Will VTES $25,000 prize be next?

Saw this on WW site: EVE CCG to Offer $25,000 at Gen Con Tournament to celebrate the release of The Exiled Posted: 2007-07-23 Atlanta, GA - June 23, 2007 – EVE: The Second Genesis, CCP | White Wolf's collectible card game that debuted at Gen Con 2006, will be returning this year with a new expansion set and a $25,000 Championship Tournament. Taking place at the largest hobby show in North America, Gen Con Indianapolis, this year's competition will offer more than double the prize pool of last year's, making it one of the largest CCG payouts at the convention. To celebrate the release of the game's first expansion, The Exiled, CCP has opened up the tournament to all Gen Con attendees... Read the rest here: http://www.white-wolf.com/eveccg/index.php?line=news&articleid=810 Posted without much comment - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

On Jul 24, 12:38 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Saw this on WW site: > > EVE CCG to Offer $25,000 at Gen Con > Tournament to celebrate the release of The Exiled > Posted: 2007-07-23 > When I saw Oscar at Origins I asked him why VTES didn't have a large money prize tournament. He said something along the line of it would ruin VTES. As much as I'd like $25,000, he's probably correct. Later, ~Rehlow

> When I saw Oscar at Origins I asked him why VTES didn't have a large > money prize tournament. He said something along the line of it would > ruin VTES. As much as I'd like $25,000, he's probably correct. Yeah. I think the huge money price for the EVE tournament is actually a pretty idiotic idea, and will probably bring all sorts of unwanted factors into the tournament scene. Good thing that game doesn't interest me in the least, played it once and went "meh". Big VTES tournaments are already tense enough, but there is still quite a bit of fun and sportsmanship going around. Can you imagine what sorts of bloody disputes we'd have if there was a huge cash prize on the line? Would you want to be a judge at a tournament like that, given the at times nebulous rules around what's "playing to win" and what's not, etc yadda yadda? I know I wouldn't. Oscar is 100% correct, it would almost certainly ruin the game (at least the tournament scene).

[ quoted text not captured ] Probably. Is Eve a multi-player or a duel game? I never saw it. For duels, i don't think a large price is *that* much of a problem. Except when people go overboard in trying to win outside of the card duel (like that M:TG guy who didn't brush his teeth a week in advance of a tournement and ate lots of garlic.) And lots of net decking, but I don't think thats really bad. For multiplayers it would be baaaaad, especially in V:TES where dealing for prizes in the finals is considered legal. OTOH, it would be funny to see everybody play a deck that tries to out- cheese the others and show everyone the trouble points in V:TES.

In message <1185348385.1...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> writes: >Probably. Is Eve a multi-player or a duel game? Both. That is to say, you can have duel formats or multi-player formats. By default, it seems to be mostly duels, though. e.g. http://www.eve-ccg.com/tournament-rules-6.html is the pairing system, which is basically set up only for two people. But... The Multi-Judge System may also be employed for multiplayer- format tournaments. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Oscar, Petri et al on this. Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the moneytary prize element to the scene. I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need. Ta ta, Lönkka www.ahmametal.com www.myspace.com/iwearnohelmet

On 25 Jul, 08:48, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1185348385.146394.214...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, > > Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> writes: > >Probably. Is Eve a multi-player or a duel game? > > Both. That is to say, you can have duel formats or multi-player > formats. By default, it seems to be mostly duels, though. e.g.http://www.eve-ccg.com/tournament-rules-6.htmlis the pairing system, > which is basically set up only for two people. I'm getting a headache just thinking about the amount of collusion and general cheating that would go on if there was a large cash prize in V:tES, both real and percieved, and the amound of newsgroup noise about it.. Its totally not practicle to add cash into a multiplayer game of the nature of V:tES, cant see a problem with it in a dual game though... Anthony PS: is the magic player with the garlic and unbrushed teeth actually a true story?

On 25 jul, 12:36, Anthony Coleman <Buntina...@gmail.com> wrote: > PS: is the magic player with the garlic and unbrushed teeth actually a > true story? In my experience, this was true for lots of MTG tourney-players, intentional or not. Luckily though, most of the time the scent of garlic was totally overtaken by the player's BO. :-S

On 25 jul, 12:36, Anthony Coleman <Buntina...@gmail.com> wrote: > PS: is the magic player with the garlic and unbrushed teeth actually a > true story? I heard it multiple times, but always 2nd or 3th hand, so it might just be an urban myth.

On Jul 25, 6:22 am, lon...@dlc.fi wrote: > I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Oscar, Petri et al on this. > > Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the moneytary prize > element to the scene. > > I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big > bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need. This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from frequent visitors to this group. So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would say that I support it. I used to play in all the big events. The reasons were the challenge (primary) and then prizes (a far, far second). Well, WW has always really sucked big time when it came to providing prizes for VTES. Once I made it to the NAC final table, this was the end of the challenge for me. When I saw LSJ give out a box of boosters and some lame ass promo stuff to the Top 5 players, end of the line for me. It was simple math at that point. I paid $250+/ea or so dollars to go to a Qualifier Tournament (or two). Then I paid $1500 to go to Gencon. I walk away with 18 booster packs. At that point, without the challenge aspect, all I had was a quest for prizes. It quickly dawned on me that I could save time and money by just staying home. I could then spend the $1750 on $65 booster boxes of cards and get around 30 boxes (1080 booster packs). So I've been staying home. However, the booster pack logic has taken a new twist. Since I no longer have to stay uber competitive, I no longer buy any cards. I used to drop hundreds of dollars on each new release by WW. It's now been 3-4 sets that I have just gone to a prerelease and not placed my order. That's probably $1000 of my money that WW has lost-and will continue to not capture. Plus since I no longer have to playtest high level tournament decks, I no longer make the effort to assemble a local playgroup. I used to run one that had 8-12 players, weekly playnights, monthly tournaments. How many of those players did I influence to buy cards? We would pool orders to get discounts and save on shipping. So how much money was I making for WW both directly and indirectly? Hard to tell really. It's much easier on my wallet these days because I can take my huge pile of cards and make a good deck that can win local tournaments. Therefore, if WW was to offer larger cash prizes for the bigger events, I would be tempted to get back up to speed and attend these events. It doesn't have to be $25,000 dollars. But as long as the "break even" ratio still points to staying home, I'm home. So if you want to keep this game rolling along the SAME as it's always been, feel free to continue to offer lame ass prizes. Sure, it's obvious that there are 50-75 people who will keep attending these events year after year (has anyone seen the attendance at Regional/higher level events increase in a significant manner over the last seven years???). It's obvious that WW lets personal opinions of certain people make business decisions. It's obvious this game is stale regarding the upper level tournament structure. But please, continue to be horrified at the simple notion of offering more than half a box of boosters to the winner of the NAC. Maybe LA's ideas are the start of something. Still not enough to get me, or any of the local players I know, to spend the time/money and attend larger events. Plus the final kicker of it all is that the couple of people I know who do play VTES and might attend the larger events, will be playing other games instead that do have larger prizes (there is only so much time at a convention-so you could play 18hrs of VTES over two days or multiple VS/Magic events-win the VTES and get a promo card, with the VS/Magic event and pay for a year of college). Look around, people are so saturated with CCG's that offering money payouts are now the standard (which brings us back full circle to EVE). If you don't do that, it's like bringing a new 2008 model car to market without A/C. Who's going to buy that? Maybe I'm in the minority (at least here I am as most of the players I know don't even bother to read this group). It's nice to see that fear of change still rules and kills a discussion before it's even started. Ben.S.

[ quoted text not captured ] Unless there were teams..... Comments Welocome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

bspaul wrote: > On Jul 25, 6:22 am, lon...@dlc.fi wrote: >> I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Oscar, Petri et al on this. >> >> Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the moneytary prize >> element to the scene. >> >> I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big >> bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need. <snip long discussion of how the current system is "lame ass" and "sucks big time"> > It's nice to see that fear of change still rules and kills a > discussion before it's even started. How was this discussion killed or even stifled?

[ quoted text not captured ] So, is this the guy who didn't brush his teeth for weeks, and ate a + +Garlic dinner each day? Seems to me he has been eating something more sour.... Anthony?

On 25 jul, 15:18, bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote: > On Jul 25, 6:22 am, lon...@dlc.fi wrote: > > > I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Oscar, Petri et al on this. > > > Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the moneytary prize > > element to the scene. > > > I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big > > bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need. > > This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from > frequent visitors to this group. > > So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would > say that I support it. I don't, and your logic below doesn't make me reconsider. > > I used to play in all the big events. The reasons were the challenge > (primary) and then prizes (a far, far second). Well, WW has always > really sucked big time when it came to providing prizes for VTES. > Once I made it to the NAC final table, this was the end of the > challenge for me. When I saw LSJ give out a box of boosters and some > lame ass promo stuff to the Top 5 players, end of the line for me. It > was simple math at that point. I paid $250+/ea or so dollars to go to > a Qualifier Tournament (or two). Then I paid $1500 to go to Gencon. > I walk away with 18 booster packs. At that point, without the > challenge aspect, all I had was a quest for prizes. It quickly dawned > on me that I could save time and money by just staying home. I could > then spend the $1750 on $65 booster boxes of cards and get around 30 > boxes (1080 booster packs). If you apply that logic to everything, you would stay home all the time, for everything. You didn't add values for 'fun had at tourney' or 'friends made/seen after a long time' or anything like that. It's the same as never eating out, because you can get the food cheaper at home. Not calculating all other things in. (like better preparation, chance of getting out of the normal routine, etc...) <snip ramble> everything you say in the snipped portion is equal too: I need to be bribed by WW to come and play. or, mathematically, you value fun at $0.00 As an example: I have an expensive 5string bass guitar. Do you think I will ever earn the €2500 back that I paid for it. (not being a professional musician) I don't think so. But am I glad I got it? Damn sure. > It's nice to see that fear of change still rules Nice! you can read everyone's mind over the internet. You need to show me that trick. >and kills a > discussion before it's even started. Discussion wasn't started, right. But who is killing it here?

bspaul <bspa...@excite.com> writes: > It quickly dawned on me that I could save time and money by just staying > home. I've thought VTES is a thing where you put time, money and effort in, and you get lots of fun out. > It's nice to see that fear of change still rules and kills a > discussion before it's even started. Complaining about things that exist and you don't like is OK. Complaining about stuff you just made up isn't. HG -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

On Jul 25, 9:18 am, bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote: > So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would > say that I support it. > > I used to play in all the big events. The reasons were the challenge > (primary) and then prizes (a far, far second). Well, WW has always > really sucked big time when it came to providing prizes for VTES. > Once I made it to the NAC final table, this was the end of the > challenge for me. When I saw LSJ give out a box of boosters and some > lame ass promo stuff to the Top 5 players, end of the line for me. It > was simple math at that point. I paid $250+/ea or so dollars to go to > a Qualifier Tournament (or two). Then I paid $1500 to go to Gencon. > I walk away with 18 booster packs. At that point, without the > challenge aspect, all I had was a quest for prizes. It quickly dawned > on me that I could save time and money by just staying home. I could > then spend the $1750 on $65 booster boxes of cards and get around 30 > boxes (1080 booster packs). So once upon a time, the challenge of VtES was sufficient for you to overlook about $1750 dollars worth of expense, but it's suddenly not worth it anymore? What is that challenge worth, do you think? $500? $50? > So I've been staying home. However, the booster pack logic has taken > a new twist. Since I no longer have to stay uber competitive, I no > longer buy any cards. I used to drop hundreds of dollars on each new > release by WW. It's now been 3-4 sets that I have just gone to a > prerelease and not placed my order. That's probably $1000 of my money > that WW has lost-and will continue to not capture. Oooh. So if they'd offered you up your $1750, you would've spent about $1000 more on into the game? That sounds like a great deal. > Plus since I no > longer have to playtest high level tournament decks, I no longer make > the effort to assemble a local playgroup. I used to run one that had > 8-12 players, weekly playnights, monthly tournaments. How many of > those players did I influence to buy cards? We would pool orders to > get discounts and save on shipping. So how much money was I making > for WW both directly and indirectly? Hard to tell really. It's much > easier on my wallet these days because I can take my huge pile of > cards and make a good deck that can win local tournaments. > > Therefore, if WW was to offer larger cash prizes for the bigger > events, I would be tempted to get back up to speed and attend these > events. It doesn't have to be $25,000 dollars. But as long as the > "break even" ratio still points to staying home, I'm home. So if you > want to keep this game rolling along the SAME as it's always been, > feel free to continue to offer lame ass prizes. Sure, it's obvious > that there are 50-75 people who will keep attending these events year > after year (has anyone seen the attendance at Regional/higher level > events increase in a significant manner over the last seven > years???). It's obvious that WW lets personal opinions of certain > people make business decisions. It's obvious this game is stale > regarding the upper level tournament structure. But please, continue > to be horrified at the simple notion of offering more than half a box > of boosters to the winner of the NAC. Runaway argument. I'm all for better prize support (and so are most folks here, I'd wager). Cash prizes less so, for a variety of reasons. But I'm not really playing the game for the prizes. And I'm happy not to be playing against opponents who are playing primarily for the prizes. I'd like to keep it that way. > Maybe LA's ideas are the start > of something. Still not enough to get me, or any of the local players > I know, to spend the time/money and attend larger events. Plus the > final kicker of it all is that the couple of people I know who do play > VTES and might attend the larger events, will be playing other games > instead that do have larger prizes (there is only so much time at a > convention-so you could play 18hrs of VTES over two days or multiple > VS/Magic events-win the VTES and get a promo card, with the VS/Magic > event and pay for a year of college). Look around, people are so > saturated with CCG's that offering money payouts are now the standard > (which brings us back full circle to EVE). If you don't do that, it's > like bringing a new 2008 model car to market without A/C. Who's going > to buy that? Maybe I'm in the minority (at least here I am as most of > the players I know don't even bother to read this group). A number of existing VtES players are happy NOT to be playing a game where that much is at stake. It's one of the reasons why some people play VtES instead of some other game. Sacrificing that niche may not be worthwhile. I have no real way of knowing much beyond my own preferences, however. > It's nice to see that fear of change still rules and kills a > discussion before it's even started. Of course the discussion is dead. That's why we're sitting here having it. This is a game about vampires after all :P witness1.

I'm going to snip most of the utter BS this guy posted and get right to the essence of what he's saying. On 25 jul, 15:18, bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote: > it quickly dawned > on me that I could save time and money by just staying home. I could > then spend the $1750 on $65 booster boxes of cards and get around 30 > boxes (1080 booster packs). > What a misconception this is. Dude, you don't pay to be at/play in a CCG tournament to gain money, or get product at discount rate. You pay to be able to play with others in a competitive environment, at a nice venue, combined with an after-party and whatnot. You pay because you want to play a game that's *FUN*, with people you normally wouldn't get to play with. You pay because you want a chance to show how good you are and have your 15 minutes of fame among your peers. If you wanted to do something competively in order to get the big bucks (or at least, more money than you put into it), you should've gotten real good at a popular professional sport, dedicating your life to it. This is a CCG (and not a world-wide extremely popular one at that), where we sit on our asses and play a game with pieces of cardboard while drinking beer. Why the hell should there be lots of money involved in that? I used to play competitive volleyball. Not because there was some big prize to be won, or money, or fame. But because I liked the game and I liked to play this game in a competitive environment. I invested *lots* of time and money in it and never saw a dime back, but it was great. Teeka -never that good at blocking, balls or minions.

In article <1185369488....@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, bspaul <bspa...@excite.com> wrote: > This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from > frequent visitors to this group. > > So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would > say that I support it. There is a difference between a "cash prize" and a "big cash prize". I in no way think that it would be bad to have prizes in the $100.00 zone for big tournaments (like, a couple box of boosters, or some cash or something). But really, due to the structure of the game, a significant cash prize *really* would make the game into something significantly different than it is now, and not necessarily in a good way. VTES is a free form, multi player game. Where folks can do arbitrary things to totally hose other players that are usually dis-incentived by virtue of it not being in their own best interest. When you, in the finals, can say "Hey--guy with the Rush deck, if you cross table destroy my predator and I win, I'll hand you $1000.00...", the game does not become about the stated goals of the game--i.e. ousting your prey, getting as many VPs as you can, and trying to get a game win. The game *already* teeters dangerously close to being too arbitrary and kingmakery, where the guy who wins the tournament is not the guy who can build the best deck and can play the game the best, but is the guy who is best at convincing their opponents to do things that are not in their best interest. If you added in "and I'll give you a significant sum of money if you help me win", the game ceases to be the game it is designed to be. Two player, duel type games are very well suited for significant cash prizes, as diplomacy is not an issue. Multiplayer games, where diplomacy and table talk and dealmaking are an accepted part of the game and can determine who wins more often than not (see, in poker, you don't generally see someone saying "Hey--I see how you are beating me with that flush, but if you fold this hand so I can take the pot, I'll split the winnings with you when I win the table...") are not very well suited for significant cash prize environments. As the game ceases to be about the actual game, and becomes "who can buy their way to victory with promises of a cut of the winnings." Which isn't VTES. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

bspaul wrote: > On Jul 25, 6:22 am, lon...@dlc.fi wrote: >> I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Oscar, Petri et al on this. >> >> Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the moneytary prize >> element to the scene. >> >> I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big >> bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need. > > This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from > frequent visitors to this group. > > So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would > say that I support it. > [snip reasoning] Ben, I think it would be interesting to have a big money tournament, I just don't know if I would play that. It would certainly change the game significantly. I don't think it would any longer be VTES as I know it, and I am pretty sure I wouldn't play it. I don't play poker/gamble for the same reason. I do agree with you that the tournament scene seems to be the same people over and over, and that there hasn't been an increase in the number of players, at least in the US. Finally, I think if WW wanted to offer a big money prize, they would be forced to increase the price of boosters - which no doubt would also be met with derision and loss of sales. Thanks though for posting an opposing view in a reasoned tone. best - [ quoted text not captured ]

Heh. After having written my bit, I went into my living room and had a long hard look at all the shelves full of board games. Then I walked to the ones containing all the binders and boxes containing my huge collection of VTES, MTG, Pokemon, Anachronism and Harry Potter CCG cards. Then I imagined all the money I spent on those things, as well as on beer and snacks, train tickets, gas... and decided it was all worth it. Games have cost me a great deal of money, but who cares, I had FUN. And FWIW, I wouldn't want cash, boosters or other product for prizes. I'd much rather have something unique (and essentially worthless) like a cup or a trophy*. -Teeka *no, you nitpickaz, not the card type

bspaul <bspa...@excite.com> wrote in news:1185369488.044267.70650 @l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > On Jul 25, 6:22 am, lon...@dlc.fi wrote: >> I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Oscar, Petri et al on this. >> >> Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the monetary prize >> element to the scene. >> >> I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big >> bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need. > > This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from > frequent visitors to this group. > That would be because frequent visitors to this group are learned and wise (about VTES, anyways). > So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would > say that I support it. > Snip teh rant. Mostly I know you're just grumpin', here. I won't agree with your diatribe or conclusion (a big cash prize will attract an element of player who will seek to leverage the multi-player format for financial gain, and they could easily ruin the tournament experience for others in the process), but I will absolutely agree with your basic premise; prize support for the Continental Championships and other major events does seem pretty weak (did we drink away the prize budget, Oscar? :). A booster box and an uncut card sheet for winning a CC..? the final five should _each_ get a prize of that size, with the winner getting about five boxes, plus a few somethings unique and interesting (like an old keyboard of LSJ's, where the C-O-R-E-T keys have their ink worn away... ;-). If the distributor price for a case of boosters is about 500 bucks, then it probably costs WW about $300 - $350 to make it. That's a pretty tame contribution to make to the tournament scene 2-5 times/year. DZ AW

On 25 jul, 17:13, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > somethings unique and interesting (like an > old keyboard of LSJ's, where the C-O-R-E-T keys have their ink worn > away... ;-). Thanks. I think I actually popped something in my brain laughing so hard...

V:tES doesn't need and can't handle this kind of prizes. V:tES needs more ads, a huge rearrangement of prize support for tournaments, trained judges...all this things doesn't cost 25000$ but way less. Why we don't already have them?

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Peter D Bakija wrote: > There is a difference between a "cash prize" and a "big cash prize". I must respectfully disagree. Maybe $100 isn't enough to get you to play against the goals of the game, but that's not necessarily true of everyone. Imagine: I wind up at a final table hoping to win the tournament. Someone else winds up at the final table hoping to win $100. All I have to do is wait until a critical point in the game, then offer that guy the money to make sure I win. Also, I've already bribed the judges, so this is just a bad idea all around. Matt Morgan

On Jul 25, 11:05 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Ben, I think it would be interesting to have a big money tournament, I > just don't know if I would play that. It would certainly change the > game significantly. I don't think it would any longer be VTES as I know > it, and I am pretty sure I wouldn't play it. I don't play poker/gamble > for the same reason. > > I do agree with you that the tournament scene seems to be the same > people over and over, and that there hasn't been an increase in the > number of players, at least in the US. > > Finally, I think if WW wanted to offer a big money prize, they would be > forced to increase the price of boosters - which no doubt would also be > met with derision and loss of sales. > > Thanks though for posting an opposing view in a reasoned tone. > > best - > > chris > > -- > Super Fun Cardshttp://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ > aucti...@superfuncards.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Right, So I got my quota of "you're an evil person with a pointless rant" responses as expected. But some of the posters did make some good points. Chris seems to have mined the nugget of gold out of my post. Thus it looks like so far the outcries have come from the play for fun people, of which I used to be one of, denouncing me as Nergal incarnate for wanting to play VTES for money. Hey, relax for a moment and give my side of the issue a thought or two. Why not have two big events each year? The "play for fun" crowd can duke it out at the NAC. The "play for money" crowd can duke it out at The Nationals/ Gencon Indy. Anyways, before I go back to the shadows, here's the text of an email sent to me. The poster, who doesn't frequent this group, asked me to post it here. So this is another opinion that may just be different from yours, try not to panic. Nice post. I agree with most of it. When I used to play Magic, toward the end, I was just in it for the money. It definitely wasn't the fame, because who really cares to be known by Magic trolls? And by the time I stopped playing Magic, I hadn't been playing for the love of the game in years. But that's Magic, which is an awful game. But it proves that cash prizes can really lure in players, despite hindrances. That said, there are a lot of great CCGs out there and it drives me nuts when they're mismanaged. Frankly, given the fates of Magi Nation, DBZ, and Battlestar Galactica (all of which were as good if not better than VTES, mechanically, despite some of their...content), I'm sometimes surprised VTES has lasted this long, frankly. Don't get me wrong: VTES is a great game. But if the aforementioned games teach us one thing, it's that good games don't necessarily survive startlingly poor management. White Wolf has never done anything special to support VTES. Releasing sets every now and then doesn't even register. Cash prizes, tournament organization, real promotional materials (that are attractive to both existing and potential players), and sponsoring nifty events are a good start. I think the root of the problem is stagnation. What we have is a small yet loyal base of VTES players, which would be fine in a cozy- kind-of-way except for the fact that the players have not changed significantly in years. So, because there's no new blood drawn into the game with cash prizes, events, etc., a small, entrenched group of players have just scooped up the game and run off with it. The want-- need--for cash prizes goes beyond anyone's personal greed or motivations in tournaments; we, as a community who likes to play this game, need new players. Cash prizes are how we get those players. Period. Every time I hear anyone in any game ever complain about "ruining the game" for whatever reason, it smacks of insularity and xenophobia. No one is trying to change the rules or do anything else that would actually change or ruin the game. The issue here is not the existence of cash prizes, because those by themselves cannot and will not cause problems. The real problem is the selfish, entrenched, (frankly) boring people in charge. This is not to say that all veteran players are mean, nasty old coots; I've met a lot of cool folks from the Boston, NYC, and D.C. groups. But the vets who happen to have knee- jerk negative reactions against new players and cash prizes need to cut it out, shut up, and let the rest of us find a way to have a good time. For some (or many), that means cash prizes. But at the very least we will see some new faces across the table. As cool as a tight-knit community is, it naturally breeds insularity. New or potential players are going to be intimidated or scared-off by that kind of coziness, at first. But cash is an incentive both within and without the group. Oh. I can hear it now: "But that's just it! We'll have a bunch of random people coming to qualifiers and maybe winning!" Good! If they are that good, and they're nice folks, then you just co-opt them into your community. White Wolf has the money to put up for the big tourneys. They just don't care. VTES is a player's game, and White Wolf listens to the (few) players and gives "us" what "we" want. We just need to shake things up so that "we" is not just a handful of entrenched xenophobes and White Wolf knows who plays this game and what the rest of us want out of it. I'd just like to see new players every now and then, and anyone who tells me that they wouldn't like to win cash is a goddamn liar. I like this game and I'd like to continue to like it for a while. But that means (and, again, no offense to anyone, certainly) more players, for me. The people I play against are cool and all that, but it would be even better to have some new folks around, right? Chris.B.

