Fixing Day 1 of a 2-Day NAC

As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved with only 2 VPs. Options to remedy that: 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, depending on the participation level. 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into the finals of day 2. 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse. After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by hand. 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect of playing the same deck five times in a row. Thoughts on these? Other ideas?

> LSJ wrote: > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > with only 2 VPs. > > Options to remedy that: > > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, > depending on the participation level. > Making a precentage qualify depending on the size of the tournament could work. For example, 65 players is potentially 39 GW's, so if everyone with a GW should qualify then this tournament needs 40 open qualifier spots. this would lead to no change at all though. > 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into > the finals of day 2. > This is a possible format, but I don't know how much difference it will make. I still think people will focus on getting to day 2 and not really care for the extra vps. > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse. > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by > hand. > Err, this sounds abit to advanced imo. I would not like to be the organizer of this. > 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a > seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being > eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect > of playing the same deck five times in a row. > Could work. I think this is possibly the best alternative here. I really didnt see this dealing for vps problem in day 1 though. I usually vp deal in most of my games anyway, so I didnt really see the increase. //Alex

_angst_ wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > > with only 2 VPs. > > > > Options to remedy that: > > > > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, > > depending on the participation level. > > > Making a precentage qualify depending on the size of the tournament > could work. For example, 65 players is potentially 39 GW's, so if > everyone with a GW should qualify then this tournament needs 40 open > qualifier spots. this would lead to no change at all though. A) Not everyone with a GW "should qualify" under option 1. B) Not every table produces a GW. C) Some players accumulate more than one GW. For example, there were only 30 players with any GWs after three rounds of the 65-player day 1 tournament at the NAC. 65 players would certainly not meet the participartion level of a 40-player day-2, under this plan. 65 would likely fall to 25, for example.

LSJ wrote: > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > with only 2 VPs. > > Options to remedy that: > > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, > depending on the participation level. This could easily solve the particular issue being addressed (play-to-win and play-to-make-day-2 not being closely aligned), but I like the next suggestion more. > 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into > the finals of day 2. Making day one performance matter more than a binary in-or-out is something I would definitely welcome. While it's nice to not have to play decks capable of earning 3 GWs in a row to have a chance at the finals, doing well both days should count for more than treading water day 1 and doing well day 2. > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse. > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by > hand. Yikes. It would be cool if it were more feasible, but the difficulty seems excessive. It also seems like running a parallel event for those "eliminated" wouldn't be easy. > 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a > seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being > eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect > of playing the same deck five times in a row. Perhaps after the second or third round, players with no VPs could be eliminated? That still seems to go against the current theory of that 3 GWs shouldn't be necessary to sit at the finals table, and makes seating harder, but might help the kingmaking aspect. > Thoughts on these? Other ideas? Witness1 -believe the lie

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Options to remedy that: > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, > depending on the participation level. > 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into > the finals of day 2. > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse. > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by > hand. > 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a > seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being > eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect > of playing the same deck five times in a row. > Thoughts on these? Other ideas? 5) Strongly enforce play-to-win on Day 1. This is a little bit hard to do since it's such a gray area. But this could also be accomplished by adding prestige to the Day 1 Champion, in the form of unique prizes (i.e. bribery) and/or additional rating points. 6) Move back to a 3-round, one-day format, but have multiple parallel final-round tables. The top 5 players after the multiple finals are over then play a "real final". i.e. for 65 people, the top 10 players are Finalists. Two "fourth round" tables are played in a mini-tournament. The top 5 players from those 2 finals tables get to play a Real Final round. This one may also be overly complex like #3, but just a thought.

> As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > with only 2 VPs. Yes, and it happened before. It is good that this is finally taken to notice. If you find a better format, would it be proposed to the organisation of the European Championship or is it too late for this year's events already ? > Options to remedy that: > > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, > depending on the participation level. A percentage of the participants has always been the way to go. It works. > 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into > the finals of day 2. I think it would counter the interest of making it 2-days : it is and should stay 2 different events. There is no reason why someone's scores on day 1 should make up for his mistakes on day 2. > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse. > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by > hand. Furthermore, it takes some fun from the players : if you're qualified in round 1 you get to play less games ? I'm not sure players covering a large distance would be happy with that. I value the pleasure of playing more games in such an event (it's a game, not just a competition) and wouldn't like this solution. > 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a > seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being > eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect > of playing the same deck five times in a row. Nothing to add, you underline pretty well the problems of this format. > Thoughts on these? Other ideas? Percentage is the way to go. -- Duncan O'rpheus, of the O'rpheus clan from the scottish highlands.

Orpheus wrote: > If you find a better format, would it be proposed to the organisation of the > European Championship or is it too late for this year's events already ? The 2006 EC format will not be changed.

Orpheus wrote: > I think it would counter the interest of making it 2-days : it is and should > stay 2 different events. There is no reason why someone's scores on day 1 > should make up for his mistakes on day 2. > There is no reason why someone's scores on round 1 should make up for his mistakes on round 2. :) > > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse. > > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and > > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make > > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring > > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This > > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot > > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by > > hand. > > Furthermore, it takes some fun from the players : if you're qualified in > round 1 you get to play less games ? I'm not sure players covering a large > distance would be happy with that. I value the pleasure of playing more > games in such an event (it's a game, not just a competition) and wouldn't > like this solution. > Winners from round 1 get to play in small side tournaments a la Origins 2005. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

> > 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW > > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW > > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into > > the finals of day 2. > > Making day one performance matter more than a binary in-or-out is > something I would definitely welcome. While it's nice to not have to > play decks capable of earning 3 GWs in a row to have a chance at the > finals, doing well both days should count for more than treading water > day 1 and doing well day 2. If you really want to go that way, I'd suggest going all the way : play different decks on both days (possibly excluding playing the same vampires at all) and make the first day a 4-games, no final, and the second a 3-games + final ; access to the final table would be given to the players having cumulated the most points over the 2-days. Altenatively : - 1st day = 3 games + finals, all the points including finals VPs (maybe not GW) count for the following day (not totally sure I dig this, but it could be nice because it would also encourage play to win no matter if you're already ranked 1st before finals on day 1. - first day is a swiss round, 3 games with elimination, so is second day ; the best 5 of both days are finalists (I don't really like this option because, as I said before, I want to give all the players the maximum opportunities at play). etc... -- Orpheus --------------- "When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him." Jonathan Swift

LSJ wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I think 1) is the best solution. Frede

I currently prefer the idea of a 5+F tournament. Another possible (additional?) idea: Elimination of the withdrawal rule. - Ben Peal

LSJ wrote: > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > with only 2 VPs. > > Options to remedy that: > > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, > depending on the participation level. > This is a strong option. Maybe something easy like 33% (rounded to nearest integer) of participants with a minimum of 25. If 33% > 25 then additional players qualify to reach a multiple of 5. > 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into > the finals of day 2. > This is probably the best idea. This adds to the robustness of the championship. If you do well on both days then you'll earn better position than someone who only scraped in to day two but did well once there. I believe it would change strategy on that first day from "let me just get to day two" to "let me position myself to have a good chance at the final table tommorrow today." > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse. > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by > hand. > Wow. Ugly setup... > 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a > seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being > eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect > of playing the same deck five times in a row. > Ugh. Same deck five times blows... -tpl [ quoted text not captured ]

> Orpheus wrote: > > I think it would counter the interest of making it 2-days : it is and should > > stay 2 different events. There is no reason why someone's scores on day 1 > > should make up for his mistakes on day 2. > > > > There is no reason why someone's scores on round 1 should make up for > his mistakes on round 2. :) :-) It's totally different, because it will be 2 different decks, different metagame choices, different events. As I say in another post, if you really want to link the events : link them. If not : don't. > > > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse. > > > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and > > > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make > > > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring > > > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This > > > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot > > > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by > > > hand. > > > > Furthermore, it takes some fun from the players : if you're qualified in > > round 1 you get to play less games ? I'm not sure players covering a large > > distance would be happy with that. I value the pleasure of playing more > > games in such an event (it's a game, not just a competition) and wouldn't > > like this solution. > > > Winners from round 1 get to play in small side tournaments a la Origins > 2005. You mean, like, 1 or 2 games "tournaments" ? I personnaly would have absolutely no interest in these. Either I play a tournament (even a "fun" one, but a whole one) or I play a friendly game or two. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I currently prefer the idea of a 5+F tournament. I guess my opinion is sort of irrelevent, since I've never attended these events, but I really don't like that idea. In a 3 round tournaments it's often the case that as of round 3 (or even round 2) you know for a fact you can't win the tournament. Knowing that as of round 3 in a 5 round structure would be horrible. I haven't really crunched the numbers to figure out how likely it is to be totally shafted that early and have to keep playing multiple games to win (which you can't). I'm not sure how adding more rounds fixes any of the problems with large tournaments. > Another possible (additional?) idea: Elimination of > the withdrawal rule. This actually strikes me as something to seriously consider. It seriously hampers VP deals, makes Twister slightly less stupid, and doesn't get in the way of much else. I mean, I have seen people successfully withdraw when their library was depleted just to salvage a VP, but I haven't seen it often. Getting rid of the obnoxious table talk about VP deals would certainly be worth losing the occasional use of the withdrawal rule as it was intended. Of course, Brinkmanship becomes a dead card, but does anyone really care?

[ quoted text not captured ] Brinksmanship can be reworded to still have a game effect, such as: During a player's master phase, they gain a Doom Token if their library is exhausted and they have less than a full handsize. During a player's untap phase, they are ousted if they have a Doom Token. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Brinksmanship can be reworded to still have a game effect, such as: > During a player's master phase, they gain a Doom Token if their library > is exhausted and they have less than a full handsize. During a player's > untap phase, they are ousted if they have a Doom Token. doooooooommmmm Ankur Play. The. Game.

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: > CthuluKitty wrote: > > > Another possible (additional?) idea: Elimination of > > > the withdrawal rule. > > > > This actually strikes me as something to seriously consider. It > > seriously hampers VP deals, makes Twister slightly less stupid, and > > doesn't get in the way of much else. I mean, I have seen people > > successfully withdraw when their library was depleted just to salvage a > > VP, but I haven't seen it often. Getting rid of the obnoxious table > > talk about VP deals would certainly be worth losing the occasional use > > of the withdrawal rule as it was intended. > > > > Of course, Brinkmanship becomes a dead card, but does anyone really > > care? > > Brinksmanship can be reworded to still have a game effect, such as: > During a player's master phase, they gain a Doom Token if their library > is exhausted and they have less than a full handsize. During a player's > untap phase, they are ousted if they have a Doom Token. Alternately: Eliminate the VP gained for successfully withdrawing (not the rule itself.) That way, Brinksmanship still works as written: if your prey is decked, he's ousted, and if he withdraws, you're ousted - he just wouldn't gain any VP for withdrawing. (Though that could make deck-depleters nastier - if I get through your deck, you're pretty much doomed to 0 VP no matter what you do.) > - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew -John Flournoy

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Jozxyqk wrote: > 5) Strongly enforce play-to-win on Day 1. This is a little bit hard to do > since it's such a gray area. But this could also be accomplished by adding > prestige to the Day 1 Champion, in the form of unique prizes (i.e. bribery) > and/or additional rating points. Yeah, what about just enforcing the rules? Did anyone call a judge in any of these not-playing-to-win situations? If so, was anything done? If not, why didn't you and what gives you the right to do nothing then and complain now? As far as I know, the day 1 event is already worth more rating points than the day 2 event because it's a larger tournament. The prizes were quite generous for both tournaments. Matt Morgan

LSJ wrote: > Thoughts on these? Other ideas? Another option that was brought up last year: Play 3 rounds as normal using Archon. After 3 rounds, the top 25 are seated for a 'semi-final' round. That seating could be completely random, or even semi-seeded (for instance, splitting the tables 1-7-13-19-25, 2-8-14-20-22, 3-9-15-16-22, 4-10-11-17-23, 5-6-12-18-24, and then randomizing seating and 1st turn at each table). The 5 best results strictly from the semi-final round advance to the final. This would mean that if each SF table produces a GW, those GWers would be the finalists. If less than 5 game wins are produced, the seat would go to the most VP in the semi-final, breaking ties by the overall standing of round 1-3. (Example: Semifinal table 1 is split 3-2 between A and B; semifinal 2 is a 2-2-1 split between C D and E. All other tables are 5VP sweeps. Advancing would be the sweepers, player A for his GW, and whichever player of B, C, and D was the highest-placed going into the semi-final.) This would encourage players to play for a GW in the semi-final, and to maximize their standing in 1-3 as well - you could play to 'just make the semi-final' with a mediocre result, but you'd be handicapped by facing stronger decks and needing a GW in the semi-final round if you do that. Downside: The finalists would be playing their decks 5 times, but then hey, they're getting nice prizes for making the final table already. -John Flournoy

LSJ wrote: > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > with only 2 VPs. You were the judge. If it was a problem, why didn't you enforce the rules. Changing the tournament structure for a judge that's not doing his job isn't the solution. ;P > Options to remedy that: > > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, > depending on the participation level. 40 is good or any other fixed number. 40 gives a good spread on Day 2. > 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into > the finals of day 2. Boo! You will have alot of drops on day 2 because of the "Day 1 Advantage" creating a disproportionate boost. > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse. > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by > hand. This has no real advantage over the method used now. For the most part, players with GW's made it to day 2 and the top remaining players that made up the difference went to Day 2. Same exact results. > 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a > seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being > eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect > of playing the same deck five times in a row. Bad, Bad, Bad idea. This has all the same problems of a one day 3R+F tournament. Namely, that only certain deckarchtypes which can sweep or are speed decks are viable due to the high GW threshhold required to make the Finals. > Thoughts on these? Other ideas? Keep it the Same. It works. It creates a championship environment where any deck archtype is viable. I think it was a great tournament with a good structure. Don't you think it is paradoxical that people are complaining that players aren't playing to win about players trying to get a Victory Point which is how you win. Think about that. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 LSJ wrote: > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > with only 2 VPs. > > Options to remedy that: > > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, > depending on the participation level. The original suggestion intentionally used 25 as the cutoff point because the current problems were foreseen. __When VPs matter and GWs don't, table-splitting becomes standard.__ The solution has always been to make VPs mostly meaningless in comparison to GWs, forcing people to play for the GW and not for the VPs. The current format is fine, but the cutoff point is too low, allowing players with no GW to move on to round 2. If Day 1 had used 25 as the cutoff point, the #25 player had 1GW, 3VP -- which is still sufficiently low that unlucky random seating in a single round does not completely remove your chances of victory (a major, valid complaint about earlier championships), and sufficiently high that simply dealing for some token VP is not going to cut it. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFLS52tQZlu3o7QpERAvmDAKCsyQq26ejn3+Nc1ous8cCUXGIWBwCgmyRf tB1NjE0V40QgTN9WtdJSwQA= =buZ/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

XZealot wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > > with only 2 VPs. > > You were the judge. If it was a problem, why didn't you enforce the > rules. I did. > Changing the tournament structure for a judge that's not doing his job > isn't the solution. ;P Check your facts. > > Options to remedy that: > > > > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, > > depending on the participation level. > > 40 is good or any other fixed number. 40 gives a good spread on Day 2. Although it is clearly not as good as say 25. Still more fact checking on someone's part is required. > > 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW > > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW > > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into > > the finals of day 2. > > Boo! You will have alot of drops on day 2 because of the "Day 1 > Advantage" creating a disproportionate boost. No drops would be incurred, since day 2 GWs are still more important. Evidence or even supporting logic to the contrary is invited. > > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse. > > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and > > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make > > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring > > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This > > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot > > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by > > hand. > > This has no real advantage over the method used now. For the most > part, players with GW's made it to day 2 and the top remaining players > that made up the difference went to Day 2. Same exact results. > > > 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a > > seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being > > eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect > > of playing the same deck five times in a row. > > Bad, Bad, Bad idea. This has all the same problems of a one day 3R+F > tournament. Namely, that only certain deckarchtypes which can sweep or > are speed decks are viable due to the high GW threshhold required to > make the Finals. No. A one-day high-participation tournament rewards feast-or-famine decks that get lucky. That was he problem that the 2-day format was created to address. Increasing the number of rounds decreases the effect of luck, making consistent decks more competitive to the feast-or-famine sweeper decks. > > Thoughts on these? Other ideas? > > Keep it the Same. It works. It creates a championship environment > where any deck archtype is viable. I think it was a great tournament > with a good structure. Option one, for example, would not reduce the number of viable archetypes and would improve the system as a whole by providing inherent incentive for the players to focus on GWs. > Don't you think it is paradoxical that people are complaining that > players aren't playing to win about players trying to get a Victory > Point which is how you win. No. > Think about that. I have. Playing for a 2 VP loss or even a 1VP loss because that's all you need each round to make the cut is quite different than playing for the Game Win

LSJ wrote: > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > with only 2 VPs. > OK Chances are I'll never get to play in this event, but I'll throw out some suggestions for general consumption. > Options to remedy that: > > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, > depending on the participation level. > IMHO, participation level should always be reflected in the numbers of a 2 day event. What happens if in one year you get 120 players and the next 40? (Highly unlikely I know) Perhaps a baseline of 50% of attendee's with the option of adding a few more players if the qualifying number is not divisible by 5? That way at least you encourage more competition on day one and a GW become more desireable for everyone > 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into > the finals of day 2. > This sounds very similar to a 5R+Final event, just with a slight variation (partial re-start on day 2). It would push the competative level of the first day up as people want to walk into day 2 with a clear advantage based on their performance on day 1. This idea, IMHO, would make the best "compromise" in terms of wanting to push day one competition levels without totally hosing someone who happens to have a bad day. It also allows for a change of deck at the midpoint if desired (or enforced), which a 2 day, 5R+Final, event pretty much procludes. Without instituting major changes, this option is probably your best bet for increasing pure competition on day one. > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse. > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by > hand. This idea I really like :) May I propose a model? Round 1: Standard format applies for round 1 of competition Round 2: All players who achieve a GW in round 1 are removed from the tournament as LSJ preposes. You now have "X" players avaliable to do other things. One option is (and I have no idea if it is viable or not) is that these X players playtest the up and coming yearly storyline event decks/cards while round 2 is going on. Not only would this provide some useful player feedback for WW, but who would not give their left inscisor to help shape a game that they love to play? If this option is unavailiable, then the first qualifiers could play for a "bounty" similar to the ones offered this year at the NAC. Additionally there could also be a "bonus VP" offered to the player who wins, added to thier standing for the next days competition. This way even if a player qualifies there is a real incentive to keep playing to win rather than resting on thier laurels. Round 3 Once again the players who achive a GW in round 2 are added to the list of qualifiers for day 2 and are removed from further competition. This group of "Y" players is merged with the "X" players to play a "sudden death" single round event where the winner takes all, all being a "bounty" and an additional VP to take with them to day 2, once more pushing the play to win aspect of the game. Day 2 Day 2 occours as it does now except those that qualifed early have a potential edge in standings from their previously accrued VP's (much like option 2) > > 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a > seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being > eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect > of playing the same deck five times in a row. 5 rounds in one continuous event IMHO only favours the "cheesemonkies" and the "table dealers", not exactly the PTW theory as I understand it. In theory it could work, but I can't really trust that theory, too many time outs, table splits and mutual withdrawals prevail in my Vtes world. If you want to play in a hardcore tournament, play to win or as Ankur says: Play. the. game. Sutekh_23

Derek Ray wrote: > > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, > > depending on the participation level. > > The original suggestion intentionally used 25 as the cutoff point > because the current problems were foreseen. > > __When VPs matter and GWs don't, table-splitting becomes standard.__ > > The solution has always been to make VPs mostly meaningless in > comparison to GWs, forcing people to play for the GW and not for the > VPs. The current format is fine, but the cutoff point is too low, > allowing players with no GW to move on to round 2. > > If Day 1 had used 25 as the cutoff point, the #25 player had 1GW, 3VP -- > which is still sufficiently low that unlucky random seating in a single > round does not completely remove your chances of victory (a major, valid > complaint about earlier championships), and sufficiently high that > simply dealing for some token VP is not going to cut it. Sounds like players/3 (rounded up to a multiple of 5) is a rule worth pursuing. This also has the advantage of heavily populating the alternate tournament, making it a much more rewarding tournament to play (more competetive and worth more tournament points). [ quoted text not captured ]

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Jozxyqk wrote: > > > 5) Strongly enforce play-to-win on Day 1. This is a little bit hard to do > > since it's such a gray area. But this could also be accomplished by adding > > prestige to the Day 1 Champion, in the form of unique prizes (i.e. bribery) > > and/or additional rating points. > > Yeah, what about just enforcing the rules? Did anyone call a judge in any > of these not-playing-to-win situations? No. > If so, was anything done? Moot. > If > not, why didn't you and what gives you the right to do nothing then and > complain now? I couldn't say, but I suppose that in the vast majority of cases, it boiled down to a player weighing a 50% GW with 50% 0VP finish against a 80/10/10 split for 2/1/0 VPs or similar. (Standard disclaimer about numbers not being knowable, &c.) The proposals on the table are on the table to increase the relative value of a GW to a VP, in order to make that decision less gray on the player's side. (That is to make the tournament structure support the idea that GWs are the most important thing -- the same reason that GWs started being tracked in the first place).

[ quoted text not captured ] I strongly support you!!!! Elimate the withdrawals!!!! This would severely hamper deal-making and promote the play to win rule.

CthuluKitty wrote: > > Another possible (additional?) idea: Elimination of > > the withdrawal rule. > > This actually strikes me as something to seriously consider. It > seriously hampers VP deals, makes Twister slightly less stupid, and > doesn't get in the way of much else. I mean, I have seen people > successfully withdraw when their library was depleted just to salvage a > VP, but I haven't seen it often. Getting rid of the obnoxious table > talk about VP deals would certainly be worth losing the occasional use > of the withdrawal rule as it was intended. See the thread starting with this post: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/951e2e333252d691

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, LSJ wrote: >> Yeah, what about just enforcing the rules? Did anyone call a judge in any >> of these not-playing-to-win situations? > > No. That's kind of too bad. I really believe there's a polite way to call the judge and get a ruling on whether or not a table split deal is legal. There's no reason to just sit and be pissed off about a deal one feels is not or should not be legal. >> If so, was anything done? > > Moot. I get the car! >> If >> not, why didn't you and what gives you the right to do nothing then and >> complain now? > > I couldn't say, but I suppose that in the vast majority of cases, it > boiled down to a player weighing a 50% GW with 50% 0VP finish against a > 80/10/10 split for 2/1/0 VPs or similar. (Standard disclaimer about > numbers not being knowable, &c.) So ignoring the disclaimer for the moment, is that legal? I would think that a player with a 50% chance for a GW should have to take it. Those sound like good odds to me! > The proposals on the table are on the table to increase the relative > value of a GW to a VP, in order to make that decision less gray on the > player's side. (That is to make the tournament structure support the > idea that GWs are the most important thing -- the same reason that GWs > started being tracked in the first place). Sure, I get that, but if players are going to play not to win under one set of circumstances, then I figure they'd do so again under another. Okay, maybe that 1 extra VP I get by handing the table to my prey isn't as important in 2007 as it was in 2006. It can still make a difference. I can still play that way if I choose to (unless my play is illegal and a judge is called). Maybe I'd feel differently, but I didn't actually experience this problem. There were VP deals at some of my tables, but I feel like the players on the losing end of them were truly in lost positions and were maximizing their VPs. That's what they're supposed to do, right? Matt Morgan

[ quoted text not captured ] I gotta agree with the idea of eliminating the withdrawal rule. I suspect that that by itself would solve the problem. Having a greater number of rounds could also help, as well as the other suggestion of allowing a certain percentage of people through to day 2, rather than a set number could also aid the situation. With the withdrawal rule intact, however, I think that the underlying problem will remain. shawn

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: > > Sounds like players/3 (rounded up to a multiple of 5) is a rule worth > pursuing. This also has the advantage of heavily populating the > alternate tournament, making it a much more rewarding tournament to > play (more competetive and worth more tournament points). > Since LSJ is soliciting feedback, I just want to say that this seems like the most elegant and least invasive of the ideas presented. If you have 120 players, day 2 is a 40 person tourney, and 80 people are around to play Shadow Twin or something else. A nice scenario. It does seem to break down somewhat at lower numbers: If you have 26 players on day one, you get 15 moving onto day 2. In this scenario, players with very few VPs would move onto day 2, encouraging splitter deals again. Or, there could be a stipulation that 2-day tourneys be reserved for tournaments with 38 (15 players on day 2 representing less than 40% of the overall) or more people. Or something. best - chris

LSJ wrote: > > Options to remedy that: > > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, > depending on the participation level. > 25 players being the optimal seating for a tournament, I would be in favor of an optimal NAC final. This would make for a lager Shadow Twin tournament but hey, the 25 best should move on. I tried to take advantage of the withdraw rule, and was sucessful twice but failed on my final attempt. I was not the only one taking this road to the next day and I must say it felt VERY wrong. Let the top 25 go and I think your problem is solved and a perfect seating enviroment is created for the final NAC. ***JediMike***

librarian wrote: > [Of option 1] > Since LSJ is soliciting feedback, I just want to say that this seems > like the most elegant and least invasive of the ideas presented. If > you have 120 players, day 2 is a 40 person tourney, and 80 people are > around to play Shadow Twin or something else. A nice scenario. > > It does seem to break down somewhat at lower numbers: If you have 26 > players on day one, you get 15 moving onto day 2. In this scenario, > players with very few VPs would move onto day 2, encouraging splitter > deals again. > > Or, there could be a stipulation that 2-day tourneys be reserved for > tournaments with 38 (15 players on day 2 representing less than 40% of > the overall) or more people. Or something. Exactly. The two-day format was implemented because of the size of the tournament. So option 1 would break down something like: 1 - 60 players: One day. 61 - 80 players: 25 81 - 100 players: 30 101 - 120 players: 35 and so on. Or maybe take top 16 for 51-60.

[ quoted text not captured ] Actually, any multiple of 5 from 25 on gives perfect seating. 16 is also perfect.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht news:1160593223....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] nice solution, but what to do when you have a one day tournement planned and 61 players show up? Or vice versa, you plan a 2 day tournement and less than 60 people show?

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht > > So option 1 would break down something like: > > > > 1 - 60 players: One day. > > 61 - 80 players: 25 > > 81 - 100 players: 30 > > 101 - 120 players: 35 > > > > and so on. > > > > Or maybe take top 16 for 51-60. > > > nice solution, but what to do when you have a one day tournement planned and > 61 players show up? Or vice versa, you plan a 2 day tournement and less than > 60 people show? The NAC would be planned as a two-day event. As a fallback, if fewer than 51 qualified players show up, the day 1 tournament would be the only tournament. In that case, a normal tournament (or any other event) could be held on day 2.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1160593223....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I like this idea. I think maybe top 50% - perhaps with a 'round down to the nearest 5' rather than 'round up to the nearest 5' rule - would be more fun? (Probably keeping the "maximum of 40 for day 2" piece of the current system... there's a limit to how large day 2 can be while remaining wieldy.) That'd be: 4-49 players = 1 day 50-59 players = 25 for day 2 60-69 players = 30 for day 2 70-79 players = 35 for day 2 80+ players = 40 for day 2 > Or maybe take top 16 for 51-60. An interesting idea, but as you may know, the 4-player game is rather different from the 5-player game. I'd keep it to 5-player tables for day 2 if it were up to me. Josh too many players not enough wins

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1160590138.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: >> If >> not, why didn't you and what gives you the right to do nothing then and >> complain now? > > I couldn't say, but I suppose that in the vast majority of cases, it > boiled down to a player weighing a 50% GW with 50% 0VP finish against a > 80/10/10 split for 2/1/0 VPs or similar. (Standard disclaimer about > numbers not being knowable, &c.) In my experience, people believing that they *do* know these numbers, or can at least estimate them with great accuracy, is the main cause of VP deals. That, and the amazing ability to make predictions of how a game will turn out, based on the first turn or three. > The proposals on the table are on the table to increase the relative > value of a GW to a VP, in order to make that decision less gray on the > player's side. (That is to make the tournament structure support the > idea that GWs are the most important thing -- the same reason that GWs > started being tracked in the first place). It occurred to me that you could also accomplish something along those lines by dropping all non-GW tiebreakers altogether for Championship events. If anything other than a game win has no value, and your standing is going to be determined randomly among all players with the same number of game wins as you, there would at least be no incentive to do anything other than win games. (The downsides, of course, are that (a) your standing is somewhat more random, and (b) if you can't win a game you're still in, you don't really care what happens at all. And maybe (c) you're re-incentivized to play decks that have sharp "win or get nothing" spikes in their performance curves.) Josh play. the. game. (more rock, less talk)

LSJ wrote: > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > with only 2 VPs. > > Options to remedy that: > > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, > depending on the participation level. > > 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into > the finals of day 2. > > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse. > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by > hand. > > 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a > seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being > eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect > of playing the same deck five times in a row. > > Thoughts on these? Other ideas? I thought that seeding players after the first round would work nicely to give them incentive to play for those GWs. I just now worked out how to modify the Archon first round (top 25 players) so that this advantage works. Here ya go, but it's messy. The first set of three rows are the three rounds of the tournament, with players numbered from 1 to 25 according to their rank after the first day of the tournament. For reference, the second set of three rows are the "strength of schedule" for each of the players listed above where those are arithmetic averages of their opponents for every round. The first seed has a strength of schedule of 16.00 for each of the three rounds. This means the first seed's average opponent for every game is 16th seed. Each successive seed has a more difficult strength of schedule by 0.25, with the 25th seed having a strength of schedule of 10.00 (average opponent is 10th seed). It turns out with this particular setup that each player has the exact same SoS for each of the three games. It also happens that influence order is preserved and no pairings are duplicated (identical to the original in the Archon). I figured this out by brute force here with a spreadsheet, but there *must* be some elegant algorithm underlying which can allow the Archon to seed 30, 35, etc size events. Enjoy. Jeff ======================== 1,7,13,19,25,21,2,8,14,20,16,22,3,9,15,11,17,23,4,10,6,12,18,24,5,, 14,10,1,22,18,19,15,6,2,23,24,20,11,7,3,4,25,16,12,8,9,5,21,17,13,, 12,23,9,20,1,13,24,10,16,2,17,3,14,25,6,7,18,4,15,21,22,8,19,5,11,, 16.00 , 14.50 , 13.00 , 11.50 , 10.00 , 11.00 , 15.75 , 14.25 , 12.75 , 11.25 , 12.25 , 10.75 , 15.50 , 14.00 , 12.50 , 13.50 , 12.00 , 10.50 , 15.25 , 13.75 , 14.75 , 13.25 , 11.75 , 10.25 , 15.00 ,, 12.75 , 13.75 , 16.00 , 10.75 , 11.75 , 11.50 , 12.50 , 14.75 , 15.75 , 10.50 , 10.25 , 11.25 , 13.50 , 14.50 , 15.50 , 15.25 , 10.00 , 12.25 , 13.25 , 14.25 , 14.00 , 15.00 , 11.00 , 12.00 , 13.00 ,, 13.25 , 10.50 , 14.00 , 11.25 , 16.00 , 13.00 , 10.25 , 13.75 , 12.25 , 15.75 , 12.00 , 15.50 , 12.75 , 10.00 , 14.75 , 14.50 , 11.75 , 15.25 , 12.50 , 11.00 , 10.75 , 14.25 , 11.50 , 15.00 , 13.50 ,,

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1160589653....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > XZealot wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >> > 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a >> > seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being >> > eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect >> > of playing the same deck five times in a row. >> >> Bad, Bad, Bad idea. This has all the same problems of a one day 3R+F >> tournament. Namely, that only certain deckarchtypes which can sweep or >> are speed decks are viable due to the high GW threshhold required to >> make the Finals. > > No. A one-day high-participation tournament rewards feast-or-famine > decks that get lucky. That was he problem that the 2-day format was > created to address. Increasing the number of rounds decreases the > effect of luck, making consistent decks more competitive to the > feast-or-famine sweeper decks. The thing about that is, the influence of luck is only reduced in the long run. Even six or seven trials isn't that much the long run, here. Luck could still result in plenty of feast-or-famine decks being played and making finals. Some form of Swiss seating for a 5+F or 6+F two-day event might be interesting (at least on paper) - I'm not sure if people would really be excited by playing the same deck six or seven times in a row, but if you played against other players with the same number of GWs as you, you could mostly avoid the problem of facing players with nothing to do but kingmake. Another alternative for a 6+F two-day event could be making it totally multi-deck - change to a different deck for every game if you want. That could (a) eliminate the advantage of scouting and (b) keep the players interested in playing their various decks. Though it is a problem if we want to crown a deck as well as a player as the "Continental Champion". And it might require players to have quite a few strong decks built and available if they want to take advantage of variety while still playing winning decks. Josh all famined out

Whatever solution is used needs to be simple for judges to implement and also easy for players to understand: e.g.: Day 1 Play first 3 rounds with 1 constructed legal deck - top 40% of players go through to day 2 Day 2 You may play the same deck or another deck that is constructed legal as day 1. Only points earned on day 2 count towards final standing. Top 5 players from day 2 go through to final as normal I'd be quite happy to see any easily udnerstood and easy to implement system be used for the NAC and other large events. E.g. 3r each day counting towards total results or 5r &f. Anything with players dropping between rounds seems foolish and makes a mockery of the 'removing too much luck aspect' from the game e.g. if you had a really lucky first table but your deck and your style probably would have not got you any further in the day 1 ratings than those points. I would agree that there was a definate lacklustre affair to some of the games day 1 and I certianly recall switching off a little as the day went on (after my first round GW), an environment where every GW and VP was important on day 1 may encourage more PTW.

