Succubus Club Use in Tournaments

I'm sure some of you heard about the mess that happened in the LA qualifier which involved the succubus club. Paul had given Mike his minions and access to anything in his hand, in return that mike would roll over for Paul when it was just the 2 of them. This appeared like blatent cheating and irritated one player to the extent that he declared to leave if he saw another succubus club played in the other rounds. My question is if this was improper or was it a fair "in game only" deal? Irritating as it was, at the time I thought it was "legal" and that succubus was just a crappy card that should be banned from tourney play. However after putting more thought into it I think it wasn't. The reason being that Paul and Mike made that deal based on out of game information. The "out of game info" was knowing each other was trustworthy to follow through with the deal. Paul would have never made that kind of deal with someone who he knew "out of game" was a deal breaker. The succubus Club specifically says that none of the deals can be enforced. I interpret this as there being some type of risk involved with using the card. However when the risk of using the card is taken away by "outside game considerations" (Knowing mike is trustworthy) What do others think about this? Brad Ward The True Prince of North Las Vegas

I dont see how this is any different than a 3 player game where PlayerA is Life Booning a PlayerC for all but 1 of his pool, then watching PlayerA bleed and bleed and bleed PlayerB. If and when PlayerB is ousted, C walking in and bleeding PlayerA for the last pts. In-game alliances are allowed. That's the nature of the game. The fact that you get short end of the deal, is not a factor. Sometimes you get the shaft cause everyone is deflectioning to you...You dont like Succubus Club? Too bad. I certainly agree that it is too strong to be used in tournaments (because of guaranteed abuse). In all kinds of tournaments, now that I think about it, there have been people who give away a game to another. [ quoted text not captured ]

>I'm sure some of you heard about the mess that happened in the LA qualifier >which involved the succubus club. Paul had given Mike his minions and access >to anything in his hand, in return that mike would roll over for Paul when >it was just the 2 of them. This appeared like blatent cheating and irritated >one player to the extent that he declared to leave if he saw another >succubus club played in the other rounds. > Nope. Maybe, it's a post I haven't gotten to yet. Questions: How well do these people know each other? What was it about the game situation that precipitated this deal?

Bradly Ward wrote: > > I'm sure some of you heard about the mess that happened in the LA qualifier > which involved the succubus club. Paul had given Mike his minions and access > to anything in his hand, in return that mike would roll over for Paul when > it was just the 2 of them. This appeared like blatent cheating and irritated > one player to the extent that he declared to leave if he saw another > succubus club played in the other rounds. > > My question is if this was improper or was it a fair "in game only" deal? Not really a valid question, since the V:EKN Tournament rules in force at the time do not explicitly restrict play to "in game" considerations. The new rules go into effect on June 01, 2001. > Irritating as it was, at the time I thought it was "legal" and that succubus > was just a crappy card that should be banned from tourney play. However > after putting more thought into it I think it wasn't. The reason being that > Paul and Mike made that deal based on out of game information. The "out of > game info" was knowing each other was trustworthy to follow through with the > deal. Paul would have never made that kind of deal with someone who he knew > "out of game" was a deal breaker. Possible. Or it could be that, based soley on game information, Paul thought Mike would honor the deal - maybe because Mike hadn't broken a deal so far that game. At any rate, any time one player makes a deal that is non-binding by the rules, it is a given that the players making the deal assume that the deal will be honored. You don't have to fall back on "out of game" considerations for that. > The succubus Club specifically says that none of the deals can be enforced. > I interpret this as there being some type of risk involved with using the > card. However when the risk of using the card is taken away by "outside game > considerations" (Knowing mike is trustworthy) The risk is never "taken away", it is only lessened when measured against some arbitrary "norm" (or increased when so measured, at your option). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010531221606...@ng-fg1.aol.com... > >I'm sure some of you heard about the mess that happened in the LA qualifier > >which involved the succubus club. Paul had given Mike his minions and access > >to anything in his hand, in return that mike would roll over for Paul when > >it was just the 2 of them. This appeared like blatent cheating and irritated > >one player to the extent that he declared to leave if he saw another > >succubus club played in the other rounds. > > > > Nope. Maybe, it's a post I haven't gotten to yet. > > Questions: How well do these people know each other? They do know each other pretty well. However, they are *more* likely to be kicking each other than working together. My playgroup is rather strange that way. Its that whole, "You always hurt the ones you love..." thing. > What was it about the game situation that precipitated this deal? I didn't see it personally but I recall hearing something from Mike where he said he was toast if he didn't make the deal. I've found that the understanding of the deal is always found by talking to the person who accepted 2 VPs (the short end of the split). For someone to willingly accept something other than 1st, they must have their backs against the wall. Funny Brad would be the one to post this whole topic. It really has more to do with deals than with Succubus Club specifically. In the 3rd round, Brad was my prey and was a couple of pool away from death. While begging for his life he made a deal for 1 VP with me. I let him live while he killed Tatu. Then I needed him for the next guy so he made a deal for 2 VPs. *HE* completely swung the game in that I couldn't have ousted Tatu or Fazio without him. But, he was clearly trying to make the best of a bad situation and he did end up getting a VP. One more than he would have had otherwise. -Robert rob...@vtesinla.org

"Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010531221606...@ng-fg1.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] They do know each other pretty well. However, they are *more* likely to be kicking each other than working together. My playgroup is rather strange that way. Its that whole, "You always hurt the ones you love..." thing. > What was it about the game situation that precipitated this deal? I didn't see it personally but I recall hearing something from Mike where he said he was toast if he didn't make the deal. I've found that the understanding of the deal is always found by talking to the person who accepted 2 VPs (the short end of the split). For someone to willingly accept something other than 1st, they must have their backs against the wall. -Robert rob...@vtesinla.org

cur...@aol.com (Ian Lee) wrote in message news:<20010531221606...@ng-fg1.aol.com>... > >I'm sure some of you heard about the mess that happened in the LA qualifier > >which involved the succubus club. Paul had given Mike his minions and access > >to anything in his hand, in return that mike would roll over for Paul when > >it was just the 2 of them. This appeared like blatent cheating and irritated > >one player to the extent that he declared to leave if he saw another > >succubus club played in the other rounds. for me, it would depend on why they were doing it in the game. i mean, were they both in trouble if they didn't share everything? if one guy was making himself weaker and risking vps just to help his friend get a vp, it'd suck. but if Paul was getting somethig beneficial in return for giving Mike his minions, something no one else could offer...then it seems like a fair trade. just as a side note: arson is a very underrated card. when there's a "here, have all my minions, and then next turn lend me all yours" deal going on, and the succubus club burns down in between (preferably when your predator has all his minions accross the other side of the table), then there is often much rejoicing. salem.

The problem is not with deals, but rather with how insanely easy it is to abuse Succubus Club. In game deals are fine and as things currently stand they did nothing wrong. It's simple, Succubus Club needs to be banned from tournament play. No other card in the game can screw up a tournament more. I said this a long time ago after the old "I will give all my minions so you can bleed out your prey and then you can give me all yours" trick was pulled on me in a tournament. Unfortunately nobody, including those in charge, thought it was a problem. What we need is some more abuse of it at the nationals. Then maybe they will get the point. Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area. Bradly Ward wrote in message ... [ quoted text not captured ]

>> My question is if this was improper or was it a fair "in game only" deal? > > Not really a valid question, since the V:EKN Tournament rules in force at the > time do not explicitly restrict play to "in game" considerations. The new > rules go into effect on June 01, 2001. Okay. As of June 1st, is it permissible for two players to work together to oust all other players while one rolls over at the end? I'd say no, as one (or both) of the players would be agreeing to a deal that, if honored, would result in them seeking less than the majority of the victory points. 5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct "Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of gaining the most victory points in the current game." I don't see that using the Succubus Club is any different than a player promising not to oust his prey (or even helping him oust others) until it's just the two of them. In any case, deals of that kind make me sick and if I'm judging an event where players try that sort of thing, I'll be standing over them looking for the slightest hint of cheating. It's crap and it should be strongly discouraged. Regards, Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit

"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> wrote in message news:9f889...@enews4.newsguy.com... > The problem is not with deals, but rather with how insanely easy it is to > abuse Succubus Club. In game deals are fine and as things currently stand > they did nothing wrong. I certainly agree with you but it seems that while Brad is mentioning Succubus Club in his posts, the content of what he is describing as *wrong* could be done even without SC. We're picking the wrong jumping-off point for this battle. > It's simple, Succubus Club needs to be banned from tournament play. No other > card in the game can screw up a tournament more. I said this a long time > ago after the old "I will give all my minions so you can bleed out your prey > and then you can give me all yours" trick was pulled on me in a tournament. > Unfortunately nobody, including those in charge, thought it was a problem. I find the card repulsive as well but we do need to abuse it more. IIRC, even back in its heydey of abuse the abuser didn't win tournaments with it, did they? -Robert

salem_...@my-deja.com (salem christ) wrote in message news:<a36647e2.01053...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] My question becomes what are "in-game considerations" as per the new V:EKN rules effective today? "5.2 Players must act only on in-game considerations." Does this mean you can't consider vp's accumulation at all? What about not wanting a nasty combat deck to make the finals if you're a vote or bleed deck? How can you ever know that the deal that was made was only based on "in-game considerations"? How do you interpret the deal-making at the LA qualifier in light of these new rules? I think this new rule could really cause consternation at the final qualifer for Nationals at Gencon. I mean, wouldn't everyone be trying (covertly or overtly) to make deals to get them into the Championships? Aramis