On Jul 25, 12:59 pm, bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote: > Right, > > So I got my quota of "you're an evil person with a pointless rant" > responses as expected. But some of the posters did make some good > points. Chris seems to have mined the nugget of gold out of my post. > Thus it looks like so far the outcries have come from the play for fun > people, of which I used to be one of, denouncing me as Nergal > incarnate for wanting to play VTES for money. Hey, relax for a moment > and give my side of the issue a thought or two. Why not have two big > events each year? The "play for fun" crowd can duke it out at the > NAC. The "play for money" crowd can duke it out at The Nationals/ > Gencon Indy. And a bunch of people can play at both. It wouldn't be a problem per se, except for where the money comes from. If the "play for fun" crowd feels like it's coming out of their pockets (i.e., increase in booster prices), that could hurt the game a lot. > Anyways, before I go back to the shadows, here's the text of an email > sent to me. The poster, who doesn't frequent this group, asked me to > post it here. So this is another opinion that may just be different > from yours, try not to panic. > > Nice post. I agree with most of it. When I used to play Magic, toward > the end, I was just in it for the money. It definitely wasn't the > fame, because who really cares to be known by Magic trolls? And by > the time I stopped playing Magic, I hadn't been playing for the love > of the game in years. But that's Magic, which is an awful game. But > it proves that cash prizes can really lure in players, despite > hindrances. No. It demonstrates that cash prizes can keep an uninterested player involved in a game they don't actually like. Can you provide an anecdote or two about someone who *started* playing a CCG because of the cash prize tournaments? > That said, there are a lot of great CCGs out there and it drives me > nuts when they're mismanaged. Frankly, given the fates of Magi > Nation, DBZ, and Battlestar Galactica (all of which were as good if > not better than VTES, mechanically, despite some of their...content), > I'm sometimes surprised VTES has lasted this long, frankly. Don't get > me wrong: VTES is a great game. But if the aforementioned games teach > us one thing, it's that good games don't necessarily survive > startlingly poor management. Interesting. When attempting to persuade friends to pick up VtES, I always point to its status as unkillable. I mean, first the card backs changed, and then the game went unsupported for how many years? The game is alive today because the fans kept it alive - and they didn't need cash prizes to do it. > White Wolf has never done anything special to support VTES. Releasing > sets every now and then doesn't even register. Cash prizes, > tournament organization, real promotional materials (that are > attractive to both existing and potential players), and sponsoring > nifty events are a good start. I'll throw in my vote for better tournament organization, better promotion, and more nifty events. > I think the root of the problem is stagnation. What we have is a > small yet loyal base of VTES players, which would be fine in a cozy- > kind-of-way except for the fact that the players have not changed > significantly in years. So, because there's no new blood drawn into > the game with cash prizes, events, etc., a small, entrenched group of > players have just scooped up the game and run off with it. The want-- > need--for cash prizes goes beyond anyone's personal greed or > motivations in tournaments; we, as a community who likes to play this > game, need new players. Cash prizes are how we get those players. > Period. Yikes. You just spent a chunk of your last post telling us how, once upon a time, when the competition was enough motivation for you to go to tournaments, you spent a chunk of your own time, energy, and money developing a local playgroup, encouraging people to buy cards, etc. Now you're saying that we can't get new players without cash prizes? I disagree. We've had several new players recently in my area, and most of them are happy to play and enjoy the game for its own sake. They're also happy that it's relatively cheap to join in, older players are happily willing to hand out free copies of common cards that are good enough to put in decks, and so on. They're not typically all that concerned about prize support for a while. Everyone who still plays is evidence that prize support is unnecessary. > Every time I hear anyone in any game ever complain about "ruining the > game" for whatever reason, it smacks of insularity and xenophobia. *shrug* I'm not one to go off about "ruining the game." And I'd love for the prize support to improve overall. I just don't think cash prizes are necessary to draw players into this game. And I definitely don't want to subsidize other people getting tons of cash by paying more for cards. > No > one is trying to change the rules or do anything else that would > actually change or ruin the game. The issue here is not the existence > of cash prizes, because those by themselves cannot and will not cause > problems. The real problem is the selfish, entrenched, (frankly) > boring people in charge. Is there a problem? From my perspective, the game is flourishing just fine. Of course, I'm not omniscient, like you :P > This is not to say that all veteran players > are mean, nasty old coots; I've met a lot of cool folks from the > Boston, NYC, and D.C. groups. Interesting. I would personally go as far as to say that NONE of the veteran players I've met are mean, nasty old coots. > But the vets who happen to have knee- > jerk negative reactions against new players and cash prizes Nice transposition there. "Think of the children!" Cash prizes != new players. Aversion to cash prizes != aversion to new players. > need to > cut it out, shut up, and let the rest of us find a way to have a good > time. ? If you want to offer a cash prize, go ahead. But if you expect WW to pay for it, there's a very real possibiliy that the cost is going to end up coming out of my pocket. Asking me to "shut up" so you can "have a good time" doesn't strike me as productive. > For some (or many), that means cash prizes. But at the very > least we will see some new faces across the table. Possibly. I already *do* see new faces across the table, though. > As cool as a tight-knit community is, it naturally breeds insularity. > New or potential players are going to be intimidated or scared-off by > that kind of coziness, at first. But cash is an incentive both within > and without the group. Oh. I can hear it now: "But that's just it! > We'll have a bunch of random people coming to qualifiers and maybe > winning!" ??? Who gives a shit about random people winning qualifiers? Where do you dig up this kind of back-asswards attitude? Who actually talks like that? > Good! If they are that good, and they're nice folks, then > you just co-opt them into your community. Indeed. > White Wolf has the money to put up for the big tourneys. They just > don't care. VTES is a player's game, and White Wolf listens to the > (few) players and gives "us" what "we" want. We just need to shake > things up so that "we" is not just a handful of entrenched xenophobes > and White Wolf knows who plays this game and what the rest of us want > out of it. You've not yet provided much evidence that these "entrenched xenophobes" even exist, much less that they're dictating policy. > I'd just like to see new players every now and then, and > anyone who tells me that they wouldn't like to win cash is a goddamn > liar. I'd love to win cash. > I like this game and I'd like to continue to like it for a while. But > that means (and, again, no offense to anyone, certainly) more > players, for me. The people I play against are cool and all that, but > it would be even better to have some new folks around, right? Of course. > Chris.B. witness1

On Jul 25, 8:18 am, bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote: > On Jul 25, 6:22 am, lon...@dlc.fi wrote: > > > I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Oscar, Petri et al on this. > > > Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the moneytary prize > > element to the scene. > > > I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big > > bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need. > > This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from > frequent visitors to this group. > > So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would > say that I support it. > I think it would be an interesting experiment to hold a tournament with a cost of $10 and first place won all the tournament fees (provided you can hold tournaments at a venue for free). I think this might run into some issues with illegal gambling (for some states in the US at least), but I've played Magic tournaments a long time ago where the local card shop turned all the entry fee into store credit. I would like to see what decks get played and what deals get made. Judging illegal deals and collusion could be more of an issue than current tournaments. There are different breakpoints at which money starts to affect different people, but I would guess a tournament with 20 or more players resulting in at least $200 on the line would get at least some people to play differently. Unfortunately, I cannot conduct such an experiment, since I don't think enough people locally would be interested. If you think I am wrong and you'd travel to Wisconsin for an entry fee pays for cash prize style tournament, please email me. Later, ~Rehlow

On Jul 25, 12:52 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 25, 12:59 pm, bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote: > > Nice post. I agree with most of it. When I used to play Magic, toward > > the end, I was just in it for the money. It definitely wasn't the > > fame, because who really cares to be known by Magic trolls? And by > > the time I stopped playing Magic, I hadn't been playing for the love > > of the game in years. But that's Magic, which is an awful game. But > > it proves that cash prizes can really lure in players, despite > > hindrances. > > No. It demonstrates that cash prizes can keep an uninterested player > involved in a game they don't actually like. Can you provide an > anecdote or two about someone who *started* playing a CCG because of > the cash prize tournaments? Anecdotally, there were several friends-of-VTES-players at Gen Con 2005 discussing how they were seriously looking into starting playing the Vs. CCG due to the large cash prizes being offered for those tournaments. And one of my friends locally played a demo of EVE out of boredom early in Gen Con last year. When he was told during the demo of the cash prize pool for their tournament later in the con, he immediately signed up and devoted much of his attention for the weekend to EVE (as did several of his roommates). He's now involved enough in EVE where he runs regional events and was running their tournaments at Origins this year. > > That said, there are a lot of great CCGs out there and it drives me > > nuts when they're mismanaged. Frankly, given the fates of Magi > > Nation, DBZ, and Battlestar Galactica (all of which were as good if > > not better than VTES, mechanically, despite some of their...content), > > I'm sometimes surprised VTES has lasted this long, frankly. Don't get > > me wrong: VTES is a great game. But if the aforementioned games teach > > us one thing, it's that good games don't necessarily survive > > startlingly poor management. Certainly true. Although an argument could be made that Magi Nation and DBZ both failed in part because they were thematically competing for a specific set of players (anime fans) in a market already dominated by several mammoth CCGs - it's this same reason why no matter how excellent a new fantasy RPG is, their sales will mainly compete for the leftovers after D&D's market share. Which isn't impossible to overcome, but plugging a game into a crowded field is generally a 'startingly poor' idea compared to seeking out an untapped market. (Aiming thematically for an untapped market is - again, arguably - how White Wolf succeeded as a game company in the first place.) > > Chris.B. > > witness1 -John Flournoy

"bspaul" <bspa...@excite.com> schreef in bericht news:1185382790.2...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 25, 11:05 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >The issue here is not the existence > of cash prizes, because those by themselves cannot and will not cause > problems. I will only reply to this, because the rest follows using faulty logic from the above statement. Following the Tour de France lately? nuff said.

On Jul 25, 9:39 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Unless there were teams..... When you are out to sea on submarines there is this traditional thing called "half-way night", which is when you are half-way through the grueling smear of misery that such things are. Historically one of the things you do is have a big card tournement (one of the others is to find the fattest ugliest guy on the boat, dub him "Baby Neptune", and force blindfolded newbs to suck marishino cherries and lard out of his belly button, and then there's the gross stuff I can't tell you about). I'd pretty much gotten a large chunk of the crew playing first M:tG and then, later, V:TES. We'd play up on the mess decks when we weren't working, and the Chief of the Boat saw that. So when it came time to plan halfway night he asked us if we wanted to include V:TES in it. I said yeah, and that was that. When the night came we headed up to the mess deck and saw a poster on the wall listing the V:TES "teams"; we hadn't asked for them, but he just saw groups of four people (guess he missed the five-ways) and assumed it was a team game (there was a lot of Tump, Spades, and Bridge that got played too). Anyway, we rolled with it and it was actually pretty fun. That's my team play anecdote. Yes, I am stuck at work and bored. -- David Cherryholmes

In article <1185382790.2...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, bspaul <bspa...@excite.com> wrote: > The "play for money" crowd can duke it out at The Nationals/ > Gencon Indy. If there is a substantial cash prize, then you aren't playing VTES. You are playing "who can best bribe someone to help them win with a promise of a share of the loot". You notice how there are also aren't Big Money Diplomacy tournaments, either... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1185375293.0...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > What a misconception this is. Dude, you don't pay to be at/play in a > CCG tournament to gain money, or get product at discount rate. > You pay to be able to play with others in a competitive environment, > at a nice venue, combined with an after-party and whatnot. To be fair here, while *you* might pay to be able to play with others in a competitive environment at a nice venue combined with an after party, other folks certainly pay to be at/play in a CCG tournament specifically to gain money or get product at a discount rate. Folks do that *all* the time. [ quoted text not captured ]

Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Peter D Bakija wrote: >> There is a difference between a "cash prize" and a "big cash prize". > > I must respectfully disagree. Maybe $100 isn't enough to get you to > play against the goals of the game, but that's not necessarily true of > everyone. > > Imagine: I wind up at a final table hoping to win the tournament. > Someone else winds up at the final table hoping to win $100. All I > have to do is wait until a critical point in the game, then offer > that guy the money to make sure I win. Illegal, unless you and he are the only two remaining in that game. And if you and he are the only two remaining in that game, then the rules state that you can already deal for prizes. > Also, I've already bribed the judges, so this is just a bad idea all > around. Also illegal, so you have now been kicked out of the tournament twice. Care to try again? ;) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

In article <2007072510...@fnord.io.com>, "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote: > I must respectfully disagree. Maybe $100 isn't enough to get you to play > against the goals of the game, but that's not necessarily true of > everyone. Sure--but I think it is a matter of scale--currently, at big tournament, some folks win, like, $100.00 worth of boosters sometimes. How often does that result in someone throwing the game in exchange for the prize support? Like, where motivation goes from "playing to win the game and do well for the sake of winning the game and doing well" to "playing to win a bunch of money" is certainly a gray area. But I think there is certainly some amount of money where there generally isn't enough incentive to throw the game in exchange for the money (under $100.00?) and certainly some amount of money where there is enough incentive to throw the game in exchange for the money ($1000.00, certainly. Probably less.). The trick is to operate under the average threshold. > Imagine: I wind up at a final table hoping to win the tournament. Someone > else winds up at the final table hoping to win $100. All I have to do is > wait until a critical point in the game, then offer that guy the money to > make sure I win. Sure. But *most* folks probably would not do this for $100.00. Much like most folks would probably not do this for a box of boosters. But if you change the $100.00 into $1000.00, and the most becomes much, much smaller. > Also, I've already bribed the judges, so this is just a bad idea all > around. I don't even wanna know what this is about... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Kevin M. wrote: > Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> wrote: >> >> Imagine: I wind up at a final table hoping to win the tournament. >> Someone else winds up at the final table hoping to win $100. All I >> have to do is wait until a critical point in the game, then offer >> that guy the money to make sure I win. > > Illegal, unless you and he are the only two remaining in that game. And > if you and he are the only two remaining in that game, then the rules > state that you can already deal for prizes. What makes you say this is illegal? There are plenty of circumstances in which it would be perfectly legal. >> Also, I've already bribed the judges, so this is just a bad idea all >> around. > > Also illegal, so you have now been kicked out of the tournament twice. This is a highly illogical argument. If I've bribed the judges, they aren't going to kick me out. > Care to try again? ;) No need. Matt Morgan

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Peter D Bakija wrote: > Sure--but I think it is a matter of scale--currently, at big tournament, > some folks win, like, $100.00 worth of boosters sometimes. How often > does that result in someone throwing the game in exchange for the prize > support? I've never seen anyone do that. Hopefully the answer to your question is "never." But many players who wind up in tournament finals don't really need all those boosters. Cash is something else. > Like, where motivation goes from "playing to win the game and do well > for the sake of winning the game and doing well" to "playing to win a > bunch of money" is certainly a gray area. But I think there is certainly > some amount of money where there generally isn't enough incentive to > throw the game in exchange for the money (under $100.00?) and certainly > some amount of money where there is enough incentive to throw the game > in exchange for the money ($1000.00, certainly. Probably less.). The > trick is to operate under the average threshold. I've been at plenty of final tables where at least one of the finalists didn't really expect to win and didn't really try that hard due to inexperience, expectation (oh god, there's no way I can beat Peter Bakija) or whatever. I think you'd find these guys are pretty easily bribed since they don't expect to win anyway. >> Imagine: I wind up at a final table hoping to win the tournament. Someone >> else winds up at the final table hoping to win $100. All I have to do is >> wait until a critical point in the game, then offer that guy the money to >> make sure I win. > > Sure. But *most* folks probably would not do this for $100.00. Much like > most folks would probably not do this for a box of boosters. But if you > change the $100.00 into $1000.00, and the most becomes much, much > smaller. I think you're right that most vtes players won't throw a game for $100. However, they might "choose how to lose" by chosing to kingmake me for that $100. So anyway, there's a disadvantage to having money games in vtes. What's the advantage exactly? >> Also, I've already bribed the judges, so this is just a bad idea all >> around. > > I don't even wanna know what this is about... Humor? Matt Morgan

In article <2007072514...@fnord.io.com>, "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote: > So anyway, there's a disadvantage to having money games in vtes. What's > the advantage exactly? Many would argue "it brings folks into the game". I would certainly agree that it could bring people into the game. But as it would also likely turn the game into something other than the game as designed, I have no need to see it go this way, myself, bringing folks into the game or no. > Humor? Ah, see, I forgot the smiley. Making my humor response to your humor more oblique than necessary. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <2007072514...@fnord.io.com>, > "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote: > >> So anyway, there's a disadvantage to having money games in vtes. What's >> the advantage exactly? > > Many would argue "it brings folks into the game". I would certainly > agree that it could bring people into the game. But as it would also > likely turn the game into something other than the game as designed, I > have no need to see it go this way, myself, bringing folks into the game > or no. Yeah, I'm not convinced that would really happen. I mean, if I were on the lookout for a $25,000 jackpot, I would look for a new game so I could get in on the ground floor and nobody would have more experience than me. Getting into vtes hoping for a windfall really seems like a longshot, considering how many of us have so much experience playing the game. >> Humor? > > Ah, see, I forgot the smiley. Making my humor response to your humor > more oblique than necessary. The only thing to do in cases like these is to insist that each of us knew the other was kidding all along. Matt Morgan

On Jul 25, 12:59 pm, bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote: > Anyways, before I go back to the shadows, here's the text of an email > sent to me. The poster, who doesn't frequent this group, asked me to > post it here. How did someone who doesn't frequent the group and can't be bothered to post to it himself manage to form such strong opinions about the people who post here? John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] > > Cash prizes != new players. Aversion to cash prizes != aversion to new > players. > Well, if the problem is that you are not getting enough new players than you should try think what is going to get new players into the game from their perspective. I can see that this is what you are trying to do, but I don't think your rationale is quite right. The basic problem with your argument of cash prizes = more new players is that this market has already been well covered for by many other card games out there who can do this sort of thing far better than VTES can. To try put VTES into that market will certainly be forcing VTES to play on it's hind leg, so to speak. As people have already mentioned - duel based card games are far better at this sort of prize structure and player mentality than VTES is. Instead, if you want to get new players, the best way to do so is to play to VTES strengths. VTES is a very social card game. It helps build up a community of friendly helpful cardgamers (especially if the people in charge foster this kind of attitude). This is what I find refreshing about VTES and what really attracts me to the game. Over here in Cape Town, we don't have any asshole players (anymore at least). All of our players here want to have newbies join the game and are always willing to help them out. Unfortunately with it's complex rules and sheer volume of errata, VTES can be quite difficult for new players to get a hang of, so having a more care-free attitude about the game is more of a plus than a minus. Not to say that there isn't a time or place for 'play-to-win' mentality, but that attitude is generally reserved for the more experienced players when playing amongst each other. That being said, I think the complete opposite mentality is actually better for attracting new players. One of VTES major strengths has always been the fact that (comparatively) it is a very inexpensive game to play and 99.9% of your cards will always be playable in a tournament environment. I, for one, am running a completely free preconstructed tournament that is focused on getting new players into the game. There is no entrance cost, a very minor prize, but all the players involved will be able to walk away with a preconstructed deck that they can now play with their friends. I'm fortunate enough to have played with all the experienced players out here in Cape Town (and I fully realise that I am a Prince in a city filled with really great sociable players), so I know that our players will actually go around finding new players to join in this event - and we already have a decently sized group of newbies who will try out the game. I'm also incredibly grateful to Oscar who was kind enough to send us 3rd Ed starter boxes for free in order for us to be able to run this newbie tournament. If it wasn't for that, I'd probably pay for some of it out of my own pocket, and raise some funds in our tournaments to pay for the rest, but Oscar has always been very supportive of my attempts to get new players and organise tournament events. My argument, as such, is that in order for you to get VTES to grow in your community, maybe you should try thinking of playing to VTES strengths, and realise that VTES marketed to a group of players that (generally) wanted a game that was different from your powerhouse CCGs like Magic. Trying to squeeze into their market is just suicidal for the game. Instead, the strength of VTES has always been it's social strength and it's community of fans who just want the game to grow, and to share their love of the game with others. In closing, if players really just wanted to play a game for great prizes, there are far better games to do that with than VTES, and most card players will immediately sense that by just looking at how a game or two of VTES is played. There may be other reasons that you could use to argue for great cash prizes, but the attraction for new players is a rather weak point in my opinion, because there are far better ways of attracting a better kind of new player anyway.