LSJ wrote: > 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into > the finals of day 2. I like this, but just need some clarification. Would this be _in addition_ to only 40 players from day one going to day 2, or would all players from day 1 also play day 2? Another idea is to hand out a booster pack for every game win. That helps give incentive to players that think they have no chance in the event overall to at least go nutso to try and scrape a GW out of a game. Eyes on the prize, and all. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > LSJ wrote: > > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > > with only 2 VPs. > > > > Options to remedy that: > > > > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, > > depending on the participation level. > > The original suggestion intentionally used 25 as the cutoff point > because the current problems were foreseen. > > __When VPs matter and GWs don't, table-splitting becomes standard.__ > > The solution has always been to make VPs mostly meaningless in > comparison to GWs, forcing people to play for the GW and not for the > VPs. The current format is fine, but the cutoff point is too low, > allowing players with no GW to move on to round 2. > > If Day 1 had used 25 as the cutoff point, the #25 player had 1GW, 3VP -- > which is still sufficiently low that unlucky random seating in a single > round does not completely remove your chances of victory (a major, valid > complaint about earlier championships), and sufficiently high that > simply dealing for some token VP is not going to cut it. > Woot, player #25, that was me. Instead of trying to figure out the magic number to let in to Day 2 based on Day 1 attendence, let anyone with at least 1 GW advance. What happens if that is not a multiple of 5? Well, a few (1-4 players) with 0 GWs can get lucky and be let in to make even tables. I don't know if this will work for Europe though. Would it let in too many players because Day 1 creates too large of a number of players with 1 GW? Also if Day 1 attendence is very low, less than say 40, it becomes a one day event instead. During Day 1, I was somewhat depressed after getting 0 VPs in round 1 and 2. I sat down to round 3 and looking at the table after the first couple of turns, a GW for me looked very difficult. I let the table develop and I built up. When the time was right, I started to move and was able to get my VPs and GW. I like the possibilty of being able to get to Day 2 as late as round 3. I wasn't playing to make the finals at that point, but I wanted my GW to make Day 2. Later, ~Rehlow

> That's kind of too bad. I really believe there's a polite way to call the > judge and get a ruling on whether or not a table split deal is legal. > There's no reason to just sit and be pissed off about a deal one feels is > not or should not be legal. I think the main point is that players were more willing to give up on the idea of a GW, and just take the safer course of 1 or 2 VPs. > > I couldn't say, but I suppose that in the vast majority of cases, it > > boiled down to a player weighing a 50% GW with 50% 0VP finish against a > > 80/10/10 split for 2/1/0 VPs or similar. (Standard disclaimer about > > numbers not being knowable, &c.) > > So ignoring the disclaimer for the moment, is that legal? I would think > that a player with a 50% chance for a GW should have to take it. Those > sound like good odds to me! Yes, it's legal. It's not just your pure chances of winning, it's the consequences of failure. "Reasonable chance of winning" includes risk analysis. I know there are many previous threads on play-to-win, but the following thread is one of the best: http://tinyurl.com/nk5js > Sure, I get that, but if players are going to play not to win under one > set of circumstances, then I figure they'd do so again under another. Players are playing to win in all cases. Playing to win can include taking 2 VPs with high probability, depending on the risk analysis. The day 1 risk analysis makes 2 VPs very appealing, which is the issue we're trying to address. Ira

First, I think it's important to note and appreciate the willingness of our head tournament organizer to solicit feedback from the playerbase. I do not take this for granted, and it's one of the major things that makes this game as fun as it is. Thank you, LSJ! > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, > depending on the participation level. As discussed elsewhere in this thread, I think this option is best. It creates a greater incentive to go for the GW, because a higher threshold is required. Once players realize they need at least a GW to make it to the next day, players will be going for the GW. > 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into > the finals of day 2. I like the idea that I start with a clean slate on day 2, but I also like the idea that day 1 makes a difference. :) I think we should first try raising the bar to make it to day 2 per suggestion #1, and if that's not enough, then also add this. > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse. > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by > hand. I definitely don't like this one, because it's very complicated, significantly different from different tournament structures, and is less fun for people who win early. > 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a > seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being > eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect > of playing the same deck five times in a row. You could get around the problem of the same deck by letting people vary decks, but even so I don't like this one for the reasons you mentioned. It's no fun to be in round 5 without any hope of making the finals. Thanks again for listening. I think the subtle change of raising the bar for day 2 will make enough of a difference to encourage a greater desire for GWs. Ira

> LSJ wrote: > > A) Not everyone with a GW "should qualify" under option 1. > B) Not every table produces a GW. > C) Some players accumulate more than one GW. > this is all true. But I think you have to decide a limit on how good you have to be to play in day 2. Then one should make a system where atleast all that reach the threashold qualify. If that limit would be set to 1 gw, then you would need 39 spots open in a 65 player to guarantee that it happends. I'm not against tougher limits though. > For example, there were only 30 players with any GWs after three rounds > of the 65-player day 1 tournament at the NAC. > > 65 players would certainly not meet the participartion level of a > 40-player day-2, under this plan. > 65 would likely fall to 25, for example. > Yes, I agree that it would be a nice limit to a 65. it would recuire the best of you to qualify. //Alex

LSJ wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > > > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > > > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > > > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > > > with only 2 VPs. > > > > You were the judge. If it was a problem, why didn't you enforce the > > rules. > > I did. How did you do so? > > Changing the tournament structure for a judge that's not doing his job > > isn't the solution. ;P > > Check your facts. Obviously, that was a joke, but since you ask. Where are the facts? > > > Options to remedy that: > > > > > > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, > > > depending on the participation level. > > > > 40 is good or any other fixed number. 40 gives a good spread on Day 2. > > Although it is clearly not as good as say 25. 25, 40, 55 It is entirely arbitrary. The end result is the same. People are playing to make the second day. That's the means to win the prize of the NAC. You are just creating a sliding scale of performance. Players are going to figure out what is required and that becomes their target. If you use a percentage then the players, who choose to act this way, figure out what spot that is and shoot for it. If you use a GW as the breakeven point, then early GW players can play kingmaker to get their buddies to day 2. Regardless of your metric, that metric is what the players, who act this way, are going to shoot for. If you want to set a high metric, such as top 5 (1 day tournament), then you will find that only decks that are viable are the ones that suck up alot of GWS. If you set a low metric, 1 VPs, then only decks that can't score a VP are eliminated. If you set it somewhere in between then players, who choose to act this way, are going to figure out the performance required and then shoot for that. The problem isn't the tournament. It's the players. When you build a better mousetrap, then you breed smarter mice. > Still more fact checking on someone's part is required. Only if you think the facts actually support changing the format. > > > 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW > > > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW > > > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into > > > the finals of day 2. > > > > Boo! You will have alot of drops on day 2 because of the "Day 1 > > Advantage" creating a disproportionate boost. > > No drops would be incurred, since day 2 GWs are still more important. > Evidence or even supporting logic to the contrary is invited. How important were GW's this year? The answer is very important as they are the primary determiner of performance. How important were VP's this year? The answer is second only in performance to GW's. Some of the finalists only had 1 GW and VP tiebreakers were involved. Okay, you may be right about people dropping, but wait the sour grapes you are going to hear when people get knocked out of the finals because of Advanced Placement points. You aren't going to stop people from complaining. > > > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse. > > > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and > > > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make > > > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring > > > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This > > > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot > > > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by > > > hand. > > > > This has no real advantage over the method used now. For the most > > part, players with GW's made it to day 2 and the top remaining players > > that made up the difference went to Day 2. Same exact results. > > > > > 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a > > > seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being > > > eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect > > > of playing the same deck five times in a row. > > > > Bad, Bad, Bad idea. This has all the same problems of a one day 3R+F > > tournament. Namely, that only certain deckarchtypes which can sweep or > > are speed decks are viable due to the high GW threshhold required to > > make the Finals. > > No. A one-day high-participation tournament rewards feast-or-famine > decks that get lucky. That was he problem that the 2-day format was > created to address. Increasing the number of rounds decreases the > effect of luck, making consistent decks more competitive to the > feast-or-famine sweeper decks. 6 one-way or a half-dozen another. Increasing the number of rounds still heavily favors the decks that can keep a track record of alot of GW's while more marginal decks become more marginalized as luck becomes less of a factor. > > > Thoughts on these? Other ideas? > > > > Keep it the Same. It works. It creates a championship environment > > where any deck archtype is viable. I think it was a great tournament > > with a good structure. > > Option one, for example, would not reduce the number of viable > archetypes and would improve the system as a whole by providing > inherent incentive for the players to focus on GWs. As I said before, you can set the bar high or low. It doesn't change individual behavior, but rather it can change the outcome. > > Don't you think it is paradoxical that people are complaining that > > players aren't playing to win about players trying to get a Victory > > Point which is how you win. > > No. Paradoxical must not exist in your vocabulary then. > > Think about that. > > I have. > > Playing for a 2 VP loss or even a 1VP loss because that's all you need > each round to make the cut is quite different than playing for the Game > Win You were the judge. Why didn't you stop that kind of behavior. That is what judges are for. If you didn't get called duing the round when it happened, then it is the players own damn fault. They shouldn't be trying to backdoor the finals table by an after the fact bitch session to the judge as there is nothing the judge can do once the game is over. I didn't hear alot of bitching, but I wasn't the judge. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1160619076.4...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> Playing for a 2 VP loss or even a 1VP loss because that's all you need >> each round to make the cut is quite different than playing for the Game >> Win > > You were the judge. Why didn't you stop that kind of behavior. That > is what judges are for. > > If you didn't get called duing the round when it happened, then it is > the players own damn fault. They shouldn't be trying to backdoor the > finals table by an after the fact bitch session to the judge as there > is nothing the judge can do once the game is over. > > I didn't hear alot of bitching, but I wasn't the judge. > In defense of LSJ, and of the players in general, I saw a lot of dealing for 2 VP in day 1, but I think that most of it was reasonable under the rules. Even when I was on the short end of the deal, I never felt it was necessary to call for a ruling from Scott. I would rather there were more looking left, as opposed to looking cross-table, but I don't think the x-table looking that occurred was illegal. I had a nice talk with Christian Chenard during the late-night pick-up session after day 2, and he felt that it was more of a stylistic difference with certain playgroups. I'm clearly paraphrasing his comments, so any misunderstanding is on me, but it seems that his playgroup is quicker to accept the 3-2 split, if they feel it is highly likely to shake out that way, even if it is early in the game. E.g., if Player A feels his chances of earning 2 VP in a deal to give Player B 3 VP are about 50 or 60%, vs a 5 or 10% chance of getting the GW himself, then he'll deal for the 2 as soon as possible. (The example is mine, but I think it gets the point across.) This tendency in his playgroup may explain why he was willing to accept a 3-2 (his GW) split from me in day 2, round 3, even though he suspected I would break the deal. (Since neither Norm nor Adam was willing to deal with him at all.) As it turned out, he couldn't quite close out Adam by himself, and I did break the deal and make my way into the final thanks to those 4 VP. - Pat P.S. On an unrelated note, since I haven't gotten around to posting a WoN report, I would like to say that it was a huge pleasure to game with so many new players during the Week... Christian, TX gang, LA crew, Seattlites, Euro visitors, plus many of the usual suspects that I've met before. Thanks for a great event, everyone. P.P.S. I had not definitely decided to break the deal until the turn before I ousted... but when Christian was on 2 pool with no Tupdog in play, I had to go for it.

[ quoted text not captured ] Althought this may seem like a anti-LSJ rant. It is not. I don't think things need to change for the reasons I have heard. I had a great time with everyone. [ quoted text not captured ]

Pat wrote: > P.P.S. I had not definitely decided to break the deal until the turn before > I ousted... but when Christian was on 2 pool with no Tupdog in play, I had > to go for it. totally justified! Which brings me to my question: Was there much deal-breaking at the NAC? It's always been a theory I ascribe to that the more prevalent deal-breaking is, the less prevalent VP-splits become. So I am not really trying to dig up the old debate of whether you should or should not break deals (but you should, if it'll get you a GW ;) but I am curious to know how many people got screwed out of the VPs they 'deserved' by people backstabbing in deals at the NAC (on either day)? [ quoted text not captured ]

> Instead of trying to figure out the magic number to let in to Day 2 > based on Day 1 attendence, let anyone with at least 1 GW advance. What I'm not sure that I like that idea. Seems to me that if I got a GW on round 1, I can blindly make losing deals and sacrifice GWs to friends, family, horrible decks that are going to get crushed, or David Cherryholmes :) so as to improve my odds in the coming rounds. A guarantee of placement seems to be a bad idea. Usually, I don't allow players to see their own standing in a tournament until they're completely finished playing. . . it helps avoid the "speculation" game. What we really need are people who Play. The. Game. Ankur

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1160572688....@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a > seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being > eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect > of playing the same deck five times in a row. As a slight modification of this option, would it be so terrible if players were allowed to change decks between day 1 and day 2? That is, one deck for rounds 1-3 and another for rounds 4, 5, and the final. Just a thought. (I have no answer right off hand for the kingmaking issue. I don't know if it really needs one.) Fred

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:7eudnQVWYfSSYLHY...@comcast.com... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > 6) Move back to a 3-round, one-day format, but have multiple parallel > final-round tables. The top 5 players after the multiple finals are over > then play a "real final". > i.e. for 65 people, the top 10 players are Finalists. > Two "fourth round" tables are played in a mini-tournament. > The top 5 players from those 2 finals tables get to play a Real Final round. > This one may also be overly complex like #3, but just a thought. Actually, the real issue may be that it would just shift the problem to the semi-finals. If there are 10 players in the semi-finals and 5 of them will make the finals, then wouldn't there be a suspiciously distinct incentive to just go for victory points in the semi-finals? (Ah, at least you could monitor two games for play-to-win a lot better than you could monitor all the preliminary round games at all the tables.) Fred

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Well, the idea was that all "semi-finalists" would get Finalist credit, as far as ratings go, and some minimal additional prize support, as well. Bribery, pure and simple. And my only concern is with the preliminary rounds. If you get *this* far, you've already proven that you could get this far on your own merits. If you want to table talk from here, it's not as much of a big deal.

LSJ wrote: > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35, > depending on the participation level. Sure. The narrower the aperture of advancement gets, the more aggressive the play becomes. > 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into > the finals of day 2. How about marking game wins for additional pool on day 2? Grant increases (value to be determined later) to each player's starting pool amount, as a multiple of game wins in the prior rounds. The bounty approach could apply to any other game aspect(s) and rewards; pool for GW is the most straightforward combination I can think of. Some other fanciful examples of bounties applied to day 2 rounds, based on day 1's play : --an extra transfer.for the top 10% --an extra discard phase action.for the top 10% --an extra master phase action.for the top 10% --start with a permanent (e.g., Army of Rats, Embrace, Momentum's Edge, Storage Annex) in play for each GW. Permanent would be pre-selected by the judge, or chosen by player from a set of pre-selected cards). > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse. > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. For this option, I'd remove the cap, and take anyone who recieved a game win in the first three rounds. If you end up with 10 players (or less), pad to 12 and play 4-tops in the second day. > This has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by > hand. Where there's a will, there's a hack. :)

XZealot wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > XZealot wrote: > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > > > > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > > > > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > > > > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > > > > with only 2 VPs. > > > > > > You were the judge. If it was a problem, why didn't you enforce the > > > rules. > > > > I did. > > How did you do so? By resolving all activity or interest brougt to my attention in accordance with the rules. > > > Changing the tournament structure for a judge that's not doing his job > > > isn't the solution. ;P > > > > Check your facts. > > Obviously, that was a joke, but since you ask. Where are the facts? "Where"? That's odd. Facts are most often untethered to locations. Anyway, it seems that gathering facts should precede accusations of dereliction of judging duties, not come as an afterthought.

Salem wrote: > Pat wrote: > > > P.P.S. I had not definitely decided to break the deal until the turn before > > I ousted... but when Christian was on 2 pool with no Tupdog in play, I had > > to go for it. > > totally justified! > > Which brings me to my question: > > Was there much deal-breaking at the NAC? What? Deal-breaking? Unheard of. No way. That's wrong! Okay, maybe there was a little... -Robert

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.63.06...@fiordland.cs.duke.edu... >> Instead of trying to figure out the magic number to let in to Day 2 based >> on Day 1 attendence, let anyone with at least 1 GW advance. What > > I'm not sure that I like that idea. Seems to me that if I got a GW on > round 1, I can blindly make losing deals and sacrifice GWs to friends, > family, horrible decks that are going to get crushed, or David > Cherryholmes :) so as to improve my odds in the coming rounds. While you're right about that, it was already the de facto case this year, and would pretty much remain the case in any system that allows any high percentage of the players (certainly 50% and up, maybe even 33% and up) to advance from day 1 to day 2. From my own experience, I had a 2 VP game win in round 1 this year (good old 2-1-1-1... nothing beats 2-1-1-1...) and made mistakes in the second and third rounds that I might not have made if I had been more 'hungry' for additional VPs. I wasn't *intentionally* playing less well, of course, but I might have played better if I hadn't already known I had enough to advance to day 2. There's no way around that, as Norm has been arguing, if you're going to have a complete Day 1 tournament whose only purpose is to advance players to day 2. Though reducing the number of slots sufficiently *may* get people to play more for the win in all rounds. > A guarantee of placement seems to be a bad idea. Usually, I don't allow > players to see their own standing in a tournament until they're completely > finished playing. . . it helps avoid the "speculation" game. Yeah. Although again, if you know there are 40 spots (or 25 or whatever) for advancing to day 2, you can count the number of possible GWs just based on knowing the number of participants in day 1. (This year, there were just 13 tables, so 39 maximum possible GWs for day 1 at the NAC.) > What we really need are people who > > Play. The. Game. So. True. I know this is a non sequitur to a lot of VTES players, but I really don't like deal-making anymore and wish people would stop spending so much time making deals. The game is a lot more fun, I think, when it (a) doesn't involve so much discussion and thus (b) is less likely to time out, plus (c) therefore has increased focus on the elements specific to VTES rather than those elements common to all multi-player games (ie kingmaking, cooperation, "table balancing", and all that nonsense). Josh playing. the. game.

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message > news:Pine.LNX.4.63.06...@fiordland.cs.duke.edu... > >> Instead of trying to figure out the magic number to let in to Day 2 based > >> on Day 1 attendence, let anyone with at least 1 GW advance. What > > > > I'm not sure that I like that idea. Seems to me that if I got a GW on > > round 1, I can blindly make losing deals and sacrifice GWs to friends, > > family, horrible decks that are going to get crushed, or David > > Cherryholmes :) so as to improve my odds in the coming rounds. > > While you're right about that, it was already the de facto case this year, > and would pretty much remain the case in any system that allows any high > percentage of the players (certainly 50% and up, maybe even 33% and up) to > advance from day 1 to day 2. From my own experience, I had a 2 VP game win > in round 1 this year (good old 2-1-1-1... nothing beats 2-1-1-1...) and made > mistakes in the second and third rounds that I might not have made if I had > been more 'hungry' for additional VPs. I wasn't *intentionally* playing > less well, of course, but I might have played better if I hadn't already > known I had enough to advance to day 2. There's no way around that, as Norm > has been arguing, if you're going to have a complete Day 1 tournament whose > only purpose is to advance players to day 2. I think the only way to really solve the issue of players "prequalifying" by getting one (or even 2) game wins early and then being able to shrug off round two or three is by making Game Wins on day 1 count for something besides just moving on to day 2. The reward shouldn't be so great that it overly rewards feast-or-famine play, but gaining the bonus VP, bonus pool/transfers, or even strength-of-schedule rewards mentioned in this thread would be worth considering. Alternatively, every player that makes it to the finals of day 2 starts with an extra pool for each game win on day 1 and 2 combined. This makes the day 1 GWs only especially meaningful if you also do well on day 2, but doesn't doubly-reward feast-or-famine decks (i.e., they have to get lucky both days in order to gain a larger advantage over any other deck type, whereas under the other proposals getting lucky day 1 gives you an advantage in all your games day 2, making it easier to get "lucky" again). > Though reducing the number of > slots sufficiently *may* get people to play more for the win in all rounds. To a point, but you can still end up with the guy who got GWs in rounds 1 and 2 being pretty certain of making it to day 2. But if a third day 1 GW were meaningful besides finals seating, he'd play for it for his own sake. > > A guarantee of placement seems to be a bad idea. Usually, I don't allow > > players to see their own standing in a tournament until they're completely > > finished playing. . . it helps avoid the "speculation" game. > > Yeah. Although again, if you know there are 40 spots (or 25 or whatever) > for advancing to day 2, you can count the number of possible GWs just based > on knowing the number of participants in day 1. (This year, there were just > 13 tables, so 39 maximum possible GWs for day 1 at the NAC.) Sure. And people can always do that math. The only thing to do about it is to make a better standing on day 1 translate into some advantage on day 2. > > What we really need are people who > > > > Play. The. Game. > > So. True. > > I know this is a non sequitur to a lot of VTES players, but I really don't > like deal-making anymore and wish people would stop spending so much time > making deals. The game is a lot more fun, I think, when it (a) doesn't > involve so much discussion and thus (b) is less likely to time out, plus (c) > therefore has increased focus on the elements specific to VTES rather than > those elements common to all multi-player games (ie kingmaking, cooperation, > "table balancing", and all that nonsense). Actually, I feel less strongly about dealing after the NAC. Twice in day 2 I was able to credibly threaten to throw off the table deal by self-ousting, forcing people to rethink their strategies and play around it. In both games, it nearly got me a VP. It's the first time I've really had a chance to strategize like that and I found it kinda fun. I still don't much like the deals themselves, but I just found them to be a lot less problematic than I thought they'd be. > Josh > > playing. the. game. Witness1 -believe the lie

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Yeah. Although again, if you know there are 40 spots (or 25 or whatever) > for advancing to day 2, you can count the number of possible GWs just based > on knowing the number of participants in day 1. (This year, there were just > 13 tables, so 39 maximum possible GWs for day 1 at the NAC.) Well I wasn't there but it sounds a lot to me like you just had an inbetween number of players so to speak, either more or less would have been better. Another say 3 or 4 tables worth of players each round would have taken the number of possible game wins high enough that you would likely need one to progress, 3 or 4 tables a round less would have still been an OK one day event (although not ideal). > I know this is a non sequitur to a lot of VTES players, but I really don't > like deal-making anymore and wish people would stop spending so much time > making deals. The game is a lot more fun, I think, when it (a) doesn't > involve so much discussion and thus (b) is less likely to time out, plus (c) > therefore has increased focus on the elements specific to VTES rather than > those elements common to all multi-player games (ie kingmaking, cooperation, > "table balancing", and all that nonsense). A different topic there but 100% agree with you, especially point (c).

>> What we really need are people who >> >> Play. The. Game. > > So. True. > > I know this is a non sequitur to a lot of VTES players, but I really > don't like deal-making anymore and wish people would stop spending so > much time making deals. The game is a lot more fun, I think, when it > (a) doesn't involve so much discussion and thus (b) is less likely to > time out, plus (c) therefore has increased focus on the elements > specific to VTES rather than those elements common to all multi-player > games (ie kingmaking, cooperation, "table balancing", and all that > nonsense). I think limited scope dealmaking ("I'll rescue your guy if you rescue mine|, "I'll pass your vote if you give me a pool", etc.) are acceptable and a fine way to encourage the interactive nature of VTES. It's also fun to determine how to offer the absolute minimum that someone will accept to accomplish your goals. But, the table-carving mechanism of VTES is truly abhorrent, especially when it happens on turn 2. My response to such shennanigans is usually to try to tip the table in such an awkward position that it's virtually a *crime* not to swat the offending players off the damned table. Another method I employ is to sarcastically repeat the consequence of the deal being discussed, to the point that any person with half a brain will immediately begin the swatting phase. If there exists a person who does not have half a brain, then I'll exploit that person to win the game. I'm on the SWAT team. And SWAT believes in "Play. The. Game." Ankur

"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1160667936....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > I think the only way to really solve the issue of players > "prequalifying" by getting one (or even 2) game wins early and then > being able to shrug off round two or three is by making Game Wins on > day 1 count for something besides just moving on to day 2. > > The reward shouldn't be so great that it overly rewards feast-or-famine > play, but gaining the bonus VP, bonus pool/transfers, or even > strength-of-schedule rewards mentioned in this thread would be worth > considering. I don't think it would be a good idea to give in-game rewards ("bonus pool/transfers"). That has the affect of punishing the people who happen to play against them, as opposed to those who don't. It might also tend to favor certain types of decks over others. (Er, more so than tournament structures already favor certain types of decks over others, that is.) > Alternatively, every player that makes it to the finals of day 2 starts > with an extra pool for each game win on day 1 and 2 combined. That also warps the game too much, IMHO. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:1160667936....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > I think the only way to really solve the issue of players > > "prequalifying" by getting one (or even 2) game wins early and then > > being able to shrug off round two or three is by making Game Wins on > > day 1 count for something besides just moving on to day 2. > > > > The reward shouldn't be so great that it overly rewards feast-or-famine > > play, but gaining the bonus VP, bonus pool/transfers, or even > > strength-of-schedule rewards mentioned in this thread would be worth > > considering. > > I don't think it would be a good idea to give in-game rewards ("bonus > pool/transfers"). That has the affect of punishing the people who > happen to play against them, as opposed to those who don't. Good call. Changing the tournament structure without modifying the game itself is the idea. Having the tournament structure properly reward/weight the game goals is the ideal.

"Joshua Duffin" <joshduff...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in news:4p74s4F...@individual.net: > I know this is a non sequitur to a lot of VTES players, but I really > don't like deal-making anymore and wish people would stop spending so > much time making deals. The game is a lot more fun, I think, when it > (a) doesn't involve so much discussion and thus (b) is less likely to > time out, plus (c) therefore has increased focus on the elements > specific to VTES rather than those elements common to all multi-player > games (ie kingmaking, cooperation, "table balancing", and all that > nonsense). > Yeah, I can recognize the ideal. To elaborate on the problem, though; once a table starts to deal to split the table, if you remain apart from those conversations, you are putting yourself in a position that is likely to lose. Since this is an international event, groups more prone towards table deals, and who don't take issue with it, can alter the table dynamic significantly, even in small numbers. Our (Josh D. and My) table one had its table splitting negotaitions started by Andreas. It didn't reach the conclusion he'd hoped for, but that's beside the point. My table three was first negotiated to a split by Christian Chenard. Had I not finally moved away at that point from a prior position of choosing to not participate in negotiations, I would not have gotten even the 2 VP from that table. This is not a negative commentary on either Andreas or Christian, of course. For them, negotiating a table they cannot hope to win by themselves _is_ playing. the. game. Once two people at a table head down that road, the rest invariably must participate (even if only to ally themselves against the dealmakers). Entreating people to Play The Game doesn't address this issue _nearly_ sufficiently enough. DaveZ Atom Weaver

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > I couldn't say, but I suppose that in the vast majority of cases, it > > boiled down to a player weighing a 50% GW with 50% 0VP finish against a > > 80/10/10 split for 2/1/0 VPs or similar. (Standard disclaimer about > > numbers not being knowable, &c.) > > In my experience, people believing that they *do* know these numbers, or can > at least estimate them with great accuracy, is the main cause of VP deals. > Yes, but people are disobeying the tournament rules if they perceive a 50% chance of GW and going instead for VPs. I'd call people crazy if they went for VPs if they had a10% chance of GW. > That, and the amazing ability to make predictions of how a game will turn > out, based on the first turn or three. > Maybe I'm still pretty inexperienced, but I only find myself capable of successfully predicting the outcome based on the first turn or three if Ben Peal is sitting at the table. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

[ quoted text not captured ] Point conceded. Here's another idea: leave everything the same with one exception: Once the five day 2 finalists have been determined, add in their GWs and VPs from day 1 before determining their initial placement at the final table. People have then some incentive besides making the finals of day 1 to improve their standing even after they've secured their day 2 slot. This could be combined with other ideas like limiting the number of day 2 participants. Witness1 -believe the lie.

LSJ wrote: > Actually, any multiple of 5 from 25 on gives perfect seating. 16 is > also perfect. True. But lets just pick "25" because I like it :) Point being, this seems like a fix that would adress a problem that need adressing. Remember, if you have any Caylus questions drop me a line ;) ***JediMike***

[ quoted text not captured ] Except in the case where the crux of an arguement, in this case players failing to strive for GW's, can be directly attributed to players notifying a judge of that activity, and the judge enforcing the appropriate measures to dissuade said activity from continuing. Either the players did not notify the judge, in which case the tournament structure should not be subject to scrutiny due to the acceptance of the behavior of suspected players misbehavior, or the players notified the judge which leads the judge to enact specific individual cases of judgement to solve this supposed problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

Salem wrote: > Pat wrote: > > > P.P.S. I had not definitely decided to break the deal until the turn before > > I ousted... but when Christian was on 2 pool with no Tupdog in play, I had > > to go for it. > > totally justified! > > Which brings me to my question: > > Was there much deal-breaking at the NAC? > > It's always been a theory I ascribe to that the more prevalent > deal-breaking is, the less prevalent VP-splits become. > > So I am not really trying to dig up the old debate of whether you should > or should not break deals (but you should, if it'll get you a GW ;) but > I am curious to know how many people got screwed out of the VPs they > 'deserved' by people backstabbing in deals at the NAC (on either day)? Depends on how you define dealbreaking. Day 1 Round 3, my prey had ousted his prey and by that time I had built up quiet a large Ravnos Laibon army and was starting to go after my prey. My grandprey had the option to block my prey (his predator) and really mess him up in combat. He was concerned about how easy a free ride I would get out of it. We agreed that if he did, I would let him get his prey before I would oust him. I was able to make short work of my prey, since this deal let me put Week of Nightmares into play with one less player that would move Week counters (wasn't part of the deal, but we were buddies now) and that also helped him because he was playing Anarch Ravnos. After getting my prey, I saw back a couple turns, waiting for him to oust his prey. His prey was able to bounce his bleeds, I think had a Blood Doll for some pool gain, and got rid of his Army of Rats. Time was starting to tick down, so I decided that my new prey was unable to keep his end of the deal (ousting his prey), so I decided to oust him. Did I break my deal? Probably, but maybe not. Depends on how you view deals. Either way, I ended with my GW and made it to Day 2, so I'd do it again. Later, ~Rehlow

XZealot wrote: > Either the players did not notify the judge, in which case the > tournament structure should not be subject to scrutiny due to the > acceptance of the behavior of suspected players misbehavior, or the > players notified the judge which leads the judge to enact specific > individual cases of judgement to solve this supposed problem. Or the deals involved risk analysis and were technically legal and encouraged by the tournament structure. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a8b09375d0d8ea39

LSJ wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > Either the players did not notify the judge, in which case the > > tournament structure should not be subject to scrutiny due to the > > acceptance of the behavior of suspected players misbehavior, or the > > players notified the judge which leads the judge to enact specific > > individual cases of judgement to solve this supposed problem. > > Or the deals involved risk analysis and were technically legal and > encouraged by the tournament structure. So what's the problem? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] There is always a point where you can pretty much know you made Day 2 and then do what you want in your remaining rounds. If the cutoff is not 1 GW, but Top 25, given tournament size X if you sweep round 1, you can be fairly certain you already made Day 2 and then do what you want. I guess if the number of players that make Day 2 is somewhat small, like 25 (since that is the ideal size for table seatings) there is not all that many points between Top 5 (making the finals) and the Top 25 that players likely to make the Top 25 will be inclined to play for more GWs to try and make the finals of Day 1. Later, ~Rehlow

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1160683136.3...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > LSJ wrote: >> XZealot wrote: >> > Either the players did not notify the judge, in which case the >> > tournament structure should not be subject to scrutiny due to the >> > acceptance of the behavior of suspected players misbehavior, or the >> > players notified the judge which leads the judge to enact specific >> > individual cases of judgement to solve this supposed problem. >> >> Or the deals involved risk analysis and were technically legal and >> encouraged by the tournament structure. > > So what's the problem? "Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable"

> > So what's the problem? > > "Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable" Totally subjective. The rules set the baseline for behavior at the NAC. The rules are agreed upon by all the participants. I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC. I have heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in "Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face. [ quoted text not captured ]

Rehlow wrote: > Did I break my deal? Probably, but maybe not. Depends on how you view > deals. Either way, I ended with my GW and made it to Day 2, so I'd do > it again. I'd say you did break the deal. I'd also say it was the correct play! Backstabbers FTW! [ quoted text not captured ]

witness1 wrote: > Here's another idea: leave everything the same with one exception: Once > the five day 2 finalists have been determined, add in their GWs and VPs > from day 1 before determining their initial placement at the final > table. People have then some incentive besides making the finals of day > 1 to improve their standing even after they've secured their day 2 > slot. > > This could be combined with other ideas like limiting the number of day > 2 participants. Not bad. something else similar might be that for determining day 2 finalists, you rank them by their day 2 GWs first, and then their day 1 GWs, then their day 2 vps, etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > > > So what's the problem? > > > > "Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable" > > Totally subjective. > > The rules set the baseline for behavior at the NAC. The rules are > agreed upon by all the participants. How about another reason: quality of play in later rounds suffered because those who knew they had an in to day 2 were less focused on winning (because they knew they didn't need to). Increasing the value of additional game wins (and VPs) could easily have sharpened the edge of some of the later games in day 1. > I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC. Agreed. But they did have suggestions for improvement and listed things which detracted from their enjoyment. > I have > heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in > "Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players > from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while > they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game > isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face. To some degree this is true, and I think that pretty much all of the deals that were actually made at my tables were reasonable. > Comments Welcome, > Norman S. Brown, Jr > XZealot > Archon of the Swamp Witness1 -believe the lie

