[ quoted text not captured ]
Way to go Gines... strange deck though! 1 DI to stop your WG's getting
stolen?
It may be just me but I'm not prepared to play an ally deck now unless
I have considerable defense from theft as allies and imbued are so
common now, inclusion of many multiples of cards like entrancement etc
is nearly always worth while...
What did the other dudes in the final play?
Ant
[ quoted text not captured ]> >http://www.almadrava.net/damnanshttp://www.vtes.nethttp://es.groups.y...(IRC channel: #vtes)>
> Way to go Gines... strange deck though! 1 DI to stop your WG's getting
> stolen?
Yes. I played that DI in the second round to cancel a Restructure. I
played that DI in the third round to cancel a Cloak the Gathering to
burn Rabbat (since Millicent Smith was in play). And I played DI in
the final to cancel another Restructure.
Besides this decks gains enough pool to put many War Ghouls in play,
and, to top it all, I was keeping my War Ghouls untapped as long as
possible when I thought they could be stolen before I could launch a
final attack with them.
> It may be just me but I'm not prepared to play an ally deck now unless
> I have considerable defense from theft as allies and imbued are so
> common now, inclusion of many multiples of cards like entrancement etc
> is nearly always worth while...
But they need stealth too to get those actions through. The Unmasking,
Mr Winthrop and my Auspex cards can help me block some of those ally-
stealing actions. And so can help me leaving my War Ghouls untapped
until needed (as long as there are locations in play) :-)
> What did the other dudes in the final play?
My predator was playing a Guruhi deck with some permacept, permableed,
and Animalism combat.
My prey was playing a Dementation & Obfuscate bleed deck (!Malks and
Malks).
My grandprey was playing a Toreador vote deck with some Toreador Grand
Ball, Alastor (Assault Rifle)...
And my grandpredator was playing an imbued deck (he got 3 game wins in
the prelimary rounds and was top seed).
On my first turn I put Jake Washington in play, and had him employ
Tasha Morgan. Then I brought out Bloodfeud. On my next turn, Jake bled
for 1 :)
The imbued set up very quickly, as usual, and the Toreador was not
drawing his Toreador Grand Balls, so he got his political actions
either Determined or blocked.
My predator was bleeding me for 1-3 each turn, but I had enough pool
gain (via a few Blood Dolls) to bring out several War Ghouls with Lady
Zara Slatikov.
I torporized one of my prey's !Malkavians and let Rudolfo ready so
that he could put pressure on the Toreador.
Later in the game I played Sybil's Tongue to get Break the Code and
put it in play in my discard phase, so that my War Ghouls and the
Guruhi could attack the imbued when the time came (i.e., to stop the
imbued from getting his first VP), since I knew that the game was
going to time out, and I could not let anyone get a VP.
I decided to start the ousting process of my prey when there were ca.
30 minutes left. The imbued player was talking all the time (both
during his turn and during other player's turns). He was always asking
permission to take actions like the one granted by Travis' special
ability, Powers, etc. (thus wasting aiming for the time out).
I had Bloodfeud, Lady Zara, Guedado, Vagabond Mystic, 1 Procurer and 4
War Ghouls in play. So I played Carver's Packing and Storage, bled for
1 with each vampire and torporized my prey's two ready vampires (which
forced him to burn 2 pool due to Tension in the Ranks -controlled by
the imbued-). That left my prey down to 1 pool.
I ousted him on my predator's next turn (via a bounced bleed).
Then I told my prey I would not do anything against him, since the
game was about to time out and I already had the tournament win. But
he called a Banishment, which I blocked with Bloodfeud (who had a Mr
Winthrop), since it was going to target Lady Zara. So on my next turn
I played Fame on Alexandra, since I was afraid she was going to call a
PTO, and launched my 4 War Ghouls against her. Alexandra played 2
Majesty and the War Ghouls could only torporize one of the vampires
who got in their way (but not Alexandra). Then I played Dragonbound.
On his next turn, my prey played Toreador Grand Ball and Alexandra
unblockably called a PTO on Lady Zara, which passed.
Then the imbued rushed Guedado with Ossian and left him empty with a
Pulled Fangs, and thereafter he rushed Bloodfeud with an imbued
bearing an Ivory Bow at "+1 stealth", so Guedado waked and played
basic My Enemy's Enemy to block and went into torpor.
On my next turn, Bloodfeud played Sibyl's Tongue to get the Unmasking
(thus allowing me to leave my War Ghouls untapped waiting for the time
out), But the Tongue got DI'ed by the imbued player. So I rushed
Alexandra again with 2 War Ghouls. Madame Guil got in the way and went
to torpor.
I burned 1 for Dragonbound and ended my turn. During my prey's turn
the game timed out.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:45:58 -0700, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote:
> I burned 1 for Dragonbound and ended my turn. During my prey's turn
> the game timed out.
Interesting game!
Do you think having a longer time limit for the finals (or none at all)
would have created a different tournament result?
--
Regards,
Daneel
On Sep 17, 8:40 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:45:58 -0700, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> > I burned 1 for Dragonbound and ended my turn. During my prey's turn
> > the game timed out.
>
> Interesting game!
>
> Do you think having a longer time limit for the finals (or none at all)
> would have created a different tournament result?
The final round had a 2 hour time limit.
But, answering your question, I think it would have been a different
game, because we wouldn't have made the same moves from the start.
With no time limits, I would have let my prey oust the Toreador. And
then I would have attempted to oust my prey and the imbued afterward
(with the help of Break the Code).
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sep 17, 2:05 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> CAMARILLA CONCLAVE 2007
> =======================
>
> EVENT REPORT
>
> Event Name: Cónclave de la Camarilla 2007
> Event Date (DD-MON-YY): 16-sep-07
> Coordinator: Ferran Bádenas & Ginés Quiñonero
> City: Palma de Mallorca
> Format : Constructed
> Number of Players: 26
> Number of Rounds (including final): 4
Here are some photos of the event:
http://dnn.vtes.net/Fotografiacuteas/tabid/405/Default.aspx?AlbumID=879-109[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sep 17, 2:53 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> But, answering your question, I think it would have been a different
> game, because we wouldn't have made the same moves from the start.
> With no time limits, I would have let my prey oust the Toreador. And
> then I would have attempted to oust my prey and the imbued afterward
> (with the help of Break the Code).
Which sounds closer to a "real" game of V:TES than just stopping
anybody from getting a VP, so the game can time out, so you can win.
--
David Cherryholmes
[ quoted text not captured ]
In VTES there are many strategies to victory. In real VTES games time
out sometimes (which is fine). Time is a strategic factor. And in real
VTES players should adapt their way of playing (their strategy) to the
context of the current game.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in news:1190212311.178461.243060
@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> In VTES there are many strategies to victory. In real VTES games time
> out sometimes (which is fine). Time is a strategic factor. And in real
> VTES players should adapt their way of playing (their strategy) to the
> context of the current game.
>
Still sounds like playin' Lawyer-ball to me, Damnans. Quit playing with
your food already, and oust your prey... ;-)
DZ
AW
On Sep 19, 5:52 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote in news:1190212311.178461.243060[ quoted text not captured ]
Would you care to elaborate? ;-) I was the only one in that final who
ousted his prey :-P
[ quoted text not captured ]
atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote:
>>> In VTES there are many strategies to victory. In real VTES games time
>> out sometimes (which is fine). Time is a strategic factor. And in
>> real VTES players should adapt their way of playing (their strategy)
>> to the context of the current game.
>>> Still sounds like playin' Lawyer-ball to me, Damnans. Quit playing
> with your food already, and oust your prey... ;-)
The current rules-set says nothing about using dislikable tactics to win.
I really don't understand why sub-par players constantly complain about
the fact that the first-place finalist doesn't have to oust anyone to win,
with all all of them are sitting at the table not ousting their preys. He
is given the advantage because he deserves it!
Remember:
It is *YOU* who enable the first-place finalist to win using these
dislikable tactics.
It it *YOU* who are responsible for enabling the continuation of these
dislikable tactics.
Just oust your damn prey, just one of you, just once, and now that guy is
screwed.
Something to think about for all you whiner-finalists who can't "win" in
any other way except by being the first-place whiner. ;)
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
On Sep 19, 10:31 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> In VTES there are many strategies to victory. In real VTES games time
> out sometimes (which is fine). Time is a strategic factor. And in real
> VTES players should adapt their way of playing (their strategy) to the
> context of the current game.
Oh, I know, hence the quotes around "real". You are simply playing
the game by the rules as they exist. My point was that the rules as
they exist do not yield (IMOYMMVBBQPONIES!!!!) the best possible
games.
--
David Cherryholmes
On Sep 19, 12:34 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> The current rules-set says nothing about using dislikable tactics to win.
Correct. Last time I checked there also weren't any rules against
pointing out that they are dislikable, and why.
> I really don't understand why sub-par players constantly complain about
> the fact that the first-place finalist doesn't have to oust anyone to win,
> with all all of them are sitting at the table not ousting their preys. He
> is given the advantage because he deserves it!
There's some truth to your POV, but equating anybody who disagrees as
a "sub par player" is pretty much flamebait. And while there may be
some truth to it, I don't think it's entirely correct either. Jyhad
is a multiplayer game where the posture of one player sends ripples
all around the table, creating effects and facts that the other
players have to deal with, e.g. I'm top seed, I play to wall up, wank
off, and time out. My prey is unhooked. My grandprey is thrown into
a defensive posture, etc etc. Ripples all around, that can perhaps
only be dealt with by all the other non-first seed players agreeing to
set aside the normal pred-prey game and cooperate to unseat the top
guy, or something convoluted like that. And now you're in the same
territory as the argument "it's not broken b/c if the table gangs up
on it, it can be put down." And we all know how strong an argument
*that* is.
I'll close with re-iterating: you've got a point. But it's not an
open and shut case, and the sub-par thing was just asking for a fight
(and, lord knows, if there's one thing I can't stand, it's fighting on
the internet).
;)
--
David Cherryholmes
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in
news:wecIi.144850$TW6....@newsfe06.phx:
> atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote:>> Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote:
>>>>> In VTES there are many strategies to victory. In real VTES games
>>> time out sometimes (which is fine). Time is a strategic factor. And
>>> in real VTES players should adapt their way of playing (their
>>> strategy) to the context of the current game.
>>>>> Still sounds like playin' Lawyer-ball to me, Damnans. Quit playing
>> with your food already, and oust your prey... ;-)>
> The current rules-set says nothing about using dislikable tactics to
> win.
>
Was I talking about the current rules set? Obviously, winky-smilies don't
hold the weight of levity they once did in this group. I'll blame Damnans
for their over-use...
DaveZ
On Sep 19, 1:14 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> The best possible games have to do with people playing well,
> regardless of time outs.
So if we still had the game at a point where there was RtI, lack of no
repeat action rules, Misdirection that cost "X", and old-costed
Majesty, and under these conditions people played "well".... you would
have no problem with that?
Player skill can be demonstrated under any arbitrary set of
conditions. It's the conditions I'm talking about, not the abilities
of the players.
--
David Cherryholmes
On Sep 19, 10:45 pm, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 1:14 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>
> > The best possible games have to do with people playing well,
> > regardless of time outs.
>
> So if we still had the game at a point where there was RtI, lack of no
> repeat action rules, Misdirection that cost "X", and old-costed
> Majesty, and under these conditions people played "well".... you would
> have no problem with that?
Are you out of your mind or what? :P
My comments assumed "the best possible games" in the current VTES
context. Or did I miss something and we were talking about how good or
bad VTES was in the past? :-P
> Player skill can be demonstrated under any arbitrary set of
> conditions. It's the conditions I'm talking about, not the abilities
> of the players.
Do you agree that player skill in the current VTES context makes
better games?
You erroneously assume that the best possible VTES game is the one
that ends with just 1 player standing.
It's a fact that, in a final round, victory can be achieved in many
ways. Why do you see more merit in a player who wins a tournament by
being the last player standing than in a player who does not oust
anyone and wins by being top seed?
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sep 19, 11:45 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 11:21 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> > You erroneously assume that the best possible VTES game is the one
> > that ends with just 1 player standing.
>
> > It's a fact that, in a final round, victory can be achieved in many
> > ways. Why do you see more merit in a player who wins a tournament by
> > being the last player standing than in a player who does not oust
> > anyone and wins by being top seed?
>> Because its boring. I play games for enjoyment. No matter how much we
> like and obsess over VtES, it is still a game. A game where someone
> sits and does nothing, or tries to stop everyone else from doing
> anything else, is boring.
So a game is boring because of just 1 player (no matter what the other
4 players are doing)? :-P
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sep 19, 5:21 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> Are you out of your mind or what? :P
Well, it's been said before.....
> My comments assumed "the best possible games" in the current VTES
> context. Or did I miss something and we were talking about how good or
> bad VTES was in the past? :-P
No, I'm not talking about the past, per se. I just perceive a flaw in
the current tournament environment. You seem to want to jump past my
real point, and counter with something along the lines of "the rules
are as they stand, and in that context there will be a winner," which
really doesn't address my point at all. So I was just throwing things
out there, trying to make the most obviously odious game environment I
could think of, and then posed the question: since you seem to
forcefully ignore the goodness/badness of the current environment,
would the shitty one be OK with you just based on the fact that it
would produce a winner for every single game? Reductio ad absurdum
(loosely).