In article <2007072515...@fnord.io.com>, "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote: > Yeah, I'm not convinced that would really happen. I mean, if I were on > the lookout for a $25,000 jackpot, I would look for a new game so I could > get in on the ground floor and nobody would have more experience than me. That is a good point. And I'd also be on the lookout for a non multi-player game, where I could win or lose based on how good I am at manipulating that particular rules system (or how good I am at buying power cards), rather than a game where I could lose the big money prize simply 'cause two wonks on the other side of the table decided to split the pot and freeze me out of the game. > Getting into vtes hoping for a windfall really seems like a longshot, > considering how many of us have so much experience playing the game. Likely. Although if there *was* a huge cash prize somewhere along the way, it does seem likely that it would lead to *some* sort of increase in attendance. I mean, really, it might just pull all the pre-existing VTES sharks out of the woodwork (rather than bring in new folks), but if, say, the NAC handed out $10,000.00 as first prize, I'd bet that the attendance would double, at the very least. Give or take. > The only thing to do in cases like these is to insist that each of us knew > the other was kidding all along. So insisted! See, it is *always* safe to insist that I'm kidding all along... [ quoted text not captured ]

Howdy, > So I got my quota of "you're an evil person with a pointless rant" > responses as expected. It is good that you expected to your hostility to be met with some measure of hostility in return. Though I have to wonder if you couldn't have just avoided being so hostile to begin with? > But some of the posters did make some good > points. And also good that you apparently could still recognize something of value in the many well-argued replies, though by not addressing them, you devalue your own arguments. And for your 'friend' Chris B.: > White Wolf has the money to put up for the big tourneys. They just > don't care. VTES is a player's game, and White Wolf listens to the > (few) players and gives "us" what "we" want. We just need to shake > things up so that "we" is not just a handful of entrenched xenophobes > and White Wolf knows who plays this game and what the rest of us want > out of it. I'd just like to see new players every now and then, and > anyone who tells me that they wouldn't like to win cash is a goddamn > liar. Nice straw man. Sure, I'd like to win cash - who wouldn't? But just like I don't play the lottery (unless my expected return on a dollar goes significantly over a dollar, but I'm rarely tempted to even attempt to compute expectation values like that), I'd never even consider entering a V:TES tournament with a large cash prize, 'cause I like to play V:TES. Am I (or the others who have said essentially the same thing in this thread) a goddamn liar? Preemptively insulting your opponents in a debate seems like a poor tactic for persuading them. My own anecdote: The worst V:TES tournament I ever played in was played for an unopened box of Sabbat, somewhere around 2002-3, back when it was worth a relatively large amount. The first bad thing: the entry fee was high. The second bad thing: almost no one showed up to play, which kind of contradicts the thesis that big prizes attract a lot of players. The third bad thing: at least some of the players really, really wanted the prize, and were willing to play like jerks to get it, making awful, huge table deals, nitpicking rules, just generally making things really unfun. The one good thing: the guy who finally won split the box among all the participants, even the jerk who insisted that his placement entitled him to more than anybody else. That experience was enough to show me that 'professionalizing' V:TES is likely to be a complete disaster. And it wasn't even for cash, just a few hundred dollars' cash equivalence. Much more relevant for bringing in new players: visibility and friendliness. Alex

Money or not, that is the question, no? First of, Name Forgotten, you deserve a medal for rekindling that play group. If you had been around about 6 years ago I would most likely never have sold my initial collection when all the players in Cape Town seemed to isapear. (Oh to have my 20 Sabbat Decapitates and CVS back... :) And I also have to say that the games I played with these guys was intense, tight, (somewhat tense sometimes) but overall an amazing amount of fun. Friendly, helpfull people who where willing to come and pick up a stranger and drive them kilometres to a game and back, well that just makes your heart glow. Second. If there was huge money tournaments, I would like them to be a Silence of Death on Steroids format. Players would not be allowed to communicate in any way regarding the tournament. Which kinda kills the whole social aspect of VtES. Which sucks. Which means I don't wanna play for cash. But maybe it could be a worthwhile experiment to run 1 single tournament, once, with a substantial prize, maybe not cash, but something like 5-20 booster boxes, just to see what happens. Third. VtES players tend to be highly obsessive. Hey, all CCG players are obsessive, but, like they say in that silly anime, "In a good way!" I know I am.... :) Who else is gonna arrange a collection of little cardboard rectangles, select relatively small amounts of them in accordance with some arcane frikkin formula, then go and see if they can be better at talking than other people who are as obsessed with these little birs of cardboard? (For the internet tone deaf (myself included first of all) this is called humour ;). Just like my favourite net sig: "I am NOT a geek. I am a 19th level Paladin"... Anyhow, enough babbling

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:2007072514...@fnord.io.com... > So anyway, there's a disadvantage to having money games in vtes. What's > the advantage exactly? I don't know if "disadvange" is exactly the right concept to employ when discussing money in VtES. I think the issue is that is just won't work. The reality of the game is that it can be fixed undetectably by people trying hard enough. I think it's been demonstrated over time that a box or two of boosters and even the heady title of "Continental Champion" isn't really interesting enough to motivate people to work that hard to fix a tournament (including all the work to get good enough at the game itself to make it look good and then get good enough at fixing the tournament undetectably, which would not be cake walk IMO). But if you start pouring money into the pot, at some level - I wouldn't care to predict where it was but it certainly exists - you would hit a point where it would become worthwhile. The bottom line is that with all the ambiguities of play-to-win issues in our tournaments, VtES simply does not make a good platform for hard-core monetary-reward-motivated competition. Fred

On Jul 26, 1:18 am, bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote: > I used to play in all the big events. The reasons were the challenge > (primary) and then prizes (a far, far second). Well, WW has always > really sucked big time when it came to providing prizes for VTES. > Once I made it to the NAC final table, this was the end of the > challenge for me. When I saw LSJ give out a box of boosters and some > lame ass promo stuff to the Top 5 players, end of the line for me. It > was simple math at that point. I paid $250+/ea or so dollars to go to > a Qualifier Tournament (or two). Then I paid $1500 to go to Gencon. > I walk away with 18 booster packs. At that point, without the > challenge aspect, all I had was a quest for prizes. It quickly dawned > on me that I could save time and money by just staying home. I could > then spend the $1750 on $65 booster boxes of cards and get around 30 > boxes (1080 booster packs). I agree with you that the prize support could use some help sure. I have a t-shirt from qualifying at Swansea last year that is approximately twice as wide as I am, maybe I don't really need it so much :-) Still I think your basic premiss is faulty. You made the final table and, presumably although only you will know, had some fun games and a generally good time if you did that well. I mean the final table at a big event is a great effort, better than many many people have ever done including me. If you didn't go to have a good time, play in a more competitive environment, and test your skills against your peers then you probably went with the wrong expectations. If money is your goal then upskill yourself so you earn more, work more hours, or get a second job because that'll pay off better than even winning a $25,000 event over the long run anyway given the huge number of hours and cost in cards you'll need to invest to win that.

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1185370756.0...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 24, 4:27 pm, Rehlow <newsgr...@rehlow.com> wrote: >> On Jul 24, 12:38 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >> >> > Saw this on WW site: >> >> > EVE CCG to Offer $25,000 at Gen Con >> > Tournament to celebrate the release of The Exiled >> > Posted: 2007-07-23 >> >> When I saw Oscar at Origins I asked him why VTES didn't have a large >> money prize tournament. He said something along the line of it would >> ruin VTES. As much as I'd like $25,000, he's probably correct. > > Unless there were teams..... > The team event at WoN last year was fun. The only real "team" part was group-drafting boosters to go with the starters, but it was a good time. - Pat

> Historically one of > the things you do is have a big card tournement (one of the others is > to find the fattest ugliest guy on the boat, dub him "Baby Neptune", > and force blindfolded newbs to suck marishino cherries and lard out of > his belly button, and then there's the gross stuff I can't tell you > about). Dot Dot Dot

Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> wrote: >>> Imagine: I wind up at a final table hoping to win the tournament. >>> Someone else winds up at the final table hoping to win $100. All I >>> have to do is wait until a critical point in the game, then offer >>> that guy the money to make sure I win. >> >> Illegal, unless you and he are the only two remaining in that game. >> And if you and he are the only two remaining in that game, then the >> rules state that you can already deal for prizes. > > What makes you say this is illegal? There are plenty of > circumstances in which it would be perfectly legal. It is illegal to deal for prizes and places unless the other players left in the tournament agree to the dealing. >>> Also, I've already bribed the judges, so this >>> is just a bad idea all around. >> >> Also illegal, so you have now been kicked out >> of the tournament twice. > > This is a highly illogical argument. If I've bribed the judges, > they aren't going to kick me out. OK, then: since it is already a possibility to bribe the judges, using cards instead of money, then I take it that you have no objection on those grounds to a money prize entering into the game. Thanks! >> Care to try again? ;) > > No need. Evidently there is. [ quoted text not captured ]

Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: >> Sure--but I think it is a matter of scale--currently, at big >> tournament, some folks win, like, $100.00 worth of boosters >> sometimes. How often does that result in someone throwing >> the game in exchange for the prize support? > > I've never seen anyone do that. Hopefully the answer to your > question is "never." But many players who wind up in tournament > finals don't really need all those boosters. Cash is something else. Many players who wind up in tournament finals don't need the cash. You have said nothing new, here. >> Like, where motivation goes from "playing to win the game and do >> well for the sake of winning the game and doing well" to "playing to >> win a bunch of money" is certainly a gray area. But I think there is >> certainly some amount of money where there generally isn't enough >> incentive to throw the game in exchange for the money (under $100.00?) >> and certainly some amount of money where there is enough incentive to >> throw the game in exchange for the money ($1000.00, certainly. Probably >> less.). The trick is to operate under the average threshold. > > I've been at plenty of final tables where at least one of the > finalists didn't really expect to win and didn't really try that hard > due to inexperience, expectation (oh god, there's no way I can beat > Peter Bakija) or whatever. I think you'd find these guys are pretty > easily bribed since they don't expect to win anyway. Possibly, but a total guess on your part. >>> Imagine: I wind up at a final table hoping to win the tournament. >>> Someone else winds up at the final table hoping to win $100. All I >>> have to do is wait until a critical point in the game, then offer >>> that guy the money to make sure I win. >> >> Sure. But *most* folks probably would not do this for $100.00. Much >> like most folks would probably not do this for a box of boosters. >> But if you change the $100.00 into $1000.00, and the most becomes >> much, much smaller. > > I think you're right that most vtes players won't throw a game for > $100. However, they might "choose how to lose" by chosing to kingmake > me for that $100. And they might "choose how to lose" by chosing to kingmake for those boosters. > So anyway, there's a disadvantage to having money games in vtes. Incorrect conclusion on your part, with no data to support it. >>> Also, I've already bribed the judges, >>> so this is just a bad idea all around. >> >> I don't even wanna know what this is about... > > Humor? I definitely agree with that. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

atomweaver wrote: but I will absolutely agree with your basic > premise; prize support for the Continental Championships and other major > events does seem pretty weak (did we drink away the prize budget, Oscar? > :). i agree that things could be better here. it would be a good thing to attract new players. > A booster box and an uncut card sheet for winning a CC..? the final > five should _each_ get a prize of that size, with the winner getting > about five boxes, plus a few somethings unique and interesting (like an > old keyboard of LSJ's, where the C-O-R-E-T keys have their ink worn > away... ;-). > > DZ > AW bwa ha ha! but i totally think you are onto something here. i think if we could switch from a currency/resources method of rewarding we can do like it was done in feudal japan, and reward with items of status. so instead of money or cards offer unique, but essentially moderately priced, icons of the game. LSJ's Keyboard is a great funny example, but the idea is solid. imagine a unique hand-crafted Edge specially made for the occasion. or perhaps even a piece of original art signed by the artist, a set of special ordered Morano glass blood tokens, or a gilded deck box could be used. it could even start like a series of status collectibles; make "Fragments of the Book of Nod" with a unique "fragment" representing each of the major qualifiers.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Kevin M. wrote: > It is illegal to deal for prizes and places unless the other players left > in the tournament agree to the dealing. I can't find this rule anywhere in the vekn rules nor on the newsgroup. The only thing that I can find that involves all remaining players agreeing is conceding the game or declaring an intentional draw (3.5 and 3.6). That's not what I'm talking about. There's also this: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/09736db282060da8?dmode=source&hl=en That ruling is a bit old, but I can't find anything more recent to contradict it. Here's the same ruling with a more recent date: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b1e9ce14ded97666?dmode=source&hl=en I'm not saying I like it or anything, but prize-splitting seems to be legal. If I've missed something, I know someone will point it out to me and I'll be somewhat relieved to be proven wrong. > OK, then: since it is already a possibility to bribe the judges, using > cards instead of money, then I take it that you have no objection on those > grounds to a money prize entering into the game. Thanks! That's a fairly illogical leap, but at least you're consistent. Matt Morgan

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Kevin M. wrote: > Many players who wind up in tournament finals don't need the cash. You > have said nothing new, here. Yeah, so it might be possible to persuade a player to play against the goals of the game by offering him a few boosters. I think cash is way more likely to do it. I'm not going to come on here and argue against any kind of prizes. I don't think that would go over well. Plus, it would break Oscar's heart. >> I've been at plenty of final tables where at least one of the >> finalists didn't really expect to win and didn't really try that hard >> due to inexperience, expectation (oh god, there's no way I can beat >> Peter Bakija) or whatever. I think you'd find these guys are pretty >> easily bribed since they don't expect to win anyway. > > Possibly, but a total guess on your part. For sure. There's no way to have hard data to talk about here, since big money vtes tournaments haven't happened. I think my reasoning is sound though. > And they might "choose how to lose" by chosing to kingmake for those > boosters. They might and that wouldn't be so great, but I do believe people are less likely to play against the goals of the game for boosters than they would be for cash. That's important to me. Again, I don't want to completely remove prizes from the equation. Also, I've played in a lot of tournaments and I've never seen a player throw a game for some booster packs. >> So anyway, there's a disadvantage to having money games in vtes. > > Incorrect conclusion on your part, with no data to support it. But it made sense in the context of the discussion I was having with Peter, since he agreed there was a disadvantage. Context! > I definitely agree with that. ;) I'm glad you agree with me. See how context is important? :) Matt Morgan

Azel wrote: > atomweaver wrote: but I will absolutely agree with your basic >> premise; prize support for the Continental Championships and other >> major events does seem pretty weak (did we drink away the prize >> budget, Oscar? :). > > i agree that things could be better here. it would be a good thing to > attract new players. > >> A booster box and an uncut card sheet for winning a CC..? the final >> five should _each_ get a prize of that size, with the winner getting >> about five boxes, plus a few somethings unique and interesting (like >> an old keyboard of LSJ's, where the C-O-R-E-T keys have their ink worn >> away... ;-). >> DZ >> AW > > bwa ha ha! but i totally think you are onto something here. i think if > we could switch from a currency/resources method of rewarding we can do > like it was done in feudal japan, and reward with items of status. ... and if you f**k up, you disembowel yourself. Ok. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

Azel wrote: > like it was done in feudal japan You know, speaking of feudal Japan, I am reminded of L5R, which has not offered big cash prizes, but really focuses on the storyline aspect of the development of the CCG. On a parallel track, I notice that a) we see a lot more of the newbies at the storyline tournaments and b) there seems to be a lot of interest in the results of the clans in those tournaments too. I think if we want to entice new players, we should have more storyline tournaments/events - maybe leagues or the like. Right now Robert G is totally organizing the NAC with Mike C, and probably has had little time to set up a new storyline. And let's be fair, Robert gets *very little* remuneration for creating storylines. I think if we said, "ok, here's $25,000, what can we do to get new/newish people excited about VTES?" Instead of throwing that money into the prize pool for the NAC, I think an answer would be: Hire someone to specifically create and organize storyline tournaments and leagues for VTES. Someone to help Oscar perhaps. What do people think? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:52:44 -0700, librarian wrote: >I think if we said, "ok, here's $25,000, what can we do to get >new/newish people excited about VTES?" >Instead of throwing that money into the prize pool for the NAC, I think >an answer would be: Hire someone to specifically create and organize >storyline tournaments and leagues for VTES. >What do people think? I think that's how and why we got Oscar to begin with.....

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote > > That's my team play anecdote. Yes, I am stuck at work and bored. We had a Michigan vs. Ohio team game a few years back that was kinda fun (I was made an honorary Michigander for the day). Well, it was fun until my cross-table teammate decided that I was a table-threat. Still having trouble understanding that one, heh. What was also fun was coming up with ideas for then next such tournament which, sadly, never happened. I had an idea of using 1-caps and alternating Dramatic Upheavals to make sure the other team never got to play. No longer possible, unfortunately, I mean fortunately. Cheers, WES

On Jul 25, 6:05 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1185369488.044267.70...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > At the very beginning, I must state that I'm completely sure that VTES would *benefit a lot* from the larger prizes, and, moreover, they would attract more players and keep more players in the game. Bspaul is absolutely right here, but he used the wrong arguments. The structure of this "prize" could vary, though. What does the large prize mean? It means that the game is SERIOUS. It's not just "a fun waste of time". It's a world of serious competition, training and luck. If you win a $100.000 tournament, you are much more proud than after winning a $100 tournament, since $100.000 tournament is going to attract the BEST players possible, and $100 tournament isn't. Besides, the winners of a major tournament should really get a prize that will compensate for their travel expenses - not necessary in money, but something of value (for them). Without that the tournaments will inevitably lose some players. Some players love the game, but they could use the money better way. Moreover, good advertising programs and good prizes would regularly create more players for VTES. It's like a "snowball effect" - the more people know about the game, the easier is to become a fan. And vice versa: the less people know about the game, the harder is to keep being a fan. Our tournament support, for instance, is currently limited to promo cards - we don't even have beautiful posters to decorate the tournament room that almost all other games have. No T-shirts, no cups - only promo cards, if we manage to order them in time... > bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote: > > This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from > > frequent visitors to this group. > > > So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would > > say that I support it. > > There is a difference between a "cash prize" and a "big cash prize". I > in no way think that it would be bad to have prizes in the $100.00 zone > for big tournaments (like, a couple box of boosters, or some cash or > something). But really, due to the structure of the game, a significant > cash prize *really* would make the game into something significantly > different than it is now, and not necessarily in a good way. > > VTES is a free form, multi player game. Where folks can do arbitrary > things to totally hose other players that are usually dis-incentived by > virtue of it not being in their own best interest. When you, in the > finals, can say "Hey--guy with the Rush deck, if you cross table destroy > my predator and I win, I'll hand you $1000.00...", the game does not > become about the stated goals of the game--i.e. ousting your prey, > getting as many VPs as you can, and trying to get a game win. > > The game *already* teeters dangerously close to being too arbitrary and > kingmakery, where the guy who wins the tournament is not the guy who can > build the best deck and can play the game the best, but is the guy who > is best at convincing their opponents to do things that are not in their > best interest. If you added in "and I'll give you a significant sum of > money if you help me win", the game ceases to be the game it is designed > to be. This is a lame argument, if an argument at all. *Any* game has a possibility of cheating, bribery and collusion - that's what the judges are for. Why do you think that $25.000 prize will make people cheat or violate PTW? You have players that are willing to spend $1000 or more on the travel expenses - so why are you going to insult these players with such suspicions? In other words, people are currently playing to win, aren't they? So why do you fear that they won't play to win with a large prize? I cannot get your logic here: a larger prize is going to *enforce* PTW, not weaken it. > Two player, duel type games are very well suited for significant cash > prizes, as diplomacy is not an issue. Multiplayer games, where diplomacy > and table talk and dealmaking are an accepted part of the game and can > determine who wins more often than not (see, in poker, you don't > generally see someone saying "Hey--I see how you are beating me with > that flush, but if you fold this hand so I can take the pot, I'll split > the winnings with you when I win the table...") are not very well suited > for significant cash prize environments. As the game ceases to be about > the actual game, and becomes "who can buy their way to victory with > promises of a cut of the winnings." Which isn't VTES. "Buying the way to victory with promises of a cut of the winnings" is a Cheating: Collusion. So you are SURE that some of VTES players that you know (and you know most of the good players) are going to accept "a cut of the winnings" and give up? Or even worse, to suggest such collusion to the other players? Please name such players, I will watch them should I even play or judge a tournament with them :) Look, if a player is willing to cheat, he can cheat with ANY prize. Just to be called "a champion", for instance. There are no "seasoned cheaters" among the VTES players, and they aren't going to appear even with a $25.000 prize. Probably, a 25 mln prize would make some cheaters, but we aren't talking about such sums. Besides the money, there could be special prizes to provide the special fame for the players. Why Magic champions can design their own cards, but VTES champions cannot? Where are special Edges, counters or other premium prizes? Surely, a booster box isn't a big deal for a champion that's probably buying a lot of such boxes... Yours, Ector

On 26 jul, 09:11, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > This is a lame argument, if an argument at all. *Any* game has a > possibility of cheating, bribery and collusion - that's what the > judges are for. *wrong* In a multi-player, bribing players is not necesarrily cheating. > Why do you think that $25.000 prize will make people cheat or violate > PTW? You have players that are willing to spend $1000 or more on the > travel expenses - so why are you going to insult these players with > such suspicions? nor is it necessarily violating PTW. > In other words, people are currently playing to win, aren't they? So > why do you fear that they won't play to win with a large prize? I > cannot get your logic here: a larger prize is going to *enforce* PTW, > not weaken it. Nope. PTW states that: a/ you need to play for the GW b/ failing that, you need to maximise your VPs c/ failing that, you can play any way you want. People in position c will gladly take a cut of the prize money for doing something for you. Some people in position b will too, if you include a VP in the deal. All legal, all according to PTW. > > "Buying the way to victory with promises of a cut of the winnings" is > a Cheating: Collusion. So you are SURE that some of VTES players that > you know (and you know most of the good players) are going to accept > "a cut of the winnings" and give up? Or even worse, to suggest such > collusion to the other players? Please name such players, I will watch > them should I even play or judge a tournament with them :) see above. no cheating per se. > Look, if a player is willing to cheat, he can cheat with ANY prize. > Just to be called "a champion", for instance. There are no "seasoned > cheaters" among the VTES players, and they aren't going to appear even > with a $25.000 prize. How are you so sure? Cheaters is BTW not the big problem, it's the LEGAL!!! (repeated in caps!) buying of victory in the finals that can and will change the way the game is played. > > Besides the money, there could be special prizes to provide the > special fame for the players. Why Magic champions can design their own > cards, but VTES champions cannot? Where are special Edges, counters or > other premium prizes? Surely, a booster box isn't a big deal for a > champion that's probably buying a lot of such boxes... > No-one is disputing this, only big cash prizes.

On Jul 25, 4:18 pm, bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote: > Once I made it to the NAC final table, this was the end of the > challenge for me. When I saw LSJ give out a box of boosters and some > lame ass promo stuff to the Top 5 players, end of the line for me. I think that one of the strengths of VTES has been that there hasn't been any gimmicky chase cards/prizes and that most cards can be abtained with relatively inexpensivly and easily. Heck, plenty of great decks work just fine and dandy with your basic commons. Heh, that being said some of the 3rd edition commons and uncommons tend to be pretty darn hard to get. Just yesterday at Helsinki's weekly games Petri managed to pull his first Mirror Walk and his second Heart of Nizchetus -so it is possible to get double the amount of the set's the most wanted rare than a new commons :) But I shouldn't be opening that collation problem can of worms in this lively discussion about another topic anyway... But yeah, in the top events it sure wouldn't hurt if SLIGHTLY more support was available. Then again I'm under the assumption that local players have been quite happy with the fact that at least in Helsinki area we've basically always been able to hand out at least few promos to each and every participant in addition to the finalists recieving some more prizes. So nothing massive is needed. Especially the idea of making Fragments for the top events of the year sounds very cool to me. I'm sure it is relatively easy to come by with similar ones and some were already mentioned. Doesn't have to be anything grand and playable but just some nifty things that have something to do with VTES. Uncut sheets could easily be used as prizes too, I assume. In the few Rage tournaments I've attended in GenCons of the past the organizers have purchased some pieces of original artwork to be used as prizes. Not all originals are THAT expensive -I've bought several VTES and Rage pieces for $25 to $100 each. Granted, it is much easier to acquire these from the artists at big US cons where you have the artists present selling their art so it might not be that viable for us furriners. But plenty of artists sell their art online too with easy payment options like PayPal. As for crying for $10,000 or $25,000 prizes for larger VTES tournaments since "WW most definately has the money to burn" I'm not that sure the WW is actually swimming in cash. How many boosters, even at full SRP, you have to sell to make that kind of money? Then think about how many you have to sell if you deduct the discounts they have to give to retailers PLUS the manufacturing costs. I don't think that most of the current "we're offering huge cash prizes in our tournaments" games and companies will be around for that many years. They are just trying to get their feet into the fierce competiton of the CCG publishing and feel that they HAVE to compete against MtG and such using the same methods and not realizing that there is virtually no chance that tehir game will ever be another MtG. VTES has been around from 13 years and I do firmly believe that it'll easily outlive the new upstarts without the need of unviable cash support. My 2c, Lönkka VTES NC Finland www.ahmametal.com www.myspace.com/iwearnohelmet

There's also the Clan Wars format that Bernie ran at the first Week of Nightmares. That was *very* interesting.

On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 26 jul, 09:11, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > This is a lame argument, if an argument at all. *Any* game has a > > possibility of cheating, bribery and collusion - that's what the > > judges are for. > > *wrong* In a multi-player, bribing players is not necesarrily > cheating. See VEKN Tournament Rules, 5.1 "Cheating" "Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional activities:... * Collusion to alter the results of a game..." Any deal that includes out-of-the-game things (money, for instance) is collusion. "Rush this vampire, and I will play Consangineous Boon for you" is a normal deal. "Rush that vampire and I will give you $10 (or any portion of the prize)" is cheating without any doubts. Hope that LSJ will make his decision about this... or else we are going to play Poker instead of VTES :) Yours, Ector

On 26 jul, 12:40, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 26 jul, 09:11, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > > This is a lame argument, if an argument at all. *Any* game has a > > > possibility of cheating, bribery and collusion - that's what the > > > judges are for. > > > *wrong* In a multi-player, bribing players is not necesarrily > > cheating. > > See VEKN Tournament Rules, 5.1 "Cheating" > "Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional > activities:... > * Collusion to alter the results of a game..." > Any deal that includes out-of-the-game things (money, for instance) Prizes are part of the final. They are not an out-of-game consideration. >is > collusion. "Rush this vampire, and I will play Consangineous Boon for > you" is a normal deal. "Rush that vampire and I will give you $10 (or > any portion of the prize)" is cheating without any doubts. Not in the finals and with regards to prizes (you can't use the $10 bribe unless there is money to be won for winning the tournement.) Use the search function: deals prizes final author:lsj > Hope that LSJ will make his decision about this... or else we are > going to play Poker instead of VTES :) He did. Years ago.