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1160687576.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> > So what's the problem? >> >> "Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable" > > Totally subjective. > > The rules set the baseline for behavior at the NAC. The rules are > agreed upon by all the participants. Huh? The rules are what participants have to agree to in order to participate. They do not constitute agreement by participants that they were the best rules which could have been used. > I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC. WRT this issue - as opposed to having a good or bad time in general at the NAC, which is not the issue at hand - you could try reading this newsgroup. This thread, even. > I have > heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in > "Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players > from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while > they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game > isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face. The issue of victory-point splitting and why it's generally considered a bad thing and why game win rule fixes it have pretty much been resolved to the satisfaction of most people, as far as I can see. Again, not having seen the scores and the cutoff line I can't say for sure (although LSJ's posts sure seem to confirm it), but the first day format would appear to emphasize the need to rack up victory points rather than game wins. Under those circumstances, your explanation for those complaints is pretty dubious. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message > news:1160687576.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > >> > So what's the problem? > >> > >> "Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable" > > > > Totally subjective. > > > > The rules set the baseline for behavior at the NAC. The rules are > > agreed upon by all the participants. > > Huh? The rules are what participants have to agree to in order to > participate. They do not constitute agreement by participants that > they were the best rules which could have been used. Nor did I say that. The "best" is even more subjective than "Good/Desirable". > > I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC. > > WRT this issue - as opposed to having a good or bad time in general > at the NAC, which is not the issue at hand - you could try reading > this newsgroup. This thread, even. I have read it. I was there at the NAC as well, Fred. I don't think any of the reasons for changing the metric for making the second day are any more valid than the metric that we have now. > > I have > > heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in > > "Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players > > from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while > > they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game > > isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face. > > The issue of victory-point splitting and why it's generally considered > a bad thing and why game win rule fixes it have pretty much been resolved > to the satisfaction of most people, as far as I can see. Again, not > having seen the scores and the cutoff line I can't say for sure (although > LSJ's posts sure seem to confirm it), but the first day format would appear > to emphasize the need to rack up victory points rather than game wins. > Under those circumstances, your explanation for those complaints is > pretty dubious. The need was to make it to the second day. 2 VPs got you to the second day, as there were a huge amount of tables timing out. You figure out the rest. [ quoted text not captured ]

witness1 wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > > > So what's the problem? > > > > > > "Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable" > > > > Totally subjective. > > > > The rules set the baseline for behavior at the NAC. The rules are > > agreed upon by all the participants. > > How about another reason: quality of play in later rounds suffered > because those who knew they had an in to day 2 were less focused on > winning (because they knew they didn't need to). I saw alot of time-out, but I never saw that. My first round Hugh Bertrand swept the table 5VPs. My second round I pancaked my prey for a VP and then was mangled by a Warghoul deck who won it by the skin of his teeth after ousting Goudie's Potence weenie deck then ousting me. The third round timed out as no-one could get any traction (I was a rush wall going into someone with 20 Majesties)and we all agreed to a mutual withdrawl for 1 VP. > Increasing the value of additional game wins (and VPs) could easily > have sharpened the edge of some of the later games in day 1. > > > I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC. > > Agreed. But they did have suggestions for improvement and listed things > which detracted from their enjoyment. I didn't like getting run over by Hugh Bertrand's Weenie Dementation S&B, and those (Dementation S&B) consisted of like 25% of the decks that I saw. That ruined my enjoyment for that round. Ban Dementation! It ruined the NAC! WAH!!! Seriously, people were playing to win on every table I was at. The only player who I heard say, "I just want 1 VP" was Hugh Bertrand about 30 seconds before he ousted me and then went on to sweep the table. Playing to win is what Hugh is good at. He may distract you by saying things but he won the table by every single standard that I know of. > > I have > > heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in > > "Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players > > from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while > > they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game > > isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face. > > To some degree this is true, and I think that pretty much all of the > deals that were actually made at my tables were reasonable. I never got pinched on a deal, but I saw lots of great deals made. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse. > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by > hand. This option makes a GW worth the most relative to a VP. In fact, if you were to skip taking the addition 0 to 4 players with no GWs, it would make VPs completely worthless. Making VPs worthless would be a surefire way to eliminate the gray area between playing for GWs and playing for VPs. The seating problem could be overcome through the use of a spreadsheet or a webpage/webapp that was created specifically to handle the issue. Rob Grau rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1160699649.2...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message >> news:1160687576.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> >> > So what's the problem? >> >> >> >> "Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable" >> > >> > Totally subjective. ... > The "best" is even more subjective than "Good/Desirable". It's all subjective, sure. I'm missing where you're making an argument, here. Subjectiveness is status-quo neutral - the point won't enhance the reasons to change the rules but it likewise doesn't inhibit them, either. What most people like the best is probably the way go, subjective or not. >> > I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC. >> >> WRT this issue - as opposed to having a good or bad time in general >> at the NAC, which is not the issue at hand - you could try reading >> this newsgroup. This thread, even. > > I have read it. I was there at the NAC as well, Fred. OK. But you're reporting facts that don't match what everyone else is reporting. Though whether your experience is simply at odds with other posters or you're just skewing things by conflating this issue in particular vs. peoples' overall experience of the NAC isn't clear to me. > I don't think > any of the reasons for changing the metric for making the second day > are any more valid than the metric that we have now. OK. Fair enough for one man's opinion. >> > I have >> > heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in >> > "Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players >> > from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while >> > they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game >> > isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face. >> >> The issue of victory-point splitting and why it's generally considered >> a bad thing and why game win rule fixes it have pretty much been resolved >> to the satisfaction of most people, as far as I can see. Again, not >> having seen the scores and the cutoff line I can't say for sure (although >> LSJ's posts sure seem to confirm it), but the first day format would appear >> to emphasize the need to rack up victory points rather than game wins. >> Under those circumstances, your explanation for those complaints is >> pretty dubious. > > The need was to make it to the second day. 2 VPs got you to the second > day, as there were a huge amount of tables timing out. You figure out > the rest. Cool. What I figure is that this is exactly the same issue which brought us the game win rule. Fred

> > The "best" is even more subjective than "Good/Desirable". > > It's all subjective, sure. I'm missing where you're making an > argument, here. Subjectiveness is status-quo neutral - the point > won't enhance the reasons to change the rules but it likewise doesn't > inhibit them, either. What most people like the best is probably > the way go, subjective or not. The problem with "What most people like the best" is that a consensus must be reached on what "the best" is. I haven't heard enough of what the "bad" stuff was to make me reconsider that the set up at the NAC wasn't "the best". Nor have I heard a consensus being formed in this thread to suggest that the majority of the populace at the NAC feels that it wasn't "the best" as of the people who have posted in this thread there are only 24 players who could have possibly attended, as I don't know everyone's internet identity, who posted in this thread so far. When you say "most" then you would have to mean more than 50%. 24 posters out of 67 participants is not a clear majority. > >> > I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC. > >> > >> WRT this issue - as opposed to having a good or bad time in general > >> at the NAC, which is not the issue at hand - you could try reading > >> this newsgroup. This thread, even. > > > > I have read it. I was there at the NAC as well, Fred. > > OK. But you're reporting facts that don't match what everyone else is > reporting. Though whether your experience is simply at odds with other > posters or you're just skewing things by conflating this issue in > particular vs. peoples' overall experience of the NAC isn't clear to me. Right, because no one else is giving a play by play. I did. My experience was either normal or atypical of the NAC. There are not enough posters posting their experience to support the thinking that a "majority" of the participants thinking that this format wasn't "the best". > > I don't think > > any of the reasons for changing the metric for making the second day > > are any more valid than the metric that we have now. > > OK. Fair enough for one man's opinion. Exactly, this thread on it's premise could almost be considered trollbait as it presupposes a problem that no facts have been shown to indicate. That is why I am taking such a hardline stance against it. It has not been proven to me that Day 1 of the NAC needs to be "fixed". > >> > I have > >> > heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in > >> > "Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players > >> > from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while > >> > they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game > >> > isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face. > >> > >> The issue of victory-point splitting and why it's generally considered > >> a bad thing and why game win rule fixes it have pretty much been resolved > >> to the satisfaction of most people, as far as I can see. Again, not > >> having seen the scores and the cutoff line I can't say for sure (although > >> LSJ's posts sure seem to confirm it), but the first day format would appear > >> to emphasize the need to rack up victory points rather than game wins. > >> Under those circumstances, your explanation for those complaints is > >> pretty dubious. > > > > The need was to make it to the second day. 2 VPs got you to the second > > day, as there were a huge amount of tables timing out. You figure out > > the rest. > > Cool. What I figure is that this is exactly the same issue which brought > us the game win rule. Which is a great fix. I haven't seen any suggestions that override the elegance of that fix. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > with only 2 VPs. Where would I find these facts that you presuppose above that would help someone like myself understand why all of this is necessary in the first place. Some good examples of facts would be 1) a list of players who will openly admit to not playing to win. 2) a list of reported players not playing to win 3) first-hand stories of those who witnessed players not playing to win. Thanks in advance for your help. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1160707588.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >LSJ wrote: >> As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to >> win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the >> number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be >> achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved >> with only 2 VPs. > >Where would I find these facts that you presuppose above that would >help someone like myself understand why all of this is necessary in the >first place. > >Some good examples of facts would be > >1) a list of players who will openly admit to not playing to win. >2) a list of reported players not playing to win >3) first-hand stories of those who witnessed players not playing to >win. In the same way that a judge exercises judgement whether or not a player has confessed to not playing to win, why do you believe that an internationally respected judge such as LSJ cannot present their own judgements to the world at large for discussion and debate? It may be worth noting that his concerns appear to chime with the concerns of many players, which strikes me as a fairly significant fact. You appear to be overlooking the value of having a tournament structure in which players can have robust confidence, whether people were actively undermining the previous structure or not. That the concerns expressed clearly, demonstrably chime with those of an apparently large number of players suggests that the previous structure does not have everyone's confidence. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <1160687576.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >> > So what's the problem? >> >> "Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable" > >Totally subjective. True, but not especially enlightening. Compare with the V:EKN-wide rules change that was initiated when VPs were made secondary to Game Wins/Table Wins. That the previous structure, with the difference between 3VP and 2VP being so minimal that table splits were extremely easy to convince people to take and a number of consistent problems with (for example) annoying intercept decks that *only* played for last-man standing to get 6VP over the course of a tournament (quite possibly enough to reach the finals in a small tournament), was unacceptable to many people was also a matter that was totally subjective: >The rules set the baseline for behavior at the NAC. The rules are >agreed upon by all the participants. And those were the rules that everyone was playing to. You couldn't blame the people making the many, many table-slicing deals because they were playing to the best advantage given the table at the time, and the rules structure at the time. That was precisely the point. They were doing things that were good for them (at least as they understood it - but a judge cannot step in to correct bad play, or improve play based on a fuller knowledge of game state). You can't get a judge to step in and say "This play is distasteful and so you cannot do it." That way, madness lies. And in the situation of people not playing to win, it is extremely hard to intervene because it's not necessarily an open and obvious thing. They want to qualify, more than anything else, so they play to qualify. This can involve many subtle and non-obvious, and even non-conscious, decisions by a player. Do they go for broke and sweep-or-bust, or do they play for a more subtle 2VPs on this table, because it will solidify their rank and put them solidly inside the top 40? Will you be able to tell after 10 goes round the table whether or not a potential oust on turn 5 was or wasn't taken because they didn't have the cards in hand, or because they were worried about other considerations? Enforcing play to win is fine when there's a deal to be made - it's much harder when a player has changed their own perception of what's important, based on the rules. Thus, change the targets that are important to them, meaning that they have to play-to-win in order to reliably progress - rather than play to draw, or play to come a respectable second giving them an outcome they're happy with. Changing the tournament rules from VPs to GWs absolutely, fundamentally altered the targets players needed to aim for. First and foremost, they need GWs. 2VP is not anywhere near as good as 3VP on a table split (except on a 2-1-1-1-0 split). This changed player behaviour. There are a lot fewer poor intercept decks that don't intend to go forward, because 0GWs and 6 VP is a *much* poorer performance than even 1GW and 3VP. Subjectively, those creating the rules - and those discussing the rules at the time - didn't like some of the behaviour that the existing rules structure encouraged. That people at the time were playing to the rules was not the point - all power to the people who do well under whatever set of rules. However, if the rules lead to some subjective problems that are subjectively disliked by players, it is worth considering a change. The best form of change is change that leads to players enforcing the new standards for themselves, because it is in their interests to do so. Want players to play for table wins? Then make them important. Want players to play for sweeps? Then rank sweeps above all else. >I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC. I have >heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in >"Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players >from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while >they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game >isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face. I didn't hear many people telling me how bad a time they'd had at a tournament I was at under the VP-only system, whether I was playing or judging. Lots of people enjoyed playing V:TES in a friendly but competitive environment with people they didn't see that often, come what may. They may have found a particular table annoying, but they didn't go away telling everyone how bad a time they'd had. If, then, we need a non-subjective change, players must have been playing under some other rules structure that wasn't agreed to by them, and we need players to be openly telling us how bad a time they have at tournaments before a rules change can be made... when will you be campaigning to a return to the VP only system? That was a subjective change made to a system that all players had agreed to play under, and some people found the effects annoying but weren't telling everyone how bad a time they had at major tournaments, so it is clearly an entirely illegitimate rules change. By the standards you are expressing here, that is. If the GW rules are fine, however, what's the difference here? Players play under the rules, some players don't like some of the effects (but enjoy the tournaments nevertheless), players discuss rules change. Which is, in fact, exactly the same procedure as for pretty much every other rules change that's ever been made by V:EKN and every card banning: 1) People happy to play but would prefer a change that they believe would make games more open, competitive and fun (e.g. tweaks to the multi-action rules so that some decks are much less affected, or the banning of Succubus Club) -> 2) idea considered by appropriate people (V:EKN, Rules Team, rules- writers/Design Team, or whoever is appropriate for that particular change) -> 3) idea implemented or rejected, based on the subjective merits of the arguments put forward, and the subjective evaluation of player behaviour seen by the relevant people. You appear to be arguing that this rules change suggestion must pass a whole mountain of criteria that have never been applied in the past, before even being discussed. Why? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1160707588.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: > >LSJ wrote: > >> As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > >> win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > >> number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > >> achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > >> with only 2 VPs. > > > >Where would I find these facts that you presuppose above that would > >help someone like myself understand why all of this is necessary in the > >first place. > > > >Some good examples of facts would be > > > >1) a list of players who will openly admit to not playing to win. > >2) a list of reported players not playing to win > >3) first-hand stories of those who witnessed players not playing to > >win. > > In the same way that a judge exercises judgement whether or not a player > has confessed to not playing to win, why do you believe that an > internationally respected judge such as LSJ cannot present their own > judgements to the world at large for discussion and debate? I think LSJ is a great judge. Hell, I know Scott. I consider him my friend. I've known him for years. It isn't going to stop me from questioning his decision to alter the NAC tournament structure that has worked well for us here in the USA. So don't try and turn this around and say I am trying to tear him down. I am not. I want to know what he is basing this decision on. > It may be worth noting that his concerns appear to chime with the > concerns of many players, which strikes me as a fairly significant fact. Please list those players that were actually at the NAC. Don't list the players who are jumping on the bandwagon who weren't at the NAC. > You appear to be overlooking the value of having a tournament structure > in which players can have robust confidence, whether people were > actively undermining the previous structure or not. That the concerns > expressed clearly, demonstrably chime with those of an apparently large > number of players suggests that the previous structure does not have > everyone's confidence. No, I was there. I saw what happened because I was there. I didn't see alot of players not trying to win. I saw alot of deals. I saw deals get broken. This is normal for the NAC, and I am pretty sure it is normal for the EC. I see no reason for that to change the tournament structure because of that. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1160687576.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: > >> > So what's the problem? > >> > >> "Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable" > > > >Totally subjective. > > True, but not especially enlightening. > <snip VP vs GW> But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about changing the NAC's structure next year in Los Angeles because of some dealmaking. > >The rules set the baseline for behavior at the NAC. The rules are > >agreed upon by all the participants. > > And those were the rules that everyone was playing to. You couldn't > blame the people making the many, many table-slicing deals because they > were playing to the best advantage given the table at the time, and the > rules structure at the time. That was precisely the point. They were > doing things that were good for them (at least as they understood it - > but a judge cannot step in to correct bad play, or improve play based on > a fuller knowledge of game state). Players carve up tables in every single NAC and most qualifiers I have every been to. It is trying to create an advantage. I don't have a problem with that. [ quoted text not captured ] Your rhetoric is wasted on me. I know all of this already. It does not justify changing the NAC. No matter how many times you say it. > >I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC. I have > >heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in > >"Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players > >from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while > >they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game > >isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face. > > I didn't hear many people telling me how bad a time they'd had at a > tournament I was at under the VP-only system, whether I was playing or > judging. Lots of people enjoyed playing V:TES in a friendly but > competitive environment with people they didn't see that often, come > what may. They may have found a particular table annoying, but they > didn't go away telling everyone how bad a time they'd had. I heard all the bitching then. It was overwhelming. I remember that well. > If, then, we need a non-subjective change, players must have been > playing under some other rules structure that wasn't agreed to by them, > and we need players to be openly telling us how bad a time they have at > tournaments before a rules change can be made... when will you be > campaigning to a return to the VP only system? So now you postulate a "strawman" that I am trying to get rid of the GW system. I am not and I have never said so. Try again. > If the GW rules are fine, however, what's the difference here? I saw the reason for the GW rules. It was really a great solution to a bad problem. To deal away a table then meant you could score the minority of the VP's in every game and depending on tournament size you could still make the finals, but now it means all you are playing for is tiebreaker points which is not nearly as good as GWs which actually determine if a tiebreaker is even necessary in the first place. I didn't see anything like that at the NAC. That's why I keep asking for some facts. Why do they want to change the structure of the NAC because players were allegedly not playing to win? > You appear to be arguing that this rules change suggestion must pass a > whole mountain of criteria that have never been applied in the past, > before even being discussed. I want to know why this assumption that "Day 1 needs to be Fixed" is already set into stone . [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > with only 2 VPs. > Options to remedy that: Here's another idea: Following suit with the US Championship, what if Day 1 were a Draft format event, and Day 2 were Constructed?

LSJ wrote: > 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a > seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being > eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect > of playing the same deck five times in a row. > Would it be so bad to be able to change decks between days, but still count it as one tournament? I didnt have time to read through the whole thread, so if it is mentioned somewhere else, sorry, W

XZealot wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > > with only 2 VPs. > > Where would I find these facts that you presuppose above that would > help someone like myself understand why all of this is necessary in the > first place. > > Some good examples of facts would be > > 1) a list of players who will openly admit to not playing to win. > 2) a list of reported players not playing to win > 3) first-hand stories of those who witnessed players not playing to > win. I heard from several players directly that they had built decks based on the format (i.e., decks designed to get 1 or 2 VPs with high probability at the expense of the probability of getting GWs). And I heard from still more players that players at their tables were much more willing to take a 1 or 2 VP split (based on risk analysis, perhaps) over a GW than in "normal" tournaments. Not confusing anecdotes with statistics, and not having statistics with which to work, I instead examined the tournament structure itself to see if there would be any basis or reason for the change in behavoir that was expressed and/or perceived (such examination as suggested, implied, andor detailed by some of the players who voiced concerns in the first place). The result of the examination was that, yes indeed, a 40-of-65 cut is low enough to influence, if not outright undermine, players' weighting of the need to devote resources and/or risk additional loss for the goal of achieving a GW over merely a few VPs.

[ quoted text not captured ] Exactly. The point isn't necessarily that the current structure is terrible, or that the players did or did not do something. But changing the format so that the goal "Win the NAC" lines up more closely with the goal "Win all my games on day 1" basically can't hurt day 1 games, so long as the rules of any individual game aren't changed (The pool/transfer bonus was definitely a bad idea on that count). Similarly, it seems like in previous years people were somewhat dissatisfied with the ratio of "feast-or-famine" decks which made it to the final table. Everyone was still playing by the same rules, and everyone was playing to win, but the format encouraged certain types of play over others, and left enough people dissatisfied that it got changed to the current format. To some degree this is an intractable problem. Not everyone will ever agree on what makes the perfect environment for a Championship. But it seems pretty easy to determine that the ideal is somewhere in between day 1 performance mattering not at all (past breaking the top 40) and counting for as much as day 2 GWs (and rewarding feast-or-famine). Witness1 -believe the lie

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1160706887.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > The problem with "What most people like the best" is that a consensus > must be reached on what "the best" is. I haven't heard enough of what > the "bad" stuff was to make me reconsider that the set up at the NAC > wasn't "the best". Nor have I heard a consensus being formed in this > thread to suggest that the majority of the populace at the NAC feels > that it wasn't "the best" as of the people who have posted in this > thread there are only 24 players who could have possibly attended, as I > don't know everyone's internet identity, who posted in this thread so > far. When you say "most" then you would have to mean more than 50%. 24 > posters out of 67 participants is not a clear majority. Questioning the accuracy of the perception that the population of players dislikes the existing format is reasonable enough. But I'm not sure what the emphasis on players who were actually present in 2006 has to do with anything nor your concern with the concept of a majority. The former misses point in that the question is about what the rules will be in the future, and it doesn't require someone to have been present in Atlanta to form the opinion that a format qualifying 50+% of the players causes a problem. People can see that without having been there. And the latter is silly given that more than two ways of running the NAC are possible so it's quite likely that no choice would garner a technical definition of a "majority". The question is simply one of choosing whatever best satisfies the largest portion of people. >> >> The issue of victory-point splitting and why it's generally considered >> >> a bad thing and why game win rule fixes it have pretty much been resolved >> >> to the satisfaction of most people, as far as I can see. Again, not >> >> having seen the scores and the cutoff line I can't say for sure (although >> >> LSJ's posts sure seem to confirm it), but the first day format would appear >> >> to emphasize the need to rack up victory points rather than game wins. >> >> Under those circumstances, your explanation for those complaints is >> >> pretty dubious. >> > >> > The need was to make it to the second day. 2 VPs got you to the second >> > day, as there were a huge amount of tables timing out. You figure out >> > the rest. >> >> Cool. What I figure is that this is exactly the same issue which brought >> us the game win rule. > > Which is a great fix. I haven't seen any suggestions that override the > elegance of that fix. I will repeat: the first day format would appear to emphasize the need to rack up victory points rather than game wins. Therefore, the "elegance of that (the game win) fix" in the current first day has been bypassed. All of LSJ's suggestion are geared towards addressing that point. Fred

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006, LSJ wrote: > I heard from several players directly that they had built decks based > on the format (i.e., decks designed to get 1 or 2 VPs with high > probability at the expense of the probability of getting GWs). And I > heard from still more players that players at their tables were much > more willing to take a 1 or 2 VP split (based on risk analysis, > perhaps) over a GW than in "normal" tournaments. That's really pathetic. I don't know who these players were, but they need to wake up and learn how to play this game. Any player who needs to resort to such measures to get to day 2 isn't going to be the NAC champ. No way. Not with all the luck in the world. Matt Morgan

[ quoted text not captured ] The thing of it is, at least some of those players probably *didn't* need to resort to those measures to get to day 2. But the format rewarded that behavior, and they saw that it did, and they took advantage of it, for whatever reason. > Matt Morgan Witness1 -believe the lie

[ quoted text not captured ] Indeed. One can expect that any player competent enough to reasonably entertain the notion that he or she could win the NAC should be competent enough to figure out the tournament structure and build decks and/or ajust his or her play accordingly (in accordance with the rules). Similar to predicting the metagame. Only this time, there's less guesswork involved.

In message <1160728928....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >Please list those players that were actually at the NAC. Don't list the >players who are jumping on the bandwagon who weren't at the NAC. In what way does that have any relevance at all? "You weren't at a tournament I was at so you don't get to have an opinion, na-na-na-na- na"? Grow up. The point is to fix it for the *next* NAC. You know, not the one that just happened. The *next* one. Please list all the players who will be at the *next* NAC, and who will be affected by the rules change. Please also consider that it is not just the NAC that uses a two-day tournament structure. It is quite possible that a discussion for a rules change of the NAC will impact other major tournaments - perhaps next year's US National Championship might choose to do it, or next year's EC, or a major tournament in (say) France or Spain with 100 players at it might choose to do exactly the same. Please list all the people who would be affected by a rules change being adopted at a different tournament. Because they're the ones who'll have to live with the consequences. Your position of "You weren't there so shut up" is completely nonsensical. It doesn't matter about this particular NAC. People can discuss two day tournaments in general. If LSJ had only wanted input from people who were at the NAC, I think he's: a) perfectly capable of saying so himself with you appointing yourself in charge of who's allowed to take part in the discussion, and b) wouldn't do it in a public newsgroup where people from the entire planet take part. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1160728928....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: > >Please list those players that were actually at the NAC. Don't list the > >players who are jumping on the bandwagon who weren't at the NAC. > > In what way does that have any relevance at all? "You weren't at a > tournament I was at so you don't get to have an opinion, na-na-na-na- > na"? Grow up. I am trying to get to the root of the problem, not obfuscating it with your childish banter. > The point is to fix it for the *next* NAC. You know, not the one that > just happened. The *next* one. Only if a fix is needed. > Please also consider that it is not just the NAC that uses a two-day > tournament structure. It is quite possible that a discussion for a > rules change of the NAC will impact other major tournaments - perhaps > next year's US National Championship might choose to do it, or next > year's EC, or a major tournament in (say) France or Spain with 100 > players at it might choose to do exactly the same. It is the only current model to base any changes on. There are no other 2 day tournaments of similar size, structure and importance. > Your position of "You weren't there so shut up" is completely > nonsensical. It doesn't matter about this particular NAC. It makes lots of sense. I didn't see any problems existing at the tournament, and this thread's basis is the assumption that one exists. > People can > discuss two day tournaments in general. If LSJ had only wanted input > from people who were at the NAC, I think he's: a) perfectly capable of > saying so himself with you appointing yourself in charge of who's > allowed to take part in the discussion, and b) wouldn't do it in a > public newsgroup where people from the entire planet take part. I don't think there was a problem with the NAC that needs changing. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1160706887.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > The problem with "What most people like the best" is that a consensus > > must be reached on what "the best" is. I haven't heard enough of what > > the "bad" stuff was to make me reconsider that the set up at the NAC > > wasn't "the best". Nor have I heard a consensus being formed in this > > thread to suggest that the majority of the populace at the NAC feels > > that it wasn't "the best" as of the people who have posted in this > > thread there are only 24 players who could have possibly attended, as I > > don't know everyone's internet identity, who posted in this thread so > > far. When you say "most" then you would have to mean more than 50%. 24 > > posters out of 67 participants is not a clear majority. > > Questioning the accuracy of the perception that the population of > players dislikes the existing format is reasonable enough. Thanks for acknowledging my main point. > But I'm not > sure what the emphasis on players who were actually present in 2006 has > to do with anything nor your concern with the concept of a majority. > The former misses point in that the question is about what the rules > will be in the future, and it doesn't require someone to have been > present in Atlanta to form the opinion that a format qualifying 50+% > of the players causes a problem. People can see that without having > been there. And the latter is silly given that more than two ways of > running the NAC are possible so it's quite likely that no choice would > garner a technical definition of a "majority". The question is simply > one of choosing whatever best satisfies the largest portion of people. Nice counterpoint, but the main point of switching to a 2 Day process is to make all decktypes viable not just decktypes that can get 2-3 GWs. At least that was how I understood the sales pitch to switch to a 2 day tournament. The current model satifies that goal. Now we have a new goal which is to keep players from trying to take advantage of that model. In the next year or two it will change to restructure it again. > >> >> The issue of victory-point splitting and why it's generally considered > >> >> a bad thing and why game win rule fixes it have pretty much been resolved > >> >> to the satisfaction of most people, as far as I can see. Again, not > >> >> having seen the scores and the cutoff line I can't say for sure (although > >> >> LSJ's posts sure seem to confirm it), but the first day format would appear > >> >> to emphasize the need to rack up victory points rather than game wins. > >> >> Under those circumstances, your explanation for those complaints is > >> >> pretty dubious. > >> > > >> > The need was to make it to the second day. 2 VPs got you to the second > >> > day, as there were a huge amount of tables timing out. You figure out > >> > the rest. > >> > >> Cool. What I figure is that this is exactly the same issue which brought > >> us the game win rule. > > > > Which is a great fix. I haven't seen any suggestions that override the > > elegance of that fix. > > I will repeat: the first day format would appear to emphasize the need to > rack up victory points rather than game wins. Therefore, the "elegance of > that (the game win) fix" in the current first day has been bypassed. All > of LSJ's suggestion are geared towards addressing that point. The first day format emphasises getting to the second day. With 65 players, that gives us an availible pool of 39 Game Wins which is almost exactly the number of second day spots So why were there so few game wins? The answer is because players won't "Shut Up and Play the Game". The problem isn't the number of spots in the second day. The problem is the players. Don't change the format of the tournament; just make the rounds longer. [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1160785349.4...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> But I'm not >> sure what the emphasis on players who were actually present in 2006 has >> to do with anything nor your concern with the concept of a majority. >> The former misses point in that the question is about what the rules >> will be in the future, and it doesn't require someone to have been >> present in Atlanta to form the opinion that a format qualifying 50+% >> of the players causes a problem. People can see that without having >> been there. And the latter is silly given that more than two ways of >> running the NAC are possible so it's quite likely that no choice would >> garner a technical definition of a "majority". The question is simply >> one of choosing whatever best satisfies the largest portion of people. > > Nice counterpoint, but the main point of switching to a 2 Day process > is to make all decktypes viable not just decktypes that can get 2-3 > GWs. At least that was how I understood the sales pitch to switch to a > 2 day tournament. Agreed; that was my understanding as well, albeit with the caveat that we're talking about "not just decktypes that can get 2-3 GWs" in three preliminary round games - as opposed to five or six preliminary round games. (So, for instance, LSJ's option #4 still satisfies this point, as do all of his options IMHO.) The point, I believe, has to do with not biasing the tournament towards high-risk, high-reward type decks and thus having a tournament whose character was at odds with what people are used to in, say, a CQ tournament. Or at least, I'm assuming this last part but I think it's fairly accurate description of the reasoning. > The current model satifies that goal. Now we have a > new goal which is to keep players from trying to take advantage of that > model. In the next year or two it will change to restructure it again. Agreed the current model satisfies that goal. But it has another problem. If we satisfy one goal with a tournament structure change, must we ignore all other new issues that we discover along the way? Yes, if we solve this new problem and find yet a third distinct problem in our next choice, then I suppose you would be right: we would restructure it yet again in a year or two. I don't see how that's a given, however. And if it happens, I don't really see it as bad problem. Sometimes things like this take a while to get right. But you'll never get a thing right if you ignore the problems. >> I will repeat: the first day format would appear to emphasize the need to >> rack up victory points rather than game wins. Therefore, the "elegance of >> that (the game win) fix" in the current first day has been bypassed. All >> of LSJ's suggestion are geared towards addressing that point. > > The first day format emphasises getting to the second day. With 65 > players, that gives us an availible pool of 39 Game Wins which is > almost exactly the number of second day spots So why were there so few > game wins? The answer is because players won't "Shut Up and Play the > Game". And the reason people won't "shut up and play the game"? Isn't is possible that the perceived need to just score a high number of victory points, rather than get game wins, is exactly _why_ all the negotiation? It seems logical to me that people planning decks to take victory points and split tables is, in part, a self-fulfilling prophesy. I also think expecting 39 tables to provide 39 game wins to 39 separate players in a tournament is outrageously naive. Under the best of circumstances there probably wouldn't be more than 30 and I suspect more than 25 is probably a better estimate. Whatever the reason, some people apparently perceived game wins were unnecessary on the first day and: 1) that perception proved to be accurate; and also 2) that perception automatically causes the same problem which is why the game win was invented. The answer is the same: fix the tournament structure so you don't need to run your judges around to all the tables to MAKE PEOPLE "shut up and play the game" - nor (worse!) have to make lots of hairy judgements about when they should give that order. > The problem isn't the number of spots in the second day. The problem > is the players. Since the problem can be solved by altering the format, it seems much better to do that. Solving it by injecting copious amounts of judicial fiat is not going to be most peoples' choice, IME. And, again - this is the exact same thinking that was why we went to the game win in the first place: giving players the right incentive to play to win is better than making judges render subjective determinations about when they are or are not doing that. I kind of get the impression we haven't really heard your real reason for resisting a change. I don't think it's just that another change to the format is too soon. OK, you like the existing format. But what is it about the existing format that you would miss under all the proposals to change it? Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] The funny thing is that I saw only one high risk high reward deck on Day 1, Hugh Betrand's Turbo Dem that ousted me in like 8 minutes. From what I understood there were a bunch of control/intercept decks in play that caused alot of timeouts. > > The current model satifies that goal. Now we have a > > new goal which is to keep players from trying to take advantage of that > > model. In the next year or two it will change to restructure it again. > > Agreed the current model satisfies that goal. But it has another problem. > If we satisfy one goal with a tournament structure change, must we ignore > all other new issues that we discover along the way? There is always going to be a problem that you can't solve (Why can't it be sunny today?). I don't think that shrinking the Day 2 participation level solves any more problems than it creates. > Yes, if we solve this new problem and find yet a third distinct problem > in our next choice, then I suppose you would be right: we would restructure > it yet again in a year or two. I don't see how that's a given, however. > And if it happens, I don't really see it as bad problem. Sometimes things > like this take a while to get right. But you'll never get a thing right > if you ignore the problems. That's a good arguement for change in general, but I don't think that change is warrented in this situation. > >> I will repeat: the first day format would appear to emphasize the need to > >> rack up victory points rather than game wins. Therefore, the "elegance of > >> that (the game win) fix" in the current first day has been bypassed. All > >> of LSJ's suggestion are geared towards addressing that point. > > > > The first day format emphasises getting to the second day. With 65 > > players, that gives us an availible pool of 39 Game Wins which is > > almost exactly the number of second day spots So why were there so few > > game wins? The answer is because players won't "Shut Up and Play the > > Game". > > And the reason people won't "shut up and play the game"? Isn't is possible > that the perceived need to just score a high number of victory points, > rather than get game wins, is exactly _why_ all the negotiation? It > seems logical to me that people planning decks to take victory points and > split tables is, in part, a self-fulfilling prophesy. I also think > expecting 39 tables to provide 39 game wins to 39 separate players in a > tournament is outrageously naive. Under the best of circumstances there > probably wouldn't be more than 30 and I suspect more than 25 is probably > a better estimate. Then the problem isn't the tournament structure, the problem is the time limit. Get rid of tables timing out by lengthening or eliminating the time limit. > Whatever the reason, some people apparently perceived game wins were > unnecessary on the first day and: 1) that perception proved to be accurate; > and also 2) that perception automatically causes the same problem which > is why the game win was invented. The answer is the same: fix the > tournament structure so you don't need to run your judges around to all > the tables to MAKE PEOPLE "shut up and play the game" - nor (worse!) have > to make lots of hairy judgements about when they should give that order. Yet, those players don't win NACs. It is the kind of half-playing that is the deathknell for competitive play. I didn't see anyone play that way. I think this whole thing is boxing at shadows. I didn't see the problem as it was enumerated. I think there was a bunch of whining about the finals timing out. I think there was a bunch of whining about table deals. I didn't see any one though not try to win his table. > > The problem isn't the number of spots in the second day. The problem > > is the players. > > Since the problem can be solved by altering the format, it seems much > better to do that. Solving it by injecting copious amounts of judicial > fiat is not going to be most peoples' choice, IME. And, again - this > is the exact same thinking that was why we went to the game win in the > first place: giving players the right incentive to play to win is better > than making judges render subjective determinations about when they are > or are not doing that. > > I kind of get the impression we haven't really heard your real reason > for resisting a change. Pick one of the below. a) I was the 40th player. b) I killed the butler with the candlestick in the living room. c) I was traumatized by spiders with clowns as a child. Which of the above is true? Which of the above have any impact on the arguement for changing the rules. >I don't think it's just that another change to > the format is too soon. OK, you like the existing format. But what > is it about the existing format that you would miss under all the > proposals to change it? I would miss the following a) The format itself. which I think is fine, and enjoyable. b) The emphasis on the player rather than the deck. which will happen as players feel the need to play faster and more vicious decks (i.e. more of the OBF DEM stealth bleed that already populates 25% of the NAC) c) The slower pace of most of the play that I saw (the exception being my round 1 speed oust) which will disappear as players must win tables to make the next round, although I guess maybe that the point. d) Los Angeles which will seem somewhat contrived to me as players are trying to calculate which deck to play based upon an ever more shifting set of nuances that the organizers place in the players way to try to change the way players behave which really isnt Los Angeles fault (trying... to... dodge... pun....). [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message > news:1160785349.4...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > The problem isn't the number of spots in the second day. The problem > > is the players. I don't know that I personally saw a problem with either the format or the players in my three games on day 1. In each of my three games I saw people play to win. These may have been atypical tables, but all three of my tables on day one ended in a game win and only one of the tables went to time. My game 2 went to time primarily because there were three intercept decks sitting next to each other, not because of deal-making for vps, although this was the only table I saw where there were a number of deals attempted. In the end I had to try and convince my prey that she should try and oust her natural prey and that got the players back to just playing the game...of course that was to my advantage given my seat at the end of the intercept train, but who can argue with the guy suggesting that you should try and oust your prey. :) > Since the problem can be solved by altering the format, it seems much > better to do that. Solving it by injecting copious amounts of judicial I'm on the fence as to whether there is actually a problem or not. I did hear people state/suggest that they were just playing to move onto day 2, but I did not actually witness any play that suggested that was true. I do not however think that it is known that the 'problem' can be fixed by changing the format. I would simply suggest that if people feel there is any illegal dealing going on at their table that they should call the judge. I think that people are simply unwilling to call for a judge in most circumstances and that is the 'problem' if one indeed exists. I have judged a large number of tournaments in my time as prince of Denver, CO and Washington D.C. I do not think that I was asked for a ruling on anything more than 10 times in the 10 years I was a tournament organizer. I am the same way...I don't want to bother the judge especially if it gives the perception that I do not trust my fellow players. I am personally not opposed to change, however I do not think we need to change the NAC format because of a problem that may not be all that bad (not seen among the players I played with on day one; 20% of the player pool, only 8% of tables, however, so those players could have been involved in table split deals at other tables). Then again I will add my two cents to what changes I would suggest...not to the NAC format, but to the tournament rules...for all tournaments: ****************************************** All deals that involve VPs should be presided over by a judge to make a ruling on legality, and time should stop during the negotiation. ******************************************* This would lengthen some games, at least initially, but would probably also result in fewer timeouts in these games. I also think it would reduce the dealing for VPs, especially early game deals, and table splits would decrease in turn. jon

