Final Table Seating

I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how annoying the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. Specifically because it was totally different from any other regular game of VTES. And because seating has so much influence on the game, shouldn't it be like every other table? So my suggestion would be: Seat everyone randomly. 1st seed gets to pick when they get to go in play order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th). Play. Comments? best - chris

"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message news:hm77or$i05$2...@news.eternal-september.org... >I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how annoying > the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. Specifically > because it was totally different from any other regular game of VTES. And > because seating has so much influence on the game, shouldn't it be like > every other table? Annoying? I don't find it annoying. (Except when I have last choice and screw myself. :-P ) I think it's fun - like a traditional ceremony to open the finals game. And why shouldn't it be different? The finals is irreparably different than preliminary round games (for instance, in that game wins lose their special meaning). Do lots of people actually think this brief, little two-and-a-half-minute interaction is annoying? Fred

librarian wrote: > I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how > annoying the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. > Specifically because it was totally different from any other > regular game of VTES. And because seating has so much influence > on the game, shouldn't it be like every other table? The final round seating method was IIRC taken from the SPTR (the NRA-based precursor to the official WW rules) and was created to reward higher finishers for their preliminary round performance. That seems to be a really good reason it is the way it is. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

librarian wrote: > I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how annoying > the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. Specifically > because it was totally different from any other regular game of VTES. And > because seating has so much influence on the game, shouldn't it be like > every other table? Indeed. Picking your predator or prey, with knowledge of what decks they are playing, is totally "cheating". This rule represents an attempt to increase the odds that the top-seeded player will win. It also rewards scouting and (since the top-seeded player may have been too busy playing to do much of this himself) also rewards having a network of informants. It is contrary to the spirit of the normal rules. Seating should be determined randomly.

[ quoted text not captured ] Indeed, or based on ranking 1st is 1st; 2nd - 2nd and so on or 1st is 5th; 2nd - 4th and so on Matt

John Whelan wrote: > librarian wrote: >> I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how >> annoying the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. >> Specifically because it was totally different from any other regular >> game of VTES. And because seating has so much influence on the >> game, shouldn't it be like every other table? > > Indeed. Picking your predator or prey, with knowledge of what decks > they are playing, is totally "cheating". It isn't necessarily true that the finalists know anyone else's deck. > This rule represents an attempt to increase the odds that > the top-seeded player will win. Yes. This is also true in most sports playoff brackets, and has been for decades. Seems to work well. > It also rewards scouting and...also rewards having a network > of informants. Everyone is equally free to bring decks and informant networks that will give them the greatest advantages in winning quickly and scouting the opposition. No one has an advantage. > It is contrary to the spirit of the normal rules. Which rules? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] If seating were not to be determined by choice from top to last player, i would suggest seating to be 1st,5th,2nd,3rd,4th. That way the sum of the postions surrounding a player would be: 1st: 4+5=9 2nd: 5+3=8 3rd: 2+4=6 4th: 3+1=4 5th: 1+2=3 That way the supposedly best player from the previous rounds would have earned preys and preds weaker (as determined by said previous results) than the player after him in prerounds standing

Frederick Scott wrote: > And why shouldn't it be different? And why should it not be the same? This is, after all, a V:tES tournament. > The finals is > irreparably different than preliminary round games (for instance, in that > game wins lose their special meaning). This is entirely a function of the rewards system. It has no bearing on whether some players should be handicapped in favor of others. For instance, if one were to grant a substantial "table prize" to the game winner of the final table, or if one were to not declare a tournament winner unless there were a winner in the final game, it would increase the odds that all players would play to win in that final game. In any event, the fact that players often fail to "play to win" in the finals has been (rightly IMHO) regarded as a problem. It was most recently addressed by changing the tournament rules by having all runners-up in the finals tie for second place. This, together with the occasional preference for longer time limits in the final rounds, helps ensure that, at least for all players BUT the top seeded player, there will be a game-win or bust mentality. But this reminds me that top-seeded players already walk into the final game with a substantial advantage. They are, under current rules, in a position to tie the final game with a lower-ranked opponent, and still be declared a tournament winner. Why should they be granted additionally benefits? > Do lots of people actually think this brief, little two-and-a-half-minute > interaction is annoying? Well. You can add me to the list.

I agree that this system is a little strange. Any CCG environment is an inherently unfair: some players have more and/or better cards than other players for a variety of reasons, with disposable income and date of entry into the game being the principal ones. In choosing final seating, the players with the most metagame knowledge of other players' decks have an advantage. I recently got to pick my seating at a storyline final game. I chose my predator not because I had played against him in the tournament, but because I knew his deck from our playgroup and someone had said, "Win Henry is playing his Arika deck." I got about 5 minutes away from winning that game, so I'm saying that out-of-play knowledge helped me. I had no knowledge of two other decks at the table other than who was playing them. VTES rewards out-of-play factors in several ways, and this is one of them. Maybe it should be more concretely discussed. Some people (myself included) have qualms against scouting. Maybe we should all be saying: "At tournaments, make sure you find out what everyone else is playing. You must scout." That way everyone is on a similar playing field - you didn't scout and chose the wrong seating? Well, we told you to!

"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6401de11-46b5-428c...@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> And why shouldn't it be different? > > And why should it not be the same? This is, after all, a V:tES > tournament. Don't interrupt my paragraph. I answer your question in my very next sentence. >> The finals is >> irreparably different than preliminary round games (for instance, in that >> game wins lose their special meaning). > > This is entirely a function of the rewards system. It has no bearing > on whether some players should be handicapped in favor of others. Sure it does. The point is, the final game is different, so the concept that, "it should be the same as preliminary round games" is a non-starter. It's going to be different. The only question is how different it should be. ... > But this reminds me that top-seeded players already walk into the > final game with a substantial advantage. They are, under current > rules, in a position to tie the final game with a lower-ranked > opponent, and still be declared a tournament winner. Why should they > be granted additionally benefits? Anyone who presupposes the seeding advantage is sufficient and that further advantage is excessive would agree with you. I presuppose neither and thus disagree. To cut to the chase, how much advantage the top seeds get is a completely subjective matter. I've observed that: 1) The advantage doesn't seem very substantial. 2) The top seed fails to win quite often. Which is good enough for me....and... 3) As I said earlier, I think the seating ritual is fun. I had thought most people found it to be fun. I'm surprised anyone minds it at all. Of course, you're not talking about disliking the ritual as much as having issues with the fairness, which is a different thing than what I thought Chris was raising. I do sympathize with some of "hinkyness" around the scouting issue, although I've never noticed it to skew things that badly. Or to the extent that lack of knowledge vs. good knowledge makes a difference, I haven't noticed it to be a terribly unfair thing. I suppose tournament rules could be written to address any blatant unfairness - like players using their friends to get information about decks they hadn't seen when they make the finals. I just haven't seen stuff like that actually happen. Fred

Kevin M. wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > librarian wrote: > >> I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how > >> annoying the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. > >> Specifically because it was totally different from any other regular > >> game of VTES. And because seating has so much influence on the > >> game, shouldn't it be like every other table? > > > > Indeed. Picking your predator or prey, with knowledge of what decks > > they are playing, is totally "cheating". > > It isn't necessarily true that the finalists know anyone else's deck. Right. Hence, it rewards scouting and having a network of informants. > Everyone is equally free to bring decks and informant networks > that will give them the greatest advantages in winning quickly > and scouting the opposition. It depends, I suppose, on what sort of behavior you want to reward. > No one has an advantage. Except those with a bigger network of informants. > > It is contrary to the spirit of the normal rules. > > Which rules? The norm, per standard rules, is that deck information is private and remains private until revealed during play. The option of switching decks between games helps enforce this. In tournaments, there are reasons to insist that players keep their decks throughout the various rounds. But there seems no reason, in keeping with the spirit or the standard game, that we should go out of our way to encourage players to take advantage of this fact. Where players do have some knowledge of the decks eachother are likely to play, random seating is customary. "Any method the players choose", while a bit vague, presumably gives a player a right to insist on random seating where he suspects other players have knowledge of the contents of his deck, randomness being the normal solution to such disagreements.

Frederick Scott wrote: > Don't interrupt my paragraph. Do not preach that which you have no intention of practicing. > I answer your question in my very next sentence. No you did not. > >> The finals is > >> irreparably different than preliminary round games (for instance, in that > >> game wins lose their special meaning). > > > > This is entirely a function of the rewards system. It has no bearing > > on whether some players should be handicapped in favor of others. > > Sure it does. No it does not. > The point is, the final game is different, so the > concept that, "it should be the same as preliminary round games" > is a non-starter. It's going to be different. The fact that it IS different has no bearing on whether it SHOULD be different. Especially when different differences are being discussed. > The only question is how different it should be. Right. Specifically, the question is whether THIS difference can be justified. That is the question you failed to address. > Anyone who presupposes the seeding advantage is sufficient and that > further advantage is excessive would agree with you. Sufficient for what? Excessive by what standard? > I presuppose > neither and thus disagree. You sure seem to be presupposing something. > To cut to the chase, how much advantage the top seeds get is a > completely subjective matter. I've observed that: > > 1) The advantage doesn't seem very substantial. > 2) The top seed fails to win quite often. Which is good enough > for me....and... > 3) As I said earlier, I think the seating ritual is fun. I had > thought most people found it to be fun. I'm surprised anyone > minds it at all. > > Of course, you're not talking about disliking the ritual as much > as having issues with the fairness, which is a different thing than > what I thought Chris was raising. I do sympathize with some of > "hinkyness" around the scouting issue, although I've never noticed > it to skew things that badly. Or to the extent that lack of > knowledge vs. good knowledge makes a difference, I haven't noticed > it to be a terribly unfair thing. I suppose tournament rules could > be written to address any blatant unfairness - like players using > their friends to get information about decks they hadn't seen when > they make the finals. I just haven't seen stuff like that actually > happen. Where do you get to the point where you explain why this SHOULD be different? Saying that the harm it inflicts is minimal -- that it is only slightly hinky -- only slightly unfair -- is hardly an answer. Where is the upside?

Aaron Clark wrote: > VTES rewards out-of-play factors in several ways, and this is one > of them. Maybe it should be more concretely discussed. Some people > (myself included) have qualms against scouting. Maybe we should > all be saying: "At tournaments, make sure you find out what everyone > else is playing. You must scout." That way everyone is on a > similar playing field - you didn't scout and chose the wrong > seating? Well, we told you to! Unless everyone agrees not to scout, the only real choice players have to make is how "moral" they wish to be for their own personal code, while understanding that since scouting it isn't against the rules (for the obvious reasons) they shouldn't be telling other players not to do it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > Unless everyone agrees not to scout, the only real choice players > have to make is how "moral" they wish to be for their own personal > code, while understanding that since scouting it isn't against the > rules (for the obvious reasons) they shouldn't be telling other > players not to do it. Or, more to the point, maybe we should just get rid of this silly final-seating method, whose only effect on the game is to reward scouting.

John Whelan wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> John Whelan wrote: >>> librarian wrote: >>>> I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how >>>> annoying the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. >>>> Specifically because it was totally different from any other >>>> regular game of VTES. And because seating has so much influence >>>> on the game, shouldn't it be like every other table? >>> >>> Indeed. Picking your predator or prey, with knowledge of what >>> decks they are playing, is totally "cheating". >> >> It isn't necessarily true that the finalists know anyone else's >> deck. > > Right. Hence, it rewards scouting and having a network of > informants. > >> Everyone is equally free to bring decks and informant networks >> that will give them the greatest advantages in winning quickly >> and scouting the opposition. > > It depends, I suppose, on what sort of behavior you want to reward. > >> No one has an advantage. > > Except those with a bigger network of informants. All this discussion of informant networks -- has this ever been an issue in your playgroup? I'm asking because it feels like we just moved from the conceptual into the actual, since I personally have never been to a tournament where scouting was ever an issue at any level, so I'm unsure how to discuss it as, G-d forbid, a reality. >>> It is contrary to the spirit of the normal rules. >> >> Which rules? > > The norm, per standard rules, is that deck information is private > and remains private until revealed during play. Where is this rule? It's illegal to discuss your deck with the guys you drove up with, or whomever, before you play it? That sounds unenforceable. It's also a logistical nightmare -- the main reason why scouting isn't prohibited. > The option of switching decks between games helps enforce this. Are we now discussing casual play? :P > In tournaments, there are reasons to insist that players keep > their decks throughout the various rounds. Did you mean keep their decks SECRET? If so, what reasons are those? I don't see them. > But there seems no reason, in keeping with the spirit or the > standard game, that we should go out of our way to encourage > players to take advantage of this fact. Scouting isn't banned because it's a logistical nightmare. The spirit of the game doesn't seem to me to have been seriously affected by allowing scouting. A few rare players here and there dislike it, but it hardly seems to be an issue of the community-at-large. > Where players do have some knowledge of the decks each other > are likely to play, random seating is customary. In casual games, random seating is customary everywhere in the world that I have played. In tournaments, it's the rules, except in the finals, which are a special case and so given special rules, which reward play-to-win (even before it was PTW), good deck construction, good deck play, and a good player. Seems reasonable. > "Any method the players choose", while a bit vague, presumably > gives a player a right to insist on random seating where he suspects > other players have knowledge of the contents of his deck, > randomness being the normal solution to such disagreements. This is the case in every casual game and every preliminary tournament game. It isn't in the finals for the reasons listed above. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] And to play your best game in earlier rounds, earning that marked advantage for the finals. It's rare to see in any system these days merit being rewarded. Tow the line, don't over-reach, be as mediocre as everyone else. It's a good thing that playing as well as possible is rewarded in the finals of VTES.

John Whelan wrote: > But this reminds me that top-seeded players already walk into the > final game with a substantial advantage. They are, under current > rules, in a position to tie the final game with a lower-ranked > opponent, and still be declared a tournament winner. Why should > they be granted additionally benefits? Because they played-to-win, they had good deck construction, they played their deck well, and they were a good, solid player? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Leaving seating up to random chance because it "has so much influence on the game" sounds like a bad idea to me.

It is unfair to the 1st seed if you give no advantage in the finals It is unfair to the 2nd to 4th seed if the only advantage is that the 1st seed decides who starts It is unfair to the 4th and 5th seed (?) with the current rules. I rather be unfair to people who entered final last... I don't know how to explain that. It sounds so balanced to me.

[ quoted text not captured ] Gah, Terrible, selecting seating is a very VERY big advantage in a final and is completely deserved by the player with highest score going into the game imo. Anthony

I have no idea where John Whelan lives, but i doubt scouting is a huge problem where he plays. I really dont get people who make up problems.

On Feb 26, 4:12 am, Shockwave <d_knowles...@hotmail.com> wrote: > And to play your best game in earlier rounds, earning that marked > advantage for the finals. That is adequately rewarded by the fact that one gets into the finals in the first place. And by the fact that he can win the tournament by scoring a tie in the finals against a lower-seeded player. If a further bonus or handicap favoring the top-seeded player WERE appropriate (which I don' think it is), then I'd much rather let him start with a couple of extra transfers or pool, rather than give him a "reward" whose value is variable based on his knowledge of his opponent's decks. > It's rare to see in any system these days merit being rewarded. I'm not sure by what standard a player with 3 game wins and 10 victory points can be said to deserve so great an advantage over a player with 3 game wins and 9.5 victory points. They have faced a different set of opponents, and the top-seeded player, for all we know, may have faced weaker opposition. In such a case, this is the first time in the tournament their decks have truly been measured against each other. I say give them an even playing field and let the best man win. That's what I call rewarding "merit". [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] And I have no idea where Alex Fnurp lives, nor is it relevant. I really don't get people whose only contribution to a discussion is to try to make it personal. The only function served by the current finals seating rule is to reward top-seated players based on their knowledge of the contents of the decks of the lower-seated players. I do not regard that as a legitimate function. Whether it is a "huge problem" or not is, to me, neither here nor there. I did not start this discussion. Librarian did, and he asked whether others also consider the rule annoying. I more or less agreed with him, and gave reasons.

On Feb 26, 6:27 am, Anthony Coleman <anthony.t.d.cole...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gah, Terrible, selecting seating is a very VERY big advantage in a > final and is completely deserved by the player with highest score > going into the game imo. Okay. Let's say (for the sake of argument) that he deserves a big reward. (I don't really agree, but will assume so for the sake of argument). In that case, why not give him extra pool or extra transfers? Why provide an "reward" whose value is variable, depending upon his knowledge of the contents of his opponent's decks.

On Feb 26, 4:28 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Leaving seating up to random chance because it "has so much influence > on the game" sounds like a bad idea to me. Why? If this is a problem for you, then there is plenty about the game that will have to change. Not only will we have to get rid of random seating in the preliminary rounds, but we will have to get rid of randomly shuffled decks.

[ quoted text not captured ] Because the assumption is that you cannot prevent players from knowing the contents of each other's decks - and also, that trying to do so will have them not want to actually play in that tournament. So the assumption is that everybody should be able to freely scout each other's stuff and that they will do so to where everybody is on even footing. For instance: I play casually with a group of players on a weekly basis. Those players, by virtue of their being my playgroup are at almost every tournament I play at. Unless those players bring brand- new, unplayed decks to a tournament I play at, I can generally identify what their deck is within the first couple of turns. If not by their first discard. And that's an advantage over a player that's come in from another town for the tournament, unless I find a way to lobotomize myself (further, har har.) Also: Players talk between rounds. Constantly. Even if you enforce a "you must leave the room as soon as you are done" rule - which, by the way has been done in some groups in the past and still didn't fix this 'problem - you have to find some way to prohibit, monitor and enforce not letting anyone answer questions like "so, how did your round go?" Which means (assuming you believe that people will work in networks, etc, which you clearly do believe) that you have to somehow prevent people from ever being in a position to talk to one another privately. So here's one possible solution: Everyone has to leave between rounds, and go sit in a second room where a judge will be seated to make sure nobody talks or passes notes about what they saw in a previous round. Oh, and no two people can go to the bathroom at the same time, because then they could inform each other. Does that sound like a tournament you want to spend six to eight hours at? A tournament that you are supposedly playing because it is enjoyable and fun? And that extreme method _still_ isn't 'fair'. Because the people whose games are in the center of the room have a greater opportunity than those at the edges to overhear what is being said at the neighboring tables - and if I hear Rehlow at the neighboring table say "My War Ghoul rushes you" (for instance) I now have his deck scouted as much as I need to. So now it's unfair because I overheard a bunch of people while they played and you didn't because you were off in a corner. How are you going to prevent me from scouting by virtue of the fact that I have pretty sharp hearing? Oh, whoops - got a phone call. By which I mean a text message from my buddy telling me what he faced at his table. Going to ban cell phones too? And if you're not going to work to prevent people from scouting and talking etc, then people certainly will discuss things, and the assumption is that nobody is severely disadvantaged unless they choose to be - everyone can, if they're going to be in the finals, ask around beforehand to find out what decks they're facing. Note also that scouting only benefits the players in 1st - 3rd as far as seating goes; the fourth and fifth place finishers don't benefit from information since they don't pick their seats. -John Flournoy

On Feb 26, 10:57 am, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 9:06 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 26, 6:27 am, Anthony Coleman <anthony.t.d.cole...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Gah, Terrible, selecting seating is a very VERY big advantage in a > > > final and is completely deserved by the player with highest score > > > going into the game imo. > > > Okay. Let's say (for the sake of argument) that he deserves a big > > reward. (I don't really agree, but will assume so for the sake of > > argument). In that case, why not give him extra pool or extra > > transfers? Why provide an "reward" whose value is variable, depending > > upon his knowledge of the contents of his opponent's decks. > > Because the assumption is that you cannot prevent players from knowing > the contents of each other's decks - and also, that trying to do so > will have them not want to actually play in that tournament. So the > assumption is that everybody should be able to freely scout each > other's stuff and that they will do so to where everybody is on even > footing. Nobody is trying to stop them. And they will be equally free to do so after this silly seating rule is removed. Your entire post is non- responsive to the question. > For instance: I play casually with a group of players on a weekly > basis. Those players, by virtue of their being my playgroup are at > almost every tournament I play at. Unless those players bring brand- > new, unplayed decks to a tournament I play at, I can generally > identify what their deck is within the first couple of turns. If not > by their first discard. And that's an advantage over a player that's > come in from another town for the tournament, unless I find a way to > lobotomize myself (further, har har.) Thankfully, you cannot take advantage of this knowledge to pick seating in preliminary rounds. Which is good. Unfortunately, you can do so in the finals. And that, to my mind, is what serves no legitimate purpose. > Also: Players talk between rounds. Constantly. Nobody is trying to stop them.

On Feb 26, 4:11 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 4:28 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Leaving seating up to random chance because it "has so much influence > > on the game" sounds like a bad idea to me. > > Why? Same reason dice rolling isn't the most fun way to tiebreak when deciding who gets in the final. Playing for ~6 hours and then getting shafted by randomness is worse than playing for ~6 hours and getting shafted because someone played better than you and got to chose a better seating. In my opinion. > If this is a problem for you, then there is plenty about the game that > will have to change. Not only will we have to get rid of random > seating in the preliminary rounds, but we will have to get rid of > randomly shuffled decks. Sure. And if rewarding good players is a problem we have to remove poolgain for ousting.

On Feb 26, 11:18 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure. And if rewarding good players is a problem we have to remove > poolgain for ousting. Good players are rewarded. And I think they are rewarded adequately. But if you think they are not rewarded sufficiently, why not reward them with extra pool, as your above analogy suggests? Why give them a reward that depends on the extent of their knowledge of opposing player's decks.

On Feb 26, 5:28 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 11:18 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Sure. And if rewarding good players is a problem we have to remove > > poolgain for ousting. > > Good players are rewarded. And I think they are rewarded adequately. So do I. And since I think that's the case, I see no reason to change the way seating is decided in finals.

[ quoted text not captured ] You know what I meant. And you have once more dodged the relevant question.

[ quoted text not captured ] Because it is, in my opinion, a unique and rather interesting feature of this game. And one that playfield experience has proved not to be decisively unfair. It is a system that rewards intelligent play based on semi-limited knowledge. Remember: even with good knowledge of the opponent's decks a player can still draw the wrong conclusions, the table dynamics move on beyond a single player's control and there are at least two other players who, in most cases, also got to decide who their predators or preys would be. It is a deceptively complex phase of tournament play, and one that I enjoy immensely. And, like Henrik pointed out, complaints about randomness are usually not applicable. Drain

On Feb 26, 10:07 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Because the assumption is that you cannot prevent players from knowing > > the contents of each other's decks - and also, that trying to do so > > will have them not want to actually play in that tournament. So the > > assumption is that everybody should be able to freely scout each > > other's stuff and that they will do so to where everybody is on even > > footing. > > Nobody is trying to stop them. And they will be equally free to do so > after this silly seating rule is removed. Your entire post is non- > responsive to the question. Actually, my post was in response to your question: "Why provide an "reward" whose value is variable, depending upon his knowledge of the contents of his opponent's decks." The shortened, more to-the-point answer: Because the assumption is that it isn't variable; that every player has an opportunity to learn as much about their opponents decks as they care to. Because every player _does_ effectively have that opportunity; no one is prevented from trying to get that information. Heck, players frequently look at the standings at tournaments partway through, just to see who else is doing well so that they know who to go scout. Lots of judges don't stop players from looking at the Archon of a tournament in progress. And therefore, the reward isn't variable, but the same reward every other player gets for finishing in the same standing at other tournaments, i.e. 'the person who finishes first in the preliminaries gets this reward which is the same that every other first-place finisher gets.' -John Flournoy

On Feb 26, 10:28 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 11:18 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Sure. And if rewarding good players is a problem we have to remove > > poolgain for ousting. > > Good players are rewarded. And I think they are rewarded adequately. Okay, I have to ask: What is the 'adequate' reward that you think a good player gets, i.e. for doing better than everyone else through the preliminaries, that isn't the seating-choice? -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah, found it in another part of the thread: You believe that making the finals (plus potentially winning a tie breaker) is adequate. Noted. > -John Flournoy

On Feb 26, 8:54 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 4:12 am, Shockwave <d_knowles...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > And to play your best game in earlier rounds, earning that marked > > advantage for the finals. > > That is adequately rewarded by the fact that one gets into the finals > in the first place. And by the fact that he can win the tournament by > scoring a tie in the finals against a lower-seeded player. > > If a further bonus or handicap favoring the top-seeded player WERE > appropriate (which I don' think it is), then I'd much rather let him > start with a couple of extra transfers or pool, rather than give him a > "reward" whose value is variable based on his knowledge of his > opponent's decks. > > > It's rare to see in any system these days merit being rewarded. > > I'm not sure by what standard a player with 3 game wins and 10 victory > points can be said to deserve so great an advantage over a player with > 3 game wins and 9.5 victory points. They have faced a different set > of opponents, and the top-seeded player, for all we know, may have > faced weaker opposition. In such a case, this is the first time in > the tournament their decks have truly been measured against each > other. That depends on how you measure things: "How you fare against three rounds of randomly-determined opponents" is to me often a better measure than "how you performed directly against the other person's deck" - this is especially true in a game where Deck A trumps Deck B which trumps Deck C which trumps Deck A.... Being 'better' than another deck is not always a function of 'can directly beat it in a single game'. Here's another counter-example: We both play identical weenie-presence bleed decks with no bounce and no intercept. Identical to the last card. The other three decks in the final are weenie auspex walls. If you sit as my predator, you're going to crush me nine times out of ten; I have no defense against your deck and my deck has the worst possible opponent sitting as my prey. How, exactly, does that make your deck "better" than mine? How is that "measuring against each other?" One game is too small a sample size to determine which deck is "better". That's one big reason why VTES uses a multi-round format and not an elimination-bracket format for its tournaments. > I say give them an even playing field and let the best man win. > That's what I call rewarding "merit". And I will say: There's no such thing as an 'even playing field' in a single game of VTES; your preferred method is still one that randomly rewards a player (by virtue of 'did you happen to randomly get seated in a favorable position for this one game or a terrible one'.) The current system, at least, rewards a player whose deck has performed better over the long term by allowing him to better take advantage of freely-available information, as opposed to a crapshoot of whether or not you sit next to a deck that trumps yours no matter how your deck has done against a wide range of opponents in the past. -John Flournoy

On Feb 26, 9:04 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Whether it is a "huge problem" or not is, to me, neither here nor > there. I did not start this discussion. Librarian did, and he asked > whether others also consider the rule annoying. I more or less agreed > with him, and gave reasons. While I don't agree with your rationale or answer to the discussion, it's definitely worth talking about - personally, I'm fine with the way things are now, but it's certainly not a waste of time to consider alternatives. -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] And you knew, even more I think, that I don't want to remove shuffled decks from the game. > And you have once more dodged the relevant > question. Why we don't give more pool to top seeded players instead of letting them pick seating? I see that as a silly question rather than a relevant one, really. But I think deciding where to sit is more appropriate than extra pool or transfers. I've never really seen seat picking as a problem but rather as a fun and challenging way to decide how the final table looks. I think the game would become less fun with random seating in the finals instead of the way it's done now.

