Tired of Ferenci.

Yes, I have to protest energically against that guy. Stefan is : - European Champion - victor of sunday's Italian Qualifier - quite a nice guy - often expressing opinions identical to mine one this here forum - a very, very good player - gonna have his face on a card ; unfortunately not a Daugher of Cacophony as he had wished - and did I mention he was a nice guy ? This is quite irritating, isn't it ?! Fortunately, he notoriously lacks body coordination, and spills his stuff all over the floor when he stumbles in his steps. And contrarily to me and me three circle-mates, he has too much hair to be a Blood Brother. Nobody can be perfect, can they ? ;-) BTW, Stephan, you shouldn't have wished us a good road, or should have done it more enthusiastically : our car broke on a very dangerous turn on the highway from Parma, and we had a horrible night / morning. But this week-end was great, and I particularly enjoyed playing / talking with you. That and seeing again all my italian, spanish and other (where is Attila from again ?) friends. But I maintain that the Finals deal should never, NEVER have been allowed. No matter : as soon as Stefan opened his mouth, everyone was mongolized... Kind of Kamel in a more discreet version... ;-)) Can't wait for Heidelbergh. ----------------- Orpheus "We can never know of what we are the seeds Until we flower." Lilith

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:41588b6e$0$13137$636a...@news.free.fr... > BTW, Stephan, you shouldn't have wished us a good road, or should have done > it more enthusiastically : our car broke on a very dangerous turn on the > highway from Parma, and we had a horrible night / morning. what happened out there ? =) [...] > No matter : as soon as Stefan opened his mouth, everyone was mongolized... I doubt that non francophone can grasp what "mongolized" means ;)

> > BTW, Stephan, you shouldn't have wished us a good road, or should have > done > > it more enthusiastically : our car broke on a very dangerous turn on the > > highway from Parma, and we had a horrible night / morning. > > what happened out there ? =) You sure you wish to know ? > [...] > > No matter : as soon as Stefan opened his mouth, everyone was mongolized... > > I doubt that non francophone can grasp what "mongolized" means ;) Well, you understood, didn't you ? ;-) You only fooled the french customs, you know, but not Us... I think "trisomicised" would maybe appeal* to more people ? *(Ben or M, as you wish) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:41588ec2$0$18890$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net... > > "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> a écrit dans le message de > news:41588b6e$0$13137$636a...@news.free.fr... > > > BTW, Stephan, you shouldn't have wished us a good road, or should have > done > > it more enthusiastically : our car broke on a very dangerous turn on the > > highway from Parma, and we had a horrible night / morning. > > what happened out there ? =) yeah! tell us. > > [...] > > No matter : as soon as Stefan opened his mouth, everyone was mongolized... > > I doubt that non francophone can grasp what "mongolized" means ;) > Hey, i understand it. And I'm not French ;)

> > > BTW, Stephan, you shouldn't have wished us a good road, or should have > > done > > > it more enthusiastically : our car broke on a very dangerous turn on the > > > highway from Parma, and we had a horrible night / morning. > > > > what happened out there ? =) > > yeah! tell us. Well, nothing much if you don't live it : - the car broke on a most long and dangerous and sloppy curve of the Parma highway. We tried to push and shove, both ways, it wouldn't start again. - a very nice italian, would you believe it : stopped his car, called for help, gave us advice and left when he was sure everything would be ok ! - after much waiting in the cold, a not-so-nice italian came not to take a look and help us start as we had hoped, but just lift the car out of the (not info) highway. He was very unpolite, like we shouldn't have woken him at 2 A.M. ; well he earned 120 ? in less than one hour, waking and dressing included, and the government will never know it, so he should at least have been a little more agreeable... Then he said he would just put the car there and wait until 8 o'clock becaus ehe didn't work outside "office hours". Asshole. - we called the father of a friend (not the car owner), who decided to come "rescue" us (4 hours trip). We didn't want to start again alone and tired even if we could, because if it stopped once it could do it again. - We slept in the car and in the cold 4 hours. - the father arrived at 6, and we started the car without problem. Just in case we bought a new battery but didn't need it. - after a while we didn't even need to stay close to the other car : some of us had to work ! Synesios arrived late for his. Lucs' father made it so after much worry and James Bond driving (thought we would get crushed by that bus when it pulled away from that colossal truck and we went fast forward anyway...) I made it in time for the bus next to the one I missed. I arrived in Marseille at 1:20 P.M., at my home at 1:35, ate a bit, fed the cat, changed my shirt (no time for a shower) and was at work at 2. And I'll pass the details about not being sure the bus would have a place for me, not having a correct ticket I could get refunded if I missed it, etc. See : nothing much to tell... ;-) -- ----------------- [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> escribió en el mensaje news:41588fbc$0$13153$636a...@news.free.fr... > > > BTW, Stephan, you shouldn't have wished us a good road, or should have > > done > > > it more enthusiastically : our car broke on a very dangerous turn on the > > > highway from Parma, and we had a horrible night / morning. > > > > what happened out there ? =) > > You sure you wish to know ? Yes, I wish to know, since the Italy by Night forum is in flames (which makes me quite confortable, BTW >:-D ) but nobody dares to explain what happened in the final round. Greetings, Damnans [...]

> > You sure you wish to know ? > > Yes, I wish to know, since the Italy by Night forum is in flames (which > makes me quite confortable, BTW >:-D ) but nobody dares to explain > what happened in the final round. Got any link ? What happened, I'll tell my PoV later. But IMHO and all the respect I have for Andrea put aside, he accepted a losing deal which was validated. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> escribió en el mensaje news:41590e5b$0$1499$636a...@news.free.fr... > > > You sure you wish to know ? > > > > Yes, I wish to know, since the Italy by Night forum is in flames (which > > makes me quite confortable, BTW >:-D ) but nobody dares to explain > > what happened in the final round. > > Got any link ? Yes. Here: http://www.italybynight.org/bbforum/index.php Click on "Eventi". > What happened, I'll tell my PoV later. But IMHO and all the respect I have > for Andrea put aside, he accepted a losing deal which was validated. Ok. I'll have to wait >:-) Greetings, Damnans

Actually, i was judging the final but, having to come back to Rome (which is 450km or so away) i was forced to leave upon 6th turn of the final round, so i can give you an accurate report of what happened later, that is, a very questionable deal that split the table 3 - 1- 1 for Stephan, Andrea Ravera and the french player Sebastien. The Head judge Federico deemed that deal legal, so with the vast majoirity of the witnessing players disappoint, final endend almost with no play, just with a table split deal. greets EMiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Actually, i was judging the final but, > having to come back to Rome (which is 450km or so away) > i was forced to leave upon 6th turn of the final round, > so i can give you an accurate report of what happened I mean here i "can't give", sorry for the typing errror :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

It seem to me that you all had a very "postmodern" night. :-) (this is undestandable by few persons, sorry) I'm sorry that you had a trubleled return. I hope that the turnament was good enought to reduce the discomfort. by the way I want to tell to our guest from other country that I'm very sorry for have "destroied" your names with my pronunciation during the table seat assignment. :-( Thanks to all for your patience. ciao and thanks Stefano "Walt" Calzighetti Prince of Pordenone, specker and Ravnos Judge at the Italian Qualifier :-) "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:<4159097a$0$1502$636a...@news.free.fr>... [ quoted text not captured ]

Very post-modern night indeed !! ;-) My version of what happened in the finals : Andrea's B52 deck was the biggest obvious threat at the table. His prey wanted, understandably, to chance places. Stefan didn't want Andrea as predator before he was established, so he influenced the whole table (mainly Sébastien) towards not voting for it "yet". The discussion took about 15 minutes for nothing. Anyway the next time the vote was called the Giovanni had a Delaying... Now for the deal : The B52 killed his first prey. Then he stops at Stefan's "wall", which includes 3 minions at the time, while Andrea has 8, then 11. Andrea's hand is then almost all-red, including Dodges and, I think, Fake Outs. No Master, I think no Computer Hack at the time. Andrea thinks he has no chance. The judge agrees. A few turns later Andrea has 13 minions, as opposed to Stefan's 4, which proves that he had a chance to win, if only in waiting. Arguments against : "yes but if Stefan hadn't destroyed Arika, Sébastien would have killed Andrea". Wrong. The voter had no votes, and could only bleed for 3, and then 4 when he got Maris Streck out. Andrea had a deflection in hand for quite a long time, later got a Tribute to the Master, never was quite low on pool... He had all the time he needed. The Giovanni didn't play at all. I saw one of Le Din Tho's actions to discard from Sébastien : he saw, among other : 2 Deflections, 1 Archon Investigation, and no Wake. He had two other ready minions (one with +1 bleed). What would YOU have done ? Well, he discarded a Deflect, instead of the Archon and 2 massive bleeds !! All because of the fear of his Tzimisce predator ?! Come on, you play GIOVANNI !! How many Eagle Sight do you think a guy with 3 minions, among whom only 2 with AUS, can play in a turn ? What are Seduction and Call of the Hungry Dead for when your prey is tapped with no Wake ? And even if you were really unlucky and your prey got back a Wake / Second Trad or an Archon, isn't it worth trying ? Andrea, with all his combat in hand, could be "afraid" of only two things : - Carrion Crows ; Stefan didn't play any, there wasn't any in his discard, and Sébastien had already played against him - Manoeuver / aggropock / Rötshit. Come on, how many weenies would have gone into torpor ? How many Röts can you play in a turn ? What does it matter if you "lose one or two weenies a turn when it means bleeding for 6-8 without modifier each turn and getting new minions for 1 pool (two including the "pay one to see one) every two turns at worse ? The truth is : Stefan is a brain-eating zombie. He was the only one thinking straight at the table, maybe with the exception of his first and late predator (who unfortunately didn't speak english well enough to convince anyone). To really be able to do at least once what people thought he could do, Stefan should have had : - At least 1 Eagle's Sight ; probably 2 - 1 Röt - 2 maneuver / Agg - Wakes, preferably lots of - Intercept for blocking votes or +1 stealth Giovanni bleeds When I looked Stefan had about 5 blue cards. Not a lot left to hurt anyone anymore. How many cards can anyone have in hand ? What kind of player could resist all the table against him ? Not Andrea. Not Stefan. Maybe not even both together. So in my witnessing eyes : Andrea could have talken some risks and would probably have killed his prey (at least chances were he could, so he should have been obligated to) before Arika could do any damage ; The Giovanni could have put a lot of pressure on HIS prey and probably killed her ; Stefan had no means at that point of making any VP except by dealing things no one should ever have accepted ; seeing the seating, his state of sleepiness and the way he came out library-wise, Séb had no chance at all. But Stefan was very good in talking and won. The deal should never have been validated. The judge didn't even look at the cemetaries or libraries of the players. Sure, he didn't have to make any indications, but he should have said : "there is a chance, however slight, that you kill your prey by yourself, and then you could be able to make more VPs. So : optimize !!". One other thing : I think translations shouldn't happen at such a table : not by other present players, not by judges, not by willing witnesses like me. I may like it or not but english being the official language, speaking it fluently, at least in game terms, is a part of knowing how to play the game internationally, so the only translations should be explanations on the working of cards, rules, erratas. Nothing else. But I may be wrong on that account. One thing I'm sure of : the "normal" results should have read : Table between Andrea and the Giovanni. Handshakes for the rest. Now it's also what I like about this game : what you have in hand and on the table is only a small fraction of what you can do. Congratulations again to Stefan. [ quoted text not captured ]