Jon wrote: > I do not however think that it is known that the 'problem' can be fixed > by changing the format. I would simply suggest that if people feel > there is any illegal dealing going on at their table that they should > call the judge. While I think illegal dealling is certainly something that folks are concerned about, the current format also has the problem of (at least in theory) encouraging people to play incredibly defensive decks that are of the "I'm incapable of getting a game win, but boy can I get 2VP!" type. Which are bad for the game in a general sense (not that they exist, but it is bad for the game that people are inordinately encouraged to play such decks)--the current 2 day format rewards incredibly defensive decks and rewards getting 2VPs consistiently over game wins inconsistiently. Which is certainly something that would be good to fix. > I think that people are simply unwilling to call for a > judge in most circumstances and that is the 'problem' if one indeed exists. While certainly a reasonable statement, games usually work better when they are designed to circumvent the need to call a judge in the first place. Yeah, you can just say "If something bad happens, call the judge!", but as it is human nature to not so much do this (especially in what is essentially a friendly, light hearted social game), it is likely better to structure the event to minimize the need for this sort of activity. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Jon wrote: > > I do not however think that it is known that the 'problem' can be fixed > > by changing the format. I would simply suggest that if people feel > > there is any illegal dealing going on at their table that they should > > call the judge. > > While I think illegal dealling is certainly something that folks are > concerned about, the current format also has the problem of (at least > in theory) encouraging people to play incredibly defensive decks that > are of the "I'm incapable of getting a game win, but boy can I get > 2VP!" type. Which are bad for the game in a general sense (not that > they exist, but it is bad for the game that people are inordinately > encouraged to play such decks)--the current 2 day format rewards > incredibly defensive decks and rewards getting 2VPs consistiently over > game wins inconsistiently. Which is certainly something that would be > good to fix. I'm not sure I understand your point, Peter. I would not want to discourage people from playing defensive decks well. By defensive decks I would include two of the five decks I saw at this years NAC final table. Stefan's (Tzmisce wall) and Bill's (weenie AUS with Allies) decks thrive on the 2vp game win, and yet they were the two highest seeds going into the final table. Sure this is not Day 1, but I don't think we want to discourage these deck types from being viable on Day 1 either. If you are talking about decks that get off to a fast start get a quick VP and die then I didn't see any of these at this year's event, so I don't see these as a problem in the format either. If you can guarantee a VP per round playing a deck then it seems as if it should be viable to play to the second VP and eventually the GW. I think what is a problem is if people are gaining their one VP with these fast decks and then saying, "ok, I've got what I need. Who wants to make me the best deal to get their own VP." This is a problem not with any of the decks at the table, but the player playing the deck and the deals made after the first VP. People can and will play bad decks/fun decks/whatever because they want to and this should not be discouraged as long as they are trying to win while playing bad/fun/goofy decks. It is the trying to win part that is potentially in need of fixing not the decks played. > > I think that people are simply unwilling to call for a > > judge in most circumstances and that is the 'problem' if one indeed exists. > > While certainly a reasonable statement, games usually work better when > they are designed to circumvent the need to call a judge in the first > place. Yeah, you can just say "If something bad happens, call the > judge!", but as it is human nature to not so much do this (especially > in what is essentially a friendly, light hearted social game), it is > likely better to structure the event to minimize the need for this sort > of activity. I do agree that calling a judge should be circumvented if possible, but there are situations in this game which I think demands it - i.e. the VP deal. VP deals are tricky situations. They are not disallowed by the rules, but there are guidelines for VP dealing that are hard to pin down because they are situational and invlove play to win... jon

Jon wrote: > I'm not sure I understand your point, Peter. I would not want to > discourage people from playing defensive decks well. To be fair, I wasn't at the NAC, so this is all theoretical, based on the discussion that followed. But from what I'm seeing, the current two day format of the NAC means that on the first day, you don't need to worry about actually winning games; you just need to get a couple VPs per game and can safely ignore GWs (so as to get enough VPs to safely be in the top X players to advance to the next day). This means that folks who want to play the system are strongly encouraged to show up with decks that can reliably get 2VPs per game but aren't necessarily capable of winning games (see: incredibly defensive wall decks that get 2VPs by being the last guy standing). If enough people come into day 1 with this mind set ("I don't need to win, I just need to get 2 VPs per game..."), the environment is kind of wonky, and people stop "playing to win" and instead are "playing to get 2VPs", which is not how that game is supposed to work. The second day is likely all about game wins (which is good). But the first day (which is the issue at hand) seems to reward not playing to win. > People can and will play bad decks/fun decks/whatever because they want > to and this should not be discouraged as long as they are trying to win > while playing bad/fun/goofy decks. It is the trying to win part that is > potentially in need of fixing not the decks played. I'm talking about the built in incentive--I'm not suggesting that people should be specifically discouraged from playing certain deck types. I'm suggesting that the format of the event should be adjusted to reward playing decks that can win games rather than reward decks that are incredibly defensive and get 2VPs--the current format rewards decks that can't win but can get 2VPs (in a 5 player game), as about 2VPs per game is all you need to advance. > I do agree that calling a judge should be circumvented if possible, but > there are situations in this game which I think demands it - i.e. the > VP deal. Oh, sure--I totally agree and realize that sometimes it is necessary. But again, like the above situation I'm talking about, if the structure of the event was adjusted to *not* reward or encourage playing for 2VPs (as opposed to a GW), people will be less likely to accept the 2 side of a 2/3 split, let alone go looking for one. The current system for day one (Top X players of day 1 advance, and you get to be in the Top X by virtue of having, say, 6VP over 3 games) rewards both defensive play and defensive decks (as opposed to agressive play and agressive decks) and finding a justification to accepting the short end of a 3/2 split deal. -Peter

LSJ wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to > > > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the > > > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be > > > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved > > > with only 2 VPs. > > > > Where would I find these facts that you presuppose above that would > > help someone like myself understand why all of this is necessary in the > > first place. > > > > Some good examples of facts would be > > > > 1) a list of players who will openly admit to not playing to win. > > 2) a list of reported players not playing to win > > 3) first-hand stories of those who witnessed players not playing to > > win. > > I heard from several players directly that they had built decks based > on the format (i.e., decks designed to get 1 or 2 VPs with high > probability at the expense of the probability of getting GWs). And I > heard from still more players that players at their tables were much > more willing to take a 1 or 2 VP split (based on risk analysis, > perhaps) over a GW than in "normal" tournaments. > > Not confusing anecdotes with statistics, and not having statistics with > which to work, I instead examined the tournament structure itself to > see if there would be any basis or reason for the change in behavoir > that was expressed and/or perceived (such examination as suggested, > implied, andor detailed by some of the players who voiced concerns in > the first place). > > The result of the examination was that, yes indeed, a 40-of-65 cut is > low enough to influence, if not outright undermine, players' weighting > of the need to devote resources and/or risk additional loss for the > goal of achieving a GW over merely a few VPs. Well last year I turned up to the NAC. It was my first ever 2-Day championship event. I played a deck, which I thought would do well, but in retrospect was better able to handle a regular tournmanet environment. I didn't get through to Day 2. This year I played a different deck based on my experience in 2005, and I got through to Day 2. I still played a deck which I though could win tables, but it was still a totally different style of deck. Sorry Scott, just one more anecdote for the pile. shawn

Boy, am i gonna get lynched.... :) So what seems to be the crux of the argument here ios not the types of decks played, the styles of playing or the format of the tournament. It's the fact that people are making bad deals. Now if someone is making a 2/3 split deal in round 2 or 3 it seems to me ( maths being kinda logical) that this means that 3 people in this 5 player game have now fairly effectively been sidlined out of this game. Um, okay, so oust those 2 dealmakers. Simple enough isn't it? However, I know this is a Utopian solution for a Utopian world, and as we are playing Vampire: The Eternal Struggle, and NOT Fairies: Lets B Nice (tm) it probably wont work. So from all said, it seems to me that a combination of all profferred solutions is the best route. (If, that is, a solution is truly needed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if player A & B make a 3/2 deal, then dem bleeding both of them, or destroying all their vamps, or sinking all my KRC's up their wazoo's is essentially playing to win at this point, is it not?) All GW's from Day 1 count as additional VP's for determining finalists on Day 2. Each person who acquires a game win on Day 1, gets to play test a new set, or something else that has huge Geek Credit (tm) value. Like you get put into a draw and the winner of the draw gets his picture used as a vamp in the next set or whatever. No GW, no Day 2, except for the lucky top1-4 VP only players. Only <=33% make day 2 Which means not even a GW guarantees a place on D2, encouraging faster play as a first come, first served model will mean faster games, resulting in less timeouts. Or, to paraphrase Ankur "Kill. The. Dealmakers."

Another alternative might be to hold a side tournament, with first prize of eg a box of boosters, the only requirements for entering this tournament are: 1) You must have acquired a GW during the week of nightmares 2) you may not have conducted any table splitting deals... Simple hey?

Peter D Bakija wrote: > But from what I'm seeing, the current two > day format of the NAC means that on the first day, you don't need to > worry about actually winning games; you just need to get a couple VPs > per game and can safely ignore GWs (so as to get enough VPs to safely > be in the top X players to advance to the next day). Only because of the number of players (65) and the total number of game wins available (39) meant that players could most likely progress without a GW but with several VP. If there was some % (x) threshold that went through, as has been suggested, then you could adjust x so that you would most likely progress only with a GW. Of course setting x is the tricky bit :-)

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1160799518.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > The funny thing is that I saw only one high risk high reward deck on > Day 1, Hugh Betrand's Turbo Dem that ousted me in like 8 minutes. From > what I understood there were a bunch of control/intercept decks in play > that caused alot of timeouts. Not sure what you're getting at, here. Control/intercept decks are famours for being "2 VP decks". If so, then the point that one only needed victory points and not a game win might exactly tranlate into a bunch of those kinds of deck which in turn resulted in horrible boredom and victory point splitting. >> Yes, if we solve this new problem and find yet a third distinct problem >> in our next choice, then I suppose you would be right: we would restructure >> it yet again in a year or two. I don't see how that's a given, however. >> And if it happens, I don't really see it as bad problem. Sometimes things >> like this take a while to get right. But you'll never get a thing right >> if you ignore the problems. > > That's a good arguement for change in general, but I don't think that > change is warrented in this situation. Sure. I don't know what would impress you as warranting change. But this isn't rocket science - it's real simple. We created the game win in order to deal with victory point splitting and it's been a smashing success by most everyone's standard. Now here's a tournament, or at least a portion of a tournament, that doesn't require players worry about game wins, only victory points. Therefore, people are afraid that this part of the tournament will revert in nature back to the days before people needed game wins if nothing is done. And from where I'm sitting, that seems like a damn sound line of reasoning. And you have said thing one to dissuade anyone about it. So I'll leave it at that because that's really where our differences lay. Fred

"Jon" <jsush...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1160838810.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Peter D Bakija wrote: >> Jon wrote: >> > I do not however think that it is known that the 'problem' can be fixed >> > by changing the format. I would simply suggest that if people feel >> > there is any illegal dealing going on at their table that they should >> > call the judge. >> >> While I think illegal dealling is certainly something that folks are >> concerned about, the current format also has the problem of (at least >> in theory) encouraging people to play incredibly defensive decks that >> are of the "I'm incapable of getting a game win, but boy can I get >> 2VP!" type. Which are bad for the game in a general sense (not that >> they exist, but it is bad for the game that people are inordinately >> encouraged to play such decks)--the current 2 day format rewards >> incredibly defensive decks and rewards getting 2VPs consistiently over >> game wins inconsistiently. Which is certainly something that would be >> good to fix. > > I'm not sure I understand your point, Peter. I would not want to > discourage people from playing defensive decks well. I think the point is, this part of this tournament shouldn't encourage OR discourage any particular type of deck in relation to each other. But unfortutely, tournament structures can't avoid having some effect in terms of dictating the character of decks played. So what's considered "good" should be a structure that avoids unfun play and decks that lead to unfun play. That accomplished, the tournament structure at a continental championship should be consistent with the other levels of play. This was the essential reasoning (in my estimation) for making the change to a two-day championship in the first place: that the one-day format encouraged a different type of deck than a one-day format encompassing the kinds of numbers that would play at continental qualifier. By the same token, a day in which success is defined by acquiring two victory points and no game wins in three games doesn't fill the bill either. So it's not a matter of figuring out that the format encourages or discourages some particular type of deck and editing the rules based on that as much as it is simply noting that has an effect on how people plan strategy and thus build decks and how they play decks. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message > news:1160799518.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > The funny thing is that I saw only one high risk high reward deck on > > Day 1, Hugh Betrand's Turbo Dem that ousted me in like 8 minutes. From > > what I understood there were a bunch of control/intercept decks in play > > that caused alot of timeouts. > > Not sure what you're getting at, here. Control/intercept decks are > famours for being "2 VP decks". If so, then the point that one only > needed victory points and not a game win might exactly tranlate into > a bunch of those kinds of deck which in turn resulted in horrible > boredom and victory point splitting. Yes, they are famous for being 2 VP decks. You can get a GW with a 2 VP deck. You should also notice that the point of going to a 2 day format was to keep all deck-types viable. So you have examples of both a Turbo Dem speed deck and a control/intercept deck both being viable. These are two extremes. Yet, both are viable. Seems like a success to me. > >> Yes, if we solve this new problem and find yet a third distinct problem > >> in our next choice, then I suppose you would be right: we would restructure > >> it yet again in a year or two. I don't see how that's a given, however. > >> And if it happens, I don't really see it as bad problem. Sometimes things > >> like this take a while to get right. But you'll never get a thing right > >> if you ignore the problems. > > > > That's a good arguement for change in general, but I don't think that > > change is warrented in this situation. > > Sure. I don't know what would impress you as warranting change. But > this isn't rocket science - it's real simple. We created the game win > in order to deal with victory point splitting and it's been a smashing > success by most everyone's standard. Table splitting has gone on at every NAC and Qualifier I have ever been. It is a fact. It hasn't stopped happening. It just isn't as important as getting the game win. Certainly, nothing I have seen so far would warrent changing the good format that we have. > Now here's a tournament, or at > least a portion of a tournament, that doesn't require players worry about > game wins, only victory points. Therefore, people are afraid that this > part of the tournament will revert in nature back to the days before > people needed game wins if nothing is done. And from where I'm sitting, > that seems like a damn sound line of reasoning. The difference is that in the old days there wasn't a second day to make up the difference so every VP was huge and the barrier to entry for the finals was monstrous (8 VPs or something like that). > And you have said thing one to dissuade anyone about it. So I'll leave > it at that because that's really where our differences lay. I don't understand the above statement. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

> I heard from several players directly that they had built decks based > on the format (i.e., decks designed to get 1 or 2 VPs with high > probability at the expense of the probability of getting GWs). And I > heard from still more players that players at their tables were much > more willing to take a 1 or 2 VP split (based on risk analysis, > perhaps) over a GW than in "normal" tournaments. Sorry you had to hear that kind of garbage. That would certainly make me want to "punish" those players for taking the fun out of the tournament. > Not confusing anecdotes with statistics, and not having statistics with > which to work, I instead examined the tournament structure itself to > see if there would be any basis or reason for the change in behavoir > that was expressed and/or perceived (such examination as suggested, > implied, andor detailed by some of the players who voiced concerns in > the first place). > The result of the examination was that, yes indeed, a 40-of-65 cut is > low enough to influence, if not outright undermine, players' weighting > of the need to devote resources and/or risk additional loss for the > goal of achieving a GW over merely a few VPs. The problem with raising the bar is that if you take less than 40 then you have the potential for players to take GW's and not make it to the second day. That in itself makes some deck types non-viable, which in turn causes players to adjust the decks they choose in the other direction. For example, instead of seeing 1 out of 5 decks being Malk S&B you now see 1 out of 4 or 1 out of 3. Players are always going to try to make Day 2. How much deck variety you see depends upon how high to bar is set or how few players make the second day. [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1161032301.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message >> news:1160799518.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> > The funny thing is that I saw only one high risk high reward deck on >> > Day 1, Hugh Betrand's Turbo Dem that ousted me in like 8 minutes. From >> > what I understood there were a bunch of control/intercept decks in play >> > that caused alot of timeouts. >> >> Not sure what you're getting at, here. Control/intercept decks are >> famours for being "2 VP decks". If so, then the point that one only >> needed victory points and not a game win might exactly tranlate into >> a bunch of those kinds of deck which in turn resulted in horrible >> boredom and victory point splitting. > > Yes, they are famous for being 2 VP decks. You can get a GW with a 2 > VP deck. You should also notice that the point of going to a 2 day > format was to keep all deck-types viable. So you have examples of both > a Turbo Dem speed deck and a control/intercept deck both being viable. > These are two extremes. Yet, both are viable. Seems like a success to > me. On a superficial basis, I agree it does. But so what? It's anecdotal evidence and it's not the point. I'm sure there were a few control/intercept decks to be found under the old format. At least, no one tried to claim they didn't exist - only that the format was terrible for them. Likewise, the first day is comparitvely bad for your Turbo Dem deck, whether someone chose to play it or not. That is the point. >> >> Yes, if we solve this new problem and find yet a third distinct problem >> >> in our next choice, then I suppose you would be right: we would restructure >> >> it yet again in a year or two. I don't see how that's a given, however. >> >> And if it happens, I don't really see it as bad problem. Sometimes things >> >> like this take a while to get right. But you'll never get a thing right >> >> if you ignore the problems. >> > >> > That's a good arguement for change in general, but I don't think that >> > change is warrented in this situation. >> >> Sure. I don't know what would impress you as warranting change. But >> this isn't rocket science - it's real simple. We created the game win >> in order to deal with victory point splitting and it's been a smashing >> success by most everyone's standard. > > Table splitting has gone on at every NAC and Qualifier I have ever > been. It is a fact. It hasn't stopped happening. It just isn't as > important as getting the game win. > > Certainly, nothing I have seen so far would warrent changing the good > format that we have. Again, this is all anecdotal evidence which ignores the preponderance of what people have discovered about the benefits of using game wins to score tournaments. I'm sure table splitting does happen; it just happens a lot less - which is a very good thing. People want the same very good thing at the NAC. It warranted changing the tournament rules in the first place; it warrants changing the first day of the NAC. >> Now here's a tournament, or at >> least a portion of a tournament, that doesn't require players worry about >> game wins, only victory points. Therefore, people are afraid that this >> part of the tournament will revert in nature back to the days before >> people needed game wins if nothing is done. And from where I'm sitting, >> that seems like a damn sound line of reasoning. > > The difference is that in the old days there wasn't a second day to > make up the difference so every VP was huge and the barrier to entry > for the finals was monstrous (8 VPs or something like that). Huh? This has nothing to do with what I said above. I said nothing about qualifying for the NAC finals. I just said that the game win rule was a benifit to tournament structure of most tournament but that because players don't need to get a game win to qualify for the second day of the NAC, it's a benefit that doesn't impact the (currently defined) first day of the NAC. Therefore, in order to make use of the same benefits of the game win rule to discourage table-splitting, the NAC format must change. >> And you have said thing one to dissuade anyone about it. So I'll leave >> it at that because that's really where our differences lay. > > I don't understand the above statement. I meant to say, "You have not said thing one to dissuade anyone about it." You assert that the format is good as is, but you continually evade the main complaint people have about it. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] That doesn't mean that no compromise can be reached. I have no problem at all with 2.5 VPs getting you to day 2. That's at least holding your own against many of the best VtES players in the world. But it's not unreasonable to let people who place higher on day 1 carry at least some advantage into day 2. The trick is finding a medium between overly rewarding the "feast-or-famine" decks and overly rewarding the "just need 1 VP every game" decks. There's never going to be a total cure for the guy in round three that thinks he needs just 1 or 2 more VPs to sneak into day 2 looking for or accepting a deal that guarantees those VP. But we may be able do something to discourage people from designing their decks to throw away GWs just to snag a VP or 2 each round. Witness1 -believe the lie

"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1161035002.0...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > The trick is finding a medium between overly > rewarding the "feast-or-famine" decks and overly rewarding the "just > need 1 VP every game" decks. The most foolproof way to do that, I think, is to make the task of moving on from one day to the next roughly the same as qualifying at a CQ: qualifying about one out of every four players. Fred

LSJ schrieb: > 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into > the finals of day 2. That愀 a really good option from my point of view. Alternatively we could try to have 100+ players, hehe. -- johannes walch

Frederick Scott wrote: > "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message > news:1161032301.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > Frederick Scott wrote: > >> "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message > >> news:1160799518.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > >> > The funny thing is that I saw only one high risk high reward deck on > >> > Day 1, Hugh Betrand's Turbo Dem that ousted me in like 8 minutes. From > >> > what I understood there were a bunch of control/intercept decks in play > >> > that caused alot of timeouts. > >> > >> Not sure what you're getting at, here. Control/intercept decks are > >> famours for being "2 VP decks". If so, then the point that one only > >> needed victory points and not a game win might exactly tranlate into > >> a bunch of those kinds of deck which in turn resulted in horrible > >> boredom and victory point splitting. > > > > Yes, they are famous for being 2 VP decks. You can get a GW with a 2 > > VP deck. You should also notice that the point of going to a 2 day > > format was to keep all deck-types viable. So you have examples of both > > a Turbo Dem speed deck and a control/intercept deck both being viable. > > These are two extremes. Yet, both are viable. Seems like a success to > > me. > > On a superficial basis, I agree it does. But so what? So what? The point of the 2 day format is to make all deck types viable. They were there and they were played. I think this is a huge success for the format. To change the format to make it "tougher" or "more GW-influencing" just means that we are taking a step back from creating a level playing field for all deck types. If we change this for the reasons stated, then we only care about the players who are playing one playstyle, the fast speed playstyle and ignoring the players, who play tablebalance. > It's anecdotal > evidence and it's not the point. I'm sure there were a few > control/intercept decks to be found under the old format. At least, > no one tried to claim they didn't exist - only that the format was > terrible for them. Likewise, the first day is comparitvely bad for your > Turbo Dem deck, whether someone chose to play it or not. That is the > point. Yes I am sure they were found under the old format, but the format was so heavily slanted against them that they never did well. > >> >> Yes, if we solve this new problem and find yet a third distinct problem > >> >> in our next choice, then I suppose you would be right: we would restructure > >> >> it yet again in a year or two. I don't see how that's a given, however. > >> >> And if it happens, I don't really see it as bad problem. Sometimes things > >> >> like this take a while to get right. But you'll never get a thing right > >> >> if you ignore the problems. > >> > > >> > That's a good arguement for change in general, but I don't think that > >> > change is warrented in this situation. > >> > >> Sure. I don't know what would impress you as warranting change. But > >> this isn't rocket science - it's real simple. We created the game win > >> in order to deal with victory point splitting and it's been a smashing > >> success by most everyone's standard. > > > > Table splitting has gone on at every NAC and Qualifier I have ever > > been. It is a fact. It hasn't stopped happening. It just isn't as > > important as getting the game win. > > > > Certainly, nothing I have seen so far would warrent changing the good > > format that we have. > > Again, this is all anecdotal evidence which ignores the preponderance of > what people have discovered about the benefits of using game wins to > score tournaments. I'm sure table splitting does happen; it just happens > a lot less - which is a very good thing. People want the same very good > thing at the NAC. It warranted changing the tournament rules in the > first place; it warrants changing the first day of the NAC. It's not that it happens less. It just counts for less. It still happens at almost every game at the NAC. You can't stop them from happening without putting a gag order in place. > >> Now here's a tournament, or at > >> least a portion of a tournament, that doesn't require players worry about > >> game wins, only victory points. Therefore, people are afraid that this > >> part of the tournament will revert in nature back to the days before > >> people needed game wins if nothing is done. And from where I'm sitting, > >> that seems like a damn sound line of reasoning. > > > > The difference is that in the old days there wasn't a second day to > > make up the difference so every VP was huge and the barrier to entry > > for the finals was monstrous (8 VPs or something like that). > > Huh? This has nothing to do with what I said above. I said nothing > about qualifying for the NAC finals. I just said that the game win rule > was a benifit to tournament structure of most tournament but that because > players don't need to get a game win to qualify for the second day of the > NAC, it's a benefit that doesn't impact the (currently defined) first day > of the NAC. Therefore, in order to make use of the same benefits of the > game win rule to discourage table-splitting, the NAC format must change. The difference is that under the new format you still have to make the cut. The best way to make the cut is to get game wins. There is no other criteria. Now the fact that VP's serve as a tiebreaker only becomes an issue when there are two factors in play. 1) Lots of players tie. 2) Lots of tables time out with no GW scored. If these two factors hadn't occured this discussion wouldn't have even taken place. > >> And you have said thing one to dissuade anyone about it. So I'll leave > >> it at that because that's really where our differences lay. > > > > I don't understand the above statement. > > I meant to say, "You have not said thing one to dissuade anyone about it." > You assert that the format is good as is, but you continually evade the > main complaint people have about it. I think that change for no other reason than change itself is bad. The main complaint that LSJ has from listening the bad stuff from "a few players who could take advantage of the format" doesn't outweigh the good stuff that a 40 player second day brings to the NAC. [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1161049631.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message >> news:1161032301.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > Frederick Scott wrote: >> >> "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message >> >> news:1160799518.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> >> > The funny thing is that I saw only one high risk high reward deck on >> >> > Day 1, Hugh Betrand's Turbo Dem that ousted me in like 8 minutes. From >> >> > what I understood there were a bunch of control/intercept decks in play >> >> > that caused alot of timeouts. >> >> >> >> Not sure what you're getting at, here. Control/intercept decks are >> >> famours for being "2 VP decks". If so, then the point that one only >> >> needed victory points and not a game win might exactly tranlate into >> >> a bunch of those kinds of deck which in turn resulted in horrible >> >> boredom and victory point splitting. >> > >> > Yes, they are famous for being 2 VP decks. You can get a GW with a 2 >> > VP deck. You should also notice that the point of going to a 2 day >> > format was to keep all deck-types viable. So you have examples of both >> > a Turbo Dem speed deck and a control/intercept deck both being viable. >> > These are two extremes. Yet, both are viable. Seems like a success to >> > me. >> >> On a superficial basis, I agree it does. But so what? > > So what? The point of the 2 day format is to make all deck types > viable. Fine. But all deck types are viable without qualifying 2/3rds of the participants. This was a basic case of massive overshoot which caused a different problem. > They were there and they were played. I think this is a huge > success for the format. To change the format to make it "tougher" or > "more GW-influencing" just means that we are taking a step back from > creating a level playing field for all deck types. Sure. You overshoot, you take a step back towards a happy medium. > If we change this > for the reasons stated, then we only care about the players who are > playing one playstyle, the fast speed playstyle and ignoring the > players, who play tablebalance. Making any change along these lines alters the balance in favor of certain decks. But for one thing, the format was not balanced before as you assert. Nor does simply changing the balance mean that "we only care about" one deckstyle or another. The format has some impact on deckstyles no matter what you do. You can't avoid it. The goal should be to make the impact the same at the CCs as at the CQs. >> Again, this is all anecdotal evidence which ignores the preponderance of >> what people have discovered about the benefits of using game wins to >> score tournaments. I'm sure table splitting does happen; it just happens >> a lot less - which is a very good thing. People want the same very good >> thing at the NAC. It warranted changing the tournament rules in the >> first place; it warrants changing the first day of the NAC. > > It's not that it happens less. It just counts for less. Sorry - THAT I very much disagree with. I sure see it a lot less. My impression is that everybody else pretty much sees it lot less in contrast to your claim. We saw it a hell of a LOT before the game win rule. > It still > happens at almost every game at the NAC. You can't stop them from > happening without putting a gag order in place. This is just slipping in a rehash of your prior argument. I repeat: yes, it still happens a bit. But "it still happens" and "it still happens as much as it used to" are two completely different things. >> Huh? This has nothing to do with what I said above. I said nothing >> about qualifying for the NAC finals. I just said that the game win rule >> was a benifit to tournament structure of most tournament but that because >> players don't need to get a game win to qualify for the second day of the >> NAC, it's a benefit that doesn't impact the (currently defined) first day >> of the NAC. Therefore, in order to make use of the same benefits of the >> game win rule to discourage table-splitting, the NAC format must change. > > The difference is that under the new format you still have to make the > cut. The best way to make the cut is to get game wins. Nope, that's wrong too. Of course, if you can assure yourself game wins, that'd be great. Everybody would "get game wins" if they could just do so by ordering it hence. If they could, however, it wouldn't be a very interesting game. No, you don't just go out and "get game wins". You have to build and play a deck. And that deck and play style is geared towards _attempting_ to get game wins or alternatively _attempting_ to get victory points. Although all play is ultimately geared towards both ends, clearly we know that decks can bias towards one goal or the other - which is done at the expence of the other goal. And if the cut is at two victory points, the best way to make the cut is to go for victory points at the expense of going for game wins since you don't run as high a risk of getting zero VPs if you're playing each game to get a sure one or two victory points. This point is undeniable. The concept of "high risk/high reward" decks inherently implies the opposite exists: "low risk/low reward" decks. And those look like victory-point-splitting decks, for all the same reasons victory point splitting was historically popular. Before the game win. > There is no > other criteria. Now the fact that VP's serve as a tiebreaker only > becomes an issue when there are two factors in play. > > 1) Lots of players tie. > 2) Lots of tables time out with no GW scored. > > If these two factors hadn't occured this discussion wouldn't have even > taken place. Sure. And more specifically, the reason was #1, not #2. #1 - lots of players tied for zero game wins. And the reason for that is that the format qualifies 40 players out of 65. >> I meant to say, "You have not said thing one to dissuade anyone about it." >> You assert that the format is good as is, but you continually evade the >> main complaint people have about it. > > I think that change for no other reason than change itself is bad. The > main complaint that LSJ has from listening the bad stuff from "a few > players who could take advantage of the format" doesn't outweigh the > good stuff that a 40 player second day brings to the NAC. Bleh. Doesn't address the lack of need for a game win to move on. Thus this is another evasion. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] It actually was a case of a low participation rate (65) which should be more of a concern than qualifying 2/3rds of the participants. > > They were there and they were played. I think this is a huge > > success for the format. To change the format to make it "tougher" or > > "more GW-influencing" just means that we are taking a step back from > > creating a level playing field for all deck types. > > Sure. You overshoot, you take a step back towards a happy medium. I don't think it was an overshoot. > >> Again, this is all anecdotal evidence which ignores the preponderance of > >> what people have discovered about the benefits of using game wins to > >> score tournaments. I'm sure table splitting does happen; it just happens > >> a lot less - which is a very good thing. People want the same very good > >> thing at the NAC. It warranted changing the tournament rules in the > >> first place; it warrants changing the first day of the NAC. > > > > It's not that it happens less. It just counts for less. > > Sorry - THAT I very much disagree with. I sure see it a lot less. My > impression is that everybody else pretty much sees it lot less in > contrast to your claim. > > We saw it a hell of a LOT before the game win rule. How many qualifiers did you go to this past year? I went to 3 of them (Texas, Lousiisana, Washington, DC). Table dealing was present on at least one table of each of them. At the NAC on both days, table dealing was present at every single table, which of course you wouldn't know because you weren't there. > > It still > > happens at almost every game at the NAC. You can't stop them from > > happening without putting a gag order in place. > > This is just slipping in a rehash of your prior argument. I repeat: yes, > it still happens a bit. But "it still happens" and "it still happens > as much as it used to" are two completely different things. Does it happen as much as when the GW rule didn't exist? I can tell you that the wheeling dealing atmosphere of the NAC hasn't changed that much. Just GW's count for more now. > >> Huh? This has nothing to do with what I said above. I said nothing > >> about qualifying for the NAC finals. I just said that the game win rule > >> was a benifit to tournament structure of most tournament but that because > >> players don't need to get a game win to qualify for the second day of the > >> NAC, it's a benefit that doesn't impact the (currently defined) first day > >> of the NAC. Therefore, in order to make use of the same benefits of the > >> game win rule to discourage table-splitting, the NAC format must change. > > > > The difference is that under the new format you still have to make the > > cut. The best way to make the cut is to get game wins. > > Nope, that's wrong too. Of course, if you can assure yourself game wins, > that'd be great. Everybody would "get game wins" if they could just do > so by ordering it hence. If they could, however, it wouldn't be a very > interesting game. How is that wrong? You have to get GW's to do well. You can't depend on a bunch of tables timing out (which was a major determining factor at this years NAC) to get you to the next day. I know you weren't there, but time-outs were a major factor. > No, you don't just go out and "get game wins". You have to build and > play a deck. And that deck and play style is geared towards _attempting_ > to get game wins or alternatively _attempting_ to get victory points. You are smarter than me if you can get game wins without attempting to get victory points. Please explain it to me. I am all ears. > This point is undeniable. I deny it. It doesn't make any sense. Put down the pipe. You must get Victory Points to Get Game Wins. There is no game wins without victory points. You are batting at windmills. >The concept of "high risk/high reward" decks > inherently implies the opposite exists: "low risk/low reward" decks. > And those look like victory-point-splitting decks, for all the same reasons > victory point splitting was historically popular. Before the game win. But the Game Win rule changed all of that. Splitting tables does not get you to the finals unless you get the Game Win. The rest of your points are moot. Game Wins are the most important score basis. > > There is no > > other criteria. Now the fact that VP's serve as a tiebreaker only > > becomes an issue when there are two factors in play. > > > > 1) Lots of players tie. > > 2) Lots of tables time out with no GW scored. > > > > If these two factors hadn't occured this discussion wouldn't have even > > taken place. > > Sure. And more specifically, the reason was #1, not #2. #1 - lots > of players tied for zero game wins. And the reason for that is that > the format qualifies 40 players out of 65. No, the two in conjuction are the reason that it happened. If you had 39 players tie with 1 Game Win each and the 40th player had 0 GWs and 5 VPs then this conversation wouldn't even be happening. The problem was that so many tables timed out with 0 GW on each that the tie breaker went down to a bunch of players with 0 GWs. > >> I meant to say, "You have not said thing one to dissuade anyone about it." > >> You assert that the format is good as is, but you continually evade the > >> main complaint people have about it. > > > > I think that change for no other reason than change itself is bad. The > > main complaint that LSJ has from listening the bad stuff from "a few > > players who could take advantage of the format" doesn't outweigh the > > good stuff that a 40 player second day brings to the NAC. > > Bleh. Doesn't address the lack of need for a game win to move on. Thus > this is another evasion. I address it above. If you had 39 players each get 1 GW and 1 player get to Day 2 with 0 GW's this conversation wouldn't be happening. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: > > Fine. But all deck types are viable without qualifying 2/3rds of the > > participants. This was a basic case of massive overshoot which caused > > a different problem. > > It actually was a case of a low participation rate (65) which should be > more of a concern than qualifying 2/3rds of the participants. In either case, doesn't it look like that Day 2 spots could vary with Day 1's number of participants? I'm not saying it should be 2/3, or any other specific ratio. In fact, it looks like a good thing that Day 2 has a solid, "optimal" number of slots, such as 40. But this number could be smaller, based on Day 1 attendance. Abraço, Luiz Mello Brazil VTES NC