> > > > Good players are rewarded. And I think they are rewarded adequately. > > > > So do I. And since I think that's the case, I see no reason to change > > > the way seating is decided in finals. > Another interesting point which was briefly touched on at the beginning of this debate was that the winner (going in first) with his "advantage" is also as likely to screw himself or make a poor choice. I've certainly had a lion's share of those... Regardless, my experience is that most people enjoy this aspect of the finals and I can see no legitimate reason to change it. John Bell

> Comments? > > best - > > chris If you had named this thread, "Do you scout?" I wonder, if you would have got this response. I have concluded that yes many people scout. In the current final seating rules, there is little advantage for ranking if you do not. I would say that, if you do not scout you are breaking play to win. Certainly final seating encourages scouting, I would say, even you down time is part of the tourney. Scout away. Matt

Kevin M. wrote: > > In casual games, random seating is customary everywhere in the world > that I have played. In tournaments, it's the rules, except in the > finals, which are a special case and so given special rules, which > reward play-to-win (even before it was PTW), good deck construction, > good deck play, and a good player. Seems reasonable. > >> Maybe. But it's a different game when you can choose your seating. Let's posit an idea coming from the other direction: In each preliminary round after the first (because all players at the beginning have equal standing), players get to choose their seating based on their current standings at the time. Tables are still chosen randomly, but once in a table, seating order is determined by the players as they currently are in the finals. How does that sound? best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] Huh? You need to expand on this, since at least 66% of tournament games the seating is left to random chance. How about a different idea. What table you are on is still chosen randomly. But seating is determined by standing after the first round (first round would be random), just like it is done in finals now. That would answer your point that random chance "sounds like a bad idea". best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] Orian, I would posit that in the current system, 2nd and 3rd seed (definitely 2nd seed) has almost as much advantage if not more than 1st seed. You still don't answer the key question - why are the finals a different game? best - chris

John Flournoy wrote: > On Feb 26, 9:06 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 26, 6:27 am, Anthony Coleman <anthony.t.d.cole...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Gah, Terrible, selecting seating is a very VERY big advantage in a >>> final and is completely deserved by the player with highest score >>> going into the game imo. >> Okay. Let's say (for the sake of argument) that he deserves a big >> reward. (I don't really agree, but will assume so for the sake of >> argument). In that case, why not give him extra pool or extra >> transfers? Why provide an "reward" whose value is variable, depending >> upon his knowledge of the contents of his opponent's decks. > > Because the assumption is that you cannot prevent players from knowing > the contents of each other's decks - and also, that trying to do so > will have them not want to actually play in that tournament. So the > assumption is that everybody should be able to freely scout each > other's stuff and that they will do so to where everybody is on even > footing. > > Fair. But should that skill at scouting other's decks be a skill we want to reward in the final? It sounds like most people posting on this thread think it should be rewarded. I don't think so. But that's not actually my point. I just think it's strange that the final of a game is played under different rules than the preliminary rounds. And the rule that is changed is *SIGNIFICANT* in determining the winner of the match. Super Bowl is not played with 8 players. World Series is not played with no pitcher. World Cup Final is not played with players blindfolded. Insert other nonsensical analogies. I hope you see my point. I posted elsewhere my idea of extending the "choose your seat" to preliminary games as well. What's your take on that idea? best - chris

"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1730825e-c824-4572...@b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> Don't interrupt my paragraph. > > Do not preach that which you have no intention of practicing. False inference. I do try to read people's entire thought and not try to pick at a portion of it when I respond to them. It's possible I don't aways succeed but I certainly try to practice it. The habit you have of separating off pieces of peoples' paragraph in order to interject denials or to lodge objections that, if you simply considered their entire argument, are ultimately answered is not helpful to communication. I think it would be better if you responded to the entire thrust of their argument instead of obsessively needing to throw something in every sentence or so. OK, you really, REALLY disagree with me. Everybody gets that... >> I answered your question in my very next sentence. The finals is >> irreparably different than preliminary round games (for instance, in that >> game wins lose their special meaning). >> >> > This is entirely a function of the rewards system. It has no bearing >> > on whether some players should be handicapped in favor of others. >> >> Sure it does. The point is, the final game is different, so the >> concept that, "it should be the same as preliminary round games" >> is a non-starter. It's going to be different. > > The fact that it IS different has no bearing on whether it SHOULD be > different. Especially when different differences are being discussed. Irrelevent point. The idea is being advanced that the final should be "just like preliminary round games". But quite a few more modifications would be necessary to acheive that. Since it isn't a realistic goal to make the finals play just like a priliminary round game, I see no point in prefering individual aspects of the finals to be more simlilar to preliminary round games than something else. If you happen to like how they work better to do it one way than the other, fine. But I reject 'because that's how it's done in the preliminary rounds' as an argument in and of itself. >> The only question is how different it should be. > > Right. Specifically, the question is whether THIS difference can be > justified. That is the question you failed to address. > >> Anyone who presupposes the seeding advantage is sufficient and that >> further advantage is excessive would agree with you. > > Sufficient for what? Excessive by what standard? Indeed, that's my point. There's is no standard other than subjective preference. The way you reasoned in the previous post, you seemed to assume some standard had been met and the current method was found wanting. I was pointing that there exists no standard of 'how much advantage is too much?'. >> To cut to the chase, how much advantage the top seeds get is a >> completely subjective matter. I've observed that: >> >> 1) The advantage doesn't seem very substantial. >> 2) The top seed fails to win quite often. Which is good enough >> for me....and... >> 3) As I said earlier, I think the seating ritual is fun. I had >> thought most people found it to be fun. I'm surprised anyone >> minds it at all. >> >> Of course, you're not talking about disliking the ritual as much >> as having issues with the fairness, which is a different thing than >> what I thought Chris was raising. I do sympathize with some of >> "hinkyness" around the scouting issue, although I've never noticed >> it to skew things that badly. Or to the extent that lack of >> knowledge vs. good knowledge makes a difference, I haven't noticed >> it to be a terribly unfair thing. I suppose tournament rules could >> be written to address any blatant unfairness - like players using >> their friends to get information about decks they hadn't seen when >> they make the finals. I just haven't seen stuff like that actually >> happen. > > Where do you get to the point where you explain why this SHOULD be > different? Saying that the harm it inflicts is minimal -- that it is > only slightly hinky -- only slightly unfair -- is hardly an answer. > Where is the upside? To answer your first question: never. Since no one has demonstrated any reason why it should _NOT_ be different, I see no need. To answer your second question: I certainly did. You removed the text. To reinsert that text: >> 3) As I said earlier, I think the seating ritual is fun. I had >> thought most people found it to be fun. I'm surprised anyone >> minds it at all. In addition, the answer is that subjective judgment requires no reason other than, "I like it better that way." At some point, someone has to make a determination which is the better way, but I see no reason to assume that we can resolve the issue objectively. Fred

wedge wrote: >> Comments? >> >> best - >> >> chris > > If you had named this thread, > > "Do you scout?" > > I wonder, if you would have got this response. Yeah, I guess my OP wasn't well-worded. It's not the fact of the rule itself that bugs me; it's the fact that it's different from all the preliminary rounds that bugs me. Agreed, under current rules, not scouting is not PTW, unless you really have no chance. best - chris

"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:887bffe1-0caa-4751...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > Kevin M. wrote: >> Unless everyone agrees not to scout, the only real choice players >> have to make is how "moral" they wish to be for their own personal >> code, while understanding that since scouting it isn't against the >> rules (for the obvious reasons) they shouldn't be telling other >> players not to do it. > > Or, more to the point, maybe we should just get rid of this silly > final-seating method, whose only effect on the game is to reward > scouting. It's clearly not the _ONLY_ effect. It also rewards the highest level of performance in the early round games. Nor is scouting the only source of information which can be used to convert the preliminary round finish position into advantage at the finals table. In fact, in my experience, it isn't even a very good source. Information from my personal play experience during the games itself is far more reliable and useful than any amount of scouting I've ever done. Fred

librarian wrote: > players as they currently are in the finals. Gah, that last word should be *standings*. best - chris

"wedge" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f832ffcc-54bb-40d7...@y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > If you had named this thread, > > "Do you scout?" > > I wonder, if you would have got this response. I have concluded that > yes many people scout. It's possible they do. I have done a bit of it when I was aware that I had a good chance to make the finals with some lattitude of decision over where I sit. But I've typically found that scouting information in games I haven't watched from start to finish tends to actually be quite poor. So the more relavent question is, "How much real advantage do folks get from scouting?" > In the current final seating rules, there is little advantage for > ranking if you do not. This is actually wrong - at least to some extent and depending on the size of the tournament and how many rounds you play. If the tournament is huge and you're unlikely to have played any of the people who will be in the finals with you, you may be correct. But in most tournaments, you've played against some of the people who you'll run into during the finals. And those experiences are very useful for making choices in the seating ritual. _Much_ more useful than scouting information, IMHO. > I would say that, if you do not scout you are breaking play to win. I absolutely disagree with that, too. There's nothing about the play- to-win rule which dictates to what lengths each player must go to win a tournament. Otherwise, entering a tournament without your most effective deck would be considered failing to "play-to-win". I don't think we want to go there. > Certainly final seating encourages scouting, I > would say, even you down time is part of the tourney. Scout away. Sure. Fred

"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message news:hm94oq$uo0$3...@news.eternal-september.org... > You still don't answer the key question - why are the finals a different game? Because we can't prevent it. Unless you know of a way of including the concept of a "game win" in the finals and giving it the same significance as it has in the preliminary rounds. Fred

"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message news:hm94m1$uo0$2...@news.eternal-september.org... > henrik wrote: >> Leaving seating up to random chance because it "has so much influence >> on the game" sounds like a bad idea to me. > > Huh? You need to expand on this, since at least 66% of tournament games > the seating is left to random chance. I'll do expand on it. (Of course, I can't speak for Henrik but I suspect I know where's he going because it's where I'd be going...) I don't want to go through two or three preliminary round games having done fantastically well and possibly much better than any other finalist just to draw the fuck seat behind the combat wall and in front of the bleed cannon based on random chance. If I'm dumb enough to _choose_ that seat, OK. But seating can make a huge difference. Fred

On Feb 26, 2:24 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "librarian" <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message > > news:hm94oq$uo0$3...@news.eternal-september.org... > > > You still don't answer the key question - why are the finals a different game? > > Because we can't prevent it. We most certainly can prevent it. We can determine seating randomly, or by a method that is effectively random from the player's perspective (like seating the players in order of preliminary standings). If you mean more than that, then your argument proves too much. It is like arguing that we cannot prevent the finals from being absolutely the same in all respects, therefore we might as well have the finalists play Monopoly. > Unless you know of a way of including the concept > of a "game win" in the finals and giving it the same significance as it has in > the preliminary rounds. The rules have been modified for precisely this purpose. The "everyone ties for second place" rule encourages everyone except the leader to go for a game win. The option of a longer time limit also helps ensure that the game winner and the tournament winner will be one and the same.

On Feb 26, 1:50 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > I just think it's strange that the final of a game is played under > different rules than the preliminary rounds. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it's already true that the final table is played under different rules than the previous rounds, regardless if seating is determined by random chance, seeding, roshambo, or any other method. Does the change to the game win rules in the final also strike you as strange? John Eno

On Feb 26, 3:28 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it's already true > that the final table is played under different rules than the previous > rounds, regardless if seating is determined by random chance, seeding, > roshambo, or any other method. Does the change to the game win rules > in the final also strike you as strange? I really don't understand the point of this argument. Are you trying to prove that the finalists might as well play Monopoly?

[ quoted text not captured ] There really is no choice in that, since the game can end 2; 2; and 1.

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:22:28 -0800, librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how annoying > the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. Specifically > because it was totally different from any other regular game of VTES. > And because seating has so much influence on the game, shouldn't it be > like every other table? > > So my suggestion would be: > > Seat everyone randomly. 1st seed gets to pick when they get to go in > play order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th). Play. > > Comments? Awesome idea. Especially the "play" part. I really like this. Can we make this the official rule (or minimum, an official option) for sanctioned tournaments? I really hate the part where 1) you are only supposed to observe the table you are playing at (or leave the play area), yet 2) you are significantly rewarded for breaking this rule. This is an elegant solution to eliminate "scouting" (which players feel like they have a right to for whatever reason, even though it's just cheating in the end). -- Regards, Daneel

On Feb 26, 3:32 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > I really don't understand the point of this argument. Are you trying > to prove that the finalists might as well play Monopoly? It's not an argument. I just wonder why the one rules change sticks in Chris's craw but the other doesn't. But to answer your question: Clearly, no, or I would have written something about Monopoly, rather than what I actually wrote. John Eno

On Feb 26, 3:34 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > There really is no choice in that, since the game can end 2; 2; and 1. I'm sure that there are any number of ways that the GW rules could have been modified to avoid causing issues regarding who wins the final round. I don't care enough to actually think any up, but I'm sure they're out there. So why isn't Chris bothered by the potential existence of those, but is bothered by the potential existence of other seating determination rules? Or maybe he is - I dunno, which is why I asked. I wasn't asking as a rhetorical device, as I totally don't have a horse in this race, but because I'm curious about the answer. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] ok, no time limit ties (2; 2; 1) broken by ranking that is all I got.

On Feb 26, 12:36 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:22:28 -0800, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> [ quoted text not captured ] Or the pre-arranged finals seating makes scouting more important since you know exactly where the other players will sit depending on the standings after the preliminary rounds. Players near the top of the seeding may alter their play in the last round(s) to arrange for favorable finals seating. Likewise, random finals seating gives a player who has already secured a seat in the finals before the last preliminary round is played, no incentive to play to win. This opens the door to helping friends get in the finals or to cross-table attacks on players on the bubble, etc. This current version of the finals seeding was meant to address the problem of some players not playing to win in all of the preliminary rounds. It was a real problem we witnessed and addressed. Chris rightly states that the finals seating has "so much influence on the game". This is why it is such a great motivator for players to do their best in all of the preliminary rounds. -Robert

[ quoted text not captured ] Strange yes, but not as strange. Not as critically different. But that said, you could remove the highest seed resolves ties criterion, and only someone with GW wins tournament. Allowing for tournaments with no winner. Now that would be interesting (bad, maybe, but interesting). best - chris

Daneel wrote: > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:22:28 -0800, librarian > <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > >> I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how >> annoying the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. >> Specifically because it was totally different from any other regular >> game of VTES. And because seating has so much influence on the game, >> shouldn't it be like every other table? >> >> So my suggestion would be: >> >> Seat everyone randomly. 1st seed gets to pick when they get to go in >> play order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th). Play. >> >> Comments? > > Awesome idea. Especially the "play" part. I really like this. Can we make > this the official rule (or minimum, an official option) for sanctioned > tournaments? > > I really hate the part where 1) you are only supposed to observe the > table you are playing at (or leave the play area), yet 2) you are > significantly rewarded for breaking this rule. > > I don't think this is a tournament rule anymore. I'm sort of getting a tingle in my sarcasto-sense though in regards to your post... best - chris

On Feb 26, 3:36 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > I really hate the part where 1) you are only supposed to observe the > table you are playing at (or leave the play area), Is this a rule that your tournament organizers have come up with? It's not actually an official VEKN rule - in fact, it's the opposite of the official VEKN rule. > This is an elegant solution to eliminate "scouting" (which players feel > like they have a right to for whatever reason, even though it's just > cheating in the end). I'm pretty sure that they feel like they have a right to it specifically because it's officially not cheating. John Eno

On Feb 26, 3:36 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > I really hate the part where 1) you are only supposed to observe the > table you are playing at (or leave the play area), yet 2) you are > significantly rewarded for breaking this rule. > > This is an elegant solution to eliminate "scouting" (which players feel > like they have a right to for whatever reason, even though it's just > cheating in the end). Yeah, I don't so much know if it is cheating, so much as just seeing what is going on in the room. I like the current finals seating system, but do realize that it gives an advantage to people who have seen all the other finalist's decks as opposed to the people who, for whatever reason, haven't. As whether or not you know what all the other decks in the final do is (without taking scouting into account) essentially random (it is perfectly possible to have seen all the other decks that are in the final by virtue of playing against them), rather than trying to prevent scouting, just assume that everyone is going to scout as much as they possibly can, and go with it. Trying to prevent scouting is insanely difficult. And simply not worth the effort (anyone who played tournament B5 all those years ago might remember the hurdles they went through in an attempt to legislate against scouting). So rather than try to prevent it (as some folks are going to know what the other finalist decks do anyway by virtue of seeing them in play), just say "scout all you want". If people are feeling like they are going to make the finals, and they want to wander from table to table after their games are done and see what everyone else is playing? More power to them. As long as they aren't disruptive, how is this problematic? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] With the rules as they exist now, players already have a motivation to do the best they can in each preliminary round. There is no need to add this extra rule for the preliminary rounds (after the first). Removing the current finals seating rule it is less likely that all players will be motivated to play to win in all preliminary rounds. -Robert

On Feb 26, 1:52 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > The habit you have of separating off pieces of peoples' paragraph > in order to interject denials or to lodge objections that, if you > simply considered their entire argument, are ultimately answered is > not helpful to communication. I think it would be better if you > responded to the entire thrust of their argument instead of > obsessively needing to throw something in every sentence or so. I'm sorry to have annoyed you. But, for the record, I do not agree that the rest of your post provided a logical answer to my question. > The idea is being advanced that the final should be > "just like preliminary round games". That was not the idea as I understood it. The idea, as I understood it, is that Tournament V:tES should be the same as standard V:tES. As Librarian put it, "a regular game of V:tES", and that is how I understood his meaning. I understand that Tournament V:tES has been changed from standard V:tES in specific ways for specific reasons. However, it is my view that all such changes require justification. > > Sufficient for what? Excessive by what standard? > > Indeed, that's my point. There's is no standard other than subjective > preference. The way you reasoned in the previous post, you seemed to > assume some standard had been met and the current method was found > wanting. I was pointing that there exists no standard of 'how much > advantage is too much?'. I never said that there were no standards. I merely pointed that you had none. Your only argument is that the rule requires no justification, because there exist no values by which the rule may be judged. It may well be that you and I have nothing to discuss, because we cannot agree on certain common basic propositions. But I merely assume that the purpose of a V:tES tournament is to measure skill at V:tES, by which is meant the standard game, except to the extent that specific changes can be justified for specific reasons.

"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:71b2cef4-3e40-4485...@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 26, 2:24 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > "librarian" <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message > > > > news:hm94oq$uo0$3...@news.eternal-september.org... > > > > > You still don't answer the key question - why are the finals a different game? > > > > Because we can't prevent it. > > We most certainly can prevent it. We can determine seating randomly, > or by a method that is effectively random from the player's > perspective (like seating the players in order of preliminary > standings). But that is insufficient to demonstrate that "the finals are the same as preliminary games". > If you mean more than that, then your argument proves too much. It is > like arguing that we cannot prevent the finals from being absolutely > the same in all respects, therefore we might as well have the > finalists play Monopoly. Sorry, this does not logically follow. We cannot prevent the finals from being absolutely the same in all respects, therefore it's not reasonable to suggest "being the same..." is some sort of default preference. But it does not, as you claim, mean that one throws out all reasonable judgement about what makes a good final. Fred

wedge wrote: > I would say that, if you do not scout you are breaking play to win. Play To Win only applies when a game is being played, not after a game is over, when you are chatting with other players, getting some food, taking a dump in the restroom, etc. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

Daneel wrote: > I really hate the part where 1) you are only supposed to observe > the table you are playing at (or leave the play area), yet 2) you are > significantly rewarded for breaking this rule. Which rule would this be? I'm unaware of it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e8bb1d78-6523-40a3...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 26, 3:28 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it's already true > > that the final table is played under different rules than the previous > > rounds, regardless if seating is determined by random chance, seeding, > > roshambo, or any other method. Does the change to the game win rules > > in the final also strike you as strange? > > I really don't understand the point of this argument. The point of this argument is that it's not possible to make the final play very much like a preliminary round game at all. The difference in the pursuit of the goal of "game win (secondarily as many victory points as you can get)" vs. "overall tournament win" is far more different than the minor aspect of "randomly chosen order" vs. "player-chosen order". The only gain from pursuing the goal of having the two be alike is to allow there to be consistency in terms of play styles and deck construction from the one level of play to the other. Since we'll never have that, I'll say *I* really don't understand the point of insisting that there's anything to be gained by worrying about the divergence between the two different styles of setup. Fred

Okay, I just finished reading this ridiculously long discussion (you can blame slow Fridays). Look, everyone is making this all more complicated then it is. Seating in rounds is first determined randomly, then in subsequent rounds it is determined to avoid a) same pred and prey matchups b) some other things like making sure that a player doesn't always play on a 4 person (as opposed to 5) table. c) That there table position is not always the same. etc All of this is thrown out the window when you reach the finals. Now in the finals the previous score only counts if there is a tie. So if you are playing better then everyone else (better deck, better play, better luck, whatever) what advantage have you earned for the final? -you can either get seating (who goes first) -or you can get placement placement allows players who got 2nd and 3rd place a minor "advantage" as well (which they also earned) The only other option would be to make the seating random and allow the first place to choose what position to start in (1 transfer, 4 transfers, whatever). But this only gives a minor advantage to the highest scoring person, not the 1-3 high scores. placement this is what the tournament designers decided So throughout the randomness of the seating during the rounds, those with the best score get to (for once) TRY and get an advantage in seating. I say TRY cause the only one who can't be stopped is the 1st place player. For those in 2nd and 3rd, their placement can be countered by the placement of the next higher scoring player. And for scouting - it makes sense! How else is a player supposed to choose placement? Because John Eno looks at me funny so I want to be his predator so he always "looks to the left"??? C'mon! Oye! I'm all for new ideas from the vtes community (I think the best example of that is the famous "Duffin Draft"), but to argue about something when there is not a viable solution seems... frustrating. And John Whelan is in my community and comes up with some very interesting ideas. He has a tendency to not listen to me (still think I was wrong about the group 6 vamps john? :-) ) when he should but he's a good chap nevertheless. Okay that's my 2 cents, but I'm taking back a penny for my thoughts. You do with the 1 cent as you choose. Adam Hulse Baron of New York

On Feb 26, 4:48 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > But that is insufficient to demonstrate that "the finals are the same > as preliminary games". I am not trying to demonstrate that "the finals are the same as preliminary games". And where did you get that "quote" from? > > If you mean more than that, then your argument proves too much. It is > > like arguing that we cannot prevent the finals from being absolutely > > the same in all respects, therefore we might as well have the > > finalists play Monopoly. > > Sorry, this does not logically follow. It follows logically from your claim that there exist no standards by which such things can be judged. If your intent was to kill any possible discussion, you succeeded.

On Feb 26, 10:43 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > orianice wrote: > > It is unfair to the 1st seed if you give no advantage in the finals > > It is unfair to the 2nd to 4th seed if the only advantage is that the > > 1st seed decides who starts > > It is unfair to the 4th and 5th seed (?) with the current rules. > > > I rather be unfair to people who entered final last... I don't know > > how to explain that. It sounds so balanced to me. > > Orian, I would posit that in the current system, 2nd and 3rd seed > (definitely 2nd seed) has almost as much advantage if not more than 1st seed. I don't see it. The 2nd seed can choose his or her predator and prey but knows that the 1st seed may overrule their decision. The 1st seeded player is choosing their prey and pred with 100% certainty > You still don't answer the key question - why are the finals a different game? Because there are no games after it. Or to put it another way, the preliminary rounds require a carrot to promote the best effort by all players in each round. The finals has its own motivation for best play and needs nothing further. -Robert

"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message news:hm9enj$2ir$1...@news.eternal-september.org... > Kushiel wrote: >> On Feb 26, 1:50 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >>> I just think it's strange that the final of a game is played under >>> different rules than the preliminary rounds. >> >> As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it's already true >> that the final table is played under different rules than the previous >> rounds, regardless if seating is determined by random chance, seeding, >> roshambo, or any other method. Does the change to the game win rules >> in the final also strike you as strange? >> > > Strange yes, but not as strange. Not as critically different. OMFG!!! They're completely different! I dunno Chris. To me, this appears to be flipped around. The game win thing is much different. Player-chosen setup doesn't make the game itself seem that much different to me. > But that said, you could remove the highest seed resolves ties criterion, and only someone with GW wins tournament. Allowing for > tournaments with no winner. Now that would be interesting (bad, maybe, but interesting). Well, OK, just to throw something out there, you could say, "The winner of the tournament is the player who gets a game win in the finals. If no player gets a game win in the finals, then the leader after the preliminary rounds wins the tournament." That would be _sort_ of like making players (or four of them, anyway) go for a game win. It would be kind of weird in that if the two players got ousts and one of the ousted players was the preliminary round leader, he would root for no game win to be declared champion even though he clearly did not do as well in the final as any of the three non- ousted players. So I don't think that would be a good rule. But it would sort of, kind of give the go-for-a-game-win motivation to the final game. The truth is, you just can't make the finals be like the preliminary rounds. So I don't see why the hew and cry over it. If you don't like the seating ritual because you don't like the seating ritual, that's fine. Your opinion's as valuable as mine. I just don't see the "because-it's- different-from-the-early-rounds-random-setup" thing as a legitimate argument. Fred

On Feb 26, 1:51 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > wedge wrote: > > I would say that, if you do not scout you are breaking play to win. > > Play To Win only applies when a game is being played, not after > a game is over, when you are chatting with other players, getting > some food, taking a dump in the restroom, etc. I guess I have to say I was half kidding. That there is a PTW rule is silly. I play ever game to win. In a Tourney I will look at the remaining games, too see what people are playing. If one of those games looks tense, I may stay to watch it play out, over scouting the rest of the room. I love a well contested game of vtes. It is good to see what people bring to the table, no matter of standing just the meta. Which I believe will be shifting soon. NO, I will not say. Come to L.A. in May. You will see, if you don't already. Matt

<adam....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:14b20edb-5e18-4ceb...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > And for scouting - it makes sense! How else is a player supposed to > choose placement? I keep answering this question. I don't know why people miss the *MORE* *IMPORTANT* source of information for choosing placement: you've played in preliminary round games against one or more decks in the finals. In smaller tournaments, often most or all of them. OK? Folks, I think the importance of scouting is being blown way out of proportion! Fred

On Feb 26, 2:33 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > <adam.hu...@gmail.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] As you say it depends on the size of the tourney. To small and you will have played against all but two. To big and you just can see them all or remember if you did. I think the point was to talk about it. Not that it needed to change, but to see if it could be better and how, if at all. Matt

On Feb 26, 2:43 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 2:33 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > > > > <adam.hu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:14b20edb-5e18-4ceb...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > > > > And for scouting - it makes sense! How else is a player supposed to > > > choose placement? > > > I keep answering this question. I don't know why people miss the *MORE* > > *IMPORTANT* source of information for choosing placement: you've played > > in preliminary round games against one or more decks in the finals. In > > smaller tournaments, often most or all of them. > > > OK? Folks, I think the importance of scouting is being blown way > > out of proportion! > > > Fred > > As you say it depends on the size of the tourney. To small and you > will have played against all but two. To big and you just CA'N'T see them > all or remember if you did. > > I think the point was to talk about it. Not that it needed to change, > but to see if it could be better and how, if at all. > > Matt oops

I think Robert addressed the rationale behind the seating rules for final rounds. My only problem with the rule is that sometimes people are forced to make decisions with NO KNOWLEDGE of some or all of the other decks in question. On the other hand, others have a lot of knowledge, gained either through game play, "scouting", or out-of-tournament experience. This suggests an uneven playing field, that some people, including myself, are uncomfortable with. Maybe a simple answer to the ethics of scouting is to have all finalists go to the table at once, introduce themselves, and give a short description of their decks, something like in the Ralf Lammert's tournament reports on extrala.blogspot. Example: 1. Mark Loughman -- Tremere antitribu G4/5 Wall 2. Brandon Haas -- Dom/For Tap&Bleed 2. Preston Poulter -- Akunanse Wall 2. Robyn Tatu -- Toreador antitribu Bleed w/ Palla Grande 2. Ian Lee -- City Gangrel Dominate S&B I'm not saying the descriptions can't be deceptive. Of course, if all the finalists are standing there, someone might call somebody else out for being innacurate. The thing is, it is very hard to effectively choose your seating if you have NO IDEA what one or more other decks do. It also doesn't help when you don't even know what a finalist looks like. Maybe you know the finalist's deck through scouting, but you didn't learn their name and they aren't at the table when you have to choose your seating. I think that happens. It is also not always possible to scout the other finalists' decks, for any number of reasons. With my idea, people who scout would still have an advantage. But at least no one would be at a COMPLETE disadvantage when given the opportunity to choose seating.

