More deal-making crap

Skip this unless you're just bored. It's anecdotal and I'm venting. So, I haven't had a truly shitty game of Jyhad in a while, but I had one last night. It's no coincidence, I think, that it was with a player who I hadn't played with in a while, but who gets in arguments, all the time, with pretty much everyone except for one guy. Five way, came down to three players. Me with a VP, my new prey with a VP, and my predator with none. I'll skip the blow-by-blow, since ultimately the astute will point out all the things you'd only know if you were there. I think the main point is that everyone was doing well with 4+ minions and 10+ pool, when my predator offers his predator the deal of "If you help me oust my prey, I'll roll over for you and give you the game win". And that's exactly what he does, citing his inability to get any more VP's in any other way. Half a deck, 12 pool, 4 minions with dominate and fortitude. We stopped playing cards at that point and began playing Diplomacy. I said that if anyone tried that in a tournament I was judging, I'd disallow the deal. He thinks it would be legal. I've never seen anyone try to cut a deal that early in the game, but I think if someone did, every other player would be calling bullshit on it and grabbing a judge. As another point, does it make a difference to anyone that this was just a friendly game? Seems like everyone should be playing to win. Either you won, or you didn't. "Maximizing VP" may be appropriate for a tournament, but in an isolated game, who cares? David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:39:20 -0400, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> scrawled: >Five way, came down to three players. Me with a VP, my new prey with a >VP, and my predator with none. I'll skip the blow-by-blow, since >ultimately the astute will point out all the things you'd only know if you >were there. I think the main point is that everyone was doing well with >4+ minions and 10+ pool, when my predator offers his predator the deal of >"If you help me oust my prey, I'll roll over for you and give you the game >win". And that's exactly what he does, citing his inability to get any >more VP's in any other way. Half a deck, 12 pool, 4 minions with dominate >and fortitude. We stopped playing cards at that point and began playing >Diplomacy. I said that if anyone tried that in a tournament I was >judging, I'd disallow the deal. He thinks it would be legal. I've never >seen anyone try to cut a deal that early in the game, but I think if >someone did, every other player would be calling bullshit on it and >grabbing a judge. 2 people were ousted and it was early in the game? interesting.... I'm going to decline to comment on the legality of the deal due to, as you said, a lack of knowing all those things you could only know if you were there.. >As another point, does it make a difference to anyone that this was just a >friendly game? Seems like everyone should be playing to win. Either you >won, or you didn't. "Maximizing VP" may be appropriate for a tournament, >but in an isolated game, who cares? so you think social games are more about winning than tournament games? or that there shouldn't be any secondary goals, like maxing vps, in social games? as it is i am somewhat, personally, disinclined to be making vp split deals in social games. despite the fact that i made one last week. but it was getting late and the game was grinding to a stalemate and i wanted to get it moving.....honest. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, salem wrote: > 2 people were ousted and it was early in the game? interesting.... Perhaps a poor choice of words. I meant early as in "not late" i.e still a lot of play left to go before anything was clear. At that point the game could have gone anywhere. Except, of course, that Delphi Dude could obviously see every card that was going to be played and that he would lose. He still lost, but he lost with the one VP he whored out for. > so you think social games are more about winning than tournament > games? or that there shouldn't be any secondary goals, like maxing > vps, in social games? In a tournament you play a series of games in order to get to the game that matters. I can see the motivation for playing it safe and getting one VP. Within any given game, though, 1 VP means squat. Did you win, or did you lose? [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.030811...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > Skip this unless you're just bored. It's anecdotal and I'm venting. > > So, I haven't had a truly shitty game of Jyhad in a while, but I had one > last night. It's no coincidence, I think, that it was with a player who I > hadn't played with in a while, but who gets in arguments, all the time, > with pretty much everyone except for one guy. One of the reasons I am not interested in Jyhad lately is that so many of the games I play in a shitty. > > Five way, came down to three players. Me with a VP, my new prey with a > VP, and my predator with none. I'll skip the blow-by-blow, since > ultimately the astute will point out all the things you'd only know if you > were there. I think the main point is that everyone was doing well with > 4+ minions and 10+ pool, when my predator offers his predator the deal of > "If you help me oust my prey, I'll roll over for you and give you the game > win". And that's exactly what he does, citing his inability to get any > more VP's in any other way. Half a deck, 12 pool, 4 minions with dominate > and fortitude. We stopped playing cards at that point and began playing > Diplomacy. I said that if anyone tried that in a tournament I was > judging, I'd disallow the deal. He thinks it would be legal. I've never > seen anyone try to cut a deal that early in the game, but I think if > someone did, every other player would be calling bullshit on it and > grabbing a judge. Sounds about typical to me. You can always make some bull shit arguement to the judge about the way you see the game. > > As another point, does it make a difference to anyone that this was just a > friendly game? Seems like everyone should be playing to win. Either you > won, or you didn't. "Maximizing VP" may be appropriate for a tournament, > but in an isolated game, who cares? > I understand what you are saying. Where is the reward for a vp in the casual game? Fortunately for me the prince in my area encourages playing games as if they were tournaments. The point that you are getting at is somewhat amusing. Basically you are saying that in tournaments a lot more bull shit is reasonable because the whole thing is one big out of game consideration (especially the final table).

>As another point, does it make a difference to anyone that this was just a >friendly game? Seems like everyone should be playing to win. Either you >won, or you didn't. "Maximizing VP" may be appropriate for a tournament, >but in an isolated game, who cares? I guess it depends. If you truly want to play the same way all of the time and tournament play is the default, then not playing to win makes sense. Also, there is the whole "let's get this over with so we can start another" philosophy that crops up. I guess I can also see other reasons people wouldn't think winning/not winning are the only results of a game. Long enough to describe that I'd like to avoid doing so. Still, one would think that casual games would be an opportunity to avoid trying to manage results for some greater benefit.

In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.0308110930490.25372-100000 @petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>, david.che...@duke.edu says... <snip abomination of game> > As another point, does it make a difference to anyone that this was just a > friendly game? Seems like everyone should be playing to win. Either you > won, or you didn't. "Maximizing VP" may be appropriate for a tournament, > but in an isolated game, who cares? I'm not down with dealing for vps in a tournament setting; dealing for them in a non-tourney game like you described is appalling. -- -Snapcase

> In a tournament you play a series of games in order to get to the game > that matters. I can see the motivation for playing it safe and getting > one VP. Within any given game, though, 1 VP means squat. Did you win, or > did you lose? You lost. I agree with you. It seems pointless to bargain your way into an assured second place and then roll over in a social game. In a tourney game [finals aside] it might make sense to whore for a vp and guaranteed place in the final round. In a social game, all this kind of deal means is you're the guy who lost last. noodleboy

> > Five way, came down to three players. Me with a VP, my new prey with a > VP, and my predator with none. I'll skip the blow-by-blow, since > ultimately the astute will point out all the things you'd only know if you > were there. I think the main point is that everyone was doing well with > 4+ minions and 10+ pool, when my predator offers his predator the deal of > "If you help me oust my prey, I'll roll over for you and give you the game > win". And that's exactly what he does, citing his inability to get any > more VP's in any other way. Half a deck, 12 pool, 4 minions with dominate > and fortitude. We stopped playing cards at that point and began playing > Diplomacy. I said that if anyone tried that in a tournament I was > judging, I'd disallow the deal. He thinks it would be legal. I've never > seen anyone try to cut a deal that early in the game, but I think if > someone did, every other player would be calling bullshit on it and > grabbing a judge. If he was convinced that he wouldn't get any vp's then what's wrong with making a deal? Diplomacy is part of Jyhad, it would be difficult to outlaw and a much poorer game if it was. > > As another point, does it make a difference to anyone that this was just a > friendly game? Seems like everyone should be playing to win. Either you > won, or you didn't. "Maximizing VP" may be appropriate for a tournament, > but in an isolated game, who cares? Why should social games be only about winning? A deck that wins 50% of the time and gets 2 vps 50% of the time is better than a deck that wins 50% and gets 0vps 50%. Knowing you can get vps without necessarily winning is important. Some people like to know what their deck can do before they walk into a tournament. As for table slpitting, put yourself in his position. If you're convinced you can't get any more vp's without making a deal what do you do? Soften up your prey to give your predator an easy run? Wall up to give your prey an easy run? Roll over? What? Making a deal is pretty much his only recourse. In fact, he could break his deal once he gets the vp and go for the win, thus satisfying your own criteria. Chris.

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: > Skip this unless you're just bored. It's anecdotal and I'm venting. S'okay, that's what we're here for. Some of us, at least. :) [ quoted text not captured ] In the playgroups I've chosen to play with, we have always played by tournament rules and "as if" we were in a tournament, so *to me* there isn't any such thing as an isolated game. I've never really understood CCGers that choose to play their "casual" games in a fashion other than using the standard rules set. In any case, it *sounds* like the deal was too early (obviously). It also sounds like you aren't going to be able to educate or ostracize this guy -- education being the best option, of course -- so my sympathies are with you. :( > David Cherryholmes > Duke Radiology > P.E.T. Facility > (919) 684-7714 > david.che...@duke.edu Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, salem wrote: >> 2 people were ousted and it was early in the game? interesting.... > > Perhaps a poor choice of words. I meant early as in "not late" i.e > still a lot of play left to go before anything was clear. At that > point the game could have gone anywhere. Except, of course, that > Delphi Dude could obviously see every card that was going to be > played and that he would lose. He still lost, but he lost with the > one VP he whored out for. Remember, just because the total outcome of his game was that he lost, that does not necessarily mean that he didn't do the right thing. As I said before, it sounds like he did what he did too *early*, which is illegal if I'm reading this example correctly. You could have always tried to educate him, and then just scooped if he chose to turn his brain off, saying "Well, we'll never know what would have happened there, now will we?" on your way out. That way, when he chooses to turn his brain off and make these kind of illegal deals, he'll start to NEVER see the fruits of his labors. Although, maybe I'm being a bit too harsh, here... hehee =) > David Cherryholmes > Duke Radiology > P.E.T. Facility > (919) 684-7714 > david.che...@duke.edu Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

