kicked and just not feeling it.

BTW, I ran across a spreadsheet (somewhere) that calculates scenario play time based on a bunch of metrics. Don't remember where I found it.

Edit: found it. http://alpenfestung.pbworks.com/w/page/47802864/Playing Time Prediction

This is Marc Blume's data, the nice chap that runs the alpenfestung tournaments (gatherings) in Switzerland.

Anyway - if anyone does see any scenario timings that look out based out their playings I'd be happy to override the formula for a manual estimation - let's say based on "average playing speeds"

 

[Psycho]

The largest variable is...
the Speed of each player

My ex reminded me often but I said I was efficient!

 

[hongkongwargamer]

PLAY. FORT’S. SCENARIOS

There.

 

[Actionjick]

AS a TD and as a player, I don't look at formula times of play. I strictly go by how long it takes myself and someone like Kevin Killeen to play. A prime example would be AP205 A Kick In the Teeth which we played today. Although, I set the defense beforehand, we played all 5.5 turns in just under 3 hours. This was PTO with Hips and vehicles, on board setup as well as entry. It came down to Japanese win as the Brits could not secure one last building. If this is any indication of the majority of scenarios in this newest AP, I would never hesitate to include them in any tournament round. I agree with Fort that formulated playing times are detrimental to at the very least, picking tournament rounds. Fear not Fort, I will be playing these often.

Well you don't copulate the canine when you play, a trait I highly appreciate. I am all for anyone adding to ASL in whatever way they can but sometimes these contributions can unintentually negatively impact the contributions of others. This may be such a case.

The time to play bit of information did not exist when we were playing and we wouldn't have used it anyway. Same for balance. We played what we wanted and if was too long I just put on another pot of javeine.

Still I respect the attempt to try and put out what could be very useful data. I was going to expound upon estimating scenario length and Lord Kelvin's attempt to determine the age of the Earth but Colonel Cuervo advised against it.

 

[daveramsey]

The time to play data has sat there for nearly 12 years without anyone really complaining. Anyway - if anyone has better estimations for any given scenarios, I'll update the db to reflect it and these updated scenarios won't use the formula.

 

[Robin Reeve]

The time to play data has sat there for nearly 12 years without anyone really complaining. Anyway - if anyone has better estimations for any given scenarios, I'll update the db to reflect it and these updated scenarios won't use the formula.

I would not change a thing.
The fear that that time to play thing influences the choice of scenarios for tourneys is, for the moment, only a guess, with no factual proof it ever occurred.
Now, you simply could write a note explaining that the data is only indicative and that, in reality, many subjective factors can lead to a quite different value.

 

[daveramsey]

What I've done is added an extra field for players to add the time it took them to play the scenario as part of the reporting process. I know it's not perfect, but perhaps it's another data point to be used.

 

[Sparafucil3]

What I've done is added an extra field for players to add the time it took them to play the scenario as part of the reporting process. I know it's not perfect, but perhaps it's another data point to be used.

I think this is an excellent idea. I wish I would have suggested it In all honesty, over time you can compare the two and get an idea of how you might change or improve the estimate (if anyone ACTUALLY cares). Personally, I don't pay too much attention to other people's estimates. I know how fast I can play. I just hope the person I am playing knows how fast they can play when we are picking something to play. -- jim

 

[MajorDomo]

David Goldman also has a formula for scenario length. It was more important when the ASLOpen was a FTF tourney.

Now, the eASLOpen contains some larger scenarios. A nice fearure.

The largest variable in scenario play length is the speed of the the two players. I am a bit faster than average and sometimes finish a FTF tourney game, walk over, and see the same scenario on turn three or so.

 

[Doug Leslie]

What I've done is added an extra field for players to add the time it took them to play the scenario as part of the reporting process. I know it's not perfect, but perhaps it's another data point to be used.

Does time taken to play the scenario include time spent arguing over the rules and chasing the dog when it steals the scenario card?