On Feb 26, 5:02 pm, "adam.hu...@gmail.com" <adam.hu...@gmail.com> wrote: > -you can either get seating (who goes first) > -or you can get placement I have no problem with top-seeded players getting to decide whether they go first, second, third, etc. I do have an issue with their choosing who their predator or prey are, even though they may (or may not) have considerable knowledge of those persons decks. It imports too many out-of-game considerations. > And for scouting - it makes sense! How else is a player supposed to > choose placement? Nobody is trying to stop scouting. I just don't see the point of a rule that seems to deliberately invite or reward out of game considerations. > I'm all for new ideas from the vtes community (I think the best > example of that is the famous "Duffin Draft"), but to argue about > something when there is not a viable solution seems... frustrating. A different seating method, that does not permit a player to choose the identify of his predator or prey, is indeed viable. > And John Whelan is in my community and comes up with some very > interesting ideas. He has a tendency to not listen to me (still think > I was wrong about the group 6 vamps john? :-) ) [...] I am convinced they are all misprints. But seriously, that did surprise me.

On Feb 26, 3:51 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > wedge wrote: > > I would say that, if you do not scout you are breaking play to win. > > Play To Win only applies when a game is being played, not after > a game is over, when you are chatting with other players, getting > some food, taking a dump in the restroom, etc. > I always PTW when taking a dump. Later, ~Rehlow

[ quoted text not captured ] Just as long as you're not playing for keeps... Matt

[ quoted text not captured ] Ahhh ... the sweet smell of victory.

[ quoted text not captured ] But Robert, your argument falsely assumes the player is gaining an advantage from choosing seating in the final table. The only motivator for the final table seating choice is knowing the contents of all the other decks in the tournament...specifically the other 4 finalists!!!! I was the one discussing this with Chris at the LVNAQ. My comment was based on the fact that the #1 seed chose a poor position in the final. I knew this based on the other decks in the final that I personally faced. The top seeded player became the top seed through random player seating...why is it different in the finals? Vegas gNat

On Feb 26, 12:16 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why we don't give more pool to top seeded players instead of letting > them pick seating? I see that as a silly question rather than a relevant one, really. I cannot strongly disagree, since I am in fact opposed to doing it. But it is a relevant question. If we seriously believe that top- seeded players deserve some kind of reward that handicaps the outcome of the final game, why is a reward that does not import out-of-game considerations (like the pool bonus) sillier than a reward that does do so (the opportunity to choose your predator and prey, which may or may not be of value, depending on how much you happen to know about the decks your opponents are playing). > But > I think deciding where to sit is more appropriate than extra pool or > transfers. I'm still waiting for a reason. > I've never really seen seat picking as a problem but rather as a fun > and challenging way to decide how the final table looks. Fun is subjective. "Challenging" is for me the annoying part, because of what it seems to be "challenging" me to do. It is telling me I should have spent more time scouting and finding out about other player's decks. And this annoys me -- not because I think scouting should be forbidden, but merely because I do not think the rules should actively encourage it.

"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:acc257c0-0990-4336...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Feb 26, 1:52 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I'm sorry to have annoyed you. But, for the record, I do not agree > that the rest of your post provided a logical answer to my question. Understood. > > The idea is being advanced that the final should be > > "just like preliminary round games". > > That was not the idea as I understood it. The idea, as I understood > it, is that Tournament V:tES should be the same as standard V:tES. As > Librarian put it, "a regular game of V:tES", and that is how I > understood his meaning. That strikes me as being even less attainable as an overall goal (and therefore even less worthwhile to discuss attaining to a partial degree). I think we've disputed this before. Clearly, preliminary round games are not like "a regular game of V:TES" in the sense of having a time limit and emphasizing the game win. Also, I am aware Chris plays most of his (non-virtual) games in Los Angeles, where I believe the usual practice is to play casual games by tournament rules. So I'd question if there's a distinction for Chris's purposes. I'll leave it to him to speak for himself but I'm not sure if you did understand him correctly. > I understand that Tournament V:tES has been changed from standard > V:tES in specific ways for specific reasons. However, it is my view > that all such changes require justification. Well, clearly we're not going to agree about that. I see no point to just a demand. > > > Sufficient for what? Excessive by what standard? > > > > Indeed, that's my point. There's is no standard other than subjective > > preference. The way you reasoned in the previous post, you seemed to > > assume some standard had been met and the current method was found > > wanting. I was pointing that there exists no standard of 'how much > > advantage is too much?'. > > I never said that there were no standards. I merely pointed that you > had none. Your only argument is that the rule requires no > justification, because there exist no values by which the rule may be > judged. I never said I had _no_ standards. I merely pointed out that the standards were discussing are entirely subjective. This is hardly the same thing as having none at all. > It may well be that you and I have nothing to discuss, because we > cannot agree on certain common basic propositions. > > But I merely assume that the purpose of a V:tES tournament is to > measure skill at V:tES, by which is meant the standard game, except to > the extent that specific changes can be justified for specific > reasons. Yep, it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. But three things are clear to me, at least: 1) You can _not_ come tolerably close to measuring the skill of a non- tournament "original rulebook rules" game of VtES in a tournament. Interjecting game wins, timeouts, and 1/2 victory points makes the game play distinctly different. 2) Neither can you come tolerably close to measuring the skill of a preliminary round tournament game in the finals. The distinction between the game-win-and-maximize-victory-points goal in the preliminary rounds enforced by the play-to-win rule is too different from the finals game play-to-win-the-whole-tournament style. and... 3) Given (1) and (2), it's better to just choose things you like in terms of tournament rules rather than bothering to worry about how close any style of game is to any other style. As an allegory about number (3), I'd offer the situation of trying to transport myself from the rim of the Grand Canyon down to the bottom. I've heard that there's no roads that are open to any except the park rangers. But you can use mules to get down there in some places. It's not ideal using a mule instead of an automobile to get down there but I've heard that it works well enough. I would desire to make the trip as close as possible to an automobile trip, it's true - but that doesn't mean I want the mule filled up with gas first. Sometimes it just doesn't make any sense to say, "If we can't have 'X', let's make it as close 'X' as possible." Fred

"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ab16f668-6805-4165...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Nonsense. Again, this is a false dichotomy by means of interpreting what I said in an overly broad way. I never claimed there existed no standards by which such things can be judged. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, my argument assumes this. I believe it is still true most of the time. > The only > motivator for the final table seating choice is knowing the contents > of all the other decks in the tournament...specifically the other 4 > finalists!!!! In the absence of knowledge gained by playing against other players' decks in prior rounds (or scouting I suppose), I personally choose my seating based on the knowledge of the seeding of the other players. (Maybe I choose to stay far away from the 2nd seed or choose the 5th seed as my prey, etc.) > I was the one discussing this with Chris at the LVNAQ. My comment was > based on the fact that the #1 seed chose a poor position in the > final. I knew this based on the other decks in the final that I > personally faced. > > The top seeded player became the top seed through random player > seating...why is it different in the finals? I think most players agree that it is an advantage to choose your pred and prey in the finals. My impression is that we saw a decrease in preliminary round shenanigans after creating this carrot. If a suitable substitute for the preliminary rounds carrot could be found (one that didn't reward scouting or the luck of prior round seating) I would be in favor of replacing this element. Eliminating it without filling that void does not seem smart to me. -Robert

On Feb 26, 7:44 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I think we've disputed this before. Clearly, preliminary > round games are not like "a regular game of V:TES" in the sense of > having a time limit and emphasizing the game win. I disagree. They are very much "like" each other. The time limit was a regrettable necessity, whose purpose and function I do not need to defend. This, however, ended up sabotaging one of the essential features of un-timed games -- that ties are unlikely, and the game is essentially a little-or-much eat-or-be-eaten battle. Surviving to time out is simply not an option per standard rules. To compensate for the ease with which tables are split in un-timed games, merely by surviving to time out, various risk incentives were added to encourage players to finish games and actually try to win. The purpose of such further changes was not to make preliminary rounds LESS like regular V:tES but to RESTORE its resemblance to regular V:tES. The result was imperfect, but the "spirit" of regular V:tES was the standard by which success was judged.

"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dca3b6a7-f545-432f...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... On Feb 26, 7:44 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > I think we've disputed this before. Clearly, preliminary > > round games are not like "a regular game of V:TES" in the sense of > > having a time limit and emphasizing the game win. > > I disagree. They are very much "like" each other. The time limit was > a regrettable necessity, whose purpose and function I do not need to > defend. Certainly not. In fact, IIRC, when we disputed this, I was the one in favor of maintaining it as is and you were in favor of tinkering with it. Obviously, I don't think anyone's criticizing it here. Just disputing what it means, given that we now have it. ... > The result was imperfect, but the "spirit" of regular V:tES was the > standard by which success was judged. Sure. But perhaps I misrepresented myself. I don't mean to suggest the game win has been any kind of a failure in terms of simulating the original game - as best as it can be simulated in a tournament. How good that is, exactly, is another thing which can't be measured objectively. But I'd say I'm pretty happy with the result overall. That said, however, perhaps it would be more accurate for me to opine that given how different the regular rulebook rules game of VtES is from the preliminary round tournament game - let alone the final game - I don't see any point at all in quibbling about the differences in player order selection. Fred

Aaron Clark wrote: > This suggests an uneven playing field, that some people, including > myself, are uncomfortable with. > > Maybe a simple answer to the ethics of scouting is to have all > finalists go to the table at once, introduce themselves, and give a > short description of their decks, something like in the Ralf Lammert's > tournament reports on extrala.blogspot. > > Example: > 1. Mark Loughman -- Tremere antitribu G4/5 Wall > 2. Brandon Haas -- Dom/For Tap&Bleed > 2. Preston Poulter -- Akunanse Wall > 2. Robyn Tatu -- Toreador antitribu Bleed w/ Palla Grande > 2. Ian Lee -- City Gangrel Dominate S&B > > I'm not saying the descriptions can't be deceptive. Of course, if all > the finalists are standing there, someone might call somebody else out > for being innacurate. > If we stay with this system, which I assume we will, this sounds reasonable, and good sportsmanship. best - chris

Frederick Scott wrote: > "John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:dca3b6a7-f545-432f...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 26, 7:44 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > > I think we've disputed this before. Clearly, preliminary > > > round games are not like "a regular game of V:TES" in the sense of > > > having a time limit and emphasizing the game win. > > > > I disagree. They are very much "like" each other. The time limit was > > a regrettable necessity, whose purpose and function I do not need to > > defend. > > Certainly not. In fact, IIRC, when we disputed this, I was the one > in favor of maintaining it as is and you were in favor of tinkering > with it. IIRC we never disputed this. We were always in agreement that the time limit was a necessity. > > The result was imperfect, but the "spirit" of regular V:tES was the > > standard by which success was judged. > > Sure. But perhaps I misrepresented myself. I don't mean to suggest > the game win has been any kind of a failure in terms of simulating > the original game - as best as it can be simulated in a tournament. > How good that is, exactly, is another thing which can't be measured > objectively. But I'd say I'm pretty happy with the result overall. Our difference, IIRC, has always been that I regard the tournament rules as intended to approximate, as closely as feasible, the spirit and intent of the standard rules. Whereas you have no particular loyalty to the standard rules, and seem to regard the tournament rules as independent and self-justifying traditions.

Kevin M. wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> I really hate the part where 1) you are only supposed to observe >> the table you are playing at (or leave the play area), yet 2) you are >> significantly rewarded for breaking this rule. > > Which rule would this be? I'm unaware of it. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules 2.4. Spectator Responsibilities A spectator of a game is defined as any person other than a judge or an organizer who is not playing in that game. **A player who is ousted from a game is considered a spectator for the remainder of the round**. All spectators are expected to remain silent during the course of a game and are not permitted to communicate with players in any way while a game is in progress. Spectators who believe that they have observed rules violations should inform a judge, but they must not interfere with the game. Players have the right to request that any spectator not observe their game. All such requests must be made through a judge, who may grant or deny the request as he or she sees fit. **The judge or organizer may choose to prohibit all specatators at any table(s) or round(s) of the tournament.** The two emphasised parts could be what led to Daneel's experiences. Also worth noting, in the rules they spelled it 'specatators' in that last sentence (I only noticed thanks to Thunderbird's auto-spell-check). Regards, -- salem

Salem wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> Daneel wrote: >>> I really hate the part where 1) you are only supposed to observe >>> the table you are playing at (or leave the play area), yet 2) you >>> are significantly rewarded for breaking this rule. >> >> Which rule would this be? I'm unaware of it. > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules > > 2.4. Spectator Responsibilities > > A spectator of a game is defined as any person other than a judge or > an organizer who is not playing in that game. **A player who is > ousted from a game is considered a spectator for the remainder of the > round**. All spectators are expected to remain silent during the > course of a game and are not permitted to communicate with players in > any way while a game is in progress. Spectators who believe that they > have observed rules violations should inform a judge, but they must > not interfere with the game. Players have the right to request that > any spectator not observe their game. All such requests must be made > through a judge, who may grant or deny the request as he or she sees > fit. **The judge or organizer may choose to prohibit all specatators > at any table(s) or round(s) of the tournament.** > > The two emphasised parts could be what led to Daneel's experiences. Perhaps. But his 1) assertion infers something that doesn't exist, unless the judge chooses to enforce it, since you are neither only supposed to observe your table and no others (inferred), nor are you supposed to leave the play area (inferred). His 2) is correct, as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:29:54 -0800 (PST), Robert Goudie <robertt...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 12:36ￜpm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:22:28 -0800, librarian >> <aucti...@superfuncards.com> >> wrote: >> >> > I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how >> annoying >> > the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. ￜSpecifically >> > because it was totally different from any other regular game of VTES. >> ￜ >> > And because seating has so much influence on the game, shouldn't it be >> > like every other table? >> >> > So my suggestion would be: >> >> > Seat everyone randomly. ￜ1st seed gets to pick when they get to go in >> > play order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th). ￜPlay. >> >> > Comments? >> >> Awesome idea. Especially the "play" part. I really like this. Can we >> make >> ￜ this the official rule (or minimum, an official option) for sanctioned >> ￜ tournaments? >> >> I really hate the part where 1) you are only supposed to observe the >> ￜ table you are playing at (or leave the play area), yet 2) you are >> ￜ significantly rewarded for breaking this rule. >> >> This is an elegant solution to eliminate "scouting" (which players feel >> ￜ like they have a right to for whatever reason, even though it's just >> ￜ cheating in the end). > > Or the pre-arranged finals seating makes scouting more important since > you know exactly where the other players will sit depending on the > standings after the preliminary rounds. Players near the top of the > seeding may alter their play in the last round(s) to arrange for > favorable finals seating. > > Likewise, random finals seating gives a player who has already secured > a seat in the finals before the last preliminary round is played, no > incentive to play to win. This opens the door to helping friends get > in the finals or to cross-table attacks on players on the bubble, etc. > > This current version of the finals seeding was meant to address the > problem of some players not playing to win in all of the preliminary > rounds. It was a real problem we witnessed and addressed. Chris > rightly states that the finals seating has "so much influence on the > game". This is why it is such a great motivator for players to do > their best in all of the preliminary rounds. > > -Robert The OP proposed to make seating random in the finals. There was another thread started by another poster suggesting a pre-arranged final (to which I commented more or less the same thing). However, staying with the idea of random seating in the finals - you are still best off if you play-to-win. You gain nothing by going into the finals with a lower score - except for losing a potential tie-breaker if final scores are the same. So if the seating in the finals is random, you still gain a lot by having a higher score, and gain nothing by having a lower one -> hence the incentive for playing to win stays. -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] You wrote: "Indeed, that's my point. There's is no standard other than subjective preference." You also wrote that since the final is a different game, there is no point in arguing that it should be the same game. I am merely carrying your words to their logical conclusion. If I say "After 7 hours of V:tES, I get tired of the game. I would much prefer we determine the tournament winner by playing a nice relaxing game of Monopoly. It's fun and unique," then, by the (non-)standards you have advocated, you have no possible counter-argument. You could, presumably, outvote me. But you would have no counter- argument.

Kevin M. wrote: > >>> It is contrary to the spirit of the normal rules. > >> > >> Which rules? > > > > The norm, per standard rules, is that deck information is private > > and remains private until revealed during play. > > Where is this rule? It's illegal to discuss your deck with the guys > you drove up with, or whomever, before you play it? No. Why are you pretending not to understand? You know as well as I do that in casual play, in normal games per standard rules, players will either not reveal what deck they will play, or they will insist that seating be determined randomly. The reason this is done is obvious. To permit another player to pick seating, with knowledge of the other player's decks is to give him an unfair advantage. > That sounds > unenforceable. It's also a logistical nightmare -- the main reason > why scouting isn't prohibited. Nobody is trying to prohibit scouting. Why this constant attempt to set up a straw man? > > The option of switching decks between games helps enforce this. > > Are we now discussing casual play? :P We are discussing the standard game. > > In tournaments, there are reasons to insist that players keep > > their decks throughout the various rounds. > > Did you mean keep their decks SECRET? No. I mean keep the same deck. > > But there seems no reason, in keeping with the spirit or the > > standard game, that we should go out of our way to encourage > > players to take advantage of this fact. > > Scouting isn't banned because it's a logistical nightmare. STRAW MAN ALERT -- STRAW MAN ALERT. Again. Nobody is trying to ban scouting. > In casual games, random seating is customary everywhere in the world > that I have played. Per standard rules, players may arrange seating by any method they choose. "Lets just sit where we are" is sometimes acceptable to all players, when no player knows anything about the decks his opponents are playing. Otherwise, it is done randomly, for the obvious reason that nobody wants to give an unfair advantage to a player who determines seating with knowledge of his opponents decks. > In tournaments, it's the rules, except in the > finals, which are a special case [...] The finals are a "special case" because the intent in the finals is to give the top-seeded player or players an "unfair" advantage over their lower-seeded opponents. This is contrary to the spirit and intent of the standard rules, which are designed to ensure that all players start out on an even keel. The idea that first seed "deserves" such a huge advantage over the second seed is questionable. Odds are that this is the first time these two players have been measured against each-other in the tournament. Otherwise, they would hardly have two game wins apiece (as is often the case). The value of the advantage is also hugely variable, and dependent upon out-of -game considerations. An example offered in this thread: Someone says "so-and-so is playing his Arika deck", and the finalist who is the recipient of this comment remembers and is able to take advantage of this because of past personal experience with so-and-so and his "Arika deck." Helping the top seed to win, because he supposedly deserves it because of his preliminary standings, is an exercise in question begging. Seems to me it would be more honest simply to declare the top seed the winner and go home without a final. Why have a final where we help the top seed to "cheat"? Seems a silly charade to me. But there are reasons why we have finals after the preliminary rounds. There are reasons why it is illogical to regard preliminary standings as a reliable indicator of the best player. A mediocre player can sweep tables if he meets weak opposition, but what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

John Whelan wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: [lots of stuff snipped, relevant part below] >> In tournaments, it's the rules, except in the >> finals, which are a special case [...] > > The idea that first seed "deserves" such a huge advantage > over the second seed is questionable. I see. Since we are discussing some other ccg, and not VTES, I don't really have any interest anymore. Sorry. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 26, 2:22 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how annoying > the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. Specifically > because it was totally different from any other regular game of VTES. And > because seating has so much influence on the game, shouldn't it be like > every other table? > > So my suggestion would be: > > Seat everyone randomly. 1st seed gets to pick when they get to go in play > order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th). Play. > > Comments? > > best - > > chris Howdy Chris! I don't agree that it's annoying. It is however a bit different which I think it should be considering it's a finals. I also think that the players choosing seating based on their tournament performance is an awesome way to make the preliminary rounds count in the final standings. So, I must say I agree Henrik, Orian and Anthony here (haven't read the entire thread but I read these posts). Chaning the seating rules for the finals would currently be a bad idea and it would make playing the finals less fun, less challenging and more random. Regards Alex Ek Swedish NC

On Feb 26, 4:11 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > If this is a problem for you, then there is plenty about the game that > will have to change. Not only will we have to get rid of random > seating in the preliminary rounds, but we will have to get rid of > randomly shuffled decks. I just had to comment on this. The whole idea of deckbuilding is to give yourself favorable odds when shuffling your deck. So, through proper building you can build your own luck. You can't do that with completely randomly determined seating.

Kevin M. wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > Kevin M. wrote: > [lots of stuff snipped, relevant part below] > > >> In tournaments, it's the rules, except in the > >> finals, which are a special case [...] > > > > The idea that first seed "deserves" such a huge advantage > > over the second seed is questionable. > > I see. Since we are discussing some other ccg, and not VTES, > I don't really have any interest anymore. Sorry. That's your business. But, for the record, I have no idea what you mean by that last comment. I was of course discussing V:tES.

John Flournoy wrote: > On Feb 26, 10:54 am, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 26, 10:28 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 11:18 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Sure. And if rewarding good players is a problem we have to remove > > > > poolgain for ousting. > > > > > Good players are rewarded. And I think they are rewarded adequately. > > > > Okay, I have to ask: What is the 'adequate' reward that you think a > > good player gets, i.e. for doing better than everyone else through the > > preliminaries, that isn't the seating-choice? > > Ah, found it in another part of the thread: You believe that making > the finals (plus potentially winning a tie breaker) is adequate. > Noted. The idea that more than that is needed seems contrary to the purpose of a final round. If it were really true that the #1 player in preliminary standings were most deserving, we could declare him the tournament winner and call it a day. But obviously it does not work that way. As a simple illustration, imagine a chess tournament, where, in a preliminary round, random seating pits Gary Kasparov against Bobby Fischer, and Joe the Plumber against my 5-year old Nephew. Kasporov and Joe win, making the first round score: Kasparov 1, Joe 1, Fischer 0, Nephew 0. From this score, it is obviously unreliable to conclude that Joe is as good a player as Kasparov, and a better player than Fischer. But the theory is that, given multiple preliminary rounds, the actual best player at the tournament, even if he does not make #1, will at least prove he is one of the top players, will at least end up with a relatively high score. Hence, alot of players can be eliminated from consideration. The purpose of preliminary round scoring is not to choose the best, or most deserving, player, but to eliminate from consideration a bunch of people who are NOT the best or most deserving player. It is not accurate enough for the former purpose, but it probably suffices for the latter purpose. One then takes the high-scoring players, and pits them against eachother, on the theory that one of these people is probably the real best player, and will now have an opportunity to prove it in a final contest. But if we handicap the contest in favor of the top-ranked player, we are sabotaging the test, and begging the question. Only if two players prove themselves equal in the final contest does it make sense (for want of anything better) to use preliminary round scorings as a tie breaker.

[ quoted text not captured ] You may wish to change it, and that may be correct, but the idea that first seed "deserves" such a huge advantage over the second seed is NOT questionable, in the game we call VTES. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

Kevin M. wrote: > You may wish to change it, and that may be correct, but the idea that > first seed "deserves" such a huge advantage over the second seed > is NOT questionable, in the game we call VTES. I just questioned it. You just said I may be correct, so you have questioned it too. Therefore it is questionable. Apart from that I have no idea what you mean.

_angst_ wrote: > On Feb 26, 4:11 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If this is a problem for you, then there is plenty about the game that > > will have to change. Not only will we have to get rid of random > > seating in the preliminary rounds, but we will have to get rid of > > randomly shuffled decks. > > I just had to comment on this. The whole idea of deckbuilding is to > give yourself favorable odds when shuffling your deck. Both skill and luck are factors. I affirmed that luck was a factor. I did not deny that skill was a factor. Therefore, your comment does not contradict. > So, through proper building you can build your own luck. You can also "build your own luck" even further by cheating, and not playing with a properly shuffled deck. There are obviously limits to the extent to which you are allowed to "build your own luck". > You can't do that with > completely randomly determined seating. Skill is a factor in spite of "completely" random seating, just as skill is a factor in spite of "completely" random shuffling. I see no difference - unless it is the difference that the player does not usually have the option to cheat at random seating, but he might be able to cheat and random shuffling. But perhaps we should also allow the top player, in preliminary rankings, the privilege to cheat at shuffling as well.

John Whelan wrote: > But the theory is that, given multiple preliminary rounds, the > actual best player at the tournament, even if he does not make #1, > will at least prove he is one of the top players, will at least end > up with a relatively high score. Hence, alot of players can be > eliminated from consideration. > > The purpose of preliminary round scoring is not to choose the best, > or most deserving, player, but to eliminate from consideration > a bunch of people who are NOT the best or most deserving player. > It is not accurate enough for the former purpose, but it probably > suffices for the latter purpose. > > One then takes the high-scoring players, and pits them against > each other, on the theory that one of these people is probably the > real best player, and will now have an opportunity to prove it in > a final contest. > > But if we handicap the contest in favor of the top-ranked player, > we are sabotaging the test, and begging the question. This is an excellent analysis. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that any alternative seating method given in this or the accompanying threads works to address it well. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Wow, this sounds like me and Bakija. I guess I must be right, then. :P [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > But the theory is that, given multiple preliminary rounds, the > > actual best player at the tournament, even if he does not make #1, > > will at least prove he is one of the top players, will at least end > > up with a relatively high score. Hence, alot of players can be > > eliminated from consideration. > > > > The purpose of preliminary round scoring is not to choose the best, > > or most deserving, player, but to eliminate from consideration > > a bunch of people who are NOT the best or most deserving player. > > It is not accurate enough for the former purpose, but it probably > > suffices for the latter purpose. > > > > One then takes the high-scoring players, and pits them against > > each other, on the theory that one of these people is probably the > > real best player, and will now have an opportunity to prove it in > > a final contest. > > > > But if we handicap the contest in favor of the top-ranked player, > > we are sabotaging the test, and begging the question. > > This is an excellent analysis. > > Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that any alternative seating method > given in this or the accompanying threads works to address it well. Personally, I am quite content with random seating. It is the method normally used by players to ensure that no single player claims an unfair advantage. Luck is a factor in this game. Accept it. In the long run, luck averages out, and best players do get recognized. Stacking the deck in one player's favor will make the process less reliable, not more so.

[ quoted text not captured ] What has cheating got to do with anything? I see no connection between cheating and the topic of this discussion.

[ quoted text not captured ] Not at all. While the preliminary results do not give an absolute ranking (they cannot, for both the reason you illustrate above in the chess example above and the more immediate factor of randomness involved and, like chess, the idea that the better player doesn't always win against the weaker player), neither is it used as if it were an absolute ranking (that is, it doesn't substitute for a final round). But, like other series-of-game examples, seeding is used in the final round to give the person who performed the best in the preliminaries (perhaps because of better demonstration of skill, perhaps by luck of the draw in facing lesser opponents -- the rules seeding concept doesn't distinguish between the two) the best spot (or xer choice of spots if "best" isn't immediately obvious). Ski cross at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, for example, lets the skiier with the best performance so far (perhaps due to facing a weaker field in the preliminary rounds) choose xer starting gate. Tennis seedings are used to populate the elimination round in a way most favorable to the top- seed. I believe chess tournaments are also handled that way (when it comes time to set up the elimination rounds), but I may be wrong on that point. Anyway, the point is that the same information that is being used to populate the finals (i.e., prelim performance, even though it could be true, as your chess example above, that the #6 player is a better player than #5 but simply faced a higher caliber of players during the prelims than #5 did) can be used, and for the same reason, to provide further ordering within the finals. This is not "sabotaging" the finals, but rather helping to reduce the role of luck in the finals. (The reason, for example, that Short Track switched from a random lane order in previous years for finalists to a preliminary-perfomance-based order this year.)