On Jul 25, 8:18 am, bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote: > On Jul 25, 6:22 am, lon...@dlc.fi wrote: > > > I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Oscar, Petri et al on this. > > > Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the moneytary prize > > element to the scene. > > > I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big > > bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need. > > This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from > frequent visitors to this group. > > So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would > say that I support it. I think that cash prizes would be a good thing as they attract attention that the game desperately needs. If it doesn't work then we can always go back to no cash prizes. > I used to play in all the big events. The reasons were the challenge > (primary) and then prizes (a far, far second). Well, WW has always > really sucked big time when it came to providing prizes for VTES. > Once I made it to the NAC final table, this was the end of the > challenge for me. When I saw LSJ give out a box of boosters and some > lame ass promo stuff to the Top 5 players, end of the line for me. It > was simple math at that point. I paid $250+/ea or so dollars to go to > a Qualifier Tournament (or two). Then I paid $1500 to go to Gencon. > I walk away with 18 booster packs. At that point, without the > challenge aspect, all I had was a quest for prizes. It quickly dawned > on me that I could save time and money by just staying home. I could > then spend the $1750 on $65 booster boxes of cards and get around 30 > boxes (1080 booster packs). This arguement is not convincing, but I certainly apreciate the hard work you put into it. > So I've been staying home. However, the booster pack logic has taken > a new twist. Since I no longer have to stay uber competitive, I no > longer buy any cards. I used to drop hundreds of dollars on each new > release by WW. It's now been 3-4 sets that I have just gone to a > prerelease and not placed my order. That's probably $1000 of my money > that WW has lost-and will continue to not capture. Plus since I no > longer have to playtest high level tournament decks, I no longer make > the effort to assemble a local playgroup. I used to run one that had > 8-12 players, weekly playnights, monthly tournaments. How many of > those players did I influence to buy cards? We would pool orders to > get discounts and save on shipping. So how much money was I making > for WW both directly and indirectly? Hard to tell really. It's much > easier on my wallet these days because I can take my huge pile of > cards and make a good deck that can win local tournaments. ....and quitters never win or something pithy like that. The idea of the cash prize is to get new players into the game. Old loyal players will not be affected as much, although the difference between an old player who starts playing again and a new completely new player is something to be discussed. We can all agree that an increase in the VTES player population is absolutely necessary. > Therefore, if WW was to offer larger cash prizes for the bigger > events, I would be tempted to get back up to speed and attend these > events. It doesn't have to be $25,000 dollars. But as long as the > "break even" ratio still points to staying home, I'm home. So if you > want to keep this game rolling along the SAME as it's always been, > feel free to continue to offer lame ass prizes. Sure, it's obvious > that there are 50-75 people who will keep attending these events year > after year (has anyone seen the attendance at Regional/higher level > events increase in a significant manner over the last seven > years???). It's obvious that WW lets personal opinions of certain > people make business decisions. It's obvious this game is stale > regarding the upper level tournament structure. But please, continue > to be horrified at the simple notion of offering more than half a box > of boosters to the winner of the NAC. Maybe LA's ideas are the start > of something. Still not enough to get me, or any of the local players > I know, to spend the time/money and attend larger events. Plus the > final kicker of it all is that the couple of people I know who do play > VTES and might attend the larger events, will be playing other games > instead that do have larger prizes (there is only so much time at a > convention-so you could play 18hrs of VTES over two days or multiple > VS/Magic events-win the VTES and get a promo card, with the VS/Magic > event and pay for a year of college). Look around, people are so > saturated with CCG's that offering money payouts are now the standard > (which brings us back full circle to EVE). If you don't do that, it's > like bringing a new 2008 model car to market without A/C. Who's going > to buy that? Maybe I'm in the minority (at least here I am as most of > the players I know don't even bother to read this group). I generally thought that WW wouldn't offer cash prizes, but since they have done so for EVE then they definantly need to do it for VTES. I think the best way to discourage collusion at the finals table is simple. Don't make it a winner take all situation. Make sure that every finalist walks away with something. This encourages players to try to get a higher position than anyone else on the table. So for example if WW were to put $30,000.00 on the table as a cash prize. The worst thing that they could do is to give all of it to the first place player. The best way to do it would be to break it down as follows. 1st Prize: $10,000.00 2nd Prize: $8,000.00 3rd Prize: $6,000.00 4th Prize: $4,000.00 5th Prize: $2,000.00 There is a signifigant difference between 1st place and 5th place, but not enough difference between one prize level and the next to make playing a 5th place "kingmaker" a better play than trying to get 4th place instead. Also, since I am one of the players who has actually played VTES for money and it was not enjoyable. I will tell you specifically what went wrong. First, I played in 1996 for money at a 12 person tournamnet winner take all. These are the problems that existed then that don't exist now. There was no errata. This game was pre 7-7 rulings. We played on a 12 person table. Now we would have played on 3 4- player tables. There were no anti-collusion rules. Collusion was actually expected. Now we have judges and rules to stop collusion from taking place. We only played one game. Now we have 3 rounds and a final. Now we have corrected all these problems. The only thing that seems to rear its ugly head is the collusion rules. How can you stop collusion? You need to give players incentives to keep them in the game. I think that making sure that everyone at the finals table or even top 10 walks away with something will make it less likely that players will collude together. I think we should try it, and if it doesn't work then we can alway change back. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

> Why do you think that $25.000 prize will make people cheat or violate > PTW? You have players that are willing to spend $1000 or more on the > travel expenses - so why are you going to insult these players with > such suspicions? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the guy who requires all players participating in one of your tournaments to provide decklists? And wasn't your agument throughout that (very long winded) thread the fact that you expect people to cheat? If so, then the above is pretty funny coming from you... 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 <1185433864.8...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > What does the large prize mean? It means that the game is SERIOUS. Oh, Ector. > This is a lame argument, if an argument at all. *Any* game has a > possibility of cheating, bribery and collusion - that's what the > judges are for. I'm not talking about cheating. I'm talking about people taking money in exchange for helping someone else win. Which in a lot of situations isn't cheating. Nor is it collusion, as it isn't something that was necessarily established anywhere but at the table. > Why do you think that $25.000 prize will make people cheat or violate > PTW? You don't have to cheat or violate PTW to buy someone off. > In other words, people are currently playing to win, aren't they? So > why do you fear that they won't play to win with a large prize? I > cannot get your logic here: a larger prize is going to *enforce* PTW, > not weaken it. I am not doing hot in a final game. I could continue trying to get my 1 possible but not certain VP, or I could help you sweep the table in exchange for half the prize money. I am now no longer playing to win, I am playing to help you win. But I'm not cheating, as I wasn't that likely to win before anyway. > "Buying the way to victory with promises of a cut of the winnings" is > a Cheating: Collusion. Collusion is something that is established before a game. If a deal is cut within a game, it is not collusion. It is playing the game. > So you are SURE that some of VTES players that > you know (and you know most of the good players) are going to accept > "a cut of the winnings" and give up? In exchange for a bunch of money? Yes. Yes I do. I have a mortgage to pay. If in the finals of a big tournament where my absolute victory was not certain, and another player offered to split the $10,000.00 first prize if I helped him win? I'd take it. > Look, if a player is willing to cheat, he can cheat with ANY prize. I'm not talking about cheating. I'm talking about perfectly legal play that is leveraged by money--deals that could be legally made anyway, but are much less worth making if large sums of money aren't involved. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1185446428.5...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > See VEKN Tournament Rules, 5.1 "Cheating" > "Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional > activities:... > * Collusion to alter the results of a game..." Collusion os something that occurs outside of the bounds of a game for the intention of affecting the results of that game (i.e. a couple of buddies deciding before the game starts to make sure player A wins). Deals struck within the context of a game are not collusion, as long as all other rules are observed. > Any deal that includes out-of-the-game things (money, for instance) is > collusion. I don't think that is actually true. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 26 jul, 14:18, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > 1st Prize: $10,000.00 > 2nd Prize: $8,000.00 > 3rd Prize: $6,000.00 > 4th Prize: $4,000.00 > 5th Prize: $2,000.00 > > There is a signifigant difference between 1st place and 5th place, but > not enough difference between one prize level and the next to make > playing a 5th place "kingmaker" a better play than trying to get 4th > place instead. > doesn't help: because, if the winner gives you 2,500 you're still ahead of being 5th instead of 4th. And collusion isn't the problem, it's the legal bribing of players in the finals.

[ quoted text not captured ] sorry for the self reply, but I posted to quick. What I meant to add was: "I have no problem with cash prizes in and off themselves. But they should be impossible to use as bribes during the finals. Maybe all prize splitting deals should be disallowed.

Azel <opao...@comcast.net> wrote in news:BsidnXlkmIlPljXb...@comcast.com: > atomweaver wrote: >> A booster box and an uncut card sheet for winning a CC..? the final >> five should _each_ get a prize of that size, with the winner getting >> about five boxes, plus a few somethings unique and interesting (like >> an old keyboard of LSJ's, where the C-O-R-E-T keys have their ink >> worn away... ;-). >> >> DZ >> AW > > bwa ha ha! but i totally think you are onto something here. i think if > we could switch from a currency/resources method of rewarding we can > do like it was done in feudal japan, and reward with items of status. > so instead of money or cards offer unique, but essentially moderately > priced, icons of the game. > Agreed. The highest prize ever given away in this game, IMO, is that of winning your way onto a vampire card. The Lasombra (Adonai), Steve Coombs (Egottha), Christian Chenard (Carmine Gio), and Stefan Ferenci (Gharston Roland) are the only honorees in that respect (although others have made their way onto cards by different means). > LSJ's Keyboard is a great funny example, but the idea is solid. > imagine a unique hand-crafted Edge specially made for the occasion. or > perhaps even a piece of original art signed by the artist, a set of > special ordered Morano glass blood tokens, or a gilded deck box could > be used. it could even start like a series of status collectibles; > make "Fragments of the Book of Nod" with a unique "fragment" > representing each of the major qualifiers. The ring they designed for the EC a few years back was an astoundingly good example, too. DaveZ

On Jul 26, 8:50 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 26 jul, 14:18, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > 1st Prize: $10,000.00 > > 2nd Prize: $8,000.00 > > 3rd Prize: $6,000.00 > > 4th Prize: $4,000.00 > > 5th Prize: $2,000.00 > > > There is a signifigant difference between 1st place and 5th place, but > > not enough difference between one prize level and the next to make > > playing a 5th place "kingmaker" a better play than trying to get 4th > > place instead. > > doesn't help: because, if the winner gives you 2,500 you're still > ahead of being 5th instead of 4th. But that winner ends up with less cash than second place (10,000 - 2,500 = 7500). Which doesn't mean that there aren't some scenarios where bribing would be useful (hey, help me move from 3rd to 1st! It'll only take you down from 4th to 5th, so I can afford to offer you $3,000 and we both come out ahead!) But it would probably be less problematic than a large cash prize for (only) first place. witness1

Peter D Bakija schrieb: > Two player, duel type games are very well suited for significant cash > prizes, as diplomacy is not an issue. That is just dead wrong. One guy I know who was playing CCGs at a professional level (and making his living out of it) explained me how much collusion/bribing/cheating is going on behind the scenes of such duel games. If a win in the next game will shoot you to the final 8 (=big money) for sure and your opponent will have a <50% of being final 8 with that win you might offer him 1000$ to intentionally loose the game. It´s possible and it´s happening. Also the amount of judging and on-site arguing about judgement calls in those tournaments is just insane. When so much is at stake people get weird. Even if this kind of prize would attract new players I am also not very fond of the type of players. I found the high-ranked/big money CCG players pretty sleazy most of the time, no way I would spend my time hanging out with those. And finally no money in the world can replace the experiences and good times I made while travelling just to play V:TES. The V:TES tournament scene does have quite some really bright and outstanding people. I am honored to call them my friends, much for than I would be honored when winning 10K in the NAC. Sounds pathetic, but actually it´s true. Johannes Walch

"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> schreef in bericht news:1185457664....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 26, 8:50 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 26 jul, 14:18, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >> >> > 1st Prize: $10,000.00 >> > 2nd Prize: $8,000.00 >> > 3rd Prize: $6,000.00 >> > 4th Prize: $4,000.00 >> > 5th Prize: $2,000.00 >> >> > There is a signifigant difference between 1st place and 5th place, but >> > not enough difference between one prize level and the next to make >> > playing a 5th place "kingmaker" a better play than trying to get 4th >> > place instead. >> >> doesn't help: because, if the winner gives you 2,500 you're still >> ahead of being 5th instead of 4th. > > But that winner ends up with less cash than second place (10,000 - > 2,500 = 7500). But he won! or isn't that worth 500? :-) >Which doesn't mean that there aren't some scenarios > where bribing would be useful (hey, help me move from 3rd to 1st! > It'll only take you down from 4th to 5th, so I can afford to offer you > $3,000 and we both come out ahead!) But it would probably be less > problematic than a large cash prize for (only) first place. true. But still problematic, imo.

On Jul 26, 3:37 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I'm not talking about cheating. I'm talking about people taking money in > exchange for helping someone else win. Which in a lot of situations > isn't cheating. Nor is it collusion, as it isn't something that was > necessarily established anywhere but at the table. How can you pretend that playing a "Bribery" game instead of VTES isn't cheating? It definitely is. As far as I recall from my Magic experience, the ONLY thing that was allowed to do with the prize money is an agreement to split the prize INSTEAD of playing. Thus, if the finalists decided to split the prize, they must do it before the game starts. As soon as the game was started, any dogmeat who dares to suggest a bribe get DQ on sight. And don't tell me that multiplayer nature of VTES makes cheating legal. The finalists can split the prize money BEFORE the game if they ALL come to a certain agreement. During the game, any bribe suggestion should be "awarded" a DQ. > > Why do you think that $25.000 prize will make people cheat or violate > > PTW? > You don't have to cheat or violate PTW to buy someone off. OK. So if I'm the richest guy here, I don't even need to play? I can just buy some players to play for me? REALLY??? > > In other words, people are currently playing to win, aren't they? So > > why do you fear that they won't play to win with a large prize? I > > cannot get your logic here: a larger prize is going to *enforce* PTW, > > not weaken it. > > I am not doing hot in a final game. I could continue trying to get my 1 > possible but not certain VP, or I could help you sweep the table in > exchange for half the prize money. I am now no longer playing to win, I > am playing to help you win. But I'm not cheating, as I wasn't that > likely to win before anyway. You are cheating just because you've accepted a bribery, and your "partner" is cheating because he suggested a bribe to you. That's enough to DQ both of you. > > "Buying the way to victory with promises of a cut of the winnings" is > > a Cheating: Collusion. > > Collusion is something that is established before a game. If a deal is > cut within a game, it is not collusion. It is playing the game. Who told you this? Collusion can be established during a game as well as any other time. Any deal that includes non-game things (money or something else) is a collusion. > > So you are SURE that some of VTES players that > > you know (and you know most of the good players) are going to accept > > "a cut of the winnings" and give up? > > In exchange for a bunch of money? Yes. Yes I do. I have a mortgage to > pay. If in the finals of a big tournament where my absolute victory was > not certain, and another player offered to split the $10,000.00 first > prize if I helped him win? I'd take it. Well, $10.000 is a large sum for me (probably much larger than for you, since Belarus is a poor country), but my reputation is much more valuable for me, and I like this game too much to allow such things to happen. I would never participate in such deals. > > Look, if a player is willing to cheat, he can cheat with ANY prize. > > I'm not talking about cheating. I'm talking about perfectly legal play > that is leveraged by money--deals that could be legally made anyway, but > are much less worth making if large sums of money aren't involved. One of us must be insane. Look, we have a lot of VERY POOR players that would be happy to give up for $5, and we have some "rich" players that would be happy to pay these $5 to win. So, do you suggest us to play a game of "who gives more money?" instead of VTES? Yours, Ector

lon...@dlc.fi wrote: > > Uncut sheets could easily be used as prizes too, I assume. > Blech. Personally, I can't stand uncut sheets. Boosters and Cash/Cash equivalents (store/con credit) are universally acceptable prizes. Small items are cool too, like an edge, or a ring, or something. But something big and bulky and hard to transport without damaging like uncut sheets - blech. Sorry. > In the few Rage tournaments I've attended in GenCons of the past the > organizers have purchased some pieces of original artwork to be used > as prizes. Not all originals are THAT expensive -I've bought several > VTES and Rage pieces for $25 to $100 each. VTESinLA.org has a list of who owns what original art, and I didn't see your name there. http://vtesinla.org/art/artlist.asp [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> schreef in bericht news:1185462689.9...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 26, 3:37 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > One of us must be insane. You said this. Not I. Now read what I wrote as an answer to you. Cuckoo much?

On Jul 26, 7:50 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 26 jul, 14:18, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > 1st Prize: $10,000.00 > > 2nd Prize: $8,000.00 > > 3rd Prize: $6,000.00 > > 4th Prize: $4,000.00 > > 5th Prize: $2,000.00 > > > There is a signifigant difference between 1st place and 5th place, but > > not enough difference between one prize level and the next to make > > playing a 5th place "kingmaker" a better play than trying to get 4th > > place instead. > > doesn't help: because, if the winner gives you 2,500 you're still > ahead of being 5th instead of 4th. Just like John said, that would put him in a worst position than second place. There isn't any incentive monetarily to do that. > And collusion isn't the problem, it's the legal bribing of players in > the finals. Obviously, that would have to change, or we would have to liquidate the VEKN rules team and use them for prizes. [ quoted text not captured ]

Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in news:f8acbo$qdk$1...@news01.versatel.de: > Even if this kind of prize would attract new players I am also not > very fond of the type of players. Quoted for truth! Well said, Johannes. DZ

On Jul 26, 11:23 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > lon...@dlc.fi wrote: > > > Uncut sheets could easily be used as prizes too, I assume. > > Blech. Personally, I can't stand uncut sheets. Boosters and Cash/Cash > equivalents (store/con credit) are universally acceptable prizes. Small > items are cool too, like an edge, or a ring, or something. But > something big and bulky and hard to transport without damaging like > uncut sheets - blech. Sorry. Include shipping as part of the prize. > > In the few Rage tournaments I've attended in GenCons of the past the > > organizers have purchased some pieces of original artwork to be used > > as prizes. Not all originals are THAT expensive -I've bought several > > VTES and Rage pieces for $25 to $100 each. > > VTESinLA.org has a list of who owns what original art, and I didn't see > your name there. Several local tournaments over the past couple years have given out VtES art. I think it makes a great prize. witness1

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:37:15 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> In other words, people are currently playing to win, aren't they? So >> why do you fear that they won't play to win with a large prize? I >> cannot get your logic here: a larger prize is going to *enforce* PTW, >> not weaken it. > >I am not doing hot in a final game. I could continue trying to get my 1 >possible but not certain VP, or I could help you sweep the table in >exchange for half the prize money. I am now no longer playing to win, I >am playing to help you win. But I'm not cheating, as I wasn't that >likely to win before anyway. And herein lies the 'rub'. You'd want to go into the final round in first seed. Because the game is almost DEFINATELY going to time out with VP splitting/prize splitting deals. Heck, just going into the finals with a rush deck could be a moneymaker. It'd be like an EBay auction for the others at the table to buy your services. Oh, and the headaches and upset feelings that would eventuate from the following situation. Player A in reasonable position. Player D is a rush deck with a poor prey matchup. Player A - "Dee, you help me sweep, and I'll give you half the cash prize." Player D- "Done. Game progresses. Player A eliminates B, C, D is on 1 pool, no minions untapped, and it's A's turn. Player A- "I think I'm going to have to reneg on our deal." At what point could a deal discussing prize splitting be reneged? What if instead of A and D, it's A and E (with a no forward pressure wall deck)? Once it gets to 2 players, aren't all deals voided by the recent ruling? Morgan Vening

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:23:43 -0700, librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >lon...@dlc.fi wrote: > >> >> Uncut sheets could easily be used as prizes too, I assume. >> > > >Blech. Personally, I can't stand uncut sheets. Boosters and Cash/Cash >equivalents (store/con credit) are universally acceptable prizes. Small >items are cool too, like an edge, or a ring, or something. But >something big and bulky and hard to transport without damaging like >uncut sheets - blech. Sorry. I'm not sure on the mechanics of manufacturing, but how about the possibility of variant vintage cards? Think in the nature of the regular promo cards, but a reprinting of an older card with a new card art, in the new format, and if necessary, the latest text. Week of Nightmares, Camarilla Vitae Slave, even the staples that are rarely disappointing to get (Freak Drive, IG, Arika, etc). I'm not sure on how the distribution system works, but you have "2006 Nationals" on it, and run off a set for the start of the year for your "big events". I dunno. I dropped out of MtG because of the over-competitive nature of the player base. And I've been at GC the last 3 years and avoided VTES for a similar fear. I like my games casual*, and unrushed. Morgan Vening * And I also have an aversion to playing the same deck (or even deck type!) twice in a row. My deck box should always has a politico, bleed(bruise or stealth, fight(rush or block), and stupid gimmick deck in it. Toolbox can be substituted for any of the first three.