> a very questionable deal that split the table 3 - 1- 1 for Stephan, Andrea Ravera and the french player > Sebastien. Can someone explain me how the hell a table split deal could happen during a final??? That make no sense to me and that's ruining the game (and the fun) of the players not being part of the deal. JPh

> [...] > > No matter : as soon as Stefan opened his mouth, everyone was mongolized... > > I doubt that non francophone can grasp what "mongolized" means ;) You can include brazilians in the mix. I suspect "mongol" means the same in Portuguese. ;) Fabio Sooner Brazilian NC laughing for minutes like Beavis (or Butthead?) after reading the word "mongolized"

> It seem to me that you all had a very "postmodern" night. :-) > (this is undestandable by few persons, sorry) Yeah... :-) > I'm sorry that you had a trubleled return. I hope that the turnament > was good enought to reduce the discomfort. It was. We all had a great time. > by the way I want to tell to our guest from other country that I'm > very sorry for have "destroied" your names with my pronunciation > during the table seat assignment. :-( Thanks to all for your > patience. LOL. We forgive you, though the slight would merit crucifixion... ;-) Me it was easy, I've got an italian name and anyway I'm better known as Orpheus. But some really suffered... > ciao and thanks > Stefano "Walt" Calzighetti Thanks to you Stefano. Ci vediamo. [ quoted text not captured ]

I don't think there *is* a fix for this problem in terms of changing rules. But it is a problem. IME, *most* finals are dealt to resolution, rather than being resolved by the play of cards. My personal choice is to avoid any lengthy trips to attend tournaments anymore for just this reason. It strikes me as largely a waste of time, although that's only a logical consequence of disliking such resolution; if you have no problem with Jyhad being much closer to Diplomacy than Magic, then for you there is no problem. But there is a solution. It involves the judges, using judgment. As a judge, the last thing I want to do is step in and start playing someone's game for them. The absolute last thing. However, nearly *every* game will come down to a situation where a player is about to be ousted by their predator, giving him the opportunity to eke out one last VP by becoming that predator's whore. IMO, this is a perversion of the basic predator-prey structure of the game. No, that relationship is not pristine in any case, but the scenario whereby the dominant player just sits back and unleashes his tool upon the table will suck the fun out of a game so fast that I think this particular scenario should be avoided as much as possible. As a judge, it is a fairly straightforward process to decide if either of the two parties involved have a *reasonable* chance at more VP's. As a judge, if one or more of the players at the table has chosen to put you in that position, then I think a lot of the guilt stemming from slapping them down is mitigated. Just my two cents.... this is a complicated, subtle, and subjective topic. -- David Cherryholmes

"Damnans" <bel...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<2rsgv4F...@uni-berlin.de>... > Yes, I wish to know, since the Italy by Night forum is in flames (which > makes me quite confortable, BTW >:-D ) but nobody dares to explain > what happened in the final round. > > Greetings, > Damnans > > [...] I was very tired and dumb and Stephan has mesmerized me... "gimme a turn and I can take care of the weenie"... and I've trusted him. I was not a good poker player... ;) I've wiped out in too much time (+3 turns) my first prey, and I've offered the pact before killing him. At this time I've only 6 vamps out and 9 or 10 pool. I was tired and afraid of crows & aggravated + rothscreck of my 2 prey and of Arika bleeds from my predator! STUPID COWARD BEHAVIOUR! But I was tired... 3 deflections in the deck are not sufficient to survive Arika... my prey was weak and nearly dead (the Malkavian) and I hope to have Stefan help to offer him the victory. So I decided to offer Stefan a 3-2 pact or something that permit me to be at least second.... ;) The necrobleeders of Mirko have not moved for all the game giving his prey time to build up and I think to kill me as soon as I've stessed enough my prey (second prey - Stefan) to assure him 2 easy points. From now on... a boring game. My fault: sorry! (ashamed) RavATwoFaces

>So I decided to offer Stefan a 3-2 pact or something that permit me to >be at least second.... But, why? Was the prize for second that much better than third? If it was, this would be part of the problem to me. If people want people to play for table wins, then the prizes should reflect that, which means minimizing or eliminating prizes for making the finals. I can't imagine it's for bragging rights. A chance of winning with real bragging rights versus "I came in second is some tournament" sounds pretty good. And, with 1 VP, you aren't going to do worse than 3rd, so it's not like you lose bragging rights by playing to win.

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2rt4gdF...@uni-berlin.de... > I don't think there *is* a fix for this problem in terms of > changing rules. But it is a problem. IME, *most* finals are > dealt to resolution, rather than being resolved by the play of > cards. My personal choice is to avoid any lengthy trips to > attend tournaments anymore for just this reason. It strikes me > as largely a waste of time, although that's only a logical > consequence of disliking such resolution; if you have no problem > with Jyhad being much closer to Diplomacy than Magic, then for > you there is no problem. One thing I feel would be helpful: get more damn OFFENSE back into the game. If people feel otherwise, I'd like to hear about it. But my observation about the game is that it's almost impossible to bring a quick-hitting deck to a good tournament and do well with it anymore. There's too many ways to effectively stave off defeat, if not to avoid being ousted in the end, at least to slow the aggressor down enough to bring the table down on his/her head. It often seems like a lot of the game nowadays is defense first and ousting power second. Good players hope to survive and hold on long enough to align the table against their prey and predator or to see an opening caused by someone else's bad play. I'm not saying I want to switch it completely around so that offense dominates. But I'd like to see more balance such that a fast deck can have some hope of getting the occasional sweep, even against really skilled players. Of course, the obvious way to do that is to enhance stealth-bleed decks. That would probably be bad. So I'm not sure exactly what I'm asking for here, I'll admit. Just some food for thought, I guess. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > One thing I feel would be helpful: get more damn OFFENSE back into > the game. If people feel otherwise, I'd like to hear about it. But > my observation about the game is that it's almost impossible to bring > a quick-hitting deck to a good tournament and do well with it > anymore. There's too many ways to effectively stave off defeat, > if not to avoid being ousted in the end, at least to slow the > aggressor down enough to bring the table down on his/her head. I think the problem transcends decktypes, but I don't have much more to add beyond that. > Of course, the obvious way to do that is to enhance stealth-bleed > decks. That would probably be bad. So I'm not sure exactly what > I'm asking for here, I'll admit. Just some food for thought, I > guess. Kindred Spirits bleed is still the single best deck in the game. Anyway, the problem persists even with, say, 2 KS decks, a dominate bleed deck, a weenie deck, and a Palle Grande embrace deck. I don't think it stems from lack of offense, although I can see that not having the tools to oust yourself would encourage even more of this kind of behavior. -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] Though subjective, i'm all with you: i agree completely with your analisys - I've judged so many games, and i'm seeying more and more and more deals ruining the spirit of competition of enitre tournaments, because the judge must be called with more and more frequency to say the last word on the outcome of an otherwise would be normal round of play. I asked already in the past a revision of the "rules" that regulate deals, this way the tournament enviroment is being fulled just with endless conversations, discussion and flames about evaluating the game state for deals rather than of effective play of cards. This is not good, IMHO just my two cents Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> a écrit dans le message de news:2rt4gdF...@uni-berlin.de... > However, nearly > *every* game will come down to a situation where a player is about to be > ousted by their predator, giving him the opportunity to eke out one last > VP by becoming that predator's whore. 2 possible answers : -the said player should just say "no, go rub yourself" and leave the table with his pride -accept the offer and immediatly backstab the predator for trying to manipulate him like a puppet. it's the jyhad, man =)

"Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:5Sh6d.18$mS1.0@fed1read05... > One thing I feel would be helpful: get more damn OFFENSE back into > the game. If people feel otherwise, I'd like to hear about it. But > my observation about the game is that it's almost impossible to bring > a quick-hitting deck to a good tournament and do well with it > anymore. usually, the more efficient your deck is, the more easily the table will gang up on you. playing agressive decks is now very very discouraged by the players attitude. Some guys still don't understand that cashing the first VP != making the table. so they'll use valuable resources (life boon, direct intervention, D.I.) to save a guy crosstable only to die miserably a few turns later, deprivating you of a VP. The most simple example i might point : a lot of recent tournament have been won by totally inefficient decks in term of raw ousting power. People whi win tend to play stupid bloat based around reunion kamut, perfectionnist/blood doll/hunt and such stuff. When others are fighting for victory and denying other players their hard earned VP's, they simply wait and put 4 or 5 bleeds for one at stealth to finish their prey, then often oustng the following prey on the following turn. I'd say that three or four years ago, those decks would have had absolutely no chance at all. Now that the metagame revolves around too much talk and too much retaliation against efficient decks, they have the time to build and win against all odds.

Reyda wrote: >> However, nearly >>*every* game will come down to a situation where a player is about to be >>ousted by their predator, giving him the opportunity to eke out one last >>VP by becoming that predator's whore. > 2 possible answers : > -the said player should just say "no, go rub yourself" and leave the table > with his pride I agree, but that's not really playing to maximize your VP. I have a followup to that, but it rests solely on a bunch of players making the "right" choice when there's no real consequence if they take the low road. My answer is this: you could also "maximize" your VP's by cheating. So, why don't you? Yeah, there's a rule against it, but I think even if there weren't, most players would realize that there's nothing riding on this game but the fun we have playing it. It isn't Magic, or Lord of the Rings, or Star Wars, or Yugio, or any of the other plethora of games where cash prizes can be awarded. Cheating is pointless, even if it would be trivial to get away with it. When was the last time someone counted your deck to ensure it was 90 cards? Crypt backs not tellingly mixed? We don't bother, in the main, because everyone understands that we've made the trip to come together to compete in good faith, have a good time, and proclaim one player the best of the day. When you turn the table into an omelette and sign up with Team Whore, sure... you've maximized some VP's. But at what cost? Everyone getting on the same page with their answers to this question is the only real answer I see to the scenario of "get one and roll", without radically altering the play to win rule (which I'm generally against, but would consider as a solution of last resort). > -accept the offer and immediatly backstab the predator for trying to > manipulate him like a puppet. it's the jyhad, man =) This would also be a good solution, but I just heard an unrelated story today on IRC about how people in this person's playgroup would scoop if someone breaks a deal. The metagaming for maximum advantage with "mah wurd is mah bond" is, I think, technically correct; you will gain more VP's in the long run by keeping deals than by breaking them, unless once again the majority of players get on the same page about what is an acceptible sacrifice to maintain the "fun" of the game. I know I just invoked "fun", and that this sets of bells in some player's heads. I'm all for competitive play, bring your filthiest, worst decks the lopsided rules we have will allow. But I draw the line, and think we'd all be better off if others drew the line, at choosing legal avenues that render, at the very least, integral aspects of the game irrelevant, and at worst, the entire card game itself irrelevant. Tipsy, sans spell checker, go easy, -- David Cherryholmes