LSJ wrote: > This is not "sabotaging" the finals, but rather helping to reduce the > role of luck in the finals. To my mind, the appropriateness of the term "sabotaging" depends on whether the measure reduces, rather than than increases, the reliability of the test. This will depend upon whether the "reward" is out of proportion to the achievement. The other sports-competition examples you cite are not necessarily on point (almost certainly not), because the proportion between the reward and the achievement may be (and almost certainly is) very different. In such competitions, the distinction between the first and second seed may be far more meaningful. There may be many reasons for this. Players may already have been sorted by skill (to a greater degree than is possible in V:tES), before the preliminary rounds began. Luck may be less of a factor in determining outcome of preliminary rounds. Scoring may be different. Various multiplayer dynamics, far beyond an individual player's control, may not apply. On the other side of the equation, any advantage gained by the privilege in such counter-examples may be extremely minimal. Does a top-seeded racer really gain a substantial advantage from the privilege of being able to choose his starting point? Probably not. Probably the organizers have done their best to arrange the starting points so that they are, to the best of their judgment, equal.. As for reducing the role of luck? Not really. Rather it increases the role of a previous stroke of luck -- the stroke of luck that resulted in a player being top seed rather than second or third seed. And at least in V:tES (I cannot comment on those other games) this has far more to do with luck than superior skill. And how about the "luck" of overhearing someone say "so-and-so is playing his Arika deck"? And how about the "luck" of knowing precisely what that means, because you happen to come from that person's play-group. Nor is "decreasing the role of luck" inconsistent with "sabotaging the reliability of the test". It will also "decrease the roll of luck" if we allow the top seeded player in an Axis & Allies tournament to play with loaded dice. But this will also increase the chance that the stroke of luck that made the player top seed will be more decisive than it should be.

On 26 Feb, 16:04, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > And I have no idea where Alex Fnurp lives, nor is it relevant. I > really don't get people whose only contribution to a discussion is to > try to make it personal. Eh? I've played for 11 years in england, norway, sweden, finland, denmark and have never experienced the scouting problem you present here. If you had different view of things the location of you is quite important as a starting point for where you found this problem i didnt knew existed. If you take that as a personal insult or whatever maby the internet isnt for you. > The only function served by the current finals seating rule is to > reward top-seated players based on their knowledge of the contents of > the decks of the lower-seated players. I do not regard that as a > legitimate function. I on the other hand see it as a fair reward for piloting your deck excellent :)

[ quoted text not captured ] Shouldn't winning the tournament be the fair reward? And if not, why this method (the current seating method), as opposed to more pool, or more transfers? best - chris

tigernat1 wrote: > On Feb 26, 1:29 pm, Robert Goudie <robertt.gou...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 26, 12:36 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:22:28 -0800, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> >>> wrote: >>>> I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how annoying >>>> the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. Specifically >>>> because it was totally different from any other regular game of VTES. >>>> And because seating has so much influence on the game, shouldn't it be >>>> like every other table? >>>> So my suggestion would be: >>>> Seat everyone randomly. 1st seed gets to pick when they get to go in >>>> play order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th). Play. >>>> Comments? >>> Awesome idea. Especially the "play" part. I really like this. Can we make >>> this the official rule (or minimum, an official option) for sanctioned >>> tournaments? >>> I really hate the part where 1) you are only supposed to observe the >>> table you are playing at (or leave the play area), yet 2) you are >>> significantly rewarded for breaking this rule. >>> This is an elegant solution to eliminate "scouting" (which players feel >>> like they have a right to for whatever reason, even though it's just >>> cheating in the end). >> Or the pre-arranged finals seating makes scouting more important since >> you know exactly where the other players will sit depending on the >> standings after the preliminary rounds. Players near the top of the >> seeding may alter their play in the last round(s) to arrange for >> favorable finals seating. >> >> Likewise, random finals seating gives a player who has already secured >> a seat in the finals before the last preliminary round is played, no >> incentive to play to win. This opens the door to helping friends get >> in the finals or to cross-table attacks on players on the bubble, etc. >> >> This current version of the finals seeding was meant to address the >> problem of some players not playing to win in all of the preliminary >> rounds. It was a real problem we witnessed and addressed. Chris >> rightly states that the finals seating has "so much influence on the >> game". This is why it is such a great motivator for players to do >> their best in all of the preliminary rounds. >> >> -Robert > > But Robert, your argument falsely assumes the player is gaining an > advantage from choosing seating in the final table. The only > motivator for the final table seating choice is knowing the contents > of all the other decks in the tournament...specifically the other 4 > finalists!!!! > > I was the one discussing this with Chris at the LVNAQ. My comment was > based on the fact that the #1 seed chose a poor position in the > final. I knew this based on the other decks in the final that I > personally faced. > > The top seeded player became the top seed through random player > seating...why is it different in the finals? What gNat has summed up is why I was "annoyed". It seemed that the current "finals high-seed benefit" will reward those who are good at "choosing seating"; not necessarily those who are good at "V:TES". Especially since in all other tournament games of VTES, choosing seating is not an important or even relevant skill. best - chris

alex fnurp wrote: > Eh? I've played for 11 years in england, norway, sweden, finland, > denmark and have never experienced the scouting problem you present here. What "scouting problem"? I never presented a "scouting problem". I have no idea what the phrase could possibly mean. > If you had different view of things the location > of you is quite important as a starting point for where you found this > problem i didnt knew existed. I don't have a different view of things. I have no position on the question. I explained that to you in my previous response. To my knowledge, nobody in this thread has alleged the existence of a "scouting problem". What I have alleged is that encouraging and rewarding scouting, or, alternatively rewarding players for possessing game-external information about each-other's decks as a result of luck or circumstance, is not a legitimate function for a tournament rule. Beyond that, I do not regard scouting as a problem, and have absolutely no desire to stop it. > > The only function served by the current finals seating rule is to > > reward top-seated players based on their knowledge of the contents of > > the decks of the lower-seated players. I do not regard that as a > > legitimate function. > > I on the other hand see it as a fair reward for piloting your deck > excellent :) I have addressed that issue at length elsewhere. If you have specific counterarguments, then address them to the relevant posts.

_angst_ wrote: > On Feb 26, 2:22 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >> I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how annoying >> the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. Specifically >> because it was totally different from any other regular game of VTES. And >> because seating has so much influence on the game, shouldn't it be like >> every other table? >> >> So my suggestion would be: >> >> Seat everyone randomly. 1st seed gets to pick when they get to go in play >> order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th). Play. >> >> Comments? >> >> best - >> >> chris > > Howdy Chris! > > I don't agree that it's annoying. Ok. It is however a bit different which > I think it should be considering it's a finals. I disagree with your characterization of them as "a bit different". I would say it's a huge difference. Also, why should the finals have different rules? Pick you favorite professional sport - do the finals of that sport feature such markedly different rules? I also think that the > players choosing seating based on their tournament performance is an > awesome way to make the preliminary rounds count in the final > standings. > Awesome, maybe yes. Appropriate to test the skills of the "best" players at that tournament? I'm not sure. > So, I must say I agree Henrik, Orian and Anthony here (haven't read > the entire thread but I read these posts). Chaning the seating rules > for the finals would currently be a bad idea and it would make playing > the finals less fun, less challenging and more random. > Really, less fun? Maybe, but part of the fun of VTES can be in trying to create a winning situation out of bad seating. Less challenging how? Because now you are adding onto the game of VTES the game of "choosing better seating", a game you never play except in the finals? More random, yes. But VTES seating is always random, except in the finals. Why are do the finals get different treatment? best - chris

librarian wrote: > It seemed that the current > "finals high-seed benefit" will reward those who are good at "choosing > seating"; not necessarily those who are good at "V:TES". Especially since > in all other tournament games of VTES, choosing seating is not an important > or even relevant skill. Quite so. And that applies to non-tournament games as well.

On Mar 1, 1:57 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > _angst_ wrote: > > On Feb 26, 2:22 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > >> I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how annoying > >> the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. Specifically > >> because it was totally different from any other regular game of VTES. And > >> because seating has so much influence on the game, shouldn't it be like > >> every other table? > > >> So my suggestion would be: > > >> Seat everyone randomly. 1st seed gets to pick when they get to go in play > >> order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th). Play. > > >> Comments? > > >> best - > > >> chris > > > Howdy Chris! > > > I don't agree that it's annoying. > > Ok. > > It is however a bit different which > > > I think it should be considering it's a finals. > > I disagree with your characterization of them as "a bit different". I > would say it's a huge difference. > It's still V:tES except that you get the chance to affect the seating. That matters alot but it's still the same game. > Also, why should the finals have different rules? Pick you favorite > professional sport - do the finals of that sport feature such markedly > different rules? > You call them markedly different and the game hugely different. I don't agree. It is still the same game. You do however get an advantage due to your performance in the preliminary rounds. My favorite professional sports are ice-hockey and football (what you call soccer). In the NHL play-offs the team that did best during the preliminary rounds gets the home advantage in 4/7 games. Something that is a big advantage, especially considering line change coaching. They also get to face the worst team that made the play-offs of their conference. Something that's another (usually) nice advantage. In the UEFA Champions League of football the team that did best during the preliminary rounds gets the home team advantage during the second fixture in the play-offs. Something that's considered an advantage. Oh, and both these sports use play-offs to some extent. Games that are very different compared to preliminary round games considering they're elimination games. Football even uses a rule that makes goals scored away count double. That's not a preliminary rounds affecting the play-offs situation but it is an example on how the play-off games become different from regular games. Well, I could keep going, point being that yes. Many sports, including V:tES, change slightly in the play-offs (or finals). And I find the system changing VtES for the finals being a fun, intelligent and challenging system. > I also think that the > > > players choosing seating based on their tournament performance is an > > awesome way to make the preliminary rounds count in the final > > standings. > > Awesome, maybe yes. Appropriate to test the skills of the "best" players > at that tournament? I'm not sure. > You're free to not be sure and you are ofcourse free to create your own opinion on that matter. I'm however sure that the best player wins the finals in a majority of the tournaments. Just look at the track record of such players as Erik Torstensson, Orian Gissler, Ben Peal, Ruben Feldman, etc... These are players that often do good in the preliminary rounds. And through the help of good seating and good play they convert and win the finals. > > So, I must say I agree Henrik, Orian and Anthony here (haven't read > > the entire thread but I read these posts). Chaning the seating rules > > for the finals would currently be a bad idea and it would make playing > > the finals less fun, less challenging and more random. > > Really, less fun? Maybe, but part of the fun of VTES can be in trying to > create a winning situation out of bad seating. > Sure, and the players seeded 2nd to 5th gets to have that kind of fun. Good times for all... > Less challenging how? Because now you are adding onto the game of VTES the > game of "choosing better seating", a game you never play except in the finals? > Yes, since you need an extra edge to be able to take advantage of your advantage and use it to win the tournament. An additional thing to master equals more challenge imo. > More random, yes. But VTES seating is always random, except in the finals. > Why are do the finals get different treatment? > Because they're the finals. They're the deciding game of a long day of VtES. And because the rest of the day shouldn't be moot. Regards Alex

_angst_ wrote: > In the NHL play-offs the team that did best during the > preliminary rounds gets the home advantage in 4/7 games. I am not familiar with sports. But this seems a variant of the idea that, when teams play to a deadlock, then, and only then, may preliminary rounds be used to help break the deadlock. An approximate counterpart in V:tES is that, when finalists are tied, the tournament winner is determined with reference to preliminary standings. Correct me if I am wrong, but I would imagine that, for the first six games, the home advantage is evenly divided among the teams. The seventh game is not played unless the first 3 games are split 3 to 3. But generally, I think analogies to other games may be unhelpful. Too many factors go into deciding whether another particular rule is a good idea in that particular context. And just because some other rule exists in another game, does not necessarily mean that that rule was a good idea either.

On Feb 28, 5:07 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > This is not "sabotaging" the finals, but rather helping to reduce the > > role of luck in the finals. > > To my mind, the appropriateness of the term "sabotaging" depends on > whether the measure reduces, rather than than increases, the > reliability of the test. This will depend upon whether the "reward" > is out of proportion to the achievement. The other sports-competition > examples you cite are not necessarily on point (almost certainly not), > because the proportion between the reward and the achievement may be > (and almost certainly is) very different. The Short Track example is spot on, actually. > In such competitions, the distinction between the first and second > seed may be far more meaningful. Not in Short Track. > On the other side of the equation, any advantage gained by the > privilege in such counter-examples may be extremely minimal. Not in Short Track 500m. > Does a > top-seeded racer really gain a substantial advantage from the > privilege of being able to choose his starting point? Probably not. A substantial advantage, yes.

On Mar 1, 3:02 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > _angst_ wrote: > > In the NHL play-offs the team that did best during the > > preliminary rounds gets the home advantage in 4/7 games. > > I am not familiar with sports. But this seems a variant of the idea > that, when teams play to a deadlock, then, and only then, may > preliminary rounds be used to help break the deadlock. An approximate > counterpart in V:tES is that, when finalists are tied, the tournament > winner is determined with reference to preliminary standings. > > Correct me if I am wrong, but I would imagine that, for the first six > games, the home advantage is evenly divided among the teams. The > seventh game is not played unless the first 3 games are split 3 to 3. > That is correct. You could however use the recently played olympic ice- hockey finals as a perhaps better example of the same thing where iirc the US got the home advantage (which in hockey allows you to do line changes in reaction to what players your opponent put on the ice) due to their good performance in the preliminary rounds. > But generally, I think analogies to other games may be unhelpful. Too > many factors go into deciding whether another particular rule is a > good idea in that particular context. And just because some other > rule exists in another game, does not necessarily mean that that rule > was a good idea either. I agree to some extent. It can be interesting to see what's being done in other games but one can never forget that other games aren't VtES. I was mostly providing examples after being asked to do so.

LSJ wrote: > The Short Track example is spot on, actually. > > > In such competitions, the distinction between the first and second > > seed may be far more meaningful. > > Not in Short Track. > > > On the other side of the equation, any advantage gained by the > > privilege in such counter-examples may be extremely minimal. > > Not in Short Track 500m. > > > Does a > > top-seeded racer really gain a substantial advantage from the > > privilege of being able to choose his starting point? Probably not. > > A substantial advantage, yes. I am no expert on Short Track, so you have me at a disadvantage. But let's assume everything you say is true. If so, it only proves (to my mind) that it is a bad idea in Short Track for the same reasons it is a bad idea in V:tES. Either that, or it can be justified in Short Track for reasons that may or may not be relevant to V:tES (probably not, since they are very different games). You say they used to choose tracks randomly. Perhaps that was the better idea after all

[ quoted text not captured ] Hmm. Seems like it determined it was the less good option. But back to VTES. If the final round seating matters, then it is better to use a merit system to make seating rather than having it random. If preliminary round performance is a measure of merit, then it could be measure of merit to use for that final seating.

On Feb 28, 10:07 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > But back to VTES. > > If the final round seating matters, then it is better to use a merit > system to make seating rather than having it random. Even if I agreed with that, as a general principal, I would not agree that it applied to the current rule. I do not regard the current rule as invoking merit rather than random factors. Moreover, final round seating may matter less when done randomly. It is perfectly possible that random seating will, on average, result in less unfairness than the current rule. After all, when a top-seeded player picks his seat, he deliberately chooses the seating arrangement that will result in maximum possible unfairness to the other players. > If preliminary round performance is a measure of merit, then it could > be measure of merit to use for that final seating. Except that one can accept the former proposition, and still reject the latter proposition. That is in fact what I have done. It is reasonable to guess that the best player at the tournament is (probably) somewhere among the top five players, and therefore to hold a game among these top 5 to determine which of these is truly best (giving all players an equal chance at victory, and ignoring preliminary standings except as needed for a tie-breaker). It is FAR less reasonable to suppose that the preliminary standings, as a measure of merit, are sufficiently precise to permit drawing a meaningful conclusion that the top-seeded player has more merit than the second-seed, etc. (Note that this factor already has potential to be decisive even without the seating rule -- which might be okay, if we did not try heaping syrup on top of gravy). It is STILL less reasonable to give that top-seeded player a bonus whose value may range from virtually worthless, to almost decisive, depending on an out-of-game circumstances -- namely how much useful information he happens to have about his opponent's decks.

John Whelan wrote: > After all, when a top-seeded player picks his seat, he deliberately > chooses the seating arrangement that will result in maximum > possible unfairness to the other players. I think you're wrong here. The top seed picks her seat to maximize something to HER, not to maximize something to EVERYONE ELSE. What everyone else "gets" out of her picking her seat is far less relevant than what she gets. Not sure it matters to the argument, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mar 1, 12:09 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I think you're wrong here. The top seed picks her seat to maximize > something to HER, not to maximize something to EVERYONE ELSE. Fair enough. Though since its a zero sum game -- or reasonably close to one -- a player maximizing his own position will necessarily minimize the position of the remaining players -- though they will be minimized as a collective, not necessarily as individuals. So if I seize 3 vps for myself, the remaining players have (at most) 2 vps to split between them. And, since this is the final round, it won't really matter much how those 2 vps are divided -- everyone else will tie for second place.

On Feb 28, 11:27 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 28, 10:07 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > But back to VTES. > > > If the final round seating matters, then it is better to use a merit > > system to make seating rather than having it random. > > Even if I agreed with that, as a general principal, I would not agree > that it applied to the current rule. I do not regard the current rule > as invoking merit rather than random factors. You mean you don't agree that the current rule is a merit system. You do agree with the premise above: that if the seating matters, it is better to use a merit system (if one can be found) to determine the seating than to do it randomly. > Moreover, final round seating may matter less when done randomly. It > is perfectly possible that random seating will, on average, result in > less unfairness than the current rule. After all, when a top-seeded > player picks his seat, he deliberately chooses the seating arrangement > that will result in maximum possible unfairness to the other players. ? Random is random, yes. But the idea that it all averages out over many finals means that the seating order matters less is flawed. Each individual final's seating order matters just as much (to that final) whether it is done randomly or by some other means. > > If preliminary round performance is a measure of merit, then it could > > be measure of merit to use for that final seating. > > Except that one can accept the former proposition, and still reject > the latter proposition. That is in fact what I have done. Getting to this point is exactly why I'm dividing up the ideas. If the preliminary round performance is not a measure of merit, then it should not be used to determine final round seating (at best, it will simply be as good as random, and in practice it will be worse than random). > It is reasonable to guess that the best player at the tournament is > (probably) somewhere among the top five players, and therefore to hold > a game among these top 5 to determine which of these is truly best > (giving all players an equal chance at victory, and ignoring > preliminary standings except as needed for a tie-breaker). So it is a measure of merit. > It is FAR less reasonable to suppose that the preliminary standings, > as a measure of merit, are sufficiently precise to permit drawing a > meaningful conclusion that the top-seeded player has more merit than > the second-seed, etc. (Note that this factor already has potential to > be decisive even without the seating rule -- which might be okay, if > we did not try heaping syrup on top of gravy). It is sufficiently precise. Not because it is very precise, but because even a tiny bit of precision is sufficient. It doesn't have to be an absolute guarantee of perfect ordering, neither to be used to distinguish #6 from #5 nor to distinguish #2 from #1. It is simply a more likely measure than "random". That is, it will correctly distinguish #1 from #2 (and #5 from #6) more often than random will. Heaping slightly-meaningful syrup on the gravy is better than heaping random syrup on the gravy. > It is STILL less reasonable to give that top-seeded player a bonus > whose value may range from virtually worthless, to almost decisive, > depending on an out-of-game circumstances -- namely how much useful > information he happens to have about his opponent's decks. It is STILL less reasonable to leave that bonus up to random. Using that out-of-game knowledge is not inherently wrong. It is commonplace in other similar arrangements. But, if there's an issue with scouting, then let that be the issue.

Isn't the issue really that if a top-seeded player has to choose seating without knowing what some or all of the other decks do, then they've lost the advantage they were supposed to have? VTES isn't like a sport with easily accessible video recordings of other people's matches or coaches who do the scouting for the players. The stated goal of the final seating system is to give advantage to finalists based on their ranking. The system is haphazard, since the finalists need knowledge of the other finalists' deck in order to make informed decision, thus gaining the advantage assumed by the system. However, there is no mechanism in place to insure that they have a chance to gain that knowledge. Maybe we should talk about finding a formal way for players in a tournament, or at least the finalists, to have the opportunity to gain knowledge about all other players' decks.

Aaron Clark <aama...@gmail.com> wrote: >Isn't the issue really that if a top-seeded player has to choose >seating without knowing what some or all of the other decks do, then >they've lost the advantage they were supposed to have? Some of that advantage, potentially. Similarly, a player who's actually played against the deck probably has a different amount of information than someone who saw the second half of a game with it in. However, I've seen quite a few players say something like "Well, I'm going to sit there, because then it means you can't be my predator" - where the motivating factor is the _player_, rather than the deck. They think they'll do better if they stay away from a top-rated player, or a player with a particular reputation. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Aaron Clark wrote: > > Maybe we should talk about finding a formal way for players in a > tournament, or at least the finalists, to have the opportunity to gain > knowledge about all other players' decks. > Yes, I think we should. Your suggestion was a good one I think. Do folks feel like a mandatory "reveal" of the finalists deck to each other is warranted in VTES finals? best - chris

On Mar 1, 3:58 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Do folks feel like a mandatory "reveal" of the finalists deck to each other is > warranted in VTES finals? No. a) This would be the first step on a slippery slope. How much information about a deck is enough for this "reveal" to be considered legit? b) There's nothing wrong with the way that the finals work at tournaments. To paraphrase Ben Peal, spend less time worrying about how the seating of final tables works and more time worrying about how to win the final tables of tournaments. :) John Eno

Kushiel wrote: > On Mar 1, 3:58 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >> Do folks feel like a mandatory "reveal" of the finalists deck to each other is >> warranted in VTES finals? > > No. > > a) This would be the first step on a slippery slope. How much > information about a deck is enough for this "reveal" to be considered > legit? Fair enough. I could throw out the word judgment. > b) There's nothing wrong with the way that the finals work at > tournaments. > Maybe. I'm dissatisfied with the way they are structured now, and have brought it up. Perhaps it is because I am very poor at the game of "choosing seating". And I guess I would rather focus on bettering my VTES game, not my "choosing seating" game. A game at which I can't have much practice, since *every* other game of VTES is not played this way. best - chris

On Mar 1, 1:10 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > a) This would be the first step on a slippery slope. How much > information about a deck is enough for this "reveal" to be considered > legit? That might be a problem, or it might not. Other possibilities might work: Brief game reports compiled by a judge/judges? Starting games in a round at different times to give players a chance to watch other games? These may not be practical, but they would be legitimate. > b) There's nothing wrong with the way that the finals work at > tournaments. To paraphrase Ben Peal, spend less time worrying about > how the seating of final tables works and more time worrying about how > to win the final tables of tournaments. :) > Based on the lengths of these threads, I don't think everyone shares that opinion. If I know what the other decks at a table do in general terms, I can often choose a favorable seat for myself, based on the Rock/Paper/ Scissors nature of VTES. If I don't know what they do, random seating is just as advantageous, and especially if the other players have more information than I do.

On Mar 1, 4:23 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Maybe. I'm dissatisfied with the way they are structured now, and have > brought it up. Perhaps it is because I am very poor at the game of > "choosing seating". And I guess I would rather focus on bettering my VTES > game, not my "choosing seating" game. A game at which I can't have much > practice, since *every* other game of VTES is not played this way. The way to check whether or not this is something that people should actually care about taking the effort to change, if you're feeling ambitious, is to go through tournament reports and check to see how often the top seed actually ends up winning the tournament. Based on my own experience, I don't think there's enough correlation there for anyone to worry about changing anything, but having some hard data to back up what you're saying here would certainly be beneficial to your cause. John Eno

LSJ wrote: > You mean you don't agree that the current rule is a merit system. Right. > You do agree with the premise above: that if the seating matters, it > is better to use a merit system (if one can be found) to determine the > seating than to do it randomly. I don't agree with that either. (It might help, however, to define certain phrases -- what is the definition of a "merit system"? Merit is a loaded word, which implies that someone deserves something, which further implies that he ought to receive it; which is to beg the question being asked -- whether he should receive it or not). Dice rolling matters in Axis & Allies. Do you agree with the premise that, if dice rolling matters, it is better to use a merit system (if one can be found) to determine battle results, than to do it randomly? 'Cause I don't. Same with V:tES. Like A&A, chance is a part of the game. Various mechanisms are employed to achieve this. Decks are shuffled randomly. But that is only the beginning. Added to this is an elaborate "rock/scissors/paper" style randomness or Stratego style randomness that results from the fact that you determine the contents of your own decks, BUT NOT THE CONTENTS OF THE DECKS OF YOUR OPPONENTS. In V:tES, a wide array of factors, most of them beyond any individual players control, collide to produce chaos. Skill matters, but a skilled V:tES player is more like a skilled sailor riding a dangerous and chaotic storm, than a God-like being moving pawns on a chess- board. But that's what I like about the game, and I have no interest in reducing the size of the waves, for the benefit of a particular player. Ideally, a player should not even know what decks he is facing. If he does happen to have some knowledge of opposing decks, he should not be able to further use this information by choosing which deck will be his predator, or prey, or cross-table buddy. > Random is random, yes. But the idea that it all averages out over many > finals means that the seating order matters less is flawed. Each > individual final's seating order matters just as much (to that final) > whether it is done randomly or by some other means. I'm not sure this is true. A player who receives an "advantageous" position by chance may not know how to take advantage of the advantage. However, a player who chooses an advantageous position does so specifically because he believes he knows how to take advantage of the situation. > If the preliminary round performance is not a measure of merit, then > it should not be used to determine final round seating (at best, it > will simply be as good as random, and in practice it will be worse > than random). I don't acknowledge the connection drawn here. It is possible that the tournament scoring system SHOULD give more weight to preliminary round results. I have no reason to suppose that this is the case, but supposing it were true, this only requires us to come up with a tournament scoring system that gives more weight to the preliminary rounds. It does not require us to handicap the final game in one player's favor. > > It is reasonable to guess that the best player at the tournament is > > (probably) somewhere among the top five players, and therefore to hold > > a game among these top 5 to determine which of these is truly best > > (giving all players an equal chance at victory, and ignoring > > preliminary standings except as needed for a tie-breaker). > > So it is a measure of merit. > > > It is FAR less reasonable to suppose that the preliminary standings, > > as a measure of merit, are sufficiently precise to permit drawing a > > meaningful conclusion that the top-seeded player has more merit than > > the second-seed, etc. (Note that this factor already has potential to > > be decisive even without the seating rule -- which might be okay, if > > we did not try heaping syrup on top of gravy). > > It is sufficiently precise. Not because it is very precise, but > because even a tiny bit of precision is sufficient. It doesn't have to > be an absolute guarantee of perfect ordering, neither to be used to > distinguish #6 from #5 nor to distinguish #2 from #1. It is simply a > more likely measure than "random". That is, it will correctly > distinguish #1 from #2 (and #5 from #6) more often than random will. > > Heaping slightly-meaningful syrup on the gravy is better than heaping > random syrup on the gravy. This argument proves far too much, as can easily be shown by carrying it to its logical extreme. We can go much, much, further to eliminate Randomness and the Unknown in favor of the top-seeded player, based on the theory he is most "deserving" based on preliminary standings. We can eliminate Chaos and replace it with Control. If we carry this far enough, we effectively ensure his victory, and beg the question that the final round is intended to test. > > It is STILL less reasonable to give that top-seeded player a bonus > > whose value may range from virtually worthless, to almost decisive, > > depending on an out-of-game circumstances -- namely how much useful > > information he happens to have about his opponent's decks. > > It is STILL less reasonable to leave that bonus up to random. I disagree. I do not share this "Luck is bad and we have to get rid of it" prejudice. I ask only that the game be fair, and Lady Luck be given an equal chance to benefit all the participants. Let all players expect the unknown and cope with the unknown. That is part of the game. It is part of the challenge. > Using that out-of-game knowledge is not inherently wrong. Neither is going out for coffee between rounds. The caffeine-boost may even help me win. That, however, would seem a poor excuse for creating a rule specifically designed to reward coffee drinkers.

Kushiel wrote: > The way to check whether or not this is something that people should > actually care about taking the effort to change, if you're feeling > ambitious, is to go through tournament reports and check to see how > often the top seed actually ends up winning the tournament. The calculation is clearly not worth the effort. The raw data would be incapable of proving anything, definitively. But even if if could, what then? If the current system has no effect on outcomes, then seating might as well be random. In which case random seating is clearly easier than doing a bunch of calculations. There is no point to the ritual unless it has an effect. I don't think it should have an effect, so I object to it on principle. I think the game should be fair. We all know how to conduct a fair game. Just determine seating randomly. If you want to give more weight to preliminary round results, in scoring the tournament, perhaps that could be done. Perhaps the final round should be definitive only if it results in a game win. (Or not -- personally I am fine with preliminary results being used only as a final round tie-breaker).