> Do you agree that player skill in the current VTES context makes
> better games?
Of course it does. And if you're an epileptic leper squatting in the
hot remains of Hiroshima, having a cracker is a better life than not
having one. But I wouldn't call either case *good*. No, the current
V:TES situation is not as bad as all that, not even remotely, but
again.... your position looks a little absurd from here.
> You erroneously assume that the best possible VTES game is the one
> that ends with just 1 player standing.
I assume the best possible game is one where predators are trying to
kill preys, preys are defending against predators, and there's some
amount of dealmaking and alliance formation going around (I'm not
crazy about that last bit, but it *is* part of the game). You
know..... V:TES.
> It's a fact that, in a final round, victory can be achieved in many
> ways.
Yep, and some of them are shitty ways.
> Why do you see more merit in a player who wins a tournament by
> being the last player standing than in a player who does not oust
> anyone and wins by being top seed?
Because one involves playing a game, while the other involves merely
gaming some rules.
--
David Cherryholmes
On Sep 19, 5:21 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
Sorry for the double-post. It's way early here and I'm just now
getting coffee'd up.
> You erroneously assume that the best possible VTES game is the one
> that ends with just 1 player standing.
I don't require 1 player standing. A game win by the standard
definition is just fine.
--
David Cherryholmes
I'm with David (and others) here. While Damnans played smartly
according to the current tournement rules structure, that sort of
thing still tends to lead to boring, static games.
I would love a rules change that made stalling for a timeout a useless
tactic. Removing the time limit is one possible option, though it can
present logistical problems. I've run my tournament finals with no
time limits pretty much always (unless there was a force majeure
reason for them), and it has resulted in (imho) very enjoyable finals
games. No more of this "stop everyone from getting VPs until the last
30mins, then try for an oust" shit.
//Petri
[ quoted text not captured ]
As always, this does not require a rules change.
The rules have always allowed for longer finals. 3h. 4h. 7h. Whatever you like.
(Although you can never honestly call any game "untimed" in the absolute).
On Sep 20, 3:04 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> As always, this does not require a rules change.
> The rules have always allowed for longer finals. 3h. 4h. 7h. Whatever you like.
> (Although you can never honestly call any game "untimed" in the absolute).
True, that. To be exact, I'd like to see a change in the way
tournaments are generally run, then. :)
Honestly, to tournament organizers out there: try running without a
finals time limit sometime. It's worked really well for us over here,
but of course your mileage may vary.
//Petri
[ quoted text not captured ]
Actually, as LSJ pointed out, there HAS to be a time limit of some
kind. 200 hours with no toilet breaks or food stops or rest periods
does kinda tend to enforce a game to finish, if only from players
passing out or having exploding bladders!
Seriously though, just make the final time limit arbitrarily long, and
you have a no limit final
On Sep 20, 3:24 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, as LSJ pointed out, there HAS to be a time limit of some
> kind. 200 hours with no toilet breaks or food stops or rest periods
> does kinda tend to enforce a game to finish, if only from players
> passing out or having exploding bladders!
Well, yeah. Obviously, if the game has gone on for 3 hours and is at a
complete stalemate, the judge needs to be able and willing to say "ok
guys, I'm giving you one more hour and that's it". Or something.
Never had that problem over here, I think some finals games have
stretched to closed to 3 hours, but that was due to intensive playing,
not stalling. I guess that with a "no time limit" game someone could
still try to stall the game enough to make the judge force a time
limit, but... meh. Haven't seen it myself. At the very least, it
discourages the time-stalling tactics that seem to have become the
norm in tournament finals in some parts of the world -- which is very
good, imho.
...and of course, if someone appears to be stalling, it's a lot easier
for the judge to call him/her on it, since stalling is not a viable
tactic for "play to win" when you have a "no time limit" stipulation.
Think about your normal "casual" games. With competent players, how
long do they usually last? 1-3 hours seems to be enough to cover 99%
of the games, it's very rare to have any sort of extreme marathons.
I'm not saying it's a perfect solution. I'm just saying that it has
worked for me/us, and it can help to reduce the amount of intentional
stalling in games. That's all. If you don't see intentional stalling
as a problem, then go with the 2 hour limit. I myself do see it as a
problem, so I've tried to do something about it, with pretty good
success so far.
//Petri
On Sep 20, 2:33 pm, Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 3:24 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> Think about your normal "casual" games. With competent players, how
> long do they usually last? 1-3 hours seems to be enough to cover 99%
> of the games, it's very rare to have any sort of extreme marathons.
>
> I'm not saying it's a perfect solution. I'm just saying that it has
> worked for me/us, and it can help to reduce the amount of intentional
> stalling in games. That's all. If you don't see intentional stalling
> as a problem, then go with the 2 hour limit. I myself do see it as a
> problem, so I've tried to do something about it, with pretty good
> success so far.
Once again, as proven by the results of the finalists in the previous
rounds (where they have gotten a few game wins; which means that they
are capable of getting game wins in 2 hours, given the chance), the
problem is not the time limit in the final, but the players who, in
the final round, do not play to win the tournament.
In a final round, if the predator of the top seed player does little
to oust his prey and everyone else plays in a way that benefits the
top seed, it's their strategic problem and failure, not a rules' one.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sep 20, 12:00 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2:33 pm, Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 20, 3:24 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Think about your normal "casual" games. With competent players, how
> > long do they usually last? 1-3 hours seems to be enough to cover 99%
> > of the games, it's very rare to have any sort of extreme marathons.
>
> > I'm not saying it's a perfect solution. I'm just saying that it has
> > worked for me/us, and it can help to reduce the amount of intentional
> > stalling in games. That's all. If you don't see intentional stalling
> > as a problem, then go with the 2 hour limit. I myself do see it as a
> > problem, so I've tried to do something about it, with pretty good
> > success so far.
>
> Once again, as proven by the results of the finalists in the previous
> rounds (where they have gotten a few game wins; which means that they
> are capable of getting game wins in 2 hours, given the chance), the
> problem is not the time limit in the final, but the players who, in
> the final round, do not play to win the tournament.
>
> In a final round, if the predator of the top seed player does little
> to oust his prey and everyone else plays in a way that benefits the
> top seed, it's their strategic problem and failure, not a rules' one.
>
Cherryholmes addressed this in a previous post; I'm reproducing his
argument here -
I'm top seed, I play to wall up, wank off, and time out. My prey is
unhooked. My grandprey is thrown intoa defensive posture, etc etc.
Ripples all around, that can perhaps only be dealt with by all the
other non-first seed players agreeing to
set aside the normal pred-prey game and cooperate to unseat the top
guy, or something convoluted like that. And now you're in the same
territory as the argument "it's not broken b/c if the table gangs up
on it, it can be put down." And we all know how strong an argument
*that* is.
-------
The point is that when the top seed plays for a timeout, there are
repercussions to the entire game and table state. It isn't a simple
matter of everyone else doing their normal thing - the top seeds
wallish (obnoxious, IMO unsportsmanlike) behavior makes cooperation
between the other players more necessary than it should be.
It is the rules structure that makes this so, not the 2nd through 5th
seed players.
-dc
On Sep 20, 6:33 pm, dcloo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 20, 12:00 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
[...]
> -------
>
> The point is that when the top seed plays for a timeout, there are
> repercussions to the entire game and table state. It isn't a simple
> matter of everyone else doing their normal thing - the top seeds
> wallish (obnoxious, IMO unsportsmanlike) behavior makes cooperation
> between the other players more necessary than it should be.
More necessary than it should be? What does that mean? Do you know how
it should be?
> It is the rules structure that makes this so, not the 2nd through 5th
> seed players.
Do not blame the rules. Blame the players.
In any game (not just in any final round) you may encounter a deck
that is a major threat to your goals and/or the goals of other
players. And if you do not do anything against that deck, if some
players do not cooperate to cripple that deck, you will be screwed and
you will be playing to lose. Why should that be different in a final
round? Why should players not play to win in a final round, regardless
of their way to victory (as long as it is legal)?
There is little we can do about bad play (which is the main issue
here) other than teaching those players to play better. Because,
regardless of the rules in effect, bad play will be THE issue (since a
judge can't tell a player how to win a game).
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sep 20, 12:46 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> More necessary than it should be? What does that mean? Do you know how
> it should be?
Obviously he meant in his own opinion (which I happen to agree with).
Should we take your pedantry as surrender?
> > It is the rules structure that makes this so, not the 2nd through 5th
> > seed players.
>
> Do not blame the rules. Blame the players.
Can you actually address me point (delivered a second time via Dave
Clooney)? Because right now you're just hand-waving it away. Should
we take your omission as surrender?
> In any game (not just in any final round) you may encounter a deck
> that is a major threat to your goals and/or the goals of other
> players. And if you do not do anything against that deck, if some
> players do not cooperate to cripple that deck, you will be screwed and
> you will be playing to lose. Why should that be different in a final
> round? Why should players not play to win in a final round, regardless
> of their way to victory (as long as it is legal)?
Because we aren't talking about *a* deck, or some spread of decks.
We're talking about the structure of the tournament rules, a universal
constant. If there's a universal constant that requires every last
final of every tournament everywhere to, of necessity, be played as
though there were an old-school Anarch Revolt deck (you just said
"broken" without meaning to, btw), then that is a problem. That is
not rock-paper-scissors. That is a flaw in the rules themselves.
> There is little we can do about bad play (which is the main issue
> here) other than teaching those players to play better. Because,
> regardless of the rules in effect, bad play will be THE issue (since a
> judge can't tell a player how to win a game).
You can keep re-asserting that bit about bad play as much as you want,
but until you can actually address the points I've made it won't count
for much. It's not bad play, it's bad rules that are the problem.
Clever players can work their way around disadvantageous rules (such
as a first-seeder playing like an asshat), but that doesn't mean we
should pretend the problem doesn't exist.
--
David Cherryholmes
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'm not sure if he is capable of actually answering your point (that I
agree with btw) as he has morphed into the Sphnix from 'Mystery
Men' :O)
Only capabale of bad reversed one liners.... I would expect something
like..
"Master bad players, or bad players will master you"
something like that :p
Ant
[ quoted text not captured ]> http://www.almadrava.net/damnanshttp://www.vtes.nethttp://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)
Gines, this is as i understand it their point:
A> Allowing a player to win by timeouts, within the current rules,
makes the game more likely to suck donkey penis.
B> Removing that motivation and route to victory, by changing the
rules, lessens the likelyhood of the game sucking donkey penis (peni?)
Your point can be applied to both those sets of rules, and has nothing
to do with the point being made by the Daves. So, in the same
format...
C> Bad play is likely to make the game suck donkey penis with rules
set A
C> Bad play is likely to make the game suck donkey penis with rules
set B
So we can forget about bad play in this equation as its the same value
on both sides..
Please address points A and B - do you want to play games that are
more likely to be shit, or not? A or B? Red pill or Blue?
Ant
On Sep 21, 4:00 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> In a final round, if the predator of the top seed player does little
> to oust his prey and everyone else plays in a way that benefits the
> top seed, it's their strategic problem and failure, not a rules' one.
Like I 100% agree with this statement and all but in practice it seems
to happen a bit more than it should.
I think the Australians generally play an extra 30 minutes in the
final which seems a reasonable compromise between having a time limit
and taking into account practical considerations around venue hire and
playing for many hours etc...
Simon
In message <1190306008.3...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
dclo...@gmail.com writes:
> I'm top seed, I play to wall up, wank off, and time out.
Remember to keep you cards in wipe-clean sleeves, kids.
And don't have nightmares.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On Sep 20, 7:09 pm, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 12:46 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
[...]
> > In any game (not just in any final round) you may encounter a deck
> > that is a major threat to your goals and/or the goals of other
> > players. And if you do not do anything against that deck, if some
> > players do not cooperate to cripple that deck, you will be screwed and
> > you will be playing to lose. Why should that be different in a final
> > round? Why should players not play to win in a final round, regardless
> > of their way to victory (as long as it is legal)?
>
> Because we aren't talking about *a* deck, or some spread of decks.
> We're talking about the structure of the tournament rules, a universal
> constant. If there's a universal constant that requires every last
> final of every tournament everywhere to, of necessity, be played as
> though there were an old-school Anarch Revolt deck (you just said
> "broken" without meaning to, btw),
You are wrong. I did not mean "broken". I meant a player's or some
players' nemesis deck, which is not the same.
> then that is a problem. That is not rock-paper-scissors. That is a flaw in the rules themselves.
The tournament rules aren't flawed. They reward people for being top
seed. They reward people for playing to win games. They reward people
for playing to win the tournament.
> > There is little we can do about bad play (which is the main issue
> > here) other than teaching those players to play better. Because,
> > regardless of the rules in effect, bad play will be THE issue (since a
> > judge can't tell a player how to win a game).
>
> You can keep re-asserting that bit about bad play as much as you want,
> but until you can actually address the points I've made it won't count
> for much. It's not bad play, it's bad rules that are the problem.
You assume too much.
There is no evidence that the amount of time outs in final rounds is
higher than the amount of time outs in preliminary rounds.
> Clever players can work their way around disadvantageous rules (such
> as a first-seeder playing like an asshat), but that doesn't mean we
> should pretend the problem doesn't exist.