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bb705c59.01060...@posting.google.com... > >> My question is if this was improper or was it a fair "in game only" deal? > > > > Not really a valid question, since the V:EKN Tournament rules in force at the > > time do not explicitly restrict play to "in game" considerations. The new > > rules go into effect on June 01, 2001. > > Okay. As of June 1st, is it permissible for two players to work together to > oust all other players while one rolls over at the end? > > I'd say no, as one (or both) of the players would be agreeing to a deal that, > if honored, would result in them seeking less than the majority of the victory > points. I'd say yes, as long as the person rolling over at the end is getting something out of it in this current round (1 VP or more). Even shooting for 2nd place and trying to have the 2nd most VPs reaffirms the goal stated in the rulebook if that player would have otherwise been doomed to having fewer VPs if they didn't make the deal. > 5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct > "Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of > gaining the most victory points in the current game." > > I don't see that using the Succubus Club is any different than a player > promising not to oust his prey (or even helping him oust others) until it's > just the two of them. In any case, deals of that kind make me sick and if I'm > judging an event where players try that sort of thing, I'll be standing over > them looking for the slightest hint of cheating. As a judge, I'd probably also keep an eye on any table that has a table splitting deal. I assume the cheating that you are looking for hints of would be things like helping a friend without getting a benefit yourself? > It's crap and it should be strongly discouraged. I dunno about that. If its not against the rules then I certainly don't think it could be crap and I wouldn't discourage it. -Robert rob...@vtesinla.org

"Aramis" <came...@hotmail.com> wrote in message [clip] > My question becomes what are "in-game considerations" as per the new > V:EKN rules effective today? > > "5.2 Players must act only on in-game considerations." > > Does this mean you can't consider vp's accumulation at all? What > about not wanting a nasty combat deck to make the finals if you're a > vote or bleed deck? Correct. That is not allowed. > How can you ever know that the deal that was made was only based on "in-game > considerations"? You can't know for sure in many cases. But, if something happens that makes it clear then the judge can get involved. Sometimes a player may say something that makes their intentions known. > How do you interpret the > deal-making at the LA qualifier in light of these new rules? No problems even under the new rules. > I think this new rule could really cause consternation at the final > qualifer for Nationals at Gencon. I don't see it. > I mean, wouldn't everyone be trying > (covertly or overtly) to make deals to get them into the Championships? The deal-making will be just like it always has been. Its always been overt and can continue to be so. The only thing the new rules would address is someone attacking someone across the table to keep them out of the championship final round. -Robert rob...@vtesinla.org

On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 15:37:53 GMT, "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> wrote in message >news:9f889...@enews4.newsguy.com... >> The problem is not with deals, but rather with how insanely easy it is to >> abuse Succubus Club. In game deals are fine and as things currently stand >> they did nothing wrong. > >I certainly agree with you but it seems that while Brad is mentioning >Succubus Club in his posts, the content of what he is describing as *wrong* >could be done even without SC. We're picking the wrong jumping-off point >for this battle. Are you? I will admit to being somewhat on the fence about the whole 'deal' thing, myself. It's one thing to play the first hour of a game, and look at the table setup and say to your grandpredator "OK, I can't get my prey without your help, he'll intercept everything I do. So if you oust him cross-table for me, I'll wall up and kill my predator for you, and then we can fight it out from there,... deal?" This is clearly based in-game, and it's ACCURATELY based on in-game information. It's also inherently selfish for both - they are still both trying to get 3VP, they just want to kick two people off the table first. It's another thing, on turn two, to start carving up the table in 3-2 splits with an agreed "rollover" at the end. I will adamantly maintain that it is NOT possible so early in the game to know whether or not you can sweep - I've swept games where I thought I was completely dead, then someone saved me cross-table for a temporary favor and I was able to rebuild and blow through everyone. So have many others - look at Szilan's recent finals win, for example. If he had made a 2-3 deal with ANYONE in his position, nobody would have blamed him, since it appeared that he would get a big fat zero. But surprisingly, he ended up getting 3 - it just goes to demonstrate that you can't KNOW what will happen, and making such deals on insufficient information is very bad. These "early pie split" deals disturb me greatly as well, if only because it -does- give an advantage to people who know each other. Even if I would attempt such a deal (I'm greedy, I want all 5 every time), I will be a lot less likely to make it with a player I don't know and whose capabilities I don't know, as opposed to making it with David Tatu, whom I know I can count on to screw up and oust himself, leaving me a clear road to all the rest. (HI TATU! ;) In addition, there's the fact that normally, many decks' contents are public knowledge by the third round, enabling such deals to be made with confidence that they can be carried through on. -- Derek Thug of Atlanta

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 15:37:53 GMT, "Robert Goudie" > <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >>We're picking the wrong jumping-off point for this battle. > > Are you? I will admit to being somewhat on the fence about the whole > 'deal' thing, myself. I mean the Succubus Club battle. I think the Club's role in the whole *deal* issue is rather small. If we want to ban the Club then let's abuse it and get rid of it. I don't think we can argue it away based on what we've seen so far. > It's one thing to play the first hour of a game, and look at the table > setup and say to your grandpredator "OK, I can't get my prey without > your help, he'll intercept everything I do. So if you oust him > cross-table for me, I'll wall up and kill my predator for you, and > then we can fight it out from there,... deal?" This is clearly based > in-game, and it's ACCURATELY based on in-game information. It's also > inherently selfish for both - they are still both trying to get 3VP, > they just want to kick two people off the table first. Agreed. > It's another thing, on turn two, to start carving up the table in 3-2 > splits with an agreed "rollover" at the end. I will adamantly > maintain that it is NOT possible so early in the game to know whether > or not you can sweep - I've swept games where I thought I was > completely dead, then someone saved me cross-table for a temporary > favor and I was able to rebuild and blow through everyone. So have > many others - look at Szilan's recent finals win, for example. If he > had made a 2-3 deal with ANYONE in his position, nobody would have > blamed him, since it appeared that he would get a big fat zero. But > surprisingly, he ended up getting 3 - it just goes to demonstrate that > you can't KNOW what will happen, and making such deals on insufficient > information is very bad. Its true that there isn't any certainty about one's position. It seems to have a lot to do with a person's perception of their position at the time. In the finals, earlier on, (after I had offered aid to keep Alex's weenie bleed prey from ousting my predator) I was trying to get Alex Harmon to accept a 3/2 split with me--me getting the 3 of course. Things weren't clear yet but he knew I could throw pool to his prey via the Succubus Club and I knew he could beat my minions to torpor. It was a match made in heaven. :) Anyway, we didn't do any deals until it started to look like Alex had the upper hand and I accepted the 2 VP side of the deal. I don't think I was wrong in trying to make a deal for 3 VPs. Alex may have been stupid to take such a deal but I don't think he'd have been doing something that he should be punished for--other than the inherent punishment of losing. > These "early pie split" deals disturb me greatly as well, if only > because it -does- give an advantage to people who know each other. Hmm. I dunno. I'm rethinking my last tournament and I made a deal with a cross-table newbie (whose name I can't remember for the life of me--sorry guy.!) to oust 2 members of my playgroup (my prey and pred) for a 2VP/2VP split of our 4 player table. I'd have to say that I probably agree that at least subconsciously I'd have preferred to work at a deal with someone more experienced but I just played it based on deck styles and seating. > Even if I would attempt such a deal (I'm greedy, I want all 5 every > time), I will be a lot less likely to make it with a player I don't > know and whose capabilities I don't know, as opposed to making it with > David Tatu, whom I know I can count on to screw up and oust himself, > leaving me a clear road to all the rest. (HI TATU! ;) LOL! I didn't realize that you guys teased David mercilessly too. -Robert rob...@vtesinla.org