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2rtop8F...@uni-berlin.de... > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > One thing I feel would be helpful: get more damn OFFENSE back > > into the game. If people feel otherwise, I'd like to hear about > > it. But my observation about the game is that it's almost > > impossible to bring a quick-hitting deck to a good tournament > > and do well with it anymore. There's too many ways to > > effectively stave off defeat, if not to avoid being ousted in > > the end, at least to slow the aggressor down enough to bring > > the table down on his/her head. > > I think the problem transcends decktypes, but I don't have much > more to add beyond that. Mmmm. Upon reflection, perhaps I'm missing the boat blaming the lack of offense. That may not be it...exactly. Thinking about it, it seems like what guys are doing can be abstracted down to: "Try to survive as long as possible and - if feasible - also try to fix any imbalances arising in the game that do not seem to be in your favor. Wait until something happens that seems to be collapsing the game in a way that IS to your benefit and jump on it." Sometimes what winds up happening can be the result of metagame issues. But a lot of other times, it's someone's incompetance that throws the game out of whack and causes it to start collapsing. At the point, the good players jump into gear and start trying to stave it off, move it along, or find a way to twist the results around (e.g. Dramatic Upheaval) to their favor as it collapses (depending on their specific options at that moment). How does that work as a description of reality? If it's reasonable, then this is all pretty entertaining as long as there _are_ "incompetant" players or less competant players or some kind of dynamic going that will eventually collapse the table. When there's not, you get five players endlessly negotiating to bring about SOME kind of result. But when everyone's fairly competant and no one's in a bad metagame position or anything - which in the finals of large, competitive tournaments seems pretty common - then the continual rebalancing that goes on and on starts becoming the rule. Players continually watch for threatening patterns forming in the play and immediately move to adjust anything they don't like. Since only one guy can actually win the game, at least three and sometimes four and sometimes even all five players are attempting at any given moment to stablize dynamics they fear will ultimately collapse the table in a way not to their liking. This makes for games that go nowhere over time - at least until the last 10 minutes when finally, everyone realizes that if nothing happens someone will win the tournament by default. Then something may happen. If all of this theorizing is correct, then the problem isn't *exactly* lack of offense in the game. Say that the problem is more along the lines of the game being too easy for players to rebalance and that there aren't enough aspects of the game that can cause involuntary collapse in a way third parties can't effect. I'm still not sure what a solution (that's not worse than the problem) would look like. Fred

> > If all of this theorizing is correct, then the problem isn't > *exactly* lack of offense in the game. Say that the problem is > more along the lines of the game being too easy for players to > rebalance and that there aren't enough aspects of the game that can > cause involuntary collapse in a way third parties can't effect. > Do you think it has something to do with the Game Win rule? I know I no longer build decks that can sweep partly because other players will jump all over you but also because you only really need game wins to make a final and not vps. The decks i build now are designed to get three vps. Why risk playing a highly offensive deck which will draw table wrath when you only need to secure three vps? I see a lot of table splitting deals between the strongest deck on the table and another one that can help it get three whilst giving the weaker one two. It's easier to win with help and after you have three you can do whatever you like. Two game wins and you're guaranteed to make the final, at least in our smallish tournaments (average 20 - 30 players). Chris.

> I'd say that three or four years ago, those decks would have had absolutely > no chance at all. Now that the metagame revolves around too much talk and > too much retaliation against efficient decks, they have the time to build > and win against all odds. So true. In two out of three rounds at the NAC the whole table ganged up against my stealth bleed, because S&B is "evil" and cheesy? The first of those ended in an "evil" timeout and the second was won by a as cheesy as my S&B Eurobrujah deck. That shows the current attitude : If the efficient deck seems to win rather give the win to someone else. That makes absolutely no sense to me. -- johannes walch

Orpheus wrote: > BTW, Stephan, you shouldn't have wished us a good road, or should have done > it more enthusiastically : our car broke on a very dangerous turn on the > highway from Parma, and we had a horrible night / morning. > i am sorry to hear that. but i was enthusiastically as i could be after i spent my overnight train trip, next to someone who snored like he had a gaspowered chainsaw equipped and whos feet smelled like foul blood and the prospect of a 7 hour car ride home (and i promised to drive, because i would sure be well rested after arriving by train) > But this week-end was great, and I particularly enjoyed playing / talking > with you. > yes, the tourney was great, as were the people and the location. playing the second round with you and talking afterwards to you, not only proved that you are a very funny and nice person, but also have tremendous knowledge and insight of V:teS. i really enjoyed meeting you and look forward seeing you at the ec. > That and seeing again all my italian, spanish and other (where is Attila > from again ?) friends. he is hungarian. > But I maintain that the Finals deal should never, NEVER have been allowed. i do not agree because rava was just afraid of my carrion crows and didn´t realize that i did not have any in my deck. what should the judge tell rava, go forward he can´t stop you i know his deck? i am still amazed that rava offered the deal, but on the other hand i think i had a shoot stopping him (4 minions a lot of wakes [11 in a 70 card deck] decent pool support (2 BD, HG, Palatial estate)) and tried to talk to others to not force me accepting the deal. but neither mirko nor sebastien responded. (i agree that the language was a problem here, thats why i encouraged translation to these two although its against my beliefs that that should be done at an international tournament). i wish no deals would have happend in the finals, but rava forced deals (threatening to offer a losing deal to sebastien) and the other players did not respond to my attempts breaking the dealmaking (all i asked mirko was to act forward and do something, no catch in this deal) > No matter : as soon as Stefan opened his mouth, everyone was mongolized... thats the foul breath of dragon > Kind of Kamel in a more discreet version... ;-)) > > Can't wait for Heidelbergh. > me too stefan

Jippi wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] thats what happens in 60% of alll v:tes finals. i agree that this is ruining the game, but if facing a deal, people should just start to act in order to prevent that deal from happening. offering alternatives to the dealmakers, etc stefan

Frederick Scott wrote: > "David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message > news:2rt4gdF...@uni-berlin.de... > >>I don't think there *is* a fix for this problem in terms of >>changing rules. But it is a problem. IME, *most* finals are >>dealt to resolution, rather than being resolved by the play of >>cards. My personal choice is to avoid any lengthy trips to >>attend tournaments anymore for just this reason. It strikes me >>as largely a waste of time, although that's only a logical >>consequence of disliking such resolution; if you have no problem >>with Jyhad being much closer to Diplomacy than Magic, then for >>you there is no problem. > > > One thing I feel would be helpful: get more damn OFFENSE back into > the game. Offense wins games, defense wins championships! > If people feel otherwise, I'd like to hear about it. But > my observation about the game is that it's almost impossible to bring > a quick-hitting deck to a good tournament and do well with it > anymore. There's too many ways to effectively stave off defeat, > if not to avoid being ousted in the end, at least to slow the > aggressor down enough to bring the table down on his/her head. thats the problem when playing a multiplayer game stefan

> Offense wins games, defense wins championships! From time to time I get the impression that you like football :-) -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] because neomalks are pure cheese and sleaze and eurobrujah fight, bleed and sometimes block, its more fun playing against a eurobrujah than against fast eddie. one has more chance fighting off a eurobrujah (little stealth) than a fast eddie deck, without having to play an intercept deck. neomalks are an annoyance with there allround the table bleed ability, with there speed imbalancing the table, removing everybodys chance for a gw and therefore have to be removed as soon as possible. stefan

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > thats what happens in 60% of alll v:tes finals. ... that you play in. It happens with much lower frequency in the tournament finals I see. (I decline to make up a statistic to support that opinion, however. :-) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In article <5a63bace.04092...@posting.google.com>, chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote: >Do you think it has something to do with the Game Win rule? I know I >no longer build decks that can sweep partly because other players will >jump all over you but also because you only really need game wins to >make a final and not vps. The decks i build now are designed to get >three vps. Why risk playing a highly offensive deck which will draw >table wrath when you only need to secure three vps? I see a lot of >table splitting deals between the strongest deck on the table and >another one that can help it get three whilst giving the weaker one >two. It's easier to win with help and after you have three you can do >whatever you like. Two game wins and you're guaranteed to make the >final, at least in our smallish tournaments (average 20 - 30 players). I think one possible solution would be to change the rule that says that you must get a GW if possible. The problem with this rule is that even when a player can possibly get a sweep, that player is still free to split the table and offer 1 or 2 VPs to someone else. The rules should force a player to always go for the maximum number of VPs possible. After all, I do think that getting extra VPs after a GW can change a lot of things (you might need those extra VPs to get into the finals, say). -- charles lechasseur - da...@novideospamtron.ca

"Charles Lechasseur" <da...@novideospamtron.ca> a écrit dans le message de news:danov-29090...@192.168.1.4... > The rules should force a > player to always go for the maximum number of VPs possible. After all, I > do think that getting extra VPs after a GW can change a lot of things (you > might need those extra VPs to get into the finals, say). thinking the same thing. reyda (who'd not touch the cake rather than eating the crumbles)

"Jippi" <J...@NOSPAM.at> wrote in message news:<41594563$0$8024$3b21...@aconews.univie.ac.at>... [ quoted text not captured ] In final rounds, being second or third make a difference. So when you are losing the game, and someone propose to you to be second, and not fifth rank, for example, it's better for you. (If you think that being second is being the first of the losers, like a guy told me some years ago, I simply don't want to play with you). Second : "ruining the game" : when I bleed to death a guy, I think I ruin his game. When I rush at sight his vamps, I ruin his game. So, your argument is not very accurately fitted to split table. Third: I'm not a clown (and I hope you're not one, if yes, all my demonstration could be thrown away). If some guys want to have fun with me, let's take a drink somewhere, and told funnies stories each other. In a final round of a sanctionned tournament, I think (but I can make a mistake) I have something else to do that create "fun" for the others dudes there. I make deals. And I think there are bad for the game. But, it's legal... So, we could try to find a solution, but please, jippi, use some really good arguments to support our position, not that ones. Kamel Senni, Prince of Paris.

LSJ wrote: > Stefan Ferenci wrote: > >> thats what happens in 60% of alll v:tes finals. > > > ... that you play in. > It happens with much lower frequency in the tournament finals I see. > (I decline to make up a statistic to support that opinion, however. :-) > i feel so misunderstood. i didn´t even want the deal in bologna. btw about the finals you see: 3 finals at gencon 2 with deals thats 66% (and my statistical power of this conclusion is around 5%) ;-)) stefan

Kamel SENNI wrote: > Second : "ruining the game" : when I bleed to death a guy, I think I > ruin his game. When I rush at sight his vamps, I ruin his game. So, > your argument is not very accurately fitted to split table. > Third: I'm not a clown (and I hope you're not one, if yes, all my > demonstration could be thrown away). If some guys want to have fun > with me, let's take a drink somewhere, and told funnies stories each > other. In a final round of a sanctionned tournament, I think (but I > can make a mistake) I have something else to do that create "fun" for > the others dudes there. > > I make deals. And I think there are bad for the game. But, it's > legal... > > So, we could try to find a solution, but please, jippi, use some > really good arguments to support our position, not that ones. > > Kamel Senni, > Prince of Paris. that was vintage kamel. great! i really enjoy your posts. stefan

Johannes Walch wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] TITANS TITANS AIR MAC NAIR NEEDS TO GET THAT FINAL YARD AND HIS WELL DESERVED SUPER BOWL RING. me liking football. maybe a little ;-))))) Stefan

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:415ac5a0$0$12130$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... [ quoted text not captured ] Every game has deals. I thought you were referring to the so-called "bad" deals (the ones that make the game "less enjoyable" to some. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

> Every game has deals. > I thought you were referring to the so-called "bad" deals (the > ones that make the game "less enjoyable" to some. > no i referred to deal in general stefan

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:415acc41$0$12130$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... [ quoted text not captured ] Then the 60% figure is still off. Every game has deals, even if it's just "I call a KRC." "Am I getting named?" "No." "Then I don't block." 100% [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de news:2s036uF...@uni-berlin.de... > Every game has deals, even if it's just "I call a KRC." "Am I > getting named?" "No." "Then I don't block." > > 100% come on : are you the only one not aware of what kind of deal we're talking about ?

