The New Game Wins Rule

To all, I just held a tournament this past weekend in Lafayette, La., and I know it is going to sound like "sour grapes", but I wanted to talk about the Table Wins system. I am, of course, biased by my own experience where I had 5 victory points and therefore would have been in second place under the old v.p. system but I had no game wins under the new system. I, therefore, was unable to make the finals. I didn't collude or make table deals to get my two victory points in two rounds, but I tied one of those rounds and lost the other. My deck was able to handle alot of pressure and also put alot of pressure forward. I wish I could say that I was the only person at my tournament that didn't make it to the finals because of game wins, but it also happened to another person. I find that it left a unpleasant taste in my mouth that people who were able to win one table with the same amount of v.p.'s in a round that I scored were able to make the finals with less victory points while I was excluded. Is it just me? What does everyone else think? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

X_Zealot wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] We've just had our own first tournament with the new rules. I was soundly beaten si it didn't matter for me personally. Anyway, I think that the new rules are a vast improvement as we've seen too many "Intercept combat hellmonsters" played by "I don't care, as long as there's anything left that can be used by my predator I'm in danger". For some, not so strange reason, they never to make anything but exactly zero or two VP at any given table. Sure, it's fun being its prey as I'll have at least one VP for free with only one opponent to care about, but good for the game? I think not. Now I HAVE to try grabbing that pesky third VP, which in my book is a good thing - even though I'll probably find myself on the receiving end on your described dilemma, intercept/bloat/build -deck builder that I am. Sten During

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:fVB08.21074$V55.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I like the game-wins rule. A deck doesn't deserve to be in the final if it can't win games IMO. It also resolved a lot of issues, esp with bloat and wall decks. You have to apply forward pressure under the game wins system, there are fewer table splitting deals, players ( in my experience ) are more focussed on winning the current game, which I think is the way is should be. Unfortunately the game-wins rule is not-so-good in a 4 player game. A lot of 4 player games I've played end 2-2, and it's not becasue anyone is walling-up or not applying forward pressure. It's usually because my prey is playing a fast deck and gets 2 VPs before I oust him. In a 5 player game, my prey might get 3 VPs and a game win or he gets his 2 VPs, I finally oust him and then win the end-game and end up on 3VPs. I don't know about anyone else but I personally think that ppl in 4 player games are still at a disadvantage. Previously becuase there are less VPs you can get, but now because a 4 player table is harder to get a game win on. If everyone plays the same number of 4 player games then I guess it evens out but I dbout this is the case, I haven't looked at the seating chart enough to know.

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:fVB08.21074$V55.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com... > I find that it left a unpleasant taste in my mouth that people who were able > to win one table with the same amount of v.p.'s in a round that I scored > were able to make the finals with less victory points while I was excluded. > Is it just me? What does everyone else think? So far, I like the game wins rule. Yes, it "screws" people who get some number of VPs but don't get any game wins. But the object of the game *is* to get the most VPs in any particular game, and someone who gets a game win has done that better than someone without (IMO). The "tied for first with 2 VPs" case is unfortunate, but making game wins splittable would greatly reduce their effectiveness in making people "play to win" (as opposed to "play for 2 VPs"). Josh an occasional game winner

> We've just had our own first tournament with the new rules. I was > soundly beaten si it didn't matter for me personally. Anyway, I think > that the new rules are a vast improvement as we've seen too many > "Intercept combat hellmonsters" played by "I don't care, as long as > there's anything left that can be used by my predator I'm in danger". > For some, not so strange reason, they never to make anything but > exactly zero or two VP at any given table. Sure, it's fun being its > prey as I'll have at least one VP for free with only one opponent > to care about, but good for the game? I think not. > Now I HAVE to try grabbing that pesky third VP, which in my book is > a good thing - even though I'll probably find myself on the receiving > end on your described dilemma, intercept/bloat/build -deck builder > that I am. > First of all, most of the Intercept Combat Hellmonsters I know go forward with Eagle Sights or Falcon's Eyes so I think they are going for three no matter what (such as oust their prey, then try to be the last on the table) . All decks do try to maximize V.P's at the table, at least in theory. In fact, I think you are right about it making it more difficult for the Intercept, Bloat, Build decks which are usually your Larger vampire decks. So if what you say is true, then we are shifting the meta-game back to weenies with this rule. The funny thing is that in this tournament. The deck that won the tournament (a weenie dominate deck no less) was my predator one round, and he wasn't able to oust me. That fact might have made a difference in the finals. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I like the game-wins rule. A deck doesn't deserve to be in the final if it > can't win games IMO. It also resolved a lot of issues, esp with bloat and > wall decks. You have to apply forward pressure under the game wins system, > there are fewer table splitting deals, players ( in my experience ) are more > focussed on winning the current game, which I think is the way is should be. It is interesting that you and Sten During both bring up the same thing. The new rule really hurts bloat and wall decks, which often times are decks which are based around larger vampires. Doesn't that help weenie decks? > > Unfortunately the game-wins rule is not-so-good in a 4 player game. A lot of > 4 player games I've played end 2-2, and it's not becasue anyone is > walling-up or not applying forward pressure. It's usually because my prey is > playing a fast deck and gets 2 VPs before I oust him. In a 5 player game, my > prey might get 3 VPs and a game win or he gets his 2 VPs, I finally oust him > and then win the end-game and end up on 3VPs. You know I never thought of that. Our tournament had the potential to be a 17 person tournament (one person showed up 3 minutes late and the other bowed out so that we could have 5 person tables). That would have made it three 4-person tables, and one 5-person table. So being seated at the five person table would have been an advantage, therefore 2 players (17- (5*3)=2) would have been at a signifigant disadvantage to the other 15 players. Good point!! :) > > I don't know about anyone else but I personally think that ppl in 4 player > games are still at a disadvantage. Previously becuase there are less VPs you > can get, but now because a 4 player table is harder to get a game win on. If > everyone plays the same number of 4 player games then I guess it evens out > but I dbout this is the case, I haven't looked at the seating chart enough > to know. So you would have to play in exactly multiples of 5 player tournaments to make everything fair to all the players, if your assumption of a 4 person table is harder to win is true. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:a1v3d8$tb0o9$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > "X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:fVB08.21074$V55.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com... > > > I find that it left a unpleasant taste in my mouth that people who were > able > > to win one table with the same amount of v.p.'s in a round that I scored > > were able to make the finals with less victory points while I was > excluded. > > Is it just me? What does everyone else think? > > So far, I like the game wins rule. > > Yes, it "screws" people who get some number of VPs but don't > get any game wins. But the object of the game *is* to get > the most VPs in any particular game, and someone who gets a > game win has done that better than someone without (IMO). You are right to say "IMO". IMO, it just meant that someone can make it to the finals by a lucky seating position just to get one game win. Or may be it is just sour grapes. I am having a hard time being objective here because of my experience. > > The "tied for first with 2 VPs" case is unfortunate, but > making game wins splittable would greatly reduce their > effectiveness in making people "play to win" (as opposed to > "play for 2 VPs"). That definantly would make it just a patch to the vp system that you could practically ignore and therefore would be better of with doing away with it altogether. [ quoted text not captured ]

"GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in message news:u460lc8...@news.supernews.com... > "X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > I find that it left a unpleasant taste in my mouth that people who were > > able to win one table with the same amount of v.p.'s in a round that I scored > > were able to make the finals with less victory points while I was > > excluded. Is it just me? What does everyone else think? I know I'll suffer personally because I've always been extremely good at getting into the finals with steady VP accumulation and deals. However, I do prefer to reward the players who can actually win. > I like the game-wins rule. A deck doesn't deserve to be in the final if it > can't win games IMO. Right. > It also resolved a lot of issues, esp with bloat and > wall decks. You have to apply forward pressure under the game wins system, > there are fewer table splitting deals, players ( in my experience ) are more > focussed on winning the current game, which I think is the way is should be. Right. The goal of each game used to be at odds with what you had to do to get into the finals. Now they are in sync. > I don't know about anyone else but I personally think that ppl in 4 player > games are still at a disadvantage. Previously becuase there are less VPs you > can get, but now because a 4 player table is harder to get a game win on. Under the old system a 4 player table had less available VPs--the primary resource that was tracked for a finals appearance. The new system is, if at all, less biased since Game Wins are equally as available in 4 and 5-player games. > If > everyone plays the same number of 4 player games then I guess it evens out > but I dbout this is the case, I haven't looked at the seating chart enough > to know. The optimal seating chart does attemp to minimize repeated seating of players at 4-player tables. -Robert -- Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

> Under the old system a 4 player table had less available VPs--the primary > resource that was tracked for a finals appearance. The new system is, if at > all, less biased since Game Wins are equally as available in 4 and 5-player > games. But is that true? How would one prove that a game win is equally availible on a 4 and 5 person table (where ties provide no victory)? In my gut I know that this can't be true. I don't have the mathmatical skills to prove it one way or the other. I do know that in VTES on a five person table if you oust two people and then are ousted there is the possibility of another person winning, but on a four person table if you oust 2 people and are ousted then you have effectively lost since a loss and a tie are counted the same under the game wins system. In a four person table there are several different game ending sequences. 0/0/0/4 1/0/0/3 0/0/0/3 2/0/0/2 <-- a tie, effectively the whole table loses 1/1/0/2 2/0/0/1 2/0/0/0 1/1/1/1<table loses again 0/0/0/0<table loses again 1/0/0/0<table loses again 1/1/1/0<table loses again 1/1/0/0.<table loses again I have included those situations where the table going to time. Notice that I haven't included the half points as they are irrelavent in the game wins system (except for tie-breaking who goes to the finals) Under the five system 0/0/0/0/5 1/0/0/0/4 0/0/0/0/4 2/0/0/0/3 3/1/1/0/0 0/0/0/0/3 1/0/0/0/3 0/0/0/0/2 1/1/0/0/2 1/0/0/0/2 0/0/0/0/2 2/1/0/0/2<-- a tie, effectively the whole table loses 2/0/0/0/2<-- a tie, effectively the whole table loses 3/1/1/0/0 2/1/1/1/0 1/1/1/1/1<table loses again 0/0/0/0<table loses again 1/0/0/0<table loses again 1/1/1/0<table loses again 1/1/0/0.<table loses again Out of the possible outcomes, it appears to me that those sitting on a five person table have a higher likelyhood of reaching an outcome where a table win will occur than a table of four (this is of course holding all things equal). If anyone has the mathmatical skill to say one way or another it would be appreciated. [ quoted text not captured ]

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:ICE08.32195$3x5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com... > > "Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message > news:a1v3d8$tb0o9$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > Yes, it "screws" people who get some number of VPs but don't > > get any game wins. But the object of the game *is* to get > > the most VPs in any particular game, and someone who gets a > > game win has done that better than someone without (IMO). > > You are right to say "IMO". IMO, it just meant that someone can make it to > the finals by a lucky seating position just to get one game win. Or may be > it is just sour grapes. I am having a hard time being objective here > because of my experience. But the "lucky seating position" effect has always existed and will probably always exist. Used to be, you could luckily get 4 or 5 VPs by getting the exact right position on some particular table, or luckily get 2 VPs every game because your prey was always unprepared for you. Now you can luckily win a game by being in the right place at the right time. Luck will always be a factor, if it's a factor at all. Given that every scoring system is imperfect, it seems to me best to use one that most closely represents the goal of actual "typical" games (ie to win). Here's an analogy that may be helpful, though it's imperfect: Consider baseball. If one team, in three games, goes 0-3, and another team, in three games, goes 1-2, which team has a better record? What if the 0-3 team lost each game by 5 runs to 4, but the 1-2 team only won its game by 1 to 0, and lost both its other games by 5 to 0? In baseball, the only thing that matters after the game's over is whether or not you won; in VTES it's not quite like that since even nonwinning VPs are used as tiebreakers, but the same basic principle seems to apply. And it makes sense to me. I can certainly understand your unhappiness with not making the finals under the new system when you would have under the old, though. > > The "tied for first with 2 VPs" case is unfortunate, but > > making game wins splittable would greatly reduce their > > effectiveness in making people "play to win" (as opposed to > > "play for 2 VPs"). > > That definantly would make it just a patch to the vp system that you could > practically ignore and therefore would be better of with doing away with it > altogether. Right. Which is why it's a good thing we're not doing that. :-) Josh archon of nothing in particular

> But the "lucky seating position" effect has always existed > and will probably always exist. Used to be, you could > luckily get 4 or 5 VPs by getting the exact right position > on some particular table, or luckily get 2 VPs every game > because your prey was always unprepared for you. But now the lucky guy who won the 4 or 5 vps goes to the finals where the other guy doesn't. I honestly think that a deck lucking into 2vps every round is an extremely rare occurence, and I honestly think that is stretching it. Now you > can luckily win a game by being in the right place at the > right time. Luck will always be a factor, if it's a factor > at all. > > Given that every scoring system is imperfect, it seems to > me best to use one that most closely represents the goal > of actual "typical" games (ie to win). The unfortuant thing about the system is that ties cause everyone at the table to lose. > > Here's an analogy that may be helpful, though it's imperfect: > Consider baseball. If one team, in three games, goes 0-3, > and another team, in three games, goes 1-2, which team has > a better record? What if the 0-3 team lost each game by 5 > runs to 4, but the 1-2 team only won its game by 1 to 0, > and lost both its other games by 5 to 0? In baseball, the > only thing that matters after the game's over is whether or > not you won; in VTES it's not quite like that since even > nonwinning VPs are used as tiebreakers, but the same basic > principle seems to apply. And it makes sense to me. An excellent analogy, except for one thing, there are no ties in baseball. IIRC, you go to overtime to resolve ties. Therefore, a tie does not result in both teams losing. This fact makes your analogy wrong. > I can certainly understand your unhappiness with not making > the finals under the new system when you would have under > the old, though. I can't distinguish whether it is my unhappiness with my own fate or my unhappiness with way that the game is turning. I am unhappy about something, and I think that it is the system that has been put into place rather than my unfortunant experience [ quoted text not captured ]

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:V6G08.23148$V55.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com... > > > Under the old system a 4 player table had less available VPs--the primary > > resource that was tracked for a finals appearance. The new system is, if > > at all, less biased since Game Wins are equally as available in 4 and > > 5-player games. > > But is that true? > How would one prove that a game win is equally availible on a 4 and 5 > person table (where ties provide no victory)? Easy. Each table has 1 Game Win available. Under the old system, where everyone was trying to accumulate VPs, some tables has 5 available and some tables had only 4. > I don't have the mathmatical skills to prove it one way or the other. > I do know that in VTES on a five person table if you oust two people and > then are ousted there is the possibility of another person winning, but on a > four person table if you oust 2 people and are ousted then you have > effectively lost since a loss and a tie are counted the same under the game > wins system. In a four person table there are several > different game ending sequences. [clip] > Out of the possible outcomes, it appears to me that those sitting on a five > person table have a higher likelyhood of reaching an outcome where a table > win will occur than a table of four (this is of course holding all things > equal). If anyone has the mathmatical skill to say one way or another it > would be appreciated. I'm not sure about this either but yes, it does seem possible that actually earning the 1 available Game Win might be harder at a 4-player table. If this turned-out to be true it would still seems less offensive to me than the old system where, just by sitting down at a 4-player table, and even if you sweep the table, there are fewer available VPs--the very thing you are trying to accumulate. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:cTG08.30630$Vz3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > I'm not sure about this either but yes, it does seem possible that actually > earning the 1 available Game Win might be harder at a 4-player table. If this > turned-out to be true it would still seems less offensive to me than the old > system where, just by sitting down at a 4-player table, and even if you sweep > the table, there are fewer available VPs--the very thing you are trying to > accumulate. Also, keep in mind that at a four-player table, you're only competing against three other players to get the game win, while at a five-player table there are four other players you must defeat. This leans toward the four-player table being "easier". The greater chance of tying may offset this somewhat but probably not as much as the 20% (25%? not sure offhand) reduction in competition. Josh playing the percentages

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:a1vbsh$spnns$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > Given that every scoring system is imperfect, it seems to > me best to use one that most closely represents the goal > of actual "typical" games (ie to win). > I thought the goal was to oust your prey, and for each prey that you oust, you gain a point. I very much disagree that the goal is to win any single game, and I really don't understand the reasoning that went into the new "table wins" system. The goal has never before been to "win" at your table, but simply to oust your prey. The new rule doesn't more accurately reflect the goal of the game, but redefines it. In a casual game, it's true that you are interested in who "won" the game, but you are also interested in who else had victory points. If Bob had 3 VP's and Joe had 2 VP's, sure Bob won, but Joe came in second. Saying that Bob won and Joe lost would not accurately represent what happened, except under the new table wins rule. If one person has 5VP's in one game and has 0 VP in his other games, he has a better chance of being in the finals than someone who won 2VP's in every game but came in second each time. That may be the desired effect of the new system, but I fail to see why. The baseball analogy only works if you define the goal of each game to be winning, instead of maximizing victory points. The old tournament rule (and the style of play that prevails in most casual play) defines your goal as maximizing VP's. The new rule defines your goal as winning a table.

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:PuG08.23513$V55.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com... > > But now the lucky guy who won the 4 or 5 vps goes to the finals where the > other guy doesn't. I honestly think that a deck lucking into 2vps every > round is an extremely rare occurence, and I honestly think that is > stretching it. Well, really, "lucking" into 4 or 5 VPs in a single game, or even a game win, may also be a rare occurrence. Who's to say? It comes down to whether any particular turn of events was "lucky" or "skillful". > The unfortuant thing about the system is that ties cause everyone at the > table to lose. Sure. That's unfortunate. But letting anyone win in case of tie would undermine the whole "reduce table-splitting" impetus of the new system. [snip my baseball analogy] > An excellent analogy, except for one thing, there are no ties in baseball. > IIRC, you go to overtime to resolve ties. Therefore, a tie does not result > in both teams losing. This fact makes your analogy wrong. Well, I said it was imperfect. :-) If we think about hockey instead (a game where I understand ties are not uncommon), we could have an 0-3-0 (where wins are first, losses second, ties third) team, an 0-2-1 team, and a 1-2-0 team. How would we rank these teams? Clearly 1-2-0, 0-2-1, 0-3-0. But allowing ties to count for something raises the issue of how much they should count for. What if we had teams at 0-3-0, 0-2-1, 0-1-2, 0-0-3, and 1-2-0? Obviously more ties is better than more losses, but is three ties better than one win? In tournament VTES, I think we don't want it to be, because we don't want people *trying* to tie their games. So we count ties the same as losses and figure that the players who won the most games did the best that day. > I can't distinguish whether it is my unhappiness with my own fate or my > unhappiness with way that the game is turning. I am unhappy about > something, and I think that it is the system that has been put into place > rather than my unfortunant experience Maybe so. I doubt we'll see any changes at least for six months or a year, though, so that we have enough time to evaluate the difference over a lot of tournaments in a lot of places. Josh persistent (and consistent?)

> > But is that true? > > How would one prove that a game win is equally availible on a 4 and 5 > > person table (where ties provide no victory)? > > Easy. Each table has 1 Game Win available. Under the old system, where > everyone was trying to accumulate VPs, some tables has 5 available and some > tables had only 4. ...and it was I who argued that shifting table points that occured from people dropping in tournaments upset the balance of point distribution. I understand this arguement well. [ quoted text not captured ] Well, I wouldn't want you to get offended by a simple game. :P For the mean time, let's assume that it is true unless someone would like to prove me wrong. But seriously, how is the loss of the availibility of a single victory point of which there is one availible for every player greater than the loss of the availibily of a game win. (For the following arguement we will hold that the tournament in 3 round + a final rather than any other length and a tournament size that generates a four person table let's say 14 .) In this scenario we will show how the availibility of a single victory point is less upsetting to the balance of the scores than the availibility of a game win. In a fourteen person tournament you have 2 tables of 5 and 1 table of 4. In each round there will be 14 availible victory points and 3 availible game wins. 4 players will be at a disadvantage in each round. Under the game wins system, 4 player will be at a disadvatage to win 1 game point of which there are only 3 of in this round, and under the victory points system those four players will be at a disadvantage to win 1 victory point of which there are 14 of in this round. so 1 game win divided by 3 game wins = 1/3 of the total game wins is potentially at a loss to be earned, on the other hand 1 victory point out of 14 = 1/14 of the total victory points availible which has the potential to not be earned on a four person table vs. a five person table. So the difference we are talking about is the difference of 33% (i.e. 1/3) to 7% (1/14) of the potential to earn points at the table. I'll take being shorted 7% of my money vs. being shorted 33% of my money any day. And that is compounded by being over 3 rounds, so for the two players who manage to avoid sitting at the four person table they have developed a much more signifigant advantage under the game wins system than under the victory point system. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Also, keep in mind that at a four-player table, you're only > competing against three other players to get the game win, > while at a five-player table there are four other players you > must defeat. This leans toward the four-player table being > "easier". The greater chance of tying may offset this somewhat > but probably not as much as the 20% (25%? not sure offhand) > reduction in competition. I believe your perception is incorrect. The combonation of predator/prey dynamic means that you only try to ever beat one person at a time to gain a victory point. So your fast and loose math is not correct. Also the four person table is easier to tie and lose rather than a five person table. This is one of the major flaws in the system. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:n5H08.23978$Vq.218620@rwcrnsc53... > "Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message > news:a1vbsh$spnns$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > > > Given that every scoring system is imperfect, it seems to > > me best to use one that most closely represents the goal > > of actual "typical" games (ie to win). > > > I thought the goal was to oust your prey, and for each prey that you oust, > you gain a point. Yes, that is the short-term goal. Just like a short-term goal might be to destroy all of your prey's vampire's or reduce their pool. In and of itself, the gaining of a "point" is meaningless except as it displays progress toward the goal of winning. Rulebook: "As Methuselahs are ousted, players earn victory points; the winner is the player with the most victory points at the end of the game (see Victory Points, sec. 9.1)." If VPs didn't equate to winning, then I'd find something more interesting to do with my decks than to try and out my preys. > I very much disagree that the goal is to win any single > game, ??? Winning is the goal of all games that I'm aware of. In Monopoly the goal is to "win" and not to "build hotels" or "accumulate cash". Our old tournament rules rewarded "building hotels" so to speak. When chasing that goal, our players often gave the "win" to another player in exchange for the winner allowing the loser to build a couple of hotels on the way out. I'd better stop. :) -Robert [ quoted text not captured ]

> Well, really, "lucking" into 4 or 5 VPs in a single game, or > even a game win, may also be a rare occurrence. Who's to > say? It comes down to whether any particular turn of events > was "lucky" or "skillful". I think it occurs more often then you would think, but that can neither be proven nor disproven so the point is moot. > > The unfortuant thing about the system is that ties cause everyone at the > > table to lose. > > Sure. That's unfortunate. But letting anyone win in case > of tie would undermine the whole "reduce table-splitting" > impetus of the new system. I think it is the choice of evils myself and we have chosen, perhaps foolishly, the devil we didn't know for the one we did. > > [snip my baseball analogy] > > > An excellent analogy, except for one thing, there are no ties in > baseball. > > IIRC, you go to overtime to resolve ties. Therefore, a tie does not > result > > in both teams losing. This fact makes your analogy wrong. > > Well, I said it was imperfect. :-) If we think about hockey > instead (a game where I understand ties are not uncommon), > we could have an 0-3-0 (where wins are first, losses second, > ties third) team, an 0-2-1 team, and a 1-2-0 team. How > would we rank these teams? Clearly 1-2-0, 0-2-1, 0-3-0. But > allowing ties to count for something raises the issue of how > much they should count for. What if we had teams at 0-3-0, > 0-2-1, 0-1-2, 0-0-3, and 1-2-0? Obviously more ties is better > than more losses, but is three ties better than one win? In > tournament VTES, I think we don't want it to be, because we > don't want people *trying* to tie their games. So we count > ties the same as losses and figure that the players who won > the most games did the best that day. > Another excellent analogy...Unfortunantly the backup system under the game wins is not overall record but victory points. Once again your analogy is flawed because in hockey they differenciate between ties and losses where under the game wins system we do not. > > I can't distinguish whether it is my unhappiness with my own fate or my > > unhappiness with way that the game is turning. I am unhappy about > > something, and I think that it is the system that has been put into place > > rather than my unfortunant experience > > Maybe so. I doubt we'll see any changes at least for six months > or a year, though, so that we have enough time to evaluate the > difference over a lot of tournaments in a lot of places. I understand this, but it will never change unless people let it be known what the flaws are in the new system and why it is more imperfect than the last, at least why they think so... [ quoted text not captured ]

> don't want people *trying* to tie their games. So we count > ties the same as losses and figure that the players who won > the most games did the best that day. Ok, so what happens in the unlikely event where one or two (if any) people get game wins and the rest of the rounds result in ties? What if, in that same situation where there are one or two game wins, 5 or more other people are tied where the rounds they tied in tied at 2-2-1? How do you resolve who goes into the finals at that point? Clearly the one or two that had game wins. But what about the others? Sorrow -who really doesn't like the game win rule --- If you're frightened of dying and... and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth.

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:XsH08.30779$Vz3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:n5H08.23978$Vq.218620@rwcrnsc53... > > > I thought the goal was to oust your prey, and for each prey that you oust, > > you gain a point. > > Yes, that is the short-term goal. Just like a short-term goal might be to > destroy all of your prey's vampire's or reduce their pool. In and of itself, > the gaining of a "point" is meaningless except as it displays progress toward > the goal of winning. Rulebook: "As Methuselahs are ousted, players earn victory > points; the winner is the player with the most victory points at the end of the > game (see Victory Points, sec. 9.1)." If VPs didn't equate to winning, then I'd > find something more interesting to do with my decks than to try and out my > preys. > VP's *do* account to winning. Each VP that you accumulate is one win. > > I very much disagree that the goal is to win any single > > game, > > ??? Winning is the goal of all games that I'm aware of. In Monopoly the goal is > to "win" and not to "build hotels" or "accumulate cash". Our old tournament > rules rewarded "building hotels" so to speak. When chasing that goal, our > players often gave the "win" to another player in exchange for the winner > allowing the loser to build a couple of hotels on the way out. I'd better stop. > :) > Winning, in the sense of ousting your prey, *is* the stated goal of Jyhad. The more prey you oust, the closer you are to winning a single session. Methuselahs do not have final goals as short-term as one game. In casual play, if I win 2 VP every game, I am seen as a better player than someone who wins 5VP once and 0 every other game. In tournament play, this translates to ranking. Someone who won 6VP did better than someone who won 5VP. Second place ceases to mean anything under the new rule... you might as well have played 4 Baali and self-ousted yourself. But my main point is not about which is correct (although you can see my opinion), but just that the new table wins rule doesn't "more accurately reflect the goal of the game", it actually redefines it. The goal of the game is now different than it used to be. Many previously valid plays are no longer good. Frex., calling an Ancilla Empowerment which will oust both your prey and your grand prey would have been a great thing to do, even though it gives your prey a VP. But if your prey already has 1 VP at a 4-person table, this becomes a losing play, even though it nets you 2 VP (from being last one standing). It's not just scoring that's changed, the whole dynamic of play has been changed to emphasize luck over long-term skill.

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:ppH08.33295$3x5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Now this I totally disagree with. Unless you're playing in Andrew-world, you are always looking at all the other players in your game while trying to win. Saying that you're only trying to beat one person at a time is a vast oversimplification. You're only trying to *kill* one person at a time, but it's a foolish player who doesn't consider what's going on with the other three (or two) players while trying to kill his prey. Given that, for you to win a game, none of the other players can win *does* mean that you're competing against all three (or four) other players at a table. And competing against fewer players *does* make it easier to win the game. Imagine playing a two-player game of VTES - would it be easier or harder to win the game? If you were evenly matched, you'd win 50% of your games, right? Whereas in an "evenly matched" four-player game, you'd expect to win 25% of the time, or in a five-player game, 20%. So the "increased ease of game win" at a four-player table is readily apparent. It's the "increased chance of tying for a loss" that's harder to quantify. Josh quantitative analyst

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:ddH08.24099$V55.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com... > But seriously, how is the loss of the availibility of a single victory > point of which there is one availible for every player greater than the loss > of the availibily of a game win. I don't equate the diminished chance (if there is one) of gaining a GW with the unavailability of a GW. What we are saying is that the loss of availability of 1 VP is greater than the diminished chance of gaining a GW. [clip] > In a fourteen person tournament you have 2 tables of 5 and 1 table of 4. In > each round there will be 14 availible victory points and 3 availible game > wins. 4 players will be at a disadvantage in each round. Under the game > wins system, 4 player will be at a disadvatage to win 1 game point of which > there are only 3 of in this round, and under the victory points system those > four players will be at a disadvantage to win 1 victory point of which there > are 14 of in this round. It comes down to whether or not you believe the GW disadvantage at a 4 player table is a big disadvantage or a small one. > so 1 game win divided by 3 game wins = 1/3 of the total game wins is > potentially at a loss to be earned, on the other hand 1 victory point out of > 14 = 1/14 of the total victory points availible which has the potential to > not be earned on a four person table vs. a five person table. Its not a question of potential when speaking of VPs at a 4 player table. There is a 100% chance of reaching that potential and a 5th VP will not be score. > So the > difference we are talking about is the difference of 33% (i.e. 1/3) to 7% > (1/14) of the potential to earn points at the table. I'll take being > shorted 7% of my money vs. being shorted 33% of my money any day. This math only makes sense if you equate a nebulously diminished chance of gaining a GW with the absolute unavailability of a GW. If the 4 player tables required 5 VP for a GW then this would be the case. :) Mathematician, please take over! The 7% shorting is guaranteed. The 33% needs to be multiplied by some factor representing the diminished liklihood of gaining a game win. Finding out what the real reduced liklihood of winning a 4-player game is what's needed. I did remember going through all of our old Archons to look and we were all surpised by how rarely there were ties at 4 player tables. Beyond the regular math involved, there may be odd combinations of momentum in a small game that tends to result in sweeps more often. Who knows. -Robert [ quoted text not captured ]

> Now this I totally disagree with. Unless you're playing in > Andrew-world, you are always looking at all the other players > in your game while trying to win. Nice irrelavent, yet emotionally charge comment. Saying that you're only > trying to beat one person at a time is a vast oversimplification. > You're only trying to *kill* one person at a time, but it's > a foolish player who doesn't consider what's going on with the > other three (or two) players while trying to kill his prey. But it is irrelavent to your own position in theory (which is where we are) if you play against the other people at your table if it does not help you survive killing your own prey. Please either diagram mathmatically or logically. > > Given that, for you to win a game, none of the other players > can win *does* mean that you're competing against all three > (or four) other players at a table. And competing against > fewer players *does* make it easier to win the game. Imagine > playing a two-player game of VTES - would it be easier or > harder to win the game? But we don't play two player games, so all this gobbledy goop doesn't matter. <snip statistically irrelavent data> In a four player game, If you are evenly matched you will each take 1 point or 1/2 point and tie and lose. It's the "increased > chance of tying for a loss" that's harder to quantify. Right, which I quantified earlier in this thread. If you want to argue with it, then do it there. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:n5H08.23978$Vq.218620@rwcrnsc53... > > I thought the goal was to oust your prey, and for each prey that you oust, > you gain a point. I very much disagree that the goal is to win any single > game, and I really don't understand the reasoning that went into the new > "table wins" system. The goal has never before been to "win" at your table, > but simply to oust your prey. The new rule doesn't more accurately reflect > the goal of the game, but redefines it. In a casual game, it's true that > you are interested in who "won" the game, but you are also interested in who > else had victory points. If Bob had 3 VP's and Joe had 2 VP's, sure Bob > won, but Joe came in second. Saying that Bob won and Joe lost would not > accurately represent what happened, except under the new table wins rule. As Robert Goudie wrote, the rulebook *does* say that "the winner is the player with the most victory points at the end of the game". In the casual games I play, it is definitely much better to be the winner than to come in second, even if we recognize that second is much better than fifth (or that two VPs is better than none). > If one person has 5VP's in one game and has 0 VP in his other games, he has > a better chance of being in the finals than someone who won 2VP's in every > game but came in second each time. That may be the desired effect of the > new system, but I fail to see why. Well, we can all agree that winning one game and losing two is better than losing three, each by a wide margin. Whether it's better than losing three but coming in second every time is a matter of taste, I think. As such, the VEKN has chosen to try a system that reduces the chances of problematic play (playing to the tournament scoring system rather than the rulebook "how to win the game" section). > The baseball analogy only works if you define the goal of each game to be > winning, instead of maximizing victory points. The old tournament rule (and > the style of play that prevails in most casual play) defines your goal as > maximizing VP's. The new rule defines your goal as winning a table. The old tournament rule was that who went to the final game was determined by VPs, but even then it did not allow you to consider your tournament standing in your actions in any single game. This was widely overlooked, to be sure... Josh about out of pithy one-liners