There is no problem with the current tournament rules.
A top seed player who is walling up may not be playing to win, but to
lose. He is taking a risk, since another Methuselah may get a VP (his
grandprey, for instance).
[ quoted text not captured ]
atomweaver schrieb:
> Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in news:fd0kgb$taj$1
> @registered.motzarella.org:
>>> Petri Wessman escribió:>>> On Sep 21, 2:15 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:>>>> The tournament rules aren't flawed. They reward people for being top
>>>> seed. They reward people for playing to win games. They reward people
>>>> for playing to win the tournament.>>> The tournament rules reward play that results in boring, static games
>>> that time out. Ergo, the tournament rules are flawed.>> There is no evidence that most final rounds are boring.
>>> Evidence, no. The are heaps of eye-witness testimonials, though...
But most of the time I see this happen it is not due to the first seed
player walling up or stalling but due to the fact that the people that
*should* move (position 4-5 mostly) are babbling endlessly about
irrelevant stuff. Also at the beginning of the finals a lot of people
try to be "friendly" and "social" by talking about topics not relevant
to the game. As long as they don´t stop doing that I wouldn´t touch the
rules to change something.
--
Johannes Walch
Damnans schrieb:
>> And as I said
>> before, his incentive to do so warps the table, even if it doesn't
>> lead to a time-out (although this is a second-order problem).>
> It would be interesting to know how often a top seed player wins a final
> that times out.
That kind of data could be easily produced by running database queries
to the data that has been submitted as Archons. Since WW has made a big
announcement about stepping up to the requirements of the community I
think we should have access to such data in the near future.
--
Johannes Walch
Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in news:fd0lt0$4c5$1
@registered.motzarella.org:
> Peter D Bakija escribió:>> And the regular occurance of finals
>> timing out with no one getting ousted seems to support that this is
>> dubious theory.>
> I do not think it's a regular occurrence.
You have no evidence for that position, either.
(I know its a worthless observation, but since you made it earlier, its
worht pointing out it applies to your opinions, just as much as any other)
DZ
AW
In article <fd0otd$kmm$1...@news01.versatel.de>,
Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote:
> But most of the time I see this happen it is not due to the first seed
> player walling up or stalling but due to the fact that the people that
> *should* move (position 4-5 mostly) are babbling endlessly about
> irrelevant stuff. Also at the beginning of the finals a lot of people
> try to be "friendly" and "social" by talking about topics not relevant
> to the game.
Mind you, while I think the tournament rules could probably be
structured better to disincentive slow play, I don't think I have ever
seen this happen in the finals of a tournament (i.e. the "friendly" and
"social" discussion). As everyone in the finals knows that they are in
the timed finals of a tournament.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"Find hungry samurai."
-The Old Man
On Sep 21, 7:12 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote in news:fd0lt0$4c5$1> @registered.motzarella.org:
>
> > Peter D Bakija escribió:
> >> And the regular occurance of finals
> >> timing out with no one getting ousted seems to support that this is
> >> dubious theory.
>
> > I do not think it's a regular occurrence.
>
> You have no evidence for that position, either.
I do have some evidences from my experience. I know the data of the
final rounds of lots of regular tournaments held in Spain in the last
few years. I also know the data of all ECQ's held in Spain so far. And
I also have the data of all the tournaments I have played.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:51:09 +0200, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote:
> Assamite decks, for instance, have lots of nemesis :-)
I was always under the impression that nouns ending with -is generally have
their plural end with -es. As in, "nemeses". I'm not a native speaker so I
may be way off track here, but at least that's how I would write it...
--
Regards,
Daneel
"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> escribió en el mensaje
news:opty0ssu...@news.chello.hu...
[ quoted text not captured ]
You are right: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nemesis
Thanks for the correction.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:31:51 -0700, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 1:35 pm, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote:>> On Sep 17, 2:53 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>>
>> > But, answering your question, I think it would have been a different
>> > game, because we wouldn't have made the same moves from the start.
>> > With no time limits, I would have let my prey oust the Toreador. And
>> > then I would have attempted to oust my prey and the imbued afterward
>> > (with the help of Break the Code).
>>
>> Which sounds closer to a "real" game of V:TES than just stopping
>> anybody from getting a VP, so the game can time out, so you can win.>
> In VTES there are many strategies to victory. In real VTES games time
> out sometimes (which is fine). Time is a strategic factor. And in real
> VTES players should adapt their way of playing (their strategy) to the
> context of the current game.
Hey Damnans, you sound like a Swiss, whereas I was convinced you were
Spanish... :)
TRUE - it is reasonable to reward standings after the preliminary round.
It makes sense to - at least slightly - differentiate between the guy
who went in with 3/15 and the other guy who went in with 0/2, winning a
coin toss, after 2 players dropped out to catch their means of
transportation home.
However, also TRUE - the V:tES balance is maintained by every meth going
out to kill their prey, and trying to fend off their pred. If one player
can wall up and win simply by fending off their pred, then the inherent
premise of V:tES suffers (just like how it suffered by having
seat-changing cards).
--
Regards,
Daneel
Daneel escribió:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:31:51 -0700, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 19, 1:35 pm, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote:>>> On Sep 17, 2:53 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > But, answering your question, I think it would have been a different
>>> > game, because we wouldn't have made the same moves from the start.
>>> > With no time limits, I would have let my prey oust the Toreador. And
>>> > then I would have attempted to oust my prey and the imbued afterward
>>> > (with the help of Break the Code).
>>>
>>> Which sounds closer to a "real" game of V:TES than just stopping
>>> anybody from getting a VP, so the game can time out, so you can win.>>
>> In VTES there are many strategies to victory. In real VTES games time
>> out sometimes (which is fine). Time is a strategic factor. And in real
>> VTES players should adapt their way of playing (their strategy) to the
>> context of the current game.>
> Hey Damnans, you sound like a Swiss, whereas I was convinced you were
> Spanish... :)
He, he... Care to elaborate? Sounding like a Swiss may have many
implications :) But if you refer to their ability to waste time in the
finals, I can't sound like a Swiss, since I never do that (in fact, I am
against that).
> TRUE - it is reasonable to reward standings after the preliminary round.
> It makes sense to - at least slightly - differentiate between the guy
> who went in with 3/15 and the other guy who went in with 0/2, winning a
> coin toss, after 2 players dropped out to catch their means of
> transportation home.
>
> However, also TRUE - the V:tES balance is maintained by every meth going
> out to kill their prey,
That is not necessarily true.
The VTES balance is maintained by every Methuselah being under pressure,
which is not the same.
> and trying to fend off their pred. If one player> can wall up and win simply by fending off their pred, then the inherent
> premise of V:tES suffers (just like how it suffered by having
> seat-changing cards).
That is not the reason why the top seed usually wins when a final round
times out, in my experience.
As Johannes pointed out already, it is because the other finalists are
too conservative and do not play to win. Not every deck is capable of
walling up either.
For example, in the final round of the EC Day 1 in Gothenburg, Ruben
Feldman (the top seed and winner) did not wall up; he tried to oust his
prey (me); and he won because of two reasons:
1. His predator (Erik Torstensson) was too conservative and did not do
his best to oust him. He was playing weenie Auspex.
2. His grandprey (Brian Moritz) spent too long chatting and revealing
his master plans to win the game instead of ousting his prey, which he
could have easily done.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sep 22, 3:36 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> That is not necessarily true.
>
> The VTES balance is maintained by every Methuselah being under pressure,
> which is not the same.
I wish Google hadn't eaten my last post yesterday. Don't know if
anybody else could read it (or your reply to it), but I can't. So,
forgive me if this is growing redundant, or if you've already made a
good reply to it previously.
So, you grant everything that Daneel was saying, with the slight
correction that it's about "pressure", not necessarily the ousting of
preys, that is the metric.
Fabulous. So, what pressure is the top seed under? Not the clock,
because if the game times out, he or she wins. What else? The
"pressure" of someone else gaining a VP? So, by the current
tournament rules, the "smart" play is for him to prevent other people
gaining VP's? How can he do that? Some decks can wall up, at a
minimum acting to minimize one player's VPs (his predator). We've
already discussed what that alone does to the table dynamics (and by
your own admission requires some weird alliance to offset). Then
there's lip-flapping to run out the clock. Sorry you don't accept it,
but it happens. I can match you naked assertion for naked assertion
all day long. Then there's decks like weenie AUS, and cards like DI.
Gotta run.
--
David Cherryholmes
On Sep 20, 6:27 pm, Shade <shad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Like I 100% agree with this statement and all but in practice it seems
> to happen a bit more than it should.
>
> I think the Australians generally play an extra 30 minutes in the
> final which seems a reasonable compromise between having a time limit
> and taking into account practical considerations around venue hire and
> playing for many hours etc...
And I pretty much agree with this as a practical solution.
Realistically, nobody is going to change the finals' rules so
dramatically that we don't have a declared winner (although
personally, I favor this "boot up the butt" approach).
And as LSJ pointed out, doing so is already completely within the
rules. Bonus.
And (the theory goes), you either tack on the amount of time people
essentially waste, making it pretty much identical with the earlier
game environment, or better yet, you set up a positive feedback loop
where people realize that the game is less likely to time out so they
don't bother trying to make it time out.
Which leaves the counterarguments to deal with. The first one I can
recall is "but that wouldn't be fair, because I built my deck to win
within 2 hours, not 2.5, and that's what got me into the finals."
Basically, I just don't buy it. I suppose it's *possible* for some
ubergenius to achieve that exact precision. But with the staggering
number of variables -- values for which nobody can have any
foreknowledge -- and always being subject to the mercies of random
distribution, I think it's a non sequitur no matter how smart you
think you are.
>From my point of view, it's possible to make meaningful alterations in
a deck based on whether it's going to be a four of five player game.
Put simply, you'll want more cards in a larger game, or might be
tempted to use variance in your favor with a smaller deck if you knew
you could do without the extra inventory.
People already chuck their decks into a 4/5 player churn (OK, maybe
not Paris or Budapest) without feeling crippled by it. So taking a
chance on *maybe* having to absorb the impact, on your deck
construction, of an extra 30 minutes on the clock, which is probably
just time lost thinking and talking, not the number of turns taken,
seems like a pretty small thing.
And anyway, if you can optimize your decks to do well in 2 hours at
the expense of doing poorly in 2.5, then I'm sure you can come up with
something equally fiendishly clever, knowing about the bizarro,
weirdly distorted final round ahead of time.
I suppose there are other counterarguments to deal with, but I think
that's the main one to overcome.
--
David Cherryholmes
In article <opty1jd5...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
wrote:
> TRUE - it is reasonable to reward standings after the preliminary round.
> It makes sense to - at least slightly - differentiate between the guy
> who went in with 3/15 and the other guy who went in with 0/2, winning a
> coin toss, after 2 players dropped out to catch their means of
> transportation home.
>
> However, also TRUE - the V:tES balance is maintained by every meth going
> out to kill their prey, and trying to fend off their pred. If one player
> can wall up and win simply by fending off their pred, then the inherent
> premise of V:tES suffers (just like how it suffered by having
> seat-changing cards).
The more time passes, the more and more I think you are awsome :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
bluedevil escribió:
> On Sep 22, 3:36 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>>> That is not necessarily true.
>>
>> The VTES balance is maintained by every Methuselah being under pressure,
>> which is not the same.>
> I wish Google hadn't eaten my last post yesterday. Don't know if
> anybody else could read it (or your reply to it), but I can't. So,
> forgive me if this is growing redundant, or if you've already made a
> good reply to it previously.
This was my reply to your post:
<REPLY>------------------------------------------------
bluedevil escribió:
> On Sep 21, 7:15 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>>> You are wrong. I did not mean "broken". I meant a player's or some>> players' nemesis deck, which is not the same.>
> Here's the relevant bit of what you said earlier:>
> "And if you do not do anything against that deck, if some players do
> not cooperate to cripple that deck, you will be screwed and you will
> be playing to lose."
>> So, not always but sort of naturally tending in that direction, if I
> don't obtain the cooperation of other players, then I will lose.
Any deck has its nemesis, so if they do not obtain the cooperation of
other players they will lose.
Assamite decks, for instance, have lots of nemeses :-)
> That is your own description. This is very similar to arguments made for
> why Deck X is not broken, because "if the table bands together to put
> it down, it goes down," which is generally seen as a weak argument.
> That's my point.
That is not what I meant.
>> The tournament rules aren't flawed.
[...]
> The real debate here is
> on what value and qualities the word "win" should have, not how
> players achieve it under any given definition. We are not arguing the
> same thing.
I am OK with the current value and qualities of the word "win".
>> There is no evidence that the amount of time outs in final rounds is
>> higher than the amount of time outs in preliminary rounds.>> There have certainly been a good number of tournament reports posted
> here lately where the reporter has noted the number of timeouts in the
> previous rounds, and then whether the final timed out or not.
The tournament reports posted to the newsgroup aren't representative, so
therefore you can deduce little from them.
> My
> impression is that the final round times out a lot more often than the
> preliminary rounds. I can't *prove* this to you without doing a lot
> more work than I'm inclined to do right now, but I think it's a mild
> statement, and obvious.