[ quoted text not captured ] Doesn't even need to be that. Player wanting to win offers player almost guaranteed to lose $1000. Player winning still gets more than 2nd place, player who can't do any better anyways, gets 50% more than he would have. I still think the negotiations for prize splitting would time out the game. How about "Prize pool $30,000, $6,000 for each player who made it, now that's sorted, PLAY. THE. GAME." Morgan Vening

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:46:32 -0700, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: >On Jul 26, 7:50 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 26 jul, 14:18, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >> >> > 1st Prize: $10,000.00 >> > 2nd Prize: $8,000.00 >> > 3rd Prize: $6,000.00 >> > 4th Prize: $4,000.00 >> > 5th Prize: $2,000.00 >> >> > There is a signifigant difference between 1st place and 5th place, but >> > not enough difference between one prize level and the next to make >> > playing a 5th place "kingmaker" a better play than trying to get 4th >> > place instead. >> >> doesn't help: because, if the winner gives you 2,500 you're still >> ahead of being 5th instead of 4th. > >Just like John said, that would put him in a worst position than >second place. There isn't any incentive monetarily to do that. Unless he would be looking at a 3rd (or lower) place finish. Which, given a low seeding, and a possibility of a time out, might be his only choice. Morgan Vening

In article <1185462689.9...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > How can you pretend that playing a "Bribery" game instead of VTES > isn't cheating? It definitely is. Leveraging an otherwise legal deal with money is certainly something I can call "bribery" tongue in cheek, but as long as all other aspects of the game are being obeyed, there is nothing cheating about it. Currently, there are plenty of instances where you can accept the losing end of a deal, although without any concrete incentive, it doesn't happen as often as it could. If there was concrete incentive (i.e. cash), it would happen all the time. Again, say I am in the finals and I'm not doing so hot. I have the option of: A) Possibly getting a VP for 4th place, or possibly just getting killed for 5th. or B) Certainly getting 5th place, and helping someone else get 1st place. Currently, with no money on the line, I have no incentive to pick (B), so I'll always pick (A). If the other guy I can help can offer me a split of the prize, it is completely in my best interest to pick option (B), and I likely easily defend my position of "I'm losing anyway, so I choose to lose like this..." And it isn't cheating. And it can be called "bribery". Even if only tongue in cheek. > As far as I recall from my Magic experience, the ONLY thing that was > allowed to do with the prize money is an agreement to split the prize > INSTEAD of playing. Which is all well and good, except: A) This isn't Magic. B) Magic is a two player game. Which is very, very different from a 5 player game. > OK. So if I'm the richest guy here, I don't even need to play? I can > just buy some players to play for me? REALLY??? People buy folks to play for them all the time in other games (i.e. "I'm not the best basketball player in the world, but I want my team to win, so I'll leverage getting this ringer on my team with money..."). But other than that, I don't really know what you are talking about here. > You are cheating just because you've accepted a bribery, and your > "partner" is cheating because he suggested a bribe to you. That's > enough to DQ both of you. How am I cheating? If there was no money involved, I could make a deal like that (i.e. give up a questionable position to help someone else). How does having money in the equation suddenly make it cheating? You are inventing rules in your head that don't currently exist. > Who told you this? Collusion can be established during a game as well > as any other time. Any deal that includes non-game things (money or > something else) is a collusion. I don't think collusion in this context means what you think it means. > Well, $10.000 is a large sum for me (probably much larger than for > you, since Belarus is a poor country), but my reputation is much more > valuable for me, and I like this game too much to allow such things to > happen. I would never participate in such deals. That is nice to say now. But given the opportunity to legally say "Huh. I could probably lose here and get nothing or I could throw my support behind someone else and be guaranteed money...", most folks would take the money. And that doesn't mean they are cheating. In tournament poker, the final two players, more often than not, agree to a prize split rather than playing till the bitter end, as head to head poker is a long slow process. And if someone is behind going into that point, they have all the incentive in the world to make a reasonable split. This is in no way cheating (unless the rules specifically say "no final two splitting"). And if you are playing for money, it is totally reasonable. But if you are playing for not money, there is no incentive at all to do this--you just play to the bitter end. > One of us must be insane. I think we have already established that... > Look, we have a lot of VERY POOR players > that would be happy to give up for $5, and we have some "rich" players > that would be happy to pay these $5 to win. So, do you suggest us to > play a game of "who gives more money?" instead of VTES? No. That is exactly why I think having substantial cash prizes in VTES is a bad idea. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <f8acbo$qdk$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote: > Peter D Bakija schrieb: > > Two player, duel type games are very well suited for significant cash > > prizes, as diplomacy is not an issue. > > That is just dead wrong. One guy I know who was playing CCGs at a > professional level (and making his living out of it) explained me how > much collusion/bribing/cheating is going on behind the scenes of such > duel games. Collusion/bribing/cheating != diplomacy. VTES is a game of table talk and diplomacy when you *aren't* cheating or trying to rig the game. Table talk and diplomacy are an accepted, legal part of the game. In two player games, this is generally not the case--you are generally expecting your opponent to do their best to kill you with their cards and the rules, and they are expecting the same--table talk and diplomacy have, on the accepted surface level, generally no impact on such a game. I'm talking about table talk and diplomacy. You seem to be talking about collusion/bribing/cheating. Which is something completely different. [ quoted text not captured ]

Well, Time for some general comments. Some people who have responded have confused my comments with the ones I posted from Chris.B. But this happens when replying. The idea of alternate, non-cash prizes, is interesting. However, in my mind looking at only dollar amounts, a specially made ring or replica walk of fame star, etc. still doesn't equal the $1700 invested in making the NAC. Perhaps "Big Money" is not needed in VTES. Perhaps a $2,000/top 5 player option would work best. Collusion and cheating happen in the world of VTES. Its happened in the past, it happens now, and it will continue to happen. Would new players, who were jumping into VTES for the big money, spoil the game? Maybe it would point out some of the problems in the game, ie PTO/Weenie-Breed Swarm, etc. and provide the evidence to get them fixed. It might make "the old timers" elevate their play to a whole new level. Just because someone jumps into a game just to win money doesn't necessarily mean they are automatically going to win. Maybe some of these new players will actually be cool folks who will also play casual during casual games? Using money as bait doesn't imply it will only catch "the evil assholes". People all have different personalities, no matter if you are playing VTES for 18 booster packs or $1800. To be honest, I've met a few assholes playing VTES. I'm sure some people I've faced think I am a total jerk. It happens. But I have also met some really cool people playing VTES. I don't think that experience would change with a big cash prize, except that I would have the opportunity to meet more people (and perhaps find more opportunities to play games, find people to trade with, etc.). Jeff makes a point about the reason for why Oscar was hired. In my opinion, I don't really see any big change in the tournament scene since he's been a WW employee. One or two more storylines, but otherwise it's been the same as it was. Of course I am not privy to behind the scene schemes and plans. In summary, the general theme that has appeared in this topic is that WW should (and can now obviously afford) do more to advertise and promote this game. The game needs to offer more to keep it from totally falling off the radar and doing it's impression of the slow withering. The game has got to bring a gun to a gun fight-a knife just doesn't do it anymore these days. VTES has to "recruit" players just like employers have to recruit new employees. If you don't offer the same benefits as the business across the street, you won't attract the same number of applicants. Prizes need to be increased to not only attract new players, but to give something back to all the "old timer" players and keep them interested. The core group of the hardcore players needs to open up slightly to new ideas and efforts to bring in new players. Why not try a bigger prize pool for a year or two and see what happens? Would such an idea really bring about Gehenna for VTES? Let's try something new, it just might bring the game to a whole new level. Without change, things will stay the same (prophetic stuff isn't it?). This topic has turned into a decent discussion. I was afraid that without some abrasiveness from me, the topic would've been killed quite quickly by the loyal "we play for the fun of the game because that's the way we've done it for 13 years and it works well enough for me" crowd that tends to be the regular ones who read this group. That is all.

"atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns99797A0E34...@207.115.33.102... [ quoted text not captured ] Let me add an, "Amen, brothers!" One of the things that led me out of Magic was that tournaments started becoming a lot less fun after the first year or so. Too many hotshot assholes started showing up. Granted, some of them were very good and winning tournaments become a lot more challenging at that point but aside from that, I was just finding I plain didn't like them. Man, that saps the fun out of things. Fred

"bspaul" <bspa...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1185469922.6...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > Well, > > Time for some general comments. Some people who have responded have > confused my comments with the ones I posted from Chris.B. But this > happens when replying. > > The idea of alternate, non-cash prizes, is interesting. However, in > my mind looking at only dollar amounts, a specially made ring or > replica walk of fame star, etc. still doesn't equal the $1700 invested > in making the NAC. I think a lot of people think that what you got for your $1700 was at the tournaments you attended. You paid the money and got to play good competive games and tournaments and some of us happen to think that's not too bad a deal in and of itself. For people who need a shot at prizes that even begin to recoup their investment in cards and travel, I still say this is not the game for them. This game simply cannot be structured in a way that gurantees the level of fairness and impeccability demanded for contests involving valuable prizes. Play-to-win is just too nebulous, too subjective, and in some cases just plain impossible to judge correctly. Unfortunately, the game really relies on the sportsmanship of its players to avoid problems in these areas. And if you inject large rewards into the mix, you won't get that in some cases. Fred

On Jul 26, 2:13 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > There's also the Clan Wars format that Bernie ran at the first Week of > Nightmares. That was *very* interesting. I especially liked the part where one team failed to understand the seating charts. ;) Although it was fun, I thought that in general, the tournament was a little sketchy. With the whole 6-player tables, and the knowing where you would be seated ahead of time. Not that I wouldn't play it again, it was just...a little too structured, I thought. Y'know? But it was definitely awesome that Bernie came up with the idea and ran it and all. Xian Giovanni FN starter 4tw...

On Jul 26, 1:12 pm, bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote: > Well, > > Time for some general comments. Some people who have responded have > confused my comments with the ones I posted from Chris.B. But this > happens when replying. > > The idea of alternate, non-cash prizes, is interesting. However, in > my mind looking at only dollar amounts, a specially made ring or > replica walk of fame star, etc. still doesn't equal the $1700 invested > in making the NAC. No, it doesn't. Nor does $25,000 that someone else wins. But the game provides enough enjoyment for a bunch of people to get out to the NAC every year in *spite* of the cost. So maybe the prizes don't have to match the expense after all? > Perhaps "Big Money" is not needed in VTES. Perhaps a $2,000/top 5 > player option would work best. And perhaps monetary prizes aren't needed at all. > Collusion and cheating happen in the world of VTES. Its happened in > the past, it happens now, and it will continue to happen. The amount which these things happens matters. The results of these things happening matters. > Would new players, who were jumping into VTES for the big money, spoil > the game? Maybe it would point out some of the problems in the game, > ie PTO/Weenie-Breed Swarm, etc. and provide the evidence to get them > fixed. It might make "the old timers" elevate their play to a whole > new level. Just because someone jumps into a game just to win money > doesn't necessarily mean they are automatically going to win. Maybe > some of these new players will actually be cool folks who will also > play casual during casual games? Using money as bait doesn't imply it > will only catch "the evil assholes". People all have different > personalities, no matter if you are playing VTES for 18 booster packs > or $1800. To be honest, I've met a few assholes playing VTES. I'm > sure some people I've faced think I am a total jerk. It happens. But > I have also met some really cool people playing VTES. I don't think > that experience would change with a big cash prize, except that I > would have the opportunity to meet more people (and perhaps find more > opportunities to play games, find people to trade with, etc.). I'm not terribly afraid of "evil assholes" coming to ruin the game. But the presence of a cash prize would alter _my_ mindset, to what I'm afraid would be the detriment of my own enjoyment of the game. Meanwhile, increased booster support, airfare to the next big Con, etc., strike me as excellent, precisely because the large prize is reinvested in the game, no matter who wins. > Jeff makes a point about the reason for why Oscar was hired. In my > opinion, I don't really see any big change in the tournament scene > since he's been a WW employee. One or two more storylines, but > otherwise it's been the same as it was. Of course I am not privy to > behind the scene schemes and plans. I'm not sure about big plans, but I'm fairly certain that Oscar's been tirelessly running demos for potential new players at pretty much all the major Conventions. At least, that's what I think he does. Which is probably good for the game. > In summary, the general theme that has appeared in this topic is that > WW should (and can now obviously afford) do more to advertise and > promote this game. The game needs to offer more to keep it from > totally falling off the radar and doing it's impression of the slow > withering. The game has got to bring a gun to a gun fight-a knife > just doesn't do it anymore these days. VTES has to "recruit" players > just like employers have to recruit new employees. If you don't offer > the same benefits as the business across the street, you won't attract > the same number of applicants. Prizes need to be increased to not > only attract new players, but to give something back to all the "old > timer" players and keep them interested. The core group of the > hardcore players needs to open up slightly to new ideas and efforts to > bring in new players. Why not try a bigger prize pool for a year or > two and see what happens? Heh. The game's not about prizes. I'd like to see it stay that way. But increasing the prizes isn't a bad thing on its own. > Would such an idea really bring about > Gehenna for VTES? Let's try something new, it just might bring the > game to a whole new level. Without change, things will stay the same > (prophetic stuff isn't it?). This topic has turned into a decent > discussion. I was afraid that without some abrasiveness from me, the > topic would've been killed quite quickly by the loyal "we play for the > fun of the game because that's the way we've done it for 13 years and > it works well enough for me" crowd that tends to be the regular ones > who read this group. > > That is all. Heh. Actually, I think your _abrasiveness_ was annoying. And I definitely think that discussion would have happened regardless. This is a newsgroup. Constant yammering is what we do. But thanks for providing an opposing viewpoint without being _too_ abrasive. witness1.

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in news:pdb6-E3F40E.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com: > In article <f8acbo$qdk$1...@news01.versatel.de>, > Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote: > >> Peter D Bakija schrieb: >> > Two player, duel type games are very well suited for significant >> > cash prizes, as diplomacy is not an issue. >> >> That is just dead wrong. One guy I know who was playing CCGs at a >> professional level (and making his living out of it) explained me how >> much collusion/bribing/cheating is going on behind the scenes of such >> duel games. > > Collusion/bribing/cheating != diplomacy. > > snip > I'm talking about table talk and diplomacy. You seem to be talking > about collusion/bribing/cheating. Which is something completely > different. > Yah, he is, and it is (J- was maybe talking past your point about in-game diplomacy, but his point is still valid). Johannes meant that cash prizes can attract an additional kind of player to a game, one that colludes/bribes/cheats, because there's money to be gained in it. Cash prizes attract players, yes. But they can also attract a greater proportion of 'problem players', setting aside the rules of the game (which is why this is a problem regardless of whether the game is two-player or multi-player). He's saying that being a fan of VTES playing in an environment that cash prizes would create would suck rocks, becasue of the money-hunting goobs a cash prize would attract... and I'm inclined to agree. DaveZ AW

In article <Xns99799EE1E8...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Yah, he is, and it is (J- was maybe talking past your point about > in-game diplomacy, but his point is still valid). Oh, sure. But it is a totally different point than I was addressing. > Johannes meant that > cash prizes can attract an additional kind of player to a game, one that > colludes/bribes/cheats, because there's money to be gained in it. Sure. Which I would never disagree with. But wasn't what I was talking about :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 26, 11:36 am, Morgan Vening <mor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] That's pretty amazing that before anyone is ousted that a player can make the judgement call that paying someone to play kingmaker is going to elevate them from 3rd to 1st place. Try again, please Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Sawmap

On Jul 27, 5:39 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote in > >> Even if this kind of prize would attract new players I am also not > >> very fond of the type of players. > > > Quoted for truth! Well said, Johannes. > > Let me add an, "Amen, brothers!" And one from me as well. Simon

"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1185465815.7...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 26, 11:23 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >> lon...@dlc.fi wrote: >> >> > Uncut sheets could easily be used as prizes too, I assume. >> >> Blech. Personally, I can't stand uncut sheets. Boosters and Cash/Cash >> equivalents (store/con credit) are universally acceptable prizes. Small >> items are cool too, like an edge, or a ring, or something. But >> something big and bulky and hard to transport without damaging like >> uncut sheets - blech. Sorry. > > Include shipping as part of the prize. > Especially if the day after the event is a national holiday, resulting in the only shipping place at the busiest airport in the country being closed. :) - Pat not that that could ever happen

Xian wrote: > I especially liked the part where one team failed to understand the > seating charts. ;) Hey man, it was the friggin' first WoN. Do you have any *idea* how hung over I was for that one? > Although it was fun, I thought that in general, the tournament was a > little sketchy. With the whole 6-player tables, and the knowing where > you would be seated ahead of time. Not that I wouldn't play it again, > it was just...a little too structured, I thought. Y'know? Yeah, I do. But I bet it could be tweaked successfully to have a more random seating. > But it was definitely awesome that Bernie came up with the idea and > ran it and all. Definitely, and maybe it could be resurrected at some future event. > Xian > Giovanni FN starter 4tw... Cherryholmes.... .... who couldn't get his mitts on the Assamite starter (although Jared rocked it pretty hard, and a rush deck sitting behind the bleedzooka was the perfect strategy for the final table).

Two suggestions have really rocked ne head: Pay the flight costs for the winner/final five fr the next years NAC/EC, and the whole unique artifact jobbies. Maybe a break where the winner gets accomodation and flights, and the other 4 get flights. That would rock

Frederick Scott wrote: > "bspaul" <bspa...@excite.com> wrote in message > news:1185469922.6...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> Well, >> >> Time for some general comments. Some people who have responded have >> confused my comments with the ones I posted from Chris.B. But this >> happens when replying. >> >> The idea of alternate, non-cash prizes, is interesting. However, in >> my mind looking at only dollar amounts, a specially made ring or >> replica walk of fame star, etc. still doesn't equal the $1700 invested >> in making the NAC. Invested... invested. how i cannot stand that word in gamer culture -- and i come across it far too often. i always reply thus: Entertainment is not an Investment. Gold is an investment, bonds are an investment, stocks are an investment, property is an investment. Entertainment, being the ephemera that it is, is not an investment... unless you are willing to sit on your ass with it for 50+ years and then try to find a market. my atari and nintendo games, even some of my really rare ones, are not investments. my books, including some rare, first edition, out-of-print gaming books, are not an investment. unless you are planning to live your retirement as an antiquarian, all the money you pour into the consumption -- not production -- of entertainment is an utter craps shoot of an 'investment.' your worth should be gained soon after the mere act of consumption; anything beyond its transient life cycle is a bonus. there, my pet peeve ended. now, if you really want to talk investments, objet d'art crafted by known artisans can be an investment. so a special order porcelain Edge by Lladro' (costing let's say $1700) would have roughly equivalent value inside and outside the VTES market. which, if this would suit you, would mean that you are possibly more pleased by the idea of in-kind rewards than untested collectible value. (it could also potentially serve as advertisement for the game, as well.) > I think a lot of people think that what you got for your $1700 was at > the tournaments you attended. You paid the money and got to play good > competive games and tournaments and some of us happen to think that's > not too bad a deal in and of itself. For people who need a shot at > prizes that even begin to recoup their investment in cards and travel, > I still say this is not the game for them. and in this i heartily agree. if you are looking for significant prize money, or restitution of a worth equivalent to your expenses, you should be looking at other games. you should be looking at games like CounterStrike, MtG, Bridge, or the big granddaddy -- Poker. you need a market so large where there's enough high money players to cater to the compensation of elite players. vtes just doesn't have that level of saturation. and considering the nature of the game, as explained here... This game simply cannot be > structured in a way that gurantees the level of fairness and impeccability > demanded for contests involving valuable prizes. Play-to-win is just > too nebulous, too subjective, and in some cases just plain impossible > to judge correctly. Unfortunately, the game really relies on the > sportsmanship of its players to avoid problems in these areas. And > if you inject large rewards into the mix, you won't get that in some > cases. > > Fred > > ...it's too close to a pipe dream. there's so much social fluidity and interaction that it complicates the means to get such foundational benchmarks. that said, i dig the "win tix to the euro championships, in Paris! :D" method of compensation. it's an in-kind prize that has value both inside and outside the world of vtes. also, unlike cash prizes, you can't divide portions of your ticketed seat to butter up in-game deals. a mixture of both in-kind compensation prizes, and unique objects of status, could be a good compromise in trying to ratchet up the appeal of the game. what i would like, though, is a community assessment on where are we having trouble recruiting and retaining players. is it rules, game length, etc?

On Jul 26, 6:23 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > VTESinLA.org has a list of who owns what original art, and I didn't see > your name there. > > http://vtesinla.org/art/artlist.asp Sorry Chris, I didn't even know that such list even existed and that you were required to enter your originals there. Since I'm not on the list it must mean I don't have any VTES originals then... :) Ta ta, Lönkka www.ahmametal.com www.myspace.com/iwearnohelmet

On Jul 25, 7:20 pm, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > > Historically one of > > the things you do is have a big card tournement (one of the others is > > to find the fattest ugliest guy on the boat, dub him "Baby Neptune", > > and force blindfolded newbs to suck marishino cherries and lard out of > > his belly button, and then there's the gross stuff I can't tell you > > about). > > Dot > > Dot > > Dot Ok, stop dots. -- Dorrinal Blackmantle Chantry Elder of Salt Lake City Warlocks are broken.

On Jul 27, 6:20 pm, Dorrinal Blackmantle <john.mcgl...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Dot it, dot it. Okay nuke it....

lon...@dlc.fi wrote: > On Jul 26, 6:23 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >> VTESinLA.org has a list of who owns what original art, and I didn't see >> your name there. >> >> http://vtesinla.org/art/artlist.asp > > Sorry Chris, > I didn't even know that such list even existed and that you were > required to enter your originals there. > > Since I'm not on the list it must mean I don't have any VTES originals > then... :) > Hey Lonkka - Sorry, I reread my post, it sounded snarky. What I meant to say was, it would be great if you e-mailed Eric Chiang (?) who I think is in charge of the list, and told him what originals you had. Just so that the community could know the provenance of many pieces of original art. But of course if you don't have originals, never mind... ;-) best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

Chris, no probs. My reply's tone wasn't that friendly either. Apologies. I'm pretty new to the newsgroup and have not heard about the original art list previously. I'll see if I manage to drop Eric a line after EC and Ropecon. Cheers, Lönkka www.ahmametal.com www.myspace.com/iwearnohelmet

On Jul 25, 9:13 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote in news:1185369488.044267.70650 > @l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > > > On Jul 25, 6:22 am, lon...@dlc.fi wrote: > >> I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Oscar, Petri et al on this. > > >> Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the monetary prize > >> element to the scene. > > >> I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big > >> bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need. > > > This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from > > frequent visitors to this group. > > That would be because frequent visitors to this group are learned and > wise (about VTES, anyways). Dave, no disrespect intended, but who on this newsgroup has played VTES for money, Real 4-5 player VTES tables for a cash prize? Other than myself, I can't think of another single person who has. Can you? I think that Ben is on the money on this one. " VTES would get ruined" is entirely reactionary response to change. Would money-on-the-table stop us from sharing stories over beers between rounds? What do we have to lose, nothing really. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swmap

In article <1185749854.7...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > I think that Ben is on the money on this one. " VTES would get ruined" > is entirely reactionary response to change. Would money-on-the-table > stop us from sharing stories over beers between rounds? What do we > have to lose, nothing really. As I mentioned in this discussion a while ago, I *really* think the scale of the money on the table will make a significant difference. I think playing a game for $50-$100? That would not stop folks from sharing stories over beers between rounds, nor do I think it would have any impact on the play environment. On the other hand, playing a game for $5000-$10,000? I think that would be a whole other kettle of fish. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

On Jul 29, 10:13 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I think that would be a whole other kettle of fish. > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html Perhaps that's the solution right there. First place: Kettle of Fish. Second place: Deep Fryer Third place: Bag of Flour Fourth place: Ginsu knives and a cutting board.

[ quoted text not captured ] 5th place, set of 3 jars, one each of Tartar Sauce, Cocktail sauce, and Lemon Juice. All finalists receive napkins and bib. Yum. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 29, 11:46 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Wookie813 wrote: > > On Jul 29, 10:13 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > I think that would be a whole other kettle of fish. > >> Peter D Bakija > >> p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > > Perhaps that's the solution right there. First place: Kettle of Fish. > > Second place: Deep Fryer Third place: Bag of Flour Fourth place: > > Ginsu knives and a cutting board. > > 5th place, set of 3 jars, one each of Tartar Sauce, Cocktail sauce, and > Lemon Juice. Blake: We're adding a little something to this month's sales contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody want to see second prize? [Holds up prize] Blake: Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired. -Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross

On Jul 29, 9:13 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1185749854.778797.243...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > > XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > I think that Ben is on the money on this one. " VTES would get ruined" > > is entirely reactionary response to change. Would money-on-the-table > > stop us from sharing stories over beers between rounds? What do we > > have to lose, nothing really. > > As I mentioned in this discussion a while ago, I *really* think the > scale of the money on the table will make a significant difference. > > I think playing a game for $50-$100? That would not stop folks from > sharing stories over beers between rounds, nor do I think it would have > any impact on the play environment. On the other hand, playing a game > for $5000-$10,000? I think that would be a whole other kettle of fish. Why do you think that having one of your friends win $10,000.00 would ruin the game for you? Can't you be happy for someone else's good fortune? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On 30 jul, 00:57, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Jul 25, 9:13 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote in news:1185369488.044267.70650 > > @l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > > > > On Jul 25, 6:22 am, lon...@dlc.fi wrote: > > >> I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Oscar, Petri et al on this. > > > >> Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the monetary prize > > >> element to the scene. > > > >> I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big > > >> bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need. > > > > This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from > > > frequent visitors to this group. > > > That would be because frequent visitors to this group are learned and > > wise (about VTES, anyways). > > Dave, no disrespect intended, but who on this newsgroup has played > VTES for money, Real 4-5 player VTES tables for a cash prize? Other > than myself, I can't think of another single person who has. Can you? Haha. Oh sweet irony. I'm sure you can't think of another single person who has, no. B

[ quoted text not captured ] Oh Binky! I could never forget you! You're the reason I put real 4-5 VTES tables in there. If I wanted to include THAT game I would have said something else. Thanks for reading what you want to read, as opposed to what I wrote. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

[ quoted text not captured ] Strawman. No-one is saying that they don't want anyone to win money. They are concerned (and rightly so, nothing reactionary about it) that a/ it will attract players who come for the money only. And don't care about the having a beer part. The only problem I personally have with this is that 2h is a long time to spend at the table of a jerk. b/ the structure of the game (and of tournement finals especially) as it is, doesn't really lend itself well to playing for cash prizes (or large prizes that can be easily divided to 'bribe' people in the finals. So, at the moment, I don't support cash prizes. If the rules for the finals are changed, I might change my perspective. Or if the cash tournements are either team play or duel games (another big change needed here, imo), I might even like them more.