>As for table slpitting, put yourself in his position. If you're >convinced you can't get any more vp's without making a deal what do >you do? Soften up your prey to give your predator an easy run? Wall up >to give your prey an easy run? Roll over? What? Making a deal is >pretty much his only recourse. In fact, he could break his deal once >he gets the vp and go for the win, thus satisfying your own criteria. I'd just keep playing. I wouldn't have a chance to win (but you never know how the game will play out) but I wouldn't wall up or make things any easier on my prey. Even if I'm in a loosing position and it doesn't look like I'm going to climb out again, I don't drop out of the game or sit there grumbling. Keep playing and enjoy the game. ------------------------- Cambridge by Night. http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html

On 11 Aug 2003, Chris Arthur wrote: > If he was convinced that he wouldn't get any vp's then what's wrong > with making a deal? Diplomacy is part of Jyhad, it would be difficult > to outlaw and a much poorer game if it was. And here's where it probably spirals away into "you had to be there", but this is the same guy who's announced on turn three that he's free to "lose as he chooses" because Basil got dunked. He's the same guy who has looked at his prey and said "you are free, I will never oust you" because he was pissed about.... something (been a while, but it was heinous). The problem is the basis upon which he becomes "convinced" of something, and his willingness to rip games inside out into dripping, glistening, bloody messes just because he can't see a cake-walk to victory. He wastes hours of my life and gets hostile with other players. In short, he's just a bad player. Good with the cards, though, if he'd just play the damn game. > Why should social games be only about winning? A deck that wins 50% of > the time and gets 2 vps 50% of the time is better than a deck that > wins 50% and gets 0vps 50%. Knowing you can get vps without > necessarily winning is important. Some people like to know what their > deck can do before they walk into a tournament. If the difference between 0 VP and 2 VP (one, actually, but I get your point) has nothing to do with the deck, but with how you abort games with your whorishness -- and who can blame the guy he's handing the game to for taking him up on it -- then you've learned nothing about your deck. Now, if you are actually pursuing victory and using your little ninety pieces of cardboard to do it, then you can draw some conclusions. > As for table slpitting, put yourself in his position. If you're > convinced you can't get any more vp's without making a deal what do > you do? Soften up your prey to give your predator an easy run? Wall up > to give your prey an easy run? Roll over? What? Making a deal is > pretty much his only recourse. In fact, he could break his deal once > he gets the vp and go for the win, thus satisfying your own criteria. Sure, sure, and if I'm about to be ousted I'll make the same kinds of judgement calls. The crux of the problem is the time at which you ascertain that, based upon what information, and how frequently you do it. This friend of mine just throws games right and left, and it makes me want to find a safer investment of my two hours. And he'll never break deals; he's one of those "mah wuhd is mah bond" types who blatantly plays for the out-of-game consideration of maximizing future deals by always keeping his. He had a very, very good chance to oust my prey and go for the win, but he rolled over just like he said he would. [ quoted text not captured ]

chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote in message news:<5a63bace.03081...@posting.google.com>... > > > > As another point, does it make a difference to anyone that this was just a > > friendly game? Seems like everyone should be playing to win. Either you > > won, or you didn't. "Maximizing VP" may be appropriate for a tournament, > > but in an isolated game, who cares? > > Why should social games be only about winning? A deck that wins 50% of > the time and gets 2 vps 50% of the time is better than a deck that > wins 50% and gets 0vps 50%. Knowing you can get vps without > necessarily winning is important. Some people like to know what their > deck can do before they walk into a tournament. > > As for table slpitting, put yourself in his position. If you're > convinced you can't get any more vp's without making a deal what do > you do? Soften up your prey to give your predator an easy run? Wall up > to give your prey an easy run? Roll over? What? Making a deal is > pretty much his only recourse. In fact, he could break his deal once > he gets the vp and go for the win, thus satisfying your own criteria. Echoed and agree. I often become incredibly bored with VTES in the middle of many games I know to be a lost cause for myself (no, don't try to tell me that I might still win... I'm a dead man). So what do I do? Sit there for 30 minutes while the two turns neccesary to oust me happen? In the mean time I'm mentally masturbating, rescuing my minions boringly from torpor, hunting to gain one pool next turn, or taking backwards actions that I know will result in a tapped minion for me and a perfectly healthy minion for my pred (god bless SCE). If I'm at four pool, I transfer myself out (or if I have means of killing myself in the turn that I realize its utterly hopeless, which is usually two turns before the end, I do so). I'd rather be playing a quick game of AGOT or MTG during those 30 minutes, or trading, or something, other than just sitting there and ritualistically "staying in the game for the sake of play balance". Fuck that shit! Conversely I'll make it interesting by doing stupid cross table shit. Like helpig my prey, or my grand prey, because I like them as a person, or I like their deck, or I just like how they haven't bitched and moaned the whole game for every single action taken by others. "Will you not Sudden my Blood Doll if I use it to put a blood on Hesha so he can get Fee Stake so I can have enough votes to call a banishment on whoever you want, sans my vampires, and I promise, no VoteCap or Cryptic" is an example of the rediculous table talk that happens sometimes in our games, and would be a person I would not help with cross table actions. ~SV

On 12 Aug 2003, vermillian wrote: > Echoed and agree. I often become incredibly bored with VTES in the > middle of many games I know to be a lost cause for myself (no, don't > try to tell me that I might still win... I'm a dead man). You know this in "the middle of the game"? > If I'm at four pool, I transfer myself out (or if I have means of > killing myself in the turn that I realize its utterly hopeless, which > is usually two turns before the end, I do so). What if you are at twelve pool? What if you have four minions? What if your prey is down to seven pool? What if your predator is playing bleed and you are playing deflections? All these things were true in the specific case I'm discussing. What you do when you've got effectively no minion presence on the table, and you are clearly within ousting range by your predator, has ZERO bearing on what I'm discussing. > I'd rather be playing a > quick game of AGOT or MTG during those 30 minutes, or trading, or > something, other than just sitting there and ritualistically "staying > in the game for the sake of play balance". Fuck that shit! I think you should try to win until you are ousted. That whole bit about "not hooking up the guy who's killing you" has done a mountain more of harm for this game than good. Shit happens. Play your cards. > Conversely I'll make it interesting by doing stupid cross table shit. If we ever sit at the same table, please identify yourself so I can blow you off it as quickly as possible. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.030812...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > On 11 Aug 2003, Chris Arthur wrote: > > > If he was convinced that he wouldn't get any vp's then what's wrong > > with making a deal? Diplomacy is part of Jyhad, it would be difficult > > to outlaw and a much poorer game if it was. > > And here's where it probably spirals away into "you had to be there", but > this is the same guy who's announced on turn three that he's free to "lose > as he chooses" because Basil got dunked. I seem to remember a certain game where someone else made this same kind of pronouncement on, oh, turn three or so, in response to a similar complication in his plans... Granted, you didn't (apparently) mean it, you were just bluffing. :-) Josh butting in for no apparent reason

In message <Pine.GSO.4.21.030812...@petsparc.duhs.duke. edu>, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> writes: >On 12 Aug 2003, vermillian wrote: >> Echoed and agree. I often become incredibly bored with VTES in the >> middle of many games I know to be a lost cause for myself (no, don't >> try to tell me that I might still win... I'm a dead man). > >You know this in "the middle of the game"? People often get ousted in the middle of games. The other players then carry on and play the rest. It is possible to be in a position which you pretty much can't recover from - unless someone offers a hell of a lot of external help - in the middle of the game. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote in message news:<5a63bace.03081...@posting.google.com > A deck that wins 50% of > the time and gets 2 vps 50% of the time is better than a deck that > wins 50% and gets 0vps 50%. Yes, but a deck that wins 51% of the time and gets 0 vps 49% of the time is better than a deck that wins 50% of the time and gets 2 vps the rest of the time. Did I say deck? I meant player. This isn't about the decks we build, it's about the way we play them. Players who split tables when they have a chance to win will do that no matter what kind of deck they're playing. That's what irritates players who always play to win.

>Yes, but a deck that wins 51% of the time and gets 0 vps 49% of the >time is better than a deck that wins 50% of the time and gets 2 vps >the rest of the time. Huh? Whether people like it or not, V:TES has partial victory represented by acquiring > 0 VPs. The latter deck/player, even if you lower it to 1VP is far, far superior. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Joshua Duffin wrote: > I seem to remember a certain game where someone else made > this same kind of pronouncement on, oh, turn three or so, > in response to a similar complication in his plans... You mean in Atlanta? I had one minion, a wall prey, and Malks behind me. I also kept swinging until I lost. > Granted, you didn't (apparently) mean it, you were just > bluffing. :-) Oh, I meant it. I'd played against Conor's deck a half-dozen times or so, and I knew how our decks would interact. I still didn't quit, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, James Coupe wrote: > People often get ousted in the middle of games. The other players then > carry on and play the rest. Patently true. I was thinking that, if that's his situation, then he isn't in the middle of his game, he's at the end, but that's highly semantical. Point conceeded. > It is possible to be in a position which you pretty much can't recover > from - unless someone offers a hell of a lot of external help - in the > middle of the game. Also patently true, but not the situation I described. Of course the conversation is going to drift to a more general nature, but I don't want to be misconstrued as "anti-deal" as a whole. I can understand two adjacent combat decks coming to an agreement, for example. I take issue with tossing the game for one VP when it's pretty obvious[1] you could get more. [1] Today, "pretty obvious" is: 4 minions, twelve pool, Trap/UP combat with dominate bleed tacked on. I was playing Thetmes and a few dominate weenies, and was down to seven pool. There's no way you can conclude that my deck annhilates his out of the box, nor that he is defenseless against his predator. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 12 Aug 2003, Curevei wrote: > Huh? Whether people like it or not, V:TES has partial victory represented by > acquiring > 0 VPs. The latter deck/player, even if you lower it to 1VP is far, > far superior. Yes, but there is a heirarchy of goals. First, you must play to win the game. Only if that is impossible are you free to pursue anything less than the game win. People have different ideas about when, how, and if you can know when it has become impossible. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.030812...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > You mean in Atlanta? I had one minion, a wall prey, and Malks behind > me. I also kept swinging until I lost. Oh yeah, those group 3 Malks sure were bleeding you a lot. I think you took bleeds for 6 at least five times, right? ;-) And I think your wall prey had exactly as many minions as you did...? > Oh, I meant it. I'd played against Conor's deck a half-dozen times or so, > and I knew how our decks would interact. I still didn't quit, though. Didn't you threaten to transfer out? It seemed you were bluffing about that. I appreciated your continuing to swing even though you were sure you were going to lose, though. I was in kind of a similar boat when I couldn't draw my guns and kept getting torporized by Comas to my left and Entombments to my right. :-) Josh nobody likes a quitter