I can say that most final rounds held in Palma de Mallorca this year did
not time out, for instance. Just 2 out of 7 timed out.
[...]
>>> A top seed player who is walling up may not be playing to win, but to
>> lose. He is taking a risk, since another Methuselah may get a VP (his
>> grandprey, for instance).>> He may or may not, but it's much more in his favor to do so than any
> other player, or any player in any round not the final.
That statement is relative.
> And as I said
> before, his incentive to do so warps the table, even if it doesn't
> lead to a time-out (although this is a second-order problem).
It would be interesting to know how often a top seed player wins a final
that times out.
</REPLY>------------------------------------------------
> So, you grant everything that Daneel was saying,
Everything? :-)
> with the slight
> correction that it's about "pressure", not necessarily the ousting of
> preys, that is the metric.
>
> Fabulous. So, what pressure is the top seed under?
It will depend on the kind of deck he or she is playing, among other
factors.
> Not the clock,
Not true. There may be other decks that get a VP quickly.
> because if the game times out, he or she wins.
Not true. He or she only wins if the game times out with no players
being ousted.
> What else? The
> "pressure" of someone else gaining a VP?
Or the pressure of having no "pressure" at all. For instance, a player
with a deck packing lots of deflections is under pressure when no one is
bleeding him or her, since he or she may have hand jam problems and not
be able to do much against his or her prey, which should allow his or
her prey to move forward freely.
> So, by the current
> tournament rules, the "smart" play is for him to prevent other people
> gaining VP's?
Not necessarily, since that's easier said than done. The "smart" play
may be for him to get as manny VPs as he can get.
> How can he do that? Some decks can wall up, at a
> minimum acting to minimize one player's VPs (his predator).
Some decks can't wall up.
> We've
> already discussed what that alone does to the table dynamics (and by
> your own admission requires some weird alliance to offset).
Weird alliance? There is nothing weird about playing to win.
> Then
> there's lip-flapping to run out the clock. Sorry you don't accept it,
> but it happens.
As I have already said, in my experience, most finals do not time out.
[...]
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sep 22, 3:42 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> I am OK with the current value and qualities of the word "win".
Right, and I'm not, and this largely dissolves down into a matter of
opinion. I'm OK with that, but I'll still try to make such arguments
as can be made for my "rightness."
> I can say that most final rounds held in Palma de Mallorca this year did
> not time out, for instance. Just 2 out of 7 timed out.
OK, but here's one of these subtle little implicit things that make us
largely impervious to persuasion. Apparently, until 51% of the games
are timing out, you refuse to see a problem. I would say 1/3rd of all
games timing out is something worth addressing. And I'm just granting
you that your anecdote is actually some universal truth. The facts
might be even more in my favor; you've got to grant me that.
> Not true. There may be other decks that get a VP quickly.
Granted. And in that case, which you would assume is a common case
since every deck at the table got piles of VP's before, his incentive
is not to kill his prey, but instead to prevent anybody from killing
anybody's prey. That's easy to do, regardless of deck : you can look
to your left and say "prey, you are off the hook for the next X
turns", and you can look to your right and say "predator, I will whore
myself out for 1 VP, then work to hand you the game and roll." And
then break the deal or whatever.... all you have to do is cajole
people into wasting time in futile endeavors until the clock declares
you the winner. Most smart people can figure this out, and from the
looks of the statistics lots have.
This is not "usual" V:TES, and IMO it's an inferior form of V:TES.
And if tacking on an extra 30 minutes of time makes the whole snarl go
*poof*, I think it's worth trying out. We're not talking about
changing the rules here, just changing standard practices.
--
David Cherryholmes
bluedevil escribió:
> On Sep 22, 3:42 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
[...]
>> I can say that most final rounds held in Palma de Mallorca this year did
>> not time out, for instance. Just 2 out of 7 timed out.>
> OK, but here's one of these subtle little implicit things that make us
> largely impervious to persuasion. Apparently, until 51% of the games
> are timing out, you refuse to see a problem. I would say 1/3rd of all
> games timing out is something worth addressing.
I agree that it's not necessary to reach that 51% to see a problem, but
I do not think that time outs in final rounds reach that 1/3 limit.
If we want to know what the real ratio of time outs is, we would need to
have access to the data that have been submitted as Archons, as Johannes
suggested in another post.
I could do that kind of research for tournaments held in Spain this
year, for instance (it would take time though :D ). Or I could just do
that research for the tournaments organized by the Hispanic Conclave
(the Spanish VTES Association) in the last 4 years (since I have all the
Archons of those tournaments).
These would be some of the questions that this kind of research would
answer:
1. How many final rounds timed out with no ousts?
2. How many final rounds timed out with any ousts?
3. How often did the top seed win a timed-out final?
4. Etc.
It would also be interesting to see if there is any difference between
final rounds of major tournaments (such as National Championships,
Continental Qualifiers and Continental Championships) and final rounds
of regular tournaments.
[...]
>> Not true. There may be other decks that get a VP quickly.>
> Granted. And in that case, which you would assume is a common case
> since every deck at the table got piles of VP's before, his incentive
> is not to kill his prey, but instead to prevent anybody from killing
> anybody's prey. That's easy to do, regardless of deck : you can look
> to your left and say "prey, you are off the hook for the next X
> turns", and you can look to your right and say "predator, I will whore
> myself out for 1 VP, then work to hand you the game and roll." And
> then break the deal or whatever.... all you have to do is cajole
> people into wasting time in futile endeavors until the clock declares
> you the winner.
Here is where bad play would enter the equation :)
Why should the other players let the top seed do that?
[...]
> This is not "usual" V:TES, and IMO it's an inferior form of V:TES.
> And if tacking on an extra 30 minutes of time makes the whole snarl go
> *poof*, I think it's worth trying out. We're not talking about
> changing the rules here, just changing standard practices.
I am OK with 2:30h finals. Some players tend to be more conservative in
final rounds, and some other players tend to waste time (fortunately,
the judge can add extra time if he or she determines someone has been
stalling, as usual.)
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 22 Wrz, 21:42, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> Assamite decks, for instance, have lots of nemeses :-)
LOL
but beware mighty Lords of Night and Black Hand S&B&V master archetype
which will dominate tournaments like currently Imbued rotfl :P
On Sep 23, 1:04 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 6:27 pm, Shade <shad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think the Australians generally play an extra 30 minutes in the
> > final which seems a reasonable compromise between having a time limit
> > and taking into account practical considerations around venue hire and
> > playing for many hours etc...
>
> And I pretty much agree with this as a practical solution.
> Realistically, nobody is going to change the finals' rules so
> dramatically that we don't have a declared winner (although
> personally, I favor this "boot up the butt" approach).
>
> And as LSJ pointed out, doing so is already completely within the
> rules. Bonus.
>
> And (the theory goes), you either tack on the amount of time people
> essentially waste, making it pretty much identical with the earlier
> game environment, or better yet, you set up a positive feedback loop
> where people realize that the game is less likely to time out so they
> don't bother trying to make it time out.
Yes that seems a reasonable assumption.
I guess the other thing is that in finals you are likely to have
better players and so it also allows a little extra time to overcome
having 5 players who are (in theory) less likely to make mistakes and
leave themselves open for an oust.
> Which leaves the counterarguments to deal with. The first one I can
> recall is "but that wouldn't be fair, because I built my deck to win
> within 2 hours, not 2.5, and that's what got me into the finals."
>
> Basically, I just don't buy it. I suppose it's *possible* for some
> ubergenius to achieve that exact precision. But with the staggering
> number of variables -- values for which nobody can have any
> foreknowledge -- and always being subject to the mercies of random
> distribution, I think it's a non sequitur no matter how smart you
> think you are.
Agreed.
Unless people are decking themselves inside 2 hours in these finals
this is unlikely to be a big issue. If the finals are taking longer
due to more talking and less playing then they may not end up playing
more cards anyway.
> I suppose there are other counterarguments to deal with, but I think
> that's the main one to overcome.
I imagine that the only other issue is the practicality around hiring
venues for another 30 minutes etc... Without wanting to generalise,
VtES players don't seem that great at getting up early in the morning,
but aside from that hopefully 30 minutes would be OK to add in most
cases.
Simon
>
> I think the Australians generally play an extra 30 minutes in the
> final which seems a reasonable compromise between having a time limit
> and taking into account practical considerations around venue hire and
> playing for many hours etc...
>
Not in Sydney. We play 2 hour finals.
Chris.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Although I agree with you that perhaps building your decks for a 2
hour game isnt that great an argument, I think it's basically valid.
Your counterargument doesn't really hold, imo.
You build a deck for a 2 hour, 5 person game.
If timelimit was 1 hour, or you'd play a tournament that aims for 4
people tables, your deck should look different than in the situation
above.
So whereas deviation from the 5 person game is limited to a minimum,
perhaps deviation from the 2 hour limit should also be avoided.
It's a different game, with a different time limit. I'm sure we can
agree on that. That people play finals differently (assumed they do
so) doesnt mean the game should be changed to compensate.
I don't see the need, anyway. I've got plenty of timeouts on regular
tables as well, I don't think final tables are that much different,
just that the timeout result there is more notable and less
fulfilling.
If you want to fix how much games time out, I don't think only looking
at finals is the answer.
I think making a set like Lords of the Night is the answer. ;)
Cheers,
B
bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I really don't understand why sub-par players constantly complain
>> about the fact that the first-place finalist doesn't have to oust
>> anyone to win, with all all of them are sitting at the table not
>> ousting their preys. He is given the advantage because he deserves
>> it!>
> I'll close with re-iterating: you've got a point. But it's not an
> open and shut case, and the sub-par thing was just asking for a fight
> (and, lord knows, if there's one thing I can't stand, it's fighting on
> the internet). ;)
I believe it to be a true statement that when a player complains about
what I said and enables the things I said he enables, then yes, he has now
become a sub-par player.
If you believe that a player who allows this utter stupidity in the finals
to take place is the same quality of player as when he went in, then I
guess we have such different definitions of all the relevant gaming terms
that I don't know how to continue the conversation.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:>> The tournament rules aren't flawed. They reward people
>> for being top seed. They reward people for playing to win
>> games. They reward people for playing to win the tournament.>> He doesn't need to try and win. He just needs to try and
> stall the game out. Which many find to be dubious theory.
Stalling is illegal.
Care to try again?
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sep 24, 1:29 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
It's (unfortunately) like that old adage: Stealing is not illegal.
Till you get caught.....
And (even more unfortunately) because "dealmaking" is so complex, it
is quite often fat too easy to disguise stalling as delmaking. Which
leads quite often to timeouts. If there is no time limit (or an
arbitrarily large one) people no longer have a reason to have a DI
discussion for EVERY SINGLE FRIKKIN action. Which is very good!tm.
Alternatively, the 12th time you start a conversation with " I will no
DI..." you will just get tols, politely, to shut up.
On Sep 24, 4:56 am, Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote:
> You build a deck for a 2 hour, 5 person game.
> If timelimit was 1 hour, or you'd play a tournament that aims for 4
> people tables, your deck should look different than in the situation
> above.
I think a game that takes 12 turns to complete is, from a deck
construction point of view, exactly the same whether it takes 1 hour
or 12 hours to wind out. If you accept that people generally play
more slowly in the finals then the extra 30 minutes really has no
impact on deck construction.
--
David Cherryholmes
Blooded Sand escribió:
> On Sep 24, 1:29 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:>> Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>>>>> Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:>>>> The tournament rules aren't flawed. They reward people
>>>> for being top seed. They reward people for playing to win
>>>> games. They reward people for playing to win the tournament.>>> He doesn't need to try and win. He just needs to try and
>>> stall the game out. Which many find to be dubious theory.>> Stalling is illegal.
>>
>> Care to try again?>> It's (unfortunately) like that old adage: Stealing is not illegal.
> Till you get caught.....
>
> And (even more unfortunately) because "dealmaking" is so complex, it
> is quite often fat too easy to disguise stalling as delmaking. Which
> leads quite often to timeouts.
That is why judges are for. A judge can use his judgment to determine
wether a player is stalling or not.
> If there is no time limit (or an
> arbitrarily large one) people no longer have a reason to have a DI
> discussion for EVERY SINGLE FRIKKIN action. Which is very good!tm.
Illegal play is illegal regardless of the time limit. Besides, since
stalling does not only happen in final rounds, should the preliminary
rounds have no time limit too? :-P
> Alternatively, the 12th time you start a conversation with " I will no
> DI..." you will just get tols, politely, to shut up.
Sure, because you will have already been issued a warning or a game loss.
I have never seen a judge punish someone for stalling (when that player
was stalling). That may be the problem.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sep 24, 11:41 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> Illegal play is illegal regardless of the time limit. Besides, since
> stalling does not only happen in final rounds, should the preliminary
> rounds have no time limit too? :-P
Speaking as a judge, I'd really not be comfortable telling some player
"OK, those other guys before you got to work the table with their DI
talk, but now it's getting close to the end, so if you do it you're a
cheater."
Yes we have judgement, but none of us are psychic. If the rules
require us to act like we are, that's a problem with the rules.
But really, adding 30 minutes is already legal and costs practically
nothing. If some people are still opposed to that, I guess they just
like the finals the way they are.