In article <1185794990....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > Why do you think that having one of your friends win $10,000.00 would > ruin the game for you? Can't you be happy for someone else's good > fortune? I love good fortune. But not when that $10,000 of good fortune is actually $5000 of someone's good fortune, and then another $5000 of someone else's good fortune that came from being dubiously bought off to ruin the chances of my $10,000 of good fortune... [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] No no you silly muppet ;) That's not what I meant. I'll quote: "Real 4-5 player VTES tables for a cash prize? Other than myself, I can't think of another single person who has." Lol. I love that sentence, though. Guess again what I meant! Bram PS. no I am not calling Norm fat.

On Jul 30, 7:58 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1185794990.207322.91...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > Why do you think that having one of your friends win $10,000.00 would > > ruin the game for you? Can't you be happy for someone else's good > > fortune? > > I love good fortune. But not when that $10,000 of good fortune is > actually $5000 of someone's good fortune, and then another $5000 of > someone else's good fortune that came from being dubiously bought off to > ruin the chances of my $10,000 of good fortune... Explain to me why or how this would happen and not get caught. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Why don't you explain it to me in a manner that pertains to this conversation? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok. I'll explain. Sigh. A lame joke spoiled even further. The sentence you made is a convoluted one. Whereas you obviously mean: I cannot think of another person on this newsgroup that has, this is not explicitly stated. You instead refer to 'any single person'. Which I then referred to in my answer. If this were indeed any single person, you'd have to have forgotten who you played against or counting as 4-5 players yourself. Oh well. I just liked the sentence. On a slightly related note: Who have you played against for money, then? Cheers, B

On Jul 30, 11:04 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Jul 30, 8:24 am, Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote: > > "Real 4-5 player VTES tables for a cash prize? Other than myself, I > > can't think of another single person who has." > > Why don't you explain it to me in a manner that pertains to this > conversation? > > Comments Welcome, > Norman S. Brown, Jr > XZealot > Archon of the Swamp Norm, he means that there were 3-4 other people in the game, besides you. If you were playing in a *5* player game, you should be able to think of four other players who were there. As to the money, it isn't like the $ (X.xx) prize would come out of nowhere. Someone pays. Probably the players. White Wolf is not going to furnish $5,000 or $10,000 out of the goodness of their hearts; they have a business to run. Maybe the argument is that such a prize would generate more than an equivalent amount of revenue, but I don't think so. I also do not want to subsidize prizes beyond what is already going on. There is already a multiplayer card game I play when I want to compete over money. I think that V:TES for money is going to be problematic. Yes, direct experience is valuable, but to say that reasoning is meaningless because "no one has tried it yet" is not accurate. My main question is "how much of an entrance fee would you pay, and for what type of prize structure?" My own answer is none, but other answers seem to be getting voiced. I just want to stress the point that someone pays to create the prize money. Also, winner take all is not the only option. Although I am opposed to any cash prize, I think a distribution for the final table (50, 20, 15, 10, 5) would be better than winner take all. -Dave Clooney

In article <1185807313....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > Explain to me why or how this would happen and not get caught. Caught? You don't need to be caught. Or even do anything that would require getting caught. You make deals to split the final winnings that are legal out in the open. "Hey--if you help me win, I'll split the prize with you." Assuming you are in a position to legally accept a deal to help someone, what needs to be caught? And according to LSJs very recent post: "In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my outcome" where "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing for. Prizes (including splits), for example." Indicates that playing for a prize split *is* playing to win. As it is maximizing your outcome. In fact, it seems like *refusing* a prize payoff bribery deal when you are in a "non winning" position is *not* playing to win. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1185809731....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, dclo...@gmail.com wrote: > There is already a multiplayer card game I play when I want to compete > over money. Yeah, see, this is a strong point. If I wanna play a multi-player game for money? I'll play poker, where table talk is virtually forbidden, people can't legally form alliances or strike deals (other than, say, the last two players in a tournament agreeing to split the end money. But by then, it is no longer a multi player game), and there are lots and lots of well trained scary folks hovering around who exist for no reason other than to stop people from cheating. And they have expensive technology at their disposal to help them. And muscle. VTES is a fantastic game. I love the hell out of it. And I'm totally ok with non insignificant prizes for the winners of tournaments, assuming those prizes aren't such that they would significantly affect the play of the game (i.e. a couple hundred bucks worth of merchandise and cool stuff, or heck, even money, is fine, but go any bigger than that, and problems are gonna start). But trying to make it into a game where people play for big money is just, in the long run, not a good idea. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 30, 10:47 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1185807313.022998.3...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, > > XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > Explain to me why or how this would happen and not get caught. > > Caught? You don't need to be caught. Or even do anything that would > require getting caught. You make deals to split the final winnings that > are legal out in the open. "Hey--if you help me win, I'll split the > prize with you." Assuming you are in a position to legally accept a deal > to help someone, what needs to be caught? Obviously, that needs to be changed if money is involved. > And according to LSJs very recent post: > "In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my > outcome" where "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing for. > Prizes (including splits), for example." > > Indicates that playing for a prize split *is* playing to win. As it is > maximizing your outcome. In fact, it seems like *refusing* a prize > payoff bribery deal when you are in a "non winning" position is *not* > playing to win. I think I mentioned this in another area, and as above, prize splitting should be banned now. I can't for the life of me see why LSJ thinks that splitting prizes as a deal-mechanic is a positive aspect of a finals table. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Since it was over 10 years ago, those players have long since left the game and never posted to this group, which was in its infancy then. > On a slightly related note: Who have you played against for money, > then? Apparently, I don't get your sense of humor. As I explained elsewhere in this thread. "First, I played in 1996 for money at a 12 person tournamnet winner take all. These are the problems that existed then that don't exist now. There was no errata. This game was pre 7-7 rulings. We played on a 12 person table. Now we would have played on 3 4- player tables. There were no anti-collusion rules. Collusion was actually expected. Now we have judges and rules to stop collusion from taking place. We only played one game. Now we have 3 rounds and a final. Now we have corrected all these problems. The only thing that seems to rear its ugly head is the collusion rules. " Care to contribute your own experiences of playing VTES for money? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 30, 10:35 am, dcloo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jul 30, 11:04 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 30, 8:24 am, Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote: > > > "Real 4-5 player VTES tables for a cash prize? Other than myself, I > > > can't think of another single person who has." > > > Why don't you explain it to me in a manner that pertains to this > > conversation? > > > Comments Welcome, > > Norman S. Brown, Jr > > XZealot > > Archon of the Swamp > > Norm, he means that there were 3-4 other people in the game, besides > you. If you were playing in a *5* player game, you should be able to > think of four other players who were there. I can't remember who they were specifically as it was over 10 years ago and they have long since stopped playing. > As to the money, it isn't like the $ (X.xx) prize would come out of > nowhere. Someone pays. Probably the players. White Wolf is not > going to furnish $5,000 or $10,000 out of the goodness of their > hearts; they have a business to run. Maybe the argument is that such > a prize would generate more than an equivalent amount of revenue, but > I don't think so. I also do not want to subsidize prizes beyond what > is already going on. Apparently, they can do this for EVE; why couldn't they do this for VTES? > There is already a multiplayer card game I play when I want to compete > over money. I think that V:TES for money is going to be > problematic. Yes, direct experience is valuable, but to say that > reasoning is meaningless because "no one has tried it yet" is not > accurate. Reasoning when applied to unknown behavior is pure conjecture. It is entirely hypothetical with no facts to back it up. The only method of proof is trial and error. > My main question is "how much of an entrance fee would you pay, and > for what type of prize structure?" My own answer is none, but other > answers seem to be getting voiced. I just want to stress the point > that someone pays to create the prize money. I would pay the same amount as the EVE players, i.e. nothing. > Also, winner take all is not the only option. Although I am opposed > to any cash prize, I think a distribution for the final table (50, 20, > 15, 10, 5) would be better than winner take all. I agree that winner take all is the poorest of option, but I disagree on your prize spread. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > And according to LSJs very recent post: > "In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my > outcome" where "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing for. > Prizes (including splits), for example." > > Indicates that playing for a prize split *is* playing to win. As it is > maximizing your outcome. In fact, it seems like *refusing* a prize > payoff bribery deal when you are in a "non winning" position is *not* > playing to win. No. Refusing is "what the player chooses", so it is play to win. Again, in the finals, players are assumed to be playing to win. It's really that simple.

XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote in news:1185813149.401211.14270@ 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com: >> As to the money, it isn't like the $ (X.xx) prize would come out of >> nowhere. Someone pays. Probably the players. White Wolf is not >> going to furnish $5,000 or $10,000 out of the goodness of their >> hearts; they have a business to run. Maybe the argument is that such >> a prize would generate more than an equivalent amount of revenue, but >> I don't think so. I also do not want to subsidize prizes beyond what >> is already going on. > > Apparently, they can do this for EVE; they = CCP > why couldn't they do this for > VTES? > they = WW. We cannot assume that they have shared expenses and accounting this close to their merger. If I handled the merger, the cost centers would remain seperate, and I'd only share projects where there was synergy (WoD-MMORPG, art direction, consolidated contracting of the printing for EVE-CCG, that kind of thing). What's more, CCP is the richer partner, on "paper". They'd have to see investment in cash VTES tournaments as very worthwhile towards growing product sales, in order to back it. >> There is already a multiplayer card game I play when I want to compete >> over money. I think that V:TES for money is going to be >> problematic. Yes, direct experience is valuable, but to say that >> reasoning is meaningless because "no one has tried it yet" is not >> accurate. > > Reasoning when applied to unknown behavior is pure conjecture. It is > entirely hypothetical with no facts to back it up. The only method of > proof is trial and error. > "One experiment is worth a thousand expert opinions", but when each experiment costs 25-large, you try to learn from other's experience, first. How has play and behavior in other CCGs changed, when you look at the "before and after" of the introduction of large cash prizes? You can bet Oscar'll be watching, and talking with Zack about the impact on EVE CCG (and looking at other CCGs who have done the same) before they launch a similar strategy for VTES, if ever. Would Bruce Foods consider it a good idea to launch a new product offering, just after a similar product from Tabasco fell on its ass? After all, the only _real_ proof is trial and error... Nope, I don't buy that you even believe in this, yourself. You're a smarter businessman than that. You learn from the other players in the market, and try not to make the same mistakes they do. >> My main question is "how much of an entrance fee would you pay, and >> for what type of prize structure?" My own answer is none, but other >> answers seem to be getting voiced. I just want to stress the point >> that someone pays to create the prize money. > > I would pay the same amount as the EVE players, i.e. nothing. > Then you know that the justification for the cost of the tournament will have to be realized by an increase in sales of the game. That might very well happen, despite the lack of appeal to me or anyone else in attracting money-hunting goobs to VTES. I recognize that as a personal reason for not wanting this particular change. But so what? If that reason is shared significantly among the existing player base, then WW will have to take that into account. Even then, it _still_ might be worth doing, if the number of anticipated new players exceeds the existing player base (possible, given that VTES is still fairly small). *shrug* I might even give cash prize VTES a try. But I'm pessimistic about the experience, if only because I know what I want to get out of my gaming experience, and I don't see that kind of new player improving the tournament experience for me, whether they win, or not... DZ

In article <1185812536....@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > Obviously, that needs to be changed if money is involved. Well, sure--lots and lots of things would need to be changed if big prizes were involved (and many of those changes would be likely counter-productive to the game being "fun"). But a great deal of this discussion seems to revolve around folks sort of imagining rules that don't currently exist to prop up their argument about how playing for money would not work badly for the game. I'm just assuming we have the rules that we currently have. > I think I mentioned this in another area, and as above, prize > splitting should be banned now. Which is reasonable. But not currently the case. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Kwori.25110$RX....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > No. Refusing is "what the player chooses", so it is play to win. > > Again, in the finals, players are assumed to be playing to win. > > It's really that simple. Ahh, see, once again, getting in trouble due to lack of smiley... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 30, 1:20 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1185812536.235278.58...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > Obviously, that needs to be changed if money is involved. > > Well, sure--lots and lots of things would need to be changed if big > prizes were involved (and many of those changes would be likely > counter-productive to the game being "fun"). But a great deal of this > discussion seems to revolve around folks sort of imagining rules that > don't currently exist to prop up their argument about how playing for > money would not work badly for the game. I'm just assuming we have the > rules that we currently have. > > > I think I mentioned this in another area, and as above, prize > > splitting should be banned now. > > Which is reasonable. But not currently the case. But it probably needs to happen regardless. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 30, 12:19 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in news:1185813149.401211.14270@ > 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com: > > >> As to the money, it isn't like the $ (X.xx) prize would come out of > >> nowhere. Someone pays. Probably the players. White Wolf is not > >> going to furnish $5,000 or $10,000 out of the goodness of their > >> hearts; they have a business to run. Maybe the argument is that such > >> a prize would generate more than an equivalent amount of revenue, but > >> I don't think so. I also do not want to subsidize prizes beyond what > >> is already going on. > > > Apparently, they can do this for EVE; > > they = CCP > > why couldn't they do this for > > VTES? > > they = WW. A merger has happened They = CCP, They = White Wolf therefore CCP = White Wolf. Neither you nor I know enough about the internal structures of CCP/ White Wolf to think anything other than the business unit that will receive the profits from the game (i.e. White Wolf) is also the business unit that will bear the cost of the marketing (i.e. White Wolf). > > We cannot assume that they have shared expenses and accounting this close > to their merger. If I handled the merger, the cost centers would remain > seperate, and I'd only share projects where there was synergy (WoD-MMORPG, > art direction, consolidated contracting of the printing for EVE-CCG, that > kind of thing). What's more, CCP is the richer partner, on "paper". > They'd have to see investment in cash VTES tournaments as very worthwhile > towards growing product sales, in order to back it. See above as to how this is pure speculation as well as inconsistant with the business model laid out in the Merger anouncement (computer content is CCP and non-computer content is WW). > >> There is already a multiplayer card game I play when I want to compete > >> over money. I think that V:TES for money is going to be > >> problematic. Yes, direct experience is valuable, but to say that > >> reasoning is meaningless because "no one has tried it yet" is not > >> accurate. > > > Reasoning when applied to unknown behavior is pure conjecture. It is > > entirely hypothetical with no facts to back it up. The only method of > > proof is trial and error. > > "One experiment is worth a thousand expert opinions", but when each > experiment costs 25-large, you try to learn from other's experience, first. > How has play and behavior in other CCGs changed, when you look at the > "before and after" of the introduction of large cash prizes? You can bet > Oscar'll be watching, and talking with Zack about the impact on EVE CCG > (and looking at other CCGs who have done the same) before they launch a > similar strategy for VTES, if ever. > Would Bruce Foods consider it a good idea to launch a new product > offering, just after a similar product from Tabasco fell on its ass? After > all, the only _real_ proof is trial and error... Nope, I don't buy that > you even believe in this, yourself. You're a smarter businessman than > that. You learn from the other players in the market, and try not to make > the same mistakes they do. The other players being VS and Magic who are making a killing by drawing new players in with FANTASTIC CASH PRIZES. Now if only I could get Bruce Foods to sponsor my trip to the NAC in the middle of fresh pack when we are running 24/7. > >> My main question is "how much of an entrance fee would you pay, and > >> for what type of prize structure?" My own answer is none, but other > >> answers seem to be getting voiced. I just want to stress the point > >> that someone pays to create the prize money. > > > I would pay the same amount as the EVE players, i.e. nothing. > > Then you know that the justification for the cost of the tournament will > have to be realized by an increase in sales of the game. That might very > well happen, despite the lack of appeal to me or anyone else in attracting > money-hunting goobs to VTES. I recognize that as a personal reason for not > wanting this particular change. But so what? If that reason is shared > significantly among the existing player base, then WW will have to take > that into account. Even then, it _still_ might be worth doing, if the > number of anticipated new players exceeds the existing player base > (possible, given that VTES is still fairly small). IThe increased sales of the game would have to be the source of this new revenue to pay for the prize otherwise your marketing is not targeting the new player segment. > *shrug* I might even give cash prize VTES a try. But I'm pessimistic > about the experience, if only because I know what I want to get out of my > gaming experience, and I don't see that kind of new player improving the > tournament experience for me, whether they win, or not... How can the big tournament scene get any more vanilla than it already is? It's not like you are going to see a bunch of new players who are in it for the money do anything but net deck a bunch of tournament winning decks and then fall on their ass when they can't play them. Even if they do think of something fearless and inventive to bring into the game, then won't we all be better off because of it. Change is good. We need it badly. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] You can't honestly think that bribing someone in the game with prizes is somehow a sign of good sportmanship. Please explain if you do. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > On Jul 30, 11:41 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Again, in the finals, players are assumed to be playing to win. > > You can't honestly think that bribing someone in the game with prizes > is somehow a sign of good sportmanship. Please explain if you do. Agreeing to split a prize isn't bribing. It is agreeing to split. It needn't be a sign of good sportsmanship. It simply needs not to be a sign of bad sportsmanship. It passes that test. See also self-ousting, playing weenies, et al.

[ quoted text not captured ] It is a sign of bad sportmanship. If I offered you a piece of brass from my trophy so that you wouldn't run as hard in a 5 person marathon, then that is poor sportsmanship/ cheating/bribery. Regardless of the actual value of the brass, the fact that you have manipulated the results outside of each players desire to do their very best is what makes it bad sportsmanship. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > On Jul 30, 2:21 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> XZealot wrote: >>> On Jul 30, 11:41 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> Again, in the finals, players are assumed to be playing to win. >>> You can't honestly think that bribing someone in the game with prizes >>> is somehow a sign of good sportmanship. Please explain if you do. >> Agreeing to split a prize isn't bribing. It is agreeing to split. >> It needn't be a sign of good sportsmanship. >> It simply needs not to be a sign of bad sportsmanship. >> It passes that test. > > It is a sign of bad sportmanship. > > If I offered you a piece of brass from my trophy so that you wouldn't > run as hard in a 5 person marathon, then that is poor sportsmanship/ > cheating/bribery. Regardless of the actual value of the brass, the > fact that you have manipulated the results outside of each players > desire to do their very best is what makes it bad sportsmanship. You have misunderstood/mislabeled the "outside" part. What you describe is "inside" -- it is exactly that player's desire to do eir very best that leads him to accept the deal, since accepting the deal is the path to the very best outcome for that player. (Since splitting the prize is within, not outside of, the parameters given in the rules.)

[ quoted text not captured ] How can you say that a person is "trying their very best" if they accept a bribe to play at a lesser level? If they are trying their very best then no bribe is necessary. The two can not co-exist. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I didn't. I said that the player trying eir very best to maximize eir outcome is maximizing eir outcome. And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, it isn't a bribe that is being accepted. It's a split of the prize that is being accepted.

[ quoted text not captured ] ...and how is splitting prize somehow different than bribing someone by offering them something of value to perform in a manner that isn't in their best interest. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1185821970.6...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > But it probably needs to happen regardless. I can't really argue with that. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > On Jul 30, 3:00 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, it isn't a bribe that is being >> accepted. It's a split of the prize that is being accepted. > > ....and how is splitting prize somehow different than bribing someone > by offering them something of value to perform in a manner that isn't > in their best interest. The same way that making a deal to rescue Anson if Anvil rushes your predator's Arika when rushing isn't in the player's best interest is. That is, it isn't a bribe in the sense that it doesn't introduce any outside consideration.

On Jul 31, 3:27 am, Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote: > Ok. I'll explain. Sigh. A lame joke spoiled even further. I got you the first time, I thought it was quite witty...

atomweaver wrote: > *shrug* I might even give cash prize VTES a try. But I'm pessimistic > about the experience, if only because I know what I want to get out of my > gaming experience, and I don't see that kind of new player improving the > tournament experience for me, whether they win, or not... > But think how much more you will make on your cards when you sell them off on Ebay! {Because you are getting out of the game...} best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

[ quoted text not captured ] No, it is not. You are misconstruing a action based upon an internal deal and trying to equate it with a blatant unsportsman-like behavior of bribing an opponent. In no way can any offering of tangibles (cards, money, trips, real estate) for performance in a game be anything other than cheating and a violation of any rules of sportsmanship. It doesn't matter if it is VTES or the Tour de France. sportsmanship One entry found for sportsmanship. Main Entry: sports·man·ship Pronunciation: -"ship Function: noun : conduct (as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport Bribing an opponent is unfair to the other players at the table. It shows a complete lack of respect for the game and violates the predator-prey relationship by supplanting the normal rewards (6 pool and 1 VP) that motivate a player to oust his prey with another out-of- game motivation (I'm going to get stuff!). This is the same manner of play that caused Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred Restructure and Succubus Club to be banned. How can you possibly see this any differently? [ quoted text not captured ]

> > And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, it isn't a bribe that is being > accepted. It's a split of the prize that is being accepted. Yes that has been pointed out repeatedly and for many it's still not sinking in. I think it would be simpler to not allow prize splitting at all. I don't think allowing prize splitting does anything other than create confusion. Chris.