> It comes down to whether or not you believe the GW disadvantage at a 4 player > table is a big disadvantage or a small one. Considering that it is Game Wins that actually get you into the final, I'd say that's a pretty big disadvantage... Sorrow -piping in --- I told the priest - don't count on any second coming. God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming. He had the balls to come, the gall to die and then forgive us. No, I don't wonder why, I wonder what he thought it would get us

> > But seriously, how is the loss of the availibility of a single victory > > point of which there is one availible for every player greater than the loss > > of the availibily of a game win. > > I don't equate the diminished chance (if there is one) of gaining a GW with the > unavailability of a GW. What we are saying is that the loss of availability of > 1 VP is greater than the diminished chance of gaining a GW. Okay so if you sweep a four person table and a denied a victory point because of your seating, what is the likely hood of not making the final. I don't know exactly but I would figure that if your tournament is less than twenty people then you should have made the finals right then and there. There is a bell curve of normal point distribution and honestly I couldn't tell you, but I wish some mathmatician would step in and help. But based on my experience, which may well be different than yours, I have seen alot of people make it to the finals on four vps. There is the possibility, that the loss of availibility of a Game Win because of how ties are adjudicated substancially alters the chance of gaining a game win. > > [clip] > > In a fourteen person tournament you have 2 tables of 5 and 1 table of 4. In > > each round there will be 14 availible victory points and 3 availible game > > wins. 4 players will be at a disadvantage in each round. Under the game > > wins system, 4 player will be at a disadvatage to win 1 game point of which > > there are only 3 of in this round, and under the victory points system those > > four players will be at a disadvantage to win 1 victory point of which there > > are 14 of in this round. > > It comes down to whether or not you believe the GW disadvantage at a 4 player > table is a big disadvantage or a small one. Exactly, what is the advantage/disadvantage of tieing a 4 person table vs. a five person table and there by denying any and all the participants at that table the game win. A game win is worth alot more than a victory point. So you may create more puppet/puppetmaster elements than you eliminate in this equation. > > > so 1 game win divided by 3 game wins = 1/3 of the total game wins is > > potentially at a loss to be earned, on the other hand 1 victory point out of > > 14 = 1/14 of the total victory points availible which has the potential to > > not be earned on a four person table vs. a five person table. > > Its not a question of potential when speaking of VPs at a 4 player table. There > is a 100% chance of reaching that potential and a 5th VP will not be score. > > > So the > > difference we are talking about is the difference of 33% (i.e. 1/3) to 7% > > (1/14) of the potential to earn points at the table. I'll take being > > shorted 7% of my money vs. being shorted 33% of my money any day. > > This math only makes sense if you equate a nebulously diminished chance of > gaining a GW with the absolute unavailability of a GW. If the 4 player tables > required 5 VP for a GW then this would be the case. :) But if you score 4 victory points by sweeping a table what are your chances of not making the finals? In a roughly 20 person tournament I would say you have probably already made it. >Who knows. Amen, brother, but I will stick to my position that I believe that this is a real mistake. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:_EH08.18155$Tq.168677@rwcrnsc54... > VP's *do* account to winning. Each VP that you accumulate is one win. Not true. Rulebook: "As Methuselahs are ousted, players earn victory points; the winner is the player with the most victory points at the end of the game (see Victory Points, sec. 9.1)." It doesn't read, "As Methuselah's are ousted, players win.; The winner of the overall session is the player with the most individual wins at the end of the game." [clip] > Winning, in the sense of ousting your prey, *is* the stated goal of Jyhad. No more than "building hotels" is the stated goal of Monopoly. > The more prey you oust, the closer you are to winning a single session. Right. They show progress toward the goal of winning. > Methuselahs do not have final goals as short-term as one game. Don't try role-playing a Methuselah on me now. :) According to the rulebook, the final goal is as short-term as one game. When talking about league play, or playing for player ratings, most games still have self-contained goals of winning the current game. Other add-ons like leagues, etc. are artificial. There's nothing wrong with them as long as they don't encourage players to underperform in the individual games. [clip] > but just that the new table wins rule doesn't > "more accurately reflect the goal of the game", it actually > redefines it. The goal of the game is now different than it used to be. Given the rulebook statement above, I'd say your defining each ousting as a "win" is the redefinition. > Many previously valid plays are no longer good. OK. > It's not just scoring that's changed, the whole > dynamic of play has been changed to emphasize luck > over long-term skill. I don't believe that's the case. [ quoted text not captured ]

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:OMH08.33472$3x5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com... > > Now this I totally disagree with. Unless you're playing in > > Andrew-world, you are always looking at all the other players > > in your game while trying to win. > > Nice irrelavent, yet emotionally charge comment. I don't think it's irrelevant - you said that "you only try to ever beat one person at a time to gain a victory point." This is clearly wrong. Your predator is trying to stop you just as much as your prey is. Your cross-table "allies" don't want you getting any VPs either - less for them, if you do. As for emotionally charged, you're the one who called my math "fast and loose". :-) Note that I don't actually take offense at that. > > You're only trying to *kill* one person at a time, but it's > > a foolish player who doesn't consider what's going on with the > > other three (or two) players while trying to kill his prey. > > But it is irrelavent to your own position in theory (which is where we are) > if you play against the other people at your table if it does not help you > survive killing your own prey. Please either diagram mathmatically or > logically. Not true either. You have to survive first, yes, but you do not have to concentrate on ousting your prey to the exclusion of cross-table considerations. If you can set up the table so that you'll be able to oust three people in quick succession, that's a *lot* better than just ousting one person by looking nowhere but to the left and then getting ousted yourself because somebody cross-table has just ousted two other people and gained twelve pool. I'm really surprised that you'd disagree about this unless we're not actually talking about the same thing. > But we don't play two player games, so all this gobbledy goop doesn't > matter. > <snip statistically irrelavent data> Thought experiments aren't irrelevant, even if they're not the same as the problem you're trying to solve. :-) > In a four player game, If you are evenly matched you will each take 1 point > or 1/2 point and tie and lose. No, that's wrong too. Games like this have to have winners. If two evenly matched runners compete, will they tie to the hundredth of a second? Very unlikely. One of them will be having a better day and will win. With four evenly matched players - in *any* game that requires a winner - each player has a 25% chance of winning the game. With five, each player has a 20% chance to win. The term "evenly matched" here means that the outcome of the game might as well be determined by random chance, and in that situation it's as if each player rolled a die and the high number won. > It's the "increased > > chance of tying for a loss" that's harder to quantify. > > Right, which I quantified earlier in this thread. If you want to argue > with it, then do it there. Fine. It's a pain in the ass but I'll do it anyway. :-) Ways a four-player game can end: 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 3 0 0 3 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 That's 35 ways for a 4-player game to end. (The expression is, for each "VP split possibility", nPx1, x2, ... where n is the number of players and x1, x2, ... are the number of players receiving each particular VP total. So for 4/0/0/0, it's 4P3,1 (three players get 0, one player gets 1) and the formula is 4!/(3!)(1!) = 24/6 = 4 ways to get the 4/0/0/0 split, etc etc.) 7 of them (all the 2/2/0/0 splits and the 1/1/1/1 split) have no "game winner". So 7/35 or 20% of 4-player games will have no game win assigned. Ways for a 5-player game to end: 5 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5P1,4 = 5 5P1,1,3 = 20 5P1,2,2 = 30 5P1,1,3 = 20 5P1,3,1 = 20 5P2,1,2 = 30 5P5 = 1 total number of ways for a 5-player game to end: 126. ways in which there is no "game winner": 31 (all the 2/2/1/0/0 ways and the 1/1/1/1/1 way) so, 31/126 or 24.6% of 5-player games will have no game win assigned. This means it's actually *more* likely for a 5-player game to reach a non-winning tie than a 4-player game. Of course, I might have made a mistake in the math somewhere; anyone who knows enough probability is welcome to correct me if so. And then, this ignores everything we know about the game itself (since it considers each outcome to be equally likely) - if someone gets 2 VPs we may consider it more likely for them to go on and get a third than to be frustrated in their attempts to continue, but we're ignoring that here (and it may be a controversial subject anyway). Josh pledged mathematician (or something)

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:IYH08.12$Rf1...@newshog.newsread.com... > > It comes down to whether or not you believe the GW disadvantage at a 4 player > > table is a big disadvantage or a small one. > > Considering that it is Game Wins that actually get you into the final, I'd say that's > a pretty big disadvantage... Again, this is only true if there exists a GW disadvantage AND if it is significant enough to outweigh the *certain VP disadvantage at 4-player tables* that we had before. Your statement above could have been said verbatim about the old system where VPs determined finalists. [ quoted text not captured ]

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<PuG08.23513$V55.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>... > > But the "lucky seating position" effect has always existed > > and will probably always exist. Used to be, you could > > luckily get 4 or 5 VPs by getting the exact right position > > on some particular table, or luckily get 2 VPs every game > > because your prey was always unprepared for you. > > But now the lucky guy who won the 4 or 5 vps goes to the finals where the > other guy doesn't. I honestly think that a deck lucking into 2vps every > round is an extremely rare occurence, and I honestly think that is > stretching it. Alright, I have to say something about the game wins. I don't know yet, whether I like it or don't. I was lucky. I had perfect seating in my first game at Lafayette. I was at a table of all bleed decks, and I had the most forward motion by not clogging and it allowed me to get four vps. I got shut out entirely the other two games, by the table turning on me. Happens. I expected it, and I honestly went into the tournament knowing I had one table I had to sweep or not get anything. [ quoted text not captured ] Now, this is unrelated to what Norm is saying, but I have to bring up, that three of the five decks at the final table in Laf. where combat. Two of them being intercept. One was a Tzimisce wall, the other was an Ahrimanes...intercept bloaty thing a-ma-bob. Jeff played it. Oscar played the other. The third was a brujah princes deck, based on controlling table. Weenies are being turned away from, from what I can see. I was the only weenie deck at the entire tournament, in fact, from what I saw, at least. I was seen as the most dominating. No one wanted to make deals to split a table, as it was counter productive to game wins, I got shut down first...everytime. I got lucky one game to get into the finals. IMHO, control decks are now going to be the most popular decks in tournaments. Something that won't oust first and draw the table's ire, but goes for a slow grind, demolishing and or ousting cross table (vie votes/anarch revolts/anything that can be used cross table). The guy who gets the first VP, will generally be torn to shreds by the rest of the table, from what I can see, unless he's powerful enough to widthstand it, or went slow enough to just appear lucky. Control, combat/vote/anything with the ability to cross table, is going to be the most played. It's gonna be the easiest way to get game wins. If you kill everyone who get's one VP, then you end up with 2 VPs by ousting your final prey...you just got a game win. The game seems to be drifting away from incredible offense early, to the slow grind, build, control table, IMHO. This is what I saw at the tournament, and I think the final game in no way reflected the rest of the tournament. BTW, the fifth deck at finals was a Malk-Anti total lockdown. Another control deck. Just something to consider...this is how it all looked to me. And I would never play another power bleed in a tournament again, unless it was simply to wait until your prey weakend himself enough for you to get one bleed through and oust. Rob

> It is interesting that you and Sten During both bring up the same thing. > The new rule really hurts bloat and wall decks, which often times are decks > which are based around larger vampires. Doesn't that help weenie decks? Except that both Oscar and Jeff had variants of the Intercept Wall design, and they both made it into the finals. The table wins encourage a specific type of wall while discouraging another. Eagle's Sight/Falcon's Eye walls, or walls that tap out to move forward, and then untap endlessly during his predator's turn, aren't hindered by the new rule. Wall decks that play the waiting game to be the victor of the two-player endgame are. As are any deck that plays solitare until it's a two player game. This IMO, is a good thing. I was crippled in round two by a grandpredator who didn't move forward until ten turns into the game. By that time, my weenie-potence rush predator and my Brujah Archon/Princes prey had managed to destroy every minion I had. I think discouraging "no pressure" tactics is good for table balance. With game wins, everyone must move forward, because you don't have time for the waiting game. If you don't put pressure on your prey, it means your prey is one VP closer to a game win. If you stop your predator cold while doing it, it means you're that much more likely to have a prey with 2 VPs by the endgame, and then you CAN'T get the table win. All you've done is shut your prey out of the finals for one more round. > So you would have to play in exactly multiples of 5 player tournaments to > make everything fair to all the players, if your assumption of a 4 person > table is harder to win is true. The 4-player table creates an upstream nightmare. In order to get a table win, you have to make sure that the first person to get a VP is the second person ousted. Generally, that means help your grandpredator get his prey, then help your prey get his prey, then oust your prey for a 2-1-1 split -- TW for you. The path of two VPs just become a way in to the finals. The table win works for me on a 5-player table. It doesn't for a 4 player. I'm tryiing to build decks that will be able to win a 4-player table without upstreaming. I don't think weenie will be the way to go (the average weenie deck cannot withstand the table mobbing on it). Fanboy

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0CH08.8$Rf1...@newshog.newsread.com... > Ok, so what happens in the unlikely event where one or two > (if any) people get game wins and the rest of the rounds result > in ties? What if, in that same situation where there are one or > two game wins, 5 or more other people are tied where the > rounds they tied in tied at 2-2-1? How do you resolve who > goes into the finals at that point? Clearly the one or two that > had game wins. But what about the others? I think you already know the answer - you go to the first tiebreaker, which is total VPs, then the second tiebreaker, which is tournament points, and if they're still tied, you use some random method. Do you think there's a more satisfactory answer in this (unlikely) case? You've already stipulated that they're also tied on VPs, so using the old VP-scoring system wouldn't help, right? The "only one or two game wins got assigned" situation should be very unlikely indeed, by the way: if you have at least two tables and three rounds of preliminary games, the chances of only two game wins coming out of those six games is (for four-player tables) 0.2^4 = 0.0016 = 0.16%. For five-player tables, it'd be (about) 0.25^4 = 0.0039 = 0.39%. The chances get even smaller in larger tournaments. Josh whirling mathematician (or something)

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0CH08.8$Rf1...@newshog.newsread.com... > > don't want people *trying* to tie their games. So we count > > ties the same as losses and figure that the players who won > > the most games did the best that day. > > Ok, so what happens in the unlikely event where one or two > (if any) people get game wins and the rest of the rounds result > in ties? What if, in that same situation where there are one or > two game wins, 5 or more other people are tied where the > rounds they tied in tied at 2-2-1? How do you resolve who > goes into the finals at that point? Clearly the one or two that > had game wins. But what about the others? ?. Maybe I'm not understanding the question since the answer is in the tournament rules. The first tie-break is VPs. Then, tournament points. -Robert [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >Mathematician, please take over! The 7% shorting is guaranteed. Let's take this on in another way. It's very easy to underestimate the power of the reduced number of players. So, if I take a wild guess, and say that: A: Chance of draw at a five-player table = 15% B: Chance of draw at a four-player game = 30% (and I honestly don't think the difference is really this big, but anyway,) then: C: Your expected amount of Table Wins on a five-player game (provided everyone has equal chances of winning) = (1 - 0.15)/5 = 0.17 = 17% D: Your expected amount of Table Wins on a five-player game (provided everyone has equal chances of winning) = (1 - 0.3)/5 = 0.17 = 17% Not too bad, is it? Only if you think the difference is bigger than this, will the 4-player table be disadvantaged. If you think the difference is less, the 4-player table will actually have an edge. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Nothing succeeds like excess"

> Not true either. You have to survive first, yes, but you do > not have to concentrate on ousting your prey to the exclusion > of cross-table considerations. If you can set up the table > so that you'll be able to oust three people in quick succession, > that's a *lot* better than just ousting one person by looking > nowhere but to the left and then getting ousted yourself because > somebody cross-table has just ousted two other people and gained > twelve pool. Okay, and if you can do that you can win. Congrats it happens. What you are talking about is strategy and what I am talking about is theory. Two different things. > > I'm really surprised that you'd disagree about this unless we're > not actually talking about the same thing. Exactly > > > But we don't play two player games, so all this gobbledy goop doesn't > > matter. > > <snip statistically irrelavent data> > > Thought experiments aren't irrelevant, even if they're not > the same as the problem you're trying to solve. :-) You are talking about the interaction of 4 or 5 players, which is a hell of alot harder to describe than the interaction of 2 players > With four evenly matched players - in *any* game that requires > a winner - each player has a 25% chance of winning the game. > With five, each player has a 20% chance to win. The term > "evenly matched" here means that the outcome of the game might > as well be determined by random chance, and in that situation > it's as if each player rolled a die and the high number won. No, it used to be that way under the vp system now the table either generates a game win or it does not. It is possible not to have a winner now. That is the problem. [ quoted text not captured ] Wrong, you missed all the times it goes to time and you have incomplete games you missed all permutations of 0 0 0 1's 0 0 0 2's 0 0 0 3's 0 0 1 1's 0 1 1 1's 2 0 0 0's 2 0 0 1's 3 0 0 0's > > Ways for a 5-player game to end: > > 5 0 0 0 0 > 4 1 0 0 0 > 3 1 1 0 0 > 3 2 0 0 0 > 2 1 1 1 0 > 2 2 1 0 0 > 1 1 1 1 1 > > 5P1,4 = 5 > 5P1,1,3 = 20 > 5P1,2,2 = 30 > 5P1,1,3 = 20 > 5P1,3,1 = 20 > 5P2,1,2 = 30 > 5P5 = 1 > > total number of ways for a 5-player game to end: 126. > ways in which there is no "game winner": 31 (all the > 2/2/1/0/0 ways and the 1/1/1/1/1 way) Wrong again, you missed all the ways it can go to time again. 0 0 0 0 1's 0 0 0 0 2's 0 0 0 0 3's 0 0 0 0 4's 0 0 0 1 1's 0 0 1 1 1's 0 1 1 1 1's 2 0 0 0 0's 2 0 0 0 1's 2 2 0 0 0's 2 1 1 0 0's 3 0 0 0 0's 3 1 0 0 0's See what you have missed are all the incomplete combonations. Also you have to remember that you must score 2 victory points to claim a game win. So for alot of these combonations there are no winners. I apologise if I have offended you with the "fast and loose" comment but I think I was right. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Fanboy wrote: >>It is interesting that you and Sten During both bring up the same thing. >>The new rule really hurts bloat and wall decks, which often times are decks >>which are based around larger vampires. Doesn't that help weenie decks? >> > > >The table wins encourage a specific type of wall while discouraging >another. Eagle's Sight/Falcon's Eye walls, or walls that tap out to >move forward, and then untap endlessly during his predator's turn, >aren't hindered by the new rule. > >Wall decks that play the waiting game to be the victor of the >two-player endgame are. As are any deck that plays solitare until >it's a two player game. > Previously, as X_zealot mentioned, I described a Wall-combatmonster type of deck that replaces any card giving it a forward motion with untaps and, possibly, bounce-cards. It might do undirected actions and even bleeds for the occasional one point of bleed, but the players I've seen play them usually save all or most combatcards for handling their predators. Actually the decks are not as horrible as the players wielding them. Decks by themselves are very often a nightmare for a voting predator, but they are seldom used as an aggressive interceptor. *grin* I've run that race myself until I finally understood that the game isn't about being the last man standing, but too many players don't. With the new rules I don't have to hear "So? I was last in two games and made it to the finals and you got crushed in two games and only managed to make 3VP, so who are you to complain about my deck?". > >>So you would have to play in exactly multiples of 5 player tournaments to >>make everything fair to all the players, if your assumption of a 4 person >>table is harder to win is true. >> > >The 4-player table creates an upstream nightmare. In order to get a >table win, you have to make sure that the first person to get a VP is >the second person ousted. Generally, that means help your >grandpredator get his prey, then help your prey get his prey, then >oust your prey for a 2-1-1 split -- TW for you. > >The path of two VPs just become a way in to the finals. > >The table win works for me on a 5-player table. It doesn't for a 4 >player. I'm tryiing to build decks that will be able to win a >4-player table without upstreaming. I don't think weenie will be the >way to go (the average weenie deck cannot withstand the table mobbing >on it). > >Fanboy > Seated behind the (you know by now that I don't like it) wall, unless you're running your weenie horde, you can simply wall up yourself, influence up a few vamps, discard cards and state that "I'm not moving one inch forward until that wall does." Two types of decks will grind you down in this situation - stealth/tap and bleed, and rush. Honestly, seated as I describe, at least it'll take longer to get rid of you if you refuse to move forward. I think Fanboy described the reason very well above. With midcap/large vampires you're likely able to handle combat from one direction, so this kind of blatant refusal to walk into the wall might actually hand you the last two VP as your refusaly will eventually force the entire table to stall or even run upstream, and yes, I agree that this is more likely to work at a 4 player table than at a 5 player table because in the latter case the prey of the wall is less likely to care about your sulking compared to when he/she immediately is threatened by his/her prey getting your 100% attention as your refusal to use up resources forward will cost your predator more to oust and thus forcing him/her to watch his/her back against the predator that effectively lacks a predator. Sten During

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:oWI08.33780$3x5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com... [I wrote] > > I'm really surprised that you'd disagree about this unless we're > > not actually talking about the same thing. > > Exactly OK, now I see. But your theory that only your prey matters doesn't make any sense to me in a multiplayer game, regardless of whether we're talking about theory or strategy. > You are talking about the interaction of 4 or 5 players, which is a hell of > alot harder to describe than the interaction of 2 players Well, that's true. > No, it used to be that way under the vp system now the table either > generates a game win or it does not. It is possible not to have a winner > now. That is the problem. You're right, I forgot in writing that that games can end without "winners". The correct probability is, for four-player games (that end) 25% (to win) * 80% (to not tie) = 20% to get a "game win". For five-player games that end, 20% (to win) * 75.4% (to not tie) = 15.08% to get a "game win". IOW, if all outcomes are equally probable, it's still easier to get a game win at a four-player table than at a five-player table. > > 7 of them (all the 2/2/0/0 splits and the 1/1/1/1 split) > > have no "game winner". So 7/35 or 20% of 4-player games will > > have no game win assigned. > > Wrong, you missed all the times it goes to time and you have incomplete > games [...] > See what you have missed are all the incomplete combonations. Also you have > to remember that you must score 2 victory points to claim a game win. So > for alot of these combonations there are no winners. I apologise if I have > offended you with the "fast and loose" comment but I think I was right. I left out the "going to time" possibilities because they can't happen in a "real" game. (And I did only count winners who had at least 2 VPs in the combinations I used.) In a tournament, yes, a game can go to time and that gives you a whole bunch more VP-split possibilities. Adding them into the probability calculation matrix presupposes that each of them is just as likely as the other ("normal") results, which is to assume that a game is as likely to go to time as it is to end before time is called. I don't think that's true, and any other interpretation requires a weighting of "how likely it is that a game will go to time" which I would rather not do (since it's getting back to opinions rather than facts). My analysis is accurate for any game that *ends*, which is good enough for me. If you want to do the math yourself for games that don't end, you're more than welcome to do so. (btw, I'm not offended by your fast and loose comment, but while it may have been accurate regarding my first calculations, it's not regarding these.) Josh relentless calculator

> Easy. Each table has 1 Game Win available. Under the old system, where > everyone was trying to accumulate VPs, some tables has 5 available and some > tables had only 4. Robert, you are missing the point. Under the old system all the v.p.s were won by someone. Under the new system you have tables that aren't won effectively meaning that the entire table lost. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I left out the "going to time" possibilities because they can't > happen in a "real" game. (And I did only count winners who had > at least 2 VPs in the combinations I used.) Are you serious? We just changed the rules which creates these situations and you are telling me that they can't happen. Oh yes they can, and they do, and they did, and they will again > My analysis is accurate for any game that *ends*, which is > good enough for me. If you want to do the math yourself for > games that don't end, you're more than welcome to do so. This is like arguing about the circumference of the earth to someone who believes that the earth is flat. Hello!! Hello!! Do you see the problem yet? These games do end but without a winner and without all victory points being accounted for. That is why you "fast and loose" statistics don't work. > (btw, I'm not offended by your fast and loose comment, but > while it may have been accurate regarding my first calculations, > it's not regarding these.) I am not trying to offend you, but I want you to see what a awful system we have created where whole tables don't win. If it comes down to it again where I have two v.p.'s and the only remaining player has one, I am going to ask him to give me the table or else nobody wins. What do you think about that for table politics? [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert Goudie wrote: > The optimal seating chart does attemp to minimize repeated seating of players at > 4-player tables. Moreover, in all cases (in the optimal seating charts), no player sits at a 4-player table more than once more than any of the other players. That's as good as it gets. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C43633B...@white-wolf.com... > Robert Goudie wrote: > > The optimal seating chart does attemp to minimize repeated seating of players at > > 4-player tables. > > Moreover, in all cases (in the optimal seating charts), no player sits at a 4-player > table more than once more than any of the other players. That's as good as it gets. I'll say it again. When I get two victory points and the last remaining player has 1. I am going to ask him to give me the table or else nobody wins. Isn't that fun. No collusion there is there? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <B0I08.33536$3x5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, X_Zealot <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> > But seriously, how is the loss of the availibility of a single victory >> > point of which there is one availible for every player greater than the >loss >> > of the availibily of a game win. >> >> I don't equate the diminished chance (if there is one) of gaining a GW >with the >> unavailability of a GW. What we are saying is that the loss of >availability of >> 1 VP is greater than the diminished chance of gaining a GW. >Okay so if you sweep a four person table and a denied a victory point >because of your seating, what is the likely hood of not making the final. I >don't know exactly but I would figure that if your tournament is less than >twenty people then you should have made the finals right then and there. >There is a bell curve of normal point distribution and honestly I couldn't >tell you, but I wish some mathmatician would step in and help. But based on >my experience, which may well be different than yours, I have seen alot of >people make it to the finals on four vps. This is a modeling question -- how do you accurately model the relative weights of a completely unavailable VP vs. a possibly unavailable Game Win? Well, how many possible VP distributions are there at a 4 player table? 4/0/0/0* 3/1/0/0* 2/2/0/0 2/1/1/0* 1/1/1/1! 3/0/0/0*+ 2/1/0/0*+ 1/1/1/0+ 2/0/0/0*+ 1/1/0/0+ 1/0/0/0+ 0/0/0/0+ 12 possible distributions, of which 6 (starred) award a Game Win. Expected value of Game Win at a 4 player table is then 6/12: 50%. '+' indicates the game has to time out to reach this distribution. '!' indicates an extremely unlikely simultaneous 4-person ousting, 4 successful withdrawals, or some combination of successful withdrawal and simultaneous ousting of all non-withdrawing players. Discounting this outcome as being substantially less probable than the other 11, we get an EV(GW) of 6/11: 55%. Distribution for 5-player tables: 5/0/0/0/0* 4/1/0/0/0* 3/2/0/0/0* 3/1/1/0/0* 2/2/1/0/0 2/1/1/1/0* 1/1/1/1/1! ...and all the cases for the 4-player table above (except for 1/1/1/1/0, which is impossible). 18 cases, of which 11 result in a Game Win. EV(GW) for a five-player table is 11/18: 61%, or 65% if you discard the negligible case of 1/1/1/1/1. So there's a 10% higher possibility of scoring a Game Win at a 5-person table, given the (incorrect) assumption that all players are of equal skill and random luck (expressed in shuffling) determines the outcome. With the hypothetical 14-player tournament, 12 players play in 2 5-player games and 1 4-player game; 2 players play in 3 5-player games. The group of 12 5/5/4 players will accumulate: 23% 3 Game Wins (0.65*0.65*0.55) 45% 2 Game Wins (0.65*0.55*0.35)+(0.65*0.45*0.65)+(0.35*0.55*0.65) 27% 1 Game Win (0.65*0.45*0.35)+(0.35*0.55*0.35)+(0.35*0.45*0.65) 6% 0 Game Wins (0.35*0.45*0.35) --- 101% (due to rounding) Expected value of Game Wins for the 5/5/4 group: (0.23*3)+(0.45*2)+(0.27*1)+(0.06*0)=1.86 Game Wins The group of 2 5/5/5 players will accumulate: 27% 3 Game Wins (0.65*0.65*0.65) 45% 2 Game Wins 3*(0.65*0.65*0.35) 24% 1 Game Win 3*(0.65*0.35*0.35) 4% 0 Game Wins (0.35*0.35*0.35) --- 100% Expected value of Game Wins for the 5/5/5 group: 0.81+0.9+0.24=1.95 Game Wins So the 2 players in the 5/5/5 group have, in theory, a 0.1 Game Win advantage over the 12 5/5/4 players. A 5/5/5 player is 5% more likely (0.1/1.95) than a 5/5/4 player to make the finals. Let's look at the VP side of things, without the Game Wins rule in place. For a five player table, ignoring the trivial 1/1/1/1/1 distribution, there are 17 possible outcomes: 6 outcomes provide 5 VPs to the table (if game ends before time) If time is called: 4 outcomes provide 4 VPs 3 outcomes provide 3 VPs 2 outcomes provide 2 VPs 1 outcome provides 1 VP 1 outcome provides 0 VPs Assuming these are all equally likely, a given 5-player table can be expected to provide 3.53 VPs, or 0.71 per player. Over 3 rounds, the 2 players who played at 5-player tables only would have, on average, 2.12 VP. For a four player table (ignoring, again, the trivial 1/1/1/1 distribution), there are 11 possible outcomes: 4 outcomes provide 4 VPs (if play concludes before time is called) If time is called: 3 outcomes provide 3 VPs 2 outcomes provide 2 VPs 1 outcome provides 1 VP 1 outcome provides 0 VPs A given 4-player table can be expected to provide 2.73 VPs, 0.68 per player. A given 5/5/4 player would then be expected to score 0.68+0.71+0.71=2.1 VP, making for a 0.02 VP gap between groups. People in the 5/5/5 group would be 1% likelier (0.02/2.12) to advance to the finals, again assuming dead level skill. So Game Wins do penalize playing at a 4-player table more than VP Ranking. Two important points about that: a) The penalty is tiny, whether 1% or 5%. Differences in playing skill and luck at the table will swamp out this effect. b) Game Wins has better rulebook support, which is to say it has some, unlike VP Ranking. gomi -- Blood, guts, guns, cuts Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts

> > Ok, so what happens in the unlikely event where one or two > > (if any) people get game wins and the rest of the rounds result > > in ties? What if, in that same situation where there are one or > > two game wins, 5 or more other people are tied where the > > rounds they tied in tied at 2-2-1? How do you resolve who > > goes into the finals at that point? Clearly the one or two that > > had game wins. But what about the others? > ?. Maybe I'm not understanding the question since the answer is in the > tournament rules. The first tie-break is VPs. Then, tournament points. Ok, you have, say, 7 players. 2 of those player have 1 Game Win. The only game wins of the tournament. Those 5 other players each have 5 VPs. Those 5 VPs are made of up 2 from the first round, 2 from the second round and 1 from the last round. They are all (or almost all) going to have the same tournament points. Same number of VPs, same number of TPs, who gets into the final round? Sorrow --- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives." - Tyler Durden

> Again, this is only true if there exists a GW disadvantage AND if it is > significant enough to outweigh the *certain VP disadvantage at 4-player tables* > that we had before. Perhaps. Only time will tell. > Your statement above could have been said verbatim about the old system where > VPs determined finalists. Except that VPs are significantly easier to get than Game Wins. 6 VPs (2 VPs per round) almost guaranteed you entry into the final in the past. However, in that situation, you have 0 Game Wins and you are by no means certain to get into the final. While yes, I will agree that it could be said verbatim, the underlying context is very different. Sorrow --- "...but you know, evil is an exact science..."