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> a écrit dans le message de news:415ac8c2$0$12130$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... > Kamel SENNI wrote: (...) > > I make deals. And I think there are bad for the game. But, it's > > legal... > > > > So, we could try to find a solution, but please, jippi, use some > > really good arguments to support our position, not that ones. > > > > Kamel Senni, > > Prince of Paris. > > > that was vintage kamel. great! i really enjoy your posts. > > stefan the problem is : kamel does not make deals the way you may think. Each untap phase, he just consumes a hectoliter of saliva, trying to manipulate someone into doing something for him. even in the finals. he also stands up and go smoke a cigarette when he wants, especially when someone else is talking, because he would not hear anyone : only his own words are a blessing. He always get away with one vp because he's mimicking death on the third turn and he has beautiful tirades apparently took right away from "Les miserables". He will always find a good reason for you not to do this or that if it does not make if for his plan. He will *always* put the succubus club in play and give all his minions to someone else to snatch 2 or 3 vps with no real effort -ruining the game for *everyone* except the people who deal with him. I think Kamel may well be the condensation of everything i hate in this bloody game. Yet his attitude gives him more GW than ever. So i guess that at least i must respect him for this. =)

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:415adfe1$0$17501$79c1...@nan-newsreader-04.noos.net... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de > > Every game has deals, even if it's just "I call a KRC." "Am I > > getting named?" "No." "Then I don't block." > > > > 100% > > come on : are you the only one not aware of what kind of deal we're talking > about ? I normally avoid feeding trolls, but I'll make an exception in this case: No, as seen clearly in the posts that had gone before, including being covered completely in the post from which you stripped the pertinent context (LSJ: I thought you meant <the kind of deals we're talking about>. SF: No, I refer to deals in general.") What's your angle? Hoping the rest of the NG has a microscopic attention span and won't notice that your content-free attack can barely make out reality as a speck on the horizon? Or just seeing if you could generate a bite? If the latter, then I apologize to the rest of the group for taking the bait. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de news:2s066qF...@uni-berlin.de... > "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:415adfe1$0$17501$79c1...@nan-newsreader-04.noos.net... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de > > > Every game has deals, even if it's just "I call a KRC." "Am I > > > getting named?" "No." "Then I don't block." > > > > > > 100% > > > > come on : are you the only one not aware of what kind of deal we're > talking > > about ? > > I normally avoid feeding trolls, but I'll make an exception in this case: > > No, as seen clearly in the posts that had gone before, including being > covered > completely in the post from which you stripped the pertinent context (LSJ: > I > thought you meant <the kind of deals we're talking about>. SF: No, I refer > to > deals in general.") > > What's your angle? > > Hoping the rest of the NG has a microscopic attention span and won't > notice that your content-free attack can barely make out reality as a > speck on the horizon? > > Or just seeing if you could generate a bite? > > If the latter, then I apologize to the rest of the group for taking > the bait. just misread a line. s*** happens ! =)

"Chris Arthur" <chr...@comcen.com.au> wrote in message news:5a63bace.04092...@posting.google.com... > > > > If all of this theorizing is correct, then the problem isn't > > *exactly* lack of offense in the game. Say that the problem is > > more along the lines of the game being too easy for players to > > rebalance and that there aren't enough aspects of the game that > > can cause involuntary collapse in a way third parties can't > > effect. > > > > Do you think it has something to do with the Game Win rule? I know > I no longer build decks that can sweep partly because other players > will jump all over you but also because you only really need game > wins to make a final and not vps. In a way, it might have to do with the game win rule - but not due to that reason. For one thing, I specifically mentioned the finals further down in my post, which you cut. The finals, as you know, is played without reference to the game win rule nor has any need for one. Of course, the particular set of objectives players have in the finals is probably closer in nature to the game win rule than to how preliminary games used to be played prior to the inception of it. But this has always been true, so it doesn't matter. (For that matter, the issue about endless-negotiation-no-action may also predate the game win rule.) To the extent "endless-negotiating-no-action" experiences may be more prevalent now than before the game win rule, it would probably be because there were more arguably "acceptable" outcomes to which players could negotiate once it became clear that the sheer metagame and player incompetancies wasn't going to collapse the game by itself. That is, it was fairly reasonable in the past to negotiate a two-two, two-two-one, or three-two split without either of the leading players being that dissatisfied with the outcome prior to the game win rule. Now the former two are usually pointless to both players and the latter pointless to the second place player. So it's a lot harder to do anything but continue to survive and hang on when the situation comes up. However, given the nature of negotiated splits - which are far less appealing results than games which have been actively disputed from start to finish - I hardly think it's worth seeking a solution by getting rid of the game win rule. The game win rule was instituted for a very important reason. It's not perfect but all things considered, it's solved the problem it was created to solve incredibly well. Negotiated splits are _far_ less common now and with them, a lot of suspicions and accusations of out-of-game conspiracies, cliquishness, and other speculative but scary forms of behavior. It's not often such a change works every bit as well as planned. I would hope the rule is here to stay. Fred

"Charles Lechasseur" <da...@novideospamtron.ca> wrote in message news:danov-29090...@192.168.1.4... > I think one possible solution would be to change the rule that > says that you must get a GW if possible. The problem with this > rule is that even when a player can possibly get a sweep, that > player is still free to split the table and offer 1 or 2 VPs to > someone else. The rules should force a player to always go for > the maximum number of VPs possible. After all, I do think that > getting extra VPs after a GW can change a lot of things (you > might need those extra VPs to get into the finals, say). First of all, this is not the problem I started out worrying about - which was about players, particularly in the finals, playing merely to survive and wait for things to fall their way causing games to turn into endless negotiating marathons in which nothing ever happens. The above rule hardly addresses that. The problem, in my estimation, isn't that the negotiation is caused by giving players incentive to play for second place or (in the prelims) an extra VP or two. The problem is that players as a group are so successful at continually rebalancing and stalling the game when it doesn't seem to be progressing the way the want. I don't really have an issue with players not having to win the maximum number of VPs if possible. It does cause some slight concerns about table splits but these don't seem to happen often nowadays nor do they affect games nearly as profoundly as they used to before the game win rule. Such judgements are extremely subjective (as all the debute over it proves) and thus hard to enforce. The game win rule fixed a lot of problems because it's not subjective at all: it just gives players concrete motivation to do the right thing. Ultimately, I don't see how tinkering with subjective judgements about players' motivations is likely to yield much satisfaction. At least, not in this case. Fred

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > Offense wins games, defense wins championships! Empirical evidence indicates otherwise. ;) - Ben Peal fu...@mindstorm.com

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > Johannes Walch wrote: > >>Offense wins games, defense wins championships! > > > > From time to time I get the impression that you like football :-) > > TITANS TITANS > AIR MAC NAIR NEEDS TO GET THAT FINAL YARD AND HIS WELL DESERVED SUPER > BOWL RING. McNair is scary...the more injuries he sustains, the better he gets. :) It would be neat to see him win a Super Bowl, but it's not happening this year since the Titans don't have a strong enough supporting cast. It's looking like another Colts-Patriots matchup in the AFC Championship, though the Jets might sneak in there. > me liking football. > maybe a little ;-))))) Go Pats!!!!! - Ben Peal fu...@mindstorm.com

> Second : "ruining the game" : when I bleed to death a guy, I think I > ruin his game. When I rush at sight his vamps, I ruin his game. So, > your argument is not very accurately fitted to split table. Come on Kamel, that's the most preposterous thing I heard coming out of your keyboard this year (yeah, because last year... ;-) Your goal is to kill your prey. If you do it, it's part of the play. If you destroy his vampires, it's part of trying to kill him (but already you unbalance the table if you're unable to kill him subconsequently). If you destroy your predator's vamps but put no forward pression, you unbalance even more. If you are no use at all, and at some point you decide that you will help someone, maybe your prey, to win the game in exchange for 1 or 2 VPs, and then act against the other players, you're ruining their game. I'll never forget my first EC qualifier in Paris, where I saw a Shambling Hordes deck destroy all the vamps on the table for his prey, because "he was unable to hurt her". Well, too bad. Now you die. Or try time limit. But this was just plain ugly. And I've seen it way too many times since then. You're a very good player, Kamel, and I hope and think you can deal many things that can help you to gain victory without having to split VPs. > Third: I'm not a clown You must be kidding ? Want me to post some pictures on this newsgroup . ;-D (and I hope you're not one, if yes, all my > demonstration could be thrown away). If some guys want to have fun > with me, let's take a drink somewhere, and told funnies stories each > other. You, me, my necroflask full of embalming fluids, and a few macho jokes, when and where you want ! > In a final round of a sanctionned tournament, I think (but I > can make a mistake) I have something else to do that create "fun" for > the others dudes there. Yes : you have to play an interesting game, not make a dull one where everything is decided on round 3 and nothing even mildly surprinsing or mind-challenging happens until the end. > I make deals. And I think there are bad for the game. But, it's > legal... Smoking is legal. So is denouncing your neighbour to the IRS (les impôts en français), stuffing yourself full of tons of stale hamburgers, and I don't think there is any law against sodomizing stuffed Mickeys while singing La Traviata (as long as no underage child witnesses the scene). Still, I don't do any of these things because I don't particularly like them (I never liked Mickey anyway). You don't HAVE to do anything because it's legal !! So please don't give us any crap about not liking it but doing it anyway. If you don't like it, don't do it, and discourage people who do it (even to the point of ruining the game they just ruined for you). Maybe you'll lose a few finals because of it at first (you'll still be the second best french player for centuries to come), but if we all do it we might just improve the scene a little... > So, we could try to find a solution, LET'S !! > but please, jippi, use some > really good arguments to support our position, not that ones. Liked mine ? ;-) ----------------- Orpheus "We can never know of what we are the seeds Until we flower." Lilith

> > BTW, Stephan, you shouldn't have wished us a good road, or should have done > > it more enthusiastically : our car broke on a very dangerous turn on the > > highway from Parma, and we had a horrible night / morning. > > > > i am sorry to hear that. but i was enthusiastically as i could be after > i spent my overnight train trip, next to someone who snored like he had > a gaspowered chainsaw equipped and whos feet smelled like foul blood and > the prospect of a 7 hour car ride home (and i promised to drive, because > i would sure be well rested after arriving by train) LOL. Then I guess we both suffered our lot... (snip compliments, people will think we slept together...) > > But I maintain that the Finals deal should never, NEVER have been allowed. > > i do not agree because rava was just afraid of my carrion crows and > didn´t realize that i did not have any in my deck. what should the judge > tell rava, go forward he can´t stop you i know his deck? Of course not. I agree that the case is rather delicate. But say : "there is a chance, however slight, that with all the minions you have you could kill Stefan before he killed all your weenies, so try it." Of course, the question wouldn't even exist if the "play to win" rule didn't stop at having the GW, if the deal for VPs was illegal, and / or if the withdraw rule was... withdrawn ! (fuck Brinksmanship ; or leave the rule only for it ; or errate it ; the Ante cards were banned, right ?). > i am still amazed that rava offered the deal, but on the other hand i > think i had a shoot stopping him (4 minions a lot of wakes [11 in a 70 > card deck] decent pool support (2 BD, HG, Palatial estate)) There was a chance you could stop him ; there was a chance he would run over you. That's play, ain't it ? > and tried to > talk to others to not force me accepting the deal. but neither mirko nor > sebastien responded. Yeah, shame. >(i agree that the language was a problem here, > thats why i encouraged translation to these two although its against my > beliefs that that should be done at an international tournament). Yup. > i wish no deals would have happend in the finals, but rava forced deals > (threatening to offer a losing deal to sebastien) and the other players > did not respond to my attempts breaking the dealmaking (all i asked > mirko was to act forward and do something, no catch in this deal) Yeah, he really did nothing. I guess you paralized him with the menace of an Eagle / Rötshit. Come one, we're talking Giovanni "shut up" power here !! > > No matter : as soon as Stefan opened his mouth, everyone was mongolized... > > thats the foul breath of dragon LOL > > > Kind of Kamel in a more discreet version... ;-)) > > > > Can't wait for Heidelbergh. > > > me too Just have to make a true deck or two now... :-( [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:415b360b$0$6616$626a...@news.free.fr... (Kamel) > > Third: I'm not a clown > > You must be kidding ? Want me to post some pictures on this newsgroup . ;-D you mean like this one ? =) http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr/share/photo/conclave_malkav_2.jpg > > In a final round of a sanctionned tournament, I think (but I > > can make a mistake) I have something else to do that create "fun" for > > the others dudes there. > > Yes : you have to play an interesting game, not make a dull one where > everything is decided on round 3 and nothing even mildly surprinsing or > mind-challenging happens until the end. still a long way to go... =)