--
David Cherryholmes
bluedevil escribió:
> On Sep 24, 11:41 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>>> Illegal play is illegal regardless of the time limit. Besides, since
>> stalling does not only happen in final rounds, should the preliminary
>> rounds have no time limit too? :-P>
> Speaking as a judge, I'd really not be comfortable telling some player
> "OK, those other guys before you got to work the table with their DI
> talk, but now it's getting close to the end, so if you do it you're a
> cheater."
That wouldn't be fair. An illegal behaviour is illegal wether it's at
the start of a game, or in the mid game, or in the end game.
> Yes we have judgement, but none of us are psychic. If the rules
> require us to act like we are, that's a problem with the rules.
A judge can detect when a player is stalling, not because he is psychic,
but because of the judge's experience. And remember that a judge does
not need to prove a player is stalling to determine he or she is stalling.
[...]
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sep 24, 8:46 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> bluedevil escribió:
>
> > On Sep 24, 11:41 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>
> >> Illegal play is illegal regardless of the time limit. Besides, since
> >> stalling does not only happen in final rounds, should the preliminary
> >> rounds have no time limit too? :-P
>
> > Speaking as a judge, I'd really not be comfortable telling some player
> > "OK, those other guys before you got to work the table with their DI
> > talk, but now it's getting close to the end, so if you do it you're a
> > cheater."
>
> That wouldn't be fair. An illegal behaviour is illegal wether it's at
> the start of a game, or in the mid game, or in the end game.
Okay, D, seeing as your going on like this, I'm gonna play devils
advocate for a while. Where is it illegal for me to threaten to DI
each and every single card anyone plays? Constantly? And then trying
to deal in the situation? Is this legal?
Because if it IS legal, then I can and will do this for every card
played, if i am top seed. And the judge cannot rule that I am stalling
as I am earnestly, and honestly using what assets I have available to
try to dealmake. If you think I am stalling, that is your opinion, but
you have no (and here's the clincher) PROOF. If you start handing out
warnings every time I threaten to DI, things will get very ugly, very
quickly. So as you cannot prove I am stalling, and as I can do this
indefinitely, as long as a time limit makes it work in my favour, I
will.
>
> > Yes we have judgement, but none of us are psychic. If the rules
> > require us to act like we are, that's a problem with the rules.
>
> A judge can detect when a player is stalling, not because he is psychic,
> but because of the judge's experience. And remember that a judge does
> not need to prove a player is stalling to determine he or she is stalling.
So let me get this straight? You are at some arbitrary point just
going to say "You are stalling" and start handing out warnings?
Without maybe even vaguely worrying about there being some kind of
negative feedback over you breaking into the players attempt to win?
because if the player lets the action go without gaining benefit from
it, he is NOT playing to win. Thus he is playing illegally, and should
be warned. So which way is it?
Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in
news:fd90j2$udr$1...@registered.motzarella.org:
> bluedevil escribió:>> On Sep 24, 11:41 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>>>>> Illegal play is illegal regardless of the time limit. Besides, since
>>> stalling does not only happen in final rounds, should the
>>> preliminary rounds have no time limit too? :-P>>
>> Speaking as a judge, I'd really not be comfortable telling some
>> player "OK, those other guys before you got to work the table with
>> their DI talk, but now it's getting close to the end, so if you do it
>> you're a cheater.">
> That wouldn't be fair. An illegal behaviour is illegal wether it's at
> the start of a game, or in the mid game, or in the end game.
>
This ignores the fact that iterative small uses of time can later on in
the game be decided to be evidence that the time used is not legitimate.
The earlier instances may be decided to be illegal in retrospect, but
that determination is impossible until the iterative behavior is
observed.
>>> Yes we have judgement, but none of us are psychic. If the rules
>> require us to act like we are, that's a problem with the rules.>
> A judge can detect when a player is stalling, not because he is
> psychic, but because of the judge's experience.
What experience is that..?
> And remember that a
> judge does not need to prove a player is stalling to determine he or
> she is stalling.
>
Without further judge training and examples of what is or is not
legitimate, "using one's judgement" will lead to inconsistent application
of this section of the rules. We can do better.
DZ
AW
On Sep 24, 9:46 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> A judge can detect when a player is stalling, not because he is psychic,
> but because of the judge's experience.
As a tournament judge with lots of tournaments under my belt... that'd
be a firm, resounding "no". Maybe I'm just a crap judge, but still:
"no".
Why? Because what happens is that certain players interrupt most
actions in the game with "hey, let's make a deal, I might have a DI"
gobbledegook. It's the way they play. When they want to stall, they
just do it more, and try to stretch out the "dealmaking". How are you,
as a judge, supposed to say "play A is valid tactical play" but "play
B is stalling"? The stalling player will just say that since it's a
final round, he has to do everything he can to get deals that are
favorable for him, and claim it's playing to win. It's one huge grey
area. Maybe you'd be fine with drawing some arbitrary line there, but
I'm not.
Removing time limits / stretching them out seems to work very well, so
I don't need to draw that line. If someone were to try to timeout a
game round that can potentially stretch out for 3-4 hours, they'd have
to be so completely blatant about it that a warning would be easy to
give.
With the current 2-hour limit, it's just too easy to just gabble a bit
more in the guise of "tactics", and stall the game out, while still
avoiding judge warnings (because they are so very very hard to call in
these cases). See the latest EC final rounds for one example.
//Petri
On Sep 24, 9:59 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, D, seeing as your going on like this, I'm gonna play devils
> advocate for a while. Where is it illegal for me to threaten to DI
> each and every single card anyone plays? Constantly? And then trying
> to deal in the situation? Is this legal?
Exactly... and this is precisely the behavior you see nowadays (in the
EC, at least), all too often.
//Petri
"atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:Xns99B5A1B86E...@207.115.17.102...
> Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in
> news:fd90j2$udr$1...@registered.motzarella.org:
>>> bluedevil escribió:>>> On Sep 24, 11:41 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Illegal play is illegal regardless of the time limit. Besides, since
>>>> stalling does not only happen in final rounds, should the
>>>> preliminary rounds have no time limit too? :-P>>>
>>> Speaking as a judge, I'd really not be comfortable telling some
>>> player "OK, those other guys before you got to work the table with
>>> their DI talk, but now it's getting close to the end, so if you do it
>>> you're a cheater.">>
>> That wouldn't be fair. An illegal behaviour is illegal wether it's at
>> the start of a game, or in the mid game, or in the end game.
>>>
> This ignores the fact that iterative small uses of time can later on in
> the game be decided to be evidence that the time used is not legitimate.
> The earlier instances may be decided to be illegal in retrospect, but
> that determination is impossible until the iterative behavior is
> observed.
OK. So when a judge determines that iterative behaviour is happening he will
have to punish the offender and add extra time to the game.
>>> Yes we have judgement, but none of us are psychic. If the rules
>>> require us to act like we are, that's a problem with the rules.>>
>> A judge can detect when a player is stalling, not because he is
>> psychic, but because of the judge's experience.>
> What experience is that..?
The games he or she has played and the games he or she has watched.
>> And remember that a
>> judge does not need to prove a player is stalling to determine he or
>> she is stalling.
>>>
> Without further judge training and examples of what is or is not
> legitimate, "using one's judgement" will lead to inconsistent application
> of this section of the rules. We can do better.
Inconsistent? Why?
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Petri Wessman" <or...@orava.org> escribió en el mensaje
news:1190665366.7...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 24, 9:46 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:>> A judge can detect when a player is stalling, not because he is psychic,
>> but because of the judge's experience.>
> As a tournament judge with lots of tournaments under my belt... that'd
> be a firm, resounding "no". Maybe I'm just a crap judge, but still:
> "no".
>
> Why? Because what happens is that certain players interrupt most
> actions in the game with "hey, let's make a deal, I might have a DI"
> gobbledegook. It's the way they play. When they want to stall, they
> just do it more, and try to stretch out the "dealmaking". How are you,
> as a judge, supposed to say "play A is valid tactical play" but "play
> B is stalling"?
You have already determined how. You just said that "they just do it more".
You already said in another post that you have detected such a behaviour in
other tournaments (such as the European Championships). And you may have
determined (as an spectator) that a given player was stalling.
And, as a judge, you have to judge.
> The stalling player will just say that since it's a
> final round, he has to do everything he can to get deals that are
> favorable for him, and claim it's playing to win.
And you were born yesterday, huh? ;-)
> It's one huge grey area. Maybe you'd be fine with drawing some arbitrary
> line there, but
> I'm not.
The "arbitrary" line is the judge being fair? Haven't you ever considered
someone to be stalling?
> Removing time limits / stretching them out seems to work very well, so
> I don't need to draw that line.
According to your reasoning, preliminary rounds should have no time limits
either.
> If someone were to try to timeout a
> game round that can potentially stretch out for 3-4 hours, they'd have
> to be so completely blatant about it that a warning would be easy to
> give.
Afraid to trust your judgment? :-)
> With the current 2-hour limit, it's just too easy to just gabble a bit
> more in the guise of "tactics", and stall the game out, while still
> avoiding judge warnings (because they are so very very hard to call in
> these cases).
If it is so easy as you say why don't most final rounds time out?
> See the latest EC final rounds for one example.
Sure. Glad to I see that you also detected stalling behaviours in those
finals ;-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:1190660351....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 24, 8:46 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>> bluedevil escribió:
>>
>> > On Sep 24, 11:41 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Illegal play is illegal regardless of the time limit. Besides, since
>> >> stalling does not only happen in final rounds, should the preliminary
>> >> rounds have no time limit too? :-P
>>
>> > Speaking as a judge, I'd really not be comfortable telling some player
>> > "OK, those other guys before you got to work the table with their DI
>> > talk, but now it's getting close to the end, so if you do it you're a
>> > cheater."
>>
>> That wouldn't be fair. An illegal behaviour is illegal wether it's at
>> the start of a game, or in the mid game, or in the end game.>
> Okay, D, seeing as your going on like this, I'm gonna play devils
> advocate for a while. Where is it illegal for me to threaten to DI
> each and every single card anyone plays? Constantly? And then trying
> to deal in the situation? Is this legal?
It depends.
It may be legal if it is bad play (i.e., you think that you can win the game
by uselessly threatening other players, and you do not realize that you are
wasting time and that the top seed player will benefit from your bad play).
It may be illegal if you are trying to stall the game with your threats.
> Because if it IS legal, then I can and will do this for every card
> played, if i am top seed. And the judge cannot rule that I am stalling
> as I am earnestly, and honestly using what assets I have available to
> try to dealmake. If you think I am stalling, that is your opinion, but
> you have no (and here's the clincher) PROOF.
A judge needs no proof to make a ruling.
> If you start handing out
> warnings every time I threaten to DI, things will get very ugly, very
> quickly. So as you cannot prove I am stalling, and as I can do this
> indefinitely, as long as a time limit makes it work in my favour, I
> will.
See above.
>> > Yes we have judgement, but none of us are psychic. If the rules
>> > require us to act like we are, that's a problem with the rules.
>>
>> A judge can detect when a player is stalling, not because he is psychic,
>> but because of the judge's experience. And remember that a judge does
>> not need to prove a player is stalling to determine he or she is
>> stalling.>
> So let me get this straight? You are at some arbitrary point just
> going to say "You are stalling" and start handing out warnings?
> Without maybe even vaguely worrying about there being some kind of
> negative feedback over you breaking into the players attempt to win?
> because if the player lets the action go without gaining benefit from
> it, he is NOT playing to win. Thus he is playing illegally, and should
> be warned. So which way is it?
A judge should worry about all that and make a ruling he considers to be
fair, since he is the judge and his job is to judge.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <veNJi.106649$Vk6....@newsfe07.phx>,
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Stalling is illegal.
>
> Care to try again?
Oh, Kevin. You know full well that by "trying to stall the game out", I
mean "trying to engineer a situation where no one gets ousted before
time runs out through table management and deal making, both of which
take up a great deal of time without actually advancing the game state
and aren't "stalling" in and of themselves".
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sep 24, 4:58 pm, "Damnans" <bele...@ono.com> wrote:
> The "arbitrary" line is the judge being fair? Haven't you ever considered
> someone to be stalling?
Yes, when the clock was running out, one player was set to win if it
did, it was down to a 2-way, and he just sat there staring at his
cards. That's my personal judgy threshold for *maybe* calling
something stalling. But I would not be comfortable saying that
someone attempting to leverage a deal is doing it, as long as other
players are paying attention and considering it (you're always free to
ignore somebody else's table talk and just play your cards).
--
David Cherryholmes
On Sep 24, 6:26 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I really don't understand why sub-par players constantly complain
> >> about the fact that the first-place finalist doesn't have to oust
> >> anyone to win, with all all of them are sitting at the table not
> >> ousting their preys. He is given the advantage because he deserves
> >> it!
>
> > I'll close with re-iterating: you've got a point. But it's not an
> > open and shut case, and the sub-par thing was just asking for a fight
> > (and, lord knows, if there's one thing I can't stand, it's fighting on
> > the internet). ;)
>
> I believe it to be a true statement that when a player complains about
> what I said and enables the things I said he enables, then yes, he has now
> become a sub-par player.
>
> If you believe that a player who allows this utter stupidity in the finals
> to take place is the same quality of player as when he went in, then I
> guess we have such different definitions of all the relevant gaming terms
> that I don't know how to continue the conversation.