On Jul 30, 8:19 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Apparently, they can do this for EVE; > > they = CCP > > > why couldn't they do this for > > VTES? > > they = WW. Ditto! BTW Recently the local distributor managed to purchase a full set of LoB rares, which was surprisingly expensive. I've toyed with the idea of trying to use that rare set as the grand prize of a tournament where the rather high entrance fee (15-20€ most likely) would hopefully cover at least the net costs of the set's purchase. When I brought this idea up with the local princes some voiced concern of the the possible or even likely negative effect this valuable a grand prize might have to the play atmosphere. They also suggested that it might be more feasible to divide these rares between all players. Dunno what we'll end´up doing but I think that it would be very interesting to test the effect this somewhat valuable grand prize would have. I'm pretty confident that the local play atmosphere is so good that this shouldn't pose a problem. Heck, perhaps more players would actually try to oust their prey than go upstream ;) If grand prize of already this size would happen to bring up the bloodthistiness and viciousness in the local tournament scene then I guess that the effect of having prizes worth of thousands of bucks would be even worse. But we'll see wehat happens when we test this sometime this autumn/winter. Cheers, Lönkka NC Finland www.ahmametal.com www.myspace.com/iwearnohelmet

Time to address some more points. First, does it really matter if CCP = WW? Obviously someone at CCP decided it was a good idea to offer a $25K prize. Maybe it was a whole group of people. Will they recover their prize payout? I don't know. Does offering a $25K prize get people to pay attention to the game? It sure did for me. CCP/WW is smart to offer this type of prize as this level of support is becoming standard in the CCG/TCG. You've got to keep pace or your market will just play other games with the big support (like VS or Magic). Second, why is there such fear and name calling when it comes to someone who might be playing the game you play for a different reason than you? Are you really any better than they are? Why are you treating someone like they are ridden with vampiric disease if they are playing the game for a reason you don't agree with-at least it's a new face/player? I've seen people play this game for many different reasons (to win the event, to make a card combo work, to prove a point, just to have fun, etc.). Why is playing for money such a crime? Has the old vanguard of VTES turned into such an exclusive, elitist club these days? Have our ranks really swelled to the point that we shouldn't try new things to bring in more players because "we're all full up here"? Let's step off our high and mighty thrones and stop stereotyping players who play for money. Everyone plays for a reason, or they don't play-right? Third, maybe an influx of new players will do the game some good. New tactics, new ideas, new strategies. Personally, I would love to sit at tables that actually ended and didn't go to time round after round. I would love to see people try to actually oust their prey. It would be nice to sit at a table where I didn't know everyone else and they didn't know me. It would be nice to not have three other players gang up on you turn one because your name is Ben for example (can I get an Amen Brother from Peal and Swainbank?). Fourth, bribes and collusion vs. play to win. It happens but maybe a larger prize will help correct the problem. Think about the other potential side of the coin. Perhaps we will see finalists going down hill in an effort to win it all. What if the event gave the overall winner, after the final round, $25K? Would players really start making deals or maybe the might just play the game and try to win by ousting their prey? It's hard to answer these questions without any actual data to review, right? So if a larger cash prize is necessary to get this game out of the shadows (so to speak) and draw in new players, why not give it a try? Start with some smaller prizes if you think big money is too drastic. Offer plane tickets or hotel rooms or con registration fees. Why not revise the qualifier system to offer a share of the prize pool. Instead of supporting 12 player regional events, divide North America into six zones each with a qualifier. The finalists at each qualifier get a $500 or so prize, to help them get to the big event. Maybe this would encourage players to attend the qualifiers-give them incentive to leave their houses/local game shops/etc. and try their luck at the larger events. Once they get a taste of the larger event environment, maybe they might attend more of them or encourage others to attend. Thus let's not track our thinking into the mold of larger prizes will bring out the stereotypical "jerks" who are only playing for the money. Let's expand into the realm of thinking that larger prizes may bring out the people who love to play the game for the game, except they can't afford to make the trip to the Nationals or the NAC. So in summary, I still think that an influx of money into VTES would make a positive difference in the game. If done wisely, along with other well coordinated revisions to the current system, the game could move to a new level of participation and game play. Self review and change is not the end of the world. It's been 13 years of VTES. Are the next 13 years going to be the same or do we try something new? What do we have to lose? Ben.S.

XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote in news:1185822768....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com: > On Jul 30, 12:19 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in news:1185813149.401211.14270@ >> 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com: >> >> There is already a multiplayer card game I play when I want to >> >> compete over money. I think that V:TES for money is going to be >> >> problematic. Yes, direct experience is valuable, but to say that >> >> reasoning is meaningless because "no one has tried it yet" is not >> >> accurate. >> >> > Reasoning when applied to unknown behavior is pure conjecture. It >> > is entirely hypothetical with no facts to back it up. The only >> > method of proof is trial and error. >> >> "One experiment is worth a thousand expert opinions", but when each >> experiment costs 25-large, you try to learn from other's experience, >> first. How has play and behavior in other CCGs changed, when you look >> at the "before and after" of the introduction of large cash prizes? >> You can bet Oscar'll be watching, and talking with Zack about the >> impact on EVE CCG (and looking at other CCGs who have done the same) >> before they launch a similar strategy for VTES, if ever. > >> Would Bruce Foods consider it a good idea to launch a new product >> offering, just after a similar product from Tabasco fell on its ass? >> After all, the only _real_ proof is trial and error... Nope, I don't >> buy that you even believe in this, yourself. You're a smarter >> businessman than that. You learn from the other players in the >> market, and try not to make the same mistakes they do. > > The other players being VS and Magic who are making a killing by > drawing new players in with FANTASTIC CASH PRIZES. But both of those games established large player bases through traditional marketing _before_ they started to offer cash prizes. EVE CCG is doing something different, in trying to grow the base with a cash prize enticement. I'm not saying it cannot work, but they're the first to do it in that order. Wait and see how it turns ou, is all... > Now if only I > could get Bruce Foods to sponsor my trip to the NAC in the middle of > fresh pack when we are running 24/7. > Yeh. Good luck with that. ;-) I had the LA trip comp-ed with customer visits on the West Coast, but then our Q3 budget went to hell, and the travel budget was one of the first things to get cut. Yah, well. >> *shrug* I might even give cash prize VTES a try. But I'm >> pessimistic >> about the experience, if only because I know what I want to get out >> of my gaming experience, and I don't see that kind of new player >> improving the tournament experience for me, whether they win, or >> not... > > How can the big tournament scene get any more vanilla than it already > is? It's not like you are going to see a bunch of new players who are > in it for the money do anything but net deck a bunch of tournament > winning decks and then fall on their ass when they can't play them. > Even if they do think of something fearless and inventive to bring > into the game, then won't we all be better off because of it. Change > is good. We need it badly. I'm not concerned with the behavior you describe above. The qualifier system would preclude net-decking newbies, so you'd only ever see them locally (in fact, that point, more than any other, makes me more inclined towards larger prizes; the sort of behavior from newbies could be dealt with during qualifiers, and not in the CC). I'm more concerned about those who will try to push the rules of the tournament environment to their stress point in every round. Our tournament rules are really vague on a lot of behavior, leaving it up to a Judge to use his Judgement when there is an issue. I can see a tournament easily getting messed with if a few people sought to exploit that simple fact, and a large cash prize could act as a strong incentive to attract such a participant. Could a good Judge handle the situation? Probably, but that doesn't mean that the event would be any less unpleasant for having such participants. DZ

On Jul 31, 11:31 am, bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote: > So if a larger cash prize is necessary to get this game out of the > shadows (so to speak) and draw in new players, why not give it a try? > Start with some smaller prizes if you think big money is too drastic. > Offer plane tickets or hotel rooms or con registration fees. Why not > revise the qualifier system to offer a share of the prize pool. > Instead of supporting 12 player regional events, divide North America > into six zones each with a qualifier. The finalists at each qualifier > get a $500 or so prize, to help them get to the big event. This strikes me as a good idea. witness1

lon...@dlc.fi wrote in news:1185871259.207427.224610@ 22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com: > On Jul 30, 8:19 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > Apparently, they can do this for EVE; >> >> they = CCP >> >> > why couldn't they do this for >> > VTES? >> >> they = WW. > > Ditto! > > BTW Recently the local distributor managed to purchase a full set of > LoB rares, which was surprisingly expensive. > Yeah. LoB's weird rarity scheme, with Bloodlines-reprinted-inside-of- LoB, but at a lower frequency, makes it difficult to assemble a complete set of LoB rares, unless you trade heavily. It was a neat experiment with rarity, but in practive it seems largely dissatisfying for any one player/collector, as you always seem to get a mix of too few of the things you want, plus a bunch of things you already have enough of. DZ

bspaul schrieb: > So if a larger cash prize is necessary to get this game out of the > shadows (so to speak) and draw in new players, why not give it a try? > Start with some smaller prizes if you think big money is too drastic. > Offer plane tickets or hotel rooms or con registration fees. Why not > revise the qualifier system to offer a share of the prize pool. > Instead of supporting 12 player regional events, divide North America > into six zones each with a qualifier. The finalists at each qualifier > get a $500 or so prize, to help them get to the big event. I don´t know if the current qualifier system can work at all when money prizes are introduced. Currently people go to 1-2 qualifiers, when you don´t qualify, ok you don´t go to the championship. Problem is when money is involved going to the championship is suddenly much more appealing, but combined with the fact that the current qualifier system is favoring as much luck as skill it will not work out. If we introduce money (well serious money) as prizes we should move to a standings based qualifier system with a few direct spots on certain qualifier events. Johannes Walch

[ quoted text not captured ] My memory is that VS was big cash right out of the gate, or at least within the first year or so, just like EVE. [ quoted text not captured ]

bspaul <bspa...@excite.com> wrote in news:1185895872.323000.161550 @d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > Time to address some more points. > > First, does it really matter if CCP = WW? Obviously someone at CCP > decided it was a good idea to offer a $25K prize. Maybe it was a > whole group of people. Will they recover their prize payout? I don't > know. Does offering a $25K prize get people to pay attention to the > game? It sure did for me. CCP/WW is smart to offer this type of > prize as this level of support is becoming standard in the CCG/TCG. > You've got to keep pace or your market will just play other games with > the big support (like VS or Magic). > Yeah. There is something to be said for 'keeping up with the neighbors'... > Second, why is there such fear and name calling when it comes to > someone who might be playing the game you play for a different reason > than you? Are you really any better than they are? Why are you > treating someone like they are ridden with vampiric disease if they > are playing the game for a reason you don't agree with-at least it's a > new face/player? Wow. Hyperbole much? My concern is that a few goobs (which can be reasonably expected), who would take their shot at a big prize by seeking to exploit the current tournament rules, would make the events unpleasant for the rest of the participants. It wouldn't take too many, and I'd agree that most people would be playing VTES because they like/want to, with the mone yas an added extra bonus. > I've seen people play this game for many different > reasons (to win the event, to make a card combo work, to prove a > point, just to have fun, etc.). Why is playing for money such a > crime? hyperbole, much? > Has the old vanguard of VTES turned into such an exclusive, > elitist club these days? hyperbole, much? > Have our ranks really swelled to the point > that we shouldn't try new things to bring in more players because > "we're all full up here"? hyperbole, much? > Let's step off our high and mighty thrones hyeprbole, much? These would be a lot more effective, if you limited them to less than 7X in a single paragraph. You've got some valid points, Ben. Stop burying them so deep in the hyperbole... > and stop stereotyping players who play for money. Everyone plays for > a reason, or they don't play-right? > > Third, maybe an influx of new players will do the game some good. If that's the end-effect of cash prizes, I agree 100%. > Fourth, bribes and collusion vs. play to win. It happens but maybe a > larger prize will help correct the problem. Think about the other > potential side of the coin. Perhaps we will see finalists going down > hill in an effort to win it all. What if the event gave the overall > winner, after the final round, $25K? Would players really start > making deals or maybe the might just play the game and try to win by > ousting their prey? It's hard to answer these questions without any > actual data to review, right? > Yeah, that would require PTW (the round) be applied across all rounds, and that prizes be considered as being "outside" the finals. I can see that point. > So if a larger cash prize is necessary to get this game out of the > shadows (so to speak) and draw in new players, why not give it a try? > Start with some smaller prizes if you think big money is too drastic. Nah, here I'd disagree. Smaller prizes don't make an impact as much as a single larger cash prize. In fact, if you have to cover a bunch of territory and events with middling cash prizes of $500-1000, you can esily end up spending a lot more money while having a lot weaker impact on growth. > Instead of supporting 12 player regional events, divide North America > into six zones each with a qualifier. The finalists at each qualifier > get a $500 or so prize, to help them get to the big event. $500 x 5 finalists x 6 events = $15,000 Not bad, but not great. Only 6 events for the whole of the US would be rough, though... You want to keep the accessibility of a larger number of regional qualifiers, because that's where the new players you hope to attract with the big prize would cut their teeth. > <snip Ben's '08 campaign trail speech> ;-) One more piont in favor of a large cash prize in the finals; before you even pony up for the prize, if you succeed in getting the word out and attract new players, they'll need cards. WW could end up justifying the prize with those new sales, alone. Hypothetical; If WW's gross profit per booster box is $15, you need to sell an extra 1667 booster boxes to break even against the expense of a $25,000 prize. If each new player attracted by the cash buys three booster boxes to "get ready" for their run at the prize, that works out to about 560 new players needed to break even. 560 is not that many people... DZ

On Aug 1, 3:31 am, bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote: > First, does it really matter if CCP = WW? Obviously someone at CCP > decided it was a good idea to offer a $25K prize. Maybe it was a > whole group of people. Will they recover their prize payout? I don't > know. Does offering a $25K prize get people to pay attention to the > game? It sure did for me. CCP/WW is smart to offer this type of > prize as this level of support is becoming standard in the CCG/TCG. > You've got to keep pace or your market will just play other games with > the big support (like VS or Magic). They're offering that level of support because EVE (card game version) is competing with Magic as a dual game, Magic offers prize money so therefore EVE needs to as well. EVE isn't a multi-player game despite what it might claim, the multi player didn't really work, so it's only indirectly competing in the market because it's another card game that people can choose to play and spend their money on. The cynic in me, based on my experiences of the game, suggest they need to offer cash support to get people that don't play the online game to play the card game because the card game doesn't have the depth and interest of other games. For the record, I was a player at the pre-release stage as part of a feedback group for CCP, it's an OK game for passing the time if there are only a couple of you but it's got nothing on VtES. > Third, maybe an influx of new players will do the game some good. New > tactics, new ideas, new strategies. Personally, I would love to sit > at tables that actually ended and didn't go to time round after > round. I would love to see people try to actually oust their prey. > It would be nice to sit at a table where I didn't know everyone else > and they didn't know me. It would be nice to not have three other > players gang up on you turn one because your name is Ben for example > (can I get an Amen Brother from Peal and Swainbank?). That's a slightly different set of issues and aren't really related to offering cash. I can't see how having money on the line will speed up play and lessen the table talk, in fact surely it will make your last point even worse - "Ben X is a table threat, let's all agree to oust him so we can have a better chance of winning the cash". Obviously that happening to you (and others of course) is pretty crappy but I don't think that cash is the answer. > So if a larger cash prize is necessary to get this game out of the > shadows (so to speak) and draw in new players, why not give it a try? > Start with some smaller prizes if you think big money is too drastic. > Offer plane tickets or hotel rooms or con registration fees. Why not > revise the qualifier system to offer a share of the prize pool. Certainly the idea of plane tickets to a major event is a great prize, or at least a subsidy, if it's something that WW's marketing budget can stretch too then it seems like a cool idea to me. Especially considering how expensive it is to fly accross the Tasman which must be one of the most expensives pieces of water around :-) [snip discussion about American Qualifying system] The European system seemed to work pretty well helped I'm sure by cheap flights in the EU. My geography knowledge of the US is pretty crappy - if Facebooks traveller IQ application is anything to go by - but I'm sure that if players want to get to a couple of qualifiers it can't be that hard. Still if the system isn't working in the US then that is certainly something that should be looked at. Simon

"Shade" <sha...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1185922527....@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > [snip discussion about American Qualifying system] > > The European system seemed to work pretty well helped I'm sure by > cheap flights in the EU. My geography knowledge of the US is pretty > crappy - if Facebooks traveller IQ application is anything to go by - > but I'm sure that if players want to get to a couple of qualifiers it > can't be that hard. Still if the system isn't working in the US then > that is certainly something that should be looked at. I'm not sure what the previous poster was talking about. My take on qualifier events in the U.S. - at least on the western side of the country - is that they're the best attended tournaments and garner as much participation as they should considering the overall level of participation in VtES. It's the latter that's taking a beating, lately, especially in the marginal areas. The problem with VtES is that because you really need four players to make a decent game and because this fact tends to make the experience - whether pick-up play, local tournament, or qualifier - accelerate downwards the closer you get to zero attendance, I've noticed that participation at any given locality tends to fall off a cliff at a certain point. Groups that play in high-volume participation areas don't really notice that so much because no one really cares that much if they show up at a tournament with 12 players as opposed to 15 players. It makes a lot more difference as your tournament attendance sudden drops from eight to five and you can't put two tables together. From there it's a rapid decline into not being able to put together a tournament or a pickup game at all and that's very depressing. The bottom line is that when White Wolf does something that hurts the game marginally, it's felt in some places much more than others. Fred

On Jul 31, 10:34 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] ...and how is that differnet from VTES? We have a large and dedicated player base, but we don't have the bait to get them to the NAC for the big turnouts. > EVE > CCG is doing something different, in trying to grow the base with a cash > prize enticement. I'm not saying it cannot work, but they're the first > to do it in that order. Wait and see how it turns ou, is all... VTES != EVE. VTES>EVE. therefore VTES should get more prize support than EVE. > > Now if only I > > could get Bruce Foods to sponsor my trip to the NAC in the middle of > > fresh pack when we are running 24/7. > > Yeh. Good luck with that. ;-) I had the LA trip comp-ed with customer > visits on the West Coast, but then our Q3 budget went to hell, and the > travel budget was one of the first things to get cut. Yah, well. I have to figure out how to get out of here... > >> *shrug* I might even give cash prize VTES a try. But I'm > >> pessimistic > >> about the experience, if only because I know what I want to get out > >> of my gaming experience, and I don't see that kind of new player > >> improving the tournament experience for me, whether they win, or > >> not... > > > How can the big tournament scene get any more vanilla than it already > > is? It's not like you are going to see a bunch of new players who are > > in it for the money do anything but net deck a bunch of tournament > > winning decks and then fall on their ass when they can't play them. > > Even if they do think of something fearless and inventive to bring > > into the game, then won't we all be better off because of it. Change > > is good. We need it badly. > > I'm not concerned with the behavior you describe above. The qualifier > system would preclude net-decking newbies, so you'd only ever see them > locally (in fact, that point, more than any other, makes me more inclined > towards larger prizes; the sort of behavior from newbies could be dealt > with during qualifiers, and not in the CC). I saw plenty of new faces with old decks at the NAC (some pretty ones as well :P). I would like to see more of them. > I'm more concerned about those who will try to push the rules of the > tournament environment to their stress point in every round. Our > tournament rules are really vague on a lot of behavior, leaving it up to > a Judge to use his Judgement when there is an issue. I can see a > tournament easily getting messed with if a few people sought to exploit > that simple fact, and a large cash prize could act as a strong incentive > to attract such a participant. Could a good Judge handle the situation? > Probably, but that doesn't mean that the event would be any less > unpleasant for having such participants. The tournament rules need to be fleshed out more, and this "bribery in the finals" is the first thing to go. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 1, 3:37 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Jul 31, 10:34 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: [...] > > EVE > > CCG is doing something different, in trying to grow the base with a cash > > prize enticement. I'm not saying it cannot work, but they're the first > > to do it in that order. Wait and see how it turns ou, is all... > > VTES != EVE. VTES>EVE. therefore VTES should get more prize support > than EVE. What does VTES>EVE mean?. Are you implying that, since VTES is a better game than EVE, it should get more prize support? Or are you implying that VTES yields lager benefits than EVE? [...] -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/ http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)

[ quoted text not captured ] i'd obviously assume the former. but i will add that vtes has yielded to me a better sense of well being, so i can understand the confusion... ;) i think i need to start proselytizing vtes again. make a few Barbed Wire Project decks to pass out. or i'll just start giving commons away to people. "Enhanced Senses to give, i have Enhanced Senses to give!"

On Aug 1, 1:54 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 3:37 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:> On Jul 31, 10:34 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > > > > EVE > > > CCG is doing something different, in trying to grow the base with a cash > > > prize enticement. I'm not saying it cannot work, but they're the first > > > to do it in that order. Wait and see how it turns ou, is all... > > > VTES != EVE. VTES>EVE. therefore VTES should get more prize support > > than EVE. > > What does VTES>EVE mean?. Are you implying that, since VTES is a > better game than EVE, it should get more prize support? Yes, It is a better game. Yes, it has a larger player base. Yes, it should get more prize support. Yes, Yes, Yes-Yes, YES! > Or are you > implying that VTES yields lager benefits than EVE? I do like my lager! Seriously, VTES needs to get better support which will yield more players which will return larger profits, which is why WW is in business. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 1 aug, 13:35, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Aug 1, 1:54 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 3:37 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:> On Jul 31, 10:34 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > EVE > > > > CCG is doing something different, in trying to grow the base with a cash > > > > prize enticement. I'm not saying it cannot work, but they're the first > > > > to do it in that order. Wait and see how it turns ou, is all... > > > > VTES != EVE. VTES>EVE. therefore VTES should get more prize support > > > than EVE. > > > What does VTES>EVE mean?. Are you implying that, since VTES is a > > better game than EVE, it should get more prize support? > > Yes, It is a better game. Yes, it has a larger player base. Yes, it > should get more prize support. Yes, Yes, Yes-Yes, YES! agreed about the prize support. Never saw EVE, so I don't know anything about that game. > > > Or are you > > implying that VTES yields lager benefits than EVE? > > I do like my lager! Seriously, VTES needs to get better support Yes >which > will yield more players *might* yield more players. I don't really believe this part. You might get more people interested in tournements, most of those would be already playing (or quit playing and came back.) Maybe for larger cons, it could attract players. But I don't think I would play a 3* 2h tournement in a con for a game I don't know. No matter the prize. Maybe if it's a new game and I could come in at the ground floor. But not a game where some players have had 13years of experience with. >which will return larger profits, again *might*. If you raise the prizes for boosters, you may lose as much players as you could gain, which I think won't be that many. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 1, 7:57 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > *might* yield more players. I don't really believe this part. You > might get more people interested in tournements, most of those would > be already playing (or quit playing and came back.) Maybe for larger > cons, it could attract players. I have a hard time getting my playerbase to play anywhere besides their comfy houses where they can smoke and drink as they like. More public events == more exposure. Decent prize support (which we had once and haven't had for a long time now) is one of the few ways I can get them to come out for a tourney, since they care a lot about their own leisure time and not much about altruistically growing the game. -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] Like i said: no new players added to the general player base. It would get them to attend tourneys, like I said, but I seriously doubt it would generate a lot of new V:TES players.

On Aug 1, 9:31 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > : no new players added to the general player base. It would > get them to attend tourneys, like I said, but I seriously doubt it > would generate a lot of new V:TES players. Frequent public tournies make for a more visible game, which makes for more new players. -- David Cherryholmes

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1185980808.3...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] what is a 'public tourney'? How do tournements make new players? Demo's? granted. but tourneys?

[ quoted text not captured ] Many tournies here in the states are at folks' homes or in a pub. A public tourney is one at a convention or a game store, where likely players are congregating. The tourney itself probably won't make new players, but it will raise the visibility of the game. I know whenever we had a tourney at my old store, at least one or two folks would come and ask about the game. Many would say that they had Jyhad cards, at which point we would tell them their Jyhad cards were still good, and they should come play. We did get new players this way at the store. Don't know if the same thing translates at other stores, or at conventions. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 1, 6:57 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 1 aug, 13:35, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 1:54 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 3:37 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:> On Jul 31, 10:34 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > EVE > > > > > CCG is doing something different, in trying to grow the base with a cash > > > > > prize enticement. I'm not saying it cannot work, but they're the first > > > > > to do it in that order. Wait and see how it turns ou, is all... > > > > > VTES != EVE. VTES>EVE. therefore VTES should get more prize support > > > > than EVE. > > > > What does VTES>EVE mean?. Are you implying that, since VTES is a > > > better game than EVE, it should get more prize support? > > > Yes, It is a better game. Yes, it has a larger player base. Yes, it > > should get more prize support. Yes, Yes, Yes-Yes, YES! > > agreed about the prize support. Never saw EVE, so I don't know > anything about that game. It's really irrelavent what the quality of EVE is. The point is that VTES needs this kind of support, and we aren't getting it. It is being provided for EVE and yet not for VTES. > > > Or are you > > > implying that VTES yields lager benefits than EVE? > > > I do like my lager! Seriously, VTES needs to get better support > > Yes > > >which > > will yield more players > > *might* yield more players. I don't really believe this part. You > might get more people interested in tournements, most of those would > be already playing (or quit playing and came back.) Maybe for larger > cons, it could attract players. But I don't think I would play a 3* 2h > tournement in a con for a game I don't know. No matter the prize. > Maybe if it's a new game and I could come in at the ground floor. But > not a game where some players have had 13years of experience with. You're smoking crack if you think that creating a buzz with a big chunk of change ($25,000.00!) isn't going to get players interested in the game. > >which will return larger profits, > > again *might*. If you raise the prizes for boosters, you may lose as > much players as you could gain, which I think won't be that many. I never said anything about raising booster prices. I want to sell more boosters at the same price. That is what marketing is all about. Stack it deep. Price it cheap. Sell a heap. This is how you make money. [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> schreef in bericht news:1185988268.3...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > >> > > Or are you >> > > implying that VTES yields lager benefits than EVE? >> >> > I do like my lager! Seriously, VTES needs to get better support >> >> Yes >> >> >which >> > will yield more players >> >> *might* yield more players. I don't really believe this part. You >> might get more people interested in tournements, most of those would >> be already playing (or quit playing and came back.) Maybe for larger >> cons, it could attract players. But I don't think I would play a 3* 2h >> tournement in a con for a game I don't know. No matter the prize. >> Maybe if it's a new game and I could come in at the ground floor. But >> not a game where some players have had 13years of experience with. > > You're smoking crack if you think that creating a buzz with a big > chunk of change ($25,000.00!) isn't going to get players interested in > the game. like I said: old players: yes. non-tournement players: yes. Some new players: maybe. Numbers that will pay for the 25k price: almost not a chance. Might work if you can do it yearly, even then: players usually don't start out by playing large tournements. It might create some visibility. > >> >which will return larger profits, >> >> again *might*. If you raise the prizes for boosters, you may lose as >> much players as you could gain, which I think won't be that many. > > I never said anything about raising booster prices. I want to sell > more boosters at the same price. That is what marketing is all about. > > Stack it deep. > Price it cheap. > Sell a heap. > > This is how you make money. > Evidently you make money by making a 25k price appear from out of nowhere. Now *that* is a sound bussiness plan, if you can do it.