> ...and all the cases for the 4-player table above (except for 1/1/1/1/0, which > is impossible Wrong, Given 5 methuselah's preying on each other seated in alphabetical order A-B-C-D-E D ousts E C ousts D B ousts C A withdraws not likely but possible. [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Zealot wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3C43633B...@white-wolf.com... > > Robert Goudie wrote: > > > The optimal seating chart does attemp to minimize repeated seating of > players at > > > 4-player tables. > > > > Moreover, in all cases (in the optimal seating charts), no player sits at > a 4-player > > table more than once more than any of the other players. That's as good as > it gets. > > I'll say it again. When I get two victory points and the last remaining > player has 1. I am going to ask him to give me the table or else nobody > wins. Isn't that fun. No collusion there is there? Non sequitur. Provide a better seating chart and it will be incorporated. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C4368A1...@white-wolf.com... > X_Zealot wrote: > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > news:3C43633B...@white-wolf.com... > > > Robert Goudie wrote: > > > > The optimal seating chart does attemp to minimize repeated seating of > > players at > > > > 4-player tables. > > > > > > Moreover, in all cases (in the optimal seating charts), no player sits at > > a 4-player > > > table more than once more than any of the other players. That's as good as > > it gets. > > > > I'll say it again. When I get two victory points and the last remaining > > player has 1. I am going to ask him to give me the table or else nobody > > wins. Isn't that fun. No collusion there is there? > > Non sequitur. > Provide a better seating chart and it will be incorporated. I figured that would get your attention. :) Under the current game wins system. Given the option on any size table from 4 to 6. If I have 2 victory points and the last remaining player has one. I must beat that player to win the table and that player has only one option for the table to generate a table win. That option is lose to me. If he doesn't lose to me then he ousts me and the table ties and we both lose. So how politcking should go is "You have no hope of winning this table, so you might as well give me the win. Even if you oust me we tie and we both lose. Isn't it better that at least one of us wins." If you are my friend or my playgroup or know me yet don't know the other people in the tournament, then the odds are pretty good that you will roll over. How do we stop that from happening? [ quoted text not captured ]

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<V6G08.23148$V55.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>... > > Under the old system a 4 player table had less available VPs--the primary > > resource that was tracked for a finals appearance. The new system is, if > at > > all, less biased since Game Wins are equally as available in 4 and > 5-player > > games. > In a four person table there are several > different game ending sequences. > > 0/0/0/4 > 1/0/0/3 > 0/0/0/3 > 2/0/0/2 <-- a tie, effectively the whole table loses > 1/1/0/2 > 2/0/0/1 > 2/0/0/0 > 1/1/1/1<table loses again > 0/0/0/0<table loses again > 1/0/0/0<table loses again > 1/1/1/0<table loses again > 1/1/0/0.<table loses again > Under the five system > 0/0/0/0/5 > 1/0/0/0/4 > 0/0/0/0/4 > 2/0/0/0/3 > 3/1/1/0/0 > 0/0/0/0/3 > 1/0/0/0/3 > 0/0/0/0/2 > 1/1/0/0/2 > 1/0/0/0/2 > 0/0/0/0/2 > 2/1/0/0/2<-- a tie, effectively the whole table loses > 2/0/0/0/2<-- a tie, effectively the whole table loses > 3/1/1/0/0 > 2/1/1/1/0 > 1/1/1/1/1<table loses again > 0/0/0/0<table loses again > 1/0/0/0<table loses again > 1/1/1/0<table loses again > 1/1/0/0.<table loses again Once again, you're forgetting the VP one gets for staying alive (oh oh oh oh). > Out of the possible outcomes, it appears to me that those sitting on a five > person table have a higher likelyhood of reaching an outcome where a table > win will occur than a table of four (this is of course holding all things > equal). If anyone has the mathmatical skill to say one way or another it > would be appreciated. Well... its a simple counting procedure. say in a 3 player game No VP 000 One VP 100 010 001 Two VP NA Three VP 210 201 120 021 102 012 300 030 003 assuming that 003 and 300 can be counted as different. As there are 3 different probabilities of table sweeping (you, your prey, or your predator), then these need to be counted as different. This is also assuming we don't make a distintion between who ousts who. Assuming each of these game results have an equal chance of happening, you want to maximize the likelyhood of there being a table win. So lets examine 4 players shall we? This could get complicated... No VP 0000 One VP 1000 0100 0010 0001 Two VP 1100 1010 1001 0110 0101 0011 2000 0200 0020 0002 Three VP not possible Four VP 2100 2010 2001 1200 0210 0201 1020 0120 0021 1002 0102 0012 3100 3010 3001 1300 0310 0301 1030 0130 0031 1003 0103 0013 4000 0400 0040 0004 So for a 4 player game we can see that there are a total of 16 different possibilities for a player to get a game win, or table win. 16 out of 43 total combinations with the aforementioned assumptions in play. now 5 players... Where there's an asterik there's a series of numbers who follow a pattern. no vp 00000 one vp 10000 01000 00100 00010 00001 two vp 11000 10100 10010 10001 01100 01010 01001 00110 00101 00011 20000 02000 00200 00020 00002 three vp 11100 11010 11001 10110 10101 10011 01110 01101 01011 00111 21000 20100 20010 20001 12000 02100 02010 02001 10200 01200 00210 00201 10020 01020 00120 00021 10002 01002 00102 00012 30000 03000 00300 00030 00003 four VP Not possible five vp .... At this point I quit. As you can see, its futile to even bother with these calculatons, as they lead you very little insight into the actual system. There ISN'T equal probability of each of these situations happening (like how many times in a 5 player game does only 1 person get a VP, and the time is called?). If someone would like to complete my five VP section and find out the stats, be my guest, but I'm not in the mood to type out the numbers... I realize I could have written a program to calculate this sort of thing, but I would still be working on the program, and wouldn't have the raw data to show you. As it is, we would have to go with statistical likelyhood. That is, for the above charts (00011, etc...) we would have to assign a statistical number of times we've seen this result in a game. Then to find out if a table win on a 4 player or a 5 player is easier, we would just count the total games by the table wins, and divide by the total amount of games ever played... but we could do that w/o the above charts, in hind sight... We can begin taking data like so. 4 player game Game in which no table win: (insert number here) Game in which table win occurs: (insert number here) 5 player game Game in which no table win: (insert number here) Game in which table win occurs: (insert number here) From this data we can determine the general answer for this game. I'll repost the previous knowledge gained in a seperate thread to see if someone wants to start collecting data and post it online. ~SV

In article <kAJ08.33893$3x5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, X_Zealot <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> ...and all the cases for the 4-player table above (except for 1/1/1/1/0, >which >> is impossible > >Wrong, Given 5 methuselah's preying on each other seated in alphabetical >order > >A-B-C-D-E > >D ousts E >C ousts D >B ousts C >A withdraws > >not likely but possible. Okay. That moves us from 18 cases to 19, of which 11 result in a Game Win. EV(GW) for a 5player table is then 11/19, or 0.58 (0.61 if you discard the negligible probability of the 1/1/1/1/1 case). Re-running the calculations with the new probability gives us (see previous article for math): 5/5/4 Group 20% 3 Game Wins 47% 2 Game Wins 26% 1 Game Win 7% 0 Game Wins EV(GW) for the 5/5/4 Group: 0.6+0.94+0.26=1.8 (old numbers gave 1.86) 5/5/5 Group 23% 3 Game Wins 44% 2 Game Wins 28% 1 Game Win 6% 0 Game Wins EV(GW) for the 5/5/5 Group: 0.69+0.88+0.28=1.85 (old numbers gave 1.95) This is a .05 discrepancy; the 5/5/5 group has a (.05/1.85) 3% better chance of making the finals than the 5/5/4 group under the Game Wins rule. If you recall, the VP Ranking system gave the 5/5/5 group a 3% better chance. So your nitpick (thanks for the catch) strengthens my position, which I will now restate: a) The penalty is tiny, whether 1% or 3%. Differences in playing skill and luck at the table will swamp out this effect. To put it another way, there is no practical advantage or disadvantage to be in the 5/5/4 group versus the 5/5/5 group, no matter which system is used. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <QbJ08.33877$3x5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, X_Zealot <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> Easy. Each table has 1 Game Win available. Under the old system, where >> everyone was trying to accumulate VPs, some tables has 5 available and >some >> tables had only 4. > >Robert, you are missing the point. Under the old system all the v.p.s were >won by someone. Under the new system you have tables that aren't won >effectively meaning that the entire table lost. Under the old system VPs were lost when time was called. A 4 player game where time runs out with no ousts scores (0.5VP per player * 4 players) 2 VPs -- the other 2 VPs have vanished. [ quoted text not captured ]

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:tQJ08.33914$3x5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I actually meant that the last person had zero victory points

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:ckJ08.33879$3x5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I actually meant that the last player had zero not one, Ooops.. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <PqJ08.33883$3x5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, X_Zealot <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >news:3C43633B...@white-wolf.com... >> Robert Goudie wrote: >> > The optimal seating chart does attemp to minimize repeated seating of >players at >> > 4-player tables. >> >> Moreover, in all cases (in the optimal seating charts), no player sits at >a 4-player >> table more than once more than any of the other players. That's as good as >it gets. > >I'll say it again. When I get two victory points and the last remaining >player has 1. I am going to ask him to give me the table or else nobody >wins. Isn't that fun. No collusion there is there? But why would anyone agree? The other player already can't win. Given that he can't win (the best he can do is tie), he might as well make sure no-one else wins either, because that maximises his chances in the rest of the tournament. I'm assuming you mean 'I have 2 VP and the other player has 0' in a 4 player table, since then the other player can score 2VP (and the tie) by ousting you. If you have 2VP and the other player has 1, you're at a 5-player table. Seriously, there is NO reason for anyone to agree to such a proposal. Not in-game, not out-of-game, no reason at all. Back in the days of VP Ranking, for the same reason, players with no ability to score further VPs stalled (within the rules) as much as possible -- if your position is lost, you may as well try to disadvantage everyone else as much as possible, so there's less of a deficit to make up in future rounds (stalling a game till time runs out makes half the VPs still available go poof -- uncollected VPs means the player winning at your table isn't as far ahead of you, so it's easier to catch up). Only, with Game Wins, the incentive is to play harder to get the tie, not stall to make VPs go poof. In this way, Game Wins encourages playing the game, not the tourney system, and removes valid tournament reasons (though not valid game reasons) to stall. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@panix.com> wrote in message news:a1vqut$t7n$1...@panix3.panix.com... [ quoted text not captured ] That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that 20% of the 14 members will have 3 game wins? That is roughly 3 people. That is 3 people with 3 game wins which is 9 game wins. 9 game wins is the total number of game wins in the tournament with 3 tables. Then what the hell are those other numbers? > EV(GW) for the 5/5/4 Group: 0.6+0.94+0.26=1.8 (old numbers gave 1.86) > > 5/5/5 Group > > 23% 3 Game Wins > 44% 2 Game Wins > 28% 1 Game Win > 6% 0 Game Wins That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that 23% of the 15 members will have 3 game wins? That is roughly 3 people. That is 3 people with 3 game wins which is 9 game wins. 9 game wins is the total number of game wins in the tournament with 3 tables. Then what the hell are those other numbers? Apparently, I just do not follow your math. Explain how you get these percentages. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@panix.com> wrote in message news:a1vr33$g8$1...@panix3.panix.com... [ quoted text not captured ] At least you got something. Under the same situation there is no game wins. The whole table loses. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@panix.com> wrote in message news:a1vqut$t7n$1...@panix3.panix.com... > In article <kAJ08.33893$3x5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, > > b) Game Wins has better rulebook support, which is to say it has some, unlike > VP Ranking. > Umm... which rulebook? The one which removed the rule about tournament points and VPs used to determine placing? Damn, I wish I had my first edition Jyhad rulebook to quote from.

In article <yoK08.33958$3x5.2...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] It means there is a 20% chance the 12 players who each play in two 5-player games and one 4-player game will 3 table wins between them. There is a 47% chance they'll have 2 table wins between them, with the third table win lost to a tie. There is a 26% chance two table wins are lost to a tie. There is a 7% chance all 3 table wins are lost to ties. To get the expected value of game wins for the group, you multiply the percentage of the number of wins by the number of wins: 20% (0.20) times 3 is 0.6 47% (0.47) times 2 is 0.94 26% (0.26) times 1 is 0.26 7% (0.07) times 0 is 0 Add all these together, and the average expected amount of table wins for the group of 12 players who played at two 5-player tables and one 4-player table is 1.8 Table Wins. For the group, not per player. I was comparing the two groups (one group of 12 players who play at two 5-player tables and one 4-player table, and another group of 2 players who play at three 5-player tables, per your original 14-person tournament) to see if one would do better than the other, assuming perfectly equal skill, making luck the sole determinant of victory. >> EV(GW) for the 5/5/4 Group: 0.6+0.94+0.26=1.8 (old numbers gave 1.86) >> >> 5/5/5 Group >> >> 23% 3 Game Wins >> 44% 2 Game Wins >> 28% 1 Game Win >> 6% 0 Game Wins > >That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that 23% of the 15 members will >have 3 game wins? That is roughly 3 people. That is 3 people with 3 game >wins which is 9 game wins. 9 game wins is the total number of game wins in >the tournament with 3 tables. Then what the hell are those other numbers? > >Apparently, I just do not follow your math. Explain how you get these >percentages. Please re-read the original article, which contained the derivation of these numbers. I'll do my best to clear up any specific points as you point them out. [ quoted text not captured ]

> But why would anyone agree? The other player already can't win. Given that > he can't win (the best he can do is tie), he might as well make sure > no-one else wins either, because that maximises his chances in the rest of > the tournament. Only in the first two rounds, In the third round he is just playing spoilier if he can't make it into the finals > > I'm assuming you mean 'I have 2 VP and the other player has 0' in a 4 player > table, since then the other player can score 2VP (and the tie) by ousting you. > If you have 2VP and the other player has 1, you're at a 5-player table. > > Seriously, there is NO reason for anyone to agree to such a proposal. Not > in-game, not out-of-game, no reason at all. Back in the days of VP Ranking, > for the same reason, players with no ability to score further VPs stalled > (within the rules) as much as possible -- if your position is lost, you may > as well try to disadvantage everyone else as much as possible, so there's less > of a deficit to make up in future rounds (stalling a game till time runs out > makes half the VPs still available go poof -- uncollected VPs means the player > winning at your table isn't as far ahead of you, so it's easier to catch up). There are plenty of reasons why this will happen and it is going to happen. You might even just see intentionally poor play to throw a game win rather than tying for the round. I am certain of it. I will bet you money there will be all sort of politicking to get people to roll or mutually withdraw. I actually think that the mutual withdrawl rule will be heavily abused in this situation. > > Only, with Game Wins, the incentive is to play harder to get the tie, not > stall to make VPs go poof. In this way, Game Wins encourages playing the game, > not the tourney system, and removes valid tournament reasons (though not > valid game reasons) to stall. Not if you have a puppet or MoMo, as Derek likes to put it, on the table. It amazes me, but I am willing to bet that the Mutual Withdrawl rule will be heavily used to facilitate these deals. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <VpK08.33960$3x5.2...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] I prefer to think of it as 'nobody at the table won'. And people scoring VPs do, of course, 'get something' -- VPs are the primary tiebreaker if number of Game Wins are equal, and since, apparently, Game Wins are so gosh-darn hard to come by, VP ranking ought to come into play fairly often. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <rCK08.33999$3x5.2...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, X_Zealot <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> But why would anyone agree? The other player already can't win. Given that >> he can't win (the best he can do is tie), he might as well make sure >> no-one else wins either, because that maximises his chances in the rest of >> the tournament. > >Only in the first two rounds, In the third round he is just playing >spoilier if he can't make it into the finals Just the same as with VP ranking -- a player can be in a position where he cannot get enough VPs in the last game to make it to the finals, and thereby play spoiler. If I understand you correctly, he may as well throw the game to give someone else a free VP, since he can't make it to the finals anyway? >There are plenty of reasons why this will happen and it is going to happen. >You might even just see intentionally poor play to throw a game win rather >than tying for the round. I am certain of it. I can think of no valid in-game reason. I can't even think of a valid tournament-level reason. Please expand on why you think, in a 2/0 4player table, the 0 player could be induced to throw the game rather than go for the 2/2 tie. >I will bet you money there will be all sort of politicking to get people to >roll or mutually withdraw. I actually think that the mutual withdrawl rule >will be heavily abused in this situation. I guess time will show if you are correct. I am willing to bet $10 american it will not, within the next 24 months, prove to be a problem (it='abuse of the mutual withdrawal rule to artificially induce Game Wins rather than ties'). I'm willing to concede that _any_ change of the tournament scoring system such that it goes back to using VP other than Game Wins as primary ranking system would be prima facie proof of your position, for purposes of settling the bet. >> Only, with Game Wins, the incentive is to play harder to get the tie, not >> stall to make VPs go poof. In this way, Game Wins encourages playing the >game, >> not the tourney system, and removes valid tournament reasons (though not >> valid game reasons) to stall. > >Not if you have a puppet or MoMo, as Derek likes to put it, on the table. An easily manipulated player is an aberration, and not one you can guarantee will be present. A player who has agreed to be easily manipulated beforehand, of course, is colluding. >It amazes me, but I am willing to bet that the Mutual Withdrawl rule will be >heavily used to facilitate these deals. $10 sounds good to me. Do we have a bet? gomi still waiting to collect his $5 from someone else on an unrelated bet [ quoted text not captured ]

> >At least you got something. Under the same situation there is no game wins. > >The whole table loses. > > I prefer to think of it as 'nobody at the table won'. And people scoring VPs > do, of course, 'get something' -- VPs are the primary tiebreaker if number > of Game Wins are equal, and since, apparently, Game Wins are so gosh-darn hard > to come by, VP ranking ought to come into play fairly often. Apparently you did manage to do well in sarcasm at school, but not in psychology. Why would you or I play in a tournament where there is the possibility of no-one winning in a given round, especially given the fact that someone could play spoiler to do it? I don't get it. XZ

In article <XNK08.34099$3x5.2...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, X_Zealot <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >At least you got something. Under the same situation there is no game >wins. >> >The whole table loses. >> >> I prefer to think of it as 'nobody at the table won'. And people scoring >VPs >> do, of course, 'get something' -- VPs are the primary tiebreaker if number >> of Game Wins are equal, and since, apparently, Game Wins are so gosh-darn >hard >> to come by, VP ranking ought to come into play fairly often. >Apparently you did manage to do well in sarcasm at school, but not in >psychology. Not my field. Ask the wife. As for sarcasm, well, sarcasm is where one finds it. Did I misstate your position that Game Wins are hard to come by? >Why would you or I play in a tournament where there is the possibility of >no-one winning in a given round, especially given the fact that someone >could play spoiler to do it? Um, for the prizes and ego-satisfaction of winning the tournament? There is zero chance of no-one winning the tournament (barring force majeure). The possibility of no-one winning in a given round has always existed, and is irrelevant to the outcome of the tournament as a whole. More to the point, every game of Jyhad/V:tES you or I have _ever_ played has had just the same risk (of not having a clear winner). It hasn't hampered my enjoyment any. The risk of a Game Win going uncollected is just the same as the risk of a VP going uncollected -- it could happen, it won't mean someone won't win the tournament, it doesn't make the game any less fun, it doesn't even mean my chances of winning the tournament are necessarily worse. If I can't win a Game Win at my table, the _only_ way I can make my position worse is by letting someone else get even further ahead of me by rolling over and letting them get a cheap Game Win. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:GbI08.30882$Vz3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:_EH08.18155$Tq.168677@rwcrnsc54... > > > Winning, in the sense of ousting your prey, *is* the stated goal of Jyhad. > > No more than "building hotels" is the stated goal of Monopoly. > Bad analogy. The person who builds the most hotels does not win a game of Monopoly. Further, I don't think it's been established that in a Monopoly "tournament" the second place player gets nothing. Maybe in a monopoly tournament, you advance based on how much total money you accumulated (would probably be most likely, since monopoly games take an eternity to end and would probably have a time limit). > > The more prey you oust, the closer you are to winning a single session. > > Right. They show progress toward the goal of winning. > Your goal in each game is to get as many VP's as possible. Once your predator has 3VP's, you can still get some VP's and finish second. In a tournament, under the new rule, those 2VP's will not help you come in "second" in the rankings for who goes to the finals. Instead, you are just a loser with more tie-breaker points. > > > but just that the new table wins rule doesn't > > "more accurately reflect the goal of the game", it actually > > redefines it. The goal of the game is now different than it used to be. > > Given the rulebook statement above, I'd say your defining each ousting as a > "win" is the redefinition. > Let me put this another way. Your goal is to gain as many VP's as possible to win. When constructing a tournament from these rules, it is equally valid to expand it in either way. Either try to get as many VP's as possible throughout rounds in order to "win" the preliminary rounds of the tourney, or else divide the tournament into mini-roulettes. Until now, tournament rules required you to accumulate VP's, and did not invalidate individual performances in a round. The new rule is a kludge fix to a silly problem which wouldn't exist if collusion were disallowed. As it is, it simply makes collusion less desirable, as you don't win from getting 2 VP. On the other hand, it punished people who play legitimately and end up with a "pretty good" showing. Decks which are steady have the same chance of making the finals as a deck which is erratic. > > It's not just scoring that's changed, the whole > > dynamic of play has been changed to emphasize luck > > over long-term skill. > > I don't believe that's the case. > Explain why. I'm in the process of doing some probability calculations to illustrate *my* point, but they are taking a long time, so I'll post them later. Essentially, take a deck which relies on an unlikely card or combo. The player with that deck will be unlikely to win if he doesn't get that card or combo out early. If that player has a 33% chance of drawing their combo and will almost always get 3 VP when it happens and 0 VP when it doesn't, then they are more likely to get into the final than a person with 6 VP and no table wins. More generally, table wins emphasize that you play well in one round. You must win a table in one round. In all other rounds, your play makes no difference. VP rankings emphasize good play throughout a tournament. Getting 3 VP will not get you into a final, whereas with table wins, 3 VP *can* get you in, if they happen at the right time.

In message <tQJ08.33914$3x5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, X_Zealot <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> writes: >If I have 2 victory points >and the last remaining player has one. I must beat that player to win the >table and that player has only one option for the table to generate a table >win. That option is lose to me. If he doesn't lose to me then he ousts me >and the table ties and we both lose. That player may view it as easier to get into the final if both of you lose (one less person with a game win to interfere with his other rounds). Since he would be maximising his VPs at the same time, it would be perfectly legal play, too. -- James Coupe You remind me of the babe. What babe? PGP 0x5D623D5D The babe with the power. What power? EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Power of voodoo. Who do? 13D7E668C3695D623D5D You do. Do what? Remind me of the babe.

In message <kAJ08.33893$3x5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, X_Zealot <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> writes: >> ...and all the cases for the 4-player table above (except for 1/1/1/1/0, >which >> is impossible > >Wrong, Given 5 methuselah's preying on each other seated in alphabetical >order > >A-B-C-D-E > >D ousts E >C ousts D >B ousts C >A withdraws > >not likely but possible. In this instance, D gets 1 victory point for ousting E. C gets one victory point for ousting D. B gets one victory point for ousting C. There are two players left: A and B. A withdraws, taking the VP for his ousting with him. B gets an additional victory point for being the last player in, which is not denied by withdrawal. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <u46p5gt...@corp.supernews.com>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> writes: >> ?. Maybe I'm not understanding the question since the answer is in the >> tournament rules. The first tie-break is VPs. Then, tournament points. > >Ok, you have, say, 7 players. Then you are not holding a sanctioned event and can do whatever you choose. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <q2L08.24699$Vq.225177@rwcrnsc53>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >On the other hand, it punished people who play legitimately and end up with >a "pretty good" showing. ...but don't win. >Decks which are steady have the same chance of >making the finals as a deck which is erratic. ...as long as they both win an equal proportion of the time. I'm not seeing a problem here. >Explain why. I'm in the process of doing some probability calculations to >illustrate *my* point, but they are taking a long time, so I'll post them >later. Essentially, take a deck which relies on an unlikely card or combo. >The player with that deck will be unlikely to win if he doesn't get that >card or combo out early. If that player has a 33% chance of drawing their >combo and will almost always get 3 VP when it happens and 0 VP when it >doesn't, then they are more likely to get into the final than a person with >6 VP and no table wins. Yep. I'm sorry, I'm genuinely not trying to be flip here, but that seems okay to me. Three almost-wins oughtn't to beat out one win. >More generally, table wins emphasize that you play well in one round. You >must win a table in one round. In all other rounds, your play makes no >difference. This implies that one table win gets you into the finals, which seems a rather dicey assumption. >VP rankings emphasize good play throughout a tournament. Game wins emphasize better play, in that it actually rewards winning games, something the VP ranking system never did -- it was possible to make the finals without winning a single game. >Getting 3 VP will not get you into a final, whereas with table wins, 3 VP >*can* get you in, if they happen at the right time. Right. If you get a game win. Which is kind of the point of the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 14 Jan 2002 13:58:28 -0800, Robert Sheiman wrote: >Weenies are being turned away from, from what I can see. And that's a good thing, right? Andrew

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:05:15 -0500, Joshua Duffin wrote: >> What if, in that same situation where there are one or >> two game wins, 5 or more other people are tied where the >> rounds they tied in tied at 2-2-1? How do you resolve who >> goes into the finals at that point? Clearly the one or two that >> had game wins. But what about the others? > >I think you already know the answer - you go to the first >tiebreaker, which is total VPs, then the second tiebreaker, >which is tournament points, and if they're still tied, you >use some random method. Do you think there's a more satisfactory >answer in this (unlikely) case? A tie of this sort is not unlikely - it seems quite likely. It's like the ties you get when a cut is made in a Swiss pairs ranking to determine entry into the next stage. It's common there to use the total record of each player's opponents as a tie-break (i.e. the better your opponents, the better your ranking). Another option is to put all the players into the final. The game is not designed for a fixed number of players - it easily can cope with 2-7. I'd expect a larger final to be more free-flowing as it's harder for a single player to control a larger table and so there'd be more emphasis on gaining local superiority which should result in a fast aggressive game. Andrew

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:59:38 GMT, Chris Berger wrote: >VP's *do* account to winning. Each VP that you accumulate is one win. >Winning, in the sense of ousting your prey, *is* the stated goal of Jyhad. >The more prey you oust, the closer you are to winning a single session. >Methuselahs do not have final goals as short-term as one game. In casual >play, if I win 2 VP every game, I am seen as a better player than someone >who wins 5VP once and 0 every other game. In tournament play, this >translates to ranking. Someone who won 6VP did better than someone who won >5VP. Second place ceases to mean anything under the new rule... you might >as well have played 4 Baali and self-ousted yourself. This is a respectable point-of-view. Garfield's intent was to encourage aggressive play so that the game wouldn't stagnate - that's why the game focusses more on ousting other players than on being the last man standing. But note that the previous tournament system didn't completely follow your favoured paradigm either. If you feel that VPs are more important than game wins then you wouldn't have a final - you'd just play a number of rounds and the player with the most VPs at the end of the event would be the tournament winner. Under the old format, the tournament winner was the player who won a particular game, not the player with the most VP. >Frex., calling an Ancilla Empowerment which will oust both >your prey and your grand prey would have been a great thing to do, even >though it gives your prey a VP. But if your prey already has 1 VP at a >4-person table, this becomes a losing play, even though it nets you 2 VP >(from being last one standing). It's not just scoring that's changed, the >whole dynamic of play has been changed to emphasize luck over long-term >skill. The problem here is that you don't get a game winner in this case. You could split the win as half each but that risks a return to table-split collusion. Better would be to have a tie-break. If a game splits 2-2, then the game win should either go to the last player standing (because he survived) or to the player who scored two ousts (because he was the most aggressive). It'd be in the spirit of the game to give preference to the latter. Andrew

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:00:52 -0500, Joshua Duffin wrote: >Now this I totally disagree with. Unless you're playing in >Andrew-world, you are always looking at all the other players >in your game while trying to win. That's some other Andrew's world. If you're trying to win and there can only be one winner then, of course, you are competing with every player in the game, not just your neighbours. Even if you are just concerned to maximise your VPs rather than to win the same applies - you don't want anyone but yourself to take VPs because the game is zero-sum - every VP taken by another player is a VP which you can no longer gain. Andrew

> > Under the current game wins system. > > Given the option on any size table from 4 to 6. If I have 2 victory > points > > and the last remaining player has one. I must beat that player to win the > > table and that player has only one option for the table to generate a > table > > win. That option is lose to me. If he doesn't lose to me then he ousts > me > > and the table ties and we both lose. So how politcking should go is "You > > have no hope of winning this table, so you might as well give me the win. > > Even if you oust me we tie and we both lose. Isn't it better that at > least > > one of us wins." If you are my friend or my playgroup or know me yet > don't > > know the other people in the tournament, then the odds are pretty good > that > > you will roll over. How do we stop that from happening? > > I actually meant that the last person had zero victory points It seems to me me you keep ignoring one thing: if no GW is earned in a game, the total number of GW in the tourney is lowered too. For a small tourney, it is more beneficial for your opponent to keep the total number of GWs low and get as much VPs as possible, along the way. ex: small tourney, 14 players (5/5/4), 3 rounds. (note that I'm not a mathematician, so take s/t for granted) Say, the 4 player table NEVER gets a GW, and 2 times the 5 player table ends without a GW. If - in this scenario - someone manages to acumulate 2 GW (or even 3), there are going to be (1-2) people without GWs in the final. By this logic, your opponent has to keep trying to oust you. He can't win a GW, so it's in his best interest to keep you from gaining one. BTW, why do keep on saying that everybody lost? I would call it 'nobody wins' Jeroen

In message <D99ABD1B9C8E9E76.9001BCFD...@lp.airnew [ quoted text not captured ] In that weenies were a somewhat over-emphasised deck style, this isn't all bad. It provides a more dynamic and creative metagame, based partly on the new strengths and variability of items across the whole spectrum, from weenie to fattie, huge spread of vampires to single clan decks. It puts everyone on a much more level playing field. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:q2L08.24699$Vq.225177@rwcrnsc53... > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > > > > > Winning, in the sense of ousting your prey, *is* the stated goal of > > > Jyhad. > > > > No more than "building hotels" is the stated goal of Monopoly. > > > Bad analogy. The person who builds the most hotels does not win a game of > Monopoly. True. But I'll bet that the person who wins is most likely the person who built the most hotels. Both are just steps along the path to victory. [clip] > > > but just that the new table wins rule doesn't > > > "more accurately reflect the goal of the game", it actually > > > redefines it. The goal of the game is now different than it used to be. > > > > Given the rulebook statement above, I'd say your defining each ousting as > > a "win" is the redefinition. [ clip] > Until now, tournament rules required you to accumulate VP's, and did > not invalidate individual performances in a round. > The new rule is a kludge fix to a silly > problem which wouldn't exist if collusion were disallowed. As you know, collusion is always disallowed. The real problem is that it was always in your favor to accumulate VPs even if it mean completely giving-up on trying to win. Instead of a kludge, this is the first time things have been properly aligned. > > > It's not just scoring that's changed, the whole > > > dynamic of play has been changed to emphasize luck > > > over long-term skill. > > > > I don't believe that's the case. > > > Explain why. > Getting 3 VP will not get you into a final, whereas with table wins, 3 VP > *can* get you in, if they happen at the right time. So, you think a player is better who can get 1 VP in each round where the new rules reward the player who can actually come up with a win in one of those three rounds. You attribute the win to luck and the 1 VP per round as skill. I understand what you are saying but I just don't agree. -Robert

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@panix.com> wrote in message news:a1vv56$efu$1...@panix3.panix.com... > In article <q2L08.24699$Vq.225177@rwcrnsc53>, > Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > >Explain why. I'm in the process of doing some probability calculations to > >illustrate *my* point, but they are taking a long time, so I'll post them > >later. Essentially, take a deck which relies on an unlikely card or combo. > >The player with that deck will be unlikely to win if he doesn't get that > >card or combo out early. If that player has a 33% chance of drawing their > >combo and will almost always get 3 VP when it happens and 0 VP when it > >doesn't, then they are more likely to get into the final than a person with > >6 VP and no table wins. > > Yep. I'm sorry, I'm genuinely not trying to be flip here, but that seems > okay to me. Three almost-wins oughtn't to beat out one win. > Well then, you are agreeing that luck is more important than skill, and apparently that it's a good thing. I don't know how to respond to that. > >VP rankings emphasize good play throughout a tournament. > > Game wins emphasize better play, in that it actually rewards winning games, > something the VP ranking system never did -- it was possible to make the > finals without winning a single game. > The best player doesn't necessarily win at a table, in general. The winner is determined in large part by luck. I've always been slightly upset because preliminaries didn't give *enough* of a chance to gain VP's, as many of the Gen Con tourneys ended up being only 2 rounds, which meant those with 3.5 to 7 VP's were generally in the final. Now, you only have 3 points that you can win. This would be okay in a 2 player game, but only one person at a table of 5 can pick up any points? And sometimes no points are given at all??? That's ridiculous. Having more points to use to determine placing minimizes the effectiveness of luck. Going from about 15 possible points to 3 is a step in the wrong direction. > >Getting 3 VP will not get you into a final, whereas with table wins, 3 VP > >*can* get you in, if they happen at the right time. > > Right. If you get a game win. Which is kind of the point of the game. > A "game win" is only the point of the game because of the new system. Previously, getting as many VP's as possible was the point of the game. If this allowed you to win a game, all the more power to you. In the final, which is the only place where you can truly win, you have to have a "game win". Prior to that, I think strong play should outweigh luck is giving you a chance at the final

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:IRL08.31654$Vz3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:q2L08.24699$Vq.225177@rwcrnsc53... > > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > > > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > > > > > > > Winning, in the sense of ousting your prey, *is* the stated goal of > > > > Jyhad. > > > > > > No more than "building hotels" is the stated goal of Monopoly. > > > > > Bad analogy. The person who builds the most hotels does not win a game of > > Monopoly. > > True. But I'll bet that the person who wins is most likely the person who built > the most hotels. Both are just steps along the path to victory. > Not true. You can say, I'll bet that the person who causes the most pool damage will win the game of Jyhad, and that might be similar to your thing with hotels. I may "bet" that the person who wins a game of Jyhad is the one who has the most VP's. And I'd be right, but the winner is *defined* as the person who has the most VP's. Your number of VP's is an unbiased indicator of your performance in a round, as stated by the rule that the player with the most VP's win. Having 2 VP's in a game is an indicator of your performance in that round, whether or not you won the game. The person with 3 VP's has *already* done better in the round than you have, because he has more VP's. If you do better than him next round, gaining another 2 VP's while he gains 0, you are still considered worse than him in the standings, since he has a point and you don't. The person who wins the game has the advantage of having more VP's to carry into the next round. Why do we have to virtually guarantee that person a place in the finals, even if he lays down and dies the next 3 rounds? > > Until now, tournament rules required you to accumulate VP's, and did > > not invalidate individual performances in a round. > > The new rule is a kludge fix to a silly > > problem which wouldn't exist if collusion were disallowed. > > As you know, collusion is always disallowed. The real problem is that it was > always in your favor to accumulate VPs even if it mean completely giving-up on > trying to win. Instead of a kludge, this is the first time things have been > properly aligned. > Accumulating VP's is the opposite of giving-up on trying to win. Ousting yourself along with another methuselah, if it maximizes your VP's is simply a decision you have to make as to your chances of gaining any *additional* VP's. The only problem I ever saw from the original rules was people agreeing to split a table, which is obviously collusion. > > > I don't believe that's the case. > > > > > Explain why. > > > Getting 3 VP will not get you into a final, whereas with table wins, 3 VP > > *can* get you in, if they happen at the right time. > > So, you think a player is better who can get 1 VP in each round where the new > rules reward the player who can actually come up with a win in one of those > three rounds. You attribute the win to luck and the 1 VP per round as skill. I > understand what you are saying but I just don't agree. > No, a player who can get 1 VP in each round will not make the finals in any but the strangest of circumstances. If that person makes it into the finals, then likely there aren't 5 people with table wins anyway, so neither system would make a difference. It takes a good deal of skill to average 2VP's per game, but the difference between 2VP's and 3VP's in a single game is very often a question of luck - seating position, competition at the table, actions of other players, and the luck of the draw.