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1161119942.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message >> news:1161049631.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> > Frederick Scott wrote: >> >> "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message >> >> news:1161032301.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> >> > You should also notice that the point of going to a 2 day >> >> > format was to keep all deck-types viable. So you have examples of both >> >> > a Turbo Dem speed deck and a control/intercept deck both being viable. >> >> > These are two extremes. Yet, both are viable. Seems like a success to >> >> > me. >> >> >> >> On a superficial basis, I agree it does. But so what? >> > >> > So what? The point of the 2 day format is to make all deck types >> > viable. >> >> Fine. But all deck types are viable without qualifying 2/3rds of the >> participants. This was a basic case of massive overshoot which caused >> a different problem. > > It actually was a case of a low participation rate (65) which should be > more of a concern than qualifying 2/3rds of the participants. It was both. But the participation rate is a different issue and not necessary to address in order to fix this particular problem. Changing the format from a flat number of qualifiers to a percentage or some system based on the number of initial participants will assure that it won't happen again, whatever the participation rate. >> >> Again, this is all anecdotal evidence which ignores the preponderance of >> >> what people have discovered about the benefits of using game wins to >> >> score tournaments. I'm sure table splitting does happen; it just happens >> >> a lot less - which is a very good thing. People want the same very good >> >> thing at the NAC. It warranted changing the tournament rules in the >> >> first place; it warrants changing the first day of the NAC. >> > >> > It's not that it happens less. It just counts for less. >> >> Sorry - THAT I very much disagree with. I sure see it a lot less. My >> impression is that everybody else pretty much sees it lot less in >> contrast to your claim. >> >> We saw it a hell of a LOT before the game win rule. > > How many qualifiers did you go to this past year? I went to 3 of them > (Texas, Lousiisana, Washington, DC). Table dealing was present on at > least one table of each of them. At the NAC on both days, table > dealing was present at every single table, which of course you wouldn't > know because you weren't there. I went to two, myself. And I don't care what you say. I am telling you Norm, you did NOT see as much victory point splitting as I used to see at tournaments prior to the game win rule! If you did, you should be CHAINING the head judge to your person to rule on all the illegalities taking place at the games in which you played. Cripes. > Does it happen as much as when the GW rule didn't exist? Nope. Not by a long shot. > I can tell > you that the wheeling dealing atmosphere of the NAC hasn't changed that > much. Just GW's count for more now. Sure, great. The "wheeling dealing atmosphere of the NAC" hasn't changed. No doubt that's true. It's just the incentive to make non-game-win deals that's in question. And if you make people go for game wins, they make point-splitting deals a hell of a lot less. >> >> Huh? This has nothing to do with what I said above. I said nothing >> >> about qualifying for the NAC finals. I just said that the game win rule >> >> was a benifit to tournament structure of most tournament but that because >> >> players don't need to get a game win to qualify for the second day of the >> >> NAC, it's a benefit that doesn't impact the (currently defined) first day >> >> of the NAC. Therefore, in order to make use of the same benefits of the >> >> game win rule to discourage table-splitting, the NAC format must change. >> > >> > The difference is that under the new format you still have to make the >> > cut. The best way to make the cut is to get game wins. >> >> Nope, that's wrong too. Of course, if you can assure yourself game wins, >> that'd be great. Everybody would "get game wins" if they could just do >> so by ordering it hence. If they could, however, it wouldn't be a very >> interesting game. > > How is that wrong? You have to get GW's to do well. You can't depend > on a bunch of tables timing out (which was a major determining factor > at this years NAC) to get you to the next day. I know you weren't > there, but time-outs were a major factor. How it's wrong is explained below. >> No, you don't just go out and "get game wins". You have to build and >> play a deck. And that deck and play style is geared towards _attempting_ >> to get game wins or alternatively _attempting_ to get victory points. > > You are smarter than me if you can get game wins without attempting to > get victory points. Please explain it to me. I am all ears. I did explain it to you. Here. I will REINSERT the part of my argument that explained all that that you removed between posts. Apparently, you're twisting your head up, down, in every which direction except at the answer to all your questions which was plainly stated. Now try not to jerk your head away too quickly in an effort to avoid the truth. You'll hurt your neck. "Although all play is ultimately geared towards both ends, clearly we know that decks can bias towards one goal or the other - which is done at the expence of the other goal." >> The concept of "high risk/high reward" decks >> inherently implies the opposite exists: "low risk/low reward" decks. >> And those look like victory-point-splitting decks, for all the same reasons >> victory point splitting was historically popular. Before the game win. > > But the Game Win rule changed all of that. Splitting tables does not > get you to the finals unless you get the Game Win. Huge non sequitar. Victory points alone get you to the second day. We were talking about playing on day one, not day two when players play to make the finals. 2006, October, debate about changing play on day one, Norm. Surely you must be able to remember THAT much! THINK!!! *sigh* >> > There is no >> > other criteria. Now the fact that VP's serve as a tiebreaker only >> > becomes an issue when there are two factors in play. >> > >> > 1) Lots of players tie. >> > 2) Lots of tables time out with no GW scored. >> > >> > If these two factors hadn't occured this discussion wouldn't have even >> > taken place. >> >> Sure. And more specifically, the reason was #1, not #2. #1 - lots >> of players tied for zero game wins. And the reason for that is that >> the format qualifies 40 players out of 65. > > No, the two in conjuction are the reason that it happened. Nope. Only #1 is the problem. >> Bleh. Doesn't address the lack of need for a game win to move on. Thus >> this is another evasion. > > I address it above. Nope. Fred

XZealot wrote: > I address it above. If you had 39 players each get 1 GW and 1 player > get to Day 2 with 0 GW's this conversation wouldn't be happening. Assuming that no one at all gets more than 1 GW and no tables at all time out strikes me as pretty unrealistic, no matter what tournament you're at. Witness1 -believe the lie

"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1161122153....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] This has already been pointed out to Norm. It's not worth harping on it. The 39-players-each-getting-a-game-win argument is more about just saying something, anything, to deflect the issue from an extremely simple truth: when 65 people are playing for 40 spots, game wins become much less relevant. And when game wins become irrelevant, the tournament structure loses the benefits they were invented to grant. Norm doesn't want to deal with that point because he can't figure out a way to resolve it with his desire to maintain the existing format. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Certainly, this is a reasonable option. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Not all assumptions are "realistic". If prior to this years NAC you had assumed that 10-15 tables would time out at the NAC , then you would probably be saying the same thing. Truth is stranger than fiction. My point here is that there were a disproportionately large number of time-outs which is the root cause of the low number of VP's required to make Day 2, which in turn is the root cause of this whole discussion. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp Master of the Grammatically Correct Run-On Sentence

Frederick Scott wrote: > "witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1161122153....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > XZealot wrote: > >> I address it above. If you had 39 players each get 1 GW and 1 player > >> get to Day 2 with 0 GW's this conversation wouldn't be happening. > > > > Assuming that no one at all gets more than 1 GW and no tables at all > > time out strikes me as pretty unrealistic, no matter what tournament > > you're at. > > This has already been pointed out to Norm. It's not worth harping on > it. The 39-players-each-getting-a-game-win argument is more about > just saying something, anything, to deflect the issue from an extremely > simple truth: when 65 people are playing for 40 spots, game wins > become much less relevant. And when game wins become irrelevant, > the tournament structure loses the benefits they were invented to > grant. There is a wide gulf from less relavent to irrelavent. You want to present all the old GW vs VP arguements here. They are not relavent. Game Wins existed and were applied at this tournament. There were an inordinant number of timeouts with no GWs which led to VPs being the determining factor. Such is the nature of our tiebreaking system. 65 players is 13 5-player tables. 13 tables over 3 rounds is a potential 39 game wins. 40 spots are availible for Day 2. 65 players competing for 40 spots certainly means that at least 1 person is going to make day 2 without a GW, statistically speaking. Every player who made day 2 without a GW beyond the first was the result of one of two things. 1) a table timing out with no GW 2) a player earning more than one GW. These are the two causes of every single player beyond the first making it to Day 2 without a game win. That's the math, Freddo. Deal with it. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Were there as many deals at the NAC as before, who would know? You took statistics at both, and for a fact, can say that. You are full of shit. You weren't there Fred. How can you tell me what I saw? Your psychic powers suck. > > I can tell > > you that the wheeling dealing atmosphere of the NAC hasn't changed that > > much. Just GW's count for more now. > > Sure, great. The "wheeling dealing atmosphere of the NAC" hasn't changed. > No doubt that's true. It's just the incentive to make non-game-win deals > that's in question. And if you make people go for game wins, they make > point-splitting deals a hell of a lot less. They still happened at almost every table Fred. They are worth less not that they occur less at the NAC. [ quoted text not captured ] > "Although all play is ultimately geared towards both ends, clearly we > know that decks can bias towards one goal or the other - which is done > at the expence of the other goal." Incorrect, Fred. You must get Victory Points to get Game Wins. Going for 2 VPs will get you the game win barring two things: another player getting 3 VPs or another player getting 2 VPs. You can get the game win with 2 VPs. > >> The concept of "high risk/high reward" decks > >> inherently implies the opposite exists: "low risk/low reward" decks. > >> And those look like victory-point-splitting decks, for all the same reasons > >> victory point splitting was historically popular. Before the game win. > > > > But the Game Win rule changed all of that. Splitting tables does not > > get you to the finals unless you get the Game Win. > > Huge non sequitar. Victory points alone get you to the second day. We were > talking about playing on day one, not day two when players play to make the > finals. 2006, October, debate about changing play on day one, Norm. Surely > you must be able to remember THAT much! THINK!!! *sigh* Not a huge Non-wequitare. Only one player was guaranteed to get to day 2 without Game Wins. Here's the math for you. 65 players is 13 five-player tables. 3 rounds of 13 tables is 39 Game Wins. There were 40 spots availible. That means only 1 person is guaranteed to make day 2 without a Game Win. You can't seriously tell me that player were shooting for that one spot, a 2 and 1/2 percent chance. > >> > There is no > >> > other criteria. Now the fact that VP's serve as a tiebreaker only > >> > becomes an issue when there are two factors in play. > >> > > >> > 1) Lots of players tie. > >> > 2) Lots of tables time out with no GW scored. > >> > > >> > If these two factors hadn't occured this discussion wouldn't have even > >> > taken place. > >> > >> Sure. And more specifically, the reason was #1, not #2. #1 - lots > >> of players tied for zero game wins. And the reason for that is that > >> the format qualifies 40 players out of 65. > > > > No, the two in conjuction are the reason that it happened. > > Nope. Only #1 is the problem. NO FRED. The math says otherwise. 39 potential GWs and 40 spots. Every player, who made it to day 2 with 0 GW after the first, were there for one of two reasons: another player scoring more than 1 GW or tables timing out with 0 GWs. > >> Bleh. Doesn't address the lack of need for a game win to move on. Thus > >> this is another evasion. > > > > I address it above. > > Nope. Sorry you can't do math Fred. I hear it helps. But the crux of this whole arguement is that at the beginning of Day 1, players were shooting for the 2 and 1/2 percent chance of making day 2 without a GW (that's one ouf of forty, Fred). That's unrealistic in the extreme that players would choose their deck based upon a 2 and 1/2 percent chance of getting to day 2 without a GW. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > 1) a table earning no GW or [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Hey Norm, you forget point 3) a table being split by a VP deal Thus no game win or time out. Oh, hang on, that's the whole poiont of this thread isn't it? Now how did I manage to miss that fairly obvious bit of the majority of the posts in this thread? Must be time for new glasses. Sheeeesh...

> > > 1) a table earning no GW or > > > 2) a player earning more than one GW. > Hey Norm, you forget point 3) a table being split by a VP deal > Thus no game win or time out. Oh, hang on, that's the whole poiont of > this thread isn't it? Now how did I manage to miss that fairly obvious > bit of the majority of the posts in this thread? Must be time for new > glasses. Look at point number 1 again...... Time to crank up them binoculars to 7 times magnification.

[ quoted text not captured ] Okay, Granted. So that means that there WERE multiple people who got to Day 2 simple because of table split deals, correct? Which means that you agree that this is a prevalent trend, right? Which generally means its a problem

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1161123781.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> news:1161122153....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> > Assuming that no one at all gets more than 1 GW and no tables at all >> > time out strikes me as pretty unrealistic, no matter what tournament >> > you're at. >> >> This has already been pointed out to Norm. It's not worth harping on >> it. The 39-players-each-getting-a-game-win argument is more about >> just saying something, anything, to deflect the issue from an extremely >> simple truth: when 65 people are playing for 40 spots, game wins >> become much less relevant. And when game wins become irrelevant, >> the tournament structure loses the benefits they were invented to >> grant. > > There is a wide gulf from less relavent to irrelavent. You want to > present all the old GW vs VP arguements here. They are not relavent. Whoa! I'll grant you there is _some_ gulf between "less relevant" and "irrelevant" where games wins come into play on the NAC first day. No doubt I'm oversimplifying the matter in typical Usenet-debate fashion and presenting a somewhat slanted truth. But it appears to me to be true enough for these purposes. And certainly much more accurate than the claim that old GW vs. VP arguments aren't relevant. Of course they're relevant. They're the whole problem. > Game Wins existed and were applied at this tournament. But they don't matter for reasons that have been presented to you time and again - but you keep changing the subject. The 39-game-wins objection doesn't fly, Norm. Nor does the tables-timing-out thing. I'm not wasting any more keystrokes responding to such diversions. You don't want to accept that an issue exists, so be it. In my book, it's pretty much rationalization but I guess that's how it goes. At least you can't say you don't understand why others disagree with you. Fred

Blooded Sand wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > > > > 1) a table earning no GW or > > > > > 2) a player earning more than one GW. > > > > > Hey Norm, you forget point 3) a table being split by a VP deal > > > Thus no game win or time out. Oh, hang on, that's the whole poiont of > > > this thread isn't it? Now how did I manage to miss that fairly obvious > > > bit of the majority of the posts in this thread? Must be time for new > > > glasses. > > > > Look at point number 1 again...... > > > > Time to crank up them binoculars to 7 times magnification. > > Okay, Granted. So that means that there WERE multiple people who got to > Day 2 simple because of table split deals, correct? I don't know that for a fact. I would say it is a good assumption to make that at least one person made it to day 2 due to table splitting. Which means that > you agree that this is a prevalent trend, right? I would say that table splitting was prevalent both at Day 1 and Day 2. Which generally means > its a problem. Since the inception of the Game Wins rule the value of table splitting has been reduced. It has not been eliminated. I don't see it as a problem as a 2-2 split won't get you to the finals. A 2-2 split might not even get you to day 2. It depends on the factors I noted above whether non-GW VPs get you to day two. At the beginning of Day 1 there is only one non-GW spot availible, do you really think that is what people are shooting for? [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1161124840.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message >> >> >> I'm sure table splitting does happen; it just happens >> >> >> a lot less - which is a very good thing. People want the same very good >> >> >> thing at the NAC. >> >> > >> >> > It's not that it happens less. It just counts for less. >> >> >> >> Sorry - THAT I very much disagree with. I sure see it a lot less. >> > >> > How many qualifiers did you go to this past year? I went to 3 of them >> > (Texas, Lousiisana, Washington, DC). Table dealing was present on at >> > least one table of each of them. At the NAC on both days, table >> > dealing was present at every single table, which of course you wouldn't >> > know because you weren't there. >> >> I went to two, myself. And I don't care what you say. I am telling you >> Norm, you did NOT see as much victory point splitting as I used to see >> at tournaments prior to the game win rule! If you did, you should be >> CHAINING the head judge to your person to rule on all the illegalities >> taking place at the games in which you played. Cripes. > > Were there as many deals at the NAC as before, who would know? You > took statistics at both, and for a fact, can say that. > > You are full of shit. Sure. I'll cop to that. If I weren't, I wouldn't bother with this insane thread for so long. :-) > You weren't there Fred. How can you tell me what I saw? Your psychic > powers suck. I'm not telling you what you saw. But don't misunderstand the issue, here. Go back up to the top. You're trying to subtly change the issue from, "Does table splitting happen less since the game win rule" to something or other you're trying to say about deals happening at the NAC. In fact, I'm not sure exactly _what_ point you're trying to make. I'm just saying that I'm sticking to the one I started with: that table splits happen a lot less since game wins were invented. At the NAC, at qualifiers, at mundane constructed AND limited tournaments, storylines, and pre-releases. Everywhere. Everywhere I've been, they are happily far less common than they once were. I have not been to an NAC since the last chance qualifier where I didn't quite get to oust you before a deus ex machina spirited me off to a different table. But I'm pretty sure that if any of them were having as much trouble with table-splitting as we used to have before the game win, I'd have heard about it on Usenet. Oh, wait! I DID hear of one such: in 2006. >> >> >> I just said that the game win rule >> >> >> was a benefit to the tournament structure of most tournament but that because >> >> >> players don't need to get a game win to qualify for the second day of the >> >> >> NAC, it's a benefit that doesn't impact the (currently defined) first day >> >> >> of the NAC. Therefore, in order to make use of the same benefits of the >> >> >> game win rule to discourage table-splitting, the NAC format must change. >> >> > >> >> > The difference is that under the new format you still have to make the >> >> > cut. The best way to make the cut is to get game wins. >> >> >> >> Nope, that's wrong too. Of course, if you can assure yourself game wins, >> >> that'd be great. Everybody would "get game wins" if they could just do >> >> so by ordering it hence. If they could, however, it wouldn't be a very >> >> interesting game. >> > >> > How is that wrong? You have to get GW's to do well. >> >> How it's wrong is explained below. ... >> "Although all play is ultimately geared towards both ends, clearly we >> know that decks can bias towards one goal or the other - which is done >> at the expence of the other goal." > > Incorrect, Fred. You must get Victory Points to get Game Wins. True but irrelevant. Since you didn't actually deal with what I wrote, I will repeat: Although all play is ultimately geared towards both ends, clearly we know that decks can bias towards one goal or the other - which is done at the expense of the other goal. In short, focusing on going for game wins increases the risk that you will get locked out of victory points entirely. >> > Splitting tables does not >> > get you to the finals unless you get the Game Win. >> >> Huge non sequitar. Victory points alone get you to the second day. We were >> talking about playing on day one, not day two when players play to make the >> finals. 2006, October, debate about changing play on day one, Norm. Surely >> you must be able to remember THAT much! THINK!!! *sigh* > > Not a huge Non-wequitare. Only one player was guaranteed to get to day > 2 without Game Wins. Bleh. The 39-game-wins argument. Already disposed of, 'nuff said. Fred

Does someone have the actual stats from Day 1? This would very clearly show EXACTLY how many did go thru to Day 2 with no GW. And i bet its more than 1...

> > There is a wide gulf from less relavent to irrelavent. You want to > > present all the old GW vs VP arguements here. They are not relavent. > > Whoa! I'll grant you there is _some_ gulf between "less relevant" and > "irrelevant" where games wins come into play on the NAC first day. No > doubt I'm oversimplifying the matter in typical Usenet-debate fashion > and presenting a somewhat slanted truth. But it appears to me to be true > enough for these purposes. And certainly much more accurate than the > claim that old GW vs. VP arguments aren't relevant. Of course they're > relevant. They're the whole problem. The point is that you are arguing for a problem that doesn't exist or only exists in hindsight. No one is shooting for the last spot on Day 1 by trying not to score GWs. > > Game Wins existed and were applied at this tournament. > > But they don't matter for reasons that have been presented to you time > and again - but you keep changing the subject. The 39-game-wins > objection doesn't fly, Norm. Nor does the tables-timing-out thing. If you are going to fly your arguement in the face of the facts Fred then please go ahead and yell at the rain. You still weren't there to see these supposed problems and you still haven't proven that Day 1 needs fixing. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Duh! Of course there was more than one. There were like 10 games in the first round of Day 1 that went to time, and there were even more as the Day rode on. That's like half my point without the ties caused by the timeouts 0GWs wouldn't get more than one person to day 2, but since the stats aren't posted you'll have to take my word for it (ya know cuz I wuz there). But to say that people were playeing decks designed around the goal of shooting for the one spot that got you to day 2 with no GWs is ridculous. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, at least we agree on something. :) > > You weren't there Fred. How can you tell me what I saw? Your psychic > > powers suck. > > I'm not telling you what you saw. But don't misunderstand the issue, here. > Go back up to the top. You're trying to subtly change the issue from, "Does > table splitting happen less since the game win rule" to something or other > you're trying to say about deals happening at the NAC. No, my arguement is that the format of the NAC does not need to change, and we have wandered far far far away from that. In fact, I'm not > sure exactly _what_ point you're trying to make. I'm just saying that I'm > sticking to the one I started with: that table splits happen a lot less > since game wins were invented. At the NAC, at qualifiers, at mundane > constructed AND limited tournaments, storylines, and pre-releases. > Everywhere. Everywhere I've been, they are happily far less common than > they once were. Great! I will agree to that. Table splitting which results in no clear cut victor is bad for the game. > I have not been to an NAC since the last chance qualifier where I didn't > quite get to oust you before a deus ex machina spirited me off to a > different table. But I'm pretty sure that if any of them were having as > much trouble with table-splitting as we used to have before the game win, > I'd have heard about it on Usenet. It cost me alot of money to bribe LSJ to get me out from underneath "The Anarch Revolt Dumptruck is backing up to your front door." apparently not enough as your replacement was the "Leandro PTO's your main defender while Spiridonas shoots his wad so that your grandpredator can oust you both, mwhahaha" deck. > Oh, wait! I DID hear of one such: in 2006. Only because LSJ thinks so. > >> >> >> I just said that the game win rule > >> >> >> was a benefit to the tournament structure of most tournament but that because > >> >> >> players don't need to get a game win to qualify for the second day of the > >> >> >> NAC, it's a benefit that doesn't impact the (currently defined) first day > >> >> >> of the NAC. Therefore, in order to make use of the same benefits of the > >> >> >> game win rule to discourage table-splitting, the NAC format must change. > >> >> > > >> >> > The difference is that under the new format you still have to make the > >> >> > cut. The best way to make the cut is to get game wins. > >> >> > >> >> Nope, that's wrong too. Of course, if you can assure yourself game wins, > >> >> that'd be great. Everybody would "get game wins" if they could just do > >> >> so by ordering it hence. If they could, however, it wouldn't be a very > >> >> interesting game. > >> > > >> > How is that wrong? You have to get GW's to do well. > >> > >> How it's wrong is explained below. > ... > >> "Although all play is ultimately geared towards both ends, clearly we > >> know that decks can bias towards one goal or the other - which is done > >> at the expence of the other goal." > > > > Incorrect, Fred. You must get Victory Points to get Game Wins. > > True but irrelevant. Not really... > Since you didn't actually deal with what I wrote, I will repeat: Although > all play is ultimately geared towards both ends, clearly we know that decks > can bias towards one goal or the other - which is done at the expense of > the other goal. > > In short, focusing on going for game wins increases the risk that you will > get locked out of victory points entirely. LOL...WHAT?!?!?!. How can focusing on the Game Win get you locked out of Victory Points if the only way to get a Game Win is by acccumulating the most Victory Points? Explain it to me again. Puhleeze. I haven't laughed this hard in a while. > >> > Splitting tables does not > >> > get you to the finals unless you get the Game Win. > >> > >> Huge non sequitar. Victory points alone get you to the second day. We were > >> talking about playing on day one, not day two when players play to make the > >> finals. 2006, October, debate about changing play on day one, Norm. Surely > >> you must be able to remember THAT much! THINK!!! *sigh* > > > > Not a huge Non-wequitare. Only one player was guaranteed to get to day > > 2 without Game Wins. > > Bleh. The 39-game-wins argument. Already disposed of, 'nuff said. Disprove it. Show me how at the beginning of the day 1 you can honestly say that there is a strategy of making it to day 2 by not having any Game Wins. Only two thinks can occur that make it so that more than only 1 person gets to have that dubious distiction. 1) a game ends with no GW scored 2) a player takes more than one GW Show me how this doesn't work. [ quoted text not captured ]

> This is not a negative commentary on either Andreas or Christian, of > course. For them, negotiating a table they cannot hope to win by > themselves _is_ playing. the. game. Once two people at a table head > down that road, the rest invariably must participate (even if only to > ally themselves against the dealmakers). Entreating people to Play The > Game doesn't address this issue _nearly_ sufficiently enough. You're right. But it's damned catchy. Ankur Play. The. Game.

> Here's another idea: > Following suit with the US Championship, what if Day 1 were a Draft format > event, and Day 2 were Constructed? Ugh. Ankur

> Disprove it. Show me how at the beginning of the day 1 you can honestly > say that there is a strategy of making it to day 2 by not having any > Game Wins. Only two thinks can occur that make it so that more than > only 1 person gets to have that dubious distiction. > > 1) a game ends with no GW scored > 2) a player takes more than one GW > > Show me how this doesn't work. It works, of course, if the game wins are dispersed evenly. However, a person might reasonably suspect that a certain percentage of tables qualify under conditions 1 and 2. They may hazard a guess, on the basis that a "perfect" distribution of GWs is highly unlikely. A person can then aim to move to day 2 either at the top of the spectrum (earning lots of VPs) or at the bottom of the spectrum (as a bottom-feeding vp whore). Their risk analysis is based on the number of non-GW slots they think will occur. I'm not necessarily arguing that there's a problem, but if I were at the NAC and saw a 40/65 ratio to day 2, I'd guess that playing for vps is good enough. If I were dedicated to the scenario, I would build a deck that could dependably get 1-2 VPs and maybe a GW over three rounds. This would obviously preclude my playing an Elihu deck. Ankur Play. The. Game.

Jozxyqk wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to >>win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the >>number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be >>achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved >>with only 2 VPs. > > >>Options to remedy that: > > > Here's another idea: > Following suit with the US Championship, what if Day 1 were a Draft format > event, and Day 2 were Constructed? Not good IMHO. While I respect and enjoy draft it´s a different game. And there is more luck involved so I like it better when it´s not played very competitive. -- johannes walch

[ quoted text not captured ] Then why the last 100 posts arguing against it? This "reasonable" option was the one put forward as option #1 in the first post in this thread.

LSJ wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > Clément wrote: > >> XZealot wrote: > >>> Frederick Scott wrote: > >>>> Fine. But all deck types are viable without qualifying 2/3rds of the > >>>> participants. This was a basic case of massive overshoot which caused > >>>> a different problem. > >>> It actually was a case of a low participation rate (65) which should be > >>> more of a concern than qualifying 2/3rds of the participants. > >> In either case, doesn't it look like that Day 2 spots could vary with > >> Day 1's number of participants? > >> > >> I'm not saying it should be 2/3, or any other specific ratio. In fact, > >> it looks like a good thing that Day 2 has a solid, "optimal" number of > >> slots, such as 40. But this number could be smaller, based on Day 1 > >> attendance. > > > > Certainly, this is a reasonable option. > > Then why the last 100 posts arguing against it? Because the change is unnecessary is why I have been arguing for 100 post. As "options" go, in the world of theoretical fixes, it is reasonable. I still am not convinced of the need for the change in the first place. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ankur Gupta wrote: > > Disprove it. Show me how at the beginning of the day 1 you can honestly > > say that there is a strategy of making it to day 2 by not having any > > Game Wins. Only two thinks can occur that make it so that more than > > only 1 person gets to have that dubious distiction. > > > > 1) a game ends with no GW scored > > 2) a player takes more than one GW > > > > Show me how this doesn't work. > > It works, of course, if the game wins are dispersed evenly. However, a > person might reasonably suspect that a certain percentage of tables > qualify under conditions 1 and 2. They may hazard a guess, on the basis > that a "perfect" distribution of GWs is highly unlikely. A person can then > aim to move to day 2 either at the top of the spectrum (earning lots of > VPs) or at the bottom of the spectrum (as a bottom-feeding vp whore). > Their risk analysis is based on the number of non-GW slots they think will > occur. .....and as with all risk analysis there is a pretty good chance of being wrong as risk analysis is defined as a strategy of being wrong the least amount of times. A person who picks a deck based on the strategy of shooting for the 2 and 1/2 percent chance on the gamble that half-way through the tournament that it will turn into a 25 percent chance is well, frankly, an idiot. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp Big Fan of Ankur "Super-Smart" Gupta

>> It works, of course, if the game wins are dispersed evenly. However, a >> person might reasonably suspect that a certain percentage of tables >> qualify under conditions 1 and 2. They may hazard a guess, on the basis >> that a "perfect" distribution of GWs is highly unlikely. A person can >> then aim to move to day 2 either at the top of the spectrum (earning >> lots of VPs) or at the bottom of the spectrum (as a bottom-feeding vp >> whore). Their risk analysis is based on the number of non-GW slots they >> think will occur. > > .....and as with all risk analysis there is a pretty good chance of > being wrong as risk analysis is defined as a strategy of being wrong the > least amount of times. A person who picks a deck based on the strategy > of shooting for the 2 and 1/2 percent chance on the gamble that half-way > through the tournament that it will turn into a 25 percent chance is > well, frankly, an idiot. Risk analysis isn't a strategy in and of itself. It's an activity. The assumed strategy coupled with risk analysis is that you'll choose the path with least risk. You're appealing to such a path. However, the point is that the increased risk of choosing a progressively less optimal path may not be enough of a deterrent to a player to sufficiently dissuade them from making such a choice, since they are not making such a decision in a vaccuum. Considerations such as deck type, comfort level, entertainment, and desire to play with "Elihu" also factor in, and may have a more critical role in the deck selection process. Since deck variety increases as a person relaxes their scale of "viable decks" (in accordance with said risk analysis), it becomes suddenly possible to consider a situation where a person does not *need* to play for the GW, again, according to some non-optimal risk analysis. Now, let's muck up all that theoretical shit. If everyone chooses an optimal path (i.e. play for the GW), it's *still* not clear that there will be fewer non-GW slots to day 2, since one of your conditions (namely, the one that a person scores more than 1 GW) coincides with the goal of earning more GWs. Moreover, timeouts are still possible, even if everyone is choosing to play for GWs. These facts allows for the bottom-feeding VP whore to exist and thrive even in *this* kind of an environment. As far as risk analysis, I would bet that with a 40/65 ratio, at least 10 tables over the day would time out or grant a GW to someone who already has one. I'd put the chance of that happening at 80% or more, given past experience. That's a pretty fair percentage in general, even though it's manufactured. Following along with that, there would then be 11 non-GW slots that would advance to day 2. A bottom-feeder has a roughly 1/6 chance of advancing to day 2 if he goes along with his strategy. As a final note, I'd like to point out that there are a great number of decks that can manage VPs and resist ousting without having really any hope of a GW. Dependable intercepty decks with short chain combat, and decks that protect pool with dominate and votes or obf/aus are among this camp. Well, maybe not dominate. Dominate has this nasty habit of actually winning games. To find a massive collection of wildly ineffective decks that resemble small woodland animals having an orgasm in the rain moments before being run over by a crop harvester, please feel free to peruse my humble offerings. . . the flagship deck being, of course Elihu with a meathook. A key component of this deck is to also go anarch and then pay a pool to rush with Elihu each turn with inferior combat based on melee weapons and little means to protect pool. > Big Fan of Ankur "Super-Smart" Gupta Ankur Play. The. Game. Don't. Orgasm. In. Front. Of. A. Crop. Harvester.