On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 16:33:58 GMT, "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 15:37:53 GMT, "Robert Goudie" >> <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >>>We're picking the wrong jumping-off point for this battle. >> >> Are you? I will admit to being somewhat on the fence about the whole >> 'deal' thing, myself. > >I mean the Succubus Club battle. I think the Club's role in the whole >*deal* issue is rather small. If we want to ban the Club then let's abuse >it and get rid of it. I don't think we can argue it away based on what >we've seen so far. Oh. Well, yes. It could stand errata to say "the Club itself may not be traded", probably. But yeah, dealing with the SC should just be an issue of "if you can break it, do it." >Its true that there isn't any certainty about one's position. It seems to >have a lot to do with a person's perception of their position at the time. Yep. Hence my objection to such deals on turn 2-4: your position can't possibly be so bad as to be totally hosed. Almost no decks have demonstrated what they're going to do yet. >Alex had the upper hand and I accepted the 2 VP side of the deal. I don't >think I was wrong in trying to make a deal for 3 VPs. Alex may have been >stupid to take such a deal but I don't think he'd have been doing something >that he should be punished for--other than the inherent punishment of >losing. Well, there's the gotcha. If you are trying to get 3 VP out of a table, that's defined as a "win" of that table. Guaranteeing 3VP to yourself while possibly giving up the 4th and 5th is inherently selfish, and I don't see much of a problem with it. But accepting the 2VP side of such a deal is a problem. It's not inherently selfish; in one sense, it's conceding the game without actually bothering to play it out, or without actually bothering to get into a bad position first. (although the situation described above falls under the original paragraph where everyone has explored the position and the balance is very well-defined). >> These "early pie split" deals disturb me greatly as well, if only >> because it -does- give an advantage to people who know each other. > >Hmm. I dunno. I'm rethinking my last tournament and I made a deal with a >cross-table newbie (whose name I can't remember for the life of me--sorry >guy.!) to oust 2 members of my playgroup (my prey and pred) for a 2VP/2VP >split of our 4 player table. I'd have to say that I probably agree that at >least subconsciously I'd have preferred to work at a deal with someone more >experienced but I just played it based on deck styles and seating. Yes, and what if the newbie wasn't skilled enough to pull it off without dying himself? =) You -do- know things about the people you play with, such as whether they can make good from a certain position or not. It's not that people won't do it - it's just that you risk a lot more with an unknown, where you possibly risk NOTHING with someone you do know. >> Even if I would attempt such a deal (I'm greedy, I want all 5 every >> time), I will be a lot less likely to make it with a player I don't >> know and whose capabilities I don't know, as opposed to making it with >> David Tatu, whom I know I can count on to screw up and oust himself, >> leaving me a clear road to all the rest. (HI TATU! ;) > >LOL! I didn't realize that you guys teased David mercilessly too. Something about the bullseye tattoo (pun) on his forehead. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

>These "early pie split" deals disturb me greatly as well, if only >because it -does- give an advantage to people who know each other. It was interesting once I started looking more at tournament play for this game to see the parallels to B5. I refuse to play another major B5 tournament; I've played too many already. Let me try to explain the first World Championships and something I concluded from it. Precedence, the publisher of B5, flew to Southern California all of the various international winners (they stopped after this tournament as it was too expensive to repeat) - UK champ, European champ, Australian champ, Canadian champ (that might be all) for the first Worlds, which was being held at a big B5 con. Some of us drove down. A fair number of top players flew out from across the US. There was a qualifying tournament the day before the championship tournament. The person running the qualifier made a wee mistake; he allowed all of the players already qualified in the finals to play in the qualifier. My first round game included the Canadian champ, the UK champ, and an Australian. Turned out that there was something else going on as well. Apparently all of the non-Americans except one expected the Americans to all collude, so they colluded to get as many non-Americans into the finals as possible. I sat there watching the Canadian champ berate the Australian for not winning faster, while he showed him his hand explaining how he could have won several turns earlier. The players doing this were blatant. What occurred to me afterwards was how easy it would be to collude while being far too subtle for anyone to ever call you on it. One of the most useful pieces of info you could have is to know what someone else's deck does. It doesn't take a genius to adapt your decisions to whether you wish to counteract those strategies or facilitate their effectiveness. The next level of collusion is to take a deck to a tournament that interacts favorably with your buddy's. And, of course, there are many levels above that. There's a place for multiplayer CCG tournaments, if for no other reason than marketing. However, I'm strongly of the opinion that they can't be taken too seriously. Prizes should not be too great in value and your casual tournament player should probably be rewarded.

Steve Bucy wrote: > It's simple, Succubus Club needs to be banned from tournament play. No other > card in the game can screw up a tournament more. I said this a long time > ago after the old "I will give all my minions so you can bleed out your prey > and then you can give me all yours" trick was pulled on me in a tournament. Note that the minions traded do not get to back up to the start of the turn and untap. Not sure how it was handled at the tournament in question, but you make it sound as if the traded minions were available to bleed on both turns, which isn't normally the case (requiring extraordinatry measures like Masika, Force of Will, etc.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: >> Alex had the upper hand and I accepted the 2 VP side of the deal. I don't >> think I was wrong in trying to make a deal for 3 VPs. Alex may have been >> stupid to take such a deal but I don't think he'd have been doing something >> that he should be punished for--other than the inherent punishment of >> losing. > > Well, there's the gotcha. If you are trying to get 3 VP out of a > table, that's defined as a "win" of that table. Guaranteeing 3VP to > yourself while possibly giving up the 4th and 5th is inherently > selfish, and I don't see much of a problem with it. > > But accepting the 2VP side of such a deal is a problem. It's not > inherently selfish; in one sense, it's conceding the game without > actually bothering to play it out, or without actually bothering to > get into a bad position first. This last paragraph explains the exactly what I was trying to get at. If every player on the table tries to gain the most (read: simple majority) of the victory points, the table dynamic is preserved as everyone is out for themselves. It is when a player pro-actively (as opposed to being on the ropes) seeks to not attempt to gain the most victory points and instead assists another player to do so, that the proper competitive environment is tainted. This is especially true when it is obvious that this arrangement was come by either before, or early into, the game. Whether it's technically in the rules or not, it is _not_ sportsmanlike and it _is_ crap. I'd strongly argue that it is collusion, even if it is stated publicly. VTES is a multi-player game but it is certainly not designed for teams. However, I am not opposed to two or more players ganging up on one player because that player is perceived to be the biggest threat to their continued survival in the game. That's a much different issue entirely. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bb705c59.0106...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Then we're probably in agreement here. Also, if it comes *before* the game it is collusion. > Whether it's technically in the rules or not, it is _not_ sportsmanlike > and it _is_ crap. I'd strongly argue that it is collusion, even if it is > stated publicly. VTES is a multi-player game but it is certainly not > designed for teams. I'm sure all of the details weren't clear from the posts here but the situation between the two L.A. players was, according to how its been described to me, borne out of necessity of the player who eventually got 2 VPs. That is what I was saying was not unsportsmanlike and not crap. I'd imagine that a table-splitting deal made at the start of the game before any information about the game itself is know would be unsportsmanlike. Again, the answer lies in the player who is accepting the smaller share of VPs. If someone is willing to accept 2 VP out of the gate without knowledge of the current game, then they are probably looking at their overall tournament standing or helping a friend, or....????? I certainly can't think of any valid in-curent-game reason for doing this. -Robert rob...@vtesinla.org

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote > > However, I am not opposed to two or more players ganging up on one player > because that player is perceived to be the biggest threat to their continued > survival in the game. That's a much different issue entirely. Noal should also mention that he is prone to convince other players that his prey is the biggest threat at the table while he sneaks in and takes over. If I wasn't his prey when this happens, I'd find it more amusing :( Personally, I subscribe to a communistic model of splitting the table VPs... Everyone before the game agress to split the table five-ways and all players get 1 VP each. Everyone goes home happy. If you feel a little more competitive, you can play the Trostsky way by convincing people you are splitting it five ways while actually ousting people when they're not paying attention. Ok, so maybe it's only funny to me. Cheers, WES

-- "Wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote in message news:9f93q...@enews4.newsguy.com... [ quoted text not captured ] You could also do it the Hitler way by allying with your grandpredator at far east and go for your predator. Once he's gone you go for both prey and grandprey and doing deals cross table, eventually ending up getting sandwiched =) The trick is to figure out how to find lebensraum and use the gas (powered chainsaw) properly to dispose your enemy without anyone noticing in time.

In message <9f9cvj$gid$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes >You could also do it the Hitler way Hmm.... Should I invoke Godwin's Law? (A long standing net tradition: All discussion ceases upon comparisons to Hitler and/or Nazism. The person invoking such an argument loses.) -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote > I mean the Succubus Club battle. I think the Club's role in the whole > *deal* issue is rather small. If we want to ban the Club then let's abuse > it and get rid of it. I don't think we can argue it away based on what > we've seen so far. Actually, abusing Succubus Club in order for it to be banned in future tournaments would be illegal under the new tournament rules as an out-of-game consideration. Grin. - Jason Bell

"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > > You could also do it the Hitler way by allying with your grandpredator at > far east and go for your predator. Once he's gone you go for both prey and > grandprey and doing deals cross table, eventually ending up getting > sandwiched =) The trick is to figure out how to find lebensraum and use the > gas (powered chainsaw) properly to dispose your enemy without anyone > noticing in time. Or you could try the 'Blitzkrieg to France' method which consists of ousting your prey (Belgium) and your grand-prey (Holland) within one turn and then setting up your grand-grand-prey (France) as a proxy government while daring your predator (England) to make a move against either of you. The 'FDR' method which consists of pretending your predator (Japan) isn't a threat while making alliances with your prey (Soviet Union) and supplying the other two players with allies and equipment via the Succubus Club. When your predator takes the first action against you, proclaim that it was an unwarranted surprise attack and then oust your predator claiming you deserve the VPs since you did all the work. Heh... this is fun.