In article <xTL08.31064$JF.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > >"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@panix.com> wrote in message >news:a1vv56$efu$1...@panix3.panix.com... >> >combo and will almost always get 3 VP when it happens and 0 VP when it >> >doesn't, then they are more likely to get into the final than a person >with >> >6 VP and no table wins. >> Yep. I'm sorry, I'm genuinely not trying to be flip here, but that seems >> okay to me. Three almost-wins oughtn't to beat out one win. >Well then, you are agreeing that luck is more important than skill, and >apparently that it's a good thing. I don't know how to respond to that. I'm not sure how you got there from what I said. If the 2VP per game deck can't win a table, clearly the skill is insufficient. Why is the deck which wins one game in 3 'luck based' rather than 'skill based'? Many strategies rely on a strong start -- one of my favorite decks gets out OBF princes and pumps out 3rd Tradition weenies at an alarming rate. It falls down miserably to early rush or dedicated intercept in the first few turns. Is it 'lucky' every time it wins? Is play skill (not my strong suit, I'll be the firs to admit) irrelevant to its record? Mr. 1-in-3 has made a deliberate design decision to make a deck which is strong under a defined set of circumstances and is resigned to having those circumstances not align all the time, while Mr. 2VP has made a deliberate design decision to make a weaker deck which performs more predictably. Every Big Risk deck trades sweeps for catastrophe -- that's just how they work. Even the most solid, plodding, predictable deck will have hot runs, topdecking exactly what it needs, and find itself stuck in the horrible doldrums of handjam at other times. >The best player doesn't necessarily win at a table, in general. The winner >is determined in large part by luck. I don't believe I agree with this assertion. Yes, decks can be utterly hosed by a tragic seating position, but play skill more often triumphs over position than the converse, in my experience. >I've always been slightly upset >because preliminaries didn't give *enough* of a chance to gain VP's, as many >of the Gen Con tourneys ended up being only 2 rounds, which meant those with >3.5 to 7 VP's were generally in the final. Now, you only have 3 points that >you can win. This would be okay in a 2 player game, but only one person at >a table of 5 can pick up any points? And sometimes no points are given at >all??? That's ridiculous. Having more points to use to determine placing >minimizes the effectiveness of luck. Going from about 15 possible points to >3 is a step in the wrong direction. It's not like VPs are suddenly worthless, you know. If you like, consider it _increased_ granularity, not _decreased_, since there are now 4 tiers of VP ranking (in a 3-round tournament): 3 Game Wins (breakdown by VP), 2 Game Wins (breakdown by VP), 1 Game Win (breakdown by VP), and 0 Game Wins (breakdown by VP). I could argue that someone who gets 2 vp a game, yet never wins a game, is the real beneficiary of luck if he gets into a final. >> Right. If you get a game win. Which is kind of the point of the game. >A "game win" is only the point of the game because of the new system. I'm pretty sure it's been the point of the game since Jyhad. >Previously, getting as many VP's as possible was the point of the game. Only insofar as getting the most VPs made you the winner. >Prior to that, I think strong play should outweigh luck is giving you >a chance at the final I think we both agree on that; we do seem to be seeing things differently as to what the role of luck is and was, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >It amazes me, but I am willing to bet that the Mutual Withdrawl rule will be > >heavily used to facilitate these deals. > $10 sounds good to me. Do we have a bet? Gomi, before you go in on that bet, you should know that it came up on saturday in 2 seperate rounds I was in. And in one of them, it gave me the game win... Sorrow --- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives." - Tyler Durden

In article <u476hca...@corp.supernews.com>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >> >It amazes me, but I am willing to bet that the Mutual Withdrawl rule will be >> >heavily used to facilitate these deals. >> $10 sounds good to me. Do we have a bet? > >Gomi, before you go in on that bet, you should know that it came up >on saturday in 2 seperate rounds I was in. And in one of them, it gave >me the game win... Fascinating. You're saying someone at the table was able to talk someone else into doing something so utterly against their best interests? I'd love details on that. gomi [ quoted text not captured ]

> Fascinating. You're saying someone at the table was able to talk someone > else into doing something so utterly against their best interests? I'd love > details on that. No, I did not say that. I'm just saying that mutual withdrawal was brought up in 2 seperate rounds as an alternative to what was going to inevitably occur. And it wasn't against their best interests. In the round that saw me get the game win, it also gave VPs where they wouldn't have otherwise been gained. So while they didn't get the GW, they did get VPs that could have gone towards the tie breaker. Not really what was imagined when the GW rule was instituted. I can easily see this happening again. And again. Sorrow --- "I'll be watching the news. If anything is vandalized or explodes or catches on fire, 'X' is going to equal me kicking your ass!" - Red Forman

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@panix.com> wrote in message news:a203gj$slr$1...@panix3.panix.com... [snip] > It's not like VPs are suddenly worthless, you know. If you like, consider > it _increased_ granularity, not _decreased_, since there are now 4 > tiers of VP ranking (in a 3-round tournament): 3 Game Wins (breakdown by > VP), 2 Game Wins (breakdown by VP), 1 Game Win (breakdown by VP), and 0 > Game Wins (breakdown by VP). As far as I have seen in the last few tournaments I've been to (pre 2002, but tracked GWs just to see), VP vs. GW has resulted in the same outcomes. In other words, from what I've seen (and from the tournament reports that have tracked the same), it appears that the tournaments where someone with a GW, but fewer VPs gets into the finals at someone else's expense are in the minority. Until you get into tournaments with more than 15 people or so, it appears that the final round is going to mostly be: maybe one guy with 2 GW. three or four people with 1 GW and change rounded out by the people with 0 GW and the highest VP Larger tournaments, under the old rules, you'd expect to have to sweep a lot anyway, in order to get into the finals. Now, I'm guessing for bigger tournaments, 2 GW is going to be required to get into the finals, and the 4th or 5th place people will be something like 1GW, 7 or so VPs. Although I'm still a little nervous about it, I think that I have to agree with the concept that we should be rewarding winning the individual games, not the cumulative performance...otherwise, we might as well just end without a final round, and give the person with the most VP after 3 rounds the prize. As a side note, it's more like a "tournament" (compare to whatever sport you will) if you are required to win as many games as possible to qualify for the finals, and then you must win the final as well to get top honors. Xian

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, X_Zealot wrote: > > Under the current game wins system. > Given the option on any size table from 4 to 6. If I have 2 victory points > and the last remaining player has one. I must beat that player to win the > table and that player has only one option for the table to generate a table > win. That option is lose to me. If he doesn't lose to me then he ousts me > and the table ties and we both lose. So how politcking should go is "You > have no hope of winning this table, so you might as well give me the win. > Even if you oust me we tie and we both lose. Isn't it better that at least > one of us wins." If you are my friend or my playgroup or know me yet don't > know the other people in the tournament, then the odds are pretty good that > you will roll over. How do we stop that from happening? i would never roll over for someone in that situation, regardless of how well i knew them. for starters, if i can't win the game, i have to maximise vps, so rolling over would be illegal. and i wouldn't want to anyway. why would i give someone else one more game win than me (making it harder for me to get to the finals) _and_ give them a 2vp advantage over me that they otherwise wouldn't get, so that if we're later tied on game wins he'd more likely beat me on the vp tiebreaker!? that's just silly. salem.

On 14 Jan 2002, vermillian wrote: > As it is, we would have to go with statistical likelyhood. That is, > for the above charts (00011, etc...) we would have to assign a > statistical number of times we've seen this result in a game. Then to > find out if a table win on a 4 player or a 5 player is easier, we > would just count the total games by the table wins, and divide by the > total amount of games ever played... but we could do that w/o the > above charts, in hind sight... > > We can begin taking data like so. > > 4 player game > Game in which no table win: (insert number here) > Game in which table win occurs: (insert number here) > > 5 player game > Game in which no table win: (insert number here) > Game in which table win occurs: (insert number here) > > From this data we can determine the general answer for this game. except that that data would have been created when players were, for the most part, playing to maximise vps, and not game wins, and so would only be an approximation to an approximation.... salem

On 14 Jan 2002, Gomi no Sensei wrote: > In article <kAJ08.33893$3x5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, > X_Zealot <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > >> ...and all the cases for the 4-player table above (except for 1/1/1/1/0, > >which > >> is impossible > > > >Wrong, Given 5 methuselah's preying on each other seated in alphabetical > >order > > > >A-B-C-D-E > > > >D ousts E > >C ousts D > >B ousts C > >A withdraws > > > >not likely but possible. > > Okay. That moves us from 18 cases to 19, of which 11 result in a Game Win. > EV(GW) for a 5player table is then 11/19, or 0.58 (0.61 if you discard > the negligible probability of the 1/1/1/1/1 case). erm, no it doesn't. B gets an additional vp for being last in, giving her 2 vps total. O:) salem.

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:q2L08.24699$Vq.225177@rwcrnsc53... > > I'm in the process of doing some probability calculations to > illustrate *my* point, but they are taking a long time, so I'll post them > later. > BTW, I've decided to give up on the probablities, as a) no one cares, b) this thread is already too long and boring, and c) it appears that even if I prove my theory (that an erratic deck fares better than a good deck under the new system), that it will not succeed in changing anyone's minds about the tourney format. I am convinced that this is a silly way to go about things, as I was when I first heard about it months ago (only at that time I hadn't realized how big a potential effect it could have), and I can only hope that there will be some major tournament travesty which will convince more people of this, so we can get back to playing tournaments the way they were meant to be played. ;) (Speaking of which - I'm not imagining things again, am I? the Jyhad rulebook *did* indeed describe the tournament VP system, didn't it? Maybe it'll be like the "new" agg damage rules that were changed from the way the rulebook described, and then changed back when the new way was determined to be wrong.) And maybe it will provide the impetus to *fix* the problem of VP-sharing rather than avoiding it and hurting a lot of honest players in the process.

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message news:u479aud...@corp.supernews.com... > > Fascinating. You're saying someone at the table was able to talk someone > > else into doing something so utterly against their best interests? I'd love > > details on that. > > No, I did not say that. I'm just saying that mutual withdrawal was brought up > in 2 seperate rounds as an alternative to what was going to inevitably occur. > And it wasn't against their best interests. In the round that saw me get the game > win, it also gave VPs where they wouldn't have otherwise been gained. So > while they didn't get the GW, they did get VPs that could have gone towards > the tie breaker. > Not really what was imagined when the GW rule was instituted. I can easily > see this happening again. And again. 1. Even if this does happen it is less likely to happen now vs. the old way. Under the old system the player above who made the losing deal would gain much by doing so. He gained little, if nothing in the scenario above. -- Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

"The Fanboy" <texas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f99d61c5.02011...@posting.google.com... > > It is interesting that you and Sten During both bring up the same thing. > > The new rule really hurts bloat and wall decks, which often times are decks > > which are based around larger vampires. Doesn't that help weenie decks? > > Except that both Oscar and Jeff had variants of the Intercept Wall > design, and they both made it into the finals. > > The table wins encourage a specific type of wall while discouraging > another. Eagle's Sight/Falcon's Eye walls, or walls that tap out to > move forward, and then untap endlessly during his predator's turn, > aren't hindered by the new rule. > > Wall decks that play the waiting game to be the victor of the > two-player endgame are. As are any deck that plays solitare until > it's a two player game. > > This IMO, is a good thing. Very true. I've had to adjust some decks of mine to give them more forward motion and they work just fine. It just means that I've had to sacrifice some walling or bloating to go forward. > I was crippled in round two by a grandpredator who didn't move forward > until ten turns into the game. By that time, my weenie-potence rush > predator and my Brujah Archon/Princes prey had managed to destroy > every minion I had. I think discouraging "no pressure" tactics is > good for table balance. The game winds rule has very-much helped this scenario. The no-forward-pressure-till-much-later decks really suffer in the new environment. In fact I had to strike a deal with my predator once so I could get the 3rd VP I needed to avoid a 2-2-1 scenario and not get a table win. > With game wins, everyone must move forward, because you don't have > time for the waiting game. If you don't put pressure on your prey, it > means your prey is one VP closer to a game win. If you stop your > predator cold while doing it, it means you're that much more likely to > have a prey with 2 VPs by the endgame, and then you CAN'T get the > table win. All you've done is shut your prey out of the finals for > one more round. > > > So you would have to play in exactly multiples of 5 player tournaments to > > make everything fair to all the players, if your assumption of a 4 person > > table is harder to win is true. > > The 4-player table creates an upstream nightmare. In order to get a > table win, you have to make sure that the first person to get a VP is > the second person ousted. Generally, that means help your > grandpredator get his prey, then help your prey get his prey, then > oust your prey for a 2-1-1 split -- TW for you. > > The path of two VPs just become a way in to the finals. > > The table win works for me on a 5-player table. It doesn't for a 4 > player. I'm tryiing to build decks that will be able to win a > 4-player table without upstreaming. I don't think weenie will be the > way to go (the average weenie deck cannot withstand the table mobbing > on it). One thing I find in 4 player is that it can be really hard to know what to do to avoid a 2-2 split.

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:25M08.25280$uA.2...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net... > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message [clip] > Your number of VP's is an unbiased > indicator of your performance in a round, as stated by the rule that the > player with the most VP's win. Having 2 VP's in a game is an indicator of > your performance in that round, whether or not you won the game. Agreed. It is an indicator of your performance. However, its not the only indicator and its not the primary indicator. I first want to know if player X won the game or not. Then I want to know who came in second, third, etc. > The person > with 3 VP's has *already* done better in the round than you have, because he > has more VP's. We're just going in circles restating our positions. I'd say the 3 VP person has *already* done better because he's won a game. > If you do better than him next round, gaining another 2 VP's > while he gains 0, you are still considered worse than him in the standings, > since he has a point and you don't. Right. Because, one round later you've still been unable to match his one win. You are, however, leading in the secondary indicator of performanc, VPs. [clip] > Accumulating VP's is the opposite of giving-up on trying to win. As you've seen in many reports over the years, players who play the game of tournaments oftentimes don't care about winning. They gladly relenquish any possibility of winning because the old system rewarded them for doing so. > Ousting > yourself along with another methuselah, if it maximizes your VP's is simply > a decision you have to make as to your chances of gaining any *additional* > VP's. The only problem I ever saw from the original rules was people > agreeing to split a table, which is obviously collusion. People rarely make table-splitting deals for 2nd place in home games. The entire table-splitting approach was created by a flawed tournament system that rewarded players who pursued it. Rather than make a kludge ruling to prohibit table-splitting (but still leaving the reward for doing so dangling in front of everyone) it seems better to me to remove the reward created artificially by the old system. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Under the old system a 4 player table had less available VPs--the primary > resource that was tracked for a finals appearance. The new system is, if at > all, less biased since Game Wins are equally as available in 4 and 5-player > games. I agree it's better. You were probably even more worse off under the old system. Doesn't mean that it's not an issue. > > If > > everyone plays the same number of 4 player games then I guess it evens out > > but I dbout this is the case, I haven't looked at the seating chart enough > > to know. > > The optimal seating chart does attemp to minimize repeated seating of players at > 4-player tables. I figured as much, I should really look at it more, sometmes I wonder how optimal it really is when I play some ppl twice and others not at all.

> > Maybe so. I doubt we'll see any changes at least for six months > > or a year, though, so that we have enough time to evaluate the > > difference over a lot of tournaments in a lot of places. > > I understand this, but it will never change unless people let it be known > what the flaws are in the new system and why it is more imperfect than the > last, at least why they think so... I think you're missing the point here. I dbout very much if many people think that the old system is better, certainly not me. The point is that you seem to be at a disadvantage by being at a 4 player table rather than a 5 player table.

"GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in message news:u47ksnk...@news.supernews.com... > > Under the old system a 4 player table had less available VPs--the primary > > resource that was tracked for a finals appearance. The new system is, if > > at all, less biased since Game Wins are equally as available in 4 and > > 5-player games. > > I agree it's better. You were probably even more worse off under the old > system. Doesn't mean that it's not an issue. Judging by the statistics gomi showed us today, it isn't an issue. I'm curious to see whether or not there are any additional arguments about GW availability but that portion of the debate seems to have died down now. > > The optimal seating chart does attemp to minimize repeated seating of > > players at 4-player tables. > > I figured as much, I should really look at it more, sometmes I wonder how > optimal it really is when I play some ppl twice and others not at all. When players leave mid-tournament things get completely screwed-up. Maybe that was what was going on. ? -Robert [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:21:20 GMT, Chris Berger wrote: >Umm... which rulebook? The one which removed the rule about tournament >points and VPs used to determine placing? Damn, I wish I had my first >edition Jyhad rulebook to quote from. You won't find anything about tournament points in there. Besides the statement, "The winner of the game is the person with the most victory points." the rulebook concerns itself more with ante. Now that's something I'd like to see used again. I might start playing Magic again now that there's the interesting 5-color tournament format in which ante is standard and few cards are banned. That's the game as it was meant to be - not the ugly, crippled thing that the DCI made of it. Andrew

> A tie of this sort is not unlikely - it seems quite likely. It's like > the ties you get when a cut is made in a Swiss pairs ranking to > determine entry into the next stage. It's common there to use the > total record of each player's opponents as a tie-break (i.e. the > better your opponents, the better your ranking). From my observations it is highly unlikely. I've only seen 2 ppl tie on tourney points for 5th and 6th once in about 10 tourneys. > Another option is to put all the players into the final. The game is > not designed for a fixed number of players - it easily can cope with > 2-7. I'd expect a larger final to be more free-flowing as it's > harder for a single player to control a larger table and so there'd be > more emphasis on gaining local superiority which should result in a > fast aggressive game. Larger finals are the last thing we need. Large games tend to take an awful long time and many run well over time with 5 players as it is.

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message news:u46p5gt...@corp.supernews.com... > > > Ok, so what happens in the unlikely event where one or two > > > (if any) people get game wins and the rest of the rounds result > > > in ties? What if, in that same situation where there are one or > > > two game wins, 5 or more other people are tied where the > > > rounds they tied in tied at 2-2-1? How do you resolve who > > > goes into the finals at that point? Clearly the one or two that > > > had game wins. But what about the others? > > ?. Maybe I'm not understanding the question since the answer is in the > > tournament rules. The first tie-break is VPs. Then, tournament points. > > Ok, you have, say, 7 players. 2 of those player have 1 Game Win. > The only game wins of the tournament. Those 5 other players each > have 5 VPs. Those 5 VPs are made of up 2 from the first round, 2 > from the second round and 1 from the last round. They are all (or > almost all) going to have the same tournament points. Same number > of VPs, same number of TPs, who gets into the final round? Then you'd be in the same position as if you were playing the old system so I don't see how it's relevant. Aside from some random method I can't see how you could do anything else that would be considered fair.

I just want to bring up some differences between the old and the new system and two quite usual outcomes: 4 player game: 2-1-1-0 (GW) 2-2-0-0 or in 5 player game: 2-1-1-1-0 (GW) 2-2-1-0-0 Do you think the player in the first games gaining 2 VPs played so much better than the two players in the second game gaining the same amount so that he'd be rewarded with a GW? In the old system it didn't much matter which of the previous outcomes was achieved (since you tried to accumulate VPs), but now it does and it matters quite a lot. It seems to me that you now much more better of playing some kind of table deals to prevent others from gaining VP's (ie. ganging up) or making a wall deck with eagle's sights. This might not be fun for those players getting spanked. - Jukka

lostp...@hotmail.com (Robert Sheiman) wrote in message news:<e1138430.02011...@posting.google.com>... > Alright, I have to say something about the game wins. I don't know > yet, whether I like it or don't. I was lucky. I had perfect seating in > my first game at Lafayette. I was at a table of all bleed decks, and I > had the most forward motion by not clogging and it allowed me to get > four vps. I got shut out entirely the other two games, by the table > turning on me. Happens. I expected it, and I honestly went into the > tournament knowing I had one table I had to sweep or not get anything. So you don't know how you feel about the table win rule? How would you have done without it? > Now, this is unrelated to what Norm is saying, but I have to bring up, > that three of the five decks at the final table in Laf. >...where combat. Are you referring to a location for combat, or do homonyms confuse you? > Two of them being intercept. One was a Tzimisce wall, the other was an > Ahrimanes >...intercept bloaty thing a-ma-bob. Sounds like a broken toilette. > Jeff played it. Sounds more like he played you to keep this Oscar scared early. How else would a Tzimisce deck not block its prey's build? > Oscar played the other. The third was a brujah princes deck, based on > controlling table. Weenies are being turned away from, from what I can > see. I was the only weenie deck at the entire tournament, in fact, > from what I saw, at least. > I was seen as the most dominating. No doubt, playing mono-dominate and being the only deck even using dominate in the finals. Nice observation there. You must where socks on yore feet. > No one > wanted to make deals to split a table, as it was counter productive to > game wins, Since there is only one table win per game. Indeed, even one sock per foot! > ...I got shut down first...everytime. I got lucky one game to > get into the finals. So even though you were shut down first everytime (your word), you still managed to get in the finals? Were these consolation finals or something? Like the "wall of shame" at your US championships? > IMHO, control decks are now going to be the most popular decks in > tournaments. So control decks will get all the pretty girls and asked to all the dances. > Something that won't oust first and draw > the table's ire, but goes for a slow grind, demolishing and or ousting > cross table (vie votes/anarch revolts/anything that can be used cross > table). The guy who gets the first VP, will generally be torn to > shreds by the rest of the table, from what I can see, unless he's > powerful enough to widthstand it, or went slow enough to just appear > lucky. Control, combat/vote/anything with the ability to cross table, > is going to be the most played. It's gonna be the easiest way to get > game wins. Sounds like the hardest way to get table wins. Instead of trying to control 1 player, you are trying to control 4? Maybe Derek Ray can teach you a lesson in mathematics. Or perhaps grammar. > ...If you kill everyone who get's one VP, then you end up with > 2 VPs by ousting your final prey...you just got a game win. So in a 5 player round, the deck you described must eliminate 4 players to earn 2 VPs? Wouldn't it be easier to eliminate 3? Wouldn't it be better for your rating to earn 3VPs? > The game seems to be drifting away from incredible offense early, to the slow > grind, build, control table, IMHO. This is what I saw at the > tournament, and I think the final game in no way reflected the rest of > the tournament. BTW, the fifth deck at finals was a Malk-Anti total > lockdown. Another control deck. Just something to consider...this is > how it all looked to me. > ...And I would never play another power bleed in a tournament again, unless it was simply to wait until your prey weakend himself enough for you to get one bleed through and oust. And where where the deflectors? Your Tzimisce prey must have been too concerned with removing minions through combat to realize how easy it is for them to Telepathic Misdirect/My Enemy's Enemy bleeds not caring about Perfect Clarity. I guess the beginning of your post is true. You were lucky. Especially since looking at the attendance list I noticed the best players there didn't even make the finals. They must have colluded to spend the time better eating ground-up glass than playing you. > Rob Rob, you've been Googled.

> > > Winning, in the sense of ousting your prey, *is* the stated goal of Jyhad. Winning the game is the goal of Jyhad. Ousting your prey is only the means through which you win the game. > > > The more prey you oust, the closer you are to winning a single session. > > > > Right. They show progress toward the goal of winning. > > > Your goal in each game is to get as many VP's as possible. Once your > predator has 3VP's, you can still get some VP's and finish second. In a > tournament, under the new rule, those 2VP's will not help you come in > "second" in the rankings for who goes to the finals. Instead, you are just > a loser with more tie-breaker points. But since there are only 3 rounds those "tie break points" are very meaningful so you should strive to get as many as possible *and* win the game. In the same way a soccer team tries to score lots of goals and conceded none, it gives them more tie break points. > > > but just that the new table wins rule doesn't > > > "more accurately reflect the goal of the game", it actually > > > redefines it. The goal of the game is now different than it used to be. > > > > Given the rulebook statement above, I'd say your defining each ousting as a "win" is the redefinition. No, give the rulebook, the object is to have the most VPs at the end of the game. For a standalone game where tie break points ( i.e. a final ) are not important you may as well stop playing after someone gets 3 VPs ( unless you want to know how everyone places ). One of the reasons why they changed the to the game wins system was because the objective in the rounds ( accumilate VPs ) was not the objective of the final ( win the game ). If you have a deck that, without fail, gains 2 VPs every game, no more, no less, under the old system it would usually get in to the final but not actually win the tournament unless the game times out. That seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me. > Let me put this another way. Your goal is to gain as many VP's as possible > to win. When constructing a tournament from these rules, it is equally > valid to expand it in either way. Either try to get as many VP's as > possible throughout rounds in order to "win" the preliminary rounds of the > tourney, or else divide the tournament into mini-roulettes. Until now, > tournament rules required you to accumulate VP's, and did not invalidate > individual performances in a round. The new rule is a kludge fix to a silly > problem which wouldn't exist if collusion were disallowed. As it is, it > simply makes collusion less desirable, as you don't win from getting 2 VP. > On the other hand, it punished people who play legitimately and end up with > a "pretty good" showing. Decks which are steady have the same chance of > making the finals as a deck which is erratic. Collusion is disallowed, unless your definition is different to the VEKN definition. A pretty-good showing is no good enough. The people who deserve to be in the finals are the people who win their games. > > > It's not just scoring that's changed, the whole > > > dynamic of play has been changed to emphasize luck > > > over long-term skill. > > > > I don't believe that's the case. Neither do I. The dynamic of play in a tournament has been changed to reflect the actual objective of the game, to win, not accumilate as many VPs as possible over the course of a playing session. > Explain why. I'm in the process of doing some probability calculations to > illustrate *my* point, but they are taking a long time, so I'll post them > later. Essentially, take a deck which relies on an unlikely card or combo. > The player with that deck will be unlikely to win if he doesn't get that > card or combo out early. If that player has a 33% chance of drawing their > combo and will almost always get 3 VP when it happens and 0 VP when it > doesn't, then they are more likely to get into the final than a person with > 6 VP and no table wins. Probablility calculations are pointless you're not going to take into account a whole bucketload of variables and over-simplify and render the whole analysis invalid. Even to use your analysis above, the person who gets 6 VPs probably only has, at most a 25% chance of winning the finals ( 1 win from 4 games ), so Mr 3VPs should be in the finals because he's more likely to win, your stated 33% chance. > More generally, table wins emphasize that you play well in one round. You > must win a table in one round. In all other rounds, your play makes no > difference. VP rankings emphasize good play throughout a tournament. > Getting 3 VP will not get you into a final, whereas with table wins, 3 VP > *can* get you in, if they happen at the right time. Incorrect. Getting 1 table win and only 3VPs might get you into the final but you will be at a disadvantage because you will not get to choose where you sit. Getting 1 table win and 7VPs is more desireable because you might be ranked higher than someone else and get, to some extent, choose where you sit. I don't consider getting 2 VPs a round "a good showing", you've proved that either you or your deck or you are incapable of achieveing the objective of the game, which is to win ( not accumilate as many VPs as possible in a session ). Sure, you're almost there, you're getting 2 VPs, but you're not winning.

In message <miE08.32090$3x5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, "X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> mumbled: >First of all, most of the Intercept Combat Hellmonsters I know go forward >with Eagle Sights or Falcon's Eyes so I think they are going for three no >matter what (such as oust their prey, then try to be the last on the table) >. All decks do try to maximize V.P's at the table, at least in theory. Hmm. The key words here are "the ones you know", I think. I've heard tales of, and seen in some cases, some very badly right-footed intercept decks that didn't even TRY to go after their prey -- they assumed their prey would have to take undirected actions eventually. Often a wrong assumption, especially near the bleed decks. I've also heard that this is very common in Europe -- take as you will. Some people's theories have, in the past, been a touch weak -- gaining 2VP was always a viable "well, i guess i can't go forward" option for them. Now it's not, and it's a good thing. >In fact, I think you are right about it making it more difficult for the >Intercept, Bloat, Build decks which are usually your Larger vampire decks. >So if what you say is true, then we are shifting the meta-game back to >weenies with this rule. Nah. You just have to build GOOD intercept to win with it now. Which was always the case, but you had a good number of fluke-outs where you gain 2VP, someone else got 2VP, and someone in the middle got 1VP. Under the old rules, this was great -- nobody at your table got more VP than you did. Under the new rules, you've just screwed up, so you have to play more "forward". The bloat decks that I've seen are of two types. 1) Bloat forever, never be ousted, and bleed for 1 occasionally. These decks suck in concept, theory, AND practice; good riddance to them. 2) Bloat and bring out minions until you've got a snotload (or until your complicated setup is finally complete), then shift gears and run forward like hell, trusting your previous pool gain to serve as defense. These decks will work just fine under the new rule, as the only player who can get a Table Win without ousting you is your prey... and he'll get run over first when you start moving. A good example is a Masika, Clan Impersonation, Madness Network, Assault Rifle deck. It takes forever to get started, but once it's up and running, it bleeds for 10 per turn -- possibly more if any Aires are sitting around. This deck will hoover up VPs VERY quickly -- but it just takes awhile to start. >The funny thing is that in this tournament. The deck that won the >tournament (a weenie dominate deck no less) was my predator one round, and >he wasn't able to oust me. That fact might have made a difference in the >finals. Possibly. I'm pretty sure my own deck would have had a very interesting run in the finals as well, though, and I was one of the two people with a Table Win who didn't make it -- largely due to seating position. We can speculate endlessly, but it won't really go anywhere. The problem comes in when you consider another facet: it's very easy to make a 60-deck that's extremely reliable, extremely fast, blows through two people, and runs out of cards on the spot and is ousted. Under the old system, that deck gets 6VP and has a chance to make the finals. Under the new system, it gets nothing, which is what it deserves -- it hasn't been built to win a game, it's just been built to take advantage of the scoring system. Same with intercept-go-backwards decks and stupid-bloat decks. It's still possible to win with intercept and bloat -- you just need to have a GOOD strategy attached to it, as opposed to the "Uh, I'll bleed for 1 a lot and never die." If the scoring system for the Atlanta qualifier had been Table Wins, I would have SERIOUSLY modified the Omaya Wall deck that I played to have a lot more Eagle's Sight, so that I could oust my first prey and only THEN turn backwards to get the last 2, totalling 3 and a TW. But I knew I didn't NEED to go forward as much, and ended up qualifying 6th as a result. -- "I am NOT illiterate -- my parents were married!"