> > In a way, it might have to do with the game win rule - but not due > to that reason. For one thing, I specifically mentioned the finals > further down in my post, which you cut. The finals, as you know, > is played without reference to the game win rule nor has any need > for one. Of course, the particular set of objectives players have > in the finals is probably closer in nature to the game win rule than > to how preliminary games used to be played prior to the inception > of it. But this has always been true, so it doesn't matter. (For > that matter, the issue about endless-negotiation-no-action may also > predate the game win rule.) When i brought up the Game Win rule i was referring to its effect on the deck types being built in the first place. IME people have changed deck types to be able to do exactly what you are talking about (holding and influencing the fall of the table) due to the Game Win rule. When they make the final they are surrounded by similar deck types and they have no choice but to continue their strategy because that's what the deck does. > > To the extent "endless-negotiating-no-action" experiences may be > more prevalent now than before the game win rule, it would probably > be because there were more arguably "acceptable" outcomes to which > players could negotiate once it became clear that the sheer metagame > and player incompetancies wasn't going to collapse the game by > itself. That is, it was fairly reasonable in the past to negotiate > a two-two, two-two-one, or three-two split without either of the > leading players being that dissatisfied with the outcome prior to > the game win rule. Now the former two are usually pointless to both > players and the latter pointless to the second place player. So > it's a lot harder to do anything but continue to survive and hang > on when the situation comes up. I agree. > > However, given the nature of negotiated splits - which are far less > appealing results than games which have been actively disputed from > start to finish - I hardly think it's worth seeking a solution by > getting rid of the game win rule. The game win rule was instituted > for a very important reason. It's not perfect but all things > considered, it's solved the problem it was created to solve > incredibly well. Negotiated splits are _far_ less common now and > with them, a lot of suspicions and accusations of out-of-game > conspiracies, cliquishness, and other speculative but scary forms > of behavior. It's not often such a change works every bit as well > as planned. I would hope the rule is here to stay. I wasn't suggesting getting rid of it. I didn't really read your post fully the first time so i'd like to add some other points now. I generally agree with your assessment of the way games are played now however I don't see that it is a problem. You talk about endless dealmaking with no action but what do you consider dealmaking? Is it not action as well? Or do you place a higher value on actual card play as opposed to the social interaction of trying to bend people to your will? Being on the type of table you talk about with experienced players and no one with any clear advantage is a wonderful experience and i admire the type of player who can win on that sort of table. As for players in a final not realising until the last 10 minutes that something needs to happen i can't disagree more. I've seen finals and been in finals where everyone is fully aware of what will happen if nobody falls. We must have very differing experiences when it comes to finals. Chris.

> (Kamel) > > Third: I'm not a clown > > > > You must be kidding ? Want me to post some pictures on this newsgroup . > ;-D > > you mean like this one ? =) >http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr/share/photo/conclave_malkav_2.jpg MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> a écrit dans le message de news: 415ac8c2$0$12130$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... BTW, Stefan, I hope you didn't get offended by the title of this post. I just couldn't resist the inherent suspense and paradoxical assertion. ----------------- Orpheus "We can never know of what we are the seeds Until we flower." Lilith ;)

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<415ae203$0$30484$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] ...Reyda, our love affair have turned bad, yes... But I'm sure we could stay friend, OK ? If you dislike smokers, you would have tell that in your annonce in the newspaper, dude !! Kisses. Kamel.

> thats what happens in 60% of alll v:tes finals. I could understand a deal during a FINAL if for instance the 3 first players would qualify for whatever higher tournament. Otherwise I don't get the point. Is it good for keeping player ranking? Is it for the tournament support prices? > i agree that this is ruining the game I'll preciously keep that sentence of yours for future discussions. ;-) > but if facing a deal, people should just start to act in order to prevent that deal from > happening. offering alternatives to the dealmakers, etc True but that's person (some are more talkative than others) and deck dependent (some deck have fewer interacting power than others). Further more it often ends in lengthy discussions shortening the game in the case no agreement is reached. I personnally would like to see some kind of time limit in such discussions. regards, JPh

"Kamel SENNI" <kamel...@yvelines.pref.gouv.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:1b066664.04093...@posting.google.com... > "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<415ae203$0$30484$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>... > > I think Kamel may well be the condensation of everything i > > hate in this bloody game. Yet his attitude gives him more GW than ever. So i > > guess that at least i must respect him for this. =) > > ...Reyda, our love affair have turned bad, yes... > But I'm sure we could stay friend, OK ? yeah =) and the funny part is i still have fun when i meet you *outside* the game ;) *hug*

LSJ wrote: > "Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message > news:415acc41$0$12130$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... > >>>Every game has deals. >>>I thought you were referring to the so-called "bad" deals (the >>>ones that make the game "less enjoyable" to some. >>> >> >>no i referred to deal in general > > > > Then the 60% figure is still off. > > Every game has deals, even if it's just "I call a KRC." "Am I > getting named?" "No." "Then I don't block." > > 100% > deals involving vps then stefan

In message <415b360b$0$6616$626a...@news.free.fr>, "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> mumbled something about: >français), stuffing yourself full of tons of stale hamburgers, and I don't >think there is any law against sodomizing stuffed Mickeys while singing La >Traviata (as long as no underage child witnesses the scene). Still, I don't It's possible that La Traviata is now forever ruined for me. Must... bleach... brain... my eyes... -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:415bf33d$0$25116$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... [ quoted text not captured ] Then we're back to my earlier reply. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] no way!° very often i am so tired of myself too ;-))) Stefan

> In final rounds, being second or third make a difference. > So when you are losing the game, and someone propose to you to be > second, and not fifth rank, for example, it's better for you. Can you please produce really good arguments to support that position? > Second : "ruining the game" : when I bleed to death a guy, I think I > ruin his game. When I rush at sight his vamps, I ruin his game. Man, that's the way this game should be played! Did I miss something or don't you have to ruin the game of your prey. > Third: I'm not a clown (and I hope you're not one, if yes, all my > demonstration could be thrown away). If some guys want to have fun > with me, let's take a drink somewhere, and told funnies stories each > other. In a final round of a sanctionned tournament, I think (but I > can make a mistake) I have something else to do that create "fun" for > the others dudes there. If you have no fun playing that game (and especially a final) why do you play it then? > I make deals. And I think there are bad for the game. But, it's legal... I personnally don't like deals because I also think they are bad for the game but I can stand them if it's for the higher goal of reaching the final. But then in the final, what's the heck? > So, we could try to find a solution, but please, jippi, use some > really good arguments to support our position, not that ones. My previous post was not about trying to find a solution nor to bring arguments. I was just wondering how a table split deal could happen in a final. I got some "enlightments" from you and Stefan. > Kamel Senni, > Prince of Paris. I know you are a so called high ranked player but that doesn't give you the right to reply me in the arrogant way you did... JPh

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:415ac8c2$0$12130$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... > that was vintage kamel. great! i really enjoy your posts. Qui se ressemble s'assemble... JPh

Jippi wrote: >>In final rounds, being second or third make a difference. >>So when you are losing the game, and someone propose to you to be >>second, and not fifth rank, for example, it's better for you. > > > Can you please produce really good arguments to support that position? > > 1 place is better than second place, second place is better than third place, third place is better than fourth place, fourth place is better than fifth place. can i stop now or do you get the pattern. stefan

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:415c265d$0$8024$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... > 1 place is better than second place, second place is better than third > place, third place is better than fourth place, fourth place is better > than fifth place. can i stop now or do you get the pattern. First my question was initially for Mr. Senni so I wonder why you felt compel to answer. Second, while your statement is completely true from the pure logical point of view your clever answer is unfortunately out of context. In the context we are speaking about (a table split deal in a tournament final, do you get the pattern?) I do not feel that for instance second is better than third. I personnally would not sacrifice the fun of playing to the "honor" of finishing second without even playing. my 2 cts, JPh

Jippi wrote: > "Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message > news:415c265d$0$8024$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... > >>1 place is better than second place, second place is better than third >>place, third place is better than fourth place, fourth place is better >>than fifth place. can i stop now or do you get the pattern. > > > First my question was initially for Mr. Senni so I wonder why you felt > compel to answer. first you put me in the same boat as kamel with your fench post. second this is a newsgroup if you wanna ask kamel questions in private than email him. third your question why second place is better than third place was so utterly stupid (sorry for pointing out the truth) that i felt compelt to answer > Second, while your statement is completely true from the pure logical point > of view your clever answer is unfortunately out of context. > In the context we are speaking about (a table split deal in a tournament > final, do you get the pattern?) I do not feel that for instance second is > better than third. so the concept of competitivness is totally alien to. great i wish more human beings would be like you. (no sarcsm) > I personnally would not sacrifice the fun of playing to the "honor" of > finishing second without even playing. > even deals need to play out and be succesfull in order to gain the benefit of the deal. stefan

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message > first you put me in the same boat as kamel with your fench post. ...since you seemed to enjoy the way I was replied to I found it quite fitting. But I have to apologize and should have put a smiley there. I do not know Mr. Senni personnally while on the other hand I had many times the confirmation that you really are the hairy bastard all Vienna complains about. ;-) > second this is a newsgroup if you wanna ask kamel questions in private than > email him. That was no private question but since I replied to something Mr. Senni wrote it would be more natural to get an answer from him. > third your question why second place is better than third place was so utterly stupid (sorry > for pointing out the truth) You are right: my question was an excerpt of Mr. Senni answer and was as pertinent. > so the concept of competitivness is totally alien to. great i wish more > human beings would be like you. (no sarcsm) The concept is not alien to me, it is just a concept I don't want to embrace. I quitted playing "competitive" MtG because people wanted to win above all, sacrificing fun, sportmanship and even politness. I attend 3-4 Jyhad tournaments a year so you can label me as non-competitive Jyhad player. When I attend a tournament I want to play my sub-optimal/crap deck and try to have fun playing it. What I don't want above all is to see a game ending after 15min because of a table-split deal. > even deals need to play out and be succesfull in order to gain the > benefit of the deal. Right but when 3 players agree on a deal on a 5 players table then the game ends right away. JPh

>third your question why second place is better than third >place was so utterly stupid (sorry for pointing out the truth) that i >felt compelt to answer Why was it stupid? If you assume someone says or asks something with a purpose rather than just taking what they say literally, most comments/questions aren't stupid. It was rather obvious to me that the purpose of the question was to figure out why people are valuing second so highly ... not to third but to first. What reward are people getting for coming in second over coming in third? I don't hear anyone responding to this. Just rating points? Free trips out of country for the top two finishers? Makes a huge difference. Usually, the gap between first and second far exceeds the gap between second and third. If the prizes for second in tournaments you all play are much closer to first place's, then it begins to make more sense why second is special. Are they?