> And here's where it probably spirals away into "you had to be there", but > this is the same guy who's announced on turn three that he's free to "lose > as he chooses" because Basil got dunked. He's the same guy who has looked > at his prey and said "you are free, I will never oust you" because he was > pissed about.... something (been a while, but it was heinous). The > problem is the basis upon which he becomes "convinced" of something, and > his willingness to rip games inside out into dripping, glistening, bloody > messes just because he can't see a cake-walk to victory. He wastes hours > of my life and gets hostile with other players. In short, he's just a bad > player. Good with the cards, though, if he'd just play the damn game. > There are always bad players in games (poor sports and poor players). Unfortunately in vtes you have to deal with the poor sport for 2 hours and watch to poor player possibly ruin your game. > > Why should social games be only about winning? A deck that wins 50% of > > the time and gets 2 vps 50% of the time is better than a deck that > > wins 50% and gets 0vps 50%. Knowing you can get vps without > > necessarily winning is important. Some people like to know what their > > deck can do before they walk into a tournament. > > If the difference between 0 VP and 2 VP (one, actually, but I get your > point) has nothing to do with the deck, but with how you abort games with > your whorishness -- and who can blame the guy he's handing the game to for > taking him up on it -- then you've learned nothing about your deck. Now, > if you are actually pursuing victory and using your little ninety pieces > of cardboard to do it, then you can draw some conclusions. > I know what you are saying. Why can't we play cards for a little? Beats me too. > > As for table slpitting, put yourself in his position. If you're > > convinced you can't get any more vp's without making a deal what do > > you do? Soften up your prey to give your predator an easy run? Wall up > > to give your prey an easy run? Roll over? What? Making a deal is > > pretty much his only recourse. In fact, he could break his deal once > > he gets the vp and go for the win, thus satisfying your own criteria. > He can sit around and see what happens. Nothing is guaranteed. > Sure, sure, and if I'm about to be ousted I'll make the same kinds of > judgement calls. The crux of the problem is the time at which you > ascertain that, based upon what information, and how frequently you do > it. This friend of mine just throws games right and left, and it makes me > want to find a safer investment of my two hours. And he'll never break > deals; he's one of those "mah wuhd is mah bond" types who blatantly plays > for the out-of-game consideration of maximizing future deals by always > keeping his. He had a very, very good chance to oust my prey and go for > the win, but he rolled over just like he said he would. That is a funny point too. It is bad ettiquette to deal break where I am from. Too bad it is also bad ettiquette to earn your vps.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Joshua Duffin wrote: > Oh yeah, those group 3 Malks sure were bleeding you a lot. > I think you took bleeds for 6 at least five times, right? I assume three malks could hit me for ten when they decide to. Maybe they can't, but there's no way I'm going to formulate my strategy assuming that. And I did get bled a lot, but mostly by twos and threes. > ;-) And I think your wall prey had exactly as many minions > as you did...? He runs it off one or two blocking machines. That go to long. One was bad enough. [ quoted text not captured ]

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20030812141941...@mb-m24.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Getting 2 vps when your opponent gets 3 isn't a partial victory. It is a complete loss. It isn't less of a loss than getting 0. See the rules.

In message <Pine.GSO.4.21.030812...@petsparc.duhs.duke. edu>, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> writes: >> It is possible to be in a position which you pretty much can't recover >> from - unless someone offers a hell of a lot of external help - in the >> middle of the game. > >Also patently true, but not the situation I described. However, it was the situation *he* described: "I often become incredibly bored with VTES in the middle of many games I know to be a lost cause for myself" Had I been referring to the situation *you* described, I would've referenced that, and included a relevant quote from that; I didn't. I followed up on your questioning about how someone might know a game to be a "lost cause for <them>self" in the middle of the game. > Of course the >conversation is going to drift to a more general nature, but I don't want >to be misconstrued as "anti-deal" as a whole. I can understand two >adjacent combat decks coming to an agreement, for example. Actually, I've given a lot of thought to this before. Combat*ive* decks (that is to say, decks with a combat chunk without being a combat deck - the Assamite Alamut deck with a chunk of flash and taste of blood, the Gangrel Protean/Dominate deck with a set of Flesh of Marble and Body Flare or Claws, that sort of thing) feature a lot in tournaments I've judged. And there's a problem with assuming that combat decks automatically have it in their best interests to ally - the Gangrel, for instance, have a huge advantage in damage prevention, and the Ravnos can do quite well, and so on. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > Getting 2 vps when your opponent gets 3 isn't a partial victory. > It is a complete loss. It isn't less of a loss than getting 0. See the > rules. you get up to a very intersting point. But a lot of people will say that you need those extra VP to go to the finals of a tournament. Now to stop those insane alliances, a new tournament rule would be necessary : where you only count VP made in Game wins to go the finals. example : three rounds to the finals. You make a GW of 4VP, then zero , then zero. Another guy makes a GW of 3 VP then 1 VP then 1 VP. You go the finals first. if there is a tie (and only if there is a tie), you count the VP made outside the GW. This should be an incentive for refusing losing deals since players will prefer to play for the GW !

> > And here's where it probably spirals away into "you had to be there", but > this is the same guy who's announced on turn three that he's free to "lose > as he chooses" because Basil got dunked. He's the same guy who has looked > at his prey and said "you are free, I will never oust you" because he was > pissed about.... something (been a while, but it was heinous). The > problem is the basis upon which he becomes "convinced" of something, and > his willingness to rip games inside out into dripping, glistening, bloody > messes just because he can't see a cake-walk to victory. He wastes hours > of my life and gets hostile with other players. In short, he's just a bad > player. Good with the cards, though, if he'd just play the damn game. Well if you have a different opinion as to his chances of obtaining more vps then that's a separate issue. I feel your pain though, i've played with people who rush cross table even though the game situation doesn't really warrant it. > > If the difference between 0 VP and 2 VP (one, actually, but I get your > point) has nothing to do with the deck, but with how you abort games with > your whorishness -- and who can blame the guy he's handing the game to for > taking him up on it -- then you've learned nothing about your deck. Now, > if you are actually pursuing victory and using your little ninety pieces > of cardboard to do it, then you can draw some conclusions. I take your point however i would propose that some decks are more capable of whoring than others. > > Sure, sure, and if I'm about to be ousted I'll make the same kinds of > judgement calls. The crux of the problem is the time at which you > ascertain that, based upon what information, and how frequently you do > it. This friend of mine just throws games right and left, and it makes me > want to find a safer investment of my two hours. Well that's no good. Do other people feel the same way? Maybe next time he does something like that you could all try to convince him of the error of his ways? Or perhaps you could run your social game like a tournament and appoint a judge, that way the judge could make a call on his play. Chris.

vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote: > Echoed and agree. I often become incredibly bored with VTES in the > middle of many games I know to be a lost cause for myself (no, don't > try to tell me that I might still win... I'm a dead man). So what do I > do? Sit there for 30 minutes while the two turns neccesary to oust me > happen? I respectfully disagree. Sure, there are times when you simply can't play to win. I'm not the best player in the world, so I get lots of these. Instead, I play to -play well-. This means making the best possible decisions based on the current situation - either going down fighting or trying a different approach. It's a learning experience. Even if you can't see a way to possibly oust your prey, actually playing cards might help me in my next game (especially to find problems with that deck). Besides, if the -only- fun part of VTES was winning, then I'd find a much shorter game so that I could enjoy the fun more reliably and more often. *** I took a Harbinger deck to the Australian Nationals last year (I wasn't really expecting to make the finals ;). It was a very patient deck - survived most combat decks that rushed it, flicked a bit, blocked dangerous actions, and took opportunity bleeds for 3 and 4 when my prey overextended himself. My minions could reliably foil a single untapped blocker, and the Monocle of Clarity helped me to determine when the right opportunity to bleed arose. Unfortunately, in the third round my prey influenced out Arika and Queen Anne. Arika was always untapped, and Queen Anne always had a Second Tradiiton available. Opportunities to bleed were very slim, and my predator was using Aching Beauty on his Toreador. I couldn't go forward, and couldn't rush backwards, so my prey and I made a deal to help the Malkavian player across table. He gave us 10 pool each (via Malkavian Prank or something) and we both worked on his predator (my grandprey), a truly dangerous Lasombra bleed deck. The game timed out with everybody still at the table, and getting 1/2 VP (which was the most the Ventrue or I were going to get). If I hadn't been so zealous in defence of the Malkavians, the Lasombra probably would have ousted everybody except his predator. My eagle sights didn't get me any ousts, but they did get me 1/2 VP. -- james o'rance http://www.geocities.com/dragon-dreamer/vampire

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3f39901c$0$10936$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net... [ quoted text not captured ] That's an interesting thought. I like it--even though you'd have to use those non-GW VPs quite often to break the mountain of ties. That'd also help motivate the guy with the win to keep on trying to get more VPs rather than throwing them away to other players. -Robert

[ quoted text not captured ] Seconded. :) Carl

> I respectfully disagree. > > Sure, there are times when you simply can't play to win. I'm not the > best player in the world, so I get lots of these. Instead, I play to > -play well-. This means making the best possible decisions based on > the current situation - either going down fighting or trying a > different approach. It's a learning experience. Even if you can't see > a way to possibly oust your prey, actually playing cards might help me > in my next game (especially to find problems with that deck). I like to interpret the 'maximising VPs' as also meaning minimising everyone else's and that means walling up to make things as hard for your predator as possible if he's moving in for the kill. I am totally against rolling over for anyone, as it actually makes things easier for them... :) Regards, Mike