Kushiel wrote: > b) There's nothing wrong with the way that the finals work at > tournaments. To paraphrase Ben Peal, spend less time worrying about > how the seating of final tables works and more time worrying about how > to win the final tables of tournaments. :) Random seating in finals would achieve precisely that result.

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:45:00 -0800 (PST), Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Trying to prevent scouting is insanely difficult. And simply not worth > the effort (anyone who played tournament B5 all those years ago might > remember the hurdles they went through in an attempt to legislate > against scouting). So rather than try to prevent it (as some folks are > going to know what the other finalist decks do anyway by virtue of > seeing them in play), just say "scout all you want". If people are > feeling like they are going to make the finals, and they want to > wander from table to table after their games are done and see what > everyone else is playing? More power to them. As long as they aren't > disruptive, how is this problematic? My experience from bigger tournaments is that the venue often makes it sensible for judges to request that participants comply with the rule about spectators not being allowed. But people don't really comply. I suspect the main reason of that is the significant advantage scouting can bring. There is also some advantage during the rounds (maybe you can pick which minion to influence first, e.g.), but there the effect is much smaller, given how seating is random. But for the finals, the effect is game-changing. Preventing scouting is very difficult partially because people gain a significant benefit from it. If we mitigate the advantage, venues will become much easier to control (without judges having to spend their time on herding the crowd). -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] Knowledge about the other players' decks isn't the only knowledge they have (or don't), though. Even if no one knows anything about each other's decks, they still know who came 5th, and 4th, and 3rd, and 2nd. If we're assuming 1st deserves an advantage based on merit, then that same merit rating (ie: ranking before final round) is surely some measure of information they can use? ie: sitting in between 4th and 5th is likely (in the absence of other information) to be a better seat than sitting in between 2nd and 3rd. -- salem

"Daneel" wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: >> Trying to prevent scouting is insanely difficult. >> And simply not worth the effort. > > My experience from bigger tournaments is that the venue often > makes it sensible for judges to request that participants comply > with the rule about spectators not being allowed. But people > don't really comply. As I stated earlier, there is no such rule. Perhaps they aren't complying for that reason? [ quoted text not captured ]

"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> You mean you don't agree that the current rule is a merit system. > > Right. > >> You do agree with the premise above: that if the seating >> matters, it is better to use a merit system (if one can be found) >> to determine the seating than to do it randomly. > > I don't agree with that either. (It might help, however, to define > certain phrases -- what is the definition of a "merit system"? > Merit is a loaded word, which implies that someone deserves > something, which further implies that he ought to receive it; which > is to beg the question being asked -- whether he should receive it > or not). > > Dice rolling matters in Axis & Allies. Do you agree with the > premise that, if dice rolling matters, it is better to use a merit > system (if one can be found) to determine battle results, than > to do it randomly? 'Cause I don't. In most dice-rolling games, there are ways to earn advantages, such as army setup, terrain, character-based merit systems, etc. Are you saying these games shouldn't be allowing these bonuses? > I disagree. I do not share this "Luck is bad and we have to get > rid of it" prejudice. I ask only that the game be fair, and Lady > Luck be given an equal chance to benefit all the participants. Let > all players expect the unknown and cope with the unknown. That is > part of the game. It is part of the challenge. Let's be honest: you want Lady Luck to be maximized, not to be fairly distributed (whatever that means), right? :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > In most dice-rolling games, there are ways to earn advantages, > such as army setup, terrain, character-based merit systems, etc. Of course. The same is true in standard V:tES. > Are you saying these games shouldn't be allowing these bonuses? Of course not. Why do you ask? > Let's be honest: I am being honest. Even if you disagree. > you want Lady Luck to be maximized, not to be fairly > distributed (whatever that means), right? :) I am trying to give luck the same roll (or as close to it as feasible) as it would have in a standard game, and I am trying to avoid giving any player an unfair advantage. I don't think of this as "maximizing luck", since I think that the distinction between first seed and second seed is primarily luck. I do not believe that reducing the number of die rolls, and concentrating the significance and importance of a single die roll, is likely to give skill more room to operate.

On Mar 1, 9:48 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > You do agree with the premise above: that if the seating matters, it > > is better to use a merit system (if one can be found) to determine the > > seating than to do it randomly. > > I don't agree with that either. (It might help, however, to define > certain phrases -- what is the definition of a "merit system"? Merit > is a loaded word, which implies that someone deserves something, which > further implies that he ought to receive it; which is to beg the > question being asked -- whether he should receive it or not). The standard definition: a system based on demonstrated ability. In this case: a system based on the only demonstrated ability being tracked: Game Wins. With ties decided by VPs. With subsequent ties decided by TPs. That is, the same merit system used to decide the top five is also used to decide the top 4, top 3, top 2, and top 1. > Dice rolling matters in Axis & Allies. Do you agree with the premise > that, if dice rolling matters, it is better to use a merit system (if > one can be found) to determine battle results, than to do it > randomly? 'Cause I don't. ? Um, of course not. > > Random is random, yes. But the idea that it all averages out over many > > finals means that the seating order matters less is flawed. Each > > individual final's seating order matters just as much (to that final) > > whether it is done randomly or by some other means. > > I'm not sure this is true. A player who receives an "advantageous" > position by chance may not know how to take advantage of the > advantage. However, a player who chooses an advantageous position > does so specifically because he believes he knows how to take > advantage of the situation. Well, the thing you reply that you're not sure about is dealing explicitly with only the random final seating proposal, and on that point you seem to say you agree. > > If the preliminary round performance is not a measure of merit, then > > it should not be used to determine final round seating (at best, it > > will simply be as good as random, and in practice it will be worse > > than random). > > I don't acknowledge the connection drawn here. It is possible that > the tournament scoring system SHOULD give more weight to preliminary > round results. I have no reason to suppose that this is the case, but > supposing it were true, this only requires us to come up with a > tournament scoring system that gives more weight to the preliminary > rounds. OK. Preliminary rounds' performance is used to decide the top 5 for purposes of seating the final. And for breaking VP-TP ties in the final. Without altering the rules of the game, that leaves seating. > It does not require us to handicap the final game in one > player's favor. Of course it doesn't "require" us to do so. But seating the players is required, meaning that some handicap (your term for seating) must be applied. So handicapping the finals in one player's favor is required in that sense. Given the choice between handicapping players at random or via an already-in-place-and-utilized measure of performance, ... > This argument proves far too much, as can easily be shown by carrying > it to its logical extreme. We can go much, much, further to eliminate > Randomness and the Unknown in favor of the top-seeded player, based on > the theory he is most "deserving" based on preliminary standings. We > can eliminate Chaos and replace it with Control. If we carry this far > enough, we effectively ensure his victory, and beg the question that > the final round is intended to test. Um. Sure. Just like every other tournament where the players/teams are ranked going into the finals. You could use the same performance measures (the ones used to decide who goes to the finals) to instead declare a tournament winner outright. This "logical extreme" is no bogeyman or slippery slope. The idea of setting up a final does not imply a desire to skip the final. The concept is merely to replace the replaceable chance elements in the finals with non-chance elements. > > It is STILL less reasonable to leave that bonus up to random. > > I disagree. I do not share this "Luck is bad and we have to get rid > of it" prejudice. Neither do I.

On Mar 1, 10:01 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is no point to the ritual unless it has an effect. I don't > think it should have an effect, so I object to it on principle. Noted. > I think the game should be fair. We all know how to conduct a fair > game. Just determine seating randomly. Apparently, we don't all know that. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] What do you think of Chromeboy's suggestion? "If seating were not to be determined by choice from top to last player, i would suggest seating to be 1st,5th,2nd,3rd,4th." This replaces a chance element with a non-chance element, and also removes the "choosing seating" game from VTES tournament finals. best - chris

On Mar 2, 12:33 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > On Mar 1, 9:48 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> LSJ wrote: > > > The concept is merely to replace the replaceable chance elements in > > the finals with non-chance elements. > > What do you think of Chromeboy's suggestion? > > "If seating were not to be determined by choice from top to last > player, i would suggest seating to be 1st,5th,2nd,3rd,4th." If scouting is a problem, it looks fine, as does its inverse (1-4-3-2-5).

[ quoted text not captured ] I think the proposed problem is information maybe inequitable. 1st seat may have none, while 2nd and 3th may know all the decks, etc..

[ quoted text not captured ] how do you know who knows what then? else your statement is not parsing, and i am not understanding it. Care to restate please?

"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3e6ee0f7-03a5-4bfe...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:dca3b6a7-f545-432f...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... >> On Feb 26, 7:44 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> > > I think we've disputed this before. Clearly, preliminary >> > > round games are not like "a regular game of V:TES" in the sense of >> > > having a time limit and emphasizing the game win. >> > >> > I disagree. They are very much "like" each other. The time limit was >> > a regrettable necessity, whose purpose and function I do not need to >> > defend. >> >> Certainly not. In fact, IIRC, when we disputed this, I was the one >> in favor of maintaining it as is and you were in favor of tinkering >> with it. > > IIRC we never disputed this. We were always in agreement that the > time limit was a necessity. I didn't mean the time limit. I meant that you were in favor of tinkering with the definition of a game win. >> > The result was imperfect, but the "spirit" of regular V:tES was the >> > standard by which success was judged. >> >> Sure. But perhaps I misrepresented myself. I don't mean to suggest >> the game win has been any kind of a failure in terms of simulating >> the original game - as best as it can be simulated in a tournament. >> How good that is, exactly, is another thing which can't be measured >> objectively. But I'd say I'm pretty happy with the result overall. > > Our difference, IIRC, has always been that I regard the tournament > rules as intended to approximate, as closely as feasible, the spirit > and intent of the standard rules. Whereas you have no particular > loyalty to the standard rules, and seem to regard the tournament rules > as independent and self-justifying traditions. Such a description of reality misses is partially incorrect and, where correct, ignores some nuances: 1) Where rules are concerned, intentions don't matter. Only what they actually do matters. The intent to approximate the spirit and intent of the rulebook rules of the game in the tournament rules is something _you_ hold. The tournament rules are neutral. 2) I did and do sympathize with such an intent and support it where practicable and reasonable. I just recognize that there are times when merely aping some practice from the standard game for the sake of aping it doesn't make sense and doesn't contribute anything worthwhile to the sense of similarity between the two games. (Reference my previous point to "filling the donkey with gas".) Fred

"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5fff7404-ed14-47f0...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ab16f668-6805-4165...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... >> On Feb 26, 4:48 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> > > > If you mean more than that, then your argument proves too much. It is >> > > > like arguing that we cannot prevent the finals from being absolutely >> > > > the same in all respects, therefore we might as well have the >> > > > finalists play Monopoly. >> > > >> > > Sorry, this does not logically follow. >> > >> > It follows logically from your claim that there exist no standards by >> > which such things can be judged. If your intent was to kill any >> > possible discussion, you succeeded. >> >> Nonsense. Again, this is a false dichotomy by means of interpreting what >> I said in an overly broad way. I never claimed there existed no standards >> by which such things can be judged. > > You wrote: "Indeed, that's my point. There's is no standard other > than subjective preference." Sure. Subjective preference is a standard. > You also wrote that since the final is a different game, > there is no point in arguing that it should be the same game. Again, this is an overly broad restatement of what I said. > I am merely carrying your words to their logical conclusion. Nope. You are making erraneous restatements of my words in order to lodge a classic straw man argument. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] I'll try, It has been said that vtes is a game of rock, paper, scissors You can apply knowledge of deck interaction to predict the outcome. I call it table dynamic. Pool, blood/life on minions, cards on the table are also factors. Have you ever sat at a table and predicted the out come after two or three turns? In the finals even if you have no choice in seating, knowledge of the others decks can give you an advantage, if you understand how the other decks(players) are likely to interact. Even if, you are 4-5 seat knowledge can change your play. (first minion up etc..) That said, in the finals the table dynamic is constructed by the top seats, if they know the decks and understand deck interaction. Of course, there is a random factor to vtes, it is not hard and fast. Emotions, bad draws, toolbox decks and control cards, make predictions harder. Some would say being able to construct the table is an unfair advantage, for those who can see table dynamic. Since scouting can not be controlled, all finalists should have a basic understanding of the decks or the table should not be constructed by the top finalists, too make it fairer for less experienced players. That is how I see it. I do enjoy the final seating as it is, though. I will ask my play group to run a seating exercise day. players will roll for 1st though 5th, cut and revial 4 crypt and 10 library cards then 3rd though 1st will contruct the table. I don't know, if I will be able to convince anyone. Matt

"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message news:hmf34n$3ka$1...@news.eternal-september.org... > What gNat has summed up is why I was "annoyed". It seemed that the current "finals high-seed benefit" will reward those who are > good at "choosing seating"; not necessarily those who are good at "V:TES". Especially since in all other tournament games of > VTES, choosing seating is not an important or even relevant skill. This is probably the best statement of an objection to the finals seating ritual I've seen yet. And it's a very valid point - except,... ...to me, the skill differential factor in choosing seating strikes me as being such a minor factor that ultimately, I don't care. Fred

On Mar 2, 8:07 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The standard definition: a system based on demonstrated ability. > In this case: a system based on the only demonstrated ability being > tracked: Game Wins. With ties decided by VPs. With subsequent ties > decided by TPs. > > That is, the same merit system used to decide the top five is also > used to decide the top 4, top 3, top 2, and top 1. Except it the "merit system" has no "merit" unless used for appropriate purposes. Using it to eliminate the bottom 15 players, because probably none of them are "the best" is appropriate and probably reasonably accurate. Using it to decide that #1 is more deserving than #2 is entirely unjustified. The only excuse for relying on so weak an inference of superior merit is that there is no better evidence to go on (perhaps because the two are completely tied in the final round). Note that any inference that #5 is more deserving than #6 is equally weak. But the proper rationale for choosing #5 over #6, for the finals, is not because of any strong inference that he is a better player than #6. #5 could easily be a #9 player who got lucky. #6 could easily be a #2 player who got unlucky. But we don't really care about that. The main goal is not to find the #9 player or the #2 player, but to find the #1 player. So the better rationale for choosing the #5 player for the finals, over the #6 player, is that we are looking for #1, and #5 is significantly more likely than #6 to be a #1 player who got unlucky. That, and we need a 5th player for the finals. > > Dice rolling matters in Axis & Allies. Do you agree with the premise > > that, if dice rolling matters, it is better to use a merit system (if > > one can be found) to determine battle results, than to do it > > randomly? 'Cause I don't. > > ? > Um, of course not. Alright. But what is the difference in your mind? It does not seem to be quantitative, since you scoffed at the idea of overkill, at the idea that there might come a time when it were inappropriate to pile more syrup over the gravy. Is there is a qualitative difference? Is is a different type of luck? In both cases, we are eliminating in- game randomness in deference to an (extremely weak) inference of previously-demonstrated superior merit. > > > Random is random, yes. But the idea that it all averages out over many > > > finals means that the seating order matters less is flawed. Each > > > individual final's seating order matters just as much (to that final) > > > whether it is done randomly or by some other means. > > > I'm not sure this is true. A player who receives an "advantageous" > > position by chance may not know how to take advantage of the > > advantage. However, a player who chooses an advantageous position > > does so specifically because he believes he knows how to take > > advantage of the situation. > > Well, the thing you reply that you're not sure about is dealing > explicitly with only the random final seating proposal, and on that > point you seem to say you agree. Sorry. I don't follow. > > > If the preliminary round performance is not a measure of merit, then > > > it should not be used to determine final round seating (at best, it > > > will simply be as good as random, and in practice it will be worse > > > than random). > > > I don't acknowledge the connection drawn here. It is possible that > > the tournament scoring system SHOULD give more weight to preliminary > > round results. I have no reason to suppose that this is the case, but > > supposing it were true, this only requires us to come up with a > > tournament scoring system that gives more weight to the preliminary > > rounds. > > OK. Preliminary rounds' performance is used to decide the top 5 for > purposes of seating the final. And for breaking VP-TP ties in the > final. Without altering the rules of the game, that leaves seating. Not at all. How one scores the tournament is an entirely independent question, and need not involve any alteration of the rules (or customs) of the final game. One could (for instance) add together the scores for the 4 rounds to obtain a total score. Additional weight could be given to the final game, by whatever factor one deems appropriate (x1.5, x2, x2.5, x3). Make the factor sufficiently high (relative to the number of preliminary rounds), and any Game Win in the final will assure victory in the tournament as well. However, where no Game Win is scored in the final, preliminary round standings would have more room to be determinative than in the current system. Any number of variants of this could be devised. I am not advocating this, of course, because I am reasonably satisfied that the tie-breaker potential already gives preliminary rounds adequate weight. > > It does not require us to handicap the final game in one > > player's favor. > > Of course it doesn't "require" us to do so. But seating the players is > required, meaning that some handicap (your term for seating) must be > applied. So handicapping the finals in one player's favor is required > in that sense. Given the choice between handicapping players at random > or via an already-in-place-and-utilized measure of performance, ... Semantics. Some "handicap" of deck ordering is also required. Random ordering of decks is sure to hurt someone at some point. Given the choice of "handicapping" players decks at random, or via an already-in- place-and-utilized measure of performance .... hey -- why NOT led the leading player look through all everyone's decks and order them as he sees fit? I see no difference in principle, only in degree. > > This argument proves far too much, as can easily be shown by carrying > > it to its logical extreme. We can go much, much, further to eliminate > > Randomness and the Unknown in favor of the top-seeded player, based on > > the theory he is most "deserving" based on preliminary standings. We > > can eliminate Chaos and replace it with Control. If we carry this far > > enough, we effectively ensure his victory, and beg the question that > > the final round is intended to test. > > Um. Sure. > > Just like every other tournament where the players/teams are ranked > going into the finals. You could use the same performance measures > (the ones used to decide who goes to the finals) to instead declare a > tournament winner outright. It's a different rationale, as explained above. > This "logical extreme" is no bogeyman or slippery slope. The idea of > setting up a final does not imply a desire to skip the final. Eventually it does, if you don't acknowledge a logical stopping point. And it seems you don't because (if I understood you correctly) you did not acknowledge the objection that the reward could be out of proportion to the evidence of "merit". You objected that there was no reason not to pile syrup upon gravy (nor, presumably, more gravy upon syrup) no matter how miniscule the evidence of merit, as long as one were eliminating randomness. > The concept is merely to replace the replaceable chance elements in > the finals with non-chance elements. I know. But where is the stopping point? Because by the time you finish with this process, you've given the whole game away.

On Mar 2, 7:40 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 8:07 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > The standard definition: a system based on demonstrated ability. > > In this case: a system based on the only demonstrated ability being > > tracked: Game Wins. With ties decided by VPs. With subsequent ties > > decided by TPs. > > > That is, the same merit system used to decide the top five is also > > used to decide the top 4, top 3, top 2, and top 1. > > Except it the "merit system" has no "merit" unless used for > appropriate purposes. ? Um, no. A system based on performance is based on performance. Regardless of where it is applied. > > > Dice rolling matters in Axis & Allies. Do you agree with the premise > > > that, if dice rolling matters, it is better to use a merit system (if > > > one can be found) to determine battle results, than to do it > > > randomly? 'Cause I don't. > > > ? > > Um, of course not. > > Alright. But what is the difference in your mind? The obvious. Dice rolling is part of the game. Built into it. > > The concept is merely to replace the replaceable chance elements in > > the finals with non-chance elements. > > I know. But where is the stopping point? Because by the time you > finish with this process, you've given the whole game away. Hardly. I've seen a lot of finals seated this way in which the #1 seed didn't win.

On Mar 2, 7:50 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Um, no. A system based on performance is based on performance. > Regardless of where it is applied. And a tautology is a tautology. I guess the conversation is over. > > > > Dice rolling matters in Axis & Allies. Do you agree with the premise > > > > that, if dice rolling matters, it is better to use a merit system (if > > > > one can be found) to determine battle results, than to do it > > > > randomly? 'Cause I don't. > > > > ? > > > Um, of course not. > > > Alright. But what is the difference in your mind? > > The obvious. Dice rolling is part of the game. Built into it. I would say that not choosing or controlling the contents of your opponent's decks is also built into the game of V:tES. > > > The concept is merely to replace the replaceable chance elements in > > > the finals with non-chance elements. > > > I know. But where is the stopping point? Because by the time you > > finish with this process, you've given the whole game away. > > Hardly. I've seen a lot of finals seated this way in which the #1 seed > didn't win. That's because you have not finished the process. You have not yet replaced all the replaceable chance elements. You have not allowed the top-seeded player to look through everyone's decks (including his own) and order them as he sees fit.

On Mar 2, 7:11 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Sure. Subjective preference is a standard. Right. But it is not a standard that is conducive to meaningful discussion.

[ quoted text not captured ] I have no real objection to either of these suggestions. But I also consider them to be effectively random, since it effectively puts seating beyond any player's control.

On Mar 2, 7:59 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 7:50 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > Um, no. A system based on performance is based on performance. > > Regardless of where it is applied. > > And a tautology is a tautology. I guess the conversation is over. Yeah. I kinda guessed the conversation was ending when you started disputing the tautology.

[ quoted text not captured ] I never disputed any tautology. Why are you saying this?

[ quoted text not captured ] The part you snipped when you cited my reply as a tautology.

"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:316f6bb7-22a4-492e...@f35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I disagree. It's meaningful to discuss and understand the true nature of our disagreements. You hold a subjective preference for something that looks closer to the standard game. I prioritize differently than that and this affects my conclusion about which system is better. It doesn't mean I place no priority on similarity to the standard game at all. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Come on LSJ. Look at the entire passage in context. I explain my meaning at length. Agree or disagree if you like. Or if you don't have time to discuss, that is fine. But don't accuse me of disputing a tautology, because I was obviously not doing so: --------- Except it the "merit system" has no "merit" unless used for appropriate purposes. Using it to eliminate the bottom 15 players, because probably none of them are "the best" is appropriate and probably reasonably accurate. Using it to decide that #1 is more deserving than #2 is entirely unjustified. The only excuse for relying on so weak an inference of superior merit is that there is no better evidence to go on (perhaps because the two are completely tied in the final round). Note that any inference that #5 is more deserving than #6 is equally weak. But the proper rationale for choosing #5 over #6, for the finals, is not because of any strong inference that he is a better player than #6. #5 could easily be a #9 player who got lucky. #6 could easily be a #2 player who got unlucky. But we don't really care about that. The main goal is not to find the #9 player or the #2 player, but to find the #1 player. So the better rationale for choosing the #5 player for the finals, over the #6 player, is that we are looking for #1, and #5 is significantly more likely than #6 to be a #1 player who got unlucky. That, and we need a 5th player for the finals. ---------------

On Mar 2, 8:35 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I disagree. It's meaningful to discuss and understand the true nature > of our disagreements. You hold a subjective preference for something > that looks closer to the standard game. I prioritize differently than > that and this affects my conclusion about which system is better. > It doesn't mean I place no priority on similarity to the standard > game at all. Sure. It is helpful to understand that we have lack adequate common ground upon which to base further discussion on a particular issue. But if we cannot find common ground as basis for discussion or argument, then the the possibility of further discussion ends. I can acknowledge your subjective preferences, but I cannot argue with them. Nor you with mine.

"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:874b1c24-8835-4e3f...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] On that narrow point, no. Or perhaps it's fair to say that meaningful discussion has already taken place and should be put to bed. That's fine. But this little flame of discussion is disputing the validity of the accusation that I have no standards for similarity between the standard game and the finals of a tournament. I have them; I just prioritize them different than you. And likely, I also reckon the applicability of the finals seating order method to the goal of similarity with the standard game differently than you, and such reckoning is also a result of subjective judgment. Fred

wedge wrote: > I will ask my play group to run a seating exercise day. > players will roll for 1st though 5th, > cut and revial 4 crypt and 10 library cards > then 3rd though 1st will contruct the table. > > I don't know, if I will be able to convince anyone. > You could convince me... Don't think I will be there in March. best - chris

Frederick Scott wrote: > "John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:3e6ee0f7-03a5-4bfe...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: > >> "John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:dca3b6a7-f545-432f...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > >> On Feb 26, 7:44 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > >> > > I think we've disputed this before. Clearly, preliminary > >> > > round games are not like "a regular game of V:TES" in the sense of > >> > > having a time limit and emphasizing the game win. > >> > > >> > I disagree. They are very much "like" each other. The time limit was > >> > a regrettable necessity, whose purpose and function I do not need to > >> > defend. > >> > >> Certainly not. In fact, IIRC, when we disputed this, I was the one > >> in favor of maintaining it as is and you were in favor of tinkering > >> with it. > > > > IIRC we never disputed this. We were always in agreement that the > > time limit was a necessity. > > I didn't mean the time limit. I meant that you were in favor of tinkering > with the definition of a game win. Yes. But you are not talking about "game win" as defined in the Standard Rules. The tinkering I proposed was intended to bring the tournament rules more in line with the Standard Rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Let me know, if you can make it in April, Chris. I'd like you to be there, if it happens. Matt

On Mar 2, 10:01 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > wedge wrote: > > > I will ask my play group to run a seating exercise day. > > > players will roll for 1st though 5th, > > > cut and revial 4 crypt and 10 library cards > > > then 3rd though 1st will contruct the table. > This is a good idea, Matt. If I manage to get to a final and be in a position to choose seating, I would be all over that. This thread seems to have two things going on: 1. people debating the finals seating rules on structural grounds, i.e., choosing seating is a good/bad way to reward higher seeded players (if they deserve any reward at all), it's good/bad because it's different than other rounds, other methods of seating would be worse/better, etc. This is the lion's share of the thread. 2. people saying that finals seating is questionable because players come into the finals with different knowledge of the other finalists' decks, this being reasonable/unfair, and meaning scouting may happen, which is fine/unfortunate, and how might this be addressed, if there's any reason to at all. Maybe it's time to split the thread? I'm more interested in 2, personally.

On Feb 26, 8:57 am, chromeboy <houseofbull...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 26 Feb., 07:05, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 25, 9:49 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > librarian wrote: > > > > I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how annoying > > > > the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. Specifically > > > > because it was totally different from any other regular game of VTES. And > > > > because seating has so much influence on the game, shouldn't it be like > > > > every other table? > > > > Indeed. Picking your predator or prey, with knowledge of what decks > > > they are playing, is totally "cheating". This rule represents an > > > attempt to increase the odds that the top-seeded player will win. It > > > also rewards scouting and (since the top-seeded player may have been > > > too busy playing to do much of this himself) also rewards having a > > > network of informants. It is contrary to the spirit of the normal > > > rules. Seating should be determined randomly. > > > Indeed, > > > or based on ranking > > 1st is 1st; 2nd - 2nd and so on > > or > > 1st is 5th; 2nd - 4th and so on > > > Matt > > If seating were not to be determined by choice from top to last > player, i would > suggest seating to be 1st,5th,2nd,3rd,4th. > That way the sum of the postions surrounding a player would be: > 1st: 4+5=9 > 2nd: 5+3=8 > 3rd: 2+4=6 > 4th: 3+1=4 > 5th: 1+2=3 > > That way the supposedly best player from the previous rounds would > have > earned preys and preds weaker (as determined by said previous results) > than the player after him in prerounds standing I actually like this. It could also be inversed (1-4-3-2-5) as LSJ already said elsewhere in this thread. I'm just wondering should the 1st seat be given any additional benefit on top of getting the "easiest" prey/predator. Maybe he could either choose the direction of play or who goes first?