>
"I would rather lose the NAC than break a deal"- Ira Fay
Now, either this is the single most convincing thing to tell your prey
so that he won't back rush you, or there is something significantly
wrong with final rounds and the deals that go on in those final
rounds.
Kevin, who was Ira's grand prey, had my sympathy in the NAC Finals.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Blooded Sand wrote:
> On Sep 24, 8:46 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:>> bluedevil escribió:
>>>>> On Sep 24, 11:41 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:>>>> Illegal play is illegal regardless of the time limit. Besides, since
>>>> stalling does not only happen in final rounds, should the preliminary
>>>> rounds have no time limit too? :-P>>> Speaking as a judge, I'd really not be comfortable telling some player
>>> "OK, those other guys before you got to work the table with their DI
>>> talk, but now it's getting close to the end, so if you do it you're a
>>> cheater.">> That wouldn't be fair. An illegal behaviour is illegal wether it's at
>> the start of a game, or in the mid game, or in the end game.>
> Okay, D, seeing as your going on like this, I'm gonna play devils
> advocate for a while. Where is it illegal for me to threaten to DI
> each and every single card anyone plays? Constantly? And then trying
> to deal in the situation? Is this legal?
If it is stalling, as the overly-brief description given seems to indicate, then
yes, it is illegal.
"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1190682788.2...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> "I would rather lose the NAC than break a deal"- Ira Fay
Heh! The art for the card, "From a Sinking Ship" should picture Ira
holding cards.
Those who say they don't break deals make it really hard for those
of us who really don't.
Fred
Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:>> Stalling is illegal.
>>
>> Care to try again?>
> Oh, Kevin. You know full well that by "trying to stall the game out",
> I mean "trying to engineer a situation where no one gets ousted before
> time runs out through table management and deal making, both of which
> take up a great deal of time without actually advancing the game state
> and aren't "stalling" in and of themselves".
No Peter, I didn't know that, or else I wouldn't have wasted my time with
asking you to try again.
Perhaps an examination of your post for possible ambiguities before
sending is in order? I know from experience that it helps me avoid
possible issues with my prose. =)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote:
> I have never seen a judge punish someone for stalling
> (when that player was stalling). That may be the problem.
At Origins http://www.originsgames.com when players ask me (as the judge)
come over to consider a player who they think is stalling, I tell the
player that I am going to just stop the clock while he takes his turns.
That usually stops the problem, when that (probably) stalling player sees
that I am serious about negating his stalling.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sep 24, 11:58 pm, "Damnans" <bele...@ono.com> wrote:
> You already said in another post that you have detected such a behaviour in
> other tournaments (such as the European Championships). And you may have
> determined (as an spectator) that a given player was stalling.
Fair enough. Thing is, though, that behaviour like that isn't always
all that easy to detect in the beginning, it's only toward the endgame
that it starts to become obvious (partly in retrospect).
*shrug* I just find that running tournament finals without time limits
helps avoid the whole problem, and does not force me as a judge to
make fuzzy value judgements on things like this unless they become
really, really blatant. Sure, you're right in that it's the judge's
responsibility to call things like this... but you'll also agree that
there's a lot of grey area here, and judging it is a lot harder than
dealing with rules disputes, timing issues or what have you.
Whatever works for you, do it. I know how I prefer to run my
tournaments, especially since removing strict time limits for the
final round is quite allowed by current tournament rules and requires
no changes as such.
//Petri
"Petri Wessman" <or...@orava.org> escribió en el mensaje
news:1190707090.6...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 24, 11:58 pm, "Damnans" <bele...@ono.com> wrote:>> You already said in another post that you have detected such a behaviour
>> in
>> other tournaments (such as the European Championships). And you may have
>> determined (as an spectator) that a given player was stalling.>
> Fair enough. Thing is, though, that behaviour like that isn't always
> all that easy to detect in the beginning, it's only toward the endgame
> that it starts to become obvious (partly in retrospect).
You know that in such a case a judge can add extra time to the current game.
> *shrug* I just find that running tournament finals without time limits
> helps avoid the whole problem, and does not force me as a judge to
> make fuzzy value judgements on things like this unless they become
> really, really blatant.
You also know that finals without time limits are different games and aren't
necessarily fair for decks that are conceived to win in two hours.
> Sure, you're right in that it's the judge's
> responsibility to call things like this... but you'll also agree that
> there's a lot of grey area here, and judging it is a lot harder than
> dealing with rules disputes, timing issues or what have you.
Or VP deals?
A Judge has to make rulings, regardless of how hard it is.
[...]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Damnans wrote:
> You also know that finals without time limits are different games and aren't
> necessarily fair for decks that are conceived to win in two hours.
Being part of the rules, it is perfectly fair.
Decks designed with a blind spot (to, say, longer finals) are legal to build,
and will reap the rewards.
On Sep 25, 5:54 am, "Damnans" <bele...@ono.com> wrote:
> You also know that finals without time limits are different games and aren't
> necessarily fair for decks that are conceived to win in two hours.
Turns matter, ticks of the clock don't. An arbitrarily long final
*may* have more turns, but it seems much more likely that it will just
have the same number of turns resolved at a slower pace. It's almost
certainly true for a 2.5 hour final.
--
David Cherryholmes
On Sep 25, 12:09 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> At Originshttp://www.originsgames.comwhen players ask me (as the judge)> come over to consider a player who they think is stalling, I tell the
> player that I am going to just stop the clock while he takes his turns.
> That usually stops the problem, when that (probably) stalling player sees
> that I am serious about negating his stalling.
So your solution for stalling players is to lengthen the final? What
were we arguing about again?
--
David Cherryholmes
"Damnans" <bel...@ono.com> wrote in
news:fd96je$r2j$1...@registered.motzarella.org:
>
> "atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:Xns99B5A1B86E...@207.115.17.102...>> Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in
>> news:fd90j2$udr$1...@registered.motzarella.org:>>> A judge can detect when a player is stalling, not because he is>>> psychic, but because of the judge's experience.>>
>> What experience is that..?>
> The games he or she has played and the games he or she has watched.
>>>> And remember that a
>>> judge does not need to prove a player is stalling to determine he or
>>> she is stalling.
>>>>>
>> Without further judge training and examples of what is or is not
>> legitimate, "using one's judgement" will lead to inconsistent
>> application of this section of the rules. We can do better.>
> Inconsistent? Why?
>
Two reasons spring to mind.
1) you cite experience as a main motivator for how a judge uses his
judgement. If so, different experiences can easily (inevitably?) lead to
different judgements. The judge who has less experience with table talk
might not catch on to the incremental time use mentioned above until much
later than another judge. The resulting variation in the timing of a
penalty can have a big impact on the game; does the infraction get
penalized on the sixth instance of time use? The twelfth? If its left
to the judge's opinion, you must agree that each judge will likely havea
different answer to the same situation. Hence, inconsistent.
Same holds true for deal-making, decklist checks, etc. It really boils
down to "experience" is the same as "using one's judgement" is the same
as "opinion", and as we all know, opinions are as varied as snowflakes.
Indeed, your goading of Petri further down-thread is just an indication
that he has a different opinion of when its appropriate to judge, and
when it is not. In that sense, by saying there are no grounds for making
a judgement, and you are disagreeing with his particular "use of
judgement". You're being inconsistent, Damnans. :-)
2) Lack of training and examples of implementation. Even with 1, above,
we might overcome the issue by having _something_ in the way of training
and real examples recorded somewhere for judges to refer to, and get a
better insight into when and how the rules should be implemented on
nebulous topics such as time use and deal making. We don't, and what's
more, when a judge does rule on these topics, its pretty hotly debate,
_exactly because_ there are currently no grounds _other_ than opinion
upon which to base a ruling...
[ quoted text not captured ]
bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1190721762.8...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
> Turns matter, ticks of the clock don't. An arbitrarily long final
> *may* have more turns, but it seems much more likely that it will just
> have the same number of turns resolved at a slower pace. It's almost
> certainly true for a 2.5 hour final.
>
He speaks the truth. To whit, the NAC 3 hour final was 13 turns long (Dave
Tatu was tracking it..) one turn more than what is considered the average.
Discussions ensued about the possibility/plausibility of a turn-based game
limit...
DZ
AW
[ quoted text not captured ]
"considered average" without any substantive data (maybe a sampling of a few
games from one or two playgroups), if I recall correctly.
And is the average for a standard game equal to the average for championship
finals? I doubt it.
And some of Una's turns went very long mechanically, of course. Skewing the
conclusions that can be drawn from that game.
On 25 Sep, 14:00, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
That sounds pretty good to me - Like Mr Cherry I dont think its really
possible to design decks for 2 hour games specifically, due to the
large number of variables in v:tes and general randomness etc. Its
certainly possible to design decks for 12 rounds though - and
hopefully the standard 2 hr rounds will hit tht mark ish anyway. THen
we all know where we stand - COOL.
ant
What with all the talking about finals timing out and whatnot, remind
me again why do we need seedings for anything other than letting
players choose their spot according to their preliminary results.
Which already is quite strong incentive to play well in preliminary
rounds, yes?
Should the finals end up in a 2-2-1 situation, I believe there are
already Tournament Points which may be used as a tie-breaker. Which
come from preliminary rounds.*
Beyond allowing some people to artfully dodge the concept of "Prey
must die!", what are seedings needed for?
*Yeah, if seedings are removed, TP's might become the next "seedings"
then. How about a simple "Last man standing wins" as a tie-breaker?
"atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99B65DADAA...@207.115.33.102...
[ quoted text not captured ]
...which would miss the whole point of a tournament game limit: limiting
time.
Fred
On Sep 25, 9:07 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> atomweaver wrote:
> > bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote in> >news:1190721762.8...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> Turns matter, ticks of the clock don't. An arbitrarily long final
> >> *may* have more turns, but it seems much more likely that it will just
> >> have the same number of turns resolved at a slower pace. It's almost
> >> certainly true for a 2.5 hour final.
>
> > He speaks the truth. To whit, the NAC 3 hour final was 13 turns long (Dave
> > Tatu was tracking it..) one turn more than what is considered the average.
> > Discussions ensued about the possibility/plausibility of a turn-based game
> > limit...
>
> "considered average" without any substantive data (maybe a sampling of a few
> games from one or two playgroups), if I recall correctly.
>
> And is the average for a standard game equal to the average for championship
> finals? I doubt it.
IIRC, David Tatu's started keeping some statistics from the EC (and
maybe before), and made the claim that none of the games he recorded
(which I think included the finals of the LCQ, Day 1 and Day 2) took
longer than 12 turns to complete. He also keeps telling us things like
"there's a 50/50 chance someone dies on turn 8, and someone's almost
always dead by the end of turn 9".
Of course, he'll have to go to a lot more tournaments to gather even
more data before it's statistically meaningful, but I'm sure he won't
complain about that too much.
witness1
Oko wrote:
> What with all the talking about finals timing out and whatnot, remind
> me again why do we need seedings for anything other than letting
> players choose their spot according to their preliminary results.
To break ties.
> Which already is quite strong incentive to play well in preliminary
> rounds, yes?
>
> Should the finals end up in a 2-2-1 situation, I believe there are
> already Tournament Points which may be used as a tie-breaker. Which
> come from preliminary rounds.*
Why drop all the way to TPs from the preliminary rounds?
Why not use GWs from the prelims as the first tie-breaker instead?
> Beyond allowing some people to artfully dodge the concept of "Prey
> must die!", what are seedings needed for?
To break ties.
> *Yeah, if seedings are removed, TP's might become the next "seedings"
> then. How about a simple "Last man standing wins" as a tie-breaker?
That doesn't help for the 1.5 - 1.5 - 1 finish (time-out).
Or the 2 - 2 - 1 finish where the last action starts with 1 - 1 - 0 and ousts
all three remaining Methuselahs simultaneously. (Yeah, not a big probability,
but the rules need to handle it).
On Sep 25, 9:07 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> "considered average" without any substantive data (maybe a sampling of a few
> games from one or two playgroups), if I recall correctly.
>
> And is the average for a standard game equal to the average for championship
> finals? I doubt it.
>
> And some of Una's turns went very long mechanically, of course. Skewing the
> conclusions that can be drawn from that game.
I'm OK with resting my argument on the observation that final rounds
tend to be played more slowly than preliminary rounds. I get the same
conclusion, regardless of what value you want to plug in for "average
turns". And my assertion that time, in and of itself, doesn't alter
the game state is similarly unaffected.
--
David Cherryholmes
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in
news:GV7Ki.1878$HL6...@newsfe06.phx:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Naah. It'd still do that, only indirectly.
DZ
AW
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
news:yK7Ki.51836$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net:
> atomweaver wrote:>> bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1190721762.8...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>>>>> Turns matter, ticks of the clock don't. An arbitrarily long final
>>> *may* have more turns, but it seems much more likely that it will
>>> just have the same number of turns resolved at a slower pace. It's
>>> almost certainly true for a 2.5 hour final.
>>>>> He speaks the truth. To whit, the NAC 3 hour final was 13 turns long
>> (Dave Tatu was tracking it..) one turn more than what is considered
>> the average. Discussions ensued about the possibility/plausibility
>> of a turn-based game limit...>
> "considered average" without any substantive data
Good thing "considered average" isn't a quantitative statement, then...