"Carl Pilhatsch" <carl.pi...@chello.at> wrote > >>if there is a tie (and only if there is a tie), you count the VP made > >>outside the GW. > >>This should be an incentive for refusing losing deals since players will > >>prefer to play for the GW ! > > > > > > That's an interesting thought. I like it--even though you'd have to use those > > non-GW VPs quite often to break the mountain of ties. That'd also help > > motivate the guy with the win to keep on trying to get more VPs rather than > > throwing them away to other players. > > > > -Robert > > Seconded. :) > > Carl Thanks for your interest : we are discusing this with my playgroup for some weeks now and are ready to test it and report it =)

Carl Pilhatsch wrote: > Robert Goudie wrote: >> "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> Now to stop those insane alliances, a new tournament rule would be >>> necessary >>> : where you only count VP made in Game wins to go the finals. >>> >> That's an interesting thought. I like it--even though you'd have to >> use those >> non-GW VPs quite often to break the mountain of ties. That'd also help >> motivate the guy with the win to keep on trying to get more VPs rather >> than >> throwing them away to other players. >> >> -Robert > > Seconded. :) It fails to consider uneven table sizes. Is a sweep supposed to be worth less at a four player table than at a five? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote in message news:<f987c6cd.03081...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] well, I call this overreacting. My take on this: it all depends on who has put me in this situation. 1. If my predator puts me in a "can't win anymore" situation, I'll do anything to stay alive. That's just playing the game. 2. If my prey (or some-one cross-table) did this to me, I would oust myself if it would make it more difficult for them to win (preferably BEFORE the Dramatic Upheaval was played :-) ). Or, i would try to do the same to him. Call me spiteful :) Jeroen

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:01:11 -0400, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: >And here's where it probably spirals away into "you had to be there", but >this is the same guy who's announced on turn three that he's free to "lose >as he chooses" because Basil got dunked. He's the same guy who has looked >at his prey and said "you are free, I will never oust you" because he was >pissed about.... something (been a while, but it was heinous). Seems to me that you need to play with Dramatic Upheavals. :) Xian

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3F3A28E3...@white-wolf.com... > Carl Pilhatsch wrote: > > Robert Goudie wrote: > >> "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>> Now to stop those insane alliances, a new tournament rule would be > >>> necessary > >>> : where you only count VP made in Game wins to go the finals. > >>> > >> That's an interesting thought. I like it--even though you'd have to > >> use those > >> non-GW VPs quite often to break the mountain of ties. That'd also help > >> motivate the guy with the win to keep on trying to get more VPs rather > >> than > >> throwing them away to other players. > >> > >> -Robert > > > > Seconded. :) > > It fails to consider uneven table sizes. Is a sweep supposed to be worth > less at a four player table than at a five? how did the current system distinguish tables of uneven size ?

Reyda wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>It fails to consider uneven table sizes. Is a sweep supposed to be worth >>less at a four player table than at a five? > > how did the current system distinguish tables of uneven size ? They don't. The change seems to provide even more disparity, however, by removing non-GW performance. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Xian wrote: > Seems to me that you need to play with Dramatic Upheavals. :) What if I get my fill in RL? :) BTW, any more word on that Chapel Hill gig? You do know that if you walk through my front door, you aren't leaving without playing *one* game of Jyhad, right? Geeyitonyup! [ quoted text not captured ]

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f39901c$0$10936$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>... > "Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > Getting 2 vps when your opponent gets 3 isn't a partial victory. > > It is a complete loss. It isn't less of a loss than getting 0. See the > > rules. > > you get up to a very intersting point. But a lot of people will say that you > need those extra VP to go to the finals of a tournament. > > Now to stop those insane alliances, a new tournament rule would be necessary > where you only count VP made in Game wins to go the finals. > > example : > Three rounds to the finals. You make a GW of 4VP, then zero , then zero. > Another guy makes a GW of 3 VP then 1 VP then 1 VP. You go the finals first. > > if there is a tie (and only if there is a tie), you count the VP made > outside the GW. > This should be an incentive for refusing losing deals since players will > prefer to play for the GW! I also think this is an interesting idea, but all the implications will need to be considered before implementing it. It might bring back massive hordes of stealth bleed decks since it really means you have to go for a sweep to keep your VP tie-break advantage. This could also mean the end of wall decks which only play for 2-3 VPs and the table win. Alas for the combat decks!

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3F3A46AC...@white-wolf.com... > Reyda wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > >>It fails to consider uneven table sizes. Is a sweep supposed to be worth > >>less at a four player table than at a five? > > > > how did the current system distinguish tables of uneven size ? > > They don't. > > The change seems to provide even more disparity, however, by > removing non-GW performance. It does not remove non-GW performance. The non GW VP serve in case of ties. It does not provide more disparity (the 4 players tables have always been a problem anyway). It serves to recenter the game to actually winning. Players stuck in bad situation won't give VP away to soemeone else in 3/2 splits since it will reduce their ability to go to the finals.

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:621dd332.03081...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Stealth bleed decks are already there, and they win tournaments. Stealth bleed decks can be hampered by voters and fighters. Good table reading can also be a good remedy. Let me tell you that more than often players agree to split the table wth a Stealth bleed player when they are not prepared to face them. Maybe this should put some more responsability in dealing with them when you know you won't be in the finals by doing so. Personally i like combat decks and have many times seen pure combat decks do sweep : they just included some surprise cards that no one expected which gave them the game. Factor surprise is one of the keys to the GW.

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3f3a4e9f$0$15225$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Sounds like a fine idea to me.... :) Regards, Mike

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3f3a4e9f$0$15225$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3F3A46AC...@white-wolf.com... > > Reyda wrote: > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > >>It fails to consider uneven table sizes. Is a sweep supposed to be worth > > >>less at a four player table than at a five? > > > > > > how did the current system distinguish tables of uneven size ? > > > > They don't. > > > > The change seems to provide even more disparity, however, by > > removing non-GW performance. > > It does not remove non-GW performance. The non GW VP serve in case of ties. > It does not provide more disparity (the 4 players tables have always been a > problem anyway). They've always been a problem, true. However, I do believe the proposed system increases the disparity between 4 and 5 player tables. > It serves to recenter the game to actually winning. Players > stuck in bad situation won't give VP away to soemeone else in 3/2 splits > since it will reduce their ability to go to the finals. I think Scott's aware of the benefits of the proposal. The restating of those benefits doesn't discount Scott's point, though. The 4-player table issue doesn't necessarily kill the suggestion, however. -Robert -- Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote > I think Scott's aware of the benefits of the proposal. The restating of those > benefits doesn't discount Scott's point, though. > > The 4-player table issue doesn't necessarily kill the suggestion, however. > > -Robert Excellent =)

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3F3A46AC...@white-wolf.com... > Reyda wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > >>It fails to consider uneven table sizes. Is a sweep supposed to be worth > >>less at a four player table than at a five? > > > > how did the current system distinguish tables of uneven size ? > > They don't. > > The change seems to provide even more disparity, however, by > removing non-GW performance. Non-GW performance isn't entirely removed, of course. You're right that it's another marginal decrease in the value of a 4 VP sweep compared to a 5 VP sweep, since under the current system, 4 VPs plus 1 in another game is tied with 5 VPs plus 0 in another game (in fact 4 + 1 is usually if not always better on the TP tiebreaker). But which of those *should be* ranked higher? It doesn't seem to me that it's in any way obvious that 4 + 1 should be better than (or as good as) 5 + 0. Despite the "momentum" provided by gaining VPs on the way to a sweep, you do still have to defeat an additional player in the current game (rather than in a second game) to get a 5 VP sweep compared to a 4 VP sweep, and the incentive to always get as many VPs as possible seems to me like a worthwhile reason to consider changing the scoring system. And as you know, a 4 VP sweep has always been worth less (by itself) than a 5 VP sweep. Josh what goes around comes around?

In message <Cvs_a.3619$Nf3....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> writes: >The 4-player table issue doesn't necessarily kill the suggestion, however. One could - plausibly - run it as a percentage issue, if the proposal were adopted. I got 2 GWs, 3 VPS (5 player table), 4 VPs (4 player table) and 2 VPs (non-game winning table, 5 players). Instead of saying 3 + 4 = 7 (and comparing with others who got 2 GWs, who may have had 2 five players, or 2 four players, or one of each), one could say the average of 60% and 100% is 80%, and use that. Or potentially, 7 (VPs got) / 9 (VPs possible) = about 78%. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:w6l_a.3554$Nf3...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:3f39901c$0$10936$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net... > > Now to stop those insane alliances, a new tournament rule would be necessary > > : where you only count VP made in Game wins to go the finals. > > > > example : > > three rounds to the finals. You make a GW of 4VP, then zero , then zero. > > Another guy makes a GW of 3 VP then 1 VP then 1 VP. You go the finals first. > > > > if there is a tie (and only if there is a tie), you count the VP made > > outside the GW. > > This should be an incentive for refusing losing deals since players will > > prefer to play for the GW ! > > That's an interesting thought. I like it--even though you'd have to use those > non-GW VPs quite often to break the mountain of ties. That'd also help > motivate the guy with the win to keep on trying to get more VPs rather than > throwing them away to other players. This has actually been suggested before: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b757i1%24b2sdo%242%40ID-121674.news.dfncis.de and in less-refined form: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b740r8%24aknst%241%40ID-121616.news.dfncis.de and the surrounding thread (same thread for both posts) I think it is a good idea, probably. The motivation aspect seems sound. Josh fit to be tied

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, LSJ wrote: > The change seems to provide even more disparity, however, by > removing non-GW performance. It seems to me that it lessons the disparity by placing even more emphasis on the GW and less on the VP. A GW at a 4 player table is the same as one on a 5 player table. Even if there are flaws in this line of thinking, problems with 4 players vs 5 looks like a wash. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 12 Aug 2003 23:32:42 -0700, chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) scrawled: >> >> And here's where it probably spirals away into "you had to be there", but >> this is the same guy who's announced on turn three that he's free to "lose >> as he chooses" because Basil got dunked. He's the same guy who has looked >> at his prey and said "you are free, I will never oust you" because he was >> pissed about.... something (been a while, but it was heinous). The >> problem is the basis upon which he becomes "convinced" of something, and >> his willingness to rip games inside out into dripping, glistening, bloody >> messes just because he can't see a cake-walk to victory. He wastes hours >> of my life and gets hostile with other players. In short, he's just a bad >> player. Good with the cards, though, if he'd just play the damn game. > >Well if you have a different opinion as to his chances of obtaining >more vps then that's a separate issue. I feel your pain though, i've >played with people who rush cross table even though the game situation >doesn't really warrant it. Eeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuuuuuugggggggggggeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!! salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

Reyda expounded: [ quoted text not captured ] I like the idea too. It might increase teh disparity but I'm not at all convinced of this. Besides this it *is* harder to sweep a 5 player table so it isnt' unreasonable for it to be worth a bit more -people who don't get this opportunity get the opportunity to get GWs on easier tables. On a 5 player table it is easier to get 2 VP now. 2VP loss would still be better than 0/1VP loss but not so close to 3VP win as it is now. Clearly it needs to be tested but at the moment, I think it would be an improvement.