Howdy, > > If seating were not to be determined by choice from top to last > > player, i would > > suggest seating to be 1st,5th,2nd,3rd,4th. > > That way the sum of the postions surrounding a player would be: > > 1st: 4+5=9 > > 2nd: 5+3=8 > > 3rd: 2+4=6 > > 4th: 3+1=4 > > 5th: 1+2=3 > > > That way the supposedly best player from the previous rounds would > > have > > earned preys and preds weaker (as determined by said previous results) > > than the player after him in prerounds standing > > I actually like this. It could also be inversed (1-4-3-2-5) as LSJ > already said elsewhere in this thread. I'm just wondering should the > 1st seat be given any additional benefit on top of getting the > "easiest" prey/predator. Maybe he could either choose the direction of > play or who goes first? Just let first seed choose which 'inversion' the table uses. That is, let him choose whether he preys on the 4th or 5th seed. Alex

On Mar 3, 12:06 am, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 10:01 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > wedge wrote: > > > > I will ask my play group to run a seating exercise day. > > > > players will roll for 1st though 5th, > > > > cut and revial 4 crypt and 10 library cards > > > > then 3rd though 1st will contruct the table. > > This is a good idea, Matt. If I manage to get to a final and be in a > position to choose seating, I would be all over that. I posted in vtesinla to see what people think. > Maybe it's time to split the thread? I'm more interested in 2, > personally. This thread is dead. alot of it could have been emails between the two parties envolved, included this one. Matt

[ quoted text not captured ] Too much power, I would rather it stay the same.

On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 02:26:37 -0800, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > "Daneel" wrote: >> Peter D Bakija wrote: >>> Trying to prevent scouting is insanely difficult. >>> And simply not worth the effort. >> >> My experience from bigger tournaments is that the venue often >> makes it sensible for judges to request that participants comply >> with the rule about spectators not being allowed. But people >> don't really comply. > > As I stated earlier, there is no such rule. Read the section quoted as a direct reply to your previous post. Or, you know, just read the tournament rules. If the judge requests people to comply, it's probably a rule, right? (Also, hypothetically, if there is no rule at all, the tournament organizers may still request players to do stuff that is not a violation of any other rule laid down. E.g. they may enforce a rule of "no alcohol" or "no brought food items" or whatever as the venue necessitates.) > Perhaps they aren't complying for that reason? ...or maybe you are just plain stupid like an arse. -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] Oh G-d, please no. Then John will start another 1000-post thread. ;) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

Daneel wrote: >> "Daneel" wrote: >>> Peter D Bakija wrote: >>>> Trying to prevent scouting is insanely difficult. >>>> And simply not worth the effort. >>> >>> My experience from bigger tournaments is that the venue often >>> makes it sensible for judges to request that participants comply >>> with the rule about spectators not being allowed. But people >>> don't really comply. >> >> As I stated earlier, there is no such rule. > > Read the section quoted as a direct reply to your previous post. Or, > you know, just read the tournament rules. If the judge requests > people to comply, it's probably a rule, right? There is no such rule. >> Perhaps they aren't complying for that reason? > > ...or maybe you are just plain stupid like an arse. I know that it's sad that you can't defend your position, since there is no such rule, but name-calling is really weak. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 00:30:06 -0800, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >>> "Daneel" wrote: >>>> Peter D Bakija wrote: >>>>> Trying to prevent scouting is insanely difficult. >>>>> And simply not worth the effort. >>>> >>>> My experience from bigger tournaments is that the venue often >>>> makes it sensible for judges to request that participants comply >>>> with the rule about spectators not being allowed. But people >>>> don't really comply. >>> >>> As I stated earlier, there is no such rule. >> >> Read the section quoted as a direct reply to your previous post. Or, >> you know, just read the tournament rules. If the judge requests >> people to comply, it's probably a rule, right? > > There is no such rule. Copied from Salem's post (as directing you there or to the source didn't do much good): 2.4. Spectator Responsibilities A spectator of a game is defined as any person other than a judge or an organizer who is not playing in that game. **A player who is ousted from a game is considered a spectator for the remainder of the round**. All spectators are expected to remain silent during the course of a game and are not permitted to communicate with players in any way while a game is in progress. Spectators who believe that they have observed rules violations should inform a judge, but they must not interfere with the game. Players have the right to request that any spectator not observe their game. All such requests must be made through a judge, who may grant or deny the request as he or she sees fit. **The judge or organizer may choose to prohibit all specatators at any table(s) or round(s) of the tournament.** ...would you consider this to be a rule? Would you consider a judge who is enforcing this rule to be enforcing a rule? Would you consider a judge who is enforcing an optional provision of this rule to be enforcing a rule? ...or are you implying that there's no such rule that people should comply with the judge's requests? ...or that there are no tournament rules? ...or maybe that there is are no rules at all? >>> Perhaps they aren't complying for that reason? >> >> ...or maybe you are just plain stupid like an arse. > > I know that it's sad that you can't defend your position, > since there is no such rule, but name-calling is really weak. Or, you know, maybe you just come off as too stuck in write-only mode that any sort of argument seems lost on you. For what it's worth, you could be arguing that "there is no sky", and I assume, if you wrote it in response to every post trying to convince you of being wrong, people would eventually stop trying. That said, nowadays it does require a constellation of things for me to resort to name-calling, some of which admittedly don't really have to do anything with this specific topic. By the way Kevin, did we meet at the Barcelona European Championship? I do vaguely remember sitting in a tapas bar with the prince of Las Vegas, not sure if it's the same guy... -- Regards, Daneel

On Mar 2, 2:50 am, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > My experience from bigger tournaments is that the venue often makes it > sensible for judges to request that participants comply with the rule > about spectators not being allowed. If judges request such a thing, and choose to enforce it, then people should leave the area. That being said, I have never encountered such a thing. Likely as it is impractical most of the time. > But people don't really comply. I can't imagine that if the head judge said, at the start of the event, "When you are done with your game, leave the room", people wouldn't do that. -Peter

Daneel wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] [snip obviously leading questions] You keep saying there is a "rule about spectators not being allowed", then I say there isn't, then you quote from the tournament rules [2.4] which says nowhere that spectators are not allowed. Sure, [2.4] says a judge or organizer CAN make it so that spectators are barred, but that didn't seem to be what you were saying. Now, I could have said "Oh, I think when you said 'rule about spectators not being allowed' you really meant 'that part of [2.4] which no one anywhere invokes because it's a logistical nightmare and an exercise in futility' :)", but then I'd invoke Bakija and we'd be here until the cows came home. hehee:) If you thought I was being a KevinM, well, sorry about that, and it's nothing personal, but there's really no need to use naughty words. > By the way Kevin, did we meet at the Barcelona EC? I do vaguely > remember sitting in a tapas bar with the prince of Las Vegas, > not sure if it's the same guy... I apologize that I don't clearly remember you, but if it helps you any, I didn't meet a single player who I didn't find enjoyable and interesting, and I'm almost EXACTLY the same in person as I am here, so you'd certainly know if you met me. I'm quite...American. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 26, 12:04 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 8:54 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 26, 4:12 am, Shockwave <d_knowles...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > And to play your best game in earlier rounds, earning that marked > > > advantage for the finals. > > > That is adequately rewarded by the fact that one gets into the finals > > in the first place. And by the fact that he can win the tournament by > > scoring a tie in the finals against a lower-seeded player. > > > If a further bonus or handicap favoring the top-seeded player WERE > > appropriate (which I don' think it is), then I'd much rather let him > > start with a couple of extra transfers or pool, rather than give him a > > "reward" whose value is variable based on his knowledge of his > > opponent's decks. > > > > It's rare to see in any system these days merit being rewarded. > > > I'm not sure by what standard a player with 3 game wins and 10 victory > > points can be said to deserve so great an advantage over a player with > > 3 game wins and 9.5 victory points. They have faced a different set > > of opponents, and the top-seeded player, for all we know, may have > > faced weaker opposition. In such a case, this is the first time in > > the tournament their decks have truly been measured against each > > other. > > That depends on how you measure things: "How you fare against three > rounds of randomly-determined opponents" is to me often a better > measure than "how you performed directly against the other person's > deck" - this is especially true in a game where Deck A trumps Deck B > which trumps Deck C which trumps Deck A.... This mis-states the issue. It is not a question of whether three games are more reliable than one, but whether four games are more reliable than three, and precisely how we use the fourth to further refine the results of the first three. We are not talking about using three games to separate the guy with 3 game wins from the guy with 0 game wins. That has already been done. (And no-one denies that this distinction (1-1-1 versus 0-0-0) it is more significant than than the difference between 1 game win and 1 game loss in a single round of preliminaries). What we are talking about is distinctions among finalists. This distinction usually amounts to no more, and often amounts to a good deal less, than the outcome of a single preliminary game. Sometimes distinctions even hinge on tournament points. Even assuming that the difference between the top-seed and the second- seed does amount to as much as a single game win, the game that they are about to play (should someone win it) will be a far more significant measure of the relative worth of these two players, for all the reasons I first indicated. They are being measured directly against each-other for the first time. > One game is too small a sample size to determine which deck is > "better". Maybe, but the one game you play in the finals is still a better measure than the one preliminary game (if even that) which separates the finalists.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 16:47:42 -0800, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> There is no such rule. >> >> Copied from Salem's post (as directing you there or to the source >> didn't do much good): >> >> 2.4. Spectator Responsibilities >> >> A spectator of a game is defined as any person other than a judge >> or an organizer who is not playing in that game. **A player who is >> ousted from a game is considered a spectator for the remainder of >> the round**. All spectators are expected to remain silent during the >> course of a game and are not permitted to communicate with players >> in any way while a game is in progress. Spectators who believe that >> they have observed rules violations should inform a judge, but they >> must not interfere with the game. Players have the right to request >> that any spectator not observe their game. All such requests must be >> made through a judge, who may grant or deny the request as he or she >> sees fit. **The judge or organizer may choose to prohibit all >> specatators at any table(s) or round(s) of the tournament.** > > [snip obviously leading questions] Not all of them were leading questions, some were at least half serious! > You keep saying there is a "rule about spectators not being allowed", > then I say there isn't, then you quote from the tournament rules [2.4] > which says nowhere that spectators are not allowed. > > Sure, [2.4] says a judge or organizer CAN make it so that spectators > are barred, but that didn't seem to be what you were saying. > > Now, I could have said "Oh, I think when you said 'rule about > spectators not being allowed' you really meant 'that part of > [2.4] which no one anywhere invokes because it's a logistical > nightmare and an exercise in futility' :)", but then I'd invoke > Bakija and we'd be here until the cows came home. hehee:) > > If you thought I was being a KevinM, well, sorry about that, and it's > nothing personal, but there's really no need to use naughty words. That's why I said - in light of the actual rules text - that "my experience from bigger tournaments is that the venue often makes it sensible for judges to request that participants comply with the rule about spectators not being allowed". Which seemed quite ok semantically to me to refer to a compliance to an optional provision of a rule (hence the judge request part). To which it seemed quite Hammerhead Jack to keep on insisting that "there is no such rule" (when in fact there is, although it is optional). But, whatever, I guess there's no further point in arguing this. >> By the way Kevin, did we meet at the Barcelona EC? I do vaguely >> remember sitting in a tapas bar with the prince of Las Vegas, >> not sure if it's the same guy... > > I apologize that I don't clearly remember you, but if it helps you > any, I didn't meet a single player who I didn't find enjoyable and > interesting, and I'm almost EXACTLY the same in person as I am here, > so you'd certainly know if you met me. I'm quite...American. ;) I guess that's a yes. My impression then is that you are a very complex person - agreeable, jovial, stubborn and hairsplitting, the former traits being more dominant in person, the latter on the forums... :) -- Regards, Daneel

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:39:18 -0800 (PST), Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 2:50ￜam, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> My experience from bigger tournaments is that the venue often makes it >> ￜ sensible for judges to request that participants comply with the rule >> ￜ about spectators not being allowed. > > If judges request such a thing, and choose to enforce it, then people > should leave the area. That being said, I have never encountered such > a thing. Likely as it is impractical most of the time. > >> But people don't really comply. > > I can't imagine that if the head judge said, at the start of the > event, "When you are done with your game, leave the room", people > wouldn't do that. I'm not sure if you're serious here or tongue-in-cheek, but I'll assume serious. My experience from most of the major tournaments (mostly ECs) I attended seems to indicate that 1) judges request people to stay seated or leave the room, and then 2) end up spending half their time during the second half of the round herding the people, who 3) keep on drifting back to check on as many tables as they can. -- Regards, Daneel

On Mar 6, 3:34 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > I'm not sure if you're serious here or tongue-in-cheek, but I'll assume > serious. No, no, totally serious. If someone wanted to ban people from staying in the room after their game was done, it doesn't strike me as that difficult of a thing to do. A silly thing to do, but not a difficult one. > My experience from most of the major tournaments (mostly ECs) I attended > seems to indicate that 1) judges request people to stay seated or leave > the room, and then 2) end up spending half their time during the second > half of the round herding the people, who 3) keep on drifting back to > check on as many tables as they can. Ok. I have never been to a tournament where people were requested to do anything when they were done with their games other than be reasonably quiet. Why you would want to herd people is completely beyond me. But if you really wanted to say "leave the room when your game is done or you get DQed" or whatever, it would be that difficult to make work. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > My experience from most of the major tournaments (mostly ECs) I attended > seems to indicate that 1) judges request people to stay seated or leave > the room, and then 2) end up spending half their time during the second > half of the round herding the people, who 3) keep on drifting back to > check on as many tables as they can. Like Peter, I have never seen this either. (Those tournaments I have attended have all been in the Eastern US and Canada). I don't consider it a bad rule, per se. I agree with what (I suppose) is the philosophy behind it -- that ideally, players should not know anything about eachother's decks until they actually meet in combat. But it sure sounds like a pain-in-the-neck to enforce. I suspect that an attempt to enforce it would only succeed in giving an unfair advantage to those most determined to test its limits.

On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:25:55 -0800 (PST), John Whelan wrote: > I agree with what (I suppose) >is the philosophy behind it -- that ideally, players should not know >anything about eachother's decks until they actually meet in combat. In my experience at the EC's, this rule is 100% about noise. It isn't about scouting. Have an extra 5-10 people talking right behind you will seriously disrupt your game.

The Lasombra wrote: > In my experience at the EC's, this rule is 100% about noise. > It isn't about scouting. I don't question your experience, but it does not seem to match what Daneel described. Seems to me that people are more likely to be silent while standing watching a game, than while seated, possibly with other people at the same table, and with nothing to do.

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opu85xxb...@news.chello.hu... > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 16:47:42 -0800, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> 2.4. Spectator Responsibilities >>> >>> A spectator of a game is defined as any person other than a judge >>> or an organizer who is not playing in that game. **A player who is >>> ousted from a game is considered a spectator for the remainder of >>> the round**. All spectators are expected to remain silent during the >>> course of a game and are not permitted to communicate with players >>> in any way while a game is in progress. Spectators who believe that >>> they have observed rules violations should inform a judge, but they >>> must not interfere with the game. Players have the right to request >>> that any spectator not observe their game. All such requests must be >>> made through a judge, who may grant or deny the request as he or she >>> sees fit. **The judge or organizer may choose to prohibit all >>> specatators at any table(s) or round(s) of the tournament.** >> >> You keep saying there is a "rule about spectators not being allowed", >> then I say there isn't, then you quote from the tournament rules [2.4] >> which says nowhere that spectators are not allowed. >> >> Sure, [2.4] says a judge or organizer CAN make it so that spectators >> are barred, but that didn't seem to be what you were saying. ... > That's why I said - in light of the actual rules text - that "my > experience from bigger tournaments is that the venue often makes > it sensible for judges to request that participants comply with > the rule about spectators not being allowed". > > Which seemed quite ok semantically to me to refer to a compliance > to an optional provision of a rule (hence the judge request part). > > To which it seemed quite Hammerhead Jack to keep on insisting that > "there is no such rule" (when in fact there is, although it is > optional). You guys need to stop talking past each other. The problem is, the way you keep expressing yourself makes it sound like somewhere in the rule book is a flat rule that states, "People can't watch a game in which they're not playing." Kevin is correct to deny that there is such a rule as that. There is a rule to allow a judge to optionally prevent people from watching in which they're not a playing. And, perhaps sometimes that rule gets used. But could you please *NOT* throw references around posts about, "the rule about specatators not being allowed"? There is no such rule and you only start needless disputes bickering about it. > But, whatever, I guess there's no further point in arguing this. There never was. Fred

On Mar 8, 7:40 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > You guys need to stop talking past each other. The problem is, the > way you keep expressing yourself makes it sound like somewhere in the > rule book is a flat rule that states, "People can't watch a game in > which they're not playing." Kevin is correct to deny that there is > such a rule as that. There is a rule to allow a judge to optionally > prevent people from watching in which they're not a playing. And, > perhaps sometimes that rule gets used. But could you please *NOT* > throw references around posts about, "the rule about specatators not > being allowed"? There is no such rule and you only start needless > disputes bickering about it. Conversely, there is such a rule, as quoted, and it is an optional rule. Insisting that the optional rule doesn't exist also starts needless disputes bickering about it. That is, it's clear either way. Responding to either position in the contrary (rather than the acknowledging the fact of the middle ground) is just needless. And it is also archeypical Internet, and not unusual in the least. :-)

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:a39cb174-5b2b-4844...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 8, 7:40 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > You guys need to stop talking past each other. The problem is, the > > way you keep expressing yourself makes it sound like somewhere in the > > rule book is a flat rule that states, "People can't watch a game in > > which they're not playing." Kevin is correct to deny that there is > > such a rule as that. There is a rule to allow a judge to optionally > > prevent people from watching in which they're not a playing. And, > > perhaps sometimes that rule gets used. But could you please *NOT* > > throw references around posts about, "the rule about specatators not > > being allowed"? There is no such rule and you only start needless > > disputes bickering about it. > > Conversely, there is such a rule, as quoted, and it is an optional > rule. Insisting that the optional rule doesn't exist also starts > needless disputes bickering about it. That's not what I would think of as an optional rule. Referring to something as an "optional rule" usually implies that it can be applied or not applied to the whole event - usually for purposes of flavor. (That is, players like it and will tend to play tournaments using it or don't like it and thus don't as fits their subjective preferences.) This thing is a spot tool for judges to what end I'm not even clear. Noise - as Jeff thought? To prevent scouting? Out of fear of that spectators will affect the game in a way that cannot be remedied? Something else? In any event, despite the fact that it may be invoked or not at the option of a judge, to term it an "optional rule" invites conflation with the former kind of thing. > That is, it's clear either way. I disagree with that, too. As simply stated by Daneel (and not even identified as "optional"), there is not such a rule. Ergo, Kevin is correct. There exists a more complex rule than that in reference to the subject of spectators. > Responding to either position in the > contrary (rather than the acknowledging the fact of the middle ground) > is just needless. And it is also archeypical Internet, and not unusual > in the least. :-) Agreed, on both points. Fred

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:11:36 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >> Conversely, there is such a rule, as quoted, and it is an optional >> rule. Insisting that the optional rule doesn't exist also starts >> needless disputes bickering about it. > > That's not what I would think of as an optional rule. Referring to > something as an "optional rule" usually implies that it can be applied > or not applied to the whole event - usually for purposes of flavor. Or it can imply a rule that may or may not be enforced based on the discretion of the tournament organizers. :) -- Regards, Daneel

On Feb 25, 9:22 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Seat everyone randomly. 1st seed gets to pick when they get to go in play > order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th). Play. I can see this being viable in larger tournaments, where 2GW is required for top-3 seating. This could also be viable in general, since finals produce four second-place finishers these days. Otherwise, keep the existing seating procedure. It's a fun metagame. 3rd place has more guesswork, but forces 2nd place (and 1st) to make more varied choices, and those choices can fail dramatically. 4th and 5th place seating get an early opportunity to read the other three players. Also, every VP after the first GW is important, and failure to secure those VP should result in lower finals seating.

I'm surprised that there's so many who's missed the point of the OP, and I assume JW's, point. Top seed should get an advantage of some sort. But for a game that seem to try to put up a farce of being competitive with all these play to win rules, etc, you'd think you have a mechanic that rewards something other than using an out of game mechanic (scouting). I think everyone who posts should ask themselves, is scouting supposed to be a legitimate part of the game or in the spirit of the rules? If your answer is, yes and yes, then this thread can stop right here. If your answer is anything other than yes, ie, well it's hard to reinforce, blah blah blah, then why include a "reward" system where people get benefits for doing so?

"Drace" <chrysanth...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b281b43f-baf0-464d...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > I'm surprised that there's so many who's missed the point of the OP, > and I assume JW's, point. Top seed should get an advantage of some > sort. But for a game that seem to try to put up a farce of being > competitive with all these play to win rules, etc, you'd think you > have a mechanic that rewards something other than using an out of game > mechanic (scouting). I think everyone who posts should ask > themselves, is scouting supposed to be a legitimate part of the game > or in the spirit of the rules? How many times do I have to say this? (This is about the fourth or fifth in these "Finals Table Seating" threads.) Scouting is not the major means of gaining useful information for the finals seating ritual. Playing against the other finals decks is. The information one gains from scouting is of mostly of extremely questionable value. In smaller tournaments, the leading players will make their decisions almost entirely from their in-game experience with the other decks involved. In larger tournaments, chances are, they will usually make uninformed decisions or mostly uninformed decisions or decisions that are (as some have pointed out) based on the knowledge of the other finalists' reputations or experienced gained against those finalist in games that took place prior to the current tournament. Now can we PLEASE put these pointless debates about scouting to rest?!? > If your answer is anything other > than yes, ie, well it's hard to reinforce, blah blah blah, then why > include a "reward" system where people get benefits for doing so? Because your presuppositions are cracked. Fred

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:22:20 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Drace" <chrysanth...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:b281b43f-baf0-464d...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> I'm surprised that there's so many who's missed the point of the OP, >> and I assume JW's, point. Top seed should get an advantage of some >> sort. But for a game that seem to try to put up a farce of being >> competitive with all these play to win rules, etc, you'd think you >> have a mechanic that rewards something other than using an out of game >> mechanic (scouting). I think everyone who posts should ask >> themselves, is scouting supposed to be a legitimate part of the game >> or in the spirit of the rules? > > How many times do I have to say this? (This is about the fourth or > fifth in these "Finals Table Seating" threads.) Scouting is not > the major means of gaining useful information for the finals seating > ritual. Playing against the other finals decks is. Fred, no matter how many times you say it, it still won't be true. Or: how many times do I have to say it, that information gathered via scouting is an essential asset for choosing the seating in the finals? :) > The information one gains from scouting is of mostly of extremely > questionable value. Everything is of questionable value. > In smaller tournaments, the leading players will make their decisions > almost entirely from their in-game experience with the other decks > involved. In larger tournaments, chances are, they will usually make > uninformed decisions or mostly uninformed decisions or decisions that > are (as some have pointed out) based on the knowledge of the other > finalists' reputations or experienced gained against those finalist > in games that took place prior to the current tournament. In smaller tournaments, scouting is very easy. You play most opponents, and scout out those you don't play. You also have more time to spend per opponent, you the information you gather from your scouting will be comparable to what you would have learned from playing against the deck. In larger tournaments most people will bring typical decks - so the majority of the decks you encounter will be Tier 1 decks. Careful observation, even for a short while (e.g. taking a look at a winning player's ready region) can net you enough information about what the deck does (even if not the specific ratios of cards or any surprise cards included). > Now can we PLEASE put these pointless debates about scouting to rest?!? If you're asking so nicely... :) >> If your answer is anything other >> than yes, ie, well it's hard to reinforce, blah blah blah, then why >> include a "reward" system where people get benefits for doing so? > > Because your presuppositions are cracked. False causality, false statement. -- Regards, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opu9p9r9...@news.chello.hu... > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:22:20 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > >> "Drace" <chrysanth...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b281b43f-baf0-464d...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >>> I'm surprised that there's so many who's missed the point of the OP, >>> and I assume JW's, point. Top seed should get an advantage of some >>> sort. But for a game that seem to try to put up a farce of being >>> competitive with all these play to win rules, etc, you'd think you >>> have a mechanic that rewards something other than using an out of game >>> mechanic (scouting). I think everyone who posts should ask >>> themselves, is scouting supposed to be a legitimate part of the game >>> or in the spirit of the rules? >> >> How many times do I have to say this? (This is about the fourth or >> fifth in these "Finals Table Seating" threads.) Scouting is not >> the major means of gaining useful information for the finals seating >> ritual. Playing against the other finals decks is. > > Fred, no matter how many times you say it, it still won't be true. Sorry, but it is. > Or: how many times do I have to say it, that information gathered via > scouting is an essential asset for choosing the seating in the finals? :) Right. Coming by and looking at a table for about 35 seconds will give you almost as much information as if you knew nothing. >> The information one gains from scouting is of mostly of extremely >> questionable value. > > Everything is of questionable value. Hockey pucks. If you play in a game with another player, you will actually _have_ some information about his deck. If you don't, you won't. I mean there are times when I sort of see the other guy's view. Not here. Your PoV makes zero sense. No one has enough time to play a game on the one hand and then trot off to some other table and learn anything meaningful about anyone else's deck 98% of the time. Most of the time, you are playing your game all the way through or maybe until the last 10 or 15 minutes - and when your game gets out, anyone else whose deck you want to scout is already done. Or the game is not done but they've been ousted. Or they're not ousted but so many things have happened in their game you weren't present to watch that you can't possibly piece together why the game is in the state it's in. Without that information, it's hard to learn much about how your subject's deck actually functions. So...let's review: 1) Often, you can't even scout at all. 2) When you CAN scout, there's a fair chance the guy you want to scout isn't playing any more. 3) When neither (1) or (2) is true, you STILL usually can't learn much that's useful. Once in a while, you might get ousted in 1/2 hour or even sweep your table in 1/2 hour and be able to go watch the final 2/3rd of your subject's game. So I will concede that once in a blue moon, you can actually learn something useful. But not very often - and usually only because you got ousted quickly, which doesn't bode will for finishing first or second after the preliminary rounds. >> In smaller tournaments, the leading players will make their decisions >> almost entirely from their in-game experience with the other decks >> involved. In larger tournaments, chances are, they will usually make >> uninformed decisions or mostly uninformed decisions or decisions that >> are (as some have pointed out) based on the knowledge of the other >> finalists' reputations or experienced gained against those finalist >> in games that took place prior to the current tournament. > > In smaller tournaments, scouting is very easy. You play most opponents, > and scout out those you don't play. Nope. You play most opponents - which *isn't* scouting, so let's not act like it is. And trying to scout the others has all the problems I cited above. > In larger tournaments most people will bring typical decks - so the > majority of the decks you encounter will be Tier 1 decks. Careful > observation, even for a short while (e.g. taking a look at a winning > player's ready region) can net you enough information about what the > deck does (even if not the specific ratios of cards or any surprise > cards included). "Typical decks"?!? Sorry, I disagree. I see few if any "typical decks". Some players have decks that are kind of reasonably classifiable: big Toredaors, bleed cannon, Ventrue Law Firm, and so forth. But almost inevitably even these tend to vary in some significant way from their classic archetype: more-stealth-less-combat, different kind of combat from the usual, politics grafted on, some device or trick they pull out at a critical moment. If you don't mind missing big chunks of a guy's game, you can rely on such information. I don't think it's going to help you that much, but go ahead. I still say the only information that's really worthwhile is the stuff you gather at the table playing against the guy. Fred