Jippi wrote: > "Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message > >>first you put me in the same boat as kamel with your fench post. > > > But I have to apologize and should have put a smiley there. I do not know > Mr. Senni personnally while on the other hand I had many times the > confirmation that you really are the hairy bastard all Vienna complains > about. ;-) > > care to reveal your real name yippi since you seem to know me and seem to be austrian??? stefan

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20040930130647...@mb-m02.aol.com... >"Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in >message news:<415c2eba$0$24064$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... > >third your question why second place is better than third > >place was so utterly stupid (sorry for pointing out the truth) > >that i felt compelt to answer > > Why was it stupid? If you assume someone says or asks something > with a purpose rather than just taking what they say literally, > most comments/questions aren't stupid. It was rather obvious to > me that the purpose of the question was to figure out why people > are valuing second so highly ... not to third but to first. Put it this way: if you want to question whether it's worthwhile to aspire to second place over fifth place - especially when it's clear that you won't be finishing in first place - then that may well be a reasonable philosphoical question. But if so, POSE IT THAT WAY! Don't just "out of the blue" challenge people to explain to you why anyone would bother playing for second over fifth place. The answer to that is fairly obvious. Stefan is right: the question as posed was utterly stupid. I think some of the philosphical arguments tend to get more personal than they need to be because people get a bit arrogant about assuming their own point of view is the only worthwhile one. It's easy to do. (I'm certainly guilty of it often enough.) But one should recognize at least after the mistake has been made and get back to the gist of the dispute. OBGISTOFTHEDISPUTE: My experience is that there's no resolution to this. The value of second place over last place in a multiplayer game has been disputed since the beginning of time. Some will think it very worthwhile, others will not see a whit of difference. For myself, I place first place on a much higher plane than any of the others but if I can't first, I will definitely value second over last. Fred

"Chris Arthur" <chr...@comcen.com.au> wrote in message news:5a63bace.04092...@posting.google.com... > I didn't really read your post fully the first time so i'd like to > add some other points now. I generally agree with your assessment > of the way games are played now however I don't see that it is a > problem. You talk about endless dealmaking with no action but what > do you consider dealmaking? Is it not action as well? Or do you > place a higher value on actual card play as opposed to the social > interaction of trying to bend people to your will? Being on the > type of table you talk about with experienced players and no one > with any clear advantage is a wonderful experience and i admire > the type of player who can win on that sort of table. As for > players in a final not realising until the last 10 minutes that > something needs to happen i can't disagree more. I've seen finals > and been in finals where everyone is fully aware of what will > happen if nobody falls. We must have very differing experiences > when it comes to finals. The kind of thing I'm talking about occurred (in its extreme form) at the NA Continental Final I think the two years before this one. (This year's final sounds like it at least had _some_ play and an actual oust or two during its course so was not so bad.) When all five finalists are still around after nearly two hours of play in a game which has been marked by almost constant talk and negotiation, that's a sign that the game has gone _too much_ over to being dominated by diplomacy and doesn't have enough play in it. No, I don't consider myself "anti-deal-making". I think there's room for it in the game and it can be a good thing to some extent. (Albeit I'll confess it's not a part of the game I excel at.) But in my observation, the importance of it seems to accentuate considerably when high-quality players play. If the dealmaking has an actual resolution that moves the game along, that's fine. But what often seems to happen is that as the things start to resolve, the players not gaining by the resolution will suddenly start negotiating with each other and renegotiating their deals with the ones currently winning and alliance will break and reform causing the table to restablize again. For this to occur in endless cycles is just plain boring - both to watch and to play. The game is ultimately SUPPOSED to be about cards. Not negotiating. The "last 10 minutes" thing wasn't intended to suggest that the players weren't paying attention to who would win any tiebreakers until then. It's that at that point, time will bring things to a conclusion if nothing further is resolved - so this seems to affect people's thinking about how to negotiate at this point. Fred

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> a écrit dans le message de news:415c265d$0$8024$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... [ quoted text not captured ] okay now imagine you are 5 guys being executed one after another. you get in line. but the executioner has only 4 bullets left. Do you really think that 1 place is better than second place, second place is better than third place, third place is better than fourth place, fourth place is better than fifth place ? =D reyda loves crappy examples =)

"Jippi" <J...@NOSPAM.at> a écrit dans le message de news:415be515$0$31502$3b21...@aconews.univie.ac.at... > Further more > it often ends in lengthy discussions shortening the game in the case no > agreement is reached. I personnally would like to see some kind of time > limit in such discussions. True, it would be cool to stop the blah blah at some point. but 1- it is really not enforcable. 2- it is still unfair : i talk really,really faster than the average people (classmates called me TGV (the french high speed express) during school. So i have a unfair advantage under that system over people who talk slowly =/

> okay now imagine you are 5 guys being executed one after another. > you get in line. > but the executioner has only 4 bullets left. > Do you really think that 1 place is better than second place, second place > is better than third place, third place is better than fourth place, fourth > place is better than fifth place ? =D > > reyda > loves crappy examples =) You sure outdid yourself with that one... ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

> care to reveal your real name yippi since you seem to know me and seem > to be austrian??? Stefan, I thought you would have already guessed. Some tips to help you: - I am not Austrian - ...but I leave there - My favorite weapon is the walking stick JPh

> mark? Wrong... My 2 last tips (after that ones I give up and you will have to pay me a beer next time we meet, most propably in november in Traun): - Mr. Senni and I do share the same nationality - I am living in the city where you can find the most beautiful Austrian girls (don't lie to yourself, it's not Vienna) JPh

[ quoted text not captured ] jean phillippe ok it took me long to get it. so you´ll get your beer anyway. see you in traun! stefan

> > - Mr. Senni and I do share the same nationality > > - I am living in the city where you can find the most beautiful Austrian > > girls (don't lie to yourself, it's not Vienna) > > > > JPh > > > > > jean phillippe ok For a frenchman it was pretty obvious from the start that his name was Jean-Philippe. But I didn't know he lived in Aix-en-Provence (and yes, it is the single french city with the most beautiful girls per square inch, and I'm not saying that because my girlfriend lives there !). (coïncidence : it is also the second most expensive city in France...) [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus wrote: >>>- Mr. Senni and I do share the same nationality >>>- I am living in the city where you can find the most beautiful Austrian >>>girls (don't lie to yourself, it's not Vienna) >>> >>>JPh >>> >>> >> >>jean phillippe ok > > > For a frenchman it was pretty obvious from the start that his name was > Jean-Philippe. > > But I didn't know he lived in Aix-en-Provence (and yes, it is the single > french city with the most beautiful girls per square inch, and I'm not > saying that because my girlfriend lives there !). > that might be but i am curious why so many beutifull austrian girls live in aix-en-provence ;-))). he lives in graz the second largest city in austria. if the most beautiful austrian girls live there i don´t know because i never conducted a field study there ;-) stefan > (coīncidence : it is also the second most expensive city in France...) [ quoted text not captured ]

Major Thread bust continuing here. Ben Peal wrote: > Stefan Ferenci wrote: > > Johannes Walch wrote: > > >>Offense wins games, defense wins championships! > > > > > > From time to time I get the impression that you like football :-) > > > > TITANS TITANS > > AIR MAC NAIR NEEDS TO GET THAT FINAL YARD AND HIS WELL DESERVED SUPER > > BOWL RING. > > McNair is scary...the more injuries he sustains, the better he gets. :) > Well, we now know that the Titans got pistol-whipped by the Chargers, and it's not looking like it's going to get any better. > > It would be neat to see him win a Super Bowl, but it's not happening > this year since the Titans don't have a strong enough supporting > cast. It's looking like another Colts-Patriots matchup in the AFC > Championship, though the Jets might sneak in there. > > > me liking football. > > maybe a little ;-))))) > > Go Pats!!!!! And go Sox! best - chris -- chris shorb

"Jippi" <J...@NOSPAM.at> wrote in message news:<415c0a53$0$11614$3b21...@aconews.univie.ac.at>... [ quoted text not captured ] (who is similar go in the same way, if you have a better translation, tell me, I'm curious about that sentence). Hé, si tu dis ça parce qu'on a le même poids, c'est pas sympa pour lui !! (translation : hey, if you said that because we have the same weigh, it's not nice for him !!) with a lot of smilies, ok dudes ? Kamel.

"Jippi" <J...@NOSPAM.at> wrote in message news:<415c0731$0$11872$3b21...@aconews.univie.ac.at>... [ quoted text not captured ] If you think I was arrogant, sory. But we share the same goal and the same idea : deals are bd for the game. And we want them more ruled, or, netter banished. if you use bad arguments, you deserve my cause. I have explained you why. the system is made that the second in a tournament is well... more rewarded than the third. So when you are losing the game (for example, no vamps ready, and noi allies want to get them out), what will you do ? Try to be beter ranked thnt the most of players. And do a deal. Use good arguments, be aware of the context, and you will be a better support for your, and mine, goal. Kamel. Last sentence : I haven't said that I dont' take fun to play. but it's not my goal to make fun for the others players. Sorry for them.

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040928133622...@mb-m06.aol.com>... > >So I decided to offer Stefan a 3-2 pact or something that permit me to > >be at least second.... > > But, why? > Because I was too tired to think clearly.... :( :( :( RavATwoFaces

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message > jean phillippe ok it took me long to get it. I thought my little person would have left a better trace in your elephant memory (hum, just telling that because you study medecine and not because of the way you look ;-) > so you´ll get your beer anyway. Thanx! I'll pay the second round. > see you in traun! Let's see if we will have to discuss the dealing topic further. JPh

"Kamel SENNI" <kamel...@yvelines.pref.gouv.fr> wrote in message > Hé, si tu dis ça parce qu'on a le même poids, c'est pas sympa pour lui !! > (translation : hey, if you said that because we have the same weigh, > it's not nice for him !!) Since I never met you I can't tell about your repective weight... I was just meaning that you are both high ranked players and regarding that you somehow react the same. > with a lot of smilies, ok dudes ? Man, where are the smileys??? ;-) Jph

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message: > that might be but i am curious why so many beutifull austrian girls live > in aix-en-provence ;-))). It explains why the women in Aix-en-Provence are pretty!!! > he lives in graz the second largest city in austria. if the most beautiful austrian girls live there i > don´t know because i never conducted a field study there ;-) Lots of Austrian men say so and to my experience I totally agree. I would advise for your medecine studies to conduct a intensive, precise and scientific anatomic field study there... ;-) JPh

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message > But I didn't know he lived in Aix-en-Provence (and yes, it is the single > french city with the most beautiful girls per square inch I thought Aix-en-Provence was stuffed with retired people? Did you conduct an extensive field study about all major cities in France? If yes I would be glad to get your results! > and I'm not saying that because my girlfriend lives there ! Man, how old is your girlfriend???? ;-) Jph