Chris Berger wrote: > (Speaking of which - I'm not imagining things > again, am I? the Jyhad rulebook *did* indeed describe the tournament VP > system, didn't it? No. No rulebook has ever mentioned tournaments. That's the purview of the DCI and then the V:EKN rules. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:FPP08.19727$Tq.206278@rwcrnsc54... > > BTW, I've decided to give up on the probablities, as a) no one cares, b) > this thread is already too long and boring, and c) it appears that even if I > prove my theory (that an erratic deck fares better than a good deck under > the new system), that it will not succeed in changing anyone's minds about > the tourney format. This "erratic/good" dichotomy you've set up isn't very convincing by itself, at least to my mind. If "good" equals "gets two VPs all the time", well, I don't consider that "good", if it never gets three or more. If "erratic" equals "wins one game out of three but not the other two", well, a lot of decks don't even win one out of three. And it may be that no one else cares about the probabilities, but I know I do... :-) > (Speaking of which - I'm not imagining things > again, am I? the Jyhad rulebook *did* indeed describe the tournament VP > system, didn't it? Maybe it'll be like the "new" agg damage rules that were > changed from the way the rulebook described, and then changed back when the > new way was determined to be wrong.) The Jyhad rulebook said nothing about tournaments. Here's what it said about winning: "18.1. Winning the Game When your prey is ousted, you earn six blood points from the blood bank, the prey's ante card, if ante is being played for, and a victory point. If a predator is ousted the same turn that his or her prey is, the predator gets the ante and victory point but does not get the six blood points. You earn an additional victory point if you are the last one left in the game. The winner of the game is the person with the most victory points." Seems pretty explicit to me as to what "winning" is. Doesn't say anything about "you're doing great if you get more victory points in three games (but win none) than somebody else who won two." Josh

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:E13298A28E6F1ED3.E8B8B9AA...@lp.airnews.net... [re people being tied on game wins, VPs, and TPs] > A tie of this sort is not unlikely - it seems quite likely. It's like > the ties you get when a cut is made in a Swiss pairs ranking to > determine entry into the next stage. It's common there to use the > total record of each player's opponents as a tie-break (i.e. the > better your opponents, the better your ranking). It may seem likely if you've never run a tournament, but I can assure you that ties that go all the way down to tournament points are quite rare. I only recall seeing one that affected who got into the finals once in the years I've been playing. There's enough granularity in VPs that even TPs don't get used that often, and enough granularity in TPs over three games that ties there are very unusual. And if you think the game copes easily with seven players, you have a higher tolerance for waiting half an hour between turns than I do. :-) Josh a game wiener

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@panix.com> wrote in message news:a1vo6q$j1r$1...@panix3.panix.com... > This is a modeling question -- how do you accurately model the relative > weights of a completely unavailable VP vs. a possibly unavailable Game Win? > > Well, how many possible VP distributions are there at a 4 player table? > > 4/0/0/0* > 3/1/0/0* > 2/2/0/0 > 2/1/1/0* > 1/1/1/1! > 3/0/0/0*+ > 2/1/0/0*+ > 1/1/1/0+ > 2/0/0/0*+ > 1/1/0/0+ > 1/0/0/0+ > 0/0/0/0+ > > 12 possible distributions, of which 6 (starred) award a Game Win. > Expected value of Game Win at a 4 player table is then 6/12: 50%. > '+' indicates the game has to time out to reach this distribution. > '!' indicates an extremely unlikely simultaneous 4-person ousting, > 4 successful withdrawals, or some combination of successful withdrawal > and simultaneous ousting of all non-withdrawing players. Gomi - no offense, but I really don't think this is the right way to count outcomes. 4/0/0/0 is not the same as 0/4/0/0, 0/0/4/0, or 0/0/0/4. You need to count each possible arrangement of each possible VP split. I wouldn't want to claim that 1/1/1/1 is less likely than 1/1/0/0 (timeout), either. :-) My attempt to count the outcomes is in another post - please critique it if you have time. Josh accounting for something

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:ckJ08.33879$3x5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com... > > > I left out the "going to time" possibilities because they can't > > happen in a "real" game. (And I did only count winners who had > > at least 2 VPs in the combinations I used.) > > Are you serious? We just changed the rules which creates these situations > and you are telling me that they can't happen. Oh yes they can, and they > do, and they did, and they will again What are you saying here? The possibility of going to time existed just as much before game wins as it does now. Then, VPs were lost by going to time; now, game wins may be lost. It's not like it's a lot worse to go to time now than it used to be - now, a point of the primary determinant of getting to the finals may be lost; then, X points of the primary determinant of getting to the finals were *always* lost. > > My analysis is accurate for any game that *ends*, which is > > good enough for me. If you want to do the math yourself for > > games that don't end, you're more than welcome to do so. > > This is like arguing about the circumference of the earth to someone who > believes that the earth is flat. I could say the same in the other direction. :-) You saw no problem with VPs-only but do with game wins, then VPs? > Hello!! Hello!! Do you see the problem yet? These games do end but without > a winner and without all victory points being accounted for. That is why > you "fast and loose" statistics don't work. OK, you've goaded me into it. :-) For a four-player table, the additional VP splits for timed- out games are: 2.5/0.5/0/0 1.5/1.5/0/0 1.5/0.5/0.5/0 0.5/0.5/0.5/0.5 (note that it is *not* possible to time out with three victory points already assigned in a four-player game - if three players have been ousted there is only one left and the game is over.) So here we have: 4P1,1,2 = 12 4P2,2 = 6 4P1,2,1 = 12 4P4 = 1 total outcomes: 31 outcomes where a game win is assigned: 12 If we then assume that it's equally likely for a game to time out or finish before time (I don't believe this but we have no way to choose a direction to prefer without analyzing actual tournament data), then we get: 50% chance for a game to time out * 12/31 for a game win to be assigned = 19.355% of all games timing out and having a game win PLUS 50% chance for a game to not time out * 28/35 for a game win to be assigned = 40% of all games finishing and having a game win EQUALS 59.355% of all four-player games getting a game win. For five-player games, the additional VP splits are: 3.5/0.5/0/0/0 2.5/1.5/0/0/0 1.5/1.5/1/0/0 2.5/0.5/0.5/0/0 1.5/1.5/0.5/0/0 1.5/0.5/0.5/0.5/0 0.5/0.5/0.5/0.5/0.5 and we have: 5P1,1,3 = 20 5P1,1,3 = 20 5P3,2 = 10 5P1,2,2 = 30 5P2,1,2 = 30 5P1,3,1 = 20 5P5 = 1 total outcomes: 131 outcomes where a game win is assigned: 40 and assuming that timing out is as likely as finishing: 50% chance of timing out * 40/131 = 15.267% chance of having a game win in a timed out game PLUS 50% chance of finishing * 95/126 = 37.698% chance of having a game win in a finished game EQUALS 52.965% of all five-player games getting a game win. So it's about 53% vs 59% for five vs four player tables: if half of all games time out we only expect somewhat more than half of all games to have a game win assigned. Under the old system, if half of all games timed out: for four-player games, 1 VP is lost 18 times, 1.5 VPs are lost 12 times, and 2 VPs are lost once. So on average, 0.5 * (18+18+2)/31 = 0.613 VPs were lost per four-player game (1.226 per timed-out game) for five-player games, 1 VP is lost 50 times, 1.5 VPs are lost 60 times, 2 VPs are lost 20 times, and 2.5 VPs are lost once. On average: 0.5 * (50+90+40+2.5)/131 = 0.697 VPs were lost per five-player game (1.394 per timed-out game) > I am not trying to offend you, but I want you to see what a awful system we > have created where whole tables don't win. If it comes down to it again > where I have two v.p.'s and the only remaining player has one, I am going to > ask him to give me the table or else nobody wins. What do you think about > that for table politics? Frankly it's ridiculous. It's exactly like asking him to let you oust him under the old VP system because (you claim) you have a chance of making the finals and he doesn't. If he's not going to get the game win, he's a hell of a lot better off not letting you get it either. What possible reason is there for this person to improve your position at the expense of his own? Josh add subtract divide

> 1. Even if this does happen it is less likely to happen now vs. the old way. > Under the old system the player above who made the losing deal would gain much > by doing so. He gained little, if nothing in the scenario above. 1.? Was there supposed to be a 2.? Also, this isn't true. He gained VPs he wouldn't have otherwise gained w/o the deal. And at that point, there were so few game wins so the VPs would have gone a long way towards possibly getting him into the final. In smaller tournaments, this is more often to be true where VPs will frequently be used because there aren't enough GWs. Sorrow --- Oh father, tell me are you weeping? Your face, it seems wet to touch. Oh, then I'm so sorry father, I never thought I'd hurt you so much...

> >> ?. Maybe I'm not understanding the question since the answer is in the > >> tournament rules. The first tie-break is VPs. Then, tournament points. > >Ok, you have, say, 7 players. > Then you are not holding a sanctioned event and can do whatever you > choose. Umm, James, no. The example that I was elaborating on involved 7 players (out of X players participating). Pay attention. :p Sorrow --- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives." - Tyler Durden

In article <a21d77$ttfso$1...@id-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <duff...@bls.gov> wrote: >"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@panix.com> wrote in message >news:a1vo6q$j1r$1...@panix3.panix.com... >> Well, how many possible VP distributions are there at a 4 player table? >> 4/0/0/0* >> 3/1/0/0* >> 2/2/0/0 >> 2/1/1/0* >> 1/1/1/1! >> 3/0/0/0*+ >> 2/1/0/0*+ >> 1/1/1/0+ >> 2/0/0/0*+ >> 1/1/0/0+ >> 1/0/0/0+ >> 0/0/0/0+ >> 12 possible distributions, of which 6 (starred) award a Game Win. >> Expected value of Game Win at a 4 player table is then 6/12: 50%. >> '+' indicates the game has to time out to reach this distribution. >> '!' indicates an extremely unlikely simultaneous 4-person ousting, >> 4 successful withdrawals, or some combination of successful withdrawal >> and simultaneous ousting of all non-withdrawing players. >Gomi - no offense, but I really don't think this is the right >way to count outcomes. 4/0/0/0 is not the same as 0/4/0/0, >0/0/4/0, or 0/0/0/4. You need to count each possible arrangement >of each possible VP split. I considered and discarded the possibility. The thing is, we don't care _who_ gets _which_ VPs; we're examining the distribution only. For those purposes, you wind up splitting the probability of one player getting all 4 VPs into 4 (one for 4000, 0400, 0040, and 0004), then multiplying back by 4 later on in the process -- total no-op. I suppose if I get bored enough I can do it the long way. I just delivered my big long scary document at work, so I'm at a tiny bit of a loose end today. >I wouldn't want to claim that 1/1/1/1 is less likely than >1/1/0/0 (timeout), either. :-) My model, my assumptions. Nyah, nyah! (sticks out tongue). Note, however, that the addition/removal of a case makes little overall difference to the numbers -- when I added in the 1/1/1/1/0 case, the difference between VPRanking and GameWins changed by a negligible amount (1% advantage vs. 5% to 1% vs. 3%). Since I added the 1/1/1/1/0 and 1/1/1/0 cases in error, anyway, you can consider the numbers where I took those cases into account as equivalent to not ignoring the 1/1/1/1 and 1/1/1/1/1 distros; you come back to 1v3 percent advantages to playing at 5-player tables only, which I still consider negligible. >My attempt to count the outcomes is in another post - please >critique it if you have time. I'll go have a look. gomi -- Blood, guts, guns, cuts Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts

In message <ppH08.33295$3x5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, "X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> mumbled something about: >> Also, keep in mind that at a four-player table, you're only >> competing against three other players to get the game win, >> while at a five-player table there are four other players you >> must defeat. This leans toward the four-player table being >> "easier". The greater chance of tying may offset this somewhat >> but probably not as much as the 20% (25%? not sure offhand) >> reduction in competition. > >I believe your perception is incorrect. The combonation of predator/prey >dynamic means that you only try to ever beat one person at a time to gain a >victory point. So your fast and loose math is not correct. Also the four >person table is easier to tie and lose rather than a five person table. >This is one of the major flaws in the system. No way. A 4-person table is much, much, much easier to gain a table win at, if you play properly. Kill your prey, wedge up your predator, and help your cross-table ally do the same thing. At this point you both have 1VP -- now you fight it out to the end, and a 3-1 result is guaranteed. At a 5-player table, things are a little bit stranger. You don't have an obvious ally (well, your grandpredator is usually candidate #1), but you DO at least have the "odd" seating order. However, I can see 2-2-1 being very common these days -- two of the Table Wins in the Lafayette tournament were by people with 2VPs (both from 5 player tables). -- "I am NOT illiterate -- my parents were married!"

In message <9F72B00AA4FEDE43.2F30CCF4...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> mumbled something about: >On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:21:20 GMT, Chris Berger wrote: > >>Umm... which rulebook? The one which removed the rule about tournament >>points and VPs used to determine placing? Damn, I wish I had my first >>edition Jyhad rulebook to quote from. > >You won't find anything about tournament points in there. Besides the >statement, "The winner of the game is the person with the most victory >points." the rulebook concerns itself more with ante. Now that's >something I'd like to see used again. I might start playing Magic If I wanted to gamble, I'd play pool. If I wanted to lose the element of skill, I'd play the slot machines. If I wanted to gamble with random bets (which is exactly what ante is), I'd punch myself in the nuts over and over again while occasionally throwing money from my wallet out the window. It's more fun that way. Ante is pathetic. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@panix.com> wrote in message news:a21oag$oav$1...@panix2.panix.com... > In article <a21d77$ttfso$1...@id-121616.news.dfncis.de>, > Joshua Duffin <duff...@bls.gov> wrote: > >4/0/0/0 is not the same as 0/4/0/0, > >0/0/4/0, or 0/0/0/4. You need to count each possible arrangement > >of each possible VP split. > > I considered and discarded the possibility. The thing is, we don't > care _who_ gets _which_ VPs; we're examining the distribution only. > > For those purposes, you wind up splitting the probability of one > player getting all 4 VPs into 4 (one for 4000, 0400, 0040, and 0004), > then multiplying back by 4 later on in the process -- total no-op. But there are more ways to allocate 2/1/1/0 than there are to allocate 4/0/0/0. If you treat each VP distribution as equally likely, you're ignoring that. It matters who gets the VPs in that (a) the players care and (b) the players are not all identical. :-) > >I wouldn't want to claim that 1/1/1/1 is less likely than > >1/1/0/0 (timeout), either. :-) > > My model, my assumptions. Nyah, nyah! (sticks out tongue). Note, however, > that the addition/removal of a case makes little overall difference > to the numbers -- when I added in the 1/1/1/1/0 case, the difference > between VPRanking and GameWins changed by a negligible amount (1% advantage > vs. 5% to 1% vs. 3%). Heh. Honestly I'm not really sure how your analysis worked once you got past expected value of game wins per table. The "likelihood of game wins" vs "likelihood of VPs" calculations don't quite make sense to me. It seems like, if you're looking at that group of twelve players as a whole, their "possible total game wins" should go as high as nine, since they're playing three rounds on three tables. Unless you meant that, averaged across the rounds, you're calculating "expected game wins that get assigned per round"? But that doesn't fit with the way you handled the other two players. Josh easily startled

In article <m9q84ugk20sf0jdh0...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >If I wanted to gamble, I'd play pool. My understanding is that playing pool with you is less like gambling and more like handing you random fistfuls of cash. gomi pool minnow [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <a21qqk$u95eh$1...@id-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <duff...@bls.gov> wrote: > >"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@panix.com> wrote in message >news:a21oag$oav$1...@panix2.panix.com... >> In article <a21d77$ttfso$1...@id-121616.news.dfncis.de>, >> Joshua Duffin <duff...@bls.gov> wrote: > >> >4/0/0/0 is not the same as 0/4/0/0, >> >0/0/4/0, or 0/0/0/4. You need to count each possible arrangement >> >of each possible VP split. >> >> I considered and discarded the possibility. The thing is, we don't >> care _who_ gets _which_ VPs; we're examining the distribution only. >> >> For those purposes, you wind up splitting the probability of one >> player getting all 4 VPs into 4 (one for 4000, 0400, 0040, and 0004), >> then multiplying back by 4 later on in the process -- total no-op. > >But there are more ways to allocate 2/1/1/0 than there are to >allocate 4/0/0/0. If you treat each VP distribution as >equally likely, you're ignoring that. It matters who gets >the VPs in that (a) the players care and (b) the players are >not all identical. :-) Excellent point. I'll re-do these numbers later in the thread, where I get to mooch off your permutation data. May as well adopt your assumption that a game is 50% as likely to end before time as to time out while I'm re-doing things. Sloppy math is an Abomination unto the Lard. Without superior Protean, even. >Heh. > >Honestly I'm not really sure how your analysis worked once >you got past expected value of game wins per table. The >"likelihood of game wins" vs "likelihood of VPs" calculations >don't quite make sense to me. It seems like, if you're >looking at that group of twelve players as a whole, their >"possible total game wins" should go as high as nine, since >they're playing three rounds on three tables. Unless you >meant that, averaged across the rounds, you're calculating >"expected game wins that get assigned per round"? But that >doesn't fit with the way you handled the other two players. D'oh. Mismodel -- I totally didn't factor in multiple tables, so the Game Win number would be all off. Let's see if I can successfully incorporate these fixes without looking like a complete retard in front of the people in the group who have actual stat training, as opposed to one course some years ago. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:m9q84ugk20sf0jdh0...@4ax.com... > In message > <9F72B00AA4FEDE43.2F30CCF4...@lp.airnews.net>, > Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> mumbled something about: > > > the rulebook concerns itself more with ante. Now that's > > something I'd like to see used again. I might start playing Magic > > Ante is pathetic. > Playing ante in a sealed-type environment is a lot of fun. The general structure of a Jyhad League (which seems to be a rarity these days) is that each person buys a starter and a number of boosters to be used in league-play, all games of which are for ante. If a person ever doesn't have enough cards to field a legal deck, they are out of the league. Building your deck piece-by-piece from your conquests puts an interesting spin on the game, and also changes table dynamics a little bit.

In message <m9q84ugk20sf0jdh0...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >If I wanted to gamble with random bets (which is exactly what ante is), >I'd punch myself in the nuts over and over again while occasionally >throwing money from my wallet out the window. It's more fun that way. I move we add this to the rulebook. A seconder, anyone? -- James Coupe You remind me of the babe. What babe? PGP 0x5D623D5D The babe with the power. What power? EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Power of voodoo. Who do? 13D7E668C3695D623D5D You do. Do what? Remind me of the babe.

>The best player doesn't necessarily win at a table, in general. The winner >is determined in large part by luck. If this is true, then having a final table at all is bogus. But, I don't think this is necessarily true. What is true is that the best tournament players play to the scoring system. Because the scoring system didn't value wins significantly more than VPs, the emphasis on how to play to win a tournament wasn't on winning games. Now, good tournament players will focus on trying to win at least one round in smaller tournaments and winning more than one round in larger. Players will likely take some, varying amount of time to adjust to this change in philosophy.

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020115164637...@mb-cj.aol.com... > > >The best player doesn't necessarily win at a table, in general. The winner > >is determined in large part by luck. > > If this is true, then having a final table at all is bogus. > Why do people keep bringing this up? If you think that this follows from my argument, then you really don't understand what I'm saying. The best player at a tournament (even the one "best-suited" to the tournament, by way of judging the metagame) won't always win, and that's okay, but they should at least have a shot at winning, measured by their chance of making the final. I'm not going to belabour my point anymore, as I've truly grown tired of this thread. > But, I don't think this is necessarily true. What is true is that the best > tournament players play to the scoring system. > People who play to exploit the scoring system rather than to play the game (i.e. trying to gain VP's in the game they are in, i.e. trying to win) are more suited to That Other Game, and should simply be identified, imprinted with the Mark of Damnation, and banned from ever owning Jyhad cards. People who play in this way will exploit the current system as well, and I fail to see that the previous system was any more exploitable than the current. If you are not playing in good faith, then that is the problem, and could be fixed in many ways, not the least of which involves taking the offender out back and applying a little foot-to-ass technique. =P

In article <a21f3k$tk64n$1...@id-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <duff...@bls.gov> wrote: >For a four-player table, the additional VP splits for timed- >out games are: > >2.5/0.5/0/0 >1.5/1.5/0/0 >1.5/0.5/0.5/0 >0.5/0.5/0.5/0.5 > >(note that it is *not* possible to time out with three victory >points already assigned in a four-player game - if three players >have been ousted there is only one left and the game is over.) > >So here we have: > >4P1,1,2 = 12 >4P2,2 = 6 >4P1,2,1 = 12 >4P4 = 1 So, I'm redoing the VPRanking vs. GWRanking thing with Josh's numbers, and factoring in the 50% of games time out assumption. Four-player table, no timing out: 4000 4 different kinds 3100 12 different kinds 2200 6 different kinds 2110 12 different kinds 1111 1 kind Of the 35 cases, 28 award a game win, or 80%. Timing out, you get Josh's numbers (dropping half points): 3000 4 different kinds 2100 12 different kinds 1110 impossible 2000 4 different kinds 1100 6 different kinds 1000 4 different kinds 0000 1 kind 31 cases, 20 of which assign a game win (I don't know how Josh came up with 12). 65% chance of game win here. Assuming games time out half the time, a 4 player table assigns a game win 40% + 32.5%: 72.5% of the time. Five player tables, no timing out: 50000 5 different kinds 41000 20 different kinds 32000 20 different kinds 31100 30 different kinds 22100 30 different kinds 21110 20 different kinds 11111 1 kind 126 different outcomes, of which 96 assign a game win: 76% chance of a non-timed-out table to assign a game win. timing out: 40000 5 different kinds 31000 20 different kinds 22000 10 different kinds 21100 30 different kinds 11110 impossible 30000 5 different kinds 21000 20 different kinds 11100 10 different kinds 20000 5 different kinds 11000 10 different kinds 10000 5 different kinds 00000 1 kind 121 outcomes, of which 85 assign a game win: 70%. Assuming only 50% of games time out, that gives us: 35% + 38% = 73% chance of game win at a 5 player table. Assuming 14 people are at the tournament. Assuming 12 of them play two 5tables and 1 4table each (554 group). Assuming 2 of them play three 5tables (555 group). A random member of the 554 group has: 1) a 38.6% chance of having 3 Game Wins available (0.73*0.73*0.725) 2) a 43.3% chance of having 2 Game Wins available 3) a 16.1% chance of having 1 Game Win available 4) a 2% chance of having all three tables stalemate (awarding no Game Win to anyone). This means a random member of 554 has, on average, 1.158+0.866+0.161=2.185 Game Wins available*. This doesn't mean each member of 554 scores 2 and a bit Game Wins -- it means, roughly speaking, that every player who plays 3 games will see one of them end in a stalemate (with no Game Win awarded). * 38.6% chance of 3 Game Wins times 3 GW = 1.158, and so on. A random member of the 555 group has: 1) a 38.9% chance of having 3 Game Wins available (0.73*0.73*0.725) 2) a 43.2% chance of having 2 Game Wins available 3) a 15.9% chance of having 1 Game Win available 4) a 2% chance of having all three tables stalemate (awarding no Game Win to anyone). So a random member of 555 has, on average, 1.167 + 0.864 + 0.159 = 2.19 Game Wins available. This means 555 members are [(2.19-2.185)/2.19]=0.2% less likely to see a stalemate (no Game Win) than 554 members. This is an infinitesimal advantage. Redoing the VP analysis: If games play out before time (happens in 50% of games): 35 of 66 possible outcomes at a 4-player table provide 4 VP If games time out (happens in 50% of games): 16 provide 3 VP 10 provide 2 VP 4 provide 1 VP 1 provides 0 VP (35/66)*4*0.5= 1.061 (16/66)*3*0.5= 0.364 (10/66)*2*0.5= 0.152 (4/66)*1*0.5= 0.030 So an average 4-player table has 1.606 VP available to it, or 0.402 per player. For five player tables: 126 of 247 possible outcomes provide 5 VPs 65 provide 4 VPs 35 provide 3 VPs 15 provide 2 VPs 5 provide 1 VPs 1 provides 0 VPs 126/247 * 5 * 0.5 = 1.275 65/247 * 4 * 0.5 = 0.526 35/247 * 3 * 0.5 = 0.213 15/247 * 2 * 0.5 = 0.061 5/247 * 1 * 0.5 = 0.010 So an average 5-player table has 2.085 VP available to it, or 0.417 per player. A 554 member will get, on average, 0.417 + 0.417 + 0.402 = 1.236 VP. A 555 member will get, on average, 0.417 + 0.417 + 0.417 = 1.251 VP. Being in the 555 group nets you a [(1.251-1.236)/1.251]= 1.2% advantage, still minuscule even though it's 6 times the advantage the 555 group has under Game Wins. Conclusion: Neither VPranking nor GWranking confers an undue advantage to either group in tournaments where some players have to play at 4 player tables and some players play at 5 player tables throughout. Since neither system is unfair in any important sense, we may as well pick the one which discourages table splitting and has proper rulebook support, and that is GWranking. gomi delicious number-Os, part of the NP-complete brekkie! [ quoted text not captured ]

thego...@hotmail.com (The Googler) wrote in message news:<eaa4179f.02011...@posting.google.com>... > lostp...@hotmail.com (Robert Sheiman) wrote in message news:<e1138430.02011...@posting.google.com>... > > > Alright, I have to say something about the game wins. I don't know > > yet, whether I like it or don't. I was lucky. I had perfect seating in > > my first game at Lafayette. I was at a table of all bleed decks, and I > > had the most forward motion by not clogging and it allowed me to get > > four vps. I got shut out entirely the other two games, by the table > > turning on me. Happens. I expected it, and I honestly went into the > > tournament knowing I had one table I had to sweep or not get anything. > > So you don't know how you feel about the table win rule? How would you > have done without it? Isn't that exactly what I said? I don't know yet, whether I like them or not. IE, look up at what I posted, you can read it. I answered your first question. Good job with those reading skills. I would have been in the finals anyways, finals might have been different, who can tell? > > Now, this is unrelated to what Norm is saying, but I have to bring up, > > that three of the five decks at the final table in Laf. > > >...where combat. > > Are you referring to a location for combat, or do homonyms confuse > you? Homonyms are skeery. Dey make me scared and poop my pants and confuzzle me. Grow up. > > Two of them being intercept. One was a Tzimisce wall, the other was an > > Ahrimanes > > >...intercept bloaty thing a-ma-bob. > > Sounds like a broken toilette. Ah, yes, quite so. You are perceptive. Intercept, bloaty, thing a ma-bob. Broken toilette. Genius, why didn't I make that connection? > > Jeff played it. > > Sounds more like he played you to keep this Oscar scared early. How > else would a Tzimisce deck not block its prey's build? And who swept the finals? Perhaps I played them all, you'd do well to learn. > > Oscar played the other. The third was a brujah princes deck, based on > > controlling table. Weenies are being turned away from, from what I can > > see. I was the only weenie deck at the entire tournament, in fact, > > from what I saw, at least. > > > I was seen as the most dominating. > > No doubt, playing mono-dominate and being the only deck even using > dominate in the finals. Nice observation there. You must where socks > on yore feet. Socks come in quite handy, when in the days of yore and having feet. Good job. Dominating, IE, I was the most offensive, sir. Maybe not everyone is as perceptive as you are, we have to help those out and explain that mono-dominate makes the entire table want to oust out. Not all are quite as perceptive as you, seeing as you know they wear socks in the days of yore. > > No one > > wanted to make deals to split a table, as it was counter productive to > > game wins, > > Since there is only one table win per game. Indeed, even one sock per > foot! I believe we already gone over socks. Though, you obviously know more about the days of yore then I do, they only wore one per foot back then? > > ...I got shut down first...everytime. I got lucky one game to > > get into the finals. > > So even though you were shut down first everytime (your word), you > still managed to get in the finals? Were these consolation finals or > something? Like the "wall of shame" at your US championships? I believe I mentioned getting lucky in one game. I had the perfect seating in the first game, I got through three preys, allowed my final to widthdraw. That's a table win and four VPs. Lucky, as in, I had a table built for my deck to do well. No, they were the finals of the tournament. Where I won. I believe there's a thread a couple back about a tournament in Lafayette, where Rob made it into the finals and one. Lets try out that reading thing, since you seem to have such a grasp on it here. > > IMHO, control decks are now going to be the most popular decks in > > tournaments. > > So control decks will get all the pretty girls and asked to all the > dances. Yes, so perhaps you'll wish to play one so you can move up in gamer world, Mister Googler. > > Something that won't oust first and draw > > the table's ire, but goes for a slow grind, demolishing and or ousting > > cross table (vie votes/anarch revolts/anything that can be used cross > > table). The guy who gets the first VP, will generally be torn to > > shreds by the rest of the table, from what I can see, unless he's > > powerful enough to widthstand it, or went slow enough to just appear > > lucky. Control, combat/vote/anything with the ability to cross table, > > is going to be the most played. It's gonna be the easiest way to get > > game wins. > > Sounds like the hardest way to get table wins. Instead of trying to > control 1 player, you are trying to control 4? Maybe Derek Ray can > teach you a lesson in mathematics. Or perhaps grammar. You're trying to control a table. The idea is that you'll build up, while someone makes themselves a target. Then play the table to have that person ousted. Where it's through rush, or vote. What I was trying to get across is that there's going to be much more cross tabling, because it's easier to win by not being primary target, as anyone who plays a weenie offensive deck is going to be. They're going to be seen as someone who will sweep, and that guarantees the rest of the table turning on you. Now, so you don't get confused, let me explain more. If you sweep...they don't get game wins. IE, any VPs they got are basically null and void because it won't be what's needed in the finals. Now...I know this is still confusing so I'm going to go into even more detail. Mono-dominate puts an obscene amount of pressure (what do you know, it's the most dominating, though we've already gone over this. :le sigh: The days of yore.) and will generally only sweep a table, not get one or two VPs. The table will always turn on it, because they won't get a game win. Understand this? No game win, they essentially lose. 1+1. Yay, I'm smart. Math. So, popular decks will be slow, and go for control of the table. They will want to make sure they can neutralize anyone trying to go for power sweeps. I am a genius. I speak good. Me smart. Uh-oh, I need grammar lessons, thanks Derek for those Math lessons. > > ...If you kill everyone who get's one VP, then you end up with > > 2 VPs by ousting your final prey...you just got a game win. > > So in a 5 player round, the deck you described must eliminate 4 > players to earn 2 VPs? Wouldn't it be easier to eliminate 3? Wouldn't > it be better for your rating to earn 3VPs? Now, lets try this again. Any deck that's going to be scene as sweeping through three preys quickly, is going to be ousted. WOW! Isn't that what I said? Think about it. Lets take a Brujah potence rush deck, with archons and a little bit of presence for bleed as an example. It's prey is a weenie dominate. The entire table will support it getting rid of mono-dom deck. Mmm. Tasty weenies. That deck is gone, yet, you most likely won't be the target next, if you're smart, because you'll be able to turn the table against the next most offensive bleeder. Perhaps a Setite Stealth Bleeder. You continue like this. Slowly getting your ousts. Controlling the table. Appearing as the helper, by taking out any scary deck besides your's. Get all the VPs you want, the idea is to not appear as the most oust aggressive. You aren't trying to get to a speed table win. That scares people. They oust you. See? Smart. > > The game seems to be drifting away from incredible offense early, to the slow > > grind, build, control table, IMHO. This is what I saw at the > > tournament, and I think the final game in no way reflected the rest of > > the tournament. BTW, the fifth deck at finals was a Malk-Anti total > > lockdown. Another control deck. Just something to consider...this is > > how it all looked to me. > > > ...And I would never play another power bleed in a tournament again, unless it was simply to wait until your prey weakend himself enough for you to get one bleed through and oust. > > And where where the deflectors? Your Tzimisce prey must have been too > concerned with removing minions through combat to realize how easy it > is for them to Telepathic Misdirect/My Enemy's Enemy bleeds not caring > about Perfect Clarity. I guess the beginning of your post is true. You > were lucky. Especially since looking at the attendance list I noticed > the best players there didn't even make the finals. They must have > colluded to spend the time better eating ground-up glass than playing > you. Well, maybe you should go look at my deck construction again. There's a few cards in there that you might wish to see, things that help in these deflection cases. Steal the mind. Anarch Troublemaker. Wow...what do you know, I get to tap minions. Hard to deflect if you're tapped. Now, they might have wakes!! (OMIGOD! Who'd have thunk it?) I always had more then four minions. How many wakes do you usually get to deflect when there's four minions bleeding you? I get one bleed through, it's probably for seven. Yes, yes, there's AI. That's still a bleed for three, and if it wasn't my last bleed, perhaps another bleed for seven is coming. And if they're a tzimisce wall deck, how often would you rather not block and kill a minion then play a simple tele-misdirection. I didn't take a directed action towards him for the first eight turns of the game. How's he going to deflect me? Mmm. We're smart. No bleed :GASP!: no deflection. He'd been blocking Jeff for a while...and ran out of untaps. That's when I ousted him. You see...no wakes...can't block bleeds! Isn't that amazing? Indeed. Now, the best players there. That's quite an assumption. Wouldn't you think, that the best players at the tournament, during the tournament, were the people who made it to the finals? Derek Ray and Ethan Burrow missed the finals by .5 VPs a piece. It seems like they tried to get into the finals, and I consider them two of the best players I've seen. Mike Pearlman got into the finals. I ousted Derek in the first game. For some reason, this doesn't seem to make sense. Perhaps, in this tournament, those who made the finals, played the best to get there. And the person who won the finals, played the best in it? Though, I have to give Mike credit, watching him lockdown Sorrow was an amazing thing. Rob > > Rob > > Rob, you've been Googled. Jesus Christ man, I don't want anyone doing that to me. Go back to you're gay porn, from the days of yore, and keep that nasty shit off the boards.