> As far as risk analysis, I would bet that with a 40/65 ratio, at least 10 > tables over the day would time out or grant a GW to someone who already > has one. I'd put the chance of that happening at 80% or more, given past > experience. 80% for 10 new open slots is a fantastic sure thing. Pull your money out of the bank and put it on this. Where is your data for this? There is only 1 2-day NAC prior to this this years and even if you include this one, then you only have 2 sample sets. Making this determination is like flipping a quarter twice and when it lands heads up both times, making a determination that it will land on heads 100%. Puhleeze, let me know how did you arrive at the that number? > As a final note, I'd like to point out that there are a great number of > decks that can manage VPs and resist ousting without having really any > hope of a GW. Dependable intercepty decks with short chain combat, and > decks that protect pool with dominate and votes or obf/aus are among this > camp. Well, maybe not dominate. Dominate has this nasty habit of actually > winning games. I'm pretty sure that you won't see any of these decks at the NAC. Players don't spend hundreds of dollars on airfare and hotel to not try to score GW's. > To find a massive collection of wildly ineffective decks that resemble > small woodland animals having an orgasm in the rain moments before being > run over by a crop harvester, please feel free to peruse my humble > offerings. . . the flagship deck being, of course Elihu with a meathook. A > key component of this deck is to also go anarch and then pay a pool to > rush with Elihu each turn with inferior combat based on melee weapons and > little means to protect pool. Inferior combat works just fine at the NAC. I promise. I was running some. You should show up next year. [ quoted text not captured ]

> 80% for 10 new open slots is a fantastic sure thing. Pull your money > out of the bank and put it on this. Where is your data for this? It doesn't pull from 2-Day tournaments, that's for sure. It comes from watching how many tables time out at large events when there isn't a "day 2" component. Certainly, if you're right, the number of non-GW slots among the top 40 in similarly sized tournaments could be used as a litmus. For the GLQ that I ran (with 41 players), there were a total of 7 occurrences of your two conditions: 3 people earned 2 GWs each, and 4 tables timed out. Among 41 people. Similar data can be collected for other tournaments. I think we'll find that "10" is a number that's quite reasonable to arrive at with the certainty that I've indicated. Of course, this data is experimental, so nothing is solid, but that's where "risk" enters the equation. > Puhleeze, let me know how did you arrive at the that number? There's a reasonable argument above for where the number came from. I'd just like to point out that if there isn't a problem with the 2-day format, then you can easily use the results of large 1-day tournaments prior to this as an additional form of past experience. I'm still not willing to say you're right or wrong, though. :) >> As a final note, I'd like to point out that there are a great number of >> decks that can manage VPs and resist ousting without having really any >> hope of a GW. Dependable intercepty decks with short chain combat, and >> decks that protect pool with dominate and votes or obf/aus are among >> this camp. Well, maybe not dominate. Dominate has this nasty habit of >> actually winning games. > > I'm pretty sure that you won't see any of these decks at the NAC. > Players don't spend hundreds of dollars on airfare and hotel to not try > to score GW's. One word: Elihu. > Inferior combat works just fine at the NAC. I promise. I was running > some. You should show up next year. I qualified with ser/ani/aus Setite blocky combat (that is, inferiors of all disciplines) at the LCQ last year. I know it works, but it feels like stealing GWs from stupid people. :) Ankur

In message <1160971076....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> writes: >Another alternative might be to hold a side tournament, with first >prize of eg a box of boosters, the only requirements for entering this >tournament are: >1) You must have acquired a GW during the week of nightmares >2) you may not have conducted any table splitting deals... >Simple hey? No. This causes potential issues with 5.2 of the V:EKN rules: Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.). If the play-to-win situation that a player would be inclined to take (either as the recipient of the GW or maximising VPs due to a crappy situation) under ordinary circumstances is a VP-split deal, and they chose not to take it because it would ruin their entry to another tournament, they would be playing towards a goal that conflicted with the goal of the game. No player, of course, is required to take a deal (because they think someone is lying, for example), but you don't really want cases where a player isn't playing as competitively as they would choose to because of an external inducement. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

The real probleme is not Withdraw, the real probleme is Deal. No rule will give willpower to a player. If you can't do VP's Deal a predator will never leave his pray because the prey promised some VP at the end...

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1161140729.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message >> news:1161124840.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> > Frederick Scott wrote: >> >> "Although all play is ultimately geared towards both ends, clearly we >> >> know that decks can bias towards one goal or the other - which is done >> >> at the expence of the other goal." >> > >> > Incorrect, Fred. You must get Victory Points to get Game Wins. >> >> True but irrelevant. .. >> Since you didn't actually deal with what I wrote, I will repeat: Although >> all play is ultimately geared towards both ends, clearly we know that decks >> can bias towards one goal or the other - which is done at the expense of >> the other goal. >> >> In short, focusing on going for game wins increases the risk that you will >> get locked out of victory points entirely. > > LOL...WHAT?!?!?!. How can focusing on the Game Win get you locked out > of Victory Points if the only way to get a Game Win is by acccumulating > the most Victory Points? Explain it to me again. Puhleeze. I haven't > laughed this hard in a while. That's a lot of laughing considering it's the whole reason for changing the NAC to a two-day tournament. You claim not to understand the concept, yet you readily cite the point about "high-risk high return decks being required to make the finals of the one-day NAC" forcing the change to two days. Now think, Norm. What *IS* a "high-risk, high-return" deck? Well, GEE, I think that would be a deck that sacrifices its ability to gain incidental victory points in pursuit of game wins. More specifically, it sacrifices incidental victory points in pursuit of table-sweeps, but you get the point. Or you should, despite your protestations of mirth. The whole concept of "high-risk, high-return" decks its based on the notion which you claim merely amuses you: that a deck can be built and played towards a more aggressive goal (or, conversely, a less aggressive goal) at the expense of other goals. If this notion really amuses you as much as all that, then you won't object to going back to a one-day NAC tournament - you know, since you think the whole idea of decks getting game wins at the expense of victory points or vica versa is so ridiculous. >> Bleh. The 39-game-wins argument. Already disposed of, 'nuff said. > > Disprove it. Show me how at the beginning of the day 1 you can > honestly say that there is a strategy of making it to day 2 by not > having any Game Wins. It's already been readily demonstrated. If you haven't conceded the idea given the existing discussion of the NAC in this thread, I'm pretty sure no amount of "proof" is ever likely to satisfy you. Fred

olivier...@gmail.com wrote: > The real probleme is not Withdraw, the real probleme is Deal. The real problem is that it is a multiplayer game. They don't have these problems with Yukijank the Gathering. Here comes that slippery slope. First, Banning Table Deals. Then, Banning Political Deals Then, Banning Crosstable actions Then, Banning Political Cards. Then, Banning Drinking and Smoking Then, Banning Fur Then, Banning Red Meat Then, Banning Wool Then, Banning Farting Where will it stop? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 17, 10:05 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > Bleh. The 39-game-wins argument. Already disposed of, 'nuff said.Disprove it. Show me how at the beginning of the day 1 you can > honestly say that there is a strategy of making it to day 2 by not > having any Game Wins. Only two thinks can occur that make it so that > more than only 1 person gets to have that dubious distiction. > > 1) a game ends with no GW scored > 2) a player takes more than one GW > > Show me how this doesn't work. Because a player can actively work towards creating situation 1 or 2 during a game in any given round. If I think I am in a situation where I cannot get a GW in a given game, I can try and make a deal to create a situation where there is no GW, ie a 2-2-1 split. Alternatively, if it is after the first round and I know that player X already has 1 or more GWs than I can make a deal with them in which I get VPs and they get the GW. I don't know if this deal is entirely legal, due to how using information outside the current round works, but I could make the same deal that gives a GW to player that already have 1 or more accidentally/without my knowledge. In either of these situations, I have created/opened a spot to Day 2 in which no GW is necessary. If in doing so I earned 2 VPs, I am near the top of the list of people with no GWs. If I manage to do this in 2 rounds, I will most likely get one of those spots. I can think of several decks that would be good at accomplishing either/both of the above. Those decks probably have a higher percentage chance of accomplishing their goal than a deck focuses on getting a GW, since 2 of 5 players at a table can accomplish the above goal and only 1 of 5 can get a GW. However, I was not that smart and had I been that smart, probably wouldn't have made that choice anyways due to personal deck preferences, and played a deck that I felt could get a GW in at least 1 of 3 rounds, allowing for random factors of seating position and other decks at the table. Later, ~Rehlow, who wishes he could have helped out Norm more when preying on that Tupdog deck in Round 3 of Day 2, but Tsunda going to torpor and then Graverobbed after taking 1 action despite having a dodge once per combat from Treasured Samadji and 3 S:CE in hand. Oh boy, that sounds like a rant. :(

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1161377943....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Here comes that slippery slope. > > First, Banning Table Deals. > Then, Banning Political Deals > Then, Banning Crosstable actions > Then, Banning Political Cards. > Then, Banning Drinking and Smoking > Then, Banning Fur > Then, Banning Red Meat > Then, Banning Wool > Then, Banning Farting > > Where will it stop? Maybe they could ban arguments that misuse the slippery slope device beyond all sanity. Fred

> Later, > ~Rehlow, who wishes he could have helped out Norm more when preying on > that Tupdog deck in Round 3 of Day 2, but Tsunda going to torpor and > then Graverobbed after taking 1 action despite having a dodge once per > combat from Treasured Samadji and 3 S:CE in hand. Oh boy, that sounds > like a rant. That graverobbing just fubar'd that table for me. It completely turned me around to backrush the Tupdog deck. Where were my blinders when I needed them. I feel so transparent right now. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Rehlow" <news...@rehlow.com> wrote in message news:1161378148....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Later, > ~Rehlow, who wishes he could have helped out Norm more when preying on > that Tupdog deck in Round 3 of Day 2, but Tsunda going to torpor and > then Graverobbed after taking 1 action despite having a dodge once per > combat from Treasured Samadji and 3 S:CE in hand. Oh boy, that sounds > like a rant. :( > You got boned six ways from Sunday in that game... after Tsunda got Graverobbed, I Restructured your Procurer and From a Sinking Ship'd your Paul Forrest (gaining a DI in the process thanks to his tarot equipment thingy). At least Christian didn't get to Graverob Basilia... that really would have ruined my day. - Pat

Frederick Scott schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Probably we should ban all discussions about banning deals because they are so elemental to the game and are so closely tied to the tradition of the game that banning them would certainly hurt the game alot (in terms of frustrated players, declining tournament attendance, decreasing sales, even more frustrated players). Anyway I have the impression that most of the people whining about deals are those who dont have very good results in tournaments and are blaming the table deals for that. Maybe they should just work on their decks, table talk and player skill instead of complaining. -- johannes walch

[ quoted text not captured ] Then, Banning Sanity Then, Banning Sanitation Then, Banning San Fransisco Riots in the Streets, Dogs and Cats living together, Basically the end of the world Mr. Mayor [ quoted text not captured ]

Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in news:ehgt3q$d2p$1...@news01.versatel.de: > Probably we should ban all discussions about banning deals because > they are so elemental to the game and are so closely tied to the > tradition of the game that banning them would certainly hurt the game > alot (in terms of frustrated players, declining tournament attendance, > decreasing sales, even more frustrated players). > _I_ think we should ban discussions about banning discussions about banning deals, because if you don't ban the banning of ban... Wait, where was I..? > Anyway I have the impression that most of the people whining about > deals are those who dont have very good results in tournaments and are > blaming the table deals for that. Maybe they should just work on their > decks, table talk and player skill instead of complaining. I take it back, lets just ban stupid comments like this. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:ehgt3q$d2p$1...@news01.versatel.de... > Anyway I have the impression that most of the people whining about deals are those who dont have very good results in tournaments > and are blaming the table deals for that. Maybe they should just work on their decks, table talk and player skill instead of > complaining. As expressed elsewhere, it's much more likely that the players "whining" about table deals at the NAC are concerned about the problems caused by table splitting in the absense of any need to get a game win on the first day. (Remember the title of this thread, right?) There was a reason the game win rule was created. Fred

On Wed, Oct 11 2006, LSJ wrote: > CthuluKitty wrote: > > > Another possible (additional?) idea: Elimination of > > > the withdrawal rule. > > > > This actually strikes me as something to seriously consider. It > > seriously hampers VP deals, makes Twister slightly less stupid, and > > doesn't get in the way of much else. I mean, I have seen people > > successfully withdraw when their library was depleted just to salvage a > > VP, but I haven't seen it often. Getting rid of the obnoxious table > > talk about VP deals would certainly be worth losing the occasional use > > of the withdrawal rule as it was intended. > > See the thread starting with this post: > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/951e2e333252d691 While the withdrawal rules serve a purpose for the game in general (see the link above for more on that), the time limit in tournament games could be argued to address much of the same purpose. So how's this for a fix (applied only to VEKN tournaments -- leaving the basic gamne rules alone): award just 0.5 VPs for a withdrawal rather than the full VP. "Last Methuselah Standing" would still get a full VP, making "mutual withdrawal" not quite the same as going to time. Either that or eliminate withdrawal (and ban Brinksmanship), like ante was eliminated for tournaments back in 1995. To allow for players to agree to a stalemate, treat a mutual agreement of stalemate as going to the time limit: 0.5 VPs for all remaining players. Discuss.

LSJ wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11 2006, LSJ wrote: > > CthuluKitty wrote: > > > > Another possible (additional?) idea: Elimination of > > > > the withdrawal rule. > > > > > > This actually strikes me as something to seriously consider. It > > > seriously hampers VP deals, makes Twister slightly less stupid, and > > > doesn't get in the way of much else. I mean, I have seen people > > > successfully withdraw when their library was depleted just to salvage a > > > VP, but I haven't seen it often. Getting rid of the obnoxious table > > > talk about VP deals would certainly be worth losing the occasional use > > > of the withdrawal rule as it was intended. > > > > See the thread starting with this post: > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/951e2e333252d691 > > While the withdrawal rules serve a purpose for the game in general (see > the link above for more on that), the time limit in tournament games > could be argued to address much of the same purpose. > > So how's this for a fix (applied only to VEKN tournaments -- leaving > the basic gamne rules alone): award just 0.5 VPs for a withdrawal > rather than the full VP. "Last Methuselah Standing" would still get a > full VP, making "mutual withdrawal" not quite the same as going to > time. Though it's not common, sometimes a person wants to withdraw because they're making little enough headway into their prey that it's their best chance at a(nother) VP, and sometimes their predator allows it because the withdrawing player has enough pool and/or permanents to defend it that allowing that player to leave the table gives the predator a better shot at VPs. If you make withdrawing worth only as much as timing out, there's much less incentive for a player to withdraw and allow the table to continue on instead of trying to hold out until the time limit is reached. That being said, it would certainly make withdraw deals more interesting, as there'd have to be some negotiation for who has to withdraw and who gets the full VP for last-man standing. > Either that or eliminate withdrawal (and ban Brinksmanship), like ante > was eliminated for tournaments back in 1995. > > To allow for players to agree to a stalemate, treat a mutual agreement > of stalemate as going to the time limit: 0.5 VPs for all remaining > players. > > Discuss. witness1 -believe the lie

LSJ wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I would seriously love something like that, personally I'd go for the complete removal of withdraw in tournaments. Play to oust everyone else, or agree on a stalemate. That's it. Like I just wrote in another thread (the one titled "EC"), I just got back from my first EC trip, and got exposed to the way VTES is played in central Europe -- and didn't care for many of the elements in it. The worst offenders (in my view) were the table VP deals very, very early in the game, and withdraw is the mechanism that allows this. It seemed to me that almost half of my EC tournament games had someone withdraw as part of a VP deal, which (imho) is *ridiculous*. It totally subverts the predator-prey relationship, and makes the game more about who you want to collude with -- which in turn leads to friends helping each other and other game-disruptive stuff. Ideally, a judge would overrule that kind of collusion, but we all know how hard it is to notice that sort of thing as a judge in a large tournament or prove it as a player in one. Fun trip, fun people, mostly fun games... but I hated the way the VP deals were making a joke of what is supposed to be the prime mechanism of the game. Anything that makes those kinds of deals harder and/or less desirable gets my vote. Actually seeing people concentrate on their prey and predator in EC (and other) tournaments would be cool :}. //Petri

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > So how's this for a fix (applied only to VEKN tournaments -- leaving > the basic gamne rules alone): award just 0.5 VPs for a withdrawal > rather than the full VP. "Last Methuselah Standing" would still get a > full VP, making "mutual withdrawal" not quite the same as going to > time. I don't see any problem with this. Withdrawal should be allowed, just not as rewarding. And it kinda makes sense to be .5 VPs.. you "survived to the time limit without being ousted". This also stops the situation of withdrawing after you get 1 VP and then winning the game after you're gone when it times out. Which is kinda silly anyway. > Either that or eliminate withdrawal (and ban Brinksmanship), like ante > was eliminated for tournaments back in 1995. If withdrawal were eliminated from VEKN rules, I would prefer Brinksmanship to be reworded to "simulate" a withdrawal rule, just as the Paralyze keyword was expanded into full text when the Paralyze mechanic was eliminated. (or just change it to say "*can and* must attempt to withdraw") Josh Prince in Exile

On Nov 29, 9:54 am, "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Either that or eliminate withdrawal (and ban Brinksmanship), like ante > was eliminated for tournaments back in 1995. > > To allow for players to agree to a stalemate, treat a mutual agreement > of stalemate as going to the time limit: 0.5 VPs for all remaining > players. > > Discuss. I'm fully in favor of eliminating the Withdrawl rules from tournament play. Yeah, every once and a while, someone will legitimately withdraw from a game against the will of other players by virtue of circumstance, which is always entertaining, and they certainly deserve the 1VP for that. But this tends to be the *vast* minority of circumstances, and the vast majority of the time, Withdrawl is simply used to facilitate table split deals. In all my years of competetive VTES, I think I have seen someone actually Withdraw as the result of not a table deal maybe once or twice (and likely those were in draft games), and I have seen multiple people (including myself) withdraw as the result of a table split deal. I think it is perfectly acceptable to lose the small number of "legitimate" Withdrawls from the game in the name of reducing the incentive to go for a table split. -Peter

LSJ wrote: > Either that or eliminate withdrawal (and ban Brinksmanship), like ante > was eliminated for tournaments back in 1995. I'm in favor of eliminating the withdrawal rule (no 0.5 VP), and rewording Brinksmanship to preserve its intended effect. -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] Not really possible to reword Brinksmanship in the absence of a withdrawal rule. Too much text would be required. The tournament rule could be to leave the withdrawal rule in place, but stipulate that all attempts to withdraw fail (which would leave Brinksmanship largely unchanged -- but the removal of the penalty clause would mean that other Meths could not cooperate to remove the Methuselah who played Brinksmanship).

bluedevil wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] That seems to be the cleanest solution to me, too. Assuming that the intent here is to reduce the amount of table VP deals in tournaments, 0.5 VP still gives some incentive. "No withdraw" should force people to actually play until they get ousted, and to concentrate on killing their prey as primary objective (since other ways of gaining VP are reduced). //Petri

LSJ wrote: > Not really possible to reword Brinksmanship in the absence of a withdrawal rule. > Too much text would be required. Seems likely that it is still best to just remove the Withdrawl rule, and then simply give up Brinksmanship as collaterall damage (especially considering how Brinksmanship decks tend to be kinda bad and fringe at best anyway). If there is an overwhelming desire to not excise Brinksmanship, a new cards that is remarkably similaryet doesn't require Withdrawing could be printed in the next expansion (keeping in mind that the vast majority of the time that Brinksmanship becomes a viable ousting mechanism, the "you have to try to Withdraw" part is simply an academic excersize). > The tournament rule could be to leave the withdrawal rule in place, but > stipulate that all attempts to withdraw fail (which would leave Brinksmanship > largely unchanged -- but the removal of the penalty clause would mean that other > Meths could not cooperate to remove the Methuselah who played Brinksmanship). Seems like too much work and wonkiness. -Peter

> > I'm fully in favor of eliminating the Withdrawl rules from tournament > play. Yeah, every once and a while, someone will legitimately withdraw > from a game against the will of other players by virtue of > circumstance, which is always entertaining, and they certainly deserve > the 1VP for that. But this tends to be the *vast* minority of I can only remember seeing one legitimate withdrawal in ten years of playing Vtes. Chris.

I'm totally in favor of eliminating the withdrawal rule (no 0.5 VP), and ban Brinksmanship. Then make a new card to reword it. In 12 years playing i've only seen one case of autenthic withdrawal (it was Bean Peal at EC2005 withdrawing his turbo mata hari econoghoul deck at my table). Regards, Diego [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I would think that if you were to eliminate the withdrawl rule and eliminate the .5 VPs for going to time then you could errata Brinksmanship to read the following. Type: Political Action Cost: 1 pool Political Card -- Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. If your prey has exhausted his or her library and begins his or her untap phase with less than a full hand then he/she may not attempt any actions. Put any blood lost by either your prey's vampires or his pool on this card. During your next untap phase if this card has any counters on it then your prey is ousted. Otherwise you are ousted. Burn this card in either case. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Having read through the 2003 thread, I prefer the 0.5 VP solution rather than eliminating the withdrawal rule altogether. The 0.5 VP solution addresses the problem where a tourney table agrees to mutually withdraw before timeout so that all involved get 1 VP. I didn't see an arguement that the withdrawal rule itself was abusive, and given that I'd like it to stay in the [tourney] game. Rob Grau rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu

Rob Grau wrote: > I didn't see an arguement that the withdrawal rule itself was abusive, > and given that I'd like it to stay in the [tourney] game. Well, the withdraw rule *does* encourage table VP deals. I think we can all agree on that. The question is, are table VP deals bad, neutral, or good? I see them as a bad thing myself and would like to see them gone, but that's just one opinion. //Petri

In message <1164850302.6...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, Powermonger <spall...@hotmail.com> writes: >I'm totally in favor of eliminating the withdrawal rule (no 0.5 VP), >and >ban Brinksmanship. Then make a new card to reword it. I'm still trying to think over the implications of eliminating the withdrawal rule (#vtes had some good arguments about what that might do to the game), but... ... established precedent seems to me to be that if we can fit enough text onto a replacement card to simulate/replace the deleted rule, then we should rehabilitate Brinksmanship when that's possible - though banning it in the nasty interim is just fine. That's what LSJ did with Stake/Wooden Stake, and it doesn't seem to cause any headaches. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Ankur Gupta wrote: > 1) Such a deal likely cannot be made as early in the game, allowing the > feeling that the game is "played" rather than "turned into a fetid pile of > turd and snot". (VERIFYING OBSERVATION.) We definitely need the term "fetid pile of turd and snot" added to the VTES rulebook as an official game term :D Thanks for a good game at the EC, btw, it was one of the more fun games I had and your Black Hand deck looked nice (pity it managed to pick up steam before I got to it... :). //Petri

> So how's this for a fix (applied only to VEKN tournaments -- leaving > the basic gamne rules alone): award just 0.5 VPs for a withdrawal > rather than the full VP. "Last Methuselah Standing" would still get a > full VP, making "mutual withdrawal" not quite the same as going to > time. > > Either that or eliminate withdrawal (and ban Brinksmanship), like ante > was eliminated for tournaments back in 1995. I like that you're considering this as a possibility, and also soliciting feedback. Thank you! I like the possibility of Brinksmanship. I'm confident there would be a way to keep it in the game, regardless of what change you make to withdrawl. It seems like the ways withdrawl occurs in practice is: 1) 3-2 table split 2) 4-1 or 3-1 pity VP ("you were a good wall") after someone already has the GW 3) Actual withdrawl It seems like everyone agrees that #3 is very rare, and no one seems heartbroken about losing it for the greater good. #1 is the thing that we want to disincentivize. Say we have a table A->B->C->D->E. A has a strong vote deck; D also has a vote deck, but isn't doing as well. Instead of fighting it out, D agrees to the losing end of a 3-2 table split. If withdrawl was disallowed, this deal couldn't happen because once it got down to A->D, A nor D wouldn't have a way of getting just 1 more VP. If withdrawl was allowed, but only worth 0.5 VPs, this deal still works fine, because A could withdraw for 2.5 VPs, and D ends with 2 VPs, still giving the GW to A. In fact, if we use the 0.5 withdraw rules, it might make the table split even more appealing to D, because it's only a 0.5 VP difference. Assuming withdrawl isn't possible, the deal could still happen just fine if A was dealing with B, C, or E, since withdrawl isn't used in those cases. So it seems to me that removing withdrawl entirely really only stops the 3-2 split with your grand-predator, and if you allow a 0.5 withdrawl, that doesn't stop the 3-2 splits at all (and it might make them more desirable.) For #2 above, the 3-1 or 4-1 pity VP, I actually like that it's possible. It gives someone in a losing situation something to hope for. Hope is important, and makes the game fun. It also encourages them to stay in the game, and not simply self-oust out of hopelessness. Consider the table A->B->C->D->E, where A is very strong, and E has no hope of ousting A. I've seen (been in) this situation many times. A offers to E, "If you stay alive until the end of the game, I'll let you withdraw." Somewhere along the line, maybe C or D gets ousted, but A is the strongest deck, E hangs on, and A gets 2 or 3 VPs. The endgame A->E, normally A would allow E to withdraw, but if withdrawl was illegal, then A and E would have to agree to a draw, giving E a measley 0.5 VP. Therefore, removing withdrawl doesn't really stop the pity VP for staying alive, but it does make it less appealing. That would have the effect of making E more likely to suicide himself into A, and/or just ousting himself outright. Personally, I'd rather that people who can't oust their prey have something else to hope for, instead of just self-ousting. Removing the withdrawl rule reduces their hope from 1VP to 0.5 VP, which seems too small to me. I'm sure there are other cases, but I feel like the above situations cover a lot of the cases. In conclusion, my initial reaction was that removing the withdrawl rules would do a lot of good, and help stop table split deals. After looking at the deals that would actually be stopped, I don't think removing withdrawl actually helps that much, and it does hurt in some ways. I think the best solution is to change the tournament structure (especially at big tournaments) to more strongly encourage game wins over VPs. Thanks for asking and listening, Ira

>> 1) Such a deal likely cannot be made as early in the game, allowing the >> feeling that the game is "played" rather than "turned into a fetid pile >> of turd and snot". (VERIFYING OBSERVATION.) > > We definitely need the term "fetid pile of turd and snot" added to the > VTES rulebook as an official game term :D Agreed. :) > Thanks for a good game at the EC, btw, it was one of the more fun games > I had and your Black Hand deck looked nice (pity it managed to pick up > steam before I got to it... :). Yeah, I wish I had played it on day 2 as well; it's probably one of my strongest decks and I think I might have actually made it. Our game was one of my favorite. There were two or three fun tables I played at, and that was one of them. What I liked most about that particular table is that despite the level of the event, everyone wanted to have a good time. You know, still playing to win, but first and foremost, having a good time. Surprisingly enough, the same attitude wasn't shared by a lot of other players. Sad really. Ankur Play. The. Game.

Powermonger wrote: > I'm totally in favor of eliminating the withdrawal rule (no 0.5 VP), > and > ban Brinksmanship. Then make a new card to reword it. Making a new card to reword it is Very Unlikely, since this is just a (suggested) tournament rule. > In 12 years playing i've only seen one case of autenthic withdrawal (it > was Bean Peal at EC2005 withdrawing his turbo mata hari econoghoul deck > at my table). Well, remember, it's not just the "authentic withdrawals" that matter, it's the "authentic attempts to withdraw" -- the attempts that force another player (generally the predator) into taking some activity. And remember -- top posting defeats some of the benefits of quoting, and should be avoided. Respond in-line, like I have done here, or at the end of the quoted bit. [ quoted text not captured ]

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > In conclusion, my initial reaction was that removing the withdrawl > rules would do a lot of good, and help stop table split deals. After > looking at the deals that would actually be stopped, I don't think > removing withdrawl actually helps that much, and it does hurt in some > ways. Nicely detailed analysis. Thanks. Perhaps (in addition or in place of a change to withdrawal rules), "Play to win" could be revisited to demand that self-preservation override any deals. That is, any "and I'll let you oust me" or "and I'll self-oust" deals would be disallowed (forcing their ilk into strangely-couched verbal contortions that hopefully can be sniffed out). Or a simple, "no deals are acknowledged when only two Methuselahs remain -- at that point Methuselahs must play to win strictly from game state, not considering any prior deals". But that would leave open the "help me oust Jim and I'll help you oust Bob, and then we can fight it out" deals. > I think the best solution is to change the tournament structure > (especially at big tournaments) to more strongly encourage game wins > over VPs. Perhaps, but what would the substance of such a change look like? Two new topics to discuss. Hooray. Discuss.