This post is so long, I'm sure only you and I will read it Fred. But we soldier on don't we? Frederick Scott wrote: > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opu9p9r9...@news.chello.hu... > > Coming by and looking at a table for about 35 seconds will give > you almost as much information as if you knew nothing. > I have seen people watching a game for many minutes in a row. 35 seconds is hyperbole. >>> The information one gains from scouting is of mostly of extremely >>> questionable value. >> Everything is of questionable value. > > Hockey pucks. If you play in a game with another player, you will > actually _have_ some information about his deck. If you don't, you > won't. That's untrue. I can get a lot of information just by knowing the archetype. I have sat at finals with *no* knowledge of even what the other arcehtypes are. If I know that, I have a much better handle of where to sit and perhaps how to play my opening moves. You can't say that's not important, I hope. > > I mean there are times when I sort of see the other guy's view. Not > here. Your PoV makes zero sense. No one has enough time to play a > game on the one hand and then trot off to some other table and learn > anything meaningful about anyone else's deck 98% of the time. More hyperbole. 98% of the time? More like perhaps 60-70% of the time, maybe even less. Unless more than one game goes to time (happens what, 25-30% of tournament preliminary games), only one table will be the last table still playing. Every other table gets to go scout. Games ending at around the 1:15 mark or 1:30 mark are very very very very common, wouldn't you agree? I think it's clear that you can go and find out what archetype other people are playing. And that is of great value - see above. Most > of the time, you are playing your game all the way through or maybe > until the last 10 or 15 minutes - I quibble with "most of the time". I would put that at perhaps 60-70% of the time. and when your game gets out, anyone > else whose deck you want to scout is already done. Wrong. Even granted your point (which I don't), there are still games to scout, and maybe at least one of them will have a player whose deck you want to scout. Or the game is not > done but they've been ousted. Or they're not ousted but so many things > have happened in their game you weren't present to watch that you > can't possibly piece together why the game is in the state it's in. Sure you can - Beast the Leatherface and Volker the Puppet prince in one player's ready region, Ozmo and Gilbert in another's. Sure, they may be playing trick decks, but probably not. Fred, you are experienced. Can you honestly say that you can't tell what archetypes people are playing if you watch a game for say 2 minutes, or perhaps once around a table? > Without that information, it's hard to learn much about how your > subject's deck actually functions. > I disagree. Someone who has been playing a while, or even someone who has studied the game like Brandon from Santa Cruz can look at a table and glean the archetypes. Knowing the archetypes *makes a difference*. To say otherwise is to be absolutely ignorant of the game, or is extremely disingenuous. > So...let's review: > 1) Often, you can't even scout at all. I disagree with "Often". But I have no evidence to back that up, just gut feeling. > 2) When you CAN scout, there's a fair chance the guy you want to scout > isn't playing any more. Ok, perhaps. But there is also a fair chance the some of the guys/gals you want to scout are still playing. > 3) When neither (1) or (2) is true, you STILL usually can't learn much > that's useful. > Vehemently disagree. Knowing a deck archetype makes a huge difference. See above. > Once in a while, you might get ousted in 1/2 hour or even sweep your > table in 1/2 hour and be able to go watch the final 2/3rd of your > subject's game. So I need somewhere between 35 seconds and 90 minutes to understand a deck? I think I need about 2 minutes per table; or perhaps one round of each player taking a turn. So I will concede that once in a blue moon, you can > actually learn something useful. You honestly think that it would take any experienced player 90 minutes to learn about someone's deck? Really? And when I say "learn about", I mean learn enough to impact your seating choice and your play in the first 3-4 turns of the final. But not very often - and usually only > because you got ousted quickly, which doesn't bode will for finishing > first or second after the preliminary rounds. > >>> In smaller tournaments, the leading players will make their decisions >>> almost entirely from their in-game experience with the other decks >>> involved. In larger tournaments, chances are, they will usually make >>> uninformed decisions or mostly uninformed decisions or decisions that >>> are (as some have pointed out) based on the knowledge of the other >>> finalists' reputations or experienced gained against those finalist >>> in games that took place prior to the current tournament. >> In smaller tournaments, scouting is very easy. You play most opponents, >> and scout out those you don't play. > > Nope. You play most opponents - which *isn't* scouting, so let's not > act like it is. And trying to scout the others has all the problems I > cited above. Hmmm, I guess the poster meant to equate "scouting" with "learning enough about a player's deck to make an informed decision about seating in the final". You equate it with "learning about a player's deck outside of the game". I go with your definition when I say scouting, but that doesn't obviate his point - in a smaller tournament, the advantage to scouting is less, since you will get to play many of the decks during the prelim rounds. > >> In larger tournaments most people will bring typical decks - so the >> majority of the decks you encounter will be Tier 1 decks. Careful >> observation, even for a short while (e.g. taking a look at a winning >> player's ready region) can net you enough information about what the >> deck does (even if not the specific ratios of cards or any surprise >> cards included). > > "Typical decks"?!? Sorry, I disagree. I see few if any "typical decks". > Some players have decks that are kind of reasonably classifiable: big > Toredaors, bleed cannon, Ventrue Law Firm, and so forth. But almost > inevitably even these tend to vary in some significant way from their > classic archetype: more-stealth-less-combat, different kind of combat > from the usual, politics grafted on, some device or trick they pull out > at a critical moment. If you don't mind missing big chunks of a guy's > game, you can rely on such information. Well, having *none* of that information is much worse than having even a little of that information, wouldn't you agree? I don't think it's going to > help you that much, but go ahead. Really? Fred, do a little thought experiment for me. You are going to sit at a table. In order to do the best at the table that you can, would you rather a) know *nothing* about any of the decks? or b) know just a little about the decks - for instance the general make up of the crypt and the types of actions it takes? Which would you prefer? Which do you think would lead to your maximizing your VPs and winning the game? Do you honestly think that not knowing that the Ventrue Law firm has more votes than Governs will make a huge difference? Or that the Beast deck has more Immortal Grapples than Flashes? Sure, that stuff is important, but wouldn't you rather know that your soft squishy deck is going to sit next to the Beast deck? I still say the only information that's > really worthwhile is the stuff you gather at the table playing against > the guy. > We'll have to agree to disagree. I think any scouting gives you plenty of good information, even if you can only do it at 2-3 tables per preliminary rounds, even if for only 2-3 minutes per those tables. I agree that a ban on scouting is unenforceable, and less fun (people like to watch the games). However, as Drace says, for a game that seems to be trying to eschew "out of game" considerations, you'd think that there would be "a mechanic that rewards something other than using an out of game mechanic (scouting)". best - chris

librarian wrote: Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message >> news:opu9p9r9...@news.chello.hu... >> >> > > Most >> of the time, you are playing your game all the way through or maybe >> until the last 10 or 15 minutes - > > I quibble with "most of the time". I would put that at perhaps 60-70% > of the time. > > Heh, I guess that by any definition, more than 50% is "most". So I guess I do agree... best - chris

"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message news:hnru5e$5cr$1...@news.eternal-september.org... > This post is so long, I'm sure only you and I will read it Fred. But we soldier on don't we? We do. :-) > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opu9p9r9...@news.chello.hu... >> >> Coming by and looking at a table for about 35 seconds will give >> you almost as much information as if you knew nothing. > > I have seen people watching a game for many minutes in a row. 35 seconds is hyperbole. Well, yes and no. Sure, I spit out the first short time period which entered my mind. But I don't see it as being that big of exaggeration. Quite often, such scouting as I've been able to work in amounts to walking over, checking out the table state, maybe staying long enough to figure out who was trying to do what, and moving on. Two minutes, tops. Other times I've been able to hang out and watch a while but depending on what else was competing for my time, spending much time at a table has always seemed to me to be a rare luxury. >>>> The information one gains from scouting is of mostly of extremely >>>> questionable value. >>> Everything is of questionable value. >> >> Hockey pucks. If you play in a game with another player, you will >> actually _have_ some information about his deck. If you don't, you >> won't. > > That's untrue. I can get a lot of information just by knowing the archetype. I have sat at finals with *no* knowledge of even > what the other arcehtypes are. If I know that, I have a much better handle of where to sit and perhaps how to play my opening > moves. You can't say that's not important, I hope. Sure I can. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that. But in my mind, labeling someone's deck such-and-such an archetype can be pretty misleading. It's better than zero knowledge, I guess. But not much. >> I mean there are times when I sort of see the other guy's view. Not >> here. Your PoV makes zero sense. No one has enough time to play a >> game on the one hand and then trot off to some other table and learn >> anything meaningful about anyone else's deck 98% of the time. > > More hyperbole. 98% of the time? More like perhaps 60-70% of the time, maybe even less. I disagree. How often are you _winning_ a game and you get much chance to go see another game or games afterward. Remember, it doesn't matter much how often you can get ousted in 10 minutes in order to run off and see someone else's game because you're generally not in line to finish first or second if you get ousted in a game. In 2R+F, you got zero VPs in one game. In 3R+F, I suppose it's possible you can take a 10 minute oust and wind up with 2GW + high VPs from your other two games and maybe get one chance to scout. Use it wisely. If it's in the first round, what are your chances of choosing the 1) guy(s) who will make the finals and 2) who you didn't get a chance to play against? Low. > Unless more than one game goes to time (happens what, 25-30% of tournament preliminary games), only one table will be the last > table still playing. Not just games going to time. Even getting NEAR time doesn't hardly leave you a chance to do anything. And, of course, you're looking for a specific person or people who must still be playing to see anything at all. > Every other table gets to go scout. Games ending at around the 1:15 mark or 1:30 mark are very very very very common, wouldn't > you agree? I'm actually not sure I would. I'd go so far as to say they're not unusual. I think the vast majority of games go at least an hour. I'm not sure whether it's fair to say to a majority of them go 90 minutes but quite a few of them do. And remember, over half the games will last as about as long as yours does or longer. That point by itself shoots down a lot of opportunity to scout. >> Most >> of the time, you are playing your game all the way through or maybe >> until the last 10 or 15 minutes - > > I quibble with "most of the time". I would put that at perhaps 60-70% of the time. > >> and when your game gets out, anyone >> else whose deck you want to scout is already done. > > Wrong. Even granted your point (which I don't), there are still games to scout, and maybe at least one of them will have a player > whose deck you want to scout. Again, I disagree. There should be only a very narrow list of players you need to scout - whether you know it or not. There's only going to be four other players in the finals. Any other scouting you do is an unmitigated total waste. You may not know that when you do it, but it doesn't alter the fact. Scouting anyone you play against directly in a prelim round game who later makes the final is an unmitigated total waste, IMHO. You will learn much better information when you are actually in the game(s) with that person. > Fred, you are experienced. Can you honestly say that you can't tell what archetypes people are playing if you watch a game for > say 2 minutes, or perhaps once around a table? I could slap a label on it in that amount of time. Its MHO that the label would be very misleading. In fact, I've discovered too many times that I was, in retrospect, misled by my own labels to deleterious effect. ... (A bunch of stuff ellided where I would simple restate my areas of disagreement and we would not discover anything new.) ... > So I need somewhere between 35 seconds and 90 minutes to understand a deck? I think I need about 2 minutes per table; or perhaps > one round of each player taking a turn. Well, in that case I would say you are a better player than I am - which may well be true. But I don't see how anyone can come up with much valuable information from watching two minutes of play time. Hell, two minutes of play time could be a guy shuffling his deck a couple times from doing Vast Wealth actions. 90 minutes will gain you some real information. But that kind of opportunity is extremely rare. (ellided more > Really? Fred, do a little thought experiment for me. You are going to sit at a table. In order to do the best at the table that > you can, would you rather a) know *nothing* about any of the decks? or b) know just a little about the decks - for instance the > general make up of the crypt and the types of actions it takes? Which would you prefer? Which do you think would lead to your > maximizing your VPs and winning the game? Sure. If you want, I'll concede I'd rather know a little than nothing. The real question, IME, is how much good will that be for finals seating selection. I would contend it isn't that much. I guess if it gives you a better feeling about what you're stepping into that's fine. It does for me, too. But I honestly don't think it makes a lot of difference in the bottom line. Too many devils in the details... > We'll have to agree to disagree. I guess. I have to say, I'm genuinely surprised at how much good you think you can get from seeing a few vampires exposed and a couple of minutes of play tactics. > I think any scouting gives you plenty of good information, even if you can only do it at 2-3 tables per preliminary rounds, even > if for only 2-3 minutes per those tables. > > I agree that a ban on scouting is unenforceable, and less fun (people like to watch the games). > > However, as Drace says, for a game that seems to be trying to eschew "out of game" considerations, you'd think that there would be > "a mechanic that rewards something other than using an out of game mechanic (scouting)". I have a fairly large nit to pick about that point, too. The prohibitions on "out of game" considerations are for the preliminary rounds. In fact, the finals have a couple significant ones: 1) the tie breaker; and 2) who gets into the finals in the first place. The structure of a VEKN tournament is intended to discourage out of game considerations only in preliminary rounds, AFAICS. It was never intended to make the finals a world unto itself in the same manner. You couldn't even if you tried. Fred

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:17:30 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > news:opu9p9r9...@news.chello.hu... >> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:22:20 -0700, Frederick Scott >> <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> >>> "Drace" <chrysanth...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:b281b43f-baf0-464d...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >>>> I'm surprised that there's so many who's missed the point of the OP, >>>> and I assume JW's, point. Top seed should get an advantage of some >>>> sort. But for a game that seem to try to put up a farce of being >>>> competitive with all these play to win rules, etc, you'd think you >>>> have a mechanic that rewards something other than using an out of game >>>> mechanic (scouting). I think everyone who posts should ask >>>> themselves, is scouting supposed to be a legitimate part of the game >>>> or in the spirit of the rules? >>> >>> How many times do I have to say this? (This is about the fourth or >>> fifth in these "Finals Table Seating" threads.) Scouting is not >>> the major means of gaining useful information for the finals seating >>> ritual. Playing against the other finals decks is. >> >> Fred, no matter how many times you say it, it still won't be true. > > Sorry, but it is. No, it's not. >> Or: how many times do I have to say it, that information gathered via >> scouting is an essential asset for choosing the seating in the finals? >> :) > > Right. Coming by and looking at a table for about 35 seconds will give > you almost as much information as if you knew nothing. Ok, here's an example. You look at the table. One guy has almost not pool and only 1 ready, battered minion. The other guy has all folks in torpor. The third guy (from the seating you can see that it's his predator and grandpredator who are still in game) has the following cards out: Horatio with Tasha Morgan Wendy Wade with Revenant Corine Marcï¿œn with Heart of Nizchetus Jake Washington 3x War Ghoul Powerbase Montreal Unmasking Dragonbound ...would you consider this to be "next to nothing", "somewhat helpful", or "quite helpful"? Even in under a minute... >>> The information one gains from scouting is of mostly of extremely >>> questionable value. >> >> Everything is of questionable value. > > Hockey pucks. If you play in a game with another player, you will > actually _have_ some information about his deck. If you don't, you > won't. False statement. Assume that you play a 5-player game and get steam rolled over by your grandpredator (along with your predator). Maybe you saw your predator played Jake Washington, brought up Corine Marcï¿œn and bounced 2 bleeds before dying. Do you know more about his deck then in the above example? > I mean there are times when I sort of see the other guy's view. Not > here. Your PoV makes zero sense. No one has enough time to play a > game on the one hand and then trot off to some other table and learn > anything meaningful about anyone else's deck 98% of the time. Most > of the time, you are playing your game all the way through or maybe > until the last 10 or 15 minutes - and when your game gets out, anyone > else whose deck you want to scout is already done. Or the game is not > done but they've been ousted. Or they're not ousted but so many things > have happened in their game you weren't present to watch that you > can't possibly piece together why the game is in the state it's in. > Without that information, it's hard to learn much about how your > subject's deck actually functions. There are archetypes. Most decks can be categorized. Some decks are brand new ideas but even there you can look at the minions and hand and cards in play and get an idea of what the deck can likely do. 3 minions out and no stealth discipline...? probably not going to do some heavy stealthing. No titles or PRE or permavote card? Not likely to vote. Etc. You can still get surprises, but not often. > So...let's review: > 1) Often, you can't even scout at all. Is this supposed to be relevant? The fact that a single person may not be able to scout during a specific event doesn't mean others can't scout during that same event, or gain an advantage from it. > 2) When you CAN scout, there's a fair chance the guy you want to scout > isn't playing any more. Ok, on one hand you are saying that most of the time you are playing till almost time. Now you are saying that other people will usually finish their games before you? Or what? > 3) When neither (1) or (2) is true, you STILL usually can't learn much > that's useful. Again, the false presupposition. > Once in a while, you might get ousted in 1/2 hour or even sweep your > table in 1/2 hour and be able to go watch the final 2/3rd of your > subject's game. So I will concede that once in a blue moon, you can > actually learn something useful. But not very often - and usually only > because you got ousted quickly, which doesn't bode will for finishing > first or second after the preliminary rounds. You can pretty much scout even if you finish only 20-30 minutes before time. Yes, some of the tables will be done by then. You will scout those that aren't. There, probably the would-be winner of the table will still be in play. You gain the most by focusing your scouting on him or her. But since you're there, you might as well look at the others if you have time. >>> In smaller tournaments, the leading players will make their decisions >>> almost entirely from their in-game experience with the other decks >>> involved. In larger tournaments, chances are, they will usually make >>> uninformed decisions or mostly uninformed decisions or decisions that >>> are (as some have pointed out) based on the knowledge of the other >>> finalists' reputations or experienced gained against those finalist >>> in games that took place prior to the current tournament. >> >> In smaller tournaments, scouting is very easy. You play most opponents, >> and scout out those you don't play. > > Nope. You play most opponents - which *isn't* scouting, so let's not > act like it is. And trying to scout the others has all the problems I > cited above. To quote the words of a great philosopher: "In smaller tournaments, scouting is very easy. You play most opponents, and scout out those you don't play." No, wait, I wrote that. I just don't see the connection to your reply. I'm not pretending that playing someone is scouting (nor am I thinking that). I'm actually saying that in a small tournaments you play most of your potential opponents during the preliminary rounds. The few opponents you don't play (if any), are easier to scout out specifically because they are few players. Finished your 3rd round 20 minutes early? You played against everybody except Bob and Ted? Cool, check them out, you've got up to 20 minutes for it. >> In larger tournaments most people will bring typical decks - so the >> majority of the decks you encounter will be Tier 1 decks. Careful >> observation, even for a short while (e.g. taking a look at a winning >> player's ready region) can net you enough information about what the >> deck does (even if not the specific ratios of cards or any surprise >> cards included). > > "Typical decks"?!? Sorry, I disagree. I see few if any "typical decks". > Some players have decks that are kind of reasonably classifiable: big > Toredaors, bleed cannon, Ventrue Law Firm, and so forth. But almost > inevitably even these tend to vary in some significant way from their > classic archetype: more-stealth-less-combat, different kind of combat > from the usual, politics grafted on, some device or trick they pull out > at a critical moment. If you don't mind missing big chunks of a guy's > game, you can rely on such information. I don't think it's going to > help you that much, but go ahead. I still say the only information > that's really worthwhile is the stuff you gather at the table playing > against the guy. It's mostly enough to peg a deck as S&B in terms of assessing how well you will do against it. You don't really care what else the deck does unless it has a significant side angle like stealing lots of Allies (which is again not hard to spot). Remember, we're not talking about constructing your deck in a way that you want to turn scouting into some kind of advantage. You build a competitive deck and scout as much as you can to ensure that if you make the finals and have any seating choice, you pick your place well (and if you don't you make some early game decisions well). Sometimes you don't have the opportunity to scout. Sometimes you do scout but there's nothing you can do with the information because it is either incomplete or useless (so, you have no seating choice, and your predator plays powerbleed...). But often you will be able to capitalize on it. -- Regards, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opu9q6sp...@news.chello.hu... > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:17:30 -0700, Frederick Scott >> Right. Coming by and looking at a table for about 35 seconds will give >> you almost as much information as if you knew nothing. > > Ok, here's an example. You look at the table. One guy has almost not pool > and only 1 ready, battered minion. The other guy has all folks in torpor. > The third guy (from the seating you can see that it's his predator and > grandpredator who are still in game) has the following cards out: > > Horatio with Tasha Morgan > Wendy Wade with Revenant > Corine Marcón with Heart of Nizchetus > Jake Washington > 3x War Ghoul > Powerbase Montreal > Unmasking > Dragonbound > > ...would you consider this to be "next to nothing", "somewhat helpful", or > "quite helpful"? Even in under a minute... It depends on who you came to see. If either of the ousted guys, the correct answer would be "nothing". If either of the guys with battered, torped vampires, "next to nothing". If the guy with the War Ghouls, it would be somewhat helpful, although still nothing like actually playing against him so you would have an idea how he's getting his actions to get retainers and War Ghouls through, how he's bloating enough to keep the War Ghouls, how he's defending actions against the Powerbase Montreal - because you won't find out any of this by the time you get to that table. ... The rest of the post is more of the same back and forth that Chris and I had: essentially the assertion that coming by and seeing a couple minutes of a game can somehow help you much. It's better than nothing, but it really isn't much. One other thing though: > Sometimes you don't have the opportunity to scout. Sometimes you do scout > but there's nothing you can do with the information because it is either > incomplete or useless (so, you have no seating choice, and your predator > plays powerbleed...). But often you will be able to capitalize on it. As I pointed out to Chris, any scouting you do of a guy who doesn't eventually make the finals is a complete and total waste, whether you know it or not when you do the scouting. On top of everything else, most likely, most of time you spent scouting is wasted. Fred

Howdy, [ quoted text not captured ] I'm not sure that this is the most relevant context, but it'll do... Not meaning to make an excruciatingly long thread longer needlessly, but I keep waiting for someone to point out the glaring flaw in this analysis of scouting. Namely, that you don't have to do all of your scouting in person in real time. That is, as had been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, you can benefit from scouting that other players have done (or even from their play experience). You just have to know who you can trust (to not lie and to have reasonable analytical skills). Your game goes to time? There's still going to be a few minutes between games when you can check in with people who played at other tables and ask: "What is so-and-so playing today?" And now you benefit from not just two minutes of quick game state assessment, but possibly two hours of wide ranging play. This information can be of 'questionable value', sure, especially if you don't know the person you're talking to well. But if you're at a large event and your using your playgroup to scout, you probably have a good idea how much you can trust each player's information. Having 'scouts' is why its called 'scouting', right? Hope that helps, Alex

"wumpus" <wum...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:13c0167a-2bb8-4046...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > Once in a while, you might get ousted in 1/2 hour or even sweep your > > table in 1/2 hour and be able to go watch the final 2/3rd of your > > subject's game. So I will concede that once in a blue moon, you can > > actually learn something useful. But not very often - and usually only > > because you got ousted quickly, which doesn't bode will for finishing > > first or second after the preliminary rounds. > > I'm not sure that this is the most relevant context, but it'll do... > > Not meaning to make an excruciatingly long thread longer needlessly, > but I keep waiting for someone to point out the glaring flaw in this > analysis of scouting. Namely, that you don't have to do all of your > scouting in person in real time. > > That is, as had been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, you can > benefit from scouting that other players have done (or even from their > play experience). You just have to know who you can trust (to not lie > and to have reasonable analytical skills). 1) Yep, it's relevant. 2) It's a good point and worth discussing. 3) I agree; this is the one hole in my view of scouting. I may have even have been the person you recall pointing this out. (I believe I did mention it in a post in one of the earlier threads. I may not have been the only one.) Thinking about it, I'm be tempted to say this is perhaps the one rule I'd add to the tournament rules about scouting: there should be no exchanging information about other peoples' decks between players or between a non- player and a player. Why? Because it's unfair to players who didn't come into a tournament with cadres of "teammates". In short, this should be defined as collusion. Would this be hard to enforce? Of course, it would. But then, when it comes down to it, there are lots of collusive behaviors that are difficult to detect and enforce. At the very least, the point is made that such behavior is wrong and players who want to win fairly don't engage in it. > This information can be of 'questionable value', sure, especially if > you don't know the person you're talking to well. But if you're at a > large event and your using your playgroup to scout, you probably have > a good idea how much you can trust each player's information. Having > 'scouts' is why its called 'scouting', right? Well, never mind who saw what out of a game. The information *I* think is valuable is what gets learned from playing in games against the subject you wish to know about. And such information can be passed from a trusted "tournament friend" just as easily as the sort Daneel and Chris think is valuable but I don't (so much). Ergo, it kind of bothers me that such information can be gained legally this way. I have no idea if this is a popular practice anywhere or not. I imagine it's probably done a bit from time to time on a limited basis, at least. Fred

On Mar 18, 8:02 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Thinking about it, I'm be tempted to say this is perhaps the one rule I'd > add to the tournament rules about scouting: there should be no exchanging > information about other peoples' decks between players or between a non- > player and a player. Why? Because it's unfair to players who didn't come > into a tournament with cadres of "teammates". In short, this should be > defined as collusion. See, again, in this discussion I will *always* fall back on: Because there is a significant, concrete advantage to knowing what the other finalists' decks do, and because it would be so much preposterous work to try and prevent scouting, the game should simply embrace it and assume that everyone is going to scout. And just not worry about it. Let people (assuming that they aren't otherwise disruptive) watch games when they are done with theirs. Assume that they are going to talk to people between rounds about what everyone else is playing. Just go with it. The reality of the situation, while having concrete, detailed information about the other finalists' decks is certainly helpful, what is most helpful is the very basic one sentence descriptor of someone's deck; sure, knowing that someone has at least 6 Deflections in their deck ('cause they were your prey in the first round) is handy, but not more handy than knowing that Jim is playing a speedy Warghoul deck as opposed to not knowing anything at all about what Jim is playing when choosing seats in a final. The most important information you get from scouting is the information you get in 35 seconds when looking at a game in progress ("Huh. Bill has Ozmo and Zebulon in play, Didi Myers in torpor, and a Govern on top of his ash heap. Check."). Just assume everyone is going to have access to this information, and try to make sure that they can. I mean, yeah, ok, someone might have every preliminary round they play time out, and somehow get into the finals with zero time to walk around and check out other games. But most of the time, not so much. Assume people are going to walk around and see what is going on, and share notes with people, and just go with it. > Would this be hard to enforce? Of course, it would. But then, when it > comes down to it, there are lots of collusive behaviors that are difficult > to detect and enforce. At the very least, the point is made that such > behavior is wrong and players who want to win fairly don't engage in it. And yet it is *soooooo* far outside the realm of something that can be reasonably enforced as to be completely pointless. In game collusive behavior is something that you can observe and make judgements about, even if it is difficult to pick out sometimes. A couple of guys going across the street to the pizza joint and comparing deck notes is not. -Peter

Frederick Scott wrote: > Thinking about it, I'm be tempted to say this is perhaps the one > rule I'd add to the tournament rules about scouting: there should > be no exchanging information about other peoples' decks between > players or between a non-player and a player. Why? Because it's > unfair to players who didn't come into a tournament with cadres of > "teammates". In short, this should be defined as collusion. May I ask, what is your definition of 'teammate'? > Would this be hard to enforce? Of course, it would. NIT: It'd be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce. > But then, when it comes down to it, there are lots of collusive > behaviors that are difficult to detect and enforce. So we should have more rules creating more impossible-to-detect and/or impossible-to-enforce scenarios? :P > At the very least, the point is made that such behavior is wrong > and players who want to win fairly don't engage in it. May I ask, what is your definition of 'fairly'? Some players would say that scouting is part of the game and is therefore "fair" and not "wrong". Do you believe that such a rule as you would like will change their ethics? I don't see it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:abcf3547-49eb-4368...@e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > The reality of the situation, while having concrete, detailed > information about the other finalists' decks is certainly helpful, > what is most helpful is the very basic one sentence descriptor of > someone's deck; sure, knowing that someone has at least 6 Deflections > in their deck ('cause they were your prey in the first round) is > handy, but not more handy than knowing that Jim is playing a speedy > Warghoul deck as opposed to not knowing anything at all about what Jim > is playing when choosing seats in a final. The most important > information you get from scouting is the information you get in 35 > seconds when looking at a game in progress ... Without bothering to dispute the rest of what you said - we're simply not going to agree about that - I have to say I disagree with this bit a lot more than I disagree with your conclusion about, "Should exchanging infortion in a tournament be legal?" It's the details of knowing that Jim is *USING* Deflections (I don't care exactly how many as lot as I know what ballpark it's in) rather than some abstract label you slap on a deck that's far more important. I just can't see that you're being realistic about this. Play in a game against someone. Go look at a table in which someone is playing for a couple minutes to absorb a few of his vampires, any permanents he may have out (or the lack thereof), and maybe see part of turn in which he plays (his or somoene else's - at random). Now which guy do you know a whole HELL of a lot more about?!? If you say the two situations are located on the same continent, knowledge-wise, I'm writing your opinion off. That just isn't sane in my book. > > Would this be hard to enforce? Of course, it would. But then, when it > > comes down to it, there are lots of collusive behaviors that are difficult > > to detect and enforce. At the very least, the point is made that such > > behavior is wrong and players who want to win fairly don't engage in it. > > And yet it is *soooooo* far outside the realm of something that can be > reasonably enforced as to be completely pointless. Certainly you could enforce it if they do it under the nose of the judge or multiple other players. If done in a reasonably thoughtful way, it would likely be undetectable/unenforceable. But again, so are certain other collusive behaviors. Shall I put you down as being against the idea that _they_ should be illegal as well? Should it be OK to come to a tournament with guys I'm bribing to do whatever they can to make me win in any game in which we mutually play in just because such an agreement would be impossible to prove? (They'd have to be careful to stay clear of obvious PtW transgressions but I'd think it wouldn't be hard to do that and still do plenty to help me win.) Fred