In message <Pine.GSO.4.21.030813...@petsparc.duhs.duke. edu>, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> writes: >It seems to me that it lessons the disparity by placing even more emphasis >on the GW and less on the VP. A GW at a 4 player table is the same as one >on a 5 player table. Assume that I have two GWs (and one table I didn't win), and you have two GWs (and one table you didn't win). However, my GWs are on 4 player tables (I played two fours and a five), and yours are on 5 player tables (you played two fives and a four). In the current system, we are tied. And our performances are slightly balanced out across the three tables - you get 14 possible VPs, I get 13 possible VPs. In the proposed system, the disparity is larger - you get 10 possible VPs, I get 8 possible VPs from those tables. Only if *that* is tied do we consider non-GW VPs. If we both swept on our respective tables, it's not my fault I was on a 4 player table twice. Nor is it your fault you were on a 5 player table twice. I simply *can't* do as well as you. This is true of the current system, yes, but the disparity is smaller, because all tables (including 'losing' tables) are considered at once. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe expounded: > In message <Pine.GSO.4.21.030813...@petsparc.duhs.duke. > edu>, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> writes: > >It seems to me that it lessons the disparity by placing even more emphasis > >on the GW and less on the VP. A GW at a 4 player table is the same as one > >on a 5 player table. > > Assume that I have two GWs (and one table I didn't win), and you have > two GWs (and one table you didn't win). > > However, my GWs are on 4 player tables (I played two fours and a five), > and yours are on 5 player tables (you played two fives and a four). > > > In the current system, we are tied. And our performances are slightly > balanced out across the three tables - you get 14 possible VPs, I get 13 > possible VPs. > > In the proposed system, the disparity is larger - you get 10 possible > VPs, I get 8 possible VPs from those tables. Only if *that* is tied do > we consider non-GW VPs. > > If we both swept on our respective tables, it's not my fault I was on a > 4 player table twice. Nor is it your fault you were on a 5 player table > twice. I simply *can't* do as well as you. This is true of the current > system, yes, but the disparity is smaller, because all tables (including > 'losing' tables) are considered at once. It is your fault that you failed to win on the 5 player table when you were there. If you swept the 5 and a 4 and I swept 2 5s that might be unfair.. Then again you have 1 less possible VP under the current system as well. (granted it's 1 out of 13/14 as opposed to 1 out of 9/10 but I don't think that such a big drawback...)

In message <MPG.19a473988...@news.freeserve.com>, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.com> writes: >It might increase teh disparity but I'm not at all convinced of this. >Besides this it *is* harder to sweep a 5 player table so it isnt' >unreasonable for it to be worth a bit more -people who don't get this >opportunity get the opportunity to get GWs on easier tables. I don't get to choose whether I sit on a four player table or a five. My deck might be just as good as yours, but I can't sit on the five player table as much as you do. This is true now, but is exacerbated by the proposed changes (in the form they are proposed). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:42:09 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> scrawled: >In message <MPG.19a473988...@news.freeserve.com>, Timlagor ><Timlagor...@yahoo.com> writes: >>It might increase teh disparity but I'm not at all convinced of this. >>Besides this it *is* harder to sweep a 5 player table so it isnt' >>unreasonable for it to be worth a bit more -people who don't get this >>opportunity get the opportunity to get GWs on easier tables. > >I don't get to choose whether I sit on a four player table or a five. > >My deck might be just as good as yours, but I can't sit on the five >player table as much as you do. This is true now, but is exacerbated by >the proposed changes (in the form they are proposed). I'd be interested to see some data on victory point distribution on 4 and 5 player tables, to see if this theory of exacerbation could be borne out with evidence, or whether it's just a fear of nothing. although the data we currently have will no doubt be a little off due to the nature of the value of vps under our current system vs the proposed new one, it would make a reasonable approximation, i would think. i mean, if it turns out 60% of GW are from 3vps, 20% from 4vps, 15% 'less than 3vps', and 5% 5vps, over all table sizes, then the table size issue..isn't an issue. [ quoted text not captured ]

Carl Pilhatsch <carl.pi...@chello.at> wrote in message news:<bhl_a.19369$kc5.1...@news.chello.at>... [ quoted text not captured ] The problem here is that it doesn't actually solve the problem. In any situation where a person is making a table-losing deal to get VP's, they already have determined that they can't get the table win. In a situation when I am faced with getting either 0 VP's or 2 VP's, even if they don't count towards the finals directly, I'm still going to go for the 2 VP's since they still help me, even if just a little bit, more than the big fat 0. On the other end of the deal making, it may happen that the person who would get the 3 VP's may decline my offer, since this person would now want to try to get as many VP's as possible. However, this may end up being a stupid move on this person's part. It becomes a much bigger gamble, since if this person does not get the table win, none of his VP's would be that important. Say this person does not take the deal, and something goes wrong along the way. It could be that his predator finally gets the perfect card combo to oust him. Or the game times out. Or anything. Under this system, I think that table splitting deals would become more prevalent, since there would be a HUGE incentive to get a table win on the boards, even if it isn't a sweep. Thoughts?

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F3A28E3...@white-wolf.com>... > > It fails to consider uneven table sizes. Is a sweep supposed to be worth > less at a four player table than at a five? The obvious answer is yes. A 4 player sweep is worth 4vps, one less than a 5 player sweep. G

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.030812...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > On 12 Aug 2003, vermillian wrote: > > > Echoed and agree. I often become incredibly bored with VTES in the > > middle of many games I know to be a lost cause for myself (no, don't > > try to tell me that I might still win... I'm a dead man). > > You know this in "the middle of the game"? Um... yeah. No intercept, getting pounded on by an S&B, prey's an S&B pounding the only guy on the table capable of cross table rushing my predator, other guys a boring KRC vote capper/dom at one stealth heavy bleeder. I'm a dead man, and I don't want to sit around while the voter and or rusher sits and spins in desperation to do crap. (this is one example of games where I know I'm not having any damn say in the course of the game). > > If I'm at four pool, I transfer myself out (or if I have means of > > killing myself in the turn that I realize its utterly hopeless, which > > is usually two turns before the end, I do so). > > What if you are at twelve pool? What if you have four minions? What if > your prey is down to seven pool? What if your predator is playing bleed > and you are playing deflections? All these things were true in the > specific case I'm discussing. What you do when you've got effectively no > minion presence on the table, and you are clearly within ousting range by > your predator, has ZERO bearing on what I'm discussing. I'm sorry, I wasn't talking about what you were talking about... I was responding to the person I directly quoted... > > I'd rather be playing a > > quick game of AGOT or MTG during those 30 minutes, or trading, or > > something, other than just sitting there and ritualistically "staying > > in the game for the sake of play balance". Fuck that shit! > > I think you should try to win until you are ousted. That whole bit about > "not hooking up the guy who's killing you" has done a mountain more of > harm for this game than good. Shit happens. Play your cards. Yeah, great, *yawn*. "well... I can't go forward cause you'll bounce my shit (or whatever)... I can't go backwards cause (insert lame excuse here that somehow slipped through the cracks of what my deck can and can't do). No one's gonna' help me, cause their decks are either incapable of doing so, or they'll severely threaten their own lives if they do so... Sure yeah. I'll bleed. (one Deflection later). Ok, that was fun, why not. I'll tap out and bleed again. (he loses one pool). Great. That was terrific. Next turn I die... ho hum. Transfer four (to predator) gain six." In two player games I can quit when things aren't going to get better. Many multiplayer games don't last 2+ hours. Sometimes, an hour into a game, I realize I'm not gonna' stop someone and we might as well quit. Do we? No... why? "It'll destroy the delicate table balance" or "Play your cards. Play it out. Who knows. It'll be good practice anyhow." What? Practicing not being able to play your deck the way its supposed to be played because of ONE stinkin' warghould throwing a wrench in your plans? Because they happen to specifically have that ONE vampire out there that wrecks your whole deck? yeah, whatever. > > Conversely I'll make it interesting by doing stupid cross table shit. > > If we ever sit at the same table, please identify yourself so I can blow > you off it as quickly as possible. Cross table blowing me off? Oh, oh! VTES Karma police! Please help! He's wrecked the table balance! ~SV

In message <MPG.19a4778f8...@news.freeserve.com>, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.com> writes: >It is your fault that you failed to win on the 5 player table when you >were there. So? I got 2 GWs. Why does the fact that I got them on smaller tables - which I couldn't help - mean I should be discriminated against more than I am now? [ quoted text not captured ]

>> As another point, does it make a difference to anyone that this was just a >> friendly game? Seems like everyone should be playing to win. Either you >> won, or you didn't. "Maximizing VP" may be appropriate for a tournament, >> but in an isolated game, who cares? >> >I understand what you are saying. Where is the reward for a vp in the >casual game? (Un?)Fortunately for me the prince in my area encourages >playing games as if they were tournaments. In a five player game the average player should win less than 20% of the time (not all games result in Game Wins). To throw away the other 80+% of games would be foolish. V:TES is not and should not be all or nothing. Yes, we could lay off this a bit in casual games, but I would have to stress to new players that they would need to "flip it on" at tournaments. >The point that you are getting at is somewhat amusing. Basically you >are saying that in tournaments a lot more bull shit is reasonable >because the whole thing is one big out of game consideration >(especially the final table). If by "bullshit" you mean getting as many VPs as possible when a player can not get a Game Win, then that point is both correct and crucial for tournament success. Jay Kristoff, V:EKN Prince of Columbus, Ohio