-- "Wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote in message news:9f9ia...@enews4.newsguy.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

-- "Wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote in message news:9f9ia...@enews4.newsguy.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Unde rthe FDR method you predator (Japan) may ask for a Peace Treaty after your cross table ally (USA) made use of the Bomb and burned the Powerbase: Hiroshima. And if you're Canadian you can always cause a stir with a (Anarch) Revolt and then Arson and burn the White House hehehe... Unless the National Guard Support is in play of course in which case it will be a bit more difficult.

"Wes" wrote: > Noal should also mention that he is prone to convince other players that his > prey is the biggest threat at the table while he sneaks in and takes over. > If I wasn't his prey when this happens, I'd find it more amusing :( *laughs* I also am prone to convincing my predator (either with jedi mind tricks or by sending most of his vampires to torpor) that it's in his best interest to focus on his predator in order to survive long enough to oust me. I doubt I'd do nearly as well at tournaments as I do if all the other players just stopped listening to me "reasoning" with them. Regards, Noal

Much like arcade games, psyche-ing the other people out is the reason I like jyhad so much. (I'll call it jyhad cause i like to) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Funny Brad would be the one to post this whole topic. It really has more to > do with deals than with Succubus Club specifically. In the 3rd round, Brad > was my prey and was a couple of pool away from death. While begging for his > life he made a deal for 1 VP with me. I let him live while he killed Tatu. > Then I needed him for the next guy so he made a deal for 2 VPs. *HE* > completely swung the game in that I couldn't have ousted Tatu or Fazio > without him. But, he was clearly trying to make the best of a bad situation > and he did end up getting a VP. One more than he would have had otherwise. > > -Robert I dont mind the Deal Making so much. Its the fact that the Succubus club lets you make some pretty fantastic and really unfair deals (ill give you all my minions, blood, and anything you want from my hand or in play). It's when you're allowed to do these wonderous game breaking things based on that fact that you can trust someone you're friends with, and that he will follow through on an agreement to give you 2 vps after sweeping up the rest of the helpless table. Unless everyone is playing combat rush decks, there is not much the other 2 at the table can do to prevent the 2v1 beat down that will occure 3 times in a row. Succubus club is really broken when played with trustworthy friends at the table. I plan on using this card to win every tournament I enter until its banned. Brad Ward [ quoted text not captured ]

"Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> wrote in message news:thh3sdd...@corp.supernews.com... [clip] > Succubus club is really broken when played with trustworthy friends at the > table. I plan on using this card to win every tournament I enter until its > banned. I doubt you can possibly come up with more evil schemes than were created by the local king of evil schemes, Stuart Smith. But, for all his screwing of people with the SC, he was never able to win with it. I highly doubt you'll win every tournament you enter. But, I wish you well in your attempt. -Robert

"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] Sure, why not. Don't forget the poor play of your bridge partner, who makes a sneak attack on the combat deck, which retaliates by nuking all his minions, and providing extra resources to your prey, predator, and anyone else with a grudge. Ok, I'm a geek. I'm prepared to admit that. - Jason Bell

> I doubt you can possibly come up with more evil schemes than were created by > the local king of evil schemes, Stuart Smith. But, for all his screwing of > people with the SC, he was never able to win with it. I highly doubt you'll > win every tournament you enter. But, I wish you well in your attempt. Ooops, did I say win? I mean to say help someone else win, ill settle for 2nd place in every tournament. Ill just be the nice little kingmaker taking second place. But hey, at least I Get to choose who wins the tournaments. Brad

"Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> wrote in message news:thig364...@corp.supernews.com... > > Ooops, did I say win? I mean to say help someone else win, ill settle for > 2nd place in every tournament. Ill just be the nice little kingmaker taking > second place. But hey, at least I Get to choose who wins the tournaments. > > Brad Brad, I wanted Succubus Club banned probably 5 years ago so we're in agreement on that. Go ahead and break the card. Great. Go to it. I'm thrilled. But, if you are going to announce to the world (and the head judge of 25% of the local tournaments) that your *goal* is to get 2nd place you will do nothing to help get Succubus Club banned. Instead you'll just get yourself in trouble. I think the card can be abused and we can make a case for banning it--that is, if you'll keep your head on straight and just do what is required without breaking the tournament rules. -Robert

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message > If every player on the table tries to gain the most (read: simple majority) > of the victory points, the table dynamic is preserved as everyone is out > for themselves. It is when a player pro-actively (as opposed to being on > the ropes) seeks to not attempt to gain the most victory points and instead > assists another player to do so, that the proper competitive environment is > tainted. This is especially true when it is obvious that this arrangement > was come by either before, or early into, the game. Not necessarily, especially if you've bumped into each other at a previous table. As it turned out, I sat with the same predator from a previous tournament (same seating, same decks). We were both IG rush decks and after sizing up the table very early, realized that working together to oust the table was in our best interest. Why beat each other up and help my grand predator roll through both of us when we can practically assure ourselves of a 3/2 (turned out to be a 2/2 split when one person transferred out) split? Taking the "high road" and just "playing it out" would have resulted in both of us likely getting ousted by my grand predator (!malk deck). IMO, a reasonable person would likely accept the 2VP of the deal in that situation rather than roll the dice with beating up another IG deck while fending off constant bleeds. > > Whether it's technically in the rules or not, it is _not_ sportsmanlike > and it _is_ crap. I'd strongly argue that it is collusion, even if it is > stated publicly. VTES is a multi-player game but it is certainly not > designed for teams. You can certainly argue that the person getting the 3VP out of the deal is doing their best to gain maximum VPs. So long as there is a reasonable case for the other person to take the fewer (2) VP, I don't see how that is collusion (granted the deal is made after the game has begun, and the table has been sized up with any counter offers being seen as less appealing). 2 on 2 VTES is pretty fun, even if that isn't what the game's original design had in mind. Obviously I'm not talking about a tournament setting. Alex Harmon

Alex wrote: > > dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message > > > If every player on the table tries to gain the most (read: simple majority) > > of the victory points, the table dynamic is preserved as everyone is out > > for themselves. It is when a player pro-actively (as opposed to being on > > the ropes) seeks to not attempt to gain the most victory points and instead > > assists another player to do so, that the proper competitive environment is > > tainted. This is especially true when it is obvious that this arrangement > > was come by either before, or early into, the game. > > Not necessarily, especially if you've bumped into each other at a > previous table. As it turned out, I sat with the same predator from a > previous tournament (same seating, same decks). We were both IG rush > decks and after sizing up the table very early, realized that working > together to oust the table was in our best interest. Why beat each > other up and help my grand predator roll through both of us when we > can practically assure ourselves of a 3/2 (turned out to be a 2/2 > split when one person transferred out) split? Taking the "high road" > and just "playing it out" would have resulted in both of us likely > getting ousted by my grand predator (!malk deck). IMO, a reasonable > person would likely accept the 2VP of the deal in that situation > rather than roll the dice with beating up another IG deck while > fending off constant bleeds. You know, the more I think about this issue the more I agree with you and disagree with the previous poster. I feel like I was one of the "innocent victims" of the table that played to the 3/2 split Brad was complaining about in the LA Qualifier. I asked Robert Goudie much the same question Brad asked on Usenet that started all these threads. But the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the problem is not that people aren't attempting to maximize their victory points. It's that *are*! You're right. The reason these deals get done is that they're the prudent way to stay in the tournament and maximize your chance of getting to the finals, especially in the earlier rounds. (Once someone perceives the necessity of sweeping a table to get in, I doubt they're likely to participate.) The problem is that we're used to non-tournament, fun games where everyone tries to win, at the expense of grabbing more VPs on average. Such games have a better dynamic because there's a lot more suspense than just seeing who can negotiate the unstoppable alliance with who under what terms. This reminds me of Empires in Arms, a long-term diplomatic board game which allows players to take the leadership of a country during Naploeanic times. It has an incredibly neat system for fighting out fairly even wars which would be a lot of fun if it was ever used as intended. The trouble is that the diplomatic system allows a wide latitude for decision about who to ally with, who to fight, when to enter a war, when to surrender to opponents under what conditions or what conditions to demand if you're winning and possibly even switch sides. So it turns out that it's just a lot smarter to not fight even wars ever. If you do, you have lots of fun but it takes a long time, saps both sides, and mostly benefits the non-involved. Instead, all the wars turn out to be massive gang bangs on whatever pathetic wretch the other player decide needs to get drubbed royally and it goes on until the victim can wangle better surrender terms from the opposing alliances than what he'll get by letting them destroy his army and his country (usually not hard) or else tempt one or more traitors from amongst their number. So the cool wars everyone would love to fight never happen - except when the game is played by a group of players who like fighting wars better than winning the game for the most part. Anyway, if this kind of deal in VTES tournaments turns out to be the rule rather than the exception, that will be kind of sad - but completely comprehensible, IMHO. In any event, I have to say that having seen it at work, I have no doubt in my mind that Succubus Club should certainly, absolutely be banned in VEKN tournaments. If the alliances happen, they happen. But Succubus Club makes such alliances far too powerful! Fred