In message <a21s3b$r0d$1...@panix3.panix.com>, go...@panix.com (Gomi no Sensei) mumbled something about: >In article <m9q84ugk20sf0jdh0...@4ax.com>, >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>If I wanted to gamble, I'd play pool. > >My understanding is that playing pool with you is less like gambling >and more like handing you random fistfuls of cash. I said if *I* wanted to gamble. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:oxguHay5...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <m9q84ugk20sf0jdh0...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray > <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: > >If I wanted to gamble with random bets (which is exactly what ante is), > >I'd punch myself in the nuts over and over again while occasionally > >throwing money from my wallet out the window. It's more fun that way. > > I move we add this to the rulebook. > > A seconder, anyone? Seconded. Derek just provided me with the biggest laugh of the day. ObVTES: I recently noticed that I have the October Tremere Clan Newsletter posted on my website (with some text missing), but I can't find it on google. Wondering if I just posted it in my head. Oh well. If anyone is interested, it's on my website. And stuff. I think it was extolling the virtues of Perfect Clarity and Aisling Sturbridge. Xian -- I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold. A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart. --_Shellshock_, New Order www.waste.org/~xian

In message <eQX08.143$Rf1....@newshog.newsread.com>, "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >> 1. Even if this does happen it is less likely to happen now vs. the old way. >> Under the old system the player above who made the losing deal would gain much >> by doing so. He gained little, if nothing in the scenario above. > >1.? Was there supposed to be a 2.? >Also, this isn't true. He gained VPs he wouldn't have otherwise gained w/o the >deal. And at that point, there were so few game wins so the VPs would have >gone a long way towards possibly getting him into the final. In smaller tournaments, >this is more often to be true where VPs will frequently be used because there >aren't enough GWs. This is an actual issue that I'm somewhat concerned about, actually; it hadn't occurred to me before I saw it done. What happened was this; it permitted a player who had never gained more than 2VP at any given table to bypass two players who had each gained 3VP at a table -- and then enter the final as the second seed! The identity of the players is quite irrelevant here, which is why I'm removing all of them. The situation when the withdrawal happened was as follows: Table seating A, B, C, D, E. Players A and B both had no Game Wins, and no VP at the current table. Player C had no Game Wins, and 1VP at the current table. Player D had one Game Win, 1VP from the current table, and had been ousted by player C after gaining that VP. Player E had no Game Wins, no VP at the current table, and had been ousted by player D. With three players left in the game, each in a solid position, and time running relatively low, we can easily analyze the situation. Player A can ONLY get a Table Win if he ousts players B and C. If he ousts only B, the score shifts to 1-1-1-0-0, and a mutual withdrawal there brings the score to 2-2-1-0-0: no Table Win. Player B can get a Table Win if he ousts players C and A, OR if he ousts player C and permits player A to withdraw, leaving a 2-1-1-1-0 score. (Note that player A is maximising his VPs by doing this if time is about to be called -- this will come up later) Player C can get a Table Win if he ousts player A and B (of course), OR if he ousts player A and then defends against B until time is called, giving him 2.5VP. This would seem to indicate that any agreed withdrawal would be against the VEKN rules, as each player still theoretically has a chance to get a Game Win. However, the actual game situation was somewhat different. Player B believed (with good reason, as he had superior Revelations in play) that attempting to oust player C would simply get him killed. Player A believed (also with good reason, from a bunch of previous Rotschrecks hitting the table) that attempting to oust player B would get him killed -- and player B had plenty of pool to begin with, so it would be a long, drawn-out process. Player C had the best chances, since he only needed to oust 1 player -- but player A had the most pool of anyone, and had already shown plenty of defense. Going forward might not get him killed, but the Revelations was showing that he really didn't have anything to go forward WITH; player A could simply refuse to block until time ran out. Under these circumstances, the "must maximise VPs in current game" rule kicks in. The most logical way to maximise VPs for all these players is to agree to withdraw. For player B, it is +0.5 VP that he wouldn't have. For player A, it is +0.5 VP. And for player C, it's a Game Win; he'll never turn it down. But what is really supposed to happen here? Players A and B aren't supposed to look at out-of-game considerations, but realistically, you always are aware of your OWN chances -- and in this case, zero Game Wins is something that you can safely say "I don't get into the finals with", no matter WHAT you know about who else has Game Wins, etc. Getting only 1VP ends their tournament -- but since they have no reasonable chance to get more than 1VP, LSJ has ruled that they can choose how they lose, providing a huge king-making opportunity. Player C isn't looking at out-of-game considerations at all. A Game Win is a Game Win, and a Game Win is better than no Game Win -- he'll take anything that gives him another VP at this point. This situation doesn't arise in rounds 1 or 2. The logical play for players A and B, which does NOT involve out-of-game considerations, is for these players to, worst case, defend and make sure that no Game Win occurs. The simple choice of "not letting someone else win even though you can't" should always take precedence. But in round 3, it starts to leave a big loophole through which huge game and tourney swings can take place. So, is this a problem? I say it is, and not just because I was one of the two players with 1GW from 3VP at a table who was nudged out of the final. I say it's a problem because such OBVIOUS kingmaking situations should be avoided at all cost -- even though I don't believe any deliberate kingmaking actually occurred in this situation! I know all three players involved and have for some time; I believe that all of them thought "well, I'll try to get as many VP as I can, and I know that gives someone a Game Win, but I think I'm supposed to maximise VP." Well, actually, I believe player C thought "cool, I get a Table Win!", but that's not really relevant here. =) But what happens when we get players who aren't as fair-minded? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <e1138430.02011...@posting.google.com>, lostp...@hotmail.com (Robert Sheiman) mumbled something about: >> control 1 player, you are trying to control 4? Maybe Derek Ray can >> teach you a lesson in mathematics. Or perhaps grammar. > >lessons, thanks Derek for those Math lessons. Can I be removed from this thread, please? =) I don't need to be Googled. =) Or boozled. I got plenty boozled this last weekend. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

> > May as well adopt your assumption that a game is 50% as likely to end > before time as to time out while I'm re-doing things. Sloppy math is an > Abomination unto the Lard. Without superior Protean, even. > I seriously question the apparent assumption that a 4 player game is as likely to time out as a 5 player game. After all, in a 4 player game, everyone has 25% more time to do things. My personal experience is that games of Jyhad take about 20-30 minutes per player. I would expect nearly every 4 player game to be over in 2 hours. I'd say there's an about even chance that a 5 player game will end in 2 hours, based on admittedly anecdotal evidence, but soundish reasoning. I don't think that one can generalize too much about wins in this situation, anyway. Some decks are just much better in a 4 player game - take, for instance, a really fast bleed deck, which in a 5 player game will tend to be annihilated. In a 4 player game, it can often run over the first prey, which means that it's only 2 vs 1...and 1 vs 1 if it can just get the next oust. In a five player game, my experience is that it will be stomped back into next year after running over the first prey, because there will be 3 players set up - it's prey, who must try to stop it, it's grand-prey, who will want to help his current predator as much as possible, and it's predator, which obviously will want to oust it. Bloat decks, on the other hand, are usually happier at bigger tables in my experience, although I can't think of any reason why it should be so.

[snip pointless stats] All these numbers are pretty pointless because you're making the false assumption that each outcome has an equal chance of occuring, which it doesn't, except in stats-land. If you took all of the results of all of the games ever played you can be guaranteed that there is not an even distribution of the possible outcomes. > > I am not trying to offend you, but I want you to see what a awful system we > > have created where whole tables don't win. If it comes down to it again > > where I have two v.p.'s and the only remaining player has one, I am going to > > ask him to give me the table or else nobody wins. What do you think about > > that for table politics? > > Frankly it's ridiculous. It's exactly like asking him to let > you oust him under the old VP system because (you claim) you > have a chance of making the finals and he doesn't. If he's > not going to get the game win, he's a hell of a lot better off > not letting you get it either. What possible reason is there > for this person to improve your position at the expense of > his own? Personally, I would. If I had no chance of getting into a final and could assist someone else by withdrawing, I would. I'd rather play King Maker than make a nusance of myself.

> Why do people keep bringing this up? If you think that this follows from > my argument, then you really don't understand what I'm saying. The best > player at a tournament (even the one "best-suited" to the tournament, by way > of judging the metagame) won't always win, and that's okay, but they should > at least have a shot at winning, measured by their chance of making the > final. I'm not going to belabour my point anymore, as I've truly grown > tired of this thread. I think understand your POV. You think that a deck that consistently gets VPs is better than a deck that occasionally wins games and at other times gets no VPs. Fine, that's your opinion. I think a deck that cannot win games is not a good deck and doesn't deserve to be in the finals. I don't care how many VPs it gets per game. Sure, you can be extremely unlucky and not get a GW in 3 rounds, but it's more likely that your deck design is flawed or you're not playing it right. This also seems to be the thinking of VEKN.

"Hannigan" <hanni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:6143fc7b.0201...@posting.google.com... > > > Bloat decks, on the other hand, are usually happier at bigger tables > in my experience, although I can't think of any reason why it should > be so. > With a bloat deck at a 5 player table, there are generally 2 people whose interest in the early game is that you gain as much pool as possible. This gives you 2 allies to work votes with, and you can bloat them as well, if necessary (which is in your best interests in the early game). At a 4 player table, you only have one "ally", and none if there's a quick oust.. 2 on 1 versus a bloat deck can easily smack it, if they catch it early and/or have decent intercept.

> The funny thing is that in this tournament. The deck that won the > tournament (a weenie dominate deck no less) was my predator one round, and > he wasn't able to oust me. That fact might have made a difference in the > finals. In all fairness, that was mainly because I kept all his minions busy doing things like hunting, rushing your minions (and promptly going to torpor), and/or removing cards that produced those effects. If Rob had enough free actions, I think he'd have swept that table too. :)

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, GreySeer wrote: > "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message > news:u46p5gt...@corp.supernews.com... > > > > Ok, so what happens in the unlikely event where one or two > > > > (if any) people get game wins and the rest of the rounds result > > > > in ties? What if, in that same situation where there are one or > > > > two game wins, 5 or more other people are tied where the > > > > rounds they tied in tied at 2-2-1? How do you resolve who > > > > goes into the finals at that point? Clearly the one or two that > > > > had game wins. But what about the others? > > > ?. Maybe I'm not understanding the question since the answer is in the > > > tournament rules. The first tie-break is VPs. Then, tournament points. > > > > Ok, you have, say, 7 players. 2 of those player have 1 Game Win. > > The only game wins of the tournament. Those 5 other players each > > have 5 VPs. Those 5 VPs are made of up 2 from the first round, 2 > > from the second round and 1 from the last round. They are all (or > > almost all) going to have the same tournament points. Same number > > of VPs, same number of TPs, who gets into the final round? > > Then you'd be in the same position as if you were playing the old system so > I don't see how it's relevant. Aside from some random method I can't see how > you could do anything else that would be considered fair. I'll throw this idea in here agin: ousting points. basically, you get a very slight third degree tiebreaking advantage depending on when you get ousted in a round. eg: if you're first ousted, you get 12 ousting points (OP). If you're second ousted, you get 24. third gets 36, fourth 48, and last methuselah standing gets 60. if people are ousted simultaneously they split the points for the postitions the would have received if ousted sequentially. so, in the above example, the people who had the most OPs, equating to the people that were ousted later each round, would get into the finals. i've never seen a tie in OPs when GW, VP and TP are tied. salem. Advocate of OP.

lostp...@hotmail.com (Robert Sheiman) wrote in message news:<e1138430.02011...@posting.google.com>... > thego...@hotmail.com (The Googler) wrote in message news:<eaa4179f.02011...@posting.google.com>... > > So you don't know how you feel about the table win rule? How would you > > have done without it? > > Isn't that exactly what I said? I don't know yet, whether I like them > or not. IE, look up at what I posted, you can read it. I answered your > first question. Good job with those reading skills. > Perhaps you missed my tone. Had the table win rule not been in effect, would you have made it to the finals? > I would have been in the finals anyways, finals might have been > different, who can tell? > From looking at the tournament report, I'd say anyone with internet access. > > Are you referring to a location for combat, or do homonyms confuse > > you? > > Homonyms are skeery. Dey make me scared and poop my pants and > confuzzle me. Grow up. > Evidently someone other than myself is regressing here, with references to bodily functions (although I'm not quite sure what "confuzzling" is?) > > > Two of them being intercept. One was a Tzimisce wall, the other was an > > > Ahrimanes > > > >...intercept bloaty thing a-ma-bob. > > > > Sounds like a broken toilette. > > Ah, yes, quite so. You are perceptive. Intercept, bloaty, thing a > ma-bob. Broken toilette. Genius, why didn't I make that connection? > Your head was probably too far down past the rim to realize that a toilet uses a "floatie" and "bob" to regulate the flow of water. Of course, it sounds like you are in that stage of development when the disappearance of items placed within is still "magical" re: your adverse response to homonyms. > And who swept the finals? Perhaps I played them all, you'd do well to > learn. > Sounds more like you colluded with this Oscar. And what was his price? Some plumbing, perhaps? > > No doubt, playing mono-dominate and being the only deck even using > > dominate in the finals. Nice observation there. You must where socks > > on yore feet. > > Socks come in quite handy, when in the days of yore and having feet. > Good job. Dominating, IE, I was the most offensive, sir. Maybe not > everyone is as perceptive as you are, we have to help those out and > explain that mono-dominate makes the entire table want to oust out. > Not all are quite as perceptive as you, seeing as you know they wear > socks in the days of yore. > Albeit my misspelling was intentional, to emfazize yores. > > Since there is only one table win per game. Indeed, even one sock per > > foot! > > I believe we already gone over socks. Though, you obviously know more > about the days of yore then I do, they only wore one per foot back > then? > And being a 16 year old, you were still needing someone to help you change your socks while I was completing university. I received my degree last month. > > So even though you were shut down first everytime (your word), you > > still managed to get in the finals? Were these consolation finals or > > something? Like the "wall of shame" at your US championships? > > I believe I mentioned getting lucky in one game. And is not that the new problem with the table win system? Before this, you had to get either perform consistently or "get lucky" in EACH ROUND. > I had the perfect seating in the first game, Kudos. > I got through three preys, allowed my final to widthdraw. I shudder to think what "widthdrawing" is... > That's a table win and four VPs. Lucky, as in, I had a table built for my > deck to do well. No, they were the finals of the tournament. Where I won. I > believe there's a thread a couple back about a tournament in Lafayette, where > Rob made it into the finals and one. I hate to think what is happening to your body re: the homonym crisis, considering you misused 2 in the preceding paragraph... > Lets try out that reading thing, since you seem to have such a grasp on it > here. Redding, riting, riphmatik... > > So control decks will get all the pretty girls and asked to all the > > dances. > > Yes, so perhaps you'll wish to play one so you can move up in gamer > world, Mister Googler. > Play a control deck or play a pretty girl? Please let me know which you mean. I do so relish the thought of being able to "move up in gamer world?" > > Sounds like the hardest way to get table wins. Instead of trying to > > control 1 player, you are trying to control 4? Maybe Derek Ray can > > teach you a lesson in mathematics. Or perhaps grammar. > > You're trying to control a table. The idea is that you'll build up, > while someone makes themselves a target. Then play the table to have > that person ousted. Where it's through rush, or vote. What I was > trying to get across is that there's going to be much more cross > tabling, because it's easier to win by not being primary target, as > anyone who plays a weenie offensive deck is going to be. They're going > to be seen as someone who will sweep, and that guarantees > the rest of the table turning on you. Now, so you don't get confused, > let me explain more. Please do. I'm all socks, as you might say in Texas. > If you sweep...they don't get game wins. IE, any > VPs they got are basically null and void because it won't be what's > needed in the finals. Now...I know this is still confusing so I'm > going to go into even more detail. Mono-dominate puts an obscene > amount of pressure (what do you know, it's the most dominating, though > we've already gone over this. :le sigh: The days of yore.) and will > generally only sweep a table, not get one or two VPs. The table will > always turn on it, because they won't get a game win. Understand this? > No game win, they essentially lose. 1+1. Yay, I'm smart. It's nice to see someone celebrate their existence, no matter how - ... > Math. So, popular decks will be slow, and go for control of the table. > They will want to make sure they can neutralize anyone trying to go for power > sweeps. I'm following you so far. > I am a genius. ...You lost me. > I speak good. ...You lost me. > Me smart. ...You lost me. > Uh-oh, I need grammar lessons, thanks Derek for those Math lessons. Out of respect for his earlier post, I won't. > > So in a 5 player round, the deck you described must eliminate 4 > > players to earn 2 VPs? Wouldn't it be easier to eliminate 3? Wouldn't > > it be better for your rating to earn 3VPs? > > Now, lets try this again. Did we try it before? > Any deck that's going to be scene (homonym) > as sweeping through three preys quickly, is going to be ousted. Granted that it doesn't "sweep through three preys quickly"... > WOW! HUZZAH! > Isn't that what I said? Think about it. Lets take a Brujah potence > rush deck, with archons and a little bit of presence for bleed as an > example. Definitely not the deck in the finals... > It's prey is a weenie dominate. The entire table will support > it getting rid of mono-dom deck. Mmm. Tasty weenies. That deck is > gone, yet, you most likely won't be the target next, if you're smart, > because you'll be able to turn the table against the next most > offensive bleeder. Perhaps a Setite Stealth Bleeder. You continue like > this. Slowly getting your ousts. Controlling the table. Appearing as > the helper, by taking out any scary deck besides your's. Get all the > VPs you want, the idea is to not appear as the most oust aggressive. > You aren't trying to get to a speed table win. That scares people. > They oust you. See? Smart. Of course, in Jyhad/VTES, you receive VPs when ousting the person sitting directly to your LEFT. And generally receive 6 pool for doing so. And usually do this without a substantial amount of help from others. > > And where where the deflectors? Your Tzimisce prey must have been too > > concerned with removing minions through combat to realize how easy it > > is for them to Telepathic Misdirect/My Enemy's Enemy bleeds not caring > > about Perfect Clarity. I guess the beginning of your post is true. You > > were lucky. Especially since looking at the attendance list I noticed > > the best players there didn't even make the finals. They must have > > colluded to spend the time better eating ground-up glass than playing > > you. > > Well, maybe you should go look at my deck construction again. There's > a few cards in there that you might wish to see, things that help in > these deflection cases. Steal the mind. Anarch Troublemaker. > Wow...what do you know, I get to tap minions. Hard to deflect if > you're tapped. Now, they might have wakes!! (OMIGOD! Who'd have thunk > it?) I always had more then four minions. How many wakes do you > usually get to deflect when there's four minions bleeding you? If a Tzimisce deck doesn't untap at least 1 minion using an Animalism wake during your turn, something was very wrong. > I get one bleed through, it's probably for seven. Yes, yes, there's AI. > That's still a bleed for three, and if it wasn't my last bleed, > perhaps another bleed for seven is coming. And if they're a tzimisce > wall deck, how often would you rather not block and kill a minion then > play a simple tele-misdirection. I didn't take a directed action > towards him for the first eight turns of the game. How's he going to > deflect me? Mmm. We're smart. No bleed :GASP!: no deflection. He'd > been blocking Jeff for a while...and ran out of untaps. That's when I > ousted him. You see...no wakes...can't block bleeds! Isn't that > amazing? Indeed. I hope you realized all this during the tournament, and that you aren't just now figuring it out. Oh wait. Your tone is facetious. > Now, the best players there. That's quite an assumption. Wouldn't you > think, that the best players at the tournament, during the tournament, > were the people who made it to the finals? Not with this new table wins rule... > Derek Ray and Ethan Burrow missed the finals by .5 VPs a piece. > It seems like they tried to get into the finals, Again, I believe some glass was being ground up... > and I consider them two of the best players I've seen. ...respectfully silent... > Mike Pearlman got into the finals. I ousted Derek in the first > game. Are you suggesting there is a causal relationship to this? > For some reason, this doesn't seem to make sense. Exactly my point. > Perhaps, in this tournament, those who made the finals, played the best to get > there. And the person who won the finals, played the best in it? Congratulations on winning the finals. I guess you had to do something after getting there. > Though, I have to give Mike credit, watching him lockdown Sorrow was > an amazing thing. Not half as amazing as your win. Again congratulations. > > Rob, you've been Googled. > > Jesus Christ man, I don't want anyone doing that to me. Go back to > you're gay porn, from the days of yore, and keep that nasty shit off > the boards. And your "confuzzling" earlier refers to...? BTW, I counted at least ate homonyms in your posts... Regoogled.

[snip] > So, is this a problem? I say it is, and not just because I was one of > the two players with 1GW from 3VP at a table who was nudged out of the > final. I say it's a problem because such OBVIOUS kingmaking situations > should be avoided at all [snip] > But what happens when we get players who aren't as fair-minded? This is why the Game Wins rule is just a plain bad idea. I'm hoping that a few more tournaments will bear this fact out. Sorrow --- "Are they dead?" - Pugsly "Does it matter?" - Wednesday

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uil18.65$9d....@newshog.newsread.com... [Derek wrote] > > So, is this a problem? I say it is, and not just because I was one of > > the two players with 1GW from 3VP at a table who was nudged out of the > > final. I say it's a problem because such OBVIOUS kingmaking situations > > should be avoided at all > [snip] > > But what happens when we get players who aren't as fair-minded? > > This is why the Game Wins rule is just a plain bad idea. > I'm hoping that a few more tournaments will bear this fact out. I don't see how this problem is in any way exacerbated by the game wins system. Wouldn't the exact same VP-maximizing arguments apply under the "VPs only" system? Or are you saying "well, at least under VPs-only, when people cooperate to withdraw when time is almost called, nobody gets a big jump in score due to receiving a game win"? But so what? It could equally well push someone out of the finals for this currently-at-1-VP person to get 2 VPs instead. And if the other players in the game don't want to let Mr. 1 VP win the table, they shouldn't agree to withdraw. It's really not that hard to not withdraw. And they're just as free to maximize their "worthless" VPs by getting 0.5 as by getting 1. (There's no requirement to try to get more numerical VPs (an extra 0.5) when it doesn't improve your in-game ranking, as far as I can see.) You can't totally avoid kingmaking situations if non-king players have any power to affect game outcomes. And if 2 VPs is enough to win the game, it's enough to win the game; if we like to give the rulebook-defined game-winning player a bonus for having won, we shouldn't really care about whether they won with 2 VPs or 3, right? Josh not maximal

"GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in message news:u49qetd...@news.supernews.com... > [snip pointless stats] > > All these numbers are pretty pointless because you're making the false > assumption that each outcome has an equal chance of occuring, which it > doesn't, except in stats-land. If you took all of the results of all of the > games ever played you can be guaranteed that there is not an even > distribution of the possible outcomes. Of course. I thought we all knew that. But this is the only way to calculate probabilities without knowledge of the "actual" likelihoods of each outcome. We don't have anything like sufficient data (and probably wouldn't even if we had the results for every round of sanctioned VTES ever played) to state authoritatively what the "real" chances are. (All the rounds wouldn't be enough because they weren't played under the game wins system. They'd probably be a fair approximation for the VPs-only system, if there are as many as I expect there are (ie at least a few thousand).) [re asking the other guy at the table to let you have the game win "just because"] [I wrote] > > Frankly it's ridiculous. It's exactly like asking him to let > > you oust him under the old VP system because (you claim) you > > have a chance of making the finals and he doesn't. If he's > > not going to get the game win, he's a hell of a lot better off > > not letting you get it either. What possible reason is there > > for this person to improve your position at the expense of > > his own? > > Personally, I would. If I had no chance of getting into a final and could > assist someone else by withdrawing, I would. I'd rather play King Maker than > make a nusance of myself. Why on earth is that? Didn't you come to play? Do you give away VPs in casual games because you don't want to make a nuisance of yourself? Any time you "assist" someone (in their chances of getting to the finals) by withdrawing (or anything else), you're also "hurting" someone else (the person they'd bump out). Why should you prefer the person who's in the game with you to the one who's not? If anything I'd think it'd be the opposite - the one in the game is your direct competitor right now, so you should do anything you can to keep him from winning. :-) Josh a little better than the regular competitor

"Hannigan" <hanni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:6143fc7b.0201...@posting.google.com... > > > > May as well adopt your assumption that a game is 50% as likely to end > > before time as to time out while I'm re-doing things. Sloppy math is an > > Abomination unto the Lard. Without superior Protean, even. > > > > I seriously question the apparent assumption that a 4 player game is > as likely to time out as a 5 player game. You may be right. But we're trying to make estimates without really "knowing" anything about the game, since we have no usable data. > I'd say there's an about even chance that a 5 player game will end in > 2 hours, based on admittedly anecdotal evidence, but soundish > reasoning. Too anecdotal to calculate probabilities based on, I think. :-) I've played lots of 5-player games that went quickly, and lots that didn't. Same for 4-player. Josh anyway...

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@panix.com> wrote in message news:a22b3c$ahf$1...@panix3.panix.com... [snippage] > Timing out, you get Josh's numbers (dropping half points): > > 3000 4 different kinds > 2100 12 different kinds > 1110 impossible > 2000 4 different kinds > 1100 6 different kinds > 1000 4 different kinds > 0000 1 kind > > 31 cases, 20 of which assign a game win (I don't know how Josh > came up with 12). 65% chance of game win here. Argh. :-) You can't have a 4-player game time out with 3 VPs assigned. See the bit you quoted before. :-) If you've already assigned 3 VPs, there's only one player left, and the game has ended before time. Also, you shouldn't drop the half-VPs, because they matter too (in that a player with 0.5 VPs who survived to time is not the same as a player with 0 VPs who was ousted before time). That's why in my calculations there were 12 of 31 ways to have a game win in a 4-player game that went to time - if it goes to time, the only outcome that gets a game win is 2.5/0.5/0/0 and there are 12 ways to arrange that outcome. Apparently there's not actually *anyone* on this newsgroup who really knows probability/math anymore. (I definitely include myself in that; I had to go look up all the formulas I used.) Or maybe just no one who cares enough to get involved in this. :-) > 40000 5 different kinds > 31000 20 different kinds > 22000 10 different kinds > 21100 30 different kinds > 11110 impossible > 30000 5 different kinds > 21000 20 different kinds > 11100 10 different kinds > 20000 5 different kinds > 11000 10 different kinds > 10000 5 different kinds > 00000 1 kind > > 121 outcomes, of which 85 assign a game win: 70%. Same problem, can't assign 4 VPs in a 5-player game without finishing before time... [snip] > This means 555 members are [(2.19-2.185)/2.19]=0.2% less likely to see a > stalemate (no Game Win) than 554 members. This is an infinitesimal advantage. This part looks right to me. Except for the overestimate of likelihood of getting a table win for timeouts of course. :-) > Redoing the VP analysis: > > If games play out before time (happens in 50% of games): > > 35 of 66 possible outcomes at a 4-player table provide 4 VP Whoa. What possible "not-timed-out" outcomes are there that *don't* provide 4 VP? I can't think of any... > If games time out (happens in 50% of games): > > 16 provide 3 VP > 10 provide 2 VP > 4 provide 1 VP > 1 provides 0 VP > > (35/66)*4*0.5= 1.061 > (16/66)*3*0.5= 0.364 > (10/66)*2*0.5= 0.152 > (4/66)*1*0.5= 0.030 > > So an average 4-player table has 1.606 VP available to it, or 0.402 per player. You left out the 0.5 VP pieces. Though you're actually right that 3 VP is the most you can get in a timed-out four-player game - 2.5/0.5/0/0 and 1.5/1.5/0/0. The ways to reach each distribution part isn't exactly right, though. Check [JTD 20020115] for the distributions if you like. :-) > Conclusion: Neither VPranking nor GWranking confers an undue advantage > to either group in tournaments where some players have to play at 4 player > tables and some players play at 5 player tables throughout. Since neither > system is unfair in any important sense, we may as well pick the one which > discourages table splitting and has proper rulebook support, and that is > GWranking. I do think this conclusion is probably right, given that the most four-player-playing player in an actual tournament can only have one more four-player game than the least four-player-playing player. Josh kits cats sacks wives

>I've played lots of 5-player games that went quickly, and lots >that didn't. Same for 4-player. Last night, we played a three player game that lasted far longer than the other, four player, game. I was down to 5 cards in hand and my remaining opponent down to 2. And, we called it! because we figured I'd win but only after a long period of hunting with The Hungry Coyote and swarm bleeding.