LSJ wrote: > Carl Pilhatsch wrote: > >> Robert Goudie wrote: >> >>> "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> >>>> Now to stop those insane alliances, a new tournament rule would be >>>> necessary >>>> : where you only count VP made in Game wins to go the finals. >>>> >>> That's an interesting thought. I like it--even though you'd have to >>> use those >>> non-GW VPs quite often to break the mountain of ties. That'd also help >>> motivate the guy with the win to keep on trying to get more VPs >>> rather than >>> throwing them away to other players. >>> >>> -Robert >> >> >> Seconded. :) > > > It fails to consider uneven table sizes. Is a sweep supposed to be worth > less at a four player table than at a five? > I think I don't understand your point fully here. Different table sizes have always been a minor problem in VTES tournaments. However, as it is the benefits and shortcomings of being on a 4-player table instead of a 5-player table seem to factor each other out in the long run. E.g. it might be easier to sweep a game where you have only to plow through 3 other players, intstead of 5. On the 5-player table there is a greater chance that you will be thwarted by at least one other player. The more I think about that, the more appealing I think VPs counting for the finals *only* when getting the GW that round makes sense. Then you'd have the non-GW VPs as first tie-breaker, TP as second tie-breaker, and *then* you could take Ousting-points (suggested by Salem or Legbiter? Sorry, couldn't remember). Or you skip TP all together and have OP instead of them. Still 3 tiebreakers. IMO, this should move the games away from too much table-splitting and focus more on the actual play. I know that deals are an integral part of the game, but currently deals are *really* getting too massive an impact upon the game and will probably kill the game if we don't act here. At the same moment, I'd propose (as someone else did in another thread) that *influencing* your last pool on a vampire of yours to oust yourself should not be allowed. Why? Because the predator of this player should at least *do* something for his VP, even if it is one meager action. (I know that there are ways to kill your prey without any action, but that has nothing to do with the problem of self-ousting.) The added benefit is that a player cannot propose to self-oust anymore. He can only agree to *let* himself be as easily be ousted as possible. And since you cannot *self-oust* any more as part of the deal, you could more easily break a deal that was a bit ambigous (you know, how do you word it when you cannot spend your last pool on a vampire? "I'll try to play a location that would oust me." - you could have one and still say you don't have one in hand. "I'll not block you when you go for my last pool." - knowing that you have a deflection or similar in hand [and grinning to yourself].). Actually, I don't see a good reason *not* to change the tournament rules to the proposed changes. Carl ... who is starting to hate table-splits more and more...

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I'd be interested to see some data on victory point distribution on 4 > and 5 player tables, to see if this theory of exacerbation could be > borne out with evidence, or whether it's just a fear of nothing. Looking at this year's results from the Origins convention (which I run every year) we had: Four constructed tournaments (over four days) 21 tables of 4 41 tables of 5 4 player tables, 18 of 21 had GWs (86%) --------------- 3 were 4-0 (16%) 12 were 3-1 (67%) 2 timed out at 2.5-0.5 (12%) 1 was 2-1-1 (5%) 5 player tables, 28 of 41 had GWs (68%) --------------- 6 were 5-0 (22%) 11 were 4-1 (39%) 4 were 3-2 (14%) 5 were 3-1-1 (18%) 2 timed out at 2.5-0.5-0.5 (7%) > salem > domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

James Coupe wrote: > In message <Cvs_a.3619$Nf3....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> writes: > >>The 4-player table issue doesn't necessarily kill the suggestion, however. > > > One could - plausibly - run it as a percentage issue, if the proposal > were adopted. > > I got 2 GWs, 3 VPS (5 player table), 4 VPs (4 player table) and 2 VPs > (non-game winning table, 5 players). > > Instead of saying 3 + 4 = 7 (and comparing with others who got 2 GWs, > who may have had 2 five players, or 2 four players, or one of each), one > could say the average of 60% and 100% is 80%, and use that. > > > Or potentially, 7 (VPs got) / 9 (VPs possible) = about 78%. > The quota of VPs got by VPs possible is something that we have been using in our VTES league for years, and are now just rediscovering it (after coming back from the ELO-system). James, I think this would be the way to go! :) Thanks for bringig this up. Carl

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<U0BQx7qbtlO$Ew...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <Cvs_a.3619$Nf3....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> writes: > >The 4-player table issue doesn't necessarily kill the suggestion, however. > > One could - plausibly - run it as a percentage issue, if the proposal > were adopted. > > I got 2 GWs, 3 VPS (5 player table), 4 VPs (4 player table) and 2 VPs > (non-game winning table, 5 players). > > Instead of saying 3 + 4 = 7 (and comparing with others who got 2 GWs, > who may have had 2 five players, or 2 four players, or one of each), one > could say the average of 60% and 100% is 80%, and use that. > > > Or potentially, 7 (VPs got) / 9 (VPs possible) = about 78%. Or one could run it as a "VPs missed" issue, if the proposal were adopted. A GW with 3 VP at a 5 player table means you missed 2 VPs (you get 2 MPs). A GW with 3 VP at a 4 player table means you missed 1 VP (you get 1 MP). Ties in GWs are broken such that the player with the lower MP wins. Whether you track MPs on non-GW tables is a secondary question, but likely only the GW MPs should be tracked, at first glance. So a 4-1-0-0-0 win is equivalent to a 3-1-0-0 win. And a sweep is a sweep, no matter the table size. While getting 0 VPs at a 5 is equivalent to getting 0 VPs at a 4. A bigger incentive not to make 3-2 splits. But the percentage angle may still be the "fairest" measure. Ordering with tracking GW-VPs: 1. 5-0-0-0-0 2. 4-1-0-0-0 2. 4-0-0-0 4. 3.5-*-*-*-* 5. 3-*-*-*-* 5. 3-1-0-0 7. 2.5-*-*-*-* 7. 2.5-*-*-* 9. 2-*-*-*-* 9. 2-*-*-* Where the * are all less than the winning VPs, of course. Ordering with percentages: 1. 5-0-0-0-0 (100%) 1. 4-0-0-0 (100%) 3. 4-1-0-0-0 (80%) 4. 3-1-0-0 (75%) 5. 3.5-*-*-*-* (70%) 6. 2.5-*-*-* (62.5%) 7. 3-*-*-*-* (60%) 8. 2.5-*-*-*-* (50%) 8. 2-*-*-* (50%) 10. 2-*-*-*-* (40%) Ordering with MPs: 1. 5-0-0-0-0 (0MP) 1. 4-0-0-0 (0MP) 3. 4-1-0-0-0 (1MP) 3. 3-1-0-0 (1MP) 5. 3.5-*-*-*-* (1.5MP) 5. 2.5-*-*-* (1.5MP) 7. 3-*-*-*-* (2MP) 7. 2-*-*-* (2MP) 9. 2.5-*-*-*-* (2.5MP) 10. 2-*-*-*-* (3MP)

> In a five player game the average player should win less than 20% > of the time (not all games result in Game Wins). To throw away the > other 80+% of games would be foolish. V:TES is not and should > not be all or nothing. Yes, we could lay off this a bit in casual games, > but I would have to stress to new players that they would need to > "flip it on" at tournaments. Who wants to throw those games away? Play them for a table win. Of course you don't always get it but you can try. > > >The point that you are getting at is somewhat amusing. Basically you > >are saying that in tournaments a lot more bull shit is reasonable > >because the whole thing is one big out of game consideration > >(especially the final table). > > If by "bullshit" you mean getting as many VPs as possible when > a player can not get a Game Win, then that point is both correct > and crucial for tournament success. > By bullshit I mean not playing to win. Things like waiting for a finals to time out and win on prior days standing. Manipulating the tournament scoring/bracket structure is not skilled or appropriate play.

On 13 Aug 2003, vermillian wrote: > Um... yeah. No intercept, getting pounded on by an S&B, prey's an S&B > pounding the only guy on the table capable of cross table rushing my > predator, other guys a boring KRC vote capper/dom at one stealth heavy > bleeder. I'm a dead man, and I don't want to sit around while the > voter and or rusher sits and spins in desperation to do crap. (this is > one example of games where I know I'm not having any damn say in the > course of the game). Tables get moved. Powerhouses get laid low out of nowhere. If your metagame is so narrowly focused that the decks are almost exclusively "prey! loose pool!", then it's ripe for abuse. I suggest you get to abusing. As Jay pointed out, all things being equal, you are going to win one game out of five. You'll do well (whatever that means) probably one game in two. Fifty percent of your games are going to be you sitting there saying "Fuck me, I'm screwed." Play the damn game. Last night I got bled for at least two (usually four) at stealth every turn, by every minion my predator had. I was toast. I didn't go casting about for something funny to amuse myself with while my pool hemhorraged away. I played my cards, to very little effect, and hung in as long as I could. This is the way I think the game should be played. > Yeah, great, *yawn*. "well... I can't go forward cause you'll bounce > my shit (or whatever)... I can't go backwards cause (insert lame > excuse here that somehow slipped through the cracks of what my deck > can and can't do). No one's gonna' help me, cause their decks are > either incapable of doing so, or they'll severely threaten their own > lives if they do so... Sure yeah. I'll bleed. (one Deflection later). > Ok, that was fun, why not. I'll tap out and bleed again. (he loses one > pool). Great. That was terrific. Next turn I die... ho hum. Transfer > four (to predator) gain six." This is the Psychic Crap attitude that's driving players away from the game. If you whined less and just accepted that this was one of those 50% of the games where you don't get to win or even do well, it may seem like less of a big deal. > In two player games I can quit when things aren't going to get better. So you are a quitter by nature then? > Many multiplayer games don't last 2+ hours. Sometimes, an hour into a > game, I realize I'm not gonna' stop someone and we might as well quit. Not everyone has a hotline to god, and they may want to, you know, PLAY THE GAME and find out what happens. Who are you to just dictate that the game is over, or at least buggered? > What? Practicing not being able to play your deck the way its supposed > to be played because of ONE stinkin' warghould throwing a wrench in > your plans? Because they happen to specifically have that ONE vampire > out there that wrecks your whole deck? yeah, whatever. It happens occasionaly. If it's happening more than occasionaly, may I suggest you re-examine your deckbuilding skills. > Cross table blowing me off? Oh, oh! VTES Karma police! Please help! > He's wrecked the table balance! Sounds to me like you get your panties in a bunch when your sucky decks start to suck, and then ruin the game for everyone else. I have a hard time *not* staying on target but, if the opportunity arose to edge that type of player off the table, I'd take it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Jay Kristoff wrote: > In a five player game the average player should win less than 20% > of the time (not all games result in Game Wins). To throw away the > other 80+% of games would be foolish. V:TES is not and should > not be all or nothing. Yes, we could lay off this a bit in casual games, > but I would have to stress to new players that they would need to > "flip it on" at tournaments. The topic has kind of drifted by now, but my initial complaint wasn't about deal making, per se. Rather, it was about the prematureness of the deal, and a class of player who's quite willing to toss a potential game win out the window in order to get his prey for sure. That attitude is the problem, not the ability to make deals. Very few player-decks can handle two or more other players working against them in a concerted effort. If a player is willing to satisfy himself repeatedly with getting his first prey through those means, and then consoling himself that he was actually ousted by his own hand, then that's bad. Sure, that's one player I'm talking about, but I see it quite a bit. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<ZGezNEskPmO$Ew...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > If we both swept on our respective tables, it's not my fault I was on a > 4 player table twice. Nor is it your fault you were on a 5 player table > twice. I simply *can't* do as well as you. This is true of the current > system, yes, but the disparity is smaller, because all tables (including > 'losing' tables) are considered at once. It seems to me that ranking systems that favor GWs over VPs favor people who play more 4 person tables, since the odds are better at the smaller tables--about 1 in 4 rather than 1 in 5, and much less chance of timing out.