On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:12:59 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >You're right. The reason these deals get done is that they're the prudent >way to stay in the tournament and maximize your chance of getting to the >finals, especially in the earlier rounds. (Once someone perceives the >necessity of sweeping a table to get in, I doubt they're likely to participate.) >The problem is that we're used to non-tournament, fun games where everyone >tries to win, at the expense of grabbing more VPs on average. Such games have >a better dynamic because there's a lot more suspense than just seeing who can >negotiate the unstoppable alliance with who under what terms. This problem is an artifact of the VEKN tournament system - in the qualifying rounds, the object is not to win games but to score victory points. This is arguably not true to the rulebook which states: "The Object of the Game ... the winner is the player with the most victory points at the end of the game." You would do much to correct this by a simple change to the qualifying procedure. Qualification for the final should be determined first by the number of games won. An even split such as 2-2 VP for a game would score as half a game win, etc. The total number of victory points would only be used to break ties. This would make it harder to set-up table-splitting deals as winning the game becomes more important and players will be less willing to settle for the thin end of a 3-2 split. Andrew

Robert Goudie wrote in message ... [ quoted text not captured ] I believe your memory is incorrect here. If mine is correct Stuart won a tournament with it once at least once (I thought twice) and was also directly responsible for Paul winning another with it. Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area.

Can you use the succubus club to trade a card from your hand, for equipment card, but take the equipment card into your hand? Can you trade for an equipment card that none of your minion may hold (basically the same question, does the card have to be put in play in the same "area")? [ quoted text not captured ]

And before anyone goes off, you can assume another similar trade is made to even out the handsize. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jack Crow wrote: > And before anyone goes off, you can assume another similar trade is > made to even out the handsize. Then do the trade properly - hand to hand and inplay to inplay. > >Can you use the succubus club to trade a card from your hand, for > >equipment card, but take the equipment card into your hand? > >Can you trade for an equipment card that none of your minion may hold > >(basically the same question, does the card have to be put in play in > >the same "area")? No. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3B1B60F7...@netcom.com>... > Alex wrote: [snip] > > IMO, a reasonable > > person would likely accept the 2VP of the deal in that situation > > rather than roll the dice with beating up another IG deck while > > fending off constant bleeds. > > You know, the more I think about this issue the more I agree with you > and disagree with the previous poster. I feel like I was one of the > "innocent victims" of the table that played to the 3/2 split Brad was > complaining about in the LA Qualifier. I asked Robert Goudie much the > same question Brad asked on Usenet that started all these threads. But > the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the problem is > not that people aren't attempting to maximize their victory points. It's > that [they?] *are*! I think this is true, and Andrew Davidson's suggestion might be an interesting method for scoring tournaments to avoid this problem: instead of counting VPs, and having the people with the top five total VPs play in the final, count games won (game winners being the person with the most VPs in each game, as per the rulebook) and only use VP totals as a tiebreaker for determining finalists. As he wrote, this would probably go a long way toward eliminating people making "losing" deals in tournament games; generally it isn't very useful to get 1 or 2 VPs in a game if it's not going to make you win the game, under this system. Indeed, the current system - basing scoring on total VPs through three rounds - is clearly undermining the stated "winning the game" conditions in the rulebook. If you interpreted "in-game considerations" strictly, you could argue that it's not acceptable to make a deal for only 1 VP even if you would otherwise most likely get 0 - the "in-game" goal is to get more VPs than all other players, not to get the most total VPs over three games. Josh ps - hi everybody! stopped reading the newsgroup when deja left the picture; might be reading/posting again from time to time now that google's got posting facilities online.

> Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message > news:<3B1B60F7...@netcom.com>... >> Alex wrote: > > [snip] > >>> IMO, a reasonable >>> person would likely accept the 2VP of the deal in that situation >>> rather than roll the dice with beating up another IG deck while >>> fending off constant bleeds. >> >> You know, the more I think about this issue the more I agree with you >> and disagree with the previous poster. I feel like I was one of the >> "innocent victims" of the table that played to the 3/2 split Brad was >> complaining about in the LA Qualifier. I asked Robert Goudie much the >> same question Brad asked on Usenet that started all these threads. But >> the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the problem is >> not that people aren't attempting to maximize their victory points. It's >> that [they?] *are*! > > I think this is true, and Andrew Davidson's suggestion might be > an interesting method for scoring tournaments to avoid this problem: > instead of counting VPs, and having the people with the top five > total VPs play in the final, count games won (game winners being > the person with the most VPs in each game, as per the rulebook) and > only use VP totals as a tiebreaker for determining finalists. Well, with 3 rounds, everyone's going to have 0-3 games won, right? So there's certainly going to be ties, and decision by VPs. And there'd need to be a rule for 4 player tables that got split 2-2. (Don't get "get split" as meaning preemptive collusion, now. Just saying if no one gets a majority, the table has been "split.") Either they get "half a win," or they get a "tie game," but then whether that gets decided by VPs first or what needs to be decided. Also, who wins the finals? And who gets second place? That probably goes back to VPs, and it seems that the finals are even worse than the previous rounds as far as table-carving deals go. I'm curious. Does anyone (Lasombra?) have old Archon files archives or something, to take a look and see if this scoring system would actually change who does and doesn't make the finals? I mean, if there's only 3 tables, you could easily have a 1-1-1 (games won) tie, and everybody else has 0 wins, and then it's back to VPs, and... I dunno, but the more I think about it, the more I wonder if it would change anything at all. Have to go back and think about the math(s). -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta "You can't make a fact out of an opinion by raising your voice."

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:B742D07B.4235%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu... [clip] > I'm curious. Does anyone (Lasombra?) have old Archon files archives or > something, to take a look and see if this scoring system would actually > change who does and doesn't make the finals? I mean, if there's only 3 > tables, you could easily have a 1-1-1 (games won) tie, and everybody else > has 0 wins, and then it's back to VPs, and... I dunno, but the more I think > about it, the more I wonder if it would change anything at all. Have to go > back and think about the math(s). That's where I'm at too. I'm not against the idea (yet?) I just don't know if it will help. It might at least set the motivations right. -Robert

Pat Ricochet wrote: > > Joshua wrote: > > I think this is true, and Andrew Davidson's suggestion might be > > an interesting method for scoring tournaments to avoid this problem: > > instead of counting VPs, and having the people with the top five > > total VPs play in the final, count games won (game winners being > > the person with the most VPs in each game, as per the rulebook) and > > only use VP totals as a tiebreaker for determining finalists. > > Well, with 3 rounds, everyone's going to have 0-3 games won, right? So > there's certainly going to be ties, and decision by VPs. And there'd need > to be a rule for 4 player tables that got split 2-2. (Don't get "get split" > as meaning preemptive collusion, now. Just saying if no one gets a > majority, the table has been "split.") Either they get "half a win," or > they get a "tie game," but then whether that gets decided by VPs first or > what needs to be decided. > Also, who wins the finals? And who gets second place? That probably > goes back to VPs, and it seems that the finals are even worse than the > previous rounds as far as table-carving deals go. In the finals you're playing for position in the entire tournament. In some ways, it may turn out to be more of an incentive to play for 2nd place in the whole tournament than to play for a couple of VPs in a prelim round. Especially if you perceive the alternate is an early oust with no victory points, 5th place, etc. if you don't deal. I don't think you can do much about that except completely eliminate the notion of second place. Perhaps that would work: the tournament has a single champion and everyone else is honored as a "finalist" and given the same runner-up prize without reference to how they did in the finals. > I'm curious. Does anyone (Lasombra?) have old Archon files archives or > something, to take a look and see if this scoring system would actually > change who does and doesn't make the finals? I mean, if there's only 3 > tables, you could easily have a 1-1-1 (games won) tie, and everybody else > has 0 wins, and then it's back to VPs, and... I dunno, but the more I think > about it, the more I wonder if it would change anything at all. Have to go > back and think about the math(s). It would change things. Of course, you can't really make too many conclusions about the system if players didn't play under. It changes the way the incentives work so one would expect players to behave differently than they did. But while I agree that there are still some incentives to collude, since there would be plenty of ties in terms of games won and VPs would therefore still matter a great deal, I'm pretty sure if would markedly reduce the incentive to play kingmaker. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, if it causes little difference in the actual outcome, but is hard to do in your head, then it's a step in the right direction. =) I mean, if it's too hard to figure out whether you can or can't get in the finals except by just doing your best to get all 3 VPs, maybe people will stop carving up tables from the get-go and start playing the DAMN GAME.*** [message over, just ranting below] *** For those of you who think that carving up the VPs IS the game, I'd say you're missing out on much of the card game. There are plenty of games of diplomacy and dealing for this kind of venue. However, there is a rich CCG full of cool art, great combos, and a wealth of untapped ideas, much of which becomes irrelevant in the "just deal for the VPs game." Frankly, it's this kind of thinking that makes me want to play cross-table Rush combat. Except now THAT is forbidden by the tournament rules, since the VP carvers are the only people playing by the new rules. And frankly, THAT makes me not want to play in tournaments at all. I'm happy to defend against sneak and bleed, but I don't want to wear out my voice trying to convince the guy whose getting the 2VP deal he shouldn't. =\ [ quoted text not captured ]