> (maybe a sampling of
> a few games from one or two playgroups), if I recall correctly.
>
Dave Tatu and Derek Ray tracked game length in Atlanta for some sixty odd
games, and at one point when they talked about it, I started keeping a
mental count myself. 10-15 rounds accounts for ~90% of the games I've
played, and 12 is a reasonable estimate of the median. *shrug* Did I
write it all in a lab notebook and have a second party sign off on the
data? No, but then "12 average turns" remains consistent with most
player's experiences, for those who have bothered to track it and talk
about it here...
DZ
AW
On Sep 25, 12:54 pm, "Damnans" <bele...@ono.com> wrote:
> You also know that finals without time limits are different games and aren't
> necessarily fair for decks that are conceived to win in two hours.
Umm, what?
There's nothing in the rules (tournament or otherwise) about the game
being played for 2 hours, then stop. It's just a tournament
convention.
If you optimize your "delay, delay, then do something at last moment"
deck to 2 hours, then that's *your* problem. Not the judge's, or
anyone else's.
That's a completely bogus argument.
//Petri
atomweaver escribió:
[ quoted text not captured ]
OK, so you agree that an experienced judge can be more inconsistent than
an unexperienced one, don't you?
Besides, before the start of a tournament, the head judge could explain
his or her judging criteria for that event.
> Same holds true for deal-making, decklist checks, etc.
Or rules questions.
> It really boils
> down to "experience" is the same as "using one's judgement" is the same
> as "opinion", and as we all know, opinions are as varied as snowflakes.
> Indeed, your goading of Petri further down-thread is just an indication
> that he has a different opinion of when its appropriate to judge, and
> when it is not. In that sense, by saying there are no grounds for making
> a judgement, and you are disagreeing with his particular "use of
> judgement". You're being inconsistent, Damnans. :-)
You wish >:)
Please, answer these questions:
When is a player stalling? How can a judge detect that?
> 2) Lack of training and examples of implementation. Even with 1, above,
> we might overcome the issue by having _something_ in the way of training
> and real examples recorded somewhere for judges to refer to, and get a
> better insight into when and how the rules should be implemented on
> nebulous topics such as time use and deal making. We don't, and what's
> more, when a judge does rule on these topics, its pretty hotly debate,
> _exactly because_ there are currently no grounds _other_ than opinion
> upon which to base a ruling...
I agree that the existence of real examples recorded somewhere for
judges to refer to is a good idea, but I do not think, as you say, that
determining wether or not a player is stalling is just a matter of
opinion for an experienced judge/player.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Petri Wessman escribió:
> On Sep 25, 12:54 pm, "Damnans" <bele...@ono.com> wrote:>> You also know that finals without time limits are different games and aren't
>> necessarily fair for decks that are conceived to win in two hours.>
> Umm, what?
>
> There's nothing in the rules (tournament or otherwise) about the game
> being played for 2 hours, then stop. It's just a tournament
> convention.
"3.1.1. Round Time Limits
Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit
used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced
before play begins. The final round may last longer than the preliminary
rounds, at the judge's option."
> If you optimize your "delay, delay, then do something at last moment"
> deck to 2 hours, then that's *your* problem. Not the judge's, or
> anyone else's.
That's not what I meant. That's a strategy like any other to win a game
regardless of the deck you are playing in many cases.
I meant that players build their decks to win games in 2 hours (or X
turns), since preliminary rounds have a 2 hour limit 99.99% of the time.
Beyond that period of time, some decks may have exhausted their library,
for instance.
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnanshttp://www.vtes.nethttp://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)
On Sep 25, 6:27 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> I meant that players build their decks to win games in 2 hours (or X
> turns), since preliminary rounds have a 2 hour limit 99.99% of the time.
>
> Beyond that period of time, some decks may have exhausted their library,
> for instance.
As noted elsewhere, it's more a factor of rounds played than time. But
yeah, some decks may run out of cards if the round length is
effectively unlimited (determining it to be 10 hours, for instance,
means "unlimited" in practice). That's a *good* thing. I have no
interest in encouraging decks that win by depending on table timeouts.
Your deck should be able to play the game to its natural conclusion.
It means that there is a price in trying to build ultra-compact, ultra-
optimized decks, with that price being "I may run out of cards".
That's the way it plays out in casual games, and I see absolutely no
reason why that somehow should not be a factor in tournament deck
design.
Frankly, the more *unfriendly* I can make my tournaments to the "only
play 60-card decks constructed by someone else, and interrupt every
action with table talk" crowd, as exemplified by certain players at
the EC, the happier I'll be... because I really, really dislike that
type of play. You obviously *like* that sort of thing, and have no
problem with stalling as a valid tactic, so your mileage will vary and
you will obviously run your tournaments in a different manner. That's
great. That's the latitude that running tournaments gives you. You get
to (try to) encourage play that you like, as long as you follow the
tournament rules in doing so.
//Petri
To be clear: Damnans, I hear what you're saying and actually agree
with parts of it. What I'm saying is that running the final round as
(effectively) unlimited by time has worked very well *for us*, during
that 10+ years I've been running big and small tournaments. Sure,
sometimes I need to set a limit because of real-life timetable issues,
but gamewise the no-limit style has worked very well with no real
drawbacks. It's popular with the players, and I like it too.
Now, partly that may be due to the Finnish metagame, which anyway
emphasises "play.the.game!" mentality and doesn't do the endless
tabletalk thing that central European gamers tend to go for. It might
well be that it would fail miserably in other contexts. I don't know.
It works for us, it might work for others. Will it solve all the
problems? Of course not.
Will it hurt players who optimize their decks to win in precisely 2
hours? Sure, a bit. Will it hurt players who just copy an old
tournament deck from the TWD archive and play that? Possibly. Thing
is, I don't see either of those as good things, so hurting them is
actually a bonus as far as I'm concerned :)
//Petri
Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in
news:fdb8k5$6ug$1...@registered.motzarella.org:
> atomweaver escribió:>> "Damnans" <bel...@ono.com> wrote in
>> news:fd96je$r2j$1...@registered.motzarella.org:
>>>>> "atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
>>> news:Xns99B5A1B86E...@207.115.17.102...>>>> Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in
>>>> news:fd90j2$udr$1...@registered.motzarella.org:>>>>>>> A judge can detect when a player is stalling, not because he is
>>>>> psychic, but because of the judge's experience.>>>> What experience is that..?>>> The games he or she has played and the games he or she has watched.
>>>>>>>> And remember that a
>>>>> judge does not need to prove a player is stalling to determine he
>>>>> or she is stalling.
>>>>>>>>> Without further judge training and examples of what is or is not
>>>> legitimate, "using one's judgement" will lead to inconsistent
>>>> application of this section of the rules. We can do better.>>> Inconsistent? Why?
>>>>>
>> Two reasons spring to mind.
>> 1) you cite experience as a main motivator for how a judge uses his
>> judgement. If so, different experiences can easily (inevitably?)
>> lead to different judgements. The judge who has less experience with
>> table talk might not catch on to the incremental time use mentioned
>> above until much later than another judge. The resulting variation
>> in the timing of a penalty can have a big impact on the game; does
>> the infraction get penalized on the sixth instance of time use? The
>> twelfth? If its left to the judge's opinion, you must agree that
>> each judge will likely havea different answer to the same situation.
>> Hence, inconsistent.>
>
> OK, so you agree that an experienced judge can be more inconsistent
> than an unexperienced one, don't you?
>
You may be confused. I'm talking about consistency of rulings, from one
judge to another, not the internal consistency with which a particular
judge rules....
> Besides, before the start of a tournament, the head judge could
> explain his or her judging criteria for that event.
>
..? There isn't enough time to cover all nuances of the various rules
before each tournament. The Judge should be too busy checking deck
contents against decklists ;-)
>>> Same holds true for deal-making, decklist checks, etc.>
> Or rules questions.
>>> It really boils
>> down to "experience" is the same as "using one's judgement" is the
>> same as "opinion", and as we all know, opinions are as varied as
>> snowflakes. Indeed, your goading of Petri further down-thread is
>> just an indication that he has a different opinion of when its
>> appropriate to judge, and when it is not. In that sense, by saying
>> there are no grounds for making a judgement, and you are disagreeing
>> with his particular "use of judgement". You're being inconsistent,
>> Damnans. :-)>
> You wish >:)
>
> Please, answer these questions:
>
> When is a player stalling? How can a judge detect that?
>
Using my judgement, I am of the opinion that you have not provided me
with enough information to render a decision.
>> 2) Lack of training and examples of implementation. Even with 1,
>> above, we might overcome the issue by having _something_ in the way
>> of training and real examples recorded somewhere for judges to refer
>> to, and get a better insight into when and how the rules should be
>> implemented on nebulous topics such as time use and deal making. We
>> don't, and what's more, when a judge does rule on these topics, its
>> pretty hotly debate, _exactly because_ there are currently no grounds
>> _other_ than opinion upon which to base a ruling...>
> I agree that the existence of real examples recorded somewhere for
> judges to refer to is a good idea, but I do not think, as you say,
> that determining wether or not a player is stalling is just a matter
> of opinion for an experienced judge/player.
>
Your words, Damnans, not mine...
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
"atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns99B662D08C...@207.115.33.102...
> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in
> news:GV7Ki.1878$HL6...@newsfe06.phx:
>>> "atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns99B65DADAA...@207.115.33.102...>>> bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:1190721762.8...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>> Turns matter, ticks of the clock don't. An arbitrarily long final
>>>> *may* have more turns, but it seems much more likely that it will
>>>> just have the same number of turns resolved at a slower pace. It's
>>>> almost certainly true for a 2.5 hour final.
>>>>>>> He speaks the truth. To whit, the NAC 3 hour final was 13 turns long
>>> (Dave Tatu was tracking it..) one turn more than what is considered
>>> the average. Discussions ensued about the possibility/plausibility of
>>> a turn-based game limit...>>
>> ...which would miss the whole point of a tournament game limit:
>> limiting time.
>>> Naah. It'd still do that, only indirectly.
Huh?!? "Indirectly"? As in, it wouldn't. I don't care that it caps
the length of a game and thus has some limitation on the time. In a
tournament, you need a "direct" cap on time - if you insist on using
those semantics. Where we have two hour time limits, it's because we
need games to be resolved in two hours or less. Not because we need
some warm feeling inside that tells us the game will get over at some
point. Like I said, a turn limit on games would miss the point.
Fred
"Petri Wessman" <or...@orava.org> escribió en el mensaje
news:1190735880.9...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 25, 6:27 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:>> I meant that players build their decks to win games in 2 hours (or X
>> turns), since preliminary rounds have a 2 hour limit 99.99% of the time.
>>
>> Beyond that period of time, some decks may have exhausted their library,
>> for instance.>
[...]
> Your deck should be able to play the game to its natural conclusion.
Sure. Which, in a tournament environment, should happen in two hours (at
least during the preliminary rounds).
[...]
>
> Frankly, the more *unfriendly* I can make my tournaments to the "only
> play 60-card decks constructed by someone else, and interrupt every
> action with table talk" crowd, as exemplified by certain players at
> the EC, the happier I'll be... because I really, really dislike that
> type of play. You obviously *like* that sort of thing, and have no
> problem with stalling as a valid tactic,
Come on, Petri! You have seen me play. Anyone who has seen me play can say
that I hate that type of play.
> so your mileage will vary and
> you will obviously run your tournaments in a different manner. That's
> great. That's the latitude that running tournaments gives you. You get
> to (try to) encourage play that you like, as long as you follow the
> tournament rules in doing so.
You assume too much :-). I always encourage players to play to win (i.e., to
play get the game win), and to avoid useless table talk, and to not waste
time.
You played a game with my brother (who shares my views on this matter) at
the same table as Olivier in Gothenburg, didn't you? :-)
And, BTW, our 2 hour finals seldom time out (2 out of 7 timed out this
year).
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sep 25, 6:33 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote innews:fdb8k5$6ug$1...@registered.motzarella.org:
[...]
> > Besides, before the start of a tournament, the head judge could
> > explain his or her judging criteria for that event.
>
> ..? There isn't enough time to cover all nuances of the various rules
> before each tournament. The Judge should be too busy checking deck
> contents against decklists ;-)
Heh. Those judging criteria could be posted somewhere before the date
of the tournament, for instance, and be used for subsequent
tournaments :-)
[...]
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 25 syys, 16:24, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Oko wrote:
> > What with all the talking about finals timing out and whatnot, remind
> > me again why do we need seedings for anything other than letting
> > players choose their spot according to their preliminary results.
>
> To break ties.
>
> > Which already is quite strong incentive to play well in preliminary
> > rounds, yes?
>
> > Should the finals end up in a 2-2-1 situation, I believe there are
> > already Tournament Points which may be used as a tie-breaker. Which
> > come from preliminary rounds.*
>
> Why drop all the way to TPs from the preliminary rounds?
> Why not use GWs from the prelims as the first tie-breaker instead?
>
> > Beyond allowing some people to artfully dodge the concept of "Prey
> > must die!", what are seedings needed for?
>
> To break ties.
>
> > *Yeah, if seedings are removed, TP's might become the next "seedings"
> > then. How about a simple "Last man standing wins" as a tie-breaker?