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.030814...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > On 13 Aug 2003, vermillian wrote: > > > Um... yeah. No intercept, getting pounded on by an S&B, prey's an S&B > > pounding the only guy on the table capable of cross table rushing my > > predator, other guys a boring KRC vote capper/dom at one stealth heavy > > bleeder. I'm a dead man, and I don't want to sit around while the > > voter and or rusher sits and spins in desperation to do crap. (this is > > one example of games where I know I'm not having any damn say in the > > course of the game). > > Tables get moved. Powerhouses get laid low out of nowhere. If your > metagame is so narrowly focused that the decks are almost exclusively > "prey! loose pool!", then it's ripe for abuse. I suggest you get to > abusing. > > As Jay pointed out, all things being equal, you are going to win one game > out of five. You'll do well (whatever that means) probably one game in > two. Fifty percent of your games are going to be you sitting there saying > "Fuck me, I'm screwed." Play the damn game. Last night I got bled for at > least two (usually four) at stealth every turn, by every minion my > predator had. I was toast. I didn't go casting about for something funny > to amuse myself with while my pool hemhorraged away. I played my cards, > to very little effect, and hung in as long as I could. This is the way I > think the game should be played. > First off, you probably have about a 17% chance to win (all things being equal). Secondly, playing can be defined in many terms. Playing cards, playing diplomancy, having an effect on the table. I think people should play their cards more and their mouths less. > > Yeah, great, *yawn*. "well... I can't go forward cause you'll bounce > > my shit (or whatever)... I can't go backwards cause (insert lame > > excuse here that somehow slipped through the cracks of what my deck > > can and can't do). No one's gonna' help me, cause their decks are > > either incapable of doing so, or they'll severely threaten their own > > lives if they do so... Sure yeah. I'll bleed. (one Deflection later). > > Ok, that was fun, why not. I'll tap out and bleed again. (he loses one > > pool). Great. That was terrific. Next turn I die... ho hum. Transfer > > four (to predator) gain six." > > This is the Psychic Crap attitude that's driving players away from the > game. If you whined less and just accepted that this was one of those 50% > of the games where you don't get to win or even do well, it may seem like > less of a big deal. > What drives me away from the game is the high incidence of not being rewarded for good mechanical play, deck construction, and table vision. Part of that is deal making crap and part is that it is a pretty random game. > > In two player games I can quit when things aren't going to get better. > > So you are a quitter by nature then? > > > Many multiplayer games don't last 2+ hours. Sometimes, an hour into a > > game, I realize I'm not gonna' stop someone and we might as well quit. > > Not everyone has a hotline to god, and they may want to, you know, PLAY > THE GAME and find out what happens. Who are you to just dictate that the > game is over, or at least buggered? > If making assumptions as to the future of the game is unreasonable then how can one justify deals? I wans't going to win the table suggest a hotline to god. > > What? Practicing not being able to play your deck the way its supposed > > to be played because of ONE stinkin' warghould throwing a wrench in > > your plans? Because they happen to specifically have that ONE vampire > > out there that wrecks your whole deck? yeah, whatever. > > It happens occasionaly. If it's happening more than occasionaly, may I > suggest you re-examine your deckbuilding skills. > > > Cross table blowing me off? Oh, oh! VTES Karma police! Please help! > > He's wrecked the table balance! > > Sounds to me like you get your panties in a bunch when your sucky decks > start to suck, and then ruin the game for everyone else. I have a hard > time *not* staying on target but, if the opportunity arose to edge that > type of player off the table, I'd take it. I play with him with some regularity. He actually isn't a game balance problem compared to other people I play with.

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: 3f3a17ad$0$13814$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net... > > "Carl Pilhatsch" <carl.pi...@chello.at> wrote > > > >>if there is a tie (and only if there is a tie), you count the VP made > > >>outside the GW. > > >>This should be an incentive for refusing losing deals since players will > > >>prefer to play for the GW ! > > > > > > > > > That's an interesting thought. I like it--even though you'd have to use > those > > > non-GW VPs quite often to break the mountain of ties. That'd also help > > > motivate the guy with the win to keep on trying to get more VPs rather > than > > > throwing them away to other players. > > > > > > -Robert > > > > Seconded. :) > > > > Carl > > Thanks for your interest : we are discusing this with my playgroup for some > weeks now and are ready to test it and report it =) A player in our playgroup suggested to double the VP gained when a GW is scored... What do you think about it? François

On 14 Aug 2003, Jeff Haar wrote: > If making assumptions as to the future of the game is unreasonable > then how can one justify deals? I wans't going to win the table > suggest a hotline to god. If you don't bleed me, I won't rush you. If you rescue my guy, I'll rescue yours. Vote with me on this vote and I'll vote with you on your next one. There are lots of deals that require no crystal ball. [ quoted text not captured ]

>By bullshit I mean not playing to win. Things like waiting for a >finals to time out and win on prior days standing. Manipulating the >tournament scoring/bracket structure is not skilled or appropriate >play. I don't agree. The overriding goal when playing a tournament is to attempt to win the tournament. Whatever the rules are, the people who play to them best are being skillful and playing appropriately. Now, people keep wanting to change the rules to change people's behavior more towards playing each game as if it were the only thing that mattered. But, whatever happens, the best players are the ones who best manipulate the rules to their advantage.

>What drives me away from the game is the high incidence of not being >rewarded for good mechanical play, deck construction, and table >vision. Part of that is deal making crap and part is that it is a >pretty random game. It's the nature of multiplayer CCGs. They tend to be better socially as more's going on and you *can* make deals. They aren't good for tournament play because being the best technical player is overshadowed by players' personalities. Having said that, while I'm not being driven from the game, it seems obvious to me that a) the game has become more about table politics and b) that it has is undesirable as it devalues technical skills. Have had a number of conversations where the conclusion is that one's deck doesn't really matter. Probably need it to be of a certain minimum level of functionality and it matters what matchups you get, something often not controllable, but having the best deck at the table is not a significant advantage. So, if the problem has been defined, what are possible solutions? Could do things to focus people on ousting one's prey over trying to manipulate the entire table to fall in one's favor, but such things will likely just encourage bleed decks at the expense of combat and vote such that the game is less interesting. Not sure what else can be done. However, here's an idea that probably won't work - make the first VP worth more. I'm sure someone can point out a problem with this, such as the problem of weenie decks that can all but guarantee killing one player. Then, Gambit Accepted is already a move towards focusing on getting an early VP rather than mopping up a table later.

>Looking at this year's results from the Origins convention (which I run >every year) we had: > >Four constructed tournaments (over four days) >21 tables of 4 >41 tables of 5 > > >4 player tables, 18 of 21 had GWs (86%) >--------------- >3 were 4-0 (16%) >12 were 3-1 (67%) >2 timed out at 2.5-0.5 (12%) >1 was 2-1-1 (5%) > > >5 player tables, 28 of 41 had GWs (68%) >--------------- >6 were 5-0 (22%) >11 were 4-1 (39%) >4 were 3-2 (14%) >5 were 3-1-1 (18%) >2 timed out at 2.5-0.5-0.5 (7%) Note an extremely close percentage of sweeps at each table size when taking all games into play (rather than just games that produced TWs). Some have put forth that sweeping a 5 player table is harder, but I'd like to see data to support that before it's taken as fact. Kevin, would it be possible to check to see if only counting VPs from TWs would affect the finishing order? I wanted to do this with local tournaments, but I've switched computers recently and haven't moved Archon files. Now, it may not be all that useful because the point seems to be that you change behavior when you change the scoring rules and people were using only the "old" behavior. But, it might be interesting to see how much of a difference it makes as, if it makes hardly none, then it isn't as likely to change behavior.

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.030814...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > On 14 Aug 2003, Jeff Haar wrote: > > > If making assumptions as to the future of the game is unreasonable > > then how can one justify deals? I wans't going to win the table > > suggest a hotline to god. > > If you don't bleed me, I won't rush you. If you rescue my guy, I'll > rescue yours. Vote with me on this vote and I'll vote with you on your > next one. There are lots of deals that require no crystal ball. Is that what you mean by deal making? By this I take it that you frown on the more invasive, help me get this guy and I will transfer out to you deals. If so, we are on the same page.

