[LSJ] Another playing to win question

I was wondering why tournamentpoints are not in the playing to win conditions. I mean, at this point when you are offered a 3-2 loosing deal or a 2-2-1 deal, you are free to play for any of them as they are equal. But when counting tournament points you are better of with the 2 VP's in the second deal. With other words, why shouldn't you be playing for "best position you can get" ((meaning 1) the gamewin 2) most VP's 3) most tp)) W

[ quoted text not captured ] The rule is apparently too complex as it is. :-) -- 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/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<Xe5kc.216$Ut1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > I was wondering why tournamentpoints are not in the playing to win > > conditions. > > I mean, at this point when you are offered a 3-2 loosing deal or a > > 2-2-1 deal, you are free to play for any of them as they are equal. > > > > But when counting tournament points you are better of with the 2 VP's > > in the second deal. > > > > With other words, why shouldn't you be playing for "best position you > > can get" ((meaning 1) the gamewin 2) most VP's 3) most tp)) > > The rule is apparently too complex as it is. :-) LOL, yeah... ....but still... W

>I was wondering why tournamentpoints are not in the playing to win >conditions. There are times I wonder why tournament points aren't the primary goal in games ... >I mean, at this point when you are offered a 3-2 loosing deal or a >2-2-1 deal, you are free to play for any of them as they are equal. > >But when counting tournament points you are better of with the 2 VP's >in the second deal. > >With other words, why shouldn't you be playing for "best position you >can get" ((meaning 1) the gamewin 2) most VP's 3) most tp)) ... as tournament points do a very good job of establishing best position, next best position, etc. I recall someone looking at TPs when one of the ranking system discussions was going on and how the numbers looked good. Hadn't ever thought about TPs prior to that. Never considered how they gave relative position in games since they were largely irrelevant to tournament success. Had many discussions with people for a scoring system used for another game and how to fix it since it never worked right. The most relevant question in those discussions was something like "what is the best way to detemine superior play?" The answer would usually involve something like "well, first and second is better than second and second and first and third is better than second and second and ..." In other words, the answer had mostly to do with relative position rather than some sort of absolute value. Absolute values can be arbitrary. They can also produce apple and orange comparisons. I didn't much like the old ranking system, but it did have the relative position thing going for it which weeded out certain distortions. On the other hand, a problem with relative position play is that people will throw games to come in second far too often. Doesn't happen so much in big tournaments as there's too much competition for the final table, but it's annoyingly effective in smaller.

> On the other hand, a problem with relative position play is that people will > throw games to come in second far too often. Doesn't happen so much in big > tournaments as there's too much competition for the final table, but it's > annoyingly effective in smaller. Another problem with relative position as the primary ranking factor is that a table sweep should be rewarded more highly than a 2-1-1-1-0 win. At least IMO. Ira

[ quoted text not captured ] Actually, upon more lengthy reflection, using TPs (for those who understand them) would probably simplify the conversation quite a bit. Play to win (in a preliminary round of a V:EKN V:TES tournament): Maximize your TPs. That covers all the rest. Thanks for the tip. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <MUgkc.4305$Xj6....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Play to win (in a preliminary round of a V:EKN V:TES tournament): Maximize >your TPs. > >That covers all the rest. it doesn't seem to be the *exact* same thing as the previous way of saying it. if i'm correct, the old way was "get a game win; if not possible, maximize your VPs." under the old "rule", a player who didn't have a chance to get a VP could play any way he wanted and get his 0 VP. under the new "rule", he must actually work toward helping someone sweep the table (since that would give him more TPs than if the table ended as 3-2 or 2-2-1, for example). -- charles lechasseur - da...@novideospamtron.ca