> > I think this is true, and Andrew Davidson's suggestion might be > > an interesting method for scoring tournaments to avoid this problem: > > instead of counting VPs, and having the people with the top five > > total VPs play in the final, count games won (game winners being > > the person with the most VPs in each game, as per the rulebook) and > > only use VP totals as a tiebreaker for determining finalists. > <...> > I'm curious. Does anyone (Lasombra?) have old Archon files archives or > something, to take a look and see if this scoring system would actually > change who does and doesn't make the finals? I mean, if there's only 3 > tables, you could easily have a 1-1-1 (games won) tie, and everybody else > has 0 wins, and then it's back to VPs, and... I dunno, but the more I think > about it, the more I wonder if it would change anything at all. Have to go > back and think about the math(s). IMO you have to look beyond maths. Changing tournament rules like this can (and will) have a significant impact on the decks people play with. When making a deck for a tourney there's 3 schools of tought: 1/ make a deck that can relibly get 2-3 VPs. Say, weenie presence horde or an Tsim intercept deck. 2/ make a deck that either sweeps or goes down fast. 3/ Something in between 1 and 2 If places for the finals are determined on winning a game, then the first kind of deck doesn't cut it anymore. consequence: an ever smaller spread of decks will be seen on a given tourney. Besides: If you sweep the table in the first round you're almost certain to go to the finals. This player can be kingmaker for the next 2 rounds, or even try to delay games so no-one wins them. Jeroen

jeroen rombouts wrote: > Besides: If you sweep the table in the first round you're almost certain to > go to the finals. This player can be kingmaker for the next 2 rounds, or > even try to delay games so no-one wins them. No. See the rules about in-game considerations. [ quoted text not captured ]

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> wrote in message news:<RypT6.12441$mR5.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>... [regarding Andrew Davidson's proposal for scoring tournaments based on game wins instead of total VPs] > IMO you have to look beyond maths. Changing tournament rules like this can > (and will) have a significant impact on the decks people play with. When > making a deck for a tourney there's 3 schools of tought: > 1/ make a deck that can relibly get 2-3 VPs. Say, weenie presence horde or > an Tsim intercept deck. > 2/ make a deck that either sweeps or goes down fast. > 3/ Something in between 1 and 2 > > If places for the finals are determined on winning a game, then the first > kind of deck doesn't cut it anymore. consequence: an ever smaller spread of > decks will be seen on a given tourney. I'm not sure that's true. In the first place, the "deck that can reliably get 2-3 VPs each game" seems (in my experience) nearly mythological, ie nonexistent. People may *try* to make decks that do that, but I've rarely seen one that *actually* ends up getting 2-3 VPs each game. If it gets to the finals at all, it's generally by doing very well in at least one round, and often very badly in at least one round. Second, a deck that can't sweep is just plain bad in general. If you can't get 3 VPs within the time limit now, you'll have a hard time making the finals under the current system as well. Deck choice has always been limited by the time limit, and this is equally true under any scoring system. The scoring system I mentioned has the advantage of making each game count strictly under its own terms rather than as one-third of a larger "the tourney" pseudo-game. > Besides: If you sweep the table in the first round you're almost certain to > go to the finals. This player can be kingmaker for the next 2 rounds, or > even try to delay games so no-one wins them. Besides LSJ's (accurate) response that that would be illegal, it is no more true under a "winning games is the first criterion" system than under the current "total VPs is the first criterion" system. In large tournaments, winning 1 game may not be enough to get you to the finals, just as in large tournaments 5 VPs may not be enough to get you to the finals. In smaller tournaments, what you say about the proposed alternative is true, but equally true with the current scoring method. Josh true love but for the lack of providence

Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:<B742D07B.4235%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>... [about the "game wins" instead of VPs proposal] > Well, with 3 rounds, everyone's going to have 0-3 games won, right? So > there's certainly going to be ties, and decision by VPs. And there'd need > to be a rule for 4 player tables that got split 2-2. (Don't get "get split" > as meaning preemptive collusion, now. Just saying if no one gets a > majority, the table has been "split.") Either they get "half a win," or > they get a "tie game," but then whether that gets decided by VPs first or > what needs to be decided. I'd think half-wins would be the way to go: if the game is tied by the rulebook victory conditions, each tying player splits the "game point". It may be that this shouldn't happen for games that aren't over (ie timed-out games) - 0.2 "game points" are a lot more valuable than 0.5 "victory points" and might be too much of a reward for no tangible progress toward a game win. Yes, I'm sure there would often be "game point" ties and those could be decided by total VPs (or some other method, if a better one could be thought up) - so total VPs would still matter, just not as much and not as directly. > Also, who wins the finals? And who gets second place? That probably > goes back to VPs, and it seems that the finals are even worse than the > previous rounds as far as table-carving deals go. The winner of the final game is as defined in the rulebook; it's based on VPs in the final game. i.e., exactly the same as now. Are the finals really having more problems with table-carving deals? I would have thought that people would hardly ever be willing to accept not winning the tourney just for a better shot at second place - as someone else (Fred?) suggested, it might be useful to eliminate the idea of "second place" and give the same prizes to all the finalists except for the winner. > I'm curious. Does anyone (Lasombra?) have old Archon files archives or > something, to take a look and see if this scoring system would actually > change who does and doesn't make the finals? I mean, if there's only 3 > tables, you could easily have a 1-1-1 (games won) tie, and everybody else > has 0 wins, and then it's back to VPs, and... I dunno, but the more I think > about it, the more I wonder if it would change anything at all. Have to go > back and think about the math(s). I was just wondering about the availability of detailed tournament results this morning myself. I can imagine that there might be privacy considerations with making individuals' data available to the general public, but it would definitely be very useful in doing some statistics on "what might have happened" under other scoring methods, as well as answering any number of questions about what really happens in tournaments. Josh i know this bar with a jukebox full of medicine

In message <59b20daa.01060...@posting.google.com>, Joshua Duffin <duff...@bls.gov> writes >I'm not sure that's true. In the first place, the "deck that >can reliably get 2-3 VPs each game" seems (in my experience) >nearly mythological, ie nonexistent. Such decks can exist, but only in a given environment with a given, limited set of players. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