In message <uil18.65$9d....@newshog.newsread.com>, "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >> But what happens when we get players who aren't as fair-minded? > >This is why the Game Wins rule is just a plain bad idea. This has nothing to do with the Game Wins rule. This has a lot to do with the fact that gamers, as a general rule, suck. V:TES was an exception for a long time. This is slowly changing. >I'm hoping that a few more tournaments will bear this fact out. Oh, and table-splits for VPs were so much better? You can ALSO solve the problem (in a much better fashion) by simply banning obvious kingmaking actions. #1 problem: ousting yourself to no benefit. No, we can't stop someone from transferring themselves down to 1 pool, tapping out, and discarding a Wake -- nor would I try. However, preventing the actual self-oust still gives the rest of the table a chance to stop what's happening, where simply transferring yourself out gives a VP and 6 pool instantly, with only Life Boon as a possible savior. Specifically, it doesn't let you COMPLETELY screw your grand-predator out of a chance at a VP. Suggested rule? "You may not play, nor make use of, an effect that would oust yourself for no benefit. If a successful action would oust yourself, the action fizzles upon resolution." No more, no less. This is both sufficiently vague (so that judges have some room to rule one way or the other, as appropriate; a player who plays a KRC and has it hit with an Elder Kindred Network is obviously not ousting himself, and a player who drops an Anarchist Uprising that will kill herself and her prey to gain her 2nd VP is still good), and sufficiently clear that ANYONE can identify the intent of the rule (playing Force of Will with your Famous vampire at 1 pool and claiming "I was hoping to cycle to a Change of Target and untap myself!" is a neat excuse, but not relevant as the action will just fizzle), depriving rules munchkins of any ground to stand on. Additional rule: "Players must play to win the current game at all times." Note that it removes the "maximise VP" wording, and means that you can never take an action, use an effect, or anything else that gives someone else a Table Win, because that gives you 0% chance of winning the current game. This requires redefining some concepts the V:TES community has taken for granted and setting them more "in stone". If you have a minion, you have a chance to win. Not a large one, no, but a chance. If your best chance to win means walling up and defending forever, SO BE IT. You need to take that chance, instead of agitating for a withdrawal... leading us to a third rule: "No more than one successful withdrawal may be performed in any game." I don't know about you, but I know I'm real tired of seeing a table with 4 players left dibble around until 5 minutes are left and then collectively agree to withdraw. No. Y'all played yourselves into this corner, y'all need to take the .5 VP penalty for timing a game out. I've even taken advantage of this rule MYSELF in the past -- but it's got to stop. Games timing out is VERY rare to see anymore; most people are just taking the "free VP" for the withdrawal that everyone will agree to as time is getting low. This is playing the clock, not the game, and we need to focus on playing the game. The Table Wins rule was a good step. The Lafayette tournament was almost completely free of table-split deals, offers, and the like. A lot of good, aggressive play was seen, even by intercept decks. Let's finish the job now by locking the kingmakers down entirely. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > Additional rule: "Players must play to win the current game at all > times." Note that it removes the "maximise VP" wording, and means that > you can never take an action, use an effect, or anything else that gives > someone else a Table Win, because that gives you 0% chance of winning > the current game. So you cannot take any action if any action you take gives someone a table win, even if taking no action also gives someone (else?) a table win? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"evil_poot_cat" <evilp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cf597231.02011...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] He was your prey and you did oust him. Thanks for the relief. But I don't think it would have matter as he did bleed me for like 20 when he was actually able to get his bleeds off. So I think my deck design did help a little. :) Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

X_Zealot wrote: > I find that it left a unpleasant taste in my mouth that people who were able > to win one table with the same amount of v.p.'s in a round that I scored > were able to make the finals with less victory points while I was excluded. > Is it just me? What does everyone else think? I think it's just classic "changeover resentment". I think there would be no way in hell you would be making this post if this were your first tournament and you'd never experienced playing under the former "victory point" rules. What I _don't_ think is that you've pointed at anything that constitutes an actual problem with the new system. So it causes a different set of people to make the finals, so what? We *knew* there might be a difference - that's why they bothered to make the change. If the new rules always caused the exact same group of people to always make the finals as the old rules, why would they bother to change it? The issue you need to raise is whether you _deserved_ to make the finals over the people who got in instead of you. Why or why not, in 2500 words or less? Fred

X_Zealot wrote: > First of all, most of the Intercept Combat Hellmonsters I know go forward > with Eagle Sights or Falcon's Eyes so I think they are going for three no > matter what (such as oust their prey, then try to be the last on the table). Good. Then they can continue to do so and, if they're successful, ought to have no problem with the new game wins rules. Fred

GreySeer wrote: > > [snip pointless stats] > > All these numbers are pretty pointless because you're making the false > assumption that each outcome has an equal chance of occuring, which it > doesn't, except in stats-land. If you took all of the results of all of the > games ever played you can be guaranteed that there is not an even > distribution of the possible outcomes. I have to say, I agree with this. I understand the point Josh is trying to make and basically agree with it. But the truth is, Norm could conceivably be correct that a 4-player table is a disadvantage depending on how often what type of finish occurs. If the 2-2 draws (and various time-related non-game-wins) make non-game-wins on 4-player tables much more likely than on 5-player tables, then Norm's complaint could be valid. We don't know. It's just that Josh points out a potentially distinct advantage to 4-player tables: fewer competitors for the same number of game wins. It might therefore be an advantage to play on 4-player tables rather than a disadvantage, if the 2-2 tie thing actually doesn't come up much. Again, we don't know. Unfortunately, two opposing "We don't know"s don't necessarily cancel out. It just makes one great big "We-don't-know"... Ug. At least it's good for some spirited debate on Usenet. Fred

Derek Ray wrote: > If I wanted to gamble with random bets (which is exactly what ante is), > I'd punch myself in the nuts over and over again while occasionally > throwing money from my wallet out the window. It's more fun that way. Cool. Er, and what would happen if you _lost_? Fred

Curevei wrote: > > >I've played lots of 5-player games that went quickly, and lots > >that didn't. Same for 4-player. > > Last night, we played a three player game that lasted far longer than the > other, four player, game. Let's hear it for Anecdotal Evidence(tm)! The brand that lets you prove anything you want! :) Fred

X_Zealot wrote: > > >Robert, you are missing the point. Under the old system all the v.p.s > > >were won by someone. Under the new system you have tables that aren't won > > >effectively meaning that the entire table lost. > > > > Under the old system VPs were lost when time was called. A 4 player game > > where time runs out with no ousts scores (0.5VP per player * 4 players) 2 > > VPs -- the other 2 VPs have vanished. > > At least you got something. Under the same situation there is no game wins. > The whole table loses. The two situations are orthogonal. Games in the new system going to time may still lead to game wins. If so, players are only penalized the tie-breaker victory points, not the all-important victory points under the old system. Of course, games not going to time may still end in ties, denying the players at the table any game win (though still providing them tie-break VPs). Apples and oranges. No one can prove either system is better or worse than the other. Albeit one system may well be better than the other in practice. (In this sense, at least.) Fred

X_Zealot wrote: > > >"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > I'll say it again. When I get two victory points and the last > > > remaining player has 1. I am going to ask him to give me the > > > table or else nobody wins. > > I actually meant that the last person had zero victory points And as that last person, I am going to say, "no". If I oust you, I get two tie-break VPs, which is no small matter if I should manage to later get a game win (or already have one). Any other behavior is collusion. If I don't have one and it's the last round, it's still poor sportsmanship to just hand you the game for no good reason. Everyone else in the previous rounds had to (or _should_ have had to) earn their game win. Why should you be the exception? Fred

In message <3C476417...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> Additional rule: "Players must play to win the current game at all >> times." Note that it removes the "maximise VP" wording, and means that >> you can never take an action, use an effect, or anything else that gives >> someone else a Table Win, because that gives you 0% chance of winning >> the current game. > >So you cannot take any action if any action you take gives someone a >table win, even if taking no action also gives someone (else?) a >table win? Interpret the rule in this situation as "You may not act to give yourself a 0% chance of winning" and you end up just fine. If you ever end up in this insanely rare contrived paradox, then the inaction should take precedence over the action... similar to refusing to transfer out even though you have 4 pool, all your minions are burned, and your entire crypt contains nothing less than a 5-cap. Something else could always happen -- people have misplayed forced-win positions before. I will admit that I have an awful lot of trouble imagining how one could ever end up in a "Razor" position where you acting would definitely give player A the win, and you NOT acting would definitely give player B the win. But I would say that if you truly have a 0% chance of winning, you should take no action that would affect the outcome of the game. I don't expect this situation would ever come up. Generally, if you REALLY have 0% chance of winning, someone else should already have a forced-win that you can do nothing about... and at this point, you should try to gain as many VP as you can. [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Zealot wrote: > > > But why would anyone agree? The other player already can't win. Given that > > he can't win (the best he can do is tie), he might as well make sure > > no-one else wins either, because that maximises his chances in the rest of > > the tournament. > > Only in the first two rounds, In the third round he is just playing > spoilier if he can't make it into the finals That kind of thing happened under the old system, too. If I had zero victory points going into the third round, I pretty much might as well oust myself by this logic and let someone at this table have a better shot at the finals. Or at least I should after one or two opponents get ousted that I didn't oust. No way I'm going to do anything with 3 victory points or less. So what is the problem here that didn't already exist? Fred

Sorrow wrote: > > > Fascinating. You're saying someone at the table was able to talk someone > > else into doing something so utterly against their best interests? I'd love > > details on that. > > No, I did not say that. I'm just saying that mutual withdrawal was brought up > in 2 seperate rounds as an alternative to what was going to inevitably occur. > And it wasn't against their best interests. In the round that saw me get the game > win, it also gave VPs where they wouldn't have otherwise been gained. So > while they didn't get the GW, they did get VPs that could have gone towards > the tie breaker. The only reason to do this is to gain tie-break VPs. (More victory points generated in a withdrawal than in a time-called situation.) Before the game win rule, those VPs gained were even more important. It seems like we're losing sight of the angle on these arguments. Fred

In message <3C479B65...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] After the first few punches, you can't tell if you're winning or losing anymore. That's the greatest thing about it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > What happened was this; it permitted a player who had never gained more > than 2VP at any given table to bypass two players who had each gained > 3VP at a table -- and then enter the final as the second seed! The > identity of the players is quite irrelevant here, which is why I'm > removing all of them. > > The situation when the withdrawal happened was as follows: > > Table seating A, B, C, D, E. > > Players A and B both had no Game Wins, and no VP at the current table. > > Player C had no Game Wins, and 1VP at the current table. > > Player D had one Game Win, 1VP from the current table, and had been > ousted by player C after gaining that VP. > > Player E had no Game Wins, no VP at the current table, and had been > ousted by player D. > > With three players left in the game, each in a solid position, and time > running relatively low, we can easily analyze the situation. > > Player A can ONLY get a Table Win if he ousts players B and C. If he > ousts only B, the score shifts to 1-1-1-0-0, and a mutual withdrawal > there brings the score to 2-2-1-0-0: no Table Win. > > Player B can get a Table Win if he ousts players C and A, OR if he ousts > player C and permits player A to withdraw, leaving a 2-1-1-1-0 score. > (Note that player A is maximising his VPs by doing this if time is about > to be called -- this will come up later) > > Player C can get a Table Win if he ousts player A and B (of course), OR > if he ousts player A and then defends against B until time is called, > giving him 2.5VP. > > This would seem to indicate that any agreed withdrawal would be against > the VEKN rules, as each player still theoretically has a chance to get a > Game Win. However, the actual game situation was somewhat different. > > Player B believed (with good reason, as he had superior Revelations in > play) that attempting to oust player C would simply get him killed. > > Player A believed (also with good reason, from a bunch of previous > Rotschrecks hitting the table) that attempting to oust player B would > get him killed -- and player B had plenty of pool to begin with, so it > would be a long, drawn-out process. > > Player C had the best chances, since he only needed to oust 1 player -- > but player A had the most pool of anyone, and had already shown plenty > of defense. Going forward might not get him killed, but the Revelations > was showing that he really didn't have anything to go forward WITH; > player A could simply refuse to block until time ran out. > > Under these circumstances, the "must maximise VPs in current game" rule > kicks in. The most logical way to maximise VPs for all these players is > to agree to withdraw. For player B, it is +0.5 VP that he wouldn't > have. For player A, it is +0.5 VP. And for player C, it's a Game Win; > he'll never turn it down. > > But what is really supposed to happen here? Well, for one things, all three of these players need to start putting less defense and more offense in their decks. > Players A and B aren't > supposed to look at out-of-game considerations, but realistically, you > always are aware of your OWN chances -- and in this case, zero Game Wins > is something that you can safely say "I don't get into the finals with", > no matter WHAT you know about who else has Game Wins, etc. Getting only > 1VP ends their tournament -- but since they have no reasonable chance to > get more than 1VP, LSJ has ruled that they can choose how they lose, > providing a huge king-making opportunity. > > Player C isn't looking at out-of-game considerations at all. A Game Win > is a Game Win, and a Game Win is better than no Game Win -- he'll take > anything that gives him another VP at this point. > > This situation doesn't arise in rounds 1 or 2. The logical play for > players A and B, which does NOT involve out-of-game considerations, is > for these players to, worst case, defend and make sure that no Game Win > occurs. I disagree. Actually, if my chances of actually winning the game are pretty much hosed, I withdraw and take the extra half victory point. It's still worth _something_. > The simple choice of "not letting someone else win even though > you can't" should always take precedence. Why's that? Of course, this is kind of a side issue but playing to gain something always takes precedence of playing to deny someone else something. > But in round 3, it starts to > leave a big loophole through which huge game and tourney swings can take > place. Agreed, someone can make the final or not based on the decisions of people who have nothing to gain towards the end of a tournament. > So, is this a problem? I say it is, and not just because I was one of > the two players with 1GW from 3VP at a table who was nudged out of the > final. I say it's a problem because such OBVIOUS kingmaking situations > should be avoided at all cost I'm not sure it's not a problem. And yes, kingmaking situations are bad. Of course, when I sat there arguing about this with Christopher Dearlove, I was told my posts had nothing to do with Jyhad and to please desist with that thread in this newsgroup. Not that I'm bitter... But again, I think this kind of stuff happened without the game win rule. I just don't think it was quite as obvious, as one or two victory points tends to look less dramatic than a game win that gets someone into the final in one fell swoop. Fred

Chris Berger wrote: > > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:XsH08.30779$Vz3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > > news:n5H08.23978$Vq.218620@rwcrnsc53... > > > > > I thought the goal was to oust your prey, and for each prey that you > > > oust, you gain a point. > > > > Yes, that is the short-term goal. ... > >In and of itself, the gaining of a "point" is meaningless except as it > >displays progress toward the goal of winning. Rulebook: "As Methuselahs > >are ousted, players earn victory points; the winner is the player with > >the most victory points at the end of the game (see Victory Points, > >sec. 9.1)." ... > But my main point is not about which is correct (although you can see my > opinion), but just that the new table wins rule doesn't "more accurately > reflect the goal of the game", it actually redefines it. Robert just proved otherwise, quite convincingly. A rulebook quote directly supports his contention. Fred

Chris Berger wrote: > Why do people keep bringing this up? If you think that this follows from > my argument, then you really don't understand what I'm saying. The best > player at a tournament (even the one "best-suited" to the tournament, by way > of judging the metagame) won't always win, and that's okay, but they should > at least have a shot at winning, measured by their chance of making the > final. The trouble is, your insistence on measuring "best" by victory points rather than game wins is arbitrary. The skill has been changed from accumulating victory points to accumulating game wins. I agree, comparing victory points in Jyhad to hotels in Monopoly is not accurate. The more accurate comparison would be giving playoff positions in the National Football League (or any other sports league) by total points-scored differential vs. all opponents rather than by wins and losses. You can make all the same arguments about point differential being the more accurate test of which team is better than won-loss differential. But the ultimate goal of the game is to win _that_ game. And the new rules reflect that ultimate goal better than the old rules - which were causing a problem _precisely_ because players were not playing with it in mind because they had no particular incentive to. > I fail to see that the previous system was any more exploitable than the > current. I don't know about "exploitable" But the previous system caused a problem simply because the massed effect of playing several preliminary rounds is different than playing a single game for the best result you can. That is, it's a different game to play for the maximum number of victory points in three games than in one. People (MOST people, I think, anyway) want play a game that has the same character in the tournament as when they play for fun and that wasn't happening. The new system seems to fix that problem. Fred

In message <3C47A5DA...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> But what is really supposed to happen here? > >Well, for one things, all three of these players need to start putting less >defense and more offense in their decks. Player A was a classic Ventrue bleed-and-vote deck. Player B was a combination stealth/bleed and intercept/Rotshit deck. Player C was a Brujah Archon/Anathema/etc. deck. None of these are inherently defensive, although B's comes close. But when you're chucking around bleeds for 2-3 at stealth, I still have to say that its offense certainly isn't LACKING. >> This situation doesn't arise in rounds 1 or 2. The logical play for >> players A and B, which does NOT involve out-of-game considerations, is >> for these players to, worst case, defend and make sure that no Game Win >> occurs. > >I disagree. Actually, if my chances of actually winning the game are >pretty much hosed, I withdraw and take the extra half victory point. It's >still worth _something_. Under the new rules, that extra half VP is worth much less than a Table Win, and it's also worth a lot less than stopping someone else from getting a Table Win. In round 2, if you hand out a Table Win, you give yourself not only no guarantee of getting your own Table Win to match it in round 3, you give that person an opportunity to gain a SECOND Table Win in round 3 -- putting him way out of your reach. Even if you get a TW and he doesn't get one in round 3, you've added one more person to the VP tie-breaker pool; bad idea, since you theoretically don't know how his deck did in round 1. >> The simple choice of "not letting someone else win even though >> you can't" should always take precedence. > >Why's that? Assume a Table Win is valued at 1 point. Now assume that each VP is valued at 0.3 points, and even though the math doesn't *entirely* work out properly, it's good enough for this purpose -- as under the new system, a TW can be worth significantly more than the VPs that compose it. Player A, by giving C a Table Win, has put himself .7 points behind player C. If he forces the game to time out, then player C does NOT get a Table Win, and C only has .5 points -- while A has .15. A is still behind, but he's only behind by half as much as he would have been. >Of course, this is kind of a side issue but playing to gain something >always takes precedence of playing to deny someone else something. Right. You gain more in your future by preventing a Table Win than you do by permitting it -- even assuming that you're capable of sticking to the in-game considerations rule and the no-scouting rule and only assessing your OWN situation in the tournament. ("I have no TW, I'll be only able to get one TW, that puts me tied with this guy... yuck") >> But in round 3, it starts to >> leave a big loophole through which huge game and tourney swings can take >> place. > >Agreed, someone can make the final or not based on the decisions of people >who have nothing to gain towards the end of a tournament. Has the potential to turn into a major popularity contest, and a major collusion problem. Conveniently, all three players remaining at that table were from different cities, and all three players are quite well-known as basically decent, honorable people. So the issue of anyone deliberately throwing to a specific person never even came up. What if players A and C are from the same city? You can bet that in some places, there will be all kinds of screaming and howling about "collusion". Problem waiting to happen, you think? >> So, is this a problem? I say it is, and not just because I was one of >> the two players with 1GW from 3VP at a table who was nudged out of the >> final. I say it's a problem because such OBVIOUS kingmaking situations >> should be avoided at all cost > >I'm not sure it's not a problem. And yes, kingmaking situations are bad. >Of course, when I sat there arguing about this with Christopher Dearlove, >I was told my posts had nothing to do with Jyhad and to please desist with >that thread in this newsgroup. Not that I'm bitter... That whole damn thread didn't belong in this group, because it was a thread that was entirely contained and populated by rec.games.board. It was started because of a Davidson troll (only thinly related to V:TES) with followups redirected to both groups; the entire point of such a troll is to trick people who don't know any better into constantly posting to both groups, causing a much higher noise-to-signal ratio. In any event, this thread belongs here because it's specifically about kingmaking in Jyhad itself and a specific rule/situation in the game, something that had long since departed the other thread. Besides, if you wait, someone will eventually tell me my posts have nothing to do with anything and to shut up. That's nothing new. =) >But again, I think this kind of stuff happened without the game win rule. >I just don't think it was quite as obvious, as one or two victory points >tends to look less dramatic than a game win that gets someone into the >final in one fell swoop. Well, a lot of other nasty stuff was also happening under the old VP rules, so I expect this got (appropriately) somewhat pushed to the back burner as "less important". Now might be a good time to re-examine it very closely. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3C47AD6D...@removethis.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > Why do people keep bringing this up? If you think that this follows from > > my argument, then you really don't understand what I'm saying. The best > > player at a tournament (even the one "best-suited" to the tournament, by way > > of judging the metagame) won't always win, and that's okay, but they should > > at least have a shot at winning, measured by their chance of making the > > final. > > The trouble is, your insistence on measuring "best" by victory points rather > than game wins is arbitrary. The skill has been changed from accumulating > victory points to accumulating game wins. I agree, comparing victory points > in Jyhad to hotels in Monopoly is not accurate. The more accurate comparison > would be giving playoff positions in the National Football League (or any > other sports league) by total points-scored differential vs. all opponents > rather than by wins and losses. You can make all the same arguments about > point differential being the more accurate test of which team is better than > won-loss differential. > In the National Football League, they play 16 games in a season to decide who makes the playoffs, and 12 teams out of 31 make it. Furthermore, they play one-on-one matches, which would presumably minimize luck as a factor. In Jyhad, we play 3 games to decide who makes the final, and usually 5 people make it regardless of number entered. If we could play 10 games in a tournament, I'd have no problem with the Game Wins rule. Then it would be an acceptable measure of your performance over the course of the tournament. 3 games, however, does not give nearly enough precision for using such a measurement. Someone with more recent contact to statistics can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't variance increased with a smaller sample size? Thus my point that luck is now a much greater factor. If the National Football League played only 5 games in a season, then I'm sure many people like me would be up in arms to change the rating system to take into account points-differential rather than simply won-loss record. In NCAA Football, points-differential and overall performance, as well as strength of schedule, are all considered in the rankings. As for victory points being arbitrary, I agree, but no more arbitrary than Game Wins. Which was the original point I set out to argue oh so long ago.

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3C47A9C2...@removethis.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > > news:XsH08.30779$Vz3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > > I thought the goal was to oust your prey, and for each prey that you > > > > oust, you gain a point. > > > > > > Yes, that is the short-term goal. > ... > > >In and of itself, the gaining of a "point" is meaningless except as it > > >displays progress toward the goal of winning. Rulebook: "As Methuselahs > > >are ousted, players earn victory points; the winner is the player with > > >the most victory points at the end of the game (see Victory Points, > > >sec. 9.1)." > ... > > But my main point is not about which is correct (although you can see my > > opinion), but just that the new table wins rule doesn't "more accurately > > reflect the goal of the game", it actually redefines it. > > Robert just proved otherwise, quite convincingly. A rulebook quote > directly supports his contention. > He failed to post any rulebook quote defining tournament rules, and therefore failed to prove otherwise, convincingly or not. As soon as anyone posts anything from the rulebook (and before LSJ prints a new rulebook with the Game Wins rule in it, not that I think he would do that) that states that victory points are not the measure by which you prove your worth in a multi-game session, then I will agree that the point has been proved otherwise. In lieu of such a quote, one can only take the pre-existing tournament rules that we know of as being the way to expand Jyhad into a multi-session game, with the object of that game defined as maximizing victory points. The new tournament rule most certainly redefines the object of the game. The object of a single-seating game is to gain more VP's than everyone else. The object of a multi-seating game used to be the same, to gain more VP's than everyone else. Now, the object is to win several single-seating games. I'm not saying that's *wrong* (at least not at this point in the thread), but it's a redefinition, and it's not, a priori, a better or more correct way of doing things. I doubt that this will get any positive response (although it's possible that that's because it's a bad idea), but what about, instead of basically throwing out VP's altogether and defining a new means of gaining points, that new means was simply added in to the original method? E.g. if you win your table, then you get an extra V.P, in addition to those you gained sitting down at the table (or something similar). I doubt that V:EKN will want to change the newly adopted rule without giving it a chance, but if eventually there is a review of these rules, why not a hybrid system? It will either be a great compromise that makes everyone happy, or it will piss off both sides and start a huge thermonuclear war, eliminating life as we know it. Either way, everybody wins.

Chris Berger wrote: > As for victory points being arbitrary, I agree, but no more arbitrary than > Game Wins. Which was the original point I set out to argue oh so long ago. Then don't snip my argument about it: it is not arbitrary. Game wins is distinctly preferable by reason of making the quality of play much more similar to average non-tournament play. Fred

Chris Berger wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > news:3C47A9C2...@removethis.com... > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > But my main point is not about which is correct (although you can see my > > > opinion), but just that the new table wins rule doesn't "more accurately > > > reflect the goal of the game", it actually redefines it. > > > > Robert just proved otherwise, quite convincingly. A rulebook quote > > directly supports his contention. > > > He failed to post any rulebook quote defining tournament rules, and > therefore failed to prove otherwise, convincingly or not. As soon as anyone > posts anything from the rulebook (and before LSJ prints a new rulebook with > the Game Wins rule in it, not that I think he would do that) that states > that victory points are not the measure by which you prove your worth in a > multi-game session, then I will agree that the point has been proved > otherwise. What rulebook of what game says the first thing about "the measure by which you prove your worth in a multi-game session?!? I'm confused about what you want. Robert demonstrated that the new tournament rules more accurately reflect the goal of the victory conditions of *a* game of Jyhad. Can we bring that goal line back somewhere in sight of the 50? > In lieu of such a quote, one can only take the pre-existing tournament rules > that we know of as being the way to expand Jyhad into a multi-session game, That logic is circular: your logic amounts to: the old tournament rules are more valid because they are more similar to the old tournament rules. You need to give some separate valid reason why we should prefer the old tournaments. There are lots of ways we can think of to "expand Jyhad into a multi-session game". > I doubt that this will get any positive response (although it's possible > that that's because it's a bad idea), but what about, instead of basically > throwing out VP's altogether and defining a new means of gaining points, > that new means was simply added in to the original method? E.g. if you win > your table, then you get an extra V.P, in addition to those you gained > sitting down at the table (or something similar). Doesn't solve the problem that game wins was instituted to solve. Players can still intentionally split a table - they just calculate the splits a little differently by giving an extra oust to the player who doesn't finish. Therefore, no, there is no reason to see this as some kind of reasonable compromise. Fred

Derek Ray wrote: > > In message <3C476417...@white-wolf.com>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: > > >Derek Ray wrote: > >> Additional rule: "Players must play to win the current game at all > >> times." Note that it removes the "maximise VP" wording, and means that > >> you can never take an action, use an effect, or anything else that gives > >> someone else a Table Win, because that gives you 0% chance of winning > >> the current game. > > > >So you cannot take any action if any action you take gives someone a > >table win, even if taking no action also gives someone (else?) a > >table win? > > Interpret the rule in this situation as "You may not act to give > yourself a 0% chance of winning" and you end up just fine. That is the current rule. > If you ever end up in this insanely rare contrived paradox, then the > inaction should take precedence over the action... similar to refusing > to transfer out even though you have 4 pool, all your minions are > burned, and your entire crypt contains nothing less than a 5-cap. > Something else could always happen -- people have misplayed forced-win > positions before. > I will admit that I have an awful lot of trouble imagining how one could > ever end up in a "Razor" position where you acting would definitely give > player A the win, and you NOT acting would definitely give player B the > win. But I would say that if you truly have a 0% chance of winning, you > should take no action that would affect the outcome of the game. I > don't expect this situation would ever come up. But then taking no action affects the outcome of the game. There's no defensible position for requiring no action. > Generally, if you REALLY have 0% chance of winning, someone else should > already have a forced-win that you can do nothing about... and at this > point, you should try to gain as many VP as you can. Right. The current rule. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > He failed to post any rulebook quote defining tournament rules, and > therefore failed to prove otherwise, convincingly or not. As soon as anyone > posts anything from the rulebook (and before LSJ prints a new rulebook with > the Game Wins rule in it, not that I think he would do that) that states The object of a game is to win the game - this is so obvious as to not need stating. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:GOQ18.3007$ba5.34513@rwcrnsc53... > > "Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > news:3C47AD6D...@removethis.com... > > The trouble is, your insistence on measuring "best" by victory points > rather > > than game wins is arbitrary. The skill has been changed from accumulating > > victory points to accumulating game wins. I agree, comparing victory > points > > in Jyhad to hotels in Monopoly is not accurate. The more accurate > comparison > > would be giving playoff positions in the National Football League (or any > > other sports league) by total points-scored differential vs. all opponents > > rather than by wins and losses. You can make all the same arguments about > > point differential being the more accurate test of which team is better > than > > won-loss differential. > > > In the National Football League, they play 16 games in a season to decide > who makes the playoffs, and 12 teams out of 31 make it. Furthermore, they > play one-on-one matches, which would presumably minimize luck as a factor. Luck is a factor to the extent that the outcome of the game is determined by luck. (Tautologically...) The number of sides in the game doesn't have anything directly to do with "luck"; it does introduce "multi-player dynamics" which isn't exactly the same thing. > In Jyhad, we play 3 games to decide who makes the final, and usually 5 > people make it regardless of number entered. > > If we could play 10 games in a tournament, I'd have no problem with the Game > Wins rule. Then it would be an acceptable measure of your performance over > the course of the tournament. 3 games, however, does not give nearly enough > precision for using such a measurement. Someone with more recent contact to > statistics can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't variance increased with a > smaller sample size? Thus my point that luck is now a much greater factor. Yes, variance is relatively higher with a smaller sample size. But the sample size is exactly the same with three VP-only games as it is with three game-win games. Having more discrete point levels at the first "finalist determining system" does *not* make the measurement system more accurate. If each "game win" were worth five points, would that make it a larger sample? For exactly the same reason, the fact that people's VPs can range from 0 to 15 doesn't make them any more consistent a measurement than game wins ranging from 0 to 3. That is, if people often win games by luck, they will get enough "lucky" VPs to get into the finals just as much as they will get enough "lucky" game wins to get into the finals. Josh can't stop the rock

> If I don't have one and it's the last round, it's still poor > sportsmanship to just hand you the game for no good reason. Everyone > else in the previous rounds had to (or _should_ have had to) earn > their game win. Why should you be the exception? Not me personally, I wish I had those powers of persuasion, but truth is stranger than fiction in this case. If I hadn't seen it myself I wouldn't have believed it. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > But what is really supposed to happen here? > > Well, for one things, all three of these players need to start putting less > defense and more offense in their decks. This comment applies more to deckbuilding theory not victory condition theory and therefore has no place here > I disagree. Actually, if my chances of actually winning the game are > pretty much hosed, I withdraw and take the extra half victory point. It's > still worth _something_. I believe you are right, but the difference between the systems is giving your predator 1 vp or giving him 5 vps (which is effectively what a game win equals) > But again, I think this kind of stuff happened without the game win rule. But the difference was 1 or 2 vps before and now it is 5 > I just don't think it was quite as obvious, as one or two victory points > tends to look less dramatic than a game win that gets someone into the > final in one fell swoop. Exactly [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Zealot wrote: > I believe you are right, but the difference between the systems is giving > your predator 1 vp or giving him 5 vps (which is effectively what a game win > equals) Assuming a 3+F tournament, 1 GW is adequately modelled by awarding an extra 5 VPs. For a 4+F (which are not unheard of in V:EKN tournaments), it would not suffice, though - a player with no GWs could accumulate 8 VP and beat a player with 1 2VP game win (total of 7VPs) into the final. A GW is effectively (N*2)-1 VPs, where N is the number of rounds (not including the final) in a tournament, from a few coarse jugglings I've made (the "correct" formula may yield a higher number). (Can anyone come up with an example where the formulation above fails to provide the correct ordering of finalists?) [ quoted text not captured ]

> I think it's just classic "changeover resentment". I think there would be no > way in hell you would be making this post if this were your first tournament > and you'd never experienced playing under the former "victory point" rules. No shit Sherlock. At its very root opinion is based on experience without experience you can not express an opinion. Welcome to planet Earth and the human race. > > What I _don't_ think is that you've pointed at anything that constitutes an > actual problem with the new system. Actually I have raised several issues that currently remain unanswered. They are 1) vp vs gw swing, how one player folding makes a much bigger difference now 2) The likelyhood of tieing on a 4 person table vs a five person table 3) The likelyhoo of entire tables losing and therefore depriving all members of that table a chance at the finals So it causes a different set of people > to make the finals, so what? That's brillant. <sar> We *knew* there might be a difference - that's > why they bothered to make the change. If the new rules always caused the exact > same group of people to always make the finals as the old rules, why would they > bother to change it? I don't think that was the point actually. I don't think they intended to deprive any specific group of making the finals. > > The issue you need to raise is whether you _deserved_ to make the finals over > the people who got in instead of you. Why or why not, in 2500 words or less? Well, you mean besides the fact that I had more vp's than everyone else except for Sorrow. I will let you know why. Frankly, Just because I am a better person than you are should qualify me, undermench. [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Zealot wrote: > [snip sniping] > Actually I have raised several issues that currently remain unanswered. > They are > > 1) vp vs gw swing, how one player folding makes a much bigger difference now Not that big a difference. Besides, you can only fold if you've lost, and that's difficult to do (and still have your fold count for something). > 2) The likelyhood of tieing on a 4 person table vs a five person table If you've got figures, supply them. Otherwise there's nothing here to answer. The likelyhood is acceptably close, given the figures presented so far. > 3) The likelyhoo of entire tables losing and therefore depriving all members > of that table a chance at the finals You don't need to win every table to have a chance at the finals. You could even make it to the finals with no wins, if (nearly) everyone at the event is equally incapable of winning. [more sniping snipped] [ quoted text not captured ]

>Actually I have raised several issues that currently remain unanswered. Probably a few more issues raised by others as well. >They are > >1) vp vs gw swing, how one player folding makes a much bigger difference now Okay, it makes a much bigger difference. >2) The likelyhood of tieing on a 4 person table vs a five person table To be clear, this relates to game wins in that ties fail to produce game wins, which advantages anyone else able to achieve any game wins. However, with the inability for anyone to show (so far) whether one table will more likely tie than another table, this issue should be tabled. Someone is going to have to do a good job of keeping track of results or this will never be settled. Trying to mathematically model this seems pointless to me for some of the reasons posters have given. >3) The likelyhoo of entire tables losing and therefore depriving all members >of that table a chance at the finals The language bias in this issue has a lot of people confused. If I don't win a table, it is *better* for me that no one else does either, not somehow worse which "entire tables losing" implies. I could just keep restating this differently, but the previous sentence covers it. If you mean something else, might want to better explain. For instance, you may be getting at, and this has come up, I can see where there's an issue with players who have game wins in the bag playing the later rounds defensively to prevent other players from getting game wins. This could screw everyone seated at their tables. A similar strategy could be employed with just VPs, but again, the difference in magnitude between game wins and VPs rears, so the advantage of going into prevent mode is much greater.