> Now, people keep wanting to change the rules to change people's behavior more > towards playing each game as if it were the only thing that mattered. But, > whatever happens, the best players are the ones who best manipulate the rules > to their advantage. You're saying that a player waiting for a final to time out and win on prior days standing is acceptable behaviour? You honestly think this kind of shit is the mark of the game's "best players"? noodleboy

>You're saying that a player waiting for a final to time out and win on >prior days standing is acceptable behaviour? As to winning off of prior days standing, not aware of any tournaments where the final is the only thing held on a separate day. I'm going to assume that winning based off of timing out in a final due to being the higher/highest seed is the general case that is being talked about. To put it this way, if I started the finals as the highest seed with "does everyone want to mutually draw?" and everyone accepted, I'd think I'd have a case for being the best player that day, if only due to the incompetence of my competition. Ridiculous cases aside, if you have at least as many VPs as the next highest person and win off of tiebreakers because of it, I think you've done your job. >You honestly think this kind of shit is the mark of the game's "best >players"? The difficulty of winning games has to do with the quality of competition, which is one of the flaws with the ranking system as it harshly penalizes results that might show a great deal of ability, namely getting at least as many VPs as anyone else at a hotly contested table. As an objective measure of ability, winning tournaments does better than winning games as tournaments bring in a greater level of quality of competition factor. I don't see the lack of ability in winning a tournament because no one did better than you and those who did as well in the finals didn't do as well earlier.

>>What drives me away from the game is the high incidence of not being >>rewarded for good mechanical play, deck construction, and table >>vision. How are you not rewarded for this? If you make a good deck then it works. Also part of the game is that other players are going to be trying to prevent you from ousting them and gaining VP, so you have to expect people to be trying to stop you. >>Part of that is deal making crap and part is that it is a >>pretty random game. Deal making is a part of the game IMO. From reading the various posts on this topic over the last few weeks I can see where people have problems with "ganging-up" to to score points, but overall I find deal making to be a good part of the game. ------------------------- Cambridge by Night. http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html

On 14 Aug 2003, Jeff Haar wrote: > Is that what you mean by deal making? By this I take it that you frown > on the more invasive, help me get this guy and I will transfer out to > you deals. If so, we are on the same page. Yup. Table-splitting is an interesting thought-puzzle, but I think it's overall bad for the game. Unfortunately, it isn't the kind of thing you can remain entirely aloof of, since it's legal and players do it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 15 Aug 2003, Colin Goodman wrote: > Deal making is a part of the game IMO. There already exists restrictions on the kinds of deals that can even be proposed. We're talking about clarifying those restrictions. > From reading the various posts on this > topic over the last few weeks I can see where people have problems with > "ganging-up" to to score points, but overall I find deal making to be a good > part of the game. Deal making in general? Absolutely. Hell, I'll vote to keep dealing in the game since, otherwise, Dave Tatu'd have no reason to play and we'd lose him. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

colind...@aol.com (Colin Goodman) wrote in message news:<20030815040823...@mb-m24.aol.com>... > >>What drives me away from the game is the high incidence of not being > >>rewarded for good mechanical play, deck construction, and table > >>vision. > > How are you not rewarded for this? If you make a good deck then it works. Also <snip> Before I argue otherwise, what do you define as a "good deck"?

kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) wrote in message news:<6933e80c.03081...@posting.google.com>... > David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.030814...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > I play with him with some regularity. He actually isn't a game balance > problem compared to other people I play with. Basically I just get bored because I'm trying to play with a creative deck and get hosed by Computer Hack or something like that... ~SV

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20030814160504...@mb-m23.aol.com>... > >What drives me away from the game is the high incidence of not being > >rewarded for good mechanical play, deck construction, and table > >vision. Part of that is deal making crap and part is that it is a > >pretty random game. > > Having said that, while I'm not being driven from the game, it seems obvious to > me that a) the game has become more about table politics and b) that it has is > undesirable as it devalues technical skills. > Have had a number of conversations where the conclusion is that one's deck > doesn't really matter. Probably need it to be of a certain minimum level of > functionality and it matters what matchups you get, something often not > controllable, but having the best deck at the table is not a significant > advantage. Yeah, we have a saying in Columbus (erm... me and Jeff at least) that the game is like 20% dek construction, 50% random (seating, cards come up, etc..), 30% deal making. ~SV

On 16 Aug 2003 15:51:16 -0700, vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) scrawled: >Yeah, we have a saying in Columbus (erm... me and Jeff at least) that >the game is like 20% dek construction, 50% random (seating, cards come >up, etc..), 30% deal making. erm, was there any portion attributed to playing skill? :/ [ quoted text not captured ]

On 16 Aug 2003, vermillian wrote: > Basically I just get bored because I'm trying to play with a creative > deck and get hosed by Computer Hack or something like that... I can relate to that. Still no reason to take random actions when you feel like you've lost (even if it is legal). [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Took me a while. Anyway, here's what I found out, using the proposed system: Thursday Constructed (29 players) -1st through 5th would have been the same Friday Constructed (23 players) -1st through 4th would have been the same -the guy in 7th would have moved up to 5th (previously, 5th and 6th were higher than 7th due to their VPs on tables that they did not win) Saturday NAQ Constructed (33 players) -1st through 4th would have been the same -the guy in 8th would have moved up to 5th (previously, 5th, 6th, and 7th were higher than 8th due to their VPs on tables that they did not win) Note that this would have been David Tatu kicking his wife out of 5th place! :) Sunday Constructed (13 players, only 2 rounds) -1st through 4th would have been the same -5th place would have been tied between 5th, 6th, and 7th, and they would have had to roll a die for 5th > Now, it may not be all that useful because the point seems to be that > you change behavior when you change the scoring rules and people were > using only the "old" behavior. But, it might be interesting to see > how much of a difference it makes as, if it makes hardly none, then > it isn't as likely to change behavior. If this is any indiction, I guess it isn't as useful as once thought, except for making 5th place a pain-in-the-ass. :( [ quoted text not captured ]

On 16 Aug 2003 15:51:16 -0700, vermillian wrote: >Yeah, we have a saying in Columbus (erm... me and Jeff at least) that >the game is like 20% dek construction, 50% random (seating, cards come >up, etc..), 30% deal making. And so card-playing skill would be 0%, right? Andrew

emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) wrote in message news:<75bdf7ed.03081...@posting.google.com>... > cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20030812141941...@mb-m24.aol.com>... > > >Yes, but a deck that wins 51% of the time and gets 0 vps 49% of the > > >time is better than a deck that wins 50% of the time and gets 2 vps > > >the rest of the time. > > > > Huh? Whether people like it or not, V:TES has partial victory represented by > > acquiring > 0 VPs. The latter deck/player, even if you lower it to 1VP is > > far, far superior. > > Getting 2 vps when your opponent gets 3 isn't a partial victory. > It is a complete loss. It isn't less of a loss than getting 0. See the > rules. disagree for tourney environment. 2 VP is way more than 0, even if another player has 3. you're still ranked 2nd on that table for Tournament points. So the (tournament)rules do NOT say that 2VP is the same loss as 0 VP.

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20030814161448...@mb-m23.aol.com>... > >Looking at this year's results from the Origins convention... > >4 player tables, 18 of 21 had GWs (86%) > >--------------- > >3 were 4-0 (16%) <snip> > >5 player tables, 28 of 41 had GWs (68%) > >--------------- > >6 were 5-0 (22%) <snip> > Note an extremely close percentage of sweeps at each table size when taking > all games into play (rather than just games that produced TWs). Some have put > forth that sweeping a 5 player table is harder, but I'd like to see data to > support that before it's taken as fact. Actually, we have the evidence right in front of us. In this small sample, about 14% of all games, both 4-player and 5-player, were sweeps. That means each player at a 4-person table has about a (14% / 4 =) 3.5% chance of sweeping, and each player at a 5-person table has about a (14 / 5 =) 2.8% chance of sweeping. In other words, you're about 25% more likely to sweep if you're at a 4-person table. You're even more likely to win a 4-person table in some way than a 5-person table. You have a (86% / 4 =) 21.5% chance of winning a 4-person table, and a (68% / 5 =) 13.6% chance of winning a 5-person table. That means you're about *58%* more likely to win a 4-person table, because larger tables time out more often. Although this is a small sample, the numbers are pretty convincing. I have no problem with 5-person table winners potentially receiving more reward for their more difficult wins. For a tournament to be perfectly fair, everyone would play the same number of games at the same size of tables. But this would result in an insane number of rounds in any real-world tournament--5 rounds for 6 players, for example, with each player sitting out one 5-person game.

emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) wrote in message news:<75bdf7ed.03081...@posting.google.com>... > cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20030814161448...@mb-m23.aol.com>... > You're even more likely to win a 4-person table in some way than a > 5-person table. You have a (86% / 4 =) 21.5% chance of winning a > 4-person table, and a (68% / 5 =) 13.6% chance of winning a 5-person > table. That means you're about *58%* more likely to win a 4-person > table, because larger tables time out more often. > > Although this is a small sample, the numbers are pretty convincing. I > have no problem with 5-person table winners potentially receiving more > reward for their more difficult wins. > > For a tournament to be perfectly fair, everyone would play the same > number of games at the same size of tables. But this would result in > an insane number of rounds in any real-world tournament--5 rounds for > 6 players, for example, with each player sitting out one 5-person > game. So if a 4-player table deserves 2 hours to complete their game, why not give a 5-player table 2.5 hours? Conversely, maybe 4-player tables only deserve 96 minutes to complete their games if a 5-player table is confined to 120 minutes?

Emmit Svenson expounded: > For a tournament to be perfectly fair, everyone would play the same > number of games at the same size of tables. But this would result in > an insane number of rounds in any real-world tournament--5 rounds for > 6 players, for example, with each player sitting out one 5-person > game. ... unless you thought of doing 3 rounds of a 4-player table.

Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.19ab7616a...@news.freeserve.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Or one round of 3 or 2 person tables. Or 1 person tables; that's an easy tournament to judge. :) I guess I just prefer 5-person tables.