Out of game considerations?

I'll let Eric Chiang give the more detailed version, but at the small Infernal Plague tourney in Evanston, I ran into something of a quandary. Because there were only four players, we had opted for the "three rounds, no final" option, and because of this I was in a situation in which I had to choose between maximizing vps in a game or maintaining the possibility of winning the tournament. Eric Chiang had won round one, and in round two I was his predator. His prey (John Flournoy) had taken one player out, leaving three of us, and I was going down soon. Eric was close but seemed unlikely to be able to take out John before John got me. I have Julia Prima and all the stealth I need to swing this one way or the other (but not enough bleed to take out Eric). Because I am scrupulously avoiding considering out-of-game factors (like who already has a VP in the tourney), I make a deal with Eric that he will withdraw after ousting John if I bleed John right now. He agrees, and holds to the deal. I get my VP (more than I would have otherwise) and Eric gets the second game win. This of course renders the third round moot, as Eric has locked out the tournament at this point. So, I know that I did the "right thing" in that I didn't take into account out-of-game considerations when deciding my play, and instead maximized my VPs. But I also see the "right thing" as having been fairly wrong in this case. Since we were not playing a final, two GWs decided the tournament, and I basically made a deal trading the tournament for a single VP. Now, John's deck was quite nasty and swept the final round, so actually it would have given the tournament to him, but still I would have had the CHANCE to win in the third round. My question is - can this issue be corrected for in the "three rounds/no final" situation that is now tournament legal, and if so, how? Eric Simon Prince of Chicago

"Eric Simon" <vol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:6f81fa2c.04111...@posting.google.com... > I make a deal with Eric that he will withdraw after ousting > John if I bleed John right now. He agrees, and holds to the deal. I > get my VP (more than I would have otherwise) and Eric gets the second > game win. This of course renders the third round moot, as Eric has > locked out the tournament at this point. > > So, I know that I did the "right thing" in that I didn't take into > account out-of-game considerations when deciding my play, and instead > maximized my VPs. Note that you are not required to make a deal in order to maximize your VPs. You are not required to trust another player, that is. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

"Eric Simon" <vol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:6f81fa2c.04111...@posting.google.com... (Story about having to decide between having a chance to win the tournament vs. adhering strictly to the in-game motivation rule.) > My question is - can this issue be corrected for in the "three > rounds/no final" situation that is now tournament legal, and if so, > how? I don't understand the question. There is no difference, in this sense, between 3R+0F vs. xR+F. The same situation may arise perfectly well in a tournament WITH a final - just that you'd be aggravatging about playing in a way that would get you a spot in the final vs. playing in a way that would allow you to finish 1st in the standings after three rounds. I think it may be a little more common in the no-finals type tournament because everyone is angling for top spot ONLY in the preliminary rounds than being OK finishing in one of the top 5 spots. But the quality of the issue is no different. Fred

>My question is - can this issue be corrected for in the "three >rounds/no final" situation that is now tournament legal, and if so, >how? Continuously playing against all of your competition was no help. I'm constantly amazed by two things: a) That people play more than one round when they only have enough players for a single table. It's so much fairer to just play one game for all of the marbles. So many of the problems associated with tournament play are eliminated when you play only one game, for one thing. b) That people think there's something wrong with tournament players playing to win the tournament. Because rational play is play that leads to tournament victory (well, technically, rational play factors in maximizing prizes, but assuming common prize distributions ...), playing to win a game at the cost of tournament chances is irrational.