"Kamel SENNI" <kamel...@yvelines.pref.gouv.fr> wrote in message > If you think I was arrogant, sory. Yes I had that feeling reading your reply. If you didn't intend to be so, I apologize for overreacting. > the system is made that the second in a tournament is well... more > rewarded than the third. If you speak about prices (booster packs and so on) you are somehow right even though I personnally do not care about getting more or less booster packs or an edge token or a T-shirt, etc... Jyhad is just a hobby of mine and the best output I expect from it is FUN and no material rewards nor a better world ranking. > So when you are losing the game (for example, no vamps ready, and noi allies want to get > them out), what will you do ? Try to be beter ranked thnt the most of players. And do a > deal. In a final game I would take it like a man. Otherwise in a pre-final game (assuming the situation you describe) I might be tempted by deal which can perhaps reward me with a place in the final. JPh

"Jippi" <J...@NOSPAM.at> a écrit dans le message de news: 41652077$0$9314$3b21...@aconews.univie.ac.at... > "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message > > But I didn't know he lived in Aix-en-Provence (and yes, it is the single > > french city with the most beautiful girls per square inch > > I thought Aix-en-Provence was stuffed with retired people? No, you misread. Aix has some stuffed old people. ;-) Must be the austrians ? ;)) But seriously, yes, it is full of old people ; the rest are young students, preferably artsy and beautiful... :) > Did you conduct an extensive field study about all major cities in France? I've been in quite a few ; I'd give second to Toulouse, also a major student city. > If yes I would be glad to get your results! LOL. I'll keep the rest secret... > > and I'm not saying that because my girlfriend lives there ! > > Man, how old is your girlfriend???? ;-) 13 years younger than me ? :D (but then, vampires never age, do they ?) Pedophile Orpheus ------------- "We're all living in Amerika / Amerika ist wunderbar We're all living in Amerika / Coca Cola, Sometimes War" Rammstein

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:4165837e$0$1133$626a...@news.free.fr... > ------------- > "We're all living in Amerika / Amerika ist wunderbar > We're all living in Amerika / Coca Cola, Sometimes War" > > Rammstein one of the worst lyrics ever written, in my humble opinion. i'd rather listen to avril lavigne... you're disappointing me, orphy .... =)

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: > "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> a écrit dans le message de > news:4165837e$0$1133$626a...@news.free.fr... > > > ------------- > > "We're all living in Amerika / Amerika ist wunderbar > > We're all living in Amerika / Coca Cola, Sometimes War" > > > > Rammstein > > one of the worst lyrics ever written, in my humble opinion. But it does not matter. It's like Scorpions' "Wind of Change" - a mediocre song, but it perfectly captures the zeitgeist. People love the song, not because of artistic merit, but because "that's just like I feel!" Rammstein got there first. That's why they're selling and appearing in signatures. And you're right. "wunderbar" / "sometimes war" reminds me of "I am an antichrist / I am an anarchist" in it's awful badness. :-) -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

> > > ------------- > > > "We're all living in Amerika / Amerika ist wunderbar > > > We're all living in Amerika / Coca Cola, Sometimes War" > > > > > > Rammstein > > > > one of the worst lyrics ever written, in my humble opinion. > > > But it does not matter. It's like Scorpions' "Wind of Change" - a mediocre > song, but it perfectly captures the zeitgeist. People love the song, not > because of artistic merit, but because "that's just like I feel!" > > Rammstein got there first. That's why they're selling and appearing in > signatures. > > And you're right. "wunderbar" / "sometimes war" reminds me of "I am an > antichrist / I am an anarchist" in it's awful badness. :-) There are 3 things which can be judged in the lyrics of a song : 1. the vocalised efficiency : how many songs in english have stupid lyrics, which would never pass in french, like "Baby I love you", but that we like anyway because they "sound good" ? Many (way too many). 2. The lyrical, poetical quality : is the sentence original, does it rhyme well etc. 3. The sheer content : the intention, the eventual message. Most modern songs, especially in english, usually rely mostly on 1 and 3, and of course a good melody (some songs rely on none, and not even good music, but I usually don't listen to them... ;-) Amerika relies on 1 and 3, and although I have to agree that 2 is quite poor (for the english part, made to be understandable by all, although the german is much more elaborated) it is still very interesting IMO because of 1 and 3. And the thing is just great to sing along with. :-) Of course, YMMV. -- Orpheus [ quoted text not captured ]

"Blackheart" <le...@leech.com> wrote in message news:o51nm0hoqs3hpl2e6...@4ax.com... > easy fix: > > "Person with most VP's at end of game gets the win. Everyone else gets > 'so sorry, maybe next time.' " What do the 2VP finishers on 2-2-0-0 or 2-2-1-0-0 tables get? The same as the 0VP finishers? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

> "Blackheart" <le...@leech.com> wrote in message > news:o51nm0hoqs3hpl2e6...@4ax.com... > > easy fix: > > > > "Person with most VP's at end of game gets the win. Everyone else gets > > 'so sorry, maybe next time.' " > > > What do the 2VP finishers on 2-2-0-0 or 2-2-1-0-0 tables get? > The same as the 0VP finishers? Preposterous. If you really want to implement such a rule, reward the best, don't punish the lessers. Example (not one I'd like to enforce as is) : make a "Table Sweep" rule, better than GW, for anyone who makes 3 VPs + if no one else at the table makes a single VP (0,5 is accepted). Then, let's see how many 3 / 2 are dealed... -- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:06:58 -0400, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >"Blackheart" <le...@leech.com> wrote in message >news:o51nm0hoqs3hpl2e6...@4ax.com... >> easy fix: >> >> "Person with most VP's at end of game gets the win. Everyone else gets >> 'so sorry, maybe next time.' " > > >What do the 2VP finishers on 2-2-0-0 or 2-2-1-0-0 tables get? encouragement to build a better deck or play more aggressively. >The same as the 0VP finishers? exactly. because what we're demonstrating right now is why there are so few VTES players in my area (Baltimore, MD, USA) back before I originally quit, most of the players quit because all the games were being "run" by the same group that would always split the table. I only decided to get back in because I can get the cards for dirt cheap these days and it's a fun game to play from a "havok" perspective. What I see right now coming out of tournament play is exactly two types of players. the dealers and the people whining about them. Also a good reason why I'll -never- do a tournament. I hate whining. I don't care about VP's, I care about burning vamps and causing havok. And I have no problem going cross table or upstream to give someone a real reason to whine.

In message <auoom0pnoe4rdu0nd...@4ax.com>, Blackheart <le...@leech.com> mumbled something about: >because what we're demonstrating right now is why there are so few >VTES players in my area (Baltimore, MD, USA) back before I originally >quit, most of the players quit because all the games were being "run" >by the same group that would always split the table. (...snip) >Also a good reason why I'll -never- do a tournament. I hate whining. I >don't care about VP's, I care about burning vamps and causing havok. >And I have no problem going cross table or upstream to give someone a >real reason to whine. Sounds like you're the real reason there are so few players in your area... or perhaps they just aren't calling you anymore to play? Nobody wants to play with someone who's just out to ruin the game for others. Unless I'm quite mistaken (Josh, Trey?) there's quite a decent-size group playing around the Baltimore/DC area. I know the last DC qualifier I went to had something like 50 people? We certainly filled up the whole back of that (rather large) game store. And if there's one thing you can say about the DC group, they definitely prefer NOT to split tables. Especially that Riggs boy. Can't trust him. I suggest trying your troll somewhere else, where the facts don't shout you down so loudly. Have a nice day! *plonk*

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:36:34 +0200, "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote: >> "Blackheart" <le...@leech.com> wrote in message >> news:o51nm0hoqs3hpl2e6...@4ax.com... >> > easy fix: >> > >> > "Person with most VP's at end of game gets the win. Everyone else gets >> > 'so sorry, maybe next time.' " >> >> >> What do the 2VP finishers on 2-2-0-0 or 2-2-1-0-0 tables get? >> The same as the 0VP finishers? > >Preposterous. > >If you really want to implement such a rule, reward the best, don't punish >the lessers. > >Example (not one I'd like to enforce as is) : make a "Table Sweep" rule, >better than GW, for anyone who makes 3 VPs + if no one else at the table >makes a single VP (0,5 is accepted). Then, let's see how many 3 / 2 are >dealed... people want to see dealing go away... make it go away or quit whining about it. Fix the problem if it's a problem, don't try to work the problem to your advantage. Otherwise, it's not a real problem and therefore, not an issue that warrants as much bandwidth as this is getting.

> >> > easy fix: > >> > > >> > "Person with most VP's at end of game gets the win. Everyone else gets > >> > 'so sorry, maybe next time.' " > >> > >> > >> What do the 2VP finishers on 2-2-0-0 or 2-2-1-0-0 tables get? > >> The same as the 0VP finishers? > > > >Preposterous. > > > >If you really want to implement such a rule, reward the best, don't punish > >the lessers. > > > >Example (not one I'd like to enforce as is) : make a "Table Sweep" rule, > >better than GW, for anyone who makes 3 VPs + if no one else at the table > >makes a single VP (0,5 is accepted). Then, let's see how many 3 / 2 are > >dealed... > > people want to see dealing go away... make it go away or quit whining > about it. Snip my fingers. Here. It's gone. You might be whining. Some people here are trying to discuss and make some useful suggestions that could, eventually, appeal o the guys who decide what the rules are. All the rest is useless, except if you're content making houserules for your little playgroup. > Fix the problem if it's a problem, don't try to work the problem to > your advantage. Otherwise, it's not a real problem and therefore, not > an issue that warrants as much bandwidth as this is getting. Well, that sure is helpful !! Thank you Blackheart. Now we can go back to playing a good game. But wait... He didn't actually say anything, did he ??? -- Deadly yours, Orpheus

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2t4s9vF...@uni-berlin.de... > LSJ wrote: > > > How would you break the (many) ties for same number of GWs? > > I think the point is, you wouldn't. There would be a tie, and no > winner, and I would roll over the prize support to next month's > tournament. Games *can* just happen to end that closely, but IME they > tend to resolve in that balanced a fashion because either: > > A) it was dealt to resolution that way, or > B) the table timed out because everyone was yakking too much trying to > deal it to resolution, or > C) the table timed out because people played too conservatively, ie no > one would make a move. > > IMO, A, B, and C should all be discouraged, and perhaps declaring the > fizzled non-final as such, and withholding prizes (while mounting the > reward for an actual game win) might fix it. > > This is not meant to endorse whatever particular tweak you were replying > to, because I've forgotten it already. But I do endorse a system that > declares no winner for ties, or at least certain kinds of ties. Well, I was actually wondering about determine who would go to the finals. If you have a clear 1-4 place (with 2 GW each, say) and 5-9 place with 1 GW each, how do you determine which of 5-9 go to the finals? Or would you just roll the prizes over and forgo the finals? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

[ quoted text not captured ] You'd have a 9-player final round, of course! /snark :)

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2t4vdvF...@uni-berlin.de... > LSJ wrote: > > > If the assumed existence of a "next month's tournament" applies, > > and doesn't overly discourage traveling players, perhaps yes. > > The main point is that prizes are not awarded for play that doesn't > warrant it, ie no one "won". Rolling it over to "next month's" is just > being a softy, not critical to the fix. I understand. I've been partitioning the prizes to be equal for 2nd through 5th place in my finals in sort of a shadow of this proposal -- I still use the official tie breakers for determining the winners, but taking a 3/2 deal in the finals doesn't get you anything on the 2 end and the tie-breakers don't affect the 2-5th positions, either. Back to the topic at hand (your new proposal): There still needs to be a method for determining a winner and/or breaking other ties *right now* for certain events, like championships and small qualifiers. [ quoted text not captured ]

Blackheart <le...@leech.com> wrote: > I only decided to get back in because I can get the cards for dirt > cheap these days and it's a fun game to play from a "havok" > perspective. > > Also a good reason why I'll -never- do a tournament. I hate whining. I > don't care about VP's, I care about burning vamps and causing havok. > And I have no problem going cross table or upstream to give someone a > real reason to whine. So you don't want to play the game by the rules, huh? Glad to see that you're not playing much anymore, and especially not in tournaments. Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:53:45 -0400, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >"Blackheart" <le...@leech.com> wrote in message >news:auoom0pnoe4rdu0nd...@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:06:58 -0400, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> >> >"Blackheart" <le...@leech.com> wrote in message >> >> "Person with most VP's at end of game gets the win. Everyone else gets >> >> 'so sorry, maybe next time.' " >> > >> >What do the 2VP finishers on 2-2-0-0 or 2-2-1-0-0 tables get? >> >The same as the 0VP finishers? >> exactly. > > >How would you break the (many) ties for same number of GWs? do one last large tab;e game.