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Actually, upon more lengthy reflection, using TPs (for those > who understand them) would probably simplify the > conversation quite a bit. > > Play to win (in a preliminary round of a V:EKN V:TES tournament): > Maximize your TPs. > > That covers all the rest. > > Thanks for the tip. > > > 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/ Aaaaaaaagggggghhhhhhh!!!! Noooooooooooo!!! Now I'm going to have to explain TPs to everyone who doesn't understand them, and explain what place they can come in and still be playing under the Play-To-Win rule. Oh well. Thanks, Scott! hehee;) 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

LSJ wrote: > > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<Xe5kc.216$Ut1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > > >>Wouter Kuyper wrote: > >>>With other words, why shouldn't you be playing for "best position you > >>>can get" ((meaning 1) the gamewin 2) most VP's 3) most tp)) > >> > >>The rule is apparently too complex as it is. :-) > > Actually, upon more lengthy reflection, using TPs (for those who understand > them) would probably simplify the conversation quite a bit. > > Play to win (in a preliminary round of a V:EKN V:TES tournament): Maximize > your TPs. > > That covers all the rest. Oh, man, I *STRONGLY* disagree - assuming I understand what you mean. For instance, this would mean that someone who knows they're going to be ousted would have an obligation to play in favor of the current leader sweeping the table and avoiding one of the other players grabbing a VP. Not only is that silly, I don't WANT going-out-the-door players to be trying to aid the leader in his rush towards victory because it tends to make for boring games. Please explain your rationale in this. The other rule wasn't perfect, I'll grant. (No such rule can be.) But at least it didn't overtly hurt the game. Fred

ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote in message news:<500e74e.04042...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] If a combat-deck does the backrush-thingy so good that he actually gets to this situation, i think that would even be better play than a sweep with a (usually bleed-kinda thing).IMO, W

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<MUgkc.4305$Xj6....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<Xe5kc.216$Ut1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > > >>Wouter Kuyper wrote: > >> > >>>I was wondering why tournamentpoints are not in the playing to win > >>>conditions. > >>>I mean, at this point when you are offered a 3-2 loosing deal or a > >>>2-2-1 deal, you are free to play for any of them as they are equal. > >>> > >>>But when counting tournament points you are better of with the 2 VP's > >>>in the second deal. > >>> > >>>With other words, why shouldn't you be playing for "best position you > >>>can get" ((meaning 1) the gamewin 2) most VP's 3) most tp)) > >> > >>The rule is apparently too complex as it is. :-) > > > > LOL, yeah... > > > > ....but still... > > Actually, upon more lengthy reflection, using TPs (for those who understand > them) would probably simplify the conversation quite a bit. > > Play to win (in a preliminary round of a V:EKN V:TES tournament): Maximize > your TPs. > > That covers all the rest. > > Thanks for the tip. I think i would LOVE that. Or at least the idea of it. First thing that comes to my mind is that it helps Combat-decks a lot. Those decks usually don't get their tablewins with 4/5 VP's, but in this system that wouldn't cost them anything. This system could rank a deck that does (somerandomcombatdeck)1-2,5, 1-2, 0-1 Higher Than (somerandombleeddeck) 1-4, 1-3, 0-0 In the old system the bleeddeck (2-7) is likely to get to the finals (say in a 65-player-tournament), and the combatter (2-5,5) would not be. IMO the combatdeck might have done a better job playing. In the TP-based-playing the combatter might be above the bleeder. I would prefer that (though this might be just my preference) Something that can be said against it is that in these circumstances (TP-based-ranking) you want (when loosing) that someone else takes all the rest...Not sure if that gets to fun games. W