On 6 Jun 2001 14:01:26 -0700, Joshua Duffin wrote: >I'd think half-wins would be the way to go: if the game is tied >by the rulebook victory conditions, each tying player splits >the "game point". It may be that this shouldn't happen for >games that aren't over (ie timed-out games) - 0.2 "game points" >are a lot more valuable than 0.5 "victory points" and might be >too much of a reward for no tangible progress toward a game win. This would only apply if no-one has scored any VPs. Once there are VPs on the board, surely you can declare a reasonable winner or winners in the event of a time-out. This might encourage stalling after someone has a VP lead but I'm not sure how often games time-out with the 2 hour time-limit right now. >> I'm curious. Does anyone (Lasombra?) have old Archon files archives or >> something, to take a look and see if this scoring system would actually >> change who does and doesn't make the finals? I mean, if there's only 3 >> tables, you could easily have a 1-1-1 (games won) tie, and everybody else >> has 0 wins, and then it's back to VPs, and... I dunno, but the more I think >> about it, the more I wonder if it would change anything at all. Have to go >> back and think about the math(s). If you have three tables and no scoreless games then, after three rounds you're likely to have 2 or 3 double-winners and 3 or 5 single winners. All double-winners make the final and the single winners have to tie-break on total VP. This fairly similar to what would happen now. The main difference is that someone who accumulates a string of 2nd place results (6 VP total, say) but never wins a game is not going to get into the final. This eliminates the pure kingmaker strategy such as one might try with Succubus Club. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > If you have three tables and no scoreless games then, after three > rounds you're likely to have 2 or 3 double-winners and 3 or 5 single > winners. All double-winners make the final and the single winners > have to tie-break on total VP. This fairly similar to what would > happen now. The main difference is that someone who accumulates a > string of 2nd place results (6 VP total, say) but never wins a game is > not going to get into the final. This eliminates the pure kingmaker > strategy such as one might try with Succubus Club. A good, effective, and very clean suggestion. I can't think of any reason not to use this system, actually. It would ostensibly favor 4-player tables over 5-player tables (where the odds of winning are 1:4 instead of 1:5, all things being equal), but I don't see that as a compelling drawback since the current system ostensibly favors 5-player tables over 4-player ones. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:9FCD6D3CD2E77F77.81B96CC9...@lp.airnews.net... > On 6 Jun 2001 14:01:26 -0700, Joshua Duffin wrote: > > >I'd think half-wins would be the way to go: if the game is tied > >by the rulebook victory conditions, each tying player splits > >the "game point". It may be that this shouldn't happen for > >games that aren't over (ie timed-out games) - 0.2 "game points" > >are a lot more valuable than 0.5 "victory points" and might be > >too much of a reward for no tangible progress toward a game win. > > This would only apply if no-one has scored any VPs. Once there are > VPs on the board, surely you can declare a reasonable winner or > winners in the event of a time-out. This might encourage stalling > after someone has a VP lead but I'm not sure how often games time-out > with the 2 hour time-limit right now. Around here it's common for a couple of games in a tournament to time-out on a 2 hour limit, but we've had tournaments where all games finished well within a 1h30 limit, and others were at least two tables timed-out on all rounds. It is very dependent on the current meta-game. Anyway, stalling is still encouraged somewhat by the current system, I don't think it would become such a huge problem with this system that it couldn't be > >> I'm curious. Does anyone (Lasombra?) have old Archon files archives or > >> something, to take a look and see if this scoring system would actually > >> change who does and doesn't make the finals? I mean, if there's only 3 > >> tables, you could easily have a 1-1-1 (games won) tie, and everybody else > >> has 0 wins, and then it's back to VPs, and... I dunno, but the more I think > >> about it, the more I wonder if it would change anything at all. Have to go > >> back and think about the math(s). > > If you have three tables and no scoreless games then, after three > rounds you're likely to have 2 or 3 double-winners and 3 or 5 single > winners. All double-winners make the final and the single winners > have to tie-break on total VP. This fairly similar to what would > happen now. The main difference is that someone who accumulates a > string of 2nd place results (6 VP total, say) but never wins a game is > not going to get into the final. This eliminates the pure kingmaker > strategy such as one might try with Succubus Club. OTOH, shouldn't a 6 VP 2nd place string beat a 3 VP one game win/two losses? Frankly, when I first heard of Tournament Points I thought this is what they were intended to do, ie, you'd rate first by TP, and use VP's for tie-breaking. The current system is flawed in respect to TPs, since it actually seems more common to have TP ties than VP ties (except on the 0 VP end of the table, where tie-breakers aren't really needed anyway). Giving 1 point to a table winner and 0 to all other players does avoid kingmaker strategies, but it also restricts viable tournament decks even more. I'd be happier with a tweaked TP system, where the table winner would get a larger bonus, and VPs were used only for tie-breaking, though frankly I wouldn't mind the 1 point-per-win system that much. Or something like this: 1 TP to be shared by the players with the most VPs and 1 TP to be shared by the last two players to be ousted who scored any VPs. So a table sweep would get 2 TPs, while a 3-2 split would become a 1.5-0.5 TP split, and a 2-2 tie would become 1-1 TP. Still largely discorages kingmaking, and it makes the 2nd place streak equal to a 1 game winner on TPs, VPs would be the tie-breaker. Hmm, do we want to make upstream strategies viable? I just noticed that this system would reward a 2-1-1-1 split with 1.5-0.5 TPs, a huge change from the current system. :-) Flux

On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 21:19:34 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: >> If you have three tables and no scoreless games then, after three >> rounds you're likely to have 2 or 3 double-winners and 3 or 5 single >> winners. All double-winners make the final and the single winners >> have to tie-break on total VP. This fairly similar to what would >> happen now. The main difference is that someone who accumulates a >> string of 2nd place results (6 VP total, say) but never wins a game is >> not going to get into the final. This eliminates the pure kingmaker >> strategy such as one might try with Succubus Club. > >A good, effective, and very clean suggestion. I can't think of any reason >not to use this system, actually. It would ostensibly favor 4-player >tables over 5-player tables (where the odds of winning are 1:4 instead of >1:5, all things being equal), but I don't see that as a compelling drawback >since the current system ostensibly favors 5-player tables over 4-player ones. The biggest worry I'd have about a system like this can be stated from the point of view of intercept decks, although several other styles of deck have the problem as well. 2VP per round is NOT a shabby performance. Intercept/kill decks can often reliably produce 2VP per round by killing predators repeatedly and letting their prey run rampant. The reason more players don't play this style of deck is that while you can GET to the finals this way, you have little hope of winning them, since your prey has a great chance of getting 3VP to your 2... a natural balance to what would otherwise be an obnoxious deck. However, plenty of other decks have a reasonable life expectancy of 2-3VP. Pat O'Shea played the 60-card "well-oiled Crypt Machine" at the Atlanta qualifier - it is an excellent example of a deck that can get 2-3 VPs very quickly, but tends to run out of cards before completing the sweep. But it DOES have the potential for 3VPs, which is enough to win the finals... and the fact that it's 60 cards means that it tends to flow VERY well, making it much easier to get those first 2 VPs. Should such a deck be rendered non-viable? Note that the deck does exactly what we'd all like to see - it goes after its prey hard and fast, doesn't screw around constantly deal-making with the table, and doesn't have much ability to collude or otherwise make use of out-of-game considerations. It's purely based around deck construction/play. I think a system like this sounds good, but excessively penalizes too many situations; what about the table where you oust two people rapidly while your grandpredator ousts one, and then you lose a hard-fought endgame to end up on the wrong end of a 3-2 split? It means that you HAVE to play table-sweepers, or you are risking having your VPs gained not matter... and that really cuts down on the deck variety out there. -- Derek Thug of Atlanta

>A good, effective, and very clean suggestion. I can't think of any reason >not to use this system, actually. It would ostensibly favor 4-player >tables over 5-player tables (where the odds of winning are 1:4 instead of >1:5, all things being equal), but I don't see that as a compelling drawback >since the current system ostensibly favors 5-player tables over 4-player >ones. I believe these comments are referring to the suggestion of having table wins determine finals participants. Wouldn't whoever is leading at any given time have an incentive to stall? I'm assuming that any game that times out with someone leading in VPs is a table win for that player. This may not be as great a problem as current ones. But, any scoring system, while necessary, will produce distortions in play somehow as players try to play the tournament rather than the game (well, I suppose you could have tournaments with a single round). I've seen another multiplayer game agonize over the issue of scoring. Rather than believe something is good or not, alternatives should be tested to see what the real effects of such a change would be.