On Aug 1, 3:16 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> schreef in berichtnews:1185988268.3...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > >> > > Or are you > >> > > implying that VTES yields lager benefits than EVE? > > >> > I do like my lager! Seriously, VTES needs to get better support > > >> Yes > > >> >which > >> > will yield more players > > >> *might* yield more players. I don't really believe this part. You > >> might get more people interested in tournements, most of those would > >> be already playing (or quit playing and came back.) Maybe for larger > >> cons, it could attract players. But I don't think I would play a 3* 2h > >> tournement in a con for a game I don't know. No matter the prize. > >> Maybe if it's a new game and I could come in at the ground floor. But > >> not a game where some players have had 13years of experience with. > > > You're smoking crack if you think that creating a buzz with a big > > chunk of change ($25,000.00!) isn't going to get players interested in > > the game. > > like I said: old players: yes. non-tournement players: yes. Some new > players: maybe. Numbers that will pay for the 25k price: almost not a > chance. Might work if you can do it yearly, even then: players usually don't > start out by playing large tournements. It might create some visibility. Old players buy cards, non-tournament players will buy cards to get their decks tournament worthy, and new players will be attracted by the buzz of $25,000.00 that a local prince can entice them with. Any visibility is better than what we've got now. > >> >which will return larger profits, > > >> again *might*. If you raise the prizes for boosters, you may lose as > >> much players as you could gain, which I think won't be that many. Who will you lose? > > I never said anything about raising booster prices. I want to sell > > more boosters at the same price. That is what marketing is all about. > > > Stack it deep. > > Price it cheap. > > Sell a heap. > > > This is how you make money. > > Evidently you make money by making a 25k price appear from out of nowhere. > Now *that* is a sound bussiness plan, if you can do it. Do you actually think that garnering attention is a bad idea for VTES? Can you think of a better way to spend $25,000.00 to get attention? TV nope, $25,000.00 gets you an infomercial at 3 AM for about 4 minutes. Radio nope, what do most CCG'rs listen to? If you don't think that WW has $25,000.00 dollars to spare to make $50,000.00 then you don't know WW. In fact, If you don't' think they do then you don't know what the purpose of marketing a business is. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes. Visibility is good. I'm just saying that you are talking in absolutes, where there are no absolutes. That's why I said *might* everywhere. Meaning: maybe or maybe not. I'm not sure. > > > >> >which will return larger profits, > > > >> again *might*. If you raise the prizes for boosters, you may lose as > > >> much players as you could gain, which I think won't be that many. > > Who will you lose? ATM: everybody who doesn't want big cash prizes in the finals. I'm talking about the game as it is now, not as it might be if x and if y. > > > > I never said anything about raising booster prices. I want to sell > > > more boosters at the same price. That is what marketing is all about. > > > > Stack it deep. > > > Price it cheap. > > > Sell a heap. > > > > This is how you make money. > > > Evidently you make money by making a 25k price appear from out of nowhere. > > Now *that* is a sound bussiness plan, if you can do it. > > Do you actually think that garnering attention is a bad idea for > VTES? no. >Can you think of a better way to spend $25,000.00 to get > attention? not at the drop of a hat, no. But maybe there are better ways, who knows. >TV nope, $25,000.00 gets you an infomercial at 3 AM for > about 4 minutes. Radio nope, what do most CCG'rs listen to? > > If you don't think that WW has $25,000.00 dollars to spare to make > $50,000.00 then you don't know WW. They will probably have 25k to spare for marketing yes. But evidently they don't agree with your statement. Because they haven't used it for price support. And i think WW's marketing department knows more about marketing a CCG than I do. >In fact, If you don't' think they > do then you don't know what the purpose of marketing a business is. You know it better than WW's marketing dep?

[ quoted text not captured ] Nothing is certain in life. The sooner you come to realize that, then the happier you will be. > > > >> >which will return larger profits, > > > > >> again *might*. If you raise the prizes for boosters, you may lose as > > > >> much players as you could gain, which I think won't be that many. > > > Who will you lose? > > ATM: everybody who doesn't want big cash prizes in the finals. I'm > talking about the game as it is now, not as it might be if x and if y. I doubt players will stop showing up to the NAC if the offer a cash prize. In fact, I would be willing to place a side bet that year over year attendance will increase if a cash prize is offered. Do I have any takers? > > > > I never said anything about raising booster prices. I want to sell > > > > more boosters at the same price. That is what marketing is all about. > > > > > Stack it deep. > > > > Price it cheap. > > > > Sell a heap. > > > > > This is how you make money. > > > > Evidently you make money by making a 25k price appear from out of nowhere. > > > Now *that* is a sound bussiness plan, if you can do it. > > > Do you actually think that garnering attention is a bad idea for > > VTES? > > no. > > >Can you think of a better way to spend $25,000.00 to get > > attention? > > not at the drop of a hat, no. But maybe there are better ways, who > knows. You don't have a better idea, but you will argue with me that nothing is better than something. Great! Jeroun's guide to marketing. 1) Sit on thumbs 2) Hope things improve. > >TV nope, $25,000.00 gets you an infomercial at 3 AM for > > about 4 minutes. Radio nope, what do most CCG'rs listen to? > > > If you don't think that WW has $25,000.00 dollars to spare to make > > $50,000.00 then you don't know WW. > > They will probably have 25k to spare for marketing yes. But evidently > they don't agree with your statement. Because they haven't used it for > price support. And i think WW's marketing department knows more about > marketing a CCG than I do. Since this newsgroup is composed of WW's best form of marketing VTES, your opinion is important. > >In fact, If you don't' think they > > do then you don't know what the purpose of marketing a business is. > > You know it better than WW's marketing dep? So your position is that since I don't work at WW then a cash prize is bad because it performs the function of a marketing program which is currently lacking in any sort of visible manner. How can you arrive at that conclusion? Please explain. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in news:NS5si.28718$7l5.9...@phobos.telenet-ops.be: > Evidently you make money by making a 25k price appear from out of > nowhere. Now *that* is a sound bussiness plan, if you can do it. > Duplicated from the bottom of a long(er)-winded reply; "One more point in favor of a large cash prize in the finals; before you even pony up for the prize, if you succeed in getting the word out and attract new players, they'll need cards. WW could end up justifying the prize with those new sales, alone. Hypothetical; If WW's gross profit per booster box is $15, you need to sell an extra 1667 booster boxes to break even against the expense of a $25,000 prize. If each new player attracted by the cash buys three booster boxes to "get ready" for their run at the prize, that works out to about 560 new players needed to break even. 560 is not that many people..." By Norm's example, if WW wanted to make $50K by spending $25K, (and the assumptions in the above hypothetical scenario are accurate) the cash prize would need to attract an extra ~1700 players to the game. DZ

On Aug 2, 2:31 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote innews:NS5si.28718$7l5.9...@phobos.telenet-ops.be: [ quoted text not captured ] Actually let keep it in boxes so $50,000 is roughly 3334 boxes at 15 dollars profit per box. WW is releaseing 2 expansions per year, roughly. So you need 1700 players to each buy one box from each of the expansions released in a single year. You need 850 new players buying 2 boxes in one year to break even (i.e. only create $25,000.00 profit) at that margin, and anything less than that is a failed marketing program. So do you think that $25,000 will get 850 new players into the game? That's the $25,000.00 question. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] \ According to this web page: http://www.tenerdo.org/vekn.html There are 2381 players who played within the last 18 months (as of June 20 this year). Let's assume that 81 one of them are duplicates or clerical errors of some sort. Leaving us with 2300 unique players who play in tournaments. Will having a $50k prize (say split up between all the contienents) almost double our tournament player base? best - chris By the way: After crunching the numbers, if prizes were to be split up based strictly by population, with Asian and African nations lumped in with Australia, here is how 50,000 would be split up: Australasiafrica $2,750.94 5.50% Europe $30,848.38 61.70% South America $5,963.88 11.93% North America $10,436.79 20.87% [ quoted text not captured ]

librarian wrote: > > After crunching the numbers, if prizes were to be split up based > strictly by population, with Asian and African nations lumped in with > Australia, here is how 50,000 would be split up: > > Australasiafrica > $2,750.94 > 5.50% > That's 3,206.86 AUD... > > Europe > $30,848.38 > 61.70% > 22,511.29 EUR or 15,151.49 GBP... > > South America > $5,963.88 > 11.93% 11,227 Brazilian Reais... > North America > $10,436.79 > 20.87% > and 10,997.30 CAD Maybe it looks better in everyone's own currency. [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> schreef in bericht news:1186061100.4...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> Yes. Visibility is good. I'm just saying that you are talking in >> absolutes, where there are no absolutes. That's why I said *might* >> everywhere. Meaning: maybe or maybe not. I'm not sure. > > Nothing is certain in life. The sooner you come to realize that, then > the happier you will be. So why jump on me because i said exactly that? > >> > > >> >which will return larger profits, >> >> > > >> again *might*. If you raise the prizes for boosters, you may lose >> > > >> as >> > > >> much players as you could gain, which I think won't be that many. >> >> > Who will you lose? >> >> ATM: everybody who doesn't want big cash prizes in the finals. I'm >> talking about the game as it is now, not as it might be if x and if y. > > I doubt players will stop showing up to the NAC if the offer a cash > prize. In fact, I would be willing to place a side bet that year over > year attendance will increase if a cash prize is offered. Do I have > any takers? I was talking about cash prices with the price splitting rule still in effect. > >> > > > I never said anything about raising booster prices. I want to sell >> > > > more boosters at the same price. That is what marketing is all >> > > > about. >> >> > > > Stack it deep. >> > > > Price it cheap. >> > > > Sell a heap. >> >> > > > This is how you make money. >> >> > > Evidently you make money by making a 25k price appear from out of >> > > nowhere. >> > > Now *that* is a sound bussiness plan, if you can do it. >> >> > Do you actually think that garnering attention is a bad idea for >> > VTES? >> >> no. >> >> >Can you think of a better way to spend $25,000.00 to get >> > attention? >> >> not at the drop of a hat, no. But maybe there are better ways, who >> knows. > > You don't have a better idea, but you will argue with me that nothing > is better than something. I said I haven't a better idea now at the moment. But I'm no marketeer. >Great! Jeroun's guide to marketing. > > 1) Sit on thumbs > 2) Hope things improve. But, then again, I'm not a marketeer. I loath marketeers :-) > >> >TV nope, $25,000.00 gets you an infomercial at 3 AM for >> > about 4 minutes. Radio nope, what do most CCG'rs listen to? >> >> > If you don't think that WW has $25,000.00 dollars to spare to make >> > $50,000.00 then you don't know WW. >> >> They will probably have 25k to spare for marketing yes. But evidently >> they don't agree with your statement. Because they haven't used it for >> price support. And i think WW's marketing department knows more about >> marketing a CCG than I do. > > Since this newsgroup is composed of WW's best form of marketing VTES, > your opinion is important. > >> >In fact, If you don't' think they >> > do then you don't know what the purpose of marketing a business is. >> >> You know it better than WW's marketing dep? > > So your position is that since I don't work at WW then a cash prize is > bad because it performs the function of a marketing program which is > currently lacking in any sort of visible manner. How can you arrive > at that conclusion? Please explain. You are putting words in my mouth. I was simply pointing out that better marketing minds than myself have probably gone to the same thoughts patterns you have and have then said: probably not a good idea.

"atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:Xns99809FA1BF...@207.115.33.102... > "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in > news:NS5si.28718$7l5.9...@phobos.telenet-ops.be: > >> Evidently you make money by making a 25k price appear from out of >> nowhere. Now *that* is a sound bussiness plan, if you can do it. >> > > Duplicated from the bottom of a long(er)-winded reply; > > "One more point in favor of a large cash prize in the finals; before you > even pony up for the prize, if you succeed in getting the word out and > attract new players, they'll need cards. WW could end up justifying the > prize with those new sales, alone. > Hypothetical; If WW's gross profit per booster box is $15, you need to > sell an extra 1667 booster boxes to break even against the expense of a > $25,000 prize. If each new player attracted by the cash buys three > booster boxes to "get ready" for their run at the prize, that works out > to about 560 new players needed to break even. > 560 is not that many people..." 560 in the US alone is A LOT of new players. > > By Norm's example, if WW wanted to make $50K by spending $25K, (and the > assumptions in the above hypothetical scenario are accurate) the cash > prize would need to attract an extra ~1700 players to the game. > I haven't checked the number of US players on WW's site, but I doubt it over 2000. That's almost doubling the numbers. And you need 1700 extra in Europe, 1600 in Australia and 1600 in South America. Right. Dream on.

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> schreef in bericht news:3oBsi.31622$Ru.12...@phobos.telenet- > > And you need 1700 extra in Europe, 1600 in Australia and 1600 in South > America. typo: 1700 both

On Aug 3, 3:08 am, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> schreef in berichtnews:1186061100.4...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> Yes. Visibility is good. I'm just saying that you are talking in > >> absolutes, where there are no absolutes. That's why I said *might* > >> everywhere. Meaning: maybe or maybe not. I'm not sure. > > > Nothing is certain in life. The sooner you come to realize that, then > > the happier you will be. > > So why jump on me because i said exactly that? You volunteered. > >> > > >> >which will return larger profits, > > >> > > >> again *might*. If you raise the prizes for boosters, you may lose > >> > > >> as > >> > > >> much players as you could gain, which I think won't be that many. > > >> > Who will you lose? > > >> ATM: everybody who doesn't want big cash prizes in the finals. I'm > >> talking about the game as it is now, not as it might be if x and if y. > > > I doubt players will stop showing up to the NAC if the offer a cash > > prize. In fact, I would be willing to place a side bet that year over > > year attendance will increase if a cash prize is offered. Do I have > > any takers? > > I was talking about cash prices with the price splitting rule still in > effect. You can't have cash prizes and prize splitting and PTW. Something has got to go. > >> > > > I never said anything about raising booster prices. I want to sell > >> > > > more boosters at the same price. That is what marketing is all > >> > > > about. > > >> > > > Stack it deep. > >> > > > Price it cheap. > >> > > > Sell a heap. > > >> > > > This is how you make money. > > >> > > Evidently you make money by making a 25k price appear from out of > >> > > nowhere. > >> > > Now *that* is a sound bussiness plan, if you can do it. > > >> > Do you actually think that garnering attention is a bad idea for > >> > VTES? > > >> no. > > >> >Can you think of a better way to spend $25,000.00 to get > >> > attention? > > >> not at the drop of a hat, no. But maybe there are better ways, who > >> knows. > > > You don't have a better idea, but you will argue with me that nothing > > is better than something. > > I said I haven't a better idea now at the moment. But I'm no marketeer. > > >Great! Jeroun's guide to marketing. > > > 1) Sit on thumbs > > 2) Hope things improve. > > But, then again, I'm not a marketeer. I loath marketeers :-) Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me? M-A-R-K-E-T M-O-U-S-E Hey there, Hi there, Ho there. You're as welcome as can be! M-A-R-K-E-T M-O-U-S-E Market Mouse! (Donald Duck!), Market Mouse! (Donald Duck!) Forever we will hold your banner high-high-high-high! Come along and sing the song and join our jamboree. M-A-R-K-E-T M-O-U-S-E You shouldn't hate Marketeers. They just belong to a club. > >> >TV nope, $25,000.00 gets you an infomercial at 3 AM for > >> > about 4 minutes. Radio nope, what do most CCG'rs listen to? > > >> > If you don't think that WW has $25,000.00 dollars to spare to make > >> > $50,000.00 then you don't know WW. > > >> They will probably have 25k to spare for marketing yes. But evidently > >> they don't agree with your statement. Because they haven't used it for > >> price support. And i think WW's marketing department knows more about > >> marketing a CCG than I do. > > > Since this newsgroup is composed of WW's best form of marketing VTES, > > your opinion is important. > > >> >In fact, If you don't' think they > >> > do then you don't know what the purpose of marketing a business is. > > >> You know it better than WW's marketing dep? > > > So your position is that since I don't work at WW then a cash prize is > > bad because it performs the function of a marketing program which is > > currently lacking in any sort of visible manner. How can you arrive > > at that conclusion? Please explain. > > You are putting words in my mouth. I was simply pointing out that better > marketing minds than myself have probably gone to the same thoughts patterns > you have and have then said: probably not a good idea. Last time I heard of such a discussion was at the WoN Milwaukee. Of course, I am not privy to what goes on in the hallowed halls of WW. I think that VTES badly needs attention. Good or Bad, VTES needs some limelight. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in news:3oBsi.31622$Ru.12...@phobos.telenet-ops.be: > > "atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht > news:Xns99809FA1BF...@207.115.33.102... >> "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in >> news:NS5si.28718$7l5.9...@phobos.telenet-ops.be: >> >>> Evidently you make money by making a 25k price appear from out of >>> nowhere. Now *that* is a sound bussiness plan, if you can do it. >>> >> >> Duplicated from the bottom of a long(er)-winded reply; >> >> "One more point in favor of a large cash prize in the finals; before >> you even pony up for the prize, if you succeed in getting the word >> out and attract new players, they'll need cards. WW could end up >> justifying the prize with those new sales, alone. >> Hypothetical; If WW's gross profit per booster box is $15, you need >> to >> sell an extra 1667 booster boxes to break even against the expense of >> a $25,000 prize. If each new player attracted by the cash buys three >> booster boxes to "get ready" for their run at the prize, that works >> out to about 560 new players needed to break even. >> 560 is not that many people..." > > 560 in the US alone is A LOT of new players. > Relative to the current player base, that is true. But, relative to the target audience of potential players (hobby gamers, CCGers, ex-Magic players), 560 people remains a small number. When you're thinking about the relative worth of spending your money to attract new players, the current player base isn't a such a sensible metric to use... DZ

"bspaul" <bspa...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1185895872.3...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > Time to address some more points. > > First, does it really matter if CCP = WW? (whatever...no...not sure why anyone would argue about this) > Second, why is there such fear and name calling when it comes to > someone who might be playing the game you play for a different reason > than you? Are you really any better than they are? Why are you > treating someone like they are ridden with vampiric disease if they > are playing the game for a reason you don't agree with-at least it's a > new face/player? I didn't see a lot of ad hominen attacks (outside of Norm and, er, "Blinky") but I did see a lot of good, unaddressed points people made about this. Games tend to only work as good sources of entertainment when everyone is on more or less the same page about their purpose. Hell, people get all torqued at one another over the issue of playing for first-or-nothing vs. playing for the best placement possible (e.g., playing for second when first appears somewhat unlikely). Do you really think it's sane to say that throwing people into the mix who care about the money as opposed to the fun of the game won't diminish or eliminate the fun for others? Maybe you can make a reasonable argument for "diminish" as opposed to "eliminate" but you should be able to readily see why those kinds of players wouldn't be greeted with open arms. Especially by those of us who have had experience with this sort of invasion in the past. > Third, maybe an influx of new players will do the game some good. That's highly disputable. At least, it's disputable whether their addition would be seen as good on balance, even if they were able to bring certain positive things to the game. See above as my basis for believing there would be a powerful downside. > Fourth, bribes and collusion vs. play to win. It happens but maybe a > larger prize will help correct the problem. Think about the other > potential side of the coin. Perhaps we will see finalists going down > hill in an effort to win it all. What if the event gave the overall > winner, after the final round, $25K? Would players really start > making deals or maybe the might just play the game and try to win by > ousting their prey? It's hard to answer these questions without any > actual data to review, right? Sorry, it doesn't wash. The problems with play to win don't have anything to do with the lack of a desire to win. People have all the incentive in the world to win as it is. The problem is pure, simple, and obvious - and you've been around this newsgroup long enough to see it with your own eyes if you only cared to look. Look at all the threads that have run on and on as people try to beat an objective explanation out of LSJ about, "What do I do if a player does X...?" Time and again it boils down to, "Use your judgement - that's why you're a judge." Which basically means there IS no objective way to make a lot of these decisions. There are a number of guidelines which certainly help and provide a modicum of standardization. But ultimately, deciding whether a given player is conforming with PtW or not and *especially* deciding what to do about it when such a determination has been made is an art, not a technique. And such kinds of judgement have no place in any high-stakes contest in my book. I'm really very dubious whether high-stakes prizes would reduce the likelihood of PtW incidents and judgements but it doesn't matter, anyway. In order to fix the problem, they'd need to be reduced to zero and I'm absolutely sure they wouldn't acomplish that. Can you say "law suit"? I knew you could... Fred

Honestly.... VtES is a decent CCG.... I was a Magic player and at one point the game changed for me... different crowd, a lot BO and uneducated people, and the game got quite expensive. VtES can certainly be expensive considering all the cards out there and the number of copies you can have in a deck leads to a lot of potential money expenditure. In that regard it hinders some people from doing well, just like with Magic. SO I can relate to the comments on supporting cash prizes. However, I can't relate to some of the attitude. Perhaps instead of cash prizes they could give out more cards and pay for future events and the cost to get to those events. Thus keeping those people purely playing for cash away. Who knows... cash can be good, but you would have to deal with many potential cheaters and claims to cheating. After all you do have allies and such in the game. It could get cheesy. I think cash prizes are a good idea with games that are more of a dual or something like poker. For me, 9 out of 10 times I play poker with a buy in as it is much more fun and adds to the game. VtES is a different animal.

Also, to add a little bit to my comment.... How many people buy cards on here and how many buy them off the net? And I will tell you an CCG that requires a constant expenditure of money to stay competitive will scare away some people. I saw some comparisons when people noted it is a hobby and just look at a guitar. Bad example. Once you have the guitar it is yours and you don't have to constantly spend to play it or get better. Part of the problem with almost any CCG is the need to spend money for cards you don't have enough of or that you may need for a deck. If you had the cards you needed and so did everyone else and you did away with rarities and such then it would let people pay a lot less to just play the game for fun and competition. I don't have to spend anything to play basketball at the public court except maybe a basketball... and once you have an instrument you have it......... CCG's encourage addiction. And if you are fine with that then cool... but, not too many people are going to spend most of their extra money on such a game. And because of the stagnation of VtES with the small group who play it, it does not encourage new players... and so many VtES players have recognized a need for new players that they usually make new players feel like just a body that was needed rather than a new person in the group. I used to play VtES, but with all the petty arguing, the players who just wanted a new body, and then seeing the new players leave as they didn't feel a part of the group is a large part of why I left.