Just for fun and educational purposes, i made also a ranking list for the German championships with TP-GW-VP as factors New Rank Old Rank Name GWs Prelim VPs 1 1 Martin Weinmayer 2 8 168 2 2 Erol Öngün 2 8 162 3 3 Jo Herroelen 2 7 156 4 6 Stéphane Lavrut 2 5.5 156 5 8 Kamel Senni 2 4.5 150 6 9 Martin Schumacher 1 6 150 7 9 Robert Müller 1 6 150 8 4 Emiliano Imeroni 2 7 144 9 5 Ruben Cauwenberghe 2 6 144 10 7 Harold Stiege 2 5 144 11 11 Tobias Brouw 1 6 144 12 11 Markus Schlein 1 6 144 13 15 Andreas Nusser 1 5 144 14 15 Dionisio Weyzig 1 5 144 15 15 Wouter Kuyper 1 5 144 16 32 Marc Kolmerschlag 0 5 138 17 18 Frank Reidel 1 5 132 18 21 Johannes Walch 1 4 132 19 26 Jeroen Rombouts 1 3 132 20 22 Christopher Meisinger 1 4 126 21 13 Dave Bastijns 1 6 120 22 13 Jeroen Oort 1 6 120 23 23 Robert Fängler 1 4 120 24 23 Michael Bartsch 1 4 120 25 25 Bjoern Thies 1 3.5 120 26 36 Erik Ferwerda 0 2 120 27 19 Annemarieke Spanje 1 5 114 28 30 Stefan Murillo 1 2.5 114 29 37 Gael Mathey 0 2 114 30 27 Falko Hampel 1 3 108 31 27 Fabien Cure 1 3 108 32 31 Thomas Gschwandtner 1 2 108 33 33 Christophe Continente 0 3 108 34 33 Grégory Gardin 0 3 108 35 33 Thorsten Weber 0 3 108 36 38 Frank Vandeput 0 2 108 37 20 Alexander Kiok 1 5 106 38 39 Michael Jakoby 0 2 106 39 29 Lukas Nitsch 1 3 102 40 42 Mathias Pasdziorek 0 1.5 102 41 40 Markus Muerth 0 2 96 42 43 Jeroen Chatinier 0 1.5 96 43 45 Frank Moeller 0 1 96 44 45 Joscha Düll 0 1 96 45 41 Holger Christiansen 0 2 90 46 44 Emile Bosman 0 1.5 90 47 47 Carsten Hüls 0 1 90 48 47 Arnaud Clavel 0 1 90 49 47 Nicole Pickelmann 0 1 90 50 47 Dietmar Range 0 1 90 51 51 Christophe Baltazar 0 1 84 52 51 Christoph Hardebusch 0 1 84 53 53 Ralf Lammert 0 1 82 54 54 Magnus Knoblauch 0 1 78 55 54 Danny Beerens 0 1 78 56 54 Sascha Müller 0 1 78 57 59 Stefan Krämer 0 0 78 58 57 Götz Weinreich 0 1 72 59 57 Simon Klibisch 0 1 72 60 60 Markus Hißnauer 0 0 72 61 61 Katja Gatner 0 0 66 62 61 Arvid Waldrich 0 0 66 63 63 Bas Vegchel 0 0 60 64 63 Arjan Eggels 0 0 60 65 63 Martin Schönewald 0 0 60 66 66 Cedric Diez 0 0 54 67 66 Yuri Nuijten 0 0 54 68 68 Marcel Evers 0 0 48

Frederick Scott wrote: > Oh, man, I *STRONGLY* disagree - assuming I understand what you mean. OK: Play to get VPs so as to maximize your TPs. (I didn't mean to include re-arranging the VPs other players score in an attempt to maximize your TPs). Perhaps it's better to just stick with the old standard after all. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) wrote in message news:<44a2da05.04042...@posting.google.com>... (snip) > ...why shouldn't you be playing for "best position you > can get" ((meaning 1) the gamewin 2) most VP's 3) most tp)) I'm wondering: if you aren't using Dominate, are you breaking the "playing to win" rules? :) -t!MmY

LSJ wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > Oh, man, I *STRONGLY* disagree - assuming I understand what you mean. > > OK: Play to get VPs so as to maximize your TPs. Heh, you're having trouble explaining the original rules. Try explaining THAT one so no one pesters you with follow-up questions. > Perhaps it's better to just stick with the old standard after all. :-) I'd give that about 4 1/2 stars... Fred