Ian Lee wrote: > > >A good, effective, and very clean suggestion. I can't think of any reason > >not to use this system, actually. It would ostensibly favor 4-player > >tables over 5-player tables (where the odds of winning are 1:4 instead of > >1:5, all things being equal), but I don't see that as a compelling drawback > >since the current system ostensibly favors 5-player tables over 4-player > >ones. > > I believe these comments are referring to the suggestion of having table wins > determine finals participants. > > Wouldn't whoever is leading at any given time have an incentive to stall? I'm Sure. So it's a good thing that stalling is forbidden by the rules. > assuming that any game that times out with someone leading in VPs is a table > win for that player. > > This may not be as great a problem as current ones. But, any scoring system, > while necessary, will produce distortions in play somehow as players try to > play the tournament rather than the game (well, I suppose you could have > tournaments with a single round). I've seen another multiplayer game agonize > over the issue of scoring. Rather than believe something is good or not, > alternatives should be tested to see what the real effects of such a change > would be. Exactly. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<6rrtht879fn2anvij...@4ax.com>... > On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 21:19:34 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > wrote: > >A good, effective, and very clean suggestion. I can't think of any reason > >not to use this system, actually. It would ostensibly favor 4-player > >tables over 5-player tables (where the odds of winning are 1:4 instead of > >1:5, all things being equal), but I don't see that as a compelling drawback > >since the current system ostensibly favors 5-player tables over 4-player ones. Mikey likes it! ;-) > The biggest worry I'd have about a system like this can be stated from > the point of view of intercept decks, although several other styles of > deck have the problem as well. > > 2VP per round is NOT a shabby performance. Intercept/kill decks can > often reliably produce 2VP per round by killing predators repeatedly > and letting their prey run rampant. The reason more players don't > play this style of deck is that while you can GET to the finals this > way, you have little hope of winning them, since your prey has a great > chance of getting 3VP to your 2... a natural balance to what would > otherwise be an obnoxious deck. "Would otherwise be"? It still is. ;-) It's just not a deck that's easy to win games/tournaments with. There would be nothing preventing people (just as there isn't now) from playing decks that are obnoxious as hell but don't really have a shot at winning the tournament... in all honesty, that's probably contributing to a lot of the variety in decks you see at tournaments now, and it probably always will. > However, plenty of other decks have a reasonable life expectancy of > 2-3VP. Pat O'Shea played the 60-card "well-oiled Crypt Machine" at > the Atlanta qualifier - it is an excellent example of a deck that can > get 2-3 VPs very quickly, but tends to run out of cards before > completing the sweep. But it DOES have the potential for 3VPs, which > is enough to win the finals... and the fact that it's 60 cards means > that it tends to flow VERY well, making it much easier to get those > first 2 VPs. Should such a deck be rendered non-viable? Note that > the deck does exactly what we'd all like to see - it goes after its > prey hard and fast, doesn't screw around constantly deal-making with > the table, and doesn't have much ability to collude or otherwise make > use of out-of-game considerations. It's purely based around deck > construction/play. If it can get 3 VPs, it's not non-viable. 3 VPs is a table win. It just wouldn't get as much benefit from the 2 VP situation as it does currently. (It would certainly still get some, since game-win ties are not unlikely, especially in smaller tournaments.) > I think a system like this sounds good, but excessively penalizes too > many situations; what about the table where you oust two people > rapidly while your grandpredator ousts one, and then you lose a > hard-fought endgame to end up on the wrong end of a 3-2 split? It > means that you HAVE to play table-sweepers, or you are risking having > your VPs gained not matter... and that really cuts down on the deck > variety out there. Why should you not be penalized for losing the game? That's sort of a flip answer, I know, but the rulebook does spell out what it means to "win the game", and if you don't get the most VPs on the table, you haven't done it. And again I say, if you're playing a deck that *cannot* sweep, you're probably playing a bad deck. If you're playing a deck that's not likely to sweep, you're fine if you can get 3 VPs. If you're playing a deck that has a hard time even getting to 3 VPs, to the extent that you can make the finals now, you're doing it by playing to the current tournament scoring system, and that will always be a factor under any possible method of keeping score. Josh i'm imagining your frame every angle and every plane

On the topic of a fairer tournament scoring system how about this system: Table win 1 VP point per player at the table. other players at table total VP gained during the game. This system balances things so that winning a game is important but still allows someone who does well in every round but doesn't win every game still has a chance. comments very welcome Ken Shaw

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, that's another good shot, but not (IMO) as clean as the previous suggestion. Other alternatives for sliding the "win" down toward the "VP" scale: The winner is awarded an extra VP for the table (divided evenly among the winners in case of a tie). The untied winner is awarded 2 extra VPs for the table (no award if the win is tied). Mix-n-match with various rules to hand timed-out games. Further suggestions welcome - we'll be looking at this topic in greater detail over the next few months, I'm sure. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3B1FF6BC...@white-wolf.com>... > Further suggestions welcome - we'll be looking at this topic in greater detail > over the next few months, I'm sure. Well, the Mythos tournament point system was/is: Adventure Points scored + (10 for 1st || 5 for 2nd || 2 for 3rd) for each preliminary round, where tables of four are considered optimal. I'd have to say that this scoring system actually made tournament play _more_ fun than casual play, as it forced players to try to complete Adventures (to the point of actually helping each other not go insane), rather than just trying to win. It forced players to play the 'whole' game, and made it much more Lovecraftian. (Note: In Mythos, there are two ways to end a game. 1) Someone completes 20+ Adventure Points, or 2) someone goes insane. Interestingly, it is possible to lose the game while completing 20+ Adventure Points, and possible to win while going insane, but that's a digression not worth pursuing here...) In casual play, one can often win by scoring a few quick points and then driving whoever is closest to the brink insane. This leads to boring, degenerate decks that have lots of Monsters and Phobias, and no ability to realistically complete 20+ Adventure Points, and forces other decks to look the same in order to survive. In tournament play, this kind of deck will 1) never reach the finals, and 2) really piss other players off, which tends to encourage the clueful _not to make this kind of deck_. Back on topic, a roughly analogous solution for V:TES would be to award points for winning a table (and/or placing, which might help intercept decks stay viable) as well as points for good behavior, which in this case would be earning VPs? Seems worth testing, at least... Just my 2 Sanity's worth, Alex PS - In case you couldn't tell, I sure miss Mythos. It was a really fun, playable game. Deck design was actually fairly tricky - you couldn't just load up on a particular card you needed, as you'd be seeing it over and over again as you reshuffled when your deck ran out. And the storytelling that usually went along with card play could be downright hysterical or even, occasionally, spot on Lovecraft. Sigh.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Further suggestions welcome - we'll be looking at this topic in greater > detail over the next few months, I'm sure. I think table wins having strict priority over VPs is the way to go. The only question is timed-out games. I think the leader in a timed-out game should score a full table win only if he/she already has a majority of the VPs available. Otherwise, the table win should be split among the players who still have a theoretical chance at the game win, with the share of the win proportional to the number of VPs scored + one (in case zero VP players still have a shot at the win). So a timed-out 5-player table with two players left having 2 VP each would be split 50/50. A timed-out 5-player table with three players left with 1/1/0 VPs each would be split at a ratio of 2/2/1, so .4 of a win to the 1 VP players and .2 of a win to the zero VP player. Maybe too technical. My two cents. --- Eric Pettersen pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu

Eric Pettersen wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Further suggestions welcome - we'll be looking at this topic in greater > > detail over the next few months, I'm sure. > > I think table wins having strict priority over VPs is the way to go. The > only question is timed-out games. I think the leader in a timed-out game > should score a full table win only if he/she already has a majority of > the VPs available. Otherwise, the table win should be split among the > players who still have a theoretical chance at the game win, with the > share of the win proportional to the number of VPs scored + one (in case > zero VP players still have a shot at the win). Why not just not award a table win? It would discourage decks which have little or no offense. (Though admittedly that isn't any other players' fault. But then and again, players using decks that only screw other players and don't help themselves that much is not an unprecedented phenomenon in this game. Won't say which ones. Nothing like ushray ombatcay or anything...) > So a timed-out 5-player table with two players left having 2 VP each would > be split 50/50. A timed-out 5-player table with three players left with > 1/1/0 VPs each would be split at a ratio of 2/2/1, so .4 of a win to the > 1 VP players and .2 of a win to the zero VP player. Maybe there should just be a table created to say how each time out situation should be handled. There's a reasonably small number of them, I think. If one player has 2 VPs in hand and the other 2 have none or if one player has 2 VPs and the other has 1 VP, then I suppose the player with 2 VPs should get the table win but I notice it gives a player in that position a huge incentive to stall out the game. Maybe he should be in the driver's seat like that, and the onus be on the other players to move the game along because they let one player get ahead. Things get more controversial if no one has more than 1 VP in a game. I think no table win should be awarded because I just don't want to see players stalling and trying to sit one 1 VP. I've been in games where one or two of us have managed to eke out a VP and, due to one or more players playing with bloat and little offense, there wasn't any reasonable chance of anyone getting a second before the time limit. I'd like to see that discouraged. Fred

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: > Eric Pettersen wrote: > > I think table wins having strict priority over VPs is the way to go. > > The only question is timed-out games. I think the leader in a timed-out > > game should score a full table win only if he/she already has a majority > > of the VPs available. Otherwise, the table win should be split among > > the players who still have a theoretical chance at the game win, with > > the share of the win proportional to the number of VPs scored + one > > (in case zero VP players still have a shot at the win). > > Why not just not award a table win? It would discourage decks which > have little or no offense. (Though admittedly that isn't any other > players' fault. But then and again, players using decks that only screw > other players and don't help themselves that much is not an unprecedented > phenomenon in this game. Won't say which ones. Nothing like ushray > ombatcay or anything...) Mostly to discourage stalling. Getting .4 or .6 of a win is considerably less wonderful than the full win for purposes of trying to get into the final. Don't want to encourage decks that get one or two quick ousts and then hit a wall. Your mileage may vary. > Maybe there should just be a table created to say how each time out > situation should be handled. There's a reasonably small number of them, > I think. Yep. Assuming a 5-player table and no one with 3 VPs, there are exactly five possible ways the points could be divided at the end. Easy. --- Eric Pettersen pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu And those ways are: 0/0/0/0/0, 1/0/0/0, 2/0/0, 1/1/0, 2/1.