On 13 Oct 2004 19:06:49 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] >Out of interest, how many, say, 7 player games have you played? > if there were enough local players, it's all I'd play. The game doesn't really get interesting until you have 6. Group I played in when Jyhad first came out was regularly 12 people, never less than 8. >This is particularly relevant if, say, the tournament organiser has >had to limit the length of time of the finals to 2 hours (there are >arguments both for and against doing so in 5 player games) in order to >work well with a venue. > they can keep letting people negotiate the winners... I offered a solution that involves *gasp* playing the game. >I've played 6 player games in tournament conditions and they can >easily go nowhere in 2 hours. Not because the players aren't playing, >but because there's a lot, lot more to do. Things >become... extra-long the more players you add. sounds more like a time problem, that should be addressed as a time problem. ie: extend the time or get a better venue.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:36:14 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Jeff Kuta wrote: >> However, the structure of the Archon Optimal Seating indicates that >> we're using "flights" of between 25 and 38 people anyway for almost >> every instance (I'm working on a new Archon after doing some research >> on it). >> >> Why should the previous three rounds of standings count toward >> placement in the final, especially knowing that several Methuselahs >> scores are likely independent of each other (from different "flights" >> having no common opponents). > > When you get to that size, you'll have players who don't play against > each other or against once-removed each other (As the size of the > tournament increases, the Bacon numbers of the players increase, to > put it another way). Whether these are grouped into flights or simply > scattered through the pool, what difference does it make? The flights > system allows easy handling of drops and adds (which become more common > as tournament size increases). > >> I guess the preliminary standings make for an easy tie-breaker, but if >> you eliminated that entirely as a consideration for finals placement, >> you'd really have *everyone* gunning for a win. > > So who gets crowned North American Champion when that round ends > 2-2-1-0-0? Who takes the original art work home? Coin toss? This is where you would issue a game time extension. Unfortunately, a mulpiplayer game with elimination is not something you can easily extend... ;) So my take is, go on with the coin toss. It sucks, but coin tosses are not that unheared of to begin with. For example, under the current rules, you tie-break finalists before the finals. So if two finalists have the same (highest) score in the finals, if they were originally tied, the former coin toss determines their positions. That is a quite similar issue. -- Bye, Daneel

Blackheart <le...@leech.com> writes: > if there were enough local players, it's all I'd play. The game > doesn't really get interesting until you have 6. Group I played in > when Jyhad first came out was regularly 12 people, never less than 8. There's a large difference between the size of a *group* and the size of an individual game. > >This is particularly relevant if, say, the tournament organiser has > >had to limit the length of time of the finals to 2 hours (there are > >arguments both for and against doing so in 5 player games) in order to > >work well with a venue. > > they can keep letting people negotiate the winners... I offered a > solution that involves *gasp* playing the game. What would you know about playing the game? You put down cards in a manner vaguely following the rules on playing cards, but you've repeatedly told us about how you don't play the game but play to act out little petty wars and other strangenesses. > >I've played 6 player games in tournament conditions and they can > >easily go nowhere in 2 hours. Not because the players aren't playing, > >but because there's a lot, lot more to do. Things > >become... extra-long the more players you add. > > sounds more like a time problem, that should be addressed as a time > problem. ie: extend the time or get a better venue. So, because you don't like the current rules, people should have to change the venues they play at? (Bear in mind that in a local area, this may not be feasible.) Or, indeed, have to have tournaments that go on for hours and hours longer than at present? Urrr.... -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:2t50j8F...@uni-berlin.de... > "David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message > news:2t4vdvF...@uni-berlin.de... > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > If the assumed existence of a "next month's tournament" applies, > > > and doesn't overly discourage traveling players, perhaps yes. > > > > The main point is that prizes are not awarded for play that doesn't > > warrant it, ie no one "won". Rolling it over to "next month's" is just > > being a softy, not critical to the fix. > > I understand. I've been partitioning the prizes to be equal for 2nd > through 5th place in my finals in sort of a shadow of this proposal -- > I still use the official tie breakers for determining the winners, > but taking a 3/2 deal in the finals doesn't get you anything on > the 2 end and the tie-breakers don't affect the 2-5th positions, > either. Interesting. We've been doing the same thing in L.A. for the last couple of years. We don't want to offer any additional encouragement for players to accept a deal that doesn't give them the game win. Usually 2nd through 5th will get a single booster pack and the winner gets everything else! -Robert

>Usually 2nd through 5th will get a single booster pack and the winner >gets everything else! > >-Robert The final table gets all of the prizes? Having only the top table get prizes encourages doing whatever is necessary in the prelims to get to the finals. If you really want people to play for the table all of the time, should give prizes out for table wins every round and probably nothing to finalists except the overall winner.

On 14 Oct 2004 18:25:12 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >Blackheart <le...@leech.com> writes: > >> if there were enough local players, it's all I'd play. The game >> doesn't really get interesting until you have 6. Group I played in >> when Jyhad first came out was regularly 12 people, never less than 8. > >There's a large difference between the size of a *group* and the size >of an individual game. > for us.. the group was the game... 8 peole showed.. we had an 8 person game... 11 people? we get some extra chairs out of the back room... >> >This is particularly relevant if, say, the tournament organiser has >> >had to limit the length of time of the finals to 2 hours (there are >> >arguments both for and against doing so in 5 player games) in order to >> >work well with a venue. >> >> they can keep letting people negotiate the winners... I offered a >> solution that involves *gasp* playing the game. > >What would you know about playing the game? you'd be surprised there sparky... > >You put down cards in a manner vaguely following the rules on playing >cards, but you've repeatedly told us about how you don't play the >game but play to act out little petty wars and other strangenesses. > yes.. because Govern + 2 stealth + Conditioning, rinse, repeat is boring... and so is Conservative Agitation x4 per turn... and you don't pluralize "strangeness" >> >I've played 6 player games in tournament conditions and they can >> >easily go nowhere in 2 hours. Not because the players aren't playing, >> >but because there's a lot, lot more to do. Things >> >become... extra-long the more players you add. >> >> sounds more like a time problem, that should be addressed as a time >> problem. ie: extend the time or get a better venue. > >So, because you don't like the current rules, people should have to >change the venues they play at? (Bear in mind that in a local area, >this may not be feasible.) Or, indeed, have to have tournaments that >go on for hours and hours longer than at present? > >Urrr.... when people are sweeping games in 28 minutes in tournaments, I doubt you'll have to worry about "hours and hours"

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:12:41 -0700, Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > news:opsfuqrw...@news.chello.hu... > [clip] >> > So who gets crowned North American Champion when that round ends >> > 2-2-1-0-0? Who takes the original art work home? Coin toss? >> >> This is where you would issue a game time extension. Unfortunately, a >> mulpiplayer game with elimination is not something you can easily >> extend... ;) >> >> So my take is, go on with the coin toss. It sucks, but coin tosses are > not >> that unheared of to begin with. For example, under the current rules, > you >> tie-break finalists before the finals. So if two finalists have the > same >> (highest) score in the finals, if they were originally tied, the > former >> coin toss determines their positions. That is a quite similar issue. > > Sure, we'll go with a coin-toss to break the ties but not until VPs and > TPs have first been exhausted. Coin-toss as a primary tie-breaker to > decide a winner is not so similar to a coin-toss tertiary tie-breaker to > decide finalists, IMO. I'm not trying to argue changing the system here. It does seem to discourage stalling though if getting 1/2 VPs might well earn you 5th place regardless of former position. By the way, except for the finals of a PS:Budapest last year, I lost every single coin toss I ever took part in... ;( So I'm not a big fan of coin tosses, but I still found the issue worth discussing. -- Bye, Daneel

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20041014194916...@mb-m07.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] That'd be another way to go, sure. With events of our size, doing whatever is necessary in the prelims to get to the finals is the same as playing for the win the table all of the time. We don't have issues in the prelims of players accepting the 2 end of a 3/2 split unless they truly have no chance for the GW. Before we started dividing the prizes the way we do now, we used to have ( a couple of times) finalists who were just nervous and excited to be in the finals and they were a little to quick to buddy-up and king-make. -Robert

"Blackheart" <le...@leech.com> wrote in message news:0n3rm05kekn93m7a9...@4ax.com... > On 13 Oct 2004 19:06:49 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > wrote: > > >Blackheart <le...@leech.com> writes: > they can keep letting people negotiate the winners... I offered a > solution that involves *gasp* playing the game. > Play _a_ game. Not tournament V:TES. I can't believe that you are advocating lengthening the time taken to play a game of V:TES. It already takes longer than the majority of other CCGs on the market and is frequently cited as a reason why people don't play or don't find it appealing to learn (source: www.boardgamegeek.com). The number of players in a game has a massive effect on how the game plays. Players, including myself, have been known to choose decks based on the tables sizes at a tournament 3-4 player tables give an advange to combat decks as there are fewer rush targets and the table is cowed into submission more easily. Conversely combat decks have a much tougher time in 6+ player tables. More targets, longer games and their deck size is the same. It's a worse proposition. Diplomacy and table talk are part of a multiplayer CCGs and i've not seen a negotiated win at a UK tournament in over a year and very, very few since the introduction of the game win rule. Matt Green

Blackheart <le...@leech.com> writes: > >You put down cards in a manner vaguely following the rules on playing > >cards, but you've repeatedly told us about how you don't play the > >game but play to act out little petty wars and other strangenesses. > > > > yes.. because Govern + 2 stealth + Conditioning, rinse, repeat is > boring... and so is Conservative Agitation x4 per turn... As other people have pointed out, this strategy has many weaknesses. It's certainly potentially effective, but it far from guarantees a win. There are almost no "guaranteed wins" in V:TES these days, unless you sit down at the absolutely perfect table. (Similar effects are possible in many games, if you happen to have the perfect foil for your opponent's deck.) > >So, because you don't like the current rules, people should have to > >change the venues they play at? (Bear in mind that in a local area, > >this may not be feasible.) Or, indeed, have to have tournaments that > >go on for hours and hours longer than at present? > > > >Urrr.... > > when people are sweeping games in 28 minutes in tournaments, I doubt > you'll have to worry about "hours and hours" Ah. You've seen *one* report and concluded the whole tournament environment is like that. I've seen (untimed) finals go on for three to four hours, for example, and many go on for somewhere in the region of two. (Say, 90 to 150 minutes.) [ quoted text not captured ]