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20041110151744...@mb-m11.aol.com... > >My question is - can this issue be corrected for in the "three >>rounds/no final" situation that is now tournament legal, and if so, >>how? > > Continuously playing against all of your competition was no help. > > I'm constantly amazed by two things: > a) That people play more than one round when they only have enough players > for a single table. It's so much fairer to just play one game for all of the > marbles. So many of the problems associated with tournament play are > eliminated when you play only one game, for one thing. BAH! (I've given Curevei grief about this before, he knows it well...) ...that people would prefer to play three rounds of tournament rather than just one, whatever its flaws? > b) That people think there's something wrong with tournament players playing > to win the tournament. Because rational play is play that leads to > tournament victory (well, technically, rational play factors in maximizing > prizes, but assuming common prize distributions ...), playing to win a game > at the cost of tournament chances is irrational. I don't know that anyone thinks there's anything wrong with it. It's just that those are tournament rules, for better or worse. I'm neutralish on it myself, but I could probably argue from the perspective that thinks this is bad: because it tends to warp games in the last preliminary round or so. For instance, I once played a game in Los Angeles in the second round where I was once AGAIN on the same table as Mike Curtois's $#&#! super-intercept thug Tzimisce free repeating Horrid Form deck. Of course, I'd already been its predator in the first round (as always, once per trip to LA) so I was spared that experience again. But I knew there was no winning the game unless it was defeated. Two of the other players at the table agreed with me and were more than willing to gang up on him. The last guy, however, needed only one victory point to make the finals (in his reckoning), so he sold out to Mike to get his one victory point in exchange for any chance of winning the game, and Mike won. Of course, he might have told this story a different way, but it's at least very arguable that we might have gotten him to gang up on Mike too had it been the first round or had he needed a game win to make the finals. Of course, that also demonstrates that it's hard to enforce the rule that people must ignore such out-of-game considerations, but that's a different issue. Fred

On 10 Nov 2004 21:07:16 -0800, vol...@yahoo.com (Eric Simon) scrawled: [snip] >V:EKN rules sec. 5.2 (Unsportsmanlike Conduct) reads in part: > >"Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the >game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players >on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, >etc.)." > >The rulebook states under Object of the Game: > >"Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the >influence held by rival Methuselahs." > >This means that one must a) try to win the game and therefore b) >maximize VPs. Barring the ability to do either, one may choose the >manner of one's demise. But V:EKN 5.2 expressly forbids one from >considering previous (or even future) game results when deciding how >to play. Perhaps it is irrational, but it's the rule. I'm not so sure. I have a feeling that if i have two options: a) get 3vp and GW, and give opponent A the other 2 b) get 4vp and GW, and give opponent B the other 1 i am quite free to choose a), even if my only reason is because i don't want opponent B in the final, and that 1 vp may just get him there. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

"Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> wrote in message news:<ugtkd.92677$bk1.10902@fed1read05>... [ quoted text not captured ] completely agree, no need to add anything else.

salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9j76p092sqaoiva58...@4ax.com>... > On 10 Nov 2004 21:07:16 -0800, vol...@yahoo.com (Eric Simon) > scrawled: > >This means that one must a) try to win the game and therefore b) > >maximize VPs. Barring the ability to do either, one may choose the > >manner of one's demise. But V:EKN 5.2 expressly forbids one from > >considering previous (or even future) game results when deciding how > >to play. Perhaps it is irrational, but it's the rule. > > I'm not so sure. > I have a feeling that if i have two options: > a) get 3vp and GW, and give opponent A the other 2 > b) get 4vp and GW, and give opponent B the other 1 > > i am quite free to choose a), even if my only reason is because i > don't want opponent B in the final, and that 1 vp may just get him > there. This is true, but unhelpful in my particular case. LSJ has determined that once you win, you can finish as you like. Also, if you can only get a certain number of VPs (including 0), you can get that number however you like. The choice that I had to make, however, was between 0 VPs and a chance to win the tournament and 1 VP with no chance to win the tournament. By 5.2, I am not allowed to choose the first option, since I am not pursuing the goal of the game. LSJ also points out that I am not obligated to believe my opponent and make the deal that I made, but that's kind of dishonest in spirit if not in letter. I guess what I'm saying is that I have trouble with 5.2 as it is currently worded because of all the grey area. Since everyone does it anyway, would it really be a problem to allow people to consider TOURNAMENT victory as well as game victory a legal goal? [ quoted text not captured ]