>
> That doesn't help for the 1.5 - 1.5 - 1 finish (time-out).
>
> Or the 2 - 2 - 1 finish where the last action starts with 1 - 1 - 0 and ousts
> all three remaining Methuselahs simultaneously. (Yeah, not a big probability,
> but the rules need to handle it).
Thanks.
You're right, the LMS-rule is not a solution, even if time-out's can
be prevented.
Now, if tiebreakers we're removed altogether, the problem would
change.
Which is the worse problem; "Solving" time-out's in finals, or
creating a system with a way of defining the winner without
tiebreakers?
Oko wrote:
> Now, if tiebreakers [were] removed altogether, the problem would
> change.
Yes. The problem of not having a winner is non-trivial.
> Which is the worse problem; "Solving" time-out's in finals, or
> creating a system with a way of defining the winner without
> tiebreakers?
That would depend on the way of defining the winner without resorting to
tiebreakers.
I think any method of determining a winner from among a group of players tied on
Victory Points constitutes a "tie-breaker", though, so I'm having trouble
guessing what you're angling for.
Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in
news:1190742980.2...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 25, 6:33 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote:>> Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote
>> innews:fdb8k5$6ug$1...@registered.motzarella.org:> [...]
>>> > Besides, before the start of a tournament, the head judge could
>> > explain his or her judging criteria for that event.
>>
>> ..? There isn't enough time to cover all nuances of the various
>> rules before each tournament. The Judge should be too busy checking
>> deck contents against decklists ;-)>
> Heh. Those judging criteria could be posted somewhere before the date
> of the tournament, for instance, and be used for subsequent
> tournaments :-)
>
Yaah, that was kind of my point; to train/educate judges more, such that
pore-tournament announcements like that are unnecessary, since judges would
then be ruling against what their training and the examples suggest is
appropriate, rather than what their personal opinion would lead them to.
DZ
AW
[ quoted text not captured ]
I have no solution to my aforementioned problem.
My angle is; Which nut is harder to crack?
Discussion on not how to solve final's timing out (which seems already
well under way), but rather on how to find a winner without resorting
to a tie-breaker.
I'm having hard time thinking of anything myself which wouldn't in the
end be a tie-breaker and thus, the cause of the original problem.
I do not know if there is such a method already existing for single
sports / games. Coin toss, I do not see as an option. Although, it
could quite likely have the effect I'm looking for here. Incentive to
end the game via ousting of 4 players. The cointoss coiuld also have
an adverse effect in alienating players due to it being inherently
"unfair".
If there is a way to remove the tie-breaker from the process of
determining the winner, need to stall would become obsolete, no longer
being a method of PlayToWin.
On Sep 25, 1:56 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> Heh. Those judging criteria could be posted somewhere before the date
> of the tournament, for instance, and be used for subsequent
> tournaments :-)
I think I get the joke. Didn't you post some judging guidelines
before a qualifer once? And didn't it generate an Ector-esque thread?
I consider it a Gordian Knot approach to render the whole thing moot,
by making timeouts not a path to victory.
--
David Cherryholmes
On Sep 25, 1:41 pm, "Damnans" <bele...@ono.com> wrote:
> And, BTW, our 2 hour finals seldom time out (2 out of 7 timed out this
> year).
"2/7 == seldom" is a debatable proposition. In fact, I declare it
false.
--
David Cherryholmes
On Sep 25, 10:20 pm, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 1:56 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>
> > Heh. Those judging criteria could be posted somewhere before the date
> > of the tournament, for instance, and be used for subsequent
> > tournaments :-)
>
> I think I get the joke. Didn't you post some judging guidelines
> before a qualifer once?
Yes, for the European Championship held in Barcelona in 2003.
> And didn't it generate an Ector-esque thread?
Yes. It generated some good inputs, and some irrational comments.
> I consider it a Gordian Knot approach to render the whole thing moot,
> by making timeouts not a path to victory.
Since there has to be a time limit for final rounds, and there has to
be a winner, there will be times where timeouts will be a path to
victory, so we will have to deal with them.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 06:23:28 -0700, witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
> IIRC, David Tatu's started keeping some statistics from the EC (and
> maybe before), and made the claim that none of the games he recorded
> (which I think included the finals of the LCQ, Day 1 and Day 2) took
> longer than 12 turns to complete. He also keeps telling us things like
> "there's a 50/50 chance someone dies on turn 8, and someone's almost
> always dead by the end of turn 9".
Under the current tournament rules it is not possible to have a "round
limit" instead of (or in addition to) the time limit, right?
If I'm saying that "each round has a 15-round span limit" or that "the
final round has a 15-round span limit" then I'm by default talking
about a non-sanctioned event, right?
--
Regards,
Daneel
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:38:44 GMT, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Dave Tatu and Derek Ray tracked game length in Atlanta for some sixty odd
> games, and at one point when they talked about it, I started keeping a
> mental count myself. 10-15 rounds accounts for ~90% of the games I've
> played, and 12 is a reasonable estimate of the median. *shrug* Did I
> write it all in a lab notebook and have a second party sign off on the
> data? No, but then "12 average turns" remains consistent with most
> player's experiences, for those who have bothered to track it and talk
> about it here...
Timed games tend to be shorter because they don't reach the conclusions
they would reach were they untimed. I'd say untimed games last 10-15
rounds, but timed games last fewer (off the top of my hat, say, 9-13
rounds).
--
Regards,
Daneel
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 09:36:56 +0200, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote:
>>> In VTES there are many strategies to victory. In real VTES games time
>>> out sometimes (which is fine). Time is a strategic factor. And in real
>>> VTES players should adapt their way of playing (their strategy) to the
>>> context of the current game.>>
>> Hey Damnans, you sound like a Swiss, whereas I was convinced you were
>> Spanish... :)>
> He, he... Care to elaborate? Sounding like a Swiss may have many
> implications :) But if you refer to their ability to waste time in the
> finals, I can't sound like a Swiss, since I never do that (in fact, I am
> against that).
No, I didn't mean to imply any disrespect... Simply the methodical
approach,
that tries to account for all factors, is quite what I'm hearing from
these
Academy students. Which is cool in a sense, but which - to me - takes away
some of the "fun" (I'm not even sure I should use this word in this
context...).
As for the chat and stall angle, I'm not going to accuse you of either,
having
played against you and having watched you in a finals I'm pretty sure that
you're not the kind of guy who plays for time-outs. Now that I'm
mentioning
it, though, I do recall both games eventually timing out... :-)
Maybe in your subconscious you desire time-outs, as a sort of
self-punishment?
For what crimes, I'm afraid to ponder... ;)
--
Regards,
Daneel
On Sep 25, 5:13 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 06:23:28 -0700, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net>[ quoted text not captured ]
Correct. It's also still somewhat infeasible to have a turn limit and
not an actual time limit, because people need to be able to catch
planes, get sleep, etc.
My point was only that statistical data of this sort can and has been
gathered, though not necessarily on a scale large enough to provide
solid conclusions.
witness1
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:58:19 +0200, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote:
> I could do that kind of research for tournaments held in Spain this
> year, for instance (it would take time though :D ). Or I could just do
> that research for the tournaments organized by the Hispanic Conclave
> (the Spanish VTES Association) in the last 4 years (since I have all the
> Archons of those tournaments).
>
> These would be some of the questions that this kind of research would
> answer:
>
> 1. How many final rounds timed out with no ousts?
> 2. How many final rounds timed out with any ousts?
> 3. How often did the top seed win a timed-out final?
> 4. Etc.
>
> It would also be interesting to see if there is any difference between
> final rounds of major tournaments (such as National Championships,
> Continental Qualifiers and Continental Championships) and final rounds
> of regular tournaments.
If you ever do this kind of research (I'm guessing it would be quite some
work) then please don't hesitate to share the results. If we manage to
get a sizeable population we might start to draw some conclusions (or at
least have some data to quote when we get back to this discussion... :)
After the next major tournament finals time out...).
--
Regards,
Daneel
On Sep 25, 5:17 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:38:44 GMT, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com>[ quoted text not captured ]
I don't have them in front of me, but I believe David's statistics
suggested that games that timed out followed the same general patterns
as games that didn't, such as:
by the end of turn 8, there is roughly a 50% chance that someone will
be ousted
by the end of turn 9, there is a 90+% chance that someone will be
ousted
The only major difference was that players took more time to take
their turns.
witness1
On Sep 25, 8:41 pm, "Damnans" <bele...@ono.com> wrote:
> Come on, Petri! You have seen me play. Anyone who has seen me play can say
> that I hate that type of play.
...
> You played a game with my brother (who shares my views on this matter) at
> the same table as Olivier in Gothenburg, didn't you? :-)
Yeah, I have seen you play and played with your brother, and yes, you
both seemed to play very well (imho) and in a style I liked -- I have
absolutely no problems with you guys personally, quite the
opposite :). I was just basing my comment on what you've said in this
thread, where it *seems* that you're saying both a) stalling for a
timeout is a valid tactic and b) the game rules are fine as they are
(i.e. 2-hour time limits, etc). So maybe there's some miscommunication
here :)
Anyway, my intention was to talk generally, not to focus on you (or
anyone else specific) as a judge.
//Petri
On Sep 25, 4:35 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> > And didn't it generate an Ector-esque thread?
>
> Yes. It generated some good inputs, and some irrational comments.
By Ector-esque I meant that people were calling the guidelines too
harsh, too serious for our "fun" game. I'm not saying they were or
they weren't, but it reminded me of a lot of the heat Ector takes
these days.
> Since there has to be a time limit for final rounds, and there has to
> be a winner, there will be times where timeouts will be a path to
> victory, so we will have to deal with them.
Sure, but we could also take steps to minimize how often they happen.
And I would dispute that there *has* to be a winner, but I don't think
that position has much popular support. And actually, the finals
don't *have* to be untimed either. I point you to some actual final
somewhere that wasn't timed as proof.
--
David Cherryholmes
On Sep 26, 4:28 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> The results of that research can be found here:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/d612...
1/8th of all finals timing out is a pretty tolerable number. If this
turned out to be the norm, I'd drop my point. I'm kind of surprised
the number is this low, though.
--
David Cherryholmes
Petri Wessman escribió:
> On Sep 25, 8:41 pm, "Damnans" <bele...@ono.com> wrote:>> Come on, Petri! You have seen me play. Anyone who has seen me play can say
>> that I hate that type of play.> ...>> You played a game with my brother (who shares my views on this matter) at
>> the same table as Olivier in Gothenburg, didn't you? :-)>
> Yeah, I have seen you play and played with your brother, and yes, you
> both seemed to play very well (imho) and in a style I liked -- I have
> absolutely no problems with you guys personally, quite the
> opposite :). I was just basing my comment on what you've said in this
> thread, where it *seems* that you're saying both a) stalling for a
> timeout is a valid tactic and b) the game rules are fine as they are
> (i.e. 2-hour time limits, etc). So maybe there's some miscommunication> here :)[...]
I am against a) and, therefore, I do not think it is valid.
What is valid is time to be a strategic factor to exploit, given the
chance (not to stall, but to win the game).
An example of this will make my point more clear:
As you know, the final round of the Camarilla Conclave timed out and I
won, but not because I was stalling, but because I knew that my predator
would not be able to oust me before time limit; and I knew that my
grandpredator (playing imbued) would not move to oust my predator, since
there was a Break the Code in play, and both my predator and I could
send all his imbued to the hospital :-); and I also knew that my
grandprey (who was playing Toreador vote) would not be able to oust the
imbued. So I chose to oust my prey when no one else could have enough
time to react and take the tournament win from me.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Daneel escribió:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 09:36:56 +0200, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote:
>>>>> In VTES there are many strategies to victory. In real VTES games time
>>>> out sometimes (which is fine). Time is a strategic factor. And in real
>>>> VTES players should adapt their way of playing (their strategy) to the
>>>> context of the current game.>>>
>>> Hey Damnans, you sound like a Swiss, whereas I was convinced you were
>>> Spanish... :)>>
>> He, he... Care to elaborate? Sounding like a Swiss may have many
>> implications :) But if you refer to their ability to waste time in the
>> finals, I can't sound like a Swiss, since I never do that (in fact, I
>> am against that).
[...]
>
> As for the chat and stall angle, I'm not going to accuse you of either,
> having
> played against you and having watched you in a finals I'm pretty sure that
> you're not the kind of guy who plays for time-outs. Now that I'm
> mentioning
> it, though, I do recall both games eventually timing out... :-)
>
> Maybe in your subconscious you desire time-outs, as a sort of
> self-punishment?
> For what crimes, I'm afraid to ponder... ;)
Oh, mighty Nergal! Why hast Thou forsaken me?! :'(
[ quoted text not captured ]
bluedevil escribió:
> On Sep 25, 4:38 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>>> Whatever :-P>
> I accept your surrender.
I concede that I used "seldom" wrong :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think what you mean is a pre-determined tiebreaker.
Anything which decides a winner in case of a tie, is a tie-breaker.
Say, as an example, in case of a timeout in a final round and VPs
being a tie, the person who's dealt the most pool damage to his prey
wins.
Or.. the person who's gained the most pool from the edge, wins.
Something like that, right?
Cheers.
B