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3C479560...@removethis.com>... > I think it's just classic "changeover resentment". I think there would be no I agree. That being said, the only "problem" I see is that 5-player tables allow for a natural 2-2-1 VP allocation that results in no game win. As such, playing at a 5-player table is now a disadvantage. Upshot: tourneys need to be seated with as many 4-player tables as possible (vs. 5), to avoid this hole. A separate problem (or not) I have with Game Win is that I don't have any motivation (tournament considerations aside) to try for VP if I don't think I can get at least two VP. My focus then turns to ensuring that nobody else gets a GW, so I don't actually lose a game (a loss does not exist without a corresponding win). As such, I don't think Predator/Prey relationship really exists outside of card text and bleed direction now. On the other side of the coin : If I get my second VP, I'll wall up until either my predator doesn't show a threat, or the round times out. If the round times out, that's ok with me, I'll get 2 1/2 and a Game Win. This may be the root of Norm's problem: after getting the second VP, did he remain on the offensive and get ousted? If so, then perhaps a more defensive endgame would have led to 1 or 2 Game Wins. In a game win environment, every competitive deck must contain enough cross-table damage (including votes, bleeds, rushes, bounced bleeds, arsons, etc.)to maintain table balance, or disable whoever just got a VP. Failure to do so risks giving up a Game Win (and hence, losing).

evil_poot_cat wrote: > Upshot: tourneys need to be seated with as many 4-player tables as > possible (vs. 5), to avoid this hole. Divisions occur such that the number of 5-player tables is maximized. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C48727F...@white-wolf.com... > X_Zealot wrote: > > I believe you are right, but the difference between the systems is giving > > your predator 1 vp or giving him 5 vps (which is effectively what a game win > > equals) > > Assuming a 3+F tournament, 1 GW is adequately modelled by awarding an extra > 5 VPs. > > For a 4+F (which are not unheard of in V:EKN tournaments), it would not > suffice, though - a player with no GWs could accumulate 8 VP and beat > a player with 1 2VP game win (total of 7VPs) into the final. > > A GW is effectively (N*2)-1 VPs, where N is the number of rounds (not > including the final) in a tournament, from a few coarse jugglings I've > made (the "correct" formula may yield a higher number). > > (Can anyone come up with an example where the formulation above fails > to provide the correct ordering of finalists?) I have no idea how you got this number. I would like to know. I was figuring it equalled 5 vps because the standard VTES table contains 5 vp's and if you won the table it is the same as having effectively won all 5 vp's. [ quoted text not captured ]

"evil_poot_cat" <evilp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cf597231.02011...@posting.google.com... > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3C479560...@removethis.com>... > > I think it's just classic "changeover resentment". I think there would be no > > I agree. That being said, the only "problem" I see is that 5-player > tables allow for a natural 2-2-1 VP allocation that results in no game > win. As such, playing at a 5-player table is now a disadvantage. > Upshot: tourneys need to be seated with as many 4-player tables as > possible (vs. 5), to avoid this hole. Why do you think 2/2/1/0/0 is more likely than 2/2/0/0 on a 4-player table? (also a no-game-win situation.) > A separate problem (or not) I have with Game Win is that I don't have > any motivation (tournament considerations aside) to try for VP if I > don't think I can get at least two VP. My focus then turns to > ensuring that nobody else gets a GW, so I don't actually lose a game > (a loss does not exist without a corresponding win). As such, I don't > think Predator/Prey relationship really exists outside of card text > and bleed direction now. You shouldn't look at it this way. VPs are still the first tiebreaker after game wins, and as such, they matter quite a bit. Josh how farfetched is it that we can all shut up and see what actually happens now?

X_Zealot wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > X_Zealot wrote: > > > I believe you are right, but the difference between the systems is giving > > > your predator 1 vp or giving him 5 vps (which is effectively what a game win > > > equals) > > > > Assuming a 3+F tournament, 1 GW is adequately modelled by awarding an extra > > 5 VPs. > > > > For a 4+F (which are not unheard of in V:EKN tournaments), it would not > > suffice, though - a player with no GWs could accumulate 8 VP and beat > > a player with 1 2VP game win (total of 7VPs) into the final. > > > > A GW is effectively (N*2)-1 VPs, where N is the number of rounds (not > > including the final) in a tournament, from a few coarse jugglings I've > > made (the "correct" formula may yield a higher number). > > > > (Can anyone come up with an example where the formulation above fails > > to provide the correct ordering of finalists?) > > I have no idea how you got this number. I would like to know. I was > figuring it equalled 5 vps because the standard VTES table contains 5 vp's > and if you won the table it is the same as having effectively won all 5 > vp's. That would be OK (awarding 5VPs to a GW instead of the actual number of VPs gained) but would make a different system than the one currently, since a 3VP GW is worth less than a 4VP GW due to the tiebreaker (and, as noted, in tournaments with more than 3 preliminary rounds in which a player could "pass" a GW with non-GW-accrued VPs). I was thinking you were meaning that a GW would be represented as a 5 VP *bonus* (on top of whatever VPs the player actually scored) and then just using VPs (no GWs) to determine finishing position. Giving a straight 5VP *instead of* the actual VPs scored would allow, in a 3+F tournament, a player with 3 2-VP non-GW finishes to place ahead of a player with 1 GW (worth 5VP) and 2 0-VP finishes. I got my number in a very unmathematical way - the "coarse juggling" I mentioned. Just a few undescribable heuristics and a few spot checks for counter examples. If you want to just record VPs and not keep track of GWs (and still come up with the same results for all cases as the current GW system), it is my assertion that you can do so by awarding (N*2)-1 VPs for a Game Win (in addition to whatever VPs the player received in play). I could be wrong, though - there may be instances that I haven't considered where the award would have to be greater in order to maintain the same effect as the current system (so long as the award is constant for a given tournament and above the minimum required, it will achieve the effect - so any larger number will do). [ quoted text not captured ]

This may be the root of Norm's problem: after getting the > second VP, did he remain on the offensive and get ousted? Of course, I did. Except in the game with you, where I was the prey of the weenie dominate deck who also happened to be your prey. If so, then > perhaps a more defensive endgame would have led to 1 or 2 Game Wins. Oh! so now you tell me. :) XZ

> >3) The likelyhoo of entire tables losing and therefore depriving all members > >of that table a chance at the finals > > The language bias in this issue has a lot of people confused. If I don't win a > table, it is *better* for me that no one else does either, not somehow worse > which "entire tables losing" implies. I could just keep restating this > differently, but the previous sentence covers it. If you mean something else, > might want to better explain. > > For instance, you may be getting at, and this has come up, I can see where > there's an issue with players who have game wins in the bag playing the later > rounds defensively to prevent other players from getting game wins. This could > screw everyone seated at their tables. A similar strategy could be employed > with just VPs, but again, the difference in magnitude between game wins and VPs > rears, so the advantage of going into prevent mode is much greater. You know I wasn't even thinking of it from a strategic level, but rather from an outcome level. To play that much control that the who table loses by only 1 vp being scored or tie or goes to time is just a nasty way to play. I will have to incorperate it into my play style. :) CommentsWelcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

<snip snipping sniping> > > Actually I have raised several issues that currently remain unanswered. > > They are > > > > 1) vp vs gw swing, how one player folding makes a much bigger difference now > > Not that big a difference. > Besides, you can only fold if you've lost, and that's difficult to do > (and still have your fold count for something). I would say it is quite a big difference. Say the difference between 1 vp under one system and the equivalent of 5 vps under another. A player doesn't have to fold. He can just play poorly or accept a mutual withdrawl. > > 2) The likelyhood of tieing on a 4 person table vs a five person table > > If you've got figures, supply them. Otherwise there's nothing here to > answer. The likelyhood is acceptably close, given the figures presented > so far. This issue has been neither proved nor disproved. As such, it remains an issue. > > 3) The likelyhoo of entire tables losing and therefore depriving all members > > of that table a chance at the finals > > You don't need to win every table to have a chance at the finals. > You could even make it to the finals with no wins, if (nearly) everyone > at the event is equally incapable of winning. Now of course my experience biases me, but I did gather that the two tables that I aggresively gained two vps and then was ousted showed that 1 GW is a normal occurence at each table during the round that if your table is denied a game win then everyone at your table is effectively penalized for losing. Just my observation. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

In message <l%%18.12821$Ee7.6...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, "X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> mumbled something about: >Now of course my experience biases me, but I did gather that the two tables >that I aggresively gained two vps and then was ousted showed that 1 GW is a I can deliberately set out to make a 60-card deck that consistently gains 2VPs, runs out of cards, and dies. Does this mean it's a deck that deserves to win? I sure don't think so. >normal occurence at each table during the round that if your table is denied >a game win then everyone at your table is effectively penalized for losing. >Just my observation. Well, actually, yeah. Everyone at that table SHOULD be penalized for losing -- nobody played well enough to get a Game Win. [ quoted text not captured ]

> That would be OK (awarding 5VPs to a GW instead of the actual number > of VPs gained) but would make a different system than the one currently, > since a 3VP GW is worth less than a 4VP GW due to the tiebreaker (and, > as noted, in tournaments with more than 3 preliminary rounds in which > a player could "pass" a GW with non-GW-accrued VPs). > > I was thinking you were meaning that a GW would be represented as a > 5 VP *bonus* (on top of whatever VPs the player actually scored) and > then just using VPs (no GWs) to determine finishing position. This would work. > Giving a straight 5VP *instead of* the actual VPs scored would allow, > in a 3+F tournament, a player with 3 2-VP non-GW finishes to place > ahead of a player with 1 GW (worth 5VP) and 2 0-VP finishes. > > I got my number in a very unmathematical way - the "coarse juggling" > I mentioned. Just a few undescribable heuristics and a few spot checks > for counter examples. This isn't for actually score keeping, but instead a representation of the value of a game win, roughly speaking. So when we talk of how bad it was back in the day when one player would make a deal with another player for a 2/3 split. It get worse when you realise that the current system effectively gifts the winner of same deal with 5 vps. > If you want to just record VPs and not keep track of GWs (and still > come up with the same results for all cases as the current GW system), > it is my assertion that you can do so by awarding (N*2)-1 VPs for > a Game Win (in addition to whatever VPs the player received in play). I would forget about this convoluted math equation (oh simple arithmatic how convoluted thou art). I would instead give each player a bonus 5 vp for each game win. I am not saying that this should be the new system, but rather a way to compare the two systems using apples and apples rather than apples and oranges. If you do so you will find that the rankings all line up correctly under a three or two round system. Under a four round system, (i.e. one that I have never seen used) it doesn't add up, but then again when was the last time somebody ran one? > > I could be wrong, though - there may be instances that I haven't > considered where the award would have to be greater in order to > maintain the same effect as the current system (so long as the > award is constant for a given tournament and above the minimum > required, it will achieve the effect - so any larger number will do). I haven't really thought of it mathmatically, but rather conceptually. It is kind of like how playing Monopoly with real money would be fun until you realize someone has to be the bank. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0d7h4uo7c4ldd63h4...@4ax.com... > In message <l%%18.12821$Ee7.6...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, > "X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> mumbled something about: > > >Now of course my experience biases me, but I did gather that the two tables > >that I aggresively gained two vps and then was ousted showed that 1 GW is a > > I can deliberately set out to make a 60-card deck that consistently > gains 2VPs, runs out of cards, and dies. Does this mean it's a deck > that deserves to win? I sure don't think so. If it could do so in a tournament environment, then I am suprised you haven't gotten into the finals in every Atlanta tournament with it. :P I mean if I had such a fool-proof Jyhad thermonuclear hand grenade I would surely use it. > >normal occurence at each table during the round that if your table is denied > >a game win then everyone at your table is effectively penalized for losing. > >Just my observation. > > Well, actually, yeah. Everyone at that table SHOULD be penalized for > losing -- nobody played well enough to get a Game Win. Exactly, see how much fun were having now. We have played so well that we have knocked ourselves out of the finals. Congrats. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <j8228.12609$Y17.6...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>, "X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:0d7h4uo7c4ldd63h4...@4ax.com... >> >> I can deliberately set out to make a 60-card deck that consistently >> gains 2VPs, runs out of cards, and dies. Does this mean it's a deck >> that deserves to win? I sure don't think so. > >If it could do so in a tournament environment, then I am suprised you >haven't gotten into the finals in every Atlanta tournament with it. :P I >mean if I had such a fool-proof Jyhad thermonuclear hand grenade I would >surely use it. (shrug) You know me better than that. I have far more fun playing things that people don't expect -- a Harbingers deck that isn't just mindless milling, an Omaya/Gunther deck, a Muaziz/Gargle deck... =) If I wanted to win THAT badly, I'd aim towards the deck types I know are strong, with high chances to win. Instead, I'd rather see just how effective or ineffective some things are. If I were to build the above deck, I'd go very heavily on the low-caps with superior DOM, and I'd use tons of Seduction and Sleeping Mind. Scouting Mission, Threats, and Foreshadowing Destruction for the bleeds mean I won't ever run out of blood -- a bunch of Misdirections and a couple Anarch Troublemakers in the deck mean I don't really need as much stealth as I think I do. Change of Target protects me against wakey-blockey AND Deflection all at the same time. Tune it down to a 60-card library, blow through two prey, and be ousted. No Deflections, no Wakes, no frills. Just be so much faster than anything else on the table that you don't have to WORRY about that crap -- but pay for it on the back end, where you are guaranteed to run out of cards Much Too Fast. >> Well, actually, yeah. Everyone at that table SHOULD be penalized for >> losing -- nobody played well enough to get a Game Win. > >Exactly, see how much fun were having now. We have played so well that we >have knocked ourselves out of the finals. Congrats. :) (shrug) Look at what happened in a 15-player tournament (not a small thing!) to even the VP totals. 6 was the highest, I believe (only one)? 5 was next (only one)? All the 4VP would have made the finals? And the Table Wins were as evenly spread as it gets. I think that if you drop a bunch of strong players on each other, it's going to happen like this a lot... and I kind of like it. No more watching someone blow through with a gazillion VP. [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Zealot wrote: > This isn't for actually score keeping, but instead a representation of the > value of a game win, roughly speaking. So when we talk of how bad it was > back in the day when one player would make a deal with another player for a > 2/3 split. It get worse when you realise that the current system > effectively gifts the winner of same deal with 5 vps. Meaning it gets better - because there's much less justification for ever making the 2 side of the 2/3 split, so the splits happen (much) less frequently. > > If you want to just record VPs and not keep track of GWs (and still > > come up with the same results for all cases as the current GW system), > > it is my assertion that you can do so by awarding (N*2)-1 VPs for > > a Game Win (in addition to whatever VPs the player received in play). > > I would forget about this convoluted math equation (oh simple arithmatic how > convoluted thou art). I would instead give each player a bonus 5 vp for > each game win. I am not saying that this should be the new system, but > rather a way to compare the two systems using apples and apples rather than > apples and oranges. If you do so you will find that the rankings all line > up correctly under a three or two round system. Under a four round system, > (i.e. one that I have never seen used) it doesn't add up, but then again > when was the last time somebody ran one? May 26. The next time will be tomorrow (Jan 19). And there's another scheduled for next month. To compare apples to apples, you could instead give each player a 100VP bonus for a GW. That would cover all the angles up to 50 or so rounds. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Zealot wrote: > > > 3) The likelyhoo of entire tables losing and therefore depriving all > members > > > of that table a chance at the finals > > > > You don't need to win every table to have a chance at the finals. > > You could even make it to the finals with no wins, if (nearly) everyone > > at the event is equally incapable of winning. > > Now of course my experience biases me, but I did gather that the two tables > that I aggresively gained two vps and then was ousted showed that 1 GW is a > normal occurence at each table during the round that if your table is denied > a game win then everyone at your table is effectively penalized for losing. > Just my observation. So the finals at your tournament were entirely occupied by players who gains 3 GW each? If the answer is no, then it shows that you don't need to win every table to have a chance at the finals. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

> >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >news:0d7h4uo7c4ldd63h4...@4ax.com... > >> > >> I can deliberately set out to make a 60-card deck that consistently > >> gains 2VPs, runs out of cards, and dies. Does this mean it's a deck > >> that deserves to win? I sure don't think so. > > > >If it could do so in a tournament environment, then I am suprised you > >haven't gotten into the finals in every Atlanta tournament with it. :P I > >mean if I had such a fool-proof Jyhad thermonuclear hand grenade I would > >surely use it. > > (shrug) You know me better than that. I have far more fun playing > things that people don't expect -- a Harbingers deck that isn't just > mindless milling, an Omaya/Gunther deck, a Muaziz/Gargle deck... =) That I do, and of course, I appreciate all your creativity. Just be so much faster than anything else on the > table that you don't have to WORRY about that crap -- but pay for it on > the back end, where you are guaranteed to run out of cards Much Too > Fast. An excellent speed deck, and very similar to what won the tournament. But it was 3rd or 4th on vps although it was tied for 2nd going into the finals. It is a good deck design, although far from invincible. > (shrug) Look at what happened in a 15-player tournament (not a small > thing!) to even the VP totals. 6 was the highest, I believe (only one)? Actually 5.5 that was Sorrow > 5 was next (only one)? Yep, that was me, and I am so bitter. :) All the 4VP would have made the finals? And the > Table Wins were as evenly spread as it gets. > > I think that if you drop a bunch of strong players on each other, it's > going to happen like this a lot... and I kind of like it. No more > watching someone blow through with a gazillion VP. I agree that given the respective backgrounds and experience levels of everyone there that it would not get out of hand. I think you are probably touching on another issue here such as the relative experience of players being a deciding factor in vp allocation. You know getting a MoMo sitting in front of you or any other player at your table, and what a difference that can make. [ quoted text not captured ]

> So the finals at your tournament were entirely occupied by players who > gains 3 GW each? If the answer is no, then it shows that you don't > need to win every table to have a chance at the finals. Easy on the hyperbole. First of all, that would be impossible in a 3 round tournament unless there were only 3 people in the tournament. So how does your question even remotely apply to a 15 person tournament? The real difference isn't the third game win but the first that really makes a difference.

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:<a2a29p$vr13g$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > Why do you think 2/2/1/0/0 is more likely than 2/2/0/0 on a > 4-player table? (also a no-game-win situation.) > The fifth player can add some slack to the table. Basically, the second VP on a 4-top is your grandpredator. On a 5-top, either one of your grandpredator or grandprey is swiping a VP and 6-pool, usually based on some momentum. Your chances of having a stronger endgame opponent are larger on a 5-top, without the interference of malicious cross-table activity. Also, it takes two ousts to reduce a 5-top to a 3-top, but only one oust for a 4-top. In this volatile stage of the game, Game Wins are going to be won, lost, and/or evaporated, depending on table dynamic. > You shouldn't look at it this way. VPs are still the first > tiebreaker after game wins, and as such, they matter quite > a bit. Right. _AFTER_ game wins. Neuter the game win, and if you get .5-1.5 VP in the process (that didn't seem possible earlier), then that's gravy. And, this issue is arbitrary by game circumstance anyway, so I'm still not entirely convinced it's a problem at all. > how farfetched is it that we can all shut up and see what > actually happens now? Josh, you're talking about r.g.t-c.j...light-years. :-)

thego...@hotmail.com (The Googler) wrote in message news:<eaa4179f.02011...@posting.google.com>... > lostp...@hotmail.com (Robert Sheiman) wrote in message news:<e1138430.02011...@posting.google.com>... > > thego...@hotmail.com (The Googler) wrote in message news:<eaa4179f.02011...@posting.google.com>... Let's begin the class again. Monsiour Googler, he who entitles himself with gay porn references, let's actually hear something come from your lips. So far, you've said nothing. Jack and shit. You've insulted me, without the balls to come out from behind some jackass name. You've said nothing in response to anything my post dealt with. You've brought yourself down to the level a child. You've shown that you have nothing to offer. That you can't speak in relationship to anything being said, only open your mouth and shoot out shit. You're back and grade school. You say you've just finish College, got your degree. Prove it. Grow up. Get rid of your idiotic title, try something else besides meaningless flaming. I thought my last post would have gotten through to you, not everyone is as quick on the uptake though. Until then, if you ever respond to one of my posts again, or anyone elses, I'm going to make it my job on this board, simply to discipline you. Like that five year old you so closely mimic, I'll put you over my knee and spank you until you go crying to your mommy. Until you grow up, Salute, Rob

X_Zealot wrote: > > > So the finals at your tournament were entirely occupied by players who > > gains 3 GW each? If the answer is no, then it shows that you don't > > need to win every table to have a chance at the finals. > > Easy on the hyperbole. That's my point. You claimed (snipped from above): [no one at the table wins] "therefore depriving all members of that table a chance at the finals." I pointed out that that was not true. > First of all, that would be impossible in a 3 round > tournament unless there were only 3 people in the tournament. So how does > your question even remotely apply to a 15 person tournament? ? I don't follow your point here. The point is: your statement that having a table where no one receives a game win means that no one at that table can go to the finals is false. > The real difference isn't the third game win but the first that really makes > a difference. ? [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C49751B...@white-wolf.com... > X_Zealot wrote: > > > > > So the finals at your tournament were entirely occupied by players who > > > gains 3 GW each? If the answer is no, then it shows that you don't > > > need to win every table to have a chance at the finals. > > > > Easy on the hyperbole. > > That's my point. > > You claimed (snipped from above): > > [no one at the table wins] "therefore depriving all members of that table > a chance at the finals." > > I pointed out that that was not true. > > > First of all, that would be impossible in a 3 round > > tournament unless there were only 3 people in the tournament. So how does > > your question even remotely apply to a 15 person tournament? > > ? > I don't follow your point here. You are grossly misrepresenting the facts. You said that if everyone in the finals had 3 game wins that you would then not be able to make the finals if your table didn't score a game win. To illustrate what you said is that you have a finals table of 5 players each with 3 game wins. That is a total of 15 game wins. Since there is only 9 game wins availible at this tournament, your statement is both false and therefore inflamatory (way to go!! :) ). > The point is: your statement that having a table where no one receives a game > win means that no one at that table can go to the finals is false. Perhaps the spread will be different at different tournaments, but what I saw going into the finals was 7 players each with a game win. So, if you didn't score a game win, then you didn't go into the finals, barring 3 people dropping out. > > The real difference isn't the third game win but the first that really makes > > a difference. > > ? I don't know the actual formula for figuring this or if this is provable, but it appears to me that given a tournament of 12+ players that it would be exceedingly difficult to make the finals without a game win. There are too may game wins floating around that if you are denied when you get the opportunity to score yours that more than likely the opportunity won't come again. [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Zealot wrote: > > > I think it's just classic "changeover resentment". I think there would be > > no way in hell you would be making this post if this were your first > > tournament and you'd never experienced playing under the former "victory point" > > rules. > > No shit Sherlock. At its very root opinion is based on experience without > experience you can not express an opinion. Welcome to planet Earth and the > human race. > > > What I _don't_ think is that you've pointed at anything that constitutes > > an actual problem with the new system. > > Actually I have raised several issues that currently remain unanswered. Actually, you did not - not in the post I responded to above, which was your initial post in the thread. You did subsequently raised some legitimate issues to discuss about the new rule, I agree. But to read your initial post, one would have thought your entire dissatisfaction was based on the point that, "Someone else made the finals, not me, boohoo!" ... > > We *knew* there might be a difference - that's why they bothered to make the > > change. If the new rules always caused the exact same group of people to > > always make the finals as the old rules, why would they bother to change it? > > I don't think that was the point actually. I don't think they intended to > deprive any specific group of making the finals. Of course it was the point, actually. The intent was to reward a different type of play than what was effectively allowing people to make the finals before the rule change, so "they intended to deprive (a) specific group of making the finals" who were the people who engaged in that type of play. Of course, I strongly suspect we're treading on the edge of breaking down into semantic argumentation here as I believe you understand this and are simply wording it a different way for some reason. > > The issue you need to raise is whether you _deserved_ to make the finals > > over the people who got in instead of you. Why or why not, in 2500 words or > > less? > > Well, you mean besides the fact that I had more vp's than everyone else > except for Sorrow. Precisely. > I will let you know why. Frankly, Just because I am a better person than you > are should qualify me, undermench. Well, sure. But so many people can say that nowadays that it just doesn't cut it anymore. Fred

In article <3C479B65...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote: >Derek Ray wrote: >> If I wanted to gamble with random bets (which is exactly what ante is), >> I'd punch myself in the nuts over and over again while occasionally >> throwing money from my wallet out the window. It's more fun that way. > >Cool. Hmm, I was back in Austin over the break, and there was much discussion of nut-punching at the Jyhad tables. Several decks were labeled outright "nut-punchers", in that they effectively punch the player using them right in the nuts, and possibly generate some game-winning side effects, or not. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail: santiago [at] umug [dot] org || Web: http://santiago.umug.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ceci n'est pas un 'sig block'."

[ quoted text not captured ] Sigh. That's the point - that your statement (having no one receive a GW at one table in the tournament means that the players at the table cannot get to the finals) is not true. That it misrepresents the facts (namely, that you can, in general, get to the final even if one of the tables you are at in the tournament is one in which no one receives a GW). > > The point is: your statement that having a table where no one receives a > game > > win means that no one at that table can go to the finals is false. > > Perhaps the spread will be different at different tournaments, but what I > saw going into the finals was 7 players each with a game win. So, if you > didn't score a game win, then you didn't go into the finals, barring 3 > people dropping out. Ah. Now you're switching from "no GW at one table" to "no GW at all 3". That's different (but still not insurmountable - if, as I said before, there are enough othe rplayers in the same boat - that is, enough other players equally incapable of pulling out a GW). > > > The real difference isn't the third game win but the first that really > makes > > > a difference. > > > > ? > > I don't know the actual formula for figuring this or if this is provable, > but it appears to me that given a tournament of 12+ players that it would be > exceedingly difficult to make the finals without a game win. > There are too may game wins floating around that if you are denied when you > get the opportunity to score yours that more than likely the opportunity > won't come again. You have three opportunities in a 3+F tournament. Just like everyone else. How unfair. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <santiago-D88A02...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, Santiago <sant...@nastyPinkCannedMeat.umug.org> mumbled something about: > Hmm, I was back in Austin over the break, and there was much >discussion of nut-punching at the Jyhad tables. Several decks were >labeled outright "nut-punchers", in that they effectively punch the >player using them right in the nuts, and possibly generate some >game-winning side effects, or not. Yep. It's a toss-up for my memory as to whether Brian Reed, Ethan Burrow, or Kelly Nine was the one who first mentioned the "nut-puncher" term in my hearing. As I understand it, a deck can be a NutPuncher if either: (a) playing it FEELS like punching yourself in the nuts, or if... (b) you WANT to punch yourself in the nuts while playing it for being so stupid when building the deck. ("Why did I put Disarming Presence in here? ARGH!" *pound, pound, pound*) I could speculate as to who among the above three played more nut-punchers in my presence over that weekend, but I won't because I'm nice, and Ethan is already getting enough shit over taking a nap instead of playing the 2nd round. ...Oops. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

(snip bits) > > As I understand it, a deck can be a NutPuncher if either: > > (a) playing it FEELS like punching yourself in the nuts, or if... > > (b) you WANT to punch yourself in the nuts while playing it for being so > stupid when building the deck. ("Why did I put Disarming Presence in > here? ARGH!" *pound, pound, pound*) > > I could speculate as to who among the above three played more > nut-punchers in my presence over that weekend, but I won't because I'm > nice, and Ethan is already getting enough shit over taking a nap instead > of playing the 2nd round. ...Oops. =) Now this one of my specialities. Ahem My Giovanni rush deck using disarms, prevented damage with Ex-Nihlo. Ravnos reinforcements deck (no titled vampires in crypt) Gargoyle slave deck with no Tremere. I thank you

> You have three opportunities in a 3+F tournament. Just like everyone else. > How unfair. > Oh, keep making sense. Damn you and your infernal logic! :) <Old Man Withers impersonation> If it wasn't for those meddling kids I would have gotten away with it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 01:22:22 GMT, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >I could speculate as to who among the above three played more >nut-punchers in my presence over that weekend, Ironically the first labeled Nut-Puncher in existence was Norm's Pander deck at DragonCon. Loose transcription from thrice removed heresay follows : Norm : "Basil will Hidden Lurker with his Flamethrower". Opponent : "OK, I'll Immortal Grapple." Norm : "Dammit, my deck can't handle that kind of pressure!" Hence Nut-Puncher was born. I mean let's face it, Norm has played a lot of crazy shit over the years <g> But giving Basil a Flamethrower in a tournament?? That deserved a moniker. >but I won't because I'm >nice, and Ethan is already getting enough shit over taking a nap instead >of playing the 2nd round. ...Oops. =) No sweat. I tied with you for 6th place overall even though you had an *extra* round to play, your 'digs' don't really bother me :-). Imagine everyone's face if I had made it to the finals after sleeping through a round. That would've become more legendary than me winning a tournament under the influence of alcohol. Ethan Burrow - Prince of Austin saa...@yahoo.com http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/

"Barny Baker" <barny...@synergygroup.co.uk> wrote in message news:a9abcc59.02012...@posting.google.com... > (snip bits) > > (b) you WANT to punch yourself in the nuts while playing it for being so > > stupid when building the deck. ("Why did I put Disarming Presence in > > here? ARGH!" *pound, pound, pound*) (snip) > Now this one of my specialities. > > Ahem > > My Giovanni rush deck using disarms, prevented damage with Ex-Nihlo. > > Ravnos reinforcements deck (no titled vampires in crypt) > > Gargoyle slave deck with no Tremere. > > I thank you you're not alone =) Played 7 Kiss of Ra in a deck where 10 out of 12 vampires had inferior fortitude, played 5 Possesion in a deck where 6 guys had inferior necromancy (uber crappy Samedi deck) had 3 infernal vampires into play when i realized i had no minion tap and 3 blood dolls in the deck (during the prerelease) played 5 The Wyldebeest in a deck containing 5 Wolf companion, 4 dog packs and 4 raven spies... Imagine my face when i read the full text on wyldebeest... =) designing decks a 4 o'clock in the morning is an art you know ;) reyda (btw how are you Barnie-number-one ? =] )

"Ethan Burrow" <saa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3c4c9477....@news-server.austin.rr.com... > On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 01:22:22 GMT, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >I could speculate as to who among the above three played more > >nut-punchers in my presence over that weekend, > > Ironically the first labeled Nut-Puncher in existence was Norm's > Pander deck at DragonCon. Loose transcription from thrice removed > heresay follows : > Norm : "Basil will Hidden Lurker with his Flamethrower". > Opponent : "OK, I'll Immortal Grapple." > Norm : "Dammit, my deck can't handle that kind of pressure!" I think really the idea of a nut-puncher is a deck that you built just for the sake of some goofy combos or a deck that'll be fun to play but only stands about 10% chance of winning. Examples: 5 (or more) discipline decks (THA, AUS, DOM, ANI, VIC) Stupid combo decks: Pre, Chi, Tem....Khalil bleeds with presence, in combat plays a horrid reality at inferior, Syneosis plays kiss of lachesis to get an assault rifle for only 2 pool. Ravnos vote Form of corruption + Regaining the upper hand. Try a few of these and you'll be limping for a week! The other nut-punching is from smoking too much crack while you build a deck: "Okay, I infulence 9 pool on Nu to bring out my 3rd True Brujah" "What do you mean I have to pay extra?!?" "Damn...Who has clan impersonations for trade?" -Brian

"evil_poot_cat" <evilp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cf597231.02011...@posting.google.com... > "Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:<a2a29p$vr13g$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > > > Why do you think 2/2/1/0/0 is more likely than 2/2/0/0 on a > > 4-player table? (also a no-game-win situation.) > > > > The fifth player can add some slack to the table. Basically, the > second VP on a 4-top is your grandpredator. On a 5-top, either one of > your grandpredator or grandprey is swiping a VP and 6-pool, usually > based on some momentum. Your chances of having a stronger endgame > opponent are larger on a 5-top, without the interference of malicious > cross-table activity. All true from a certain point of view, but man! so very speculative! I think we all know (?) that table dynamics vary greatly from one game to another, and in my opinion, the size of the table doesn't have as much to do with "strong endgame opponent" as lots of other factors (strength of decks, interaction of decks, luck of the draw, strength of players). > Also, it takes two ousts to reduce a 5-top to a 3-top, but only one > oust for a 4-top. In this volatile stage of the game, Game Wins are > going to be won, lost, and/or evaporated, depending on table dynamic. I dunno about that either; game wins don't get won until 3 VPs, or a game-end at 2 and no one else with more than 1.5. There's no evaporation until the game ends. (You could say that each individual player loses their shot at the game win as they get ousted, but I don't know how meaningful that is.) > > how farfetched is it that we can all shut up and see what > > actually happens now? > > Josh, you're talking about r.g.t-c.j...light-years. :-) True dat, my man, true dat. ;-) Josh expostulate!

> The other nut-punching is from smoking too much crack while you build a > deck: > "Okay, I infulence 9 pool on Nu to bring out my 3rd True Brujah" > "What do you mean I have to pay extra?!?" > "Damn...Who has clan impersonations for trade?" Ah, yes, the first VP that my Tremere Princes/Justicars with Fortitude and Heart of Darkness deck ever got. You know, since we coined the term "nut-puncher" and started playing them, I've been having so much more fun. Partly because now my decks are on par with everyone elses. *laugh* Fanboy