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:Wuzon.75304$1n5....@newsfe04.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> Thinking about it, I'm be tempted to say this is perhaps the one >> rule I'd add to the tournament rules about scouting: there should >> be no exchanging information about other peoples' decks between >> players or between a non-player and a player. Why? Because it's >> unfair to players who didn't come into a tournament with cadres of >> "teammates". In short, this should be defined as collusion. > > May I ask, what is your definition of 'teammate'? > >> Would this be hard to enforce? Of course, it would. > > NIT: It'd be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce. It depends on when or how they did it. If they did under the judge's nose, it could be enforced. You mean, "If they were reasonably careful about how they did it, it would be impossible to enforce." OK. >> But then, when it comes down to it, there are lots of collusive >> behaviors that are difficult to detect and enforce. > > So we should have more rules creating more impossible-to-detect > and/or impossible-to-enforce scenarios? :P Should we have less? Should we remove all the effectively impossible- to-detect-or-enforce rules we have now? >> At the very least, the point is made that such behavior is wrong >> and players who want to win fairly don't engage in it. > > May I ask, what is your definition of 'fairly'? I'm confused at your confusion. If a thing gains you an advantage but is against the rules, it's not fair to use it to win. This is not rocket science. > Some players would say that scouting is part of the game and > is therefore "fair" and not "wrong". Do you believe that such > a rule as you would like will change their ethics? I don't see it. Absolutely, I do! One is a situation in which they're doing a thing that's allowed that gains them an advantage. The other is a situation where they're doing a thing that's illegal. I'm not saying this will sway everyone; some folks exist who believe that winning while breaking a rule is OK as long as they can get away with it. I would like to think the vast majority of VtES players don't hold such ethics. If nothing else, if that's how you won, of what value is your victory? Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Frederick Scott wrote: >>> Thinking about it, I'm be tempted to say this is perhaps the one >>> rule I'd add to the tournament rules about scouting: there should >>> be no exchanging information about other peoples' decks between >>> players or between a non-player and a player. Why? Because it's >>> unfair to players who didn't come into a tournament with cadres of >>> "teammates". In short, this should be defined as collusion. >> >> May I ask, what is your definition of 'teammate'? >> >>> Would this be hard to enforce? Of course, it would. >> >> NIT: It'd be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce. > > It depends on when or how they did it. If they did under the > judge's nose, it could be enforced. > > You mean, "If they were reasonably careful about how they did it, > it would be impossible to enforce." OK. I mean if they did it in ANY manner away from a judge, e.g. in a car, in the restroom, at the food stand, etc. Which is why it'd be useless. You can't legislate against players talking, which is what it would take. >>> But then, when it comes down to it, there are lots of collusive >>> behaviors that are difficult to detect and enforce. >> >> So we should have more rules creating more impossible-to-detect >> and/or impossible-to-enforce scenarios? :P > > Should we have less? No one's talking about removing rules; you're talking about adding. I'm asking why we should add an impossible-to-enforce rule. >>> At the very least, the point is made that such behavior is wrong >>> and players who want to win fairly don't engage in it. >> >> May I ask, what is your definition of 'fairly'? > > I'm confused at your confusion. If a thing gains you an > advantage but is against the rules, it's not fair to use it to win. I'm confused because I don't see what behavior is currently against the rules. Or did you mean that after your suggested rule passes then it'd be against the rules and therefore unfair? >> Some players would say that scouting is part of the game and >> is therefore "fair" and not "wrong". Do you believe that such >> a rule as you would like will change their ethics? I don't see it. > > Absolutely, I do! One is a situation in which they're doing a thing > that's allowed that gains them an advantage. The other is a > situation where they're doing a thing that's illegal. I'm not > saying this will sway everyone; some folks exist who believe that > winning while breaking a rule is OK as long as they can get away > with it. I would like to think the vast majority of VtES players > don't hold such ethics. If nothing else, if that's how you won, > of what value is your victory? Again, I believe I'm confused because you're talking about what is currently legal and what will be illegal after your new rule within the same discussion, so we seem to be talking past each other. To sum up: - we both agree that scouting is bad at some level - it sounds like you want an impossible-to-enforce rule to be implemented in order to change the ethics of the game and the players to be better than what they are now, i.e. scouting is bad - I'm suggesting that your impossible-to-enforce rule change won't work and isn't what is needed, i.e. scouting isn't THAT bad [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:01:25 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message >> ...would you consider this to be "next to nothing", "somewhat helpful", >> or >> "quite helpful"? Even in under a minute... > > It depends on who you came to see. Realizing that the most likely target of the scouting is the guy who is winning, it's not far fetched to assume this point is mostly moot. > The rest of the post is more of the same back and forth that Chris and I > had: > essentially the assertion that coming by and seeing a couple minutes of a > game can somehow help you much. It's better than nothing, but it really > isn't > much. This is where I should say "of course you're entitled to your opinion" or "so we agree to disagree" but I'd rather recommend getting off the crack (or sharing a bit so others can get high too). :) I know what length people go into to scout. I know specific cases where scouting information improved a person's result. I know specific cases where people won tournaments by choosing the right seating with finalists they didn't play in the preliminaries. I also know specific cases where people sat down with imperfect information and lost as a result by misjudging the best position they can occupy. So I'm a bit baffled by theoretical points arguing the contrary... > One other thing though: >> Sometimes you don't have the opportunity to scout. Sometimes you do >> scout >> but there's nothing you can do with the information because it is >> either >> incomplete or useless (so, you have no seating choice, and your >> predator >> plays powerbleed...). But often you will be able to capitalize on it. > > As I pointed out to Chris, any scouting you do of a guy who doesn't > eventually > make the finals is a complete and total waste, whether you know it or > not when > you do the scouting. On top of everything else, most likely, most of > time > you spent scouting is wasted. ...but when it isn't wasted, it can mean all the difference. Obviously, not every player will make it to the finals. But those who do will do better if they come prepared. It's kind of like how you try to wear a seatbelt every time, not just when you plan to have an accident, to ensure that if you do have an accident, you have the seatbelt to protect you. Well, the example is good to show the importance of preparedness, but having an accident is not exactly what you aspire for in the majority of cases, so maybe something about dates and condoms would have been better... Oh well, I guess the point is clear in any case. :) -- Regards, Daneel

On Mar 18, 8:57 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Without bothering to dispute the rest of what you said - we're simply > not going to agree about that - I have to say I disagree with this > bit a lot more than I disagree with your conclusion about, "Should > exchanging infortion in a tournament be legal?" It's the details > of knowing that Jim is *USING* Deflections (I don't care exactly how > many as lot as I know what ballpark it's in) rather than some abstract > label you slap on a deck that's far more important. Yeah, see, I don't think that is actually the case. But then we already established that we clearly and strongly disagree on this. So I'm not going to put a lot of effort into trying to change your mind. But just to clarify my position, I think that the difference between: -Not knowing what deck someone is playing at all and knowing what you get from a snapshot of their play area in a game (i.e. a one sentence description of their deck) is vastly bigger and more important than the difference between: -Knowing what you get from a snapshot of their play area in a game and the detailed information you get from watching someone's whole game or however else you get detailed information. In terms of seating in a final. I mean, yeah, it certainly is handy to know that someone has Deflections in their deck as opposed to knowing they don't, but when picking a seat in the finals, what is important is knowing more or less what someone is playing, deckwise. > Now which guy do you know a whole HELL of a lot more about?!? If you > say the two situations are located on the same continent, knowledge-wise, > I'm writing your opinion off. That just isn't sane in my book. Knowing someone has Deflections (i.e. micro information about a deck) in their deck is handy. Knowing that someone is playing a fast Warghoul deck (i.e. macro information about their deck) is *far* more important, in terms of where you sit in a final. It is possible that you mean that in an absolute sense, knowing what cards are in someone's deck is more important than knowing what kind of deck they are playing, and that might be true. But not so much in the context of picking a seat for the final, which is all I'm talking about. > But again, so are certain other collusive > behaviors. Shall I put you down as being against the idea that _they_ > should be illegal as well? Why would you do that, when I specifically pointed out how in game collusive behaviors are something that the judge can observe and judge on, where people sharing information about decks they saw over lunch is not? > Should it be OK to come to a tournament with guys > I'm bribing to do whatever they can to make me win in any game in which we > mutually play in just because such an agreement would be impossible to > prove? If they are behaving in a way that someone can point to, it can be observed and judged. > (They'd have to be careful to stay clear of obvious PtW transgressions but > I'd think it wouldn't be hard to do that and still do plenty to help me win.) In game collusive behaviors can be seen, observed, and judged. If they couldn't, then making them illegal would be silly too. -Peter

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opu9tv86...@news.chello.hu... > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:01:25 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > >> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message >>> ...would you consider this to be "next to nothing", "somewhat helpful", or >>> "quite helpful"? Even in under a minute... >> >> It depends on who you came to see. > > Realizing that the most likely target of the scouting is the guy who is > winning, it's not far fetched to assume this point is mostly moot. > >> The rest of the post is more of the same back and forth that Chris and I had: >> essentially the assertion that coming by and seeing a couple minutes of a >> game can somehow help you much. It's better than nothing, but it really isn't >> much. > > This is where I should say "of course you're entitled to your opinion" or > "so we agree to disagree" but I'd rather recommend getting off the crack > (or sharing a bit so others can get high too). :) > > I know what length people go into to scout. That's their problem. They need to get off the crack, then. > I know specific cases where > scouting information improved a person's result. I didn't say it was impossible. I'm just saying, "Look, three minutes of looking at a table - how much can you really get from that?...IF you even have the right table, which you probably don't." > I know specific cases > where people won tournaments by choosing the right seating with finalists > they didn't play in the preliminaries. Or you _think_ you do. Since winning a final has so many variables involved in it besides just who you sat next to, I'd say the claim is ludicrous on the face of it. A person's position may have been aided by a shrewd choice, but it may have been a choice he'd have made anyway and it could have been massively aided by or even caused by any number of fortunate developments during the game itself. I'd say you just looked at the result and decided in your mind after the fact that it was the seating choice and that the seating choice stemmed from the scouting - both questionable conclusions. > I also know specific cases where > people sat down with imperfect information and lost as a result by > misjudging the best position they can occupy. My response is the same thing in reverse: unforunate events at the table and/or possibly the guy made a poor seating choice in spite of information he had to the contrary, even without scouting. >> As I pointed out to Chris, any scouting you do of a guy who doesn't eventually make the finals is a complete and total waste, >> whether you >> know it or not when you do the scouting. On top of everything else, >> most likely, most of time you spent scouting is wasted. > > ...but when it isn't wasted, it can mean all the difference. Obviously, > not every player will make it to the finals. But those who do will do > better if they come prepared. Agreed. But the question is, how likely is it that the time will be wasted. High. In small tournaments, you go watch the other table or one of (say) the other two tables. But you'll likely play against most of those guys anyway. In large tournaments, it won't be clear who you want to watch until the last round and even then, it won't be very clear. And they might well be done with their game by the time you get a chance to go watch them. > It's kind of like how you try to wear a seatbelt every time, not just > when you plan to have an accident, to ensure that if you do have an > accident, you have the seatbelt to protect you. Seat belts have a huge benefit the few times you need them. For most of us - hopefully - never. But when you need them, their contribution is so massive that I still wear them. Scouting, OTOH, even when you manage to choose right and get the chance to do it a little bit, still often won't be that beneficial. When I scout, it's generally more out of idle curiosity and that I like to watch games (especially good ones). If I learn something that turns out to be critical in a seating choice, so much the better. But from past experience, I've come to doubt it. Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:c89f97c5-c65e-4a6b...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... On Mar 18, 8:57 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > Now which guy do you know a whole HELL of a lot more about?!? If you > > say the two situations are located on the same continent, knowledge-wise, > > I'm writing your opinion off. That just isn't sane in my book. > > Knowing someone has Deflections (i.e. micro information about a deck) > in their deck is handy. Knowing that someone is playing a fast > Warghoul deck (i.e. macro information about their deck) is *far* more > important, in terms of where you sit in a final. It is possible that > you mean that in an absolute sense, knowing what cards are in > someone's deck is more important than knowing what kind of deck they > are playing, and that might be true. But not so much in the context of > picking a seat for the final, which is all I'm talking about. Well, that's why we disagree, sure. The thing is, the "playing a fast Warghoul deck" is such a crude and mistake-prone level of knowledge, I think a lot of times you're going to wind up making a mistake about whether a guy makes a good or bad prey or predator. The amount of *MORE* knowledge you get from sitting in a game with them over scouting is why I say this. It's not just like "less knowledge vs. more knowledge". It's like, "a smidgeon" vs. "a LOT". At least in my mind, that's the comparison. > > But again, so are certain other collusive > > behaviors. Shall I put you down as being against the idea that _they_ > > should be illegal as well? > > Why would you do that, when I specifically pointed out how in game > collusive behaviors are something that the judge can observe and judge > on, where people sharing information about decks they saw over lunch > is not? The judge can only observe them if he's watching the game and paying close attention to who he thinks might be colluding. How can he possibly do that if he didn't start out with a suspicion about them? In practice, I don't see the difference. > > Should it be OK to come to a tournament with guys > > I'm bribing to do whatever they can to make me win in any game in which we > > mutually play in just because such an agreement would be impossible to > > prove? > > If they are behaving in a way that someone can point to, it can be > observed and judged. I'm confused how anyone else would know (to point to something) either? Fred

On Mar 22, 7:33 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > The judge can only observe them if he's watching the game and paying > close attention to who he thinks might be colluding. How can he > possibly do that if he didn't start out with a suspicion about them? > In practice, I don't see the difference. Other players can alert a judge to possible collusion in a given game-- if I think that Player A and Player B are acting incredibly wonky, and it seems like they are working together for out of game reasons, I can alert a judge. That isn't ever going to happen if people are secretly sharing (illegal) information out of game (out of the room?). In game collusion can be viewed and judged. Sharing secret (illegal) information can't. That is the difference. > I'm confused how anyone else would know (to point to something) either? If two people are colluding in game, it is usually something that can be pointed to/identified. Or is so subtle that it probably has no effect. -Peter

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:aMAon.34030$NH1....@newsfe14.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Frederick Scott wrote: >>>> Thinking about it, I'm be tempted to say this is perhaps the one >>>> rule I'd add to the tournament rules about scouting: there should >>>> be no exchanging information about other peoples' decks between >>>> players or between a non-player and a player. Why? Because it's >>>> unfair to players who didn't come into a tournament with cadres of >>>> "teammates". In short, this should be defined as collusion. >>> >>> May I ask, what is your definition of 'teammate'? >>> >>>> Would this be hard to enforce? Of course, it would. >>> >>> NIT: It'd be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce. >> >> It depends on when or how they did it. If they did under the >> judge's nose, it could be enforced. >> >> You mean, "If they were reasonably careful about how they did it, >> it would be impossible to enforce." OK. > > I mean if they did it in ANY manner away from a judge, e.g. in a car, > in the restroom, at the food stand, etc. ...or in front of other players who cared about reporting cheating. But other than that nit, sure. That's what I just said. > Which is why it'd be > useless. You can't legislate against players talking, which is what > it would take. Straw man argument. Even that wouldn't make rule breakage universally detectable so it's just a diversion in this argument. I'm taling about a rule that admittedly wouldn't be universally possible to detect and enforce. Just like some others that already exist in the game. >>>> But then, when it comes down to it, there are lots of collusive >>>> behaviors that are difficult to detect and enforce. >>> >>> So we should have more rules creating more impossible-to-detect >>> and/or impossible-to-enforce scenarios? :P >> >> Should we have less? > > No one's talking about removing rules; I'm pointing out that your reason for rejecting such a rule applies to others that already exist. Ergo, if you insist on applying the standard of universal enforcability on THIS rule, you must also by implication be talking about removing some other rules that already exist. That is, if consistency means anything to you. >>>> At the very least, the point is made that such behavior is wrong >>>> and players who want to win fairly don't engage in it. >>> >>> May I ask, what is your definition of 'fairly'? >> >> I'm confused at your confusion. If a thing gains you an >> advantage but is against the rules, it's not fair to use it to win. > > I'm confused because I don't see what behavior is currently against > the rules. I didn't say one was. I proposed a new rule because a certain behavior caused unfairness: signficantly advantageous information for purposes of the seating paradigm. >>> Some players would say that scouting is part of the game and >>> is therefore "fair" and not "wrong". Do you believe that such >>> a rule as you would like will change their ethics? I don't see it. >> >> Absolutely, I do! One is a situation in which they're doing a thing >> that's allowed that gains them an advantage. The other is a >> situation where they're doing a thing that's illegal. I'm not >> saying this will sway everyone; some folks exist who believe that >> winning while breaking a rule is OK as long as they can get away >> with it. I would like to think the vast majority of VtES players >> don't hold such ethics. If nothing else, if that's how you won, >> of what value is your victory? > > Again, I believe I'm confused because you're talking about what is > currently legal and what will be illegal after your new rule within the > same discussion, so we seem to be talking past each other. Agreed. I don't see the relevance of the points you seem to be trying to raise. > To sum up: > - we both agree that scouting is bad at some level First of all, what I care about is not scouting information. It's information from playing in a game against another player - which I do not view as "scouting", per se. Or you can call it "scouting", in a way. But to me, it's not the same as running around looking at tables after your game has ended, which I don't find to be terribly effective. It probably doesn't matter what we call it, as long as we don't conflate the semantics. That said, my response is "yes and no". I believe it's unfair. But it's currently legal. If something's legal in the game, then (with certain exceptions, where the rules don't directly address things that are obviously immoral) it's moral to do them in pursuit of victory. The question you ask when you consider a new rule is, "SHOULD the thing be legal?" I view morality as being around following the existing rules - whether someone is watching you or not. I view the question of what should be rule and what shouldn't as being about creating the best possible, most fun, most fair contest. Exchanging play information about a third playeris currently legal, thus moral to do. But I think it causes a fairness problem that would be good to address to make tournaments better. (Well, OK, I would admit that I think it likely doesn't happen much. Thus, I'd concede it may not be worthwhile to bother. But the OP brought it up so I gave my opinion.) > - it sounds like you want an impossible-to-enforce rule to be > implemented in order to change the ethics of the game and the > players to be better than what they are now, i.e. scouting is bad > - I'm suggesting that your impossible-to-enforce rule change > won't work and isn't what is needed, i.e. scouting isn't THAT bad ...and I'm resopnding that other rules we already have are impossible to enforce, so we should either get rid of them or consider this one. I dispute your "won't work" accusation because I think most players won't do something against the rules as long as the know what the rules are. And while I don't give a rat's ass about Daneel's or Peter's ideas about the benefits of scouting, I think the potential for the unfairness of exchanging play experience actually does have the potential to be very unfair. Now whether it happens much is another matter. Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:b83427b9-31b8-4454...@b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 22, 7:33 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > The judge can only observe them if he's watching the game and paying > > close attention to who he thinks might be colluding. How can he > > possibly do that if he didn't start out with a suspicion about them? > > In practice, I don't see the difference. > > Other players can alert a judge to possible collusion in a given game-- > if I think that Player A and Player B are acting incredibly wonky, and > it seems like they are working together for out of game reasons, I can > alert a judge. But how would they know what's "incredibly wonky". I see lots of play that looks insane from my seat across the table but I can't tell a thing about why a guy is choosing to do what he does. I don't know what's in his deck, what's on his mind, or even his own processing how he wants to play the game that - if I knew - I would just consider to be irrational (but not out of a choice to collude). I'm not talking about repeatedly and for no obvious reason Kindred Spirits bleeding cross-table (and thus just laughing diabolically about it when other players ask him about it). I'm talking about reasonable and subtle behaior choices that can have significant affects on the game. For instance, a player with a stealth bleed deck not going forward and bleeding when he could. Someone asks him why he isn't, he just says, "I'm afraid of what's behind me. I can't afford to get bled heavily." Or something like that. Unless you know what he has in his hand and in his deck, how can you possibly suspect anything? I'm assuming he's keeping his hand covered up from spectators and not showing his deck to anyone after the game is over. > In game collusion can be viewed and judged. Sharing secret (illegal) > information can't. That is the difference. Nope. I disagree that a reasonably well thought out stab at collusion could be "viewed and judged" effectively. So I disagree that there's a difference. Fred

On Mar 22, 8:12 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Nope. I disagree that a reasonably well thought out stab at collusion > could be "viewed and judged" effectively. So I disagree that there's > a difference. Ok. So your argument is not "Sharing illegal information is something that you *can* catch", it is "Collusion is something that you *can't* catch". I don't know that I agree with that. But ok. -Peter

Frederick Scott wrote: > I view the question of what should be rule and what shouldn't as > being about creating the best possible, most fun, most fair contest. So you believe that asking players to not discuss their deck contents before and during the preliminary rounds will create the best possible, most fun game experience? Check. > KevinM wrote: >> - it sounds like you want an impossible-to-enforce rule to be >> implemented in order to change the ethics of the game and the >> players to be better than what they are now, i.e. scouting is bad >> - I'm suggesting that your impossible-to-enforce rule change >> won't work and isn't what is needed, i.e. scouting isn't THAT bad > > ...and I'm responding that other rules we already have are impossible > to enforce, so we should either get rid of them or consider this one. I don't believe your choice is a valid one. You keep banging your head against the wall on this one, for no real reason. Judges don't enforce other impossible-to-enforce rules because they're impossible-to-enforce. Just like your proposed rule would be. I really, truly hope that you don't believe that it'd create a more fun atmosphere. Sounds more like a Soviet-style state where everyone is reporting on everyone else. > I dispute your "won't work" accusation because I think most players > won't do something against the rules as long as the know what the > rules are. The rules in the old Soviet Union were that people reported on their neighbor's activities, primarily out of fear of their government. I pray that you see how this is what would result from your new rule, since I can tell you that I, at least, would report on every word, and I'd start recording conversations in the bathroom in order to get DQs. > And while I don't give a rat's ass about Daneel's or Peter's ideas > about the benefits of scouting, I think the potential for the unfairness > of exchanging play experience actually does have the potential to be > very unfair. Now whether it happens much is another matter. It happens CONSTANTLY throughout the tournament, at ALL levels and between ALL players. The fact that you don't know that this occurs makes your new Soviet-style rule change suspect. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:24:41 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message >> I know what length people go into to scout. > > That's their problem. They need to get off the crack, then. Or, maybe, they consider scouting to pay off, and they do it because of that. >> I know specific cases where >> scouting information improved a person's result. > > I didn't say it was impossible. I'm just saying, "Look, three minutes of > looking at a table - how much can you really get from that?...IF you even > have the right table, which you probably don't." Looking at any table which is most likely being won by someone brings you a good chance to see the deck and play of someone who just got 1 GW closer to the finals. >> I know specific cases >> where people won tournaments by choosing the right seating with >> finalists >> they didn't play in the preliminaries. > > Or you _think_ you do. Since winning a final has so many variables > involved > in it besides just who you sat next to, I'd say the claim is ludicrous on > the face of it. A person's position may have been aided by a shrewd > choice, > but it may have been a choice he'd have made anyway and it could have > been massively > aided by or even caused by any number of fortunate developments during > the game > itself. > > I'd say you just looked at the result and decided in your mind after > the fact that it was the seating choice and that the seating choice > stemmed from > the scouting - both questionable conclusions. > >> I also know specific cases where >> people sat down with imperfect information and lost as a result by >> misjudging the best position they can occupy. > > My response is the same thing in reverse: unforunate events at the table > and/or possibly the guy made a poor seating choice in spite of > information he had to the contrary, even without scouting. You seem to be implying that choosing seating in the finals leads to no tangible benefit because so many factors determine the winner. >>> As I pointed out to Chris, any scouting you do of a guy who doesn't >>> eventually make the finals is a complete and total waste, >>> whether you >>> know it or not when you do the scouting. On top of everything else, >>> most likely, most of time you spent scouting is wasted. >> >> ...but when it isn't wasted, it can mean all the difference. Obviously, >> not every player will make it to the finals. But those who do will do >> better if they come prepared. > > Agreed. But the question is, how likely is it that the time will be > wasted. High. In small tournaments, you go watch the other table or > one of (say) the other two tables. But you'll likely play against most > of > those guys anyway. In large tournaments, it won't be clear who you want > to watch until the last round and even then, it won't be very clear. And > they might well be done with their game by the time you get a chance to > go watch them. ...anyway, you may just pay attention to the games people winning play, and you will be that much closer to having scouted someone who is that much closer to making the finals. Or, you know, you can just ask a buddy once the list of finalists is known. Or, if you didn't make the finals, but a buddy did, you can tell them about the people you played or scouted successfully. Or, every once in a while, you'll actually make the finals and have to rely on the information you gathered during the preliminaries - having an idea of who plays what can help a lot then. >> It's kind of like how you try to wear a seatbelt every time, not just >> when you plan to have an accident, to ensure that if you do have an >> accident, you have the seatbelt to protect you. > > Seat belts have a huge benefit the few times you need them. For most of > us - hopefully - never. But when you need them, their contribution is > so massive that I still wear them. Scouting, OTOH, even when you manage > to choose right and get the chance to do it a little bit, still often > won't be that beneficial. When I scout, it's generally more out of idle > curiosity and that I like to watch games (especially good ones). If I > learn something that turns out to be critical in a seating choice, so > much the better. But from past experience, I've come to doubt it. A lot of people would disagree with you on the benefits of scouting. -- Regards, Daneel

On Mar 23, 9:59 am, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:24:41 -0700, Frederick Scott > > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > >> I know what length people go into to scout. > > > That's their problem. They need to get off the crack, then. > > Or, maybe, they consider scouting to pay off, and they do it because of > that. > > >> I know specific cases where > >> scouting information improved a person's result. > > > I didn't say it was impossible. I'm just saying, "Look, three minutes of > > looking at a table - how much can you really get from that?...IF you even > > have the right table, which you probably don't." > > Looking at any table which is most likely being won by someone brings you > a good chance to see the deck and play of someone who just got 1 GW closer > to the finals. Probably also worth mentioning that usually the only players with a lot of time to invest in scouting were probably ousted early. Good chance you aren't going to see any of those winners in the finals-- since you won't be there. :-)

[ quoted text not captured ] ...which is why effective scouting has to make do with 10-30 minutes (as you can reasonably sweep under 1.5 hours if all goes well). :) (Or you need buddies, but that's another story.) -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:45:59 -0700 (PDT), Robert Goudie > <robertt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Probably also worth mentioning that usually the only players with a >> lot of time to invest in scouting were probably ousted early. Good >> chance you aren't going to see any of those winners in the finals-- >> since you won't be there. :-) > > ....which is why effective scouting has to make do with 10-30 minutes > (as you can reasonably sweep under 1.5 hours if all goes well). :) but then you can only scout the other crappy decks that haven't swept in 1.5 hours. ;) -- salem