[ quoted text not captured ] Without the withdrawal rule, players could still make table VP deals. Debating whether or not the VP deals are a good thing (TM) might be missing the point. I'm most concerned that removing the withdrawal rule would more frequently leave players in a lost position, real or perceived, and the player's lost position attitude would hurt the game overall. I don't think the rule itself is the problem, but I'm willing to accept that eventually it may have to be done away with. Before that I think it would be better to try the withdrawal rule with a smaller reward for withdrawing (0.5 VP). That way you don't risk over correcting for the problem. I don't think the other transition (eliminate rule, then later reinstate it at 0.5VP) would be as smooth. Rob Grau rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu

Rob Grau wrote: > > Petri Wessman wrote: >> Rob Grau wrote: >> > I didn't see an arguement that the withdrawal rule itself was abusive, >> > and given that I'd like it to stay in the [tourney] game. >> >> Well, the withdraw rule *does* encourage table VP deals. I think we can >> all agree on that. The question is, are table VP deals bad, neutral, or >> good? I see them as a bad thing myself and would like to see them gone, >> but that's just one opinion. > > Without the withdrawal rule, players could still make table VP deals. > Debating whether or not the VP deals are a good thing (TM) might be > missing the point. Well, without any VPs from withdrawing those deals get a great deal more difficult, "giving someone VPs" would be harder than now. But yeah, it of course doesn't absolutely *stop* the things. > I'm most concerned that removing the withdrawal rule would more > frequently leave players in a lost position, real or perceived, and > the player's lost position attitude would hurt the game overall. Yes. Of course, ideally people would play to their best ability until they get ousted, whether in a losing position or not -- but you can't enforce that, many people have an unfortunate "it's not worth playing if I'm unlikely to get VPs" attitude. > I don't think the rule itself is the problem, but I'm willing to accept > that eventually it may have to be done away with. Before that I think > it would be better to try the withdrawal rule with a smaller reward for > withdrawing (0.5 VP). That way you don't risk over correcting for the > problem. I don't think the other transition (eliminate rule, then > later reinstate it at 0.5VP) would be as smooth. Might be. The proposed "no deals can be made or enforced when there are only two players left on the table" might also help (in addition). If people are by VEKN rules required to play to max their VPs and to disregard any deals, previous or not, it might make the most aggravating VP table deals a thing of the past. Maybe. Of course, people are clever at "playing the system" and will find loopholes, if given the chance. It's tricky. //Petri

On Nov 29, 9:41 pm, "Rob Grau" <rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote: > I didn't see an arguement that the withdrawal rule itself was abusive, > and given that I'd like it to stay in the [tourney] game. It is certainly arguable that the Withdrawl rule, which exists originally to provide last ditch incentive for forward momentum in stalemate games (i.e. if the game is at a lock, and no one is willing to move, someone can attempt to withdraw, compelling his predator to take action), is, in fact, being abused in that it is, in practice, only used to facilitate deal making (which is not likely the inetent of the rule in the first place) in that "How about I let you live, you oust your prey and then withdraw, and I walk away with 3VP" kinda way. As the withdrawl rule is rarely, if ever, used for its actual intended purpose (to force action in a stalemate) due to there being a timelimit in tournament play, the vast, vast majority of the uses of the withdrawl rule in competetive play could arguably be called "abusive". I don't think that the game would suffer at all if withdrawing was removed from competetive play (removing one more bargaining chip from the arsenal of folks who like to wheel and deal rather than oust their prey), and the collaterall damage of killing Brinksmanship could be fixed rather easily by making a very similar card that did not require the withdrawing mechanism. -Peter

On Nov 30, 8:44 am, "Rob Grau" <rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote: > I'm most concerned that removing the withdrawal rule would more > frequently leave players in a lost position, real or perceived, and > the player's lost position attitude would hurt the game overall. Or, it would help the game overall, as people who find themselves in a percieved "lost" position will do everything they can to try and go somewhere with it, rather than accepting a deal as a toadie. > I don't think the rule itself is the problem, but I'm willing to accept > that eventually it may have to be done away with. Before that I think > it would be better to try the withdrawal rule with a smaller reward for > withdrawing (0.5 VP). That way you don't risk over correcting for the > problem. I don't think the other transition (eliminate rule, then > later reinstate it at 0.5VP) would be as smooth. I dunno that it'd be over corrected--again, I'm at least under the impression that "legitimate" withdrawl from the game is so few and far between that it isn't really an issue that it is eliminated. The "ilegitimate" withdrawls (i.e. withdrawing 'cause someone else at the table lets you do so for deal making purposes) are common and arguably undesireable. I don't think erring on the side of "over correction" on this front is necessarily a bad thing. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > On Nov 29, 9:41 pm, "Rob Grau" <rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote: >> I didn't see an arguement that the withdrawal rule itself was abusive, >> and given that I'd like it to stay in the [tourney] game. > > It is certainly arguable that the Withdrawl rule, which exists > originally to provide last ditch incentive for forward momentum in > stalemate games (i.e. if the game is at a lock, and no one is willing > to move, someone can attempt to withdraw, compelling his predator to > take action), is, in fact, being abused in that it is, in practice, > only used to facilitate deal making (which is not likely the inetent of > the rule in the first place) in that "How about I let you live, you > oust your prey and then withdraw, and I walk away with 3VP" kinda way. > As the withdrawl rule is rarely, if ever, used for its actual intended > purpose (to force action in a stalemate) due to there being a timelimit > in tournament play, the vast, vast majority of the uses of the > withdrawl rule in competetive play could arguably be called "abusive". Agreed... and I don't think you even need that "arguably" qualifier, it's as clear as day. At the EC, maybe a good third of all my games ended with at least one person withdrawing as a result of a VP deal. It's not a rare, random ocurrence, it seems to be an epidemic -- at least at the EC, and I suspect the NAC has this same problem as well. I have personally *never* run into a "legitimate" withdrawal in a tournament game. I'm sure they happen once in a blue moon, but they are very very rare. Withdrawal as part of a table deal... that happens continually. And yes, since I very much doubt that was the intention of the rule originally, I would also call this behavior "abusive". It's making people focus much, much less on actually ousting their prey and much more on table talk, cross-table harassment, and kingmaking. The 1 VP from withdrawing is one of the prime motivators and tools for this. > I don't think that the game would suffer at all if withdrawing was > removed from competetive play (removing one more bargaining chip from > the arsenal of folks who like to wheel and deal rather than oust their > prey), and the collaterall damage of killing Brinksmanship could be > fixed rather easily by making a very similar card that did not require > the withdrawing mechanism. Compared to the huge (imho very detrimental) effect VP deals are having on tournament games, I personally consider the tournament banning of one card an insignificant negative factor. Sure, ideally it would be reworded to be usable, but I don't think it weighs that much in the matter. //Petri

[ quoted text not captured ] The thing of it is, eliminating the withdrawal rule completely doesn't really stop VP deals anyway, it just alters the amount that can be offered depending on seating. You can still make winning or losing 3/2 deals with your predator or prey. You can make a losing 3/2 deal with your grandpredator, and a winning 3/2 deal with your grandprey. I'm not so sure that eliminating the withdrawal rule will actually help all that much, and I'm especially concerned that it seems likely to reduce cross-table deals more than neighbor deals. I mean, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm a lot more frustrated when someone makes a deal with their prey than I am when two guys crosstable make a pact - at least the crosstable deal was made in keeping with the initial predator/prey relationship. Crosstable deals are also often ways of getting VPs _now_ instead of pushing the game out to a time limit. I'd still much rather people make shorter-term deals (like, I'll help you get 1VP, you help me get 1VP, then we see where the table stands before talking about anything more than that), but that just doesn't seem to happen so much. Witness1 -believe the lie

witness1 wrote: > The thing of it is, eliminating the withdrawal rule completely doesn't > really stop VP deals anyway, it just alters the amount that can be > offered depending on seating. You can still make winning or losing 3/2 > deals with your predator or prey. You can make a losing 3/2 deal with > your grandpredator, and a winning 3/2 deal with your grandprey. I'm not > so sure that eliminating the withdrawal rule will actually help all > that much, and I'm especially concerned that it seems likely to reduce > cross-table deals more than neighbor deals. > > I mean, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm a lot more frustrated > when someone makes a deal with their prey than I am when two guys > crosstable make a pact - at least the crosstable deal was made in > keeping with the initial predator/prey relationship. I suppose it could be more frustrating, but it seems to be the minority already. Most VP deals are cross-table ones. It still allows some VP deals (cross-table or otherwise), but it eliminates some as well. The latter is the focus (improvement), not the former (unachievable Utopian perfection now now now).

> ira...@gmail.com wrote: > > In conclusion, my initial reaction was that removing the withdrawl > > rules would do a lot of good, and help stop table split deals. After > > looking at the deals that would actually be stopped, I don't think > > removing withdrawl actually helps that much, and it does hurt in some > > ways. > Any chance we could imcrease the "survive til the end" VP to 1 instead of 0.5 VP? If we want to promote people from suicide, then keeping the hope of surviving til the end being worth more than a measely 0.5VP might be valuable. Unfortunately, I think changing it would put us close to square one by prmoting table split deals still. Vegas gNat

LSJ wrote: > Not really possible to reword Brinksmanship in the absence of a withdrawal rule. > Too much text would be required. > The tournament rule could be to leave the withdrawal rule in place, but > stipulate that all attempts to withdraw fail (which would leave Brinksmanship > largely unchanged -- but the removal of the penalty clause would mean that other > Meths could not cooperate to remove the Methuselah who played Brinksmanship). Good point. Then I'd go for withdrawal rule in place, but worth 0 VP. Whatever is chosen, I'd like to see Brinksmanship preserved.

LSJ wrote: > ira...@gmail.com wrote: > > In conclusion, my initial reaction was that removing the withdrawl > > rules would do a lot of good, and help stop table split deals. After > > looking at the deals that would actually be stopped, I don't think > > removing withdrawl actually helps that much, and it does hurt in some > > ways. > Withdraw deals occur with great frequency and almost always result in "unearned" VPs. You didn't oust your prey and were allowed to withdraw by your predator. Eliminating the VP gaining incentives from withdrawing would be very good for strengtheing the predator->prey dynmaic. A good thing. > > Perhaps (in addition or in place of a change to withdrawal rules), "Play to win" > could be revisited to demand that self-preservation override any deals. That is, > any "and I'll let you oust me" or "and I'll self-oust" deals would be disallowed > (forcing their ilk into strangely-couched verbal contortions that hopefully can > be sniffed out). Self-preservation is a little vague to be enshrined in the rules. The last-ditch lunge for an oust is a legitimate tactic from a bad position. I would hate to see the endless "Play to win" debate be joined by an endless "self-preservation" debate. > > Or a simple, "no deals are acknowledged when only two Methuselahs remain -- at > that point Methuselahs must play to win strictly from game state, not > considering any prior deals". Oh, this is very good. Kills withdraw deals AND kills roll-over deals. It would also kill the less abusive "you rescue me and I'll rescue one of your guys later" kind of deals if they extend into the 2-player endgame. But no great loss there. It's a sensible extention of "play to win" (and the "play the game" philosophy). I like it. > > But that would leave open the "help me oust Jim and I'll help you oust Bob, and > then we can fight it out" deals. > Sure. But those are much less abuisive, and more in the spirit of the game than the "lets decide amongst ourselves and not bother to fight it out" deals. Just having a "no endgame deals" acutally makes early game VP deals a lot trickier as well. You don't want to let someone gain VPs and a stronger a position if they can't roll over to you in the endgame. -Ben Swainbank

tigernat1 wrote: > Any chance we could imcrease the "survive til the end" VP to 1 instead > of 0.5 VP? If we want to promote people from suicide, then keeping the > hope of surviving til the end being worth more than a measely 0.5VP > might be valuable. Unfortunately, I think changing it would put us > close to square one by prmoting table split deals still. I think that: A) Provides too much incentive to actively try to time out. B) Gives the same dealmaking potential as a withdrawl--instead of saying "You do what I want and then Withdraw" you say "You do what I want and then we both sit here till we time out" and the end result is the same. -Peter

LSJ wrote: > Or a simple, "no deals are acknowledged when only two Methuselahs remain -- at > that point Methuselahs must play to win strictly from game state, not > considering any prior deals". I really like this proposal.

> LSJ wrote: > > Or a simple, "no deals are acknowledged when only two Methuselahs remain -- at > > that point Methuselahs must play to win strictly from game state, not > > considering any prior deals". > This seems to be the way it should always have been and it seemingly underpins the ethic of play-to-win. Or, as one of our illustrious posters would say: "Play. The. Game." It is also relatively simple/elegant and effectively negates a whole range of table splitting deals. This is, I think, one of the most significant debates that has appeared on the newsgroup for a long time and could significantly change the face of the game. More opinions and arguments please. Paul

[ quoted text not captured ] What I find the most interesting about this proposal is that it would still allow players to mutually withdraw at the two-player level, provided such was still play-to-win for both of them (i.e, time is running out or the player in the stronger position wins by agreeing to the withdrawal - and is in a sufficiently stronger position that the other player is justified in accepting 1 VP instead trying to play for 2). This could make it difficult in some situations to determine if the players are making decisions solely on game state if they had a prior deal. That doesn't make this a bad idea, as it would certainly change the outcome of at least some deals, and I would think that most games would still need to be played out. If it turned out that players began abusing this "loophole" you could modify play-to-win by stating that in the two-player game, each player must play to maximize VPs regardless of the game win (i.e., they could only withdraw if there was a stalemate). Witness1 -believe the lie.

I read all the related posts, and have come to this PERSONAL conclusion> 1. I really dislike VP split deals, but banning withdrawals will NOT totally erradicate the VP deals from the game. And making deals IS part of the game. So, i support banning withdrawals, but i'm not totally sure this would end our problems. 2. I think the focal point of my concerns is how to make people play to win and prevent them from commiting suicide. That's the real pain in my local metagames. If one player commits suicide, the whole game turns not funny (tournament or friendly alike). Analysis> - If we eliminate withdrawals, we lose a great of the deal-making part of the game, which is very "jyhadistic" and gives flavour to the game. And it is demonstrated that this would not end ALL our problems. I would call it a "patch" and not a solution. - We have to find a innovative way to prevent people from commiting suicide. And that solution should not interfere with the deal making part of the game. Any ideas on that should be very helpful. Regards, Diego

LSJ wrote: > Perhaps (in addition or in place of a change to withdrawal rules), "Play to win" > could be revisited to demand that self-preservation override any deals. That is, > any "and I'll let you oust me" or "and I'll self-oust" deals would be disallowed > (forcing their ilk into strangely-couched verbal contortions that hopefully can > be sniffed out). > > Or a simple, "no deals are acknowledged when only two Methuselahs remain -- at > that point Methuselahs must play to win strictly from game state, not > considering any prior deals". When considering this second suggestion in place of the suggested withdrawal rule changes, remember that this does not prevent a table from agreeing to withdraw simultaneously. The methuselahs simply exhaust their libraries while everyone is participating in the round. Next, they each announce their intentions to withdraw. After that, the withdrawal conditions are checked during the untap phase and the table neatly collapses without ever giving the last two players a chance to duke it out mano a mano. Rob Grau rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu

LSJ wrote: > ira...@gmail.com wrote: > > I think the best solution is to change the tournament structure > > (especially at big tournaments) to more strongly encourage game wins > > over VPs. > > Perhaps, but what would the substance of such a change look like? A minor tweak, but my suggestion is to rank tournament players as follows: 1. Game Wins 2. Earned VPs / Possible VPs * 100 (Percentage) 3. Tournament Points By using a percentage, you give a player assured of getting a game win a reason NOT to throw away those 'extra' VPs in a table split. Rob Grau rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu

In message <1164949211.9...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Rob Grau <rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu> writes: >A minor tweak, but my suggestion is to rank tournament players as >follows: > >1. Game Wins >2. Earned VPs / Possible VPs * 100 (Percentage) >3. Tournament Points > >By using a percentage, you give a player assured of getting a game win >a reason NOT to throw away those 'extra' VPs in a table split. They already have a reason not to throw them away, though, because they're ranked by Game Wins then Earned VPs. The only difference this makes is in situations where players have different total possible numbers of VP, due to a difference in 4 player vs 5 player tables. Or where a player joined mid-tournament, perhaps, though that might cause issues of its own. Should 1GW and 100% off one round beat 1GW and 66% (including a sweep on the table it won) off three rounds? [ quoted text not captured ]

> This seems to be the way it should always have been and it seemingly > underpins the ethic of play-to-win. Or, as one of our illustrious > posters would say: "Play. The. Game." Who is that guy anyway? Let's beat the crap out of him. > It is also relatively simple/elegant and effectively negates a whole > range of table splitting deals. This is, I think, one of the most > significant debates that has appeared on the newsgroup for a long time > and could significantly change the face of the game. More opinions and > arguments please. My concern is that it may be difficult to adjudicate the proposed "game state only" endgame in practice. Neither of the two players involved would call a judge to make sure the parameters are met (since it's in their best interest *not* to do so), and everyone else is a spectator (and thus, may not be allowed to watch the game). Unless there's a judge present at *every* table who watches the game until it finishes from a two-player state, I hardly see the proposed solution as actually being a solution. Moreover, it's already difficult for a judge to distinguish between dumb play and play with an ulterior motive (upholding a prior deal that isn't necessarily privy to a judge). I couldn't even begin to imagine what kind of a nightmare that would be for judges. ("Oops, I accidentally called this KRC when I was on 1 pool and passed it. Shucks.") In the end, there's an underlying ethic about playing the game. My calling card is thought of as a bit tongue-in-cheek here (and it is), but really, it captures a whole host of issues. Play. The. Game. It's that easy. To that end, we are attempting to apply a series of changes so that the game ethic matches reality. I feel that a change to the reward for withdrawing would be a positive first step. Remove the reward (1 VP), or have simply add some tournament points for a successful withdrawal. That will help. However, I've argued that it may *yet* not solve the problem -- it may simply skew 3/2 deals in favor of certain relationships on a 5 player table. It should be tested. Ankur Play. The. Game.

Ankur Gupta wrote: > My concern is that it may be difficult to adjudicate the proposed "game > state only" endgame in practice. Neither of the two players involved > would call a judge to make sure the parameters are met (since it's in > their best interest *not* to do so), and everyone else is a spectator > (and thus, may not be allowed to watch the game). Unless there's a judge > present at *every* table who watches the game until it finishes from a > two-player state, I hardly see the proposed solution as actually being a > solution. Except that the questionable deal would have been made with another player present. Who could then alert the judge that a questionable deal had been made and that the endgame should be observed (by that player, at least, who could then call for a judge when needed). > > Moreover, it's already difficult for a judge to distinguish between dumb > play and play with an ulterior motive (upholding a prior deal that isn't > necessarily privy to a judge). I couldn't even begin to imagine what > kind of a nightmare that would be for judges. ("Oops, I accidentally > called this KRC when I was on 1 pool and passed it. Shucks.") That's no nightmare at all. That's standard judging. It wouldn't seem to be any more or less common based on the proposed change. > To that end, we are attempting to apply a series of changes so that the > game ethic matches reality. I feel that a change to the reward for > withdrawing would be a positive first step. Remove the reward (1 VP), or > have simply add some tournament points for a successful withdrawal. That > will help. However, I've argued that it may *yet* not solve the problem > -- it may simply skew 3/2 deals in favor of certain relationships on a 5 > player table. It should be tested. Yes. It isn't intended to be a magic pill to make the tournament environment perfect. It is a step.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1164949211.9...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Rob > Grau <rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu> writes: > >A minor tweak, but my suggestion is to rank tournament players as > >follows: > > > >1. Game Wins > >2. Earned VPs / Possible VPs * 100 (Percentage) > >3. Tournament Points > > > >By using a percentage, you give a player assured of getting a game win > >a reason NOT to throw away those 'extra' VPs in a table split. > > They already have a reason not to throw them away, though, because > they're ranked by Game Wins then Earned VPs. True, but it hasn't prevented table splits from happening, and here we are. > The only difference this makes is in situations where players have > different total possible numbers of VP, due to a difference in 4 player > vs 5 player tables. Ah, yes. I've had a chance to do the math this morning, and you're right. Let's scrap this suggestion altogether. That's what I get for posting right before bed. If it matters, it did help me sleep better. > Or where a player joined mid-tournament, perhaps, > though that might cause issues of its own. Should 1GW and 100% off one > round beat 1GW and 66% (including a sweep on the table it won) off three > rounds? This was not something I was concerned about when thinking of alternative formats. Is this something that's actually happened? It's probably not that hard to adapt any rule for the situation, though. In your hypothetical, you could just count potential VPs for the absent player at a rate of 5 per game. Alas, the issue here is moot. Rob Grau rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu

Rob Grau wrote: > James Coupe wrote: >> In message <1164949211.9...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Rob >> Grau <rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu> writes: >>> A minor tweak, but my suggestion is to rank tournament players as >>> follows: >>> >>> 1. Game Wins >>> 2. Earned VPs / Possible VPs * 100 (Percentage) >>> 3. Tournament Points >>> >>> By using a percentage, you give a player assured of getting a game win >>> a reason NOT to throw away those 'extra' VPs in a table split. >> They already have a reason not to throw them away, though, because >> they're ranked by Game Wins then Earned VPs. > > True, but it hasn't prevented table splits from happening, and here we > are. The point being that switching from VPs to %VPs doesn't change the incentive program any with respect to table splits. Both put roughly equal emphasis on collecting the "extra" VPs at a GW. And they each put the same emphasis on collecting VPs at non-GWs.

On Dec 1, 4:06 am, Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote: > Moreover, it's already difficult for a judge to distinguish between dumb > play and play with an ulterior motive (upholding a prior deal that isn't > necessarily privy to a judge). I couldn't even begin to imagine what kind > of a nightmare that would be for judges. ("Oops, I accidentally called > this KRC when I was on 1 pool and passed it. Shucks.") In the end, there's > an underlying ethic about playing the game. My calling card is thought of > as a bit tongue-in-cheek here (and it is), but really, it captures a whole > host of issues. Yeah, see, this is why I am vastly more in favor of concrete, objective tweaks to the rules (i.e. removal of the Withdrawl rule, at least in tournaments, where it isn't needed for its intended purpose anyway) than subjective tweaks that require *more* judgement from judges (i.e. adjusting what is or is not a legal deal in the game). While removal of the Withdrawl rule might not fix everything that needs fixing, it is at least simple and non subjective and probably would go a ways towards eliminating a lot of silly deals due to lack of incentive. Mucking around with "this deal is legal, but this deal isn't" kinda stuff can't, in theory, hurt anything, but strikes me as less likely to actually accomplish anything, for reasons pointed out by Ankur. -Peter

>> My concern is that it may be difficult to adjudicate the proposed "game >> state only" endgame in practice. Neither of the two players involved >> would call a judge to make sure the parameters are met (since it's in >> their best interest *not* to do so), and everyone else is a spectator >> (and thus, may not be allowed to watch the game). Unless there's a >> judge present at *every* table who watches the game until it finishes >> from a two-player state, I hardly see the proposed solution as actually >> being a solution. > > Except that the questionable deal would have been made with another > player present. Who could then alert the judge that a questionable deal > had been made and that the endgame should be observed (by that player, > at least, who could then call for a judge when needed). What if the players involved invoke the "no spectator" rule? Then only a judge could do the watching (although the alert step would still happen, of course). I suppose that a judge could insist that a player watch the table on his behalf; could that generate other problems? >> Moreover, it's already difficult for a judge to distinguish between >> dumb play and play with an ulterior motive (upholding a prior deal that >> isn't necessarily privy to a judge). I couldn't even begin to imagine >> what kind of a nightmare that would be for judges. ("Oops, I >> accidentally called this KRC when I was on 1 pool and passed it. >> Shucks.") > > That's no nightmare at all. > That's standard judging. It wouldn't seem to be any more or less common based > on the proposed change. Well, to me the consequence of subverting rules by dumb play seems more severe to me in this case. And also more likely (given the propensity for table splitting deals at present). It's obviously an opinion. >> To that end, we are attempting to apply a series of changes so that the >> game ethic matches reality. I feel that a change to the reward for >> withdrawing would be a positive first step. Remove the reward (1 VP), >> or have simply add some tournament points for a successful withdrawal. >> That will help. However, I've argued that it may *yet* not solve the >> problem -- it may simply skew 3/2 deals in favor of certain >> relationships on a 5 player table. It should be tested. > > Yes. It isn't intended to be a magic pill to make the tournament > environment perfect. It is a step. I'm glad we're on the same page on that. I hope we take the stance of small definitive steps in order to achieve the correct balance, rather than make a massive change and have to backpedal. Ankur Play. The. Game.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, I owe James an apology for being short with him. These are the avenues I'm thinking about towards solving your (Ira's?) challenge for a different tournament structure-- 1. Emphasize GWs over VPs by not counting VPs at all. This would leave us in a tiebreak bind because even tournament points have a basis in VPs. I haven't thought of a tiebreak solution that didn't use VPs in some way. 2. Using some sort of ladder format for tournaments. This quickly gets complicated with V:TES' multiplayer games. Maybe workable, but I haven't figured out how. 3. Since people are concerned about table spilts, some mechanic to encourage earning VPs. This is opposed to Ira's notion of deemphasizing VPs, which is a problem. (and where I got tripped up earlier) Also at issue is that VPs themselves are probably the best way of doing this. the simplest, at least. 4. Seeding a tournament based on V:EKN ranking, followed by a knockout elimination instead of prelim rounds. Since every game does not have a GW, this would need some adjusting to make work. It's also possible that none of these ideas will actually turn out better than our current tournament stucture. Perhaps someone can improve on one of the things I was considering. Rob Grau rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu

Ankur Gupta wrote: >>> My concern is that it may be difficult to adjudicate the proposed >>> "game state only" endgame in practice. Neither of the two players >>> involved would call a judge to make sure the parameters are met >>> (since it's in their best interest *not* to do so), and everyone else >>> is a spectator (and thus, may not be allowed to watch the game). >>> Unless there's a judge present at *every* table who watches the game >>> until it finishes from a two-player state, I hardly see the proposed >>> solution as actually being a solution. >> >> Except that the questionable deal would have been made with another >> player present. Who could then alert the judge that a questionable >> deal had been made and that the endgame should be observed (by that >> player, at least, who could then call for a judge when needed). > > What if the players involved invoke the "no spectator" rule? Then only a > judge could do the watching (although the alert step would still happen, > of course). I suppose that a judge could insist that a player watch the > table on his behalf; Of course. But if there's a questionable deal afoot *and* the players are actively trying to avoid being watched at all, then it's probably a good place for a judge to be. In reality, of course, it wouldn't happed very often at all. > could that generate other problems? Not really.

>>> Except that the questionable deal would have been made with another >>> player present. Who could then alert the judge that a questionable >>> deal had been made and that the endgame should be observed (by that >>> player, at least, who could then call for a judge when needed). >> >> What if the players involved invoke the "no spectator" rule? Then only >> a judge could do the watching (although the alert step would still >> happen, of course). I suppose that a judge could insist that a player >> watch the table on his behalf; > > Of course. But if there's a questionable deal afoot *and* the players > are actively trying to avoid being watched at all, then it's probably a > good place for a judge to be. Probably. I was sort of expanding this to the "OMGZORZ EVERY TABLE IS DOING THIS. OMGZORZ THE SKY IS FALLING" level of conclusion that the Internet is well-known for. It's totally not fun when some responds back with logic and a more moderate view that matches reality. ;) Ankur Play. The. Game.

[ quoted text not captured ] Heh. And note that when a player invokes his right to *request* that the judge prevent a spectator from observing the game, the judge is free to deny that request.

LSJ escreveu: > Perhaps (in addition or in place of a change to withdrawal rules), "Play to win" > could be revisited to demand that self-preservation override any deals. That is, > any "and I'll let you oust me" or "and I'll self-oust" deals would be disallowed > (forcing their ilk into strangely-couched verbal contortions that hopefully can > be sniffed out). I like this idea. However, I wonder how would us judges be able to enforce "self-preservation". A lot of times I have seem players justify questionable decisions based on them being in a lost position. Sometimes I smell unsportmanlike behavior, but it's hard to judge against something that is allowed by the rules. Maybe self-oust should not be allowed. I don't like it at all, myself. But I understand that a threat to self-oust can be put to good use (for example, to give a player bargain leverage when a deal is being made elsewhere on the table), so I'm not sure that outlawing it would be a good idea. > Or a simple, "no deals are acknowledged when only two Methuselahs remain -- at > that point Methuselahs must play to win strictly from game state, not > considering any prior deals". I like this proposal a lot. I feel comfortable with it both as a player and as a judge. The only VP deal I've ever been in didn't work exactly as expected, and by the time my prey had to roll over so I'd get my 2VP, the game state was so that he could crash me in two minutes. I told him that I would understand if he went ahead and killed me, but he chose to keep the deal (after all, he only got his GW thanks to my help). It was all legal, but how did it feel ridiculous to me. If deals are automatically off once only two Methuselahs remain, I think a lot of VP deals would not be made in the first place (because the losing side would anticipate they seriously risk not getting anything in the end), and some more would have to be "broken" when time arrived. Sounds nice to me. > But that would leave open the "help me oust Jim and I'll help you oust Bob, and > then we can fight it out" deals. This kind of deal may not be that bad, since it actually involves playing. the. game. at some point. As long as it's both players' best shot at the GW, I see nothing wrong with that. I hope I've been able to express my point of view. I'm afraid that the language barrier cuts short my ability to properly contribute in this kind of conceptual debate. Abraço, Luiz Mello Brazil VTES NC

> Perhaps (in addition or in place of a change to withdrawal rules), "Play to win" > could be revisited to demand that self-preservation override any deals. That is, > any "and I'll let you oust me" or "and I'll self-oust" deals would be disallowed > (forcing their ilk into strangely-couched verbal contortions that hopefully can > be sniffed out). I like "self-preservation overrides any deals" once the game is down to two players. I like it very much. It makes the game look a lot more like it's a card game than a word game. > Or a simple, "no deals are acknowledged when only two Methuselahs remain -- at > that point Methuselahs must play to win strictly from game state, not > considering any prior deals". Also good, IMO. I believe this and the above would be functionally identical. I request a debate about any distinctions between the two. > But that would leave open the "help me oust Jim and I'll help you oust Bob, and > then we can fight it out" deals. I was forced to reply, as soon as I read this line. You see, I offer this sort of deal often. It is, in my opinion, the best sort of VP deal available, since it's limited in scope. You get help ousting your prey, but then you still get the excitement of playing out an endgame once you reach the endgame. I think any solution which prevents "Let's agree upon how all VPs will be allocated this game," but still allows "let's help each other get VPs and then play an endgame to determine a winner" would be a good solution. > > I think the best solution is to change the tournament structure > > (especially at big tournaments) to more strongly encourage game wins > > over VPs. There already exists a format which strongly encourages GWs over VPs: the 80+ player tournament. I enjoyed that format; table dealing for 1VP was much less common. I did not think it was necessary to introduce the 2-day format in the first place as I felt I could reasonably make the finals in the existing format. But I digress. I think the only practical way to value GWs strongly over VPs is to make certain that at least 4 of the 5 players in the finals will need 2GW in order to be there--but it seems the general consensus is that that sucks. So even though I disagree with the consensus view, I believe it's a losing battle, so I won't advocate "big enough championship that you need 2GW to make the finals." Instead I think we should address the type of deal directly. --------------------- I believe reducing withdrawal VPs to 0.5 is a good thing, but not mainly in order to stop table dealing. (I advocate this mostly because it prevents "There's 5 minutes left, let's all withdraw.") I believe any fix which attempts to lessen the great number of table splits in tournaments will need to target players' behavior directly, as opposed to increasing the value of GWs or adjusting the value of withdrawal VPs. Adding a rule that players can't willingly oust themselves as part of a deal, mandating play to win over honoring a deal once the table reaches 2 players, or simply stating that deals involving the final state of VPs at a table are illegal deals inherently would all achieve that end. -- Brian

islando...@aol.com wrote: >> Perhaps (in addition or in place of a change to withdrawal rules), "Play to win" >> could be revisited to demand that self-preservation override any deals. That is, >> any "and I'll let you oust me" or "and I'll self-oust" deals would be disallowed >> (forcing their ilk into strangely-couched verbal contortions that hopefully can >> be sniffed out). > > I like "self-preservation overrides any deals" once the game is down to > two players. I like it very much. It makes the game look a lot more > like it's a card game than a word game. > >> Or a simple, "no deals are acknowledged when only two Methuselahs remain -- at >> that point Methuselahs must play to win strictly from game state, not >> considering any prior deals". > > Also good, IMO. I believe this and the above would be functionally > identical. I request a debate about any distinctions between the two. The biggie: The first suggestion was not restricted to "once only two Meths remain".

LSJ schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] As I have already proposed: Make VPs earned while making the GW weigh more. A GW with 4 VPs would be more important than a GW with 3 VPs. That could be achieved by splitting the tie-breaker VP into "VP earned within GW" and "VP earned without GW", leaving TPs as 3rd rate tiebreaker. The incentive to deal a VP away under those circumstances would be greatly reduced, as you players would be ranked by GWs and then VPs, which are gained in a game where the player also makes the GW. This sounds quite easy. :) Carl

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:tNAbh.17140$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net: > Or a simple, "no deals are acknowledged when only two Methuselahs > remain -- at that point Methuselahs must play to win strictly from > game state, not considering any prior deals". > The "Two Meths enter, one Meth leaves" variant on deal-making. I like this option the best so far. Logically, ecumenically, and thematically sound. It always struck me that, other than the (effective!) stigma against deal-breaking, once a game is down to two players an all-out struggle for the win is the only "real" way to fulfill Play-to-Win (at that point). The provision that you "can" honor a deal is a significant aspect of what enables the stigma against deal-breaking. This suggestion circumvents that aspect of deal-making neatly, as the new rule would require you to play your hardest to win until the bitter final resolution of the end game. I see the possibility of limiting the duration of table talk per round somewhat, too. If players know that they have to leave enough time at the end to fully play out the end-game with whomever they're dealing with, it means that they have to watch their use of time a little more in the earlier rounds. Due to that, I'd watch for tables with heavy negotiation to timeout more often in the early era of the implementation of this rule, until table-talkers get a better feel for how much end-game time they'll need. After that, it shoudl settle down to its usual frequency, perhaps even less frequent than now, as there would eventually be somewhat less impetus to negotiate exhaustively... > But that would leave open the "help me oust Jim and I'll help you oust > Bob, and then we can fight it out" deals. > A point in its favor. Deals are certianly a part of VTES, and need to remain so. This change would just limit them somewhat in the endbame, to further enforce the idea that Playing to Win is primary... A thing which might happen, is that players on the side of the "help me oust Jim and I'll help you oust Bob, and then we can fight it out" which involves the greater investment of resources may be left in a weaker position in the end-game. This might be leveraged into a "wink- wink" unspoken losing deal, but that circumstance would probably be as easy to spot as any other surreptitious avoidance of the letter of the rule. Something to look for in judging, maybe... DaveZ Atom Weaver

preac...@gmx.at wrote: > As I have already proposed: > Make VPs earned while making the GW weigh more. > > A GW with 4 VPs would be more important than a GW with 3 VPs. > > That could be achieved by splitting the tie-breaker VP into "VP earned > within GW" and "VP earned without GW", leaving TPs as 3rd rate > tiebreaker. > > The incentive to deal a VP away under those circumstances would be > greatly reduced, as you players would be ranked by GWs and then VPs, > which are gained in a game where the player also makes the GW. > > This sounds quite easy. :) Quite easy, yes. Not quite as easy as the current, but quite easy nonetheless. But I don't see it having more than a marginal effect over the current scenario, which also makes a GW with 4 VPs more important than a GW with 3 VPs. That is, players will still get as many VPs as possible, but will deal away extra VPs in exchange for securing the otherwise-in-question GW in both scenarios.

LSJ schrieb: > preac...@gmx.at wrote: > > As I have already proposed: > > Make VPs earned while making the GW weigh more. > > > > A GW with 4 VPs would be more important than a GW with 3 VPs. > > > > That could be achieved by splitting the tie-breaker VP into "VP earned > > within GW" and "VP earned without GW", leaving TPs as 3rd rate > > tiebreaker. > > > > The incentive to deal a VP away under those circumstances would be > > greatly reduced, as you players would be ranked by GWs and then VPs, > > which are gained in a game where the player also makes the GW. > > > > This sounds quite easy. :) > > Quite easy, yes. Not quite as easy as the current, but quite easy nonetheless. > > But I don't see it having more than a marginal effect over the current scenario, > which also makes a GW with 4 VPs more important than a GW with 3 VPs. I think it makes a difference. In most smaller tournaments 1 or 2 GWs are enough to make the final. The VPs are important in that case. Players might be desperate enogh to not accept deals in which they get only GW and 3 VPs. It might give players more incentive to strive go for more points if possible, instead of stopping and letting the other player collect the rest of the VPs. If one player has already 1 GW and 4 VPs made "within", and in another round with another player who is going to need a GW but has, say, 2 VPs "without", to possibly make it to the final, a GW with 3 VPs would not be enough. So a table split deal would not be that easy, and perhaps he would play more aggressivly towards a sweep. I don't think it would magically alleviate all problems, but as you say, it would be a step in the right direction. > > That is, players will still get as many VPs as possible, but will deal away > extra VPs in exchange for securing the otherwise-in-question GW in both scenarios. Dealing away extra VPs could make them cost their place in the final. Players are greedy. :) I would like to see those 3 components implemented: 1. Withdrawal automatically fails. 2. When down to 2 players, must play to win and deals can not be honored. 3. Introducing VPs made during a GW, and those without as 2nd tiebreaker, 3rd tiebreaker is still TPs. I think no single point above will alleviate the problem enough, but together, this might lead to a strengthening of the prey/predator relationship without abolishing deals, which are in the nature of the game. I hope I have been clear on this subject as English is not my mother tongue. Carl

preac...@gmx.at wrote: > LSJ schrieb: >> That is, players will still get as many VPs as possible, but will deal away >> extra VPs in exchange for securing the otherwise-in-question GW in both scenarios. > > Dealing away extra VPs could make them cost their place in the final. This is true under the current system just as much. And, indeed, under the other variations which have GW as the main criterion and then some equation involving VPs as the second.

Peter D Bakija wrote: >I am vastly more in favor of concrete, objective > tweaks to the rules (i.e. removal of the Withdrawl rule, at least in > tournaments, where it isn't needed for its intended purpose anyway) > than subjective tweaks that require *more* judgement from judges (i.e. > adjusting what is or is not a legal deal in the game). > Sure. But why not do do both? Change Withdraw so there's not "VP incentive" to do it - make it worth 0, or .5 of go away AND add the rule that Play to Win means that last 2 Methuselah can have or make deals. The new rule may have some enforcement issues, or it may not be so hard. The important thing is that most players don't want to cheat. They want to play. Under the current rules a smart, rule-following player is going to try and carve up the table. Offer withdraws, rollover deals, whatever it takes to maximize VP. That's playing the game by the rules. Add the no endgame deals rule. Now it take 2 players willing to cheat in a sneaky way, and they mostly have to set it up in front of other players. Imagine we have A->B->C. A: "C, help me oust B, and I'll roll over." B: "Hey! You can't make that deal." A: "Right... C, if my prey was to get ousted, I might, hypothetically, tap myself out and transfer down to 1 pool." C: "Sorry dude. Play the game." -Ben Swainbank

In message <Pine.LNX.4.63.0...@fiordland.cs.duke.edu>, Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> writes: >Probably. I was sort of expanding this to the "OMGZORZ EVERY TABLE IS >DOING THIS. OMGZORZ THE SKY IS FALLING" level of conclusion that the >Internet is well-known for. > >It's totally not fun when some responds back with logic and a more >moderate view that matches reality. ;) In the situation that the sky was falling and I had five tables I had to watch because evil rules breakers had turned up and they definitely needing watching and I couldn't be there, in the absence of V:EKN Rules or guidance suggesting something more specific, I'd grab random players who had been ousted but who had half a brain regarding the rules, and make them act as deputy judges, even if players had asked for no spectators. If necessary, I'd render the event unsanctioned by doing this, because I'd have to report it as having had the sky fall on it such that I couldn't guarantee its sanctioning status anyway. Actually, I can't find the "no spectators" rule in the V:EKN guidelines these days anyway. As far as I can tell, that's only down to judges or organizers: 2.4 - The judge or organizer may choose to prohibit all specatators at any table(s) or round(s) of the tournament. At which point, I'd tell the organizer I needed to lift it for a given table(s). If I need to watch every single table and no players have been ousted, I'm likely to start quacking and waddling, so it's all a bit irrelevant anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1164979900....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>, Rob Grau <rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> Or where a player joined mid-tournament, perhaps, >> though that might cause issues of its own. Should 1GW and 100% off one >> round beat 1GW and 66% (including a sweep on the table it won) off three >> rounds? > >This was not something I was concerned about when thinking of >alternative formats. Is this something that's actually happened? >It's probably not that hard to adapt any rule for the situation, >though. In your hypothetical, you could just count potential VPs for >the absent player at a rate of 5 per game. Alas, the issue here is >moot. I've certainly had players join mid-tournament - perhaps delayed by traffic, or something. 3.3.1 of the V:EKN Rules gives the judge the discretion to accept them. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules There are obvious situations where a judge wouldn't accept them (e.g. if they have too many players for a venue, as some judges warn about in advance), but most of the rest of the time, a player is going to arrive late and be allowed to join at the start of the second round. Or perhaps even third round. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <tdvkd7JE...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >Actually, I can't find the "no spectators" rule in the V:EKN guidelines >these days anyway. As far as I can tell, that's only down to judges or >organizers: Erk, warning. May be looking at 2007 rules. (Oops.) [ quoted text not captured ]

> > I think the best solution is to change the tournament structure > > (especially at big tournaments) to more strongly encourage game wins > > over VPs. > > Perhaps, but what would the substance of such a change look like? Just tossing out ideas, here: A) If you don't earn a GW, reduce your VP total for that game to 0. TPs still count, though. B) For 2-day events, make the cut-off be X players, or the lowest ranked player with 1 GW, whichever is higher (rounded to nearest 5.) C) If you earn 2 VPs and someone else gets the GW, you get 1 VP instead. I've only very briefly thought through the effects of A, but I'm guessing it's not really a good idea. It seems like it may encourage too many decks that win big or flop big. Then again, it would discourage table split deals pretty significantly, so maybe it would be good. >From my single experience at a 2-day event, idea B would definitely have eliminated a lot of the table split deals in day 1 of the NAC this year. Also, I think this could be easily implemented without any major negative consequences. C directly addresses 3-2 (or now, 2.5-2) table splits by making the losing end of the deal less appealing. It does allow for a 2.5 - 1.5 table split by simply agreeing to a draw when it's heads up, so you could add: C2) And, if you earn 1.5 VPs and someone else got 2.5 VPs or more, you get 1 VP instead. C3) And, if you earn 1.5 VPs, and someone else got 2 VPs and another person got 1 VP, you get 1 VP instead. C3 covers the case of: D ousts E B ousts C A and C make a deal to oust B and let C withdraw (giving A the GW.) A ousts B then C withdraws for 1.5 VPs total. Turns out it's only 1 VP. And C3 doesn't hurt the case of: B ousts C B ousts D A ousts B game times out Have a good weekend, Ira

James Coupe wrote: > In message <tdvkd7JE...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe > <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >> Actually, I can't find the "no spectators" rule in the V:EKN guidelines >> these days anyway. As far as I can tell, that's only down to judges or >> organizers: > > Erk, warning. May be looking at 2007 rules. (Oops.) The 2007 are basically just a clarification of the 2006 rules re: spectators.

"Rob Grau" <rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote in message news:1164949211.9...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > A minor tweak, but my suggestion is to rank tournament players as > follows: > > 1. Game Wins > 2. Earned VPs / Possible VPs * 100 (Percentage) > 3. Tournament Points > > By using a percentage, you give a player assured of getting a game win > a reason NOT to throw away those 'extra' VPs in a table split. Maybe - but it destroys what I've always thought was a rather good balance between the advantages of playing at a 4-player table vs. a 5-player table. At the 4-player table, you compete with one fewer players for the game win, which is no small difference. I actually think the 5-player table is already the worse deal, even though the potential exists for grabbing another VP. If you were to do the above, it would reverse the 5-player table advantage: a 4-player table VP would effectively become worth more. Anyway, I suspect the difference is so negligible in the advantage above that you mention. I think players already have a pretty good reason not to throw away VPs, 'extra' or otherwise: they have one less VP. I don't see how switching to the percentage formula is going to make much difference one way or another. Fred At least it's more fun playing at a 5-player table. That's a good thing.

> A) If you don't earn a GW, reduce your VP total for that game to 0. > TPs still count, though. I really like this one, since it makes VPs really worthless for everyone, but the game winner. The obvious advantage is that it is no longer viable to be on the "loosing end" of a deal (giving the GW to someone else makes you score 0VP no matter what). However the point of a tie (2-2-1) needs to be addressed. It can either give 0VP to both the tied players, which seems very unfair, or both of them get 2VP without a GW, which is for me the preffered way. -- I. M. Bur bura...@gmail.com

> Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> writes: >> Probably. I was sort of expanding this to the "OMGZORZ EVERY TABLE IS >> DOING THIS. OMGZORZ THE SKY IS FALLING" level of conclusion that the >> Internet is well-known for. >> >> It's totally not fun when some responds back with logic and a more >> moderate view that matches reality. ;) > > In the situation that the sky was falling and I had five tables I had to > watch because evil rules breakers had turned up and they definitely > needing watching and I couldn't be there, in the absence of V:EKN Rules > or guidance suggesting something more specific, I'd grab random players > who had been ousted but who had half a brain regarding the rules, and > make them act as deputy judges, even if players had asked for no > spectators. If necessary, I'd render the event unsanctioned by doing > this, because I'd have to report it as having had the sky fall on it > such that I couldn't guarantee its sanctioning status anyway. In the event that the sky were falling, etc., you would not find any random players who had been ousted and also had half a brain. You would only have comatose players and players whose brains were being pecked out by chickens. Sanctioned or not, that's a lot of feathers. > If I need to watch every single table and no players have been ousted, > I'm likely to start quacking and waddling, so it's all a bit irrelevant > anyway. See? The feathers are a prety significant threat. Ankur Play. The. Game.

I apologise if this results in some form of a double post. I found this thread originally on another forum, and posted a response to it there. I thought it may have crossposted here, but since the post hasnt shown up yet that might not have been the case. The other forum also appears to be quite dead. So here it is again. Please note that I will not be able to participate in any discussions for the next two weeks due to a work trip abroad. ------------------------- I played a storyline tournament recently under the new withdrawal and endgame tournament rules. Every game I played in still had shameless table splitting going on. Even though the 'play to win' rule has good intent, it is not very enforceable. There is nothing to prevent a player in the end rolling over and dying without a fight (or at least pretending to squirm a little), and there is nothing to prevent both players taking their time and playing for the time limit. My suggestion, for all its worth is this. Remove VPs from any tournament standing consideration. Players may earn Ranking Points and Game Wins only. A GW is the primary consideration in qualification for the final table, with Ranking points used as the tie breakers. A Ranking point is awarded in this manner: 4 player games - if your prey or predator earned the GW = 0 ranking points. - if your grandpredator/grandprey earned the GW = 1 ranking point 5 player games - if your prey or predator earned the GW = 0 ranking points. - if your grandprey earned the GW = 1 ranking point. - if your grandpredator earned the GW = 0.5 ranking point. (in the above, prey or predator refers to the original prey and predator as of the beginning of the game) Finally, if a game ends in a draw, the players involved in the draw each receive a proportional fraction of 0.6 GW. For example, if two players draw then they each receive 0.3 GW for the final score. If three players draw they each receive 0.2 GW for the final score. This means that: a) players must win rounds to move up the tournament. b) if you cannot win, the absolute worst thing you can do is allow your prey or your predator to win the game. This means you will always be trying to hurt your prey as much as possible, while trying your utmost best to live against the assaults of your predator. c) victory points are used only for calculation of the GW, so cutting deals for individual VPs during a game is worthless, unless it will somehow help you attain the GW. d) a draw is better than losing, but no amount of draws will ever equal a full GW. It may sound complicated to calculate ranking points during play, but I am sure a modification to the tournament tracker would be easy enough.

lysan...@excite.com wrote: > I apologise if this results in some form of a double post. I found > this thread originally on another forum, and posted a response to it > there. I thought it may have crossposted here, but since the post > hasnt shown up yet that might not have been the case. The other forum > also appears to be quite dead. So here it is again. > > Please note that I will not be able to participate in any discussions > for the next two weeks due to a work trip abroad. > > > ------------------------- > I played a storyline tournament recently under the new withdrawal and > endgame tournament rules. Every game I played in still had shameless > table splitting going on. Even though the 'play to win' rule has good > intent, it is not very enforceable. There is nothing to prevent a > player in the end rolling over and dying without a fight (or at least > pretending to squirm a little), The play to win rules prevent this (unless the rolling player is winning by rolling). > and there is nothing to prevent both > players taking their time and playing for the time limit. The rule against stalling prevents this.

On Jan 30, 2:41 pm, lysande...@excite.com wrote: > I apologise if this results in some form of a double post. I found > this thread originally on another forum, and posted a response to it > there. I thought it may have crossposted here, but since the post > hasnt shown up yet that might not have been the case. The other forum > also appears to be quite dead. So here it is again. > > Please note that I will not be able to participate in any discussions > for the next two weeks due to a work trip abroad. > > ------------------------- > I played a storyline tournament recently under the new withdrawal and > endgame tournament rules. Every game I played in still had shameless > table splitting going on. Even though the 'play to win' rule has good > intent, it is not very enforceable. There is nothing to prevent a > player in the end rolling over and dying without a fight (or at least > pretending to squirm a little), and there is nothing to prevent both > players taking their time and playing for the time limit. > > My suggestion, for all its worth is this. Remove VPs from any > tournament standing consideration. Players may earn Ranking Points and > Game Wins only. A GW is the primary consideration in qualification for > the final table, with Ranking points used as the tie breakers. A > Ranking point is awarded in this manner: > > 4 player games > - if your prey or predator earned the GW = 0 ranking points. > - if your grandpredator/grandprey earned the GW = 1 ranking point Note that this means that only the first player to be ousted can get a ranking point. > 5 player games > - if your prey or predator earned the GW = 0 ranking points. > - if your grandprey earned the GW = 1 ranking point. > - if your grandpredator earned the GW = 0.5 ranking point. > Again, this shafts the players who manage to stay in the game. > a) players must win rounds to move up the tournament. > b) if you cannot win, You must self-oust ASAP. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

> - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew > You must self-oust ASAP. Why is this? Lets take a 4 player game. If you self oust then you have increased the chances that your predator will win the game. If your predator wins you get 0 ranking points. If you stay in the game even though you cant win, you increase the chances that your grandpredator will be able to oust your predator. If your grandpredator wins the game you get one ranking point. Same applies to a 5 player game.

On Jan 30, 2:41 pm, lysande...@excite.com wrote: > I played a storyline tournament recently under the new withdrawal and > endgame tournament rules. Every game I played in still had shameless > table splitting going on. Even though the 'play to win' rule has good > intent, it is not very enforceable. There is nothing to prevent a > player in the end rolling over and dying without a fight (or at least > pretending to squirm a little), and there is nothing to prevent both > players taking their time and playing for the time limit. > The Judge should be there to prevent players from rolling over or stalling or other illegal play. My question is how were these deals made? Making table-split deal has always required a high degree of trust. Now, you can't really announce that you're a man of your word and won't break the deal. Doing so would involve announcing your intent to cheat. So, the deal has to be offered and accepted in some kind of nudge-wink way, such the other players getting screwed don't suspect anything and call a judge over. Then the would-be rollover deal makers have to trust the other party to honorable enough to keep the deal AND dishonorable enough to cheat at the game to do so. How are these "shameless" deals being made? -Ben Swainbank

On Jan 30, 10:50 pm, "Ben Swainbank" <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote: > How are these "shameless" deals being made? Shameless was a bad word to use. Here is the full tournament report: I was playing a very average Tzimisce deck modelled on the 3rd ed starter. There were 21-24 players in the tournament First round I was bleeding a special deck. Special in that it was a pure master card deck, with a 2 pt gangrel and a 3 point !Brujah as the only minions the deck would pull out (they did nothing, just sat there to be thrown in the way of huge bleeds). The deck was completely innefective, and there seemed to be no thought put into how to oust its prey. Shame, because the guy playing it was a very cool guy and really he should have known better. This disgrace of a deck was sitting behind a !Toreador deck (notice I didnt say it was bleeding the !Toreador). The !Toreador was in turn bleeding a set 1 Nos deck, who was my predator. So a 4 player game. The game went something like this: Turn 1, everyone does some transfers. My prey pulls out a two pointer gangrel. My grandprey pulls out a 4 pointer. Turn 2, my predator pulls out a 7 pt Nos prince. I Pentex Subversion the Nos and pull out Elizabeth the 5 pointer. My prey pulls out Jacob Brag. I tell my grandprey to bleed my predator hard. Instead he creates an embrace. Turn 3, my predator can only do transfers. I do transfers onto Sha- Ennu (the 11 pointer who was the only other decent vamp in my crypt), and keep Elizabeth untapped in case my prey tries to burn off the Pentex. My prey plays a Society of Leopold on the newly created embrace and burns it, pissing off my grandprey. My grandprey then has his turn. I tell him to bleed my predator hard and get the edge. He creates another embrace (sigh). Turn 4, my predator does some transfers, and still only has the one minion with the Pentex Subversion on it. I do transfers to Sha-Ennu and sit pretty. My prey plays another Society of Leopold on the new embrace, burning that one as well (note my prey is doing no more transfers, as it is a deck full of masters). So here is where the true skill of that table comes out. My grandprey has his turn. He starts screaming at me, saying that he has had two minions burned already, and that I am doing nothing against my prey. I point it out to him that I am still pulling out my second minion, and that I have been keeping my only minion untapped to guarantee him a free run on his prey (by ensuring the Pentex is not burned off). Undeterred, he declares that he will burn off the Pentex Subversion that is on his preys only minion! I just didnt know what to say to that, considering his predator was incapable of bleeding. He stealthed through the action to burn the Pentex, and freed up his prey to come after me. As soon as he did this he cut a deal with his prey to allow his prey a table sweep in exchange for 0.5 VP!!! So now I had to hold off my predator with heavy potence, stealth and votes (yes, a voting Nos deck), and bleed through my preys 25 pool. The game carried on from there. Eventually I managed to bleed through my prey, and managed to bring my grandprey down to 1 pool. All the while I was fending off the Nos voting deck, who had complete control of the storyline Cultist. Died to the onslaught though, with only 1 VP to my name. In retrospect I should have called a ref over and had him arbitrate over this, though I dont think it would have helped. The VP bottom-feeder across the table was quite content to play for 0.5-1 VP. I dont think the thought of winning a tournament round actually occurred to him. Second round - 5 player game. I was bleeding an EuroBrujah deck, who in turn was bleeding a Ventrue deck, followed by a !Malk deck, followed by an Akunanse deck. I pulled out Elizabeth, my prey pulled out Constanza. Next turn I tried to pull out a retainer. My prey blocked it with a second tradition and levelled my vamp in one strike (she didnt have superior viscissitude, so I didnt really do anything in return). That left the shitty 4 pointer, a 9 pointer and an 11 pointer in my uncontrolled region. I pulled out the 4 pointer to hold off the horde until I could pull out one of the big vamps. In the meantime my predator obtained control of the cultist and bled me for all he was worth. By the time my next minion came out I was down to 3 pool and it was game over. In the same turn my prey ousted my grandprey. There were now 3 players left in the game, two of them with 1 VP each. The Akunanse deck was in a commanding position. I left the game area at this point, but found out later that the table was subsequently split up by a deal, with the victory going to the Akunanse player. I dont know the details of the deal though. Third round I was bleeding a Tremere deck, who was bleeding a Ventrue deck, who was behind the master card deck from the first round, and who in turn was (not) bleeding my predator - a Nos voting deck. So a 5 player game. Here is a description of the Nos voting deck: essentially high capacity set 1 Nos vamps, all with votes and typically with fortitude. The only fortitude card he played was freak drive. There were an incredible amount of votes in the deck, but they were all either parity shifts of kine resources contested. Heaps of Legendary Vampires, and the most minimal amount of stealth. Absolutely zero combat or combat avoidance. Due to the lack of stealth in his deck, I did a fairly good job of locking up my predator with my Tzimisce deck, even though he in turn had no predator. Not that it mattered, because a few turns later he lost voting dominance to my prey and had a 100% innefective deck. My prey, the Tremere player, also had no combat in the deck. He knew that if I caught any one of his minions that there was nothing he could do, so he did the only other thing he could: he lunged all out with masses of dominate. My grandprey, being incredibly wise, chose Arika as the first vamp to pull out. By the time he pulled out Arika he was down to 2 pool, rolled over and died. Meanwhile I was layering in 5-6 pool of bleed into my prey every turn, none of which was blocked. Next in line was the master card deck, but given the amount of pool he had the Tremere player seriously hesitated. This is where the panic settled in. My prey knew that he was going to die before long, since he couldnt afford to block my vamps. My predator was locked up by fear of my intercept and by the inability to pass his votes. So the two of them organised to kill me by using the middle cultist and by voting together whenever possible to oust me. They arranged to withdraw after both me and my grandpredator were eliminated. The referee ruled this was ok for both of them to do because: a) my predator was not going to get any VPs unless the deal was made, and b) my prey would get the table win even if he let my predator get the VP for ousting me and the 0.5 VP for withdrawing. Two turns later I got caught without intercept and wore votes plus stealthy cultist bleed, knocking me out. My grand predator of course could do nothing (since he only had master cards). It never occurred to my predator (or to the referree) that if he just waited until I killed the Tremere player, that I would also have to bleed through the gigantic amouont of pool the master card deck had. This would take considerable time, during which my predator would have had voting dominance and could have potentially gotten the better of me. One could argue there was no chance of that of course, though in all my years of playing I have found that there is always a chance to win as long as you still live. ------------------------------------- Things will probably get better as people get used to the new rules I guess. What I was hoping for with my suggestion was to create a system whereby actively going after your prey and trying your hardest to stop your predator from ousting you becomes something that is actively encouraged by the rules.

In message <1170193642....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] So, if I can't win, my optimum strategy is to run backwards and hit my predator so hard that he dies in a heap and my grand-predator rolls the table. I'm not sure why that makes the game better. Certainly, the predator gets shafted for absolutely no reason that he or she can reasonably control. Also, providing players with a second incentive that makes contradictory sense to the normal play of the game (oust predator, not prey) means you'll just change a lot of arguments into whether or not a player has actually got no chance to win (so ousting his predator is good) or hasn't (so it's bad). Which is a different set of decisions to the ones judges have to make now, but no less tricky, really. And if your judges can keep on top of these problems, why not just stick with the current system and have them keep up with existing deals? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jan 30, 11:14 pm, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > So, if I can't win, my optimum strategy is to run backwards and hit my > predator so hard that he dies in a heap and my grand-predator rolls the > table. Interesting way of looking at it. A player could certainly do that. I looked at it a bit differently: - Since ranking points would be allocated based purely on seating relative to the winning deck, your hard work going backwards and trying to oust your predator would earn you a grand total of 1 ranking point. One player in each table of the tournament round would also earn this same ranking point based purely on their seating. Your optimum strategy if you absolutely know you cant win would actually be to go for the draw, and you should scheme, manipulate and bully your way into that draw. - If you know you cant win, how come you can try to oust your predator but not your prey? How is that very much different to a player attempting to hurt back a predator who has hurt him too much during a game? - If you hurt your predator too much, and he has the same sort of attitude, might he not try to do the same to his predator and thus help your prey to win? In a five player game I suggested that you earn only 0.5 ranking point for letting your grandpredator win, while you'd get 1 ranking point for being in a table in which your grandprey wins, so going back and hurting your predator does not help you in any way. In a four player game if you go forwards and hurt your prey, your grandprey should also in theory have an easier time hitting your predator, so even in that scenario I dont see the need to view ousting your predator as an optimum strategy. Your optimum strategy is always to win the game, followed by generating a draw, followed far behind by destroying your prey and allowing your grandprey to sweep. Is there are problem with the current rules? Are they difficult to arbitrate? Do they encourage players to maximise safe VPs at the expense of the possible GW? If not then you are absolutely right, and there is no reason to change the tournament rules at all. In that case my proposition can remain strictly as a thought exercise to stimulate discussion. Iff there is a problem, then at some point alternatives should be considered. I have proposed one such alternative. My suggestion recommends removing the incentive to split a table to scrounge VPs each round, and instead allocates points based purely on seating relative to the winner. Anyone could get ranking points, so the players that will consistently do better will be the players that consistently strive to the very end for the GW. As an added suggestion, VPs could still be important for VEKN ratings. This means that performance in a tournament in not dependant on individual VPs, but that individual VPs would still affect a players overall rating. I have to go. Will be back in two weeks.

On Jan 31, 12:14 am, lysande...@excite.com wrote: > On Jan 30, 11:14 pm, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > > So, if I can't win, my optimum strategy is to run backwards and hit my > > predator so hard that he dies in a heap and my grand-predator rolls the > > table. > > Interesting way of looking at it. A player could certainly do that. > I looked at it a bit differently: Okay, Picasso, let's look at what you are saying. > - Since ranking points would be allocated based purely on seating > relative to the winning deck, your hard work going backwards and > trying to oust your predator would earn you a grand total of 1 ranking > point. One player in each table of the tournament round would also > earn this same ranking point based purely on their seating. Your > optimum strategy if you absolutely know you cant win would actually be > to go for the draw, and you should scheme, manipulate and bully your > way into that draw. Since Victory Points have to be recorded to determine a Game Win, and you must earn those, why is your system better? It seems worse as it is completely arbitrary. By arbitrary, I mean that it not only adds no value, but confuses the players as the the actual goal of the game which is "oust your prey". > - If you know you cant win, how come you can try to oust your predator > but not your prey? It is much easier to put pressure on your predator than your prey. It always has been. So you are encouraging stalling or stonewalling. That's bad. >How is that very much different to a player > attempting to hurt back a predator who has hurt him too much during a > game? Because now you are encouraging players to build their deck with those tactics in mind, which is bad. > - If you hurt your predator too much, and he has the same sort of > attitude, might he not try to do the same to his predator and thus > help your prey to win? Huh? See this is where the confusion steps in. You are basing hypothetical strategy on a unproven premise in an unrealistic environment. I would try to prove that you are wrong, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. > In a five player game I suggested that you earn only 0.5 ranking point > for letting your grandpredator win, while you'd get 1 ranking point > for being in a table in which your grandprey wins, so going back and > hurting your predator does not help you in any way. In a four player > game if you go forwards and hurt your prey, your grandprey should also > in theory have an easier time hitting your predator, so even in that > scenario I dont see the need to view ousting your predator as an > optimum strategy. Your optimum strategy is always to win the game, > followed by generating a draw, followed far behind by destroying your > prey and allowing your grandprey to sweep. Your model doesn't encourage going forward all the time. It encourages going forward initially, then potentially self ousting once the first victory point has been taken so that you "lose less", which is horse-shit tactics. > Is there are problem with the current rules? Only in the minds of a few, that has been fixed in a manner that is both unobtrusive as well as fundamentally in the spirit of the game. > Are they difficult to > arbitrate? Apparently to some it is. >Do they encourage players to maximise safe VPs at the > expense of the possible GW? Apparently, only in a specifically contrived environment where there are 64 players competing for 40 spots and Venus is in Gemini and the whole of Australia moved 2 inches. > If not then you are absolutely right, and > there is no reason to change the tournament rules at all. In that > case my proposition can remain strictly as a thought exercise to > stimulate discussion. Iff there is a problem, then at some point > alternatives should be considered. I have proposed one such > alternative. My suggestion recommends removing the incentive to split > a table to scrounge VPs each round, and instead allocates points based > purely on seating relative to the winner. Anyone could get ranking > points, so the players that will consistently do better will be the > players that consistently strive to the very end for the GW. As an > added suggestion, VPs could still be important for VEKN ratings. This > means that performance in a tournament in not dependant on individual > VPs, but that individual VPs would still affect a players overall > rating. So your cure for an infected wound is to chop off a random extremity. That will make sure that no one has a problem with that any more. The cure is worse than the casualty. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On 30 Jan 2007 11:41:24 -0800, <lysan...@excite.com> wrote: I like the system from a purely hypothetical point of view. However, I do not see it solving the issues it was put forth to solve. > a) players must win rounds to move up the tournament. Technically, this is achieved by the GW rule (a.k.a. the "death to forward motion" rule as I often like to refer to it out of more hatred for walls than weenie swarm decks). > b) if you cannot win, the absolute worst thing you can do is allow > your prey or your predator to win the game. This means you will always > be trying to hurt your prey as much as possible, while trying your > utmost best to live against the assaults of your predator. As others pointed out, in some cases you are better off giving the table to your grandpredator than to your predator, for example, so you might try to go backwards, crushing your predator (the guy with 2 predators loses). > c) victory points are used only for calculation of the GW, so cutting > deals for individual VPs during a game is worthless, unless it will > somehow help you attain the GW. As said by others, if you have them, track them, you might as well use them unless there is something much better (in which case you would have and track that other thing, instead, most likely). > d) a draw is better than losing, but no amount of draws will ever > equal a full GW. Similar in the current system. > It may sound complicated to calculate ranking points during play, but > I am sure a modification to the tournament tracker would be easy > enough. Ok, here's the catch. The main problem with the current tournament rules is not what they stand for technically. I mean, look at it: the aim is to oust your prey. You get VP for ousting your prey. Nothing is as direct as that. The main problem is with the ambiguity introduced by the political aspect of the game - which is pretty much supported by the game, by the way - that makes it rather hard in cases to judge whether a player is well within the boundaries of sportsmanship or just a tadbit outside of them. It takes a competent and attentive judge to enforce the spirit of the rules. Unfortunately (?) the very same prowesses that make one a successful negotiator in game also tend to enable one to be successful at bending the spirit of the rules in a subtle way. -- Regards, Daneel

Howdy, <snip generous details> > First round ... As > soon as he did this he cut a deal with his prey to allow his prey a > table sweep in exchange for 0.5 VP!!! How was this supposed to work? Presumably the deal was that he ('bottom-feeder') would assist your predator (his prey) in ousting the rest of the table and then be allowed to withdraw (for 0.5 VP)? The problem being that all deals are off once you and your prey are gone, and now your predator _has to_ try to oust bottom-feeder, which really shouldn't be too tricky for him, from the sound of things... Which should make this a clearly pointless and/or illegal deal to begin with. And that's without even considering how clearly non-play- to-win both your prey and bottom-feeder's play is, as described. In the case of the bottom-feeder, you can't just decide to give up any chance to win because you don't like how the game is proceeding. In the case of the 'do-nothing' deck (Was this deck even legal? What clan was it?), it's pathologically unsportsmanlike to come to a tournament with a deck that cannot win - you are wasting not only your own time, but everyone else's. > In retrospect > I should have called a ref over and had him arbitrate over this, > though I dont think it would have helped. The VP bottom-feeder across > the table was quite content to play for 0.5-1 VP. I dont think the > thought of winning a tournament round actually occurred to him. This is, indeed, precisely what judges are for. If you can't count on your judge to rule correctly in a situation like this, then why even have a judge? While the judge's options would be limited if the player(s) in question refuse to cooperate (He then has to eject them - yuck!), in this case it should have sufficed to point out that the deal was plainly illegal and, in fact, _could not_ be adhered to at precisely the point when it would be important to the bottom-feeder (i.e. when it came time to withdraw), by explicit V:EKN rules! At that point, bottom-feeder should recognize that the only way he's going to get any VP at all is to go forward (and/or make deals with someone who isn't his prey). > Second round ... I left the > game area at this point, but found out later that the table was > subsequently split up by a deal, with the victory going to the > Akunanse player. I dont know the details of the deal though. This all sounded kosher. Brutal, but kosher. > Third round ... My prey knew that he was going to die before long, since he > couldnt afford to block my vamps. My predator was locked up by fear of > my intercept and by the inability to pass his votes. So the two of > them organised to kill me by using the middle cultist and by voting > together whenever possible to oust me. They arranged to withdraw after > both me and my grandpredator were eliminated. The referee ruled this > was ok for both of them to do because: a) my predator was not going to > get any VPs unless the deal was made, and b) my prey would get the > table win even if he let my predator get the VP for ousting me and the > 0.5 VP for withdrawing. It's certainly legal for your predator and prey to deal you out of the game in these circumstances. It's good play, even. What they can't do anymore is to agree to withdraw. That's explicitly not allowed. All deals are off when you reach the two-player endgame. So this is a legal deal for you prey - who would get 2.5 VP and a game win out of it - but not for your predator, who would end up with 1.5 VP. When it comes down to just the two of them, they _must_ play to win, which, for your predator, means attempting to oust. (And it hardly seems worth 0.5 VP to not even try to oust at that point anyway.) I suppose your predator could claim a 'lost' position at that point, but it'd be hard to explain why your prey should let him withdraw if he's in a 'lost' position... I don't know how the judge missed the whole 'all deals are off in the two-player endgame' update to the V:EKN rules; his ruling seems clearly incorrect. Of course, a better ruling probably would have had the same impact on your game - being ousted. It just would've forced your predator and prey to actually fight out the endgame (with a time- out achieving the same result anyway). Hope that helps, Alex

Hi, Get the best All Deals in Washington Dc from NewLook Deals. We offers Day Spa deals like Facial, Threading, Laser Hair Removal deals and more. At present we offers best discount on below deals: • Eyebrow Threading, Dermalogica / Herbal Facial and Diamond Dermabrasion (Up to 55% Off) o Herbal Facial (Shahnaz Advance) or Dermalogica Power Facial o 10 Eye Brow Threading o Diamond Dermabrasion o 10 Full Face Threading • One Full Body Laser Hair Removal with Gentle Max Pro (Up to 85% Off) • Six Laser Hair Removal Treatments on Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large Area's (UP to 83% Off) o 10 Full Face Threading o Six Laser Hair Removal Treatments on Medium Area’s o Six Laser Hair Removal Treatments on Large Area’s o Six Laser Hair Removal Treatments on Extra Large Area’s For More Details Please visit our Website: https://www.newlookdeals.com/alldeals/washington-dc Communication Address: 201 Elden Street,Suite # 203, Herndon, VA , 20170 Our customer service is pinned at : custome...@newlookdeals.com